Battle For Justice
By Robert Arroyo
Background
In 1990, at the age of seventeen, the law caught up with Adams and through a plea bargain he received his first conviction for a non- violent crime, receiving a 5 year prison sentence. Adams was released, but was ordered back to finish out his original sentence due to a parole and probation violation in June 1995. In a period of soul searching, Adams attributed his
re-incarceration to youthful inexperience and a lapse in judgement, knowing now that being in prison was not conducive to his goal of a musical career, and he refocused himself on finishing his sentence. All of that was about to change, and his life as he knew it , would never be the same.
It was in December of 1995 , in what would soon begin for Adams an extremely frustrating quest for justice. He was at the Atascocita State Jail Facility when he was surprised by a visit from an Assistant Prosecutor and two Investigators. Adams knew that he had not committed any other transgressions, other than the one he was currently serving time for.
They said they were not there for him, but wanted to question him about an acquaintance of his, Charles Hughes. The Prosecutor asked him if he knew Mr. Hughes and if he was aware of his involvement in any criminal activities, specifically any involvement with an Armed Robbery/Home Invasion.
Adams acknowledged knowing Mr. Hughes, explaining that they met through their shared passion for music sometime around 1988/1989. He further explained that they frequented some of the same establishments where other aspiring Rap musicians hung out or performed. They eventually formed a friendship which over time evolved and solidified. They began hanging out like young people do, sharing goals, writing music and experiencing life.
As for Mr. Hughes criminal activities, and the latest charge filed against him for Armed Robbery , Adams did not know anything and attempted to explain that between 1990 and 1993, that contact between the two had been minimal and fleeting due to each others' periods of incarceration. When one was out the other was in and vice versa.
With no knowledge to be gained concerning Mr. Hughes, the Assistant Prosecutor and the two Investigators left. Adams, assuming this was the end of his involvement, resumed his prison routine.
Indictment
In the remaining months of 1995, Adams continued his normal prison routine. He stayed busy after working his assigned job in the fields, hanging out with friends, going to recreation and watching television. But quietly at night, he was counting down the days to going home, breathing "free air" and eating "normal food." There was the not knowing if he would be able to resume his life after a felony conviction, as he had hoped to resume his musical aspirations. It's almost over he thought. Not quite.
On January 4, 1996 Adams was bench warranted to Brazoria County Jail. Having been questioned by the Assistant Prosecutor and two Investigators at Atascocita concerning Mr Hughes criminal activity, he was now being ordered to appear before a Grand Jury. Suffering a battery of redundant questions, he replied easily because he knew nothing. The Prosecutor wanted to know if he would agree to a polygraph test and he readily agreed. The results were negative and he was sent back to Atascocita.
Unbeknownst to Adams, the real purpose of the Grand Jury was to garner enough evidence to indict him. With no legal representation, he was not privy to the Prosecutors legal maneuvering. Nevertheless, he was "No Billed" by the Grand Jury which was revealed to him later.
On April 29, 1996, Adams prison routine was once again interrupted and he was bench warranted back to Brazoria County under the pretense of going before the Grand Jury, scheduled for May 2, 1996. He believed his appearance was a continuance of the Hughes' investigation. On or around May 12, 1996 he was brought before a jail official and was presented with a life changing bombshell; he not Charles Hughes, was the subject of this latest arraignment. He was being charged with five counts of engaging in organized criminal activity. To add insult to injury , the very next day an additional indictment was presented, bringing the number to six indictments for a crime committed by someone three years prior. The Prosecutor claimed that he was being indicted based on what witnesses had testified to before the Grand Jury. Who were they? How did his name come up? Time to lawyer up.
Pre-Trial
By hiring Mr. Gordon E. White, Adams hoped that he would be able to guide him through this confusing maze of legal machinations. He and another man, Mr William Johnson, were being charged as co-defendants in an Armed Robbery. They would be joined at a later date by Mr. Charles Hughes, thereby meeting the States minimum element required for a charge of "Engaging in Organized Criminal Activity" by three or more people. Incredibly though, Hughes was the final required link to meet the qualifying parameter for an organized crime charge, however he was never charged with it, only Adams and Mr. Johnson were to face such charges.
Mr. Whites first action was to file his first motion a "Motion For Discovery" allowing him to review the States evidence, which held absolutely no surprise. Instead it reinforced Adams claim that he had nothing to do with the crime. For example, the victims statement to the officers was that two people committed the crime. Mr Hughes was later identified in a lineup, although the lineup itself was questionable. The second man was described as being around 6'2" with a slim build, however Adams is a husky 5'10". Crime scene evidence including finger, foot, and tire prints did not match any of the defendants, nor the victims. There were no confessions, property or weapons linking either of them. Conspicuously absent from the States evidence were Crime Stopper tips.
On the basis of this evidence, or rather lack thereof, Mr White attempted to have all charges dropped, arguing that the State had no credible evidence that a trial would be unnecessary and time consuming because his client was innocent. The Prosecutor refused, explaining that the case would go to trial. Mr White was interested to learn how his client was indicted with no evidence, in which the Prosecutor stated that the basis of the indictments was the testimony given to the Grand Jury. Assuming that the Prosecutor would comply and act "in good faith" , Mr White filed a Motion For Discovery of Grand Jury testimony in order to review who went before the Grand Jury and what testimony was given that brought about an indictment. Maybe he was missing something. Motion Denied!
Trial-April 1, 1997 April Fool's Day
Overview of Testimony-You be the Judge
Both testified that they were watching a movie when around 10:15 p.m. two men entered their home through the kitchen. Both assailants were black, one without a mask (supposedly Mr. Hughes), the other masked approximately 6'2" with a slim build. They were told to lie face down on the floor. Exclaiming "This is a robbery!" The robbers threatened to shoot the dog if it could not be restrained. Stephanie was ultimately wounded by a gunshot. She stated that because she was laying face down on the floor, she could not see but "guessed" more robbers were in the house. David further testified that the masked man was armed with a nine millimetre pistol , while the unmasked man had a shotgun. He also believed that additional robbers had entered their home. Both were unable to positively identify Adams as one of the robbers.When later asked how they had come to know Adams, each replied, "through the courts". When shown some property , by the Brazoria County Investigators, both denied that the property was theirs. Testifying at a later time at William Johnson's trial , they added that the robber yelled "Kill them all....kill them all!" No positive identification; No property recovered or physical evidence; No case; Next Witness.
Law Enforcement Official
David Dorman-Investigator
Brazoria County Sheriffs Department testified that he was dispatched to the crime scene and was able to interview the Palmer's and got a description of the robbers. He testified to the fat that neither he nor his department were able to corroborate the statements from the witnesses or find any physical evidence linking Adams, Hughes, or Johnson to the crime scene. Nothing! Strike One. ,
Oscar Curtis-Frame Identification Office
Brazoria County Sheriff's Department testified that he found finger, foot, and tire prints none of which matched the victims nor those of Adams, Hughes, or Johnson. Swing and a Miss. Strike Two.
Sgt's Fred Carroll and Larry Webber
Houston Police Department happened to be investigating a murder and the person they were looking for lead them to several locations. Arriving at a residence Adams was to had been at, they testified that he used a fake name when talking to the police. Adams attorney asked them if the person they were looking for was at the address , or if anyone there ever became a part of their investigation, they both replied "No". When asked what they could tell the jury about the event that took place December 19, 1993 in Pearland, Texas at the Palmer's house, they both replied " nothing". Strike Three
Why were these Law Enforcement Officials their for the Prosecution?If anything, they did nothing but bolster Adams ' case in proving his innocence. Four men sworn to protect and serve the public. Many cumulative years of investigating experience and they could not find any physical, direct or absolute evidence, linking Adams or his co-defendants to this crime. No evidence immediately after the crime and none three years later and none still today. Innocent until proven guilty. Right?
Non-Law Enforcement Witnesses
Tara Johnson-Incarcerated on Federal Charges (Bench Warranted)
According to Ms. Johnson , on the day of the crime, later that night at 10:00 p.m. she was sitting in a car with the window rolled down, when she over heard Adams, Johnson, and Hughes talking. She claimed she heard someone say "Fuck that bitch, don't worry about it ." The day stuck in her mind because it was her brother's birthday. She then left for a party at her brother's tire shop ( which had been closed down in 1992 after a police raid). During the trial she would give conflicting times of the crime. Her only mention of Adams, prior to her testimony was in a five page statement she gave to Harris County Investigators about Charles Hughes. In her testimony she stated "seeing Adams at Terry's house one day and it looked like he had a gun under his shirt." That's it.The only link to the crime was her statement that Mr Hughes allegedly "mentioned killing five people in Brazoria".
Marva Sears- Ni'se
Testified that Adams and Johnson were often at her house. The Prosecutor asked her if she ever heard Adams raping about shooting a woman. She basically agreed with the Prosecutor. Last, but not least ,she mentioned seeing a TV and computer around Christmas time at her home.
James Barret-Red (Ni'se boyfriend/drug addict)
Testified that Adams and Johnson used to "live at their spot" and in December of 1993, he was awakened to loud music. Getting up, he spotted a TV and VCR. The next dau he had seen on the news about a woman getting shot.
Randolph Scott-Drug addict
Testified that he stayed the next street over from Ni'se and Red and Adams stayed across the street from him. As with the case with Marva Sears Ni'se, the Prosecutor asked him if he had heard of the home invasion in which he replied that he had. He further testified that he purchased a TV from Adams at Ni'se's house. When asked if he was concerned that the TV may have been stolen he replied " No, because the TV came from a woman who owed Adams money for drugs." This was the same TV shown to the Palmer's, which they denied owning. When Adams' lawyer asked where the TV was currently, he stated, "Plugged up in my living room".
Chevalle Dockery-L.A.
Testified that he knew Adams from the neighborhood and last recalled seeing him in 1992. As his testimony became favorable to Adams, The Prosecutor attempted to impeach his testimony with prior inconsistent testimony, given before the Grand Jury. A redacted version pf his testimony was introduced as a State exhibit. Chevalle's testimony from the gRand Jury was dated July 10, 1996, which was two months and eight days after the May 2, 1996 stamped and filed date of indictment. Chevalle was charged with perjury for his testimony.
The Prosecutor was running out of steam. The only thing proven was that the State had foundation for these charges, There were two witnesses left, would one of them bring it home for the Prosecutor, or would they set Adams free? There could only be one outcome, innocent or guilty, right? The Prosecutor called Winnell Texada.
Winnell Texada-Drug addict
Testified that she had met Adams in 1993 while purchasing drugs from him. In her testimony, it became evident that her testimony was not relevant to Adams trial. There was a motion in Li mine, requesting the courts to order the State not to refer to Extraneous offenses or Prejudicial Hearsay. After a bench conference, the court instructed the Jury to disregard Winnell's statement about purchasing drugs. When asked again how they met, she once again stated that it was through purchasing drugs in 1993. Prosecutor Misconduct. Mistrial. April Fools Adams
Mistrial
While Adams' was disappointed in the trials outcome,his lawyer was livid and justifiably so, Prosecutor misconduct , used as a tactic, was not unheard of, especially when the case is not going their way. It was Adams' lawyer contention that the Prosecutor intentionally allowed this to happen, A point that he argued vigorously.
In a nutshell, any testimony or evidence brought before the Court, that was/is outside the scope of the trial or what the defendant is being charged with is inadmissible, After being granted a Motion of Li mine, requesting that the Court order the State not to refer to extraneous offenses or prejudicial hearsay , until the Court had the opportunity to rule upon its admissibility , but the State continued along the same line of Winnell's testimony about buying drugs from Adams. Therefore, forcing Adams' attorney to request a mistrial. Motion Granted.
Motion to Dismiss by Reason of Double Jeopardy
With the trial ending unexpectedly, Adams' lawyer intended to prevent a retrial by filing a Motion to Dismiss by reason of Double Jeopardy. The mistrial was based upon Prosecutor Misconduct. The Prosecutor argued that Winnell's testimony as a "surprise" and that he was not "aware" that she was going to mention buying drugs from Adams. Adams' lawyer countered that, prior to putting a witness on the stand, proper procedure dictates that the witness first be interviewed, also a review of the questions that would be asked during the trial and what the answer would be in return. Failure to do so, practically guaranteed an unfavorable outcome for the Prosecutor, or even a mistrial.
Winnell's testimony, during the Double Jeopardy, testified to the fact that she told the Prosecutor she came to know Adams through "buying drugs from him" Additionally she testified that she was "unable to offer any testimony regarding the charges that he was on trial for". The Prosecutor believed and trusted Winnell enough to place her on the stand, for the State, turned around and could not believe it when she testified about knowing him through purchasing drugs.
To further bolster Adams defense motion, John Barnes, an Investigator from the D.A'S. office, was called to testify. Investigator Barnes testified that he had interviewed Winnell on multiple occasions and that he too was "surprised" by her testimony. The Motion to Dismiss- Denied
Motion to View the Grand Jury Testimony
A review of the records would show that evidence or testimony, if any, led to his indictment, and to see if there were any inconsistencies with what was said during trial. Motion Denied.
Retrial
Enter Jimmy Lackey, a jailhouse snitch. Adding insult to injury, the Prosecutor planned to tilt the upcoming trial by orchestrating the selection of an all white jury! In a 2007 Mew York essay by Margaret Talbot, she wrote, "that extensive research indicated the subjects in experiments could accurately separate the truth from lies only half the time". That statistic suggests that the jury system is a highly imperfect method of "determining the truth". She also stated that " a liar's testimony is often more persuasive than the truth".
The retrial did not get off to a good start. The request for the Records of the Mistrial, which were to take two weeks, actually tool two months and were not given to the defense team until the day of the trial! Adams' lawyer requested a reset of trial, requesting time to review the records from the mistrial, however, the Judge denied the request for continuance saying the trial would start Monday and end Friday. The parade of witnesses resumed.
Testimonies
Her role remains questionable. She went from being a witness to determine Adams' innocence or guilt in the first trial, to it's character witness in the second trial. Her second trial testimony basically reinforced what everyone already knew, that she had absolutely no information pertinent to the crime.
Tara Johnson
In the second trial, she changed the timeline of the conversation she claimed she overheard from 10:00 P.M. to 11:00 p.m., seemingly to fit the time frame of the crime, of which the victims said was around 10:15 p.m. In addition, the area in which she had claimed to initially overheard the conversation was in a different county.
Jimmy Lackey
He testified that he was in the same "tank" as Adams and that he had begun to talk to him about his case. At first, he claims Adams denied committing the crime and then later he said that Adams reversed himself by admitting to the crime. Fortunately, for Adams the "Booking Intake Records" showed that the time frame that Adams was said to be talking to Lackey about the crime, Adams was in T.D.C.J. prison facility and had not met at the time. When asked what he could offer to the Court concerning the crime, that the Brazoria County D.A. did not already know such as, what vehicle was used, the location of the stolen property, and where were the weapons that were used in the crime. Lackey know nothing and had nothing to add.
Timothy Worth
He testified that he shared the same county "tank" with Adams and that he had been there longer than Lackey or Adams and that he never "heard" Adams admit to committing this crime.
Chevalle Dockery
The only witness of record that testified before the Grand Jury incredibly two months and eight days after the signed, stamped, and filed date of the Grand Jury indictment (May 2, 1996 indicted; July 10, 1996 gave testimony). After the first trial Chevalle Dockery was charged with Aggravated Perjury, arrested and placed in the same "tank" with Adams. Calling him to testify once again, he took the stand and "plead the 5th". In a questionable maneuver, the Prosecutor requested and the Judge approved of placing an Assistant Prosecutor on the stand to read Dockery's testimony (redacted) of the Grand Jury which he denied saying. It was also the testimony that led the State to charge him with perjury. The State and Defense rests.
The Verdict
However, This is the United States of America " Justice For All" , and as we are taught early on, the basic foundation of law was" that all persons are innocent and no may be convicted unless each element of an offense is proven beyond a reasonable doubt."
The Prosecutor in his charge to the Jury , stated that the Prosecutor has the burden of proving the defendant guilty and it must do do by proving each and every element of the offense charged , beyond a reasonable doubt, and if it fails to do so, you must acquit the defendant. He further stated that, the fact a defendant has been arrested, confined, or indicted for or otherwise charged with an offense gives no rise to any interference of guilt at this trial. The presumption of innocence alone is sufficient to acquit the defendant, unless the jurors are satisfied, beyond a reasonable doubt of the defendant's guilt , after careful and impartial consideration of all the evidence in the case. In closing his charge to the Jury , the Prosecutor attempted to clarify the definition of "Reasonable Doubt". He postulated that, "Reasonable Doubt" , is a doubt based on reason and common sense, after a careful and impartial consideration of all the evidence in the case. It is the kind of doubt that would make a reasonable person hesitate to act in the most important of his or her's affairs. Proof, beyond a reasonable doubt, therefore must be proof of such a convincing character that you would be willing to rely and act upon it without hesitation, the most important of your own affairs. Any hesitation on the Jurors part would signal, all along, the evidence and testimony has shown, that Adams was innocent.
Hesitated they did. They Jury returned to the court several times, stating each time "that after reviewing all evidence and testimony, they could not agree on a verdict." Each time that they returned with a non verdict , Adams' attorney requested another mistrial.
The Prosecutor, in turn, requested that the Judge send them back until a verdict was reached, which the Judge, in turn, echoed back to the Jury, sending them back in. They say hope springs eternal, however, to Adams this was more than just hope, as it was life itself. Did not the Prosecutor state in his charge to the Jury that "reasonable doubt" comes from the situation? The Jury hesitated several times, by the Prosecutor's reasoning. Adams should be going home, white jury or not.
Finally, a verdict was reached and the Jury filed back into the courtroom, not making contact with Adams or his lawyer. This was not a good sign. As the Judge asked the Jury if they had reached a verdict, all eyes turned to the foreman as all ears strained to hear the final verdict. Guilty on six counts of Engaging in Criminal Activity.
Punishment Phase
Finally, the sentence, or more pointedly, the sentences. Six life sentences!! Not necessarily life sentences, but a possible death sentence. Adams' life as he knew it....was over.
Motion For New Trial
Upon Adams' lawyer receiving the transcribed records from the court reporter, he took notice that some key records were missing from pretrial hearing that he filed of several motions showing a particular need to view who went before the Grand Jury and what testimony was given to lead to Adams being indicted. Weren't the motions to view the Grand Jury stamp filed by the Court Clerk , withe Prosecutor Hufstetler, acknowledging during the first trial that previously that Mr. White requested to view Grand Jury records and in a response motion stating, Mr. White has continued to file request for discovery and writs with this court which have been ruled upon , denied and ruled upon again. Mr. White's accompanying request related to Grand Jury testimony has been visited no less than three times by this court, three times under essentially the same motion, leaving no doubt that there should be records of these hearings.
Mr. White's only option was to file a Motion for a new trial based on the fact that the records were incomplete. How could he prepare a proper appeal with incomplete records? The Court of Appeals ordered the trial courts to conduct a hearing into the missing records, which took place on April 30, 1999. The Court of Appeals ordered that the trial court hearing be limited to determining whether a hearing was conducted on November 12, 1996. Adams lawyer made it clear that there was more than one hearing and that it wasn't his contention that November 12, 1996 is a crucial date. The retired visiting Judge Allen L. Stilley, that was assigned to Johnson and Adams case, agreed during the hearing of missing records that he made rulings on the issue , but could not recall which way he ruled and stated that he just had a vague recollection on it. What was determined at the conclusion of the hearing, is that the court docket sheet for November 12, 1996 shows that no hearing took place for the issues related to the Grand Jury, and if a hearing did in fact take place, it was Adams' responsibility to ensure that a record was made. Motion Denied.
Direct Appeal
Adams was disappointed that the Motion For New Trial was denied , but was still optimistic that his case would be overturned during Direct Appeal. His lawyer, Mr. White , prepared an Appellant's brief specifying seven grounds of of errors of appeals.
Ground of Error One
The Court abused it's discretion in denying Appellant's request for Grand Jury Testimony.
Ground of Error Two
The Court erred in denying Appellant's Motion to Quash indictment because the State's investigative techniques were so improper that it resulted in a denial of Appellant's due process of law.
Ground of Error Three
The Court erred in denying Appellant's Motion to dismiss by reason of Double Jeopardy and Prosecutor Misconduct.
Ground of Error Four
The Court erred in denying Appellant's Motion for additional Jury strikes.
Ground of Error Five
The Prosecutor failed to comply with pretrial discovery request to reveal concessions made to State's witness.
Ground of Error Six
The Prosecutor failed to correct known false evidence presented to the Jury by a State's witness.
Ground of Error Seven
The evidence was insufficient to support the verdict of guilty of engaging in organized criminal activity (Armed Robbery)
Adams' direct appeal was denied on all points of error in an opinion that appeared to have been written by the Prosecutor for the State.
If you would like to contact Adams or help support his Battle for Justice you can do so by writing him at:
Shawn Adams #799067
Polunsky Unit
3872 FM 350 South
Livingston, Texas 77351
J-Pay.com/Enclose address if you would like a reply.