"I am INNOCENT of the crime for which I was convicted and sentenced to die for. My death sentence was commuted to life in June 2005. I have been incarnated for many many years now (17 yrs) for something I did not even commit!

For the whole 10 years I was on Death Row every day included deep despair combined with unknown certainty of a probable date with a man named death. Now in general population, it has not became any easier. Actually it has become more difficult.

My last thread is hope, and that depends on you and others in the free world who are compassionate and caring enough to help me get a `Let`s see justice done` lawyer and investigator who can prove through "uninvestigated facts" that my conviction and death sentence have been a grave error!



 There are actual facts that could prove my innocence

 At trial no one seemed to care about the "physical evidence" for instance?!

No one even tried to find out whose fingerprints it were that were lifted at the crime scene?! Those finger prints were no match to mine and no one else was even tested or investigated!

Or who wrote the note that stated `nothing wrong or illegal happened while at Elmer Rode`s house`?

A 'Competent' lawyer would have been prepared for a capital murder trial "but mine was no!t", he did not do a lot to present the important facts!  Or to even send incestigators out there to "find out the truth" of what happened that day in 1994.

  • There were multiple sets of fingerprints found and lifted at the crime scene. None of the fingerprints at the crime scene matched mine when tested.
  • There was hair found at the crime scene on the victim. Forensic DNA tests proved  that my hair did not match the hair found on the victim.
  • All the evidence from the crime scene was taken into police custody. By the time of the trial some of the evidence was 'missing', evidence that was likely exculpatory, or  could have given direction to such evidence.
  • The victim was well known in Jefferson County, Beaumont/Texas.The victim was the Dean of Admissions and Registrar of Lamar University College in Beaumont, as well  as being very active in many organizations such as the Young Men's Business League, in which the jury  foreman was a member of the same organization and others.


This being absolute conflict of interest 5 people on the jury knew the victim and 2 were husband and wife!

All three efforts to change the venue of the trial, to have a "jury who would be impartial", were denied!

My girlfriend (at the time) Heather testified at the trial where I was during the day of the 23rd when the crime was supposed to have occured. I was at home with her and my great grandmother. The case presented was total circumstantial, he said, she said, hearsay!

There was no physical evidence presented at all, not one! Only hearsay.

There is a statement which is a coherced fabricated confession. At the time of the arrest I was very intoxicated on a combination of prescription pain and sleeping medications, alcohol, and marijuana. A professional pharmacist testified at trial that this combination would definitely have made me incoherent!

Heather also testified at trial to my state of intoxication and incoherence at the time of my arrest. At the police office I repeatetely asked to see my dad and I did not find out until the next day in jail that I had apparently signed a bogus confession."

John CP Dewberry



Excerpt from Dewberry v State

October 20, 1999

Majority opinion by Judge Holland

In his fifth and sixth points of error, appellant complains of the trial court’s denial of his motion to suppress his confession. Although he claims his rights were violated under both the Texas and the Federal Constitutions, appellant combines these two points of error into one argument and cites only the federal constitution. Because appellant fails to make an argument under the Texas Constitution, we only address whether appellant’s federal constitutional rights were violated. See Heitman, 815 S.W.2d at 681. Appellant contends that because he was seventeen, a minor, at the time of the interrogation, his request to speak with his father was equivalent to a request to speak with counsel and should have terminated the interrogation.

We find it unnecessary to address appellant’s contention that a minor’s request for his father is equivalent to a request for his attorney.7 Appellant was considered an adult for purposes of criminal prosecution because he was seventeen years old. See Tex. Pen. Code § 8.07 (b). Therefore, we must only decide whether an arrested adult’s request for his father is equivalent to a request for an attorney.

Appellant requested to speak with his father on several occasions. While an attorney can advise an accused on the legal and practical effects of speaking during an interrogation, parents normally are not prepared to give such advice. In fact, a parent may encourage the accused to speak when it would be best to remain silent. See Randall v. State, 712 S.W.2d 631, 632 (Tex. App.--Beaumont 1986, pet. ref’d).8 Hence, we conclude that an accused’s request to speak to a parent is not equivalent to a request for an attorney.

The record fails to show appellant requested the assistance of counsel. Evidence from the suppression hearing demonstrated that one of the interrogators told appellant he could call an attorney if he wanted. Appellant responded, however, by stating that he had not “done anything wrong. I don’t need a lawyer.” Given this record, we further conclude that appellant’s request did not amount to a clear and unambiguous invocation of his right to counsel. See Dinkins, 894 S.W.2d 330; Russell, 727 S.W.2d 573; Collins, 727 S.W.2d 565.

Contact us:


John Dewberry #1306204
McConnell Unit
3001 South Emily Drive
Beeville, TX 78102