- Due process: A Legal requirement the State must respect legal rights that are owed to a person. (Law of the Land) It protects a person from the law.
- Fifth Amendment U.S Constitution
Vincent M. Marino‘s sentence was enhanced from 130 months to 420 months without any Due process of law.Vincent Marino has been held 14 years over in federal prison unlawfully & unconstitutionally.which offends against the rule of law in the Marino case.
U.S. Department of Justice’s and Assistant United States Attorneys: Jeffrey Auerhahn and Cynthia Ann Young’s INTENTIONAL Brady violations withholding core exculpatory material evidence from the 1997 investigating federal grand jury and the 1998 First trial and 1999 Second Trial without due process of law:
Therefore it follows inexorably that Vincent M. Marino has been denied due process of law. Thompson v. Louisville, 362 U.S. 199, 80 S.Ct. 624, 4 L.Ed.2d 654 (1960); Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 91979). And because that constitutional error clearly and concededly resulted in the imposition of an unauthorized sentence, it follows that Marino, is a victim of a miscarriage of justice; Wainwright v. Sykes, 433 U.S. 72, 91, 97 S.Ct. 2497, 53 L.Ed.2d 594 (1977), and is entitled to immediate and unconsditional release. Marino’s above claims shows “that some external impediment such as government and judicial interference or the reasonable unavailability of the factual or legal basis for a claim, prevented the above from being raised earlier.” See Andiarena v. United states, 967 F.2d 715, 718 (1st Cir.1992)(citing McCleskey, 499 U.S. at 497, 11 S.Ct. 1454). Marino has established prejudice & that the errors complained of had a “substantial and injurious effect or influence on Marino’s case.”Sustache, 221 F.3d at 18; Ellis v. United States, 313 F.3d 636, 643-44 (1st Cir.2002) (same).
When a claim is properly NOT raised on direct appeal, a defendant (Marino’s ) failure to present that claim does NOT constitute a procedural default. See Massaro v. United States, 538 U.S. 500, 503-09, 123 S.Ct. 1690, 155 L.Ed.2d 714 (2003).
The above issues are extraordinary instances when a constitutional violation probably has caused the conviction of one (Marino), concerning the Double Jeopardy violations, Jury Misconduct, Governmental misconduct, Judicial interference, withheld core exculpatory material Brady, giles and Giglio evidence etc.
- The courts have described this class of cases as implicating a fundamental miscarriage of justice. McCleskey, 499 U.S. at 494, 11 S.Ct. 1454 (emphasis added) (citing Murray v. Carrier, 477 U.S. 478, 485, 106 S.Ct. 2639, 91 L.Ed.2d 397 (1986)).