Charles Bolden was caught delivering drugs and to gain leniency, gave Ivan Eberhart's name as the person who supplied him the drugs. It is obvious that he couldn't give the name of the real supplier, and he later admitted that he gave the first name he could think of because he was scared. He had admitted he lied before Ivan's trial, which is why the prosecutor would not allow Bolden to testify in Ivan's trial, and lied to the judge about Bolden's status as a cooperating witness so that the defense could not get a missing witness instruction. Ivan was indicted for delivery and for conspiracy. He was acquitted of the drug delivery charge because 5 witnesses, including 2 police officers and a repairman, came forth to testify that Ivan was 13 miles away from where Bolden claimed he was delivering drugs, because Ivan's mother's home had been burglarized that day and Ivan was the one who phoned the police, who showed the evidence technician around, who helped the repairman measure the windows, fix the glass and put burglar bars around the house. How he could have been convicted of conspiracy, with no evidence, no surveillance, no drugs ever found in his possession, in his car, in his home, no previous convictions, none of his fingerprints on the box the drugs were brought in - only the agent's claim that he had confessed to delivering the drugs, and confessed to being a drug dealer. There was no written or recorded confession, and one agent claimed to have lost his notes, the other agent (the one who testified to the confession) said he never took any notes. The judge granted a new trial, which the appellate court overturned - but at sentencing the judge reiterated that "Ivan Eberhart did not receive a fair trial and deserves a new one."
Charles Bolden was caught delivering drugs and to gain leniency, gave Ivan Eberhart's name as the person who supplied him the drugs. It is obvious that he couldn't give the name of the real supplier, and he later admitted that he gave the first name he could think of because he was scared. He had admitted he lied before Ivan's trial, which is why the prosecutor would not allow Bolden to testify in Ivan's trial, and lied to the judge about Bolden's status as a cooperating witness so that the defense could not get a missing witness instruction. Ivan was indicted for delivery and for conspiracy. He was acquitted of the drug delivery charge because 5 witnesses, including 2 police officers and a repairman, came forth to testify that Ivan was 13 miles away from where Bolden claimed he was delivering drugs, because Ivan's mother's home had been burglarized that day and Ivan was the one who phoned the police, who showed the evidence technician around, who helped the repairman measure the windows, fix the glass and put burglar bars around the house. How he could have been convicted of conspiracy, with no evidence, no surveillance, no drugs ever found in his possession, in his car, in his home, no previous convictions, none of his fingerprints on the box the drugs were brought in - only the agent's claim that he had confessed to delivering the drugs, and confessed to being a drug dealer. There was no written or recorded confession, and one agent claimed to have lost his notes, the other agent (the one who testified to the confession) said he never took any notes. The judge granted a new trial, which the appellate court overturned - but at sentencing the judge reiterated that "Ivan Eberhart did not receive a fair trial and deserves a new one."
We the undersigned believe that the inconsistent verdicts in the case of Ivan Eberhart were brought about due to prosecutorial misconduct, for doctoring transcripts of a consensual phone call the accuser made to Ivan to put words in Ivan's mouth he never said (a forensic audio expert later uncovered this, but the appellae court found no error); eliciting hearsay testimony because the accuser had changed his testimony and recanted accusations and was therefore kept from testifying at trial; lying about the accuser's status as cooperating witness in order to deprive defense of a missing witness instruction; lying on the suporting affidavit about conversations that never occurred; lying to the appellate court about a conversation that never occurred in order to obtain affirmation of the conviction despite the appellate lawyer's argument that statements alone are not enough to convict and refusing to admit to the appellate court that the conversation never took place even after the appellate attorney confronted him with the facts; withholding evidence of a second grand jury who issued the accuser a superseding indictment for 5 kilos, up from 2, and dropped Ivan's name from that indictment as a co-conspirator; instructed the jury to check 5 kilos or more on a special verdict form, in spite of the fact that the grand jury refused to indict for more than 2 kilos (and he was acquitted of that), and that the 5 kilos were never presented to the jury and proven beyond a reasonable doubt; withholding the fact that the DEA agent interviewed three other persons, all who said Ivan Eberhart was not a drug dealer; harrassing and threatening alibi witnesses (who testified anyway). The list goes on. Thank you, Attorney General Holder, for taking time to read this letter.
