Analytical Synopsis

Analytical Synopsis of Case....

Analytical Synopsis of Case

Michael C. Francis, was indicted by an all-white grand jury on one count each of first-degree
premeditated murder, Minn. Stat. 167; 609.185 (A)(1)(2004); and first-degree intentional
murder during the commission of a drive-by shooting, Minn. Stat. 167; 609.185(A)(3)(2004) in
connection with the death of Pamela Ragland, and one count each of attempted first-degree
premeditated murder, Minn. Stat. 167; 609.17 subd.1 (2004) and attempted first-degree
murder during the commission of a drive-by shooting, Minn. Stat. 167; 609.17 subd.1 (2004)
with the intent to cause death in connection with the shooting of Marvin Pate.

Prior to the trial, this same person, Marvin Pate, was charged with a murder in Ramsey
County, and acquitted. Prior to trial, Marvin Pate was ordered, upon the prosecution’s
request, to be held as a material witness pursuant to Minn. Stat. 67; 629.54 on $100,000 bail in
the Hennepin County Adult Detention Center after he missed an appointment at her office.
The court would not allow questioning at trial about his custody status. Gemma E. Graham,
Assistant County Attorney, told the court that she had listened to telephone calls from the jail
by Francis to others so that she had reason to believe Pate should fear for his safety. This
was hearsay because she never produced a transcript of the alleged phone calls, nor did
defense counsel ask her to. Francis had no opportunity to suggest another inference, i.e. that
Pate simply did not want to testify against Francis because Francis was not the shooter. The
court erroneously ruled that its decision to take Marvin Pate into custody as a material
witness did not impeach Mr. Pate. Defense counsel, Richard J. Coleman, did not make a
Motion to Introduce Third-Party Culpability Evidence, or attempt to lay a foundation to
introduce third party perpetrator evidence at Francis’ trial. Francis gave defense counsel
names of friends and family members of the young man who was slain on the Greyhound bus,
who may have targeted Pate at this time. Furthermore, defense counsel’s Motion to Introduce
Third-Party Culpability Evidence in the death of Pamela Ragland was denied after the trial
court ruled that he had not met the required foundational grounds connecting the third party, a
former boyfriend of Pamela Ragland, who was court-ordered to have no contact with her, with
the crimes with which Francis was charged. Francis asked his attorney to pursue the issue of
third-party perpetrators for both the deceased victim and the victim who survived the
shooting, to no avail. Francis also objected to the composition of the petit jury, which was not
racially neutral, nor a fair representation of the community to meet the requirements of the
Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution. Defense counsel sat idly by and
refused to oppose the composition of the grand jury or of the petit jury before it was sworn in.

Francis filed notice of an Alibi Defense and named his alibi witnesses for defense counsel. He
asked defense counsel to interview his alibi witnesses. Francis told defense counsel what the
witnesses would testify to, but defense counsel did not call them to testify. Following the jury
trial in Hennepin County District Court, the Honorable Thor Anderson presiding, the court
denied the defense motion to instruct the jury on the lesser-included offenses. The jury was
instructed according to the doctrine of transferred intent according to which the jury could
convict Francis of the first-degree premeditated murder of Ragland and first-degree murder
during a drive-by shooting of Ragland, without actually finding that Francis had a specific
intent to kill her. Francis was found guilty on all four counts as indicted and Francis’ claim
that the doctrine of transferred intent is unconstitutional.

  Reasons to Believe and Know I am an Innocent Man.

I. Marvin Pate was the only eyewitness/serving victim to the drive-by shooting or so they
say. He does not know or is incapable of accurately remembering what happen to him the
night of May 24, 2004. It has been proved under stress, violence or a chaotic situation a
person is unable to recall or perceive accurately. Memory and recall of the brain works quite
opposite of what the layperson beliefs are. To support this you can look up the psychology
and reliability of eyewitness identification in numerous books and websites. Just so, you do
not have to take my word look it up some time. Marvin Pate witness the attempt to take his
life and a murder under a chaotic, stressful violent situation. He was shot three times and
thought he was going to die. When Pate was finally stable enough to be interviewed, he was in
great pain and on pain medications like Morphine. Investigators should have known under
these conditions and circumstances a person statement or account of an event can be
unreliable. I did some research on the side effects caused by Morphine discovering it can
cause confusion and hallucinations. (Reference: Physicians Desk Reference Product
information; John Hopkins, The Consumer Guide To Drugs). Pate was delirious while giving
information to investigators. Nothing he said can be trusted or reliable.

I am going to explain why Pate’s identification cannot be trusted or reliable. He gave an
improbable and inconsistent account of what occurred the night of the shooting due to forensic
evidence and common sense. When explaining this testimony, I am going to cite the trial
transcript number where the testimony can be found and trial exhibits (meaning photographs)
so you know this is not my words or what I want you to think or believe. I just want you to
know what it is and that I am innocent of this crime. I am not an angle, but I am certainly not a
murderer! Pate was a single witness who described seeing me shoot in the dark, driving-by as
he was leaning into an automobile. The scene Pate painted to investigators; after he was shot
was one of confusion and uncertainty. He could not identify me on the way to the hospital
despite being alert. (T 1026). It was not until he was grilled by police that he came up with my
name. (T 1212-14, 1226-27, 1274, 1592-93), but nothing corroborated his testimony as to the
supposed disagreement between him and myself where he claims I threatened to harm him (T
1661-62, 1682-84, 1110, 1236-37). No one else is of knowledge of this encounter. There
never was an argument between Pate and myself. You are probably wondering why he would
say there was an argument between us. The truth is, Marvin knew me for a while before the
shooting, he did not like me because I brought the 22" tire rims from the guy who sold him the
Yukon. He wanted something I paid for. Marvin and I both know what he tired to do. This
argument never took place. He lied to the investigators. He believed I shot him because of
what he tried to do. A few people who are close to me also know what he attempted to do. I
never told my lawyer or investigators for three reasons.

1. I thought investigators were going to use it as a motive to hurt Pate.
2. I felt it was irrelevant and what goes on in the streets stay in the streets, plus he didn't
    succeed.
3. I didn't think anyone was actually going to believe the movie script argument and
    threat, also everyone that personally know me knows it's not in my character to
    argue let alone taut someone bragging about my assets.

Marvin Pate testimony that the interior light of the Mitsubishi he was sitting in allowed him to
see my face while he was being shot in the stomach and leg, is unsupported by common sense
and reality. (T 1207). If investigators didn't rush to judgment they would have never looked
over the piece of forensic evidence and some physical evidence that would prove Pate's
testimony/identification to be completely improbable and contradicted everything he lied about
seeing.

Forensic evidence proves my innocence by excluding my Tahoe from the shooting therefore
excluding me corroborating my alibi witnesses statements that I wasn't in possession of the
Tahoe at the time of the shooting. Pate A.K.A. "Willow" was shown State's Trial exhibit 5 to
describe the approximation of the shooter when he was being shot. (To view all trial exhibits
mention here to describe this evidence click on trial exhibits as you read). State's trial exhibit
14, 15 and 31 are pictures of the bullet hole in the front passenger door of the Mitsubishi,
Pamela Ragland's car, the door Pate was standing in front of when he got shot so he claim.
The trajectory of this hole is about a foot and a half from the ground straight, at no angle. My
Tahoe was equipped with 22 inch rims with heavy-duty air shocks raising the SUV from
factory standard level to a higher customized level so that the big 22 inch rims would not rub
on the wheel well, destroying the highly expensive tires, wrapping the 22 inch rims. The
standard rim size for factory Tahoes are 15 inches and factory shocks are 2 inches shorter
than the shocks on my Tahoe. This is a 9 inch difference between my Tahoe and a standard
factory Tahoe. The Mitsubishi height versus my Tahoe height would be comparing a monster
truck to a small family car. Bullet trajectory demonstrate that my SUV could not have been
the SUV Pate saw because it would have been impossible to be three feet away as Pate
testified too and the State claimed to create the trajectory found in the front passenger door of
the Mitsubishi, the door Pate claimed he was leaning into when being shoot; Because of the
height my Tahoe sat from the custom air shock and 22 inch rims. If I was the shooter shooting
out of my SUV as Pate claimed the bullet trajectory would have been at a step angle pointing
down and much higher than the hole present in the Mitsubishi. My lawyer failed to notice,
investigate, hire a forensic expert and ignored the importance of this evidence. A golden
opportunity to demonstrate my factual innocence and discredit the inherent unbelievable
nature of Pate testimony. Investigators for the State also ignored this forensic evidence
because they had an eyewitness they believe was "so accurate" which is far from the truth.
My jury never had a chance to hear, see or evaluate this Forensic evidence that excludes my
Tahoe, therefore excluding me from the shooting. Testimonies of three witnesses including
Marvin Pate also excludes my Tahoe from the shooting. All three testified about the fact of
hearing screeching tires peel off after hearing gunshots. The screeching of tires on dry
pavement could not have been made from my Tahoe. A forensic scientist, name William
James testified that the 22 inch rims were "unable to screech on dry pavement because of the
size, weight and wear of the 22 inch rims on my SUV. I've experienced an inability to peel out
after putting the rims on my truck. I actually had to replace my factory air intake with a cold
air intake to add horse power to my engine because of how sluggish my truck drove and took
off from zero from putting those rims on it. A fact my Jury didn't give much weight to because
of my lawyer failing to emphasis the importance of it on how it excludes my Tahoe, again,
therefore excluding me as the shooter.

Next Pate claimed there were street lights on Portland that night. Mainly one setting right
above him. (T 1207) clearly from the crime scene photos there is no street light above the car
or anywhere on Portland Avenue (See Exhibit 4).   A fact Pate lied about in-order to enhance
his inaccurate testimony and a lie that went unchallenged because of my lawyer's lack of
preparation. Another fact or lie not made aware to my jury. He also claimed the interior light
from the car, was bright enough to flash in the Tahoe enabling him to see my face. (T 1207).
People, think about this. An interior light from a car flashed three feet away in the air into a
tall SUV sitting on 22” rims. How does this sound? Next time you open up your car door at
night see if your interior light is bright enough to light up anything outside of your interior. I
guarantee it doesn't. Keep in mind the State argued to a naive jury that Marvin Pate was
more than accurate. With what you know so far what do you think? Pate testified that he also
saw my face because of the corner of the Mitsubishi headlights help shine light on my face. (T
1207). Come on now people this just goes beyond reality. If I was side by side right next to
Pate and the Mitsubishi, it would be impossible for the headlights to beam on my face as Pate
testified too. If this was so it would mean that, I was in front of the Mitsubishi driving towards
the curb onto people's yard. Because Portland is a one way south bound and the shooting was
in the middle of the block, Not a intersection crossing lights. If this was true it means I was
next to the Mitsubishi and the headlights beam backward three feet away shining in a high
SUV. Pate then went on to testify that once he saw my face he saw a barrel of a gun at the
same time. (T 1207). If this were true, it would mean two things: The culprit had the gun held
up to his face, which would have blocked the view of the culprit's face from Pate. Not enabling
him to have a good look or Pate had less than a second to see the real culprit face before he
was staring down the barrel of a gun and shots being fired. Pate also testified that I stopped
right in the front of him where he was standing in the front passenger door when the shots
began, then after I pulled off fleeing south down Portland (T 1201, 1203, 1210-11). This is
impossible when there is a bullet hole in the upper right hand corner of the passenger rear
window, which was the entry of Pamela Ragland’s fatal gunshot wound. (T 1088, 1092-93, 1097-
98, 1115) (See exhibit 12, 13, 32). According to forensics and the medical examiner the bullet
entered the window diagonally hitting Ms. Ragland in her head in away suggesting she was
looking back toward the back window. Now how can this be if you believe what Pate testified
too regarding me supposedly stopping right in front of him in front of the front passenger
door? Obviously, this is not what happen. Nothing Pate testified too is what happen including
me being the person who shot him. Pate's testimony/identification is a perfect example of the
mind playing tricks on a person under a violent, chaotic, stressful situation as an eyewitness,
Ask yourself: Can I really believe what this man has testified too as truth? In case you're
wondering how was I found guilty with this testimony. Well my lawyer, Richard J. Coleman
failed me in every aspect. He never independently investigated my case and never pointed
out any of this information for the jury to consider. Would you have found me guilty with this
information? Taken as a whole, nothing in Pate's identification or testimony points to my
guilt. What do you think?

II. In Minnesota there's a law that states: “for a conviction to be sustain by a single-
eyewitness identification after fleeting and limited observation corroboration is needed.” So
the State attempted to corroborate Pate's identification/testimony by entering phone records
of a phone registered to Lisa Jones, I used. The Prosecutor mislead the naive jury in
believing the phone record placed me at the crime scene at the time of the murder and
attempted murder. The State Prosecutor claimed the phone records pinpointed me at the
crime scene and I wasn't at home. In the Court of Law proof beyond Reasonable Doubt, leave
no room for speculation and any person of sound mind can only speculate a person's
whereabout from the phone records. Rick Dobbe a Qwest engineer employee testified about
the general operation of cell towers. (T 1523-31). The phone towers cannot pinpoint a cell
phone user or caller exact location. (T 1560) Dobbe testified that each tower has three faces,
each one generally transmitting 120 degrees for a distance of three miles. (T 1527-28, 1564).
However, where there is a lake that is relatively open and unobstructed, a phone might send
or received a signal over a larger area. (T 1537, 1564). Be mindful that my house was a
minute away Lake Calhoun within the three mile radius. According to Dobbe, cell phones are
programmed to continuously seek the strongest signal; however, the closest signal may not be
the strongest. (T 1530-31, 1565). For example, the strongest signal might be coming down the
road two or three miles where the closest signal might be two blocks away, but be partially
obstructed by building or trees (T 1531, 1565). It is also possible to be in the same spot
geographically on two different days and get a signal from different towers of transmitters (T
1568). With this information being said I'm going to let you know I Michael C. Francis lived in
St. Louis Park at 3040 Ottawa. Again, This is a minute away from Lake Calhoun a little over
three miles away from the crime scene. Also Lisa Jones the registered owner (of the phone at
issue) lived within a mile of the crime scene. Sgt. Jackson the lead investigator on this case
conducted a test drive from the crime scene to my home located in St. Louis Park and
concluded that it took about 12 minutes to drive from the crime scene to my home. (T 1667-
68). Trial exhibit 64 is the outgoing calls of Lisa Jones' cell phone that I used. Counting down
to line 28 of exhibit 64 was the last recorded cell site of outgoing calls before the crime was
committed. The call time was, start 22:39:19 and end time was 22:40:47, call duration 01:28.8
and cell site 22, which was located at 821 East 35th Street. Just as the State theorize that I
went straight home after committing the crime from this information and Sgt. Jackson test,
one can say from 22:40 to 22:52 that this was ample time for me to be at home before or by
the time the crime was committed In fact I was at home. Remember, when a person make a
call they can be three miles or a little further in a open obstructed area or body of water. Also,
keep in mind the crime hasn't occurred yet. The crime occurred between 22:52 and 22:55.
People, I stayed a little over three miles within the crime scene near a lake! So far from this
information, how can a person believe this evidence corroborates Pate's
testimony/identification, pinpoints me, or places me within block of the crime scene? It can’t,
It doesn't. The next recorded outgoing cell site was after the murder and attempted murder,
line 32 call start time 23:07:15, end time 23:07:17, call duration 00:025, cell site 166 which is
located at 5100 Park Glen, St. Louis Park. (For cell site locations review trial exhibit 65). The
State theory is the gap where there was no call activity I was busy shooting people. First,
there are other 15-20 minute gaps throughout the phone records. The State made it a crime if
a person doesn't use their phone for a while. According to the State a person is shooting at
someone if their phone is not in use. The 27 minute gap where there wasn't any call activity it
can be equally said that when most people get home from a long day of work, school, or
whatever the first thing they do is whined down and settle in, not shooting at people.   The
State Prosecutor used this evidence to mislead the jury and misstated this evidence in her
closing argument by stating the phone records pinpoint me at the crime scene. My lawyer
Richard J. Coleman, really didn't counter the State's argument, didn't study the phone records
nor pointed out that Sgt. Jackson test and the phone records can show how redundant the
State's theories were. Richard J. Coleman also didn't call upon my alibi witness Paige Jones-
Smith and Lisa Jones who was prepared to testify to the facts that I was at home and was not
in possession of the Tahoe the night of May 24, 2004. Richard J. Coleman did attempt to
have the phone records excluded but because his lack of investigating his argument wasn't
convincing to the Judge. From the phone records alone a person can't say I committed the
crime nor that I was at the crime scene. Neither do they affirm Pate's movie script testimony.
More reason to believe I'm the innocent man, I know I am. It would be more plausible to
believe the State version of the phone record if I didn't live so close to the crime scene. For
example, I claimed I was at home, but living in either North Minneapolis, St. Paul, Burnsville,
Egan etc...and my phone signal before and after the crime were being pick up near the crime
scene in South Minneapolis and the phone was registered in my name. What do you think?

III. The State Prosecutor also mislead the jury by using video/photographs of some SUV type
vehicle conceding that it was my Tahoe and me driving to the crime scene to commit the
attempted murder and murder. I'm going to explain to you how it's not my Tahoe, why and
how it can't be proved that it's me and the Tahoe driving to the crime scene and how it violates
the Laws of Evidence of Minnesota and the Federal rules of Evidence. (Click on trial exhibits
to view photos)

A. The number one reason why the SUV type vehicle is not mine and the truck
driving to commit the crime is. I am innocent; I didn't shoot Marvin Pate nor
Pamela Ragland. My girlfriend at the time, Paige Jones-Smith was
in possession of the Tahoe and it was at home with her before and after the
crime was committed. How can the SUV type vehicle in the photo/video
possibly be me and the truck the State claimed if I was not in Possession of it
and arrived at home before the crime? Also, being mindful of the forensic evidence
discussed earlier that excluded my truck and the hearing of screeching tires.
I had two other vehicles a 93 Ford Thunder bird and a 91 Chevy Caprice. There
were also three other vehicle I had access to, to make runs. So why would I use
my Tahoe with fancy equipment like after market lights, 22” rims, loud pipes and tinted
windows to do a drive-by shooting knowing I would stand out like a soar thumb.
What sense does this make? If in fact, I did this and Pate never survived someone
else could have seen this Tahoe.

B. The video/photographs cannot be proved by certainty that it is me and
my Tahoe driving. From 1991 to 1999 the Tahoe, Yukon, Yukon Denali
and the GMC Blazer had the same body style. From the video/photographs,
no person can differentiate which one it is. Next, there are thousands of
Tahoes and Blue Tahoes running around Minnesota. In the video/photographs,
you cannot see a driver, any characteristics that you can match to my Tahoe
and you are unable to see the license plate. The video/photographs are also
very blurry and fuzzy. Another thing the video/photographs focus solely on
the intersection of 31st and Portland, not the Middle of 33rd Avenue where the
shooting occurred. This vehicle in the video/photographs, we do not know if it
turned off on 32nd or parked further down 31st and Portland. There were not
any witnesses that were present at the time this vehicle turned Portland. The
State just force my naive jury to believe this was me in the video/photographs
driving to commit the crime. Claiming these photographs was me driving my
Tahoe was conjecture, speculation and completely unproven. Richard J. Coleman
never challenged this evidence and allowed the State to use this evidence against
me, knowing it violated Minnesota and Federal Rule of Evidence. Incompetents!
Absence of Certainty is Absence of Proof. People, so far can you say this was/is
proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt? Better it was me!

The video/photographs violate Minnesota and Federal Rules of Evidence 403 and 901. Rule
403 States: Although relevant, evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially
outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issue, or misleading the jury or
by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative
evidence. Rule 901: Requirement of Authentication or identification.

(a) GENERAL PROVISION. The requirement of authentication or identification as a
condition precedent to admissibility is satisfied by evidence sufficient to support a finding that
the matter in question is what it's proponent claims.

(b) ILLUSTRATIONS. By way of illustration only, and not by way of limitation, the following
are examples of authentication or identification conforming with the requirements of this rule:

1. Testimony of witness with knowledge
2. Non-expert opinion on handwriting
3. Comparison by trier or expert witness
4. Distinctive Characteristics and the like
5. Voice identification
6. Telephone conversations
7. Public records or reports
8. Ancient documents or data compilation
9. Process or system
10. Methods provided by statue or rule

Pretty much photographs are admissible as competent evidence where they accurately portray
anything that it is competent for a witness to describe in words, or where they are helpful as an
aid to a verbal description of objects and conditions, provided they are relevant to some
material issue. With the above information, can you believe, beyond Reasonable Doubt that
the video/photographs are me driving my Tahoe? Honestly what do you think?

IV. You read a little bit about a witness name Moana Teppen in the Statements of Facts. The
State introduced her testimony in order to attribute a very untrue statement to me. Let start
with the facts of this woman's mental illness. Teppen was mentally ill and was on medications
used to treat her mental illness cause a major side effect that makes her testimony
untrustworthy and unreliable. Teppen's medications were Effeyor, Seroquel, Risperdal and
Lexapro. (T.1340). Teppen has been diagnosed with Bipolar, Schizophrenia. (T. 1341). Even
though Teppen’s medications are used to treat her mental illness, they may cause confusion,
hallucinations, dizziness, disorientation, altered mental status, porania, amnesia, change in
moods and many other side effects. (References to side effects: Physicians Seek Reference
Product Information; John Hopkins, The Consumer's Guide To Drugs). People, is she crazy
or what? From this information would or could you trust what comes out of her mouth? I have
witness with my own eyes and ears how whacked out she can get. Moana Teppen was/is
seriously unstable. So unstable her child was taken away from her at the time. Teppen
claimed that I was having a party with some friends, while she was sitting in the bedroom in
the back of the apartment she heard me say something to the effect, if this guy wants to mess
with me, I'll pop that nigger too. (T. 1334). Come one now! Number one, I don't go to clubs,
don't go to parties and definitely won't throw a party. Anyone who personally knows me can
vouch for this. Second, this was an apartment I had in St. Paul where I stored my drugs and
scales. This was a spot. If I did decide to throw a party why would I choose a place like that. I
won't. It will be too risky. People, I had a house, not an apartment in St. Louis Park. I would
throw a party there where it would be more room and not a place where a lot of drugs were
stored if in fact I actually threw a party. Last, she is in a room in the back of the apartment,
(keep in mind she's mentally ill) while I am having a party, over everyone else’s voice heard
me make a statement. Now if this statement was actually made and there were people having
a party and she's in the back room, only known me for a couple of weeks how in the hell would
she have known the voice of the person making this statement was me or anyone else? The
truth is this woman is crazy and was hearing things. Better yet, just making up things just to
please others. The State argued this too meant I had already shot someone and with this
statement supposingly been made a few weeks after May 24, 2004. I was talking about
Marvin Pate and Pamela Ragland. How in the hell can a person come up with an argument
like that from a vague untrue statement as this one! I honestly feel the Prosecutor was
medicated also. What do you think? This argument is pure speculation without any supporting
evidence on the State’s part. Her testimony had no barring on my guilt or innocence. It
served only to mislead and prejudice the minds of my naive jury. The hearsay statement of
Teppen is unclear as to what I'm taking responsibility for, against whom and there is no
mention of murder. The statement itself does not indicate a time, place, person or any
specifics. How can a person of sound mind find how the Statement even relates to the murder
and attempted murder of Pamela Ragland and Marvin Pate? What do you think?

V. My lawyer Richard J. Coleman attempted to introduce evidence that the ex-boyfriend of
Pamela Ragland was the actual perpetrator. Reason being, Pamela Ragland had an order for
protection active against her ex because he had threatened to kill her. When investigators
interviewed the decease's mother, they asked if she knew anyone who would do this to her
daughter. She replied with the ex-boyfriend name because the problems between him and her
daughter. He made assaults against her and treated her very badly. Pamela Raglan was
killed on May 24, 2004. On May 25, 2004, she had a court appearance to testify against her
ex-boyfriend regarding one of the assaults, but never made it because of her death. The ex
also had enough time to make it to the crime scene from his job etc...This evidence was ruled
inadmissible because it just showed motive. What More Do You Need? I don't know if he did
it. This evidence should have been allowed, I could have used this evidence to cast doubt on
the State's case the ex was also a suspect in this case. The attention was drawn from him when
Pate consistently swore it was me who shot him. What do you think, should it have come in as
part of my defense?

Conclusion

I am Innocent. The prosecutor committed misconduct. The misconduct was so severe that it
prejudiced the outcome of my trial. The Judge, Thor Anderson was up for re-election in 2004.
He ruled evidence admissible that should have been inadmissible. Denied all motions for a
mistrial due to the misconduct by the State. He also denied my motion for acquittal due to
insufficient evidence and identification. He pretty much aided the Prosecution, Gemma
Graham in convicting me. My lawyer, Richard J. Coleman failed me in every aspect agreeing
to the State version of facts. For unknown reasons Richard J. Coleman declined to call or
interview my alibi witnesses. Richard J. Coleman never obtained full discovery from the state
nor investigated any of the evidence against me. If Richard J. Coleman did his job and
pointed out everything I have just pointed out to you, it is impossible for a person to convict
me. The State Prosecution Gemma Graham, the Judge Thor Anderson, my lawyer Richard J.
Coleman all help to convict me and in my ignorance to the law at the time. I really don't see
how the High Courts can agree with the evidence presented in the lower courts or any of the
Misconduct by the Prosecutor Gemma Graham, Judge Thor Anderson and my lawyer Richard
J. Coleman. Your help in any kind of way will be much appreciated by my mother and me.

Thank you and God Bless!

"HELP FREE
AN INNOCENT
MAN"

Help Free Michael C. Francis

FREEMICHAELCFRANCIS.INFO