Dear John:

He11o. IL ts been a wh i le , I p ray a l lyour life to blog about someone you havethank al l the blog readers as wel1.

Sad1y, I cannot get internet access and i t takes a few days to hear aboutal l the commenLs made by you and the readers. I t t " ry hope that someday we can al luni te and demand sonething Cf be done with our broken just ice system.

Recent ly, I have heard that you are going over issues I have raised in mypet i t ion for post-convict i -on rel ief . Though you are going over these isssues andprobal ly doing just f lne. I would l ike to te11 you why I bel ieved they are crucialto my case. fn fact, some of these issues may effecL you someday. (By the t ime yourecieve this let ter you wi l l have gone through the issues).

GROUND AFirst, is how I got Lhe affidaviE. One day my mother informed me that she had----r:atked-to-ehadf

sbrother-Ken Swedberg and his wife trisa. Durirrg ourt conversaLiorr rrrymother informed me that Ken kept a tablet with information he kept about his brothersdeath. In that tablet, Ken wrote that he sah/ a blue pickup leave Chadts residencearound 8:45 am, on the day of his brothers death.

0f course, this pissed me off . I t would have been very useful l at my tr ia l ,especial ly dur ing cross examinat ion of certain witnesses. Had we known about thisat t r ia l , we could have argued that the dr iver of thls pickup was the ki11er. A11the physical evidence drourt[ the crime scene came from one direction and lbne direction

onlyrt f rom the vic inty of the Swedberg residence' jThe key question J-s "why would you tell people this information two years after

I was convictedtt? I f i t wasntt t rue he would never of told thls, especial ly infront, of numerous people.

Hopeful ly, I can get a chance to have a courL hearing and get to Lhe bottomof this issue.

GROUND BThis lssue goes to the heart of our const i tut , ion. We suppose to have the r ight

to confront al l wi tnesses against you. However, the prosecut ion must not bel ieve thatis true and unethical ly al lowed somebody to test i fy about another personts opinion.

The r ight to confront witnesses has been an sn*going issue in Lhe courts. I fone were to read the f i rst page of the Melendez-DiazY. MassachusetLs 129 S.Ct 2554(2009) case' you can see thaL distr icL courts, state appel lant courts, fedaralcourts and the United States Supreme court are st i11 f ight ing over when the accusedhas a r ight to confront. witnesses.

A classic example of this i-ssue can be found in a United States Supreme CourtCase cal led Crawford v. Washington L24 S. Ct 1354-(2004). In that case rhe court dealtwith a confrontat ion issue. The court held that " the Confrontat ion Clause prohibi tsthe admission of ( test imonial) statements of a witness who did not appear at t r ia lunless s/he was prevlously avai lable for cross-examinat ion.t t

The Crawford court gave Lhree very vague definiLions on what could be tesLimonial.They decl ined (or fai led) to offer a br ight l ine rule on what should be consideredto be "test imonial" . The Minnesola Supreme Courts have fai led to give a straightforward rul ing on the termrrtest imonialr t . ( they dealt with i t Caul i f ie ld v. Statehut left the term rrtestimonialrr very vague as the Unitpd States Suprene Court did)

The hurdle I have now isvf already had an appeal)r However, the Melendez-Diazwas ruled during the time my appeal was being heard and decided in the MN-S-Court.In order for me to use this ruling I must meet an except.ion. There are a fewexcept ions that I bel ieve I fal l under.

is well. Thank you for taking time out ofnever met. I f possible f would l ike to