Even in their closing arguments, the D.A.’s had to admit that they
should’ve collected evidence. It was something that couldn’t be denied, so it
was only smart to say so.
Criminal Trial
(Court
Transcripts Volume 17 of 31 pgs. 95-96)
(By D.A. Andrews-Closing
Arguments)
Let’s
talk about the panties. Mr. Lewis wanted me to address that question. Why
didn’t we get the panties. All I can say is maybe we should have. Maybe in an
abundance of caution the cops should have gotten the panties. Maybe there would
have been DNA. Most probably there wouldn’t have based on what they knew at the
time, there was touching.
Their
own expert didn’t come in here and tell you there would have been massive
amounts of DNA like Mr. Lewis said she would have. She said, “You never know.
It’s uncertain. Not likely.”
So,
what, it doesn’t change the fact that (Jane Doe) came in here and told you the
truth. Doesn’t change the fact that with her testimony by itself we have
satisfied our burden of proof because she’s credible, because we all know that
she was telling the truth about what happened.
__________
Well done, Ms. Andrews. All those debate
competitions you had in high school and college have done you a service. But if
I may slice through your horse manure, I’d be much obliged.
First of all, why
would Chip say there would be massive amounts of DNA on panties that have been
washed? No, he had an expert testify to the fact that it was still possible to
collect DNA from washed clothes. The massive amount would have been if the
panties had not been washed.
You also forgot to
mention the sheets, Ma’am. The original story was that I had done this for
“about a minute” and the child felt slobber on her. Even one drop of saliva on
those sheets would have produced thousands, if not millions, of DNA cells.
Seems you only addressed the addressible while dressed in that silly dress the
color of caviar dressing. What? I’m not being silly.
You also said,
“....it doesn’t change the fact (Jane Doe) came in here and told you (the jury)
the truth.”
If truth can
change, Ms. Andrews, then my dream is to, one day, be a Chinese man. But it
doesn’t change, even if I owned a convenience store and kicked people out for
looking at magazines and not buying them. “You no buy, get out!”
Anyway, the facts
I’ve shown on this letter, so far, should set off alarms as to the real story
of my case. But I still hear questions, questions like, “But why, Carlos? Why
would the system be so interested in destroying you? Don’t they have enough
real child abuse cases than to help fabricate one? Almost everyone accused of
these crimes say the same type of shit. Why should we believe you?”
Those are good
questions, and I’ve explained in a previous letter (go to SPM Responds Part 8.e ) the relationship I had with the
authorities in Houston. I was blowing up like a bomb in my town, I was the
fastest growing rap artist in the nation, and I was using my new found power to
fuck with the cops. I never realized how vulnerable I was making myself if I
were ever to get into a legal problem.
At every concert I
had the crowd chanting “fuck the police!” and HPD despised SPM. I despised them
just as well, for the times they violated my rights, all the times they treated
me less than human, all the times they abused the badge on their uniform. I
guess I didn’t make it clear that my beef was only with those prejudiced
dicksuckers, those hateful hoes, those cowards that hide behind their
authority. I admire good cops, in fact, there’s nothing more honorable than to
put your life on the line for another person. But the fact remains, I was at
war with Houston authorities, and when they had someone with a story that could
potentially end my reign, they did backflips to make that story work. You
should read that previous letter to get an idea of the situation.
On the other hand,
I’m not asking you to believe me about anything. I’m asking you to believe the
facts, because those don’t lie. I wouldn’t believe me either, or anyone found
guilty of hurting a child. That’s because I used to think like you, that
American courtrooms operated with unconditional integrity, they seek the truth
one hundred percent of the time. In some cases, that’s not true, my friends,
and that’s why there’s tons of people in this place for crimes they didn’t do.
Not long ago, a
man was given life in prison for a crime he didn’t commit. In fact, he was in
jail during the time the crime took place, so there’s no way he could have done
it. He was later exonerated, thank God, but guess whose courtroom he was found
guilty in? That’s right, the same judge’s courtroom where I was found guilty.
And those are the kind of results you get when you have a judge who does all he
can, uses all his body language, spoken language, to help D.A.’s win their
cases. Not every defendant is guilty, and that’s not how a judge should look at
the person sitting on the left side of his courtroom.
When Chip told me
our judge was Ellis, he said, “They gave us the worst possible judge in the
system.”
I didn’t
understand what he meant, I thought a judge was a judge, a neutral official
that made sure everyone got a fair trial. But instead I saw a man who made
clear to everyone in that jury box that he was against me. That kind of
demeanor influences a jury, they pick up on it. They believe that the judge
knows more about the case than them, so they follow his lead.
Judges are
supposed to be randomly picked for cases, but it was no random coincidence that
we were given that judge. The system was afraid of Carlos Coy, not because they
believed I was guilty, but because I had the power to influence an entire
generation, and my message was anti-authority, was everything they feared.
Honestly, who can
blame them for their concern? I was a bald-faded, pants saggin, pot smokin,
ex-drug dealer gangster rapper. Being a Mexican from an all-Black hood probably
didn’t help either. I’m not pulling the race card, here, because anyone who
knows me, knows I’m color blind. But there’s powers in this country that can
stop a man dead in his tracks, and I wouldn’t have believed it myself until I
saw all the crooked shit they did to win this case.
There were no
Mexicans in my jury, no hispanics at all, and that should’ve told me I was in a
predicament. There was one black man in my jury, and he was the only one
fighting for me. That’s why the verdict took three days. That man told my
lawyer that he knew I wasn’t guilty, but he was tired of arguing so he agreed
with the rest of the jury. He said that he needed to get home that evening and
get ready for his daughter’s graduation, that’s why he gave in. Chip told me
that, and I told Chip to get an affidavit from the man, saying what he told
Chip. But I don’t know what happened with that. I think the man said those
things because he thought it would get me a new trial. Maybe it would have, I
don’t know.
But I ain’t
trippin, trust me. They did nothing but save my life, and Jesus is still king.
Damn, I done got
religious on ya ass!
Clearly, I was
doomed from the beginning. Even before the trial began, the judge decided he
would give the jury his own definition of “reasonable doubt.” It was this long
speech, full of negative connotations that worked against me. Let me give you a
few paragraphs of his efforts.
Criminal Trial
(Court
Transcripts Volume 7 of 31 pg. 100)
THE
COURT: Now, the point being beyond a reasonable doubt is not 100 percent
sure because of the fact that the only way anyone knows something 100
percent sure is if you see it with your own eyes. . And,
obviously, if you’re a witness on the case you can’t be on the jury. That would
get a little strange, right? “Call your next witness!” “I call Juror No.
8.” No.
No. No.
The
jury has to be someone who is impartial and knows nothing about the case of
their own knowledge and so, therefore, beyond a reasonable doubt is not 100
percent sure.
Now,
we know the ceiling basically. It’s not 100 percent sure. Now, there are
some things, again, that we know that it’s not.
__________
I underlined the
“not 100 percent sures” so that you can see that he’s trying to drill this
message into their heads. Of course, he’s right, you can’t be 100 percent sure,
but to say it three times, in three consecutive paragraphs, is sending the jury
a message. The message is clear: “You guys will not be 100 percent sure
about this case, but don’t let that stop you from convicting this person.”
His entire hour,
or two hour, oration was nothing but rhetoric concerning not having to be
absolutely sure, not having to believe it 100 percent.
A few pages before
this testimony, he asked a prospective juror a few questions.
Criminal Trial
(Court
Transcripts Volume 7 of 31 pgs. 95-96)
THE
COURT: What do you do for a living, Mr. T--?
PROSPECTIVE
JUROR: Logistics management.
THE
COURT: Computers?
PROSPECTIVE
JUROR: No, sir transportation.
THE
COURT: Transportation, all right. Mr. T--, beyond a reasonable doubt, what does
that mean?
PROSPECTIVE
JUROR: Beyond a reasonable doubt means there’s no shadow of a doubt in your
mind at all.
THE
COURT: Okay.
PROSPECTIVE
JUROR: All doubt is gone.
THE
COURT: All right. Let’s work on that.
__________
And work on that
he did. He pounded away at the answer Mr. T—gave: “All doubt is gone.” But what
he did more than anything, was to make it abundantly clear that he didn’t want
the defendant to win. It was unbelievable, but I still wasn’t worried because I
didn’t believe I would actually lose.
Later in the
trial, Chip asked if he would give the jury the original definition of
“reasonable doubt”, the one that was made specifically for trials. Chip asks,
“Yes, Your Honor. We would ask that the reasonable doubt instruction be
included in the charge...”
The judge’s
response was simply, “That will be denied.”
All right. Let me get back on track.
As you know, Chip made Ruiz admit that she should have collected those
garments, those sheets, and really anything that any cop would have, should
have collected to help her case. He did this right in front of the jury, but it
wasn’t enough. The little girl’s story left such a deep impression on them,
they couldn’t or wouldn’t process the telltale signs of dishonesty. Jane Doe
was an extremely smart child, and after seven months of practice, her narrative
was well executed.
Me, I didn’t even
take the shit serious. I was working on a movie script during the trial! We
were in preproduction for my first film, a story about my life, and I didn’t
want this bullshit to distract or delay progress. My underestimation of the
situation was probably the D.A.’s greatest weapon.
Okay. Earlier I
told you that lies, if you look close enough, will always have cracks. You’ve
seen some of those cracks, even if you thought they were small. I said some,
though, could be as wide as rivers, which brings me to this point.
Ya see, our critic
hung to his claim that Jane Doe’s story made “logical sense” and that’s why the
jury believed her. Let’s take a look at that logical sense, if ya don’t mind.
In the trial, Jane
Doe described, exactly, how she was laying on the bed, which was like someone
would normally lay. She said she was on her back, next to my daughter. There
was even a diagram that showed the bed and her position. In fact, let me go to
the page right before her story of the “assault”, where she explains how she
was laying.
Criminal Trial
(Court
Transcripts Volume 11 of 31 pg. 89)
(D.A. Oncken questioning Jane Doe)
Q.
Yeah. How were you laying?
A.
On my back.
Q.
On your back. Do you want to turn the doll back over so I’ll remember how your
were laying?
A.
(Witness complies)
__________
Ya see, my
daughter’s bed was so high that we had to buy her a foot-stool just so she
could get on it. But that was the bed she wanted and, of course, I bought her
whatever she asked, save the baby giraffe.
In Jane Doe’s
story, she explains how I got on my knees, used one hand to pull her panties,
and the other hand, she couldn’t see.
Let me enclose a
picture of the bed, the same picture that was shown to the jury. I only have a
copy of the transcripts, so I apologize for the picture being in black and
white.
Notice how much
higher the bed is that my daughter’s double drawers on the side. It’s a small
but tall bed. If you don’t know, I’m only five foot five, so even if Jane Doe
had been laying on her “back” at the very edge of the bed, I still wouldn’t
have been able to get on my knees, extend my neck over her leg, and commit this
crime. But she wasn’t at the edge, according to her own story, she was fully on
the bed next to my daughter. Even if I were six-foot-tall, this crime would
have been physically impossible to commit.
To top it off,
they said I was masturbating, which means I would’ve had to be even further
away from the bed.
If I, or my
lawyer, or anyone would have caught this impossibility, I would not be in
prison today. Chip could’ve brought that bed into that courtroom, had me kneel
down, and show how there was no way I could have done this.
On a previous
letter (go to SPM Responds Part 8.b ) I
showed you how Jane Doe didn’t know if the assault “could be a dream, or
something like that.”
I can’t say I
know, exactly, where or how this story came about; whether a “dream”, or
“hallucinations” as her medical record suggested, something she was told to
say, something she saw, or, God forbid, something she actually experienced in
her life. All I can say is that when you make up something, you can see the
whole scene in your mind.
She could picture
me getting down on my knees, then picture me get up and walk away. A picture in
your mind doesn’t have to abide by any rules, everything runs without a hitch.
The truth, on the other hand, must abide by the rules of logic. The story
sounded good, that’s for sure, especially to the jury, but all the practice in
the world can’t make the impossible possible.
That. my friends,
is a crack as wide as the Mississippi, and it buries the notion that Jane Doe’s
testimony made logical sense.
What’s funny is
that I thought no one caught this flaw, but apparently the D.A. did. Probably,
after Oncken saw the diagram on the film projector that they had in the
courtroom, she realized the impossibility of the story. Because, even after the
child said I got on my knees, Oncken tries to suggest tat I was standing. Let’s
revisit that.
Criminal Trial
(Court
Transcripts Volume 11 of 31 (pg. 91)
(D.A. Oncken Questioning Jane Doe)
Q.
Okay. And you said he was standing or what was he doing on the side of the bed?
A.
On his knees.
Q.
On his knees at the side of the bed. And when he had the panties pulled to the
side like that, what did he do?
__________
Oncken immediately
goes back to the shock value of the “assault”, getting the child to repeat the
sexual act, which was a good tactic on her part because it kept the jury too
appalled to think about anything else.
Like I said, at
the time, the story was very believable, and I told you I’d show you proof of
how this family was rehearsing with the D.A.’s during numerous private
meetings. If I interrupt the following
testimony, I’ll start back up from the exact point I left off.
Criminal Trial
(Court
Transcripts Volume 10 of 31 pgs. 119-129)
(Chip
Lewis questioning Mary Doe [child’s mother])
Q.
Ms. Doe, your first phone call to the authorities in this case happened, I
guess, late Sunday night or early Sunday morning?
A.
It was late.
Q.
But it was – when we go from Saturday to Sunday, the day after this allegedly
happened, right?
A.
Correct.
Q.
Okay. After that point in time, can you estimate for the ladies and gentlemen
of the jury how many times you have – you, in conjunction with Jane Doe, have
met with either the police or D.A. in this case?
A.
About four times.
__________
Interruption
number one. You’ll see that this was a lie, there were additional meetings
going on. You’ll also see how persistant Chip had to be to get Mary Doe to
reveal this lie.
__________
10 of 31 pg. 120 cont’d
Q. Okay. About
four. Tell me which four times you remember.
A.
With the police.
Q.
Okay. That night?
A.
That night.
Q.
A patrol officer came to you, correct?
A.
Correct.
Q.
Next?
A.
Officer Ruiz at Southeast.
Q.
Okay. At Mykawa?
A.
Correct.
Q.
Who went to see Officer Ruiz?
A.
Me, my sister, (John Doe-child’s father) and Jane Doe.
Q.
And you met with Detective Ruiz alone?
A.
Yes.
Q.
Just you three. No one from HPD or no prosecutor or nothing like that, just
y’all – you four?
A.
Yes.
Q.
Correct?
A.
Right.
Q.
All right. When was the third meeting?
A.
At the Assessment Center.
Q.
And who all was present for that?
A.
Me and John Doe and Jane Doe.
Q.
And who did you meet with at the Assessment Center?
A.
Officer Ruiz.
Q.
Okay. The meeting, the second meeting you told me about at Mykawa Road with
Detective Ruiz, do you remember the date of that?
A.
The date?
Q.
Yes, ma’am.
A.
No. I know the day.
Q.
Okay. Approximately how long after the Monday – Jane Doe went to Texas
Children’s on Monday, September the 3rd, right?
A.
It was a week.
Q.
The following Monday?
A.
Correct.
Q.
So, approximately – I’m not trying to pin you down, but about September the 10th?
A.
No.
Q.
Okay. When? Before the 10th? After the 10th?
__________
I apologize for
this boring line of questioning. I try not to put you guys to sleep, but Chip
is trying to show how they took their time in calling the police, in getting
the girl checked out, in getting her interviewed. In fact, after the child told
her mother I touched her, the family went to the movies that day. Then, later
that night, they allegedly called the police. It’s all in the transcripts if
you doubt me. That’s why they claimed she had taken a shower and her clothes
were washed before anyone could test for evidence. Here’ what the nurse said at
the Texas Children’s Hospital:
Criminal Trial
(Court
Transcripts Volume 12 of 31 pg. 69)
Nurse:
...and because she had indeed taken washed her clothes and had taken a shower,
I didn’t think there was anything we could use as far as a kit except for just
doing an external exam, which you don’t open a kit for an external exam.
__________
It’s no
coincidence that all evidence was snuffed out before anyone could test
anything. They didn’t make evidence available to the doctors, the cops made
bogus excuses as to why they didn’t collect any, and the D.A.’s backed it all
up with clever rhetoric.
Let me get back to
Mary Doe, and the proof that this family was doing a whole lot of rehearsing.
Criminal Trial
(Court
Transcripts Volume 10 of 31 pg. 122-129)
A.
It was before the 10th.
Q.
So, less than a week after she went to Texas Children’s?
A.
She went to Texas Children’s on Monday.
Q.
The 3rd?
A.
The following Monday I took her.
Q.
Okay. So, approximately, September the 10th?
A.
Correct.
Q.
All right. How soon after that meeting on the 10th did y’all go to
the Assessment Center?
A.
The following week.
Q.
Do you know what day of the week?
A.
It was a Monday.
Q.
So, approximately the 17th?
A.
No. Maybe. I’m not – I don’t know my days. I was confused, I was sick.
Q.
In terms of less than a week, more than a week, what do you think?
A.
It was about a week.
Q.
So, it would have been somewhere around the 17th?
A.
Could be.
Q.
And you’ve described four meetings, when was the fourth?
A.
I’m sorry.
Q.
You described – you said about four times. We’ve talked about three. What’s the
fourth one?
A.
With Officer Ruiz?
Q.
You tell me.
A.
Officer Ruiz. Then I met up with Denise. (Note: “Denise” is D.A. Oncken.)
Q.
Okay. When was that?
A.
I can’t recall.
Q.
Okay. It was after – after the meeting at the Assessment Center?
A.
No. It was the same day – yes, it was different days.
Q.
Okay. When was the first one – the first one was where you wrote in your own
writing, correct?
A.
Correct
Q.
When was that?
A.
That was the day I took Jane to the police station in Bellaire.
Q.
The day you went to Mykawa Road?
A.
Yes.
Q.
The second statement was when you were at the Assessment Center, correct?
A.
Correct.
Q.
Okay. Now, after your meeting with Ms. Oncken at the D.A.’s office, is it at
that time or after that that Jane starts going to counseling at the Assessment
Center?
A.
I can’t recall.
Q.
Okay. Do you know how long after you originally met with the police that she
started going to the Assessment Center?
A.
Maybe about a week.
Q.
Okay. And how often did she begin going?
A.
Once a week.
Q.
Is it the same day every day?
A.
Yes.
Q.
What day?
A.
Mondays.
Q.
And how long does she go?
A.
For an hour.
Q.
And the counseling that she attended at the Assessment Center, is that group or
alone, one on one?
A. Alone, except one time.
As you can see, Jane Doe was going to the
Assessment Center every week, since September. The trial didn’t take place till
seven months later. The D.A. was also making personal visits to the family’s
homes. They were practicing, preparing the child for trial.
__________
10 of 31 pg. 126 cont’d
Q.
Okay. One time it was group?
A.
Yes.
Q.
All right. Was that on a Monday also, Ms. Doe?
A.
I can’t recall.
Q.
The – and she’s been doing that regularly since this date, since back in
September of last year?
A.
Yes, unless she’s sick.
Q.
Okay. At any of the times that you’ve taken her to the counseling center – the
Assessment Center that is – had you met with anybody related to this case, the
D.A.’s office or the police department?
A.
I’m sorry, what was your question?
Q.
At any of the trips that Jane has made to the Assessment Center, for her
counseling, have you had any conversations, had any meetings with anybody from
the D.A.’s office or the police department?
A.
No.
Q.
All right. So, it’s your testimony that after you and John Doe and Jane went to
Ms. Oncken’s office there had been no other meetings?
A.
With Ms. Oncken?
Q.
With Ms. Oncken or anybody from her office or anybody from the police
department, meetings about this case.
A.
No.
Q.
There have been none since then?
A.
No, just about the court.
Q.
I understand. I’m not asking about the subject matter. We’ll get into that. I’m
talking about the number of meetings. Was this meeting back at Ms. Oncken’s
office? The last time you met with anybody from the D.A,’s office or the police
department about this case?
A.
No.
Q.
Right. Tell me what other times you now recall?
A.
I don’t know as far as the date.
Q.
Okay. About how long ago?
A.
A few months ago. A month, couple of weeks.
Q.
Do you remember where any of those meetings took place?
A.
Yes, at her office.
Q.
And who attended – how many of those meetings were there at her office, not
counting what we’ve called no. 4?
A.
How many meetings?
Q. A month, couple of weeks.
Q.
Do you remember where any of those meetings took place?
A.
Yes, at her office.
Q.
And who attended – how many of those meetings were there at her office, not
counting what we’ve called no. 4?
A.
How many meetings?
Q.
Yes, ma’am.
A.
I can’t recall.
Q.
More than one?
A.
Maybe more than one.
Q.
Okay. More than two?
A.
No, about two?
Q.
All right. Of those two meetings only, who attended the first one?
A.
The first one?
Q.
Yes, ma’am.
A.
John Doe and Jane and I.
Q.
And that’s not the one we’ve already talked about?
A.
Yes.
__________
Mary Doe understands the question that Chip’s
asking, she’s no dummy. She’s being elusive to the question because she doesn’t
want to answer, nor commit perjury by lying. By this time, Chip gets visibly
frustrated and pins Mary Doe down to the question at hand.
__________
10 of 31 pg. 128 cont’d
Q.
All right. Let’s get past that meeting. I want to talk about meetings that you
have had since John Doe, you and Jane initially went and met with Ms. Oncken.
How many meetings have there been since then?
A.
I can’t recall.
Q.
Okay. And do you know – do you recall there have been meetings?
A.
Yes.
Q.
Okay. And you have no recollection of how many meetings there have been.
A.
I don’t count them.
__________
She won’t even give an estimation as to how
many additional meetings they had. She would rather say, “I don’t count them”,
than to give a roundabout figure. Because if she lied, it would be perjury and
if she gave a figure, it would be more than she wanted the jury to know.
I admit, she
definitely avoided Chip’s inquiry for a good while, cleverly going back to the
initial meeting with the D.A. But the question that should stand out is, why
was she so stubborn about admitting to the additional meetings? The answer is
obvious, when you’re doing something wrong, you try to hide it. They were up to
no good, and she knew it. During those private meetings, Mary Doe was thinking
about the paycheck she would get in civil trial, and the D.A. was thinking
about destroying the gangster rap star that was taking over the city. But they
both fell short. The civil jury awarded the family peanuts, and the D.A.s didn’t
destroy, but made me stronger.
This letter
reveals crucial information, crumbling the story that has me in prison. But I’ll
continue to show you many more facts, there’s a lot more to expose. And if any
critic,any hater, any hater professional...If any person at all wants to
challenge anything I’ve said, or anything about my case, please don’t hesitate.
I’m kind of lazy and I can definitely use the motivation.
Before I go, let
me say that I’m not trying to portray myself as some angel or saint. I’m far,
far, from that, my friends. But I’m not the man the State of Texas wants you to
believe I am. They want to end SPM but the silly rabbits only saved my life. I’ve
come to realize that I’ll always have opposition. Since the day I was born, I’ve
had people wishing me the worst. But if everyone loved, we wouldn’t know what
love is. If everyone was brave, we wouldn’t know what brave meant. Weakness defines
strength, and if it’s your job to hate, well, it’s your job. As odd as it
sounds, I thank you because God shows us how to make stairs out of haters,
stairs that lead to higher ground. Ya see, in 2002, they called me a monster.
But, in 2014, a monster is what they created.
Con Todo Mi Amor,
Los
