Letter to Mike Anderson 4

Guys, I’m taking a little bit of a different tack in this letter. Usually I write in fairly general terms, trying to be brief but still catch someone’s interest. As you can see, this letter is quite a bit longer. I’m really trying to make a specific case in this one, focusing on one particular where the jury was not given evidence that I believe they should have had.

I’ve been asked a couple of times if I’ve gotten a reply yet; the answer, of course, is no. When I received responses from Lykos’s office I always posted them up on the blog, and I will continue to do that. But I want to explain why it doesn’t matter whether or not Mike Anderson writes back.

First of all, if /when they decide to review the case, it’s not likely that they would tell me. I’m not family, not a lawyer, there’s no reason to let me know what they’re doing.

Second, I can’t let their response, or lack thereof, drive my actions. I have faith in the justice of my cause and unless that changes, I must do what I believe is right. I’ll write to the D.A., or whoever I believe is most likely to hear me out and help my cause, because it’s the right thing to do. 

District Attorney Mike Anderson
1201 Franklin st
Houston, Tx
77002

Sir,

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

Specifically, I’d like to speak about the exclusion of relevant evidence. I am not a lawyer, and I hesitate to pick a particular rule because I may not understand it fully; however, I will explain a situation that I believe defies common sense, and justice.

During Coy’s trial, there was some debate about whether the complainant was ever actually attacked; no physical evidence was collected, and the child had a history of mental disorders and possibly even hallucinations that predated her accusations by nearly a year. The defense’s strategy was to suggest that nothing had, in fact happened; that perhaps she had had a nightmare or hallucination.

The prosecution used expert testimony to make the argument that a child could not have just dreamed up the act of oral sex unless she had been exposed to it. Coy’s defense attempted to answer this by showing the jury that she was not only taken to see at least one R-rated movie by her family, a movie with a fairly graphic depiction of oral sex, but that porn was easily accessible in her home.

Sir, the judge refused to allow the defense to make the argument that, since her brothers had been caught trying to watch an adult film, it was possible that she had been exposed to it as well. When asked if her daughter was in the room at the time, the mother’s response was “I don’t believe so.”

This woman’s memory was sketchy, at best. She claimed to have watched the previously mentioned, R-rated film Scary Movie at home; she remembered, outside the presence of the jury, which store she rented it at; she remembered that she didn’t like it, and remembered turning it off.

Then, her daughter told the court explicitly that she had seen the whole film; her mother suddenly recalled that she had actually taken her daughter to the theater to watch it. However, her memory lapse was hidden from the jury. They did not see her changing testimony, how memories were discarded at will, or plucked from thin air.

Please, sir, I urge you to review this case.

Me, my address, etc.

Weekend Reading 63

The Prison Pensman has a new interview up, with a cinematographer who claims to have some unreleased footage of SPM; no word on when he's planning to release that, but it's an interesting read; check it out here: www.theprisonpensman.blogspot.com

I saw Rasheed at the car show last week, if you haven't heard Twitter@BigSlater yet, watch it now, thank me later:

Rasheed Big Slater

I also met the inimitable Bert Trevino:

...along with Goldtoes, who I didn't get a picture of. Also, it appears that Dope House had a booth, but I didn't notice it at first because there was no banner:

As you can see they had cds, towels, and a wall of t-shirts, including some from the Last Chair Violinist; for all of you who were thinking that everything would grind to a halt after Arthur Coy's recent legal troubles, it appears that business continues.

Relevant Arguments

Criminal Trial

(Court Transcripts Volume 13 of 31 pgs. 105, 106)

            DA: I guess let’s start from the end. Is it typical based on the research and your training and experience that children who have no sexual history or experience with any type of sexual act, do they typically dream, quote, or have a graphic sexual dream?

            Therapist: No. The only way that would be possible is if they were actually exposed to some type of graphic sexual stimulation.

            DA: So, are children able to just dream about oral sex being performed on them when they’ve never had that done to them before?

            Therapist: If they’ve not been exposed to it, it would be pretty impossible.

The fact that there was porn in the house, even easily-accessible porn, has nothing to do with whether or not Jane Doe was assaulted. That much is true. But the moment the prosecution started making the argument that she couldn’t know about the sex act without having seen or experienced it, it became extremely relevant.

From the Federal Rules of Evidence, via Wikipedia:

Until the Federal Rules of Evidence were restyled in 2011, Rule 401 defined relevance as follows:

"Relevant evidence" means evidence having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence.

This definition incorporates the requirement that evidence be both material ("of consequence to the determination of the action") and have probative value ("having any tendency to make the existence of any [material] fact...more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence").[2]

The restyled Rule 401, however, separates these traditional concepts in order to make the rule clearer and more easily understood.[3] The amended language essentially rewrites the rule as a test, rather than a definition, for relevance:

Evidence is relevant if:

(a) it has any tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence; and

(b) the fact is of consequence in determining the action.[4]

So, regarding a), a history of exposure to graphic sexual stimuli would make it possible for a child to dream about a sexual act. Regarding b), given the child’s history of sleep disorders, nightmares, etc, and given her lack of conviction about whether what happened was real or a dream, it seems very consequential in determining whether or not she could tell if she was actually assaulted. But no; the judge laughs, and says her access to porn isn’t relevant. This happened in Volume 15, after the prosecution had made their point that she couldn’t just come up with it on her own:

Criminal Trial

(Court Transcripts Volume 15 of 31 pgs. 10-11)

The Court: So if I drive by an X-rated movie store – I mean, I have access or somebody brings a whole barrel of them and puts them in my house that means that I’m –

            Chip: Judge, that’s not even close to what happen[ed] here.

            The Court: Well, how can you argue that that is – had an effect on her when there’s no evidence that she ever saw it?

            Chip: I can argue that the inference is it was accessible in that house. I don’t know what happened in that house.  I don’t know what happened in the house. It was, by her admission, laying on top of the T.V.

            The Court: So, what is the inference.

            Chip: That she could have seen it. I mean, I understand if the Court doesn’t like my argument, that’s one thing, but it’s permissible.

            The Court: No, no, it doesn’t have anything to do with not liking it.

            Chip: You’re laughing about it.

            The Court: There is no evidence that she saw it.

Something else that I noticed is that the prosecutor focused on a child experiencing the act:

“...children who have no sexual history or experience with any type of sexual act...”

“...when they’ve never had that done to them...”

The therapist leaves a little wiggle room in her answer; saying that if a child was exposed to some kind of graphic sexual stimulation, it would be possible for them to dream about it. I wonder if this was the same therapist from Volume 17, who apparently had no idea that the child’s symptoms pre-dated her accusations by 8 or 9 months; was he or she also unaware that this child had easy access to porn in her own home, and that she was apparently dragged to movie theaters to watch R-rated movies?

http://www.spmaftermath.com/2012/06/spm-responds-part-8e.html

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relevance_(law)

Dear Family 11

Family Letter: “Sometimes Complaining Is Caring”            3/8/13

Dear Fam,

            Comos Estados Unidos? That means: How’s everybody doing throughout the United States, including all countries that love us and enjoy jogging and having picnics. That’s why I love Spanish, you can say so much with just a few words.

            I’m going to try to answer Incandesio’s letters as she sends them, and since she always sends blog posts, I want to respond to as many as I can without writing a book.

            Alright, who’s the wise guy that scrutinized my Spanish? No, I’m kidding. I know you weren't trying to be hurtful. Here’s your comment:

1.)    Anonymous said….

Seriously? “como estados?” you need to take some Spanish classes, and while im on this topic, when u rap in spanish try to make sure you are saying things right before you record the songs

            Response: What does hurt is how defensive everybody got about this comment. Gotdamn people, relax! It’s not like he kicked my mom in her bad knee. He may have sounded a bit rude, but open your eyes to the meaning behind his comment. He just wishes I would learn more Spanish that way I can rap more songs in Spanish. (Don’t ask me how I know that.)

            On another comment, he explained how “arbos” was really “arboles”. I didn’t know that, but at the same time, “Carlos” rhymed with “arbos”, and wouldn’t have rhymed with “arboles.” Sometimes you tweak a word to make it work. This is art and art has no rules. Even if you make a mistake you can just say, “I meant to do that,” and no one can argue with you. But I will take your comment as encouragement to learn more Spanish. Until then, you can squeezy my juevos.

2.)    This next comment was long, so I’ll just type the end of it. This person is upset about the album taking too long to release.

Anonymous said….

…but another couple more months of no updates then i don’t know. If the music is done and they had a couple months to work on the artwork then how much closer can they be.

           

Response: This fan has just threatened to possibly do something that he described as “I don’t know.” Actually, I don’t know what “I don’t know” means, but it sounds scary. Could it mean the worst possible scenario, that he would actually walk away from me and my music? Or, could it mean something less tragic like him killing every dog in the neighborhood? I don’t wanna find out, that’s for sure.

            So, just to show you how important one Anonymous fan is, I’m going to do something I’ve never done before. I’m going to give away a free song within the next four to six weeks. Because this fan said, “…another couple more months…” A “couple” means “two”, so I will not let two months pass before you have a free song. And, to top it off, I’ll give away a song every 45 days until the album drops. These will be The S.O.N. songs, which I think are worth a thousand dollars each. But Dope House will either need to shift gears, or The S.O.N. will end up being yours for free, song by song.

            I’m not sure of the exact date, or exactly where the free song will be available, but I’m guessing I-Tunes. I just thought of this right now, after reading how frustrated you guys are getting. So, let me figure out the details, and then I’ll tell you more.

            As far as the artwork, it’s not like I’m trying to do something elaborate. All I’m doing is putting the lyrics on the insert, and putting pictures of me growing up. But it does take back and forth correspondence. One small change could mean weeks, and sometimes stuff needs correcting. But I’ve said what I’ve said, and I won’t take it back. Every forty-five days, starting from the first song we give away. Just thank the person who threatened to do the “I don’t know” thing. But wouldn’t it be funny if someone started killing everybody’s house pets till DHR released The S.O.N.? Well, I love me pets so it wouldn’t be funny to me.

            I wonder if Incandesio can take a vote on what song you guys want? (Incandesio, would you please do that, and after a few days of voting, let me know the winning song? Moo-cheetoes gracias!)

            Here’s the songlist in case you don’t know it:

1.)    K-love Vs. SPM (This doesn’t have music, it’s a real battlerap.)

2.)    People

3.)    Hustla World

4.)    Chiefin

5.)    Twenty Eight

6.)    The River

7.)    And They Said

8.)    Frustration

9.)    Till They Come

10.) Without The S.O.N.

11.) Don’t Go Away

12.) The Poor Kids

13.)  My Homegirl

14.)  To The Flame

15.)   If It Were You

16.)  Addicted To Storms

17.)  Angels (This song is a Christian song.)

3.)    Anonymous said….

Seriously? How can those 5 artists not have time to take a picture and write something. So much for dope house they might as well not even be considered dope house family because true family always has time, especially for Carlos Coy.

Response: Are you suggesting that I dismantle the entire Dope House Family, which exemplifies 18 years of loyalty and commitment? Or, are you merely saying I should change our name to Dope House Family Except For Five Shitty People?

            If I dismantle us, it would start a war that would leave at least six people dead. If I changed our name, no one would know which five were the culprits, because those records are in confidential files, kept in a safe, buried in Tudy’s backyard. So, our only option would be to move you to another country where you’d have to find a new Dope House Family, and teach them English.

            But, honestly, we don’t know why it’s taking Pain so long to gather the info. We can’t assume it’s the artists’ fault. Maybe someone is in Jamaica. Maybe someone’s tied up and being tortured. Maybe it’s Pain’s fault. He could be driving around, picking up hookers. We just don’t know. Anyway, including the lyrics is probably a better idea, because they’re always wrong on those lyrics websites.

4.)    Anonymous said….

How come none of dope house artists has heard any of it, if there featured on it, im sure they were in tha booth putting in their verse and listinin to the song that there gonna be featured on.

            Response: You, my friend, have not been paying attention. As I’ve said, The S.O.N. is the first album, since my first album, Hillwood, that has no featured rap artists. It’s 100% S.P. Wetback. But Carolyn’s on, like, seven hooks, and she’s heard the album a dozen times. Ask her what she thinks. Also, my brother let Brent Morton (Director of Social Media DHR) listen to it, and Brent said it was the best SPM album ever.

            It seems like you’re implying there is no S.O.N. album and that’s insane. The album is in our studio, barely alive because it’s so sick. I hear people complaining about how bad the rap game has gotten, and I agree. Don’t get me wrong, I love Lil Wayne, Drake, Big Sean and others, but the S.O.N. is gonna slap the shit out of everybody. It’s beautiful.

5.)    Anonymous said….

He is starting to sound like Dr. Dre n the Detox album. i want this, no i want that, nevermind i want this again, nope maybe that again or this and that.

            Response: Actually, that sounds like me fucking a bitch. I’m never quite sure where I want to shoot the final scene. But, again, I understand your frustration. The S.O.N. will be out in months, not a year. And it will be 17 songs of pure crack.

6.)    Ejay said....

It’s his damn album, Los can release that shit whenever the fucc he wants..till then D.H.A. stand up.

            Response: For how long, because usually I sit when I’m typing? I do stand up when my butt starts to hurt, but could you please give us a specific time frame whenever making such bold statements.

            7.) One Anonymous fan had some harsh things to say about people using SPM’s name to make money. He spoke about Juan Gotti as an example of this, because JG has painted some things, and put them up for sale. Here’s the ending of that comment:

            Anonymous said...

            ....stop making cash off Los cuz thats all hes doing painting shit putting free SPM and makin profit.. not right in my book at all... ima hold on a lil longer for this album but if shit don’t happen im sorry and i know one fan aint shit to you but your gona lose a dedicated fan... still FREE THE MEX...

            Response: How does a person know something that’s not true? Because one fan means the world to me, even when our views differ.

            Juan Gotti is the best friend a man could have. There is not one fraud bone in that man’s body. He could easily be dead today because he handled business that I should’ve handled. So, on a personal level, I’m concerned when a fan of mine speaks ill of JG. That’s the same way I would feel if someone spoke ill of a fan of mine.

            On a business level, let me say that we all make money off each other, homie. DHR sells three of JG’s albums, and they still sell good. We make nine dollars an album, and Gotti makes a fraction of that. In fact, if I told you his cut, you’d think I was a criminal. Sure, he makes a few bucks from his work, but he’s also promoting the hell out of SPM. Promotions is everything in this business. I’m benefiting and not having to lift a finger. And I know Gotti, homito. We’ve been brothers since Milby High School. When it comes to me, it’s out of love, 100%. Should he give the shit away for free, so that it’s less appreciated? Or, sell it, so a motherfucker will hang it up somewhere? I’m not trying to belittle you, but we need to think on a larger scale. The reason we can’t come up is because we put each other down. You’re just as important as any member of the DHF, and as any person on earth, and I need you to hold us up.

            That also applies to the way you guys talk to each other. I’m not that hip on the internet lick, but I do see it’s a place where people disrespect the shit out of each other because they’re not face to face. We’re a family, no matter how big we get, and we need to show the world what the player race is about.

            At the end of your comment, you spoke about the possibility of losing you. I don’t want to lose any of you, but I do have a question: with all respect, where can you go? There’s only one number one, bro. It’s not like you can get up and find dope as pure as mine. That’s why I try so hard for you, because I know I’m the only one that can give you the best, and the best is what you deserve.

            8.) Anonymous said....

            I agree with that. Put out something! I remember when Los said we were gonna have a new Screwston, County Boyz, and Chopped n Screwed Last Chair Violinist. And we got nothing!!!

            Response: “Nothing” is such a gloomy word. What if I ordered a margarita and they brought me a glass of nothing? Or, if I asked my mom what’s for dinner and she said, “Nothing tacos.” Are you sure you want to use that word? I’ll tell you what, I’ll call my Cold Forty “Thinking of Nothing” and show you how I can turn even nothing into crack.

            Okay. Screwston, “Slow Learner”: What happened was I was talking to a dude (from H-Town) and telling him about “Slow Learner.”

            I said, “Yeah, it’s got songs from Trae the Truth, South Park Coalition, Dope House Family. It’s got a song with Lil ‘O’ called ‘Bet’cha Can’t Do It’.”

            Then, the dude says, “I heard that ‘Bet’cha Can’t Do It’.” He started singing the hook and I was like “What?” Because Jaime told me every song was never-before-heard.

That conversation was after I got sent to High Security. Jaime couldn’t visit me at the time, and when I finally met with him last year, I said, You told me that every song on ‘Slow Learner’ was brand new.”

            He said, “The Lil ‘O’ was getting a lot of airplay at the time, and I thought it would help promote the album. But that’s the only song that’s not exclusive.”

            I said, “Well, damn, when I heard some dude singing the hook, I figured half the shit was released already. That’s why I didn’t push the issue.”

Jaime said, “No, ‘Slow Learner’ is still new to the world, with the exception of Lil ‘O’s’ song.”

And that’s the reason the album stalled. But ‘Slow Learner’ is not a dead issue. Right now, our focus is on the S.O.N., but we’ll figure something out for ‘SL’.

“County Boys”: Great album, done in the County Jail, on the payphone, full of magic. Needs work. I should be out of High Security by May. I’ll be able to use the payphones, and I can’t even explain how much progress that will spur.

“Chopped and Screwed Last Chair Violinist”: There are so many versions of this already, because, if you don’t drop an immediate version, it will get screwed by some DJ, if not several.

In Houston, you can go to places where they’ll Screw and Chop any album you want for about fifteen bucks. Don’t you guys have that in your town? Hold on, my records show that you’re from Willyfoofoo Arkansas. Let me check your area, give me a second.

(Two minutes pass.)

            Alright, there’s a country store on Grape Avenue, next to Melvin’s Moonshine. Go in and ask for Ms. Doris. She’s got two turntables behind the rack of pickled chicken necks. No, she doesn’t look like a DJ, but she’s one of the coldest in your area.

            The S.O.N. will have a free Screwed and Chopped version inside the CD case, so all my screw heads are good to go on that.

            Well, it’s getting late so I think I’ll take a shower and go to sleep. Yeah, the cells in High Security have their own showers. That’s the only good thing about this place. That and the meatloaf.

            But I won’t leave you without a cold forty to chug. And, listen, don’t feel bad about the complaints. If you weren’t complaining, I’d be worried. Because this fucking album was supposed to drop, like, two or three years ago. Still, I want to thank my more patient fans and let you know that you’re much appreciated, as well. I’m sorry that I can’t respond to everyone, but a big shout out to all who take the time to visit Incandesio’s blog. I love you.

Con Amor,

Los

Another Cold 40

"Thinking of Nothing"

How the fuck you doubtin me, like I ain't the best in rap

What the fuck I look like, South Park Mexican't?

All hail the Beast of Rhyme, wreck on every single line

comp eat what I eat, so they shit can be like mine

don't forget I ate the yams, this is for my Playa fans

someone tell my wela she can look up from her prayin hands

no more sellin Abrahams, or weighin grams, or savin cans

your flow is regular, like someone feeds it Raisin Brans

My flow is supa-doop, like when I'm flyin over seas

"That's not a bird, that's a Meskin guy with forty keys!

Why the hell's he usin all his power jus for sellin drugs?!"

Well, cause the strippas in the V.I.P. give head to thugs

so it makes it well worth it, wonder where this gal shirt is

others be at self-service, cause you spittin stale verses

mad cause you can't spell purpiss, plus yo momma smell burntish

plus yo daddy broke his arm and said he wanted male nurses

that be worse than hell's curses, or these major cell searches

or just ridin with my uncle in that truck with twelve curtains

I'm the S.O.N., I'm the rain, only one that calm the flame

love my fans like Ponic Jane, but won't smoke ya, promise mayne

play the best on gray cassettes, swangin Vettes 'n' breakin necks

Hillwood till I'm layin dead, like, "Mom, that man got painted red!"

Will I die before my prime? Will I live till mornin time?

Only God knows all the Q's, still He gives us warnin signs

pour da fine, roll da pine, for who die on borderlines

if that boy be short a dime, that's when jack moves orbit minds

came to save I came to heal, or maybe I'm insane for real

maybe it's these eighteen pills that makes me feel like Navy Seals

felt the pain in painless kills, been the shade in shady deals

gave'em songs that gave'em chills, say it's luck I say it's skill

Jesus is our only hope, yet He's the one we don't promote

screamin 'bout how Los is dope, but me I'm just the holy g.o.a.t.

1984's that poke, ride down Luther slow 'n' low

16 woofas stole the show, kick so hard they broke a toe

let my pen rep all the hoods, me I'm from the block of wolves

eight hoes in my telly bed, like, Damn I just ate octopus

all for one, all or none, all begun, all for fun

now that shit got serious, fuck all you all who all was ummm 

Nope, I won't even say it, promised not to be disgustin

"Los, why you lyin, nigga, you jus couldn't think-o-nothin!" lol!

Los

P.S. Fam, I just had a visit with

Sylvia Coy (sister), Trey Coy (nephew),

and my babies, Carley and Carlos II.

We are releasing the S.O.N. snippet,

which will have the free single, on

May 3^rd. That’s also the date

of Carley’s 18^th birthday. So, get

your votes in on what song you want,

that way we can get it on the snippet

and have it ready for May 3^rd.

Weekend Reading 62

Young Jay, of the Dope House Army, has a great interview with Rasheed up here: http://www.theprisonpensman.blogspot.com/ , go check it out.

Also, I got another Family Letter from Spm, with S.O.N. updates, answers to comments you've posted, and a new Cold Forty; that'll be up Monday.

Memory

There are a couple of things in SPM’s latest Response that I want to draw your attention to, and we’ll probably spend the next couple of posts on it. A while back, we talked about things that affect the “weight” of the evidence, which means how trustworthy it is. If the jury sees a person as credible, that gives the person’s testimony weight.

In the Response, we saw that Coy’s defense found out that Jane Doe’s brothers had been caught by their mother, Mary Doe, trying to watch a porn. Mary Doe herself admitted that it had happened, but that she had no fucking clue whether her young daughter was in the room or not:

Criminal Trial

(Court Transcripts Volume 10 of 31 pg. 169)

            DA: And do you know how long it had been on top of the entertainment center?

            Mary Doe: I worked. So for awhile.

            DA: And do you know where (Jane Doe) was when they were caught trying to put that in?

            Mary Doe: I don’t recall?

            DA: She wasn’t in the room was she?

            Mary Doe: I don’t believe so.

Well, okay, she had an inkling that maybe she wasn’t there. She didn’t believe so. Think back for a moment to her testimony regarding where she and her very young daughter were when they saw the (R-rated) Scary Movie. That happened in Volume 15 of the transcript, quite a while after this excerpt from Volume 10. In Volume 15 Mary Doe recalled, outside of the presence of the jury, seeing the movie. She remembered renting the movie. She remembered which Blockbuster she rented it at. She remembers that she switched it off when it turned out to be too nasty. That she “didn’t really care for it.” These are specific memories that she claimed to have.

After seeing this neat little story completely shattered by the child’s assertion that she had, in fact, seen that whole movie, suddenly Mary Doe remembers that they actually saw it at the theater. Her memory of renting the movie? Incorrect. Her recollection of watching it at her home? Discarded. Her assertion that her daughter only watched the first five minutes? *poof*, it was gone.

Going off these pieces of the transcript that we have, the jury was never allowed to see that. They saw a mother stating that she watched the movie at the theater, no ifs, ands, or buts. They didn’t see her story change, they didn’t know that this woman could have clear memories about going to the store, getting a particular movie, watching it, and then completely discard each of those specific memories in a way that supported her daughter’s changing story.

So, assuming that she was telling God’s own truth, exactly what she remembered, when she said she couldn’t recall where her daughter was when the other kids were trying to watch porn…when she said she believed her daughter wasn’t in the room…her memory was shit. What purpose was served by hiding this from the jurors? Did it further the cause of justice to ensure that this woman, who was apparently remembering an event that never happened when she claimed to have watched the movie at home with her family, was seen as trustworthy and credible by the jury?

Letter to Mike Anderson 3

It's the middle of the month, time for another letter to the District Attorney! Please join me in sending these in; you can copy this one, write your own, or just print off one of the flyers to your right and send that in. We need to continually make our presence known, to let Harris County know that we're out here and we want justice.

DA Mike Anderson

1201 Franklin

Houston, Tx

77002

Sir,

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

As more information about his situation comes to light, I can only conclude that he did not receive a fair trial. He was prohibited from making arguments that, from my perspective, appear to have been extremely relevant; in at least one case, the trial transcript shows that the judge was laughing as he refused to allow the defense lawyer to make the argument that, since the child had access to pornography, she may have been familiar with sex acts without ever having been assaulted by Coy.

You understand how difficult it can be to summarize an entire court case into one letter, but I urge you to review the case for yourself, or have it reviewed by someone in your office. As a non-lawyer, it’s difficult for me to pinpoint specific legal arguments in favor of my opinion, but the more we learn about the behavior of the State and the Court in this case, the more I am convinced that something must be done; I believe that Carlos Coy must receive a fair trial, and I urge you to familiarize yourself with his case.

Why should a judge be laughing as he prohibits the jury from hearing a relevant argument? Why should prosecutors be allowed to tweak testimony in court, on the record, changing it from one day to the next, with only the most advantageous version of it being presented to the jury?

Perhaps you can help answer these questions; if not then please, review the case. Give Carlos Coy another shot at justice.

Me, my address, etc.

Weekend Reading 61

There's a new post up at http://theprisonpensman.blogspot.com/

Per the Dope House Army's Twitter, recruitment ends the 18th, please consider signing up! Donate a little of your time and energy to help spread the word about the music, and SPM's situation.

Text Young J @ 562 340 5957 for info; if you don't feel that you can volunteer, please follow the Army on Twitter and Facebook for updates.

SPM Responds (Part 12.b)

  

Continued from Monday's post:

        ...The judge in my criminal trial didn’t allow us to expose anything negative about this family. It was, like, he had orders to do whatever it took to put me in prison.  But how else can you learn who a child is without knowing where she came from, what kind of parents she had, what kind of house hold she lived under? The jury in my criminal trial saw none of her home environment, and probably believed what Mary Doe told them, that they were your average, church-going family.

            My criminal lawyer, Chip, tried to expose something, anything, but with no luck. He asked the judge if he could ask Mary Doe a few questions about violence in the home. Here’s how that went. (Keep in mind “The Court” means the judge.)

Criminal Trial

(Court Transcripts Volume 10 of 31 pgs. 113, 114)

The Court: Well, I think we need to do it outside the presence of the jury before we do it in front of the jury.

            Chip: The only reason – and to make it even quick consider and cause any less – I’m not going to ask about any specifics. I do know of specifics but my only question is going to be has she observed – has (Jane Doe) observed any aggression between her and (John Doe).

            DA Andrews: How is that relevant?

            DA Oncken: It is not relevant.

            Chip: I understand their position but my experts are going to say it’s one of the very things that shapes a child’s mind and one of the things that they are looking for in a child in a case where there might be an accusation that is not true.

            The Court: Well, before anybody testifies to that they are going to have to do it outside the presence of the jury to make sure –

            Chip: We can do that now.

            The Court: Okay. Well, let’s just ask her the question outside the presence of the jury. That may solve all the problems and then we’ll go from there.

            Chip: Fair enough.

            The Court: Bring her in.

Notice how the judge don’t care who says what, just as long as the jury isn’t present. Because as long as they don’t hear it, it doesn’t matter. On the next page Mary Doe comes in so that Chip can question her.

Criminal Trial

(Court Transcripts Volume 10 of 31 pgs. 115-118)

            The Court: Go Ahead.

            Chip: Thank you, Judge.

            The Court: We’re outside the presence of the jury.

CROSS EXAMINATION

BY MR. LEWIS

            Chip: Ms. (Mary Doe), over the course of your relationship with (John Doe) there has been some incidences of violence between y’all; is that correct.

            Mary Doe: What do you mean?

            Chip: I mean, there have been physical altercations between y’all?

            Mary Doe: Normal fights.

            Chip: I’m sorry?

            Mary Doe: Just normal fights.

            Chip: Okay. I understand and I’m not getting into the particulars or making any judgments about it. There have been instances of violence between you?

            Mary Doe: Yes.

            Chip: And on occasion (Jane Doe) has been present when that’s happened?

            Mary Doe: The arguments.

            Chip: Okay. And what you characterize as an argument, some of those have been physical in nature, somebody put their hands on somebody else – without blaming anybody there’s been heated arguments that resulted in somebody putting their hands on somebody else?

            Mary Doe: No.

            Chip: Okay. But what you’ve characterized as arguments, it’s your testimony that none of these that (Jane Doe) observed ever involved anybody touching anybody else?

            Mary Doe: Correct.

            Chip: How would you characterize these arguments that she has observed? Heated?

            Mary Doe: I’m sorry. Can you repeat that again?

            Chip: Yes, ma’am. You said there were arguments that she had observed. Is it a fair statement to call those arguments heated, somebody’s voice was raised, somebody was unhappy with the other?

            Mary Doe: Unhappy.

            Chip: Okay. Voices raised?

            Mary Doe: Yes.

            Chip: Okay. And on how many occasions would you estimate she had seen that?

            Mary Doe: Through her entire life?

            Chip: Yes, Ma’am, your best guess. More than ten?

            Mary Doe: No, not more than ten.

            Chip: More than five?

            Mary Doe: Maybe.

            Chip: Okay. So, maybe between five and ten?

            Mary Doe: Yes.

            Chip: All right. At one point in time during (Jane Doe’s) life (John Doe) lived in the same household that you and (Jane Doe) and your other two children lived in, correct?

            Mary Doe: Correct.

            Chip: And that would have been some of the times when she might have observed some of that behavior?

            Mary Doe: Yes.

            Chip: That’s all I have, your honor. That’s as far as I plan to go.

            The Court: I don’t see that it’s relevant at this point in time.

            The judge wouldn’t even allow Chip to show the jury that Jane Doe saw arguments, much less the nightmarish life she lived. And that’s basically how my criminal trial went, with the judge using his power to hide important information that the jury should’ve heard.

            Another example of that is when Chip found out, (through investigation), that Jane Doe’s younger brother and older brother had been caught trying to watch a porno movie. Chip asked Mary Doe about it, and she had to admit it was true. This was our chance to tell the jury that a porno is a plausible source of where Jane Doe could’ve been exposed to the act of oral sex. Because whether she made it up, hallucinated it, dreamt it, she would, first, have had to be exposed to it. Exposure could come from either, God forbid, her experiencing the act, or seeing it.

            After Mary Doe admitted the occurrence to Chip, the DAs put her on the stand. They wanted to show the jury that Jane Doe was not in the room when her brothers were caught, although their effort wasn’t that good. Here’s that testimony.

Criminal Trial

(Court Transcripts Volume 10 of 31 pg. 169)

            DA: And do you know how long it had been on top of the entertainment center?

            Mary Doe: I worked. So for awhile.

            DA: And do you know where (Jane Doe) was when they were caught trying to put that in?

            Mary Doe: I don’t recall?

            DA: She wasn’t in the room was she?

            Mary Doe: I don’t believe so.

            DA: Did you ever have a discussion with your children as to whether or not they had ever watched that video tape?

            Mary Doe: I was embarrassed.

            DA: I’m sorry.

            Mary Doe: No, I was embarrassed.

            First off, when you “catch” someone doing something wrong, it’s because they know they were doing something wrong. Then, to be embarrassed about discussing it with them… Even the DA had to hear that twice.

            Secondly, Mary Doe didn’t say whether Jane Doe was in the room or not. “I don’t believe so”, is not a yes or a definite no. But think about that for a second. If your kids were about to watch a porno, wouldn’t you know, for sure, whether your little girl was there or not? Of course, you would. Your answer would not be “I don’t believe so.”

            Here’s Chip telling the judge that he wants to be able to tell the jury that they can consider the fact that the child had access to pornography. (Again, this argument was done outside the presence of the jury.)

Criminal Trial

(Court Transcripts Volume 15 of 31 pgs. 6-8)

            Chip: Their own therapist has stated to me that one source of these types of ideas is explicit sexuality in movies or pornographic tapes, the likes that have already been introduced into the record. (Mary Doe) has already admitted that there was a pornographic movie that remained on top of the T.V. for some time before she discovered her kids had gotten ahold of it.

            The Court: Wait. Wait. There is no evidence in the record that the complainant ever saw the movie, period.

            Chip: No, Judge, there is a difference. The record is what the record is and I have the transcript and what – what is exactly stated in the record is that (Mary Doe) – there had been a pornographic movie on top of the T.V.

            The Court: I remember the evidence.

            Chip: Well, Judge, there’s inferences from the evidence that are just as important.

            The Court: No, no, no, no.

            Chip: They’re not important.

            The Court: Inferences that she saw something? There is no evidence whatsoever in the record that it happened.

            Chip: I shouldn’t be allowed to argue that with that movie that’s been laying on top of the T.V. that she discovers in her other kid’s possession that this girl might have seen it?

            The Court: No way.

            I’ll skip a page and show you the ridiculous examples the judge uses as to why he’s not allowing Chip to say that Jane Doe had access to a porno.

Criminal Trial

(Court Transcripts Volume 15 of 31 pgs. 10-11)

The Court: So if I drive by an X-rated movie store – I mean, I have access or somebody brings a whole barrel of them and puts them in my house that means that I’m –

            Chip: Judge, that’s not even close to what happen[ed] here.

            The Court: Well, how can you argue that that is – had an effect on her when there’s no evidence that she ever saw it?

            Chip: I can argue that the inference is it was accessible in that house. I don’t know what happened in that house.  I don’t know what happened in the house. It was, by her admission, laying on top of the T.V.

            The Court: So, what is the inference.

            Chip: That she could have seen it. I mean, I understand if the Court doesn’t like my argument, that’s one thing, but it’s permissible.

            The Court: No, no, it doesn’t have anything to do with not liking it.

            Chip: You’re laughing about it.

            The Court: There is no evidence that she saw it.

            You probably know that Chip didn’t win this argument, but something happened that says a lot about this judge. When Chip said, “I mean, I understand if the Court doesn’t like my argument, that’s one thing, but it’s permissible,” the judge started laughing.

            Have you ever been caught doing something wrong, and when someone brings it to light, you let off a guilty chuckle? The judge knew he was stopping a vital argument, (one the jury should’ve been able to hear), and when Chip put it to him bluntly, all he could [do] was laugh.

            I think it was ingenious that Chip showed (on record) how the judge laughed. I almost feel that Chip knew this case would be talked about one day, and he wanted people to see the type of shit he was up against.

            The truth was that pornography was accessible to this child, and the possibility of her being exposed to it was real, if not probable.

            One of the big questions in this case was, “How would a nine-year-old girl know that oral sex existed if she had never been exposed to the act?” That was a question that we were not allowed to sufficiently answer. And it left the opportunity for the DAs to ask their professionals questions like this:

Criminal Trial

(Court Transcripts Volume 13 of 31 pgs. 105, 106)

            DA: I guess let’s start from the end. Is it typical based on the research and your training and experience that children who have no sexual history or experience with any type of sexual act, do they typically dream, quote, or have a graphic sexual dream?

            Therapist: No. The only way that would be possible is if they were actually exposed to some type of graphic sexual stimulation.

            DA: So, are children able to just dream about oral sex being performed on them when they’ve never had that done to them before?

            Therapist: If they’ve not been exposed to it, it would be pretty impossible.

            Of course, the DA is asking these questions because Jane Doe testified that she wasn’t sure if the assault was a dream.

            That takes me to my next point. Our critics have said that Jane Doe’s story made “logical sense” and that she was a credible witness.