TexasCHLforum.com

In Galveston County this week a man was on trial for an armed robbery that took place in Texas City in January 2010.

At the conclusion of the trial, the judge directed a verdict of not guilty because prosecutors did not give the 911 recording to the defense when requested.

When the victim, a dollar-store clerk, called 911 at the time of the robbery, she said twice that the three robbers were wearing ski masks and she could not identify them by race. Security video also showed that the robbers were wearing ski masks.

(Also note that at night in January, they could have been wearing clothing that covered all of their skin and any tattoos, scars, etc.)

The victim later identified the defendant in a lineup.

The defendant also stated that he had been in Wharton County (about 100 miles away) at the time of the robbery. No one subpoenaed his cell phone records. (Apparently he did not have an attorney at the time.)

The defendant was in jail for 10 months. His mother ponied up 10 grand for bail and a defense attorney.

http://galvestondailynews.com/story/238950" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I have a few comments or questions that probably will never be answered:

• How did the defendant become a suspect?

• What evidence existed other than the single witness identification?

I have never trusted eyewitness identification of suspects that were not previously known to the witness.

I have trouble recognizing people that I have met casually two or three times (although I probably am worse at that than most people). I also have had people greet me several times, thinking I am someone else.

This is why I have argued many times that failing to identify the race of criminal suspects is possible, and falsely or mistakenly identifying them is problematic. (See this case, where a woman falsely claimed to have been hijacked.)

• Three robbers participated in this crime. When a guilty suspect is arrested, more often than not he will name others who were involved in the crime, to get a plea bargain. This defendant did not do that.

• The defendant was very lucky to get a directed verdict rather than a mistrial.

Before anyone asks why a 23-year-old man is unemployed and has no assets, the unemployment rate among high-school graduates with no further education or training is around 33%: http://www.bls.gov/news.release/hsgec.nr0.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

In other words, in and of itself, this fact is not a reflection on the man's character.

- Jim

seamusTX wrote:In Galveston County this week a man was on trial for an armed robbery that took place in Texas City in January 2010.

At the conclusion of the trial, the judge directed a verdict of not guilty because prosecutors did not give the 911 recording to the defense when requested.
- Jim

The article quoted Judge Susan Criss stating that this was her first directed verdict in her 13 years on the bench. Trial by jury is a cornerstone of the American judicial system, so directed verdicts are extremely rare in any court. This action, in itself, speaks volumes.

WildBill wrote:

seamusTX wrote:In Galveston County this week a man was on trial for an armed robbery that took place in Texas City in January 2010.

At the conclusion of the trial, the judge directed a verdict of not guilty because prosecutors did not give the 911 recording to the defense when requested.
- Jim

The article quoted Judge Susan Criss stating that this was her first directed verdict in her 13 years on the bench. Trial by jury is a cornerstone of the American judicial system, so directed verdicts are extremely rare in any court. This action, in itself, speaks volumes.

i have to agree here. if a judge hands down a directed verdict, it's probably because s/he is;

a) paid off/scared off by the mafia
b) pretty dang sure the defendant is deserving of the verdict handed down
3) drunk

schufflerbot wrote:

WildBill wrote:

seamusTX wrote:In Galveston County this week a man was on trial for an armed robbery that took place in Texas City in January 2010.

At the conclusion of the trial, the judge directed a verdict of not guilty because prosecutors did not give the 911 recording to the defense when requested.
- Jim

The article quoted Judge Susan Criss stating that this was her first directed verdict in her 13 years on the bench. Trial by jury is a cornerstone of the American judicial system, so directed verdicts are extremely rare in any court. This action, in itself, speaks volumes.

i have to agree here. if a judge hands down a directed verdict, it's probably because s/he is;

a) paid off/scared off by the mafia
b) pretty dang sure the defendant is deserving of the verdict handed down
3) drunk

You forgot legislating from the bench. Maybe that falls under drunk by their own ideology.

The acquitted defendant in this case filed a federal civil-rights lawsuit against the prosecutors, the Texas City Police Department, and several named individuals.

Subscription-only link:
http://www.galvestondailynews.com/news/ ... 0f31a.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

My only question is, why did it take so long?

- Jim

schufflerbot wrote:

The article quoted Judge Susan Criss stating that this was her first directed verdict in her 13 years on the bench. Trial by jury is a cornerstone of the American judicial system, so directed verdicts are extremely rare in any court. This action, in itself, speaks volumes.

i have to agree here. if a judge hands down a directed verdict, it's probably because s/he is;

a) paid off/scared off by the mafia
b) pretty dang sure the defendant is deserving of the verdict handed down
3) drunk

Of course you have the First Amendment right to make such a silly claim, even in the face of the stated reason:

At the conclusion of the trial, the judge directed a verdict of not guilty because prosecutors did not give the 911 recording to the defense when requested.

The rules of criminal procedure have to be followed by everyone, even by prosecutors, and even if the defendant is guilty. There are rules which require the prosecution to hand over its evidence to the defense, and one of the sanctions for failing to do so is that the defendant walks, even if "pretty dang sure" the defendant is guilty.

If the only witness, and likely only evidence, of this defendant's guilt was the eye-witness's identification of this defendant when other evidence showed, and the "eye-witness" claimed, the perpetrators were clothed so that not even their race was apparent, that is almost "reasonable doubt per se." This is why the 911 recording the prosecutors failed to deliver was not only relevant but almost determinative of the witnesses ability to observe, recall and recount what (s)he saw. Had they done so, there likely would never have been a trial to being with.

A directed verdict is proper when the evidence fails to prove every element of the crime. It sounds to me, based on what is contained in this discussion, that the eye-witness could not possibly have identified the defendant, or anyone else, as the perpetrator, so there was nothing for the jury to decide.

There are therefore two possibilities. One, the defendant is not guilty, wasn't there, didn't do it, and two, he was a perpetrator, but the state failed to prove it was him beyond a reasonable doubt, having as evidence only an eye witness who could not possibly be able to identify the suspects, by her own statement at the time.

This is a good example of why juries, and defense lawyers, are absolutely vital to the effective administration of justice.

Many years ago, when I was first admitted, we were encouraged to serve as court appointed counsel for minor criminal matters. I was appointed to represent a young man who had been present in a house at the time of a drug raid, along with a number of other persons who were present. Everyone was searched and handcuffed. He was placed on a Hollywood bed, sitting with his back to the wall. A "rig" for injecting heroin, etc was later found beneath that bed, and he was charged with possession of narcotics paraphernalia. The young man had no record, was not a user as far as anyone could tell, had a reasonable explanation of why he was there at the time, etc. I was able to show the DA that it was impossible for him to have possessed the rig, and gotten it out of his possession and under that bed, so the charges were dismissed before trial.

I have always felt good about this and another couple of cases I handled where it was apparent the state had gotten overly aggressive in charging criminal activity. In those minor crimes, alibis were almost impossible as in that type of case, you can't claim you were in Baltimore that night; they caught you fair and square. Most of the defendants were good and guilty, and all you can do is help insure their rights are respected. But, every now and then the system goes a little berserk and, when the criminal justice system fixes its attention upon you, you want and need all these "rights" we afford to all.

JALLEN wrote:Of course you have the First Amendment right to make such a silly claim, even in the face of the stated reason:

Of course the principle of freedom of speech is the right to make oneself look like the north end of a southbound donkey.

BTW, Judge Criss and I know each other (and not from me being in her courtroom). She calls me Jim. I call her Judge.

She is pretty harsh in terms of sentencing. She once required bail of $3 BILLION for a defendant who had already jumped bail. (It was the highest bail ever required in a criminal trial of an individual in Texas, and was reduced to a mere $1 billion on appeal.)

There are therefore two possibilities. One, the defendant is not guilty, wasn't there, didn't do it, and two, he was a perpetrator, but the state failed to prove it was him beyond a reasonable doubt,...

This is quite relevant to the members of this forum, aside from this particular thread.

Something like 99% of shootings are criminal acts, not justified by law. There is a strong presumption in the minds of the judicial system, the media, and the public that such incidents are crimes. Nobody wants to end up like Harold Fish, or pilloried like Joe Horn.

- Jim

So, let me get this straight. As long as you cover yourself head-to-toe so that no trace of your physical body can be seen, you don't get shot in the commission of the crime, and you escape immediate capture by law enforcement, then you can rob anyplace you want and get away with it? I'm sorry for being a smart-alec about it, but there must be some way of identifying folks even if they are covered up. I don't want people in jail who don't belong there, but folks that commit crimes should suffer the penalty.

K.Mooneyham wrote:So, let me get this straight. As long as you cover yourself head-to-toe so that no trace of your physical body can be seen, you don't get shot in the commission of the crime, and you escape immediate capture by law enforcement, then you can rob anyplace you want and get away with it?

It's not that simple.

You also have to —

• work with "colleagues" who are reliable and won't call out your name during the crime
• not lose your wallet or cell phone at the crime scene
• keep your flapping lips shut afterward (this includes not using Facebook or Twitter to boast)
• get rid of the stolen goods quickly, in a way that is untraceable

I've heard of at least one case where the victim of a robbery could identify the robber by voice, because the robber used to work in the place.

I've heard of several that got away, but were arrested soon after for traffic offenses, and turned out to be smoking blunts and drinking the booze they stole during robbery.

- Jim

seamusTX wrote:I have a few comments or questions that probably will never be answered:

• How did the defendant become a suspect?

• What evidence existed other than the single witness identification?

Maybe this information will surface now that Mr. Bledsoe is suing, but probably the defendants will hide behind the local tax base knowing their assets are protected from justice.

K.Mooneyham wrote:So, let me get this straight. As long as you cover yourself head-to-toe so that no trace of your physical body can be seen, you don't get shot in the commission of the crime, and you escape immediate capture by law enforcement, then you can rob anyplace you want and get away with it? I'm sorry for being a smart-alec about it, but there must be some way of identifying folks even if they are covered up. I don't want people in jail who don't belong there, but folks that commit crimes should suffer the penalty.

Absolutely, as soon as they are found, prosecuted and found guilty by sufficient evidence, unless they plead guilty which if they truly are, saves everybody a lot of time and effort.

Take my word for it, you do NOT want any corners cut in the process, for the day when attention turns to you or those you care about. Our interest is in a smooth functioning accurate law enforcement that discovers the guilty, a court process that effectively judges their guilt and imposes an appropriate sentence, all the while avoiding convicting innocents, and erring, if at all, on the side of not guilty. Our rules of evidence and criminal procedures are designed to accomplish this, mostly very satisfactorily but sometimes imperfectly.

In this case, it seems like the defendant was charged even though there was no credible evidence placing him at the scene, other than the clerk picking him out of a lineup presumably some time later, the credibility of which was undermined by the clerks statement on the 911 call (withheld from the defense apparently!) that the perps were wearing ski masks and covered up so that (s)he couldn't even say what race they were.

IOW, the witness, who apparently was the only evidence linking this defendant to the crime, could not credibly identify him as the same person seen at the store, despite picking him out of a line up later. If there were other evidence of him being there, prints, DNA, a good recognizable photo on security cameras, him being in possession of items which could only have come from the robbery, etc. then you've got something. From the account presented, he should not have been in jail, for more than however long it took to listen to the 911 tape, nor tried.