Please visit TimBookTu and read some of the wonderful works of Lionel Whitehead, who is Hozy's oldest brother, and his mother.
You can contact Mr. Whitehead in care of Catherine Harris via e-mail at firstname.lastname@example.org or by sending an e-mail to TimBookTu and it will be forwarded.
My son Lionel C. Whitehead is presently in the Redgranite Correction Prison, Serving 20/20 plus 17 years parole if heís to ever get out. Heís appeal time and time again for a hearing because he the court has charged the wrong person. But the judge who he went before is the same judge that his appeals are returned to.
Lionel has spent time in prison true enough, but enough is enough in anyoneís life. On March 13, 1998 Lionel married Keva Whitehead after his release from the East Moline Correction Facility. His moving to Green bay was supposed to better his life. I felt that he wouldnít be able to because of his prison record and the prejudices of the small minds of those in Green bay WI. The whole prison is covered with black men once you enter Wisconsin, and I told Lionel that love or no love he shouldnít go there because those white folks are worst then William Lynch or Mississippi could ever be. Especially if they find he has a record and they would find out there was no way around it.
In 2002 Lionel went before the court in Brown County: Judge Donald R. Zuidmulder who boldly spoke before the jury and Lionelís family that he expected a return verdict of guilty. Which was wrong for any judge to do? Judge Zuidmulder did not allow the jury to judge my son properly he told them boldly what and how to judge him, while Lionelís lawyer Michael Hanna sat there with nothing to say because he wasnít getting paid to fight for him as far as I am concern. Or because my son had a record and was black. These people had already decided that Lionel Whitehead was going to serve time way before the night in question.
Before a court not of his peers my son was tried and sentence with a prejudice lawyer sitting beside him. No these are not all my sons word then itís not my son telling the story either. . My son Lionel C. Whitehead was arrested on December 3, 2001 while I was in the hospital having surgery. I had asked him not to go out the house not even to attempt to come see me. I had, had a dream that he was going to prison and never coming home. I also asked him to not let the Probation officer know that his intent after finishing serving out the probation that he was to move back to Chicago.
When I woke up from surgery Lionel was in jail in Green bay WI, for burglary and robbery. I couldnít attend the hearing or trial because of my condition. On January 11, 2005 Lionel appeals an order denying motion in which he alleged: the State presented no evidence to convict him of armed robbery or armed burglary; unto this day the courts are still denying him an appeal.
Why? Because Judge Zuidmulder swore he would never walk the streets again. It did not matter that the finger prints was not those of my sonís. It did not matter that the clothes that the suppose burglar was supposed to be wearing did not match those of my sonís. It did not matter that he had been at a bar most of the evening drinking with the bartenders.
And that he was drunk when they picked him up. What mattered is that the police had stopped and picked up a drunken black man coming out of a bar in what we might call the wrong neighborhood at the wrong time. Or was it at the wrong time? After all the State Attorney had promised Whitehead in the past he would get him sooner or later. When they couldnít get him for the rape of this white girl, because the DNA wasnít his, they gave him probation for being high, they found no drugs on my son, but yet they gave him two years probation any how. Well those two years would have been up in February 2002. 2 months after they locked him up. Lionel not only had not been arrested for anything since given the probation but was now about to finish it and leave the state of Wisconsin but let the probation officer tell it Lionel was suppose to have told her that he felt his old ways returning. Why would he tell her something like this knowing that she was waiting on him to make a wrong move?
The Wisconsin courts have robbed my son of seven years of his life so far because they have no evidence that my son committed the crime. This raccoon court was no better than the lynch mob in Mississippi. First the woman Mrs. Brown claims that Lionel was supposed to have pulled her by her hair, yet she couldnít tell the court if he had on gloves or not? Please! Second the man said he fought with Lionel yet he didnít remember if he had gloves on or not? Please, even though the man Mr. Brown was supposed to have been cut in the process of taking his kitchen knife from Lionel Whitehead after the finger prints came back and not a one of them in the house, on the house around the house belong to my son they still held him. Why because he had loose change on him and Ms. Brown claim she gave him two dollars?
It is impossible for the two of them to not have remembered if a man robbing them, touching them and fighting with them not know if this person had on gloves especially if they had to fight with him. Grabbing the hair with gloves on isnít a easy thing to doÖTry it for yourself. fighting to take a knife out of someoneís hand and getting cut would automatically force one to remember if that one had on gloves or not. Try it! The only time the statement was made about not remember if the defendant had on gloves was when the State Attorney said that Whitehead must have thrown the gloves into the trash and the garbage man must have taken them away the next day. Because none of the finger prints matched his. But they refuse to say who they did match. They didnít care about catching a robber or burglar all they wanted was to close the case. No one bother to get in touch with the garbage company or to even find out if the garbage truck had even come that way on the morning of December 3, 2001. The courts just took the lawyers word that Whitehead had on gloves and the Brownís did not have to remember if he had on gloves or not. Because this was a done deal. But, But, But Whitehead finger prints was not found in the house, on the house nor around the house. What a perfect drunk he was. The police said he was drunk. The alcohol test said he was drunk.
There was no sufficiency evidence against Lionel Whitehead because Lionel Whitehead was at the bar on the night in question getting drunk while I was in the hospital having surgery because his probation officer would not allow him to come and visit with me as I went under the knife. Just as she had not allowed him to come in July 2001 when I had went under the knife for surgery on my back. I could not walk or travel and my son was worried about me so he went to the bar against better judgment and never came home again.
The lawyerís failure to produce any real evidence regarding Lionel Whitehead supposedly haven Robbered the Browns and his lawyer Michael Hanna did not attempt to fight for him.
Even though Lionel kept asking his lawyer Michael Hanna the Public Defender arenít you going to say something? Arenítí you going to object? The lawyer Michael Hanna said to Lionel they are not trying to hurt you, they are telling what happened to them. Not one time did the lawyer Michael Hanna object what the state attorney was charging my son with. Lionel sat along in that court room with his wife and son looking on, after they humiliated his wife Keva by calling her a liar in the court. The state attorney had taken Keva from work questioning her the day before the trail which was out of place. She said she thought these were his attorneys.
I do not know what they talked about but I know that the prosecuting attorney was out of place and this was all wrong. All I know is there was a question of a bank statement that should have been dated December 3, 2001 on it but the Michael Hanna told her November 30th was close enough. How could this be possible?
If they went in to the ATM and pulled out cash on December 1, 2001? Anyone that deals with the bank knows that November speaks for November when it comes to the bank and December speaks for December. Instead the cold hearted creature of a lawyer allowed this statement to be presented as evidence of Lionel and Keva Whitehead with drawing cash from the ATM. It was without doubt used against them, no matter what Lionel said his Michael Hanna just sat there. Had it been a white woman it would have never happened.
Whitehead's arguments that the State presented no evidence to support the armed burglary and armed robbery charges was never heard because his lawyer Michael Hanna just sat there as the judge and the probation office cut Whitehead into pieces. The jury took less then thirty minutes to find him guilty of all charges. There was no arguments on the behalf of Lionel Whitehead..
The only evidence the State presented by the supposed victims (Timothy and Patricia Brown) of the crimes, that Whitehead was supposed to have entered their home while they were sleeping. Was their words. Patricia claims that she woke up to see him standing near the foot of the bed. She screamed, awakening her husband Timothy. Stating that Lionel Whitehead moved to her husband Timothy's side of the bed and pointed a large chopping knife at him and ordered him to lay down. First she stated that Timothy was already lying down, they was supposed to have been sleep. Whitehead was supposed to then have demanded money from Patricia. Who said that she retrieved two one dollar bills from a dresser and put them in Whitehead's hand. He demanded more money, grabbed Patricia by her hair and pulled her head toward his crotch saying "you're mine, bitch." What was this implying? Yet neither Patricia nor Timothy Brown saw if Lionel Whitehead had on gloves. Timothy at this point was said to have then struggled with Lionel Whitehead and took the knife from him. Timothy ran after Whitehead as Whitehead ran through the house and Patricia called the police. These folks could give all these details but they couldnít remember if my son had on gloves? I have seen my son drunk and running isnít one of the things that he can do well especially with all the police said he had done. Fat people perspire not only when they run but when we walk as well, especially if they have been drinking etc;. but the police said it was because he had been running yet they did not see him running they seen him standing near the bar.
The police records shows that Patricia's call at 12:46 a.m. and they stopped my son a short ways from the Browns' residence. They say he was perspiring heavily and had "a few loose dollar bills in his pocket." They left out the fact that he had 84 dollars in his pocket. Then they threw him in the car and called on their phone saying we got him. not the exact wording but close enough, Not we have a suspect. My son said when they took him to the Browns house the Browns never looked at him but said yeah thatís him calling him a few fancy names and all. One of my is how is it they could Identify my son in the dark without light. My son is zet black. And Green bay is dark at night and without light you can barely see youíre own face. But the police said the place was lit up, my son said they didnít even turn on a flash light. By law they should have taken my son to jail and placed him in a line up instead they did not take my son to the jail they took him to the Browns home for the Browns to identify him as the perpetrator.
It is said that my son told the arresting officers that he was at a bar approximately seventy-five yards from the Browns' residence. The officers drove him to the bar; arriving at 1:08 a.m. This gave the police 20 minutes from the time the Brownís called the police until they took my son to the bar. The bartender told the police that Whitehead had left the bar thirty to sixty minutes before the officers brought him back. Therefore, my son was supposed to have left the bar no later than 12:38 a.m., eight minutes before Patricia called the police. All these things were accomplished by a drunk within thirty minutes mine you the bartender estimated the time to be about thirty to sixty minutes. He not once said my son left there an hour ago. When did he have time to run down the street and hide the items that the Brown claimed the next day that was found in somebodyís yard? The next day she also claimed that she found a cord at the foot of the bed must have been taken off the television to tied them up. All at once the Browns was finding evidence bringing it to the jail but these items was never presented to the court. How could my son or anyone find a cord in the dark in a house they have never been in. How did he get around in the dark house with out a flash lighter etc?
Within eight minutes my son was supposed to have broken into their home, robbed them went back after stealing a few items from their home and came back to rob them of cash. It is impossible. So maybe thatís why the police said sixty minutes because my son said he didnítí hear what the police said to the bartender all he know is the police told him that the bartender said he couldnít vouch for him, even after buying him drinks drinking with him and offering him a ride home, which my son said he should have taken him up on it.
My son argued ďthe only reason that the police frame me is because I have a record I was in the area, or because the lawyer and probation office was doing what they had promised to do. Get me sooner or laterĒ he told me.
The State presented no true evidence to support the armed robbery was done by my son Lionel. What the state said is that the evidence showed that he robbed Patricia but that he threatened only Timothy. There was no recorder to confirm this and these two people mouth isnít a prayer book. Lionel argued the point. ďthe state said that he was stealing from one person while threatening the otherĒ because they was saying that it was him not because evidence said it was him but because two sick folks that cried robber said he robbed them. This constitutes robbery true enough only he wasnít the one that robbed these people if they was robbed at all. .
Then the state attorney swears to the supposed evidence that shows that Whitehead was standing near Patricia displaying a knife when he demanded money from her. I wonder how is he could swear to this. He wasnít there? This was their words against his word. The lawyer said that ďit was not necessary for him to point the knife at her to constitute armed robberyĒ not once did the state attorney say the alleged he found my son guilty before the jury which was not of his peers and before the trial started. My son also pointed out that one of the julor was on the elevator with him when he came up from lock up and she was a police but when he asked the lawyer Hanna he told him it wasnít the same person, it is them that say we all looked the same not us saying they do. My son said mama they are out to do me a job. All I have heard here is lies and more lies, while the guy they gave me as a lawyer is about to get me killed. I donít care what I ask the man he wonít answer me, heís angry at me because they chose him to represent me.
Lionel also argues that the State presented no evidence to support the armed burglary conviction because he contends the evidence shows that items were removed from the dwelling and placed outside. Where as he would have needed more time to have committed these crimes especially since the state claims that the bartender said he left for such a short time and was now back. The things that the state claims was found was a day later and a few blocks down, but once in the court it was a few steps away.
The court states that Whitehead then returned to the residence, armed himself with the Browns' knife and robbed Patricia. The states not once implied that he was innocent before they declared him guilty instead the report says ďHe alleges that the burglary refers to the initial entry when he stole items and there was no proof that he armed himself during that entry. They tell me this argument fails because the second entry also constituted a burglaryĒ. No matter what my son said he never had a chance to prove himself innocent seeing the state attorney and the probation office joined by his lawyer not once indicated that he was a suspect. These white folks said he did it so it meant he did it. .
They said he entered the dwelling without permission and with intent to steal and commit a felony, armed robbery. In fact, they said he did steal two dollars from Patricia after entering the second time while armed with a knife. These men whom claim that they know without a doubt claim that there finding conclusively shows sufficient evidence to support the convictions for armed robbery and armed burglary I am still trying to find out how it is they can be so sure my son did either of these things when none of the evidence they claim to have had his finger prints or anything of his on it, and the supposed victims was even wrong in identifying his clothing and height.
Keva Whitehead the wife of my son Lionel Whitehead the court called as an alibi witness. While my son told his lawyer Hanna in the beginning that she couldnít be a witness for him or against him because she was his wife she was home at the time of the suppose crime, while he was in the bar, but they called her anyway. They said her testimony was supposed to have been supported by a bank statement. But they never allowed her to wait for the bank to give her that bank statement instead Lionelís lawyer agreed to a statement that was dated three days before the suppose crime November is November in any bank and December is December there is no way and will never be a way when the bank statement could prove that money was taken out if that state is before the money was withdrawn. But Lionelís lawyer Michael Hanna went alone with it any how by telling her that November was close enough donít worry about the exact date.
And so the prosecutor successfully established that the bank statement was for a different date and that Whitehead's wife could not provide an alibi defense for my son because his lawyer stood idly by as they hung him high. Had he the money to pay a lawyer I am sure he would have attempted to have helped him at least.. Whitehead argues that his alibi and witness was the bartenders and that his wife's testimony undermined his alibi defense because he had already told his lawyer Michael Hanna that his wife was not there and he wanted to know why his lawyer was allowing a bank statement that was before the date of the withdrawal from the ATM or bank.. No matter what the courts say Lionel proved without a doubt that prejudice was establish his counsel's decision to call his wife as an alibi witness when he had already told her that his wife was Bipolar and was confused most of the time and the lawyer had not allowed her to gather the correct bank statement when all she had to do was go up to the bank and ask for a copy of her statement for the month of December, instead his lawyer had allowed my sonís wife to have lunch with the state attorney the day before the trial after they called her and they came to her job and picked her up. These things were not brought up in court. It was wrong for the state to come to her job and take her anywhere and it was wrong that Michael Hanna the public defender not to bring these things up.
The bartender's testimony that Lionel had been at the bar all even and could vouch for that but the police walked over to the bartender, his back turned to Lionel Whitehead and said something to the bartender. Lionel heard the bartender saying that he recollection Whitehead left the bar one half hour to an hour before the police returned with him according to the police, but he never said that my son left and was gone an hour he said about an half hour to an hour. The lawyer said that the bartender statement clearly proved that he could not account for Whitehead presence at the time the burglary and robbery occurred. The police and lawyer said that my son Lionel Whitehead had at least eight minutes to walk seventy-five yards to the Browns' residence, place a computer and a leather jacket outside the home, re-enter and rob the Browns. The computer was found the next day three blocks away in somebodyís yard, I canít remember the name but it was something like Judyís. The news paper had a field day with his face in the newspaper. The court then said that Lionel Whitehead's wife's testimony did not undermine his alibi defense because the bartender did not provide an alibi. Why not? Because the public defender Michael Hanna didnít try and find out why the bartender could no longer be an alibi for Whitehead they had sat there all evening drinking and now all at once he came up with thirty minutes to an hour? He couldnít have done all these things in an hour and his finger prints be no where to be found, remember this man was drunk when he left the bar and drunk when they picked him up.
Whitehead is right his trial counsel Michael Hanna failed to introduce into evidence the clothing he wore on the night of the incident. He asserts that the victims indicated that he was wearing dark clothing when, in fact, his pants were light blue and his black jacket had a gold emblem on the front. If his clothing was admitted into evidence and sent to the jury room then the jury must have been blind or coast like they was when the judge said he expected a return verdict of guilt. Yellow and white arenít the same. My sonís coat had big yellow almost a big bright yellow emblem that could not be missed, yet they said itís him.
a righteous lawyer would have impeached Patricia Brown's trial testimony with Timothy Brown's testimony from the preliminary hearing. Because Patricia did not provide a clothing description that came near what Lionel Whitehead was wearing. I also believe that the Browns were lying when they said that when they go to bed they do not lock their doors. This is a bunch of hog wash especially after this woman came into the police station a few days later after finding that Lionel had more then two dollars and said that somebody had been coming into her house for a while stealing money that her an her husband was putting a way in their secret place after paying bills. And she now believes it was Lionel Whitehead. How many people would be as foolish as this and how come the lawyer didnít question the Browns about this? Everyone has a right to do what they will in their home but to go to bed and never lock the doors after you have been contumely been robbed? What thief would have come in every week and only taken a few bucks when they could get all of it? Why the most foolish man in the world wouldnít chance being caught coming back and forward just to steal part of something when they could have gotten it all. This statement was made by Ms. Brown. I have a copy of the statement and so do the lawyers and police. It was even in the Gazette new paper..
Patricia Brown told police that she had been robbed before within the past few months and like Lionel I will never believes that these supposedly sane minded folks would not have locked their doors if they had been the victims of a recent robbery. Counsel's failure to inquire about the previous robbery and locking their doors and the court consider this not only not prejudice but said it was irrelevant. How could it be irrelevant when a manís life is at state and everything counted?
I must agree with my son that the alleged prosecutorial misconduct because the prosecutor vouched for the Browns' credibility. Instead of his lawyer defending him he stood on the side of the supposed victim. .Michael Hanna argued that according to the evidence presented by the lawyer of the Browns that their testimony was more believable than Whitehead's wife's testimony and it was because he had not tried to save my son, he knew when she told him all she had available was a statement from November because December statement hadnít come one. The Date was December 2, not November 30.
The prosecutor along with the coasting of the judge appropriately urged the jury to determine not as they said by credibility reasoning from the evidence that Whitehead was guilty. But as much as the judge forming his lips to say ďI expect a return verdict of guiltĒ the jury arrived to the verdict of guilt without evidence by the considering factors outside the evidence of the court because the only thing linking Lionel Whitehead to this case was the suppose victims
I wrote Michael Hanna a letter asking him to release Lionel file or sent him a copy he has yet to answer me, also he told my son the files are his. They might be his this is true but the files are about him and he was supposed to have been representing Lionel in the first place.
Michael Hanna Public Defender
My son is in prison at Redgranite correction and all he wants from you Michael Hanna is his files. My question is why can't he have a copy especially since you handled his case and you know he needs them? He's appeal five or six times. He's looking at spending his whole life inside the wall. You was his lawyer and it seems like your knowing those files might be able to help him get out you would try and get them to him instead of saying he can't have them they belong to you. Those files are about him. Wouldn't you want someone to help you if you were innocent? I know you would.
I thought a lawyer was suppose to fight for a client not keep him behind bars. Tell me if I am wrong how is it possible that the courts couldn't wait for the bank statement dated Dec 31 since the crime was supposed to be committed on December 3rd? How could the courts or a lawyer possibly believe that the statement would have been among the November statements if the crime was committed in December?
The things that is said on the court report or that the newspaper said I know you had doubts about especially if you are a Christian but for what ever reason you didn't fight for my son, I pray that none of your off springs ever have to go through the garbage that my son is going through. You could have helped his especially since there was no proof, evidence to have him locked away like some animal.
He had made his change in life, and in the seven years that you allowed him to go to prison he's not once been in trouble. That in itself should tell you and the courts something. The judge said he'll never walk the streets again, yet he's allowing murderers out. Was my letter to the probation officer as bad as all that? Had she spoken to me like a woman I would have done the same. I couldn't believe that she took that letter and used it against my son. She told me that he wasn't cleared of the charges that landed him in her hands. I told her she was a liar and she is especially when she said he told her he felt like his old self. My son would have never told a white woman or man something like that. I will never understand how he received two years probation for reefer when they picked him up the police report states he didn't have any on him or in the car, so my thing is the probation officer and the lawyer had planned on keeping him there as the lawyer had promised him in the first place. And they did. They wouldn't even allow him to come home with me with either of my surgeries. On the morning in question I woke up from surgery to find my son locked up once more like an animal. No Sir he's not an animal. if you had taken out the time and talked to him you would know it yourself. Do you guys ever admit to your mistakes? Do you all ever go home and repent for taking the lives of the less fortunate? When I say "You" I am not speaking so much as you per se.
I don't mean to sound so rough but there is only a small space to say what I have to say.
There is no way someone can grab your hair and you not remember if they had on gloves. There is no way you can wrestle someone down for a knife, get cut and not remember if they had on gloves. There is no way had my son been white with money that you wouldn't have tried to find out if the garbage man took the garbage that morning, instead of allowing the state to say the garbage must have taken it away. Not once did anyone try and get in touch with the garbage collectors. I pray with all my heart that upon your death beds that you don't do what this woman did to a friend of mines son. She said she saw him kill someone about a year or two before she die she went to the lawyer and told the truth. She even had a VHS of the man that broke into their house and killed the boyfriend, but she never produced it and guess what she didn't live long enough to serve time as he plea bargain because he though he would get less time but the lawyer lied. He's life without parole. When he appealed that same judge was there and denied him his freedom, he had a heart attack in that court that day, but he didn't die. The judge sent him back, that was 1996 and he's still fighting. He said to her I pray you see my face for the balance of your life for what you're doing to me. But later he wrote her a letter and told her that he's sorry about what he said because he knows that one day he's going to see Jesus, and wonder if she's going to be there. He blessed her and now he looks and acts like a totally different person. He knows that he might never get out if he has to depend on that judge but what that judge can't take from him is his peace with the Father Jehovah God.
I am about to have my son's book public. He writes poems about the system, how he got in the system and how to stay out the system, and I read them in church, schools, festivals etc:.
His poems are on Internet etc;.
That was an awful lot of things my son was suppose to have done in such a short time that early morning on Dec 3rd especially being drunk. A drunk that didn't even leave finger prints. A drunk that had on nothing that woman and man said he had on. The courts stole my son's life. The courts killed me...But guess what we are both born again. What ever crimes my son has committed in his past he's paid for. and whatever reason you all placed him behind these walls on you all and God and the devil know. He lost his father, his step father, three of his uncles, his grand mother is on her death bed, he lost his wife, his children and everything else that might have been of some value out here.His son is in college, his daughter in high school and have moved on to another state. I told him in the first place to stay out of that little prejudice town, but he followed his wife who promised him that here they could make another start.
Drop by and see those people that locked him up sometimes I don't if they are happy or together. When folks join together and lie as they have to take a live seldom can they stand each other behind it.
I don't know the judge, I don't know you, but I do know that my son don't deserve his whole life taken from him when the judge knows he didn't commit the crime. And if the judge gave him the time to hurt me, he did a great job but it only shows that Wisdom can destroy a lot harder and faster then heal. Even Solomon in all his wisdom became a fool and lost in the end.
I can only hope and pray that the knowledge of knowing that there are a lot of lives behind the wall that lawyers, police and judges have stolen and destroyed. Not a one has a heaven or hell to place them in even if it does seem like it. I understand prison is a Form of Hell, but in the end God has the last say. The truth can kill you, as well as heal you I am sure you know. I pray daily to hear from this judge and I will continue to pray for this judge, probation officer and you because I know sooner or later one of you will take out the time and review my son's case again and see, a drunk doesn't move that fast and a black man can't be seen in front of a television set in the dark, it is hard to see a white man in front of one. I do not know why you are refusing my son the papers he needs but then again I am sure you have your reasons, beside they are mines. Because they are about him. How would you like it if this was one of your children, and don't say it can't happen to one of yours.
As parents all we can do is our best. But it is also a poor dog that doesn't change. My son made that change and then you all locked him up. Those papers aren't benefiting you so why not release the papers?
Home Contact Us Disclaimer Feedback