Thank you to the producers for maintaining this broadcast and giving us a voice and allowing me to discuss this issue today. Today, I’d like to discuss Brady v. Maryland and Napue v. Illinois and how Minnesota prosecutors are ignoring the U.S. Supreme Court and ethical rules to maintain my conviction. Mark Lanterman has testified in 1000s of cases around the United States and recently been found to have falsified his resume. In my case, he told the jury and the court that he had a bachelor’s and master’s degree in computer science. However, the school that he claims to have attended has no record of him attending there. He has not documented as a matriculated student. He is not in any of the yearbooks, and he is not in any of the commencement address lists. He is unable to present his diplomas, and he is even unable to name any students who went to school with him.
It’s clear that he never obtained those degrees. I have a document of additional lies that he has told in my case and lies that he has told in other cases, when he was referencing my case. And all of these lies have been proven by testimony and evidence. He has even lied about facts that no one would even need to lie about, because it’s simply his habit. In a deposition recently, he claimed that I picked up my son from school on the day my wife was killed. However, she was killed on a Sunday so there would not be any school. This is a ridiculous lie, but he simply cannot help himself. It is in his nature.
If you followed my case at all, then you know that Mr. Lanterman was intimately involved in the conviction and alleging that I was out on the dark web trying to hire a hit man to kill my wife. All of his allegations have since been disproven by actual evidence. Following my trial, the Washington County attorney said Mark Lanterman’s forensic work and testimony about it to a jury, made Amy’s murder case simple and overwhelming, and without his work this case would have been a horse race. And the County Prosecutor, Fred Fink, said that it was absolutely vital for the state to prove that “dogdayGod” was, in fact, Steven Allwine. With that connection made, we were able to show intent to kill and premeditation. The obvious corollary to that is that if Lanterman did not prove that I was “dogdayGod,” then they would not have been able to prove premeditation, and I would have been acquitted. This shows the impact he had on my case. Brady only requires allegations of wrongdoing, and then the state is supposed to investigate those claims. Throughout my entire trial, appeal and post conviction process, I have not only alleged that Lanterman lied to the jury in my case, but provided evidence of that perjury to the Washington County prosecutor’s office, and they have simply been vigilant in trying to deny, suppress and mischaracterize the evidence as unimportant.
We cannot accept a judicial system that goes to any length to simply convict someone for a crime regardless of guilt or innocence. The State and Mr. Lanterman destroyed my family with their lies, and, in the process, allowed a murderer to remain free. This needs to be brought to light. The ethical questions here are: Why would any witness be exempt from the consequences of lying under oath? Why does the top prosecutor in the county allow someone to lie under oath? Why did the prosecution hire a consultant who had just had their contract with another state agency terminated due to deception, and why didn’t the state vet Mr. Lanterman prior to giving him the originals of all my electronic devices and denying them to the defense?
If you would like to examine the evidence and the judicial responses yourself, I have placed them on a blog site at https://interviewswithStephenAllwine.blogspot.com. If you have additional questions, you can feel free to contact me via JPay. I’m listed as Minnesota inmate Stephen Allwine, ID number 256147.
These commentaries are recorded by Prison Radio.
