NEWLY DISCOVERED SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE

CONCERNING THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE TEENAGE BRAIN

1. The new studies that are presented here show that darrin,
just like almost every other teenager, was still developing

at the time this crime was committed. these studies show that

as a teenager the brian is still growing new connections and

is still developing. teenagers are unable to make proper choices
more times than not. their impulses. Then add outside factors
like first time I.V. drug use, at the hands of a older woman,

and the promise of a sexual encounter and Darrin, had not chance

of making proper. moral, right choices. Darrin, was only fifty-

one days into his nineteenth years of life when this crime took

place, granted he possessed a man's body, however his brain
was still developing from childhood to adulthood. Darrin is
not attempting to say that he could not be held accountable
for this crime because of this study if after a new trial he
was found guilty after receiving a fair trial with effective
assistance of Counsel. What Darrin, wishes to bring to this
Honorable Courts attention is that had this newly discovered
evidence been available at the time that darrin was sentenced
he believes that enough mitigation would have been found to
exist to find Darrin INELIGIBLE for a sentence of DEATH. This
newly discovered evidence has just recently been brought to
Darrin's attention. These studies were not even complete at
the time of Darrin's trial or sentencing. (See exhibit "ony,
Darrin seems to be a text book case concerning the results of
this study, had this evidence been presented during Darrin's

trial and sentencing there can be no doubt that the out come

(14)

HBF So Be

1:70 Fh


g. Darrin, was denied effective assistance of Trial Counsel

as guaranteed to him by the United States Constitution. Darrin's
Due Process rights were violated when the -Honorable Judge Mannion
heard evidence at Darrin's Motion to Dismiss Statements that
Darrin was severely intoxicated at the time of his arrest.
Evidence was produced at this hearing that showed Darrin, was
under the influence of L.S.D., Alcohol, and Cannabis, at the

time of his arrest and interrogation by the F.B.I., had the
Honorable Judge Mannion gave full weight to the testimony of
witness that had seen Darrin, ingest these substances he would
have had no choice but to grant Trial Counsel's Motion and there-
by preventing the State from using a illegally obtained statement.
Without the use of that illegally obtained statement Darrin's
innocence would have been securred, for without that key piece

of illegally obtained evidence, there was not enough evidence

found innocent. by entering this erroneous ruling Judge Mannion,
deprived Darrin of his Due Process rights because had it not
been for the erroneous ruling Darrin's trial Counsel would have
had the advantage of a much different legal strategy, that of
Darrin's innocence. The reason we know this was a erroneous
ruling is because in making it Judge Mannion stated that he did
not believe that Darrin, was intoxicated as he claimed he was.
However just TEN (10) short days later during sentencing Judge
Mannion when choosing to sentence Darrin, to DEATH, he stated
he found in aggravation that Darrin, was high and messed up

on drugs the day he was arrested. Judge Mannion choose to have
it both ways. He stated when it was a advantage for the State's
Attorney to say that Darrin was not intoxicated at the time

of his arrest so they could use his illegally obtained statement
and then at sentencing Judge Mannion choose to use that drug
use and intoxication as a aggravating factor to sentence Darrin,
to DEATH. Where is the JUSTICE in this? This is a clear cut
violation of Darrin's right to Due Process. Darrin, concedes

that his Trial Counsel should have objected to this at the time
it happen and this it is deemed waived by the Court. However

with the new evidence that shows Trial Counsel was severely

(5)
ar 2,20 2B



Now let us look at Exhibit "A", and see a first hand
account of Mr. Cheronis', history, up till the trial of Darrin,
and further on till Mr. Cheronis, took his own life on
January 2, 2001, by shooting himself in the head. It is clear
the Mr. Cheronis', drug use clearly did not make him a better
Attorney but rather severely impaired his ability to provide
the services for which he was hired, which in this case was
to defend Darrin, to prove his innocence and in essence save
Darrin's life. Mr. Cheronis' professional life dia not see
him start out as a addict, he was at one time a very accomplished

Attorney. then he started to experiment with heavy or "HARD

DRUGS" in the 19805, Through out this decade it became worse,
the drug use was starting to affect his practice. Many Judges
had reprimanded him for excessive requests for continuances,
and not being prepared for trial. A number of Mr. Cheronis',
clients found themselves without representation as he would
withdraw from the case if he did not receive more money even
though the client had already paid what was agreed to. The
grate need for this extra money was Mr. Cheronis' need to buy
more drugs. Sadly there is no real way to investigate at this
point if it was Mr. Cheronis', clients who may have paid him
with drugs were the ones he gave the best defense to. It became
clear to those around Mr. Cheronis, that his addiction was
becoming worse by the day. He was now spending money given

to him by clients on drug, strip bars, and sex clubs. This
behavior was witnessed first hand by Mr. Cheronis' brother-in-
law, and friend form 1972 till his Mr. Cheronis' death in 2001.
This man also witnessed Mr. Cheronis, using drugs on many

occasions while the were out together, or in Mr. Cheronis' home,

(10)
apr 250 206%

14 269 Poe



—— 10. -.On. January. 10,2003, -former-Governor-Ryan-commuted-Darrin's—

7. On April 13, 1998 Judge Mannion, dismissed Darrin's Post

Conviction Petition.

8. On May 1998, Judge Mannion, denied Darrin's Motion to

Reconsider, on the grounds that he didn't want to hear the

Shatner case!

9. On May 8, 1999, the Illinois Supreme Court vacated the
order of the trial Court and remanded Darrin's Post Conviction
Petition back to Circuit Court for a hearing to be conducted

in compliance with People -v- Bounds, 182 Ill. 2d. 1 (1998).

sentence to natural life.

11. On January 20, 2005, Private Counsel Mr. Thomas Peters,

filed a second amended Post Conviction Petition.

12. On July 5, 2006, Judge Suria Jr., dismissed Darrin's Post

Conviction Petition, just two days before he retired.

13. On November 30, 2006, Darrin's Counsel filed Notice of

Appeal,

44, In December of 2010 the Illinois Appellate Court AFFIRMED
Thethe Circuit Courts dismissal of Darrin's Post Conviction

Petition.

15. Darrin's Counsel Mr. Thomas Peters, then filed Leave to

Appeal to the Illinois Supreme Court.

16. In September of 2011 Darrin, learned that his Mr. Thomas

Peters, had died sometime in July of 2011.

(7)
ir Bo. 20He

1:38 Ae



impaired, should in the interest of fundamental fairness and

justice allow for a exception to the waiver doctrine. Darrin,

was at a sever disadvantage because his Trial Counsel was

impaired through out this whole process. This is evident because

even a first year law student would have raised such a simple

objection to a glaring error by the Trial Judge. Not doing

so only further proves how greatly Darrin's Trial Counsel was

impaired. This is a MOCKERY of JUSTICE and a severe MISCARRIAGE

of JUSTICE, and cries out for the Honorable Court to step in

and correct this situation, by granting Darrin, a new trial

or at the very least a new sentencing hearing.

PROCEDURAL HESTORY

1. On MAy 17, 1993 Darrin was convicted of murder, arson,

and armed robbery by a Jury.

2. On May 19, 1993, Darrin was sentenced to DEATH by the

Court, absent Jury, by Judge Mannion, in the Criminal Divison

of Cook County, Illinois.

3. On September 19, 1996 the Illinois Supreme Court AFFIRMED

Darrin's conviction and sentence.

4, On November 25, 1995 Darrin, filed a Post Conviction
Petition.
5. In July of 1996 the State Appellate Defender's office

was appointed to Darrin's, case.

6. On October 18,

file his appearance,

1996 Private Counsel was given leave to
Counsel was paid by the Capital Litigation Division.

(6)
Far Bo, — 1 Pe


not hire and investigators, or specialists, even though Mr.
Cheronis, was well aware of Darrin's past mental problems.
Darrin's family even had to during trial give more money to

Mr. Cheronis, to find a witness by the name of Tom Moral. Now
given all the new evidence Darrin has it is clear what happen
to all the money his family gave to Mr. Cheronis. Darrin, is
Sure that should this Honorable Court grant a hearing where
evidence can be presented and witnesses called the Court will
be convinced that Mr. Chronis, was severely addicted to drugs
during the time span that Darrin, was on trial for his life,

and that through out that time span Mr. Chronis, was impaired
more than he was not impaired. “Even the Court transcripts show
that from February 1, 1991, till the beginning of trial Mr.
Chronis, only showed up to about a half dozen of Darrin's Court
dates, even though there were many more than that. There was
always some type of excuse why Mr. Chronis, was not there.

Mr. Chronis, would call in sick, or would just call the State's
Attorney and have the case continued by phone, all this went

on with out Darrin's knowledge, Darrin would only find out what
was going on after he was brought to court. These are the clasic
actions of a severely addicted person, one who is losing control
of everything around them, willing to do what it takes to get
that next fix, some junkies steal, others commit robbery, some
sell their bodies, and in the case of a professional like

Mr. Cheronis, they rob their clients at the expense of their
freedom. The amount of errors in Darrin's trial and at sentencing
are to many to fully place in this Petition, yet they are there

and can be raised if the Court is willing to view them all,

Darrin would be more than willing to raise them all.

(9)

‘Ap? 80,2012

41:88 Pi


IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY

CRIMINAL DIVISION

Darrin Shatner,
Petitioner,

-v- Case No.: 91-CR-2026

People of the State of Illinois The Honorable

Respondent, Fred Sruia

Presiding Judge

PETITIONER'S FIRST SUCCESSIVE POST CONVICTION PETITION

Now comes Darrin Shatner, Petitioner by and through himself _
Pro-Se, in accordance with the Post Conviction Hearing Act,

725 I.L.C.S. 5/122 et. seq., and respectfully requests that

this Honorable Court grant his first successive Petition for

Post Conviction relief. In support of this Petition Mr. Shatner
states as follows:

INTRODUCTION
1. On May 17, 1993 Darrin, was convicted of murder, arson

and armed robbery. Darrin is innocent of these crimes. He

was wrongfully convicted due to ineffective assistance of his
Trial Counsel. It has just recently come to Darrin's attention
that his Trial Counsel had a severe DRUG ADDICTION before, during,
and after Darrin's Trial. That during his representation of
Darrin, he was seriously impaired due to his drug usage, which

has just come to light as a constant daily basis.

2. The crimes for which Darrin, stands convicted occurred
in Chicago, Il. on September 1, 1986. This was just fifty-

one days after Darrin, turned nineteen years old.

(1)
Ape 86,8018

1:65 PH



he personally knew the Judge and that the Jud

him a new trial or at the very least a sentencing hearing in
which Darrin, can properly present evidence to show why he should
not have received a DEATH sentence, for had his Due Process
rights not been violated at that stage Darrin would have not
been found eligible to be put to DEATH and thus would have been

sentenced to a number of years, and not the life sentence he

now sits doing.

2. Darrin received ineffective assistance of Trial Counsel
in a clear violation of Darrin's United States Constitutionally

protected Due Process Rights. Mr. Cheronis, told Darrin, that

Darrin to DEATH or even LIFE. However it is now known that
there was no truth to this fairy tale that Mr. Cheronis, was
spinning for Darrin, This is a man Darrin trusted with his
life, Mr. Cheronis, clearly was just looking for the fastest
way to his next fix. he was not concerned that Darrin, might
lose his life, knowing what is now known, and applying hindsight
to the record, Mr. Cheronis', actions are now not only
explainable but understandable. Darrin, would not be in prison
now had Mr. Cheronis, not been a drug addict. Never did Mr.
Cheronis, explain to Darrin that it took one one Jury member

to fine that Darrin was not eligible for DEATH and that his
life would be spared. The reason Mr. Cheronis, did not do this

is clear now that we now know the extent of Mr. Cheronis,

addiction. See having a Jury decide Darrin's fate would have
taken many more days than having a Judge decide. Clearly that
next fix was the driving force behind Mr. Cheronis', actions

in this case. Darrin almost lost his life, and

(12)
pase BAD 1:20 AM



‘Concerned with who he had to step o

or when in his own home. In the early 19908, when Mr. Cheronis,
was hired to defend Darrin, in the case at bar, his behavior
was erratic and his drug usage now included barbiturate abuse
in addition to the cocaine, and alcohol, his law practice had
all but evaporated, he fell into bankruptcy, lost his home and
had to move through a series of rental apartments, one would
think that the $27,500.00 Darrin's family paid him would have
saved the home at least. Sadly we now know the truth and why
the money given to him did not go towards saving his home.

Mr. Cheronis, was severely’ addicted to drugs and alcohol, all

he cared about was his next fix and how to get it. he was not

er or on or who's life he _
put in jeopardy as iong as he was able to get that next fix.

The new evidence clearly shows that what happen to Darrin goes
way beyond ineffective assistance of Trial Counsel, it was
negligent, inadequate, incompetent, and even criminal because
Darrin was fighting for his very life, and Mr. Cheronis, failed
to not only do his sworn duty but to Protect Darrin. To add

to this tragic set of events, there is sure to be other clients
of Mr. Cheronis, who were failed by him because of his addiction.
Not only did he fail Darrin, and other clients, but he failed
his family and himself, and now sadly he is dead way to early

in life. His addiction had such a hold on him that he was out
of control, if only it was of a time such the one we now live

in there would have been measures in place that would could

have detected Mr. Cheronis', problem, and Darrin, would have
proven his innocence and Mr. Cheronis, would still be alive

today. granted hindsight is 20/20 but in this case Darrin

implores this Honorable Court to use that 20/20 hindsight and

(17)

skopr 20 20022

11:29 FM



17. In late October 2011, Darrin was informed that his Petition

for Leave to Appeal to the Illinois Supreme Court was denied

on September 28, 2011.

18. Darrin, now comes before this Honorable Court to file

his First Successive Post Conviction Petition, in order to comply
with Federal Rules regarding all issues must first be presented
before the State's Highest Court, which means Darrin, must first
present his new Constitutional violation claims before this

Honorable Court.

_ARGUMENT

INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF TRIAL COUNSEL

Trial Counsel, Michael G. Cheronis, was severely impaired
due to his addiction and constant usage of Cocaine, Barbiturates,
and Alcohol, while representing Darrin, in the case at bar.

Mr. Cheronis' usage was excessive and constant. (See exhibit "A").
Darrin's Father met Mr Cheronis, in a bar. Darrin's father

is also a heavy Alcohol user so such a chance meeting was natural.
Mr. Cheronis, was retained/hired to represent Darrin, in 1991.
Darrin's family paid Mr. Cheronis, $27,500.00 to represent their
son in the case at bar. Where this money went has always been
some what of a mystery to both Darrin, and his family, but no
longer. Darrin, and his family now know that Mr. Cheronis,

more likely than not used that money to support his drug
addiction. It is clear that the money paid to Mr. Cheronis,

did not go to prepare for Darrin's defense or to aid in the

mitigation phase of his sentencing hearing. Mr. Cheronis, did

(8)
der 29,2012

1:38 Pw



during his representation of Darrin, the evidence is now clear
that Darrin's Trial Counsel was in no shape to take care of
himself let alone represent someone who was on trial for their

life.

8. Darrin has recently acquired new evidence that is
scientific in nature that was not available at the time of
Darrin's trail or sentencing. The science, is a study of the
human brain, focusing on the teen age brain and the ages of
17 to 25 years old where people take more risks and do not
think about the out come as much as the reward. These new

studies prove that people between the ages of 15 and 25 years

old exhibit all kinds of risky behavior and take part in far
more risky ventures that end more times than not ina ugly out-
come. This is exactly the situation here. Darrin, was just
fifty-one days into his nineteenth year of life, still a teenager.
Within this study 15 to 25 years is a 10 year growth span, the
senter age for this span is age 20, Darrin was closer to the
age of eighteen, too young to even buy alcohol, but yet was

old enough to be sentenced to DEATH of LIFE in prison The
fact that society as a whole recognizes that young people are
not responsible enough to be treated as full fledge adults and
yet out Justice system will sentence the same teenager to DEATH
or LIFE in prison, never even considering that teenagers like
Darrin deserve a chance to be rehabilitated , or to grow up,
instead Darrin's life and liberty have been taken from him.

Now with the discovery of this new scientific evidence, it must
be looked into if not only for Darrin's sake but for the sake

of our legal system, and justice.

(4)
ar Be. Wie

41:0


‘would have been very different. We know that the night of this
crime that Darrin, was injected for the first time in his life
with cocaine, by Jean Rogaz, a woman he had just met and whom
was showing interest in him of a sexual nature. This study
shows how the teenage brain processes the taking of risks it
seems to focus more on what the reward will be not how great
the risk may be. the amount of the risk does not seem to play
much of a controlling factor versus what the reward may be.
impulse control is almost nonexistent. This study shows that
such risk taking happens much more during the teenage years

than as we grow older and more developed, but that the out comes

are many times more tragic and ugly. Ther now a much better ~

understanding as to why so many senseless teenage deaths occur.
It is the fact that the teenage brain is still developing and
can not judge in a rational manner what the out come of a action
or actions maybe, before driving forward in such risky behavior.
With this new evidence in mind one can now with reason state
that Ms. Rogaz, was the one who had complete control of the
situation the night this crime took place. It was she who used
her sexual advances to first lower Darrin's ability to make
sound judgments, because his brain still in development was
seeing only the reward of "SEX" that was being placed before
him, then couple that with Ms. Rogaz, injecting Darrin, with
cocaine for the first time and any reasonable person could now
see taking this new evidence in to account that Darrin, did

not stand a chance that night of over coming her control of

him. A lot was talked about in this case about mental culpability

THES new study sheds new insight into just what Darrin's capacity

(15)

ape 259 200 22

1209 PR



‘to fully present this new evidence, thereby giving him the chance
to show this Honorable Court of the true importance of this
evidence. For Darrin, believes that once this new evidence
is presented in the proper light this Honorable Court will
conclude that new proceedings must be had in this matter.
Darrin, believes thatthis issue is valid on it's face, that
it meets the requirements to be heard by this Honorable Court
where it's new in nature, was unavailable at the time of trial
or sentencing, that it goes the issue of what might have been
had it been used at trial or even more so at sentencing. a
sentence can be attacked at anytime when new evidence comes

~ to light such as the case here, “Therefore Darrin, requests
that this Honorable Court arant him a full and complete third

stage evidence hearing on this matter,

VIOLATION OF DUE PROCESS

1. Darrin's Constitutionally protected rights concerning
Due Process were violated, in that the Trial Court Judge, (the
Honorable Judge Mannion) committed a grave error, when he ruled
that Darrin, was NOT under the influence of DRUGS and ALCOHOL
at the time of his arrest but yet just ten days later used it
as a large aggravating factor when finding Darrin, eligible

to receive DEATH. This is clear violation of Darrin's Due
Process rights to a fair and impartial trial and sentencina,
Judge Mannion, clearing had a bias towards someone who used
drugs, this is evident by his words during sentencing. One
can only wonder what Judge Mannion would have done had he

discovered just addiction of Trial Counsel. Laying that aside

(17)

ep 260, 02

1B


addiction at the time of Darrin's Trial, Trial Counsel was
willing to do what ever it took to get the trial over with as
soon as possible. He proceed to get this done by telling Darrin
that he had nothing to fear that he had known the Judge for
eighteen plus years and that the Judge was not going to sentence
him to DEATH or LIFE. These actions of lying are typical of

one who is severely addicted to drugs. The sooner Darrin's
Trial Counsel was able to push his case through the system the
sooner he would be able to move on to his next unknowing client
and retainer, The quickest way to conclude Darrin's case was

to deceive Darrin, into believing that his was not in any

“jeopardy. ~Darrin's Trial Counsel accomplished this by telling rs

him that he personally knew the Judge and that the Judge was

not about to sentence him to DEATH or LIFE. Darrin was not

an Attorney, he had no true working knowledge of the legal system
this is why he retained Trial Counsel to represent him. Darrin
trusted this man with his life, and it turns out not only was

the trust sorrowfully misplaced, but life threatening as well.
Because of Trial Counsel's deception he was able to convince
Darrin, to take the more expedient route through sentencing.

This would enable Darrin's Trial Counsel to quickly move on

to his next victim. Because that is what Trial Counsel's clients
truly were "VICTIMS", Darrin's trial Counsel failed to inform
him that just one Jury member could vote to not impose a sentence
of DEATH or even to find him eligible for DEATH and Darrin,

not only have not been sentenced to DEATH, but would have been

a free man today. Had Darrin, not had a Trial Attorney who

was severely addicted to drugs, he would be a free man today.
Darrin's Trial Counsel was grossly ineffective, and impaired

(3)

Apr 88,2012 1:20 Pit



3. On May 19, 1993, Darrin was sentenced to DEATH and his

sentence was commuted to life in January of 2003.

4, Darrin's was assigned to the State Appellate Defender's
office for his appeals. This office represented Darrin, through

his appellate process in the Illinois Court system,

5. In late 2003, Darrin's family hired Mr. Thomas Peters
to represent Darrin for his Post Conviction Petition proceedings.
Mr. Thomas Peters also was retained to represent Darrin, in
his appeal to the Appellate Court concerning his Post Conviction

Petition. Mr. Peters died in July of 2011 before Darrin's

Petition for leave to file Appeal to the Illinois Supreme Court

was denied. The P.L.A. was denied on September 28, 2011.

6. Now some eighteen plus years after Darrin was sentenced
to DEATH and the untimely demise of Darrin's trial Attorney

new evidence has come to light. On December 7, 2011, Darrin's
family was able to secure a Affidavit that spoke to his Trail
Counsel's severe addiction to drug, and how his life came to

a tragic end due to that drug use. this Affidavit also spoke
to Darrin's Trial Counsel's drug history, his impairment, and
his inability to give any type of meaningful legal or any
assistance for that matter. The author of the Affidavit firmly
believes that Darrin's Trail Counsel was using drug before during
and after Darrin's trial. This is something the Author of the
Affidavit saw for himself first hand. (Darrin's Trial includes

Pre-trial, during Trial, Post Trial, and Sentencing.).
7. Darrin's Trial Counsel was clearly ineffective as well
as grossly incompetent. Due to Trial Counsel's severe drug

(2)
Aon 86,2012 1:80 PR



‘fas spent more than two decades in prison for a murder he did

not commit. (See exhibit "B"),

The strategy that Mr. Cheronis, employed clearly was
unsound, and void of protecting Darrin at the sentencing stage
which was a very critical part of the whole process. It was
Mr. Cheronis', duty to protect Darrin, sadly it was not until
recently that we now know why Mr. Cheronis, did not protect
Darrin, Mr. Cheronis, was a drug addict, his next fix was all
that he had on his mind. The few extra days required for a
Jury to decide the sentencing issue were just not acceptable

to Mr. Cheronis, he chose to with hold material facts from Darrin

“he lied-to-him by saying the Judge was not going to sentence

him to DEATH or LIFE, Mr. Cheronis, found the quickest way to
dispose of Darrin's case so what if it came at the expense of
Darrin's LIFE. What Mr. Cheronis, did was commit attempted
murder, (720 I.L.C.S 5/9-1-(a)-2, in that one knows or should
ahve known their actions created a strong probability of death)
that is what happen here Darrin was sentenced to DEATH because
of Mr. Cheronis', actions. The law is clear no proceeding within
our justice system can be left to stand if the advocate for

the defendant is impaired during the proceedings, this is clearly
the case with the case at bar. Fundamental fairness and justice
cry out for these issues to be resolved now that the addiction
of Mr. Cheroins, has come to light. A new trial is the only

way that this tragic wrong can be set right.

(13)
Jer Bo BID

1:20 Fy



of culpability truly was. Ms. Rogaz was four years older than

Darrin, almost the end of the developmental scale as where Darrin

was right in the middle of this scale. A full and complete

hearing is needed concerning this matter, because in the interest

of justice these questions must be answered. Darrin, does not

have the resources to fully investigate the full meaning of

this new evidence, only a qualified Attorney can assist in such

a under taking. Once again Darrin is asking this Honorable

Court to put on it's hindsight glasses and look at the following

questions:

(A). Is this newly discovered evidence? Yes it is. Was it

~~ ""“available at the time of trial or sentencing? ~Nos> >

(B). Had this new evidence been available at the time of trial

would it have been admissible? Yes.

(C), Had this evidence been used to it's fullest during trial

is there a strong likely hood the out come would have been

different? Darrin believes, yes.

(D). If this new evidence were to be used at sentencing

[assuming Darrin would have been found guilty with this new

evidence being used] is there a strong likely hood that the

sentence would have been different? Darrin, believes, yes.
these are the questions Darrin, is beqging this Honorable

Court to ask and answer. Had this newly discovered evidence

been presented on Darrin's, behalf coupled with his the evidence

of all the trouble of his childhood, along with the fact that

he truly had the mind set not of a young adult but more that

of a fifteen years boy, there can be no doubt that the out come

of the whole proceeding would have been different. Darrin,

is pleading with this Honorable Court to afford him the chance

(16)
Apr 26,2012

1:88 BW