Mark Hundley
CALIFORNIA / AMERICAN JUSTICE
Approximately 21 years ago Mark Hundley was arrested for a parole violation-- a felon with a firearm. The previous night a murder was committed in the Mar Vista Housing Projects in the western part of Los Angeles. The Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) went to the apartment where Mark Hundley lived with his roommate John Bagnerise. The LAPD went to the apartment looking for the suspects of the murder. Mark was not aware that a murder had transpired as he was not involved in it.
. The 3 suspects had tried to contact Mark after the murder to warn him not to go home but Mark was not responding to his pager.
While in the County Jail on the parole violation Mark’s picture was put into what’s known as a six pack and shown to several witness’ses that were at the scene of the murder. Mark was identified (through his hearing) by his clothing only. He was the only person with different color clothes on. Shortly after Mark’s arrest Tony Brodis and John Bagernise were arrested for the murder. Mr. Brodis the admitted shooter received a plea deal for 18 years to life for second-degree murder. Mr. Bagnerise who was tagged as the ringleader was convicted of second-degree murder and sentenced to 18 years to life. Mr. Bagnerise is currently free on parole. Mark was identified as the 3rd person involved in the murder, who was just there, never said a word or was involved in any action that took place at the scene of the crime. Mark Hundley was convicted of 1st degree murder aggravated assault, and committing a crime with a firearm and was sentenced to 34 years to Life.
The tragedy and injustice begins to get deeper. At Mark’s preliminary hearing Mark was appointed a Public Defender Mr. Mason. I was acquainted with the 3rd persons family and friends and we all knew who was actually there instead of Mark. I informed Mr. Mason whom this person was and was told by Mr. Mason I needed to find a way to get the 3rd person to admit it to him or to the investigator in the murder case. Of course the 3rd person wasn’t willing to do that. Mark knew he was innocent and believed there was no way he would be convicted. Mark was bound over for trial on 1st degree Murder.
At Mark’s trial, which was in Santa Monica Ca. Mark, was appointed an attorney by the State of California Mr. Cron. I also informed Mr. Cron who the 3rd. person was and that there were other people willing to state that the 3rd person himself had admitted to them he was the person that was at the scene of the crime instead of Mark.
During the trial, Mr. Brodis and Mr. Bagnerise were brought from prison to testify that Mark was not present at the crime or was he knowledgeable of it. They were never called to testify. There were three witnesses for the Prosecution, all three identified Mark by the clothes he had on only. One witness stated he had on a total different color shirt than the other two witnesses had stated and also stated he only saw them for a few seconds. One witness stated the 3 suspects knocked on her apartment door looking for the victim and she only saw them long enough to tell them where he might be. They then went to the apartment of Ms Mc. D, which is where the crime took place.
While preparing for the trial Detectives questioned her on several different occasions and she informed them she wasn’t sure if it was Mark and she didn’t want to testify at the trial. On the day of the trial Ms. Mc. D didn’t show up for the trial and the Prosecutor along with the Detective went looking for her and when they did find her she was under the influence of drugs and in possession of Crack Cocaine and paraphernalia. She was told to state that she knew it was Mark at the crime scene and she needed to state that in court. However, before they could put her on the stand they put her in a room to sober up until they felt it safe to put her on the stand. This information was admitted to by the Prosecutor at the Federal Hearing. Ms. Mc. D testified and the Cocaine and paraphernalia disappeared. The fact that she was under the influence when she was supposed to testify was never disclosed to the Judge or the Jury. The witness that testified that Mark had on different color clothes also came to Court under the influence and was put in a room to sober up. This was also withheld from the Judge and Jury.
When I testified about the 3rd. person and who it was my testimony was with held from the Jury. There were several other witness’s willing to testify as to where Mark was at the time but they were not allowed to testify before the Jury. Mark was found guilty of 1st degree Murder and two other counts and sentenced to 34 years to life.
Over the ensuing years Mark worked on preparing and filing different appeals which were denied. One day while visiting Mark at Lancaster State Prison we were approached by Mr. Foxworth who was an inmate that worked in the visiting room. He stated he had observed us over the past few years and was aware of Mark’s case. He stated he at one time had an Investigating Agency and had helped several inmates in the past on their appeals and he was willing to assist Mark in his case. After approximately 1 year he stated his people had located Ms. Mc. D. and had obtained a declaration from her stating she had lied at Mark’s trial. The declaration was filed and then we became aware of a recent law (The ADEPA ) I believe it’s called. After filing for an appeal a person has a certain amount of time to present the case. Mark’s time had elapsed.
Approximately 10 or 12 years have now gone by and Mark is still in prison on a crime he didn’t commit nor had any knowledgeable of.
I was now financially able to hire a private attorney Mr. Price. I had contacted several other attorneys but was told due to the new laws there was slim chance of Mark wining an appeal. Mr. Price stated there were exceptions to the new Law and one was Actual Innocence. With Ms. Mc. D’s declaration and the statements of Mr. Brodis and Mr. Bagernise along with declarations from several witnesses of Mark’s whereabouts on the night of the murder the appeal was filed.
Finally a Federal Hearing was granted. We then found out Mr. Foxworth had fabricated Ms. Mc. D’s declaration. I hired another Investigator who actually located Ms. Mc. D. in Chowchilla State Prison For Women. In another declaration she did state she lied at the trial and was willing to testify in Mark’s Federal Hearing. I then Hired Mr. Genego who was familiar with Federal Law.
Mr. Genego prepared a brief for the Federal Appeal which was denied. Mr. Genego appealed to a higher Judge and a hearing was granted in the Orange County Federal Courts. At he hearing Ms. Mc. D appeared with an attorney for fear of being arrested for Perjury in Mark’s original trial. Also present was the original Prosecutor who stated that the Detective that he knew well had retired and was living (I believe ) in Florida and wasn’t available but he could speak on his character.
Ms. Mc. D testified she lied at Mark’s original trial, she didn’t want to testify at all and that’s why she didn’t appear on her own at the original trial. When the Prosecutor and Detective found her and brought her to Court she was under the influence and in possession of Crack Cocaine as well as drug paraphernalia and was afraid she would be arrested and charged for the offense. So she did what they wanted her to do-- identify Mark Hundley as the 3rd person at the scene of the crime. Until now there was never any mention of any witnesses being in possession of or under the influence of drugs. The Prosecutor later admitted his other witness the one that stated Mark had on different color cloths was also under the influence when it was time to testify and was put in a room to sober up until they felt it was safe to put him on the stand. All this information about witnesses being under the influence and in possession of drugs at the time of their testimony was withheld from the Judge and the Jury by the Prosecutor. The Judge then asked Ms. Mc. D why it took her so long to come forward and Ms. Mc. D stated while in prison approximately in 1996 she told her Counselor she was bothered that she had sent a innocent man to prison for murder. The Counselor offered to let her talk with a Psychologist and she eventually felt it necessary to give up this information.
The Prosecutor then testified about Ms. Mc. D not wanting to testify, the drugs and the other witness’s condition as far as being under the influence and withholding the information from the Judge and Jury. He then stated he didn’t believe the Detective would do anything unethical. The hearing ended and approximately 1 or 2 months later the Judge denied Mark a new Trial. Based on not believing Ms. Mc. D’s recantation and there was no new information that would change the original Jury’s decision. Mr. Genego appealed to the 9th Circuit Court and the U.S. Supreme Court and they both failed to override the ruling.
Mark was identified as the person at the scene of the crime that never said a word nor was he involved physically in any way. Yet! Mr. Brodis the admitted shooter made a deal and received 18 years to life. Mr. Bagnerise was found guilty of 2nd degree murder and sentenced to 18 years to life and is currently free on Parole. Mark was found guilty of 1st Degree Murder, Aggravated Assault and Committing A Crime With A Firearm and sentenced to 34 years to Life.
Throughout all the proceedings Mr. Brodis and Mr. Bagnerise have stated Mark Hundley was not present at the scene of the Murder nor was he knowledgeable of it. In one declaration Mr. Bagnerise identified the 3rd person by name and it was the same person mentioned throughout this case and not one person in Law Enforcement or the Judicial System has made a effort to question this person. He at one time was in Lompoc Federal Prison and is and has been right here on the streets of Los Angeles.
Mark is currently doing 34 years to life in the Correctional Training Facility in Soledad Calif. He will be going to his first Parole Hearing in June of 2008. I wrote a letter to the Parole Board and acknowledged as a teenager and young man there was a need for some form of intervention to take place in Mark’s life as he was definitely on the wrong path. Being raised by a alcoholic and drug addicted Father from the age of 4 and being exposed to the life style and behavior that accompanies the illness of alcoholism and drug addiction there was very little hope for Mark from the beginning. Mark has taken the responsibility of rehabilitating himself and has completed several trades and is working on a degree in the field of Psychology with hopes of working in the Human Services Field when he regains his freedom.
Yes ! I am Mark’s Father James Hundley and have been Drug and Alcohol free for 16 years now. You might say it’s about 40 years to late in Mark’s case. I have worked in the Human Services field approximately 15 years the last 10 for Homeless Health Care Los Angeles and am currently their Harm Reduction Coordinator. I speak with Mark several times a week and visit as often as possible. My hope other than for Mark’s freedom is that no other parent, friend or significant other will have to feel the pain and sorrow of leaving their loved one behind Prison walls or hang the telephone up then praying for their safety as well as forgiveness.
There is also a letter attached to this from John Bagernise which I have already stated is now free on Parole. If anyone can answer these questions there may be justice after all for Mark.
Questions
1. Why after approximately 21 years from the very beginning of the 1st trial until now not one person in Law Enforcement or the Judicial System has made any attempt to question the 3rd person mentioned throughout all the proceedings.
2. Why at the Federal Hearing, when the Judge asked the State’s main witness why it took so long for her to come forward and recant her statement, did anyone take the time or made any effort to contact her Counselor to verify she did make an effort to testify. The Judge just decided he didn’t believe her.
3. Why didn’t the judge at the Federal Hearing declare a violation of Mark’s Civil Rights when the Prosecutor admitted to withholding vital information from the Judge and Jury during Mark’s trial. The fact remains that the witnesses were to intoxicated at the time they were supposed to testify and were put in a room to sober up until the Prosecutor felt it was safe to put them on the stand.
4. The victim’s own brother (who knew Mark) identified Mr. Brodis and Mr. Bagernise and stated he wasn’t sure who the 3rd person was because the 3rd person and Mark looked similar.
I have eliminated the names of the witness’s and the 3rd person; however, they are available as well as the transcripts of all the court proceedings. Hopefully, this will reach someone with the knowledge, compassion and courage to seek answers to the questions I have raised and then perhaps there will be Justice for Mark in California. On behalf of Mark and myself we thank you.
God bless you and yours!
James Hundley Mark Hundley C-65838 Atty. Wm. Genego
E-Mail jhundley@hhcla.org P.O. Box 689 (GW-229) (310) 399-3259
Cell – (323) 854-8339 Soledad, Ca 93960-0689
Statement by John Bagernise
To whom it may concern,
I am writing to you regarding our criminal justice system. My name is John Bagnerise and I was released from prison on November 15, 2007 after having spent twenty one years eleven months and twelve days in confinement for aiding and abetting in a second degree murder and assault for a crime I did not commit nor had knowledge it was going to happen until after the fact. I have been blessed with the opportunity to be given a second chance by obtaining my freedom.
However the travesty is not what happen to me, because I created the circumstances that forever altered my life. The travesty is what has happened with my codefendant Mark Hundley who is still incarcerated for a crime in which he was not present nor had prior knowledge it was going to happen. He was convicted for several reasons, being that he had just been recently released from prison, his association with me and Antoine Brodis, who actually committed this crime and most importantly he did not have the resources to acquire an adequate defense to fight against the judicial system.
My codefendant Antoine Brodis and I have written sworn affidavits stating that Mark was not present nor had knowledge of this crime. One of the District Attorneys main witnesses recanted her testimony that she made a mistake in her identification of Mark Hundley, all to no avail. I also made mention at my initial parole hearing that Mark was not present, but was told by the commissioners at the parole hearing that this was not the proper forum to discuss such matters. The transcript of that proceeding can possibly be made available.
In closing Mark has spent twenty two years, three months in confinement for a crime he did not commit, nor had knowledge it was going to happen. I have spent my time incarcerated and now I will spend it in society trying to bring about Mark’s freedom. There is no doubt we have the best criminal system in the nation, yet sometimes it does make a mistake in convicting the wrong person.
John F.Bagnerise