Most of the links on this page are PDF files containing the legal documents pertaining to the Kinlock case. Some of these are large files and may take a moment to download. For more information about the case please read Clive Kinlock’s personal account of the story.
The victim statement stated that she was viciously raped and sodomized for over two hours. However, hospital records do not support this claim. After medical examination, the hospital records are negative of any sexual penetration or any injuries related to a sexual assault. Instead Clive’s statement supports the evidence, indicating the time frame from beginning to end of the attempted robbery was less than 30 minutes and that there was no sexual intent at all nor any sexual intercourse.
It came down to the victim’s word against Clive’s which the county attorney’s office prejudicially accepted to make a strong case against Mr. Kinlock. Clive’s Public Defender Julie Macek also knew the County Attorney’s office had no evidence of sexual intercourse in the commission of this crime yet included it in the plea bargain in order to get the inflated sentence, then strongly insisted that he take the plea. Such actions refutes any idea that his Public Defender had any intent to honestly represent him, but instead helped to promote this miscarriage of justice against Mr. Kinlock. Clive complied originally through racial intimidation, being told by his public defender that he could never win as a black man in Montana. He reconsidered, however, and tore up the signature page of the plea bargain. Julie Macek then taped up this torn document and filed it without his knowledge.
Clive learned of this on the way to sentencing. When Clive objected he was told to comply or she would withdraw as his court appointed attorney. She said that she would recommend deportation and a 5 year sentence to the judge.
However, it soon became apparent that the decision was made before Clive ever entered into the court room. Clive and his family believe that the County Attorney’s office, Public Defender’s office and Judge McKittrick chambers were all working together to secure his conviction, denying Mr. Kinlock all due process to a fair trail by his peers.
Clive petitioned the court to withdraw his guilty plea (this document is currently not available for archive), in a final attempt to tell the court that much of what he was accused of and would like a trial to prove it. The petition was denied.
In January of 2006 Clive filed a Writ of Extra Ordinary Relief which addressed all the injustices and violations of the district court.This document was completely ignored by the court for over 5 years.
Application for Executive Clemency
After Clive had served 20 years in Montana State Prison he filed an application for executive clemency and petitioned the court to commute the remainder of his sentence for the purpose of deportation to his home country of Jamaica. His petition was denied despite his record of clear conduct and his many achievements and letters of support. The court did , however, remove the designation which made Clive ineligible for parole for the first 30 years of his sentence in the amended judgement .
Cascade County Court in Violation of its Own Rules
In December 2010, Clive received a notice from Judge McKittrick’s court asking why his pending petition of for Writ of Extra Ordinary Relief which addressed all the injustices and violations of the district court, should not be dismissed and was given 30 days to reply.
This case was originally filed in January 2006. So much time had lapsed, in fact, that the court stood in violation of this court’s Rule 17. Clive requested an extension (which was granted) and then prepared a more thorough review of the original arguments which was filed before the extension deadline of May 27, 2011 in Judge McKittrick’s court.
The court responded by dismissing the petition, and the Cascade County Attorney filed a document in response as well. Clive responded in turn with objections and a motion to reconsider.
The State responds to the Defendants objections and motion to reconsider, and Clive’s response is intelligent and continues to confront the attempt to be discounted and ignored by providing his understanding of the Rules of Appellate Procedure as a pro se litigant.
Formal Request for Parole Re-Hearing
Clive maintains that the boards March 2009 decision to deny me parole based soley upon an distorted and unsubstatiated version of events in relation to the nature/severity of offenses without more is in fact a clear violation of the statutory language and intent of MCA 46-23-202.
Clive W. Kinlock vs. Montana Department of Corrections
Clive takes his battle to the Montana Supreme Court!
UPDATE ***BREAKING NEWS***
Clive’s Motion for counsel was granted
New Developments as of 2013
Clive has filed a motion to withdraw his plea based on evidence which proves his innocence in the sexual assault charge.
Motion to Withdraw Plea (updated) (not all documents relating to this motion are provided at this time due to the nature of the legal proceedings surrounding this motion. The full document will be released in the future.)