Ineffective assistance

Ernie Lopez’ conviction was overturned because “his original legal team had provided him with ineffective assistance during his trial by "failing to call medical experts" to dispute the prosecution's theory”

I can only find evidence of two witnesses called in SPM’s defense. One is a John Hernandez, who seems to have been a friend of Jane Doe’s family. The other is mentioned briefly on page 36 of the Habeas Corpus:

“…the prosecutor overreached in questioning a defense expert…”

Carlos Coy has not mentioned either of these witnesses that I know of; my best guess is that the ‘defense expert’ mentioned is probably Jane Doe’s neurologist, who testified about her medication and the illness he was treating. Who else was there?

Did Chip Lewis ‘adequately investigate’ Jane Doe’s claims, and produce any scientific support for Carlos Coy?

I kind of doubt it; after Coy appealed the ineffective assistance, the court had some kind of competency hearing. During this, Mr. Lewis revealed that part of his strategy was to NOT object during the trial. This is stupid for two reasons that a non-lawyer like myself can think of.

First of all, it lets the prosecution get away with whatever the fuck they want.

Second, if your lawyer doesn’t object to it, you can’t appeal it.

Basically the client gets screwed during the trial, and then again after the trial, coming and going. Looking at some of the newspaper articles and Coy’s habeas, another large part of Lewis’ strategy seems to have been telling anyone who would listen, both in and out of the courtroom, that Jane Doe told only the truth.

I shit you not.

“The court also found that part of the defense’s strategy was to cast O.S. as a“truth teller” who was manipulated by various state actors,”…blah blah blah.

                                          

The prosecution even quoted Mr. Lewis in their closing statement, using his comments that the little girl was “a truthteller.”

Looking at this, I find it hard to believe that Mr. Lewis considered his client innocent, and even less likely that he put forth very much effort into rounding up experts that could have helped prove it. This is my uneducated opinion. Mr. Coy has never suggested to me that he was unhappy with Lewis’s performance; maybe there were scads of scientists all dolled up in lab coats testifying that we just didn’t hear about. Maybe.

If a lack of defense experts was enough to get Ernie Lopez a new trial, why shouldn’t the same be true for Carlos Coy? I don’t think it would take much to convince a reasonable person that his defense didn’t put forth much of an effort.

http://law.justia.com/cases/texas/first-court-of-appeals/2003/79743.html