The prosecution ‘won’ the case against Charles Mamou, but what did winning look like?
In a nutshell, the District Attorney claimed:
- Samuel Johnson drove Charles Mamou to a drug deal in Houston.
- Mamou attempted to murder all three ‘sellers’ at the scene and fled in their vehicle, which had Mary Carmouche in the backseat, leaving his driver behind.
- Mamou did not go back to the apartments where he was staying, but drove the victim to a house for sale in a suburban neighborhood, sexually assaulted and then murdered her.
Mamou, on the other hand, claimed he drove back to the apartment complex where he was staying and described what he saw there. Throughout the trial, the prosecution ridiculed those claims. Mamou’s version of events:
- Gunfire broke out when the planned robbery of Mamou began.
- Mamou fired a gun in fear for his life, and jumped in the ‘would-be’ robbers’ car.
- He drove back to the apartment complex where he was staying, following his driver who had left without him, Samuel Johnson.
- Mary Carmouche was in the backseat of the car he fled in.
- The last time he saw the victim was in the apartment complex parking lot.
- He recalled the people he saw in the parking lot when he arrived – Howard Scott, Samuel Johnson, Shawn Eaglin, and a man on a bike.
- He said he went into Howard Scott’s apartment – and when he went back outside Carmouche was gone.
What’s known:
*The two surviving drug dealers from the alley testified they were there to rob Charles Mamou.
*Those same men testified Samuel Johnson left the alley first.
*Samuel Johnson, the driver, testified Mamou left him and Johnson went home, showered, drank a coke, and went to bed, never talking to anyone and never calling anyone. What Mamou didn’t know for 20 years was that investigators knew, in addition to the witnesses’ at the scene contradicting Johnson, Johnson’s cell phone made a phone call to Howard Scott’s apartment at 2:37 a.m. According to their records, they faxed that information to the D.A.’s office during the trial. Charles Mamou was never informed about Johnson’s phone call, and could not use that information to defend himself, nor was he given an opportunity to pursue identifying where that cell phone call was made from. Howard Scott had a phone in his apartment – but this call was made from a cell phone.
That phone call would have also called into question Johnson’s credibility.
It also supports Charles Mamou’s account that Samuel Johnson was not sleeping that night.
In addition to what was known at the time of trial, in 2019 two witnesses described seeing Samuel Johnson in the parking lot that night, along with Charles Mamou.
*Howard Scott testified his phone stopped ringing that night. In reality, his caller I.D. records indicated he was receiving calls through 3:43 a.m. The Houston Police Department knew this, and according to their records, faxed that information to the District Attorney. Charles Mamou was never informed and never given an opportunity to point out how that information called into question Scott’s credibility.
Howard Scott receiving phone calls from the parties Mamou claimed to have seen in the parking lot that night also supports Mamou’s version of events and contradicts the scenario described to the jury of all the other parties having no involvement.
In addition to what was known at the time of the trial, in 2019 a witness described seeing Howard Scott in the parking lot, along with Charles Mamou.
*Mamou claimed he saw Shawn Eaglin in the parking lot. Eaglin’s name is hand-written throughout the Houston Police Department’s file, there are indications he was questioned, and he was also described as a ‘possible suspect’ in court – but any records of police interviews with him do not exist in the police file.
Twenty years ago, Mamou said he saw Shawn Eaglin take a Yellow Cab out of the apartment complex. The prosecution attempted to discredit that, arguing there could be multiple ‘Shawns’ in the complex. According to the cab report – and not pointed out for the jury – the phone number listed on the cab call report came from Howard Scott’s apartment.
Also, the Houston Police Department had phone records indicating Eaglin called Howard Scott’s apartment, that Sunday night. The last call he made to Scott’s apartment was at 3:12 a.m. That information was not shared with Mamou, and he did not have an opportunity to use it in support of his version of events.
Scott’s apartment telephone called for a Yellow Cab for ‘Shawn’ at 3:59 a.m.
*The ‘guy on the bike’ was an opportunity for the prosecution to ridicule and be dismissive of Mamou’s claims. All the while, the prosecution knew Mamou didn’t have much to support what he saw, but as it turns out – the Houston Police Department had some information that could have possibly helped unravel that mystery. In that fax that they sent to the District Attorney – there were other phone calls made to Howard Scott’s apartment that night. One of those phone numbers had ties to none other than – the ‘guy on the bike’. The phone number belonged to a female, and an HPD investigator jotted her name down. It turns out that female knows ‘the guy on the bike’. Although investigators wrote her name down, there is no record they ever spoke to her.
In 2019, a private investigator spoke to ‘the guy on the bike’ who remembers being in the parking lot that night ‘after midnight’ and seeing Charles Mamou, Samuel Johnson and Howard Scott.
As it turns out, everything Charles Mamou says he remembered that night – investigators had reason to believe was true. They shared what they knew with the District Attorney. Nobody shared that information with the jury or the defendant, but rather the focus seemed to be on destroying Mamou’s character and making his claims of seeing people in the parking lot look foolish.
So – what happened to Mary if Charles Mamou drove back to that parking lot, and that was the last place he saw her? This is twenty years later. Is there any way to get a location on a cell phone call from twenty years ago? I have no idea, but one investigator told me no.
The District Attorney took it a step further to convince a jury Mamou was guilty. Accusations of sexual assault were made although there were no charges. The prosecution accused Mamou of sexually assaulting the victim, forcing her to perform oral sex before killing her. The entire time they were making those accusations, they were fully aware a rape kit had been collected, and it indicated no semen was found on any items submitted. There were ‘hairs’ and ‘trace evidence’ collected that could have possibly been tested, but that information was never shared with Charles Mamou.
So where did the prosecution’s story come from? The day Terrence Dodson learned police had a mug shot of him and were looking for him in connection to a murder, he called homicide detectives and told them Charles Mamou confessed to him. Investigators took a statement, knowing parts of that statement couldn’t be true. Regardless – that became the case. Dodson’s later testimony contradicted his original statement, but the jury never heard the original statement.
Race is a part of this I don’t like to bring up – because too many people lessen the message and call it a ‘card’. They will use the very mention of race to discard the entirety of what happened. To reduce what was done here to ‘race’ alone reduces all the other aspects of what took place. This method of sentencing someone to death is much bigger than race, but it is definitely a factor that can’t be ignored – especially in that time and in that location.
It’s likely that had Mamou been white, privileged, wealthy, represented by a private attorney and not in Harris County in 1998 – he wouldn’t be on death row. Had a motivated attorney been given all the above information twenty years ago, not only would Mamou probably not be where he is, the truth of whatever happened that night might have come out. Everything the detectives knew and later shared with the District Attorney – supported what Mamou claimed happened, all the way to the ‘guy on the bike’. A ‘guy on a bike’ isn’t something that could easily be made up and coincidentally be exactly right.
Anyone with information regarding this case can contact me at kimberleycarter@verizon.net. Anything you share with me will be confidential.
All related posts detailing all I have learned over the last two years are available at Charles Mamou.
TO CONTACT CHARLES MAMOU:
Charles Mamou #999333
Polunsky Unit 12-CD-53
3872 South FM 350
Livingston, TX 77351
