Category Archives: Sentenced to Death

Being Better

Cruel.   Heartless.   Malicious and cold.  That’s how the prosecutor described me to a jury during his pitch for a verdict of death.  He argued that I was, “…just mean and unfit to live.”  In the end, the jury agreed.

Four months after my arrival on Death Row, I stole money from an officer.  Though inadvertent, it was theft nonetheless.  It happened one morning during weekly ‘draw’, while one officer was training another.  At that time, available funds withdrawn from inmate accounts were counted and stapled together. 

The new guy – or Newbie – handed me a stack of bills in fives and ones meant to total forty dollars.  With no prior incidents or errors, I tucked the bills in my pocket and walked away.  Within moments, a commotion stirred as one inmate started shouting over missing funds.  Others became disgruntled and offered up chide remarks about the unfairness of the system.  The senior officer tried to de-escalate the ruckus, while the new guy searched frantically through the money bag.  I sympathized with the perplexity strewn on Newbie’s face.  It was his first day on the job.

After reassuring compensation, both officers exited the pod, as the ire amongst protesting inmates increased.   With a prickly notion to count the money, I collected the bills from my pocket and discovered it wasn’t one stack, but two.  The staples in each stack had snagged one another and pieced the money together.  I called over the guy to which the funds belonged, explained the mix-up and offered him the money. 

“Keep it,” he said, “Let the State pay for it, since they’re trying to kill us, anyway.”  Tempers flared over systemic oppression, as the other inmates egged each other on.   Reluctantly, I passed the money off to a friend – I was striking a blow to ‘the State’.

Not only was the meager blow ineffective to the State, it was utterly deflected.  I later found out the replacement funds were deducted from Newbie’s salary.  What a terrible feeling to know I was responsible for a mark on his work record.  And by involving another party, I couldn’t return the money, though keeping it cost me peace of mind.

Over the years, Newbie has gone on to become a well respected officer.  With an 18 year tenure of working on Death Row, he has seniority over all other staff.  He’s shown cordialness and consideration when enforcing policy, while effectively performing his duties.   A kind, hard working man, who seldom speaks, but is eager to flash a grin.  As I’ve come to admire his professionalism, I’m reminded of my offense.  Such a fine person deserves better from me – I deserve better from myself. 

Recently, I was among several Death Row inmates selected for a random urinalysis.  I arrived to find Newbie overseeing the process, as he went about his task with a grin.  I’d often experienced discomfort whenever he was present – a nagging guilt that pecked at my conscience and impeded the wholeness of reform.  Tonight’s discomfort was more salient and intense, as I struggled with the idea of possible outcomes.  What if Newbie had lost his job, or been accused of theft and criminally charged?  I squeezed my eyes tightly as my inner voice gathered.  Newbie deserved better.  So did I.

Some idle chat was used to generate dialogue on self-reform.   Then, with no one else around, my words spilled forth, “Yeah, man… many of us want to be better, but to do better, we have to own our truths.  Just like the time when that forty dollar draw come up missing…”  At that point, I had Newbie’s undivided attention.  While confessing my role in the missing funds, I felt embarrassed, but liberated.  I searched his eyes for a hint of anger.  They stayed steady and unrevealing.  I expressed my sincerity to return the funds and the difficulty of having involved another.  His fixed look filled me with shame – a shame I well deserved.

Finally, Newbie settled his thoughts and said, “Thank you for telling me that.”  For eighteen years Newbie had been puzzled by the events of that day.  He was certain about the money count and grateful to finally know what happened.  I was moved to witness such genuine forgiveness, given instantly and without effort.  I expected reprimand for my wrong-doing, instead, Newbie seemed relieved.  His forgiveness was validation in the courage to right our wrongs.  It was more than I deserved – it was a lesson in the goodness of humanity. 

©Chanton

ABOUT THE AUTHOR:  Terry Robinson writes under the pen name ‘Chanton’. Terry is a thought provoking, inspirational writer and a frequent contributor. It’s a privilege to share his work. He can be contacted at:
Terry Robinson #0349019
Central Prison
4285 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-4285

All Posts By Chanton

Loading

The Mamou Trial – was race a factor?

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

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

Writing By Charles Mamou

Sources

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.

Blakinger, Keri. “Drug Dealer on Death Row Loses Federal Appeal in 1998 Houston Murder of Teenage Girl.” Houston Chronicle, Houston Chronicle, 20 July 2018, www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/article/Drug-dealer-on-death-row-loses-federal-appeal-in-13090103.php.

“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.

Loading

Rock Bottom

Back in 1987 – ‘the Jamaicans’ hit.  Not the whole of Jamaica – just a three-man posse of ruffians we town folk called ‘the Jamaicans’.   It was during the crack epidemic of the 80’s, and I was thirteen. 

Much of my days back then were spent goofing off with friends.  On the weekends, we took our small allowances and hoofed it to the inner city to buy marijuana.  We were silly kids pretending to be grown-ups, until times changed, and we could pretend no longer.

A time came when two of my friends began disappearing after school, and by the week’s end they had extra money.  When I asked their whereabouts, they replied, “We sell rocks for ‘the Jamaicans’.”  I didn’t know rocks were in such high demand, but the incentive was worth checking out, so we headed to New St. early the next day, to a neighborhood that was a breeding ground for crime.

When we arrived there was a network of roguish teenagers bustling to and fro.  I watched as my friends approached a man lounging in a luxury car.  He was short and dark complected, with even darker clothes, his voice rhythmic and foreign.  He handed them a package and drove away as the three of us gathered curbside.  Within moments, a scraggly man hastened our way with a crumpled bill clutched in his fist.  He exchanged it with my friends for the contents inside a small plastic bag – and that’s when it hit me.  My friends didn’t sell actual rocks.  They sold a drug called – rocks. 

That’s when it all made sense.   No longer were we simply standing in the hood, it was more like the Promise Land – a bountiful mirage of tremendous opportunity and it read, ‘see what you’ve been missing?’   While I was home frying bologna and watching cartoons, my friends had been out getting rich.  Their success was equivalent to turkey with gravy and man…  I wanted to eat.  The guy in the luxury car was called Roofus.  We met the next day when I received my first package of cocaine.

Life as a drug dealer began with invigoration, but soon became hard work. I hopped in and out of cars all day haggling with strangers.  My cup of judgment was neither half empty, nor half full, but a lot of both – completely empty of experience, at the same time, full of potential.  Hustling drugs day and night, I was fueled on by the idea of success.  My motto was, “show me the money, and I’ll show you commitment.”  I wanted da ‘bling to cast its illusion of wealth over poverty.  I wanted instant fame and glory, to shine amongst my peers.  But stardom would come at a cost, and I gradually became someone different.  I had walked across the bridge from innocence to inquisition, with something terrible waiting at the bottom.

The first thing to go was my mother’s curfew.  Next, I was a high school dropout.  Courting girls began to occupy any time and focus not spent dealing drugs.  Then came mischief, like vandalism and acts of violence.  I was losing my grip on my values and drifting on a sea of poor choices. 

One day, I lost some drugs and had no way to pay Roofus. Frightened by the rumors of how ‘the jamaicans’ dealt with incompetence, I went into hiding.  Imagine my surprise when Roofus called my house and threatened to harm my family.  Suddenly, I was standing in a chilling darkness too great to conquer.   Roofus demanded that I come to New St. to discuss payment.  Along the way, I had a premonition of something horrible and decided to wait until I could come up with the money.  A week later, Roofus skipped town after fatally shooting his girlfriend. I wondered if the bullet that killed her had my name on it.

The experience was a critical turning point in my life. While I did complete the journey across the bridge, my identity toppled over the edge.  I gave my all to the dope game in hopes of something better. The price was my undying loyalty to streets – that gave nothing back.

©Chanton

ABOUT THE AUTHOR:  Chanton is a thought provoking and inspirational writer as well as a frequent contributor. It’s a privilege to share his work.

All Posts By Chanton

Loading

The Mamou Transcripts Part III – death sentence built on the testimony of dealers

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

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

Writing By Charles Mamou

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

Loading

The Death Penalty – Here to Stay?

I hear talk the death penalty is becoming ‘unpopular’, and before long it won’t exist.  It’s just a matter of time before Texas and the rest of the country come to this conclusion.

But from what I can see here on death row, this thing we call the death penalty – legalized killing – is here to stay.  It’s economics.  People don’t invest money in something that isn’t going to be around for long. 

It wasn’t so long ago, I don’t know how much money was spent on putting video cameras all over this building to upgrade security. 

Next – the roof was taken up and completely redone.

A couple months ago every shower door was removed and replaced with solid stainless steel doors that were professionally installed.  At seventy-two doors, I can’t even imagine what the cost came to.

A few weeks ago, every food slot was removed and replaced with a new one to use a key lock instead of a bar.  That’s 504 slots just for this building. 

Next, I hear they plan to repaint all the cells – one by one. 

So, you see, it’s hard to see this kind of investment in death row housing unless the death penalty is here to stay in Texas.  Actions speak a lot louder than actual words…

ABOUT THE WRITER.  Travis Runnels is the author of Guidance On Navigating The Path To Love and How To Survive In Prison. He can be contacted at:

Travis Runnels #999505
3872 FM 350
Livingston, TX 77351

Other Posts By Travis.

Loading

The Mamou Transcripts – Part II

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

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

Writing By Charles Mamou

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

Loading

Testimony Worthy Of An Execution? THE MAMOU TRANSCRIPTS – PART I

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

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

Writing By Charles Mamou

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

Loading

Letter From Key Mamou Witness – contradicting testimony?

“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. 

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;
Testimony Worthy Of An Execution? The Mamou Transcripts Part I

Writing By Charles Mamou

Loading

Selfie


I am a ponderer of life,
Contemplating the now and what’s to come.

I am my mother’s son,
And my father’s – sometimes.

My greatest flaw was being everyone’s perfect,
But never my own content. 

I am unintentionally hypocritical,
Though such awareness keeps me grounded. 

I am a race against time in an unjust system,
To prove I am of value.

I am strong because I am vulnerable,
My truths no longer weigh me down.

I was dressed up insecurities,
I’m now dressed down and confident.

I am stilled waters on a stormy night,
My faith survives the chaos.

A glimmer of light in a distant place
Is the beacon of my hopes.

I’m the best of failed intentions,
Self-doubt on the doorstep of promise.

I’m a believer in the healing of humanity,
Though it’s people that give me wonder.

Who am I, one may ask… 
I am who I need to be.

©Chanton

ABOUT THE AUTHOR:  Terry Robinson lives on Death Row and has always maintained his innocence.  He writes under the pen name ‘Chanton’, and it is a true privilege to share his work. He can be contacted at:
Terry Robinson #0349019
Central Prison
4285 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-4285

All Posts By Chanton

Loading

Because They Can – Execution In Texas

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.

Charles Mamou was guilty of being a drug dealer.  But in the case of the murder he will die for – there were no eyewitnesses, no confessions, no DNA, and no physical evidence outside of a shell casing found near the body that cannot be definitively linked to anything – in spite of the prosecution’s arguments.

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.

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?”;
Letter From Key Mamou Witness Contradicting Testimony;
Testimony Worthy Of An Execution?  The Mamou Transcripts Part I

Writing By Charles Mamou

Loading