Rebuttal

There was an interesting comment left on the blog Monday. I assume most people that come across this site already know the basics of Coy vs. Texas, but I see that there are still some misunderstandings about what actually happened back in 2002.

If you read only the newspaper articles of the time, you get a very clear picture that suggests the trial was almost unnecessary. Coy's guilt may seem so evident that there's no need for further investigation.
However, looking into the court documents reveals many worrying details; these public documents are available for viewing at the Harris County District Clerk's website. You have to provide an email address to open an account, but then you can access all of the information online. If you are interested in learning the facts, I strongly suggest you do this.
I thought I would go through Anonymous's comment and answer each of their objections individually.

Its sad to say, but it wasn't just only that girl, what so many people don't understand is the courts found SEVERAL under age girls that had some "sort" of sexual inter action.

Eight women were called in to testify that they had been attacked by Carlos Coy. A police officer (presumably Heidi Ruiz, who previously testified that she had proof that Coy intended to rape his daughter that turned out to be her 'feelings') testified that she had "proof that accuses Coy of sexually assaulting eight other girls". Proof that accuses, not proof that confirms...Meaning there was no proof of these women's claims, only their accusations. One of them told police she was 14 at the time, then decided to change that age to 12 while testifying. Coy was indicted on seven of these accusations, but NONE of these ever made it to trial.

However what really did him in, and what is kept out of the public and not disclosed is the fact that he has fathered children with the underage girls, that is why he was convicted.

If my understanding of the HCDC documents are correct, one paternity suit filed against Coy in 2004 resulted in a blood test, and then it was dismissed. There were no others. Your use of the plural 'children' is incorrect.
The fact that a young Carlos Coy fathered a child on Jill Odom is not, in fact, undisclosed. It was mentioned in several news stories. But that is not what he was on trial for. Coy vs. Texas dealt with one girl, the nine year-old daughter of his good friend. If the DA's office could not prove that one case, they should have chosen another out of the eight indictments he received. They simply chose the most sensational accusation and ran with it, probably because they knew it would get headlines and rile people up.

Using the Casey case with any merit won't work here. They didn't prove beyond reasonable death that she KILLED the little, the courts proved with OUT a doubt that SPM screws under age girls

 If the District Attorney's office wanted a cut and dried case, easily provable, they should have prosecuted Coy for sleeping with Odom, the one case that offered immutable proof of wrongdoing. They chose not to.
Casey Anthony's prosecutors produced voluminous evidence of a crime, but had no way to legitimately point the finger at her. Carlos Coy's case was the opposite; Many fingers pointed at him, but there was no compelling evidence of a crime. Coy was convicted by the words of others, no more.

Some thoughts on the 1994 episode:

Coy has one son with Jill Odom. Jill was 14 in 1994, when her son was born.  The fact that she conceived indicates that at this time she had reached sexual maturity. Her physical development would have been that of a young woman, not a child. While this IN NO WAY excuses an adult man having sex with a thirteen year old, it suggests that Carlos Coy was attracted to what he percieved to be a grown, if young, woman. A pedophile would not have been. Here's Wikipedia's definition of a pedophile:

As a medical diagnosis, pedophilia (or paedophilia) is defined as a psychiatric disorder in adults or late adolescents (persons age 16 or older) typically characterized by a primary or exclusive sexual interest in prepubescent children (generally age 13 years or younger, though onset of puberty may vary).

Prepubescent children display no primary sexual characteristics; no breasts, hips, body hair, etc. American girls are beginning puberty at younger and younger ages, some as young as 7. According to at least one of Coy's friends, Coy met Odom while she was working in a strip club, posing as an eighteen year old; if this is true, she would not have looked like an undeveloped child. In my mind, this suggests that when it came to Jill Odom, Coy was not playing out a perverted sexual fantasy. He was looking for some ass and like most men on the prowl, didn't bother to verify age before getting involved. If he needs to be punished for this, he should have been brought to trial for it, not indicted for a seperate crime and convicted with no evidence because 'he deserved it'.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/08/09/girls.starting.puberty.early/index.html

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38600414/ns/health-kids_and_parenting/t/growing-too-soon-puberty-strikes--year-old-girls/

http://www.click2houston.com/news/1468971/detail.html

http://www.click2houston.com/news/1471560/detail.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=okoWSvZHQtg