In 1989, Patrick was tried for a double murder, which he did not commit, but was convicted and sent to prison. Since then, he has endured continuing injustice by the courts and abuse by the prison officials.

In 1996, after Patrick had been wrongfully incarcerated for 8 years, Dr.
Boris deKorczak, Chief Investigator for the National Police Defense
Foundation [NPDF], in Washington, D.C., was hired to investigate the charges
of wrongful imprisonment in Patrick's case. Dr. deKorczak, has a Ph.D. in
psychology, and over 30 years of investigative experience [he is as a former
CIA member].  In 1997, Dr. deKorczak interviewed with Luther Upton at WPGG
RADIO FM in Evergreen, Alabama.  To hear that interview, click here [radio interview]. note: this is a 15 min. interview, it will take awhile to download.

Update: As of 10/5/01, Dr. deKorczak is no longer working in the field of
criminal investigations, as he has taken a regular full-time paying job in
the office of Congressman Traficant in Washington, D.C.  His former website
has been taken down, so if you want information from that website, you will
need to contact Dr. deKorzcak directly bkorczak@cox.net.

In 1998, deKorczak resigned from the NPDF and continued his investigations on his own. As a condition of his resignation, and lack of funding, the NPDF released deKorczak's four (4) cases to deKorczak. All four cases are similar to Patrick's. All are former police officers, who are not guilty of the crime for which they were convicted.

What Investigator deKorczak found while investigating Patrick's case were flagrant, unacceptable blanks or gaps in testimony and due process of law, Brady violations, and other serious irregularities - each breaching the fiduciary trust for which sworn officers of the courts are beholden.

In 1986 Patrick had been run through a "kangaroo court" -- Alabama-style -- and, apparently, that was to be the end of it. Case closed. No more Patrick Swiney. No more having to deal with Patrick Swiney as a former undercover investigator. No more Patrick Swiney as V.P. of the FOP who refused to allow his fellow officers to be bad cops.  The petty vengeance of one of those officers  Lt. Stanley Olive and Oliver's subsequent lies in court, helped convict Patrick. Oliver testified that Patrick's mother hid the murder weapon from the police, to protect her son [from being charged]. The prosecuting attorney, Mike Campbell, went many steps further than that. He called the Coroner's office and told them not to perform certain, very standard and typical, DNA examinations during the autopsy of the female victim [vaginal swab and fingernail cultures]. The State Medical Examiner testimony of this is recorded in the transcripts (TR-768) (TR-805, 806, 807).

What's so important about this misconduct by the D.A.? Well, the whole case of the shootings was centered on adultery and possible manslaughter [sudden heat of passion]. Patrick had been charged with shooting his wife, Betty Snow, and her lover/ex-husband, Ronnie Pate, when he found them in his home committing adulterous acts. In fact, what Patrick saw from the outside of his house, through the window that night, was the last thing he saw before he felt a blow to the back of his head and became unconscious. This means Patrick has no idea what happened that night, or who shot Betty Snow and Ronnie Pate.

The destruction of the DNA samples would prevent the detection of adultery so that Patrick could be convicted of premeditated murder. Hiding the other forensic reports from the jury would prevent the jury from understanding that Patrick was, in fact, not the shooter.

In Alabama, jury members strive to please their officials because they respect authority. Of course, the ones who would question their honesty do not become jury members. Therefore, when the D.A. responded to the defense attorney's statement about suppressing evidence, the D.A. explained to the Jury that these tests were irrelevant and unimportant to the case. He stated that, "The fact is, Patrick stalked them in a hot jealous rage, and murdered them." He reminded the Jury of the deceased wife's mother's testimony, which he said "proved" that Patrick wanted to kill the ex-husband. In trial, the mother testified that her son, the ex-husband, told her, some time ago [although we wasn't sure when], that Patrick told him, "If I ever see you in my yard again, I'll kill you." This testimony of third-hand hearsay from a dead person, was all the D.A. had, so he used it to the fullest extent possible, called it proof, and the jury heard this and subserviently went along with it.

To make sure the jury did not hear any other side, there were no witnesses for the defense. D.A. Campbell couldn't risk anyone being able to discredit him, or his witnesses, so he did indeed subpoena ONE witness for the defense. However, that witness was never called. Today, those who attended the trial tell can each give their version of the lies, which were told in court. They just could not believe it! Not one person, including the Judge, did anything to prevent the illegal procedures that were being conducted in this "kangaroo trial."

Fact is, Patrick never met the ex-husband. He knew the ex-husband existed, even spoke to him on the telephone once, but they never met face to face. If they had met, when Patrick came-to, finding himself inside his house, he would have recognized the man lying on the floor.

As soon as Patrick saw two bodies lying on the floor, having been shot -- one of them being his wife -- he contacted the paramedics to assist.

If he had "premeditated" to kill them, he would not have immediately contacted the paramedics whom he knew would automatically contact the police. When he told the police [most of whom he knew as former colleagues] that he did not know what happened because he was knocked out, he was not sent to the hospital for an examination, to prove or disprove an injury to the head. Instead, he was charged and arrested for the murder of his wife, the lovely and vivacious Betty Snow and her ex-husband Ronnie Pate.

Fact is, there's a long history of retaliation and reprisal in this case.

Patrick Swiney, Betty Snow and Mike Campbell went to the same school and even sat in music class [band] together.  Mike Campbell and Betty Snow were high school sweethearts [high school yearbook].  It is public knowledge that D.A. Mike Campbell visited with Patrick and Betty more than once at their house before this tragedy occurred.

Before this tragedy happened, Patrick used to joke to friends about how Mike Campbell called his wife, Betty Snow, more frequently than he called her himself! He never suspected they were lovers. Maybe Patrick was blind and trusting, but that doesn't make him a killer.

What we see in all of this is a carefully orchestrated conspiracy against Patrick, or a carefully devised plan to cover up Mike Campbell's wrongdoing [adultery]. This view helps put into perspective the issues and the drama in this case.

No one knows, except of course the D.A., why exculpatory evidence was ordered destroyed. We don't accept the D.A.'s excuse to the jury that the DNA testing results were unimportant to the case, and we are shocked that the jury believed that this could possibly be unimportant -- especially when the D.A. was talking to the jury about a "Death Penalty" conviction. Why would Mike Campbell "death qualify" a jury, on a case that was at most, manslaughter in the form of a crime of passion?

The answer is simple: most any first-year law student knows that a "death qualified" jury is more apt to convict on anything. This was a high-profile case. Perhaps Mike Campbell aspired to be a Judge one day...or governor. Maybe he wanted votes. But maybe Mike Campbell might also have wanted to keep a secret his long-term relationship, dating back to high school, with Patrick's wife. It is certain that if his own DNA were detected in the vaginal swab DNA, or the fingernail culture DNA, Campbell would immediately find himself implicated in this double murder. Is this why he had this vital evidence destroyed?  Is this why he "death qualified" the jury on a manslaughter case? From the information we have at our disposal, it would appear that this is quite likely.

But then, one must ask why Judge John Rochester would allow these things to occur in his court of law? Why would third-party hearsay from a dead person be allowed in his court? Why would he not insist that the DNA be examined? Why did he allow the D.A. to "death qualify" a jury on a manslaughter case? Did he know about Campbell's relationship with Betty Snow? We doubt it. So, what were, then, his underlying reasons for allowing Campbell's illegal procedures to prevail?

We find it quite interesting that, today, we have three affidavits
confirming that after the appeal hearing was over, after justice was denied
again, Campbell made the following statement: "I just want you to know that
Patrick was never in any danger of receiving the electric chair because the
criteria was never there for capital murder." If that is true, why was
Patrick even convicted at all?

During jury selection, Campbell struck all the black jury candidates from
the jury [5 of them] stating that he did this because "Blacks are more apt
to be lenient."  You see, Michael was in the process of "Death Qualifying"
the jury.  It is a known fact that a death-qualified jury is more apt to
convict on any charge.

When Campbell said the words in these affidavits, he was admitting to
conspiracy and trumped up charges because he was stating that he knew full
well that the charge of premeditated murder was false.  Still, throughout
the trial, he spoke to the "Death Qualified" jury of premeditated murder and
the death penalty, in order to secure a conviction."

Given the proof at our disposal, and all the reports, which were produced in this case, there was absolutely no evidence to convict.

When he was arrested, Patrick's bond was set at $150,000. Patrick's community raised the $150,000 in one day to get Patrick released. Only Campbell knows why he told the judge that Patrick was a transient who might be at risk of skipping bail, thus raising the bond to $500,000. However, when the community heard about this, everyone pooled and raised the bail money in just one day. The D.A. had let that one go. The thought of skipping bail never entered Patrick's mind, nor did it enter his community's mind. The "kangaroo trial" began 18 months later.

There are many points that show fraudulent court proceedings in this case, but Alabama courts have denied all motions for a review of the facts. Their "stated" denials have been based on the hearsay testimony that the Attorney General told them about [all meaning that Patrick's motions were not even read]. Why would the Alabama Attorney, Bill Pryor, tell the courts to stand by illegal procedures, to ignore the physical evidence of actual innocence, when there was no evidence to convict? We have to wonder about this also.

The hearsay evidence that the officials say "prove" Patrick is guilty of premeditated murder and should die in prison, consists of what the deceased ex-husband's mother quoted Patrick as having said to the ex-husband while he was still alive. Patrick never knew this person, or met this person - much less threaten him in any way, and the man who supposedly said this is dead, so he cannot confirm or deny what his mother told the court. Yet, the D.A. said it was fact, so the jury convicted Patrick, and now the Courts in Alabama claim this is "fact" too because the Attorney General said so -- but each time, so far, when the Alabama Courts have been asked to examine the physical and verifiable facts, our requests have been flatly DENIED.

Following are a few examples of the injustice in the courtroom during Patrick's "kangaroo trial":
 

? ð No Motion for Discovery was ever filed.

 
 

? ð No blood on Patrick's clothing, shoes, jeans, shirt, skin. This evidence was reported by the D.A. to be "inconclusive," as though inconclusive meant guilty.

 
 

? ð No evidence of gun power residue on Patrick's skin or clothing, that was also reported to be "inconclusive."

 
 

? ð The crime scene was abandoned for 24 hours.

 
 

? ð No witnesses who saw Patrick shoot anybody.

 
 

? ð No witnesses for the defense were called to testify.

 
 

? ð No Motion to keep all records was filed.

 
 

? ð Exculpatory evidence was destroyed.

 
 

? ð Jury strikes included the only Black candidates - all 5 of them - because, according to the D.A., "Blacks tend to be more lenient"

 
 

? ð The murder weapon was reported by the D.A. to be Patrick's .22 AR7 survival rifle, but ballistics testimony indicates that this could not be confirmed.

 
 

? ð A neighbor's testimony that he once saw Patrick shoot a B-B pellet gun at a crow to protect the Blue Bird's nest in Patrick's yard, was said by D.A. Campbell to be proof that Patrick was prone to be a cold-blooded killer. If such were the case, almost anyone who ever shot a B-B pellet gun would be prone to killing in cold blood. Following this far-fetched logic, would this mean that anyone having done this would automatically be a prime suspect in any murder trial, by virtue of presumed murderous tendencies indicated by the simple act of shooting pellets? This must mean that everyone who has ever done this, needs to be given a death sentence in prison, because according to D.A. Campbell, this is proof positive of murderous tendencies.

 
 

? ð The hole in the window was presumed to be a bullet hole, but this could not be confirmed in the trial. The window was said to have been punctured by a close range shot from a .22 weapon belonging to Patrick. That .22 bullet was said to have gone through the window, through the metal screen, and into Ronnie Pate's neck, where it took a turn and traveled to Pate's spine. That was some "f-a-n-c-y" shooting! Let's try to make sense of this. Would a man seeing his wife in adulterous acts with her another man, giving in to a sudden fit of passion, calculate the trajectory of the bullet in such a way? And with a .22 from an AR7 fold-up survival rifle, no less. This explains what Campbell meant when he said Patrick was an "expert marksman." However, he neglected to inform the jury that all police officers are "supposed" to be expert marksmen.

 
 

? ð But when three different independent weapons experts saw the photo of the hole in the window, they all said that shot had to be from a distance -- long range versus close range. This might explain why there is no mention of broken glass on the floor, either outside or inside the window, in the trial investigator's report.

 
 

? ð It does not explain why there's this other bullet found in Pate's body that they said they couldn't match because of something they called the "wobble effect". The logic here is that the .22 bullet that went through the window and the metal screen wobbled into Pate's neck and got crushed somehow so that it was no longer recognizable, making it only "appear" to be a larger caliber than the other .22s that were found.

 
 

? ð It does not explain how it happened that a live bullet was found in the middle of the dining room table. Of course, it was said that that bullet came from the AR7 which was known to jam. Let's think for a moment: If Patrick were to premeditate a murder why would he use a weapon that is known to jam and then leave a live bullet in the middle of the dining room table in plain view? If the theory of premeditation were true, why would an experienced police officer not use the power weapons to which he has easy access?

 
 

? ð This is still no explanation as to why one police report indicated that Betty Snow was found on her back (face up) and another police report indicated that Betty Snow was found on her stomach (face down).

 
 

? ð We have no explanation as to why the murder weapon was reported by the D.A. to be Patrick's .22 survival rifle, even though the ballistics trial testimony indicated that this could not be confirmed.

 

Yet, when we present all these things and back them up with documentation in our Motions to the Alabama Courts, those motions come back bearing the stamp "DENIED" just the same as if they were wordless blank pages.

While attempting to gather access to the exhibits and evidence that were presented at trial, the Investigators (deKorczak and Bob Long) have found were blocked-brick walls. No one in government in Alabama wanted to help them seek the truth in this case. We think stone-walling may not necessarily be "personal" toward one man, named Patrick Swiney, but simply the way Alabama politics have been working since the days of slavery.

In a case where the government takes a role in perpetuating the framing of a human being for something he obviously didn't do, who is there in Government who feels like standing up and admitting to having made a mistake? To having wrongfully arrested a former police officer and innocent man? Time and again, we have seen that government admitting to a mistake isn't on anyone's agenda. There is no political courage or the integrity to do that because under the current administration, this would amount to political suicide.

Alabama government officials knowingly disobey their own laws. For example: The Chief Federal Judge in Mobile, Alabama, thought nothing of calling the U.S. Marshal to tell him to place State prisoner, Patrick Swiney -- who has a heart condition -- into lockdown, which is a 5ft x 8ft concrete cell with inadequate ventilation and heat indexes of 112 degrees F, for having an article published [a free speech issue], without so much as one ounce of concern for retribution for having just broken the law in plain daylight. Which law did he break? First, a FEDERAL judge has no jurisdiction over a STATE prisoner. Second, this judge read an article Patrick wrote, and called it a "threatening letter to a Judge," which is a serious offense. But this was not a "letter to the Judge", it was a widely published "article" on prison conditions. There was nothing in that article that was threatening to anyone! So this judge LIED in order to violate Patrick's First Amendment right to free speech. Third, this judge nearly had Patrick killed by having him placed in the hot box, which was outlawed years ago!

This gives you get a better perspective on how high the corruption goes in the State of Alabama's justice system when you witness these things firsthand.

Two things are particularly strange about the actions of this Judge:

1. Chief Federal Judge, Charles E. Butler, Jr. was the only Judge in the entire state of Alabama who reacted to Patrick's article.

2. This Chief Federal Judge was a prosecutor in Mobile County around the time when Patrick was responsible for those two high officials being sent to federal prison for their involvement in drug ring operations. Can this be a mere coincidence?

3. An FOIA request that was sent to the U.S. Marshal's office about 6-8 months after the lockup incident. It requested, from Patrick, any files or information the U.S. Marshal's office had on Patrick Swiney. The response was that they had no records on anyone by that name. If they had gone full-length in their folly, and had obtained an execution, their would have at least been records that said Patrick Swiney had been executed. So this state of affairs is actually worse than if Patrick had been the object of a death sentence.

To this day, Patrick does not know what happened that night. He was arrested while still dazed from being knocked unconscious before the shootings took place.  It took several days after the tragedy before he could say he was regaining his clarity of thought.
 
 

There was no investigation by police, or what there was, was shoddy work at best. The D.A. ordered the Coroner not to perform DNA tests during autopsy. Those DNA tests would have proven adultery and we have to wonder why the DA [who is known by family, friends and community, as being Betty Snow's lover] used his powers to destroy this evidence. This DNA evidence would have proven adultery had taken place, and would have exonerated Patrick -- or at worst -- convicted him of the lesser crime of sudden heat of passion: a man suddenly witnessing his new wife of only 5 months violating the sanctity of marriage by committing adultery.
 
 

The lies in court, the suppression of exculpatory evidence, and a long list of violations of his Constitutional rights during this "kangaroo court" trial swept him away. He was given a sentence of Life Without Parole - a death sentence - to die in prison. He is innocent and we can prove it.

The story is longer and more complicated because there is also a history of "payback time" -- Alabama style -- with Patrick. When he was a policeman, he was responsible for exposing corruption among high officials. These two officials were sent to federal prison for their drug connections and racketeering. During his investigation, there were two assassination attempts on his life.

Patrick was convicted on hearsay only. There is no evidence that he shot anyone. There are witnesses that the D.A. and others lied in court. These are the people who were never called to testify. The DNA evidence was destroyed.  The ballistics and other forensic evidence were withheld from the jury.
 
 

GOVENOR JAMES GUARANTEES DUE PROCESS

These are the words of former Alabama Governor, Fob James: "The Constitution's Fifth Amendment, provides that no person shall....be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law. This means that the authorities cannot not put any person to death, or into prison, or take away his property, without first giving him a trial in accordance with pre-established rules. When the Supreme Court interpreted the language of the due process clause with judicial integrity and gave the clause its legally recognized meaning, the Court held that it guaranteed to any person charged with a crime a trial pursuant to pre-established law..."

So far, the courts in the State of Alabama, and the 11th Circuit Court have refused to abide by this for Patrick Swiney. Is there justice in Alabama? Well, what do you think? The fight continues....