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.
In 1999, the year Charles Mamou was sentenced to death, Texas performed 35 executions. The following year, they performed 40. The state was and is very practiced at executions – but has it become too easy to execute?
Tough on crime is one thing, execution quite another. There is no do-over. The system is not faultless. Innocent people have been executed, and they will continue to be as long as there are executions. Those mistakes are more likely in a state that gets too comfortable executing. History has already proven that it sometimes doesn’t matter if the cases in question involve minorities or the poor or both.
As Charles Mamou’s execution inches closer, many who have looked closely at his case feel he won’t be executed because he is guilty of the crime for which he was sentenced. Some feel he will be executed because – Texas can.
So, in a year in which Texas averaged about three executions a month, the testimony of a handful of drug dealers who had a lot to gain by pointing the finger away from themselves, sealed the fate of Charles Mamou. They didn’t even have to testify to witnessing the crime. They all had a lot to gain in a capital murder case with the death penalty on the table – and nothing to lose but their integrity.
The night of the drug deal that started it all, Kevin Walter, Dion Holley and Terrence Gibson had guns and planned to meet up with Charles Mamou and his friends to sell drugs – which actually were not drugs. They had nothing to sell. That is why they went to the meeting with guns. Each of the men intended to come away with cash from a drug sale in which they did not have drugs to sell. There is no doubt each of the three – Kevin Walter, Dion Holley and Terrence Gibson – intended to commit crimes that night with loaded guns in tow. They were willing to go to extreme lengths to commit their crimes. They also knew Mary Carmouche was out of sight and in their backseat. Mary would be found dead two days later.
The buyers were to be Terrence Dodson (not to be confused with Terrence Gibson), Samuel Johnson and Charles Mamou. Those three men also traveled with loaded guns and had no cash to make their purchase. It was a drug deal – a crime – in which all parties were planning to come out ahead, with little regard for the others involved. They weren’t there for charitable purposes – and the actions of them all indicated that at that point in time – they were each willing to give up their integrity for personal gain.
Of the sellers that night, Terrence Gibson lost his life. He had a loaded gun and no one was ever charged with his death, and if they had been, there would be a strong argument for self defense.
Dion Holley testified for the State at Charles Mamou’s trial, and it appears he was not charged with any crimes related to what happened that night. The vehicle the sellers were driving belonged to Dion Holley’s mother, and of the scant amount of evidence in this case, Dion’s print was the only one later found in the vehicle. And – it was Dion’s friend, Mary, who was hiding in the backseat of the car they arrived in. Holley testified regarding hearing shots at the drug deal, running, getting shot in the arm, seeing Mamou get in his mom’s car and hearing both cars leaving the scene of the drug deal.
Kevin Walter also testified for the State. It appears he was also not charged with any crimes related to what took place, although he testified regarding the plan he and his friends had to arrange a fake drug deal and rob Charles Mamou of $20,000. Mr. Walter was clear about his understanding of the planned robbery and his participation in it.
Samual Johnson testified for the State. It appears he was also not charged with any crimes related to what took place, although he testified regarding his own involvement in the plan to rob men of drugs and his connection to the crimes. Samual Johnson was the driver of the car that Charles Mamou arrived at the scene in. Charles Mamou was actually from Louisiana, and did not have a vehicle in Texas, nor was he as familiar with the area as the men he was working with.
Terrence Dodson testified for the State, although there was nothing he could testify to that would benefit the prosecution regarding what he had ‘seen’ that night, because he was not at the scene of the drug deal. But, according to court documents, Terrence Dodson was very involved in the drug deal, and it appears he was not charged with any related crimes. But, Terrence Dodson was instrumental in arranging the deal, and also intended to rob the dealers with a gun he had. Terrence Dodson had good reason to be concerned about what he might be charged with for his involvement in the murder, although he was not in the car by the time the deal actually took place. During the trial Dodson testified that Charles Mamou ‘confessed’ to him that he had committed the crime because the victim looked at him ‘funny’. Mamou has steadfastly denied this confession took place.
That is what the State had. That was the closest that they could get Charles Mamou to the actual murder through witness testimony – several young men who all had something to gain by working with the State, all involved in criminal activity, and all with questionable integrity going into the trial. Even with their testimony, which Mamou’s current defense says is ‘riddled with inconsistency’, none of them witnessed anything connected to a murder. Mamou has always maintained that after the drug deal gone wrong, he and Samual Johnson drove back to the apartment complex he was staying at. He was distraught and several other people saw Mary and interacted with her. That was the last night he ever saw her, and she was alive.
Some would say Charles Mamou doesn’t matter, because he was a drug dealer himself. It is correct that Charles Mamou was a drug dealer twenty years ago. Since that time he has spent all his days in a solitary cell on death row in the state of Texas. He’s now in his forties. The chance of him ever resuming a life of dealing drugs is near non-existent – and being a drug dealer is not a crime punishable with death in this country. If it were, the State’s key witnesses would be in neighboring cells.
Logic alone would make one question why Charles Mamou would call up a drug dealer and tell him he murdered someone because they looked at him ‘funny’, when he has steadfastly maintained his innocence.
One might also wonder how Charles Mamou located a deserted home in which to murder a girl in a state he didn’t even live in. The witnesses who testified against him would be more aware of the surrounding area and more capable of accomplishing that.
In the case of Charles Mamou an execution may allow Texas to close a chapter, but his death will not answer the question of who killed Mary Carmouche. There isn’t enough evidence to prove who killed her, and Texas quit looking for the answers soon after the crime took place.
REFERENCE
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION. CHARLES MAMOU, JR., vs. WILLIAM STEPHENS, CASE No. 4:14-CV-00403, AMENDED PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS . 4 June 2015.
“Acts of kindness come few and far between for me, but I’ve adopted a point of view that dictates – when an act of kindness is bestowed upon you, the most meaningful thing you can do in return is pay it forward. And, so I shall. So, however big or small the gesture turns out to be, together we will contribute to what I suppose could be considered the Universal Good.” – Wilmer Portillo
I am so grateful for the chance I have every day to work with the most appreciative people I know. It’s a gift. Kindness and compassion and love – change people and the world. Vengeance in the form of the death penalty, solitary confinement and overly harsh sentences in inhuman conditions – don’t make us better.
“You’ve taken up the fight to save my life like no other has done – and I never asked you to do it. You did this on your own, and that warms my heart.” – anonymous
Happy Thanksgiving!
NOTE: Wilmer A Portillo is a gifted writer and the author of A Dreamer’s Story. He can be contacted at:
‘Have you ever felt like you can taste the future? Like you know what’s about to happen? That’s how I feel. Back a few years ago, a friend here broke away from the officers who were escorting him and walked towards me in the dayroom. On instinct, I reached out through the bars and grabbed him. Tears stained his face from crying for hours during his last visit. I gave him a huge hug, and he kissed my cheek and whispered in my ear, “Roaddawg. You have the best chance to get free. Don’t let them win. Go back home to your family. Get free. Promise me?”’
‘I did promise him at that moment before letting him go. But – I failed.’
Facing the end of his appeals, which have been procedurally barred and left unheard, Charles Mamou’s future looks bleak. Some would say he never had a chance – not a black man on trial for murder in Harris County, Texas, at that time in history. It’s twenty years later, and with execution near, there are more questions than answers. The only thing certain is that there can be no certainty of his guilt. He has always maintained his innocence.
The most glaring problem with Mamou’s sentence came during the penalty phase of his trial, when victim impact statements were allowed in the Courtroom for crimes of which Mamou was never charged. But the case itself was built on the testimony of a handful of people involved in a drug crime – who all stood to benefit from their testimony – and an unfired cartridge found near the victim’s body.
That cartridge – was the only physical evidence. There wasn’t even DNA tying Mamou to the victim.
The prosecution brought in Robert Baldwin, an employee of the Houston Police Department, to testify that the unfired cartridge found near the victim’s body had been inside the magazine of a weapon used at a drug deal gone bad – where Charles Mamou had been involved.
So – what the jury heard, was unhindered ‘expert’ testimony from the prosecution. Mamou’s court appointed attorney did not bring in an expert to refute Robert Baldwin’ s testimony, in spite of its weakness, nor did he question the expertise, credentials, or methods of the ballistics ‘expert’ whose testimony was the basis for the prosecution’s case.
It was not pointed out to the jury that even in the best of circumstances the ‘science’ used to tie an unfired cartridge to a fired casing at a different location – is not a certainty. Rather they listened to a lot of scientific jargon and were informed that Charles Mamou had been in possession of a gun that was at the same location as the victim.
It is not possible for that to be a certainty.
The prosecution’s expert had no weapon to test.
The prosecution’s expert didnot produce any photos of his comparisons.
The prosecution’s expert did not explain how many marks were compared in his study that was conducted without the ability to test a weapon.
The prosecution’s expert was vague in the details, but certain of the match.
In a case with the death penalty on the table, it is reasonable to think more should be expected as far as expert testimony, but again, Charles Mamou was a black man in Harris County, Texas, with a court appointed defense attorney who chose not to question those things.
Criminalist, Ronald Singer, later said in an affidavit regarding the Charles Mamou ballistics testimony:
“….The prosecutor also, in his final argument, presented to the jury his opinion that the match was a certainty. Such opinions, however, are inherently probabilistic in nature. The defense attorneys failed to address the flaw of ‘discernable uniqueness’ and allowed the prosecutor to present this to the jury. Had they presented a competent ballistics expert at trial, that expert should have been able to inform the jury that such opinions are flawed as they ignore the inherently probabilistic nature of such comparisons. This individualization fallacy was well known at the time of Mamou’s trial.”
Robert Baldwin also testified in the capital murder case of Nanon Williams where his testimony was the foundation for that prosecution’s case as well. At one point Baldwin was asked, “Is there any way in the world based on your training, your expertise and the examinations that you made, that the bullet… was shot out of that Derringer?
Baldwin’s reply on the stand was, “No, sir. It’s the wrong caliber.”
Baldwin testified with certainty that the bullet that took the victim’s life came from Nanon’s .25mm caliber handgun.
Not only did Robert Baldwin get it wrong in a case that sent Nanon to death row – the bullet taken from the victim actually did come from a .22 Derringer. Baldwin never fired the Derringer during his ‘study’ of the evidence. In other words – he did not test the only weapon available. In the Nanon capital murder case – there was a gun to test. Robert Baldwin, the ‘expert’ ballistics witness for the prosecution didn’t test the only available weapon and gave false testimony.
Charles Mamou’s defense counsel didn’t question Robert Baldwin’s credentials. The defense did not ask for any data regarding the degree of similarity between the marks nor did they ask for any photos to show any microscopic comparisons. Photos and data were not presented, and they were not asked for.
In closing statements, the prosecution used Baldwin’s testimony to falsely assure the jury,
“magazine mark…makes it identical to one of the casings that was in the magazine of the firearm that…was left at Lantern Point…;”
“what is important is…that this was placed in the same magazine that the fired bullets were placed in, and thus, fired through that same firearm…;”
“we know that the casing that has the magazine mark was fired in a weapon in the possession of this defendant, and that’s the same magazine that has this bullet in it that was found at the Lynchester address where Mary Carmouche was.”
We may never know why Mamou’s court appointed counsel did not bring in an expert to refute the ballistics testimony nor argue the testimony that was presented. That counsel didn’t respond when I asked for his thoughts.
TO CONTACT CHARLES MAMOU:
Charles Mamou #999333
Polunsky Unit 12-CD-53
3872 South FM 350
Livingston, TX 77351
We want to have faith in the justice system. We may not understand the processes or the terminology, but we like to think that those that do will see to it that things are done properly – and fairly. To have faith – is to have belief beyond our own understanding.
But, can we? No matter a person’s stance on the death penalty – the importance of getting it right – with that there is no question. Too many times it appears our government doesn’t quite take that responsibility to heart.
That’s where a lot of those who oppose the death penalty get their argument – the courts don’t always get it right. They have a history of making errors. And – they have a history of not wanting to admit they have made an error when they clearly have.
Charles Mamou is a man on death row in Texas. He has maintained his innocence, and anyone who looks closely at the lack of evidence would admit that he very well might be – innocent. But, even more at issue is what actually happened during his sentencing. There is no argument there. What happened that day – goes without question. It happened in front of a room full of people and is documented.
During the penalty phase of Mamou’s trial, victim impact testimony was allowed from victims of crimes for which he was never charged.
Charles Mamou has only ever been charged and tried for the murder of Mary Carmouche. Regardless of how anyone wants to look at it or surmise or assume – Charles Mamou has never been on trial for any other murder. That is a fact.
Yet – the prosecutor argued, “And when he pulled the gun and he fired and killed Terrence and Anthony, he ripped those families apart. He devastated and destroyed. And that’s all he’s ever done, with his drugs, with his guns. And every time he pulled the trigger, he answered that first special issue yes, yes, yes, yes, yes. Seven times he answered it yes.”
It didn’t stop there. Not only was Charles Mamou given the guilt of those crimes without a trial – he was also given the blame for the hurt it caused those peoples’ families. As the prosecution described two other ‘victims’ – “Terrence Gibson. Anthony Williams. They were brothers. They were sons. They were dads.”
It wasn’t just the words of the prosecutor that the jury heard. According to court documents , during victim impact statements a family member of Anthony Williams’ testified regarding the “description of the hospital death of Mr. Williams; his sister’s identification of the body; the effect it had on his mother; heart-wrenching cemetery visits by Williams’ son; his crying as a result of the death of his father; and the health problems Williams’ death caused for his mother.”
Testimony regarding Terrence Gibson’s death included a family member “looking at baby pictures the day of his death.” The testimony was “so compelling that Hill himself had to give Gibson time to compose herself and ‘a chance to adjust’.”
When handing out the ultimate punishment – that of a person’s life – how can we have faith in any courtroom that would allow that to happen? More importantly – can Texas be big enough to admit its error before it’s too late? Or will Charles Mamou’s name go into the history books as one more death penalty case with so many lingering questions?
TO CONTACT CHARLES MAMOU:
Charles Mamou #999333
Polunsky Unit 12-CD-53
3872 South FM 350
Livingston, TX 77351
In 1999, the year Charles Mamou was sentenced to death, Texas performed 35 executions. The following year, they performed 40. The state was and is very practiced at executions – but has it become too easy to execute?
‘Have you ever felt like you can taste the future? Like you know what’s about to happen? That’s how I feel. Back a few years ago, a friend here broke away from the officers who were escorting him and walked towards me in the dayroom. On instinct, I reached out through the bars and grabbed him. Tears stained his face from crying for hours during his last visit. I gave him a huge hug, and he kissed my cheek and whispered in my ear, “Roaddawg. You have the best chance to get free. Don’t let them win. Go back home to your family. Get free. Promise me?”’ 