Police Officers & False Confessions

Austin, Texas

Christopher Ochoa was 22 when he was arrested for the rape and murder of a young woman. There was no evidence linking him or his friend Richard Danziger to the crime…So the police made some. They interrogated him twice, for twelve hours each time. They told him Danziger was ready to turn on him. Finally he broke.

He confessed to the crime, and said his friend Danziger was involved.

Ochoa had been in prison for eight years when another convict sent letters to several Texas government officials confessing to the crime, and telling them that they had imprisoned two innocent men. By this time, Danziger had been beaten into brain-damage by a fellow inmate, but they sent someone to interview Ochoa…Guess who they sent? That’s right, Austin PD, the agency that would be most embarrassed by Ochoa & Danziger’s exoneration. Needless to say, Ochoa stuck by the story they had given him.

Three years after this, he contacted the Wisconsin University Innocence Project. They put their students to work and soon discovered DNA evidence that freed the two men. Danziger was put into a hospital, as he was now unable to care for himself. Way to look out, TDC.

Ochoa followed the Innocence Project back to Wisconsin, and got his law degree. He’s now a practicing defense attorney.

This goes back to the justice or conviction question; do the cops want justice, or do they want someone to go to prison? Is the satisfaction of being able to ‘close a case’ worth the cost of years of an innocent person’s life? Carlos Coy has maintained his innocence since day one, probably because he believed he had the resources to fight a bullshit case. What he obviously did not count on were the 'investigative methods' of the police, not just in Houston but state-wide.

What methods were used to round up eight women to accuse Coy of molesting them? I've heard that the DA's office advertised for victims, and we tend to assume that anyone that shows up to accuse a rich person is doing so for the money, but what if there were coercion involved?

What if the police involved threatened to have CPS remove a woman’s child unless she testified against Coy? What if they picked up someone with a bag of weed and told her they would drop the charges if she co-operated? What if the police offered a broke woman a chance at a profitable civil suit if she’ll just help them put away a guy they’re convinced is a total monster? A year ago, if someone suggested to me that the police were capable of these acts, I would have laughed in their faces. After researching TDCJ the past few months…What can I say? My faith in the judicial system is completely destroyed.

The great and mighty have decided that we don’t need to know how they get convictions.

“Trust us…It’s for the children.” What people forget is that the man they toss into prison with no evidence is someone’s child; someone’s husband, someone’s brother, someone’s father.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/05/12/eveningnews/main1616355.shtml

http://www.law.northwestern.edu/cwc/exonerations/txOchoaSummary.html

http://www.news.wisc.edu/12591

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_confession

Get your own 'Free Spm' T-shirt

Looking for an SPM shirt? These are great; good quality, dirt cheap, and with a nicely designed logo.
I didn't want to reccommend them until I had a chance to order one myself; it arrived within four days, that's super fast shipping. Go to http://www.canttrustthesystem.com/ to order.
A statement from the sellers:

"This is a movement that many around TEXAS have already contributed to but we just feel it is not enough and would like to help spread the word in a even bigger way. So we are continuing the FREE SPM movement and will keep on untill this innocent man is set FREE.

The profits from all shirts will be used to print up more T-Shirts. We are trying to spread the word and hopefully it will plant a seed that will eventually set SPM FREE. So if you are a true fan and you want to help support this movement show your love for SPM by buying a shirt. Every shirt bought and worn is a step closer to justifying a corrupt system." SPM needs a physical presence on the streets, and you need a way to show your support and get people talking.  You can view the Facebook page here , check out their photo gallery, and order here. I don't make a dime off these shirts, but I hope you'll get one and help us spread information about SPM's case.

Prosecutors

The Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Title 1, Chapter 2, Article 2.01 states:

It shall be the primary duty of all prosecuting attorneys, including any special prosecutors, not to convict, but to see that justice is done.

Someone should probably have notified the DA’s office back in 2001. “Hey guys, bad news; it looks like it’s not actually your job to convict every poor bastard whose name crosses your desk…You’re supposed to be going after the people that committed the crime.”

Prosecutor: “Fuuuuuuuuuuck…that sounds like a lot of work.”

And I’m sure it is, but do you know what takes even more work? Getting a hearing for a retrial. You don’t get a new trial just because you have evidence that your first one was a miscarriage of justice. No, you have to schedule a hearing to present your arguments to the judge, but before you get THAT, you have to dodge all the objections and procedural complications the prosecutors are going throw at you.

See, for people who are duty-bound to promote justice, they sure hate it when people expect to get it. Take the case of Lawrence Napper. He was out on parole (for raping 2 woman in the 80's) when he was convicted and sentenced to life in 2001 for kidnapping and raping a little boy. After it became known that the HPD scientist gave false testimony about the DNA identifying Napper as the rapist, the DA’s office fought for years to keep him from getting a hearing for a retrial. They fought because they did not want the question to even be considered, but eventually he did get his hearing. Not a new trial, just a hearing to see if he should get a new trial. His lawyer presented evidence that Joseph Chu, an HPD scientist who now has a bunch of tests that were proven wrong, had lied or just been seriously incompetent by testifying that the DNA positively identified Napper as the rapist.

The prosecutor, Jack Roady, admitted that although the lab work may have been sloppy Napper didn’t deserve a new trial because…get ready for this…The fuck-up wasn’t done on purpose.

Yeah, who cares if the evidence that got you a life sentence was screwed up and misrepresented? We didn’t do it to be mean! This is a prime example of the breathtaking, mind-boggling arrogance of the TDCJ.

At the 2009 hearing, the judge decided that Napper should receive a new trial. I guess that recommendation got sent to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, because in 2010 they issued an opinion that basically said “Just because the state of Texas lied to get you convicted does not mean that you can have a new trial.”  And that’s it. Back to prison he goes.

Why not just break out all the evidence they had the first time and take another crack at it? If they truly removed all reasonable doubt of his guilt the first time, it would be a goddamn pleasure to do it again. If it was a righteous conviction, why do all this work to avoid proving it?

Prosecutors (as far as I know) don't get paid extra for winning cases, but it would be foolish to deny that getting a conviction is a positive thing for them. It justifies their existence, proves that they were right, and is probably a career builder. At some point, you'd have to be able to make yourself believe that even when you are hiding evidence or allowing testimony that's not exactly true, you're still doing the 'right' thing. I am sure that even the most crooked prosecutors think they're the good guys...All the best villains do.

When SPM gets a new trial (and I do believe it’s ‘when’, not ‘if’) we must not allow TDCJ to screw around like this. Although I have great faith in the new administration's good intentions, there are holdovers from previous times whose careers and reputations are built on these shoddy, bullshit convictions. They will use every trick in the book to keep Carlos Coy silent; I believe they fear public exposure more than anything else. We need to let them know now that we are watching, and we demand a fair hearing.

Keep your eyes open.

http://truthinjustice.org/napper.htm

http://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/article/Convicted-rapist-s-outburst-highlights-case-1731990.php?plckFindCommentKey=CommentKey:7602312d-4b4b-4670-8c63-c301344f11b7

http://abcnews.go.com/Primetime/story?id=132116&page=1

http://www.allbusiness.com/crime-law-enforcement-corrections/law-forensics-forensic/13071920-1.html

http://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/article/Convicted-Houston-rapist-loses-bid-for-a-second-1694882.php

Weekend Reading 10

Well, this is interesting.

Under section 264.408 of the Family Code, “A videotaped interview of a child made at a center is the property of the prosecuting attorney involved in the criminal prosecution of the case involving the child.”

http://www.tarrantcountylawoffice.com/fc/fa.005.00.000264.00.htm

You have got to be shitting me. The tape of the interview, apparently officiated over by the goddamn investigating officer, is the personal property of the prosecutors. They don’t have to share it unless the court orders it. If the defense doesn't know of it's existence, they can't ask for it.

ETA:
I'm going to develop this a little more; what this means is, if there were some kind of exculpatory evidence on the tape, it would be up to the prosecutor to decide whether or not to hand it over to the defense. They are required by law to do so, but there's no one to check and make sure that they're actually doing it. We're just supposed to trust them. To use a bit of hyperbole, you could have a tape of an interviewer literally beating an accusation out of a child, but if the prosecutor decided not to share it with the defense, then that's it, unless the defense lawyer a) somehow knew about the existence of the tape b) mistrusted the prosecutor enough to doubt their adherence to Brady, and c) knew that they could ask the court to order the prosecution to hand over the tape.

The Assessment Interview

When HPD sent their letter to the AG’s office asking them not to release the police report to the public, they made a special point of saying that if the ‘investigative methods’ used were known it would compromise the case. While I have different theories about what they meant, here is what I suspect they were trying to hide.

When the Children’s Assessment Center begins treating a child who they believe to have been abused, they do an interview. This interview is taped, and can be used as evidence in the eventual court case. You may remember the story of Colleen Taft, who was more concerned with gathering evidence for the prosecution than with really caring for the children she interviewed.

We know that Denise Oncken, by her own admission, seems to prefer to allow defense lawyers to ‘discover’ these tapes on their own, instead of handing them over as required by law. After all, it’s ‘not her job to hold their hands’.

In Coy’s case, the child was interviewed by Fiona Stephenson, an interviewer who had already got a paraplegic who couldn’t even feed himself locked up for supposedly molesting three girls. ALSO in the room was Heidi Ruiz, the investigating officer who was so biased against Coy that the appeals court made a special mention of it in the 2007 appeal denial. Possibly in the room was Susan Szczygielski, a therapist who according to her own statements in court did not believe in the possibility that nothing had happened, but I’m having trouble tracking down some documents verifying her presence.

I have included links to several guidelines for doing sexual assault interviews. They are long, but worth the read. They all stress how important it is to 1) keep an open mind, because there might have been no abuse at all and 2) not ask ‘leading’ questions, which are questions that encourage a specific answer. Why is this important? Because children, especially those younger than 11, are very susceptible to suggestion. With enough prodding, they can be lead to believe that they were abused, even if they were not. This belief can last all the way into adulthood. If you doubt this, check out the Daycare Sex Abuse Hysteria. Some of those people are STILL in prison.

Obviously an assessment interview is a very delicate thing. Why the hell would you have the investigator in charge of a case present for it? Kids can pick up on little things, a shake of the head, a smile when they answer the way they are ‘supposed’ to answer…Why would you risk tainting the interview with the presence of a person that’s being paid to find proof of a certain outcome?

Well, according to documents available at the District Clerk’s website, Officer Ruiz had a little pre-interview-interview at the police station. She interviewed the child, apparently all by herself, a few days before the interview at the CAC. Was THAT interview recorded? Probably not.

 See CARLOS COY, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee NO. 01-02-00593-CR

Had she already formed her opinions about the case at that time? Had she been trained in the delicate art of getting information without creating ideas in a child’s mind? Was this addressed at all during the trial?

A description of the CAC from the American Academy of Pediatrics website indicates that they assist…”District Attorneys, Children's Ad Litem attorneys, family attorney, CASA volunteers”…but there is no mention of defense attorneys. Did they turn over information to the defense, or did they leave that up to the prosecuting attorneys? How can a defense team ever be sure that the prosecutor has fulfilled the requirement to turn over exculpatory evidence?

\
http://www.scribd.com/doc/33106215/Coy-Trial-Habeas-Corpus

http://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/article/Child-agency-halts-video-of-sex-assault-exams-1513136.php

http://www.lexisone.com/lx1/caselaw/freecaselaw?action=OCLGetCaseDetail&format=FULL&sourceID=bcdba&searchTerm=eCai.dgWa.aadj.eeOb&searchFlag...

http://www.aap.org/sections/childabuseneglect/Texas.cfm

http://www.elinewberger.com/articles/archive/clinical-mgmt/pedinterview.html

Bribing a judge

If y'all are not reading Grits For Breakfast, you should be. Mr. Henson is posting today about an Austin defense lawyer named Marc Garrett Rosenthal who was just indicted for bribing a goddamn JUDGE.
I don't yet know if Marc is related to Chuck Rosenthal, but I'm going to try to find out.

This corruption is not just a Harris county problem; the rot is deep, and I'm beginning to believe that it's state-wide.

Correction

...I'm getting deeper into these documents and it appears that Susan Szczygielski was the child's therapist; her mother's was another CAC therapist named Julia Wulf...

Symptoms of Abuse?

The point of this post is to highlight unacceptable imaginative leaps taken by the prosecution during Coy vs Texas, not to attack the complainant (plaintiff?). Regardless of what happened that night, she was a victim. Either something bad happened to her, or she was convinced by people that she loved and trusted that something bad happened to her.

But in order to understand what happened at the trial, she’s going to come up in conversation. I believe the Harris County District Attorney’s Office under Chuck Rosenthal believed that they could get away with this shit because they could make people look away. “Don’t ask questions, it’s for the children!” “How can you question us, we’re doing this for a child!” But I’m tired of taking their word for it. Given the track record of Rosenthal’s DA Office, I want to look at this case and make up my own mind. Excuse the fuck out of me if that bothers anybody.

During the trial, a social worker/therapist named Susan Szczygielski testified that the little girl in this case exhibited symptoms of having been sexually assaulted including problems sleeping, stomach aches, emotional sensitivity and headaches.

In 1995, a New Mexico Senator proposed a piece of legislation that would force any psychologist or psychiatrist testifying to competency to wear a wizard hat, a white beard, and hold a wand. While the bill did not pass, it highlights the silliness of taking the ‘soft science’ too seriously, especially when a person’s future is at stake. You can make an educated guess but you just don’t know what’s going on inside a person’s head. Although  Szczygielski seemed to have convinced the jury that the girl’s symptoms were the direct result of sexual abuse, you can see from the appeals linked below that even witnesses against Carlos Coy admitted that the girl had problems sleeping BEFORE the alleged incident, and the headaches magically disappeared when she was given glasses.

Szczygielski didn’t prove shit except that pretty much anything will be accepted by a court as evidence of sexual abuse.

Emotional sensitivity…Please, someone introduce me to a nine year old girl who is NOT emotionally sensitive. While that and the stomach aches may have been caused by the alleged abuse, they might also have been cause by the stress of being told by multiple adults that you were abused and being dragged into court to testify in front of a big crowd of strangers about something that you can’t really remember.

No kid wants to be forced to discuss their private parts in front of a court room; in cases where there is some convincing evidence that a crime has happened it becomes necessary, but this poor kid wasn’t even sure if anything had happened. Still, she got piled on at her ‘assessment interview’ by the investigative officer, her mom’s therapist, and an interviewer whose methods had caused problems in the past at the CAC. I’ll write more about that particular cluster-fuck on Thursday.

I look at this shit and I’m just amazed at the audacity of the prosecution team. If they wanted Carlos Coy so badly, why not prosecute the one case with evidence? Why pursue this fabricated bullshit? They had to know that once he was convicted he wouldn’t have a snowball’s chance in hell of getting an appeal in.

It was bullshit then, and it’s bullshit now.

 http://www.scribd.com/doc/33106215/Coy-Trial-Habeas-Corpus

http://www.lexisone.com/lx1/caselaw/freecaselaw?action=OCLGetCaseDetail&format=FULL&sourceID=bcdba&searchTerm=eCai.dgWa.aadj.eeOb&searchFlag

Weekend Reading 9

The Stanford Journal of Legal Studies published this paper about how eyewitness testimony is affected by outside influences and the human brain's tendency to fill in details not actually experienced.

The problem with eyewitness testimony

Letter to Pat Lykos 3 (Plus the AG)

In the Bible, Luke 18 tells the story of The Importunate Widow.
An unjust judge, who does not care about God or the opinion of the people he rules over, is approached daily by a widow saying "Give me justice against my enemy". The judge ignores her as long as he can, but finally says to himself "Even though I don't care about God or Men, I'd better give her justice before she wears me out."

While it seems that we are at war with a giant, faceless wall of laws, behind those laws are people. I don't believe that they are unjust or uncompassionate, but I do believe they are ignorant of the facts. We must persistently bring our case before them and demand justice as often as we can. Below are two letters, one to the Harris County DA's office, and one to the Texas Attorney General. You can write your own, use the ones I've written, or print off a copy of the flyers to your right and send that. They can ignore us for awhile, but they can't make us stop. Please, make your support for Carlos Coy known to those in power.

District Attorney Pat Lykos
1201 Franklin
Houston, TX 77002

Madam District Attorney,

I am writing today about the case of Carlos coy, TDCJ # 01110642.
I have been reviewing the public files on Mr. Coy's case, and I believe there may have been exculpatory evidence that was not revealed to his defense team. The DA's office under Chuck Rosenthal was notorious for concealing video taped interviews from the Children's Assessment Center. Was this evidence made available to Coy's attorney?  Was there DNA evidence taken that was not used at the trial? There is no way for the public to know because every aspect of the case is being hidden behind the Family Code. Nothing that the DA's office (known for unacceptable behavior during that time) or the police department used to convict him is available for review. The appeals courts have dismissed or denied writs of habeus corpus that might, at least, help Coy show that his lawyer was ineffective and excluded evidence that could have cleared him..

That defense lawyer worked at the DA's office with one of Coy's prosecutors, and now appears to be in business with her as a defense lawyer. Is that normal? What was their relationship during the trial? Although those responsible never seemed to be held accountable, Rosenthal's office had been embarassed by the sudden revelation, often years after the conviction, that DNA evidence was available to exonerate previously convicted men. Recently HPD revealed an additional 3,000 (three THOUSAND) rape kits were found stored in an air-conditioned room instead of a freezer. This is in addition to the 4,000 discovered in 2006, some dating back to the 1990s. Was there a kit done for Coy vs Texas? Was it tested? Was the possibility of it's existence ever revealed to Coy's defense lawyers?

These questions must be answered. I have faith in your desire to see justice done, and I hope you will take advantage of this opportunity to give Coy a fair trial.

Me, my address, blah blah blah

___________________________________________________________________

Office of the Attorney General
PO Box 12548
Austin, TX 78711-2548

The Honorable Greg Abbott

Sir, I'm writing today about the case of Carlos Coy, TDCJ #01110642. I have been trying to obtain the police report from his trial, but I was recently informed by your office that all records were unobtainable due to the restrictions of the Family Code. Many people, myself included, believe that Coy was unfairly convicted. The Harris County District Attorney's office at that time (2002-2008) was known for Brady violations, Batson violations, concealing exculpatory evidence and misrepresenting DNA evidence.

As Governor Perry gears up to run for national office, I hope that the AG's office will be willing to take a second look at a local matter. Carlos Coy's fans and supporters would like to know the true circumstances behind his conviction; since Texas law prohibits us from seeing the evidence, we ask you to examine it for us.
Please, give us justice.

Me, my address, blah blah blah

http://app.dao.hctx.net/Default.aspx
https://www.oag.state.tx.us/

Open Records 5

Well, that was quick; I got my letter from the Attorney General's office Saturday informing me that the information I requested would not be released.

I didn't expect to get it so quickly, but here's why. They didn't even have to consider it. The 'Family Code' gives them the authority to conceal ALL evidence relating to sexual assault of a minor. They don't have to release ANYTHING to the public, even though the case is ten years old.

Section 261.201 of the Family code states:
Except as provided by Section 261.203, the following information is confidential, is not subject to public release under Chapter 552, Government Code...the files, reports, records, communications, audiotapes, videotapes, and working papers used or developed in an investigation under this chapter or in providing services as a result of an investigation.

So basically every goddamn thing the prosecution and HPD had, did, or wrote, is being hidden behind the Government Code. We are not even allowed to know what methods Officer Heidi Ruiz used to get a witness, who had already been unsuccessfully shaken down by the DA's office, to say that Carlos Coy had assaulted her. The video-taped interview from the CAC? Not available. A list of the physical evidence collected? Not available. Deals or threats they made to get people to testify? Not available. The reason why they presented 8 women to accuse Carlos Coy of assaulting them, then dropped those cases after they got the one conviction? Not available.

They tell us a crime has been committed, and that justice has been done, but they hide the information that could prove them right or wrong. This is such bullshit! We are denied the opportunity to examine their evidence while they sit on mountains of DNA kits that they have not identified, tested, or even stored properly. This is the system responsible for our safety. This is the system we hope will give us justice.

Is it any wonder, under this system, that exonerating evidence takes ten, even twenty years to come to light, while innocent men rot in prison? Their kids grow up, their families die off, and then they're kicked out the door with an "oops, sorry" and a check, if they're lucky.

But I'm not discouraged. Rick Perry has announced that he'll be running for the Republican nomination this year. Media attention will be focused on Texas, to figure out what kind of a man he is, and what's been happening on his watch. Let's make sure they find this case. What happened to Carlos Coy has happened to hundreds, maybe thousands of men in Texas over the last ten years. Lying or simply incompetent crime lab technicians, sneaky-ass prosecutors who don't see the need for due diligence, judges that deny the defense teams the opportunity to present vital evidence in court...This is Perry's legacy.

This could be a nightmare for Perry if we can just make it known. If he's smart, he'll quietly start a review so it will at least look like he's doing something. Please, write to your newspaper; send an email to the local TV news. Demand to know why Perry thinks he's fit for national office when he can't even make his own goddamn local governments adhere to the rule of law. Thursday's post will be another letter to Pat Lykos, and one to the Texas Attorney General, Greg Abbott. Join me in sending word to the DA's office that we want to see some fucking justice in the criminal justice system.

http://www.asishouston.org/Honorees/Honorees2005.htm#Ruiz2
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/7690694.html

Weekend Reading 8

The New York Times
2004

New Doubt Cast on Testing in Houston Police Crime Lab

The police crime laboratory in Houston, already reeling from a scandal that has led to retesting of evidence in 360 cases, now faces a much larger crisis that could involve many thousands of cases over 25 years.
Six independent forensic scientists, in a report to be filed in a Houston state court today, said that a crime laboratory official -- because he either lacked basic knowledge of blood typing or gave false testimony -- helped convict an innocent man of rape in 1987.

Open Records 4

August 1, I received the HPD's reply to my open records request. They  sent the police report I requested to the Attorney General's office, along with a letter explaining why they believe it is "excepted from public disclosure". They will probably notify the plaintiff's family that someone is looking to get the police report.To me they sent a copy of their arguments, but not a copy of the report (obviously).

The first part of their letter cites section 552.101 of the Government Code, and 261.201 of the Family code. This is another piece of information that Miss Curious could have given me during our conversation.
I expected them to make an argument that the information is confidential. It's not any more, it's been made public by the courts, But I knew they'd try. If they want to cover their asses, they are allowed to just redact (line out) the identifying information.

The second part of their letter is what really interests me. Here's what they said:

"...if a re-trial is ordered by the appeals court, release of Exhibit 2 would compromise the criminal investigation by revealing HPD's methods for gathering investigative facts in this incident."

Let's dissect this bit by bit; maybe I'm reading too much into this, maybe not. First of all, the 'methods' they are hiding are specific to "this incident". That means that they're not worried about protecting some super-secret technique that they use everyday to get information. They are concealing the particular methods that they used in Coy vs texas.

"...gathering investigative facts". What facts are these? I'm guessing they are talking about witness statements, since as far as we know, no DNA was taken.

"...compromise the criminal investigation". If the facts were gathered by the book, how could it compromise the investigation? Wouldn't they want every aspect of their investigation to be held up to the light and admired as an example of stellar police intelligence-gathering?

What are they hiding? What did they do that might threaten the integrity of their case if it's made public? Were these investigative methods presented at trial?
The eight women that are mentioned so frequently in the news articles were not even presented to the court until AFTER the guilty verdict had been issued...They were called in to convince the Jury to give him as much prison time as possible. As I understand it, none of their claims would have to be proven, they just had to sound convincing.

Heidi Ruiz, the investigative officer, traveled to San Antonio to interview an alleged victim about the case. This individual had already been interviewed by the DA's office and "failed to disclose any sexual abuse".  But when Officer Ruiz showed up, she got the woman to 'reveal details' about the supposed offense. My question is, what methods did she use to get the woman to 'reveal' her 'details'? Was there another officer present to confirm her methods, or was it just one officer against one potential witness?

I sent my response to these arguments to the AG's office. I tried to address each point, and also to be brief. Maybe they'll grant my request, maybe not. But I'm hoping that whatever is in that report that the HPD is hiding will make someone at the AG's office say "That's fucked up. Maybe we should investigate."
Cross your fingers, and if you want to send a letter to the AG's office in support of Carlos Coy, the address is below.

Office of the Attorney General
PO Box 12548
Austin, TX 78711-2548

I started this to find out what physical evidence they had against Carlos Coy, but now I really want to see these 'investigative methods' laid bare. Odds are if that's what they are protecting, then that's where Coy's freedom lays.


http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/docs/FA/htm/FA.261.htm
http://www.asishouston.org/Honorees/Honorees2005.htm#Ruiz2
https://www.oag.state.tx.us/agency/contacts.shtml

HPD. WTF.

This is not Thursday's post, but I wanted to make everyone aware of the Grits For Breakfast  post today. Apparently, HPD just discovered an additional 3,000 rape kits. Stored in an air conditioned room instead of a freezer. Some may have been tested, some may not have been.
Please enjoy.

Ronald Taylor

In 1995, Ronald Taylor was convicted of rape; The Houston Crime Lab declared that there was no DNA evidence in the case, so the victim's testimony that Taylor had raped her was crucial to the case. Taylor became a suspect because someone had seen him "in the area" the night of the rape.

The victim told police that she could not see the face of her rapist, because the room was so dark. She said she had touched his face and described it as best she could. Ten days later, she added more details to her description. Ronald Taylor was called in to participate in a "live" line-up, but since the victim was unavailable, they taped it and one HPD officer showed it to her at her home, weeks later. While viewing this unusual video line-up, the victim said she suddenly recalled that her attacker had been missing a front tooth(did the police woman even bother to ask her how she knew this?), and so identified Taylor as her attacker. Later at the trial, the victim changed her testimony and claimed she saw Ronald Taylor's face for three seconds by the light of the street lamps.

The court seemed to think this qualified as reliable testimony.

Taylor was sent to prison to serve a 60 year sentence. His fiance promised to wait for him. His family worked for his release for 12 years. In 2007, the Innocence Project of Texas sent the sheets to an independent crime lab which found that there was, in fact, DNA and (surprise!) it was not Ronald Taylor's. It belonged to a man that police had eliminated from the investigation. This man, Roosevelt Carroll, had a history of comitting sex crimes.

Taylor was released in 2007, 12 years after his wrongful conviction, and was finally reunited with his family and fiance.

While Taylor was imprisoned, Carroll continued his crimes. He could not be prosecuted for the rape in this case because the statute of limitations had run out by the time they caught him. How many crime victims could have been saved if Rosenthal's DA Office had put in the work required to actually catch the criminals, instead of just locking up whoever happened to be 'in the area'?

Were the sheets taken as evidence from Carlos Coy's house? The little girl testified that she was covered in saliva after the assault; certainly, some of it would have soaked into the bed. Why was that DNA not tested, and used in the trial? If it was properly stored, it may still reveal what really happened that night. The Houston Crime Lab (or what's left of it) needs to release it to an independent testing company, assuming they can dig it out of whatever mountainous pile of untested evidence it is currently buried in.


http://www.innocenceproject.org/Content/Ronald_Gene_Taylor.php
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/falkenberg/5204596.html
http://gritsforbreakfast.blogspot.com/2008/06/houstons-ron-taylor-case-demonstrates.html
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/5198221.html

Weekend Reading 7

Thank you to Lazy Menace for turning up this old issue of VIBE magazine with a piece on SPM!

http://books.google.com/books?id=7icEAAAAMBAJ&lpg=PP1&dq=vibe%202000&pg=PA122&output=embed

Shit Just Can't be Easy (Open Records 3)

The guy I spoke to in the first post, on Monday, I'm going to call Mr. Open Records. The clerk (or whatever) I spoke to on the phone will be called Miss Curious in this post. If she is reading this (and I'm pretty sure she is), I hope you're ashamed of your unprofessional behavior. I thought about apologizing to Mr. Open Records for shouting at you, but you know what?
You deserved it.

That Wednesday:

I still had not received a confirmation Email, 24 hours after I submitted the second request. I called the ORU and spoke to someone who I'll call 'Miss Curious', and asked why. She looked into it, and told me she would send the confirmation Email to me, since I asked for it. Then I asked her why, if the manager I had spoken to initially said that he would re-open the prior request, did the woman I spoke to yesterday tell me I would have to submit a new request and wait an additional ten days.

She pulled up my email to take a look at my request, and OH MY GOD. She became very upset by my request, and informed me that because it involved the sexual assault of a minor, they didn't have to release it to me. When I asked why, she said fine, she would submit it, but she would tell the person who was processing it to flag it to be sent to the AG's office.

Now,  I knew that meant the Houston PD would send my request, along with a letter of their own explaining why they don't want to release it, to the Attorney General's office. I knew I would have to wait 60 business days for a decision. I knew this because I had done my own research into how this works, but Miss Curious didn't bother to explain any of that to me. I guess she thought I'd be intimidated by her 'angry voice' and leave her alone.

But I wasn't, so I didn't. I asked her why she was going to flag it. I explained to her that I had already waited the 10 days the law allows, and I didn't want to wait until mid-October because of their screw-up.
"I'm going to send this to the District Attorney's office and they'll explain it to you."
I asked her to give me a reason why she was going to flag it. "552 101." She said.
Uh, okay, what the hell is that? The Freedom of Information Act? Some other statute?
She told me it was from the Texas Public Information act, and I told her I'd check it out and call back.
"Okay."

I looked at the section she was referring to, 552.101 of the TPIA.

Sec. 552.101.  EXCEPTION:  CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.  Information is excepted from the requirements of Section 552.021 if it is information considered to be confidential by law, either constitutional, statutory, or by judicial decision.

Now stick with me here, because the legal bullshit gets pretty deep. I get a lot of information from documents available online, to the public, from the Harris County Clerk's Website. Here is a disclaimer from that site:

Please be advised that unless documents are sealed by a Court order or otherwise made confidential by law, ALL documents filed with the Harris County District Clerk’s Office are PUBLIC RECORD. Under the Texas Rules, and according to General Order No. 2004-11; In the Matter of Protecting Personal Privacy in Public Case Files; In the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas (“The Order”),

THE RESPONSIBILITY FOR REDACTING OF PERSONAL IDENTIFIERS WHERE PERMITTED BY THE COURT AND PROPERLY FILING DOCUMENTS TO BE SEALED RESTS SOLELY WITH COUNSEL AND THE PARTIES.

Therefore, the Harris County District Clerk’s Office STRONGLY urges Attorneys to be cognizant of the confidential or otherwise private information that is contained in documents filed in District and County Courts in Harris County and recommends that Attorneys and parties make the proper sealing motions and file the appropriate sealing orders to protect such information from being publicly available in person or online.

General Order No. 2004-11
"Documents that have been sealed or otherwise restricted by the court WILL NOT be electronically available."

So all the information I have from the HCDC website is public record. If it's published online, it's public. It's been available online probably for years. Some information I found through other online sources like Youtube videos, specifically this one.
This means that there's nothing in the police report about the crime that's not already been made public by the courts or other sources, except maybe a home address from ten years ago. They can line that shit out with a sharpie for all I care, I'm not trying to get information about the plaintiff.

So I informed myself and called her back. I told her I didn't see any legal reason why she could not release the information to me. She told me (becoming very angry) that she would 'let the Attorney General's office explain it to me.' Again I asked her for a legal reason to explain why she was flagging it. She shouted "Because it's embarassing!", interupting me repeatedly while I told her that 'embarassing' wasn't a reason allowed by the Texas Public Information Act.
I told her that it may be embarassing, but the information was available on the Harris County District Clerk's website and is therefore already public, right?
She didn't believe me. She argued with me.
Finally, she tells me to give her the name of the website.
"It's the Harris County District Clerk's website. You can check it for yourself..."
Now, when I said that, I meant "You can check it later, after you've explained to me your reasons for flagging my request".

But no, Miss Curious decided she was going to check it right then and there, while I was on the phone with her. I couldn't believe it. What the fuck did that have to do with her job? She proceeded to keep me on the phone while she went to the district clerk's website, asking me to help her by telling her what tabs to click on, what information to enter. I was absolutely floored by her behavior. I got SO pissed off.
"You can check it later." I said. "Right now, I'm asking you-"
"Oh, I'ma check it! "
"Why?"
"Because I'm curious!"
 OH MY GOD.
I lost if. I shouted that I was not there to satisfy her curiosity. I wanted to tell her to go fuck herself.
She repeated that she was going to submit it to the AG's office and "have them explain it to me".
"Fine, transfer me to Mr. Open Records voicemail."
"Fine."

She transfered me to the voicemail I asked for, and I left him a message asking him to get back to me and explain what she was doing and why it was allowed.

Once again, Mr. Open Records got back to me in under thirty minutes. He did not speak over me, or interupt. He listened to what I was saying, and explained that they would submit my request to the AG's office, but he was sure that his office would win because the documents might reveal personal information about the plaintiff. I pointed out to him that the information he was referring to was already considered public record. It was available at the Harris County District Clerk's Office. Online. For free. How could they possibly claim it was confidential?

He told me that the judiciary (courts) were not bound by the same rules under the Freedom of Information Act as the HPD.

What the fuck. If Miss Curious had just told me that, that one simple reason, we could have saved ourselves a very unpleasant phone call. Somehow, I doubt she knew. Her insistence that the DA's office would 'explain it to me' suggests that she didn't know enough to do it herself. She probably is not used to having her decisions challenged, and because of that can't defend them. How many people have been discouraged from seeking justice or information because of her stuck-up, know-it-all attitude?

Anyway, Mr. Open Records gave me the number to the Open Information hotline at the AG's office. They will submit their arguments about why it should be withheld, and I'll receive a copy of that document. I can submit my own arguments to the AG detailing why I believed it should be released, and the AG's office would make a decision within 45 days of receiving the packet.

If you ever need to contact the government for any reason, you will eventually have to deal with someone like Miss Curious. Be prepared for it, so they don't get to you like she did to me. I assumed, because of the professionalism of the people I had dealt with previously, that they were all like that. My mistake.

The Trouble Begins (Open Records 2)

Tuesday:

A woman from the Houston Police Department's Open Records Unit contacted me the next day, telling me that she could not release the records to me because the case was dismissed. Uh, what the FUCK? The Coy family might be a little surprised to hear that. So I argued (nicely) with her, explaining that, while all of the indictments filed in 2002 were dismissed, the 2001 investigation eventually led to his conviction.
She couldn't seem to find it, she kept pulling up files and telling me that they had been dismissed, and asking me if I had the 'Incident Report Number'.
No.
No.
Still don't have it.
No.
If I had it, I would have SENT it.

Finally I pulled up documents at the Harris County District Clerk's website and just started reading her numbers from the different documents available from Coy vs Texas. We finally established that the 'Incident Report' number was listed under 'O/R' number, and I found the right one. She told me that I would have to resubmit my request with the correct number. Even though she had the correct file, in front of her, that matched the information I had sent. Even though my request had been re-opened the day before and was presumably still legal and active.

This pissed me off a little. I had done everything they asked, and done it right. They were the ones that couldn't seem to type names or numbers correctly, or tell the difference between 'police reports from 2001' and 'indictments from 2002', but now I have to wait an additional 10 business days for the information that, as far as I can tell, they are required BY LAW to give me.

Don't get me wrong, I applaud the Open Records Unit for getting back with me very quickly, exactly when they said they would. I appreciate this lady taking the time to find the correct file. At this time, it appeared that once I got my request through the maze of the Open Records Unit, I would be able to get the file. Still I was surprised that this woman, who finds files for a living, couldn't seem to locate the one I asked for until I made it clear that I was going to keep talking to her until she found it.

But fine, I can wait. I resubmitted my request, with all the previous information plus the new incident number at around 10:30 am. I had received no confirmation email by 4:50 pm, so I called the Open Records Unit. I spoke to a woman who said that although they had received my email, they would not begin processing it until the next day, which is when I would receive my second confirmation email. Even though I had sent it two hours earlier in the business day than my first request, which was processed immediately.

It was at this point that I began to wonder if someone wasn't stalling me. It's not like Coy vs Texas happened quietly, so somebody down there knows exactly which file I want, but it felt like they were trying to discourage me from getting it by dragging their feet, working as slowly as possible and throwing stupid little obstacles (like typos) in front of me, to see if I would bother to pursue my request.

Thursday's post: Shit just can't be easy.