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

Related Articles:   What Does It Take To Get On Texas Death Row;
Texas Death Sentence Clouded By Irrefutable Doubt;
Awaiting Execution – “Have You Ever Felt Like You Can Taste The Future?”;
Because They Can – Execution In Texas;
Letter From Key Mamou Witness Contradicting Testimony;
Testimony Worthy Of An Execution? The Mamou Transcripts – Part I;
The Mamou Transcripts Part II;
The Mamou Transcripts Part III – Death Sentence Built On The Testimony Of Dealers;
The Mamou Transcripts IV;
The Mamou Trial – Was Race A Factor?;
Mamou’s Death Sentence Sealed With Graphic Testimony And Photos – Of Victims Of Crimes He Was Never Charged With

Writing By Charles Mamou

Source:

Harris County, Texas. Charles Mamou, Jr. Vs. The State Of Texas. Sept. 1999.

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

Related Articles:   What Does It Take To Get On Texas Death Row;
Texas Death Sentence Clouded By Irrefutable Doubt;
Awaiting Execution – “Have You Ever Felt Like You Can Taste The Future?”;
Because They Can – Execution In Texas;
Letter From Key Mamou Witness Contradicting Testimony;
Testimony Worthy Of An Execution? The Mamou Transcripts – Part I;
The Mamou Transcripts Part II;
The Mamou Transcripts Part III – Death Sentence Built On The Testimony Of Dealers;
The Mamou Transcripts IV;
The Mamou Trial – Was Race A Factor?;
Mamou’s Death Sentence Sealed With Graphic Testimony And Photos – Of Victims Of Crimes He Was Never Charged With

Writing By Charles Mamou

Source:

Harris County, Texas. Charles Mamou, Jr. Vs. The State Of Texas. Sept. 1999.

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

Related Articles:   What Does It Take To Get On Texas Death Row;
Texas Death Sentence Clouded By Irrefutable Doubt;
Awaiting Execution – “Have You Ever Felt Like You Can Taste The Future?”;
Because They Can – Execution In Texas;
Letter From Key Mamou Witness Contradicting Testimony;
Testimony Worthy Of An Execution? The Mamou Transcripts – Part I;
The Mamou Transcripts Part II;
The Mamou Transcripts Part III – Death Sentence Built On The Testimony Of Dealers;
The Mamou Transcripts IV;
The Mamou Trial – Was Race A Factor?

Writing By Charles Mamou

Source:

Harris County, Texas. Charles Mamou, Jr. Vs. The State Of Texas. Sept. 1999.

Some might say – not much.

No eyewitness to the crime. 

No weapon. 

No DNA. 

No record of violence.   

No confession.   On the contrary – Charles Mamou has never wavered regarding his innocence.  That’s why he didn’t take a deal when he was offered one.  He put his faith in the truth and Texas justice nearly two decades ago.   That turned out to be a deadly mistake.  His fate was left in the hands of Harris County, Texas – a community with a long and well documented history of condemning people to death.

And so Mamou’s trial began.  The O.J. Simpson trial was still fairly fresh on peoples’ minds – and Charles was a black man in Texas.  The words of the Judge set the tone from the beginning, as he referred to O.J.’s trial that ended in an acquittal, stating that was, “not going to happen here.   This is the real world.  It is not California.”  The Judge also compared being a juror to, “being a pallbearer at a funeral.”  This was followed up with, “the State is going to seek the appropriate punishment in this case; that is, their claim that it will be the appropriate punishment, punishment of death.”

The case against Charles Mamou revolved around the hearsay testimony of individuals who were all involved in criminal activity, and some very questionable ballistics testimony regarding a never recovered gun.

But, everyone agreed on where everything began.  Five men met on Lantern Point Drive, near the Astrodome, for a drug deal that went terribly wrong.  Charles Mamou and Sam Johnson arrived in one car.  They were met by Deion Holly, Terrance Gibson, and Kevin Walter, who arrived in another vehicle.  Unbeknownst to Mamou and Johnson – Mary Carmouche was in the backseat of the second car.   Deion, Terrance and Kevin brought a seventeen year old girl to a drug deal they approached with loaded guns.

Things went wrong quickly, and the shooting began in both directions.  Terrance Gibson was killed holding a loaded gun – a clear indication his death was the result of self-defense, in which no one was ever charged.   The other two men with Gibson, Deion Holly and Kevin Walter were also shot, but survived.

At some point during the shooting, it appears Sam Johnson hopped in the car that he and Mamou arrived in, and drove down the street.  Mamou thought his friend had left, although Sam was actually turning around and coming back for him.  In that moment, Mamou made a life changing decision.  Alone in that alley, he got in the other men’s car and drove away – with Mary in the backseat.

According to Mamou’s testimony, when he realized Mary was in the car – he stopped and asked her to get out, but she refused.  He then met up with Sam Johnson and they drove to Howard Scott’s apartment.

There, Mamou got out of the car, asking Mary to get out as well.  He was then met by Sam Johnson and Shawn England, another acquaintance.  Mamou was crying and upset, and Shawn pulled him aside to say, “those guys got what they deserved.”  Shawn and Mamou then went inside, leaving Sam Johnson and Mary outside.

Once inside, Mamou was provided with clean clothes, and Shawn England and Howard Scott went outside to search the car that Mamou had arrived in and wipe it down.   Mary was still outside and talking to Sam.  Eventually, another friend arrived on a bike – Kevin.  They all talked for a little while longer before Sam Johnson, Kevin, and Mary left together.

Mamou left the apartment complex to make a call, and when he returned, he saw Kevin and Sam Johnson come back.  Johnson went inside briefly before leaving again with Kevin.

Later that night, Sam Johnson and Kevin returned, and Kevin got on his bike and left.  A cab came for Shawn England, who also left.  Mamou spent the night in Howard Scott’s apartment.

According to Mamou, Shawn England had taken the gun from Mamou while at the apartment.

Mary Carmouch was later found dead with a gunshot wound to her chest.

The prosecution disagreed with Mamou’s version of events and centered a good portion of its case on an unfired cartridge that was found near Mary’s body.  They claimed the unfired cartridge matched the fired casings at the scene of the drug deal gone bad.  It was their theory that those casings had travelled through the same gun barrel.  The science used to support such a theory is arguable even in the best of circumstances, but in this case – there was no weapon to test the theory out on.  The weapon used in the drug deal shooting has never been recovered.  So, there was ballistics evidence that is not a certainty in the best of circumstances, but in this situation there was even less certainty, as it was comparing used and unused casings from a weapon that couldn’t even be tested.

The prosecutor falsely argued the match was a certainty.  He actually used the word ‘identical’ when comparing casings, and also stated as fact, “this was placed in the same magazine that the fired bullets were placed in, thus, fired through the same firearm.”  He lied.  The prosecutor simply lied to the jury.

The other ‘evidence’ the prosecutor had was the testimony of five men who were all involved in criminal activity and willing to testify and point their fingers at Charles Mamou.  It was never investigated or made clear just how those men might have benefited from their testimony, although it is reasonable to assume they did benefit as they were incriminating themselves with their testimony. In addition to the very real possibility that they received personal benefit for their testimony, three of them were inconsistent and admitted lying and being untruthful with police.  None of the men ever claimed they saw Charles murder Mary.

A good deal of the prosecution’s time was spent trying to paint a picture of Charles Mamou as a killer who had killed before, but the reality is – Charles Mamou was never tried for any other killing.

Charles Mamou’s defense attorney didn’t strongly defend his client, but rather seemed to flounder.  At one point during the crucial ballistics testimony he stated, “not sure if I understand what that means.”  In reference to magazine marks he said, “what is the word I’m looking for to describe what a magazine mark is?”

The total amount of time the defense spent ‘investigating’ Charles Mamou’s death penalty case was under ten hours.  The total amount of time Mamou’s counsel spent meeting with ‘the investigator’ was 2.5 hours.

Although all of the testimony available to the defense during the sentencing phase of the trial wasn’t used, the words of those people who could have spoken describe Charles Mamou as kind, generous and respectful.

The thoughts of Claudia Milton, who knew Charles Mamou and his family, were never shared with the jury.  “When Chucky was older he would often talk to my son about his problems.  My son was on drugs and Chucky would try advise him to do better things with his life.  I wanted my son to be more like Chucky.  There was times when I went shopping and Chucky was in the grocery store, he would buy my groceries and never wanted any money back.   There were many other people in town that Chucky would help buy groceries, pay rent or their electric bill.  Chucky helped people.”

The defense also did not share the thoughts of Mark Benolt, who has said in an Affidavit, “To me, Chucky does not have a ‘rough bone’ in his body.  I have witnessed him paying bills for friends, family members and other people in the community.  Charles Jr. is a friend that everyone wishes to have once in their life.”

Oddly enough, even though all of the testimony that could have portrayed Charles Mamou in a positive light was not pursued by defense counsel, the prosecution was permitted to bring in victims of crimes Mamou was never even tried for, along with referencing these other deaths throughout the trial with misleading references to, “evidence that Mamou had killed two other people.”  And in describing those deaths that Mamou has never been tried for, it was stated, “Terrence Gibson.  Anthony Williams.  They were brothers.  They were sons.  They were dads.”

Charles Mamou was never on trial for any other murders, yet victim impact statements were allowed from relatives of Terrence Gibson and Anthony Williams.  Emotion filled testimony was given detailing how the loss of those men impacted their families.  This was followed up by the prosecution, “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.”

During the penalty phase of the trial, the Judge also stated, “it’s no more different than it is when we’re raising kids.  It’s just no more different.  If we ever told a child not to do something once and the child does it again, we’re going to react one way.  If we have told a child ten times in the last thirty minutes not to do something and they have done it for the tenth time, we’re going to react a different way.”

The U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals has denied Charles Mamou’s last appeal, and he is currently awaiting an execution date.

Regarding the denial of his final appeal and the knowledge that he will soon  be executed by the state of Texas, Mamou recently expressed his frustration, “Nobody believes in me!  I love me.  America isn’t the land of equality.  Never has been.  Let’s not pretend.  Let’s admit what it is.  And before I take my last breath, the whole world will know they fucked me over.  That will be the symbol of why I lived.”

If only we didn’t need a dead body to know that the trial of Charles Mamou wasn’t just.

TO CONTACT CHARLES MAMOU:
Charles Mamou #999333
Polunsky Unit 12-CD-53
3872 South FM 350
Livingston, TX 77351

Related Articles:  Texas Death Sentence Clouded By Irrefutable Doubt;
Awaiting Execution – “Have You Ever Felt Like You Can Taste The Future?”;
Because They Can – Execution In Texas;
Letter From Key Mamou Witness Contradicting Testimony;
Testimony Worthy Of An Execution?  The Mamou Transcripts Part I;
The Mamou Transcripts – Part II;
The Mamou Transcripts Part III – Death Sentence Built On The Testimony Of Dealers

Writing By Charles Mamou