"The suit goes on to allege that, after “having found no legitimate evidence that would inculpate [Winfrey]” law enforcement turned to Pikett and his dogs knowing full well that the “practice of conducting dog scent lineups to identify criminals was a fraud.”
Winfrey goes on to allege that, to corroborate Pikett’s identification, law enforcement officers “coached a jail house snitch” into identifying Winfrey, his father and his sister. The suit goes on to say that the informant has “fully recanted his false statements.”"
REPORTER ALEX WUKMAN. THE CLEVELAND ADVOCATE; (WIKIPEDIA INFORMS US THAT, "The Cleveland Advocate is a weekly newspaper reporting news in northern Liberty County since 1917,[citation needed] nearly two decades before the City of Cleveland was incorporated."
PHOTO: KEITH PIKETT;
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BACKGROUND: This Blog has been delving into the havoc caused by the late John Preston and his magical dog who could purportedly trace scents across water. The focus has also been on Deputy Keith Pikett, another so-called dog-scent "specialist", a canine officer who was formerly with the Fort Bend County Sheriff's Office, just southwest of Houston. Time Magazine has reported on two apparent miscarriages of Justice involving Pikett; The first case studied involves Calvin Lee Miller, who was charged with robbery and sexual assault after Pikett's bloodhounds alerted police to a scent on sheets that Pikett said matched a scent swipe from Miller's cheek. DNA evidence later cleared Miller, but only after he served 62 days in jail. In a second case, former Victoria County Sheriff's Department Captain Michael Buchanek was named as a "person of interest" in a murder case after Pikett's bloodhounds sped 5.5 miles from a crime scene, tracking a scent to Buchanek's home. Another man later confessed to the murder. Winfrey is serving 75 years in prison. Three bloodhounds, trained by their self-taught handler to sniff out criminals, indicated that they smelled his scent on gauze pads that had been rubbed on the victim's clothing three years earlier and preserved in Ziploc bags. No physical evidence tied Richard Winfrey Sr. to a brutal 2004 murder in East Texas. No witnesses placed him at the crime scene. Defense lawyers claimed Winfrey was the victim of an unreliable, unscientific process known as "scent lineups," where dogs sniff crime scene evidence and try to match it to smells obtained from suspects or from items they have touched.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Richard Winfrey, Jr. recently filed suit in Federal court against multiple defendants, including San Jacinto County, seeking redress for nine alleged unlawful acts that he feels were perpetrated against him by members of San Jacinto County’s law enforcement community," the Cleveland Advocate story by reporter Alex Wukman published on June 10, 2010 begins, under the heading, "Richard Winfrey, Jr. files suit against San Jacinto County."
"Winfrey alleges that his February 2007 arrest, incarceration and his prosecution for the murder of Murray Wayne Burr make him a victim of a conspiracy amongst law enforcement officers in Fort Bend and San Jacinto counties," the story continues.
"Was acquitted in June 2009.
"He alleges that the two years he spent in custody awaiting trial, before he was acquitted in June 2009, caused him “substantial emotional damages and financial harm.”
Defendants
There are approximately 10 named defendants in both San Jacinto and Fort Bend counties as well as an unknown number of unnamed defendants in both counties.
The complaint names current San Jacinto County Sheriff James Walters, former San Jacinto County Sheriff Lacy Rogers as well as Fort Bend County Sheriff Milton Wright and Texas Rangers Ronald Duff and Grover Huff as defendants.
Also named is former Fort Bend County Sheriff’s Deputy Keith Pikett. Pikett’s involvement with the Winfrey case stems from him conducting what he called ‘canine scent line-ups’ which he said identified Winfrey, his father and his sister Megan.
The decision by San Jacinto County law enforcement to use Pikett to identify suspects lies at the heart of Winfrey’s case.
Issues with Pikett
According to the complaint, prior to Winfrey’s 2007 arrest for the murder of Murray Burr “a senior prosecutor for the Harris County District Attorney’s Office alerted the Houston Police Department to the fact that Defendant Pikett and his dogs were a fraud.”
Despite this alleged warning law enforcement continued to use Pikett partly because he was recognized by Texas courts as an expert.
Pikett became the leading expert in the state on canine scent evidence in the 2000 case Texas v. Marcus Omar Winston.
According to a Septemeber2009 report from the Texas Innocence Project, Piket’s testimony in that trial “cemented his reputation as the leading Texas expert in scent lineups.”
Allegations of Pikett’s Perjury
However, while making a name for himself Pikett was also allegedly committing perjury. The report goes on to say that Pikett lied on the stand about his credentials by saying that he had a Master’s degree in chemistry from the University of South Alabama.
It wasn’t the first time Pikett had lied under oath, in the 1997 trial of Marcus Cotton Pikett testified that he had a Bachelor of Science in Chemistry from Syracuse University and a Master’s degree in Chemistry from the University of Houston.
However, Pikett’s education only includes a Bachelor of Science from the University of South Alabama and a Master’s in sports science from the United States Sports Academy.
Pikett gets sued; allegations law enforcement knew it
Winfrey’s suit is also not the first time that Pikett has been sued because of his scent line ups. Including Winfrey’s lawsuit, there are currently five Federal lawsuits that name Pikett as a defendant.
Almost all of the plaintiffs in the suits are men who were wrongly convicted based on Pikett’s testimony.
Winfrey’s suit alleges that law enforcement in San Jacinto and Fort Bend counties knew about the wrongful convictions, fradulent testimony and the warning regarding Pikett, but they “continued to use [him] to help them ‘solve’ crimes and close cases.”
Allegations of evidence manufacturing
The suit goes on to allege that, after “having found no legitimate evidence that would inculpate [Winfrey]” law enforcement turned to Pikett and his dogs knowing full well that the “practice of conducting dog scent lineups to identify criminals was a fraud.”
Winfrey goes on to allege that, to corroborate Pikett’s identification, law enforcement officers “coached a jail house snitch” into identifying Winfrey, his father and his sister. The suit goes on to say that the informant has “fully recanted his false statements.”
Winfrey says rights were violated
Among the things Winfrey alleges he suffered at the hands of law enforcement was the Violation of Due Process.
The suit states that law enforcement officers “acting individually, jointly and in conspiracy as well as under the color of law” worked together to deprive Winfrey of his constituional rights.
“The defendants conducted a reckless criminal investigation knowingly using fabricated junk science which they bolstered with false reports and coerced evidence,” reads the complaint.
The complaint goes on to allege that law enforcement officers in San Jacinto and Fort Bend counties engaged in “supervisory liability.”
Winfrey alleges that the “fabrication of evidence” and the “misconduct...occurred with the knowledge and consent” of Rogers, Walters and Wright.
The suit also claims that the three sheriffs they failed to intervene to stop each other from “violating [Winfrey’s] rights.”
It is also alleged that law enforcement officers “agreed amongst themselves to frame [Winfrey] for the murder” and that they conspired “to deprive [him] of his contitutional rights.”
Winfrey is also suing for four violations of state law. He alleges that he was the victim of malicious prosecution, abuse of process, intentional infliction of emotional distress and civil conspiracy.
Previous demands for payment
While the suit does not make any demands for compensation it does include a demand for a jury trial.
This is not the first time that Winfrey has alleged that he was the victim of a conspiracy and that law enforcement violated his constitutional rights.
On December 9, 2009 he hand delivered a demand letter to the office of San Jacinto County Judge Fritz Faulkner seeking $ 3 million in damages.
In the letter he alleged that employees of the City of Coldspring, as well as Fort Bend and San Jacinto counties, “maliciously prosecuted” him and “abused the judicial process for an ulterior and improper motive.”
Winfrey stated that he was seeking the $3 million to settle his claim. He went on to write that, in addition to the damages he suffered, the funds were to cover costs incurred in his criminal defense and costs that were to be incurred “to secure counsel to redress these violations.”
Winfrey is currently being represented by the law firm of Loevy & Loevy who are based in Chicago."
The story can be found at:
http://www.hcnonline.com/articles/2010/06/10//cleveland_advocate/news//2510winfrey_suit_ca.txt
Harold Levy: hlevy15@gmail.com;
