Author Archives: Joan Treppa

Separate Ahmong Equals…Pt 2

Continuing on with this astonishing story, the revelations began as I navigated the Innocence Project of Minnesota website. I had clicked on the page that lists movies and books depicting wrongful conviction cases. I noticed one book that had been added recently. Its title read, The Road to Freedom; Strangers Restore Justice for an Innocent Man, by Trudy Baltazar. Hmmm…interesting. Similar to the kind of activity I was engaging in with the Wisconsin Monfils case. I read the paragraph next to the book image and saw that it was about the famous Toyota case which happened here in Minnesota. I was intrigued and wanted to find out if the author was local. I did a search. It appeared that she not only lives in Minnesota but lives close to where I live. Wow. I wondered why I wasn’t aware of what she was involved in. I decided to search for her online because she was definitely someone I wanted to meet. I found a link to purchase her book. I ordered a copy which also prompted me to highlight Mr. Lee’s case that month for my exoneree series.

A crucial detail I learned about Mr. Lee’s case was that approximately thirty-three months after he was imprisoned, an attorney filed a request for an evidentiary hearing. The purpose of this hearing was for the judge to rule on whether or not to grant him a new trial based on new evidence that had come to light. The hearing was granted, but then according to Trudy’s book, this happened:

Upon hearing a news broadcast in St. Paul, Minnesota about a husband/father who was wrongfully imprisoned after he drove a car that suddenly accelerated and killed three people, Trudy Baltazar felt compelled to act. She didn’t know the man and she didn’t know the victims but she felt something wasn’t right when the county attorney opposed a new trial even though there was new evidence and 44 new witnesses”.

Trudy had organized a rally in front of the Ramsey County Courthouse. She contacted the local media but one reporter privately contacted her to ask if she would be interested in doing an interview. Trudy was warned that she would be on the front page of the St. Paul Pioneer Press and as it turned out, the article appeared on a Monday, the same day as the rally was to be held. The rally was an overwhelming success with people from all ethnic backgrounds and walks of life showing up to voice their concern over this opposition. All of the major local TV stations were there and Trudy was interviewed by each of them. Big news in Minnesota and in my neck of the woods! But where was I?

This rally had taken place in the summer of 2010. After thinking about the timing it occurred to me that this was the same time frame in which I was heavily involved in advocating for the five Wisconsin men. I’d been making numerous trips to Green Bay to gain our own attention concerning those convictions. We were embroiled in our own controversy as I pushed for a risky and bold move, to stage our own rally in Downtown Green Bay near the Brown County Courthouse.

Our rally had to happen on October twenty-eighth; the same date as when the guilty verdicts were handed down in 1995. The press surrounding the Monfils Conspiracy book was starting to wane and the pressure was on to keep the momentum going about this injustice. A rally was the only way to get the necessary attention. We could not afford to allow this opportunity to slip away. Until now, no one had pursued a rally and I felt it was imperative we bring this activity into the forefront.

Trudy states in her book that she’d been innately compelled to do something big, though she didn’t know what. How ironic it is for two determined women with essentially the same motivations to simultaneously be inspired. What’s more, to share in a similar event that would cause a shake-down of an entire law enforcement community in two separate states? Whew! You cannot predict something like that.

Well…Trudy and I became good friends. I admire her because of her selfless actions to help an innocent man; a man who is now free partly due to her actions. Trudy succeeded in doing something that few are able or willing to do. For this reason, I asked her to speak at one of our car shows to tell her story.

Trudy works full time but stays in contact with Koua’s family. She remains an advocate for others in matters concerning the unintentional acceleration issue. I continue to work on what my legacy will be. How fortunate for two gutsy women leading their own charges in the abolition of wrongful convictions, to cross paths. We stay connected and lend support for each others’ efforts to make a difference for those whose voices have been silenced and forgotten.

Lastly, when I wrapped my mind around all I had learned, another thing hit me like a Mac truck. A few years back, when I was parking my 1999 Toyota behind a restaurant, it proceeded to do the exact same thing as Mr. Lee’s. It unintentionally accelerated at an unbelievably high speed despite my efforts of putting pressure on the brake! Luckily, I was able to shut the ignition off which immediately halted the acceleration. This incident had essentially slipped my mind because, unlike in Koua’s case, my experience did not result in anyone’s death.

Separate Ahmong Equals…Pt 1

Once in a while, life throws a remarkable revelation at you and all you can do is sit there…speechless. I’m excited to share this exoneree of the month story but in order to complete it, I have to share another related sub-story. However, I’ve decided to keep you in suspense until next month by separating it into two parts. I assure you that both elements add greatly to the telling of this story.

Here’s a brief summary about exoneree, Koua Fong Lee-a Hmong living in Minnesota. His is a catastrophic wrongful conviction case that most in Minnesota are familiar with. Sadly, even now, the details surrounding his exoneration are linked to an ongoing controversy with the Toyota company.

In June of 2006, Mr. Lee and his family were on their way home from church when their 1996 Toyota Camry suddenly accelerated to 90 miles per hour on a St Paul, MN exit ramp and crashed into the back of another car, killing three people. In 2007, he was charged with intentional vehicular homicide and sentenced to eight years in prison. But then two years later, other Toyota drivers complained about “sudden unintentional acceleration” and Toyota began to recall millions of cars, though not the ’96 model. With the help of the Minnesota Innocence Project (IPMN), Mr. Lee’s new Attorney tracked down other drivers who had the same experience with cars similar to his. Based on new evidence and errors by his trial Attorney, Mr. Lee filed a motion for a new trial. The motion went forward and he was exonerated on August 5, 2010 after serving three years of his sentence.

In 2012, I met Mr. Lee and his wife, Pangoua Moua, at a benefit hosted by the Innocence Project of Minnesota. Both are exceptionally humble people with a deep gratitude for the help they received during this perplexing episode in their lives. The relief they feel that the worst is behind them is still evident. I felt privileged to have met them. It’s difficult to place ourselves in the shoes of these people whose lives are literally ripped apart. But it’s amazing to see how many of them are able to move forward, keeping the nightmares at bay. Knowing that this is not always the case it is nonetheless, a blessing.

Recently, I researched this case a bit further and stumbled upon another rather important aspect, central to how Mr. Lee’s release came about. It all happened unbeknownst to me even though it was going on in my own back yard. I was astonished as I learned more about the details surrounding Lee’s exoneration. In fact, what was going on in Minnesota with Mr. Lee’s case was similar to what I was actively pursuing in Green Bay, Wisconsin!

And then…another revelation even more startling, dawned on me…

A Call to Justice…

We all want to believe that our country has the best judicial system in the world. It gives us a sense of security…a sense that the system is infallible. However, having a best system and an accurate system are two different things. My friend, retired crime scene expert, Johnny Johnson, and I believed in the system for the most part until we became involved in the Monfils case. We found that things weren’t so cut and dried. Aspects like unlawful deals, career snitches as witnesses, fear and intimidation tactics during interrogations, lies by the police to suspects, deceit, and dangerous communications between the police force and DA’s offices have caused a tipping of the scales and an atmosphere of inequality for those most vulnerable in our society.

What I say here is not new nor does it include everyone in the legal arena. For instance, Johnny, having a career in law enforcement could have chosen to deny the obvious in this case. Instead, he courageously acknowledged its degradation and embraced the idea of becoming part of the solution. The Minneapolis law firm we are working with has also seen this case for what it is. In fact, they’ve plenty of experience from working on other cases of wrongful convictions, on a Pro Bono basis.

But how could the majority of us have known to what extent the problem existed until the exoneration doors started opening up allowing throngs of innocent people through after decades of being locked up for crimes they did not commit? When I originally posted this blog in May of 2014 the National Registry of Exonerations reported a total of 1,367 people had been exonerated in this country since 1989. In 2017 that number reached 2,000. Note that these numbers represent only those who’ve been exonerated and doesn’t include the hundreds, even thousands of potentially innocent people in prison whose cases will never be reviewed.

Some say these numbers are not large enough to warrant concern or institute changes in our laws. Is it better to incarcerate someone even if they are not guilty rather than risk allowing the guilty person to go free? In the past I’ve suggested that when you incarcerate the wrong person, the real perpetrator is able to re-offend and is no longer under the radar of the authorities. Whatever your opinion, it’s no longer acceptable or safe to deny that this is a real cause for concern.

Regarding the Monfils case, having witnessed what was mistakenly perceived as a justified end because two important equations were omitted; the idea that people are innocent until proven guilty and, the importance of full and impartial disclosure of all the evidence, is unsettling. Johnny and I believe the scales of justice are skewed which is evident in the few cases we’ve reviewed. Time and again, the same unethical and yes, illegal practices are apparent within the entire legal process, practices that have become acceptable but have no place in the process of determining guilt or innocence. Since when is it okay to have our rights carelessly tossed aside because of inadequate monetary funds or putting political advancement ahead of the duties the authorities are sworn to uphold?

It is too easy to convict without adequate evidence, and too costly and arduous to overturn a questionable conviction? A thought we’ve considered is to form an objective panel of professional experts from all walks of expertise to review convictions before absolute incarceration occurs. We should be above reproach if we persist with the idea that we have the best system in the world. In an age of transparency this should be commonplace and readily accepted.

The objective is threefold; to determine whether justice was served, to determine whether there was adequate reasonable doubt presented and if the sentence is appropriate to the offence. All of these would help to guard against mistaken wrongful convictions, keep innocent families intact, save taxpayers money, and in some cases, save lives!

Catching the most prevalent elements of corruption would be the main goal of this process. It would be deemed an honor to participate on this panel and a highly sought after opportunity. Sadly, in this society, we lack adequate people willing to give back, so a prerequisite for achieving licensure would be to donate 200+ Pro Bono hours per year to serve on this panel with the stipulation of having to disclose total yearly hours. Placement on the panel would depend on past experience and level of expertise. A revolving door of panelists would be enacted on a regular basis to give all appropriate professionals an opportunity to participate.

We are serious about the consideration of this idea. We understand that many details would have to be worked out prior to placement of any such panel. But we believe that as laws regarding wrongful convictions improve, a dialogue must commence about properly enacting them. The most important part of this equation is to initiate major change in the massively flawed process that exists currently.