</s>virtue of which Mr. Hanes was released upon the promise to be paid 3 some $35,000 by Mr. Huie. Under the 'amendatory contract, Mr. Fore- man was to receive all rights formally to have been Mr. Hansen's However, Mr Foreman, was to receive further rights in regard to exclusive stories, motion picture contracts, re-run contracts, television rights, etc. in other words, Mr Percy Foreman was too television righties, etc ., in order to defend James Earl Ray. James everything which might otherwise have been the property of the petitioner believes that the defendant Foreman has James Earl Ray, in return for defending James Earl ray. some sort of, power of attorney so that the face of said power of attorney, Foreman. If not restrained, will all probability further act in the name of the petitioner to the petitioner's detriment or, Foremann, and not restraintained, will be all probabilty Your petitionor was not verified in the law relative to contractors or general, or more specifically, contracts between attorney and client. Nor was not sufficiently involvedable or in- formed about the peril of his course, as made obvious by the fact attorney or client. Or would adversely affect the defense in his criminal case. Petitioner charges that the respondent Foreman advised. then cajoled, then then passed him into pleading guilty to the afore- mentioned charge of murder in the first degree. Among other things, the said Foreman told him that this course was the only way to save petitioner's life - all of him in spite of the fact that petitionor had at all times proved his innocence was the same way to say. Petitioneer pro-believes and charges that neither respond- dents ever intended to him to him a fair trial and testify in his down behalf, as this would have the facts and testimony public property and no one would or could have, have exclusive rights in the matter. Petitionor charges that Foreman informed him that the only way to raise enough money that pays him he has to sign over such rights as he had. Petitioner at this time he had full faith in his attorney & client. attorney to act acted directly in accordance with his attorney's ad- vice. He did not know that such acts actually predefined his rights in the criminal case and caused to arise a serious conflict of interest which rendered it immovable for Mr. Freeman to well am? 2022 RELEASE UNDER E.O. 14176

Summary:  
The documents detail legal proceedings and appeals related to James Earl Ray’s conviction for the murder of Martin Luther King Jr., which occurred in Memphis, Tennessee, on April 4, 1968. Ray was convicted on March 10, 1969, and sentenced to 99 years in prison after pleading guilty to first-degree murder. His post-conviction petitions allege that his attorneys conspired with book publishers (including William Bradford Huey) to secure financial benefits by pressuring him to plead guilty, while withholding evidence and subjecting him to solitary confinement during trial. The petitions also claim the prosecution and FBI bribed witnesses, including Charles Quitman Stephens, to suppress testimony. Legal arguments focus on the voluntariness of Ray’s plea, with courts rejecting claims of coercion or misinformation. Appeals were denied, citing Tennessee case law that affirmed the finality of voluntary guilty pleas. The documents include court orders, petitions, and correspondence dated between 1968 and 1970, referencing Shelby County Circuit Court and Memphis-based legal entities.  

Key People:  
- **James Earl Ray** (defendant, convicted of MLK’s murder)  
- **William Bradford Huey** (author, financial partner in book deals with Ray)  
- **Charles Quitman Stephens** (alleged witness involved in bribery claims)  
- **Arthur C. Faquon** (judge presiding over appeals)  
- **Jerry Ray** (brother of James Earl Ray; provided affidavit about threats against witnesses)  
- **Richard J. Ryan** (co-petitioner in 1970 post-conviction filing)  
- **Percy Foreman, Arthur J. Hanes** (attorneys accused of conspiring with Huey)  

Key Locations:  
- **Shelby County, Tennessee** (trial and incarceration site)  
- **Memphis, Tennessee** (legal proceedings and court filings)  
- **South Main Street, Memphis** (contextual reference to court proceedings)  
- **Tennessee State Penitentiary at Petros** (mentioned in legal filings)  

Key Events:  
- Trial of James Earl Ray for MLK’s assassination (March 10, 1969)  
- Post-conviction petition alleging attorney misconduct, witness bribery, and coerced plea (April 13, 1970)  
- Affidavit from Jerry Ray regarding threats to ruin a book if testimony occurred  
- Legal disputes over document access, court rulings, and appeals  
- FBI involvement in monitoring witness testimony  

Key Organizations:  
- **Shelby County Circuit Court, Tennessee** (trial and appeals venue)  
- **Tennessee Supreme Court** (affirmed conviction despite procedural irregularities)  
- **Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)** (alleged role in witness bribery claims)  
- Legal entities involved in financial agreements (e.g., publishers, attorneys)  

Note: Document identifiers such as "44-1987-LuhD.1/16" and "2025 RELEASE UNDER E.O. 14176" are redacted or unspecified and not directly relevant to the case itself.

MLK Declassified Files

44-me-1987_hs1-852611265_89-02-part_3_of_3.pdf

Document Summary

Try AI Search