I'm writing this letter due to the fact you have not responded to my two January 2003 letters
concerning the addition of the "hair" issue to issue 12 in writ about identification.
As I have stated to you many times before both verbally and in letters that I feel this is a critical point that
needs to be addressed and I would very much like to see it added as it clearly points out a major inconsistency in Prado's
trial testimony and her statements duting the line-up. So would you please make the addition to the writ?
Also as stated before, the issue of the unsigned statement also needs to be addressed. Since you quote it in the
writ as well. Being that Derry Scott "denied" making it on the stand and it does not have his signature we should challenge
it due to the fact that for one he claimed he didn't make it and two he testified in trial to this. So therefore for the state
to rely so much on it when they had the actual witness on the stand raises doubt about it's authenticity. Which in turn leads
to the crediability of the statement itself and this can be added in to the issue where you cite the statement by the DA.
So with this said I would appreciate it if you would be able to write and let me know this has been done--as
it has already been two months since the last time I asked you to do this.
Also how much time does the state have to respond to the writ? If they haven't alresdy. I would like to
be informed on the time frame we are working with.
As of my last notice they had not responded in January and I haven't heard from you since. We have been
on a month long lockdown so I was just now allowed to buy stamps, which is why I haven't inquired sooner!
Please let me know something ASAP.
Christopher B. Coleman