State of Michigan Please Free Raymond Gray

Free Ray Gray from McKinney on Vimeo.
Free Ray Gray from on Vimeo.

Important Links: #freeraygray
http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/free-ray-gray
http://www.the-line-up.com/ray-gray/

Raymond F. Gray - Follow this link to help with getting the petition signed.

Summary of Facts Leading Up To, And Including,
Felony Murder Conviction


Free Ray Gray, this account was written and recorded on a website created by Ray's wife Barbara Gray in 1999


Background from Raymond’s Account:
In early February, 1973, Raymond Gray had a girlfriend named Barbara J. Hill. They had been close through the holidays and had attended several parties together, meeting other young people and being seen together. When two of Barbara’s friends came looking for her for help in locating a drug dealer, they found her visiting Raymond. The four of them discussed the possibilities, and Barbara suggested her cousin Ruben Bryant was a dealer. In fact, she suggested that he could be robbed as well. He generally had both drugs and money available, although he and his lady, Jacqueline Hall had an alarm system at the apartment they used, and were fairly cautious. Raymond was not into that kind of thing, and he and Ruben knew each other. Ray wanted no part of robbing Ruben. The two men were Charles Matthews, who was about Raymond’s size (Ray is 5’ 7") and Tyrone Pugh, who stood over six feet tall.

On February 6, 1973, the three, Charlie Matthews, Tyrone Pugh, and Barbara Hill went to 2014 Euclid, Detroit, where Barbara was to go in first, visiting and making certain that the alarm would be turned off.

Raymond’s Account:
After the robbery, the two men, Tyrone and Charlie, came back to Raymond’s house, arguing and fighting, because Tyrone had left and did not come back to help Charlie, and because Charlie had dropped the loot. They were becoming dangerous, and Raymond put them out of his house. Later, Barbara called Raymond from the police station and told him that Ruben was dead. She arrived later, with the loot in her purse.

Within two weeks Raymond was in custody, and a pre-trial examination was held on February 21, 1973. Raymond had no prior convictions, no record of robberies, no similar "M.O.". He had just turned 21 the previous Christmas Eve. He has been incarcerated ever since.


From the February 21, 1973 Pre-Trial Examination:
Marie Darlene Clark testified that she had met Raymond Gray with Barbara Hill on at least one prior occasion. However, when the police interviewed her immediately after the robbery, she did not mention Ray Gray or give them a description other than that the killer wore a cap and dark coat. Within a few days, she had given them a description. It was not until she was shown a photographic lineup a week later, that she told police the picture resembled the robber. She could not positively identify him at that time. Later, she identified Raymond Gray from a lineup.
Only Marie Darlene Clark and Barbara Hill testified at the Pre-Trial Examination.


From Trial Transcripts, Detroit Recorders Court Case, No. 73-01147 Commencing April 9, 1973, Justin C. Ravitz, Presiding, in a Bench Trial:
A short while after Barbara Hill arrived, visited and made a phone call, the two men had arrived and pushed their way into the apartment. Barbara Hill, along with two other women present, Marie Darlene Clark and Jacqueline Hall, as well as Ruben Bryant, were all told to lay down on the floor while the two men went through the apartment and robbed them. When they were finished, and the taller man had left and the shorter man was on his way out, Mr. Bryant got up and began to fight with the shorter robber, tipping a table and throwing it onto the robber, who shot Mr. Bryant, and then escaped.


Marie Darlene Clark again stated that she did not tell anyone that she knew the robber, nor had she seen him prior to the line-up. After the robbery and murder, she could only tell the police that he was a short man and had on a dark hat. In a later statement, she said the robber had a thin, hairy, unshaven face. Later, on the witness stand, she said that the robber had a mustache and long sideburns. She also acknowledged that Raymond has a round face, not the thin face she had earlier described to the police. At the time, Raymond had a long mustache and a goatee, on his round face. His hair is naturally rather wavy and curly, and is often thought to have been permed or jeri curled.
On cross examination, Ms. Clark admitted talking to someone about the robbery and asking about Raymond before going to the line-up and identifying him there. She admitted describing the robber as having a thin face, and that Raymond had a round face.


From Testimony of Jacqueline Hall on April 10, 1973:
Question,
"are either of those two men in the courtroom?"
Answer:
"Well, he favors the guy that had the gun."
Question,
"who favors him?"
Answer,
"The guy sitting over at the table to my left", pointing to Raymond.
A little later in the testimony, Jacqueline Hall said she had told the police the short guy had a mustache and a light colored coat.
Question,
"Now, Mrs. Hall, can you tell us one way or the other whether or not Mr. Gray is the man that did the shooting that day?"
Answer,
"I am not sure because the guy had a hat on his head. From what I can tell, his hair wasn’t that long, but his face, he favors him. His face looks the same."
Question,
"…in all of these photographs, is there anybody in there who had the type of mustache you believe you saw that evening?"
Answer,
"Uh-huh, yes."
Question,
"How many of the pictures have the type of mustache you believe you saw that evening?"
Answer,
"One." The only picture in the photos with the kind of mustache the robber wore, was the one of Raymond Gray.
Question,
"Is there anything about that hairstyle in that particular picture that sets it apart from all the other photographs that you looked at?"
Answer,
"Because it’s done."
The only picture in the photo lineup with hair that appeared curled or permed was the one of Raymond.
The long, "Fu Manchu" type of mustache was quite popular at the time, as was the smooth, jeri curl or permanent waving. It should not have been difficult for the police to put together a photo lineup of similar facial hair and hair-dos. The police might just as well have put a red circle around Ray’s picture, with a "pick this one" note written across it.
Jacqueline later went from saying that Ray looked like the man with the gun, to he was definitely the man with the gun. Further:
Question,
"Have you ever mistaken anybody for anybody else in your entire life?"
Answer,
"No."
Question,
"You never have?"
Answer,
"No."
Later on, Ms. Hall told the prosecuting attorney that she had previously met Raymond Gray at a party, but had no explanation as to why she did not tell the police that she knew the man in her initial interviews. (We think that a suggestion was made later, perhaps by a family member of Barbara’s, that Raymond was the guilty party, and that led to the misidentification.)
Referring to the picture line up,
Question,
"You think you said it looks like the man, rather than it is the man?"
Answer,
"I think I said it looks like him."
Question,
"Has your mind changed since you’ve been on the witness stand?"
Answer,
"Yes."
Question,
"How has it changed?"
Answer,
"It is the man."
When questioned on the witness stand, Barbara Hill denied that it was Raymond Gray.

Periodically, for the next two decades, Barbara Hill would contact Ray, telling him she knew he was doing her time, and that she would tell the truth, and set things straight, but her conscience only bothered her for a few minutes or days at a time. In 1983, she told our attorney, John Alan Johnson of Grand Rapids, Michigan, on the telephone that she would tell the truth, but she did not show up for a meeting with him, and disappeared the day she was supposed to come to court.


From the Verdict, April 11, 1973:

Judge Justin Ravitz: "Mr. Gray, you are going to be questioned by persons from the Probation Department. They are going to ask you about this case and your fairly strange position as am I. That is, regardless of what they think of you after this interview and regardless of what I think of you, come April 25, under the law of the State of Michigan, I am not going to have any choice but to give you a natural sentence. I want you to know that out front. I want you to know a few other things. I will follow the law and the sentence will be as I have already indicated. But, I don’t agree for one moment with a mandatory life sentence; with a judge being precluded from exercising any discretion whatsoever which the law requires me to ignore. I can’t even think, I am just supposed to rubber stamp under the statute; do you understand that? There are cases that are in appeal now attacking that sort of statute…."  "…. when I state what my sentence would be if I wasn't mandated by the narrow, in my judgement, not very intelligible Michigan statute on this question."


From the Sentencing, Friday, May 11, 1973:

Counsel, Richard Monash: "We understand that the law provides this punishment in such a matter. I’d like to state to the Court that I concur with the Court’s feelings. We’d rather hear it from a judge than hear it from a law book, or a code as to what the sentence should be for Mr. Gray. I think when the law specifies that each and every person should be treated the same regardless of who they are, what they are, what their background is like, what they’re capable of, perhaps in contributing to society gainfully – I think its arbitrary. I think it’s discriminatory. And I think it violates the most fundamental constitutional provisions that we have. I think due process has been violated. And I think there is a definite transgression of the Eighth Amendment. I think equal protection of the law has been violated. And in this particular instance the report speaks for itself…"

Charles Gray, Raymond’s father:
Mr. Gray tried to tell the Court that they had the name of "the guy that really done it". Mr. Monash then gave the Court the names of Tyrone Burt (it was actually Pugh) and Charlie Matthews.


Judge Ravitz: "As I’m required to do under the law, that I abhor, it’s the sentence of this Court that you be turned over to the custody of the Michigan Department of Corrections for the balance of your natural life, Mr. Gray.

"I might say that you’re only 21 years old. You have but one prior conviction and that was for a misdemeanor for Unlawful Use, or something, of marijuana. The Court’s familiar and acquainted with some hardships that you underwent with respect to your home situation."

And I would say based upon every statement that’s before me, if I had the chance of being able to exercise independent judgement, which I ought to have, I most definitely would not impose a life sentence upon you. At the same time I would impose a fairly stiff sentence on you, a very stiff sentence that in large part would be predicated upon the fact, one, that you killed another human being. Two, it was senseless and it was done out of greed. And three, despite your statements, your testimony in court, your statement to the probation officer, and through the representatives now, and the representations of your father, I’m convinced that you did it.

"If I had my choice in the matter, I would sentence you to a term of not less than 10 years imprisonment, and not more than 20. And you can use that for whatever appellate value it might have to you."


In 1980, Raymond met Charles Matthews again, at the State Prison of Southern Michigan at Jackson.
Charlie was doing time for another robbery. He said he had not realized that Raymond had been tried and convicted for the Ruben Bryant robbery/murder. After some discussions, Charlie signed an affidavit confessing to the crime. That affidavit was sent to Judge Ravitz. Ravitz referred the case to the State Appellate Defenders Office. The affidavit did not go with the referral. It disappeared. The Appellate Defenders Office had just begun work on trying to figure out who might be able to use the new Aaron decision of the Michigan Supreme Court. When they were questioned about the impact of the confession on Raymond’s case, they did not know anything about a confession. They had received the case file, with no explanation from the Court. An original draft, which had contained several minor errors, was forwarded to them. The Appellate Defenders Office discovered that Charlie was one of their clients on his current case. So they referred Charlie to a private attorney. The next two years were spent telling Charlie that it was not in his best interests to confess to the crime.

When Ray finally got back into court, in 1983, and Charlie Matthews was called to testify, he said he had personal knowledge of the crime and then he took protection under the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution.


The prosecutor suggested that Charlie was probably doing a very long sentence and confessing to an old murder would not make a difference to him. When that proved untrue, the prosecutor suggested that Ray had somehow coerced, or threatened Charlie into confessing or implicating himself. It would be an incredible coincidence if Ray could find someone who not only could be forced to confess to something he had not done, but who had the same name as was given to the Court in 1973!

For years we have tried to find out what was in the original investigative file. Since there was absolutely no evidence presented at trial, we have been convinced that something was being covered up. Although the Detroit police were less likely to do a thorough job than many other police departments, it is hard to believe they found no evidence whatsoever. But, it could not have pointed to Ray, or it would have been presented at the trial. In fact, Charlie had told Ray that Ruben had thrown a table at him and he had put up his hand to fend it off. He had been terrified for months that he would be brought in for that crime since he was sure that he had left a whole hand print on the table.

We have always wondered how the police could have chosen Ray as a suspect. It seemed Barbara Hill had to be the connection, but that did not really fit since she testified that Raymond was not guilty. Alternatively, it may be that her family suspected her, and because of that assumed that her current boyfriend, the hapless Ray Gray, must have been involved, too. Ray had no previous record of that type of crime. He was guilty of associating with and being loyal to the wrong people, not of being a murderer.

When the police arrested him, they did not conduct a search of his home for the gun or any other evidence. It was as if they did not want to find any evidence, or to know the truth. They did not want anything like evidence or facts to mess up their case!

In 1998, a police detective pulled the file from the closed records office, and was going to look through it. He told an attorney friend that the last entry was over 10 years old. But before he had a chance to completely examine the file, the file was taken from him and he was reprimanded, and told that it was an open case in which he was not involved and had no business getting into.
After a quarter century, the original police involved were either dead or retired. The second man was never apprehended or charged. There had been no activity for over a decade. You would think there would be no one left to be hurt by finally bringing the truth to light.

So, (February 1, 1999) we are in year 26 of a life sentence. Ray Gray, 135481, is innocent. It is hard to believe the original trial was perfect.

For further information, see the original trial transcripts, (the one appeal was pro-forma, not based on anything in the trial).

 http://web.archive.org/web/20021024030115/http://www.freeraygray.com/summary.html

http://web.archive.org/web/20050307153047/http://www.freeraygray.com/aboutray.html 

#freeraygray, Fred Rosen, Free Ray Gray, innocence project, innocent, life sentence, michigan, petition for parole, Ray Gray, Raymond Gray, rick snyder,