Jason has applied to Governor Hickenlooper for a
commutation. The request has been
published on this blog.
jasonpecci.blogspot.com
We/he is urgently requesting brief responses to be
sent to his e-mail address jason.pecci@gmail.com
which I will collect and send to the Governor.
Your compositions should be short honest
evaluations of why you think the sentence should be commuted downward from 48
years.
This will be best evaluated after reading the
“actual events” verses the events as “implied by the prosecution” the materially false information he was
sentenced on which is in this blog entry.
The clemency board is not interested in character
reference. They want to know why you
think the sentence was unjust. Cite the source ie: actual events v. prosecution
materially false information that is on the blog.
Many of you don’t know Jason but have the capacity
to comment on the facts.
Please send a brief e-mail to jason.pecci@gmail.com
Still out here fighting.
Mary-Ellen / Jason’s mom
REQUEST FOR COMMUTATION
To: Governor Hickenlooper
Request for commutation of maximum
sentence – premised upon materially false information – for second degree
murder, to a period commensurate with the true circumstances of the offense.
Attached is a recount of the events of
01 April 2001 that led to the death of Marc Bender and a comparison of those
events with the prosecutor’s position contrary to the facts. The defendants recount is consistent with
information given to defense counsel Kathryn Hay (#20817) and published in the
presentence investigation (P.S.I.) report. Prosecutor Gregory Lammons(#26139) professed,
at sentencing, to having no prior knowledge of the facts in the P.S.I. report,
that they were invalid, and that his envisionment of malicious circumstances
was to be the grounds for sentencing.
Judge Terrence Gilmore (#1306) agreed and based upon “signs of
premeditation” justified a maximum sentence.
These actual facts remain judicially
unverified. They have been presented to,
and denied without investigation, by all levels of state and federal
court. The best source for verification
and interpretation of the medical examiner’s report is Larimer County Sheriff’s
Investigator Steve Koenig. Petitioner
recommended an interrogatory of Mr. Koenig to the Colorado Appellate Court in
case #12CA926[1]
to solicit this correct information.
This is a risk for the petitioner because the sheriff’s investigator can
only incur penalty for commenting on misuse, distortion, or suppression of the
work product. Unfortunately there was no
defense investigation to rely on[2]
and correction of misinformation falls to the single source of Mr. Koenig.
Caveat re: State’s Attorney Roger
Billotte: At oral arguments for
appellate case #05CA State’s Attorney Roger Billotte made the
slanderous statement that the petitioner here killed the victims dogs, to an
auditorium of high school students and dignitaries. The petitioner’s mother who flew from Maine
to Colorado for the oral argument is witness to this unfounded and slanderous
statement. This represented an exclusive
disregard of professional and public responsibility. This gratuitous impropriety disqualifies Mr.
Billotte from any contact with this request for commutation.
Actual Occurrences
Defendant and victim had neither
conversed nor interacted since late November, 2000.
Defendant packed overnight bag to
spend the night with concurring witness, who lived in town, (approx.12 miles
away). Left not to housemate/soon-to-be-ex-wife re: intent to return and clean
the kitchen.
Defendant stopped upon passing the
bar, enroute to town, to confront spouse re: broken pre-divorce agreement. She was in the parking lot with boyfriend
Marc Bender. The agreement was to not
flaunt extramarital affair publicly. When she challenged defendant to kill
her he extracted a gun from under the seat of his vehicle.
Defendant stood with gun hanging at
his side. Shot one shot from that
position (striking ground next to left foot) after the victim approached to make
toe-to-toe full body contact.
The victim continued “pushing in a
bulldozing fashion,” and the defendant fired a fatal shot. (Medical examiner
estimated range to be one to three inches.)
Defendant went into adjacent bar and
informed persons within of what hadhappened. (Confirmed by surveillance video.
Accepted by the Court
Prosecution implied: Defendant and
victim argued in the bar for 20 minutes prior to offense. (Surveillance video shows no interaction.)
Prosecution implied: Defendant walked
home to “acquire” gun and return to bar (approx. 100 yds.) to kill the victim.
This set the defendant up by implying a 20 minute period to pre-meditate and
then drive the same 100 yds. That the defendant had just walked in 90 seconds.
Prosecution implied: The defendant was
not going into town to the concurring witness home; that the spouse was
rational and did not challenge the defendant to kill her.
Prosecution implied: The victim
did not approach nor make contact with defendant; defendant shot the ground “in
front of the victim” (a mechanical impossibility.)
Prosecution implied: The
defendant fired a second unprovoked shot from four feet away with
homicidal intent.
Prosecution implied: The defendant
considered shooting prostrate victim a second time and callously disregarded
any nearby persons.
REQUIRED
INQUIRIES
His
Honor, Governor Hickenlooper, is required to consult with the prosecuting
attorney and sentencing judge, in consideration of an executive pardon or
sentence commutation. (C.R.S.
§16-17-102). Petitioner sent an
interrogatory letter to sentencing Judge Gilmore, immediately prior to his dismissal
from the bench in the 2010 election cycle.
This interrogatory was also included in a 10th Circuit Habeas
Corpus appeal (case #10-1463) because the answers could have resolved the legal
questions of the appeal.
An
executive commutation investigation may benefit as much as judicial process
could have, from answers to these simple questions. The hitherto unanswered queries to former
Judge Gilmore are: 1.) “Given the actual circumstances of Mr. Pecci’s offense
do you still support a maximum or near maximum sentence?” and if so, 2.) Why?”
Prosecutor Lammons
will also be unamenable to answering interrogatories. He exhibited extreme hostility to
post-conviction counsel Barrett Weisz – telling him to “fuck himself”, refusing
to enter into any written or telephonic discourse, and blocking investigation
efforts. Any query of Mr. Lammons will
likely yield only more protection of the fabrications in the “Accepted by
Court” column above. The petitioner
hopes that His Honor may temper any prosecutorial self-protection with fact
driven information that may be proffered by investigator Koenig, as recommended
above.
VICTIM’S
FAMILY
Mr. Bender’s family
wanted a death sentence for the petitioner and applauded when he was given a
maximum sentence for second degree murder.
It is unlikely they will accept that anything different than what the
District Attorney’s Office told them is what actually happened and will thus
oppose any commutation of sentence. Mr.
Lammons and the District Attorney’s Office may be protecting their story to
allow Mr. Bender’s family to not have to confront the reality that: but for his
actions there may not have been any gunshots.
His sister has expressed insight that Mr. Pecci’s wife avoided responsibility
for creating circumstances that killed her brother. This insight – beyond the view of the
District Attorney’s Office – does show acceptance that Mr. Pecci received all
the responsibility for her brother’s death; while Mrs. Pecci acquitted herself
of responsibility.
There is a paradox whereby the family has false
information that has hardened over thirteen years and only wants expansion of
responsibility, but could see responsibility that the D.A.’s office was blind
to. Of course there is no mechanism for transference of punitive responsibility
to offer Mr. Bender’s family as redress.
Thus the petitioner can only ask them to accept that a person should not
be prosecuted or sentenced upon materially false information generally,[3]
and extend this premise specifically to Mr. Pecci.
The investigated
facts of the petitioner’s case should be uncovered and objectively evaluated.[4] Such a review by the executive will show that
the judicial defects of the Eighth Districts case # 01CR465 created false
justification for a sentence of 48 years – the maximum of the aggravated class
2 felony range for knowingly causing death.
Mr. Pecci requests
that His Honor, Governor Hickenlooper, find the true circumstances of this
homicide consistent with the lower standard of “Recklessness” and commute this
sentence to the midrange of the corresponding aggravated class III felony range
(8-24 years).
[1]
Petitioner recommended that the court pose the query: “To your knowledge is Mr. Pecci sentenced
upon information inconsistent with your investigation?; and to answer the
gravamen of the appeal: “Is the sentence premised upon materially false
information?”; This incensed the court
such that they canceled the state’s pending response and denied the appeal with
no answer to the question at issue.
[2]
This was the foundation of a Rule 35 ( c )
petition filed by Barrett Weisz (#27601) in the Eighth District Court in
2005. This was denied by Judge Gilmore
with a reiteration of the false suppositions he has accepted from prosecutor
Lammons since the defendant first appearance.
[3] This is a legal precedent, discussed in the
35(a) illegal sentence petition filed to the Eighth District. See Attachment 2, item #_______.
[4] This is the intent of current efforts to
testify to the Larimer County Grand Jury: to induce an investigation of fraud
against the court re Mr. Pecci’s plea.
See attachment 2, item #__________. Testimony to the Grand Jury.
No comments:
Post a Comment