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,
