March 04, 2014
David Barry Hanley
Case # SWF1201191
Honorable Timothy Freer
C/O Southwest Justice Center
30755-D Auld Road
Murrieta, CA 92563
Honorable Judge Timothy Freer
I am asking you not to sentence David Barry Hanley, but review the case, step in, and vacate the charge on David Barry Hanley for reason of police and prosecutorial misconduct.
The District Attorney's Office should not have filed charges against David Barry Hanley. Reason why:
- Deputy Sheriffs did not have probable cause or warrant to break into David Hanley's motor home at night.
- The deputy sheriff's interview states they did not believe David Hanley was the shooter that night.
- Evidence shows that the sheriffs fabricated the shotgun shells on David Hanley's motor home bumper, that night.
- Primary Scene Report Page 3 Lines 5-9: States they found the shells on front bumper
- Primary Scene Report Page 14 Lines 8-10: States they found the shells on front bumper
- Forensic Photo Conrad and Salyer DSC-0072 and DSC-0121: Show box of shotgun shells on back bumper.
- Secondary Scene Report by Investigator Harvey, reviewed by Sergeant Reno: page 4 Lines 6-9 and Lines 16-18: States Forensic Technicians Conrad and Slayer found possible projectile dimensions of a 30-30 at Bonnie Dill's residence.
- Riverside County Sheriffs Department Property Report by Investigator Harvey states that the possible projectile recovered from Bonnie Dill's residence was from .25/.380 or .32.
- Forensic Photo Conrad and Salyer DSC-0019: Show a rifled small caliber bullet, .25/.380 or .32.
- Ballistics Comparison Request to D.O.J. by Investigator Harvey Page 2 Lines 17 to 20: LH-01 possible projectile collected from Bonnie Dill's residence.
- Lines 22 to 25: LH-05 spent .30-30 cartridge casing from outside of suspect's trailer.
- Lines 27 to 30: LH-14, Live 30-30 cartridge casing from outside of suspect's trailer.
- Lines 32 to 34: EB-08, 30-30 Glenfield long rifle from inside suspect's residence.
- Lines 40 to 43: Sheriff's recovered a 30-30 possible projectile collected from Bonnie Dill's residence. Investigator Harvey sent it to the D.O.J.
- D.O.J. Physical Evidence Submission Form: Investigator Harvey sent LH-01, LH-05 and LH-14 to D.O.J.
- Search Warrant SSW-2012-0245 signed by Judge Hansen on April 23, 2012 at 1:05pm.
- Search Warrant was sealed to protect the informant who gave the Sheriffs Department bad information after the fact.
- Search Warrant was sealed because it was a fishing exhibition to protect the officers who shot David Hanley without probable cause.
- Deputy Melendez in Preliminary Hearing page 180 Line 28 and page 181 Line 1: States the deputies searched David Hanley's home for additional weapons immediately after they shot him, around 4:40 am.
- Deputy Sheriffs did not have a search warrant or probable cause to search David Hanley's home at that time.
- David Hanley's weapons were not in plain sight, they were in closets and drawers and under his clothes in his bedroom.
- Forensic Photo Shaver and Kopitzke DSC-0099 and DSC-0102: Shows that David Hanley's home had been searched before Investigator Michael Callahan obtained the search warrant.
- This was an illegal search and seizure of David Hanley's home and property by the sheriff deputies at aprox 4:40 am.
- Search Warrant SSW-2012-0245, was obtained illegally by Investigator Michael Callahan. There was no probable cause for a warrant.
- The Sheriffs Department should have obtained the search warrant before they entered the backyard and broke into David Hanley's home on information from an informant.
- Riverside County Sheriffs Department, Central Homicide Unit, Forensic Services-West and Professional Standards Bureau, all these departments had part in fabrication of evidence at David Hanley's home on 4/23/2012.
- Primary Scene Report Page 3 lines 5-9 and page 14 Line 8-10: box of shotgun shells found on front bumper, forensic photo Conrad and Slayer DSC-0072 and DSC-0121; show box of shotgun shells on back bumper
- Primary Scene Report Page 14 Lines 10-12: Sates that LH-03 and LH-04 was .22 spent casing found near left front bumper area of suspect's motor home.
- Forensic Photo Conrad and Salyer DSC-0105: Shows that LH-03 and LH-04 are located behind to the right of rear bumper of suspect's motor home.
- Primary Scene Report Page 14 Lines 13-14: LH-06 and LH-07 are a few feet north of suspect's motor home.
- Forensic Photo Conrad and Salyer DSC-0106: Shows that LH-06 and LH-07 are northeast of right of back bumper of suspect's motor home.
- Primary Scene Report Page 14 Lines 14-16: Stated LH-08 and LH-09 are located in same area as LH-03 and LH-04 by the front bumper or LH-06 and LH-07 a few feet north of suspect's motor home.
- Forensic Photo Conrad and Salyer DSC-0105 show that LH-03, LH-04, LH-06 and LH-07 are not in the location stated in report. Photo shows that LH-08 and LH-09 are a few feet northwest of the motor home door.
- Primary Scene Report Page 14 Lines 14-16 States that LH-09 is one live 30-30 cartridge.
- Forensic photo Salyer DSC-0044 taken at 8:26 am, clearly shows that there is not a 30-30 cartridge on the ground.
- Forensic Photo Conrad DSC-0044 taken at 9:36 am, clearly shows that there is not a 30-30 cartridge on the ground.
- Primary Scene Report Page 14 Lines 18-20: States the LH-10 is a 12-gauge shotgun and it was in the dirt next to the motor home entrance door and steps. (Near the Entrance steps lines 20 and 21)
- Forensic Photo Conrad and Salyer DSC-0116; Shows that the shotgun was removed by the Sheriffs.
- Forensic Photo Conrad and Salyer DSC-0116: Yellow marker LH-10 where is the shotgun and yellow marker are not where stated in report.
- Forensic Photo Shaver and Kopzitke DSC-0091; shows that the shotgun was placed inside David Hanley's motor home after the shooting. The photo shows clearly that the shotgun and computer are over the drag marks on the carpet.
- Primary Scene Report Page 14 Lines 20-21: LH-11 where are the eleven green shotguns shells that including one expended shell, report states they were next to the shotgun.
- Forensic Photo Conrad and Salyer DSC-0118: Yellow marker for LH-11 is not next to the entrance steps or LH-10 shotgun.
- Primary Scene Report Page 14 Lines 21-23: Report sates that LH-12 a .22 caliber rifle was located north of suspect's motor home. Lines 23-26 states that LH-13 a Smith & Wesson .32 caliber revolver was located next to LH-10 and LH-12, which would be next to the motor home entrance steps. Lines 26-27 LH-14 states they found a live 30-30 cartridge near LH-13 .32 caliber revolver.
- Forensic Photo Conrad and Salyer DSC-0118: Shows that LH-12 .22 rifle is east of the entrance steps next to shed, Sergeant Sanches, Deputy Moore and Yarbrough stated in their interviews that they placed the .22 rifle standing up next to open door of motor home when they removed it.
- Forensic Photo DSC-0118: LH-13 S&W .32 revolver next to LH-12 .22 rifle and not next to LH-14.
- Forensic photo DSC-0118: LH-14 in pool of blood and are not anywhere near LH-13 revolver.
- Forensic Photo Salyer DSC-0044: taken at 8:26 am LH-14 .30-30 cartridge is not on the ground.
- Forensic Photo Conrad DSC-0044: taken at 9:36 LH-14 and still no .30-30 cartridge on the ground.
- Ballistics Comparison Request to the D.O.J Page 3 Lines 1-2: That Investigator Harvey sent LH-05 and LH-14 to the D.O.J. DSC-0044 shows that there was not a .30-30 cartridge on the ground at LH-14.
- Primary Scene Report Page 14 Lines 29-30: LH-15 five green shotgun shells were located east of rear bumper of the parked Ford pick up truck.
- Forensic Photo Conrad and Salyer DSC-0107: Shows that LH-15 is next to the motor home door and not at the rear bumper of truck.
- Primary Scene Report Page 14 Lines 30-31: LH-16 was next to LH-15 near rear bumper of truck.
- Forensic Photo Conrad and Salyer DSC-0107: Shows that LH-16 is right under open door of motor home and not at rear bumper of truck.
- Primary Scene Report Page 14 Lines 31-34: LH-17 is David Hanley's bloody shirt that the EMTs cut off. LH-17A sates that the sheriffs found 4 live 30-30 cartridges wrapped inside David Hanley's shirt.
- Deputy Roberge #2938301 Page 4 of 5 lines 22-46: Deputy Roberge was with David Hanley when the EMTs cut David Hanley's shirt off him. Nowhere in her report does she stated they found any 30-30 cartridges on him or in his shirt.
- Forensic Photos Conrad and Salyer DSC-0118 and DSC-0135: There is no yellow mark for LH-17A anywhere on the ground and there are no 30-30 on the ground in or next to the shirt.
- The Sheriffs Department broke the chain of evidence.
- Primary Scene Report Page 16 Lines 1-8: state that Investigator Harvey received the evidence in sealed bags and he secured them in his unmarked detective unit, and took them back to the station and logged them in.
- Report made by Deputy Winiewski Report # 2938313: stated that he loaded several bags of evidence into back set of his patrol car by orders of Investigator Baeza and Investigator Harvey followed him back to the station.
- These inconsistencies in the Primary Scene Report, Secondary Scene Report, Forensic Photos and all the statements made by the four deputies sheriffs show that the Sheriffs Department made a great effort to cover up the fact that they had the wrong information given to them by their informant. The Sheriffs shot an innocent man who was just sleeping in his home.
If you continual to read all these reports, transcripts and match them up with one another you will find out that what I have listed, is just 50% of the fabrication of evidence, and falsifying of the reports and statements.
Preliminary Hearing Pages 241 and 242 states the Deputy District Attorney Brandon Smith was with Investigator Cory during the entire situation and was present during the deputy sheriff's interviews. Deputy District Attorney Brandon Smith was at the crime scene on 4/23/2012 arrived at 8:00 am and was present during the fabrication of evidence.
With all the inconsistencies in all the reports and evidence, the District Attorney's Office should not have filed any charges on David Hanley. The District Attorneys Office, should and is legally bound to file attempted murder charges on the four sheriffs, who shot and tried to kill David Hanley.
If these four deputy sheriffs were not in law enforcement when they broke into David Hanley's home and shot him these four would be held for attempted murder of David Hanley.
- Honorable Albert J. Wojcik should not have bound this case over for trial on these grounds.
- The Sheriffs had No probable cause or no warrant.
- The evidence proves that the Sheriff's Department and District Attorney's Office fabricated all the evidence and falsified reports.
- California penal code 198.5 states that David Hanley has the right to protect himself from anyone who tries to kill or injure him in his own home.
- The Second Amendment gives us the right to keep and bear arms.
- Deputy Melendez in Preliminary Hearing and Interview cleared David Hanley of any illegal or wrongdoing.
- Preliminary Hearing Page 169 Lines 7-13: The deputies knew that David Hanley was not the shooter that night and deputies were there for his safety.
- Preliminary Hearing Page 71 Lines 25-28: All the deputies were hiding behind the truck in the dark.
- Preliminary Hearing Page 178 Lines 1-14: It would have been difficult for David Hanley to see that it was sheriffs hiding behind truck because of no lights or any type of illumination of deputies.
- Preliminary Hearing Page 178 Lines 15-28: None of the deputies stated that they were sheriff's deputies outside David Hanley's home. None of the deputies tried to inform David Hanley who they were and why they were there.
- Deputy Melendez Interview page 22 Lines 14-32: States that David Hanley moved towards the cab of the motor home and was trying to hide behind door and wall.
- Preliminary Hearing Page 170 Lines 13-18: Deputy Melendez could only see the right side of David Hanley's body the entire time.
- Deputy Melendez Interview Page 23 Lines 1-26: States once David Hanley moved toward the cab of motor home out of Deputy Yarbrough sight that is when Deputy Yarbrough asked permission or made a statement to Sergeant Sanches that he was going to shoot at David Hanley because he lost sight of him. Sergeant Sanches said, "Go ahead".
- Deputy Melendez Interview Page 26 Lines 12-40: Stated Deputy Yarbrough said, "I lost sight of him. I don't can't see him. I'm going to shoot him" Deputy Melendez stated that Deputy Yarbrough shot first.
- Preliminary Hearing Page 140 Lines 18-21: Stated that Deputy Yarbrough said he was going to shoot David Hanley because he lost sight of him.
- Preliminary Hearing Page 142 Lines 3-7: Sergeant Sanches said "Take the shot"
- Preliminary Hearing Page 176 Lines 1-14: At the moment when Deputy Yarbrough asked to shoot David Hanley and when Deputy Yarbrough shot David Hanley, David Hanley had not broken any laws.
- Preliminary Hearing Page 179 Lines 10-28: Deputy Melendez stated that she shot David Hanley because he had a gun in his hands and it was pointed down.
- Preliminary Hearing Page 180 Lines 1-12 and Page 181 Lines 1-13: Deputy Melendez stated she shot David Hanley because Deputy Yarbrough shot him and she was afraid that David Hanley would shoot back. Because he was trying to hide behind the door. Because he was still standing after Deputy Yarbrough shot him.
- Preliminary Hearing Page 181 lines 19-20: Deputy Melendez did not see any muzzle flash come from David Hanley's motor home.
- Preliminary Hearing Page 184 Lines 11-25: States that she was going to kill David Hanley did not know if anyone else was in the home, did not know if there were any children in the home and was not thinking about bullets going thru walls and hitting any neighbors.
- Preliminary Hearing Page 189 Lines 3-16: Believed that David Hanley was not the shooter and they were there for his safety.
- Sergeant Sanches in Preliminary Hearing and Interview cleared David Hanley of any wrongdoing just by Sergeant Sanches inconsistencies in his statements.
- Sergeant Sanches Interview Page 11 Lines 1-43 Page 31 Lines 30-42: He was back by the right rear tire of the motor home about ten feet away and only flashlight was on Deputy Yarbrough's AR-15.
- Preliminary Heaing Page 221 Lines 1-28: Standing at the rear of motor home, they did not illuminate the backyard. He was not using a flashlight just the light from the moon.
- Sergeant Sanches Interview drawing of where he was standing at the motor home.
- Forensic drawing and where Sergeant Sanches stated he was standing was a shed.
- Forensic Photos Conrad and Salyer DSC-0074 and DSC-0073: Photos show that Sergeant Sanches view of the door would have been blocked if he was standing at the rear next to the tire of the motor home.
- Forensic Aerial Photo Syrett DSC-0030: View of the crime scene.
- Data on the moon that night shows that there was no moon on that night.
- Preliminary Hearing Page 222 Lines 1-18: He was using the moon to illuminate the backyard and no one was using a flash light. Sergeant Sanches stated he did not have any flashlight on him.
- Companion Report by Deputy Green, Sates that he watched them and they did not change anything on themselves.
- Forensic Photo Shaver and Kopitzke DSC-0089 and DSC-0087: Shows that Sergeant Sanches had a flashlight on his belt and one on his 40 cal weapon.
- Sergeant Sanches Interview Page 32 Lines 1-43: States he could see Deputies Moore and Yarbrough at David Hanley's motor home door and watched them pull the 22 rifle out of his home.
- Preliminary Hearing Page 198 Lines 1-8: States he saw the deputies pull the 22 rifle out of David Hanley's home.
- Sergeant Sanches Interview Page 34 Lines 20-42: States he does not know how Deputy Moore or Yarbrough could see David Hanley in the back of the motor home except by natural light.
- Preliminary Hearing Page 234 Lines 12-23: Sergeant Sanches states he could not see Deputy Moore or Yarbrough at David Hanley's motor home door, but he just knew they were there.
- Forensic Photo Conrad and Salyer DSC-0070, DSC-0071 and DSC-0075: Shows that all the exterior windows had drapes and aluminum foil on them. No natural light was coming into the motor home from the windows.
- Photo taken by Jennifer Ryan, shows inside are wooden panels covering the windows.
- Forensic Photo Shave and Kopitzke DSC-0106: Shows that the drape between cab and front room was 90% closed.
- Sergeant Sanches Interview Page 12 Lines 41-43: States he took cover behind pick up truck and he was closer to tailgate.
- Forensic drawing of crime scene. The yellow mark is where Sergeant Sanches stated he was standing. Aprox. 26 to 30 feet from motor home door.
- Forensic Photo Conrad and Salyer DSC-0074: Where Sergeant Sanches was standing behind truck. The photo was taken during the day. You cannot really see anything inside the motor home. The deputies were not using flashlight, how could Sergeant Sanches see inside?
- Forensic Photo Shave and Kopitzke DSC-0170: Deputy Yarbrough was standing here and he had a flashlight on his AR-15. From that angle Deputy Yarbrough's flashlight would have been illuminating the left side (eastside) of the door and not on David Hanley who was hiding behind door and wall on the (Westside) right of the door.
- Preliminary Hearing Page 223 Lines 4-13 and 21-25: States he was not using any lighting and he could see David Hanley most of the time.
- Preliminary Hearing Page 200 Lines 10-18: Sergeant Sanches stated he could see the ring and inside David Hanley's shotgun from 26 to 30 feet away in the dark without any lights.
- Preliminary Hearing Page 199 lines 6 -16: He could see the round come out of David Hanley weapon.
- Preliminary Hearing Page 224 Lines 25-26: Sergeant Sanches stated he could see David Hanley's face and the weapon.
- Preliminary Hearing Page 225 Lines 19 to 28: The only light on David Hanley was the moon light.
- Preliminary Hearing Page 226 Lines 1-28: Sergeant Sanches stated no flashlights were on David Hanley and he still could see the ring on the barrel on the end of the weapon. He was looking right at David Hanley.
- Preliminary Hearing Page 227 Lines 1-12: Sergeant Sanches stated he never saw muzzle flash come from inside the motor home, he just heard the shot being fired.
- Preliminary Hearing Page 231 Lines 1-3: He could see the ring on the barrel.
- Preliminary Hearing Page 221 Line 16 to 28: Sergeant Sanches did not see muzzle flash come from inside motor home, Sergeant Sanches heard the shot fired. Sergeant Sanches just knows David Hanley fired his weapon, but no muzzle flash.
- Preliminary Hearing Page 214 Lines 19-27: Sergeant Sanches stated he did not want illuminate himself in the backyard.
- Preliminary Hearing Page 217 and 218: Sergeant Sanches stated he was using stealth. Sergeant Sanches did not want anyone in the backyard to know that they were sheriffs.
- Honorable Albert J. Wojcik should not have bound David Hanley for trail after hearing Deputy Melendez and Sergeant Sanches statements and reviewing the evidence. Deputies Sheriffs broke into David Hanley's home without probable cause and no warrant, the sheriff's shot David Hanley for what reason, because of bad information for their informant.
- Deputy District Attorney Christopher Peuvrelle should be charged and his license revoked for prosecutorial misconduct at David Hanley's trial and the investigating of this case. Reason why:
- Professional Code of Ethics and Berger v. United States, 295 U.S. 78 (1935)
- Rule 5-110 Performing the Duty of Member in Government Service. A member in government service shall not institute or cause to be instituted criminal charges when the member knows or should know that the charges are not supported by probable cause. If, after the institution of criminal charges, the member in government service having responsibility for prosecuting the charges becomes aware that those charges are not supported by probable cause, the member shall promptly so advise the court in which the criminal matter is pending.
- Rule 5-200 Trial Conduct(B) Shall not seek to mislead the judge, judicial officer, or jury by an artifice or false statement of fact or law
- Rule 5-220 Suppression of Evidence
A member shall not suppress any evidence that the member or the
member’s client has a legal obligation to reveal or to produce.
- 295 U.S. 84: Misconduct of United States Attorney in his address to the jury, in a criminal case. Misconduct of a United States Attorney in his cross-examination of witnesses and address to the jury, in a criminal case, may be so gross and persistent as to call for stern rebuke and repression -- even for the granting of a mistrial -- by the trial judge; and, when no so counteracted, it may required the reversal of a conviction, particularly when weakness of the case accentuates the probability of prejudice to the accused. P. 295 U. S. 84.
- 295 U.S. 86 The prosecuting attorney's argument to the jury was undignified and intemperate, containing improper insinuations and assertions calculated to mislead the jury. A reading of the entire argument is necessary to an appreciation of these objectionable features. 295 U. S. 86
- In these circumstances, prejudice to the cause of the accused is so highly probable that we are not justified in assuming its nonexistence. If the case against Berger had been strong, or, as some courts have said, the evidence of his guilt "overwhelming," a different conclusion might be reached. Compare Fitter v. United States, 258 F.5d 7, 573; Johnson v. United States, 215 F.6d 9, 685; People v. Malkin, 250 N.Y. 185, 201, 202, 164 N.E. 900; Iowa v. Roscum, 119 Iowa, 330, 333, 93 N.W. 295. Moreover, we have not here a case where the misconduct of the prosecuting attorney was slight or confined to a single instance, but one where such misconduct was pronounced and persistent, with a probable cumulative effect upon the jury which cannot be disregarded as inconsequential. A new trial must be awarded. Compare N.Y. Central R. Co. v. Johnson, 279 U. S. 310, 279 U. S. 316-318.
- Deputy District Attorney Christopher Peuvrelle called Bonnie Dill to the stand.
- Bonnie Dill should not have been allowed to testify at David Hanley's trail for:
- Lack of Foundation as to personal knowledge and would go toward hear say from the sheriffs and newspapers.
- There is no Relevance to David Hanley's case.
- Deputy District Attorney Christopher Peuvrelle misleading the jury by implying that David Hanley shot Bonnie Dill's house. When there was no proof or evidence.
- David Hanley was cleared of the shooting of Bonnie Dill's house in preliminary hearing.
- Forensic Aerial Photo Syrett DSC-0011: Bonnie Dill's house and David Hanley motor home.
- Sheriff's Department cleared David Hanley of the shooting of Bonnie Dill's house. The shooting of Bonnie Dill's house is still on open case.
- All four deputies sheriffs stated that they knew that David Hanley was not the shooter and they where there for David Hanley's safety.
- Deputy District Attorney Christopher Peuvrelle, threatened David Hanley in front of the jury after David Hanley attorney objected to one of Christopher Peuvrelle closing statement to the jury.
- Christopher Peuvrelle told the jury that David Hanley was the person who shot Bonnie Dill's house that night.
- David Hanley's attorney objected and Deputy District Attorney Christopher Peuvrelle said,
- " I don't care what the sheriff said they are not in charge, I am in charge and I can charge anyone with anything I want I am in charge not the sheriffs" " Do you want me to charge you for the shooting, do you want me to charge you, do you, do you want me to charge you?"
- David Hanley said "No"
- Michele Nichols the D.O.J. Ballistics Expert stated in court that David Hanley's .32 cal S&W could not be ruled in as the weapon that shot Bonnie Dill's house.
- Michele Nichols in court stated that she tested Sergeant Sanches shotgun and did not test David Hanley's shotgun, because she was not told to do so.
- Deputy District Attorney Christopher Peuvrelle told the jury the only reason they did not test David Hanley's shotgun was that he was saving taxpayer's money.
- Deputy District Attorney Christopher Peuvrelle tells the jury he did not need to test David Hanley's shotgun because he just knows he shot at the deputies that night.
- Where is the burden of proof that David Hanley used that shotgun that night.
- The prosecution did not show the jury or the court any proof that David Hanley shot that shotgun that night.
- The closing statements made by Deputy District Attorney Christopher Peuvrelle misled the jury because the sheriffs deputies false statements in court were proof enough to convict David Hanley and they did not need any evidence to prove that David Hanley shot at the deputies.
- Deputy District Attorney Christopher Peuvrelle, mislead the jury on the jury instruction for deliberating.
- Deputy District Attorney Christopher Peuvrelle tells the jury that the witness cannot be prejudice.
- They have to dismiss any statements made by prejudice.
- The can not use any statements made by Jennifer Ryan because she David Hanley's sister and she is prejudice.
- Had to dismiss the shotgun pattern test because it was done 3 day's before trial.
- Had to dismiss the shotgun pattern test because Jennifer Ryan is prejudice.
- Deputy District Attorney Christopher Peuvrelle mislead the jury in closing statement with forensic photo Conrad and salyer DSC-0184, prosecutor told the jury that was their shotgun test pattern and these marks are from Sergeant Sanches shotgun at 25 feet away and this is proof enough that David Hanley shot at the deputies that night.
- Forensic Photo Conrad and Salyer DSC-0184: Are not shotgun marks from Sergeant Sanches's shotgun. They are two 40 cal entrance holes and one .223 cal entrance.
- The motor home door was open when the deputies shot into it.
- Forensic Photo Conrad and Salyer DSC-0181: shows the entrance from all three bullets that were fired from the deputies weapons.
- Forensic Photo Conrad and Salyer DSC-0075; shows that the bullet holes in the door matche up with the bullet holes on the exterior wall of motor home.
- Photo taken by Pomona Police Officer on 4/24/2012: the photo shows the three-exit hole from the bullets and the reentrance holes on the exterior motor home wall.
- United States Supreme Court case Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963)
- Deputy District Attorney Christopher Peuvrelle withheld the Ballistics Report from the D.O.J.
- David Hanley's defense team did not find out about this report until Michele Nichols the D.O.J. Ballistics Expert took the stand as witness for the state. That day in court, we only received one piece of paper stating that there was a Ballistics report.
- David Hanley's defense team was not given anytime to verify any of the documents or evidence in the Ballistics report before the witness took the stand.
- David Hanley's defense team still has not received any of the Ballistics report.
- This report would show that David Hanley is Innocent of all charges.
- David Hanley's defense team was not given any copies of the recording off the four deputies sheriff's belts recording.
- Sergeant Sanches Interview Page 18 Line 39: States the information would be on the Tape.
- These recording would prove that David Hanley is innocent of all charges.
- David Hanley's defense team was not given any information on the informant that gave Sheriff's the wrong information or wrong address.
- This information was withheld to cover the fact that the sheriffs department did not investigate or validate the information received from their informant.
- The Sheriffs Department had no probable cause to break into David Hanley's home and shoot him.
- Riverside County Sheriffs Department and the District Attorney's Office broke the Laws and ethic codes.
- California Penal Code 198.5, Reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily injury to self.
- California Penal Code 118.1 Filing false reports.
- California Penal Code 134. Preparing any false records for trial.
- California Penal Code 141. (B) Peace officer fabricating, planting any evidence.
- California Penal Code 149. Any public officer under the color of authority, without lawful necessity, assaults or beats any person.
- California Penal Code 237. (a and b) False imprisonment.
- Californis Penal Code 245. (a, 1, 2 and b) assault with a deadly weapon.
- California Penal Code 246. any person who shall maliciously and willfully discharge a firearm at occupied motor vehicle, inhabited housecar as defined in Section 362 of the vehicle code or inhabited camper as defined in Section 243 of the vehicle code.
- Rule 5-220 Suppression of Evidence
A member shall not suppress any evidence that the member or the
- California Penal Code 32.2 harbors, or conceals, or aids in such felony.
- Violation of David Hanley's civil rights.
- Second Amendment, Right to keep and bear arms.
- Fourth Amendment, Search and Seizure.
- Fifth Amendment, Rights in criminal cases.
- Sixth Amendment, Right to fair trial.
- Eight Amendment, Bails, fines and punishment.
- Fourteenth Amendment, Civil Right, State shall not deprive any person life, liberty, or property with out due process. Equal protection of the law.
- Twenty-sixth Amendment, The right to vote shell not be denied or abridged by any state.
Honorable Judge Timothy Freer I am asking you after you reviewed entire evidence that I have submitted to the courts and that you vacate the charge on David Barry Hanley on the grounds of police and prosecutorial misconduct most important No Probable Cause.
If these four deputy sheriffs were not in law enforcement when they broke into David Hanley's home and shot him these four would be held for attempted murder of David Hanley and not David Hanley.
cc: D.O.J. Washington D.C.
cc: FBI Headquarters Washington D.C.
cc: Nancy Grace
cc: Judge Jeanine
cc; Geraldo Rivera