There were two questions that won this month’s poll:
1.) What would it take to get your appeal into the Supreme Court?
2.) What kind of new evidence would be most helpful?
Answer to first question: Well, my appeals lawyer was supposed to bring up mistakes that were made in my trial that violated my rights. These mistakes would have had to be significant enough, (in the eyes of the appeals court), to make a difference in whether the jury believed I was innocent or guilty. In other words, if my lawyer found a mistake but the appeals court said, “Well, this mistake would not have made a difference; the jury would have still found Carlos Coy guilty,” then they dismiss that error. My appeals lawyer told me that he was just going to use the biggest errors he found because the court of appeals don’t like reading something that looks like a book. But that’s the problem, they did so much bullshit, day after day, that it surmounted into a mountain of wrong doing. In the end, that mountain was enough to block the truth out of sight.
Another thing was how the judge made it more than clear that he wanted the jury to find me guilty. A jury will follow a judge’s lead, assuming that he knows more about the case than they do. That’s why it’s so important that judges keep their oaths to conduct fair trials. Even when my lawyer, Chip, would make an objection, the judge would overrule it with such disdain that Chip felt it was better to object as least as possible. Imagine objections hurting someone’s case when they’re meant to uphold the law. The fact about the judge’s overrulings being so unfavorable that they discouraged Chip from objecting, came out during a hearing that my appeals lawyers did. I’ll get that hearing mailed to me so you can see what I mean.
The judge and D.A.’s in my case made crooked and underhanded look like the norm, and I’ll expose a little of that in this letter. But, obviously, nothing was significant enough, out of the eight, or so, mistakes that my appeals lawyer brought up, to win my appeal. It’s like I was killed by thousands of ant bites.
But you guys remember the letter my appeals lawyer wrote. He said something about the Supreme Court not reviewing my appeal because of the lower courts decision not to write an opinion. I’m not sure what that means, but now it’s all about finding new evidence. Why? Because my appeals lawyers weren’t able to get what they needed the first time around. Once we can get new evidence, then we can start the appeals process over. It will work it’s way through three or four lower courts before it gets to the Supreme Court.
Answer to second question: Probably several things. If any of the witnesses come forward and say “I wasn’t truthful about this or that,” then that would help. Still, the appeals court has to ask the question: If this person had told the truth, would it have made a difference in the outcome of the trial?
In my case, that method really isn’t fair because one mistake may not have made a difference, and it seems that the appeals court only weighs one error at a time. A jury can be persuaded by several unruly tactics, that all come together to paint a convincing picture.
In my eyes, the judge did more to persuade the jury’s decision than even the D.A.’s. But you’ll see that they were a team in the Get-SPM-Convicted game.
For example, Incandesio wrote (on the same letter that had the two questions) that a New Jersey Court had rules that if the defendant could provide ‘some proof’ that a child witness’s testimony had been screwed with by the adults in charge, then they were entitled to a taint hearing to review the interviews.
Incandesio spoke about a “Michaels Case” where the kids in that case “were not intentionally lying; a story was cultivated in their minds, fleshed-out by ‘helpful’ adults, and by the time they got to court they truly believed they had experienced it.”
An example of that very thing happened in my trial. But it was all done outside the presence of the jury, so the jury never saw how easily this child’s testimony could be controlled. That’s likely why the judge didn’t allow any TV cameras in the courtroom. He knew he’d be doing and allowing all he could to help the D.A.’s convict me, and that don’t look good on camera.
Before I get to this example, this plot, I want to explain something as quickly as I can: I had a child with an underaged girl, as most of you know. I met this girl back in 1993. I was twenty-two. She lied about her age, she spent a few nights at my house like it wasn’t shit, and no one in her household seemed to lift an eyebrow. Then she got pregnant.
First of all, I’m attracted to a grown woman’s body and a grown woman’s mind, just like any other sane man. I don’t fuck with people’s kids. If I had known this girl was underage, I would not have had sex with her. Plus, I would have had to be fucking nuts to be planting my seed in a girl who I knew was a minor. But not knowing is no excuse in the state of Texas and I always knew this would catch up to me one day.
So, we had a beautiful little boy and I’ll never regret the gift of my son. I brought up this ordeal because nine years after getting this girl pregnant, my wife’s so-called friend called my family’s home. This woman said that I touched her daughter and was threatening to call the police. She said something to the tune of, “I’m calling the cops, and I’m also going to tell them about the boy that Carlos had with that underaged girl.”
My family called me. I was at a club at the time. I said, “If she calls again, tell that snake to call the police. If her daughter said I touched her, then something is going on in that child’s life that needs to be checked out. And don’t worry, just tell her what I said. Nobody’s going to blackmail me over my son.”
It was done, and the cops were called, and she told them about the underaged girl. I faced two charges: My baby’s mom, and the little girl’s accusation. In the following months, the D.A.’s found more girls to say they were under eighteen when they had sex with me. You’ll see how those cases came about and what methods were used to accomplish those charges. They were fraud and paper thin and all they really had was my baby’s mom. There was no denying that my boy was mine. But the D.A.’s decided to gamble and try the little girl’s case first. Anyway, if they lost, they could always fall back on the real case. But when the D.A.’s try a case, it costs the state a lot of money, so they do all they can to win. Me being this anti-system gangster, ex-dope dealer gone rapper, drug user and, most concerning to them, blowing up nation-wide, only made their chance at destroying me more appealing.
So, with all that said, I’ll begin explaining the incident that Incandesio’s letter, about the Michaels case, encouraged.Continued in Part 8.b