greg kelley's guilty verdict overturned

[Steel Shank 9428]

Is Hulu the only place that has all of the episodes?

[Jerry Callo 8704]

18 minutes ago, Steel Shank said:

Is Hulu the only place that has all of the episodes?

Showtime Anytime

[MissingInAction 25106]

On 7/6/2020 at 11:35 AM, Bama Chick said:

She’s a local who says she was a victim of abuse and the documentary billed her as a “Victim’s Rights Advocate”.

Not being from Texas, I had never heard of this case until reading about it here after it was all over.

Absolutely rage inducing.

If I were ever to find myself in legal trouble, give me Keith Hampton.

And what a joke that Patricia Cummings is now in charge of The Conviction Integrity Unit for the city of Philadelphia.

The fact that Greg Kelley seems to be a well adjusted dude is a testament to his character and his parents.

I’d be a vengeful ball of hate and bitter rage.

Were I him .. people would disappear.

[Bartles 769]

The Cummings redemption tour is odd, seems like she turned her whole career into fighting for the wrongly convicted, but in the middle of that she made every effort to keep Kelley locked up. Here's a glowing story about her Philly department from Feb. 2020. (No idea why the font size freaks out in parts of quotes)

Quote

Krasner, a former defense and civil rights attorney, is widely considered to be the most reform-minded prosecutor in the country. One of his first moves was to recruit Cummings from Dallas’s CIU to helm the Philly unit and pump the unit with resources. The unit went from three full-time attorneys to eight, and it now has five support staffers. The results came swiftly: Whereas the CIU exonerated only one man in its first three years, in the two years under Cummings the team has set free 12 men.

 

[Reagan1k 3024]

My wife and I were talking about her last night and trying to rank her acts on an outrage scale

In no certain order...

1) Protecting McCarty at the expense of Kelley - knowing his life will be destroyed

2) Knowing that there is a high probability that in protecting McCarty you are allowing him to victimize more kids

3) Fighting to keep Kelley imprisoned due to pride and / or continuing the protection of McCarty

4) Then using her representation of Kelley to bolster her own reputation and pretend like she was victimized by the system as well.

She's a psychopath.

[blacklab 11941]

34 minutes ago, Reagan1k said:

3) Fighting to keep Kelley imprisoned due to pride and / or continuing the protection of McCarty

This is #1 by far with me. She could have just walked away knowing she fucked up but instead doubled down trying to cover up her bullshit. Why the fuck was it so important to her to keep Kelly behind bars?

@scottsins and other defense lawyers - have you ever flipped to the other side and tried to keep someone you defended in jail for any reason? 
I just can't imagine any scenario where this would come up.

If a client got acquitted and/or charges dropped and you later found some evidence that points to him being guilty do you go and try to get something done to you client ever? (I realize double jeopardy probably prevents anything from being done if they already went to trial)

[GhostOfTomJoad 9331]

[4th and 5 4914]

45 minutes ago, blacklab said:

This is #1 by far with me. She could have just walked away knowing she fucked up but instead doubled down trying to cover up her bullshit. Why the fuck was it so important to her to keep Kelly behind bars?

@scottsins and other defense lawyers - have you ever flipped to the other side and tried to keep someone you defended in jail for any reason? 
I just can't imagine any scenario where this would come up.

If a client got acquitted and/or charges dropped and you later found some evidence that points to him being guilty do you go and try to get something done to you client ever? (I realize double jeopardy probably prevents anything from being done if they already went to trial)

C’mon, man. We’re lawyers, for god’s sake. And criminal defense lawyers at that. We are some of the most ethical people you’d ever hope to meet. 
 

[blacklab 11941]

You don't need a criminal attorney, you need a criminal, attorney.

[Frank The Tank 1497]

1 hour ago, blacklab said:

This is #1 by far with me. She could have just walked away knowing she fucked up but instead doubled down trying to cover up her bullshit. Why the fuck was it so important to her to keep Kelly behind bars?

@scottsins and other defense lawyers - have you ever flipped to the other side and tried to keep someone you defended in jail for any reason? 
I just can't imagine any scenario where this would come up.

If a client got acquitted and/or charges dropped and you later found some evidence that points to him being guilty do you go and try to get something done to you client ever? (I realize double jeopardy probably prevents anything from being done if they already went to trial)

I haven't watched the documentary but I am a criminal defense attorney and former prosecutor.  Was there an Ineffective Assistance of Counsel claim here?  In that situation, the defense trial attorney basically becomes the main witness for the prosecution in an effort to uphold the conviction.  The writ/appellate attorneys are attacking the trial attorney's competence and credibility, often with good cause, but that's the main reason a defense attorney would fight to say a conviction of their client was righteous.  The interests of the defendant and his trial lawyer become directly at odds with each other.  A finding that you were ineffective can follow you around and have some negative consequences.  Obviously nothing like being falsely convicted of sexual assault of a child, but it's still likely the motivating factor of the defense lawyer at that point.  

[blacklab 11941]

His new lawyer did file ineffective counsel as part of the writ, but she came in with guns blazing and claiming attorney client privilege on everything. So he dropped the ineffective claim so she would have to answer questions.

[Reagan1k 3024]

11 minutes ago, blacklab said:

His new lawyer did file ineffective counsel as part of the writ, but she came in with guns blazing and claiming attorney client privilege on everything. So he dropped the ineffective claim so she would have to answer questions.

And IIRC (or understood the lawyer speak) even after the local judge found him innocent (not ruling on ineffective counsel as the writ was removed) and sent it to the Court of Criminal Appeals........Hampton uncovered emails between her, her attorney, and a prosecutor representing the state before the CCofA where they continued to throw Kelley under the bus and try to deny his exoneration. 

She was in it to the end to keep him in jail, even when the threat of ineffective counsel was removed from the appeal - Then publicly uses his story as her personal experience with and reason for passion with regard to her new position advocating for rights of the unjustly convicted. 

[Armybrat 40850]

Has anyone informed her new employer/advocacy group in Philly of her unethical behavior in Kelly’s case?

[LTtxfan 49245]

Siap...

 

 

[Frank The Tank 1497]

20 minutes ago, Reagan1k said:

She was in it to the end to keep him in jail, even when the threat of ineffective counsel was removed from the appeal

Then it sounds like she's dirty as hell and was still trying to protect McCarty.  If the entire time she represented Kelley and after, she was taking money from and/or doing everything she could to protect the other potential suspect over her client then I hope she rots in hell.

[LTtxfan 49245]

Opinion article:

"Texas Football Needs Greg Kelley"

If you haven’t watched Outcry by now you’re doing yourself a disservice. Just an incredibly shocking, heartbreaking yet inspiring true story of a Leander, Texas high school football player accused and convicted of super aggravated assault on a child and sentenced to 25 years in prison without parole. Heavy stuff. But SPOILER ALERT — after nearly 6 years he was fully EXONERATED this past year.

For those who haven’t watched, throughout the entire documentary Greg not only aspires to clear his name but to be able to one day walk on as a DB for Texas. While that may seem outrageous, if you watch the show you’ll see that besides Greg being completely innocent of this horrendous crime, he is also no slouch. The dude is still a beast in the weight room and could absolutely ball in high school — having multiple full ride scholarship offers to back up his game.

But haters hate and will say he still doesn’t have a chance. Too much time has passed. Too many years in the slammer. Was never good enough to begin with. Zero chance Coach Herman will even let him into the locker room, let alone choose him to walk on.

Well, like usual the haters are WRONG. Because Greg’s wife just confirmed Greg in fact did get his shot and is now just waiting to hear back:

Boom. Love to see it.

At this point, it will be crushing if Texas doesn’t let Greg on the team. Just no doubt Texas needs a kid like Greg on the team. He’s a modern day Rudy! A perfect example of a guy who met adversity head on, who crawled, fought, believed and never gave up. That’s the type of inspiration Texas will need to bring home a National Championship during the middle of a fucking global pandemic.

https://texastakes.com/2020/07/09/texas-football-needs-greg-kelley/amp/?__twitter_impression=true

Edited July 10, 2020 by LTtxfan

[Reagan1k 3024]

Looks like Kelley and wife will be in Burnet Monday at a rally someone organized to protest recent Mannix hiring.  
 

 

[LTtxfan 49245]

1 hour ago, Reagan1k said:

Looks like Kelley and wife will be in Burnet Monday at a rally someone organized to protest recent Mannix hiring.  
 

https://communityimpact.com/austin/cedar-park-leander/public-safety/2020/07/08/former-cedar-park-police-chief-sean-mannix-named-new-burnet-chief/ 

 

https://www.kvue.com/article/news/local/report-former-cedar-park-police-chief-named-burnet-chief/269-2517b2c2-8316-4171-995d-95455e16a24b

 

 

[Jerry Callo 8704]

4 hours ago, Frank The Tank said:

In that situation, the defense trial attorney basically becomes the main witness for the prosecution in an effort to uphold the conviction.  The writ/appellate attorneys are attacking the trial attorney's competence and credibility, often with good cause, but that's the main reason a defense attorney would fight to say a conviction of their client was righteous.  The interests of the defendant and his trial lawyer become directly at odds with each other.  A finding that you were ineffective can follow you around and have some negative consequences.

I was a criminal defense attorney in one case, Sam Sparks called me and appointed me to represent a defendant that took a plea deal and then fired his trial attorney.  I spoke with the trial attorney and he told me to allege ineffective assistance of counsel if I thought it would help the defendant.  It wouldn't have and I didn't.  I was struck by the attorney offering it to help his client.  I ended up taking the case all the way to the US Supreme Court - defendant is probably still in prison.

[Deej 76830]

9 minutes ago, Jerry Callo said:

I was a criminal defense attorney in one case, Sam Sparks called me and appointed me to represent a defendant that took a plea deal and then fired his trial attorney.  I spoke with the trial attorney and he told me to allege ineffective assistance of counsel if I thought it would help the defendant.  It wouldn't have and I didn't.  I was struck by the attorney offering it to help his client.  I ended up taking the case all the way to the US Supreme Court - defendant is probably still in prison.

Shame your expert couldn't help you like your first case.

[immortal13 4059]

5 hours ago, LTtxfan said:

Opinion article:

"Texas Football Needs Greg Kelley"

If you haven’t watched Outcry by now you’re doing yourself a disservice. Just an incredibly shocking, heartbreaking yet inspiring true story of a Leander, Texas high school football player accused and convicted of super aggravated assault on a child and sentenced to 25 years in prison without parole. Heavy stuff. But SPOILER ALERT — after nearly 6 years he was fully EXONERATED this past year.

For those who haven’t watched, throughout the entire documentary Greg not only aspires to clear his name but to be able to one day walk on as a DB for Texas. While that may seem outrageous, if you watch the show you’ll see that besides Greg being completely innocent of this horrendous crime, he is also no slouch. The dude is still a beast in the weight room and could absolutely ball in high school — having multiple full ride scholarship offers to back up his game.

But haters hate and will say he still doesn’t have a chance. Too much time has passed. Too many years in the slammer. Was never good enough to begin with. Zero chance Coach Herman will even let him into the locker room, let alone choose him to walk on.

Well, like usual the haters are WRONG. Because Greg’s wife just confirmed Greg in fact did get his shot and is now just waiting to hear back:

Boom. Love to see it.

At this point, it will be crushing if Texas doesn’t let Greg on the team. Just no doubt Texas needs a kid like Greg on the team. He’s a modern day Rudy! A perfect example of a guy who met adversity head on, who crawled, fought, believed and never gave up. That’s the type of inspiration Texas will need to bring home a National Championship during the middle of a fucking global pandemic.

https://texastakes.com/2020/07/09/texas-football-needs-greg-kelley/amp/?__twitter_impression=true

Seconded

[AUS-97HORN 11808]

not gonna lie.... Greg's mom appealing to the cocksuckers of the Cedar Park City Council brought actual tears to my eyes. 

with everyone giving Chompers a hard time, I fully understand why she is in the documentary, she provides the balance that clearly a jury convicted him so he has to be guilty, and shes advocating that point.  She does it terribly and looks bad after the fact, but I understand that the filmmakers needed to show how the victims of abuse have to handle things afterwards. 

in short, they were trying to show that they werent completely on Greg's side throughout the whole documentary.    But clearly they were.  Plus she is there to represent the fucking steadfast way Williamson county perceives justice, which is that in Wilco someone is always guilty, even if they arent.

And like most of you... her absolute belief that Greg had to have been the perpetrator because the kids said so is infuriating because she keeps saying she belives the kids.... but only the part about them saying they were abused... but she completely and conviently ignored the fact that the 2nd kid clearly said nothing happened in THREE DIFFERENT INTERVIEWS until hes almost forced to by Detective Lazy Cocksucker. That clearly doesnt matter because the 2nd kid made the allegation in the 4th interview (which the kid then psuedo-recanted by saying nothing happened with Greg when he had to testify on the stand)

and still the fucking city council of Cedar Park sits there with grins on their faces joking about their police force. 

whole series just pissed me off so much.

I leave with this final question. 

 

  in episode 4 Gaebi's parents pointed out that the fucking football coaches had figured it out almost immediately, how the fuck were they not interviewed, and/or allowed to testify at the trial?

Edited July 11, 2020 by AUS-97HORN

[cattail 112]

Could Cummings and McCarty have been fucking? I find her behavior so strange and the lengths she went to protect him. Also seemed terribly nervous on the stand.

[RollLeft 5045]

4 hours ago, cattail said:

Could Cummings and McCarty have been fucking? I find her behavior so strange and the lengths she went to protect him. Also seemed terribly nervous on the stand.

Or maybe drives a subaru and was fucking mom.  

[GhostOfTomJoad 9331]

Dude's a fucking psycho.

[Longhorn 145]

12 hours ago, AUS-97HORN said:

 

  Hide contents

  in episode 4 Gaebi's parents pointed out that the fucking football coaches had figured it out almost immediately, how the fuck were they not interviewed, and/or allowed to testify at the trial?

Interesting question. They would certainly be expert witnesses regarding Kelley’s character, credibility, etc....

 

That said, its real easy to jump on bandwagon AFTER the guy has been exonerated and proven innocent. How many of you would have put your public school career on the line to side with a convicted pedo?  How many school districts would have allowed it, etc...  again, real easy to be all in supporter after the fact.

[Helobious 9462]

Just finished it. Rage-inducing for sure. Glad he’s been exonerated, hope he makes the team. 
 

It was a gut punch to hear that juror they interviewed break down in tears after they asked him if he had any regrets about his decision. Can’t imagine how shitty that must feel.

[Longhorn 145]

8 hours ago, Helobious said:

Just finished it. Rage-inducing for sure. Glad he’s been exonerated, hope he makes the team. 
 

It was a gut punch to hear that juror they interviewed break down in tears after they asked him if he had any regrets about his decision. Can’t imagine how shitty that must feel.

Pussy for not showing his face.

[youdunnf'dup 2147]

I just finished episode 2. This case hits close to home for me. I went to Cedar Park High school my freshman year, and to this day I still know a lot of people that have been on top of this case from the time he was originally charged. Just a crazy fucking story. I can’t imagine going through something like this without the support of an entire fucking community around you. Shit like this happens a lot more often than anyone will ever feel comfortable accepting 

Edited July 12, 2020 by youdunnf'dup

[Gourmand 7774]

What kind of cereal was Shama feeding those McCarty boys?

How many brothers get arrested multiple times to the point you have a family relationship with a criminal defense lawyer? More specifically, how many brothers get arrested for sex-related criminal offenses? JFC.

Is she still operating a day-care out of her home?

Sent from my Pixel 3a using Tapatalk

[AUS-97HORN 11808]

16 hours ago, Longhorn said:

Pussy for not showing his face.

thats pretty real bold internet tough guy talk. 

he did his civic duty, served on the jury (of a MOLESTATION TRIAL)- hundreds of folks found ways to not be on that jury with made up or real excuses.   Hell he could have just said at the very beginning "oh he is accused of raping a little boy? he has to be guilty now, and I wont ever find a way to find him innoccent" and been kicked off the jury pool- he didnt. 

clearly the guy felt badly enough about to be interviewed.  Hes the only juror showing remorse, maybe because he was the last holdout.... but none of the other 11 that said "fuck it, i want to go home tonight, lets just convict this kid and go home" stepped up to be interviewed, and you know damn well the filmmakers tried to talk to them. 

Juror 12 made a mistake by not holding out and probably will regret it and live with it for the rest of his life. 

 

plus as was already pointed out to me, obviously the jury wasnt given any of the absolute information we know now  for example

1. Greg moved out a month before the outcry and hadnt been back since

2. the alleged WEEK of the assault Greg was no where near that house and had a hard alibi the actual day claimed to be the assault

3. the police never bothered to do an actual investigation- the entire trial it was presented like they had investigated and greg was the only suspect who could have done it.

4. that there was a real alternative to Greg who had the opportunity, ability, looked similar, lived in the same house, and whose life had slowly started going off the rails in the months leading up to the assault.... all of which would have provided clear doubt in anyones mind

 

none of that was available to the jury.  as we now know, it was a shitty prosecution team, a shitty detective, a shitty chief of police, and a badly led defense lawyer who may have had ulterior motives that werent in her clients best interest to present the best possible defense. 

[atomheartbevo 89727]

https://www.kxan.com/news/local/greg-kelley-supporters-plan-to-protest-former-cedar-park-police-chiefs-swearing-in-with-burnet-pd/

Quote

Supporters of Greg Kelley plan to protest outside of the Burnet Police Department as the city’s new police chief, Sean Mannix, is sworn in Monday morning.

Mannix was the Cedar Park Police Chief for seven years. He oversaw the department as Kelley was arrested and charged with aggravated sexual assault of a child in 2013, then convicted in 2014. Kelley spent three years in prison for the crime he maintained he did not commit.

Quote

Mannix retired from the Cedar Park Police Department in February. In May, Kelley filed a lawsuit against the city of Cedar Park, along with Mannix and Chris Dailey, the former police detective who handled Kelley’s case, for the wrongful sexual assault conviction.

Quote

The GRK Foundation, a group that helped fight for Kelley’s innocence, is encouraging supporters to join Monday’s protest and “crash” Mannix’s swearing in at Burnet PD Monday morning at 9 a.m.

Fuck Yeah!

Quote

According to a Facebook post on the group’s page, Kelley and his wife, Gaebri, plan to attend the protest.

Double Fuck Yeah!

[youdunnf'dup 2147]

Not gonna lie, this got me a little emotional because of how close to home it hit for me. Other than gabby, our family personally knows most of the Anderson family. I know way to many people that say “look man, i wouldn’t say this unless I’m certain. I know the kid way too well. There’s no fucking way he did it”

Also, even if he did create an account on adult friend finder, how the fuck do you make that ridiculous connection.

[Gourmand 7774]

On 7/10/2020 at 5:03 PM, Reagan1k said:

And IIRC (or understood the lawyer speak) even after the local judge found him innocent (not ruling on ineffective counsel as the writ was removed) and sent it to the Court of Criminal Appeals........Hampton uncovered emails between her, her attorney, and a prosecutor representing the state before the CCofA where they continued to throw Kelley under the bus and try to deny his exoneration. 

She was in it to the end to keep him in jail, even when the threat of ineffective counsel was removed from the appeal - Then publicly uses his story as her personal experience with and reason for passion with regard to her new position advocating for rights of the unjustly convicted. 

I'm not convinced that Cummings is the devil the docuseries (and this thread) makes her out to be. I think y'all are jumping the gun on this one.

[AUS-97HORN 11808]

2 minutes ago, Gourmand said:

I'm not convinced that Cummings is the devil the docuseries (and this thread) makes her out to be. I think y'all are jumping the gun on this one.

Not mentioned yet, but she was also a big part of the Michael Morton appeal team and enough of a major factor that Michael Morton has come out in her defense based on how the film portrays her. (google it, its a Statesman story behind the paywall). 

 

so clearly she wasnt a totally incompetent defense attorney, but something obviously was differnent and maybe not on the up and up on how she defended Greg. 

[youdunnf'dup 2147]

If you had to decide who is most at fault for fucking up this case, she’s on the very VERY short list IMO.

[Gourmand 7774]

If you had to decide who is most at fault for fucking up this case, she’s on the very VERY short list IMO.

I disagree, I think the focus should be on the law enforcement jackasses here in Williamson County.

Having said that, I think it's obvious that she made some big mistakes because her client was ultimately fully exonerated unanimously by a conservative CCA, but I also believe that the documentary veers a little of course with the implication that there was a significant conflict of interest at play because of her past legal role with two of the McCarty brothers. I am not convinced about that and I think the series kinda ran through some lights pretty fast in Hampton's car when discussing Cummings. I need to go back and watch it again because I thought some of the legal arguments Hampton raised wrt ineffective counsel and the emails etc were a little confusing and not fleshed out by the filmmakers.



Sent from my Pixel 3a using Tapatalk

[Gourmand 7774]

13 minutes ago, Dr. Beeper said:

True, I don’t fault him for not showing his face. I do fault him for thinking Kelley innocent at the time before these other facts were known and not having the fortitude to stick to his guns. 

Cummings should be disbarred and jailed. I expect shit like that from guys like Dailey and Mannix. Not your own fucking defense attorney. Never let your child hang out in a household where multiple brothers of your child’s main friend are arrested. Just put a stop to any involvement right then and there. 

Why do you think Cummings should be disbarred and jailed? I'm curious what particular aspect of her defense makes you think that?

[BBQ2Bayou 807]

This documentary came out July 5th and they're swearing this guy in to be the chief of police somewhere else in Texas tomorrow? 

[atomheartbevo 89727]

1 hour ago, BBQ2Bayou said:

This documentary came out July 5th and they're swearing this guy in to be the chief of police somewhere else in Texas tomorrow? 

Because Texas?

[atomheartbevo 89727]

2 hours ago, youdunnf'dup said:

If you had to decide who is most at fault for fucking up this case, she’s on the very VERY short list IMO.

User name 100% checks out.

[Gourmand 7774]

Quote

"Honestly I believe that there are more innocent people in prison due to false accusations because there are no requirements that the outcries or the accusations be reliable, and if it's not properly investigated, if the detectives are not asking that question--did a crime occur--if they are not trying to make their case more reliable looking for corroborating evidence, digging deeper to see if it happened, then you'll have more Greg Kelleys.

This closing quote from Keith Hampton at the end of Ep 5 really stood out to me because it highlights a key question lurking in the background that Outcry understandably sidestepped: did this crime occur or was it a false report?

The "believe the children" line is repeated throughout by all the Williamson County law enforcement crowd and victims rights advocates like Lindsay Armstrong, but despite briefly delving into the McMartin Preschool and Keller cases and the controlled experiment into how children can be unknowingly manipulated into false claims of sexual abuse, Outcry doesn't attempt an answer in this case. I'm legitimately curious what Hampton thinks happened. We know that Cummings thinks it didn't happen because that was her defense of Kelley, and it sounds like that is what Hampton thinks as well. Remember, the second child recanted his first story and when the first child was interviewed by CAC, he said "I'm supposed to tell the truth but I can't tell it." Then he says Greg did it, even though we now know Kelley didn't and wasn't in the home at the alleged time frame of the offense.

When you put all this together with Patricia Cummings' public affirmations of Kelley's innocence before, during, and after the trial,  I believe Cummings is being unfairly characterized as an incompetent boob at best and a conspiratorial villain out to help Johnathan McCarty at worst. I don't think it adds up. I think she made a tactical legal decision to fight the case by attacking the credibility of the allegation and arguing that the sexual assaults never happened. In light of that decision, it's understandable that she would rebuff any talk about "hey look at Johnathan, he's weird and creepy and looks like Greg" because that didn't fit with her entire defense strategy. She couldn't walk into court and tell the jury her client was innocent because these assaults never happened but if they did, somebody other than my client did it. She had to pick a defense and be consistent with it. She may have picked the wrong strategy but that doesn't prove a conflict of interest and I don't see any proof that she picked that strategy to somehow protect the McCarty family. That's just speculative nonsense. 

[youdunnf'dup 2147]

I’m just picturing this Jonathan fellow coming home and the kid yells “Greg!” and he’s just like “yeah it’s me greg. Now put this in your mouth”

Hearing that kid tell his version of the story was really tough to listen to. 

[ChuckNorrisActionJeans 2678]

Interesting. I haven't finished the series but have attended many a legal conference w/Patricia Cummings at which she gave talks about Michael Morton, actual innocence, false confessions, etc. All I can say is she seemed like a genuinely ethical person who was always very friendly and approachable. One of these continuing legal ed. conferences occurred after the Kelly conviction, and she did address it. She had a very pained demeanor and said she really doesn't know what happened -- that they all expected he would be acquitted. I think that was true of nearly all of us in the crim. legal field at the time -- I know I was expecting acquittal, particularly after the shitshow of the 2nd kid recanting and the prosecution not even asking to take a pause. Anyway, no further insight, but hearing hints of episodes 3-5, it's disappointing and disheartening to hear what seems to have gone on w/Cummings and knowing she was well-liked and respected by her peers. I do think the ineffective assistance claim would have been a hard sell given that it's not unreasonable, per se, to strategize that the offense(s) simply didn't occur. 

[Gourmand 7774]

On 7/6/2020 at 12:30 PM, wutang75 said:

What I keep wondering - how bad was his original counsel?? The two most basic ideas to vindicate someone it seems would be determining where they are during the crime and a visual ID. Did it say why they didn’t pull his cell phone records the first time?

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

The film doesn't explicitly come out and say this but child victims and child witnesses are not required by law to give an actual in-court ID and identification can be proved by circumstantial evidence.

[Gourmand 7774]

5 minutes ago, ChuckNorrisActionJeans said:

Interesting. I haven't finished the series but have attended many a legal conference w/Patricia Cummings at which she gave talks about Michael Morton, actual innocence, false confessions, etc. All I can say is she seemed like a genuinely ethical person who was always very friendly and approachable. One of these continuing legal ed. conferences occurred after the Kelly conviction, and she did address it. She had a very pained demeanor and said she really doesn't know what happened -- that they all expected he would be acquitted. I think that was true of nearly all of us in the crim. legal field at the time -- I know I was expecting acquittal, particularly after the shitshow of the 2nd kid recanting and the prosecution not even asking to take a pause. Anyway, no further insight, but hearing hints of episodes 3-5, it's disappointing and disheartening to hear what seems to have gone on w/Cummings and knowing she was well-liked and respected by her peers. I do think the ineffective assistance claim would have been a hard sell given that it's not unreasonable, per se, to strategize that the offense(s) simply didn't occur. 

Assuming you're a lawyer, I'd like to hear your interpretation of everything after watching the entire series. And all the other lawyers here who have watched in its entirety. This is a fascinating case.

[youdunnf'dup 2147]

3 hours ago, Gourmand said:

I disagree, I think the focus should be on the law enforcement jackasses here in Williamson County.

Having said that, I think it's obvious that she made some big mistakes because her client was ultimately fully exonerated unanimously by a conservative CCA, but I also believe that the documentary veers a little of course with the implication that there was a significant conflict of interest at play because of her past legal role with two of the McCarty brothers. I am not convinced about that and I think the series kinda ran through some lights pretty fast in Hampton's car when discussing Cummings. I need to go back and watch it again because I thought some of the legal arguments Hampton raised wrt ineffective counsel and the emails etc were a little confusing and not fleshed out by the filmmakers.



Sent from my Pixel 3a using Tapatalk
 

Maybe i just need to rewatch it, but if that many people are telling you to look into McCarty, and you know they lived together, and you know they look similar, you HAVE to entertain the idea that maybe I should look into that. The fact that it was shot down so nonchalantly is why i said what I said. I can’t think of a single scenario where that makes any sense, and maybe it’s easier for me to say that in hindsight. But if she simply decides “hmm, if all of these people are telling me to look into it. Maybe I should look into it”, I don’t think Greg spends a day in jail.
 

I don’t think she’s a bad person or that she had bad intentions, I just think that part of it was the single biggest head scratcher for me. Every other fuck up can somewhat be explained away, if for no other reason than they were looking out for their own best interests, and getting a conviction was in your best interest. But for the defense attorney? Makes no sense at all. 

[Gourmand 7774]

2 minutes ago, youdunnf'dup said:

Maybe i just need to rewatch it, but if that many people are telling you to look into McCarty, and you know they lived together, and you know they look similar, you HAVE to entertain the idea that maybe I should look into that. The fact that it was shot down so nonchalantly is why i said what I said. I can’t think of a single scenario where that makes any sense, and maybe it’s easier for me to say that in hindsight. But if she simply decides “hmm, if all of these people are telling me to look into it. Maybe I should look into it”, I don’t think Greg spends a day in jail.
 

I don’t think she’s a bad person or that she had bad intentions, I just think that part of it was the single biggest head scratcher for me. Every other fuck up can somewhat be explained away, if for no other reason than they were looking out for their own best interests, and getting a conviction was in your best interest. But for the defense attorney? Makes no sense at all. 

Just keep in mind that you have the benefit of hindsight and you're not thinking about it as a trial lawyer with a story to tell a jury and her client's life on the line. She had to pick the most compelling story and stick to it. Try to erase everything you know now and take yourself back to 2013. Your client is facing super aggravated sexual assault of a child (or whatever they call it) and there are two child accusers saying your client did it. One or both have named "Greg." Are you going into court with the defense that these are false accusations resulting from improper child interview techniques or are you going to admit the assaults happened but that the child was confused over whose penis was put in his mouth? Which defense sounds like the stronger defense? 

[cattail 112]

Were the cell phone pings that showed he wasn’t at the home in the original trial or did Cummings miss that too?

[youdunnf'dup 2147]

Also had no idea Jana Duty committed suicide.