October 26, 1998
Mr. Robbie Owens
District Attorney
P.O. Box 706
Columbiana, AL 35051
Ref:Case No. CC-88-077 - Ronald Patrick Swiney
Case No. 96-P-2823-S - Ronald Patrick Swiney
Dear Mr. Owens:
I want to thank you for taking the time to speak to me on the telephone about Patrick’s case.I would like to confirm certain items that went wrong in the trial, and since you were there, you will know that I am speaking the truth.
As you know, the U.S. Constitution requires that every person receive a fair trial and that an accused person is assumed innocent until proven guilty by due process.Lawyers take an oath that makes them beholden to ensure fairness and correctness, not to distort the truth and undermine the justice system and the Constitutional Law upon which this country was founded.Today, we see celebrity trials covered by television that mock the intention of fairness and truth.Today, we see law-abiding citizens who stand up for their rights or the rights of others receive persecution and retaliation from those who are sworn to uphold the law on behalf of the people.In Alabama, we see that the administrators of the legal system are in gross violation of the fiduciary trust of an officer of the court.Their motives are political and financial, which has nothing at all to do with legal statutes or fairness to the individual who finds themselves caught in the middle of a “Big Brother” battle.Such is the situation that surrounds my husband’s trial and conviction.
It is an established fact that corruption within the Alabama court system exists.Governor Fob James confirmed this realization publicly when he said, “Government itself has bred contempt and disrespect for the law.The time has come for court reform in Alabama.The integrity of our judicial system is at stake...Each of us upon birth inherited a solemn treaty between the governed and the government.That treaty is the Constitution of the United States of America.It is under attack and many of us have yet to realize it.The attack comes not from without, but from within, by usurpation of power by high courts with their own agendas.This is extremely dangerous because you and I were taught from early childhood to respect the law.But what if someone on a high court is deceiving us about what that law means?” [ref: April 1995 issue of Christ for the Nations magazine, page 4].Since that article was published, abuse of power has become even more rampant and out of control in the Alabama courts.If the handling of Patrick Swiney’s case is normal or “standard procedure,” then Justice in Alabama no longer exists for its citizens.
It is disturbing to see the increase in the general corruption within our legal system.Reports from all over this country reflect factual observations of injustice and this should be significant cause for concern and alarm as to the direction this country seems to be going.Moreover, thinking people should attempt to correct the course our democracy has been traveling as special interests continue to dominate political outcomes at all levels.Democracies have deteriorated as a result of apathy coupled with the dominations of special interests in politics.Fear has become the predominate symptom and outgrowth of conspiratorial awareness.There’s a general conclusion that we’ve been “sold out,”and this should be a clue that we are moving in the wrong direction.
Perhaps there was a time when being an officer of the court meant something, when participants in the process shared a common respect for the truth and for justice.This is no longer the case in the State of Alabama.If the “price” is right, Lawyers in this state will do everything they can to intentionally subvert justice by trying to convince jurors to believe the hypothetical when there is no evidence - hypotheticals that the attorneys know are lies.My husband’s case is a classic example of a legal system gone wrong.Gravely wrong.It is clear that what happened in my husband’s case can happen to anyone who is not sufficiently well-heeled or who does not have sufficient political influence to expect that the laws of this land will be observed.
The conspiracy in Patrick Swiney’s case is small with respect to global problems, but huge with respect to the destruction of the life of one man who had never before been in trouble with the law and who in fact made a vow at age 16 to dedicate his life to fighting injustice.This is why Patrick Swiney became a police officer in the State of Alabama.Today he, himself, is a victim of injustice.
Each person in the Swiney family is filled with remorse about the loss of Betty Snow and Ronnie Pate.But in trial, D.A. Campbell told the jury Patrick was not sad enough even though Patrick grieved deeply throughout the trial because he’d lost his wife.Yet the Birmingham Newspaper article dated June 10, 1989, stated that when a video of the tragedy was shown to the jury, Patrick Swiney “wept quietly when he saw pictures from the crime scene showing his wife and her former husband dead from gunshot wounds.”The Jury must not have remembered this.Maybe they didn’t even see this.It was seen by the reporters though.Patrick is a sincere man, one who cares a great deal about human life, and one who does not advocate violence.But the jury was prevented from seeing the truth about this case by Mike Campbell’s fabrications throughout this trial.
It must be awful to be accused of something you did not do and have everyone believe outright lies told by others who are angry and/or hurting too.It must be doubly dreadful not to be given the chance to defend yourself against these lies.There was no consideration of what Patrick lost, there was only vengeance and the idea that “someone” had to pay the price.Putting Patrick away would close the matter and allow people to forget because they would have their pound of flesh, even at the cost of subverting their own laws and rules of court.
Actually, three people lost their lives that night but who was there to recognize this?Certainly not Patrick’s and Betty’s classmate, Michael Campbell.Campbell was not interested in the truth of this tragedy.He took this tragedy and turned it into a crime and he did this to destroy Patrick’s life in revenge of his extremely close friend [and suspected lover], Betty Snow.Mike Campbell should have immediately recused himself of this case but he knew his position brought to him the power to “get even” with Patrick while absolving himself of any wrong-doing with Betty Snow.
Consider the following setup:
1.The Honorable Judge John Rochester who presided at the trial said to Michael Campbell, Richard Bell, and Mickey Johnson in a pre-trial conference, “Why can’t you reach some type of plea agreement, the most you have on the man is two manslaughters, and that’s max.”This may be considered privileged information among attorneys.However, it shows that even the Judge did not think Patrick was guilty as charged.
2.MR. CAMPBELL:“He shot Ronnie Pate through the brain, he answered the telephone.” [R986].“He came there to take their lives.” [R989].“The Defendant went on a hunt that night.” [R976].“Defendant hunted Ronnie Pate.” [R977]
COMMENTS:Not one shred of evidence supports such lies.Had witnesses for the defense been allowed to testify, they would have shown that no stalking or “hunting” took place, that no intent to harm was present, that the Snows were lying through their teeth.Witnesses for the defense will testify that Patrick took the time to get all gussied up before going over to his house [to check on his dogs] and “hopefully” to make up with his wife.This is NOT a man on the hunt, on the prowl, or on a stalk.
3.MR. CAMPBELL:“It’s going to make you feel good on your way home to your spouse and your child.” [R990]
COMMENTS:Feel good about convicting an innocent man of murder?It would more likely make Mike Campbell feel good to get all possible suspicion off him.Very few things that are certain or absolute in this universe, but one thing is absolute and certain: Patrick is totally and completely innocent of murder.
4.MR. CAMPBELL:“No doubt, no doubt, that this defendant is guilty of killing Ronnie Pate and he is guilty of killing Betty Snow.That is absolute fact.” [R969]
COMMENTS:Fact is, no evidence whatsoever supports such outrageous claims, and to put them before an innocent and entrusting Jury as absolute fact, is a total disgrace to Campbell’s profession, a disgrace to the Court and nothing less than throwing the U. S. Constitution into a septic tank, to cover-up his own illegal deeds.Fact is, every bit of what was presented by Mike Campbell, was pure speculation on his part.
Fact is, Patrick does not know what happened after he saw his wife committing adultery, because he blacked out and said it felt as though someone hit him in the back of the head with a baseball bat.To this day, he has no memory of committing this crime, or not committing this crime.Fact is, criminal law presumes a man lacks intent to commit murder if he is acting in a “heat of passion” involving adultery.Fact is, Mike Campbell and others broke the law by purposely destroying any hope of proving adultery.
5.MR. OWEN:“The defendant said if he ever comes back I will kill him.” [R934].“She’s a Pate woman.” [R934].“Nell said that he said to her if Pate ever comes back in this yard I will kill him.” [R934].
COMMENTS:All hearsay testimony - lies!Mr. Owens, you too were duped by Mike Campbell.As Assistant D.A., you trusted Campbell’s integrity.I’m sure you had no thought as to why a man in his position would be inclined to lie.Or that a man would use his power of office to cover-up the truth.Fact is, Patrick never met Ronnie Pate, never had any dealings with him, never saw him.If he had, he would have known who the man committing adultery with his wife was!But he didn’t know, because he never saw Ronnie Pate before that night.There are a few provisions for testimony from a dead person, and those provisions are not applicable in this circumstance, yet the court allowed them, while suppressing the truth.Why?You told me on the phone that you had a list of something like 141 rules for hearsay testimony.For my own edification, I would like to see the rule that allows such hearsay testimony of a dead person as presented in this trial.
6.MR. EMBRY:"(TR-768) Dr. Joseph Embry testified that as the Forensic Pathologist for the Department of Forensic Sciences of the State of Alabama that he performed the autopsies on Mr. Pate and Mrs. Swiney.He further states that he altered his autopsy procedures upon request of the Coroner of Shelby County and did not do fingernail scraping or a vaginal swab (TR-805,806, 807)."
COMMENTS:Had the vaginal swab been performed, and semen found, that would prove beyond any doubt whatsoever that intercourse had taken place.Had sperm been found in this semen, that would prove adultery beyond all doubts, as Patrick had a vasectomy in 1974 and has zero sperm count.By well established law, that would prove him innocent of murder.Guess that’s a little minor thing to overlook, huh?I apologize for my sarcasm but it tends to come out when my husband has spent 10-1/2 years in prison, when others who are entrusted with his fate - who continue to live and work in their air-conditioned domains - overlook minor things...such as: “Innocence” of murder.
7.MR. CAMPBELL:“Not about whether or not Dr. Embry took vaginal swabs or samples.” [R974]“There was no reason to take vaginal swabs.It didn’t make any difference.” [R975].
COMMENTS:Patrick was a police officer for 13 years, dealing daily in such matters.It is lunatic if not criminal not to search out and preserve physical evidence of a crime or crime scene.Adultery claimed from the very beginning of all proceedings, and the physical evidence to prove or disprove was absolutely vital.Why would the State not search for truth?
The knowing failure to perform normal autopsy procedures, i.e., vaginal swabs, sperm count, throat cultures, fingernail cultures, etc., is clearly the overt act necessary to constitute conspiracy - a conspiracy to deprive my husband an opportunity to defend himself.D. A. Mike Campbell, the Coroner, and the Medical Examiner, clearly established the other required element that constitutes conspiracy - conspiracy to knowingly and willing destroy exculpatory evidence forever.An obvious conspiracy to obstruct justice.Had these normal autopsy procedures been followed, the outcome of the trial would have been completely different, and Mike Campbell knew this.
8.The Forensic Sciences Lab reports fail to connect Patrick to their deaths, whereas:
·There was no presence of any blood on Patrick’s clothing.There was no presence of gun power on Patrick’s clothing or skin.
·There was no evidence that Patrick had fired a weapon, handled a fired weapon, or even came in close proximity of a discharged firearm that day.The fingerprint reports are conveniently missing.
·It should be noted that this State Forensic Lab had the alleged shell casings and did a ballistic report, and would have known what brand of ammunition was used.It should also be noted that this State Forensic Lab failed to report whether or not the weapon they inspected had even been fired prior to being fire-tested in the lab.
9.David Higgins of the Alabama Department of Forensics Sciences testified that he could not give an opinion that the bullets that came from the body of Ronnie Pate were fired by the weapon marked State's Exhibit #47.None of the investigating officers stated that the Patrick had been seen going to or coming from the Swiney residence on December 10, 1987 at the alleged time of the deaths of Mrs. Swiney and Mr. Pate.
10.The State did not prove that Patrick shot Ronnie Pate or that he used the alleged weapon marked as Exhibit #47; that he ever fired a weapon on December 10, 1987 or that the deaths of Mrs. Swiney and Mr. Pate occurred at the same time as the result of one scheme or course of conduct. (RT 749, 751-752)
11.Of the 19 witnesses for the State, not a single witness testified Patrick shot and killed Betty Swiney and Ronnie Pate on December 10, 1987.There were no witnesses for the Defense.
The 6th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees for all a “public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed".
As long ago as 1935 the U.S. Supreme Court in a case called Berger v. United States directed, "(the prosecutor) is the representative of a sovereignty whose interest in a criminal prosecution is not that it shall win a case, but that justice shall be done."Did D.A. Mike Campbell seek justice in Patrick’s case?No, he sought his own agenda and Judge Rochester’s court allowed this blatant display of prejudice to prevail.
In 1986, the U.S. Supreme Court decided that in the selection process of a jury, when a person is excluded because of their race or gender, the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment is violated.This was announced in the case known as Batson v. Kentucky.Did D.A. Campbell abide by this ruling?No, his very first strikes were all the blacks because he deemed that “the blacks tend to be more lenient”.
After “death-qualifying” the potential jury members, only five blacks were left in the jury pool.Mike Campbell’s very first five strikes were blacks - A BRADY VIOLATION - meaning a U.S. CONSTITUTIONAL VIOLATION.Jury strikes simply because of race, are illegal, and Campbell knew this.He had full knowledge of the “BRADY” decision by the U.S. Supreme Court.Yet he openly defied such a major ruling - with full knowledge that he was perverting the U.S. Constitution.What I’d like to know is, where was the Judge at this time, taking a nap, out for a cup of coffee, or intentionally allowing such gross violations of law and justice in his court?And if intentional, why?
From the outset, this was not an impartial jury.We hold no grudges toward the jury, for they are just as much a victim in this case as Patrick is.In fact, we hold no grudges against Mike Campbell, Dick Bell, Judge Rochester or anyone else.We seek justice according to the laws of this land, not according to an official’s abuse of his power and illegal manipulation of the law, and not vengeance as Campbell sought vengeance.
Keeping Patrick in prison does not serve any justice.In fact, it serves no purpose at all.We are both 54 years old.Fighting this cause is taking its toll on both of us as our aging process continues.Patrick has endured cruel and unusual punishment [all documented] while in prison.He has suffered three (3) heart attacks, suffers the chronic pain of inflammatory spinal arthritis, and emphysema.He is a dying man.Michael Campbell broke the law in a conspiracy to destroy Patrick Swiney’s life.He usurped his powers of office to cover-up his own thirst for vengeance.It appears that this was the perfect crime because, so far, the Alabama courts have not taken the time to read this case, nor assist in obtaining fairness for my husband.I would like to know how this can happen in America.
I reiterate that you have informed me that we must file under Rule 32 in order to obtain the evidence that was used in trial to further our investigation.You have also let me know that this motion could be denied, and I appreciate your honesty.You have let me know that the denial is almost certain because this case is so old.What kind of law is this that would deny a person to seek truth and justice on his own behalf, no matter how “old” the case is?It is wrong for “trusted” officials to turn their backs on this as though we do not even exist, as though our lives do not matter at all.Yet this is what they are doing to us.Patrick has been denied counsel.He has been denied Habeas Corpus.Both of these avenues for relief are a privilege that cannot - according to our own Constitutional laws - ever be denied.
Mr. Owens, we just want Patrick Swiney’s case handled according to Alabama State and U.S. Constitutional Law.If this happens, then this nightmare will finally end so that he and I can live out the rest of our lives peacefully in freedom.
I appreciate your help.
Sincerely,
Sherry L. Swiney