The case of Howard Garnett, Jr.
By Lord Serious
Miscarriage of Justice. A miscarriage of justice, warranting reversal, should be declared only when the court, after examination of entire cause, including the evidence, is of the opinion that it is reasonably probable that a result more favorable to appealing party would have been reached in absence of error. (Black’s Law Dictionary, Abridged Fifth Edition)
By age 35, Howard Garnett, Jr. had an estimated net worth of $4.7 million. He acquired his wealth through a combination of inheritance, thrift, hard work and ingenuity. This accomplished businessman held a Class A dairy license, a Class B Contractor’s license, and he owned 174 acres of farmland which had been in his family for more than one hundred years. But none of these achievements seem to compare to the sense of pride he feels whenever he talks about his children. “I have a daughter who is now 30 and my son is 27. And my daughter just gave birth to my granddaughter”, Mr. Garnett told me as we sat and discussed his life on Christmas morning.
The various business ventures he was involved in prior to incarceration will allow him to do for his children what his father had done for him. “My father taught me everything there is to know about business and general contracting”, said Mr. Garnett. He also gives his mother credit for the strong work ethic she instilled in him, and for teaching him the importance of making decisions in life that honor his core values.
Court records reveal that he initially met the woman who would change his life forever while conducting business. When she first approached him, Mr. Garnett was in the process of subdividing some of his land into building lots. “She wanted to do some business with me. She asked me to build her a house.” The two met later to finalize the terms of their agreement over dinner. Mr. Garnett admits, “The business relationship soon became personal, and we became romantically involved.”
Mr. Garnett claims, “She moved in to live with me in my apartment for 15 months. Then after I finished building her house she invited me to move in with her. But I told her I was fine at the apartment. But she really wanted me to move in with her, so I did.” Their relationship grew and they became a couple as well as business partners. “She would do design work and run errands throughout town to help me out”, said Mr. Garnett.
On April 17, 2002, she fell and injured herself after undergoing a medical procedure at the Culpeper Hospital. When Mr. Garnett arrived to pick her up, “Her face was bruised, she had a fractured nose, and two black eyes.” He said, “She asked me to take pictures of her injuries. She told me that she might sue. So I went to purchase one of those disposable cameras and I took some pictures of her injuries.” However, Mr. Garnett states that he did not send the film out to be developed at that time.
Shortly after that the two would break up. Mr. Garnett moved out, but they stayed on friendly terms, and continued working together on projects. Mr. Garnett started dating a new woman, and he claims all of his legal troubles began after his ex found out about him moving on.
On July 24, 2003, the Madison County police requested that Mr. Garnett meet with detectives at the station for an interview. When Mr. Garnett arrived he was told that his ex-girlfriend had sworn out a warrant against him, and accusing him of beating her and raping her
Mr. Garnett states he voluntarily spoke with police without an attorney, because he was innocent, and he thought by being truthful and cooperative the police would see that his accuser was lying. “I learned that even when you are innocent you should never speak to police without your attorney present”, Mr. Garnett sighs, “I admitted that I had not slept with her in two months. And they used my statement against me and arrested me, while not knowing she had answered that question in the same manner.” Then seven days later on July 31, 2003 she filed additional criminal complaints against Mr. Garnett.
He was charged with three counts of rape, one count of abduction, and three counts of assault and battery. Mr. Garnett says at trial his accuser testified that she had told police she had ended their relationship at the end of 2002. But according to Mr. Garnett, they still had business dealings that carried on throughout 2003. The woman claimed that he had raped her and assaulted her on January 2003, April 2003, and July 2003. His accuser made multiple statements to police that were full of inconveniences and false accusations. But he was denied access to the transcripts and tapes of these interviews before trial.
The Madison County Commonwealth’s Attorney Office had a closed file policy at that time. Therefore, they claimed their office was not legally obligated to divulge this evidence to Mr. Garnett’s attorney. “The statements made by my accuser were being withheld from me and this violated the law.” Mr. Garnett argues that this evidence was exculpatory and had it been provided to him before trial he could have used it to prove his innocence.
“At trial the prosecutor showed pictures of her injuries to the jury”, Mr. Garnett continues, “They showed her face bruised appearing to have two black eyes, and one bite mark on her forearm.” The Commonwealth represented that the injuries in those photos were the result of Mr. Garnett beating and raping her in April 2003. He said, “When I saw those photos I realized those injuries were similar to the ones she had sustained after her fall in the hospital. Right then I knew those pictures were taken in April 2002, not April 2003.” Mr. Garnett said he then asked his power of attorney to retrieve the disposable camera from his office. He wanted to get the film developed and he informed his attorney that those pictures were taken in April 2003 as the prosecution had been misrepresenting to the jury.
Mr. Garnett was acquitted of all charges relating to January 2003, and April 2003 allegations. These had been the criminal complaints she filed seven days later after his arrest. However, the jury did convict him of all charges relating to the July 2003 accusations. Mr. Garnett was sentenced to serve 65 years in the custody of the Virginia Department of Corrections (VDOC).
This was Mr. Garnett’s first crimAinal conviction, and he knew very little about criminal law. Nevertheless, Mr. Garnett has spent the greater part of his incarceration working as a legal aid clerk in the prison law library. Thanks to this job he has been able to spend most of his time throughout his confinement studying the law. His fight to prove his innocence and vindicate his name is not some long shot. “My case has been overturned by the courts twice already,” he paused then continued, “and I still haven’t received a copy of the tapes from her interview with police yet.”
In 2006, the Virginia Court of Appeals reversed and remanded his conviction, granting Mr. Garnett a new trial. But in 2007 the state appealed and that decision was reversed. After he exhausted his direct appeal in 2008, Mr. Garnett filed his petition for habeas corpus, and in 2011 the Supreme Court of Virginia reversed and remanded his conviction back to the Circuit Court with instructions to grant such discovery as it found advisable.
The Circuit Court conducted an evidentiary hearing and it denied Mr. Garnett’s habeas petition without providing him access to his accuser’s taped interviews with police. The Commonwealth’s Attorney consistently opposed all of Mr. Garnett’s attempts to get the taped interviews of his accuser.
Despite having closed file policies, the Commonwealth was required by law to disclose all exculpatory evidence to the defense. Exculpatory evidence is any evidence that may suggest the accused is innocent. Mr. Garnett feels strongly that there is something on the tapes that the Commonwealth’s Attorney is hiding. He believes they are afraid to let the truth be known, so they have been doing everything in their power to keep this evidence suppressed.
After his accuser filed a lawsuit against him, Mr. Garnett finally received a copy of the transcripts from the woman’s interviews with police. However, even the court involved in that civil suit refused to provide him with a copy of the tapes.
Under Virginia’s rules of discovery at that time the Commonwealth’s Attorney Office had discretion over whether or not they’d limit defense counsel’s access to the evidence they collected during criminal investigations. Policies varied from office to office. However, even before Mr. Garnett’s arrest the law has always required prosecuting attorneys to turn over all exculpatory evidence to the defense before trial, or as soon as it is uncovered. Mr. Garnett claims this law was violated and that is the only reason he was convicted.
On July 1, 2020 there was a break in this case when the rules of discovery in Virginia changed. Under the new legal statue, closed file policies are now prohibited. This change has given Mr. Garnett’s case, new life, because now he has the legal standing needed to force the Commonwealth’s Attorney Office to hand over those tapes. He feels certain that once he gains access to this exculpatory evidence it will finally prove his innocence and he will be released from prison.
He told me, “My accuser’s statements were being withheld from me in violation of the law. Now they can’t hide the tapes from me anymore. They will now have to account for what they’ve done to me. The truth will come out.”
We, the incarcerated, have limited options on how we pursue justice. We often find our pleas for help being ignored or they sometimes go unheard for years. What kind of justice system corrects injustice by imposing more injustice on the falsely accused? What kind of criminal justice system conceals exculpatory evidence and hides the truth? Justice may be blind to status, position, wealth, race, gender, or Creed. But justice will never turn a blind eye to a miscarriage of justice. And neither should you.
After reviewing this article before submitting it for publication Mr. Garnett asked could he give a special shout out to his new legal counsel, Attorney Charles T. Tucker, Jr. for believing in him and supporting his efforts to prove his innocence.
P.E.A.C.E
Pardon Exonerate Appeal Cases Everywhere
#FreeHowardGarnettJr
#LordSeriousSpeaks
#miscarriageofjustice
#socialjustice
#justiceforall
Brilliance Behind Bars 