Updated Thursdays

Sunday, March 31, 2013

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.

2 comments:

Marisol Garay said...

Your info is great

Jacqueline Bertrand said...

Incandesio keep up the good work!!! JOIN DA MOVEMENT FREE SPM