In 2009, Oncken was prosecuting a man name Glen Kahlden for the sexual assault of a child. On the eve of the trial, defense lawyers discovered that the prosecution had hidden what might be called a vital piece of evidence; the child, in her original 'outcry' statement, had accused a black man of assaulting her. Glen Kahlden is white.
One of the defense lawyers, the team that found the omission, was named...Wait for it...Lisa Andrews. I don't know how common the name 'Lisa Andrews' might be, but I can see the whole thing playing out in my head like this: "Check the files VERRRY carefully, Stradley" Andrews says to her co-counsel. "You wouldn't believe how that bitch screwed over 'Los back in the day."
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/6682132.html#ixzz1NIVWgX4j
Now, instead of declaring a mistrial and giving Kahlden's defense team time to form a stronger defense around this new information, Judge Van Culp allowed the trial to continue, ruling that "“There's absolutely no harm that can be shown. There's no grounds for a mistrial.”
No harm? How long had Andrews and Stradley been working on a defense on the assumption that, at the very least, the prosecution could tell a black man from a white one? Also, there is no mention of the very salient fact that Judge Van Culp officially acknowledged that Oncken WITHHELD evidence that pointed towards the INNOCENCE of the defendant. After all, why presume innocence when you can just hide information until you win?
In the article, it mentions that Denise Oncken testified at the Brady Hearing, along with her paralegal. What it doesn't tell you is that the paralegal, Kim Flores, contradicted the testimony of her boss. Shortly after this, she turned in her two weeks notice. A week after this, she was unceremoniously told that that day was her last day on the job, and escorted out of the building.
http://harriscountycriminaljustice.blogspot.com/2009/10/brady-over-reliance-on-open-file.html
http://harriscountycriminaljustice.blogspot.com/2009/11/paralegal.html
How does this relate to Coy vs.
First of all, it suggests that at the worst the D.A.'s office is hiding information, and at best they're sloppy with due diligence. Since I am not a lawyer, I had to take a closer look at what DD is. Here's what Wikipedia.com (that font of knowledge and misinformation) has to say:
"Due diligence is also used in criminal law to describe the scope of the duty of a prosecutor, to take efforts to turn over potentially exculpatory evidence, to (accused) criminal defendants."
On Exculpatory evidence:
"Exculpatory evidence is the evidence favorable to the defendant in a criminal trial, which clears or tends to clear the defendant of guilt."
As an example ...
"The police believe the witness's account is not true or the witness is unreliable and choose to not follow up on the lead.
The prosecutor is obliged to inform the accused and their attorney of the witness statement even if the police doubt the witness's version of events. If they fail to do so, the defendant would have grounds for appeal or for a motion to dismiss."
Remember that last example, because that ties in to statements made by Susan Szczygielski, indicating that although the plaintiff suggested that what had happened was a dream, Szczygielski did not 'explore the option' because she didn't feel it was possible that the event did not happen.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JauIcKPHXbs
At around :46 of the above video, a woman who is either Oncken or Andrews, and either way represents the HCDA , accuses Coy of being "...So vicious, so predatory..."
If the D.A.'s office feels so strongly about what Coy is accused of doing, what was their opinion of Mr. Tony Shore, serial rapist and murderer?
Here's a list of Mr. Shore's crimes, per http://www.tdcj.state.tx.us/stat/shoreanthony.htm
On 09/26/1986, in
On 04/16/1992 in
On 10/19/1993, Shore entered the home of a fourteen year old female, bound and sexually assaulted her, and strangled her to death. Shore then fled the scene on foot.
On 08/07/1994, Shore kidnapped and sexually assaulted a nine year old female causing her death. Shore then dumped the victim's body behind an abandoned commercial building.
On 07/06/1995, Shore kidnapped a sixteen year old Hispanic female and sexually assaulted her causing her death. Shore then dumped the victim's body in a field.
When they finally caught up with him in 2002 or 2003, it was because of this:
http://www.houstonpress.com/2004-07-29/news/the-killer-next-door/
The girl explained: One night, when Tony's girlfriend was in the hospital, he'd raped her. "I know he's been doing it to [my sister] for years and years," she told her aunt. "I was supposed to mind my own business."
Gina called her mother. And her mother called police. According to their case file, the girls told
What was the plan to deal with this 'vicious, predatory' man?
"He'd have to register as a sex offender, meet regularly with a probation officer and do community service. But under the deferred adjudication program, he'd have no record of a conviction if he made it through probation without a problem", says Denise Oncken, chief of the D.A.'s child abuse division.
Thanks, Harris County District Attorney's Child Abuse Division. Thanks for locking up a man on the possibly true, possibly dreamed testimony of a child, while offering a serial rapist and murderer community service. Y'all are doing a bang-up job.
So what happened?
"...his wings were hardly clipped: He was barred from being within 100 yards of a school or day care, but the judge made a special exception to allow him to keep living on East 18th Street -- in a house that overlooks the playground at Field Elementary School. He was also exempted from the rule that barred him from contacting his daughters, according to court records.
Such a light sentence isn't exactly normal, "but it's not outside the norm, either," Oncken admits. When prosecutors have a weak case, she says, their only choice may be to take what they can get.
...though urine tests during Tony Shore's first year of probation twice revealed cocaine, he was never sent to jail.
Finally, the
Coy continues to rot in prison because of a trial with no physical or DNA evidence. Why should we let this stand?
9 comments:
Hey Incandesio, well i have nothing to do this summer so I plan on reading every post on your blog, so you can expect a bunch of questions from me hahaha. Ive commented on a few of your posts lately, but I never introduced myself. My name is David, im 15, and I moved to San Francisco from El Salvador when I was 6. I discovered SPM when I was 12 when I was reading the "Top 50 Most Influential Hispanic Rappers" and he caught my eye because it said he was currently in prison for sexual assault. So I downloaded When Devil Strikes and it has been one of my favorite albums since. I never really read into the case until I was mabey 14 because you know i was too young to understand or care about that stuff. And the first thing I read was the dreaded "South Park Monster" article. Somehow I believed everything that this pig wrote and was heartbroken by it. I deleted all my SPM songs and for a year didnt listen or care about him. When I turned 15 the next year my brother was making fun of me saying that my old favorite rapper was a pedophile, etc. At the time I felt it was true but I still felt an urge to defend him. So I whent on the internet desperatley trying to find something that I could argue his innocence with, and then I found this blog. And after reading a few posts I finally told my brother about it. He was amazed and he also reads this blogs, and we both have shared it to a number of people, and it has made them much more aware about the case. I guess the reason im telling you this is because Id like to show you that this blog does help out and does spread awareness about the case, so I encourage you to keep posting :) If it wasent for this blog Id still be not listening to SPM and believing he is trash. ANYWAY about this post, now this may come off as ignorant but isnt the DA supposed to try and prosecute the defendant at all costs? Even if it means hiding evidence?
Salvadorboy13:
Wow; I appreciate you sharing your story; It really encouraged me. I welcome your questions, and I love how you're never afraid to ask the tough ones. Keep it up!
They help me, and I believe they help SPM also. I'm so grateful you found the blog, and then shared it with others.
In answer to your post, no. The prosecutor must pursue justice, and nothing else. This is from Texas Criminal Code:
"It shall be the primary duty of all prosecuting attorneys, including any special prosecutors, not to convict, but to see that justice is done. They shall not suppress facts or secrete witnesses capable of establishing the innocence of the accused."
http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/CR/htm/CR.2.htm
It is never acceptable for the State to lie to get a conviction, although I'm afraid it happens more often than we know.
oh ok thanks for your response. Yea I was never sure how the whole DA thing worked. But if the DAs are pursuing justice, shouldnt they be prosecuting the plaintiff too?
I'm not sure I understand what you mean; do you mean checking the accuser's (plaintiff's) story, or defending the accused?
So say John was accused of killing billy, not only should the DA be finding motives for killing billy, but also find reasons why people would want to blame john for the killing ie (money, grudge) or the DA should try and find out if mabey billys other friend killed him... I guess what Im asking is the DA neutral, or is the DA trying to just focus on the defendant. So in the SPM vs. Texas case, does the DA just represent Texas, or does he also defend SPM as well.
I see what you mean; the DA and the police are both a part of the State; as I understand it, the State's job is to investigate the murder first. they are supposed to seek the truth about who killed Billy. If they do a good job, they will find all the evidence, and use that to determine who they think did it. In this case, John. Then they turn all that evidence over to the DA, who's supposed to take the cold hard truth and use it to seek justice.
In a perfect world, if the police find out that there is compelling evidence that John did not commit the murder, they turn that over to the DA as well. Then the DA says "Okay, John is innocent, we'll leave him alone."
That's how it should work.
But sometimes, for whatever reason, the DA or the police decide that they would rather prosecute John, and they either hide the evidence or just ignore it and hope his defense lawyer doesn't find it. This is illegal, but it happens.
So yes, the State (Police + DA) is *supposed* to protect the accused by dropping false charges if necessary. Because we know that sometimes the State fails in their duty everyone has the right to an attorney.
As I understand it, the DA is supposed to be on the side of justice; he or she should be neutral to the accused, and only interested in seeking justice.
However, I think they lose sight of that sometimes; convictions become more important.
Yea it seems the DAs in SPM's case were really going for a conviction over justice
Denise Oncken is not only incompetent when trying cases, but is also conniving and malicious on a personal level. Expertise: personal experience working directly under her as an ADA. She should be let go.
Post a Comment