By Joe Hunt
June 2, 2024

One of the things that happens in America when you invoke Faretta v. California (1975) 422 U.S. 806 and ask to be allowed to self-represent, is the appointment of stand-by counsel.  For over a year, stand-by counsel for me was a man called Parker Kelly. 

Parker was Irish through and through. 6’4″,  lean but muscled, and square jawed, Parker had a way of looking at you with hazel-green eyes that let you know he did not suffer fools gladly.  

He was a competent and conscientious man.  He never made a promise to me upon which he didn’t deliver.  But somehow he did not strike me as the sort that would go into law.  One day I told him so.  Rather, I explained, he seemed more like the sort of guy that would be a craftsman, like a cabinet maker.  He laughed.  Turns out that was his hobby. 

The job of stand-by counsel is to supplant the self-representing defendant should the defendant become incapable or unwilling to proceed. It wouldn’t do to allow a disobedient defendant to hold a trial-in-progress hostage.  

One day Parker and I were in Court. The Honorable Judge Dale Hahn was on the bench.  We were there for a motion hearing.   Arrayed against us were 3 prosecutors, including Senior Assistant Deputy Attorney General John Vance. 

Bass was a tow haired man of about Parker’s size and build.  He was speaking for “The People,” as all prosecutors purport to do.  And he was doing so harshly.  As I recall the issue was reciprocal discovery, the exchange between the parties of all evidence and the names of all witnesses upon which each party intends to rely in their case in chief.  He seemed to believe that I wasn’t being appropriately forthcoming.   He baldly asserted that Parker had become part of my machinations in derogation of his duty as an ‘officer of the court.’

[Bass] baldly asserted that Parker had become part of my machinations in derogation of his duty as an ‘officer of the court.’

Parker took umbrage at this insult, and loudly interrupted Bass.  “I won’t stand for your insults, Mr. Bass.”  Bass countered: “Well if you got a problem Parker, we can always settle it in the parking lot.”   However, Parker didn’t see it that way.  In a trice he was upon Bass and the two were exchanging blows, then grappling.  They both fell to the floor, but even so were locked in combat.

I was aghast.  I looked from them to the bailiff, and then to the judge but it was seconds before either reacted.  With the gavel pounding and the Judge shouting orders, the Bailiff separated the two.

Parker and Bass stood there panting.  The black-robed Judge was also on his feet.  Pointing the gavel at Bass, then Parker, and then again Bass, he said in some heat:  “I don’t want to hear another word about this.”  And then with a swirl of his robes the judge was gone, leaving through the door behind his elevated bench and seat.

As I was led away, I remember thinking, “And I’m supposed to be the one with behavioral problems!”

Afterword:

What do you think would have happened if a fight had broken out between two spectators in the audience?  Do you think they would have avoided arrest?  It’s an old story for mankind.  It’s not so much that certain acts are prohibited as that certain classes of people are prohibited from doing them. 

It’s an old story for mankind.  It’s not so much that certain acts are prohibited as that certain classes of people are prohibited from doing them. 

Further, surveying the history of mankind I can’t help but think that the difference between the violent capacity of sane men charged with criminal conduct and that for similar men who have never been so charged, may depend more on the circumstances they have encountered than any difference in basic nature.  

Provoke any man sufficiently, let him feel cornered, be the cause of putting something he holds dear in peril, and then insult him for his passivity in the face of these provocations, and see just how many otherwise law-abiding men become violent.  Indeed, for the vast majority of humankind’s residency on the planet, men who would not defend their honor, property, and rights were considered pariahs and cowards.

Parker Kelly was later hired by the San Mateo District Attorney’s Office, where he served as a prosecutor for almost 10 years.

From the movie Billionaire Boys Club (2018)

By Joe Hunt
May 24, 2024

Many people believe that what they saw in the NBC Miniseries, the 2018 movie starring Kevin Spacey and Ansel Elgort, and the documentaries about the Billionaire Boys Club cases was proven in court. However, in the San Mateo case (Hedayat Eslaminia), all murder charges were eventually dropped, and none of my four co-defendants were convicted.

In the Los Angeles Case, the prosecution claimed that Jim Pittman and I went to Ron Levin’s house together and that Jim shot Levin there. Jim’s 1986 trial ended in a mistrial, while I was convicted in 1987. Jim was retried in 1988 and received a 10-2 verdict for acquittal with new evidence showing Levin was alive. Subsequently, the L.A. District Attorney dropped the murder charge against him, and the case was dismissed without a retrial.

I never received a retrial in L.A. and, therefore, did not benefit from the evidence that freed my co-defendant. However, the Chief Detective on the case, Les Zoeller, stated in a 1993 memo to his superiors that, in his opinion, I would likely win a retrial due to the evidence that became available after my conviction.

In short, the key Detective and the prosecutors lost confidence in their case against me and my three co-defendants over 30 years ago. All charges were dropped when Jim, Ben, and Reza were brought back for retrials. In like fashion, the State wouldn’t proceed to trial if my conviction was overturned. The State’s representatives long ago recognized that their case fell apart, even if the media has been slow to recognize that truth. The injustice is thus two-fold: first, it is in the failure to give me a procedural opportunity to present the evidence that freed my co-defendants; and second, it’s in the fact that most of society is wholly unaware that the media version of the case was thoroughly discredited.

Dear Advocates for Justice,

We are thrilled to announce that our petition supporting Joe Hunt’s quest for justice has reached 50,000 signatures! This edition of our newsletter offers new perspectives and detailed analyses of Joe’s legal struggles. Each article dives deep into the elements that have shaped Joe’s case, from the implausible claims in the prosecution’s arguments to the biased media portrayals. Your engagement and willingness to share this content are crucial in amplifying our collective voice for justice and reform, pushing us closer to securing Joe’s freedom and correcting systemic injustices.

New Articles

Dissecting the Flaws in the State’s Case: Jim Pittman’s New York Trip

In our latest feature article, Joe critiques the prosecution’s unlikely claim that Jim Pittman tried to impersonate Ron Levin in New York. Contrasting the physical dissimilarities and actions of Pittman with Levin, Joe argues against the feasibility of such impersonation. Adding depth, retired attorney John Fuhrman offers an alternative analysis, suggesting that Levin himself orchestrated Pittman’s use of the card to create a false trail, misleading authorities about his whereabouts as he prepared to flee. Fuhrman’s insights align with Joe’s critique, emphasizing the implausibility of the prosecution’s narrative and advocating for a reexamination of the evidence to ensure justice and transparency in the legal system.

Exposing the Truth: Jim Pittman’s Dubious Testimony and the Quest for Justice

Joe addresses questions about Jim Pittman’s role and testimony in Ron Levin’s alleged murder. Joe recounts the early 1990s legal developments, including case dismissals and Pittman’s extradition. He describes how Pittman, facing health issues and legal threats, allegedly offered to support the State’s murder theory in exchange for money, which Joe refused. This led to Pittman’s “confession” on television, which failed to produce any evidence at the supposed crime scene in Soledad Canyon. Joe criticizes immunity deals, arguing they promote false testimonies and undermine justice. He maintains that such deals, including the one offered to Pittman, lack rigorous oversight and too often lead to wrongful convictions, emphasizing the systemic flaws in the American justice system.

Media Narratives Debunked: Is Joe Hunt Truly a Threat to Society?

Joe Hunt’s wife, Jamie, critiques the sensationalized portrayals of Joe in media, highlighting inaccuracies in shows produced by Marcia Clark and portrayed by Judd Nelson. She exposes the discrepancies between Joe’s calm, drug-free character and the wild, unstable image presented in the media. Jamie points out the unreliability of key testimonies against Joe, revealing biases and credibility issues of figures like a disbarred lawyer and a misrepresented family relationship. She urges a critical approach to media narratives, advocating for more reliable sources to understand Joe’s case truthfully.

Share Your Voice: Create a Video Testimonial

Join the movement by sharing your video testimonial in support of Joe! It’s quick and simple: go here. Your video should be informal and can be recorded right from your web browser—no special equipment is needed. Keep it between 30 and 60 seconds, and speak from the heart. By adding your voice, you help personalize our collective call for justice and amplify the impact of our campaign. Let’s make our voices heard and show the strength of our community!

Thank You

Thank you for standing with us as we celebrate reaching 50,000 signatures. Your continued support and advocacy are essential to our campaign. Please share this newsletter and petition with others to help us grow our community and strengthen our collective voice. Together, we can push for the necessary legal reforms and ensure justice is served. Let’s keep the momentum going and work towards a fair resolution for Joe.

— Katherine and Michael Olivier for Joe’s Family

May 4, 2024
By Joe Hunt

The prosecution advanced a bizarre theory that Jim Pittman attempted to impersonate Ron Levin by staying at the Plaza Hotel in New York under Levin’s name. This part of their argument suggested an elaborate ruse to mislead authorities, crafting a narrative that Levin vanished in New York rather than Beverly Hills. This claim forms a critical piece of the complex puzzle presented in the courtroom.

Problems with the Prosecution’s Theory

This theory is preposterous. Pittman was a 5’9″, 210-pound, dark-black male with a short-cropped afro and the memorable physique of a bodybuilder. Ron Levin was 6’1.5″, 145-pound Jewish man with a very pale complexion and silver-white hair. Are we supposed to believe that the plan was to have Pittman check in to the Plaza and stay for several days at a 5-star, concierge-led hotel as an attempt to impersonate Ronald George Levin (a.k.a. Ronald Glick)?

Furthermore, I called witnesses from the hotel who testified that Pittman hired a limousine through the hotel and had it drive him to the homes of friends and family on a two-day excursion along the East Coast. The limousine driver, Frank Vassallo, testified at my trial in San Mateo. As one would expect, he had a log of Pittman’s itinerary. He recalled Pittman being expansive and loquacious, describing the residents’ connection to him at every stop.

The Real Reason for Pittman’s Actions

Pittman wasn’t trying to impersonate anyone. What, then, was he doing using Levin’s American Express Card on this showy junket to New York?

I testified that contrary to what the State’s immunized witness, Dean Karny, had told them, Pittman knew Levin. Two witnesses, Len Marmor (Levin’s long-term neighbor and best friend) and Jon Riley (a scam-related associate of Levin’s), testified that they had seen Jim Pittman at Levin’s house on occasion.

“Are we supposed to believe that the plan was to have Pittman check in to the Plaza and stay for several days at a 5-star, concierge-led hotel as an attempt to impersonate Ronald George Levin?”

Dean Karny’s testimony was that the very first time Levin met Pittman was as the alleged murder scenario unfolded. I supposedly arrived at Levin’s with Pittman in tow and told Levin that Pittman represented some mobsters to whom I owed money. Karny claimed that I presented the situation as one in which Pittman was mob muscle sent to collect from Levin on the debt he owed me so that I could repay them. Thus, Levin was to be told that I was as much under the gun as he was.

Of course, the proof that Pittman and Levin had a preexisting social/business relationship discredited this scenario.

My testimony was that Pittman had Levin’s American Express Card because Levin had, of his own volition and, according to his own plan, given it to him. Bear in mind that this was just another one of Levin’s scammed credit cards. He had a huge balance (over $55,000) and did not intend to pay it off. Further, since he was going fugitive, he had no further use for it. Pittman said that Levin had offered the card after hearing about how much Pittman wanted to see his folks on the East Coast. Pittman presumably knew that Ron’s card was a ‘burner’ card, so his charges would not come out of his patron’s pocket. This was just two crooks trading favors. As we know from Pittman’s pre-BBC Grand Theft charge out of West Virginia, he wasn’t above a little bit of larceny.

In retrospect, however, Levin appeared to have had deeper goals in maneuvering Pittman to use his credit card.

Pittman’s Actions Undermine the Prosecution’s Case

In sum, the evidence of Pittman’s lark in New York is inconsistent with the State’s theory. His behavior was blatantly inconsistent with any effort to leave a false trail. Indeed, when his exorbitant and extended use of the AMEX Card beyond its limits caused charges to be rejected and his room locked, he made a huge ruckus, leading to his arrest.

Pittman’s conduct showed absolutely no concern that he would be tied to the card. Using it to hire a limousine to take him to family and friends’ houses proves that. If he knew he was using a dead man’s card, he plainly would have tried to be inconspicuous and would not have used the card in New York in any way that would have tied him as a memorably built black man to it.

Thus, rather than strengthening the State’s case, Pittman’s New York trip and use of the AMEX Card seriously undermines it. Pittman’s actions were wholly inconsistent with the State’s murder theory.

An Alternative Theory: Levin’s Plan

John Fuhrman, a retired attorney, after reading the above article, offered these comments:

This makes perfect sense (as does Joe’s other article about Pittman’s dubious testimony). I would also point out that, yes, Levin was notorious for starting up businesses and obtaining credit cards, American Express cards in particular, in the names of those businesses. Levin would run up the card debt, and even if the card issuers wanted to pursue him individually, he was judgment-proof. Most of us who’ve practiced law have been exposed, at one point or another, to the seedy underbelly of society. Hence, I know what a “burner card” is.

However, Joe should consider this, my original “theory.” All the evidence points to the fact that Ron Levin was getting ready to run. He was facing serious prison time by now. Tragically, not addressed by Joe’s lead counsel at the first trial was the fact that Levin had access to nearly half a million dollars — far more than what Joe’s defense attorney represented to the Jury during the trial. A half a million dollars, to a man like Levin, is enough seed money to keep him in profitable scams for the remainder of his life.  Levin was almost certainly preparing to go on the lamb in June 1984.

The evidence in support of this is beyond being merely compelling.  However, I doubt Levin offered Pittman his “burner” AmEx Gold Card out of gratitude or a desire to aid a friend in his desire to travel back to the East Coast. No, Levin was undoubtedly aware that when law enforcement searches for bail jumpers, they first look at the fugitive’s credit card statements to determine where that fugitive is. Rather than Joe sending Pittman to NYC to masquerade as Levin, it was Levin who sent Pittman to NYC to give the appearance that he was in NYC when, in fact, he was really miles away — elsewhere with a big head start on the authorities in both in time and distance.

That is how the Ron Levins of the world think. I am sure that Ron Levin laughed his head off when reading in the newspapers about Karney’s testimony that Joe sent Pittman to NYC to pretend to be Levin when it was really Levin who sent Pittman to NYC to pretend to be Levin.

Consider my theory. 

John

And here is Joe’s response to John’s theory:

Very likely true.

60 Minutes with Ed Bradley

“Marcia Clark’s special on this doesn’t make [Joe Hunt] look like he is safe for our society.”

Amy Meredith on Facebook

April 18, 2024
By Jamie (Joe’s wife)

It’s important to be cautious of sensationalized media portrayals, such as the one presented by Marcia Clark in Joe Hunt’s case. As a former prosecutor turned television personality, her perspective may not always prioritize truth over entertainment value. To form a balanced view, it’s advisable to consider multiple perspectives and seek factual information beyond what is presented in media productions. I can’t even watch any of those shows. They aren’t portraying Joe accurately, but rather the picture the prosecutors and BBC members painted of him. Often, the only ‘research’ they do is to read and watch other media accounts. They make Joe seem like some bug-eyed Svengali who is socially awkward. This portrayal of him couldn’t be further from the truth.

For example, did you know that years before the BBC, Joe was president of one of the main fraternities at USC? Yet, if you watch the 2018 movie, he is portrayed as socially awkward. Another example: it’s well known that Judd Nelson was doing line after line of coke in between sets while filming the 1987 miniseries The Billionaire Boys Club. The wild, psycho, look he brought to the portrayal of Joe is what most think of when they think of who Joe is. However, Joe never got into drugs and didn’t even like alcohol. If you see footage of him in court or from interviews, he comes across as a well-adjusted guy.

And regarding the reliability of the media accounts: consider the 60 Minutes special with Ed Bradley. They show Joe saying some things, then cut away to footage from 3 people contradicting Joe: Mr. Troelstrup of the Chicago Mercantile Exchange, Jerome Eisenberg, a lawyer who worked at the BBC, and Carol Levin, Ron Levin’s mother. Troelstrup seemingly contradicts Joe’s statement that he was not charged with or found guilty of misappropriation when he was trading at the CME. However, the records of the exchange corroborate Joe, not Troelstrup. Regarding Eisenberg, did you know he was disbarred after the 60 Minutes interview and went to prison for fraud? And that Joe’s 1992 jury rejected Eisenberg’s testimony finding that his account of events within the BBC was perjured? 

And, when it comes to Carol Levin, did you know that her assertion that if Ron were alive, he would have remained in contact with her because they “were always close” was shown to be a lie? It turns out she sent Ron to live at military academies and group homes and even had him admitted to Camarillo State Mental Hospital during his formative years. Did you know that hard proof came out in Joe’s 1992 trial showing that Ron was scamming and callously exploiting her right up to the moment he disappeared? Did you know that Dr. Gretchen White, a clinical psychologist, reviewed all the records from the group homes, military academies, shrinks, and Camarillo, together with Carol Levin’s testimony and the relevant financial records, and determined that Levin had no natural feeling for his Mother, as he utterly failed to bond with her as a child?

So beware of thinking you can learn about the case by watching documentaries.

April 3, 2024
By Joe Hunt

John, a visitor to this website, posed an intriguing question:

“I am very sympathetic to Joe’s case. As a retired lawyer, I know enough about Joe’s case to recognize that the trial judge seemed biased against him. However, for many, the stumbling block in sympathizing with Joe’s cause is Jim Pittman’s detailed admission of the alleged Ron Levin murder. Could Joe address this?”

My family referred this question to me. Here is my response.

The Early 1990s: Case Dismissals and Pittman’s Extradition

This post takes me back 30 years to the early 1990s. The San Mateo case was dismissed after the jury deadlocked 8-4 in my favor. Shortly thereafter, the Special Prosecution Unit of the California Department of Justice dismissed charges against my co-defendant, Jim Pittman.

Charges against Pittman in Los Angeles regarding Ronald Levin’s disappearance had been dropped after a 1988 trial ended with the jury deadlocked 10-2 in Pittman’s favor. However, following the San Mateo case dismissal, Pittman wasn’t released. Instead, he was extradited to West Virginia to face pending Grand Theft Auto charges. Unbeknownst to me, Pittman had stolen a car and fled West Virginia before we met in 1983.

Around 1994, my private investigator, William Divita of San Mateo County, relayed disturbing news. Pittman, in jail in West Virginia awaiting trial, explained his failing kidneys necessitated his release to settle affairs. He wanted $20,000 from me to reject a deal offered by authorities, influenced by the Beverly Hills Police Department. He threatened to accept the deal if I didn’t pay, mentioning a potential financial offer from TV producers for corroborating the State’s case.

Despite having the funds, I’ve always had a policy against yielding to threats. I refused Pittman’s ultimatum.

I instructed Mr. Divita to document his conversations with Pittman and to record future interactions. I asked him to inform Pittman of my refusal without explanation. I still possess the investigator’s reports and recordings in storage. Mr. Divita remains active as a P.I. in San Mateo County.

Pittman’s “Confession” and the Futile Search in Soledad Canyon

Months later, on “A Current Affair,” I watched Pittman “confess” to align with the State’s theory. The show featured Pittman guiding BHPD officers and a forensics team to Soledad Canyon, where he and I allegedly buried Levin. The episode revealed their futile search — no body, quick-lime, or shotgun pellets were found.

The State’s theory, based on a hoax, was that Levin was buried after being shot and covered in quick-lime. This fabrication was intended to intimidate a rival faction within the BBC. Pittman’s inability to produce a body in Soledad Canyon highlighted the farce.

The Flawed Approach of Immunity Deals

The State’s approach to witnesses, offering deals in exchange for corroborative testimony, is deeply flawed. In Pittman’s case, the BHPD proposed dropping his theft charges if he supported their theory.

Pittman’s proffered testimony was a mere echo of Dean Karny’s story, necessary for his freedom. However, immunity deals undermine truth, as desperation for freedom can lead to false testimonies.

I stood against Pittman’s blackmail attempt, adhering to my principle of non-cooperation with evil. Consequently, none of Pittman’s statements under the deal were admissible, as he was never cross-examined.

Had Pittman testified in a retrial, his inconsistent narrative would likely have led to my exoneration. The story he told was implausible, revealing no actual murder had occurred.

The Lack of Governance in Immunity Deals and Abuse of Power

Immunity deals are an institutionalized aspect of American “justice.” What is particularly troubling is their lack of governance by any legal or regulatory framework. Wisely used, they can be pragmatic in bringing sophisticated criminals to justice. However, if the core elements of the story remain uncorroborated even after the deal, immunity can become a way to incentivize and suborn perjury. Clearly, in the case of James Pittman, that’s what occurred.

The Beverly Hills Police Department, anxious about Joe potentially being granted a retrial and aware that over 40 neutral citizen witnesses corroborated Levin’s absconding, exploited the desperation of a dying man to support their murder theory. They may claim on camera that offering Pittman a deal was necessary because they perceived Hunt’s release as a public safety threat, but this is merely a superficial justification for what was an abuse of government power.

Fittingly, the State did not benefit from their Faustian deal with Pittman.

Joe with his wife, Jamie, c. 2014

Dear Advocates for Justice,

We’re thrilled to celebrate a remarkable milestone with you: 44,000 signatures supporting Joe Hunt’s quest for justice! Within these pages, discover four new articles that offer a multifaceted look at Joe’s legal journey, from a fresh examination of his wrongful conviction to explorations of youth offenses, financial narratives, and beyond. Highlighted by an impactful 83-second video advocating for Joe’s parole, these stories are a testament to the power of collective advocacy. By sharing this content, you help amplify a crucial call for justice and reform, moving us closer to securing Joe’s freedom and challenging systemic flaws.

New Articles

A Miscarriage of Justice: The Overdue Reexamination of Joe Hunt’s Wrongful Conviction:

Today’s feature article calls for reevaluating Joe’s 40-year wrongful conviction, spotlighting new evidence and flawed legal processes. It criticizes the justice system’s preference for procedure over truth, using Joe’s denied appeal as a case in point. Urging legal reform and public support for Joe’s freedom, the piece includes key court documents and promotes #FairParoleForJoe, advocating for systemic change.

Why Joe Deserves a Chance at Parole (Video):

Did you know that all of Joe’s codefendants were either immune from prosecution, sentenced to 3.5 years, or won on appeal after 12 years with all charges dropped? Watch this 83-second video about why Joe deserves a chance of parole.

Ask Joe: Age and Accountability: Rethinking Youth Offenses and Rehabilitation:

Joe discusses the significance of age in accountability and rehabilitation, highlighting scientific evidence that the brain matures through late adolescence, affecting impulse control and susceptibility to peer pressure. He notes legislative changes allowing parole reviews for offenders under 26, advocating for fairness in legal treatment and rehabilitation opportunities. The article also reflects on judicial inconsistencies and the recent Supreme Court decision, underscoring the complex interplay between law, age, and rehabilitation.

Scam or Scapegoat? Rethinking Joe Hunt’s Financial Legacy:

This article sheds light on Joe’s story, challenging the narrative of him leading scams through the Billionaire Boys Club. Contrary to popular belief, Joe did not exploit his investors; losses were part of agreed risks with E.F. Hutton and Cantor Fitzgerald, not directly Joe’s liability. It delves into how Ron Levin, a con artist, significantly contributed to these financial losses, yet Joe’s intent was to protect his investors, even contemplating repaying them with his own money. This narrative contrasts sharply with accusations of fraud, highlighting Joe’s attempts to navigate financial downturns caused by external deceit. The article calls for a closer examination of Joe’s case, urging readers to look beyond media portrayals and advocate for fairness and transparency in the legal system.

Proven Innocent… But Still in Prison? Why?

Joe’s unique legal predicament underscores a systemic failure within the U.S. justice system. Despite possessing incontrovertible new evidence that could exonerate him if retried, Joe remains incarcerated due to procedural technicalities. Key testimony from Nadia Ghaleb, crucial in securing a co-defendant’s acquittal, was never presented at Joe’s original trial. Furthermore, declarations from jurors in a subsequent trial, convinced of Joe’s innocence based on this new evidence, are dismissed by courts citing evidentiary rules. This legal oversight not only keeps Joe unjustly imprisoned but also highlights the need for a justice system that values fairness over formality.

Thank You

Your participation is pivotal to the triumph of our cause. We’d like to encourage you to share this petition broadly; such action magnifies Joe’s quest for liberation and highlights the pressing demand for fairness and systemic change. United, we can elevate our advocacy, spread awareness, and ensure Joe achieves the justice he is due.

Katherine and Michael Olivier for Joe’s Family

March 19, 2024

The conviction of Joe Hunt casts a long shadow over the American legal system, illustrating a failure to align the machinery of justice with the principles of truth and equity. For four decades, Hunt has languished in prison, the victim of a legal process that has favored procedural technicalities over compelling evidence of innocence.

This new evidence, which surfaced following his conviction, could have dismantled the prosecution’s case had it been available during the initial trial.

The linchpin of Hunt’s argument rests on witness statements that have shattered the prosecution’s timeline, suggesting the supposed victim was alive well after Hunt’s alleged crime. This new evidence, which surfaced following his conviction, could have dismantled the prosecution’s case had it been available during the initial trial. The legislative revision of Penal Code section 1473 was designed for such scenarios, mandating a case review when new evidence could substantially alter the trial’s outcome.

Yet, the appellate court’s recent denial of Hunt’s petition, citing procedural default for delayed filing, is a stark indictment of a justice system that sometimes prioritizes form over substance. It begs the question: How many procedural obstacles must one man navigate before his voice is heard?

The campaign for Joe Hunt’s freedom is not just an outcry for one man’s exoneration but a clarion call for legal reform. His ongoing legal battle represents the struggles of countless individuals ensnared in a system that too often resists admitting its mistakes.

Essential Court Documents

In the spirit of transparency and informed discourse, this article includes the essential court documents related to the claim of right defense, crucial for a complete understanding of Hunt’s legal stand.

The call to action is clear: it’s time to revisit the Joe Hunt case with the seriousness it deserves. We encourage you to review the included court documents for further insights into Hunt’s pursuit of justice. These documents provide a comprehensive view of the case, offering crucial information and supporting the movement for his release. This platform is not just an informational resource but a beacon for those who demand that our justice system live up to its name.

March 15, 2024

“People seem to forget how many people lost their whole life savings because of this man and his cronies. The Billionaires Boys Club robbed millions and millions of dollars from elderly people, leaving many of them homeless. I don’t feel sorry for this man one bit, and his real name isn’t even Joe, so why doesn’t he start telling the truth?”

Francine Gigi Dougan

Misconceptions About Joe and His Investors

There are many unfortunate but popular misconceptions about the facts about Joe, his actions, and his motives. One of the most glaring ones is this idea that he callously scammed a bunch of ordinary people out of their life savings.

That isn’t the truth. It isn’t even consistent with the prosecution’s theory of the case.

The Prosecution’s Theory

So what was the prosecution’s theory about Joe and his investors and their money?

The State proved that investor money was lost at two brokerages: E.F. Hutton and Cantor Fitzgerald. The investors signed the contract between them and Financial Futures Trading Corporation of North America, Inc. Under the agreement, the investors agreed to bear any and all losses as a result of trades undertaken for them. Profits were to be split 50/50.

So Joe was not personally liable for the trading losses, which amounted to over a million dollars. Moreover, any liability for trading losses would have been contained at the corporate level.

The Losses at Cantor Fitzgerald

It was also established that the losses that occurred at Cantor Fitzgerald Brokerage, which amounted to about $600,000, were caused by Ron Levin, who reneged on a promise to pay $500,000 that he owed Joe at the time. Levin had promised to pay Joe that sum, and relying on that promise Joe had overextended the trading account by buying too many futures contracts than he had margin money for.

When Joe didn’t get the $500,000 Levin promised, he wasn’t able to use those funds as planned to meet the margin call, and a position that went on to be highly profitable ended up being liquidated at a loss.

Now Joe had put the same position on in Levin’s account at Clayton Brokerage house. Acting under a trading authorization there he had also bought Treasury Bond Futures for Levin’s account. That position showed on paper a profit of $8,000,000 because Joe had guessed correctly regarding the T-Bond market.

The Alleged Motive

So these are some of the circumstances which both the prosecution and the defense agree upon.

Next, to understand the financial aspect of the State’s case, you need to know what their theory of motive for the alleged killing of Levin was.

They argued at the 1987 trial that Joe didn’t want his investors to bear the losses that were occasioned by Levin’s failure to supply — as promised — the $500,000 he had owed Joe at the time of the Cantor Fitzgerald margin call. So, instead, they say Joe decided to take the money he needed to repay his investors from Levin at gunpoint.

Even under the State’s theory of the case, Joe didn’t set out to scam anyone.

So let that sink in. The State’s theory isn’t that Joe was callously indifferent to his investors’ losses. Quite the opposite! The State’s theory is that he wanted to force Levin to pay a personal debt Levin owed him, so that he could make up out of his own pocket the money that had been lost for the most part behind the corporate shield of Financial Futures Trading Corporation.

Put another way, the State argued that Joe was willing to repay the investors for losses he was not legally obligated to cover and was willing to use money that was owed to him, not Financial Futures Trading Corporation, to do so.

Joe’s Mistakes

Now, it is true that Joe should have told the investors immediately about the Cantor losses. Instead, he issued a false statement reporting profits, not losses. As a result additional money was invested with Joe, only to be lost at E.F. Hutton and in underwriting some of the overhead of other BBC companies. Joe’s error here was twofold. First, in not being mature enough to face the FFTC investors with the truth. He thought he could avoid the heartache and upset by using the money he thought he had coming in from other activities. This was unwise and unlawful. Second, he was a fool to believe Ron Levin and to have anything to do with him.

As a result of those errors in character and judgment, the FFTC investors lost additional money. Joe agrees he was responsible for that and to this day feels horrible about it.

The Main Point

However, the point of reciting all this is to demonstrate that even under the State’s theory of the case, Joe didn’t set out to scam anyone. He was just being a legitimate businessman before he got thrown off track by a succession of Levin’s scams. And, furthermore, rather than having a callous disregard for the losses of the investors, the State’s theory is that Joe was willing to take money owed and promised to him and give it to the FFTC investors rather than to see them suffer. The State’s theory was that Joe killed Levin to recover money he hoped to use to make those investors whole.

The Defense’s Position

The defense position, and Joe’s, track the above, only diverging as to the final point. Joe says that he tried to scare Levin into paying, using the To Do lists as a prop, but that it never came to murder. Joe testified in San Mateo that he and several other BBC members had a meeting discussing ways to force Levin, who prided himself on being judgment-proof, to pay Joe the $4 million Levin admitted to owing Joe. Joe said the notes from that meeting were shown to, and left with, Levin on June 5, 1984, in the context of an effort to impress upon Levin the lengths to which the BBC would go to collect the $4,000,000 debt.

Karen Marmor, Levin’s next door neighbor, came forward after Joe was convicted providing crucial corroboration of Joe’s story. She testified in 1992 that she had seen the To Do lists on Levin’s desk on the afternoon of June 5, 1984 — i.e., 30 hours before Levin disappeared.

Summary: The Media Can’t Be Trusted

In sum, the media version of Joe’s life is simply untrustworthy. Collapsing real life into 30 minute or even 90 minutes of footage, acting, or narration, leaves most of reality on the cutting room floor.  

Joe’s true fight to make his investors whole, even if it had to come out of his own pocket, is reduced to the meme: ‘ponzi scheme.’ The reality that Ron Levin was in control of the ‘to do lists’ over 24 hours before he disappeared is ignored in favor of speculative sensationalization of their content.  

As we’ve learned in so many other contexts, the media simply can’t be trusted. This is why freejoehunt.com points all eyes and minds towards the opinions of the last and best informed jury to hear the evidence about Joe and the BBC. That jury, after hearing from over 100 witnesses whose testimony has never been accounted for in any media product, concluded the BBC witnesses were perjurers and that Levin likely fled to avoid prison for a variety of State and Federal crimes.

Unique Evidence of Wrongful Conviction

Joe Hunt is the only prisoner in the United States able to concretely prove that evidence which became available after his conviction would exonerate him if granted a retrial.

This unusual circumstance arose because the evidence in question was available to Joe in another trial, following Joe’s 1987 conviction in an L.A. courtroom.

In 1992, Joe faced trial again in San Mateo County, where he acted as his own lawyer. The prosecutor’s decision to use all evidence from the L.A. trial, alleging Joe’s involvement in other crimes, enabled Joe to hire investigators to reexamine the State’s claim of Ron Levin’s murder.

The Chief Detective on Joe’s L.A. case told his superiors in a memo written in 1993 that the evidence brought to light after Joe’s conviction, in his opinion, would likely result in an acquittal if Joe were retried.

Ultimately, Joe found and called 42 witnesses that had not, but should have been, presented by the defense in Los Angeles in 1987. Most of these witnesses could have been identified had the counsel representing Joe in that first trial been effective. A few of them only came forward after Joe was convicted.

Key Witness Testimony: Nadia Ghaleb

Just one of these witnesses, Nadia Ghaleb, was enough to free Joe’s co-defendant James Pittman. Pittman, the alleged trigger-man in the case, had been tried to a mistrial, with a vote of 11-1 to convict, in 1986. After Joe’s conviction in 1987, Pittman was retried. The 1988 trial resulted in a 10-2 vote for acquittal. The major difference between the two Pittman trials was Nadia’s testimony in the 1988 trial. 

Testifying for the Defense, Nadia told the jury that she managed restaurants and had become acquainted with Ron Levin when she was Maitre D’ at Mr Chow’s, possibly the premier restaurant in L.A. during the late ’70s. She recalled seeing and interacting with Levin on many occasions, including seeing Levin in the company of celebrities such as Andy Warhol. She described Levin perfectly—height, weight, eye color—right down to his signature silver-gray hair. It was because of her familiarity with Levin that she felt certain she saw him in a parking lot off of San Vicente Boulevard in May of 1987.

Plainly, Levin could not have both died in June of 1984 and been alive in May of 1987. The 1988 10-2 vote for acquittal of Pittman’s second jury suggests they found her testimony sufficient to raise a reasonable doubt. After the lopsided vote in favor of acquittal, DDA Wapner dropped murder charges against Pittman.

But Nadia wasn’t called as a witness at Joe’s 1987 trial. Convicted without her testimony, this circumstance – in light of the difference it appeared to make for Pittman – seriously undermines the reliability of the verdict.

Moreover, Joe called Nadia and several other similar witnesses in his 1992 trial in San Mateo. Though these witnesses were not directly relevant to the San Mateo charges, as explained above, the prosecutor made them relevant when he decided to use the L.A. case to try and show that both cases constituted an interlocking pattern of conduct. His argument opened the door for Joe to present evidence that he was both wrongfully convicted in L.A. and wrongfully accused in San Mateo.

Jurors Convinced of Innocence

In all, Joe called 107 witnesses to the stand—and, as noted above, over 40 of those were to demonstrate his innocence in the disappearance of Levin.

This is where it gets very interesting. The San Mateo jury, which hung 8-4 in Joe’s favor, was interviewed post-verdict. Eight of them gave Joe declarations stating that they felt, in light of the new evidence, that Joe had been wrongfully convicted. They concluded Levin fled to avoid prosecution; that he wasn’t killed.

The circumstances above explain why Joe is the only person in prison in the United States who can incontestably prove that his new evidence would likely lead to an acquittal. Why then should Joe languish in prison?

Joe has attempted to use these declarations from the San Mateo jurors to persuade the Courts to give him a retrial on the Levin charges. He has pointed out that it is unprecedented and unique proof that the evidence that was uncovered or became available after his 1986 conviction is both credible and exonerating.

The Courts have uniformly responded that while that appears to be true, they must refuse to consider the evidence because of an arcane evidentiary rule that was adopted to insulate jurors from post-trial attacks on their reasoning processes. (See Fed. Rules of Evid. section 606; California Ev. Code section 1150.)

Consequently, a legal technicality, unrelated to the pursuit of justice in individual cases, has enabled courts to dismiss conclusive evidence of Joe Hunt’s wrongful conviction. This dismissal occurs even though Hunt is not employing the juror declarations to challenge the jurors’ verdicts.

The circumstances above explain why Joe is the only person in prison in the United States who can incontestably prove that his new evidence would likely lead to an acquittal. Every year, thousands of American prisoners win retrial based merely on arguments that are deemed to show a likelihood of acquittal on retrial. Why then should Joe languish in prison?

Indeed, the Chief Detective on Joe’s L.A. case told his superiors in a memo written in 1993 that the evidence brought to light after Joe’s conviction, in his opinion, would likely result in an acquittal if Joe were retried.

The stark reality of Joe Hunt’s situation is a jarring indictment of a justice system mired in procedural inertia. It’s unconscionable that concrete evidence capable of overturning a wrongful conviction is disregarded, leaving an innocent man languishing behind bars. This case transcends Joe Hunt; it’s a chilling testament to the failures of a legal system that prioritizes technicalities over truth. The time has come for those in power to acknowledge and rectify this grave injustice. Every moment Joe remains imprisoned despite overwhelming evidence is not just a failure of the legal system, but a blatant betrayal of the very ideals of justice and fairness it purports to uphold.

March 8, 2024
By Joe Hunt

“For me, and especially men, we should realize that the change from youth to middle age is drastic in your behavior and your thoughts and beliefs… What they may have thought was okay and their youth realize it’s wrong in older age.”

– Carolyn Marie Crane Bramblett on my Facebook posting

I agree, and the U.S. Supreme Court in Miller v. Alabama (2012) 567 U.S. 460 discusses some of the neurophysiological and behavioral science behind this revelation.

The idea of a youth offender parole hearing is based on scientific evidence showing that parts of the brain involved in behavior control continue to mature through late adolescence and that adolescent brains are not yet fully mature until a person is in his or her mid-to-late 20s. Specifically, the area of the brain responsible for impulse control, understanding consequences, and other executive functions is not fully developed until that time. This is, as you recognize, particularly true for males. 

In reviewing this scientific evidence, the United States Supreme Court and the California Supreme Court have recognized that the younger a person is, the more susceptible he or she is to negative influences and outside pressures, including peer pressure. However, as they age, maturity can lead to reflection, which is the foundation for remorse, renewal, and rehabilitation. Therefore, the California Legislature has determined that with few exceptions, offenders who commit crimes while under the age of 26 and who are sentenced to state prison are required to have a meaningful opportunity for parole during their natural life.

“The younger a person is, the more susceptible he or she is to negative influences and outside pressures, including peer pressure.”

Understanding the Impact of Age on Legal Responsibility

Assembly Bill 1308 took effect on January 1, 2018, and it expanded youth offender parole hearings to persons under the age of 26 when they committed their controlling offense.

Senate Bill 394 also took effect on January 1, 2018, and it expanded youth offender parole hearings to include those persons sentenced to life without the possibility of parole who were under the age of 18 when they committed their controlling offense.

As of right now, those with a Life Without sentence are excluded from the Youthful Offender parole legislation cited above.

Challenging the Status Quo: A Personal Journey

However, in People v. Hardin, the Second Appellate District ruled that this exclusion violates the Equal Protection Clause of the California and Federal constitutions. Hardin is now under review in the California Supreme Court (S277487), and a decision is expected this year.

I was the first prisoner to challenge the exclusion of Life Without prisoners from the Youthful Offender parole bills, filing in late 2016 in L.A. Superior Court. When my petition was denied, I appealed to the Second Appellate District — the same District that would later grant relief to Hardin. However, they denied my petition, and the California Supreme Court denied review.

“Many petitions are never shown to a judge at all but are decided by law clerks who, in some cases, are fresh out of school.”

The differing treatment of Hardin’s petition and mine, though they both alleged the same facts and legal theories, illustrates the haphazard nature of judicial remedies. Many petitions are never shown to a judge at all but are decided by law clerks who, in some cases, are fresh out of school. Judges review others, but judges are often influenced by their political inclinations. Do you doubt that? Well, then, consider how often the U.S. Supreme Court votes are along party lines. If a logical process involving “the law” was actually involved, why are there so many 5 to 4 decisions?

Post Script

On March 4, 2024, The Supreme Court of California decided to reverse the Court of Appeals in In re. Hardin. They rejected the argument that the Equal Protection Clause prohibits the exclusion of Life Without prisoners from the Youthful Offender parole bills. For Joe and many others, a disappointing result.

Join the Conversation: The Ask Joe Series

Do you have questions about Joe Hunt’s case or want insights on the justice system? Be a part of our ongoing “Ask Joe” series. This is your chance to engage directly with Joe and delve deeper into his story and experiences. Post your questions on our Facebook page or X.com, or send them to us privately, and stay tuned as Joe addresses your queries in upcoming segments. Your question could be the next one we explore in our journey for justice and understanding.

Don’t miss this unique opportunity to interact and gain perspective straight from Joe. Ask away, and let’s unravel the complexities together!

Discover the untold story of Joe Hunt: A journey from questionable conviction to unparalleled redemption behind bars.

Elevate your impact and join the movement for justice by signing the petition today. It’s a simple action with profound consequences. To join this transformative cause, head over to https://bit.ly/SignJoesPetition.

Delve into the deeper narrative and arm yourself with knowledge at https://freejoehunt.com/. Understanding the whole story is crucial, and your informed support is invaluable in our pursuit of justice.

Please share this video with your network to help us amplify our message. Every share extends our reach and brings us closer to our goal. Your network can make a difference! #FairParoleForJoe

February 27, 2024
By Joe Hunt

After 40 years during which the media has controlled the narrative, their story of the Billionaire Boys Club has become legend: a cautionary tale about rich young men gone haywire, set against the beguiling backdrop of Beverly Hills in its 1980s heyday. My role as the charismatic psychopath who led them was embossed on the mass consciousness through his portrayal by Judd Nelson in the critically acclaimed 1987 NBC miniseries. Nielsen reported that nearly 90 million people saw it. Since then, there have been books, a motion picture, and at least 20 documentaries, several of which have come out in the last few years.

The meme of the BBC is so compelling in its portrayal that it seems iconoclastic, or even socially apostate, to trouble the public with the facts. Yet, the public of this day and age is far more conscious of how often the establishment narrative is either faked or published with callous indifference to the truth. And so, we offer this article and commend it to the more seasoned judgment of our time.

“The public of this day and age is far more conscious of how often the establishment narrative is either faked or published with callous indifference to the truth.”

1. Did you know Ron Levin was researching the U.S./Brazilian extradition treaty right before disappearing? The jury that convicted me did not.

2. Did you know that Levin called his hairdresser, John Duran, the day before he disappeared, pressing him for advice on changing his hair color? The jury that convicted me did not.

3. Did you know that a police detective noticed brown stains consistent with hair dye residue on the porcelain in Levin’s bathroom after he disappeared? The jury that convicted me did not.

4. Did you know that Ron Levin told Jerry Verplancke, the manager of Progressive Savings and Loan of Beverly Hills, that he was investing in Microgenesis Corporation (one of the BBC companies)? My jury didn’t know that. Instead, the prosecutor used testimony from Dean Karny to the effect that Levin had never even heard of Microgenesis — let alone invested in it. (The State’s theory was that I extorted a $1,500,000 check from Levin, made out in favor of Microgenesis. The D.A. argued that a business file supporting a transaction between Levin and Microgenesis was planted.)

5. Did you know that Levin’s next-door neighbor, Karen Marmor, witnessed the distinctive ‘to-do’ lists on his desk when she visited him on June 5th—i.e., the day before his disappearance? The jury that convicted me did not hear from Karen at all. Karen, a career bank officer, was none other than Len Marmor’s wife. The D.A. described Len Marmor as Levin’s closest associate. The revelation that Levin had the ‘to-do’ lists the day before he disappeared totally destroys the state’s theory that the lists were first brought to Levin’s on the night of June 6th, there to be used as a checklist during a murder. Further, it corroborates my assertion—which many had once branded as implausible—that he had given the lists to Levin on June 5th, apparently shortly before Karen saw them on Levin’s desk.

“Karen Marmor’s late revelation undermines the state’s timeline and could have decisively altered the trial’s outcome.”

6. Did you know Levin told at least two people that he planned to flee to avoid imprisonment? The jury that convicted me did not.

7. Did you know that my co-defendant, James Pittman, was tried twice, both trials ending in a mistrial? In the second trial, the jury voted 10-2 for acquittal. After that, the L.A. D.A. dropped murder charges against him. The D.A. told my jury that Pittman shot Ron Levin. So I was convicted of ordering a man to kill Levin, and that man, in a later trial, with the benefit of evidence unavailable to me, was cleared of that crime.

8. Did you know that Levin was out on bail, facing 12 counts of grand theft when he disappeared? Did you know that his mother’s house was used as collateral for the bail bond? Did you know that a week before he disappeared, he had his mother’s house released as collateral and substituted a new bond?

“Levin’s pre-disappearance actions suggest a man preparing for flight, not one on the verge of being murdered”

9. Did you know that the State had no direct evidence of murder — neither blood, nor bullets, nor a body — and that seven citizens came forward after I was convicted, describing encounters with Levin in 1986 and 1987, i.e., they saw Levin two to three years after his disappearance?

10. Did you know that these seven eyewitnesses were presented in the San Mateo trial and found by that jury to be credible and persuasive?

11. Did you know that I am the only person in the history of Anglo-Saxon jurisprudence to be held for a no-body homicide where the alleged victim both planned to flee and was subsequently seen by non-partisan witnesses?

12. Did you know that an American Express Card found by the police at Levin’s house was used at Neiman Marcus in Beverly Hills on the morning of June 7, 1984 — that is, the morning after Levin was allegedly killed?

13. Did you know that all of my co-defendants were released, and the cases against all of them were dropped?

14. Did you know that after the San Mateo jury saw me cross-examine Tom May, Jerry Eisenberg, Dean Karny, and Evan Dicker (his former cohorts in the BBC), they rejected their testimony and concluded that they had all perjured themselves?

15. Did you know that the Chief Detective on the case, Les Zoller, wrote a memorandum to his superiors in 1993 telling them that the new evidence in the case was compelling and that if I were given a retrial, he would likely be acquitted?

Retrial or Resentencing: My Overdue Justice

Under close analysis, the conventional narrative of Joe Hunt and the Billionaire Boys Club is revealed to be decidedly false. Delving into evidence, witness accounts, and legal challenges reveals the critical need for a retrial—or, at the very least, resentencing. This case provokes discussion on whether we repose too much trust in the reliability of judicial processes and verdicts. Is the judicial system really any more reliable than other institutions?

Why, despite credible exonerating evidence and exemplary conduct, have I been overlooked for resentencing?

As I conclude, I invite readers to reflect on two questions: 1) In light of the emergence of credible exonerating evidence after my conviction, why haven’t I been granted a retrial? And 2) In light of my exemplary conduct over nearly 40 years in prison and the extraordinary work I’ve done in the last decade to assist charitable causes, why have I been overlooked for resentencing?

February 23, 2024
By Joe Hunt

Scotty Higgins posted this comment on our Facebook post: 

“I believe if Joe Hunt admits to his crimes… and shows remorse for his part in them and tells what happened to Ron Levin and where his body is. That’s the only real chance Joe has of ever getting out.”

Outside of completely misunderstanding the spiritual basis of life, my fault in my youth was that I was prone to lie under pressure—as many of us are. Viewing my life through a secular lens and having been exposed to many other liars, including a few in positions of authority, I felt that words were best chosen purely for the desired effect on the listener. Among the businessmen I encountered and within my social circle, no one championed truthfulness on spiritual grounds or pointed out the karmic implications of being a liar.

The Paradox of Contrition in Incarceration

Now, I find myself in the ironic predicament of being more likely to be granted clemency and then parole if I start talking as if I were guilty and assume the posture and phraseology of contrition.

That is, after all, the well-worn path that prisoners the world over take to get out of prison.

Reflecting on a Misguided Past

“For me, there is one problem. To do that would mean I have neither learned anything nor advanced spiritually.”

For me, there is one problem. To do that would mean I have neither learned anything nor advanced spiritually. This all started with a seemingly convenient lie. The idea was to capitalize on Levin’s disappearance as he ran from a second prison sentence. The plan was to claim responsibility for his absence as a means to intimidate a rival faction of the BBC. Profoundly stupid in retrospect, but not as foolish as it would have been to brag about a murder one had actually committed. I never guessed Levin would stay gone and never be apprehended. Nor did I realize how the collapse of the BBC and the pressures that were brought to bear on my erstwhile cohorts would incentivize them to project a materially false narrative regarding my conduct and theirs.

But, yes, you’re right. The Government has all the power, and it tends to demand submission and to punish even well-evidenced contradiction as insubordination. And of course, the Government is always right, and its papers are not subject to the frailties and limitations of those who authored them, right?

So I agree, my insistence on my innocence is not practical; it is not pragmatic. But then there are values and principles that I now hold more dear than my life and freedom. Having grown spiritually, I know that I lied my way into prison and that it would be wrong to lie my way out. I also know that justice is not guaranteed on this Earth and that persecution, not comfort, is promised to those who stand on principle.

“Having grown spiritually, I know that I lied my way into prison and that it would be wrong to lie my way out.”

The Quest for Justice Amidst Unseen Truths

Though there isn’t a person on the planet who stands witness to the community saying they saw me kill someone, and though there is just a ‘theory’ of foul play behind my conviction, society has been persuaded by films and “documentaries” that I am guilty. People feel I did it because they saw an actor called “Joe Hunt” live out the prosecution’s case. They feel, therefore, that they “saw” me do it. But what they saw was a theory of the case enacted on a stage; a theory which no man has ever sworn he has observed.

I recall reading about a prisoner during China’s Cultural Revolution. Falsely accused of being a yellow-dog agent of Western “Imperial” powers, he stubbornly refused to admit the allegation. He withstood torture and potential death in a work camp rather than admit to a crime he was innocent of. At one point, an interrogator said that he agreed the charge was false but urged him to confess anyway as it would serve the State, reinforcing its efforts to create a new society based on communism and Chairman Mao’s guidance. He told the prisoner, “It’s good to be useful.”

Though the injustice done to that man is different in some ways than that done to me, and though he was totally undeserving of that fate, his story resonates with me.

It would be a useful validation of the system for me to confess, albeit to a false account. Though I am guilty of lying and cheating, such behaviors do not inherently conceal or give rise to murder.

Reassessing Evidence and Pursuing Justice

Isn’t it just as likely that Levin, the seasoned con man, won out over me, especially the 24-year-old me that existed in 1984? Hadn’t he gotten the better of me through several other tricks? Why is it that everyone feels comfortable ignoring the mountain of evidence that came to light after I was convicted? Why must I have been telling the truth when I claimed I “knocked off” Ron Levin? Especially when the State’s case was that all of us in the BBC were lying about so many other things? Why is it probable that the more than half dozen non-partisan citizens who came forward to report Levin alive are mistaken? Why do many just assume they are, despite hearing from several new witnesses that Levin asked for instructions on how to dye his hair, was researching extradition treaties, and swearing he would not go back to prison? Shouldn’t a man have the right to a trial with that powerful new evidence before he dies in prison for a conviction so impressively called into question?

The truth is that I was convicted merely because I was tried in 1987, rather than in 1988. Had I been tried a year later, like my co-defendant Jim Pittman, I would have been able to present more exonerating evidence. And, as he was, I would then have been released by a jury verdict.

Join the Conversation: The Ask Joe Series

Do you have questions about Joe Hunt’s case or want insights on the justice system? Be a part of our ongoing “Ask Joe” series. This is your chance to engage directly with Joe and delve deeper into his story and experiences. Post your questions on our Facebook page or X.com, and stay tuned as Joe addresses your queries in upcoming segments. Your question could be the next one we explore in our journey for justice and understanding.

Don’t miss this unique opportunity to interact and gain perspective straight from Joe. Ask away, and let’s unravel the complexities together!

November 12, 2023

Introduction

Amidst the tangled web of law and fact underlying Joe Hunt’s conviction lies a pivotal but esoteric legal doctrine: the claim-of-right defense. This principle of California’s common law, stark in its simplicity, asserts that taking what one genuinely believes to be rightfully theirs is not theft. This isn’t just a legal nuance; it’s the crux of Hunt’s argument for innocence concerning the robbery allegations that are the basis of his Life Without Parole sentence.

“Taking what one genuinely believes to be rightfully theirs is not theft; this is the crux of Hunt’s argument for innocence.”

The Crux of Hunt’s Defense

Set against a backdrop of financial deception with Ron Levin, a master of fraud, the State’s theory was that Joe sought to force Levin to pay him a portion of what was due under a legitimate business contract between the two.

Under Joe’s leadership, the BBC, driven by a tragic admixture of ambition and naivety, got entangled in Levin’s schemes. Levin somehow managed to convince two brokerage houses to work with him to dupe Hunt into believing that Levin had several million dollars on deposit with them. Levin solicited Hunt’s expertise and gave him trading authority over the accounts. They agreed that Hunt would receive 50% of profits. Within months, Hunt had more than doubled the account, netting Levin over $8 million.

The brokerages created false statements and assigned actual brokers to maintain the hoax. Levin told them he was doing a documentary on the “young Turks” making a living as commodity traders and that Hunt’s career would be the film’s focal point. They agreed to assist Levin in maintaining the illusion. Prosecution witnesses, including a commodity broker, testified that Levin supplied Hunt with the false statements and publicly acknowledged the debt to Hunt in the presence of several trial witnesses.

The Oversight in 1987

However, the trial in 1987 saw a critical misstep: the jury was never instructed about the claim-of-right defense. This glaring omission, Hunt’s defense contends, led to a domino effect culminating in a wrongful conviction on the robbery allegations—and this even assuming that the prosecution’s case was true. Thus, this isn’t merely a procedural error; it’s a travesty of justice, one that converted a 25-to-life sentence into one of Life Without due to the robbery special circumstance.

“This isn’t merely a procedural error; it’s a travesty of justice, one that converted a 25-to-life sentence into one of Life Without due to the robbery special circumstance.”

A Call for Justice

Thus, the documents accompanying this article aren’t just legal papers but a testament to a battle for justice against a flawed legal judgment. They reveal a fight not just for freedom but for the legal system to acknowledge a grave error. These documents, detailing Hunt’s unwavering assertion of his rights, lay bare the intricate details of a legal system that in this case has wholly lost sight of its purpose. There can be no reasonable justification for enhancing Hunt’s sentence to one requiring his death in prison when even if the State’s case was true, Hunt was not guilty of robbery.

As Hunt serves his sentence, the claim-of-right defense constitutes a last-ditch effort in pursuit of a modicum of justice.

Joe Hunt’s case is a glaring example of how the law, due in principal part to its complexity, can sometimes falter, leading to life-altering consequences. His journey through the courts challenges us to ponder the true meaning of justice and the role of legal intricacies in determining a person’s fate.

We invite you to review the included court documents for a deeper understanding of this complex legal issue. These documents provide a comprehensive view of the arguments and evidence central to Joe Hunt’s ongoing fight for justice.

Update from Joe Hunt, November 30, 2023

The court denied Joe’s Claim of Right argument. Below is an update from Joe about the denial.

The Essence of Claim of Right

The “Claim of Right” defense to an allegation of robbery dates back to the common law in California at the time of its formation as a state. The concept is simple: a robber intends to take property forcibly he knows he has no right to. In law, this is referred to as the ‘animus furandi’ of robbery; in other words, it is the definition of the mental-state element of the crime.

My Claim of Right habeas petition sought to gain redress for an injustice. It pointed out that the PROSECUTOR’S THEORY of the facts was that Levin and the employees of Clayton Brokerage House had duped me. Clayton and Levin had conspired, intending to make me believe that Levin had deposited about $5,500,000 in a trading account. Clayton’s role in the scheme was to generate false account statements and have one of their brokers (Jack Friedman) take orders I placed under a trading authorization signed by Levin.

In his closing argument, Deputy D.A. Wapner told the jury that his witnesses had established that I fell for the con and that “I truly believed” the account was real, and that I also believed that as a result of my trading of the account, I had made Levin $8,000,000. This, he explained, meant that under the publicly acknowledged terms of the agreement between Levin and me, he owed me $4,000,000 — i.e., half of the trading profits.

My recent petition pointed to the prosecutor’s summation at my 1987 trial as proving that under the State’s theory of the case, I was innocent of robbery — as the prosecutor had told the jury that I had a good faith belief that Levin owed me more than I allegedly tried to take from him.

Challenging the Court’s Decision

The judge denied the petition for basically two reasons. First, he held that the Claim of Right defense would only apply if the money and trading were real rather than simulated. Second, he said I had no right to instruction on the defense since my position at trial was that I was totally innocent.

I believe the judge erred in these rulings. California law establishes that the defense of Claim of Right attaches where there is a GOOD FAITH BELIEF in the existence of a debt greater than what was taken. The fact that the trading was not real is therefore beside the point. It was enough that I had a good faith belief that I had earned my contractually agreed upon 50% share of the trading profits.

“California law establishes that the defense of Claim of Right attaches where there is a GOOD FAITH BELIEF in the existence of a debt greater than what was taken.”

Second, the judge wrongfully asserts that the trial judge had no responsibility to instruct as to the legal principles in question since my defense at trial was that no forcible taking had occurred. Here again, the judge misquoted settled law. A trial court’s sua sponte duty is to instruct on all defenses with substantial support in the facts, regardless of whether the defense attorneys press those defenses. Moreover, the animus furandi of robbery is an ELEMENT of the offense — and the trial court also had a sua sponte duty to instruct on the elements of each offense charged.

Concluding Thoughts on Justice and Appeal

Nevertheless, I am not going to appeal the issue further. I have no reason to believe that the judicial system will ever fairly apply the law. I have filed dozens of petitions both in federal and state courts and have never seen one coherently or fairly apply the law.

This latest ruling from the L.A. Superior Court is just the latest example of the sophistry and false application of settled law with which my appeals and petitions have been met. I have tried for 37 years to invoke judicial remedies. It has cost me over a million dollars and perhaps 20,000 hours of work. At this point, seeking judicial relief seems like an exercise in futility.

“I have no reason to believe that the judicial system will ever fairly apply the law. I have filed dozens of petitions both in federal and state Court and have never seen one coherently or fairly apply the law.”

I recognize that most Americans believe in the fairness of the judicial system. I once did as well. In fact, that is why I have poured so much into seeking relief through the Courts.

I also recognize that most people who read judicial opinions or legal briefs lack sufficient knowledge to assess who’s right. It takes years, probably at least a decade, of study to be able to know when a court is correctly or incorrectly quoting or applying the law. As a result, many of those who read my statement here will presume the Court is correct and me wrong. I understand that reflex and I do not imagine I can overcome it. All I do here is explain my perspective and the conclusions I have reached.

January 19, 2024
by Katherine Olivier

It has been nearly 40 years since Joe was arrested. His once-dark hair is now silver-gray. His eyes betray the weight of the years. 

Joe’s Health Situation

In 2020, his wife, family, and friends received the alarming news that he was hospitalized for heart failure. The prognosis was dire. He had arrhythmia, atrial fibrillation, and tachycardia. His ejection fraction was rated at 19. The doctors were at a loss to determine a cause. But it seemed clear that Joe was likely to die of a broken heart.

For the nearly two years thereafter Joe’s heart continued at an average rate of 125 beats per minute. It seemed it would fail at any time. Finally, those who loved him got a break. Joe was referred to an electro-cardiologist named Dr. Waspe of Modesto, California who decided to try a procedure called cardioversion. This called for 220 volts to be run through Joe’s chest. It would stop Joe’s heart, but there was a chance it would reboot it and cause it to go back to normal rate and rhythm. 

Joe’s heart is currently in a normal sinus rhythm. However, his ejection fraction is still low, albeit at 35%, which is significantly improved from where it was previously.

If this were not enough Joe has also been diagnosed with a rare and particularly dangerous form of Leukemia (CMML). Again the doctors are baffled as to why Joe came down with this as it is usually only found in people exposed to highly toxic chemicals. Joe was told that for him, essentially, no treatment was possible.

The one silver lining is that CMML can sometimes take many years to reach its critical stage. For now, Joe’s platelet count is acceptable.

On the Legal Front

On the legal front, we are all hoping that the California Supreme Court rules that the exclusion of Life-Without prisoners from the Youthful Offender Parole Bill of 2016 violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution. The matter is presently under review in the case of People v. Hardin.

We are also watching whether Senate Bill 94 will clear the State Legislature in 2024. This Bill calls for resentencing of Life Without prisoners whose offenses occurred before June 6, 1990 — but only if they have an exemplary prison record. Joe’s is exceptionally good. 

Joe serves within the prison as Chairman of the Student Council and as a clerk in the recreation department. He often receives laudatory write-ups from staff.

He is visited frequently by his wife and family, and by his friends at the Ananda Church of Self-Realization. (See link here.)

For Joe and his family, parole would mean an opportunity for him to live his remaining years together with them in freedom. Joe’s only ambition is to spend time with his family and his church group. He finds delight in the thought of walking trails near rivers or the ocean. After decades surrounded by cement and steel, he naturally longs for open vistas.