Updated Thursdays

Wednesday, October 31, 2012

Vote


Alright, ladies and gentleman; normally today's post would be another letter to Pat Lykos, but election day is coming up, and early voting has been going on for a while.



I had planned to make a list of which candidates I thought you should vote for, both in the state-wide elections and local to Harris County, but I'm not going to.



I've gotten multiple flyers in the mail, Republicans accusing Democrats of being soft on crime, and Democrats accusing Republicans of doing the same thing. Honestly, I couldn't tell you that either party is more interested in justice, and not many of the candidates are advertising that they'll give fair hearing to a criminal appeal.



Still, I'm going to ask you to please, just vote. Personally, I'm going to vote against all the incumbents. I'm going to vote for Mark Bennett of Defending People, even if I have to run through heavy fire to do so. It's not because I know him, or believe he has any interest in Carlos Coy's case, but because he comes across as a guy that is willing to take unpopular stands for the sake of true justice, which I appreciate. Check out his election blog here: http://www.bennettdissenting.com/



According to Life at the Harris County Criminal Justice Center, which is written by a former prosecutor, Judge Ellis is up for re-election. That's a local election so y'all Houstonians will have to figure out if he's worth keeping.



Mark Anderson is running as the Republican candidate for Harris County District Attorney, and Lloyd Oliver as the Democrat. A lot of people have claimed he's a joke, and apparently not even the Democrat Party wanted him as their candidate, but one major point in his favor, as far as I'm concerned, is that he claims he will continue the reforms that Pat Lykos has instituted.



I wish I had more for you, but to be honest I'm feeling pretty grim and disillusioned with the whole process. Everyone's catering to fear and trying to curry favor with voters that don't give two shits if 'The Other' is wrongfully imprisoned.



Still, I'm going to vote, and I hope you will too.




Sunday, October 28, 2012

Comments 2

Today we have more from Eric, whom I first replied to in Comments. This is the first half of my reply to several of his posts. He makes a lot of points here, and he's kind of jumping all over the place, so if I missed one, let me know.

Eric said:


Sorry for returning so late.


I haven't read the transcripts, I'm also going off what I've found online. I'm still hoping Carlos will show us all of her testimony, but I have a hunch he won't.

Great, so we're working from the same information. The doubt I feel regarding his conviction is rooted in Harris County's history of false convictions; in the scandals of the Children's Assessment Center, the public humiliation they suffered when the crime lab was shut down. Where is your faith in their veracity coming from?

[The statement “news reports of her testifying, three times, that she couldn’t really remember the assault.”] is incorrect. I think what you are referring to is when the prosecutor asked her "Do you remember it clearly?", and she then said "No." There is a big difference between saying you don't remember something clearly than saying you don't really remember something at all. Do you see how you're twisting her words around to fit your agenda? Not cool.


Aw, gosh darn it. I work so hard to be cool, and then I go and screw it up. No, what I said was not incorrect. Here's the article: http://www.chron.com/CDA/archives/archive.mpl/2002_3544250/girl-says-alleged-assault-by-rapper-wasn-t-a-dream.html
Let me give you a play-by-play.
During the prosecutor's initial questioning, the girl states that she doesn't remember the incident and it could have been a dream. The exact phrasing of the question and answer are not quoted in the article, but it says she 'wasn't sure what had happened and thought it could have been a dream.'
That's statement number 1.
The prosecutor follows up with this: “Do you remember it clearly?”
The girl says “No.”
That's statement number 2.
From the article: Under cross-examination by defense lawyer Chip Lewis, the girl again said she was not really sure what had happened because she might have been dreaming.
That's statement number 3.
She wasn't sure what happened; she expressed doubt about whether it happened in reality, or in a dream. Show me where I said she couldn't remember it 'at all', because I don't think I've said that. The news articles are fairly clear about her statements that she couldn't remember it well, or clearly, and that she wasn't sure it had happened, so I'm going to go ahead and stick with 'she couldn't really remember the assault.'

Her testimony was obviously strong. She gave a step by step account of what happened that night. This is confirmed in multiple articles. To this day Carlos has not done that.
There are a few articles that mention how confident she was on the stand, how clear and precise her testimony was. How is that possible if she couldn't remember it clearly? If she couldn't remember it clearly, how could she testify about it so clearly? If she's fuzzy on the details to the point where she's saying that it might very well have been a dream, how was she able to give a concise, step-by-step account of what happened?


This is a very libelous assumption.
I'm pretty sure there's no such thing as a 'libelous assumption.' You can have a false assumption, which is what my opinion might be, or a libelous statement, which it is not. A very libelous statement would be “Such-and-such manipulated her into lying, and that's why she says she can't really remember,” assuming it was false. Truth is an absolute defense against libel. I pointed out that, generally speaking, coming up with details about an event you didn't experience can be difficult, which is non-specific and very true.
The inference that I make, that she was unsure of details because she wasn't assaulted, might be libelous, except that I'm assuming that she actually believed the story and, in good faith, simply admitted she couldn't remember it clearly. So instead of saying something defamatory (i.e., she was lying) I'm saying she was confused.
My question is, why jump straight to a civil suit? Are you going to sue me out of my decrepit house and all the crappy possessions therein?
Do you have proof that she was told to repeat a fabricated story? Of course you don't.
Of course I don't; if I did, the tagline of the blog wouldn't be 'Searching For The Truth Behind Carlos Coy's Conviction', it would be 'The Story Of How My Awesomeness And Insight Saved Carlos Coy From Continued Wrongful Incarceration.' or, alternately, 'How I Proved That Harris County Wrongfully Incarcerated A Famous Rapper, But Still Refuses To Admit Wrongdoing And Release Him, A La Michael Morton.'
A little wordy, perhaps. I'll keep working on it.
And she didn't just repeat the basic gist of a story. She gave a step by step account of what happened that night. Everything from the dinner, to playing with Carley, to Carlos ordering them to dance, to Carlos caressing her, to the assault, and to the drive home. She described the assault in detail, testifying what he was doing with his left and right hand, the licking, and she even testified she was covered in slobber afterwards. You need to ask Carlos for the entire transcript though. That would help clear this up even more.
You didn't get all this from 'South Park Monster'. Either you're embellishing what you've read in news accounts, or you have information I don't, so I can't really reply to it. How about sharing?

You go on to talk about neutral, untainted interviews. I agree, they are important, and as far as we know all of the interviews with this little girl were neutral and untainted. There is no evidence she was even asked any leading questions on the stand or in police interviews. Incandesio, it seems to me that you are assuming things that aren't even true.


As far as we know...” I think it's mighty big of you to give the State so much credit when a man's freedom is at stake, but me, personally? I know no such thing. I know that the reason kids are supposed to have the initial interview with a trained specialist is because it is so easy to screw it up. I know that the reason they are supposed to be recorded is because it is so easy to misrepresent what was said, to lean on a kid, knowingly or not, to get the story you want to hear. I know that there have been a few high-profile cases, and even more quietly resolved, less-publicized cases in which these problems lead to wrongful convictions. You can read through the blog for a few of them.

The circumstantial evidence did indeed qualify as such, that's why it was allowed into Court. A child therapist who interviewed the victim is allowed to state her opinion on the matter. A police officer is allowed to do the same.


I already explained to you what circumstantial evidence is; it's evidence by inference. A + B could probably equal C. What you're referring to as circumstantial evidence is hearsay evidence, which is not allowed in any type of criminal case except molestation cases. Why? Because it's notoriously unreliable.
Just because the opinion comes from the mouth of a state-sanctioned expert doesn't make it reliable, especially when those experts are unfamiliar with what seems to be extremely pertinent aspects of the case, like the child's medical history.

Imagine if you or someone you love was sexually assaulted, and there was no physical evidence or witnesses. You would still want the perpetrator brought to justice, right? Would it be fair for you to be ignored? If you give an accurate account of what happened that logically makes sense, I'm sure you would want to be believed too.
No. No, I'm not going to imagine it was me, because I am willing to admit that I have no idea how I would react if I thought my child had been molested. I'd like to think I would calmly and rationally wait for the facts to come in, but I don't know that I would. I think it's very likely I would become completely unhinged, lose my grip on reality and abandon all pursuit of justice in favor of a burnt-earth campaign for retribution. THAT is the whole reason for an impartial, 'proof-beyond-a-reasonable-doubt' justice system to exist, to protect people from the blind fury of their fellow human beings.
But since you're obviously into cerebral exercises, imagine it was you being tried, just your word against that of a little girl, with “no physical evidence or witnesses.” Can you imagine watching as the state, with more money and influence than you'll ever have, tore you down piece by piece and took away everything that ever mattered based on the “accurate account of what happened that logically makes sense”, given by someone who can't even say with 100% certainty that it wasn't a dream?
Have you ever been punished for something you didn't do, Eric? Any event, even something from your childhood. Do you remember the feelings of helplessness and rage that resulted? Now, think of that undeserved punishment being meted out not just against you, but against your family, your children, your friends, your livelihood.
Imagine that, for just a minute, and then really consider if you're willing to give the state carte blanche to inflict that kind of suffering on an innocent person.
Ethical standards and laws being broken? Show me where in the Carlos Coy case where the prosecution broke a single law. Show me the underhandedness involved. You will not be able to.
Uh, no shit. Not yet, anyway. See the previous paragraph about proof & taglines.
So what do I have? I have a strong feeling, like Heidi Ruiz. I have an opinion based on incomplete knowledge of the child's symptoms and history, like Susan Szczgielski. I have inferred from the past behavior of the Harris County D.A.'s office, much like the inferrence drawn from witnesses against Carlos Coy by the jury, that there has been a miscarriage of justice.
If that's enough to justify the original court case, I'd say it's enough to justify the struggle for a new trial.
 ***
 
This will be continued in another post, as Eric wrote quite a bit more. As I mentioned in the last post I love talking about this case, so if you have a new argument or disagree with what I've written, please let me know!

Saturday, October 27, 2012

Weekend Reading 47

Vote in the Facebook poll to choose a question for SPM: http://www.facebook.com/SPM.Aftermath

Also, check out this blog post from Simple Justice about the laws used to keep credibility-affecting evidence from juries in rape or molestation cases:

"The case against Halter was built solely on the testimony of his daughters, with no forensic evidence behind it. The basic "she said, he said," scenario, coupled with the prejudice favoring a child and against an adult, favoring a female and against a male. While this doesn't mean it couldn't happen, it also doesn't mean it did."

Wednesday, October 24, 2012

Quick Updates from Los (5)

Quick Update: Our Cancer, Our Cure

                                                                                                              10/19/12

 

Fam,

 

            Back in the mid-nineties, when I was coming up in the rap game, there were several other Mexican-owned rap labels in Houston. These guys made it more than clear that I was their competition, not the music industry. Other rappers were selling millions of albums, yet they were more concerned with what SPM was doing. The more I accomplished the more the tension grew. Honestly, I can’t think of one other label, of those mentioned, that didn’t have at least a few people hating on Dope House Records. Am I the only person who sees how fucking sad that is?

 

            Aren’t we supposed to be doing this so that our kids can know that anything is possible? It never had to be me at the top. I rooted for everyone, and wished everyone success.

 

            I guess these fools thought if I got hit by a truck, or a bullet, they would be able to take my place. Well, I did get hit by a bullet so to speak, and I’ve been in prison the last fiscal decade. Where are all these dudes at? I get every issue of Billboard and they’re not on the charts. My last two albums were the number 6 and 5 rap albums in America. I’m still the number one selling Mexican American rap artist in the nation, and some of these same dudes are still talking down.

 

            If you hate yourself, you’ll hate your own kind. I got a letter the other day from a homie who said, “Los, my little brother goes around telling people that he’s half black, but he’s a full-blooded Mexican. He’s nineteen years old and hard to talk to. Do you have any advice on what I can tell him?”

 

            I’ve met people like that. For whatever reason, it makes them feel more valuable to say they’re part White, or Black, or Siberian Husky. This is the state some of us are in, and it’s ridiculous because we’re a powerful race.

 

            Our enemy is hate. It’s a cancer. On my “Cages” update I spoke about how Mexican neighborhoods are infested with gangs, and how all those kids inherit enemies. The institution of gangs is a machine that takes kids and destroys their lives. The government knows that we’re killing each other, but they look the other way. For some reason they don’t want us to thrive, to be healthy so they appreciate the fact that we’re eliminating ourselves. The end result is a race with few accomplishments to be proud of.

 

            Our solution is simple, and at the same time, almost impossible. For those who have love, it’s just a matter of using it. For those who don’t, well, how can you make chicken soup with no chicken? Still, the answer is love. Do you have it? The Bible says that it’s easy to love those who love you. Anybody can do that. You get no reward for that. But when you love your enemies, those who curse you and hate you, that’s when you have love.

 

            I know you’ve heard people say, “As long as a person shows me respect, I’ll show him respect. But if he has no respect, he won’t get any from me.”

 

            Well, fuck, it’s easy to respect respectful people. Anyone can do that. That doesn’t mean you have respect. You have real love, real respect, real kindness, when you have those things without condition.

 

            There’s lots of hateful people, but most times it’s not personal. It’s more about who they are, rather than who they’re hating on. If we were never born, they’d be talking shit about someone else, trust me. Just like you drill a hole in hopes to strike oil, people hate in hopes to strike drama. It’s an addiction that doesn’t allow them to be happy with happy.

 

            Some of us won’t join gangs, we won’t be criminals, we aren’t hateful because we don’t want all the worry, the stress, and darkness that comes from those lifestyles. Other of us don’t mind at all because the drama is familiar to us. The feelings we experienced from being raised in chaos are no different than the ones we get from living foolish lives. Even in all the pain, we feel at home.

 

            A while back I was watching Divorce Court, and there was a Mexican American couple on there. The dude had tattoos on his face like the make-up of a clown and it caught my attention. As I listened in, I learned that he was a gang member who wanted to change his life. He and his wife had a baby girl, and he wanted a better future for his daughter. So the judge asked his wife, “Why do you want to divorce him?” She answered, "Because I married a gangster, and that’s what I want.”

 

            Peace and Happiness are treasures to those who know them, but they’re strangers to those who don’t. And people don’t feel comfortable around strangers. This chick didn’t feel satisfied in a sensible environment. She wanted a vato she could be worried about, someone who had dangerous enemies. She wanted to cry and be scared and do all the dumb shit that goes with that lifestyle. It’s not that she’s making herself want these things, they’re natural attractions, and people follow their hearts.

 

            It starts from the very first day you come into this world. In fact, during your first twelve months of life, your brain absorbs more information than any other year you’ll ever live. That’s why the first five years of life are so crucial, because you’re doing more than learning, you’re being made.

 

            There’s been people who have overcome a poisonous upbringing, but it’s not because they were better, they just had better resources. Maybe they were born with stronger minds, could communicate well, learn faster. Maybe they had talents that impacted people. This lifted them from a sad outcome, but they’ll still be troubled according to whatever degree of pain they were raised in. Other people may not have had those talents, same creativity, same creativity, same insight. But people like to be heard and felt, and if they can’t touch others in a positive way, they’ll just get good at hurting people.

 

            The other day I was talking to a guy on the recreation yard and he said, “I hear you, Carlos, but I don’t agree. I hurt a lot of people, and I stayed in trouble, but I wasn’t raised in poison or chaos. I had both my parents and all they did was love me. They gave me all they could. I was a fucked up person because I chose to be.”

 

            I asked him a few more questions, and we both agreed that his parents spoiled him. We can’t forget that spoiling a kid is just as chaotic as anything else. The kid grows up selfish and hurtful, which is a result of being allowed to raise himself. There’s two kinds of people in prison, the ones who weren’t given enough and the ones who were given too much. Let your “no” be “no” and show your kids who the parent is. A three-year-old couldn’t be the boss of a one-man hot dog stand, so why would you let him be the boss of his own life?

 

            I meet people all the time, and it’s hard to have love for them. They’re selfish, hateful manipulative. It helps to remind myself that there’s a reason why people do what they do. We’ll never know exactly why, but we know there is a reason. In heaven we’ll be able to watch films on people and be, like, “No wonder that motherfucker was a piece of shit!”  Hold on, I’m sorry. We’ll be, like, “Pore eso el puto le valio` madre!” Just make sure the angel who’s showing the film doesn’t know Spanish.

 

            I’m not saying that you should try to save every unfortunate person that comes your way, but don’t be one of the dumbasses who hates them.

 

            If someone is trying to get their fix of drama by fucking with you, don’t lose the game. Remember, this is about them, not you. All these people ever get is hate in return for their hate, and no one benefits from that. Firefighters don’t pull up to burning houses with flamethrowers. Those houses need water, and those haters need love. If you don’t have the time, just say, “Look. bro, I love you, and I have nothing to say. I’ll just get out of your way.”

 

            Exercise your love, and you do that with work-out equipment called “haters.” The more love you build up, the more powerful you’ll become. Does anybody know what God is, as far as what he’s made of? The Bible says God is love. It doesn’t say he has love, it says he is love. If that doesn’t tell you how powerful love is, I don’t know what will.

 

            It’s not our job to judge people, because that’s an impossible task. How the fuck do we know what people were made with? The more love you have, the more vision you’ll gain. Whether dealing with someone fifteen or fifty remember that those who were poisoned end up needing that poison just to feel complete.

 

            Here, in this prison, a funny thing goes on during football season. You’ve got these hard core Dallas Cowboy fans, then you’ve got what people call “Cowboy Haters.” The “haters” celebrate everytime the Cowboys lose. No matter who Dallas plays, they cheer for the other team. But do you really believe they hate the Cowboys? Did Tony Romo run over their puppy, then back-up and run it over again? Did Miles Austin take their parking spot then get out of his car and do a touchdown dance? Who they’re really hating on is the Cowboy fans. They know they’ll get a reaction which gives them the drama they’re seeking. One guy will yell out “Them Cowgirls got that pussy!” and all hell will break loose.

 

            It reminds me of the love you have for me, and I love you too. But these haters are using your love to get their fix. Do you really think they know me? They damn sure can’t say they know I’m guilty. You need to see what’s going on. Justin Beiber jumps on stage and the crowd goes berserk. A hater jumps on the internet, and the crowd goes berserk. They’ve got nothing to back up what they say because there was no evidence in my case. How could there be? The dumb bitch, Officer Ruiz, told Atlantic Magazine what a guilty person I was, yet she’s the same person who refused to collect, or ever try to collect any evidence. Why? Because she knew there would be none. All she’s doing is covering up for herself because the system knows they fucked me over.

 

            Like I said, most times the hate is nothing personal, but sometimes it could be. Ya never know, a few of these haters could be enemies I made somewhere down the road. Maybe someone who caught me on a bad day, and thought I was rude. Or someone who’s girlfriend ended up in my hotel room. I gave more hoes dick breath than a 1970’s porno star.

 

            Mostly, though, people just enjoy hurting people. Whether it’s politics, the Cowboys, SPM, they’ll do anything to pick a fight. The internet, I’ve learned, is a great place to spit-box all got-damn day. Don’t fall into that world. Next thing ya know, you’re sixty-years-old and didn’t do a fucking thing in life.

 

            I’m not saying you shouldn’t respond to hateful people but do it with love. They can tell if they’ve upset you by the way you respond. If you don’t have the love to deal with them, don’t worry together we’ll grow, and get to where we need to be, Lord willing.

 

            It’s funny because Incandesio has never heard me talk about playerism yet she handles haters so beautifully. Even when they call her names, she never stoops down to their level. She knows that when you hate them, you become them. She told this one guy, “It warms my heart that you would spend some time on my blog.”

 

            How true that is. We only have a certain amount of heartbeats, and after that number is up, our time on earth is up. If someone is spending heartbeats on us, we must be important to them.

 

            There’s an old song that says “There’s a thin line between love and hate.” There’s also a thin line between hate and love. These haters are spending time with us because they want to be a part of what we’re doing. Their part isn’t exactly positive, but they make the game complete. How can you run a touchdown without people trying to tackle you? To be a winner, there has to be a loser, and that’s why haters are so important. The guy who Incandesio responded to, called me a child molester, or a child rapist, or something to that nature. I don’t think it gets any worse than that, but this guy doesn’t know me. He’s basically just saying, “Hey, I’ve got nothing to do, so I’m hoping you guys will let me in the game.”

 

            I have no problem with that, because I’ve been getting hated on all my life. Way before these charges, way before my rap career, Carlos Coy has always been extremely loved by the player race, and extremely hated by the hater race. It’s kept me on my toes, kept my mind at work, and made me who I am today.

 

            When I was free, I would have put that hater’s brain in his lap because my understanding was average, at best. But, not only has prison saved my life, it’s encouraged more personal growth than anything I’ve ever faced. If I had the chance to respond to that guy today, I would say something like this: “I’m sorry you feel that way, little brother, and honestly, I’d probably feel the same way. I used to think that if you’re found guilty in a court of law, it’s because you were guilty. But I learned how untrue that is. I saw, with my own eyes, a courtroom operating like a corrupt, third world country. One day I’ll get a new trial and prove my innocence and I’d love for you to join us. Our movement is nothing complicated, it’s just about helping our youth stay out of gangs, helping those on destructive paths, and jammin to the dopest music on earth. For now, I’m sorry your role is to hate, but it’s all part of the plan. I need you just like I need those who love me. You keep me focused, and although it gets tiresome, it strengthens me more than you know. Just watch as I grow more powerful, and I say that with all respect.”

 

            Well, my people, we’ve come to an end, but I’ll be writing you more, shortly. Let me say that everything I wrote on this letter, I wrote for you and for me. I struggle and slip just like anyone else. On my last “SPM Responds”, I called haters every dick-lickin, nut-nibblin, bitch-born bastard in the book. I’m damn sure not as good as Incandesio, but, like I said, together we’ll grow, and get to where we need to be, Lord willing.

 

Con Amor,

Los

Quick Sixteen
"Ex-plain That"
 
Seven hundred cold days that my pen lay flat

first line slapped the game into a ten-day nap

second line was like feedin unfed stray cats

can't ya see that people tired of this ben gay rap

nigga snatch ya by the throat, twenty neck veins snap
 
every word that I write, let the death rate stack
 
Los tie compitition to some wet train tracks
 
fuck a steppin stone, make'em bloody flesh paved paths
 
ain't but one fuckin king in this chess game match
 
I am he, nigga hotta than a jet plane's ass
 
even laws tryna ask me where my webpage at
 
go to "S" to da "P" dot Mex SAVE SLASH
 
let the haters and the so-called best stay mad
 
just pulled it out the microwave, fresh-made crack
 
see I died a dark death, bitch, but then came back
 
next album is The SON, tryda ex-plain that....haha!

Friday, October 19, 2012

Questions for SPM

Got a question for SPM? Send it in to the blog! I'll put four up for voting on the Facebook page next week.

There will be no post on Monday, Oct 22. I'll see y'all on Thursday.

Wednesday, October 17, 2012

Letter to Pat Lykos 29


It's time for another letter to Lykos; I'd appreciate it very much if you'd print this out, or write your own, or download one of the flyers to send in this month. I highly reccomend checking out the website mentioned in it, as that case is currently being looked at by the Innocence Project of Texas.

 

The Honorable Pat Lykos
1201 Franklin St
Houston, TX
77002

Ma'am,



I'm writing to you about the case of Carlos Coy, #908426.



As you may be aware, one of the 'San Antonio Four' will be released on parole soon. Convicted in 1997 of brutally molesting two young girls, Anna Vasquez has been fighting for exoneration for years. Although one of the victims has admitted that the charges were fabricated, these women remain incarcerated.



While not initially eligible for parole because she refused to talk about the crime she was convicted of in group therapy sessions, Vasquez submitted a polygraph test to the parole board which seems to have worked in her favor; her mother shared this news a few days ago at the preview of a documentary about the case.



With the Innocence Project of Texas involved, I have great faith that these four women will eventually receive justice. A witness's recantation can be a powerful thing, but not always enough to set the wrongfully convicted free.



A website that details the case, fourliveslost.com, describes the difficulties the wrongfully accused face better than I could:



In false child abuse allegations, there is never physical or corroborating evidence – only the testimony of the alleged victim(s). Although trial theory states the prosecution must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, the reality of these cases is the defendant is presumed guilty, and must prove their innocence. What they must prove is that no crime occurred. This is a very difficult, if not impossible objective; exactly how does one produce evidence to refute an imaginary crime?



Disproving a non-event is a logical impossibility, but also the blunt reality of the defendant’s predicament. The only option is to show through cumulative logic and circumstance that the alleged crimes are fabrications. Often this type of evidence is ruled irrelevant or inadmissible by the trial judge and never presented to the jury, eliminating any effective defense.



It's too late to prevent what I believe was a wrongful conviction in Coy's case but I will continue to publicize it, and work to overturn it. There are similarities to the case of the San Antonio Four; unrecorded initial interviews, a judge who seems exceptionally sympathetic to the prosecution, a spurned lover, and experts spouting unprovable theories and debunked science. Plea deals were offered but refused because the defendants could not believe they could lose a case brought with no evidence.



I hope you see, as I do, that these cases are neither uncommon nor unlikely. Please, help us investigate what happened to Carlos Coy, and bring justice to one more Texan.



Me, my address, blah blah blah.

Sunday, October 14, 2012

SPM Responds (Part 9)

9/27/12

Fam,

            I’ve got some questions here that I’d like to answer. I’m way behind on “SPM Responds”, but, as you know, The SON preparations are occupying most of my time. Here are the most voted on questions from last month, then, on my next letter, I’ll get to the ones for this month.

1.)    Would taking a lie detector test help your case?

As far as helping me by law’s standards, I don’t think so. Lie detector results are not permitted as evidence in Texas courtrooms, at least not in my trial. Evidently, some people know how to beat them and on top of that, they’re only 60 to 70 percent accurate, according to how good the person is who’s conducting the test.

            Many DA’s use them to help decide whether they want to prosecute someone. The DA’s in my case never asked that I take a lie detector test, probably because they were afraid I’d pass.

 

            I’ve been represented by many different lawyers, and I’ve always said, “Look, I’m innocent and I’d like to take a lie detector test to show you.” But their answers have always been the same, “We know you’re innocent, don’t worry about that. We’re going to give you 100 percent.”

 

            Still, I want to take the test, just for my own records. As soon as I can get out of High Security, I’m going to try to set the whole thing up. Right now, I can’t be around anyone without being handcuffed. And if I walk out of this building, my feet have to be shackled, too. They got me like Hannibal Lector around this bitch.

 

            The sad part is when I pass the test, these bitch-born, dick-lickin, finger-in-the-boody-ass haters will just say I paid off the lie detector man. lol! That was fun, let me call’em something else: Ol’ goofy, willy foo foo, moose boody-lookin-ass niggaz.

 

2.)    Will Dope House be launching their own website about your case?

We’re reconstructing our website in a major way. Compared to how our site was, the new one will be ten times better. But Incandesio is doing a superior job with her site, and we’re going to keep all-things-legal at spmaftermath.com.

 

            My “SPM Responds” section of her site is where I stay on the subject of my case. I’ve got so, so, so much to show you about my trial. I’m going to literally prove, how according to this girl’s testimony, this crime would have been impossible to commit. I’m going to prove my innocence with the exact testimony that was used to convict me. If we would have caught this during the trial, I wouldn’t be here. That will be coming in the next few letters, using the official court transcripts.

 

            So, no, Dope House Records couldn’t do a better job than Incandesio if we tried. And what makes it so beautiful, is she’s doing this all on her own. She won’t even accept money for the stamps she uses on the letters she mails me.

 

I’ll write you more, soon,

Carlos

Wednesday, October 10, 2012

More Limine







In the last post, I said that one of the first issues brought up in Coy's Habeas Corpus was his lawyer's failure to object to the state referring to the complainant as 'the victim.' This is an incomplete description. The issue brought up was the suggestion that the lawyer failed to competently defend Coy, and the first illustration of this was his failure to object to the aforementioned assumption of facts not in evidence (that the girl was a victim.)



Clarity and truth are of the utmost importance, but sometimes I write with the assumption that everyone has just read the same thing I have, and that's wrong.



The appeal focused on Lewis's lawyering performance, which is not uncommon in Habeas Corpus appeals. The problem is, proving ineffectiveness is extremely hard because a bad strategy is not the same thing as incompetence.



I don't know if Chip Lewis did a good job or a bad job, but he seems to have known in advance that the prosecution, the prosecution's witnesses, and even their experts, were going to introduce 'facts not in evidence; their assumption that the child was a victim. Forewarned is forearmed, and he tried to prevent it by filing the (denied) motion in limine.



The Habeas Corpus says it was rejected because there was no precedence for it; after all, it seems a little ridiculous to ask the judge to make a rule requiring the other side follow the rules, right? So no prohibition was put into place, and in order to avoid 'antagonizing' the jury, the prosecution was allowed to present a fact to the jury that was not in evidence, unobstructed by any objection.



People suggest it's not that big a deal; how could one little word, even if used repeatedly, decide the outcome of a case? Well, according to the Houston Chronicle, the jury was leaning towards acquittal before suddenly reversing themselves. I would imagine, in close cases like this, that every word has meaning; any advantage that you can get, by any means, could turn the tide in your favor.



What would have happened if the State had not decided early on, before a single witness had spoken, that the complainant had been assaulted, and was therefore a victim? What outcome would that have lead to?


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




Sunday, October 7, 2012

Motion in Limine


***
I've edited the first paragraph for clarity.
 
***

If you've been reading the blog for long, you know that the first issue brought up in Coy's Habeas Corpus was that his defense lawyer failed to object to the prosecution, and prosecution's witnesses, repeatedly referring to the complainant as 'the victim' in court. I have been staring at this paperwork for over a year now, and it just never really jumped out at me until now. This week I started reading the court's response more carefully, and...Holy shit.



The defense lawyer tried to file a 'motion in limine' to prevent the state and the state's witnesses from referring to the child as 'victim.' Since it hadn't been proven that anything had happened to her, it makes sense. 'In limine' means 'at the start', and from what I can find these motions are usually submitted before the trial, when they were deciding what evidence and witnesses could be used.



I'm not a lawyer, but it seems like an oddly specific request. Like, “please don't knee me in the balls and then infect me with the Ebola virus.” Why would you even bring it up if there wasn't a good reason to believe it was going to happen?



This motion was denied, presumably by the judge. I'm trying to find a copy of the paperwork, but until then I'm going off what's written in the response to Coy's Habeas Corpus.



So...What does this look like to me? It looks like Lewis, a former prosecutor, tried to head off a strategy that he knew would be employed during the trial; implying to the jury that there was no question a crime had occurred, and creating a victim. Once he was told “Sorry, we're not going to prohibit the home team from breaking the rules”, he was left with a choice. Object repeatedly whenever the term is used and 'antagonize' the jury, as the Appeals Court put it, or let it slide unless the breach was extremely obvious.



On page 13 of the Habeas Corpus, the Appeals Court said “...merely referencing O.S. as a “victim” does not undermine confidence in the outcome of the trial...”



But Coy's defense strategy was built around the idea that nothing actually happened to the child in question; that there was no crime committed, and therefore, no victim. A decent strategy, I guess, given the lack of physical evidence, except that the State, who's case was built on this child's testimony, undermined it by telling them repeatedly that she was the victim.



By allowing it, the court discounted Coy's entire defense. Nothing presented in his favor mattered because they established at the very beginning that they had a victim; if you have a victim, someone must have victimized her.

Friday, October 5, 2012

Weekend Reading 46

An interview with Jaime 'Pain' Ortiz by Love Athena & Beat Finders TV. He talks a little about being a part of Dope House, spends a lot of time on the process of making the music, and the case. Check it out:

Part 1
Part 2


Thanks to the Anon that left the link, good catch!

Wednesday, October 3, 2012

Letter to Pat Lykos 28


Time for another letter to Pat Lykos! This one's pretty long, and I want to talk more about this issue in later posts. Every now and then I get to this point where I think I've written everything I have to say about the case. It's a little scary, because I don't want to be 'done' with this until we see justice.

I had that feeling again, and I was reading through the Habeas Corpus to try and break something loose. Although the D.A.'s designation of the child as a 'victim' before the verdict had even been given was the first issue on appeal, it didn't strike me as significant until I realized that Lewis had filed a motion in limine to prevent it from happening; technically I realized it after I Googled the meaning of 'in limine' because, well, I don't speak fucking Latin.

Anyway, as always, I'd really appreciate if you'd take a minute to print this out, write your own, or simply download one of the flyers available in the toolbar on your right and send it off.

The Honorable Pat Lykos
1201 Franklin St
Houston, TX
77002


Ma'am,

     I'm writing today about the case of Carlos Coy, #908426.

     As you may be aware, one of the issues mentioned in his appeal is that the complainant was repeatedly referred to as 'the victim' throughout the trial, from the opening statements through the summation. His defense lawyer filed a motion in limine to prevent it, but the trial court denied it. By denying that motion, and then placidly allowing the term to be used in court, it appears that the court viewed the child as a victim, destroying Coy's entire defense strategy before the first witness was ever called.

     In my letters to you, I have often wondered how Coy was convicted without any physical evidence; I'm beginning to realize that by designating the child in this case a 'victim' at the very beginning, presenting anything solid would have been redundant. The State declared the child a victim, and if there's a victim, there must be a perpetrator; Coy was the only one named, and Harris County was more than happy to make it official. After the criminal court chose not to demand the State follow it's own rules at the beginning of the trial, the Court of Appeals refused to overturn the verdict since Coy's defense lawyer did not also act as referee.

     It stated, almost flippantly, that “the record reflects that Coy’s attorney repeatedly reminded the jury that it was to decide whether O.S.’s allegations were true but did not object each time O.S. Was referred to as a “victim” in passing.” (pg 15)

     Over and over and over again, that word was hammered (in passing!) into the minds of the jury. 'The victim said such-and-such'...'I know the victim'...When the prosecutor posed a question to the child's mother, blatantly assuming the truth of the allegations, the court upheld an objection 'as to the form of the question', but reading it over now, it seems more like a sop to proper etiquette than true regulation of unethical behavior.

     How can we call this trial fair when, without proof or evidence, the complainant's status as a victim was decided in advance? With no injuries or physical evidence to prove that a crime actually occurred, why was the 351st court allowed to make that determination for the jury?

     I have great faith in our justice system, and so many high expectations of it, so seeing it used to railroad citizens, be they guilty or innocent, is absolutely crushing. Please, review the case, the Habeas Corpus, and the Appeal's Court response. Consider whether this verdict should continue to not only affect Carlos Coy and his family, but to help support a precedent that, in my opinion, has doomed too many innocent men and women to prison time without regard for the facts of their cases.

Thank you for your time.

Me, my address, blah blah blah.