​
SECOND TRIAL <-- Click 

 

The DA once again called upon R to testify.  Even though it was due to the fact that his testimony was admissible  or allowed in the first place during his first trial, as to why M was granted a 2nd appeal in the first place



• ​R, was actually reluctant to testify the 2nd time around, stating that “he couldn't remember anything” as his reason.  It is easy to assume why he possibly was reluctant to testify.  If it were me I would have been reluctant too.  Especially, if I had gotten away with murder and just had just  a little over 5 years left to do in the what little time I did get (little compared to LIFE).  Anyone would be worried about not having the same good luck 2nd time around.  



However, the DA told him that if he did not that they would pull his original plea bargain. (.which they can not do but, they banked on the fact that they did not think he knew that).



• ​R was asked again to testify as to why he believed M shot her.  In the 1st trial R said it was because M had become jealous because T was hitting on R.  However, his story changed during his testimony at the 2nd trial he M  shot her because he feared that she would go to the cops about the stolen car.  Because she “knew too much.” However,  M did not take part in stealing the car and his alibi to attest to that was in fact T, which gave him no reason to want her dead.



• If that was the case then why didn't he take her home first before meeting up with R who according to R, M knew that he had stole the car because according to R, M gave him the keys, allegedly.  Why would he knowingly take T with him to meet up with R in the stolen car if he was concerned about her “knowing too much??

​

• The DA also had an ex-girlfriend and her mother testify against M’s character. The only reason she did was because in trying to raise money to help pay for a more competent attorney she got into some trouble of her own and caught some charges herself. So, the DA made a deal with her....She walks on her charges if she testifies. She didn't want to do it and even called M’s mother to tell her about it. But, he told her to do it anyway. Simply because he didn't want to see her life ruined because she was only trying to help him.



On the stand the prosecutor simply asked her, "what kind of character does Mr. M have?" She responded by saying, "bad." Which was what they had instructed her to say. Basically, they told her to lie on the stand in exchange to have her record cleared.  Her mother was also forced to testify to the same extent as part of the deal. It is obvious to gather that apparently, the DA did not even feel themselves, that the there was enough actual physical evidence that would have gotten a conviction (a win for them) without the use of perjured testimony from witnesses.

 

• The ex-girlfriend testified during his 1st trial FOR THE DEFENSE!   During cross examination any competent attorney would have most definitely made a point to bring that up.. ESPECIALLY SINCE HE WAS THE ATTORNEY IN THE 1ST TRIAL WHO HAD CALLED HER TO TESTIFY FOR THE DEFENSE!!  What did he say when he cross examined her during the 2nd trial?  Absolutely nothing!!  Well, besides saying…”I have no questions for this witness, your honor.”
   



Perjury = the criminal offense of lying under oath. It is a felony, i.e., an offense for which the punishment can include imprisonment. Inducing another person to commit perjury is called subornation of perjury, also a felony. Finally, when a lawyer commits subornation of perjury, it is a violation of the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct for which the lawyer can be disciplined. The discipline imposed by the State Bar of Texas can be disbarment.

 

​Subsequently, he was re-convicted and given a Life Sentence for the second time. It was also his 23rd birthday.



INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL? ← Click to get a understanding of what this means.



The prosecution had no physical evidence that they could present to the jury.  All they had to show M’s guilt was R’s testimony and the testimonies of the the “character witnesses”  otherwise it is unlikely the jury would have been able to convict him.

​

• ​M’s attorney was aware that R was originally reluctant to testify and had stated that he couldn't remember.  He also knew that the DA had lied to him in regards to pulling back his original plea as a way to scare him into testifying (even though legally he could not).  However, M’s attorney failed to bring up any of this to the jury.



• He also was aware of the deals the prosecution had made with other witnesses in exchange for their perjured testimony however, he also failed to bring that up as well during the trial. 



• He could have argued against the alleged “motive” that was given when R testified that M shot her because he feared she was going to go to the cops about the stolen car. He failed to address the fact that in all actualuality M had nothing to do with the stolen car and in fact R acted alone in stealing the car.



• Earlier in the evening when M and T were leaving the night club they were stopped by 2 off duty Harris county police officers who were working security at the club.  They were stopped and questioned if they knew anything about T’s friend’s car that was missing and had been apparently stolen from the parking lot.  They told that they did not (which was the truth) and were allowed to leave  and when they did leave they drove off in M’s car with M driving.   At the time they did not know where R had gone and just assumed he had left with other friends.  This bring up the very compelling point in that how could M have stolen a car when he had (a) never left the anytime from the time they first arrived until he and T left together at closing. (b).  When he did leave he was driving his own car and not the stolen vehicle. 



• The 2 off duty Harris county police officers that had questioned M and T witnessed M and T leaving in M’s car with M behind the wheel.  However, M’s attorney did not bother bringing them in as witnesses. If he had done so it would have exposed R’s testimony to be not only wrong but, he could have easily argued that the alleged “motive” that R gave as reason why M shot her was not valid due to the fact that M had nothing to do w/ the stolen car and in fact T would have been his alibi.  In addition, he could have also easily shown that the alleged “motive” that R testified to actually belonged to himself.  He claimed that M shot her because there was concern she might go to the cops about the stolen car. When in fact the only one that would have been concerned if that was the case, was R himself.

​

• He also failed to address the fact that during the 1st trial R had testified as to something completely as far as M’s alleged motive and if he had done so, he could have caused the jury to question R’s credibility altogether.

​

 

​

​OTHER DETAILS THAT SHOULD HAVE RAISED DOUBT IF HE HAD BEEN REPRESENTED BY COMPETENT COUNSEL.



• They recovered 2 sets of bullets from the scene but, the only ones actually recovered from her body came from a gun that supposedly belonged to M, a .22 rifle which in the State of Texas does not have to be registered. It was determined it was M’s simply because R said it was and of course he said M’ was the one that fired it. He also testified that the other bullets came from his gun and the only reason he shot at her too but, only off to the side of her was because “M made him." or rather he felt “intimidated” by M.  M’s attorney failed ask how was it that someone could have felt intimidated by anyone if they were twice the size of the other person, several years older and brandishing their own gun?​

 

• However, if I had been a jury member and was informed that R was also facing charges AND had made a deal to save his own ass in exchange for his testimony against M.... I would have had a hard time convicting  M as I am sure any of the actual jury members would have also he they had been told. Which was actually the ground his 2nd trial was granted under.

​

• Why did the DA go through the trouble of “blackmailing” witnesses to testify against M character, such as the ex-girlfriend and her mother?  Plus, falsely telling R that if didn't testify as well that they would reverse the deal they made with him in exchange for his testimony in the first trial.  The answer is simple!  They (the DA) were on a hunt for a conviction and they knew that no substantial concrete evidence existed.  Therefore, they basically “blackmailed” witnesses into testifying.  Forcing them to lie on the stand, give perjured testimonies.  Without the testimonies that the DA themselves constructed them to say it is unlikely he would have been convicted.  M’s attorney was aware of this. However, he failed to bring it up during his cross-examination.



• A couple years later his (M’s attorney) license to practice law was suspended and he was put on probation but, got in trouble again for additional infractions that he incurred while practicing WHILE HIS LICENSE WAS SUSPENDED! He remains on probation from the Bar until 2016. ​M probably would have fared better representing himself.



 

 

​

​OTHER POINTS IN THE ARTICLE & THE FACTS THAT WERE OMITTED AT HIS TRIAL:​

“Stephens told the jury that M  was put on probation when he was 16 for driving a car without permission and burglary of a building. When he was 17, he received probation for carrying a pistol to school.”



He had taken his mom’s car for a joyride and she sent him to a Boy’s Ranch (not court ordered). The Boy’s ranch was located just a mile hike through some woods to a cousin’s house., where he after a short time after arriving he ran away to. After all, it wasn't court ordered. If my mother sent me there, knowing that if I left the law really couldn't do anything.. id run away too. At the time she was married to a man that was severely abusive to M and his sister and basically threatened his mom if she did not send him away. Prior to taking the car, he had never gotten in trouble and made good grades in school. As far as getting caught with a gun at school…. He was bullied bad and had it in order to scare off his bullies but, it was not loaded.  However, he was currently on deferred adjudication probation for the gun charge therefore it should have never been allowed to be brought up at his first trial.



(At the time of his arrest and 1st trial he was on deferred adjudication probation for bring a gun to school, therefore it should have not been admissible in court)​

None of those details were mentioned at his trial (meaning.. his attorney did not take any opportunity to bring them up!)​

The other two witnesses that they had was a “retired police investigator” who was an investigator on the original case and a “reform school principle.” Of course the investigator on the original case testimony is going to be damaging. As far as the “reform school principal,” he was the principle at the boys ranch that his mom had sent him to. Therefore, since he ran away from it of course the former principle is not going to have anything good to say..​

 

Click ---> In closing arguments, defense attorney Tom Zakes tried to convince jurors that ***, the “accomplice”  testimony was not credible, that he was simply shifting the blame. Zakes said the murder weapon may have been ***'s, but it was *** who used it - not his client.

The “injustice in the justice system is the lack of justice.”



All the under the table deals that the prosecutors’ made which details were omitted from the jury at both his first trial and 2nd should be considered a violation of ethics and code of conduct… unfortunately no such “code of conduct” exist that the prosecutors in his case would have been in violation of.  That is one of many that needs to change!​

According to the last sentence in the  first paragraph of the;​

TEXAS CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE​

“They shall not suppress facts or secrete witnesses capable of establishing the innocence of the accused.”​
http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/CR/htm/CR.2.htm​

You would think that not informing the jury of the plea deals that they had made with witnesses in BOTH his trials would fall under that.  Especially, when they had “instructed” what the witnesses should say regardless of whether it was the witnesses true feelings or opinion like with the girlfriend in the second trial.  I feel that there should be a separate council elected by the citizens whose responsibility is to monitor and regulate all other court officials; judges, prosecutors and attorneys to insure that no code of ethics and conduct have been violated when seeking a judgments upon anyone else.  I am not saying that plea bargains should not be allowed altogether. Just when one has been made with a witness that has also been charged in the same crime as the person that they have been called to testify against in exchange for a lighter sentence.  Then the details of whatever plea bargain should be made known to the jury in order for the jury to make a fair judgment as to whether or not the witness's’ testimony is credible enough to make it a factor in their judgments of conviction or not.   Instead, due to the testimony of the “character witnesses”  brought (aka “BOUGHT”)  by the prosecutor his conviction was once again upheld.​



IN CONCLUSION

“In this case, little evidence was presented that  R shot the victim as no .380 rounds were recovered from the body.”   Only evidence presented that M was the shooter was R’s testimony therefore, to make M out to be the type of person that “could commit” this kind of crime the prosecutors coerced the testimony of certain character witnesses.



ADDITIONAL FACTS IMPORTANT TO NOTE IN ADDITION TO OTHER DETAILS THAT WERE EITHER OMITTED OR WERE NOT BROUGHT UP DURING EITHER TRIAL.



None of the 21 identifiable lifted from the gun belonged to M.



The lead crime scene investigator even testified that there was no physical evidence linking M to the crime.



Several of the people that were called to testify by the DA against M in regards to his “character” testified in exchange for plea bargains they made with DA for charges that they were facing.



The ONLY testimony that indicating M was the shooter was the testimony given by the “accomplice”...in EXCHANGE for a lesser charge of attempted murder.  There were no other actual witnesses or physical evidence that linked M as the actual shooter.​

In the 1st trial R testified that M shot her because he accused her of “coming on to R.  When in fact she was NOT his girlfriend and they had only known each other a month or two.   When she was found and identified the police questioned her older brother who is severely intellectually challenged and the victim was his caretaker who he lived with.  He told the police that the last person he had seen with her was M and he told the police that he was her girlfriend.   If M’s attorney had succeeded in investigating his case thoroughly and by calling on witness to testify for M’s defense he could have easily disputed this claim.  As a matter of fact M was dating someone and there were plenty of people that his attorney could have called upon to support that as fact and could have possibly discredited R’s testimony that he gave in the first trial as to M’s motive.  However, he did not bother.

 

​When R testified he claimed that M shot the victim because M feared she would “snitch” on him about the stolen car, when in fact it was actually R that stole the car.  M was with the victim at the time the car was stolen therefore, the victim was actually M’s alibi proving he did not steal the car... therefore why would he want her dead?

​
When M and T left the nightclub earlier that night, M and T were temporarily detained by 2 police officers working security at the club because  the owner of the car who was also a friend of T’s and had been sitting at the table with them earlier.  They were just asked if they knew anything about her car being missing.  M told him that he did not (and he did not know anything at the time).  In addition,  how could he have stolen anyone’s car if he was still there?  Plus, he had drove to the club in his own car and therefore left in his own car.  The officers let them go.  The owner of the car and the 2 officers could have testified that they witness M leaving in his own car therefore, clearing him of R’s allegations that it was M that stole the car. However,  they were never called to testify during the trial.  Another gross error on the behalf of M’s attorney. If they would have, they would have made R’s testimony to appear questionable which would have also possibly raised just enough doubt in the eyes of the jury as well.



The judge also did not sequester the jury, which opened opportunity for the jury to be influenced by media and the damaging (albeit false) details that were written in the papers during the trial.

There were 21 readable prints retrieved from the gun that they said fired the bullets that were retrieved from the victim’s body.  None of which belonged to M.



The lead crime scene investigator, on the case, Roy McDonald testified for the prosecution. He cited his impressive resume of over 17 years experience working as a crime scene investigator as well as being a firearms expert. He also showed the jury photos of the crime scene and discussed his forensic findings.  When it was M's attorney turn to question him the very first question he asked was; "Mr. McDonald, you have been a crime scene investigator for 17 years, correct?"  Mr. McDonald; "Yes."  Attorney Tom Zakes; "What does any of this have to do with my client?"  Mr. McDonald's exact words were; "I have no way of tying Mr. M to any of this."



At the time M was on deferred adjudicated probation, charged as a juvenile for carrying a gun to school.  It was not loaded, he simply had it to scare off the bullies that used to pick on him because he was smaller than most of the other boys.  The DA revealed this to the jury which no doubt played an influence in regards to their verdict.  However, due to the fact that he was on deferred adjudicated probation it should not have been admissible in the court proceedings and M's attorney should have objected.​


Throughout the trials and even in the court documents the victim is repeatedly referred to as M's "girlfriend" which painted a more personal connection and gave credibility to another "false" claim that R made during his first trial; "M accused T of coming on to R"   When in fact she was not his girlfriend and never was. 

​

​R claimed that M had shot her because he was worried she would tell on him about the stolen car but, in fact he was the actual one that had stolen the car.Even IF M would have gotten in trouble over the stolen car, he knew at most it would be “unauthorized use of a vehicle” which at MOST would be 2 years state jail.  A lot less of a sentence than committing murder.  However, since T was his alibi as to the fact that he DID NOT steal the car he was not concerned.  Therefore, R’s claim of M’s motive for killing T in order to avoid getting into trouble for stealing the car IS FALSE!



In addition, If M did indeed shoot her because he was worried she would tell on him about the car then why was he not more concerned about being tied to her murder?  Especially, since there were several other witnesses that could testify that she had been with him earlier that night.  In addition to shooting her with a gun that could also be tied to him.  If he was indeed concerned about getting charged for a stolen vehicle one would think that he would be even more concerned about getting charged with murder.  Not to mention there was several people including, T’s friends that were with them at the nightclub who would be able to testify to the fact that M had been with T  the night she was killed.​


Other key questions to ask yourself...



What kind of person drives themselves, without contacting a lawyer into a police station for questioning?  Not someone who knows they are guilty!! 

​
Being young, 19, M routinely carried his gun in his car.  As did his friend, R.  However, there was no reason for R to retrieve his gun from his trunk prior to getting back into the car with M & T aside from becoming concerned after learning that T new the owner of the car and had threatened to turn him in. R had never been in trouble, meaning he had just never been caught.  He was however, involved in multiple illegal activities. From drug dealing to car theft.  

 

​However, that was R’s story and the DA had made a deal with him.  They would charge him with just attempted murder if he agreed to tell it…regardless whether or not it was the truth or how questionable or how little common sense it made.   One other important note, there were a total of 21 readable prints that were lifted from the gun that was determined to be the gun that fired the lethal shots.  NONE of them belonged to M.​

​

The crime scene investigator that testified for the the prosecution declared when being cross-examined by the defense, that he could not physically tie M to the scene.  When there is no physical evidence linking someone to a crime the only other way to possibly obtain a conviction is to show a jury that the defendant had motive.  R’s testimony did just that.  EXCEPT, In all actuality the ONLY person that had motive was R because the ONLY person that had committed any crimes earlier in the evening that would have been at risk if T did inform the cops of the crime she had been witness to was R, NOT M!



What it comes down to because of the nature of the crime and it being a high profile type of crime especially for the time (1992) the pressure was on the DA to get a conviction.  R lawyered up with a more qualified and talented lawyer.  M and his family did not have the financial means to higher a high profile defense attorney like R’s family did. Maybe, if they would have then maybe he would not have been basically kidnapped by the system when he was only 19 years old.  He will be 40 next year. Instead, like they say...”you get what you pay for.”  Apparently, that goes for attorneys too.

In the end, what it really came down to was M’’s word against R’s. Except, M’s attorney did not have him take the stand, giving him a possible chance to at least counter testify against the obvious fallacious testimony R was allowed (instructed) to give.  In exchange he received 10 years for attempted murder. The  DA was under the gun to get a conviction due to the nature of the crime and they basically went after weakest opponent rather than risk a loss going up against the more competent attorney.  They didn't care whether or not they actually had it right…all they cared about was pleasing the public and getting “A” conviction.  I believe it was also an election year too.

 

THE TRUTH!!



What actually happened… She was shot because she had learned about some other “activities” that R and M had been involved in i.e R was the one that actually stole the car…. in other-words;  R was ACTUALLY the one that feared she would report him for stealing the car.  Plus, he had not been in trouble before, i.e. he had not been CAUGHT before.  Once R realized that the victim (T) knew the owner of the car he had just stolen, when M dropped R back off at his car R got out and then changed his mind and asked if he could ride with M to take T home. However, before he got into the car with M and T he  retrieved his gun from the trunk of his own car and then got back into the car with M and the victim.  Why did he feel the need to retrieve his gun if they were just taking her home? 



​T was killed to keep her from going to the cops about the stolen car just like R stated in his testimony.  M’s gun was the one that the bullets retrieved from T’s body came from.  However, M WAS NOT THE SHOOTER!!   Why didn't he tell the cops the truth at first when he was originally questioned? He feared If he snitched out who really did it then he feared his family could have been at risk. He was 19 and scared.  But, when presented with R’s own FALSE statement he changed his mind and told the truth and put his faith in the justice system and that he would not be convicted because he was not guilty and there was no actual physical evidence or any other witness besides the other person who was also charged. 



However, justice failed him.  Although, he probably would not have been if the there was some kind of additional “Code of Conduct” that would have prevented the Prosecutors from withholding the details from the jury that were withheld and/or, if he would have been allowed to take the stand then maybe justice would have fell to his side in the end in spite of obviously having an incompetent attorney.

 

​After his bit at the reform school, the abusive step-dad died, his sister had gotten married and moved out of the house and the relationship between him and his mother had become understandably damaged. Therefore, he was left on his own with no one and no guidance. Eventually, he went seeking some kind of “older figure/older brother” substitute (insert the co-defendant R) who in turn got him involved altogether with the wrong people and it caused him to have his Life and freedom stolen from him when he was just 19 years old.​

AS OF TODAY​

​M has been parole eligible since 2008 but, just got denied for the 3rd time.  Reason stated, "Nature of Offense " In Texas when your file goes to the board it is JUST your file..and you are forced to put all your hope into praying that for whatever reason the person voting on your file is having a good day and actually takes the time to spend more than a minute or two which is the average that they do actually spend on each one.  You cannot even request a "face to face" with the board until you have reached your 20yr mark.  He has been about as a "model inmate" as they come.  He has maintained employment within in the prison and has even received many promotions over the years.  He has also been relentless at furthering his education and has taken every and all classes and certifications that are offered at the unit he is housed out. Nor has he had any disciplinary actions against him in over 11 years.  He has continued to make the best of his situation by growing up to be the best man he can.. IN-SPITE OF BEING NOT GUILTY of the charges that has put him there. I just find it hard to believe that the voter actually did take the time to see and read all the supporting documents supporting all of the above and STILL stamped his file with a NO.  How can they issue a fair vote when they do not review everything I they have available to them in the inmates’ files and instead just gave it a "fly look".. meaning., not looking past "Murder" & "Life Sentence," taking the littlest amount of time on each file in order to quickly move on to the next one. It is also important to note that M does not deny any responsibility altogether.  He does accept responsibility in the sense that if he had made different decisions during the chain of events on that fatal that T ultimately had her life taken then she probably would still be alive.  However, it was not M that ultimately was the one that took her life.  In the end though, does making the wrong decisions that led to someone having their life taken at the hands of someone else deserve a life sentence?  R in the end was given the lighter sentence of attempted murder and was released after serving 10 years. 



In closing



The Justice System hasn’t only failed M but, the victim in all this as well.  Her life was tragically ended.  She deserved to have the actual person responsible punished.  However, those that act as guardians of the Justice System, executors as you might say, didn’t care about seeking true “justice” for her.  Their interest was solely in protecting their reputation in the eyes of the media by ensuring they got a “win” (a conviction) at all cost by going after the person they felt would be easier to convict. Regardless, whether or not they convicted the right person



The element that our Justice system lacks the most is “justice.”

 

Justice =  the moral principle determining just conduct. The act or treat justly or fairly.​