Robert Terez Hinds #410196 is a 39-year-old juvenile lifer who has been in prison for over 21 years after he was wrongfully convicted of a crime he did not commit. He has been fighting relentlessly over the years to prove his innocence. With the help of friends, family, an investigator, and new legal counsel he has finally obtained enough new evidence to have his case overturned and to be exonerated but he needs help demanding that Wayne County look into his case to correct this gross injustice. Please review the motion, sign the petition, and share his story!

Exculpatory Evidence Was Withheld That Could Exonerate Mr. Hinds.

Brady Violation Issues And Newly Discovered Evidence

See Kyles v. Whitley, 115 S.Ct. 1555, 514 U.S. 419, 131 L.Ed.2d 490, 63 U.S.L.W. 4303, (1995).

See Strickler v. Greene, 119 S.Ct. 1936, 527 U.S. 263, 144 L.Ed.2d 286, 67 U.S.L.W. 3683, 67 U.S.L.W. 4477, (1999).

See People v. Chenault, 495 Mich. 142, 845 N.W.2d 731, (2014).

Corrupt Justice is Injustice!

Ineffective Assistance of Appellate Counsel And Clarity Regarding DNA Evidence

On appeal by right, Mr. Hinds’ appellate counsel, Randy E. Davidson, erred by stating within the statement of facts that Mr. Hinds was linked through DNA evidence to the crime that is the subject of this matter. These are not the facts of the matter and resulted in the Court of Appeals and Federal District Courts incorrectly indicating in each of their opinions respectively that Mr. Hinds was linked to the crime by DNA evidence. Per trial transcripts dated April 10, 2002, pages 15 and 20; April 16, 2002, pages 174, 175, 183, and 184, the judge indicates Mr. Hinds was not linked through DNA. The DNA results indicated Mr. Hinds could not be excluded from two samples (C1 and E2). It was further confirmed no one in the courtroom could be excluded from the DNA Samples, The DNA results were inconclusive. Appellate counsel’s error was discovered between 2007 and 2008 by a prison paralegal. Appellate counsel later sent Mr. Hinds a letter indicating he never received any forensic report indicating Mr. Hinds was linked to the crime.

1. Fingerprints: Usable prints were found inside of the vehicle associated with the crime scene, however these usable prints were not disclosed to Mr. Hinds’ trial attorney and could have been used to impeach, undermine, or contradict the prosecution’s witnesses or theories in this matter. During trial, Defense argued there were not any usable prints because no usable prints were disclosed to defense or that the usable prints were not Mr. Hinds.

2. Hair follicle with a root attached: There was never any mention of a hair follicle with a root attached. Mr. Hinds’ trial attorney was not providing any notice of its existence. A hair follicle with a root attached was found in the vehicle associated with the crime scene, and this evidence could have been used to impeach, undermine, or contradict the prosecution’s witnesses or theories in this matter. During trial, the prosecution attempted to proffer evidence Mr. Hinds’ DNA was not excluded from the DNA samples. These DNA samples were inconclusive. During trial, evidence was never provided to Mr. Hinds’ trial attorney indicating any results were obtained from the hair follicle with the root attached.

3. Home invasion reports: Home invasion reports indicating a previous home invasion occurred prior to the decedent being murdered were not disclosed to Mr. Hinds’ trial attorney. Per trial transcripts dated April 17, 2002, page 118, Prosecuting Attorney Christine Kowal indicated this was not a random act of robbery. These home invasion reports could have been used to impeach, undermine, or contradict the prosecution’s witnesses or theories in this matter.

4. Police report and tip sheet about threats that were made to the victim: a police report completed by Detroit Police officers Stewart and Visbara and a tip sheet wherein the individual interviewed stated the decedent’s child’s mother’s new boyfriend threatened to kill the decedent were not disclosed to Mr. Hinds’ trial attorney. This police report and tip sheet could have been used to impeach, undermine, or contradict the prosecution’s witnesses or theories in this matter as an alternative theory.

5. Police Report Indicating Guns Were Found At The Danbury Address: Prosecutorial witness acknowledged owning a .38 caliber handgun per Preliminary Transcript. During trial on April 17, 2002, when the witness was asked if police found his gun during the raid at the Danbury address, his response was, “Nope.” This raid occurred on May 22, 2001, the same day he provided a written statement implicating Mr. Hinds as a suspect. This police report was not disclosed to Mr. Hinds’ trial attorney and could have been used for impeachment purposes and to show the witness's motive to write a false statement to avoid being charged with possession of these guns. The witness also acknowledged owning a .38 caliber handgun at trial.

6. Tip Sheet Implicating another suspect: A tip sheet indicating another man made it clear this other individual dropped the decedent off at home after fishing before the decedent was murdered. Mr. Hinds asserts the tip sheet names a specific individual as a suspect and this tip sheet should have been provided to his attorney for further investigation.

7. An affidavit of a credible, undocumented witness who provided a statement to Detroit Police during their investigation. This affidavit undermines the prosecution’s theory that Mr. Hinds was the last person in possession of the white Cutlass Ciera. The affidavit indicates one of the prosecution’s key witnesses was in possession of this car the day this crime occurred. The affidavit also acknowledges that guns and drugs were found during the raid at the Danbury address on May 22, 2001. This affidavit is supported by the guns that were referenced in Exhibit F. Mr. Hinds’ trial attorney never received a written statement from this witness in the prosecution’s discovery. The prosecution’s theory was that Mr. Hinds took the car at approximately 12:00 a.m. on May 16, 2001, and that Mr. Hinds was the last person with the car until it was found near the crime scene.

8. A credible affidavit implicating another prosecutorial witness and suspect. See People v. Cress, 468 Mich. 678, 664 N.W.2d 174, (2003).