Updated Thursdays

Wednesday, January 30, 2013

Recap 7

So, you now have an idea of the environment that Coy was indicted and eventually convicted in; what was he actually convicted of?


One count of ‘Aggravated Sexual Assault of a Child’. After all the indictments, the rumors being thrown around, and the allegations made during his trial, he was only ever convicted of that one thing.


Many, many people I have come across believe that the ‘Aggravated’ part means he did something especially vicious, but in Coy’s case, it was because the supposed victim was under 14.



(section 22.021)


From the Habeas Corpus:



While sitting on the bed, [Coy] inappropriately touched and rubbed [the complainant]. After this incident, the complainant left [Coy]’s bedroom.


The children eventually entered the daughter’s bedroom. Both children climbed into bed and began watching television. After [Coy]’s daughter fell asleep, [Coy] entered the room, sat on the bed, reached under the covers, and again inappropriately touched her. Eventually, [Coy] sexually assaulted the complainant by causing her sexual organ to come into contact with his mouth. The complainant testified that [Coy] persisted in this conduct for approximately one minute.


The complainant did not, after this incident, stay overnight at [Coy]’s home as planned, but returned home. The following morning, she informed her mother what occurred at [Coy]’s home, and the authorities were contacted to investigate the incident.




So not only was he never accused of violence but, as we know from Coy’s letters, the child's story changed over time. Initially, she accused Coy of touching her; after the unrecorded interview with HPD Officer Heidi Ruiz, she began to say she was licked for a minute; at the civil trial, it became only one second.


You hear a lot about the women brought in to testify against Coy during the sentencing phase of his trial, and as far as I can tell Coy was indicted for each of those allegations, which means that he could have been tried for them, but never was. For all the prosecution’s bluster about getting a life sentence, Coy says: When the DA offered five years for both Jane Doe’s and Jill Odom’s case, I told my lawyer, “I’ll take ten years for my son, but I won’t say I did something that I didn’t do.”




If they truly believed he was a danger to children, why even offer him that deal? If they believed the young women who brought their stories into court, why did they never pursue those cases? Even the one case that offered proof, that of Jill Odom, was never prosecuted.


Maybe there’s another explanation, but from where I’m sitting it just looks like someone wanted to get headlines, and jumped on the most sensational case with both feet, evidence be damned.


Mr. topnotch said...

Thats what I say, if they honestly believed that he was that cruel like they said he was why even bother offering him 5years?? Comonn that just doesnt make any sense. Free los!

Jc said...

If he had taken the 5years and served his time,couldn't of he gone back to court and proof he was innocent .

Incandesio said...

JC: No, I believe that when you plead guilty, you waive your right to appeal.