It has been my experience that because of institutional and individual racism

participated in the search for evidence; the names of police personnel who
discovered evidence; photographs of the undisturbed crime scene (prison
personnel had Miller’s body moved before the police arrived); a complete
listing of evidence collected; documentation of how, when, and where
evidence was collected; and photographs or notes explaining locations from
which fingerprints were lifted.
In addition to listing the Brady material, Scott raised more than 22 issues
of ineffective counsel, including the fact that my lawyers Bert Garraway and
Clay Calhoun did not investigate and consult with expert witnesses, did not
object to flawed blood analysis, did not object to the way Julie Cullen
questioned Leonard Turner on the stand, acted deficiently in allowing the
prosecutor from my original 1973 trial to testify about his opinion of
Hezekiah Brown’s credibility and demeanor, did not investigate bloodstain
evidence, did not investigate the bloody print found at the scene, and did not
establish that physical evidence was lost.
Scott also included an analysis of the jury selection for my trial. He raised
issues uncovered by Mike Rocks about the voir dire of the jury and the fact
that none of the jurors were asked questions that would determine their
feelings about race and their attitudes about black people, which should have
been done to guarantee me an impartial jury, especially since we knew the
prosecution was going to make my race and membership in the Black Panther
Party an issue. He raised issues about the constitutionality of my grand jury
and grand jury foreperson as well, noting there had been a pattern in West
Feliciana Parish whereby the judge selected the jury foreperson rather than
allow that person to be randomly selected.

---

Leonard Turner also gave a sworn statement to investigator Gary
Eldredge that, after all his testimony saying he didn’t see anything the
morning of Brent Miller’s murder, he was, in fact, in Pine 1 the morning
Miller was killed. He said Herman, Gilbert Montegut, and I didn’t do it, but
he didn’t say who did. Turner swore,
In 1972 when Mr. Miller was killed I was an inmate at Angola in the Pine 1 dormitory. That
morning I was doing cleanup in the lobby like I always did. Mr. Miller was inside the dorm talking
with Hezekiah. While I was cleaning, two guys from another dorm came in. I said to them, “Hey
the police in there.” “We know,” one of them said back. They both walked into the dorm. Then a
third guy came in. He walked straight up to Mr. Miller (who had his back turned to him). The third
guy grabbed Mr. Miller around the neck with one arm and stabbed him with a knife he had in his
other hand. Then the other two . . . rushed up with knives and started stabbing him too. I took off. I
knew Hooks Wallace, Albert Woodfox, and Gilbert Montegut. None of them were in the dorm or
the lobby at the time. I saw what happened and I know for an absolute fact that none of these three
guys were involved in killing Mr. Miller.
Investigator Eldredge interviewed a number of witnesses and located
evidence. Scott Fleming and attorneys Mike, Nick, and Susana worked long
hours for weeks to look at all our research and hammer out my appeal. In it,
Scott also summed up the contradictory witness testimony against me. Scott
wrote,
In this case, the State has shamelessly presented no fewer than four irreconcilable theories of who
killed Brent Miller. Hezekiah Brown said the murder was committed by Albert Woodfox, Herman
Wallace, Chester Jackson, and Gilbert Montegut. Chester Jackson said it was himself, Albert
Woodfox, and Herman Wallace. Paul Fobb said he “saw” Albert Woodfox alone. Howard Baker
claimed it was Herman Wallace and “Pedro.” For the State to have presented so many
contradictory theories of the case was fundamentally dishonest. Even without the benefit of any
background knowledge as to the back-alley methods the State employed to secure its testimony
against Mr. Woodfox, it is obvious that the State’s witnesses must have been lying, for logic alone
dictates the conclusion that such irreconcilable stories could not possibly all be true. . . .
Brown and Jackson both claimed to have witnessed the stabbing of Brent Miller. Brown
testified that he and Miller were alone in Pine 1 when four men, armed with four separate knives,
entered the building and killed Brent Miller. Jackson, on the other hand, claimed that three men,
carrying only two knives, entered Pine 1 and found Brown, Miller, Specs [Leonard Turner], and
“five or six” other men. Jackson was unable to say whether the five or six men in the back of the
room participated in the attack. Brown was positive that the attack began when Mr. Woodfox
stabbed Miller in the back. Jackson claimed to be equally sure that Mr. Woodfox stabbed Miller in
the chest. Brown said that Miller was sitting on the bed facing the rear of the building. Jackson
testified that Miller was facing towards the front of the building (which begs the question: How
was Mr. Woodfox able to surprise Miller from behind after entering the room wearing a
handkerchief over his face and walking directly past Miller?). Brown testified that the entire attack
took one or two minutes and said Miller was incapacitated and fell (or, in his other version, was
thrown) to the ground almost immediately. Jackson, on the other hand, testified that the attack
took more than 10 minutes and said that Miller stayed on his feet until the very end. Richey said

---

that he saw the men run out of the dorm only “two or three minutes” after they entered. However
long it took, Paul Fobb claimed to be standing outside, “shocked and stunned” and “waiting” for
Mr. Woodfox to walk back out of Pine 1. Brown said that he cowered against the wall in fear until
Miller was dead and the attackers had left, after which he ran out of the building. Jackson said that
Specs—whom Brown never mentioned—and Brown both ran out of Pine 1 while the attack was
taking place.
Joseph Richey[’s] and Paul Fobb’s accounts began where Brown’s left off—at the point when
they claimed they saw the attackers run out of Pine 1. Richey testified that he saw Mr. Wallace,
along with Woodfox, Jackson, Montegut, Brown, and Specs, run out of Pine 1. In his trial
testimony, all six men ran down the walk towards the dining hall. In his initial statement, Mr.
Woodfox went the opposite direction, towards the Hickory dormitories, while only Brown and
Jackson went towards the dining hall. In his written statement, Richey didn’t know where Mr.
Wallace or Specs went (although he was able to remember when he testified nearly two years
later). Fobb, on the other hand, said he saw only Mr. Woodfox but none of the people the other
witnesses claimed to have seen.
Perhaps most importantly, the prosecution witnesses—who placed themselves only feet apart
from one another in the moments after the murder—failed to notice each other. Richey said that he
didn’t see Fobb. Fobb didn’t see Richey (even though he claimed, by necessary implication, that
Mr. Woodfox threw a rag past Richey). Brown didn’t see Baker or Richey or Fobb. Jackson didn’t
see Baker or Richey or Fobb. Fobb said he didn’t “see” anybody else. All of them, in fact, said
that nobody else was present. Yet the state’s witnesses would have us believe that they were all
present in and around the Pine 1 dormitory when Brent Miller was killed. . . . This case amounted
to a swearing contest between 10 prisoners who testified for the defense (Woodfox, Wallace and
Montegut) and three who testified for the state.
Years later we came across more of what appeared to us to be prosecutorial
misconduct. My lawyers were never informed that Joseph Richey was
diagnosed with schizophrenia in the 1960s and was prescribed Thorazine,
which he was taking, along with other antipsychotic medications, when he
testified at both of my trials, a fact he would disclose in a sworn statement in
2008. Before my 1998 trial, Richey said, he told prosecutor Julie Cullen he
was taking antipsychotic medications. She told him to bring the drugs with
him to court but never disclosed to my lawyers that he was on any kind of
medication. By the time we learned about this, in 2008, it was obviously too
late to include the issue in my appeal. As usual, since there is no recourse for
victims of apparent prosecutorial misconduct against prosecutors who violate
the rules of professional conduct, there was nothing we could do.

---