Everyday across the Southern States, especially in Louisiana, indigent defendants are being prosecuted and convicted by overzealous prosecutors and, in some cases, with the assistance of their own court-appointed attorneys. In Louisiana, the general practice of these defense attorneys in capital cases is to concede guilt to criminal elements despite their clients’ disavowal of committing the criminal offense. With this in mind, it is not unreasonable that Anthony felt it was necessary to represent himself, even without any knowledge of the legal system. The prosecutor was seeking the death penalty. What choice did he have when his own attorneys were not assisting him as they were required to do? All Anthony knew was he needed professional help and funding for experts and investigators. However, as a consequence of Anthony wanting to represent himself, the trial judge denied Anthony his legitimate requests for funds to obtain various defense experts and Investigators.

      In Louisiana, an indigent defendant has no chance to a fair trial, especially when he is a person of color and must rely on court appointed attorneys. The prosecutor and District Attorney’s Office is backed by the full support of state money and unlimited resources to condemn a man to the death penalty while at the same time limiting or refusing to fund the defense team. What’s more, the media plays a critical role in disseminating the crime as occuring one way without all the actual facts being known. Often the prosecutor and law enforcement spins a narrative justifying the arrest of the accused, sometimes without regard if they have accused the correct person.

      In most murder cases, the prosecutor often relies on key witnesses to convict a defendant. However, what happens when a case has received global media attention proclaiming the crime as occuring one way, as in Anthony’s case, but 18 months later the prosecutor’s key witness finally comes forward with the truth about not seeing any murders take place? Nothing! Nothing changes the outcome, despite this truth, especially when the prosecutor knows for more than a year the media had already tried and convicted Anthony in the eyes of the public. All the prosecutor had to do was simply go through the formality of a trial in court.

      The problem with this type of media coverage is the source of the news (in Anthony’s case): The prosecutor’s office, law enforcement, and the local mayor ~ all of whom spoke out against Anthony without the full facts being known. Where is the line drawn when a defendant has a right to a fair and an impartial jury? To be sure, the trial judge has the power to issue a “Gag Order” to silence these sources from infecting the case with highly inflammatory prejudicial publicity. Had the trial judge done so in Anthony’s case, such publicity would not have had an unjust influence upon perspective jurors. Any potential juror when asked about pretrial publicity, especially in capital cases, often lie to get a seat on the jury.

      In Anthony’s case, the trial judge made no efforts to prevent such publicity from infecting the trial and was less concerned with Anthony receiving a fair trial. The prosecutor took advantage of these circumstances and many other errors occurred affecting the trial. As Anthony now seeks reversal of his conviction and death sentence by petitioning reviewing courts for JUSTICE, Anthony is also asking for your help to support his Defense Fund so that he may live LIFE, obtain lawyers, experts, investigators, and other resources to pursue his defense against the capital murder charges and seek reversal of his unjust death sentence.

WE THANK YOU FOR TAKING THE TIME TO READ THE CONTENTS OF THIS WEBSITE. IF YOU WISH TO LEAVE US A MESSAGE OR WRITE TO ANTHONY DIRECTLY, GO TO THE BOTTOM OF ANY PAGE ON THIS SITE AND CLICK THE CONTACT BOX.