ABOUT LARRY

Larry is 32 Years old and is serving Life imprisonment in North Carolina, and has already served 15 years, however because Larry comes under the old system, he is eligible for Parole each year. Larry was convicted of Murder, a Murder he did not commit, a similar case against him as the Texas Law of Parties statute.

Larry enjoys reading, and writing books with a vision of making a movie.

view larrys myspace page on
http://www.myspace.com/freelarryleggett
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As you will eventually see on Larrys case Information, how the Judge is talking about other Judges on the Appellate court. When Larry's appeal got denied and the answers back to the trial judge. Also you will see where one of the Victims who said Larry had robbed him, was shown pictures (photo line up) he said he had pointed to a picture and the Officer said your getting warmer, then he narrowed it down to my picture and someone else and he picked the wrong picture and the officer said "NO this is the one we have in custoday" now the fruit of the poisoness tree doctrine apply here because the officer poisoned all Evidence that came from him, which this statement is supported by Law U.S. V Russell 532 F.2d 1063,1068 (6th cir.1976)
We will have to find some law to support the wrong doing of the Judge(s)

FRUIT OF THE POISONESS TREE DOCTINE:

Under the this rule eveidence which is the direct result or immediate product of illegal conduct on the part of an official is inadmissible in a criminal trial against the victim of the conduct (or other person with standing ) under the Due Process clause of the 14th ammendment. See 371 u.s 471, 484. An exception has been made in that such evidence may be used to impeach the testimony of a defendant who takes the stand in his own defense. See 401 U.S 222,231. This rule does not apply to evidence resulting from illegal conduct by private persons unless there has been some complicity on the part of the state. See 256 U.S 465, 475. Several state courts to exclude evidence obtained through unreasonable private-party searches. 478 p. 2d 47,50. Also if evidence is acquired in a way sufficiently distinct from the original illegal activity, it may be used if the taint has dissipated. Thus, where the defendant has been illegally arrested, then released, then sometime thereafter returns to confess, his confession has been held admissable.. See 371 us. 471,491. The doctrine draws its name from the idea that once the tree is poisoned (the primary evidence is illegally obtained) Then the fruit of the tree (any secondary evidence) is like wise poisoned: Evidence obtained by independent means not search connected to the poisoness tree, and otherwise admissible, may however still be used, although the burden of showing non taint is upon the proponent [the Government] Forkash, constitional law 479 (1969)

U.S V Russell, 532 F.2d 1063, 1068. (16th circ 1976)
(Due process violated when agent told witness that she had chosen the wrong witness from array and suggested the photograph of defendant instead)