The True Story of How a Series of Lies Sent an Innocent Man to Prison
Parts of this post were used in Aggravated. The prosecution called two expert witnesses. We’ve already covered Ada Dixon. This post is about the other one, Blake Goudy, the man who gave the speech that day at Hanna’s school. Goudy said he only spoke to Hanna for fifteen minutes, so all he could say was …
Parts of this post were used in Aggravated. During Trial #2, Hanna tried to slip some extra information into one of her answers, but it didn’t work. Here’s how that happened. Elmer Ross had just finished questioning her about some incidents that she claimed happened after Beau’s 21st birthday party. She described several things, two …
Parts of this post were used in Aggravated. This is the fourth of four posts about a search for some evidence. If you haven’t read the first three yet, you should probably do that before reading this one, starting with Part 1, Why I Searched for Karla. The Aftermath Early in September 2014, I drove …
Parts of this post were used in Aggravated. This is the third of four posts about a search for some evidence. If you haven’t read the first two yet, you should probably do that before reading this one, starting with Part 1, Why I Searched for Karla. A Revelation The previous two posts were about …
Parts of this post were used in Aggravated. This is the second of four posts about a search for some evidence. If you haven’t read the first post yet, you should probably do that before reading this one. Here’s a link, Part 1, Why I Searched for Karla. A Trip to Deep Springs In late-August …
This post and the three that follow it comprise an expanded early version of a chapter in Aggravated. This is the first of four posts about the search for some information. A considerably abbreviated version of that trip was used in the book, so if you’ve read the book you don’t need to read these …
Ronelle Wilcox and the Voir Dire After lunch, Elmer Ross still had the floor. His first question was answered by Juror #2, Ronelle Wilcox. My focus will be on her for the rest of the voir dire. [By the way, I need to remind you that this exploration of Ms. Wilcox’s role in the voir …
A Conversation About Steve’s Appeals Steve usually calls me every Saturday, and we talk for a half hour or so. Recently, we spent much of our conversation talking about the two posts before this one (read Part 1 here and Part 2 here). Here is an abridged version of part of our conversation. I’ll pepper …
Parts of this post were used in Aggravated. What the Court Got Wrong Much of the following is directly quoted from court records (with names changed, of course). Just to recap, Argument 2 concerned Steve’s marijuana conviction. Steve thought it shouldn’t have been admitted because of its age (24 years before). Argument 3 charged that …
Parts of this post were used in Aggravated. Two Arguments the Court Got Wrong In Steve’s first appeal (to the 19th Court of Appeals, in Keegan, Texas), he made four arguments, all of which the court ruled against. I’m only going to deal with Arguments 2 and 3 in this post, but here’s a quick …