Public Defender Hugh Hadden Admissions (10-cv-2368)

Hugh Hadden states "I had no difficulty dealing with Mr. Blocker.  I found him, frankly to be an intelligent young man, very easy-going, and quite pleasant to work with." (HT 16)

Hugh Hadden had been duly sworn during his testimony. (HT 7)

In 2010, Mr. Hadden admitted to handling over a hundred or probably several hundred felony trials. (HT 8)

Mr. Hadden firmly states that DNA evidence placed him (Mr. Blocker) at the scene, but Mr. Hadden implies that he personally has some doubt that Mr. Blocker raped the victim.  So he vaguely mentions that "Mr. Blocker gave two statements to the police that were inculpatory" in order to make him feel better about his implication.

Why? (Because there exists Exculpatory evidence!)

1) There was another person (co-defendant) at the scene. (HT 24)

2) No DNA Expert ever testified  (1:16cv00034)

3) No Rape DNA was ever found. (1:16cv00034)

Mr. Hugh Hadden admits that Mr. Blocker's case drew a good bit of media attention just because of the particular area of town where it occurred.  (HT 14)

Mr. Hadden admits that for lack of a better term, (Mr. Blocker's case) was a high-profile sort of case. (HT 15)

--------- end of Hadden's admissions ------

Let's be clear:

1) Mr. Blocker had a "burglary" background. (The same as many sheriff deputies who "legally steal" on behalf of debt collectors.)

  

2) There was DNA evidence supporting Mr. Blocker being at the scene because of a potential exchange of "stolen goods" IN ORDER to NOT LEAVE ANY FINGERPRINTS. (No fingerprints were found.)

3) Everyone who interacts with Mr. Blocker concludes the same thing . . .

• Intelligent
• Easy-going
• Pleasant

4) There is NO EVIDENCE of ANY VIOLENCE IN THIS CASE (2007-RCCR-0181)

5) If Mr. Blocker did enter a guilty plea knowingly, it was based on the admission of BURGLARY only.  He NEVER admitted to The rape nor Kidnapping charges.   He NEVER signed any paperwork with RAPE nor Kidnapping Charges on it.  

6) There does exist guilty plea paperwork reflecting all three charges with Mr. Blocker's signature; however, THERE IS NO PROOF THAT ALL THREE CHARGES were listed on the paperwork at the time that Mr. Blocker signed the paperwork. (HT 150, HT 151, HT 152, HT 154)


FURTHERMORE,  Isn't it UNLAWFUL to have a NOLO  CONTENDERE Plea for this type of case (2007-RCCR-181) where recividism was also stacked on?  (Hugh Hadden and Ashley Wright signed off -pictured above.) (HT 155)

Hugh Hadden, you failed Mr. Blocker in 2008 case (2007RCCR00181)

and 

you failed Mr. Blocker in 2010 case (10-cv-2368)

That is TWO STRIKES  . . .

I'm preparing documentation for the Georgia Supreme Court . . . I really don't want to see you get a STRIKE THREE for Daniel J. Craig's  2007 grand jury indictment that needs to be dismissed. (Motion to DISMISS is already filed)

Plus, I have a copy of Supreme Court of Georgia Remittitur, Case No. S11H1214 (2011)  (Surely, the Supreme Court would be upset to know about all the negligence and prosecutorial misconduct in these cases.)