‘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 did not 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
Related Articles: What Does It Take To Get On Texas Death Row;
Texas Death Sentence Clouded By Irrefutable Doubt;
Letter From Key Mamou Witness Contradicting Testimony;
Testimony Worthy Of An Execution? The Mamou Transcripts Part I
REFERENCE: “Nanon Williams.” Houston Chronicle, Houston Chronicle, 1 Mar. 2005, www.chron.com/news/article/Nanon-Williams-1568704.php.
