Bookreviews for "A Legacy: Consequences of Freedom" By Queen Jefe'
There are many injustices when it comes to the case of South Carolina Versus Dean Seagers. When reviewing the transcripts of the trial, there are so many red flags present. The District Attorney referred to Dean Seagers stating “he’s good” and “he is better than the hand to hand deal on the street.” She says things like “I ask you not to reward the defendant.” She states that the witness came despite threats to him and his family which is untrue as well.
A motion for an acquittal was filed and ultimately denied by the court.
The witness, Robert Drayton, gave 4 DIFFERENT STORIES on what his truth was allegedly. In the initial statement, he told police what he wanted to hear. He stated that Dean sold him the drugs now give me my money so I can go get a fix. This statement was made while under oath. In the next sworn statement, he states that the accusations were false. He told police he had nothing to do with that. Dean Seagers was incarcerated when that statement was made. He had his nephew to take him to make that statement. Mr. Drayton has stated that he lied to police on June 20, 2012. He stated that he was high at the time. He stated that he knew nothing of June 20, 2012 and had no idea what we were talking about. In his third statement, he stated that he CAN NOT say that Dean Seagers distributed the drugs to him. He stated that he did get drugs from the location, but three people were there. He stated that he got a glimpse of Dean Seagers, but it is possible that Dean did not sell him the drugs. He also stated that he was not 100% sure he saw Dean Seagers. How could he possibly get a glimpse of someone from a 2ND STORY WINDOW where a cup was passed down on a string? How does he know how many people were inside of a house HE NEVER ENTERED! Way too many inconsistencies to believe ANYTHING he has to say. Mr. Drayton was under a lot of pressure to give the cops what they wanted and that was to convict Dean Seagers. They didn’t review the case and the evidence like they should.
Officer Burke wrote an affidavit, a sworn statement, and swore to the truth of it in front of Magistrate Judge, Bonnie Koontz. He told the judge that the entire transaction was recorded on audio and video…WHICH IS TOTALLY FALSE!
The confidential informant they selected is a drug addict that was recently convicted of lying to the police. Officer Burke stated that he knew of the conviction. He also admitted that what he stated in the affidavit was not true. He stated that on the video, you do not see Dean Seagers conducting any drug transaction. In fact, there is no drug transaction AT ALL in the video. There were numerous gaps in the video. There were a total of 8 blackouts in the video. Some of the blackouts are 40 seconds long. We all are left to wonder what was the informant doing during this time. Officer Grill told Mr. Drayton that he was not getting paid unless he produced footage. On the video, he states that he SPOKE TO BABY DEAN. There was no mention of seeing baby Dean or getting drugs from Baby Dean.
When asked how he came into contact with Officer Burke, Robert Drayton plead the 5th amendment. He was then asked did he purchase narcotics from Dean Seagers on June 20, 2012. His reply was ‘I don’t know what you are talking about.” He was then asked if he was familiar with purchasing any, his reply was “NO!” He stated that he did not recall seeing Dean Seagers on June 20, 2012. He stated that he never gave Officer Burke a description of Dean Seagers on that day either. He stated that he was certain that he DID NOT see Dean Seagers. On an affidavit and in open court, Mr. Drayton stated that he DID NOT PURCHASE ANY DRUGS FROM DEAN SEAGERS. Case law states that if there is no confidential informant, the case must be dismissed. In this case, the confidential informant they paid, states that HE DID NOT PURCHASE DRUGS FROM DEAN SEAGERS. That should be even more reason to dismiss these charges immediately. Dean’s attorney, Cameron Marshall, requested reports of the meeting between Officer Burke and Mr. Drayton. Officer Burke stated that the report was in Indianapolis and he never printed or turned it in because he kept it for his own records, which is not in compliance with CPD CI procedures. The Officer stated he didn’t know the policy. There was no chain of custody for the alleged purchased drugs. None of the SLED procedures for handling of fungible goods (drugs) were followed. There should have been affidavits from each individual that handled the drugs as well. How do you work a job and not know the procedure? There are even conflicting stories of where the drugs were purchased from. The informant, Mr Drayton, or the officer, Officer Burke, IS WRONG. Officer Burke stated that he had video and audio of the drug transaction. Officer Burke then admits that the drug transaction WAS NOT on video. He stated that the camera was attached to the shirt, not the head, of the defendant so he don’t know what the defendant saw. He didn't even see Mr. Drayton in possession of the alleged purchased drugs either. Initially, Officer Burke stated that he showed Robert Drayton ONE PHOTO and he identified the person as Dean Seagers. When questioned by the prosecutor, HE CLAIMS HE SHOWED MULTIPLE PHOTOS TO THE DEFENDANT. This has to be the most inconsistent witness ever. AFTER ALL OF THE BLATANT LIES ON THE STAND, THE JUDGE STILL SIDED WITH THE STATE. THEY DON’T CALL HER HANG EM HARRINGTON FOR NOTHING. If the confidential informant did not see Dean Seagers on June 20, 2012, and Officer Burke did not see the confidential informant see him, WHY DID THIS TRIAL TAKE PLACE? THIS SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED FROM THE START, WHICH WAS REQUESTED AND DENIED.
Officer Burke even stated that he was not familiar with the proper handling of drug evidence in this state. With that being said, the law was not followed. The SLED labs were not used and mandated laws were ignored. Every witness in the chain of custody of said drugs should have filled out a SLED affidavit form. This was not done. Therefore, we have no clue as to what drugs Officer Burke took possession of or if he ever did. According to the video, powder cocaine was ordered, which was the informant’s drug of choice, but yet it tested positive for crack cocaine. Guess that was another HONEST MISTAKE. They admitted that the residence does not belong to Dean Seagers and he does not live there. They also admitted that upon his arrest, he had check stubs from his employment on him. Officer Burke also stated that Robert Drayton was a paid informant only…WHICH IS THE UNTRUTH. The paperwork stated CHARGES OR PAID in which both were circled. Mr. Drayton was trying to prevent charges that the police were threatening him with at the time. Had he not cooperated with what they told him, charges against him for narcotics would be addressed again. Officer Burke stated they did not have yes on the confidential informant the entire time from when he left them to the house where purchase took place and back. Some of the video was blacked out. Mr. Drayton could have been making a purchase from someone at that time, who knows? Officer Burke said that when he received the drugs from Mr. Drayton, he immediately placed them in his pocket and then searched the informant. Was the informant searched BEFORE THE TRANSACTION? Officer Burke stated that after he paid the informant, the informant rode away on his bike and he field tested the drugs which tested positive for cocaine. After the testing, he took the drugs to police headquarters and placed in evidence. Another witness that handled the drugs had previously been disciplined for the mishandling of drugs.
Officer Grill testified to some voice identification which was not done. Voice identification was not a factor until he took the stand. They never had an expert analyze the voice on the video to the voice of Dean Seagers. He also stated that a gray Charger was in the proximity of the house, yet failed to put it in the actual report. Must not have been too important. They didn’t let the defendant nor his defense know so they would not have the opportunity to properly defend themselves. Officer Burke then testified and contradicted Officer Grill. Officer Burke stated that he did check out the car and found no connection to Dean Seagers. They also had a fingerprint analyst confirm that Dean Seagers’ fingerprints were not on the cup either. They did not take the phone to the analyst that belonged to Robert Drayton. Drayton stated that he was on the bike while on the phone talking to his girlfriend…could that be the “BABY” phone listing in his phone. Van Horn stated that he has NO PHONE EVIDENCE THAT DRAYTON EVER SPOKE TO DEAN SEAGERS!
If Officer Burke had just been honest when going to get the warrant from Magistrate Judge Koontz, an arrest warrant would have never been a factor and all of this could have been avoided. He deliberately falsified or had reckless disregard for the truth. The search warrant was not valid either due to the fact of the reliability of the informant.
Please look at the below examples of how the sentences of these incarcerated men and Seagers are similar, yet very different. Each individual listed is considered a VIOLENT CRIMINAL. Dean Seagers is sentenced as a NON-VIOLENT CRIMINAL. While reading the summary of the case of South Carolina vs. Dean Seagers, the evidence used to convict Dean Seagers is erroneous and could not be proven without reasonable doubt.
Scott Lee Kimball
James "Whitey" Bulger:
Todd Christopher Kohlhepp
Seagers was sentenced to 1 life sentence and he didn’t put a finger on anyone. Seagers did not commit any murders at all he wasn’t even a threat in his community.
The Penalties that Kimball, Watts, Bulger, Roof, Rosemond, Kohlhepp and Seagers have are basically the same a “Life Sentence”! If the crimes committed by everyone ranked on a scale from 1-10 with 10 being the highest, it’s obvious that a “LIFE SENTENCE with NO PAROLE” shouldn’t have applied to the Seagers case!!