INJUSTICE: What the Jury Conviction of Duane Keith Davis aka Keffe -D Means to Democracy

INJUSTICE: What the Jury Conviction of Duane Keith Davis aka Keffe -D Means to Democracy

by Sherri Jefferson 

Without any testimony regarding the key issues of the case: 

1. Placing Keffe-D at the scene of the crime or in Vegas

2. Proof of rental of the Cadillac

3. Corroboration of possession of a gun

4. Corroboration of meeting with Eric Von ‘Zip’ Martin

5. Witness to Shooting  

The State of Nevada prosecuted Davis solely upon selective words from his book. However, the State refused to rely upon the same book to question Sean Combs about a purported one-million dollar bounty on the heads of Tupac Shakur and Suge Knight as well as refused to question Kirk Burrowes about the financial transaction and transportation logistics. 

Burrowes was an executive of Bad Boy Records. He currently has a pending lawsuit where he named Sean Combs as a party to the unalive of Tupac Shakur. Plus, he sued Combs in 2003 under RICO violations and demanded the appearance (subpoenaed) of Anthony Jones aka Wolf to testify on November 18, 2003. Anthony was murdered on November 11, 2003 by Demetrius Flenory aka “Big Meech” following several calls made to him by Sean Combs to meet with Flenory. Following the murder, Combs filed a Motion to Dismiss Burrowes’ lawsuit on November 13, 2003. 

Let's be clear, I love Tupac Shakur's music and acting, but I love “JUSTICE” more! It was not served! 

The conviction is a threat against democracy. When our words alone can be used to subject us to prosecution and conviction, it goes beyond infringement of 1st and 5th Amendment rights.

The jury verdict must be appealed.  His defense team must rely on Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979),

Tibbs v. Florida, 457 U.S. 31 (1982), and

United States v. Aguilar, 515 U.S. 593 (1995).

Under U.S. law, the landmark U.S. Supreme Court case governing the overturning of a jury conviction because it is "contrary to the evidence" is Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979). 

“Upon the record evidence adduced at the trial no rational trier of fact could have found proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.”

In Tibbs v. Florida, 457 U.S. 31 (1982), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a state appellate court is constitutionally allowed to sit as a "thirteenth juror" and disagree with the jury's assessment of witness credibility.

In the United States v. Aguilar, 515 U.S. 593 (1995) and related circuit cases. They will only step in if the record is completely devoid of support for an essential element of the offense.

No element of the Accomplice Liability law was satisfied. 

The "Manifest Injustice" exception applies, too.