State of Georgia vs. William J. Mayo
Cobb County Superior Court
Case 91-4138-22
Irvan A. Pearlberg
Cobb County Sr. Asst. District Attorney
According to the Georgia State Bar "Rules of Professional Conduct" a prosecutor has the responsibility of a minister of justice and an obligation to see that the guilt of a defendant is decided upon the basis of "sufficient evidence".
Irvan A. Pearlberg has a history of using unfair and unethical methods of winning a conviction and used these same methods to win the conviction over William Mayo. (The 1987 case of Jeffrey Owen vs. State of Georgia. In this conviction Mr. Pearlberg withheld exculpatory evidence that he made deals with key witnesses; using their incriminating testimonies against Mr. Owen in exchange for being granted immunity. Mr. Owen was finally able to have his conviction over-turned in 2000, on this issue).
What is "sufficient evidence"? How is "sufficient evidence" obtained? Should "sufficient evidence" be obtained through coercion, lies and fabrications?
In the case of William Mayo, Irvan Pearlberg used the false testimony of four (4) felons; two (2) of them used alias names during their testimony. The victim's testimonies were coached and embellished over the 5 months from the time of incident until the trial. Things the victims could not recall on the evening of the crime were miraculously remembered 5 months later at the trial.
Mr. Pearlberg used nothing other than his ability to capture the jury's attention and the false statements of his witnesses to convict William Mayo. No evidence was used for this conviction.
Frank G. Smith (deceased)
Cobb County State Appointed Attorney
Mr. Smith conducted no pre-trial investigations, research, did no present an opening statement to the jury or prepare any type of defense for his client.
Mr. Smith made no objections to or questioned contradicted testimony made by the State's witnesses. Mr. Smith literally assisted the prosecution with the conviction.
Judge Robert E. Flournoy, Jr. (deceased)
Cobb County Superior Court
In spite of no one being killed, raped or seriously injured in this crime; and that William Mayo had no criminal past, Judge Flournoy still saw fit that William Mayo should spend the remainder of his life in prison without holding a sentencing hearing.
Judge Flournoy denied a motion for a new trial in early 1993 and denied an Extraordinary motion for a new trial in which the co-defendants in this case recanted their initial testimonies and admitted that William had no knowledge or participation in the crime they committed. Without a thought Judge Flournoy denied the motion for a new trial.
