By Joseph Snook
Investigative Reporter
US~Observer
United States, Florida - Do you believe a person is guilty simply because they were in an accident after they consumed alcohol?
Do you think the level of impairment should be determined in order to make an informed decision?
Do you think the actions of the other driver involved in the accident should be considered before placing blame?
Is it necessary to hear all eye-witness accounts of an accident in order to come to a real conclusion of culpability?
The Accident
Jamie Clark was in his mid-30's, outgoing, fun, and a loving kind of guy. He had a good job, owned a home, was engaged to be married, and was active in his community... Then in one horrific instant on Friday the 13th, in October of 2006, everything changed.
Lucy Miller, was an 85-year-old lady, active in her church, and presumably loved by her family. I'm sure there were many more good things to say about Lucy Miller, but she is not here to tell her story. She is no longer able to visit with her family. She won't be seen at church. Lucy Miller died as a result of an accident with Jamie Clark on that fateful night in October of 2006.
Sadly, as a result of Lucy Miller's death, prosecutors used her death as a tool to indict. Despite overwhelming evidence that has been described as, "highly favorable to Jamie Clark's innocence," Florida's 15th Judicial Circuit State Attorney's have ignored, hidden, or simply refuted such evidence.
Jamie Clark was convicted of DUI Manslaughter five years after the accident had occurred, and almost one year after his original criminal charges were dismissed. Jamie has spent nearly eight years weighing on the events of a night that forever changed his life. Today, Jamie sits in an 8 x 8 cell placing his faith in what little hope is left for his freedom.
WHY SHOULD JAMIE CLARK RECEIVE A NEW TRIAL?
The speed at which Jamie was traveling has been highly disputed and is attributed to why the state sought his conviction. The posted speed limit was 45 mph. Michael Daly, the responding police officer who reconstructed the accident, which was only his second accident reconstruction - found that Jamie was traveling approximately "74 mph at impact." Defense Expert Andy Fore, who had reconstructed over 1,000 accidents at the time he reconstructed Jamie's, found that he was traveling "49 mph hour at impact." Fore is also board certified in forensic engineering, accident reconstruction, and bio-mechanics by the National Academy of Forensic Engineers. He is also certified by the Accreditation Commission on Traffic Accident Reconstructionist (ACTAR).
How could there be such a discrepancy between each experts calculations?
First we analyzed how Officer Daly concluded Clark's speed. In order to calculate speed, Officer Daly had to know where the final resting point of Jamie's vehicle (Infiniti SUV) was - in other words he measured from the spot where the Infiniti was found at the scene. Next, we questioned whether or not the "final resting spot" of Jamie's Infiniti was accurate. A post-crash interview provides a statement that Jamie physically drove his car up onto the curb after the crash to avoid oncoming traffic which supports the Infiniti's final stop (as determined by officer Daly) could not accurately be used to determine Clark's speed. During a recorded statement, just minutes after the accident, Daly asked Jamie, “So you can't tell me if you drove it (Infiniti) to that point over there from any point prior to there?" Jamie responded, “No, No... I drove that car (his infinity) … so, the car was under my power up onto that curb...for sure. I definitely drove that car on top of that curb."
Supporting evidence in opposition of Officer Daly's findings:
1.
Expert witness for the defense, Andy Fore - Despite his abundance
of credentials, his experience alone speaks for itself. He is an expert
- he has reconstructed accidents for the state and defense attorney's
many times and testified many times. If his calculations were wrong
in Clark's case, then each of the 1,000+ previous accidents he reconstructed
must be called into question.
2.
Jamie
Clark's own statement to Daly between minutes 22 - 25 on dash
cam video; admitting that he physically drove his vehicle to its final
resting point.
3. Post
crash eyewitness Robert
Cheslow stated that Jamie's car was traveling "very slow" after
the accident, not "50 mph" as stated by Officer
Daly.
4. State
prosecutors were accused of withholding Miller's Toyota Camry black
box data. This is important because black box data is used to determine
vehicle speeds pre, during and post crash. Lucy Miller's post crash
speed, contained in her vehicle black box could have been used
to determine how fast Jamie was driving. This important information
"was not provided" to the defense before trial, but accidently
discovered by Jamie’s Appellate Council while reviewing the
State Attorney’s
files almost a year after his trial.
5. Thomas Lacek, a third party accident reconstruction expert not associated with this case, with over 30 years of experience in accident reconstruction stated, "I'm
not picking on or trying to uh, lower the integrity of the work by
the police. You'll hear about all these courses they've done. Well
basically they're trying to learn the technical stuff. They are non-technical
people trying to learn technical stuff. To engineers, it's second nature.
It's just applied science..." This statement was made during a conversation about Jamie Clark's case.
6. Former Prosecutor Ellen Roberts stated during testimony at Clark's PCR hearing, "Initially we knew there was nothing to be gained from the data," referring to Miller's Toyota black box. This not only shows her bias towards conviction, it clearly shows she offered an opinion that she is an expert on accident reconstruction, which she is not.
7. The
only eyewitness to the accident, Marcy
Bloch stated, "I saw cars coming...I don't remember if
that person (Jamie Clark) was speeding or not,...I wanted to scream
out and say please don't go, but it was too late."
8. Photos of the vehicles post crash. The state and defense experts disagree on the angles of impact, which was also used to make significant calculations. State Prosecutors filed a motion to show the jury both vehicles during Jamie's trial. When examining the condition of both vehicles at trial vs. the condition they were in at the scene of the accident, "more damage was visibly clear." Why would the State alter the condition of the vehicles before showing them to the jury?
9. Most
important - Officer Daly's own words. When asked if he had any
experience with EDR's (black box) during his testimony at Jamie's
PCR hearing he replied, “Not any formal training, No." In
fact, Officer Daly stated that he had never testified as an expert
on accident reconstruction prior to Jamie's accident.
Was
Officer Daly's report accurate? Could his inexperience have influenced
the state to seek another expert opinion? Ultimately, the state
got what they wanted, another "expert" from the police
department - basically one of Daly's superiors and co-workers to
validate his report despite a lack of evidence to support their
claims. The defense also hired another expert - who concluded almost
identical information as Defense Expert & Reconstructionist
Andy Fore. This new expert for the defense was the Chairman of
the Board of EDR Committee for the Society of Automobile Engineers
(SAE).Still,
the evidence is what it is despite the experts disagreement. When
taking everything into account, you can only
presume that the evidence is in favor of Jamie Clark.
More Supporting Evidence
Eyewitness
testimony withheld - Prosecutors
filed a Motion in Limine to disallow certain testimony from
Marcy Bloch, the only accident eyewitness. This motion was not
opposed by Jamie's first attorney. Marcy
Bloch's full statement provided to police was not presented to
jurors, instead the court relied on her recollection
of the accident, almost five years later. Her testimony was
not the same as the night she gave her statement to the police.
While testifying, Marci Bloch stated "yes," when
asked if Lucy Miller made a "normal u-turn." Nothing
could be further from the truth if you read her statement to the
police
which was taken shortly after the accident where she says, "I
would never of made that turn."
The
defense claimed the state
withheld exculpatory evidence from the defense. Exculpatory evidence
is defined as evidence the prosecution has
that is favorable
to the defense. The black-box data from Miller's vehicle was obtained
by the prosecution, but they stated numerous times that, "there
was no usable data." This led Jamie's original defense attorney
to disregard this evidence.
After
Jamie was convicted, his new attorney's found Miller's black-box
data while searching through the states old files at the courthouse.
This "newly disconvered evidence" was described
as "very
crucial for validating the defense experts findings." It was
reported that the State did not share this evidence with the defense
in order to maintain the inaccurate findings of Officer Daly.
Subsequent
to the evidence being discovered, Jamie's attorney's filed a motion
for Post Conviction Relief.
In
an attempt to maintain no culpability, the original trial prosecutor
Ellen Roberts stated that the black-box
data was given to Jamie's attorney, although there was no evidence
to support that Lucy's black box data was ever shared with the
defense. Roberts claimed that the prosecutor's office “Inadvertently” attached
the wrong printout to the motion. The contents within the motion
did not
include Lucy's black box data or photos of the removal of the
data as described. Instead, the contents within the report were
for
an Infiniti that was alleged to be Jamie's. There was no vin
number associated with the report to verify it was Jamie's Infiniti.
The report stated the vehicle was an Infininti FX35/45. Jamie
was driving an Infiniti FX45. The
state even went as far as adding, "no usable data available"
on the motion, which deceived Jamie's defense.
Roberts
maintained that it was Jamie's fault that
his attorney did not look through the contents
of the report. Judge John Kastrenakes bought this attempt to
deceive the court and sided with the State. This was no surprise
considering
Kastrenakes was a prosecutor himself for almost 30 years prior
to becoming a judge. He was also the original judge who presided
during Jamie's conviction. Kastrenakes denied Jamie's PCR motion.
SELECTIVE
PROSECUTION? Did
Ellen Roberts prosecute Jamie for almost identical reasons she
declined to prosecute others? Multiple cases were found during
our research that cause concern for wrongful practices of West
Palm
Beach County
Prosecutor's.
- Case 1
- Case 2
- Case 3
- Case 4
- Case
5
DUI
DETECTION EXPERTS - Three police officers who responded to
the scene, trained in DUI detection stated that "Jamie
showed no signs of intoxication" other than the presence
of alcohol on his breath. Jamie was not cited for DUI on the
night of the accident, he was not arrested, and was allowed to
go home. Dash
camera footage from Officer Daly's patrol vehicle clearly supports
all three officers claims that Jamie was not impaired.The
State’s Toxicologist reported a BAC of .12, one hour after
the accident which was refuted by Board Certified
Toxicologist, Lawrence W. Masten, PhD, DABT.
- DUI Expert Officer Laurie - Testimony
- Officer Somers - Testimony
- Officer Daly - Testimony
CAUSE
OF ACCIDENT - The accident occurred after dusk - around 9:30
pm on Friday the 13th, 2006. 85-year-old
Lucy Miller was not wearing corrective glasses, which was a legal
requirement according to her Driver's License. She also had sustained
a leg injury prior to driving that night, which supports why
she was allegedly not wearing shoes when the accident occurred.
This also supports the only eyewitness, Marci Bloch's statement
that there was not enough judgment in the u-turn Miller was attempting
to make.
HIGHLY CONNECTED ATTORNEY - Lucy Miller's son, Steven Schumer obtained the help of Diego Asencio, a prominent Florida attorney who is allegedly "very well connected." Asencio was also touted as the lead attorney for M.A.D.D. - Mother's Against Drunk Driving. Asencio filed a civil suit on behalf of Miller's family against Jamie's employer - claiming that the dinner Jamie was at prior to the accident was "work-related." Lucy Miller's family reportedly settled out of court for a large sum of money. According to information obtained during our investigation, Asencio is very well connected politically in West Palm Beach.
Jamie
Clark has maintained his innocence for almost 8 years. This is
the first time all of his evidence has been made public. He is
hoping that by making his case public, the system that failed him,
will provide him with the chance to receive a fair trial. Blaming
him for the unfortunate mistake made by another motorist does not
serve justice, especially considering that three highly trained DUI
detection experts for the Boca Raton Police Department did not
arrest him.
There are extenuating circumstances behind everything and sometimes things are just out of your control - that's why such things are called an accident.
The US~Observer asks anyone with comments or questions to contact Joseph Snook at joe@usobserver.com. A film about this case, titled "Deserving Justice" will be available this summer.
Jamie Clark
|
Previous articles written by the US~Observer:
Florida’s
15th Judicial Circuit –
Past Officials Flip-Flop on Justice
Deserving
Release -
Relief for a Wrongfully Convicted Man?
“Two
Wrongs Don't Make a Right”
Florida State Attorney Dave Aronberg Hinders Justice
West
Palm Beach corruption and cover-up
Judge Kastrenakes Brady Violation Ruling Postponed