In Harris County, Texas, 1999, Charles Mamou was sentenced to death in a trial primarily focused on the testimony of a handful of drug dealers involved in the same drug deal, the strongest testimony coming from Mamou’s own cousin who testified Mamou confessed to him.
There were several factors the jury never heard regarding the
alleged ‘confession’.
When Terrence Dodson first heard police had contacted one of his relatives looking for him in connection to a capital murder case, he quickly told police his cousin, Chucky, had confessed to murdering and sexually assaulting the victim. Charles Mamou was arrested for kidnapping and murder.
Nearly a year later at trial, what the case lacked in physical evidence, it made up for in the ‘confession’, at times focusing on the sexual assault Terrence Dodson had described to police. The jury was never presented all the contradictions between Mr. Dodson’s original statement to police and his actual testimony at trial, including the location of Mamou when he supposedly confessed and also how he confessed. Those contradictions would have brought into question Dodson’s credibility and can be seen HERE.
The jury was also not shown the letter Dodson wrote to his cousin a month after he told police about the ‘confession’. In the letter Dodson said, “I’m glad you didn’t tell me shit about that cause I don’t wanna know shit, I feel better off that way.”
There was one more thing the jury never heard. Charles Mamou was never charged with rape, but it had a significant impact in his trial, so much so that several articles written about the crime indicate that Mamou raped or sexually assaulted the victim. The sexual assault was one facet of Terrence Dodson’s hour long video statement. Dodson described how Mamou confessed to a sexual assault several times and also testified to that during the trial. During Dodson’s testimony, Charles Mamou’s court appointed attorney and the prosecution never informed the jury that a rape kit was completed on the victim, including oral swabs.
When the prosecution was presenting their closing arguments, hoping to convince the jury of Mamou’s guilt and secure an execution, the jury was told, “He marches her to the back, and he makes her commit oral sodomy, makes her suck his penis. Imagine that, ladies and gentlemen.” At the time they made this argument, they were aware of Terrence Dodson’s questionable credibility. They also knew the results from the rape kit, which stated, “No semen was detected on any items analyzed.”
Mamou’s own attorney never mentioned the results of the rape kit to the jury that was to decide his client’s fate.
Harris County, Texas, has sentenced more people to death than anyplace else in the country. Charles Mamou is one of those people. He maintains his innocence and is out of appeals and awaiting an execution date.
Anyone with information regarding this case can contact me at kimberleycarter@verizon.net. Anything you share with me will be confidential.
TO CONTACT CHARLES MAMOU: Charles Mamou #999333 Polunsky Unit 12-CD-53 3872 South FM 350 Livingston, TX 77351
The key piece of evidence in a capital murder case leaves one wondering how much of a trial is built on the talent of a prosecution to ‘paint a picture’ – and how much is based on reality.
Charles Mamou was sentenced to die twenty years ago in Harris County, Texas, for the death of Mary Carmouche. He was black, tried in a county that sentenced people to death at an unrivaled rate, and couldn’t afford an attorney of his choosing. When the courts determined his fate, people went on with their lives, assuming justice had been done.
But had it?
The victim had been present at a drug deal that went
terribly wrong, her body later found by a utility worker.
There were several people involved in the drug deal that took place that night, including one man who died at the scene. Those who survived were evasive when questioned by police – all but one. One of the drug dealers was very cooperative and investigators interviewed him at length. The young man was Charles Mamou’s very own cousin – a man the prosecution referred to repeatedly, arguing that the accused’s own family testified against him. Why would his own family lie?
What’s more bizarre than why a twenty-one year old drug dealer being looked at in a capital murder case would lie – is why someone will be executed on the weight of his testimony. Dodson had a lot to say – not a lot of it matched facts. But without a weapon, an eye witness, DNA, any physical evidence connecting Mamou to the crime scene – they wanted a ‘confession’. Watching the video today, twenty years later, it’s clear the ‘confession’ used to convict Charles Mamou was riddled with inconsistency.
Terrence Dodson started out by assuring investigators he would never be involved in a drug transaction.
Terrence Dodson said he just wanted to go home and not be involved with any type of illegal activity.
Those original statements directly contradicted what he later said at trial.
Q: And how did you come to meet him or be with him that morning? A: Well, he gave me a call and told me that he had a lick for a key. So I said, come get me.
Q: What did you think was actually going to happen? A: That they was going to bring the kilo, we were going to bring newspaper, and we was going to rob them. Q: What was your part going to be? A: My part in the robbery? Q: Right. A: To rob them. Q: With what? A: With a gun. Q: You had a gun? A: Yeah, I had it on me.
Q. What if there is more than one or two people there? Is that going to be a problem for you? A. No, not really. Q. You’re comfortable going in a situation like that with a gun, and if somebody shows you the dope, you just going to take the dope? A. Pretty much.
Over and over, Terrence Dodson testified to his involvement in the drug deal, contradicting his original statement to police.
When Terrence Dodson first spoke to police on Wednesday, December 9, 1998, it took over an hour. He was asked several times what day Charles Mamou had left Houston for his home in Louisiana. Dodson told investigators Mamou left on Monday, December 7.
Although Dodson said Mamou left on Monday, according to the Houston Police Department’s own incident report – Charles Mamou left Houston on Tuesday, December 8, 1998.
Then, Dodson told investigators about the ‘confession’ – which he said took place in a phone call from Charles Mamou on Tuesday morning – from Louisiana. It would have been hard for Mamou to call Dodson from Louisiana on Tuesday morning – because the investigation’s own witnesses stated Mamou was actually in Houston on Tuesday morning, but that didn’t concern investigators, the prosecution or his defense attorney. Mamou had actually spent Monday night in the apartment of one of the prosecution’s own witnesses, Howard Scott.
Terrence Dodson then proceeded to share what he says was a confession to murder.
In his statement to police, Terrence Dodson shares a story of Mamou calling him on Tuesday morning from Louisiana, when in reality Charles Mamou wasn’t even in Louisiana, and confessing to him in one phone call. Months later, at trial, he told a different story.
Q. Now, when you are having this conversation with the defendant later on – says, ‘Later on I spoke with Charles’ – are you face to face? A. Yes. Q. Where are you? A. On the porch. Q. Whose porch? A. Stephanie’s porch, my sister. Q. Now you gave a whole lot of information in response to the prosecutor’s questions about conversations you had with Charles and go into detail about the jack on jack and these guys with a Bible. There was a shoot-out and goes into detail about where the people were shooting and everything. And then, also talking about the girl had been shot, that they had been outside. And he asked you about talking with Detective Novak, and she supposedly had performed oral sex on him. When do you get that information? What time is that? A. I don’t really recall. I got, like I said, bits and pieces in person.
Q. Is it one conversation or several? A. It was several. Q. Over what period of time? A. I don’t really recall, a couple of days. Q. So, it’s not just Monday, it’s Monday and Tuesday? A. To the best of my knowledge, yeah.
Yet – in his taped statement – Dodson claimed Charles confessed to him in one phone call on Tuesday morning from Louisiana, a time when Charles Mamou wasn’t in Louisiana.
Friends and relatives of Mamou’s have told me Mamou would never have shared his business with his cousin, Terrence. But, Terrence was willing to testify to a confession, so he was very valuable in the investigation – even with an odd version of events that didn’t match any of the available information or witness accounts. He even said the drug deal shooting began inside the car. As everyone knows – including the witnesses, police, prosecution and defense – it didn’t happen inside the car.
The drug deal and shooting actually took place outside the car. And none of the people there described a bag of money being thrown back and forth. That version is far from believable, even without any of the witnesses. But Terrence Dodson was giving investigators a confession, no matter how far-fetched it might sound. Not only was it a ‘confession’ it was one by a cousin – why would a cousin lie?
With regard to the victim – Dodson had an even more bizarre story to tell. One moment he described the girl as ‘scared’ and his cousin was trying to calm her down – and in the next moment he actually told investigators that she said, “I ain’t fixin to suck your dick for under $300.”
The victim’s body was later found in a neighborhood Charles Mamou, who was from Louisiana, would not have been familiar with, in the backyard of a house that was for sale. That is not how Terrence described the location though. He said in his statement that it was behind some abandoned houses, some for sale houses.
At one point it seemed the investigators were trying to help him include something they wanted him to add to his statement.
Again – the detective appeared to want this detail in the statement and again asked the leading question.
There wasn’t much about Dodson’s statement that lined up with what the other parties involved had to say. Even Dodson’s description of Mamou’s sunglasses that the prosecution presented as being connected to Mary. The glasses were nearly five miles from the body – but that was never told to the jury. In Dodson’s version of the story – the glasses were broken, ‘lenses gone and everything’. Anthony Trail and Charles Mamou, who had no reason to lie about the condition of glasses, both described the glasses as not being broken, and they were the ones who picked them up.
Terrence Dodson spoke to police for over an hour. A month after this statement to police was made, he wrote a letter to his cousin, Charles Mamou, who was in prison. In the letter he wrote:
“I’m glad you didn’t tell me shit about that cause I don’t wanna know shit, I feel better off that way.”
Charles Mamou was repeatedly accused of sexual assault during the trial and has repeatedly asked for any DNA testing that should have taken place if there was a sexual assault, as he knows it wouldn’t match him.
During the punishment phase of Mamou’s trail, autopsy photos of individuals other than Mary were shared, as well as testimony from family members of other murder victims. Charles Mamou has never been tried for any other murder.
I have tried to contact Terrence Dodson on several occasions, but he has not responded.
Charles Mamou is out of appeals and currently awaits an execution date.
Anyone with information regarding this case can contact me at kimberleycarter@verizon.net. Anything you share with me will be confidential.
TO CONTACT CHARLES MAMOU: Charles Mamou #999333 Polunsky Unit 12-CD-53 3872 South FM 350 Livingston, TX 77351
Charles Mamou has never wavered in declaring his innocence, but the key witness at his trial testified that Mamou ‘confessed’ to him. In a case without a weapon, or a fingerprint at the scene, or a hair, or a fiber, or DNA, or an eyewitness, or a violent history – the testimony of Terrence Dodson was a key factor in Mamou’s death sentence. But, in matters of life and death, should claims of ‘confessions’ be held to a reasonable standard of reliability?
Dodson wasn’t just an uninvolved witness. According to his own testimony, he clearly had
reason to be concerned about his well-being.
When asked, “Were you a little
concerned about the fact that you might be charged with a crime?”
“Yes.”
“But you don’t have
that concern now, do you?”
“No.”
Over and over, Dodson maintained his understanding that he had
a lot at stake.
“And at that point in
time, what exactly are you thinking at the time that you were picked up by the
police? Is it clear to you that they are
looking at you as a suspect for capital murder?”
“Yeah, it was clear to
me.”
“So, at that point, is
it a fair statement to say you’re very concerned about your future and what
might happen to you?”
“Yeah, it’s a fair
statement.”
Dodson knew the gravity of the situation and the possible consequences to himself. That would be enough to make one wonder if his testimony regarding Mamou’s ‘confession’ could be relied upon, but self-preservation wasn’t the only issue that would bring into question everything that Dodson shared in the courtroom. There were also contrasts between his original statement to police and what he testified to during the trial.
During the police interview, Dodson repeatedly said he had
nothing to do with the drug deal that took place that night. He simply wanted to go home.
“He told me that he
was going to buy a kilo – coke, and I was like, man, take me home because I don’t
want to be around the transaction or whatever.”
“So, him and Bud
started looking at me saying just chill out man, chill out, man, you are
tripping, I was like, man, no, just take me back to the house, that’s all I am
asking.”
“And he kept saying, just
chill, we got out there. I’m like, oh
man, just take me back.”
“And I am like, just
take me back, man, I am not with all that.”
Yet, during the trial, when asked about his involvement in
the drug deal, Dodson describes it differently.
“What was your part
going to be?”
“My part in the
robbery?”
“Right.”
“To rob them.”
“With what?”
“With a gun.”
“You had a gun?”
“Yeah, I had it on me.”
“So, what is it that
you’re supposed to do, you, personally?
What is your role on this jack on jack?
Of course, you’re not knowing
that it’s a jack on jack at that point, are you?”
“Exactly.”
“So, what is your
role? What are you supposed to do?”
“Once I see the dope,
I pull out my pistol and take the dope.”
“You’re comfortable going
in a situation like that with a gun; and if somebody shows you the dope you
just going to take the dope?”
“Pretty much.”
The star witness consistently contradicted himself and his
prior recorded statement. While being
questioned by detectives, Dodson described Mamou’s ‘confession’ as taking place
in one phone call.
“Ok, and where was he
calling you from?”
“He said, Louisiana,
but we don’t have a caller I.D., so he said, what’s up? I said, what’s up? He said, what’s going on? I said, there is nothing going on, what’s
up? He said, have been watching the
news? I say, yeah. He said, man, he just started telling what
went down, that he, in so many words, did it, and I like, man, and he told me
step by step how it went down.”
Dodson lived in Houston, and Mamou lived in Louisiana. Dodson told police that after Mamou returned to his home in Louisiana, he called Dodson and confessed. Yet – at trial, Dodson changed his story, describing how the confession took place differently.
“Now you gave a whole
lot of information in response to the prosecutor’s questions about conversations
you had with Charles and go into detail about the jack on jack and these guys
had a bible. There was a shoot-out and
goes into detail about where the people were shot and everything. And then, also talking about the girl had
been shot, that they had been outside.
And he asked you about talking with Detective Novack, and she supposedly
had performed oral sex on him. When did
you get that information? What time is that?”
“I don’t really
recall, I got, like I said, bits and pieces in person.”
“Everything that you
said here in court today, you’re attributing to him?”
“Yeah, everything I
said that was told to me was told to me by him.”
“It is one conversation
or several?”
“It was several.”
“Over what period of
time?”
“I don’t really
recall, a couple days.”
Terrence Dodson didn’t just contradict himself throughout his statement and testimony. He also told a version of the drug deal during his statement to police that no one else did. According to him, Mamou confessed to getting into the Lexus before the shooting. He clearly describes the violence taking place inside the car. He also paints a picture of two drug dealers throwing a bag of ‘money’ back and forth between them.
“So the dude that drove the Lexus approached Chuckie or whatever, so this is how we are going to do it, you gonna ride with my boy in my Lexus, and you all do the business and we gonna stay here with Bud or Buk whatever. So, Chuckie was like, no, no, I don’t even like the way that sounds. So, if I am going to do the business, is going to be with you, because you are the one I talked to. So the dude must have said, they all loaded up in other words, and the dude told Chuckie we are fixin to do the business down the dark street, so Chuckie said you want to do it in front of Bennigans, but the dude said, it is too hot over here. So they went down the dark street. Dude asked Chuckie where is the money? So, Chuckie said, I got the money, and threw him the paper bag, whatever. The dude threw it back, so Chuckie said, what’s up? The dude said, take the money out, I want to see it. Chuckie said the money is right here, threw back at him. Chuckie said, by that time, he see the dude flinch – like moving into his seat. Chuckie said, he came out with his pistol and was like, man, what’s going on, and the dude was pulling for his. He said, he just thought something, and shot him up on whatever and burnt off with the girl in the Lexus.”
“His exact words were,
shit, I threw him the money, and he threw it back. I threw him the money again,
and he threw it back, know what I’m sayin’, and that’s when I threw down to see
what’s goin’ on.”
The two witnesses and participants in the drug deal, Charles
Mamou, and the police have established that the drug deal and shooting took
place outside of the vehicle. None of
the other individuals described a bag being thrown back and forth.
Not long after Terrence Dodson told the police that Charles
Mamou ‘confessed’ to him, he wrote a letter to Mamou. In it, Dodson once again contradicts himself,
writing, “I’m glad you didn’t tell me
shit about that, cause I don’t wanna know shit.
I feel better off that way.”
Charles Mamou is currently on death row in Texas and waiting
for his execution date.
Anyone with information regarding this case can contact me at kimberleycarter@verizon.net. Anything you share with me will be confidential.
TO CONTACT CHARLES MAMOU: Charles Mamou #999333 Polunsky Unit 12-CD-53 3872 South FM 350 Livingston, TX 77351
Charles Mamou had a fifteen to forty-five minute window to do what the prosecution said he did, according to their witness, Howard Scott. By everyone’s account, Mamou was on Lantern Point Drive at approximately midnight on December 6, 1998. Scott testified he was back at his apartment on Fondren between 12:15 and 12:45. Could he have murdered the victim in forty-five minutes or less?
At midnight that evening, there was a drug deal on Lantern
Point Drive in Houston that ended in gunfire.
The majority of the witnesses testified that Mamou’s driver, Samuel
Johnson, pulled away when the shooting began, leaving Mamou behind. Mamou then jumped in the running vehicle left
behind by the individuals he’d just had a shoot out with.
After that – the stories differ. Mamou testified he realized Mary Carmouche was in the car after he fled the scene. He also says he saw her for the last time after they both exited the car at the apartment on Fondren, where the vehicle was later found by police. Mamou also said there were several other people at that location who had contact with Miss Carmouche.
The drug deal took place at approximately midnight. The drive from Lantern Point Drive to Fondren
is 9.3 miles and 18 minutes. When the
police later recovered the Lexis at the apartments, one of the tires was completely
flat and partially off the rim. Howard
Scott testified that Mamou arrived at his apartment between 12:15 and 12:45
that evening.
The state presented a different version of events. The prosecution claimed Mamou, who lived in Louisiana,
left Lantern Point Drive after the shooting and drove to a deserted home on
Lynchester Drive, located 17.9 miles away.
They say he then took Mary into the backyard, forced her to perform oral
sex and shot her. No explanation was
offered as to how Mamou may have been able to locate an abandoned home on
Lynchester.
There was no evidence introduced in the courtroom regarding a sexual assault – not a hair, not a semen sample, no DNA. After the shooting, Mamou would have had to drive from the house on Lynchester to the apartments on Fondren and park the car where it was found. The drive from Lynchester to Fondren takes thirty minutes.
That scenario would have taken an hour and five minutes in
driving time, not taking into account the condition of the tire, locating a deserted
home, a sexual assault and murder. The
travel time to get to the crime scene was never addressed during the trial.
The Mamou case is riddled with questions. For many, it calls into question the concept of ‘innocent until proven guilty’. Among the areas of concern:
Although the jury was told Mamou sexually assaulted the
victim, he was never charged with sexual
assault and there was no physical evidence to support that claim.
Each of the parties involved in the drug transaction
testified against Mamou, and it appears none
were charged.
The only witness who came close to putting Mamou near the
crime scene testified that Mamou confessed to him. That same witness later wrote a letter to
Mamou while he was incarcerated stating, “I’m glad you didn’t tell me shit
about that cause I don’t wanna know shit, I feel better off that way.” The
jury never saw that letter.
The state’s witnesses all
contradicted themselves and each other throughout the trial, as well as all
testifying to lying at various points of the investigation.
Mamou, who had no prior charges of violence, was described as
‘vicious’, ‘ruthless’ and ‘cold-blooded’ during closing statements. He was also accused of murdering other individuals during the prosecution’s closing
statements.
Autopsy photos and testimony were presented to the jury, as
well as victim impact statements from victims
of crimes Charles Mamou was never charged with.
Charles Mamou was never
charged with any crime connected to Anthony Williams who died months before. The prosecution told the jury more than
once, “And he murders Anthony Williams.”
Charles Mamou has maintained his innocence for over twenty years.
TO CONTACT CHARLES MAMOU: Charles Mamou #999333 Polunsky Unit 12-CD-53 3872 South FM 350 Livingston, TX 77351
During the penalty phase of Charles Mamou’s capital murder trial, detailed testimony was given regarding the autopsy of Anthony Williams, along with a variety of photographs taken during the process. The imagery and description of the deceased’s wounds were shared in an effort to ensure the jury would come back with the ultimate punishment – death.
And the jury did. But Charles Mamou was never on trial for the murder of Anthony Williams. Charles Mamou was on trial for an unrelated crime in which he has always maintained his innocence and in which there is actually no physical evidence tying him to the crime scene. Not a fingerprint. Not a footprint. Not a hair. No DNA. No weapon. No eyewitness. No confession.
As the country’s leader in sending people to death row, Harris County, Texas, is skilled at getting capital murder convictions. In 1999, the year Charles Mamou was sentenced to death, the state executed 33 people. The following year, that number was even higher.
During the Mamou trial, the state didn’t just present photos of Anthony William’s body. They also went into great detail regarding the man’s death in September, 1998 – three months prior to the crime Mamou was on trial for. After the graphic autopsy testimony, William’s older sister was brought in to testify regarding the impact the loss of her brother had on her family. She spoke of Anthony as a baby and testified about the last time she saw her brother. She also shared how her older brother cries over the loss of his baby brother.
Next, the mother of Terrence Gibson was brought in to testify regarding the loss of her son. Terrence Gibson was the man who got shot during the attempted robbery of Charles Mamou. Mamou was never charged in the death of Terrence Gibson. Ms. Gibson testified regarding memories of her son and the affect his loss had on her and her family.
There was actually more testimony in the punishment phase of the trial regarding crimes Charles Mamou was never charged with than the crime he was tried for. Two decades later, Charles Mamou remains on Death Row and is out of appeals, and Harris County keeps its place as a leader at ensuring executions.
TO CONTACT CHARLES MAMOU: Charles Mamou #999333 Polunsky Unit 12-CD-53 3872 South FM 350 Livingston, TX 77351
Someone familiar with the Mamou case recently said to me, “He’s
on death row because he’s black and it was Harris County.” One has to wonder, in a capital case with no
evidence and the state’s own witnesses contradicting their theory…
To pretend ‘black’ and ‘white’ doesn’t and hasn’t influenced the outcome of a lot of our history, would be irrational. It’s more comfortable not to talk about, but when a person is going to get executed in a case that was built on the contradictory testimony of a handful of people who all benefited from their testimony – maybe it’s time to talk about ‘it’.
It is possible ‘it’ played a part in the story of Charles Mamou, who was sentenced to death twenty years ago. We aren’t where we need to be today, and to pretend we were two decades ago would not be reality.
So, twenty years ago in Harris County, Texas, putting a
black man on death row might not have required as much as it would today. To make matters worse, Mamou’s case has never
been heard on appeal, so the events have not been touched by any progress that may
have been made. When Mamou’s execution
day comes, Texas will be able to put it behind them, without ever having to
take a second look. The press will then share
a distorted story, as they have on more than one occasion in this case.
Charles Mamou has always maintained his innocence, but the State’s actual charge against him, in contrast to what has been reported by well respected publications, was the kidnapping and murder of one victim.
Yet, to this day, journalists rarely report that accurately, making it easier for Mamou’s case to fade into history and never be looked at again. As recently as 2018, The Houston Chronicle falsely reported, “Charles Mamou Jr. has long declared his innocence in the 1998 crime, a botched cocaine deal that ended with three slayings along a side street near the Astrodome and the kidnap and murder of 17-year-old Mary Carmouche.”
Many would read that and think that Mamou was charged with slaying three people on a side street and then killing Mary Carmouche.
ABC News Amarillo also reported this misinformation in 2018,
“A former drug dealer from Louisiana on
Texas death row for the abduction, rape and slaying of a 17-year-old girl
during an apparent botched drug deal twenty years ago in Houston has lost a
federal court appeal, moving him a step closer to execution.”
US News and World Report also shared that same story on July
19, 2018.
Charles Mamou was never charged with rape or any form of
sexual assault. According to the state’s
witness, the autopsy revealed that the victim’s body was not bruised. She was found to have had a ‘scrape’ on one
arm, which actually supports Charles Mamou’s version of events regarding what
he said happened that night. There was not any trace evidence or DNA that
tied Charles Mamou to the victim. The prosecution never even asked their witness
if the victim was sexually assaulted, because they knew she wasn’t.
But, the prosecution needed to argue that Charles Mamou had ‘kidnapped’
Mary in order to have Mamou sentenced to death.
Their goal, as said in their
opening statement, was to prove that, “Charles
Mamou gets in the car still occupied by Mary Carmouche in the backseat and
drives away, followed by the car driven
by Samuel Johnson.”
That’s what they needed.
That’s not what their own witnesses said though. Kevin Martin, the state’s first witness,
supported what Charles Mamou said took place.
There was a shootout at a drug deal.
Charles Mamou was left behind by his partner in crime – who drove away leaving
Mamou on a dark alley with the individuals there to rob him. He jumped in the running car that he was
standing next to and sped away.
So, Kevin Martin testified that Charles Mamou’s driver left
him behind.
Dion Holley – another of the state’s witnesses – stated, “I
saw the red car backing up and turned around in the street, and I saw the blue
car leaving off.” Once again, their own
witness corroborated Charles Mamou’s version of events, indicating that the car
he was driven to the drug deal in left him behind. He then jumped into the running car left
behind by those who were trying to rob him and took off.
Holley replied, “That’s correct,” when asked if the red car
was trying to get out of there real quick.
Then asked, “And then that vehicle was followed by your mom’s
Lexus?”
“That’s correct.”
Charles Mamou also testified that his driver sped off
without him.
It was a dark alley, a shootout had just occurred, and Mamou
– who was now alone – jumped in the running car he was standing next to, and
got away from the scene. It’s reasonable
to think he was in fear for his life and trying to get as far away from people
who had come to that location with the intention to rob him at gunpoint,
regardless of what his intentions were during the drug deal. The survivors both testified that they were
there to rob Charles Mamou by force.
Charles Mamou denies all of the charges, but the state’s own witnesses testified that they were there to rob him on that dark alley and Mamou’s driver sped off without him. Most people – regardless of the poor judgment that placed them in that situation, would have jumped in that car and driven away in an effort to get as far away from people robbing them at gunpoint as possible. A reasonable person would be in fear for their life at that point.
The state presented a case showing that three men were
planning on robbing Charles Mamou by force on December 6, 1998. When the shooting started – everyone scattered
in fear of their lives, motivated by self preservation.
Charles Mamou, driving away in fear for his life, would not
be ‘kidnapping’ Mary, who was most likely tucked down as far as she could be in
the back seat when the shooting started.
Charles Mamou didn’t bring her to the drug deal down a back alley, and according
to his testimony she later got out of the car on her own.
‘Kidnapping’ had to be a part of the case, though, in order to achieve an execution. So regardless of the prosecution’s own witnesses contradicting their theory – Charles Mamou received the death penalty.
Charles Mamou has steadfastly denied all charges against
him.
TO CONTACT CHARLES MAMOU: Charles Mamou #999333 Polunsky Unit 12-CD-53 3872 South FM 350 Livingston, TX 77351
Associated Press. “Drug
Dealer from Louisiana on Texas Death Row Loses Appeal.” KVII,
abc7amarillo.com/news/local/drug-dealer-from-louisiana-on-texas-death-row-loses-appeal.
“Drug Dealer From Louisiana on Texas Death Row Loses Appeal.” U.S. News & World Report, U.S. News & World Report, www.usnews.com/news/best-states/louisiana/articles/2018-07-19/drug-dealer-from-louisiana-on-texas-death-row-loses-appeal.
Harris County, Texas. Charles Mamou, Jr. Vs. The State Of Texas. Sept. 1999.
Not everyone executed by Texas has been guilty of the crime they were executed for, and not all those currently on death row are guilty. That is reality. Another reality – it doesn’t matter your circumstances – the state of Texas treats all death row inmates inhumanely. If you live there, you live a solitary existence with no human contact and no eye on what is happening in the world around you. In many cases – for decades.
Charles Mamou, who has lived among the condemned for nearly two decades was recently led from his cell while it was routinely shaken down. As is standard practice, he was required to strip of his clothes, get physically inspected, and run his fingers through his hair – even though he has none. Then he was led to an empty cell while officers inspected his belongings.
While in the empty cell, Mamou noticed how loud everything was – the clangs of metal against metal weren’t buffered by a room full of personal belongings. Voices came back amplified and garbled. And then he noticed the window. It was the same size as the one in his cell – four inches wide and three and a half feet long – but it faced the other side of the building. The parking lot.
Charles Mamou
As he looked out of his temporary cage onto sights he never sees – cars; a mail delivery; workers going to and fro; and children actually sprinting on the sidewalk – in that moment, he realized just how displaced and removed from the world he has become. Standing on that bunk, in that empty cage, and peering out that four inch window – he was overcome with homesickness and how different everything looked than he remembered. Looking at the sky which he described as a bright Caribbean vacation beach blue, he couldn’t help but think of what all the inmates get caught up in thinking when they can’t stop themselves, “What would I be doing on a day like today?”
During the trial of Charles Mamou in 1999, one drug dealer
after another was brought in to testify against him, and it appears that none
of them were charged for their participation in any of the events that took
place. The state didn’t have DNA, a
confession, a weapon, fingerprints or an eyewitness, so they needed something to
convict Mamou with, and Harris County is very adept at getting people sentenced
to death, with the highest rate in the country.
A detective who was on the stand was asked, “At a later time
did you look for more than one individual other than Mr. Mamou?”
“Yes.”
“What is that person’s name?”
“We – there was an individual that – “
“Can you just give me his name?”
“Terrence Dodson.”
“Other than Terrence Dodson and Mr. Mamou, was there a third
individual you were looking at as a potential suspect?”
“A Shawn England.”
“How do you spell the last name.”
“I believe it’s E-N-G-L-A-N-D.”
“Okay. What about Samuel
Johnson?”
“Samuel Johnson’s name came up later in the investigation.”
“Were there any other names?”
“There was an individual by the name of – did I say Ced,
C-E-D?”
“I’m sorry?”
“Ced, an individual.
C-E-D is all we had.”
“So we have Charles Mamou, Ced, Terrence Dodson, Shawn
England, and Samuel Johnson?”
“Yes.”
So, when Samuel Johnson took the stand, he was very aware what
the outcome of the trial could mean to him, as he had already been taken into
custody at one point.
Johnson testified that on December 6, 1998, he took Charles
Mamou to, “buy some dope.” When asked
what he was going to get out of the deal, Johnson replied, “I was going to get
something out of it. I don’t know how
much.”
More specifically, he
was asked, “You were going to get dope, or you were going to get what?”
“Money.”
Samuel Johnson had no doubt about what was happening. He was asked, “Tell the members of the jury
exactly what it was that y’all were going to do.”
“Go buy some drugs.”
“All right. And do
you know the quantity of drugs that the both of you were going to be buying?”
“No, it was large.”
There was no question about Samuel Johnson’s understanding of the crime, and there was no doubt as to his role in the planned crime. “Did you have an agreement with Mr. Mamou to engage in some type of illegal conduct?”
“Yes.”
“You knew full well, when you left to go and, in fact,
throughout the day when you’re with him, that you were going to engage in some
type of illegal conduct?”
“Yes.”
“And you realized that conduct was a felony, correct?”
“Right.”
Samuel Johnson was going into a drug deal, knowing what he
was getting involved in. As the drug
deal went from one location to another, all parties trying to find a place in which
they felt comfortable, it was Samuel Johnson who drove the car – his car. Without his car and his cell phone – none of
it would have taken place.
At the scene of the drug deal, it was Samuel Johnson who
drove his car down that dark road with the intention to, “buy some dope.”
Samuel Johnson, according to his testimony, drove and participated in the drug deal. What is interesting is that even though he had driven down a dark road and parked, and by his account of the story he was there as part of a plan to purchase a large amount of drugs from people that a logical person would consider armed, Samuel Johnson expressed that he was innocent of everything that took place. He was guilty of all the planning and being aware of what was going to take place and actually being the only means of making it happen for Mamou – but once the drug deal actually took place and the shooting started – Samuel Johnson testified that he got back in his car, drove to his home, took a shower, drank a soda, didn’t disturb his wife and went to bed. According to him, the next morning he got up and went to work without ever speaking with anyone about seeing people get shot or the drug deal he went on that resulted in no drugs – although he supposedly watched his partner in crime drive the car away that was supposed to have the drugs in it.
After testifying as to how he innocently ended his evening,
it appears that Samuel Johnson was never charged with his involvement in what
took place that night.
Although he testified to his innocence after the moment that
the first shot was fired, at some point during the investigation, Samuel
Johnson was taken into custody by a homicide detective. While on the stand, he was asked, “At some
point you were arrested, right?”
“Right.”
“And you’re taken into police custody?”
“Right.”
“What’s the name of the officer that took you into
custody? Do you know?”
“No, I don’t.”
“Is it a homicide detective?”
“Yes.”
He also testified that he lied to police. He was asked, “Well, did you tell them at
that time when you gave a statement that you did not see anybody with a gun?”
“Yes.”
“Is that true?”
“No.”
“Is that a lie?”
“Yes.”
So, as with the other witness involved in the drug deal, Samuel
Johnson also admitted to lying on the stand.
On the weight of the testimony of drug dealers Charles Mamou has been living on death row for nearly twenty years, and is nearing his execution. He no longer looks out the four inch window on his side of the building, as he explained that all he can see through his regular window is another prison building, trees as big as Jack’s beanstalks, and a guard tower. Charles Mamou has always maintained his innocence.
TO CONTACT CHARLES MAMOU: Charles Mamou #999333 Polunsky Unit 12-CD-53 3872 South FM 350 Livingston, TX 77351
As revealed in Part I, Kevin Walter, the state’s first
witness, contradicted himself repeatedly on the stand. He agreed when the defense attorney questioned,
“Once some
police detective shows you, tells you about how we’re not worried about you and
this dope case; we’re interested in prosecuting this guy, and that’s the first
time you’ve come forward with information, and you had basically explained what
you testified to on direct examination?”
Walter’s answer was, “Correct.”
Which makes many wonder – what is the value of snitch testimony? Is it valuable enough to sentence a man to death? It wasn’t only testimony that was given by someone involved in criminal activity, but the testimony wasn’t even able to place Charles Mamou at the scene of the crime for which he is sentenced.
According to Kevin Walter’s testimony – he came forward with
information only after he was told they weren’t interested in his dope case – the
interest was in prosecuting ‘this guy’ – Charles Mamou.
Kevin Walter didn’t have anything to contribute to the jury that
could point to Mamou murdering the victim.
But, he was able to testify regarding the drug deal and apparently avoid
prosecution for his involvement.
After his testimony, the state presented some individuals who
came upon the scene of the drug deal gone wrong and some detectives, but no
information was shared that would point to Charles Mamou as a murderer. As a matter of fact, their testimony at times
highlighted the deception of the other states’ witnesses who lied repeatedly
when questioned.
And then Dion Holley took the stand. Mr. Holley was one of the individuals whose role on the night of the drug deal was to rob Charles Mamou, and after testifying against Mr. Mamou, it appears he, also, was never charged with his involvement.
Mr. Holley spoke freely about his participation in a drug
deal and when asked by defense, “What were you going to meet about?” Holley
replied, “About him buying some drugs.”
Holley was asked, “What was your understanding of what was going to happen at Northline?”
“That Mamou was going to trust Kevin Walter with the money.”
Defense, “How much money?”
Holley, “It was supposed to be $20,000.”
Defense, “$20,000.
Trust him with the money to do what?”
Holley’s answer, “To get him some drugs.”
There was no question that the man whose testimony was being
used to convict Mamou of capital murder was very involved in a drug deal and
the events that took place that night.
Mr. Holley was also aware there was at least one gun involved and when asked of his associate in the drug deal, “Now did Terrence Gibson have on – in his possession, a gun?”
The answer was, “Yes.”
Mr. Holley also testified, as did Kevin Walter, that it was Dion Holley, Kevin Walter and Terrence Gibson who went and picked up seventeen year old Mary Carmouche, involving the seventeen year old in a drug deal and planned robbery. It was, according to Holley’s and Walter’s own testimony, their actions that brought Carmouche to a drug deal involving what was believed to be $20,000, a robbery and at least one gun. Again, regardless of their testimony, it appears they were never charged with anything.
Dion Holley also testified to lying to the police, just as
Kevin Walter testified before him. When
asked about talking to the police after the drug deal, “And did you lie to
them?”
“Yes.”
Again, when asked, “Did you – so the time they first came to
talk to you, you never told them the truth about what happened?”
The answer from Holley, “That’s correct.”
Not only did Dion Holley testify to lying when first
questioned by the police, he also testified to lying when they questioned him
again.
“Did the police come back at a later date and talk to you
again?”
“Yes.”
“And were you just as uncooperative the second time they came
as you were the first?”
“Yes.”
“And did you continue to tell them lies?”
And Holley’s answer was once again, “Yes.”
Dion Holley continued to testify to his own lying.
“At any point in time, did you ever tell the police a true
story about what happened?”
“No.”
Again and again, Dion Holley testified to lying. “The State asked you whether or not you lied
to the police when they asked you about the circumstances of this case, and you
admitted lying to the police?”
“Correct.”
“And you always lied to the police about the case?”
“Correct.”
“You’ve never
given them the truth about this case?”
“Correct.”
When questioned about the night of the drug deal, Dion Holley testified regarding his intentions and when asked, “What is your understanding about what your role is going to be in this plan?” Holley replies, “For me to have the drugs.”
The defense asked, “So this is the first time that your friend,
lifelong friend, Kevin comes to you and says, I’ve got a plan; we’re going to
rip somebody off?”
“That’s correct.”
“And that’s okay with you?”
“At the time, yes.”
“Okay. And at that
time, throughout that night, it was okay with you?”
“That’s correct.”
“In fact, you played a major role in making that happen,
correct?”
“That’s correct.”
When describing what he thought was going to take place at
the scene of the drug deal, Holley said, “I thought he was going to hand the
money over to Kevin. We was going to
drive off, supposedly going to get the dope, but just get on the freeway and
leave.”
And – once again – Holley testifies to lying after being
asked, “The story that you told the police later about being boxed in is a lie?”
“That’s correct.”
“And you did tell them that story, right?”
“Pretty much.”
After Dion Holley left the stand, the jury knew that he
testified to lying repeatedly, he was a drug dealer, and he was a key
participant in a plan to rob Charles Mamou at gunpoint if necessary. He also testified that he and Kevin Walter,
another witness for the state, brought the seventeen year old victim to the planned
drug deal and robbery.
Apparently, Dion Holley was never charged for his participation in any of the events that took place.
TO CONTACT CHARLES MAMOU: Charles Mamou #999333 Polunsky Unit 12-CD-53 3872 South FM 350 Livingston, TX 77351
Charles Mamou was sent to death row in 1999, based on a case with no eye witnesses, no DNA, and now weapon. The state needed to present something though, and here is an excerpt from the testimony of the prosecution’s first witness in the case that sent Mamou to death row in Texas:
Q. But at some point, you’re clear thinking; you’re able to tell the police what took place, right?
A. Not as I can recall.
Q. You recall –
A. I could not talk.
Q. That’s why you used the notes to write to the police?
A. I guess.
Q. Then you would know. Were you aware of what you were writing when you wrote to the police?
A. No.
Q. So, you weren’t aware. When is the first time you told them about the good samaritan story?
A. I don’t remember saying that.
Q. You don’t recall telling the police that some guys looked like they were broke down and ya’ll stopped to help them?
A. No.
Q. Are you saying you never told the police that?
A. I’m not saying that either.
Q. Now, was there a point in time when you decided that it was okay to tell the police what had happened once you realized you weren’t going to be prosecuted for anything, correct?
A. Correct.
Q. Is that what caused you to then come forward and say, Here’s how – what I was going to do. Once some police detective shows you, tells you about how we’re not worried about you and this dope case; we’re interested in prosecuting this guy, and that’s the first time you’ve come forward with information, and you had basically explained what you testified to on direct examination?
A. Right.
THE COURT: Approach the bench for a second, please.
That was part of the testimony of the State’s very first witness, Kevin Walter. According to his own testimony, which contradicts itself throughout, Kevin Walter was a participant in a drug deal in which he planned to take money from Charles Mamou and his associates by force if necessary.
Many of the details of the drug deal gone wrong will vary throughout the trial, but everyone agrees that Kevin Walter was involved because he was selling drugs he didn’t have, and planned to take the money in a variety of ways – according to which part of his testimony you choose to believe. Within his testimony, there are so many variations of that night it is hard to know exactly what he testified to.
Ultimately, Kevin Walter got shot during the mutual attempted robbery. None of the parties involved has been charged in that shooting.
As to how the ‘plan’ to rob Charles Mamou began, Kevin Walter testified about a conversation he had with Dion Holley, an associate of his:
Q. How was it that you just came to just hook up with Mr. Holley in November of 1998?
A. Well, when he was shooting basketball, I just asked him did he want to make some money.
Q. Okay. And I take it that Dion was not surprised that you came and asked him if he wanted to make some money?
A. No.
Q. And so, you presented to him what you referred to as the plan, correct?
A. Yes.
So it was in November of 1998, the beginning of a plan was put into motion. The details of the plan are very unclear during the testimony with the most consistency being in the contradictions themselves.
For example:
Q. Tell me what you thought. Did you think Mr. Mamou was a snitch right then?
A. Yes.
Q. Yes or no?
A. Yes.
A few questions later:
Q. You’ve already described why that didn’t happen because you thought he was a snitch, right?
A. No, not really.
Regarding his intent, Mr. Walter stated:
A. Whether he was a snitch or not, I take this money.
Q. So, even if he was working for the police department, you would be willing to take his money from him?
A. Oh, no.
Q. Whatever it takes?
A. Oh, no.
Q. If you knew he was a police officer, you wouldn’t take his money from him?
A. No.
Q. I thought you said even if he was a snitch, you would take his money from him?
A. That don’t mean the police was there.
Q. So if the police weren’t there, you would do whatever it takes to take the money? Fair statement? This is all about you getting twenty grand, right?
A. Right.
Q. How were you going to divide it between you and Holley and Gibson?
A. I don’t know. Once we took the money, we would divide it.
Q. You worry about that later on; get the money first?
A. The main thing was to see the money, count the money.
Q. Take the money. There was a third part to it, right? Right? See the money, count the money, take the money?
A. Yeah.
Q. I believe your testimony when Mr. McClellan was talking to you was the plan was to rob the defendant, Charles Mamou, correct?
A. Correct.
Throughout his time on the stand Mr. Walter’s restates his plan to rob Mr. Mamou. At one point he goes into more detail about the plan:
Q. And when he asks to see the dope, it’s part of your plan to do what? How do you respond? What’s your plan?
A. It’s down the street.
Q. And that was not true, you had no dope, right?
A. Right.
Q. You never had any intention of giving him any dope?
A. Right.
Q. From start to finish, your plan is to rip him off?
A. Right.
Q. At some point, when it’s obvious to you that twenty thousand is no longer an issue, according to your testimony, and it’s only forty-five hundred, you’re still wanting to rip him off even for the forty-five hundred?
A. Yeah.
At one point Mr. Martin seems a little off balance after the defense attorney refers to him, using the word ‘afraid’.
Q. Now through this entire time, you indicated to the jury earlier that you were afraid that this man is going to rip you off, right?
A. Right.
Q. That’s running through your mind the entire time?
A. No.
Q. What?
A. I’m listening.
Q. Is that true?
A. Yes.
Q. And would it be a fair statement that the places where the meetings were taking place up to that point were public locations, open to the public? People could drive by, walk by, see what was going on? Do you understand my question?
A. No, but I was just listening to you say afraid. I never said I was scared.
Q. You weren’t afraid of Mr. Mamou?
A. What you mean by afraid?
Q. Well, what do you mean by afraid?
A. I wasn’t really scared.
Q. You were just going to rip him off?
A. That’s what –
yeah.
During the States’ questioning, Mr. Martin continued to contradict his testimony. He had already testified that he never had a gun, but when describing an earlier part of the evening when it was just him and his friend Dion Holley, he testified:
Q. Was part of the plan to rob Charles Mamou at gunpoint?
A. No.
Q. What was the plan?
A. To take his money and—
Q. How were you going to get him to give you the money?
A. Once we count the money, then we take the money.
Q. Just going to jump in the car and run?
A. No. It was at gunpoint, of course; but it wasn’t no plan.
Q. Pardon?
A. If it was going to be gunpoint, yes, of course, once we count the money.
Q. But Terrence Gibson wasn’t there?
A. No, no, he wasn’t. I didn’t see him.
Q. Did you have a gun?
A. No.
Q. Did Dion Holley have a gun?
A No.
Q. How are you going to do it at gunpoint?
A. I don’t know. I was going to see can I walk away with the money.
Upon recross examination, he was asked about that again.
Q. Your testimony was that if it was necessary at some point to have a gunpoint to force the money, you said that was okay, isn’t it?
A. Yes.
Again, later in the testimony:
Q. And you knew that if it came to gunpoint, then so be it, in terms of getting the $20,000 from Chucky Mamou?
A. Yes.
After the conclusion of Kevin Walter’s testimony, one is left knowing there is nothing certain about what Mr. Martin testified to regarding the night of the drug deal gone wrong. And, the drug deal is all that he was questioned about, not the murder of Mary Carmouche.
It appears that Kevin Martin was not charged for his involvement in any of the events that took place.
TO CONTACT CHARLES MAMOU: Charles Mamou #999333 Polunsky Unit 12-CD-53 3872 South FM 350 Livingston, TX 77351
“I’m glad you didn’t tell me shit about that cause I don’t wanna know shit, I feel better off that way.”
Letter written by Terrence Dodson to Charles Mamou, postmarked January, 1999.
Those were the words of Terrence Dodson, the prosecution’s ‘key’ witness, in a letter written to Charles Mamou while Mamou was incarcerated – and before Dodson testified to Mamou’s ‘confession’. The jury never saw that letter.
Terrence Dodson – an admitted drug dealer who was involved in the planning and execution of a drug deal gone wrong in December of 1998, could not be considered a strong witness in the best of circumstances. He was a drug dealer involved in a drug deal linked to Mary Carmouche’s murder, although it appears he was never charged with any crimes related to the incident after he testified.
In spite of his questionable background or possible motive for testifying, Harris County, Texas, prosecutors presented a case that weighed heavily on the only witness that tied Charles Mamou to the scene of the crime –Terrence Dodson.
Yet, all the while the trial was taking place in 1999 – there was a letter. A letter that was never presented by the court appointed defense during the trial and one the jury never saw. In that letter the key witness wrote to his cousin, Charles Mamou, who was at the time incarcerated, “I’m glad you didn’t tell me shit about that cause I don’t wanna know shit.” Those words were written not long after Charles Mamou had supposedly confessed to him.
The testimony of Terrence Dodson was a key piece of a case built against Charles Mamou that is riddled with more questions than answers. There was no weapon. There was no eye witness testimony. There was no DNA. During the sentencing phase of Mamou’s trial, victim impact statements were allowed from crimes that Mamou was never even charged with.
This all took place in Harris County, Texas – a county with a big reputation for sentencing people to death. In 1999 Texas averaged nearly three executions a month. According to Charles Mamou, the letter written by Terrence Dodson was in the possession of his defense attorney during his trial but it was ‘misplaced’ and not located until after the trial was concluded.
The letter has since been unaccounted for but became available this week and has since been forwarded to Charles Mamou’s current defense.
