I was going through my files and found
an old story about Larry Sims, a man who was released after serving 24 years in
prison for rape. Prosecutors improperly withheld evidence from his defense;
2011:
“Recently
discovered DNA evidence seems to indicate that the woman who said Sims raped
her lied about the case when she claimed she did not have sex earlier with
Sims’ cousin Gerald Harding. DNA found on her sanitary napkin was a match to
that man.
Decades
ago, the cousin testified at Sims’ trial that he and the woman had consensual
sex.
With
the woman’s testimony now in doubt, a judge decided Wednesday to free Sims.”
He received his freedom, an apology
from a judge, and prosecutors dismissed the charges against him. He died last
year, still waiting for the state to fully exonerate him.
This whole situation is fucking
tragic; he was freed because the prosecutors hid physical evidence from his
defense, but it appears that charges were dropped because the DNA proved that
his accuser had lied, not because it was enough to prove that he hadn’t
committed the rape. In Texas, just because the state can’t prove you committed
a crime doesn’t mean you have enough to prove your innocence; but I digress.
In a few of his letters, Carlos Coy
has talked about how the testimony against him changed; things like Mary Doe’s
apparent inability to commit to a memory that didn’t support the State’s case. The
prosecutors saw how the evidence they were using twisted and turned, based on
variations in the child’s story; did they have any responsibility to inform the
jury that the testimony presented was malleable, and changed from one day to
the next?
Larry Sims’ case was overturned
after 24 years, when prosecutorial misconduct and a lying plaintiff were
exposed. However tragic the ending, it gives me hope that we’ll eventually see
the same light shine over Coy vs
Texas.
9 comments:
"In a few of his letters, Carlos Coy has talked about how the testimony against him changed; things like Mary Doe’s apparent inability to commit to a memory that didn’t support the State’s case. The prosecutors saw how the evidence they were using twisted and turned, based on variations in the child’s story; did they have any responsibility to inform the jury that the testimony presented was malleable, and changed from one day to the next?"
Is this all based on the Scary Movie bullshit? If so, this is pretty flimsy. If memory serves me correctly, there was confusion over whether the child saw Scary Movie I or II, but the child corrected it by basically saying, "Wait, I saw the other one." when she was presented with the movie. I think that actually enhances her credibility, since she made the correction. I don't see how that's twisting evidence. This wasn't prosecution evidence either, this was a defense exhibit.
No, I don't get the impression that there was any confusion; Mary and Jane Doe both testified, outside the presence of the jury, that she had not seen all of Scary Movie. They said that she had not seen it at home, surrounded by family, after Mary Doe rented it from a specific video store.
Then, when it became apparent that she had seen it, Mary Doe seems to have discarded her memory of renting it, instead telling the jury that they saw it at a movie theater.
Hey man i hope u get ojt soon and hey i jst found out ur daughter turned 18 ,im turnin 18 diz month to, i never knew me and her were the same age, lol damm i hope the cd comes out soon ik im buyin dat bitch
When's the next song off SON album IF not out in 45 days of last snippet?
Carlos can still ask for an appeal court he lost the last case but he can still get another chance, plus since there's more evidence than can prove his innocence now than there was before he has a greater chance to make a comeback.
There you go, just skimming through things again. I'm gonna call you Scratch n' Sniff. The whole Scary Movie thing was more about the girl seeing sexual conduct and learning what oral sex is. All the confusion about where and when they saw it, basically just unfolded. They pretty much started to dig their own hole. The defense saw this happening so they fed off of it. Also, the girls inability to remember exactly what happened, should have been looked at as a big deal. Every story that i have heard about someone being sexually assaulted, remember it like it was a day ago. It's such a disgusting and inhumane act that a person can't help but to remember everything. Even when they are children. So instead of skimming and picking spots to argue, mister "crime officianado", or whatever it was you call yourself, do some research and then come back with an intelligent argument. Much Love to SPM and fellow supporters!! FREE SPM!!!-beanieman
Free SPM HE IS INNOCENT!!!!
beanieman, that is not what we were discussing. Incandesio is claiming that evidence or testimony was twisted by the prosecution or family members, and she is basing this claim on the family's confusion over whether the child saw all of Scary Movie I or II. Yeah, that warrants a retrial alright. Call up the Attorney General, we're on to something!
Now, even though we weren't discussing it, I understand why Chip wanted to introduce the movie. Like he said, "The principle is that a child who is not sure if (the alleged act) was a dream or reality has got to get the idea from somewhere." And guess what? Chip was allowed to present his theory to the jury, but the jury didn't buy it. Isn't that unfortunate? Why do you think the jury didn't buy it? It's very obvious that the young girl told a stoic, detailed account of what happened that night when she took the stand. I know you don't want to believe that, but it's true. Her testimony convinced the jury to convict him. As of matter of fact, her testimony was so strong, the jury never even doubted her (according to the Corzo article). Even Chip said her testimony was strong, commenting on how boldly she spoke into the microphone. Why do you think Incandesio is so scared to get those transcripts?
Eric, you fail to see that it's not about whether or not she saw the movie; it's about how quickly the testimony changed, how that change was concealed from the jury, and how the perceived reliability of both Jane Doe and her mother should have been affected by it.
Post a Comment