
This is Edward's nonprofit website and is also the temporary home for Stand With Edward James
Phoenix Reformation

Phoenix Reformation was created to provide free access to mental health awareness, education, job training, substance abuse recovery, and mentorship programs to break the cycle of recidivism and promote rehabilitation. - Edward D. James III, Founder
At A Glance: Why Edward's Conviction Was Wrong
-
No Investigation or Eyewitnesses — based only on her word, the detective never interviewed Edward, collected evidence, verified his phone number, or visited him at his known address. He closed the case within hours after seeing a 20-year old "assault" charge on Edward's record not knowing it was judicially exempted (not assault). Had he visited Edward's home, he would have seen a) his mom and stepbrother lived there, b) no marks on his hands, and c) Edward would have told him about Geoff and where Becca actually lived.
-
Ineffective Assistance of Counsel — Edward's attorney failed to object to the DA's use of his 2003 exempted charge at trial -- this charge was inadmissible (as a result of this error, Edward was kept from testifying and the jury heard extremely prejudicial and misleading information); he also failed to investigate / request discovery on valuable impeachment information about his accuser: In a case with no eyewitnesses, it is all about credibility. Becca has a history of lying to law enforcement, including the DA, to cover for her violent male roommate / lover, Geoff. She was living with at the time of the alleged assault, and his probation would have been revoked if she did not cover for him. On the stand, her coworker testified that she forced Becca to name her assailant to the police -- giving reasonable motive to name an ex-boyfriend instead of her roommate, just like she covered for him 8 months before this accusation. Edward's 2022 personal affidavit and newly obtained police records confirm this.
-
Unverified Digital Evidence — Four-year-old Facebook screenshots suddenly appeared days before trial, many were fabricated, were never authenticated, and contained no deletion or timestamp forensic logs.
-
Appeal Contradiction — the State’s appellate brief said the Facebook messages did not need forensic authentication because they were not central to conviction, yet the 7th Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction stating they were central and substantial to the guilty verdict. If they were central to guilt, they need forensic authentication.