Updated Thursdays

Sunday, July 8, 2012


It seems trite but necessary to observe that our criminal system is accusatorial, not inquisitional, where the Rules of Evidence, not prosecutorial fury, are to prevail, and the prosecutor is not permitted to assume the role of Torquemada.
Though the appellant failed to properly preserve many errors resulting from the prosecutor's misconduct, the facts of the present case, in which impermissible prejudice permeates the entire record, indicate that even frequent instructions to disregard would not have sufficed to remove the prejudice.

This is from the case of Donald D. Rogers, written by the Texas Court of Appeals when they overturned his trial. Sometime in the ‘80s he was found guilty of ‘Indecency with a Child’, sentenced to serve six years and fined $6,000.

I found it through the blog of John T. Floyd, which I highly recommend if you’re interested in reading successfully appealed cases; obviously we’re talking about the appeal here, not the guilt or innocence of the defendant; I don’t know what ultimately happened to this guy, and I’m not particularly interested.

What interests me is the court’s finding that “the prosecutor's conduct during the trial, particularly her sidebar remarks, assumption of inflammatory facts not in evidence, prejudicial remarks stating her personal opinion, and improper bolstering, was manifestly improper and indicated a willful and calculated effort to deny the appellant a fair trial, thereby resulting in fundamental error.”

Apparently it is possible for a prosecutor to act so outrageously that her behavior alone is enough to overturn a conviction. However, this is not what I’m comparing to Carlos Coy’s case; we’ve only seen a small part of the 6,000 page transcript, so we don’t know how the prosecutors behaved throughout the whole trial.

What I find interesting here is that the TCA admitted that enough little, prejudicial shit happened that, while not technically illegal, it would be impossible to deny that the jury could ignore it. Coy said about his appeal “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.”

In at least one trial in Texas that, in and of itself, was enough to get a man back into court.

Although I imagine all the judges sitting on that court have long since retired or moved on, the precedent should still stand. A ‘willful and calculated effort’ to deny someone a fair trial should be enough to get that trial re-done.

So now the question becomes, is there evidence that the prosecutors denied Coy a fair shake? Well, we saw how Judge Ellis allowed the prosecutors to craft a story they liked, then change it suddenly when the little girl wouldn’t keep up her end of it.

He allowed the prosecutors to use the unverifiable testimony of Heidi Ruiz that the first, unrecorded interview she had with Jane Doe was EXACTLY the same as the second one. In Coy’s words: “Ruiz typed the statement herself. She watched the child’s interview, then got with her mother to type a statement that was consistent with what the child said.”

Mary Doe was allowed to testify that her father had died of a heart attack because he was told that Carlos Coy assaulted her daughter.

The prosecutors were allowed to hide the truth behind the symptoms that Jane Doe was experiencing: “The problem in my criminal trial was that the judge didn’t allow Chip to talk about anything having to do with the child’s home environment. He said it wasn’t relevant. So the jury heard nothing revealing about this family. They probably believed they were church-going Christians like Mary Doe had told them.

            Without Chip being able to show the home conditions causing Jane Doe’s disorder, his point was missing important pieces.”

It’s a lot, but is it enough? The only way we’ll ever know is to keep looking into this; keep pushing for the truth, keep asking the D.A. to look into it, keep spreading the word about what went on.



jacknee6969 said...

Yes maam! I totally agree with this is enough for a re-trial! But everyone should also know that in civil court, the judge and jury ruled that Carlos did not have to pay one cent to Jane Doe or her greedy whore mother!! Why do u ask? Well because some extent of Jane Doe's family background was allowed by the judge in front of the jury! All though this man is still in prison, just that trial right there ought to be enough for a re-trial! Let's just think about this! Guilty of the crime but not guilty of the money for pain n suffering to the poor little sheltered family of the little girl! Really??? Where's the justice in that? Wat da fuk is really goin on Harris County? Join da movement justice for Los!

J. Colonia said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

hey incandesio, whats gonna be the next on the blog? another dear family or something else??

keep up the good work!

Anonymous said...

free SPM

Anonymous said...

SPM did not win the civil judgement he was ordered to pay $20,000 ...... check the interview on channel 11 Houston its also on you tube , SPM was asked why hasn't the money from the civil judgement hasn't been paid. I also read on The Houston Chronicle that SPM was ordered to pay that amount.

Anonymous said...

SPM did not win the civil judgement he was ordered to pay $20,000 ...... check the interview on channel 11 Houston its also on you tube , SPM was asked why hasn't the money from the civil judgement hasn't been paid. I also read on The Houston Chronicle that SPM was ordered to pay that amount.

Incandesio said...

As I understand it, it was not possible to "win" or "lose" the civil case...The jury *had* to treat his conviction as truth.

Therefore, they were forced to assign a dollar value to the crime he was convicted of. That's what the 25k was for. AFTER that, they were directed to multiply it based on how much she had suffered/would suffer as the result of the alleged crime; 3, 4, or 5 x damages is normal.

The jury chose to multiply it by 0. You can read about it here: http://www.spmaftermath.com/2011/12/spm-responds-part-2.html

jacknee6969 said...

Ok the point I was trying to make was not who wonr da civil case or who had to pay what!! The point was that a jury was finally allowed to hear things about Jane Doe n her family life! And in case u didn't notice, the jury in the other trial was trial was ordered to leave the room everytime the damn Da's hard hours of coaching the child n her mother backfired! THE FUKIN POINT IS THAT THIS MAN DID NOT RECEIVE A FAIR! JUSTICE IS DA POINT! ALSO THE FACT THAT TRIAL BY JURY ALSO MEANS DA JURY HAS TO BE PRESENT TO HEAR THE DEFENSE ALSO...NOT JUST DA FUKIN DA!! All I can say is retrial!! Oh n FREE SPM!!

APatientFan said...

Im WIt Did Nigga ^^^^^^^

Anonymous said...

Incandesio good looking out , I was the dude that got of hold of The Houston Chronicle and read the part were the newspaper wrote that Spm was ordered to pay that amount. I read thru your blog and I found the response I needed in SPM's own words, on the civil trial they got 20, 000 some chump change those people are foul, devilish and full of greed , and what tripped me out those people got offered $300,000 and just laughed but check this out God does not like ugly he does everything for a reason and if you have faith you can move mountains. People need to understand that appeals take years until you go to the high courts which I believe will happen with SPM's case like what happened to Hurricane Carter yo , Incandesio we appreciate you for doing your thang. I will continue to spread the word aswell. I said what I said cus thats what I seen on the news and on the paper and this blog is important becuase it has Spm's answer to what people are asking and need to know thru your blog. I send dopehouse an email and I wrote that your blog SPM AFTERMATH.COM should be included on every cd and in every promotion , tour and all that, so that those non believers become believers . Peace!!!

Incandesio said...

Jacknee6969, APatientFan:
I understand what you're saying, and I do agree that the main point has to be the lack of a fair trial; however, it's important to use terms correctly. If it's wrong for someone to say Coy lost the civil suit, then it's wrong for us to say he won it.

If you can't defend or prove the term, try not to use it.

Incandesio said...

Anon 6:55:

I'm glad I could point you in the right direction! It was so easy for the media to mislead people about what was going on. I appreciate you raising the question, and then taking time to read Coy's analysis of the civil trial.

That's how we're going to succeed, by educating ourselves, and then those around us.

jacknee6969 said...

Sorry girl u right but my point was really about da the jury being able to here things about the girl and her family and also that they were able to hear the whole trial. Only other point I was trying to make is a re-trial should of done been given because of that simple fact! Sorry I sort of get fired up about this case! N can't fukin believe that he is still in jail over a damn one sided trial! Th

Anonymous said...

Can You Send Me Dopwhouserecords Email?