Post Conviction Relief Document


James Bauhaus       (                           Denial

box 220-88367         (                           

Hominy, OK 74035   (

( Case No. F-73-24

           v (                             Docket history; Exhibit 8

Oklahoma      (

PCR 22: 1080 Et SeqSynopsis

On 8-9-74 Tulsa County District Judge Raymond Graham assessed life after a jury declared guilt of murder. The trial Public Defender was James E. Wallace: appeal Public Defender was Alan Smallwood.    (See Bauhaus v OK 532 p2d 434 (OK cr. ap. 75)         I sought further review many times through eight courts and 39 judges from 1996 to 2000, (See a partial list labeled “Cases”) due to new evidence. All were lost to technicalities without reaching the merits (How I grew five inches of wrong-color hair in just seven days). None were published; most relied upon an opinion from ex-judge Sven Eric Holmes that mis-stated facts and evidence.          (See Bauhaus v Ron Ward, 96-cv-929-H, 3-31-98 from US Fed. N. OK.) My decades of research into this case indicates that a young man was hired to kill Mr. Hunt for being an informer for the Tulsa Police during the porn wars between top Tulsa and Oklahoma City prosecutors S. M. “Buddy” Fallis and Andrew Coats, both of whom sought the governor’s seat. (See official Tulsa Police Department report Exhibit A which indicates that Mr. Hunt expected “someone” to put a bomb in his car, presumably one or more of his fellow porn dealers he’d helped police convict, fine and imprison.) The young man lay in wait for Mr. and Mrs. Hunt to complete their daily routine and return home at 2:30 PM. Soon as they returned, the young man shot Mr. Hunt once in his heart, while ignoring the witness to his murder. He then escaped by crashing through a locked glass door, slashing himself so badly on the glass that he must retain permanent scars on his forearms or hands. He left much of his own blood on the porch, on a fence he hopped that had to have punctured his palm, and splattered blood for two to five blocks more that police followed a dog along to their only other witness. Jurors declared guilt solely on the basis of these two witnesses despite the existence of plenty of physical evidence that inexplicably was never volunteered to the defense, as required by Due Process, Equal Protection, fair trial and the law. (See “Fundamental Fairness” requirement of the Due Process Clause.) I ask that my poor attempt to appear pro se is given the benefit of Haines v Kerner 92 S. Ct. 594 (1972).                                  


Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8