In 1998 Gilbert Amezquita, an Army Reserve soldier with a clean criminal record, was arrested for the vicious beating of a co-worker, who identified her assailant as 'Gilbert', and picked his photo out of a line-up. Although when the police questioned him he provided evidence that another man, Gilbert Guerrero, had comitted the assault, it was ignored. At the trial, the victim identified him as her attacker. DNA from beneath the victim's fingernails was collected, but never tested.
"At trial, requests from Amezquita's lawyer and prosecutors to test DNA evidence from the crime scene were rejected by state District Judge Belinda Hill, leaving Bingham's(the victim) testimony as crucial."
The defendant was denied the use of exculpatory evidence to prove his innocence, and Amezquita was sentenced to 15 years in prison.
The HCDA must have been patting itself on the back when that sentence was handed down. What a neat, cut-and-dried case! Gilbert did it, now Gilbert's going to prison. Who cared that Gilbert Guerrero had inexplicably come into posession of the victim's cell phone and made several calls directly after the assault, before trading it for drugs?
Why worry about the fact that Guerrero had a noisy argument with the victims's brother just before the assault? (The argument was about how he had been harassing the victim.) No, Guerrero, a parolee with a history of violent assaults could not possibly have been the assailant. After all, the victim identified the other Gilbert, the soldier with the impeccable record.
Amezquita appealed his case from prison. For five years. He "asserted a number of claims, including allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel."
Finally the Appeals court denied his appeal, then two weeks after that, reversed itself and granted the appeal. Earlier that month, the appeals court had refused Amezquita's request for a new trial even though the original trial judge reccomended it.
There was no DNA evidence produced at the appeal. It went against the testimony of the victim who continued to insist that it was Amezquita who attacked her, even when all the actual, physical evidence pointed to Guerrero.
But somehow, Amezquita gained his freedom. And a 'Pardon based on actual innocence'.
Yes, they generously pardoned him for a crime there was no proof he comitted. Altogether it took him 9 years to clear his name, eight of which were spent in prison.
The victim insists to this day that Amezquita attacked her, despite the evidence indicating it was Guerrero.
So what did the DA's office say? Did they apologize? Promise not to let it happen again?
"Rosenthal...wrote that "an adequate investigation by the defense (trial) counsel'' would have revealed that Guerrero had Bingham's phone shortly after the assault."
Do you hear that, defense lawyers of Harris county? Not only is it your job to defend your clients, now you also have to do the job of the police investigators and forensics experts! Thanks, Rosenthal!
If this man, convicted with no evidence and exonerated with none can make it out of prison, so can Carlos Coy. We just need to continue taking an interest in his case. Expand his fan base, write letters, don't give up!
http://www.cca.courts.state.tx.us/opinions/HTMLOpinionInfo.asp?OpinionID=14720
Read more: http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/4770606.html#ixzz1QLEqSHfd
http://standdown.typepad.com/weblog/2006/11/gilbert_amezqui.html
http://standdown.typepad.com/weblog/2006/11/more_on_amezqui.html
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/5064226.html
Thursday, June 30, 2011
Tuesday, June 28, 2011
New Logo
An artist that contacted the blog has designed an amazing new logo for us.
It's clean, and straightforward, and very recognizable! Please feel to spread it around. I wanted something different because 'SPM Aftermath' is a little different from 'Free SPM'. We're trying to take a look at the circumstances of the system responsible for incarcerating Carlos Coy, not necessarily at the facts of his case. Because of this, I think the new logo will help us get our point across. A key can bring imprisonment or freedom, conveying the situation in a single glance.
I'll be re-tooling the flyers to display it, and I'm going to try making a stencil template. If you have any ideas for it's use, let me know!
Thanks to M. Martinez for the amazing graphic, you did an outstanding job!
It's clean, and straightforward, and very recognizable! Please feel to spread it around. I wanted something different because 'SPM Aftermath' is a little different from 'Free SPM'. We're trying to take a look at the circumstances of the system responsible for incarcerating Carlos Coy, not necessarily at the facts of his case. Because of this, I think the new logo will help us get our point across. A key can bring imprisonment or freedom, conveying the situation in a single glance.
I'll be re-tooling the flyers to display it, and I'm going to try making a stencil template. If you have any ideas for it's use, let me know!
Thanks to M. Martinez for the amazing graphic, you did an outstanding job!
Monday, June 27, 2011
Strickland 2
Prong 2: Proving that deficient performance prejudiced the defense.
This is a tough one. How do you prove that someone's vote was influenced by a particular action, unless that person says "My vote was directly influenced by X"?
The jury is already prejudiced by the fact that the defendant has been charged with sexual assault of a child. It's that whole mindset of "They wouldn't have charged him if they didn't have a good reason!"
If the defense lawyer had brought up the mother's intentions to squeeze as much cash as possible out of Coy with a civil suit, that *might* have given the jury pause to think that maybe the 'good reason' was greed. But we know that Mr. lewis didn't do that. This would also have established Mommy Dearest as a liar, since she swore in an affidavit that she didn't intend to sue.
An Affidavit is a formal sworn statement of fact, signed by the author, who is called the affiant or deponent, and witnessed as to the authenticity of the affiant's signature by a taker of oaths, such as a notary public or commissioner of oaths. -Wikipedia
So if she'll lie in an affidavit, on paper, how much easier would it be to lie in court? This could have been the one thing that would have established doubt in the minds of the jury. But as I said, Coy's lawyer didn't even touch on it. I wonder if that's not why SPM decided to take the stand at the end of the trial, because his lawyer failed to tell the whole story.
Lewis' strategy was this: "to cast O.S.(the child) as a “truth teller” who was manipulated by various state actors, especially the prosecutors, for the sole purpose of convicting Coy at all costs..."
So his strategy is to paint those behind the plaintiff as the liars...don't you think the fact that he ignored evidence as to their motives to be a little ineffective? If this evidence had been presented, it would have raised doubts in the mind of any sane person. Add that to the proof that Mom is already lying to the state, and it paints a pretty clear picture of the reasons for the case, as well as the lack of all physical evidence. I'd say that argument satisfies both prongs of Strickland to anyone who is reasonably objective.
In the 2007 appeal, the court says "The state court found that O.S.’s parents did not decide to file a civil lawsuit against Coy until after the criminal trial was over and that, therefore, Coy failed to establish both prongs of the Strickland test."
But the facts say otherwise.
"Coy argues that the state court’s decision is unreasonable in light of the facts presented at the habeas hearing because he filed the affidavit of Carey Wellmaker, a private investigator, which states:
"I [Wellmaker] have been informed that Maryvel Ramirez denied in an affidavit that she told me that she spoke with Ed Hennessey before the criminal trial; that he said that if he filed a civil lawsuit at that time, it would hurt the criminal case; and that he agreed to file a civil lawsuit after the criminal trial was over.
I reiterate and can substantiate the contents of my previous affidavit, as I recorded the conversation.""
So good news, there's proof! Mom was lying, someone else can substantiate that fact, so we can get an appeal in, right? Wrong.
"The state court was entitled to make a credibility determination between the two affidavits."
Really? When making this determination, how did they end up NOT choosing the affidavit with evidence to support it? Ramirez DID sue for money, which any idiot would have expected.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/33106215/Coy-Trial-Habeas-Corpus
http://www.scribd.com/doc/33106215/Coy-Trial-Habeas-Corpus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affidavit
This is a tough one. How do you prove that someone's vote was influenced by a particular action, unless that person says "My vote was directly influenced by X"?
The jury is already prejudiced by the fact that the defendant has been charged with sexual assault of a child. It's that whole mindset of "They wouldn't have charged him if they didn't have a good reason!"
If the defense lawyer had brought up the mother's intentions to squeeze as much cash as possible out of Coy with a civil suit, that *might* have given the jury pause to think that maybe the 'good reason' was greed. But we know that Mr. lewis didn't do that. This would also have established Mommy Dearest as a liar, since she swore in an affidavit that she didn't intend to sue.
An Affidavit is a formal sworn statement of fact, signed by the author, who is called the affiant or deponent, and witnessed as to the authenticity of the affiant's signature by a taker of oaths, such as a notary public or commissioner of oaths. -Wikipedia
So if she'll lie in an affidavit, on paper, how much easier would it be to lie in court? This could have been the one thing that would have established doubt in the minds of the jury. But as I said, Coy's lawyer didn't even touch on it. I wonder if that's not why SPM decided to take the stand at the end of the trial, because his lawyer failed to tell the whole story.
Lewis' strategy was this: "to cast O.S.(the child) as a “truth teller” who was manipulated by various state actors, especially the prosecutors, for the sole purpose of convicting Coy at all costs..."
So his strategy is to paint those behind the plaintiff as the liars...don't you think the fact that he ignored evidence as to their motives to be a little ineffective? If this evidence had been presented, it would have raised doubts in the mind of any sane person. Add that to the proof that Mom is already lying to the state, and it paints a pretty clear picture of the reasons for the case, as well as the lack of all physical evidence. I'd say that argument satisfies both prongs of Strickland to anyone who is reasonably objective.
In the 2007 appeal, the court says "The state court found that O.S.’s parents did not decide to file a civil lawsuit against Coy until after the criminal trial was over and that, therefore, Coy failed to establish both prongs of the Strickland test."
But the facts say otherwise.
"Coy argues that the state court’s decision is unreasonable in light of the facts presented at the habeas hearing because he filed the affidavit of Carey Wellmaker, a private investigator, which states:
"I [Wellmaker] have been informed that Maryvel Ramirez denied in an affidavit that she told me that she spoke with Ed Hennessey before the criminal trial; that he said that if he filed a civil lawsuit at that time, it would hurt the criminal case; and that he agreed to file a civil lawsuit after the criminal trial was over.
I reiterate and can substantiate the contents of my previous affidavit, as I recorded the conversation.""
So good news, there's proof! Mom was lying, someone else can substantiate that fact, so we can get an appeal in, right? Wrong.
"The state court was entitled to make a credibility determination between the two affidavits."
Really? When making this determination, how did they end up NOT choosing the affidavit with evidence to support it? Ramirez DID sue for money, which any idiot would have expected.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/33106215/Coy-Trial-Habeas-Corpus
http://www.scribd.com/doc/33106215/Coy-Trial-Habeas-Corpus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affidavit
Friday, June 24, 2011
Weekend Reading
If you're interested in the workings of the Harris County Criminal Justice System, check out this blog:
Defending People
It's written by a defense attorney and details a lot of the crap they have to go through, even today, when dealing with the DA's office. There is a ton of good information there.
Defending People
It's written by a defense attorney and details a lot of the crap they have to go through, even today, when dealing with the DA's office. There is a ton of good information there.
Thursday, June 23, 2011
What is Strickland?
Strickland is the legal standard under which Carlos Coy's appeals have been denied. Under Strickland, an appeal based on bad defense must meet two prongs.
"(1) counsel's representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness, and
(2) the deficient performance prejudiced the defense."
Since Strickland has two prongs, so will this post! Prong 2 will be up Monday.
Today we'll deal with prong 1; what does a defense lawyer have to do to prove himself unreasonably ineffective? First of all, what's an objective standard of reasonableness? For the purposes of this post, anything that makes you go "Now that's FUCKED UP!" is unreasonable.
Carlos Coy's 2003 Appeal (Denied)
Points of error 1, 2, & 3
Coy argues that it was wrong of the court to overrule these three objections by his lawyer:
"Your Honor, I'm going to object. My job is the same as theirs."
"I'm going to object, Your Honor, the State of Texas gets paid just like I do. Improper argument."
"Your Honor, I'm going to object. [The prosecutor's] personal feelings are improper."
The Appeals court ruled:
"Appellant's objections to the prosecutor's argument during trial do not conform to his argument on appeal."
Let me see if I have this right. It doesn't matter if the prosecutor's statements were permissable or prejudicial, what matters is that the defense lawyer couldn't think of the proper terms to use while objecting. How ineffective of him...One might even say incompetent.
Point of error 4
Coy argues that the court should have sustained(accepted) his lawyer's objection to hearsay testimony offered by Officer Ruiz.
The appeals Court ruled:
"The State does not dispute that the requirements of Article 38.072 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure were not satisfied. It argues that admission of the statements was harmless because the State had previously, without objection, introduced evidence that [*6] proved the same facts."
So the defense lawyer allowed unsatisfactory, hearsay testimony TWICE? And the appeals court uses the first instance to justify the second? Are they smoking crack? I know Coy used to be a slinger, maybe he was doing deals during the recess. 10 points for style, -2 for bad judgement.
Point of error 5
Coy argues that the defense lawyer should have objected to testimony by Susan Szczygielski, the prosecution's expert, about coaching because she was not necessarily an expert.
This one is all on the defense counsel. Instead of asking her prove that she was an expert at recognizing kids that had been 'coached' to make false accusations, the defense counsel asked the court to be brief about her qualifications. The judge proved her expertise like this:
"Okay. she's an expert."
That's it. Boom, she's an expert, and can, using the magical powers bestowed upon her, expertly tell you whether or not a child has been manipulated into giving false testimony. I wonder, was she counseling any of Collen Taft's 800 patients at this time? Was she able to tell if any of them had been coached? The appeals Court denied this appeal because he accepted her as an expert. But hey, at least Mr. Lewis didn't have to sit in court for an extra ten minutes that day.
Point of error 6
"The State contends that appellant waived error with respect to appellant's sixth point of error because defense counsel failed to object at the earliest opportunity...We agree."
"To preserve error, appellant must object at the earliest opportunity and continue to object each time the objectionable evidence is offered"
So, in order to appeal because of lawyerly ineffectiveness, your ineffective lawyer has to effectively object to objectionable evidence? Well, if he did that, he wouldn't be so fucking INEFFECTIVE, now would he?
Does all this prove that Chip Lewis was ineffective as defense counsel? I don't know. I do believe it proves that our appeals process is completely ridiculous, forcing convicts to move metaphorical mountains to prove that their lawyers were ineffective, even if the lawyer was actually, visibly sleeping in court. Don't laugh, it happened.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2002/06/03/scotus-sleeping-lawyer.htm
That's right; the TDCJ apparently believed that this snoozing lawyer was fully capable of defending his client effectively. Interestingly enough the other defendant in this case, Douglas McCreight, was sentenced to 45 years...and paroled after 8. If Coy had killed somebody, he'd be out by now.
http://www.lexisone.com/lx1/caselaw/freecaselaw?action=OCLGetCaseDetail&format=FULL&sourceID=bcdba&searchTerm=eCai.dgWa.aadj.eeOb&searchFlag=y&l1loc=FCLOW
http://www.leagle.com/xmlResult.aspx?page=3&xmldoc=In TXCO 20110615595.xml&docbase=CSLWAR3-2007-CURR&SizeDisp=7
"(1) counsel's representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness, and
(2) the deficient performance prejudiced the defense."
Since Strickland has two prongs, so will this post! Prong 2 will be up Monday.
Today we'll deal with prong 1; what does a defense lawyer have to do to prove himself unreasonably ineffective? First of all, what's an objective standard of reasonableness? For the purposes of this post, anything that makes you go "Now that's FUCKED UP!" is unreasonable.
Carlos Coy's 2003 Appeal (Denied)
Points of error 1, 2, & 3
Coy argues that it was wrong of the court to overrule these three objections by his lawyer:
"Your Honor, I'm going to object. My job is the same as theirs."
"I'm going to object, Your Honor, the State of Texas gets paid just like I do. Improper argument."
"Your Honor, I'm going to object. [The prosecutor's] personal feelings are improper."
The Appeals court ruled:
"Appellant's objections to the prosecutor's argument during trial do not conform to his argument on appeal."
Let me see if I have this right. It doesn't matter if the prosecutor's statements were permissable or prejudicial, what matters is that the defense lawyer couldn't think of the proper terms to use while objecting. How ineffective of him...One might even say incompetent.
Point of error 4
Coy argues that the court should have sustained(accepted) his lawyer's objection to hearsay testimony offered by Officer Ruiz.
The appeals Court ruled:
"The State does not dispute that the requirements of Article 38.072 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure were not satisfied. It argues that admission of the statements was harmless because the State had previously, without objection, introduced evidence that [*6] proved the same facts."
So the defense lawyer allowed unsatisfactory, hearsay testimony TWICE? And the appeals court uses the first instance to justify the second? Are they smoking crack? I know Coy used to be a slinger, maybe he was doing deals during the recess. 10 points for style, -2 for bad judgement.
Point of error 5
Coy argues that the defense lawyer should have objected to testimony by Susan Szczygielski, the prosecution's expert, about coaching because she was not necessarily an expert.
This one is all on the defense counsel. Instead of asking her prove that she was an expert at recognizing kids that had been 'coached' to make false accusations, the defense counsel asked the court to be brief about her qualifications. The judge proved her expertise like this:
"Okay. she's an expert."
That's it. Boom, she's an expert, and can, using the magical powers bestowed upon her, expertly tell you whether or not a child has been manipulated into giving false testimony. I wonder, was she counseling any of Collen Taft's 800 patients at this time? Was she able to tell if any of them had been coached? The appeals Court denied this appeal because he accepted her as an expert. But hey, at least Mr. Lewis didn't have to sit in court for an extra ten minutes that day.
Point of error 6
"The State contends that appellant waived error with respect to appellant's sixth point of error because defense counsel failed to object at the earliest opportunity...We agree."
"To preserve error, appellant must object at the earliest opportunity and continue to object each time the objectionable evidence is offered"
So, in order to appeal because of lawyerly ineffectiveness, your ineffective lawyer has to effectively object to objectionable evidence? Well, if he did that, he wouldn't be so fucking INEFFECTIVE, now would he?
Does all this prove that Chip Lewis was ineffective as defense counsel? I don't know. I do believe it proves that our appeals process is completely ridiculous, forcing convicts to move metaphorical mountains to prove that their lawyers were ineffective, even if the lawyer was actually, visibly sleeping in court. Don't laugh, it happened.
2002 - Testimony from those present at the trial in 1984 revealed that Cannon(defense attorney), who has since died, slept as the prosecutor was questioning witnesses and presenting evidence. A court clerk said Cannon would doze for several minutes at a time. "I saw his head going backward and forward the way people do when they fall asleep," the clerk said.
In its appeal, the Texas Department of Criminal Justice complained that the 5th Circuit wrongly equated a sleeping attorney with an absent one and incorrectly drew a line between sleeping and other attorney impairments that do not automatically compromise the defense.
That decision last year by the full U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit reversed a ruling by a 5th Circuit panel that had sided with Texas against Burdine.
That's right; the TDCJ apparently believed that this snoozing lawyer was fully capable of defending his client effectively. Interestingly enough the other defendant in this case, Douglas McCreight, was sentenced to 45 years...and paroled after 8. If Coy had killed somebody, he'd be out by now.
http://www.lexisone.com/lx1/caselaw/freecaselaw?action=OCLGetCaseDetail&format=FULL&sourceID=bcdba&searchTerm=eCai.dgWa.aadj.eeOb&searchFlag=y&l1loc=FCLOW
http://www.leagle.com/xmlResult.aspx?page=3&xmldoc=In TXCO 20110615595.xml&docbase=CSLWAR3-2007-CURR&SizeDisp=7
Tuesday, June 21, 2011
Dope City: Purest in Tha Game is here!
Let's run this compilation CD up the charts! Call your local radio station and request it. Show your support for upcoming local artists like Hook, featured on track 9, For My People with Slow and Juan Gotti. He's been working with Jaime 'Pain' Ortiz to bring you what you need. The Dope House is still involved in the community, bringing up artists and giving them well-deserved exposure.
I was lucky enough to run into Hook on www.dopespace.com, and here's what he had to say.
How long have you been rapping?
I started rappin 12 years ago when I was 12. About 16 I wrote my first
"hit" called 'dopefiends'...the whole hood loved it..niggas had it on
they ringtones. People would pass by bangin' it in they cars and I
didn't even know them, so that's when I knew I had a gift. See, what I
realized is that we forget how good we are sometimes..so when someone
says "Man, you wreck" I'd be like "You like that?"
What's the feel of this album? What would you say it's about?
"Well, I'd say it's about reviving the whole DopeHouse brand....most
would agree that a lot of people were giving up on DopeHouse as a
brand thats drops consistant good music.
Why should people buy Dope City?
"You mean why should they buy 2 copies..lol...People should buy it
because it has great production, great songs, but more importantly
people should buy it to show DopeHouse is not dead...reigniting the
flame that almost went out. DopeHouse 4 life."
DopeHouse Records is still an important part of Houston's undergound music
scene; somehow they've survived the storm of Coy vs Texas and continue
on, providing opportunity to budding artists and hope for the hardcore
fans. Buy a copy for yourself, and one for South Park Mexican!
Buy it from the Dope House
Buy it from Amazon
Buy it from Itunes
Monday, June 20, 2011
Information
In 2002, during Coy vs. Texas
When justice is denied in the criminal courts, and again in the court of appeals, when hard evidence is non-existent and time has passed, then we move to the court of public opinion.
People all over the nation, but specifically inHarris County
We need to get people out of their comfort zone and off their asses, to show them that at certain times, the corrupt and evil hold all the cards and the innocent suffer because good men do nothing. Carlos Coy missed Father's day this year, as he has every year since 2002. Let's make sure he doesn't miss another one because of an unfair Criminal Justice System.
It's so easy to say 'Do something', but harder to do it.
We have to re-open the discussion, to demand a fair hearing now that Rosenthal is out of power and Pat Lykos professes an interest in righting the wrongs of the past. We have to engage others, challenge their assumptions of the court's infallibility, and win them over to our cause.
How do you get someone that doesn't care about Carlos Coy, or rap, or some trial that happened years ago and is over now, to take action? Personalize it for them. This could have been their brother, their husband, their son. It might be in the future. If we don't bring these ridiculous convictions to light, the system will continue to attack innocent people, incarcerating them with no evidence of a crime but the words of others with evil motives. Put the case in front of them, along with the information we have now. No one in 2002 could have foreseen the corruption, and the lies of Rosenthal's time in office, but it's 2011 now. All we have to do is look behind us, no matter how painful that might be.
I've made some mini posters. They're very simple.
![]()
It prints out like that, four to a page. All you have to do is fold, cut, and put them in your pocket; I keep some in my bag. Now, read this next part carefully.
Please, please, PLEASE do not put these on people's doors, do not leave them on the ground, do not put them ANYWHERE you do not have permission to do so. Don't tape them up, glue them up, or otherwise affix them to ANY surface for which you do not have the express consent of the property owner. Legally, these are 'handbills', and they will fine your ass for leaving them where you should not.
Please, do not get in any kind of legal trouble passing these around. The last thing we need is for the few people who are actually willing to DO SHIT to get ticketed or thrown in jail. Tape one up in the window of your car. If you want, tape one to the outside of your car so someone walking by can grab it and keep it. Pass them out to people who might be interested. Friends, family, the checker at the grocery store. Ask them to check out the blog, show them the video, know your facts so that when they say "Hey, isn't that the guy who-" you have an answer for them. These are a tool, and they will only work for you if you take the time to utilize them properly.
Now, I realize I'm telling everyone "The system fucked us over, now let's obey the system while we try to fix it." I realize how illogical that sounds. But these flyers are not going to get South Park Mexican out of jail. The information you possess, the awareness that you represent, that is what we want to spread. The flyers, used properly, are an effective means to that end.
Now print some out and let's get this information out there! We CAN change public opinion.
When justice is denied in the criminal courts, and again in the court of appeals, when hard evidence is non-existent and time has passed, then we move to the court of public opinion.
People all over the nation, but specifically in
We need to get people out of their comfort zone and off their asses, to show them that at certain times, the corrupt and evil hold all the cards and the innocent suffer because good men do nothing. Carlos Coy missed Father's day this year, as he has every year since 2002. Let's make sure he doesn't miss another one because of an unfair Criminal Justice System.
It's so easy to say 'Do something', but harder to do it.
We have to re-open the discussion, to demand a fair hearing now that Rosenthal is out of power and Pat Lykos professes an interest in righting the wrongs of the past. We have to engage others, challenge their assumptions of the court's infallibility, and win them over to our cause.
How do you get someone that doesn't care about Carlos Coy, or rap, or some trial that happened years ago and is over now, to take action? Personalize it for them. This could have been their brother, their husband, their son. It might be in the future. If we don't bring these ridiculous convictions to light, the system will continue to attack innocent people, incarcerating them with no evidence of a crime but the words of others with evil motives. Put the case in front of them, along with the information we have now. No one in 2002 could have foreseen the corruption, and the lies of Rosenthal's time in office, but it's 2011 now. All we have to do is look behind us, no matter how painful that might be.
I've made some mini posters. They're very simple.
It prints out like that, four to a page. All you have to do is fold, cut, and put them in your pocket; I keep some in my bag. Now, read this next part carefully.
Please, please, PLEASE do not put these on people's doors, do not leave them on the ground, do not put them ANYWHERE you do not have permission to do so. Don't tape them up, glue them up, or otherwise affix them to ANY surface for which you do not have the express consent of the property owner. Legally, these are 'handbills', and they will fine your ass for leaving them where you should not.
Please, do not get in any kind of legal trouble passing these around. The last thing we need is for the few people who are actually willing to DO SHIT to get ticketed or thrown in jail. Tape one up in the window of your car. If you want, tape one to the outside of your car so someone walking by can grab it and keep it. Pass them out to people who might be interested. Friends, family, the checker at the grocery store. Ask them to check out the blog, show them the video, know your facts so that when they say "Hey, isn't that the guy who-" you have an answer for them. These are a tool, and they will only work for you if you take the time to utilize them properly.
Now, I realize I'm telling everyone "The system fucked us over, now let's obey the system while we try to fix it." I realize how illogical that sounds. But these flyers are not going to get South Park Mexican out of jail. The information you possess, the awareness that you represent, that is what we want to spread. The flyers, used properly, are an effective means to that end.
Now print some out and let's get this information out there! We CAN change public opinion.
Saturday, June 18, 2011
Summation
Need a way to present the facts quickly? Check out this unbelievable video by SOUTHPARKMEX713.
It's straightforward and powerful; watch it, subscribe, and pass it on. Post it to Facebook, Twitter, your local news forum, anywhere there might be interest. Spread the word!
There is a link to 713's YouTube channel to your right. Subscribe to stay updated. Let's get this shit out into the open!
It's straightforward and powerful; watch it, subscribe, and pass it on. Post it to Facebook, Twitter, your local news forum, anywhere there might be interest. Spread the word!
There is a link to 713's YouTube channel to your right. Subscribe to stay updated. Let's get this shit out into the open!
Friday, June 17, 2011
Damned Lawyers
This is my take on SPM's appeals. I have tried my best to translate lawyer-speak into plain English. All of his appeals have been rejected. He has had to jump through all kinds of legal hoops to get ahold of stuff like the recording suggesting that the plaintiff's mother was planning on suing him for money well before the trial was over. There is and can be no physical evidence that can be re-tested or suddenly 'appear' out of the abyss that is the Houston Crime Lab, so he is at the mercy of the court of appeals, whose 'stellar' judgment during Rosenthal's term will be discussed later.
1. His lawyer failed to object when the prosecution/witnesses started calling the plaintiff 'victim'...Even though, in theory, it had not even been proven that there was a crime committed. So much for 'innocent until proven guilty'.
2. He failed to object to people claiming that, based on their expertise, the plaintiff was telling the truth. No expert can prove whether someone is telling the truth based solely on their words. I don't care how many episodes of 'Lie To Me' you've watched, it's still impossible. The best anybody can do is make an educated guess.
3. He did not bother to ask the plaintiff's mother if she intended to sue for cash. If his strategy was truly to portray the child as a pawn manipulated by lying adults, don't you think it might be important to establish what the motive was?? Ramirez, the mother, spoke with someone about it before the trial, who told her that filing during the trial might hurt her case, so she waited.
"I [Wellmaker] have been informed that Maryvel Ramirez denied in an affidavit that she told me that she spoke with Ed Hennessey before the criminal trial; that he said that if he filed a civil lawsuit at that time, it would hurt the criminal case; and that he agreed to file a civil lawsuit after the criminal trial was over.
I reiterate and can substantiate the contents of my previous affidavit, as I recorded the conversation."
So not only is she obviously planning the civil case, but there's recorded evidence of it! Mr. Defense Attorney must have forgotten about that bit of evidence.
4. Counsel opened the door or failed to object to irrelevant, prejudicial testimony.
Specifically, the lawyer allowed the investigating officer to swear up one side of the court room and down the other that Coy was going to rape his own daughter, and do it soon. The defense lawyer asked if it was true that she had no actual evidence of this, and she says "“That’s not correct. I FEEL he was grooming her to sexually assault her later on.”"
Oh, fantastic. Well, I FEEL like I have 10 billion dollars and a body that won't quit. Is that all it takes to prove in a court of law that I do? Are FEELINGS now considered solid evidence?
So, you say, does the judge support Coy's lawyer in objecting to the woman presenting her feelings as facts? No, he tells her to define 'grooming' for the jury, so they can get a real good picture of what she FEELS he is guilty of.
He allowed the plaintiff's mother to accuse Coy of using drugs and beating women, including his wife. We're all pretty sure that he smoked pot like a motherfucker, and in 1998 he was accused of hitting a woman, but that case was dismissed. This stuff had absolutely NOTHING to do with the case being tried, it was brought up to smear Coy, to make the jury dislike him.
He failed to object to the prosecution using the name of his company, 'Dope house records' as a weapon against him. I guess he should have named his rap label "Fluffy Fuzzy Bunny Meadow". You should always consider your eventual trial when naming your record company. Or something.
5. The Plaintiff's mother said that her father died of a heart attack after learning of the alleged abuse. What does this have to do with determining Coy's guilt or innocence? It's tragic, if it's true, but it contributed NOTHING to the trial except for giving the jury another irrelevant reason to hate South Park Mexican.
6. Counsel failed to object to argument that the complainant’s testimony regarding the offense was uncontested;
This is a tricky one. Testimony can be uncontested and still be false. If I say "I shit gold", and you say "I'm not even going to argue with you about that", technically my testimony is 'uncontested'. But that doesn't make it true.
The testimony the prosecutors were talking about were things like "The girls spent the night at Coy's House. Uncontested!" "This is a picture of Coy's house. Uncontested!"
Um, no shit it's uncontested, it's also pointless and irrelevant! But by repeating it over and over and over, they allowed the jurors to feel like there was no argument in Coy's favor. That all the prosecutor's evidence was uncontested.
7. Counsel invited and failed to properly object to argument attacking him for trying to hide the truth and keep [Coy] out of jail for a fee.
The prosecutors claimed that the defense lawyer was getting paid to keep Coy out of jail, while they were paid to find the truth. That's one of saying "All the lawyers here are getting paid." Another way to say that would be "The prosecutors get paid to try and put people in jail regardless of guilt or innocence, while I, the defense lawyer, get paid to defend against false claims and find the truth."
Did he speak up effectively? No he did not. He objected, got slapped down, and shut up. Thanks, defense council!
http://www.scribd.com/doc/33106215/Coy-Trial-Habeas-Corpus?query=sheets
1. His lawyer failed to object when the prosecution/witnesses started calling the plaintiff 'victim'...Even though, in theory, it had not even been proven that there was a crime committed. So much for 'innocent until proven guilty'.
2. He failed to object to people claiming that, based on their expertise, the plaintiff was telling the truth. No expert can prove whether someone is telling the truth based solely on their words. I don't care how many episodes of 'Lie To Me' you've watched, it's still impossible. The best anybody can do is make an educated guess.
3. He did not bother to ask the plaintiff's mother if she intended to sue for cash. If his strategy was truly to portray the child as a pawn manipulated by lying adults, don't you think it might be important to establish what the motive was?? Ramirez, the mother, spoke with someone about it before the trial, who told her that filing during the trial might hurt her case, so she waited.
"I [Wellmaker] have been informed that Maryvel Ramirez denied in an affidavit that she told me that she spoke with Ed Hennessey before the criminal trial; that he said that if he filed a civil lawsuit at that time, it would hurt the criminal case; and that he agreed to file a civil lawsuit after the criminal trial was over.
I reiterate and can substantiate the contents of my previous affidavit, as I recorded the conversation."
So not only is she obviously planning the civil case, but there's recorded evidence of it! Mr. Defense Attorney must have forgotten about that bit of evidence.
4. Counsel opened the door or failed to object to irrelevant, prejudicial testimony.
Specifically, the lawyer allowed the investigating officer to swear up one side of the court room and down the other that Coy was going to rape his own daughter, and do it soon. The defense lawyer asked if it was true that she had no actual evidence of this, and she says "“That’s not correct. I FEEL he was grooming her to sexually assault her later on.”"
Oh, fantastic. Well, I FEEL like I have 10 billion dollars and a body that won't quit. Is that all it takes to prove in a court of law that I do? Are FEELINGS now considered solid evidence?
So, you say, does the judge support Coy's lawyer in objecting to the woman presenting her feelings as facts? No, he tells her to define 'grooming' for the jury, so they can get a real good picture of what she FEELS he is guilty of.
He allowed the plaintiff's mother to accuse Coy of using drugs and beating women, including his wife. We're all pretty sure that he smoked pot like a motherfucker, and in 1998 he was accused of hitting a woman, but that case was dismissed. This stuff had absolutely NOTHING to do with the case being tried, it was brought up to smear Coy, to make the jury dislike him.
He failed to object to the prosecution using the name of his company, 'Dope house records' as a weapon against him. I guess he should have named his rap label "Fluffy Fuzzy Bunny Meadow". You should always consider your eventual trial when naming your record company. Or something.
5. The Plaintiff's mother said that her father died of a heart attack after learning of the alleged abuse. What does this have to do with determining Coy's guilt or innocence? It's tragic, if it's true, but it contributed NOTHING to the trial except for giving the jury another irrelevant reason to hate South Park Mexican.
6. Counsel failed to object to argument that the complainant’s testimony regarding the offense was uncontested;
This is a tricky one. Testimony can be uncontested and still be false. If I say "I shit gold", and you say "I'm not even going to argue with you about that", technically my testimony is 'uncontested'. But that doesn't make it true.
The testimony the prosecutors were talking about were things like "The girls spent the night at Coy's House. Uncontested!" "This is a picture of Coy's house. Uncontested!"
Um, no shit it's uncontested, it's also pointless and irrelevant! But by repeating it over and over and over, they allowed the jurors to feel like there was no argument in Coy's favor. That all the prosecutor's evidence was uncontested.
7. Counsel invited and failed to properly object to argument attacking him for trying to hide the truth and keep [Coy] out of jail for a fee.
The prosecutors claimed that the defense lawyer was getting paid to keep Coy out of jail, while they were paid to find the truth. That's one of saying "All the lawyers here are getting paid." Another way to say that would be "The prosecutors get paid to try and put people in jail regardless of guilt or innocence, while I, the defense lawyer, get paid to defend against false claims and find the truth."
Did he speak up effectively? No he did not. He objected, got slapped down, and shut up. Thanks, defense council!
http://www.scribd.com/doc/33106215/Coy-Trial-Habeas-Corpus?query=sheets
Thursday, June 16, 2011
My letter to Pat Lykos
The next post is still in progress, so I'm putting up a letter I mailed off yesterday. Yep, a good old-fashioned, snail-mail missive, written on actual paper and mailed with a stamp! This one is to Pat Lykos, the Harris County D.A.
Although I wouldn't recommend copying it exactly, please feel free to use this as a base for your own letter! Make a few changes and send it off. Lykos has, in recent history, demanded and received justice for men who have been wrongfully incarcerated. Let's ask her to take a personal interest in Carlos Coy's case!
It doesn't matter if you're not fromHarris County , or even from Texas
South Park Mexican has a huge following in the Armed Forces. Yeah, I saw you peeking.
For those of you in the military, please feel free to mention that in your letter. You're out there on the front lines defending our freedom, you should be able to expect the same from us here at home.
Now, an E-mail would be easier, no one's denying that. But an actual, physical letter in the mail box has a much greater impact. First of all, it shows someone cared enough to write it, print it out, pay for a stamp, and walk it to the mailbox. It may not seem like a huge effort, but when was the last time you've done it? Exactly. Plus, it has to be read or it sits in the office, taking up actual space until someone reads it. Those of you who hate clutter understand what I'm talking about. The letter screams to be read!
Third, it won't be thrown away because the D.A.'s office wants to know what people out there are thinking! It's an elected post, so she has to stay in touch with what her constituents want. Lykos herself may not read the letter at first, but the more her staffers tell her "Hey, we got another Coy letter today." The more likely she is to review the case.
You don't have to have perfect grammar, spelling, and a silver tongue for your letter to be effective. Be polite, explain why you think Coy's trial should be overturned or re-done, and above all be brief! A short letter is more likely to be read and passed on. There's no need to send eighty pages of legal-sounding crap. Put a lot of thought into eight lines and it will be perfect.
I don't know if the Rap underground has ever organized to make their voices heard by the Criminal Justice System before. This could be an historic campaign; wouldn't you like to be a part of it?
Pat Lykos' address.
District Attorney Pat Lykos
1201Franklin
suite 600
Houston
Remember to include your address in the upper left-hand corner of the back of the envelope; the post office won't deliver it without a return address.
Here's my letter:
Madame District Attorney,
I'm writing to respectfully ask that you take a look at the case of Carlos Coy, TDCJ #01110642. He was convicted of Aggravated Sexual Assault of a Child during the administration of Chuck Rosenthal(2002), a time of rampant corruption and seemingly guaranteed conviction, no matter what the evidence.
Key figures and institutions involved in his case have been investigated for faulty or unfair procedures between 2001-2008. I'm not a lawyer so I'm not sure how to remedy what I believe to be a miscarriage of justice; I would like to know that his case has at least been reviewed for Brady violations, and hopefully that will lead to a new trial. I would appeal to the Innocence Project, but there was no DNA evidence used to convict him. If you need physical evidence to prove innocence, why was Mr. Coy found guilty without any?
His was a fairly high-profile case and I'm sure you've gotten letters about it before. A public investigation would be very much appreciated by his supporters, myself included. Looking into the problems plaguing the Harris County Criminal Justice System during Rosenthal's time as D.A. can be very depressing, but I am hopeful because I see that your actions towards the falsely convicted have been both swift and compassionate.
Respectfully,
Me, my address, blah blah blah
Don't forget to put your address under your name, on the off chance they actually respond to these letters.
Some things to note:
I don't try to make myself sound smarter than I am. I'm an average citizen, not a lawyer.
No threats. I don't want to be charged inHarris County
Don't be afraid to use words like 'respectfully' and 'please'. I'm writing to someone I don't know, and I want her to understand my tone.
I explain WHY I want what I want. FREE SPM is a great slogan, but it doesn't explain WHY.
Alright, you've read mine, now go write your own! One letter from you could be the difference between Coy attending his daughter's Qinceanera, and Coy missing the birth of his grandchildren. Your opinion is important, go make it known!!
Although I wouldn't recommend copying it exactly, please feel free to use this as a base for your own letter! Make a few changes and send it off. Lykos has, in recent history, demanded and received justice for men who have been wrongfully incarcerated. Let's ask her to take a personal interest in Carlos Coy's case!
It doesn't matter if you're not from
South Park Mexican has a huge following in the Armed Forces. Yeah, I saw you peeking.
For those of you in the military, please feel free to mention that in your letter. You're out there on the front lines defending our freedom, you should be able to expect the same from us here at home.
Now, an E-mail would be easier, no one's denying that. But an actual, physical letter in the mail box has a much greater impact. First of all, it shows someone cared enough to write it, print it out, pay for a stamp, and walk it to the mailbox. It may not seem like a huge effort, but when was the last time you've done it? Exactly. Plus, it has to be read or it sits in the office, taking up actual space until someone reads it. Those of you who hate clutter understand what I'm talking about. The letter screams to be read!
Third, it won't be thrown away because the D.A.'s office wants to know what people out there are thinking! It's an elected post, so she has to stay in touch with what her constituents want. Lykos herself may not read the letter at first, but the more her staffers tell her "Hey, we got another Coy letter today." The more likely she is to review the case.
You don't have to have perfect grammar, spelling, and a silver tongue for your letter to be effective. Be polite, explain why you think Coy's trial should be overturned or re-done, and above all be brief! A short letter is more likely to be read and passed on. There's no need to send eighty pages of legal-sounding crap. Put a lot of thought into eight lines and it will be perfect.
I don't know if the Rap underground has ever organized to make their voices heard by the Criminal Justice System before. This could be an historic campaign; wouldn't you like to be a part of it?
Pat Lykos' address.
District Attorney Pat Lykos
1201
suite 600
Remember to include your address in the upper left-hand corner of the back of the envelope; the post office won't deliver it without a return address.
Here's my letter:
Madame District Attorney,
I'm writing to respectfully ask that you take a look at the case of Carlos Coy, TDCJ #01110642. He was convicted of Aggravated Sexual Assault of a Child during the administration of Chuck Rosenthal(2002), a time of rampant corruption and seemingly guaranteed conviction, no matter what the evidence.
Key figures and institutions involved in his case have been investigated for faulty or unfair procedures between 2001-2008. I'm not a lawyer so I'm not sure how to remedy what I believe to be a miscarriage of justice; I would like to know that his case has at least been reviewed for Brady violations, and hopefully that will lead to a new trial. I would appeal to the Innocence Project, but there was no DNA evidence used to convict him. If you need physical evidence to prove innocence, why was Mr. Coy found guilty without any?
His was a fairly high-profile case and I'm sure you've gotten letters about it before. A public investigation would be very much appreciated by his supporters, myself included. Looking into the problems plaguing the Harris County Criminal Justice System during Rosenthal's time as D.A. can be very depressing, but I am hopeful because I see that your actions towards the falsely convicted have been both swift and compassionate.
Respectfully,
Me, my address, blah blah blah
Don't forget to put your address under your name, on the off chance they actually respond to these letters.
Some things to note:
I don't try to make myself sound smarter than I am. I'm an average citizen, not a lawyer.
No threats. I don't want to be charged in
Don't be afraid to use words like 'respectfully' and 'please'. I'm writing to someone I don't know, and I want her to understand my tone.
I explain WHY I want what I want. FREE SPM is a great slogan, but it doesn't explain WHY.
Alright, you've read mine, now go write your own! One letter from you could be the difference between Coy attending his daughter's Qinceanera, and Coy missing the birth of his grandchildren. Your opinion is important, go make it known!!
Wednesday, June 15, 2011
Dope City: Purest in tha game
It drops the 21st!
Call, write, or Email the music editor of your local news paper and tell them you want to hear about it!
Houston Chronicle music editor:
preview.features@chron.com
713-362-7727
San Antonio music editor:
jbeal@express-news.net
Dallas music columnist Mario Tarradell
mtarradell@dallasnews.com
Call, write, or Email the music editor of your local news paper and tell them you want to hear about it!
Houston Chronicle music editor:
preview.features@chron.com
713-362-7727
San Antonio music editor:
jbeal@express-news.net
Dallas music columnist Mario Tarradell
mtarradell@dallasnews.com
Tuesday, June 14, 2011
DNA
In Coy vs. Texas
Ricardo Rachell was imprisoned in 2003, convicted without any DNA evidence of sexually assaulting a little boy. Even though two members of the jury had questions about the way in which the mother led her son to accuse Rachell, they gave him 40 years. His mother died while he was in prison. During the six years of his wrongful incarceration, numerous attacks were carried out against children in the same area, using the same method that Rachell was accused of. Although he alerted the authorities to this, and used it as part of his appeal, he was ignored until, magically, it was announced that DNA HAD been collected from the victim and guess what? It wasn't Rachell's! In fact, it belonged to a man who was at that time in custody.
His defense lawyer never asked to have the DNA tested because he didn't know it existed.
"However, I know that prosecutors are under a continuing obligation to provide exculpatory evidence," Hayes wrote. "Further I was aware that the State did not have any DNA evidence or other physical evidence to support the claim of sexual assault."
Read more: http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/6163477.html#ixzz1PH7Mhuxp
He was convicted on the apparently coached testimony of two little boys and their mother. If that DNA evidence had not finally come to light, he would still be rotting in jail, appeal after appeal denied. Now think about this; if theHarris County DA
How could any juror during that time period (2001-2008) ever vote to convict, knowing the atrocious record of the Harris county Crime Lab? How can these cases be swept under the rug and ignored, even today?
Ricardo Rachell was imprisoned in 2003, convicted without any DNA evidence of sexually assaulting a little boy. Even though two members of the jury had questions about the way in which the mother led her son to accuse Rachell, they gave him 40 years. His mother died while he was in prison. During the six years of his wrongful incarceration, numerous attacks were carried out against children in the same area, using the same method that Rachell was accused of. Although he alerted the authorities to this, and used it as part of his appeal, he was ignored until, magically, it was announced that DNA HAD been collected from the victim and guess what? It wasn't Rachell's! In fact, it belonged to a man who was at that time in custody.
His defense lawyer never asked to have the DNA tested because he didn't know it existed.
"However, I know that prosecutors are under a continuing obligation to provide exculpatory evidence," Hayes wrote. "Further I was aware that the State did not have any DNA evidence or other physical evidence to support the claim of sexual assault."
Read more: http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/6163477.html#ixzz1PH7Mhuxp
He was convicted on the apparently coached testimony of two little boys and their mother. If that DNA evidence had not finally come to light, he would still be rotting in jail, appeal after appeal denied. Now think about this; if the
How could any juror during that time period (2001-2008) ever vote to convict, knowing the atrocious record of the Harris county Crime Lab? How can these cases be swept under the rug and ignored, even today?
Monday, June 13, 2011
Confirmation
I just got off the phone and yes, the Lisa Andrews working with former Coy defense lawyer Chip Lewis is the same Lisa Andrews that helped prosecute him. She asked why I wanted to know, I explained about the blog, and she confirmed that it was she. I asked her how long she had been working with Chip Lewis, and she declined to tell me. I assured her I would not post the phone number or address to their office so I won't.
Now, what does this mean? Coy has had a different lawyer since at least 2007, so I don't think there's any active weirdness happening, it just seems so...coincidental. I mean, what are the odds?
All of Coy's (denied) appeals seem to center around the general ineffectiveness of his defense counsel. Now he's teaming up with the former prosecuting attorney?
Such a strange coincidence. Anyway, I'm going to have to think about this. If you have any opinion, let me know.
Now, what does this mean? Coy has had a different lawyer since at least 2007, so I don't think there's any active weirdness happening, it just seems so...coincidental. I mean, what are the odds?
All of Coy's (denied) appeals seem to center around the general ineffectiveness of his defense counsel. Now he's teaming up with the former prosecuting attorney?
Such a strange coincidence. Anyway, I'm going to have to think about this. If you have any opinion, let me know.
Sunday, June 12, 2011
Coy's prosecutor now works with or for his defense attorney?
Um, I might be crazy, but according to these links, Lisa Andrews, a prosecuting attorney in Coy vs. Texas, is working in the same building, at the same phone number as Chip Lewis, Carlos Coy's former defense attorney. I called the number and spoke to a receptionist who confirmed that they both work at the law firm. A Google search lists one other lawyer there, George Tyson.
Edit June 13, 2001: Sorry, no links. See above.
I'll be calling again tomorrow to see if this is the same Andrews that worked the Coy vsTexas
Edit June 13, 2001: Sorry, no links. See above.
I'll be calling again tomorrow to see if this is the same Andrews that worked the Coy vs
Friday, June 10, 2011
What can we do?
So you have a little information, and you want to help, but how?
1. Educate yourself
Read the paper. Discover how many cases from 2001-2008 have been overturned, how many prosecutors have been caught lying and concealing evidence inHarris County
If you don't know the facts, you can't pass them on!
2. Start the conversation
Carlos Coy has been incarcerated for nearly ten years; in that time, the world has kept moving, new names have popped up and flamed out in the media. Don't let Coy sink slowly into obscurity! Buy or make a free SPM shirt; stick a decal on your car. Play his music loudly! Print up a few small posters (card sized, four to a page) and ask the guy at the corner store if you can put them up. Use wheat paste (with permission) and they'll stay for months. Call the media and tell them you want to hear about Coy, about the case, about the Dope House. Call Dope House and ask when Son of Norma (SPM's newest album) is dropping. Put his name out there and remind people how much they loved SPM; how his lyrics spoke to them, and the sense of doubt they felt when they heard of his conviction. Most of us had a feeling that something wasn't quite right, but people shy away from having anything to do with someone accused of so heinous a crime. There's a lot of chronological 'space' between then and now, and your little wheat paste-poster might be enough to encourage them to look deeper into what happened...Or maybe ask someone else what they think, which leads to...
3. Engage others
When someone sees you in your SPM shirt, or asks about the music, don't be afraid to tell them about what's happening. Instead of saying "He didn't rape nobody!” point out how many rape convictions have been overturned since Pat Lykos took office. Ask them if they understand what Brady Violations are, and tell them about how often they are committed by Harris County Prosecutors. You might believe Coy is innocent, but you can't prove it, so stick with the facts. Even if you don't convince them that day, the next time they read about the exoneration of a man convicted of rape they'll remember...and wonder if you were right.
1. Educate yourself
Read the paper. Discover how many cases from 2001-2008 have been overturned, how many prosecutors have been caught lying and concealing evidence in
If you don't know the facts, you can't pass them on!
2. Start the conversation
Carlos Coy has been incarcerated for nearly ten years; in that time, the world has kept moving, new names have popped up and flamed out in the media. Don't let Coy sink slowly into obscurity! Buy or make a free SPM shirt; stick a decal on your car. Play his music loudly! Print up a few small posters (card sized, four to a page) and ask the guy at the corner store if you can put them up. Use wheat paste (with permission) and they'll stay for months. Call the media and tell them you want to hear about Coy, about the case, about the Dope House. Call Dope House and ask when Son of Norma (SPM's newest album) is dropping. Put his name out there and remind people how much they loved SPM; how his lyrics spoke to them, and the sense of doubt they felt when they heard of his conviction. Most of us had a feeling that something wasn't quite right, but people shy away from having anything to do with someone accused of so heinous a crime. There's a lot of chronological 'space' between then and now, and your little wheat paste-poster might be enough to encourage them to look deeper into what happened...Or maybe ask someone else what they think, which leads to...
3. Engage others
When someone sees you in your SPM shirt, or asks about the music, don't be afraid to tell them about what's happening. Instead of saying "He didn't rape nobody!” point out how many rape convictions have been overturned since Pat Lykos took office. Ask them if they understand what Brady Violations are, and tell them about how often they are committed by Harris County Prosecutors. You might believe Coy is innocent, but you can't prove it, so stick with the facts. Even if you don't convince them that day, the next time they read about the exoneration of a man convicted of rape they'll remember...and wonder if you were right.
Wednesday, June 8, 2011
UTH ends it's relationship with Houston CAC
After the Colleen Taft fiasco, when a nurse was caught inappropriately gathering information from hundreds of allegedly assaulted children for use by the Harris County D.A. 's office, University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston
Although Rosenthal initially claimed that his office initiated the review, it was in fact begun by UT Dr. (Margaret) McNeese, one of the three UT pediatricians who also work at the CAC clinic, said that last September she, Dr. Rebecca Girardet and Dr. Sheela Lahoti became concerned that Taft placed more priority on collecting evidence for potential criminal prosecution than with making sure the children brought to the CAC were properly cared for.
After spending most of October reviewing Taft's work, they contacted the D.A.'s office. Taft was finally removed from the CAC but was allowed to continue on as a sexual assault examination nurse at Memorial Hermann, where she worked part time. Her interviews there also came under review.
"The CAC knew that (Taft) was part of the forensic nursing team at Hermann," said McNeese. "Because in conversations (with me) they discussed (Taft) and the forensic nurses at Hermann doing the night clinic. They truly wanted to continue the night clinic at the (CAC). And because of that, they were talking to Memorial Hermann and the forensic nurses at Memorial Hermann, (and) she was part of that team."
So who, we ask, was leading this massive review? Why, theHarris County D.A.
Are we really so stupid that we believe this agency, which had been winning cases based on Taft's misinformation and lies, would bring her dishonesty to light? Perhaps that's why, despite the 800 interviews that were examined, not a single complicit person was found. Taft was so good, that she managed to fool every other medical professional in the CAC, and every attorney at the D.A.'s office that ever used her interviews as evidence?
If theHarris County D.A. 's office refuses to hire an independent firm to review each and every case that was processed through the Children's Assessment Center
Read more: http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/2538099.html#ixzz1OWtx5dzs
Read more: http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/2538099.html#ixzz1OWsqpmkk
Read more: http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/2564225.html#ixzz1OWrjga9Z
Although Rosenthal initially claimed that his office initiated the review, it was in fact begun by UT Dr. (Margaret) McNeese, one of the three UT pediatricians who also work at the CAC clinic, said that last September she, Dr. Rebecca Girardet and Dr. Sheela Lahoti became concerned that Taft placed more priority on collecting evidence for potential criminal prosecution than with making sure the children brought to the CAC were properly cared for.
After spending most of October reviewing Taft's work, they contacted the D.A.'s office. Taft was finally removed from the CAC but was allowed to continue on as a sexual assault examination nurse at Memorial Hermann, where she worked part time. Her interviews there also came under review.
"The CAC knew that (Taft) was part of the forensic nursing team at Hermann," said McNeese. "Because in conversations (with me) they discussed (Taft) and the forensic nurses at Hermann doing the night clinic. They truly wanted to continue the night clinic at the (CAC). And because of that, they were talking to Memorial Hermann and the forensic nurses at Memorial Hermann, (and) she was part of that team."
So who, we ask, was leading this massive review? Why, the
Are we really so stupid that we believe this agency, which had been winning cases based on Taft's misinformation and lies, would bring her dishonesty to light? Perhaps that's why, despite the 800 interviews that were examined, not a single complicit person was found. Taft was so good, that she managed to fool every other medical professional in the CAC, and every attorney at the D.A.'s office that ever used her interviews as evidence?
If the
Read more: http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/2538099.html#ixzz1OWtx5dzs
Read more: http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/2538099.html#ixzz1OWsqpmkk
Read more: http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/2564225.html#ixzz1OWrjga9Z
Monday, June 6, 2011
David Abraham Rodriguez
The next post is still in progress, but here's the case of a man who was convicted of 2 counts of indecency with a child, one count of aggravated sexual assault. He was convicted about 8 years after Carlos Coy, but will be eligible for parole nearly ten years before Coy. WTF?
http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?section=news/local&id=6987002
He was convicted of molesting three girls, one in 2007 and two in 2009. It appears he got 15 years per child, but is being allowed to serve them concurrently.
TDC# 01642767
You can look up his information here: http://offender.tdcj.state.tx.us/POSdb2/POSearchServlet.do
And here: http://www.hcdistrictclerk.com/eDocs/Public/Search.aspx
He was convicted in 2009, under D.A. Pat Lykos. Why are the harsh sentences, arrived at without any proof and doled out like Halloween candy under Chuck Rosenthal, not being reviewed??
http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?section=news/local&id=6987002
He was convicted of molesting three girls, one in 2007 and two in 2009. It appears he got 15 years per child, but is being allowed to serve them concurrently.
TDC# 01642767
You can look up his information here: http://offender.tdcj.state.tx.us/POSdb2/POSearchServlet.do
And here: http://www.hcdistrictclerk.com/eDocs/Public/Search.aspx
He was convicted in 2009, under D.A. Pat Lykos. Why are the harsh sentences, arrived at without any proof and doled out like Halloween candy under Chuck Rosenthal, not being reviewed??
Friday, June 3, 2011
Children's Assessment Center
Note: In the 2003 Coy vs. Texas Houston "Children's ASSISTANCE Center Harris County courts, or to any organization called the Children's Assistance Center ASSESSMENT Center
Incompetent Bastards.
"There are days
you feel everyone in the world is
doing this to their kids. You have
to remember that we're here
and we're helping."
http://airwolf.lmtonline.com/news/archive/031698/pagea3.pdf
So said Ms. Fiona Stephenson, a social worker atHouston 's newly dedicated Child Assessment Center , two years before her assessment interview with the child in Coy vs. Texas
That same year, 2000, she was the assessor in the case Sauceda vs.Texas
According to the 2003 appeal Sauceda's sisters, after "repeatedly questioning" each girl, and after numerous denials, finally got them to agree (beginning with the youngest) that they had all been assaulted by their uncle. If you want to read how the children were TOTALLY NOT COERCED into accusing their invalid uncle, who at the time was not even able to feed himself, check here:
http://www.14thcoa.courts.state.tx.us/case/opinions/022802/010408f.pdf
Sauceda was arrested and indicted on three counts of sexual assault, but the state decided only to proceed with the case involving the 9 year old.
The girl, M.S., was interviewed by Fiona Stephenson at the Children'sAssessment Center
The interview with Stephenson was taped, so the defense had proof that M.S. had said nothing about any weapons being used in her original interview. This might have been a powerful tool for the defense to use, but if they showed that part of the tape, the court ruled that they must show the entire interview, which referenced the other, previous charges (you know, the ones the state decided to drop). Whether M.S. revealed actual criminal acts or was making things up is never addressed.
The defense council hoped to bring in Stephenson to testify instead of playing the tape, but the court ruled that if the defense brought in Stephenson, the Prosecution would be allowed to show the tape in it's entirety, allowing the jury to hear about two other alleged crimes that the prosecution itself had decided not to pursue. This decision was later brought before the Texas Court of Appeals, and eventually overturned.
Here we have two issues. The first is, it looks like M.S. was either making things up on the stand, or for some reason she felt more comfortable revealing violent coercion in a room full of strangers than she did while talking to the social worker or even her mother & aunt. Embellishing a story on the fly is something kids do everyday; adults should be able to recognize when they're doing this. A kid wants to make up monsters to get you to believe that he should be allowed to sleep on the couch with the TV on? Not a big deal. A kid wants to pull knives and guns out of the air to please their mother, while sending a man to prison? That might be a big deal, anywhere outside of a Harris County Criminal Court room.
The second is, the defendant was effectively denied the use of potentially exculpatory evidence because of the faulty interviewing technique of the nurse, and the REFUSAL of the court to allow the defense to present that same evidence without the contaminating extras.
Anyway, I'm up to my armpits in legalese that I barely understand, and I don't really care about the Sauceda case. The court moved to start a 'harm analysis', which I can't find a copy of online but presumably that's where they get to decide if their cock-up caused the trial to go badly for the accused (in this case, convicted). A search of the Harris County District Clerk's website doesn't turn up any information on Sauceda's Agg Sex Assault case, so maybe they realized they couldn't get away with this one and went into full on ass-covering mode.
The real point here, as pertains to Coy vs.Texas Texas
http://www.linkedin.com/pub/susan-a-szczygielski/15/127/717http://webservices.lexisnexis.com/lx1/caselaw/freecaselaw?action=OCLGetCaseDetail&format=FULL&sourceID=bcdba&searchTerm=ejIg.Qgga.aadj.edOc&searchFlag=y&l1loc=FCLOW
http://webservices.lexisnexis.com/lx1/caselaw/freecaselaw?action=OCLGetCaseDetail&format=FULL&sourceID=bcdba&searchTerm=ejIg.Qgga.aadj.edOc&searchFlag=y&l1loc=FCLOW
In an unpublished [*2] opinion, the Court of Appeals upheld the trial court's ruling. Sauceda v. State, No. 14-01-00408-CR, 2002Tex. App. LEXIS 1526 (Houston
Incompetent Bastards.
"There are days
you feel everyone in the world is
doing this to their kids. You have
to remember that we're here
and we're helping."
http://airwolf.lmtonline.com/news/archive/031698/pagea3.pdf
So said Ms. Fiona Stephenson, a social worker at
That same year, 2000, she was the assessor in the case Sauceda vs.
According to the 2003 appeal Sauceda's sisters, after "repeatedly questioning" each girl, and after numerous denials, finally got them to agree (beginning with the youngest) that they had all been assaulted by their uncle. If you want to read how the children were TOTALLY NOT COERCED into accusing their invalid uncle, who at the time was not even able to feed himself, check here:
http://www.14thcoa.courts.state.tx.us/case/opinions/022802/010408f.pdf
Sauceda was arrested and indicted on three counts of sexual assault, but the state decided only to proceed with the case involving the 9 year old.
The girl, M.S., was interviewed by Fiona Stephenson at the Children's
The interview with Stephenson was taped, so the defense had proof that M.S. had said nothing about any weapons being used in her original interview. This might have been a powerful tool for the defense to use, but if they showed that part of the tape, the court ruled that they must show the entire interview, which referenced the other, previous charges (you know, the ones the state decided to drop). Whether M.S. revealed actual criminal acts or was making things up is never addressed.
The defense council hoped to bring in Stephenson to testify instead of playing the tape, but the court ruled that if the defense brought in Stephenson, the Prosecution would be allowed to show the tape in it's entirety, allowing the jury to hear about two other alleged crimes that the prosecution itself had decided not to pursue. This decision was later brought before the Texas Court of Appeals, and eventually overturned.
Here we have two issues. The first is, it looks like M.S. was either making things up on the stand, or for some reason she felt more comfortable revealing violent coercion in a room full of strangers than she did while talking to the social worker or even her mother & aunt. Embellishing a story on the fly is something kids do everyday; adults should be able to recognize when they're doing this. A kid wants to make up monsters to get you to believe that he should be allowed to sleep on the couch with the TV on? Not a big deal. A kid wants to pull knives and guns out of the air to please their mother, while sending a man to prison? That might be a big deal, anywhere outside of a Harris County Criminal Court room.
The second is, the defendant was effectively denied the use of potentially exculpatory evidence because of the faulty interviewing technique of the nurse, and the REFUSAL of the court to allow the defense to present that same evidence without the contaminating extras.
Anyway, I'm up to my armpits in legalese that I barely understand, and I don't really care about the Sauceda case. The court moved to start a 'harm analysis', which I can't find a copy of online but presumably that's where they get to decide if their cock-up caused the trial to go badly for the accused (in this case, convicted). A search of the Harris County District Clerk's website doesn't turn up any information on Sauceda's Agg Sex Assault case, so maybe they realized they couldn't get away with this one and went into full on ass-covering mode.
The real point here, as pertains to Coy vs.
http://www.linkedin.com/pub/susan-a-szczygielski/15/127/717http://webservices.lexisnexis.com/lx1/caselaw/freecaselaw?action=OCLGetCaseDetail&format=FULL&sourceID=bcdba&searchTerm=ejIg.Qgga.aadj.edOc&searchFlag=y&l1loc=FCLOW
http://webservices.lexisnexis.com/lx1/caselaw/freecaselaw?action=OCLGetCaseDetail&format=FULL&sourceID=bcdba&searchTerm=ejIg.Qgga.aadj.edOc&searchFlag=y&l1loc=FCLOW
In an unpublished [*2] opinion, the Court of Appeals upheld the trial court's ruling. Sauceda v. State, No. 14-01-00408-CR, 2002
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)