|
Over the years Mr. Hetherington was unable to acquire legal defense. His assets were frozen by the divorce court and the criminal court refused to recognize that he did not have the use of those assets. This situation continues to this day. In 1994 Hetherington's case attracted the attention of attorney, Jeffrey Feldman of Miami, FL. Mr. Feldman took the case pro bono. Expenses were covered by donations to the William Hetherington Defense Fund.
On January 26, 1998, Attorney, Jeff Feldman (Flordia) presented the court with a Michigan MCR 6500 motion. This "brief" runs 94 pages and details all of the horrors experienced by Mr. Hetherington under the Michigan court system. Essentially, it asks that either Mr. Hetherington be freed or granted a new trial. Chief among the things enumerated in the brief was the discovery of new evidence (photographs) that directly contradict testimony provided by Mrs. Hetherington and two police officers. This evidence was suppressed by the prosecution at the time of trial. It is now seems apparent that the two police officers may have committed perjury.
The Michigan State Attorney General's Office rebutted the 6500 Motion. There was no counsel to do follow up. All funds ran out. Most of the
funds used to pay attorney expenses were paid by Betty Duffey who
volunteered to head up the existing William Hetherington Defense Committee for
the National Coalition of Free Men. She succeeeded Charles Phillips, MD.
MAJOR POINTS IN THE BRIEF:
- Pages 2 through 6 enumerate 11 reasons for a new trial. Pages 6-7 elaborate on one major reason for acquittal: The law under which Hetherington was convicted was passed unconstitutionally under the Michigan State constitution. In the last pages of the brief we get a glimpse of the way legislators in many bodies throughout our land "actually" do business. That is to say that legislation is sometimes passed in haste without everybody knowing what they are voting on.
- New Evidence - The state concealed evidence - (two police officers at trial lied?) - pages 32, 34-35. Photographs taken by the police and withheld from the defense were uncovered by attorney Jeffrey Feldman 12 years later. These photographs contradict police testimony at trial. What is going on here ?
- Ineffective council - The brief enumerates many specifics, but one of the most startling facts is that an appeal was not granted because council failed to pay a $50 filing fee. Page 56.
- Judicial arrogance - Judge Yoetis accused Hetherington of being a liar. Bottom of -page 72. The judge was out of line. The prosecution tried to slander his character before the jury by claiming Hetherington is a "cross dresser", which he is NOT! But so what, if he is? The prosecution tried to assassinate his character.
- Plea Bargaining - The court was going to set Mr. Hetherington free if he agreed NOT to go to trial. Page 73. They couldn't have considered him to be much of a danger. William refused, went to trial and was sentenced to 30 years. He has already served 14!
- Sentencing Violations - Hetherington was sentenced 15 to 30 years where the guidelines call for 6 to 10. Page 70 and 71-74.
- Freezing Assets - Hetherington could not defend himself in criminal court because divorce court had frozen his assets. The criminal court refused to recognize this and even went so far as to renege on an agreement to appoint a public defender - pages 24-27, 57-58.
- Court Reporter Had Conflict of Interest - Court reporter failed to keep a complete trial transcript and failed to inform the court that she had made a prior criminal complaint against Mr. Hetherington. Pages 65, 69.
|