To understand how this miscarriage of justice occurred, one must understand two critical elements:
1. Clarence Miller’s pervasive lack of honesty as a man and as a witness; and
2. The Commonwealth’s reliance on Miller, without any corroboration, to establish the following essential elements of their case against Goldblum:
o That Goldblum participated in the defrauding of Wilhelm;
o That Goldblum hired Wilhelm to set the fire at his restaurant;
o That Goldblum stabbed Wilhelm.
Over a period of years, Miller had engaged in a number of activities of dubious legality. He had entered into a collection agency with a local attorney, (T.T. 850-51, 2276) in which he, Miller, was subsequently arrested for keeping money that he had collected for other reasons. (T.T. 852-54). In order to cash checks that had been turned over to him, Miller had, on several occasions, forged the attorney’s endorsements, (T.T. 2281, 2283) , and, in addition, forged approximately ten or twelve of the attorney’s own personal checks (T.T. 2281-2282), converting the funds to his own personal use. Miller stated that at one point, he submitted a fraudulent accident claim to an insurance company in order to get money. (T.T. 845) He had lied to his attorney with respect to the incident, and had the case gone to court, he would have falsely testified to having fallen down and hurting his back. (T.T. 850).
Miller’s dishonest nature combined with his powerful motive to escape culpability for the arson and murder combined to produce an unending stream of contradictions, inconsistencies, and lies throughout the litigation of this case.
Miller flatly denied that he killed George Wilhelm, but minutes later testified that he could not remember anything about what had happened. He repeatedly asserted that he could not remember what he had told the police: “I don’t remember anything.” (T.T. 704) .
When questioned as to what the police had asked him after the murder, he replied:
And they asked me what I had on that night, and I gave them my red pants, I had my jacket, my red suit jacket and I lied to them and I gave them them. I didn’t tell them about putting my topcoat in the garbage can because it had blood on it. (T.T. 704).
Q. “Now, you say you lied about the topcoat?”
A. “Yes”. (T.T. 704).
Miller testified that during his interview with police on April 2, 1976, he lied to them. (T.T. 921).
Later, when asked whether he knew that it was a crime to give a false statement to the police, Miller responded: “No, I did not.”
Q. “Did you think it might be?”
A. “No, I did not. That’s my trouble, I don’t think (T.T. 936) .
Miller provided inconsistent testimony about the nature of an alleged dispute between Wilhelm and Goldblum. At the coroner’s inquest, Miller testified under oath that he did not know why Goldblum owed Wilhelm money. (C.I. 88, 103, 134). (C.I. refers to the transcript of the Coroner’s Inquest.). At Goldblum’s trial, Miller testified that he did know why Goldblum owed Wilhelm and admitted that he had lied under oath at the inquest. (T.T. 819)
Miller gave contradictory sworn testimony about the purpose of going to the parking garage where Wilhelm was murdered. At the inquest, Miller stated that he did not know that any violence was intended. (C.I. 115.). At Goldblum’s trial, Miller testified that Goldblum wanted to beat up Wilhelm. (T.T. 668, 957) .
Miller lied about what happened to the overcoat he was wearing on the night of the murder. At the coroner’s inquest, Miller maintained that he had mislaid his coat and that the coat had no blood on it. (C.I. 101) At Goldblum’s trial, Miller admitted that he lied to the police about the presence of blood on his coat. (T.T. 755, 815). In addition, Miller testified that he threw his coat in a city garbage truck. (T.T. 705, 807) .
Miller made inconsistent statements about the clothing Goldblum was wearing on the night of the murder. In his February 10, 1976 statement to the police, Miller stated that Goldblum asked him to bring a hat and gloves. In his March 2, 1976 statement to the police, Miller said that as he and Goldblum walked to McDonald’s to meet Wilhelm, Goldblum asked for a hat because his head was cold. Miller also stated that after Goldblum got into Wilhelm’s car, Goldblum asked to use Miller’s gloves, which were lying on the back seat. At the coroner’s inquest, Miller testified that Goldblum was wearing Miller’s gloves even though Goldblum had his own gloves. (C.I. 107-08).
Miller made inconsistent statements concerning the presence of blood on his trousers. In his February 10, 1976 statement to the police, Miller initially stated that he had no physical contact with the victim. Later in the same statement, Miller maintained that he got blood on his pants when he helped the victim up. In a statement made to police on January 27, 1978, Miller stated that he prevented the victim from fleeing from Goldblum, which he did by blocking the victim’s path of escape and holding the victim while he was stabbed by Goldblum.
Miller also attempted to induce another witness, Cornelius Kelly, to testify falsely at Goldblum’s trial. (T.T. 1493).
The prosecutor, Peter Dixon, relied on Miller’s totally uncorroborated testimony even while telling the jury repeatedly that Miller was a liar.
The District Attorney, clearly aware of Miller’s inconsistencies on the-stand and his admissions that he had lied to the police, acknowledged Miller’s so-called “problems” in both his opening and closing arguments.
In his opening argument to the jury, District Attorney Dixon stated that when Miller was questioned by the police, he “tries to still cover up and distort.” (T.T. 48).
In his closing argument, Dixon referred to Miller as “a fellow who is going to have a very difficult time winning credibility with the jury . . . . ” (T.T. 3280) Dixon also stated, “Clarence Miller has problems that are so shocking, he has done things, which are so corrupt that we cannot help but be repelled . . . (T.T. 3270).
Dixon was well aware of Miller’s tendency to lie: “I don’t think it is startling to find out that when Clarence Miller is confronted he lies.” (T.T. 3288).
Dixon further acknowledged Miller’s problem with telling the truth, by stating, “but in a true type of Clarence Miller [he] doesn’t tell them anything, which is perfectly understandable with the kind of character that he is . . . ” (T.T. 3288).
Indicating that the District Attorney’s Office was aware of Miller’s difficulties in telling the truth, Dixon added, “because even if Clarence Miller were called upon to recall to you accurately some innocuous details of his life he would have some difficulty.” (T.T. 3289).
In post-trial proceedings, Miller alleged that the statements he gave the police “were not true and not of my making or my free will, but instead a product of the police interrogator’s design and personal conviction.” PCRA petition of Clarence Miller of May 9, 1980. More significantly, Miller stated:
“That the statements I gave to the police and signed that I saw Charles Goldblum stab [sic] George Wilhelm are not true because at that point I blacked out and remember nothing. I wasn’t even aware of my own existence let alone anything that happened to George Wilhelm.”
In addition to the prosecution’s knowledge that Miller’s purpose in testifying was to extricate himself from the arson and murder, the prosecution had other forms of pre-trial notice that Miller was lying about this case.
Miller had provided the FBI with false sworn statements and the prosecution knew this no later than June 1976, when Goldblum filed a private criminal complaint against Miller for perjury.
Yet, when the Commonwealth had an opportunity to get to truth of the land fraud scheme (the ultimate motive for the murder) by granting immunity to Thaddeus Dedo on his fraud case, the prosecution refused to do this. (T.T. 895, 1082).
Read more about The Trial Evidence…