John Spirko SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT An innocent man has been convicted due to the prosecutor's misconduct. However, let us not mince words. John Spirko lied. He lied from the moment that he met the postal service investigators and through his many meetings with the investigators. The investigators never believed Mr. Spirko's lies, they told him so repeatedly, and finally Mr. Spirko told investigators that he was not telling the truth because "he was protecting the only friend he has ever had in his life." Mr. Spirko identified his "only friend" as Delaney Gibson and then told yet another lie - that Mr. Gibson committed the Mottinger crime. For a short time, prosecutors may have believed that Mr. Gibson committed the Mottinger crime with Mr. Spirko. One eyewitness - Opal Siebert - identified an old photograph of Mr. Gibson and said she was 100 percent certain that she saw Mr. Gibson at the crime scene, and another - Mark Lewis - was seventy percent certain that he saw Mr. Spirko. Based largely upon these photo spread identifications and Mr. Spirko's statements, prosecutors indicted both Mr. Spirko and Mr. Gibson. Prosecutors soon learned, however, that Mr. Gibson could not have been involved in the crime. Prosecutors diligently gathered extensive, corroborated, objective testimony and documentary evidence demonstrating that Mr. Gibson was more than 500 miles from Elgin at the time of the crime. Moreover, prosecutors obtained numerous photographs of Mr. Gibson taken fifteen hours before the crime showing that Mr. Gibson had a beard and could not have been the clean-shaven man Mrs. Siebert saw. Armed with extensive evidence that Mr. Gibson could not have participated in the Mottinger crime, prosecutors had two obligations. First, they were obligated to turn the evidence over to the defense under Brady v. Maryland. Second, they were obligated not to present at trial evidence that Mr. Gibson participated in the crime or to argue to the jury that Mr. Gibson participated in the crime when they knew that such evidence and arguments must be false. The prosecutors met neither obligation. Instead, they concealed the evidence concerning Mr. Gibson's alibi and bearded appearance from the defense. Even worse, they misled the defense by representing to the defense that photographs of Mr. Gibson were "purported" to have been taken the day before the crime was committed when they not only knew that photographs were in fact taken but also possessed the actual exculpatory photographs that were in fact taken. The prosecutors proceeded to trial using evidence they knew was false and making arguments to the jury they knew were false. By putting on a false case against Mr. Spirko, the prosecution violated Mr. Spriko's fundamental due process rights. By concealing from Mr. Spirko the extensive evidence showing that Mr. Gibson could not have been involved in the crime, the prosecution violated Mr. Spirko's fundamental due process rights. The State may seek to excuse its misconduct by blaming Mr. Spirko, who lied to investigators and even lied at trial. No such easy out is available here. The U.S. Constitution embodies fundamental due process principles that obligate the prosecution to see that justice is served, not to win a case at all costs. Here, justice has not been served. Mr. Spirko was convicted and sentenced to death in violation of his most fundamental due process rights, and he is entitled to habeas relief. Email: Tracy, John Spirko's Representative