I Am A Texan. However, Until This Injustice And Other Atrocities Like It, Are Stopped By The People We Elect To Hold Offices, I Can No Longer Be Proud To Be An American, Let Alone A Texan!

THE ILLICIT INTERROGATION

With no evidence and no witnesses available, the prosecution desperately needed a "voluntary confession." The APD knowingly and immorally colluded with the D.A.'s office to circumvent juvenile law and deny an 11-year old girl her right to protection under the law in order to squeeze a statement out of an innocent child.

How voluntary was it?

Lacresha Murray was 11, had an I.Q. of 77 and a 4th-grade reading level.

Our juvenile laws are specifically geared to protect vulnerable, unknowledgeable children from illicit and threatening police tactics. To achieve that, juvenile law requires that police take juvenile suspects before a magistrate to have their rights explained to them, to explain the charge against them and the consequences thereof, and to appoint them an attorney when deemed necessary relative to the seriousness of an accusation. Lacresha Murray was suspected of and would be charged with capital murder, the ultimate crime.

Austin Police detective Pedraza testified during the second trial that he wanted to interrogate Lacresha without having to obey juvenile law, so he called prosecutor Stephanie Emmons at the D.A.'s office and asked how he could manage this. Ms. Emmons gave him the following advice:

Leave Lacresha in the custody of CPS. Do not question her at the police station, which would put her into police custody and would thereby require taking Lacresha before a magistrate, who would most likely assign her an attorney. She told Pedraza to avoid notifying CPS that Lacresha was a suspect in a capital murder case. She then advised Pedraza to call CPS and arrange for a "friendly interview" with Lacresha. Once granted, he was to go over there with other officers and the necessary interrogation equipment.

Detective Pedraza followed Emmons' advice and got what he wanted: a 2 3/4 hour (or likely, longer) interrogation without an attorney or adult guardian present to get in the way of his goal--a confession, forced and false, if necessary.

The officers interrogating Lacresha failed to indicate start or stop times on the interrogation tape, and there are three unexplained occasions when the tape recorder is turned off. Therefore, there is no way to know how long this interrogation actually lasted and what they said to this child while the tape was not running. There is, however, almost three hours of dialogue where the police officers threatened, cajoled and lied to Lacresha to try to get her to say that she was angry at and intentionally beat Jayla. She continually denied both. 39 times she denied any wrongdoing and explained to them many times that she went to the bathroom and on coming out, saw Jayla "shaking real bad" on the bed in her sister's room, rushed and got her and took her to Mr. Murray for help. The officers were not satisfied with this as it wouldn't account for Jayla's injuries, so they got tough with her. They told her that if she didn't tell them the "truth" (what they wanted to hear), they would "bother" her family members; they lied to her and told her that her family had told them that she beat Jayla; they told her she was lying, and that if she told them "the truth," it would all be over and she could go. She continued to deny any wrongdoing.

Not getting anywhere near their goal of getting Lacresha to confess she was angry that day and had beaten Jayla, they put more pressure on her, telling her they and everyone knows she did it and that everyone thinks the worst of her. Then they offer her an out--you picked up the sick baby and while running with her to your grandfather, isn't is possible that you might have accidentally dropped her? Isn't it possible became the officers' call to arms. They told Lacresha that a medical examiner with 20 years of experience said something happened and that it must have happened while she was with the baby. "Isn't it possible," they said, "that you could have accidentally dropped her while taking her out of her room?" Three times they present this scenario to this frightened and worn-out child. Three times she denies it. They begin punctuating their suggested scenario with "We're going to stay here until you tell us the truth" and "you might have dropped the baby, and that's perfectly alright. . .that happens all the time."

After more prodding and threats, and following the last of the "isn't it possibles, "Lacresha responds with "probably." It's possible. The officers say, "Okay, now we're doing good, Lacresha." They prod her more, and then ask her if it wasn't also possible that she could have accidentally kicked the baby as she dropped her. Lacresha's eventual response: maybe.

During the next part of the interrogation, Lacresha was forced to make up the accident scenario suggested by the officers and show them how she might have accidentally dropped Jayla. She complies with their demands and figures out a way to satisfy them, but it doesn't work because it doesn't explain four broken ribs, 30 some bruises and a severed liver. The police go back and forth about which side of Jayla's body Lacresha was to have accidentally kicked. She makes it up that she dropped her and kicked her on the right side, but since that doesn't match with the broken ribs on the left side, they go through this "right, no left" questioning several times throughout the interrogation.

Getting as much as they could, the officers typed up a statement, eliminated the "accidentally could have" parts and presented it to Lacresha for her review. They asked her if she could read, and she said "not well, but I try hard." Without reading it aloud to her, as would be necessary for a child with a 4th-grade reading level and 77 I.Q., they give her the statement, she looks at it for several seconds, and asks them "home-a-seed?" An officer responds, "homicide." She asks, what's that? He doesn't answer her. No one answers that question! She signs the statement. In other words, the police had her sign a statement with no proof she could read it and with a clear indication that she did not understand the meaning of the most important word in that statement, "homicide"! They deliberately refused to explain it to her. Further, one of the officers also admitted on the stand that they neglected to read her all of her rights because they were afraid it would encourage Lacresha not to tell them all that they wanted.

The interrogation didn't stop there as it should have. The police continued questioning Lacresha for 20 minutes or more, becoming more abusive and aggressive in their questioning, again trying to get her to say she was angry that day because a four-foot drop and accidental kicking could not have produced the kind of injuries sustained by Jayla Belton. Only an angry beating could have caused those injuries. But Lacresha again stated she was not angry and that she did not deliberately do anything to hurt Jayla. Then she finally got tired and told them she didn't want to talk to them anymore. This horrible, illegal and immoral interrogation finally ended.

Could your child have fared better during an interrogation such as this? We're not sure many adults could have.

THE FIRST TRIAL

Less than a month after Jayla Belton's death, in June 1996, Lacresha went to trial on the charge of capital murder. Her appointed attorney did not mount a defense because he believed the State's total lack of evidence guaranteed the jury could not find her guilty, and if it did, he believed the judge would step in with a directed verdict and release her. He was only half-right. The State had no evidence against Lacresha--only a preposterous theory. But, the jury found her guilty anyway, and the Honorable Judge John K. Dietz did not intercede with a directed verdict. He let the verdict stand.

But then he changed his mind. Community pressure, the political calendar and perhaps his conscience induced him to nullify the verdict and grant his own motion for new trial, stating he did not believe the truth had been established.

THE SECOND TRIAL

In our justice system, criminal cases are supposed to hinge on clear and convincing evidence, presented by the prosecution, establishing beyond a reasonable doubt the guilt of the accused. Lacresha's case hinged on the lack of it, the suppression of it and the ignoring of the only legitimate evidence presented at trial. The APD's failure to obtain evidence, the medical examiner's selective autopsy and testimony, the D.A.'s suppression of evidence, the jury's ignoring of evidence and testimony, and the judge's failure to recognize and rectify the prosecution's lack of clear and convincing evidence resulted in a second conviction.

The Prosecution's Case

The prosecution, Gary Cobb, Stephanie Emmons, and Jack Stick, opened their case by telling the jury that everyone who would testify for Lacresha would lie. Then after slandering all of the defense witnesses, they proceeded--with no corroborating factual evidence linking Lacresha to Jayla's death, no witnesses nor any plausible explanation of how Lacresha could have beaten Jayla to death--to present the jury with unsubstantiated claims, theories and improbabilities.

The Impossible Chronology

During the second trial, the prosecution failed to produce any witness who could testify as to what might have happened to Jayla Belton, who did it, when or how it happened. We are denied any explanation of how this crime happened and are asked to accept the impossible: Starting with Dr. Bayardo's opinion that Jayla Belton died within minutes of the "fatal blow," we must work our way back from 5:57 p.m., which was when Lacresha Murray walked into Brackenridge Hospital carrying Jayla Belton in her arms. From the interrogation tape, we are asked to believe that at approximately 5:30 p.m. on May 24, 1996, after watching the tv program "Step-by-Step," Lacresha went into an unprovoked (and unsubstantiated) rage, attacked Jayla, producing 30 some bruises, four broken ribs and a severed liver, presented the baby to her grandfather, R.L. Murray, and Ms. Turner. Mr. Murray and Ms. Turner examined the child and decided she had to be taken to the hospital. Mr. Murray, who is paralyzed from the waist down, Lacresha and Jayla got into their car, drove through Memorial Day weekend rush-hour traffic 8 to 10 miles to a clinic and then to Brackenridge Hospital and checked into the hospital's emergency center at 5:57 p.m. In other words, we are expected to accept that this all happened in less than 30 minutes.

More specifically, the prosecution asked us to believe that in less than 5 minutes, Lacresha injured Jayla Belton, causing over 30 bruises, 4 broken ribs and a severed liver without making any sound that would have alerted Mr. Murray or Ms. Turner who were no more than 10 feet away, and without leaving one microscopic trace of physical evidence. The prosecution's own witnesses testified that the APD's full forensics team scoured the Murray home 3 times and failed to find any trace of evidence indicating any violence or beating occurred in the Murray home.

The Unsubstantiated and Unsupportable Assertion

To support this improbable theory, the prosecution asserted that Lacresha was "prone to violence" as demonstrated by their claim that she had been suspended three times from school for fighting. However, they failed to present a single witness or a single piece of documentation evidencing this claim. Such an unsubstantiated claim should have been struck by the judge, who also should have directed the jury to disregard any testimony regarding Lacresha's alleged history of violence. On the other hand, four teachers testified that they had no knowledge of these suspensions or fights and that in the years they had known Lacresha, spanning back almost 8 years, they knew her to be a shy child who withdrew from conflict of any kind. The prosecution blatantly lied to the jury, with immunity.

One Improbability Substituted for Another The Bouncing Ball Theory--In the first trial, the prosecution claimed that Lacresha beat Jayla Belton against the walls and floor of a bedroom in the Murray home, a 8'x10' room no more than 10 feet away from where Mr. Murray and Ms. Turner were talking. They offered this theory to correspond to a statement made by Mr. Murray that he had heard Lacresha bouncing a ball against the wall sometime that afternoon -- an activity that was common among the children in the Murray home and, therefore, a sound Mr. Murray was very familiar with. During her interrogation, Lacresha volunteered -- without being asked about any ball -- that she had been bouncing a ball on the wall, but had taken it outside before she walked by the room where she saw Jayla "shaking" on the bed and took her to Mr. Murray and Ms. Turner for help. The prosecution claimed Lacresha was lying about bouncing any ball because the APD's forensics team searched the entire house, inside and out, and never found any ball.

But the prosecution could not use this absurd theory during the second trial because not only it is it ludicrous to propose that a baby can be rhythmically bounced against a wall and floor like a ball, but also because 1) their own crime scene photos displayed the very ball they claimed was non-existent; 2) Jayla Belton's injuries did not correspond to this absurd scenario; and 3) the prosecution's criminologist and serologist testified that there were no indications, no body fluids, no hair, nor DNA evidence to indicate that Jayla Belton had been slammed against any wall or floor in the Murray home. So, the prosecution scrapped that theory. And with no evidence to go by, they came up with a new one . . .

The Suspect Tennis Shoes

In the second trial, the prosecution claimed Lacresha kicked Jayla with her tennis shoes and they had medical expert testimony to prove it.

There are a lot of problems with the tennis shoe theory:

Family members and neighbors testified Lacresha was barefoot both inside and outside the Murray home that day. A witness from Brackenridge Hospital testified Lacresha was barefoot when she arrived with Jayla at the hospital. Lacresha was transported from Brackenridge to the children's facility, where she was interviewed by an APD officer on videotape, again barefoot. The officer testified she was then transported to the police department for further questioning, barefoot. However, when she arrived at home, at some time after midnight, she had tennis shoes on her feet.

Lacresha was given a pair of boys tennis shoes, three sizes too large, by someone at the APD hours after the death of Jayla Belton because they were escorting this child all over town for six hours without shoes. In other words, the alleged murder weapon was supplied to Lacresha by the APD hours after the attack was supposed to have happened.

When Lacresha was interrogated on May 29, Officer Pedraza implied that the tennis shoes she was then wearing (a different pair than the boys tennis shoes given to her by someone at the APD) were the shoes she had on when she allegedly kicked Jayla Belton. But then, to add more confusion, the tennis shoes Lacresha Murray was wearing during the interrogation and which were described on the tape by one of the officers were not the tennis shoes presented at trial.

In an effort to get around these inconsistencies, detective Pedraza testified he found the shoes when visiting the home by himself on May 28, 1996. Not only is there no one who can verify he actually found them there, but the crime scene team's exhaustive investigation of the Murray home before May 28 failed to find these shoes. How could have Pedraza picked up the alleged murder weapon tennis shoes at her home on the 28th when she was supposedly wearing them at the shelter?

First, the police claim the shoes she was wearing during the interrogation were used to injure Jayla Belton; then they say it was another pair of shoes found by detective Pedraza, and then an entirely different pair of shoes is sent in for forensics testing and presented at the second trial. What gives?

Furthermore, if these tennis shoes, whichever pair, were such crucial evidence, then why were they never sent to the crime lab for testing until November 8, 1996, five months after Jayla Belton's death and four months after Lacresha's first trial? And why did the judge suppress the letter from the crime lab to prosecutor Jack Stick definitively stating there was no relationship between the tennis shoes sent to them for testing and Jayla Belton¹s injuries? The jury should have seen this letter!!!

We think the reasons are clear. After being forced to discard the preposterous "bouncing ball" scenario, the prosecution had nothing to go on. They were desperate for a "murder weapon" to help account for how Lacresha could have caused the serious injuries sustained by Jayla. In addition to failing to find any evidence in the Murray home of any crime, the police also failed to find any type of "weapon." With nothing to go on, they decided on the shoes, hoping no one would care about the inconsistencies and improbabilities in the theory. And, we believe the judge granted the prosecution's request to suppress the crime lab's letter, because he knew that without the suppression of it, the prosecution had no case.

Lastly, despite the crime lab's letter eliminating the tennis shoe, the State's own medical expert, Dr. Di Miao of San Antonio, asserted there was "a match between treads on the shoes and two scrapes on Jayla Belton's body. He stated there was a "distance between two treads on the heel of the shoe matching a distance between two of the scrapes." However, when asked whether he compared the lengths of the treads with the lengths of the scrapes, he admitted he had not and he admitted that the scrapes on the body were much too long to match any tread on the tennis shoes. So again, the State by its own witness, eliminated its alleged murder weapon.

The Problems with Jayla Belton's Clothes

First, one must ask why in a capital murder case, particularly involving an alleged brutal beating, why Jayla Belton's clothes were not sent in for forensics testing until one week before Lacresha's second trial (eight months after Jayla's death). Secondly, during the second trial, the admitting physician from Brackenridge Hospital testified that Jayla Belton¹s clothes had been cut off her after she had been admitted; furthermore, as testified to by the State's own criminologist, these clothes were sent to the DPS crime lab for testing and both blood and vomit were found on these clothes, corroborating the Murrays' statement that Jayla had vomited blood during the afternoon of May 24, 1996.

Yet, the prosecution presented as evidence at trial an intact, clean pair of clothes claiming them to be the clothes in which Jayla Belton died. Could it be possible that the prosecution had the audacity to substitute Jayla Belton's clothes in order to corroborate their claim that no blood was found on Jayla's clothes and thereby make it appear that the Murrays had lied about Jayla vomiting blood? How did the prosecution believe themselves able to state no blood was found on the clothes, when their own criminologist said there was? And, how did they get away with this?