Donations https://fundrazr.com/FreeAndyMccauley?ref=ab_0CmwR0

 

Andys support website www.freeandymccauleyjr.com

Click here for Andy’s interview on Voiceless Behind Bars with the amazing Sarah Dearmond. https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/voiceless-behind-bars/id1686184951?i=1000631465345

Also listen to his interview on YouTube Prison Audio and subscribe

https://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=youtu.be&fbclid=IwAR2k002TXh7meYVjj0PaPfqllKSirbZQgRhcbdcj45gQ-kXe23zS4qjaa70_aem_AW2ZPEHQoaXZIVY1EoG83xEoeQgo0MHfj3504K_A5McTWJcIbubXu18uu9jblbvRfH4&si=o1N5HAJQi1xW2g1v&v=ZGgCQ6kZwmY&mibextid=Zxz2cZ

Andy deserves justice and freedom from the wrongful conviction that has plagued his life. The state of West Virginia must prioritize the testing of the unknown DNA evidence to uncover the truth and ensure his release. It is imperative that we take immediate action to rectify this injustice and grant Andy the freedom he rightfully deserves.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Department of Justice, Governor Jim Justice of West Virginia, Attorney General Patrick Morrissey, Commissioner William Marshall III of The Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, as well as all federal and state authorities, the Innocence Project, and the ACLU, must take immediate action. Failure to do so will result in more innocent individuals spending their lives in prison for crimes they did not commit, and it is crucial that excessive sentencing laws are reformed. We cannot allow this injustice to persist.

I have initiated a petition because I firmly believe that by uniting, we can bring attention to Andy's innocence and give him a stronger voice. This may potentially lead to changes in laws regarding DNA evidence, ensuring that testing is completed and the courts are required to test DNA when someone else's DNA is present and the defendant is excluded. It is unjust to be sentenced when someone else's blood DNA is found under the victim's nails while the defendant's is not. I kindly request that you take a moment to sign and share the petition today. Let us stand by Andy and shed light on his unfair trial and wrongful conviction. It is time to fight for his rights and freedom. Together, we can make a difference.

My objective is to assist Andy McCauley in overturning his wrongful conviction and bringing him back home. Since his teenage years, he has been targeted by the local authorities and has endured years of harassment and abuse in Berkeley Springs, a small town. His trial was marred by corruption within the judicial system, not only in his case but also in many others within this town. I would like to emphasize .

This petition is to appeal Andy McCauley’s two life sentences with no parole. This is a miscarriage of justice and an unfair trial. Please see facts of the case that make it unfair and wrongful, and these are just a few verifiable and in legal court trial transcripts. 

*Melissa Runyon, a supervisor of the DNA analysis section of the West Virginia State Police lab, testified to her findings after further analysis of these items. All the items on Crossman’s bed — the ribbon, top sheet, blanket and pillow — she said, Crossman was the primary source of DNA, and there were no items with McCauley’s DNA.

According to Runyon, no DNA was found on the victim's underwear despite it being on her body for the entire duration of her disappearance. Defense attorney Andrew S. Arnold motioned for judgment of acquittal based on the absence of evidence for murder, premeditation, and child abuse. Arnold also argued that McCauley was not a parent, custodian, or guardian of Crossman, as stated in recordings where Chantel repeatedly emphasized that it was not his responsibility to check on the children, but rather hers and Lance's.

.Courts and media widely reported that the victim's last text message stated that Andy was in her room and she was scared. However, it is important to note that the victim had other conversations before and after that text where she did not mention Andy or express fear to anyone else. Additionally, approximately 13 minutes' worth of text messages were missing after the mention of Andy being in her room. Furthermore, the victim stayed on the phone with her friends after the text conversation and never mentioned Andy during those calls.

The request for a change of venue was denied despite the high level of publicity surrounding the trial and the potential conflict of interest due to the victim's grandmother being the magistrate. This decision should have been approved to ensure a fair trial.

Several individuals were present in the residence during the incident. It is unclear whether they were interviewed or examined for any physical marks or injuries.

During the trial, DNA forensic experts from the WV crime labs testified that they found DNA from an unknown female under the victim's nails. The DNA did not match any male DNA, including that of Andy. Despite confirming that the DNA belonged to a female and not the victim, the experts did not conduct any further testing to determine the identity of the female. Male sperm not belonging to Andy McCauley Jr. was collected from the crime scene specifically from the victim's comforter that was on her bed. This dna belonged to someone in the home but was not allowed in court by the Judge. She deemed sperm Dna as irrelevant in this case. I would think sperm on a victim's bed is very important in a murder investigation. It is unacceptable that this evidence and the person's name ...which is known, was withheld from the public and the jury. 

  NONE of Andy’s DNA was found in her bedroom nor on the victim’s body. No evidence of sexual assault via autopsy and no evidence of sexual assault in the body or anyplace else for that matter. 

During the trial, witnesses claimed that they were coerced into testifying in a certain way by the prosecutor, who threatened them with prosecution if they did not comply. Andy, who was also a witness, was not informed of his rights and was compelled to go to the police station for questioning. The police had already singled him out as a person of interest, and it was unclear whether the Miranda Rights were ever read to him or any other witnesses.

Jail house informant, Dominic Mongold, testifies regarding inappropriate pictures of victim. Why would he admit to having inappropriate photos when he was in jail for a crime and also for a sex offense on an underage girl. Dominic Mongold he should have never been able to testify regarding that issue. Dominic Mongolds records at the courthouse reflect no criminal record despite being incarcerated at Eastern Regional Jail during Andys time there. He had trespassing charges and was being investigated for charges of sex offenses for an underage girl. None of the records could be found yet media covered it and he had a mugshot with the story. 

  ◦ The home was torn down prior to trial denying defense access, victim's mother also worked for the homeowner who is also the ex-husband of victim's paternal grandmother 

 ◦ Several inconsistencies in the victim’s mother’s story on the night of the crime and her room was within 4 feet of the victims and she claims she did not hear anything. 

Every person who submitted video footage of Andy's vehicle claimed that the dates or time were incorrect on their surveillance recordings. Additionally, none of them could recall which officer they had provided the photo or video to. Furthermore, several submissions consisted of pictures of pictures rather than original evidence.

It is worth mentioning that the grandmother of the victim held the position of local magistrate during the time of the crime, and is married to a career criminal. Extensive research has been conducted on this matter, and many individuals, including myself, are passionate about proving the innocence of the accused.

The case of the victim in Berkeley County has been marred by inconsistencies and a lack of evidence. Despite this, Andy McCauley was convicted and is currently serving time for a crime he may not have committed. The trial transcripts reveal that the forensic evidence did not match that found in Andy's truck, and yet he was still convicted. It is time for West Virginia to take action and acquit Andy of his sentence. The victim deserves justice, and it is up to the judicial system to ensure that justice is served. We urge West Virginia to change their sentencing policies and allow Andy to come home.

Buffy v Ballard 236 W. Va. 509, 515–16, 782 S.E.2d 204, 210–11 (2015) (holding that the State's failure to disclose certain DNA evidence violated the defendant's due process rights 

Brady v. Maryland (1963) Suppression by the prosecution of evidence favorable to an accused who has requested it violates due process when the evidence is material either to guilt or to punishment, irrespective of the good faith or bad faith of the prosecution.

 U.S.v Henry

By intentionally creating a situation likely to induce the accused to make incriminating statements without the assistance of counsel, the government violated his Sixth Amendment right to counsel, and the resulting statements should not have been Strickland v. Washington(1984)

By intentionally creating a situation likely to induce the accused to make incriminating statements without the assistance of counsel, the government violated his Sixth Amendment right to counsel, and the resulting statements should not have been Strickland v. Washington(1984)

The Sixth Amendment right to counsel is the right to the effective assistance of counsel, and the benchmark for judging any claim of ineffectiveness must be whether counsel’s conduct so undermined the proper functioning of the adversarial process that the trial cannot be relied on as having produced a just result. A convicted defendant’s claim that counsel’s assistance was so defective as to require reversal of a conviction or setting aside of a death sentence requires that the defendant show that counsel’s performance was deficient and that the deficient performance prejudiced the defense so as to deprive the defendant of a fair trial. admitted at trial. Andy did not receive this . 

 

 

A wrongful conviction is when a person is convicted of a crime they did not commit. Wrongful convictions are often the result of multiple failures— usually by investigators, witnesses, scientists, and lawyers— that can occur at various stages of the criminal justice process. Convictions are typically considered wrongful for one of two reasons: the person is factually innocent of the charges brought against them (which is why wrongful convictions are often known as cases of “actual innocence”), or the individual’s case involved procedural errors that violated their rights.

Wrongful convictions are often attributed to five common causes:

Eyewitness Misidentification: years of scientific studies have consistently demonstrated that the use of eyewitness identification is flawed. Eyewitnesses are incredibly unreliable and the validity of eyewitness testimony, particularly when used for identifying perpetrators, is often greatly overstated in court. Eyewitness identification is particularly unreliable when it comes to cross-racial identifications: recent studies have found that people are 1.5 times more likely to falsely identify the face of a stranger of a different race than their own, which is another factor that contributes to false convictions. 

 False Confessions: people may give false confessions for various reasons— they may have been incentivized to do so by threats or promises made during the interrogation; subjected to extended periods of time without food, drink, or sleep; or because of diminished capacity or mental impairment; youth; ignorance of the law; denial of Fifth Amendment right to counsel during interrogation; a simple misunderstanding; suggestive lines of questioning; or even torture.
 Bad Lawyering: ineffective, incompetent, and overburdened defense counsel often allow various other factors leading to wrongful convictions to go unchallenged in court. Ineffective assistance of counsel can take many forms, but most commonly it involves failing to investigate alibis or challenge shoddy forensic evidence, failing to file pretrial motions, failing to prepare opening or closing statements, and sleeping during trial.
 Unreliable Informant Testimony: informants often have incentives to testify against the defendant which they do not disclose to the jury, such as payment, avoiding criminal prosecution, or reducing a sentence. Informants may testify in multiple cases and use nefarious means to gather information necessary to support their false testimony.
 Unreliable or Improper Forensic Science: the use of “junk science”– such as microscopic hair comparison, firearm tool mark and impression evidence, bite mark analysis, shoe print comparisons, and faulty fire “science” – is a huge problem in many criminal cases. These forensic disciplines are unreliable and inaccurate, and experts in these fields will often testify to conclusions beyond even what the limited science on their subject allows.
 

• cent studies show that as many as 3-6% of all people incarcerated in U.S. prisons have bee
• n wrongfully convicted. This means that as many as 730 people incarcerated in West Virginia alone might actually be innocent of the crimes for which they were convicted. Since 1989, the National Registry of Exonerations has recorded 2,645 exonerations in the United States, totaling 23,590 years lost in prison, with each person spending an average of 8.9 years in prison before release. 

Once a person has been wrongfully convicted, it’s extremely difficult to overturn their conviction. Going back to the two different types of wrongful convictions, there are two different reasons for which an individual can attempt to overturn a wrongful conviction: first, for cases of factual innocence, the individual can appeal on the basis of new factual evidence; and second, for cases in which the defendant’s rights were violated, by proving that their trial was unconstitutional. 

If a person can prove the existence of procedural errors during the course of the investigation and trial which violated their constitutional rights, then they can take their case to a Court of Appeals. Examples of this type of appeal include, among others, cases in which the police failed to properly obtain warrants, or the defendant was coerced to confess under duress (like physical or psychological abuse) from police officers. However, the bar for conclusively proving that an individual’s rights were violated is extremely high and the number of individuals who have succeeded in proving their cases is extremely low. 

If a person has been wrongfully convicted based on factual evidence, they can provide the court with new scientific evidence and appeal their conviction. The most common pathway for overturning wrongful convictions is through the use of post-conviction DNA testing. From 1989 to date, 367 people in the United States have been exonerated by DNA testing, and a shocking 21 of them served time on death row before being freed. However, even with strong scientific evidence, proving a person’s innocence is not that simple. 

The extreme difficulty in overturning a wrongful conviction stem from one of the biggest issues within the U.S. justice system: providing new evidence of an individual’s innocence is not enough to guarantee them an appeal. 

In 1993, the Supreme Court published a decision on a case that has since presented serious challenges for individuals attempting to appeal their conviction based on evidentiary claims of actual innocence. In the majority opinion for that case, Herrera v. Collins, Chief Justice Rehnquist wrote that a claim of actual innocence based on newly discovered evidence does not merit federal habeas relief. Essentially, this means that the constitutional presumption of innocence (or the idea of “innocent until proven guilty”) “disappears” if a person has been afforded a fair trial in accordance with their due process rights and is convicted of a crime; a person is only entitled to have their case heard by a Court of Appeals if they can prove that they were not afforded a constitutionally “fair” trial.

In other words, even if a lawyer can prove that there were serious errors in the defendant’s case— like if the science used at trial was wrong or outdated, an eyewitness was not reliable, or an informant was incentivized to lie on the stand— the defendant still does not have a right to have their case heard by a Court of Appeals. Many judges will refuse to hear appeals, despite the existence of new and credible evidence proving a person’s innocence, unless the appellant can prove that his or her constitutional rights were violated during their original trial, which is a very difficult process. As a result, wrongful convictions are extremely difficult to overturn largely because it is very hard for a person to even have their case heard by a Court of Appeals.

 

* Dan James, the prosecutor has had issues with tampering with evidence in Hampshire county and received qualified immunity. Please see WV case Luani V James