Supreme Court ignores polygraph
success and refuses Death Penalty review
by Peter Bellamy Wednesday, Jun. 27, 2007 at 8:07 AM
peter@freegregwight.com
On June 18th, 2007, a Supreme Court Docket (No. 06-10186) on the Petition for a writ of certiorari
and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, filed by Gregory Edward Wright's attorney,
Bruce Anton, was updated with the bare words "Petition DENIED". The Supreme Court
Justices, in authorizing these words, almost certainly condemned Connie Wright's husband to
execution. Why is this so shocking? Can the Legal Profession allow this to happen? Livingston,
Texas, June 26, 2007 --
Friend and supporter, Peter Bellamy, says "Justice requires a process of review to ensure that
the innocent are not trapped through error in a spiral leading to execution. Or at least, that is
what the US public believe is the purpose of review. The reality is, that without significant proof
of legal misdemeanor during the trial process or subsequent appeal, or significant new evidence
such as provided by DNA testing, the process of review never extends to a re-examination of the
trial evidence. The assumption is that it must be right; that it was properly presented and tested;
and that it has been correctly interpreted by a lay jury. The Justice system reviews it's own
procedures and legal interpretations, but in truth, the assessment of guilt or innocence is not
routinely part of the process. With 56 exonerations in 10 years, 10 after DNA tests, it is surely
time to change the focus of reviews at all levels of the appeal process."
So, Gregory Wright's life rests today on the outcome of DNA tests that may, at best, cast some
doubt of his guilt, but which are unlikely to prove innocence. What his innocence claim is based on
is that the circumstantial evidence used against him came from a self-serving statement made by a
co-accused and wrongly admitted to the court, or at least made without the opportunity of
confrontation - a disregard of Constitutional guidelines; bloodstained jeans, graphically used by
the prosecution to paint a picture of horror, which were far too small to have been worn by Wright;
a fingerprint identification which the State expert could not or would not explain by scientific
analysis in front of the jury and whose findings were never subject to the rigors of verification;
and the loss of 911 tapes by the State, prior to the trial, which would have put on record an
admission of guilt by his co-accused. The victim, Donna Vick, was a friend of Wright's, and
such circumstantial evidence as there is does no more than place him at the scene, not as a
perpetrator of murder. The Supreme Court's refusal to review this case is shocking because
without a full review, none of these issues will ever be tested - and thereby risks the further
loss of an innocent life to a wrongful conviction.
Bente Hjortshøj, a high school teacher at a private high school for delinquent youth, ex-convicts
and drop-outs from the Norwegian public school system, says "I know how to differentiate
between the 'good guys and the bad guys', and I dare say that after 22 years of teaching
those students I know if people are truthful or not. In 2003 I went to the USA to visit my
daughter, and we both went to visit Greg on death row. It changed us both for life; not only did
Greg convince us of his sincerity, we also deeply felt that he was all we had thought he was during
the three years of corresponding with him; a gentleman, a good Christian and an intelligent
man."
Greg Wright has strengthened this belief that he is both truthful and innocent by volunteering for
a polygraph test, which he passed comfortably. His Texas State Licenced examiner, Joe D. Morris,
states on the certificate, "After three test charts and a number of stimulus test were
administered, an analysis of the polygraph charts were made, and in my opinion Mr Wright is being
truthful in all his answers to the relevant test questions. Mr Wright's test charts were
numerically graded to be a positive seven (+7). A score of positive seven (+7) is considered to
indicated a test subject having "No Deception Indicated" or a truthful polygraph
subject."
Connie Wright, Greg's wife, makes this appeal: "My husband has suffered 10 years on death
row for a crime he did not commit. Donna Vick was a true friend to him at a time of difficulty in
his life. His sworn statements, tested by polygraph, that he did not cause the death of the victim;
that he did see the co-accused thrust a knife into the victim; and that he did take a knife from
the co-accused which was used by him to stab the victim, have been tested to be truthful by
polygraph examination. If Greg could somehow reverse that day and have not allowed the co-accused
to join him at Donna Vick's house, he would. He made a terrible misjudgment and that is
something that will haunt him forever. But he is not guilty of murder and does not deserve to die
for the actions of another."
Connie concludes, "In spite of appeals at all levels of the legal process since his
conviction, Greg has never had a single strand of the circumstantial evidence used against him
tested in a court. The Supreme Court Justices are the latest to turn a blind eye to his appeal of
innocence. This is not a defense of the Constitution but a denial of the Rights embraced by it, and
a railroad to wrongful execution. Can and will the Legal Profession allow this to happen?"
