Reginalds case is one riddled with injustices. The Initial suspect could not be found. The only two witnesses were forced to sign statements against Reginald, under threats of being charged with the crime. These witnesses were Reginalds brother, Robert, and Robert's then pregnant girlfriend. Prosecutors racially excluded African Americans from serving on his jury. The shoe print on the victims kicked in apartment door did not match the shoes Reginald wore the day of the crime. Reginald was wrongly convicted of murdering his friend and robbing him of jewellery that already belonged to Reginald! His appellant Attorney refused to represent his legal interest, ignored all of his letters pleading this attorney to file what amounted to innocence claims and because of this failure, all Reginalds innocence claims were procedurally barred from ever being heard.

THESE ARE THE ISSUES WE NOW HAVE TO FOCUS ON Firstly how the African Americans were racially excluded off of Reginalds Jury, pls see the comparitive analysis (left of the ning site) which Reginalds direct appellant attorney put together on how the prosecutors questioned the African Americans differently than white during the voir dire part of the trial, which is the portion of the trial where we interview the prospective jurors. Reg wants to show people exactly what happened so they can see with their own eyes. Also we have to focus on how Reginalds claims were procedurally barred, the whole process everything that happened, from when his Lawyer ignored Reg to how the court even ignored Reg. We have to ask was the procedural bar Reginalds Fault? This is what we have to ask people, people like the district Rep: Why did the court ignore Reg when he tried to tell them how his lawyer was not representing his legal interest. Does it seem that Reginalds lawyer was legally representing him when he failed to file the very things that Reg begged him to file.? Anyone in their right mind would say NO. So if they say NO then we have to ask well how does it sound that the state bar felt that he represented Reginalds Legal interests. Reg is asking his lawyer when he is going to file the things that he is going to file, so that a presence can be in the courtroom. District Reps, etc etc, could call the judge on the very issues that Reginalds lawyer will be filing. The fight is far from over, we have to stay focused and strong. Reginald did not have a jury of his peers, his state habeus attorney neglected a legal duty to him, and not get legal issues barred from the courts. Many prisoners are getting their claims barred by their lawyers that neglect their legal interest. Reg wants to make this a big issue. The state habeus corpus appeal is more important than the direct appeal, but yet receives less protection than it. The lack of protection allows the lawyers to ignore their clients like they have been. Reginalds claims amounted to INNOCENCE CLAIMS there is evidence supporting these claims, thats enough to warrant an attorney to investigate into the issues to file in the brief. The lawyer has a obligation to file almost everything possible at the state habeas process, with the exception of frivolous claims because this is the stage of appeal where if the lawyer fails to file anything, he chances to have those issues procedurally barred, which happened in Reginalds case. Even after the evidentiary hearing Regs lawyer refused to file those claims, but why did he agree to file some of them before the evidentiary hearing then refuse afterwards, this was to stop Reg jumping up in court and voicing his disaproval with his legal representation. Then Reg sent a petition to the court notifying her of it, she ignored Reginald too. The state bar ignores reginald . Then his claims are procedurally barred from ever being heard.