Why do SMART people do DUMB things?





Harris County Courthouse

Located in Houston



If you know of Carlos Coy I’m sure you know about his rise in the music industry and I’m sure you know about Dope House Records. If you know of Carlos Coy I’m sure you know about his case. If you know about his case then I’m sure you are aware of how unique his case is. Nearly on every level this case takes sporadic turns and has plummeting twist. There have been many unmistakable mysteries lurking within the case of: THE STATE OF TEXAS V. CARLOS COY.

My first initial thought was, "That this case can't be real." Then I had another thought; maybe my second evaluation was more realistic, “Did someone actually plot against Carlos Coy and devise a plan of attack to dig in his pockets for some money and in the process sent him to prison?"

Many opinions have been formed and an increasing amount of haters have jumped aboard with their therefore lack of support. I have come across various articles and information painting the same vague picture. If you knew the facts, and I don’t claim to know all the facts, but I do know there's more than many possibilities as to why as Carlos Coy is away from his family and the people he loves most.  Carlos may not be able to be record at the "Dope House" studio with, Pain, his sound engineer. However, and I use an extra emphasis when I say, “HOWEVER” his hopes are high and, he is in good spirits. Carlos is grateful for his art and ability to touch other’s lives. He loves his family and his fans.

Not even a 8 by 10 cubic concrete walls surrounded by guard towers, chain linked fencing and, barbwire can stop SPM.

On the other end of my phone call Carlos says...

"Yo what's up baby this is ya boy SPM doin this shit man we in the studio rite now baby tryin to finish up my album man but you know your very important and we'll get back as soon as possible...we out."

It's pretty clear to me Carlos is diligently at work. The follow up to the 2013 release "The Son of Norma" will be titled "Visionary" (Release date: TBA)

"Although I'm no angel in God I do trust

(Carlos Coy: Shetoro's Crib; When Devils Strike: 2006)

"If I had one wish, it wouldn't be wealth it would be that if we could just love ourselves cause every day it's like we kill a million dreams and it seem everybody on different teams"

(Carlos Coy: Swim; The Last Chair Violinist: 2008)

“So much love in the mail they handin me fans are family, friends was a fantasy everything clear, let the saga live on bout time I wrote a mothafuckin positive song”

(Carlos Coy: And They said; The Son of Norma: 2013)

Lisa K. Andrews say,
"He's a threat to children,
and that's what this higher
range of punishment is
designed for."

 Perhaps it was the State of Texas who had such distaste for Carlos Coy who was known as: "The don of Dope House Records and musical engineer with a Ph.D. in rapology." Behind the name "SPM" (South Park Mexican) Carlos was consuming power with his popularity. What other way to take down what the judicial system viewed as a, "Predator." I use that word specifically because just maybe that’s exactly what the judicial system wanted EVERYONE to approach Carlos as while stripping him of any credibility. Outside of the Harris County Courthouse at the conclusion of The State of Texas V. Carlos Coy case when asked by media about the case the prosecution replied by saying, “This man is so vicious and so predatory and they believe they will stop him and not tolerate that 45 years is the appropriate sentence this man was a predator he would continue to be a predator.” 10 years completed, which is just a mere fraction completed, still with 35 years remaining, the so called "Justice System" had achieved what they set out to do.





Kathy Wells, Pat Lykos, Denise Oncken



I am not from the State of Texas but I’ve reviewed various cases coming from the state which is known to have a large population of state prisons and correctional facilities. Judging from the state’s history of large amounts of in-mates one may begin to think that the laws in Texas may be somewhat harsh compared to other states. I have reviewed a wide verity types of cases; not all the cases have been committed in Texas. Some cases mirror to The State of Texas V. Carlos Coy while others details differ. Some cases have involved homicides/multiple homicides leading to another death toll. After I had reviewed some of these cases and learned of the verdict's I won’t contest I’m overwhelmed by shocking results.

In the court of law there is always a  "Defendant"; which is defined as: Defendant, noun The accused/offender. And then there is a "Plaintiff"; which is defined as: Plaintiff, noun Accuser/victim. In Various cases there is a "Witness" or "Witnesses"; which is defined as: Witness verb Observer/A witness can testify about matter's having some logic connection with the consequential fact. This is how the judicial system works; every defendant is, "Innocent until proven guilty." Innocent until proven guilty is defined as: (PC 1096) A defendant in a criminal action is presumed to be innocent until the contrary is proved, and in case of reasonable doubt whether his or her guilt is satisfactorily shown, he or she is entitled to an acquittal, but the effect of this presumption is only to place upon the state the burden of proving him or her guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Reasonable doubt is defined as follows: "It is not mere possible doubt; because everything relating to human affairs is open to some possible or imaginary doubt. It is that state of the case, which after the entire comparison and consideration of all the evidence, leaves the minds of jurors in that condition that they cannot say they feel an abiding conviction of the truth of the charge." At least this is how the judicial system is supposed to work. Supporters have suggested Carlos Coy was guilty before he had the opportunity to be proved innocent.

Somewhere along the lines of "Justice" — justice has to be applied and applied correctly. In the court of law I’ve found to be dicey. I’ll provide you with this example: If you are familiar with either O.J. Simpson or Michael Jackson need I say more? Both of these cases involving celebrities have totally separate types of charges. The two historical cases have been viewed by many ending with rather surprising verdicts — INNOCENT. In any event many questions have popped up about matters of these high profiled cases. I’m not saying Simpson is a cold blooded murderer nor am I saying Jackson sexually assaulted any children. Although many have said Simpson did kill Nicole Brown Simpson & Ronald Goldman. Others pointed out Jackson was on trial more than once for virtually the same crime involving minors but, many wonder how they were proven innocent.

You’d have to been the judge, the district attorney, the accuser’s family or Carlos Coy himself to understand all that took place during The State of Texas V. Carlos Coy trial. I am not a lawyer and I don’t claim to be an expert within the realms of law. I do know the difference between right and wrong. Some of the issue dealing with the The State of Texas V. Carlos Coy case seems to be inconclusively not right and I’m not saying Carlos Coy has never committed a sin in his life or even for that matter a mistake. However, no man on Earth is not guilty of sin.



Carlos Coy



Carlos had this to say about his trial, "In my criminal trial, the judge broke his back keeping those reasons hidden, among other things. He helped make this family look like a group of God-fearing Christians, who played Monopoly on Saturday nights and prayed before each meal. But in civil court, the civil judge was more fair, and so more of the truth was exposed. All I’m saying is that there’s no way her five-minute-story about her cousin and dad and family all watching a movie could be true, yet she believed it was. The D.A. walked her through a step-by-step account of a non-existent event, and the child didn’t miss a beat. But if you look a little closer, you can see evidence of foul play. Because when you program information,all that’s there is what was programmed. She only knew the information given to her, but it’s common sense how easy it would be to remember the person who got up and said “No, you can’t watch this.” That was the main act of what this scene was about. But that’s just my view, man. There’s no way I can tell you “I know” what happened. All I can do is show you what happened in court and allow common sense to speak for itself. The main reason I showed you this ordeal, this plot, this scheme was to give examples of how, first of all, they could completely control this child’s testimony when given enough time, how the judge and D.A.’s worked as a team in my trial, how the puppet master could make the child believe a story that wasn’t true. Never in the trial had I seen this judge more distraught. His words were coming out in a muddlement of spits and spurts, as if he’d just been told his nuts needed to be removed. He was completely stunned. I just wish someone would have asked him, “Why the fuck are you so shaken up? You’re supposed to be neutral.” The most eye-opening thing he said, and I’m sure you noticed it, too, came after the child told him that she saw the whole movie. His response, “So, that’s a problem.” The question of all questions is, why would the truth be a problem? His statement defines what this trial was about; a task to keep the truth hidden. Those words slipped out of his mouth in the stupor of being caught off guard, but they are an admission to the fact that he was on the D.A.’s side. In fact, he was their secret weapon."

"It makes sense to say that Mary Doe must have been told, “If something comes up that’s not in the story we rehearsed, or you forgot what we rehearsed, just say you don’t know or can’t remember.” And Mary Doe, even to a fault, stuck to that formula. Chip exposes that by showing how she remembers seeing the movie, remembers that she didn’t care for it and turned it off, remembers that she’s the one who rented it and where she rented it, but, oddly enough, can’t remember if she saw it within the last three years. This was a completely made-up story, and if it wasn’t obvious enough. As you know, Jane Doe came back and said she saw all of “Scary Movie.” So what they did was regrouped, came up with a new plan, and once the jury was present, they executed a fresh story," says Carlos.

Judge Mark K. Ellis said, "Evidence presented
at a hearing "substantially shows guilt."

Judge Mark Kent Ellis has taken some heat for the reason Carlos Coy is incarcerated. I can’t tell you if I’m taking off a bigger bite then I can chew when I say, "There are many opinions claiming Judge Ellis had manipulated the testimony of the then 10 year-old accuser with the aid from the accuser’s mother and district attorney. The key factor being Judge Ellis, and having the capabilities of "composing" various statements about the case. I bet you wonder to yourself, what’s all this is meaning? I offer you this answer, “Did Judge Mark Ellis meet with the accuser?” This is more less answering a question with a question. Who’s not too assume perhaps private meetings were arranged composing the accuser's testimony. The accuser’s testimony sways back and forth about several key points of the original testimony. This may indicate to private meetings with the accuser may have occurred more than one time. The judge and the D.A. composed the best testimony which would allow the jury to obtain enough incriminating testimony to imprison the defendant. There has been questionable testimony concerning horror movies that were watched with the accuser's family.

The trial drew national attention. Media crews from around the country were in Houston covering the proceeding. Many supporters of Latin rap artist South Park Mexican have brought up the question to as why no media was allowed inside the court room during any portions of the trial. There are reports of video footage of the sentencing hearing.

The Court enters the following Order in trial court cause numbers 888968; 888967; 907406; 906336; 906337; 907407; 908425; 908426; 908427; 904608; 904609; and 904610, styled The State of Texas vs. Carlos Coy. This order takes effect immediately and shall continue in effect until final judgment is signed in these causes or until expressly terminated by Judge Mark K. Ellis.

The Court ORDERS that:

1. During the trial of this case, no cameras of any type, including still, video, or digital cameras, or audio recording or broadcast equipment shall be permitted within the courtroom or on the 20th floor of the Harris County Criminal Justice Center at 1201 Franklin, Houston, Texas (the Criminal Justice Center).

2. No photographs, pictures or visual representations of any person connected with or participating in the proceedings in the case of The State of Texas vs. Carlos Coy, whether still, moving, or videotaped shall be made, taken or transmitted in or from any location inside the Criminal Justice Center, including halls, lobbies, or tunnels connected to the building.

3. After proceedings commence, everyone present in the courtroom shall be seated and shall not stand in the back of the courtroom.

4. All individuals, including media personnel outside the courtroom shall not create distractions and shall avoid restricting movement of persons passing though the halls and / or the doors to the courtroom.

5. No person shall make, distribute, publish or broadcast in any fashion, or in any medium, any picture, photograph, or visual representation of any person called to be a member of the venire from which the jury is to be chosen or any person chosen to serve on the jury in the case of The State of Texas v. Carlos Coy.

6. No person shall distribute, publish or broadcast in any fashion the names, home or work telephone numbers, home or work addresses of any person called to be a member of the venire from which the jury is to be chosen or any person chosen to serve on the jury in the case of The State of Texas v. Carlos Coy.

7. All interviews of persons connected with or participating in the proceedings in the case of The State of Texas v. Carlos Coy shall be conducted outside the Criminal Justice Center and the Harris County Jail at 1301 Franklin, Houston, Texas (the Jail).

8. No interviews, whether recorded or not, shall be conducted of any person connected with or participating in the proceedings in the case of The State of Texas v. Carlos Coy at any location inside the Criminal Justice Center.

No person shall be permitted to wear or display any clothing or ornaments (including, but not limited to shirts, T-shirts, coats, pants, buttons, placards, and badges) that contains any written or visual commentary about the proceedings in The State of Texas vs. Carlos Coy, or expresses an opinion about the guilt, innocence, punishment, sanction, or action to be taken against or on behalf of Carlos Coy; or contains any written or visual commentary or representation of the victims of the crimes of which Carlos Coy stands accused

i. on the 20th floor of the Criminal Justice Center; or

ii. in the courtroom in which the above case is being tried; or

iii. at any location inside the Criminal Justice Center at 1201 Franklin.

Any person having notice of this Order who violates the order shall be subject to the contempt power of the Court. If found guilty of contempt, a person may be subject to a fine up to $500 and confinement for up to six months for each act of contempt. If any media representative, employee or agent violates this Order, the media entity the person represents may be barred from the courtroom for the remainder of the proceedings.

A copy of this Order shall be posted on the District Court’s internet website, published on the Associated Press wire service, and included in each media package delivered to members of the media attending all proceedings connected with the case of The State of Texas vs. Carlos Coy. Each media organization, company or entity that has notice of this order shall be responsible for insuring that its employees have notice of all the provisions of this Order.

This Court shall entertain reasonable requests, including requests by the media, to modify this Order as the need arises.

Signed this 1st day of May 2002.

 Mark K. Ellis

Presiding Judge

351st District Court

Carlos had these comments about his lawyer, "As I read these transcripts, I'm blown away at how sharp and persistent Chip was. He even knew that they probably had convinced the child that it was “Scary Movie 2” that she had seen all of, and Part One that she only saw five minutes of. And he was right. Not that I’m riding his jock, but I do feel bad because, before going through all these transcripts, I felt that he didn’t give it his all. I see, now, that he did. But no lawyer should have to defend an innocent man against such unfair forces that pyramided to the judge himself. Chip was a fairly new attorney at the time but came highly recommended. He’s, now, considered one of the best trial lawyers in the nation, and still hasn’t lost a case since losing mine. But the deck was stacked too high in my case, and I didn’t help. I wasn’t even paying attention to all this shit. My dumb ass was at the table revising the script for the film I was working on. Dope House was in preproduction on a movie called “SPM”, which was about my rise in the rap industry. I guess we can add a whole new ending to that one"

Defense attorney Chip B. Lewis maintained
his client was innocent and there were never
any proof his client committed these crimes,
just hearsay.

  

Carlos Coy’s attorney Chip Lewis denied the charges brought up against his client, The defense claims that Carlos is being victimized by people who want to bring him down. Chip said, "The rapper once had an intimate relationship with the girl's mother until he put an end to it. Jealousy is a motivating factor. All of these will prove to be untrue," Chip said. "No punishment is appropriate for him. He didn't commit this crime. But if the jury is called, they're going to have to let down a sentence and a verdict of some type. The least severe of that sentence would be probation, and that's the last thing that I have asked them to do at this stage," says Chip. He continued on to say, "As he told the jury several times, he's not a saint and he's not a perfect person and he's made some decisions in his life that he's learned from. Like you said, it may be bad judgment, but he explained exactly the situation from a truthful standpoint and I think the jury saw that."

Chip said that he’s tried to prove that the movies show sexually explicit scenes scenes that he said are similar to the allegations the girl is making. Chip said, "Her allegation is that Carlos performed a type of oral sex on her; those very scenes are depicted in the movies that we’re talking about. "In some of them in various stages or forms (are) fondling, and then the oral sex," Chip said. He also said, "All of the allegations that she’s made; the girl has confused the fictional movie scenes with reality. This is what the girl said she’s seen. The jury, obviously, to understand, if they haven’t seen those movies, they’ve got to see those movies so I don’t see any risk of backlash by the jury actually seeing the evidence that’s relevant to the allegation."

The Prosecution asked the judge to allow testimony from several other alleged victims who claimed Carlos assaulted them. "It’s certainly not right and the judge is seeing their desperation of trying to try other cases in this case as exactly what it is — it’s a desperate effort to save a case they see failing before their eyes," Chip says. Chip showed jurors portions of movies which the girl had watched, including: "Scream," "Scream 2" and "I Know What You Did Last Summer." He also showed portions of "Scary Movie" and "Scary Movie Part 2," which Lewis says depicted the sexual acts the girl had alleged against his client. “The principle is that a child who is not sure if (the alleged act) was a dream or reality has got to get the idea from somewhere,” said the defense. "It's fairly easy to draw an inference from the fact she was exposed to such violent, graphic sexual material," Carlos's attorney said. At the conclusion of the case Chip said he was curious about how the jury reached a verdict 20 minutes after returning from lunch, after having spent hours in deliberation over two days. "The alternate juror told him the jury had been leaning toward acquittal. It certainly makes you raise your eyebrow and wonder what the quick change was," he said.

Jane Doe: This isn’t the one I seen at my house.
Judge: That’s not the one you saw at your house? Have you ever seen this?
Jane Doe: Yes.
Judge: Did you see the whole thing?
Jane Doe: Yes.
Judge: So, that’s a problem. Okay.

Judge: Why are you afraid to ask her the question?

Chip: I’m not, Judge. This is a waste of time. I’m getting the runaround after the Court gave a perfect directive and Ms. Andrews followed it and I trust her, just like I trust you.

Judge: Well, I had no reason to believe she may have only seen a portion of the movie until this morning.

Chip: Yes, you did. You made the statement yesterday when Ms. Oncken made the objection about we don’t know what part she’s seen or not seen. And you said the Court - - and we could go back in the record - - I trust - -

Judge: So, I can’t change my mind is that what you’re telling me?

Court Court Transcripts Volume 15 of 31 pgs. 16-18:

Judge: Well, my suggestion is I’m admitting 8, 9, and 10. The jury can start doing that and then we can get whoever we need to get up here to clear up - - whatever was seen on Defense Exhibit No. 7 and go from there.

D.A. Andrews: And are we going to do that outside the presence of the jury?

Judge: Yes

D.A. Andrews: Okay.

D.A. Oncken: So you want the - - just for clarification, Judge, you want the child so that either the State or the Defense can ask the question specifically about the movie “Scary Movie”; is that right?

Judge: Right.

D.A. Oncken: Is that what we’re limiting the question to?

Chip: I have no intent to ask her anything. I thought we cleared this up yesterday when the Court asked the State - - the State called me and unequivocally told me she had seen “Scary Movie”.

D.A. Andrews: That’s what she said to us.

Chip: Well, what are we doing here?

D.A. Andrews: Well, after we talked to her, sent her back to school, we talked to mom.

Judge: So, why are we afraid to ask her the question?

Chip: Exactly, I trust - -

Judge: Why are you afraid to ask her the question?

Chip: I’m not, Judge. This is a waste of time. I’m getting the runaround after the Court gave a perfect directive and Ms. Andrews followed it and I trust her, just like I trust you.

Judge: Well, I had no reason to believe she may have only seen a portion of the movie until this morning.

Chip: Yes, you did. You made the statement yesterday when Ms. Oncken made the objection about we don’t know what part she’s seen or not seen. And you said the Court - - and we could go back in the record - - I trust - -

Judge: So, I can’t change my mind is that what you’re telling me?

Court Transcripts Volume 15 of 31 pgs. 27-30:

Judge: Okay. We’re outside the presence of the jury. I have requested the complainant and her mother come to court to clarify the testimony as it applies to Defense Exhibit No. 7, which is the movie titled “Scary Movie.”

The State having objected so, therefore, again being outside the presence of the jury, State call their witness for purposes of this hearing outside the presence of the jury.

D.A. Oncken: The State Call (Jane Doe).

Judge: All right, welcome back, (Jane Doe). We need to ask you a few more questions. Ms. Oncken.

D.A. Oncken: Thank you, Judge. Hi, (Jane Doe), how are you today?Jane Doe: Fine.

D.A. Oncken: Okay, I want to ask you a couple of questions about some movies that you’ve watched. Specifically about a movie by the name of “Scary Movie”. Do you remember that movie?

Jane Doe: Yes.

D.A. Oncken: Yeah. And you remember when you watched it?

Jane Doe: No.

D.A. Oncken: Was it a long time ago?

Jane Doe: Yes.

D.A. Oncken: Okay. And do you remember who you watched it with?

Jane Doe: I watched it with my dad, my mom, my brothers and my cousin, (G).

D.A. Oncken: Okay. And do you remember if you watched the whole movie or part of the movie or do you remember?

Jane Doe: I only watched a little bit of it.

D.A. Oncken: And why did you only watch a little bit of it?

Jane Doe: Because they said I couldn’t watch the movie because they said it was too nasty.

D.A. Oncken: Okay. And your dad said that?

Jane Doe: I’m not sure.

D.A. Oncken: You’re not sure who said it?

Jane Doe: No.

D.A. Oncken: Okay. Was it an adult that said it or a kid?

Jane Doe: Adult.

D.A. Oncken: Adult. Okay. And the only two adults that were there were - -

Jane Doe: My mom and dad.

D.A. Oncken: Do you know how long you watched the movie?

Jane Doe: About five minutes.

D.A. Oncken: About five minutes. So, not long, huh?

Jane Doe: No.

D.A. Oncken: Anything else, Judge?

Court Transcripts Volume 16 of 31 pgs. 37-40:

D.A. Oncken: And specifically, have you seen the movie entitled Scary Movie. And that would be the first one that came out?

Mary Doe: Yes I have.

D.A. Oncken: Okay. And do you recall if you saw that one at the movie theater or home rental?

Mary Doe: I recall, now, that it was at the movies.

D.A. Oncken: Okay. So, by and large, the four that I’ve asked you about, Scream 1, Scream 2, I Know What You Did Last Summer and Scary Movie the first one, you believe you watched those at the movie theater?

Mary Doe: I believe so.

D.A. Oncken: Okay. Now, I know this is difficult; but do you have any idea at what point in time you might’ve watched these, what year you might’ve watched these?

Mary Doe: I can’t recall.

D.A. Oncken: Okay. Now, let me ask you some questions about when you would go to the movie theater and watch these particular four movies that we’ve just described. Would your children always accompany you?

Mary Doe: Yes.

D.A. Oncken: Okay. Is going to the movies like something ya’ll usually do for entertainment?

Mary Doe: Yes. And we go skating. We go swimming. We go to the baseball games, basketball games.

D.A. Oncken: So, it’s just one of many things you do for entertainment?

Mary Doe: Yes.

D.A. Oncken: And when you take the children to the movie, could you describe to the members of the jury what your kids do during the movie. I mean, do they sit there the whole time and intently watch the film; or what do your kids do during the movie?

Mary Doe: They’ll watch it, and they’ll go buy popcorn. They’ll go to the rest room.

D.A. Oncken: And let me ask you specifically, when your daughter (Jane Doe) would go buy food or popcorn or go to the restroom, would you always go with her each time or would she go by herself or with other family negligence; or how would that work?

Mary Doe: Most of the time, with me or with family members. Sometimes she would go by herself to the rest room.

D.A. Oncken: And would ya’ll do this during the course of the film, the feature film?

Mary Doe: Yes.

D.A. Oncken: So, you wouldn’t do all the rest room, all the popcorn and drink and food-getting prior to the movie?

Mary Doe: No. Not at all the same time.

Chip: Objection, your Honor. This is leading.

Judge: Sustained.

D.A. Oncken: So, Miss (Doe), in regard to those four movies that I asked you about, do you recall whether or not there was any explicit language, any type of cuss words or foul language in those movies?

Mary Doe: Somewhat.

D.A. Oncken: And what do you do about your children listening to foul language that’s in movies?

Mary Doe: I just tell them, try not to hear it or see it: and my kids don’t know bad words. They don’t say bad words.

D.A. Oncken: They don’t use them?

Mary Doe: They never use them.

D.A. Oncken: What about your daughter, (Jane Doe)?

Mary Doe: Never.

D.A. Oncken: Certainly not to you?

Mary Doe: Exactly.

D.A. Oncken: Miss (Wrong last name) - - I’m sorry. Miss (Doe), in regard to those movies I have named, Scream 1, Scream 2, I Know What You Did Last Summer, Scary Movie the first one, what about anything that is explicit, sexually, in there?

Mary Doe: They always cover their face. I tell them, and they do it on their own, also.

Court Transcripts Volume 15 of 31 pg. 44:

D.A. Oncken: Okay. And do you recall whether or not - - and do you recall when that might have been that you watched the movie?

Mary Doe: I can’t recall.

D.A. Oncken: No idea?

Mary Doe: No idea.

D.A. Oncken: Okay. And do you recall if you watched the entire feature or not?

Mary Doe: No, we did not.

D.A. Oncken: Okay. And why did you not watch the entire feature?

Mary Doe: I didn’t really care for it. I thought it was supposed to be a funny movie. It turned out it was some funny movie but not all of it, so I turned it off.

Court Transcripts Volume 15 of 31 pgs. 45-46:

Chip: Ms. (Doe), you testified that you don’t really recall seeing this movie?
Mary Doe: I do recall.
Chip: Okay. Who rented the movie?
Mary Doe: I did.
Chip: Where did you rent it.
Mary Doe: Blockbuster.
Chip: Which one?
Mary Doe: Telephone.
Chip: Telephone and what?
Mary Doe: Bellfort.
Chip: Telephone and Bellfort?
Mary Doe: Correct.
Chip: So, you have a regular account there?
Mary Doe: Yes, I do.
Chip: Now, you don’t recall exactly when you watched this movie. Was it - -
Mary Doe: No, because I watch a lot of movies.
Chip: Was it more than a year ago?
Mary Doe: I can’t – I cannot say that.
Chip: All right. Was it within the last three years?
Mary Doe: I cannot say that. I don’t know.

Court Transcripts Volume 15 of 31 pgs. 62-63:

Judge: All right. Ms. (Doe), what we’re to do is we’re going to start the movie and what I’d like for you to do for me, is when it gets to the part where it stops – where you stopped watching, I want you to turn to me and say, now. Can you do that for me?
Jane Doe: Yes.
Judge: Okay. Can you hear it, okay, (Jane)?
Jane Doe: Yes.

([Jane Doe] in presence of attorneys and court watching movie, “Scary Movie.”)

Judge: That’s all you saw?
Jane Doe: This isn’t the one I seen at my house.
Judge: That’s not the one you saw at your house? Have you ever seen this?
Jane Doe: Yes.
Judge: Did you see the whole thing?
Jane Doe: Yes.
Judge: So, that’s a problem. Okay.
(Movie stopped)

Judge: Thank you, Ms. (Doe), you may step out in the hallway.

Chip: Judge, that raises another question which I’m pretty sure the movie that she’s seen part of is “Scary Movie 2” and while she’s here, I don’t know if it wouldn’t just be worth doing exactly what you’ve done –
Judge: Well, I guess we can ask her. I mean, I don’t know.

Court Transcripts Volume 15 of 31 pgs. 63-64:

Judge: I don’t - - I mean, we can’t read her mind, and you know, a ten-year-old - -

Chip: I’m frankly satisfied with the Court asking her the question. There’s more than an abundance of material to support the position that we’re taking. So, if we could - - if the Court could ask her if the other movie was “Scary Movie 2” and how much she’s seen.

Judge: Okay. Bring her in.

Ms. (Doe), I need to ask you a question. All right. You said that you had already seen this movie, the whole thing; is that right?

Jane Doe: Yes.

Judge: Do you have any idea what movie - - the one you said you only watched part of it - - do you have any idea what movie that was?

Jane Doe: Yes.

Judge: Can you tell me what it was?

Jane Doe: It was part two.

Carlos continues his comment about the testimony about his case, "If you remember, she said it was Part One that an “adult” said was “too nasty” to watch. Now she’s saying it was Part Two that was cut off, which makes less sense because if Part One had all these sex scenes, why would they cut Part Two short and let her see all of Part One? It’s just a traffic jam of programmed lies, and I doubt she saw five minutes of any movie. But so much went on behind closed doors that we’ll never know the truth behind this child’s testimony. I can tell you one thing that I know: Jane Doe said that her cousin, (G), was in the same room as her father, (John Doe), about to watch a movie. How they convinced her of that is mind-boggling, because there’s no [possibility] (G)’s mother (who is Mary Doe’s older sister) would ever let her daughter be in the same house as John Doe, much less in the same room. Mary Doe’s family despised John Doe because of the domestic terrorist that he was. There’s a reason why Jane Doe was diagnosed with tension headaches since the age of two, since she was able to relate that her head hurt. There’s a reason she developed insomnia, photophobia, phonophobia and was on anti-depressants at nine-years-old, (eight months before she allegedly made these claims of an assault.)

"By her testimony itself,we've proved the case "She's credible," says prosecutor Lisa Andrews during closing arguments. The Houston jury could decide Monday the fate of the convicted rapper, as they began considering evidence. That next Saturday the jury convicted Carlos Coy. Jurors were requested to continue their deliberations Saturday after they received the case Friday. The jury spent a total of eight hours deliberating before returning the guilty verdict. On May 18, 2002 the Harris Count Texas Department of Criminal Justice gave Carlos Coy his sentence of 45 years in prison, and Carlos was ordered to pay a $10,000 fine. Judge Ellis had these remarks for Carlos near the end of the trial, "Well the fact is that theres only one victim in this case, and it is a nine-year-old girl. Now that is reality, and you need to deal with it. It's time for you to face the music.

During the penalty phase of the trial the first witnesses who was called to the stand was Heidi Ruiz of Houston Police Department's sex crime division. She testified that she has interviewed and has proof that accuses Carlos Coy of sexually assaulting eight other girls, ranging in age from 12 to 14 years old. The officer testified that one of the girls alleges that she had his baby. Some of these other alleged victims are expected to also testify.   It was said during the penalty phase of Carlos's punishment could have ranged from five year's probation to life in prison. Sylvia Coy, Carlos's older sister and one time manager says, "We believe that the facts will set the Mexican free. A lot of things that have been said and written, so far, have been mostly hearsay or inaccurate. I know him pretty well, I don't believe (he's capable of this). South Park Mexican is not guilty of the crime that he's accused of. They've drug him through the dirt. They've drug everything they can possibly bring in on him. We believe the motive is money. These people lie, cheat and steal for a living. They live off the welfare system and they make money off the workingman. I guess that's what they're teaching their children as well." It was during that penalty phase of Carlos's trial supporters gathered in front of the downtown Criminal Justice Center. At the organized event Sylvia said, "He has been falsely depicted as a child molester. I guarantee you that by next week there will be a civil suit, and it will be for money." She says, "It's all about the money." A heated argument broke out in downtown Houston that morning in front of the Harris County Courthouse where the punishment phase of rapper Carlos Coy was under way. The fight involved two families. The family of the 9-year-old victim wants Carlos Coy to receive the maximum sentence, while the Coy family believes he was wrongfully convicted and should not be sent to prison. Members of both families screamed at each other in front of shocked onlookers. The argument broke out shortly after the trial was dismissed. "We want to see justice done," said a victim's family member. Police rushed to the scene to break them apart. Carlos's wife Gina Acosta testified and said that they had several girls at their home and that her husband never bothered them. "I'm supporting him. He says everything is going to be OK After the next appeal; everything is going to be proven. he's innocent. There has been no evidence whatsoever -- only hearsay," says Gina. Prosecutors asked Gina during cross-examination, if she was aware that her husband had sex with all of those girls. She testified, "Yes, I'm aware. I've seen it all over the news." Prosecution then asked if she believed it. She testified, "Absolutely not." A state psychologist testified that Carlos Coy should receive a prison sentence after a jury found him guilty of sexually assaulting a 9-year-old girl. State child psychologist Jennifer Welch said on the stand that she interviewed a young relative of Carlos's whom she believes would have been his next victim. "He laid on top of her, sucked on her nose and arm," Welch said. "She didn't like it. She didn't like beer on his breath, and would tell her mother. Her mother would then yell at him to stop," she said. Welch told the jurors that this type of behavior is consistent with grooming someone to be a victim of sexual assault. During cross-examination, Carlos's defense said," You agree that based on all of the evidence you have reviewed on Carlos Coy, there is no proof he has ever been sexually abusive with this child?" "There is no evidence, right," Welch said. Defense asked that if Carlos's behavior of tickling and wrestling could be that he was just playing with the child. Welch agreed. The Coy family said that there is no proof of these accusations. The prosecutors hoped to send Carlos to prison for life. Eight women were brought in to testify claiming Carlos sexually assaulted them when they were minors. eight women. Four of the women testified in the punishment phase of the trial. A 14-year-old girl testified that she had sex with the rap musician, when Carlos was out on bond in the for which case he was just convicted. The girl told jurors that she got his telephone number from a friend, and then called him. "He asked what I looked like, so I told him," she said. "Then he asked how old I was. I said, "14.'" The girl said that Carlos and his friends came to pick up her and her friend at 3 a.m., and drove them directly to a motel. "Me and Carlos were kissing, and he gave me hickeys all over my neck as we drove to the motel," she said She testified that Carlos's friend then got them a room, and Carlos gave the driver $100 and told him to come back in an hour. "He started taking off his clothes," she said. "He asked me to take mine off, so I did, and we had intercourse." A young woman who gave birth at 14 to Carlos Coy's son testified that the rap musician offered to marry her, but her parents did not approve. "My family didn't want me to have anything to do with him," she said. It was her first sexual relationship, she said, and the couple neither used nor discussed birth control. At the time, he was about 22 and she was 13. Asked by prosecutor Lisa Andrews if Carlos knew her age at the time, the woman said she wasn't sure. But she said he sometimes picked her up at the intermediate school where she attended seventh grade. Although the woman sued Carlos two years ago for $28,000 in back child support, she said Carlos had provided for her financially and emotionally since their son was born. "If I needed something, he would get it. Whenever I needed something, he was there for me and my son." This is the only case that Carlos has admitted to claiming it was a consensual relationship. Another woman testified hat she was 12 when she first had sex with Carlos. Although she initially told police she was 14, she testified she changed her mind about the date after thinking about it. In answer to a question by the defense, the woman said she felt no animosity toward Carlos after they stopped seeing each other. Also a girl testified that she previously had sex with defendant several times at age 14 at Dope House Records, the Center Street recording studio. Despite objections by his attorney Carlos took the stand in his own defense, and testified he never sexually assaulted the accuser. On cross-examination, prosecutors asked Carlos about one of his alleged 14-year-old victims. "When you dropped her of at junior high you didn't think she wasn't of age?" prosecutors asked. Carlos testified, "No, I couldn't see the sign."  Carlos said, "Most of the alleged victims in eight pending cases lied on the stand." "Most of the children in the seven other sexual assault cases against him had been swayed by prosecution request for victims to come forward, says Carlos. The prosecution asked Carlos whether he contends the girls are coming into and committing perjury and lying about going to motels with him and having sexual relationships with him. Carlos responded by saying, "These girls are luring me. One of them and their mother were known as, "Lady and the Tramp." Carlos's attorney told the Houston Chronicle, his client had helped his case by testifying. "He's a child molester who uses his rap music to attract young girls," prosecuting attorney Lisa Andrews said. "He's a threat to children, and that's what this higher range of punishment is designed for -- to protect younger children from men like Carlos Coy," she says. "I know he didn't molest a 9-year-old girl. There has not been any evidence whatsoever," said Slyvia before being cut off by an objection from Lisa Andrews. The defense asked Sylvia what things about her brother the jurors should consider in deciding whether to give him probation. "There was no evidence," she began again, prompting Judge Ellis to remove the jury.

A supporter of the "SPM Movement"
 had this tattoo done on December 22, 2012.
 This design inspired by the South Park Mexican
album: Never Change.

 It’s been nearly 11 years and the status of the Coy s case remains, still, unclear. Carlos will be eligible for parole in the year of 2024. If he is unclear for release what’s next for the “SPM Movement”? With many question unanswered supporters and fans have often asked, “What does it take for Carlos to get another trail? In order for any prisoner to get a re-trial or an appeals there has to be some type of stipulations to be met for an appeals.  Perhaps the district attorney requires new evidence to be provided in order to obtain an appeal. Whatever the situation is with the case it appears as if it’s been stalled since Carlos has been incarcerated. Unless Carlos is released I don’t see this any of the topics brought to your attention will be resolved. In fact if I was a betting man I’m willing to bet the stories about Carlos’s incarceration are going to keep getting blown out of proportions for years to come.

S.P.M. M.O.V.E.M.E.N.T.:
Society is corrupted by selfishness, greed, money, and power. Pride, purity, and prosperity are necessary elements to overpower all of the evilness we encounter. Movements are about making positive changes. Many of us have visions of success. Opportunity to live out our dreams should not be taken advantage of. Violence has destroyed man kind and is turning us against each other. Everything we do should be done with love, care, and respect in our hearts. Motivation lives inside to strive for success. Education is the answer to all of our questions. Nothing will be achieved if we cannot unite. Together we can build a nation that will stand stronger than ever but alone we will fail.

It is profound how this scenario sounds like it would be a really good drama line for one of the Spanish soap operas TV shows. No, this is far from any critically acclaimed feature. The whole concept of the stature of his case seems as if no matter which way you view the outcome was inevitable. I cannot get in behind people who have no humanity. There are a variety of opinions to why the current state has its grim conclusion.

John Nova Lomax

There’s information out there the general public can locate however it is limited. I’ve read "South Park Monster” by: John Nova Lomax. I bring this specific article up because the Lomax story had been brought up on many occasions.

 I thought he did a wonderful job portraying Carlos as that “Never give up kind of guy.” It’s easy to label someone as being self-motivated type if that’s who they genuinely are. However Lomax did even a better job of portraying Carlos as a “Monster” just as the titles of the article states. As I was reading though the article I had a hard time believing some of the stories Lomax talked about.

Either:

A. Carlos and this guy were extremely close and he had access to whatever information he wanted

 Or

B. He’s making some of this stuff up.

I’m sorry I just have trouble believing his article is 100% accurate. Furthermore after a review and gathering information regarding this article it has come to my conclusion that Mr. Lomax he himself must have not been present in the courtroom during The State Of Texas V. Carlos Coy trial was underway. What draws me to that speculation is that Mr. Lomax would have definitely written way more slandering Carlos Coy if he were present during the trial.

TO BE CONTINUED....