Bonnie Erwin-Wrongfully Convicted in Texas

Bonnie Erwin age 74, has been in a federal prison in the state of Texas since age 42- he has served 32 years on a wrongful conviction. Can you even imagine being locked away for 32 years for a crime someone else committed? Happens quite often in America. There have been 337 post-conviction DNA exonerations in the United States. The first DNA exoneration took place in 1989. Exonerations have been won in 37 states; since 2000, there have been 263 exonerations. 20 of the 337 people exonerated through DNA served time on death row.

Unfortunately in this case, not one organization has come forth to assist Bonnie with his freedom. The reasons given have been the organizations dont take cases without DNA evidence and/or they dont handle capital murder cases. His dear friend contacted me though my Prison Reform Movement page on Facebook and asked if I would help publicize Bonnie’s case. The following is what has been sent to me:

“I have a good friend in Federal Prison in Texas. He was sentenced to death for a murder he did not commit, then the state dropped the charges because the murderer was found. They “reduced” his sentence to life plus 120 years because of bureaucratic malfeasance. It is Texas after all. He went to prison when he was 42 and he is now 74 years old and in awful health. Is there any way to publicize his plight? He was wrongfully convicted but the ACLU, the Justice Project and the Innocence Project have turned a blind eye to his plight. Thanks for your help I would love some publicity on this case. It is wrong on all levels. This guy is a black man convicted by an all white jury. From what I understand he used to hang out with white girls and in Texas that is a big deal. One of these girls was the judges daughter I think and the whole case is trumped up vendetta.”

Our hope is that someone will see this and feel compelled to help Bonnie get the justice he has been waiting so long for…if you are that person, please contact this blog. Thank you!!

Dated: November 15, 2007
To: The Very Honorable Congresswoman Shelia Jackson Lee
2435 Rayburn HOB
Washington, DC 20515-4318
And cc to: The Honorable Al Sharpton
National Action Network
106 W. 145th Street
Harlem, New York 10039
From: Douglas R. MacCachran
JustUs, Incorporated
Paralegal and Consulting Services
606 Holmes Street
Petal, Mississippi 38465
REFERENCE: Bonnie B. Erwin, Inmate Federal Prison, Registration Number 14289-
077 currently housed in the United States Penitentiary, Leavenworth, Ks.
Dear Madam and Sir:
As per conversations with your staff, please review the enclosed facts and respond back
at your earliest opportunity. I present these facts to you to enable a detailed review of the
case of the inmate stated above. This overview deals with one of the most incredible
cases that I have had the opportunity to become involved with in the years that I have
been involved in criminal defense programs.
This case presents a clear and resonant problem with the lack of judicial oversight and
appalling contradictions that have caused a major prejudicial denial of a minimum level
of constitutional due process and denied any reasonable case review for some 12 or more
Please find this information contained here to be factual and correct to the very best of
our ability in the procedural listed event below. Should you or your staff feel compelled
to become interested in this case or seek any additional support and information, please
do not hesitate in contacting me directly and I will make every effort to assist you in this
matter. With great respect and commitment, I am
Sincerely yours,
Douglas R. MacCachran
Senior Specialist Criminal Paralegal


      This case presents a number of complexities based upon time lines of
      events and precedent case law which was controlling at these various key
      intervals. In order to properly show such time lines and causation of newly
      established case law, Petitioner will refer back to this statement of facts
      affecting these matters below.
      1. Petitioner Bonnie B. Erwin was charged originally indicted by a
      Northern District of Texas Grand Jury on June 21, 1984 which was
      superseded thereafter with a 29 Count superseding indictment on
      October 18, 1984 listing various criminal violations. The superseding
      indictment charged as to Count One, conspiracy to distribute a
      controlled substance in violation of Title 21 United States Code,
      Section 846 and listed some sixty-six (66) overt acts which included
      murder and kidnapping among the manner and means listed in support
      of this count.
      2. Petitioner Erwin entered a plea of not guilty and on December 3, 1984
      a jury trial began. On December 28, 1984 an all white jury returned a
      verdict of guilt on all charges, Counts 1 with a violation of Title 21
      USC, Section 846; 2 with a violation of Title 21, USC, Section 848
      (incorporating the manner and means and overt acts listed in Count 1;
      3 with the violations of title 18 USC, Sections 1962 and 2; 4 & 5 with
      the violation of Aiding and Abetting possession of a controlled
      substance Title 21 USC, Section 841; 10 & 11 Aiding a Abetting
      travel and traveling in interstate commerce with intent to distribute
      proceeds from unlawful activity Title 18 USC, Sections 1952 and 2;
      20 buying and receiving counterfeit obligations of the United States
      Title 18 USC, Section 473; 21 & 24 with distribution of a controlled
      substance Title 21 USC, Section 841.
      3. Petitioner Erwin appealed this case to the Fifth Circuit Court of
      Appeals and on July 3, 1986 resulted in the court entering an opinion
      reversing the complete conspiracy conviction as to Count One of the
      superseding indictment and remanded the case to the district court for
      further proceedings with instructions that the United States was
      barred from retrying Petitioner Erwin on the conspiracy charges
      listed in Count One. See United States v. Erwin, 793 F.2d 656 at
      672 (5 th
      Cir. 1986).
    • 4. On October 30, 1986 on motion by the government, the district court
      dismissed without prejudice Count One as it was applicable to the
      other defendants in this case but was silent as to Petitioner Erwin and
      the mandated dismissal of this count with prejudice leaving this
      charge in tact in spite of the instructions from the Fifth Circuit Court
      of Appeals on remand.
      5. Prior to the issuance of these federal grand jury indictments and the
      resulting conviction of Petitioner Erwin, the State of Texas, in the
      Judicial District in and for Smith County grand jury cause 7-84-
      174 charged and subsequently the jury found guilt as to Petitioner for
      the charge of murder and kidnapping of Patrick Brooks and thereafter
      assess the death penalty upon Petitioner Erwin for that crime.
      Subsequent to the jury verdict in the federal prosecution in 1984, the
      State of Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, En Banc in cause 729 S.W
      3d 709 (April 1, 1987) reversed and remanded the murder and
      kidnapping case based upon the testimony of the state’s own
      prosecution witness, Kathy Collier, who stated under oath at trial
      transcript, page 1284, that Leonard Hawkins (AKA Pumpkin) did in
      fact admit that he, Hawkins, and not Petitioner Erwin, kidnapped and
      murdered Patrick Brooks. The murder and kidnapping conviction
      along with the resulting criminal penalty of death which was
      presented in the federal indictment as part of the manner and means
      and overt acts supporting the factual basis for the federal charges in
      Counts One, Two and Three of the superseding indictment as to this
      Petitioner. At trial, the prosecution further submitted this state murder
      case and all the evidence regarding that murder and kidnapping to the
      Federal Petit Jury to aid in establishing the foundational actus reas
      and constituted the basis of consideration for the jury’s ultimate
      finding of guilt in the federal cause Petitioner Erwin now stands
      incarcerated for.
      6. On April 12, 1989, Subsequent to the trial of Petitioner and well after
      the charges were submitted to the federal petit jury forming the
      foundation for the conviction and finding of guilt and subsequent to
      the resulting in the criminal liability pronouncement of life without
      parole plus 120 years, the Texas States Attorney in the 7th
      Judicial District for Smith County, Texas, the State of Texas in cause 7-84-174
      filed a Motion to Dismiss the entire case of murder and kidnapping
      against Petitioner Erwin. The resulting Order dated April 12, 1989
      dismissed all of the criminal action and discharged Petitioner Erwin in
    7. On June 14, 1990, on further motion by the government, the district
    court amended the judgment to indicate the dismissal of Count One
    conspiracy with prejudice with respect to Petitioner Erwin.
    8. July, 1991 Petitioner Erwin filed a Motion under Title 28 United
    States Code, Section 2255 urging a finding of ineffective assistance of
    counsel claiming, inter alia, that counsel was negligent in failing to
    raise a proper Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1987) claim as to the
    all white petit jury by means of peremptory challenges of all African-
    Americans from his jury in the 1984 trial. Based upon the magistrate
    judges Report and Recommendation, the district court denied this
    Section 2255 Motion stating in part that the ineffective assistance
    claim was not colorable because Batson, supra had been decided only
    after Petitioner Erwin’s 1984 trial.
    9. On August 26, 1996, Petitioner filed a “Motion for Correction of
    Judgment and commitment Order.” The district court filed an
    Amended Judgment on March 27, 1998, some 12 years late from the
    Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals decision reversing the conspiracy count
    as to Petitioner Erwin in United States v. Erwin, 793 f.2d 656 at 672
    Cir. 1986).
    10. Petitioner Erwin filed his notice of appeal placing same in the prison
    mail system on April 25, 1998 as to the Amended Judgment of March
    27, 2998. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals treated this untimely
    notice of appeal, filed within thirty days of the last day to file an
    appeal, as a motion for extension of time to file an appeal and
    remanded the case to the district court for a determination whether
    defendant’s untimely filing of the notice of appeal was due to
    excusable neglect. See Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, Rule
    4(b) and see United States v. Golding, 793 F.2d 183 at 185 (5
    11. On June 12, 1998 Petitioner Erwin filed an affidavit in support of his
    claim of excusable neglect and the magistrate judge found that delay
    was beyond the control of Petitioner Erwin and he in fact acted in
    good faith and did not delay filing his notice of appeal once he had
    physically received the amended judgment therefore granting
    Petitioner the ability to file the appeal out of time.
    12. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals appointed appellate counsel
    pursuant to Title 18 USC, Section 3006(a) along with the provisions
    set forth in the Criminal Justice Act at Section 2. (See Fifth Circuit
    Court of Appeals Cause Number 98-10506).
    13. During the pendency of this appeal in the Fifth Circuit Court, the
    United States Supreme Court a paramount decision in Richardson v.
    United States, 526 U.S. 813 (1999). This intervening decision
    clarified the requirements for a lawful conviction under Title 21 USC,
    Section 848(a) for a Continuing Criminal Enterprise. The Supreme
    Court held that this statute requires a finding that the defendant
    participated in a series of three specific acts under specified
    circumstances. See 21 USC, Section 848(a). The court went further to
    mandate that there must be unanimity among the jury as to which
    three acts comprise the continuing criminal enterprise. Richardson,
    supra at 824. The charge read to Petitioner Erwin’s jury did not
    contain this requirement nor does the verdict form submitted by the
    jury indicate what, if any, level of agreement existed among jurors.
    Clearly the jury charge and the evidence adduced at Petitioner Erwin’s
    trial permitted the petit jury to rely on and consider the now reversed
    conspiracy change as a predicate offense for convicting Erwin on both
    Count Two charge of a CCE and also of Count Three charge of RICO.
    The fact that the jury was not required to specify whether such Count
    One charge and its manner and means with 66 overt acts was a basis
    for conviction violates the intervening mandate from the United States
    Supreme Court in Richardson, supra.
    14. Further, while this appeal was pending in the Fifth Circuit Court of
    Appeals with counsel appointed, Petitioner Erwin, on October 22,
    1999, filed a pro se Motion for New Trial based upon the Amended
    Judgment filed on April 27, 1998. Appellant Counsel immediately
    noticed the Fifth Circuit Court and filed a Motion for abeyance of the
    appeal. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals granted this Motion in the
    interests of justice with a limited remand of the case back to the
    district court for ruling on Petitioner Erwin’s pro se Motion for New
    15. The district court, upon this limited remand from the Fifth Circuit
    Court of Appeals in cause 98-10506, appointed separate counsel to
    represent Petitioner Erwin in the district court for his Motion for New
    Trial. The district court then upon review of Petitioner Erwin’s Motion
    for New Trial, on February 2, 2000 ordered the magistrate judge to
    hold and evidentiary hearing.
    16. On March 10, 2000 the magistrate judge ordered the evidentiary
    hearing to be reset for April 3, 2000 with the physical presence rather
    than video conferencing and again rescheduled by the magistrate
    judge via Writ of Habeas Corpus Ad Testificandum for Petitioner
    Erwin’s presence and was thereafter held on May 22, 2000.
    17. On May 23, 2000, one day after the evidentiary hearing was held, the
    court Ordered that the government and appointed counsel file a reply
    to the matter not later than July 15, 2000.The docket and record of this
    matter does not indicate that either the government nor counsel for
    Petitioner Erwin complied with the order to respond and reply during
    this time frame.
    17. Although not indicated in the docket record, a file stamp
    “Government’s Response to Defendant’s Motion For New Trial Based
    Upon Newly Discovered Evidence” was filed by the district court on
    June 23, 2000. This response seeks that the district court re-
    characterize the Motion as a motion to vacate, set aside or correct the
    sentence under the AEDPA . The government failed to acknowledge
    the grant of specific permission by this district court for filing the
    appeal out-of-time that enabled the remand for hearing this specific
    motion for new trial. The appeal was in fact pending at this time and
    held in abeyance specific to this motion. Additionally, this response
    admitted clearly at footnote 3 on page 8 to the magistrate court’s order
    that the government brief the issue of whether it is possible to discern
    from the record in what sequence the jury made its decision with
    regard to each count. The government clearly admits that “After
    considering the question, the government is of the opinion that it is
    not possible to determine what or, if any, the jury followed in its
    deliberations of the various counts.”
    18. On November 13, 2000, the magistrate judge issued his Findings,
    Conclusions and Recommendation of The United States Magistrate
    Judge. Such Recommendation stated that “The trial court correctly
    re-sentenced Movant in accordance with Fed. R. Crim. P. 43(c)(4). To
    the extent Movant seeks a new trial based upon grounds other than
    newly discovered evidence; his motion should be DENIED AS
    UNTIMELY. To the extent Movant seeks a new trial on grounds of
    newly discovered evidence, his request does not meet the legal
    requirements for a new trial based upon newly discovered evidence
    and should be DENIED. All pending motions should be DENIED. All
    relief requested should be DENIED.”
    19. Although the docket does not mention the filed Twenty-four page
    Movant’s Objections To The Court’s Findings, Conclusions and
    Recommendation of the Untied States Magistrate Judge such was in
    fact filed and served upon the government by Counsel for Petitioner
    Erwin and indicates by the Certificate of Service such was hand
    delivered to the Assistant United States Attorney on the 22nd
    day of November, 2000 and hand delivered to Judge Paul Stickney, the
    presiding magistrate judge assigned under Section 636 to this matter.
    20. Again the criminal case docket is silent as to the actions pertinent to
    the motion for new trial, but the appeal in the
    5th Circuit Court of
    Appeals Docket Number 98-10506 which was held in abeyance
    during a limited remand for hearing in the district court on the motion
    for new trial, states, in Appellant’s Initial Brief at his Statement of
    Jurisdiction, that the lower court denied such motion on November 28,
    2000. It is not clear from the record or the pleadings but it indicates
    time wise that no proper re-referral under Section 636 was ordered by
    the district court as to the 24 page objections which contained
    numerous constitutional and due process challenges to the Report and
    Recommendation that was in fact adopted by the district court without
    21. On December 21, 2000 appointed counsel for the motion for new trial
    in the district court filed a Notice of Appeal also seeking to
    consolidate the later matter with the direct appeal from the amended
    judgment which was being held in abeyance. Finally, appointed
    counsel moved to withdraw and allow appointed appellant counsel in
    the direct appeal take over the appeal.
    22. On March 8, 2001 the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals granted the
    substitution of counsel back to appointed appellant counsel and set a
    new briefing schedule in USCA 98-10506 for both the direct appeal
    from the Amended Judgment filed April 8, 1998 that was in abeyance
    and for consolidation with the trial court’s denial of Petitioner Erwin’s
    Motion for New Trial on November 28, 2000.
    23. On April 19, 2001 appointed counsel for Petitioner Erwin filed the
    Opening Brief of Appellant Bonnie Burnette Erwin in Fifth Circuit
    Court of Appeals Cause 98-10506 as the consolidated appeal of both
    the direct appeal from the Amended Judgment and the denial of the
    Motion For New Trial.
    24. On June 12, 2001 the government filed its Brief For the United States
    in the consolidated appeal number 98-10506.
    25. On December 21, 2001 the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed
    both matters in the consolidated appeal.
    26. On July 11, 2002 Petitioner Erwin in cause 3:02-CV–1458 his motion
    to vacate and correct illegal sentence under Title 28 USC, Section
    2255. Such motion was assigned under Section 636 to the magistrate
    judge for review and issuance of a Report and Recommendation.
    27. On October 15, 2002 Petitioner Erwin filed his objections to the
    magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations.
    28. On October 17, 2002 the district court adopted the findings and
    recommendations of the magistrate judge and issued it order of
    dismissal with prejudice.
    29. On October 29, 2002 the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals issued its
    letter stating the United States Supreme Court had denied Cert on the
    98-10506 appeal and no further order was forthcoming.
    30. On October 31, 2002 Petitioner Erwin filed a Notice of appeal and
    Additional objections to the district court’s order, judgment and denial
    of a new trial in the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals cause number 98-
    31. On November 7, 2002 the district court ordered Petitioner Erwin to
    pay the deficiency of $105.00 for the docketing fee or otherwise file
    the proper IFP document seeking such status on appeal.
    32. On November 11, 2002 Petitioner Erwin filed a Motion for Copies of
    Criminal Documents Essential (sic) Needed For Appeal.
    33. On November 13, 2002 Petitioner Erwin filed Motion to Proceed In
    Forma Pauperis On Appeal to cure the deficiency as to the docketing
    fee of $105.00.
    34. On November 21, 2002 the district court ordered the adoption of the
    magistrate judges report and recommendations and ordered that (1)
    the IFP status was granted and (2) denying the certificate of
    35. On December 5, 2002 the district court denied Petitioner Erwin’s
    motion for copies of criminal documents essential (sic) needed on
    36. On December 6, 2002 Petitioner Erwin filed a Notice of Appeal as to
    the order of denial of the certificate of appealability.
    37. On December 12, 2002 Petitioner Erwin filed a Duplicate Notice of
    38, On December 17, 2002 Petitioner Erwin filed a Second
    Request/Motion For Leave To Proceed on Appeal In Forma Pauperis
    as to the notice of appeal denying the certificate of appealability.
    39. On December 20, 2002 Petitioner Erwin filed a duplication of the
    Second Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis and his Affidavit in
    support of the motion to proceed in forma pauperis
    40. On April 24, 2003 the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ordered the
    denial of a certificate of appealability and returned the entire record
    on appeal to the district court.
    41. On July 1, 2004 the district court ordered the case closed in response
    to a letter motion stating that “No status request on letter motion” will
    be filed and for the Clerk to return the “status request” to sender.
    42. On September 7, 2004 the district court re-characterized Petitioner
    Eriwn’s status request as a Section 2255 Motion and dismissed same
    without prejudice to his right to seek proper leave from the Fifth
    Circuit Court of Appeals to file a second or successive 2255 motion.
    43. On September 22, 2004 the district court issued a second order
    determining that Petitioner Erwin’s status request as to pendency of
    matters before the court was construed as a sixth motion for post-
    conviction relieve under Section 2255 and dismissed without
    prejudice pending review by a three-judge panel of the court of
    appeals. The order further stated that Petitioner Erwin was to obtain
    an order from the Fifth Circuit Court before he is permitted to file a
    successive motion in the district court.
    44. On September 23, 2004 Petitioner Erwin filed an Omnibus Motion for
    Relief invoking a number of statutes and rules in his effort to seek
    review and a lawful determination of fact issues in the criminal case.
    45. On October 5, 2004 Petitioner Erwin filed a Notice of Appeal with
    reference to the Order of September 22, 2004 and also filed him
    necessary Motion for Leave to proceed in appeal in forma pauperis.
    46. On October 22, 2004 the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals docketed the
    interlocutory appeal under cause number 04-11210.
    47. On November 4, 2004 the district court denied the certificate of
    appealability for the interlocutory appeal but granted leave to proceed
    in forma pauperis in that matter.
    48. On November 30, 2004 the district court denied Petitioner Erwin’s
    request for appointment of counsel in the interlocutory appeal.
    49. On June 14, 2005 the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in cause 04-
    11210 denied the interlocutory appeal, denied motion for bond on
    appeal, denied the certificate of appealability, denied counsel on
    appeal and denied motion for authorization to file a successive Section
    50. On February 24, 2006 Petitioner Erwin filed a Motion for Certificate
    of Appealability or otherwise Motion to Modify Terms of
    Imprisonment in the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals which was
  • transferred back to the district court for the Northern District of Texas,
    Dallas Division for docketing.
    51. On March 31, 2006 the district court issued its show cause order to the
    United States to respond to such Motion within 30 days.
    52. On April 28, 2006 Charles J. Shavers entered his formal appearance in
    the district court to represent Petitioner Erwin in the matter filed to
    modify the terms of imprisonment.
    53. On May 1, 2006 the United States filed a Motion to Dismiss in place
    of their response to the show cause order of the district court.
    54. On May 15, 2006 retained counsel Shavers filed a Motion to Amend
    the pleading and in response to the Motion to Dismiss by the United
    55. On May 17, 2006 Petitioner Erwin filed a Motion to Dismiss retained
    counsel Shavers from representation in this matter.
    56. On May 31, 2006 Petitioner Erwin filed his Objections to the United
    States Motion to Dismiss.
    57. On June 1, 2006 Petitioner Erwin filed his Standing Objections to the
    Response by the United States as a Motion to Dismiss.
    58. On June 28, 2006 the district court Ordered retained Counsel Shavers
    to file a response to Petitioner’s Motion to Dismiss Counsel and such
    was to be filed not later than 10 days from the date of the Order.
    59. On July 3, 2006 Petitioner Erwin filed a Notice of Appeal as to a
    January 6, 2005 Order denying the Petitioner’s objections to the
    magistrate judges Report and recommendation and findings.
    60. On July 5, 2006 the district court indicates that the original counts of
    the criminal case are added which includes the dismissed count one
    that was Ordered Dismissed with prejudice by the Fifth Circuit Court
    of Appeals some Twenty years previously.
    61. On July 12, 2006 Petitioner Erwin moves the district court to expunge
    notice of appeal.
    62. On July 19, 2006 the district court grants Petitioner Erwin’s motion to
    expunge the appeal.
    63. On July 31, 2006 Petitioner Erwin files a Motion to Substitute
    Counsel in this case based upon the fact that retained counsel Shavers
    has disregarded and failed to otherwise respond to the district court’s
    June 28, 2006 Order to answer in not longer than 10 days.
    64. On August 23, 2006 Petitioner Erwin files a Second Motion to
    Substitute Counsel continuing to seek the removal of Shavers from his
  • 65. On September 21, 2006 a Response if filed by Shavers as to the
    response ordered on June 28, 2006 by the district court.
    66. On November 7, 2006 Attorney Shavers is terminated by the district
    court in this case.
    67. On December 22, 2006 the district court ordered that the motion to
    correct the terms of imprisonment as re-characterized be now
    construed in part as a motion for habeas relief under Title 28 USC
    Section 2241 and that Petitioner Erwin’s claims as construed as
    sounding in habeas are dismissed without prejudice for want of
    jurisdiction to be filed in the proper district court having subject and
    in personam jurisdiction and where Petitioner is confined.
    68. On December 22, 2006 the district court grants Petitioner Erwin’s
    Motion to dismiss attorney Shavers formally from the matter.
    69. On December 29, 2006 Petitioner Erwin files notice of his change of
    address to USP Leavenworth, Kansas which provides proper
    established filing jurisdiction once his residence term has been
    exceeded in that venue.
    70. On January 5, 2007 Petitioner Erwin filed a Notice of Appeal as to the
    Motion to Dismiss Shavers, Order on Motion to Substitute Counsel,
    and Order denying Motion To Amend and Correct Sentence.
    71. On January 8, 2007 Petitioner Erwin filed a Notice of Appeal as to the
    Order dismissing without prejudice the want of jurisdiction matter.
    72. On January 10, 2007 Petitioner Erwin filed a Motion for
    Reconsideration and/or Otherwise Motion to File Notice of Appeal as
    to dismissal without prejudice the want of jurisdiction matter.
    73. On January 24, 2007 Petitioner Erwin filed a Jurisdictional
    74. On January 25, 2007 the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals assigns docket
    number 07-10062 for appeal.
    75. On February 15, 2007 the district court grants in forma pauperis status
    for appeal but denies certificate of appealability to Petitioner Erwin,
    76. On February 15, 2007 the district court denies Petitioner Erwin’s
    Motion for Reconsideration.
    77. On March 25, 2007 Petitioner Erwin files a second Motion for
    Reconsideration as to the Order of dismissal without prejudice for
    want of jurisdiction.

    Sign Bonnie’s Petitionon



2 thoughts on “Bonnie Erwin-Wrongfully Convicted in Texas

  1. Is Bonnie Erwin being railroad? It seems that everything possible is being done to deny almost any request to further prove his innocence. Is it the privilege of Texas Prisons to house as many Innocent Black Men as they can? Please define Justice or define “JUST-US”@


Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s