The Case of Preston Hughes III: Stabbings Well Done

I now return to the Case of Preston Hughes III. For those unfamiliar with the case, I refer you to the Table of Contents. For those lacking the time or inclination to read the previous posts, I offer this brief overview of the case: Shandra Charles and her cousin Marcell Taylor were stabbed to death in a dark, overgrown field. She allegedly identified Preston Hughes as her attacker in a dying declaration. Preston Hughes confessed not just once, but twice to the crime. He nonetheless claims he is innocent. As he sits on Texas death row, I am working my way bit by bit through the evidence to determine if he may indeed be innocent.

In this post I present Preston Hughes' description of the stabbings as per his two confessions. I present as well the trial testimony of  the prosecution-friendly, fill-in medical examiner, at least those portions related to the wounds.

I include images of all the wounds except Marcell's neck wound. I have no image showing that. I have cropped the images so as to not unnecessarily intrude on the privacy of Shandra and Marcell. I made a two-image composite of Marcell's wounds to show the relationship of the stab entry and exit wounds.

Buckle up. Here we go.

From Hughes Confession #1:

As I got into the field walking along the path someone came up behind me. Nobody said anything and I felt someone touch me on the shoulder. I have been carrying a knife ever since these guys have been talking about ryting to kill me. The knife is an army knive with brown handles and a rusty blade that is about 5 or 6 inches long. I carry it in a grey sheath on the right side of my belt. When I felt someone touch me, I turned to my left and threw a blodk with my left arm and just started sticking with the knife. It was dark and I couldn't tell who was there. When I swung the first times it hit, but I didn't know it went in or nothing. After I stuck the first two times, I saw that it was Shawn [Shandra]. I fucked up and I just got scared and kept sticking. I swung the knife 6, 8, probably 10 times then took off running toward my apartment.

From Hughes Confession #2:

Everything in the first statement is correct except what happened when I met Shawn on the trail between Fuddruckers and the apt. complex. Shawn did not come up behind me and tap me on the shoulder. I was walking with my dog from from the Lakehurst Apts. toward Fuddruckers on the trail. As I was walking down the trail I saw Shawn walking down the trail from Fuddruckers toward the apt. complex. She was walking with a little boy. I did not know who he was. We then met in the middle of the trail. Shawn spoke first and she told me that she was on the way to my house. I then asked her what for. She told me that she was coming to use my contacts. I told her that she was a damn fool, that she was not wearing my contacts. She then gave me a kiss. She then started rubbing by crotch. She then un-buttoned my jeans. She then pulled her zipper down on her shorts. Shawn then placed my penis in the slit of her vagina. We call that "grinding" if you don't put it in the hole. We did that for about 30 seconds. While we were "grinding" the zipper on her shorts rubbed against the sore on my penis. I then pulled away and buttoned up my jeans. The little boy that was with her was standing next to us. 

I then said, "Fuck this shit", because I hurt the sore. She then asked me if I had some money. I told her I keeps money. She then asked me for $50.00 and I told her no. She then started telling me that she was going to have me arrested for rape. I told her that I never forced her to do nothing with me. She then raised her hand and hit me. I then blocked her with my left hand. I hit her in the throat. She then came back at me with her hand open. She was coming at my face. I had my knife in a sheath on the right side of my pants on my belt. I then pulled my knife and stabbed at her six or eight or ten times. I'm not sure, I just started stabbing. I'm not sure how many times I stabbed her. As I was stabbing her the little boy looked up at me and started crying. He then ran in between us and I stabbed him. I don't know how many times I stabbed him. I stopped and looked at Shawn and she was looking at me. I then put the knife in my sheath and ran home.

Trial Testimony Summarizing Marcell's Wounds:

Q. What was the cause of death of Marcell Taylor? 

A. The cause of death of Marcell Lee Taylor was a result of a stab wound to the neck through and through. 

Q. Does the report reflect if any other injuries were sustained by Marcell Taylor? 

A, Yes, sir. 

Q. What other injuries does the report reflect? 

A. In addition to the stab wound to the neck, there was a stab wound to the chest, which was also through and through, a cutting wound to the chest and a cutting wound to the left arm. 

Trial Testimony Regarding the Stab Wound to Marcell's Neck:

Q. Does the report indicate the nature of the cutting wound to the neck, the damage caused by that cut? 

A. There was a stab wound of the neck.

Q. Stab wound, I'm sorry. 

A. And Dr. Parungao described that the wound was caused by an instrument which traveled completely through the neck in a direction of front to back, slightly upwards and slightly to the left. The instrument perforated the common carotid artery, which is a large blood vessel in the neck, and the jugular vein. 

Q. Does the report indicate an exit wound for that stab wound? 

A. It does. 

Q. Where is the exit wound of the stab wound? 

A. The exit wound of the instrument was located on the back of the neck in line with the entrance wound.

Trial Testimony Regarding the Stab Wound to Marcell's Chest:

Q. Does the report describe what if any injuries were sustained by the stab wound to the chest? 

A. Yes, sir. ... The instrument, again, went entirely through the body, did not enter the chest cavity, and came out the back. 

Q. Does the track of that stab wound to the chest indicate that the instrument that caused the injury passed through any cartilage or bone? 

A. Yes, sir. ... On coming out of the back, the instrument penetrated the scapula, which is the large flat bone exposing part of the shoulder. ... The shoulder blade originally is composed of cartilage, but as one ages, it becomes calcified, ossified, forming true bone, which is much tougher than cartilage. ... Medically, the ossification centers of the scapula usually mature faster in the midpoint than they do peripherally so that the scapula of the 3-year-old child demonstrates some ossification and calcification in the central portion. ... [C]artilage is relatively soft compared to bone. Bone is very hard. ... Cartilage has the consistency of a thick sheet of cardboard, such as found in large boxes, packing boxes.

Q. As a person ages, that becomes harder, is that correct?

A. That is correct.

Trial Testimony Regarding the Cutting Wounds to Marcell's Chest and Arm:

Q. As to the injuries sustained by Marcell Taylor, does the report indicate any other injuries besides those two stab wounds? 

A. Yes, sir. ... There was a cutting wound to the chest which is described in the external examination located on the left upper side measuring 1 inch in length and gaping to a width of 5/16  of an inch. In addition, there was a cutting wound to the left arm which measured one quarter of an inch in length and gaped 3 /16 of an inch. The difference between a cutting wound and a stab wound is that cutting wounds are longer than they are deep and stab wounds are deeper than they are long.

Trial Testimony Regarding the Stab Wound to Shandra's Neck:

Q. Doctor, moving along to the autopsy report, prepared on the body of the young woman in this case, Shandra Charles. Having reviewed that report, do you have a medical opinion as to the cause of death of Shandra Charles? 

A. Yes sir. ... LaShandra Charles died as a result of a stab wound to the neck. 

Q. Could you describe more specifically that stab wound to the neck? 

A. Yes, sir. There was a stab wound to the 1eft side of the neck located 2 inches to the left of the midline and 1 inch below the top of the head. The instrument perforated the left jugular vein and the left common carotid artery, two of the large vessels in the neck. 

Q. Is this injury similar to the injury that the child Marcell Taylor, received? 

A. That is correct.

Q. In fact the arteries and veins were severed the same as on the child Marcell Taylor? 

A. That is correct.

Trial Testimony Regarding the Stab Wound to Shandra's Chest:

Q. Did you note any other stabbing iniuries or wounds on Shandra Charles? 

A. There was a stab wound to the chest. ... The instrument penetrated the left side of the chest, 1 1/2 inches to the left of the midline and 4 inches below the external notch, which is where the collarbones come together, went into the chest and ended at approximately 4 inches below the entrance; in other words, the instrument penetrated to a depth of 4 inches. 

Q. Does the report indicate the approximate width of the stabbing wound? 

A. Yes, sir. ... The wound gaped up to approximalely 1/2 an inch in width. 

Q. Does the report indicate a length of the wound? 

A. Yes, sir. Wound measured 1 inch in length. 

Q. And when we say "gaped up to," I believe you said "1/2 inch"? 

A. That is correct. ... When a sharp instrument enters the skin and subcutaneous tissues, the edges are pulled apart by the little muscular fibers and collagen fibers in the skin. So, it gapes open.

I will withhold my observations until my next post regarding this case. I do so because I hope you will develop your own thoughts on how the confession and the testimony combine to prove or disprove Preston's guilt or innocence. Feel free to use the comments to express your thoughts.

 <-- Previous in this Series                                           Next in this Series --> 

A Thousand Words

The No Longer Impending Execution of Eric Robert

Eric Robert sits on death row awaiting (and hoping for) execution by the people of South Dakota. Last year he pleaded guilty to murder and asked to be sentenced to death. When granted an automatic appeal, he appealed the appeal. His execution has been stayed as he fights for his right to be executed.

From the Huffington Post:

A South Dakota inmate who acknowledged killing a state penitentiary guard in a failed escape attempt asked a judge on Wednesday to sentence him to death, saying his one regret is that he did not kill another officer and that he will kill again. 

Eric Robert, 49, pleaded guilty in September to killing Ronald "R.J." Johnson on April 12 – Johnson's birthday – in an attempt to sneak past other security. Robert waived his right to a jury trial and said he wanted to be put to death, but Second Circuit Judge Bradley Zell said the state still had to prove the death penalty is warranted. Robert had been serving an 80-year-sentence on a kidnapping conviction when he attempted to escape with Rodney Berget, 49. 

Robert told Zell during his pre-sentencing hearing that he was so full of anger and hungry for freedom on April 12 that he would have killed anyone who stood in his way. 

"Brad Zell, if you stood between me and the door of freedom, I would kill you," Robert said. 

Robert said the one regret he has from April 12 is that he did not bring the pipe with him to the gate to kill the officer who stopped him. Once he realized his plan was going to fail, Robert said he began climbing up the wall of the prison – not to escape but to try to reach for the rifle of an officer on the lookout. 

"I would have shot that weapon until it was empty," he said. 

Zell told Robert that wanting to die is not reason enough for the death penalty. 

"There are many people who want to die," Zell said, adding that that doesn't count as an aggravating factor. 

The judge must find at least one aggravating factor was present during the killing to sentence Robert to death. The state presented five factors during the three-day pre-sentencing hearing: the death of a correctional officer, the manner of death, where and why it occurred, and the defendants' criminal background. 

Robert said he was guilty of all five factors and offered a sixth one to the judge – stealing Johnson's uniform, which included his wallet with money inside. 

...

Lynette Johnson, Ronald Johnson's widow, broke down in tears and had to be escorted off the witness stand as she testified about how her life has been ruined because of Robert's actions on April 12. In their 34 years together, they spent a total of six nights apart, she said. 

"We weren't done," she said. "We weren't done living. He wasn't done living with me."

So terribly sad.

I oppose the execution of anyone who may be factually innocent of the crime for which they are to die. I all other cases, I stand mute.

In the case of Eric Robert, I stand mute.

Our Verdict in the Case of Massachusetts v. Cowans

In my last post, I summarized the case of Massachusetts v. Cowans. I told the readers how I would have voted had I been a jury, offered a poll for readers to indicate how they would have voted, and asked those who would vote Not Guilty to explain why via the comments.

The first six votes in were Guilty. Anonymous then cast a Not Guilty verdict and provided an explanation why. This launched some brief deliberations in the comment. Anonymous pointed out that there was no DNA evidence, that only the police officer had identified his assailant and did so only after two weeks, that others who should have been able to identify the defendant did not, and that the fingerprint evidence consisted of but one print on one glass.

I responded by pointing out that DNA was not generally available at the time of the case in question, that the police officer was a trained observer who testified to his absolute confidence in his eyewitness identification. I conceded that I had mentioned neither of these points in my post, so I grudgingly accepted responsibly for that. I asked Anonymous how far the State must go to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. In the case at hand, the State had provided fingerprint evidence supported by the eyewitness testimony of a trained observer who had confronted the defendant face-to-face.

In light of the new evidence and my brilliant counter argument, Anonymous changed his vote to Guilty.

Anonymous 2 then chimed in with a Guilty vote and a twist. Anon 2 voted Guilty on all counts other than the armed robbery. Anon 2 pointed out that the only weapon in question was the police officer's weapon, which the defendant allegedly took during a struggle. He couldn't have had the gun at the time he robbed the policeman of the gun, hence no armed robbery. Not Guilty on the armed robbery.

Brilliant. I changed my vote on the armed robbery count to Not Guilty.

Via his insight, Anon 2 reminded us all that the State must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt for each count charged. The rest of us were simply too swept up in the overwhelming evidence of guilt on the primary charge to carefully consider the secondary charges.

Having learned my lesson, I raised the issue about the home invasion charge. The defendant had allegedly entered a private residence only after the young boy in the house had opened the door. The evidence was that the defendant pointed the gun towards the ceiling, never pointed it at anyone in the house, never threatened anyone in the house, and put the gun down when asked to do so by the mother. In the absence of a counter argument, I'll change my vote on the home invasion charge to Not Guilty.

After the first twelve votes, we had the requisite twelve Guilty votes. We had zero Not Guilty votes, given that Anon 1 had changed his vote via the comments. It's not clear where we ended up on the secondary charges of armed robbery and home invasion. I'll therefore declare a hung jury on those charges. As a juror, I am not allowed to make such a declaration. As a blogger, however, I am so empowered.

As skeptical jurors, we were slightly less harsh on the defendant than was the actual jury. The actual jurors, our surrogates, voted Guilty on all counts. Cowans was sentenced to 45 years.

We can rest easily now that we have performed our civic duty so carefully and so well. We have removed a dangerous felon from our streets. Our community is now a bit safer, at least until scumbag Cowans gets out on parole.

*** THE END ***

But wait!

There's more!

That situation changed in 2004 when Stephan Cowans became the first – and thus far the only – person to be exonerated by DNA evidence for a wrongful conviction in which fingerprint evidence was a contributing factor. Cowans’s wrongful conviction in Boston in 1997 for the attempted murder of a police officer was based almost solely on eyewitness identification and latent print evidence. The Cowans case not only provided dramatic additional support for the already established proposition that wrongful conviction by fingerprint was possible, it also demonstrated why the exposure of such cases, when they do occur, is exceedingly unlikely. 

Stephan Cowans was convicted of attempted homicide for the non-fatal shooting of a police officer in 1997. It is not entirely clear how Cowans emerged as a suspect; it appears that his name was suggested during the police canvass as someone who might have sold a hat to the true perpetrator. But the tenuousness of the connection between Cowans and the crime changed dramatically when Cowans was implicated by a latent fingerprint. The print was recovered from a home that the perpetrator had invaded during flight. The perpetrator held a mother and a daughter hostage for around ten minutes and drank a glass of water before fleeing the home. A latent print was recovered from the water glass. 

Two Boston Police Department (“BPD”) latent print examiners, Dennis LeBlanc and Rosemary McLaughlin, testified that Stephan Cowans was the source of the latent print on the water glass. The victim, Officer Gary Gallagher, and an eyewitness to the shooting identified Cowans. The hostages, who spent far more time in the perpetrator’s company, failed to identify him. Two investigators hired by defense counsel reportedly also confirmed the latent print attribution. Cowans was convicted and sentenced to forty-five years in prison, which was later reduced to thirty years. 

Cowans worked biohazard duty in prison in order to save money for post-conviction DNA testing. Biological evidence had been recovered from the water glass, a hat left at the scene of the shooting, and a sweatshirt left at the invaded home. It is a testament to the evidentiary strength of latent print identification that the state opposed post-conviction DNA testing, partly because it failed to see how such evidence, even if found to be exclusionary, would prove Cowans’s innocence given the fingerprint evidence. 

After Cowans had served six years in prison, the New England Innocence Project (“NEIP”) persuaded the state to allow post-conviction DNA testing. The DNA analysis found that the same contributor had left biological evidence on all three items – the glass, the hat, and the sweatshirt – and that Cowans was not that contributor. The state re-examined the latent print evidence, concluded that Cowans was not the source of the latent print, joined NEIP’s motion for his immediate release, and apologized to Cowans. 

It is still not entirely clear what caused the latent print misattribution in the Cowans case. It was stated that Cowans’s name appeared on a ten-print card containing prints taken from the hostages (so-called “elimination prints”). It was suggested that this meant that the Cowans misattribution was not a “true” latent print error, but rather a mere “clerical error” involving the mislabeling of a card. But it has still not been adequately explained how an elimination ten-print card containing a victim’s fingerprints could have been labeled with the name of a suspect who was not developed as a suspect until several days after the crime, except through outright deliberate fabrication of evidence. 

Further investigation uncovered allegations that the Boston Police Department’s Latent Print Unit (“LPU”) was functioning as a “dumping ground” or “punishment duty” for troubled police officers. Much of the blame focused on Dennis LeBlanc, who, it was claimed, had “discovered his mistake” before trial “and concealed it all the way through trial.” The District Attorney even unsuccessfully sought a grand jury indictment against LeBlanc, apparently the only time such a sanction has been sought against a latent print examiner implicated in a misattribution. LeBlanc, for his part, blamed “the system,” telling reporters, “The system failed me. ... And the system failed Cowans.”

Holy Life-Changing Turn of Events, Batman!

We convicted an innocent man.

We Be The Juror: Massachusetts v. Cowans

I offer the case of Massachusetts v. Cowans for your consideration. I have shamelessly stolen the summary from an adverse appellate decision. Please read the summary carefully. It will be followed by a single-question, binary-answer pop quiz.

A jury convicted the defendant, Stephan Cowans, of armed assault with intent to murder, home invasion, assault and battery by means of a dangerous weapon, armed robbery, assault and battery on a police officer, assault by means of a dangerous weapon, and unlawful possession of a firearm. The defendant asks us to hold that witnesses may not testify on direct examination to their degree of certainty in an identification. ... 

The jury could have found the following facts. After pursuing a male, later identified as the defendant, on foot, Boston police Officer Gregory Gallagher caught up to him in a backyard in the Jamaica Plain section of Boston. The defendant grabbed Gallagher and the two struggled until the defendant managed to remove Gallagher's gun from its holster. As Gallagher scaled a fence, the defendant shot him twice. Gallagher survived and heard additional shots. The defendant had shot at a neighborhood resident, Benjamin Pitre, but missed. 

At the same time, while in the kitchen of her home, Bonnie Lacy and her daughter heard gun shots. Lacy's son came downstairs and opened the side door of the house. The defendant, whom Bonnie Lacy had never seen before, was standing in the doorway with a gun. She testified that the man "just came on in ... [h]e just walked, just like normal walking, with a gun." The gun's barrel was pointing up. The defendant appeared frightened and nervous. Lacy was very frightened. 

Lacy asked him what the problem was and he replied, "[T]hose punks are after me." She asked who and he told her "those white policemen." Lacy asked the defendant to put down the gun. He complied. He kneeled on the floor and took off his sweatshirt. The defendant used his sweatshirt to wipe the gun and rested the gun on top of the sweatshirt on the floor. 

The defendant asked for some water and Lacy provided him with a glass mug of water. He drank the water and placed the mug on her kitchen table. Lacy went to the door and asked him if he was ready to go. The defendant told her he did not want to go to jail. Lacy told him that if he had done anything wrong he should just go and turn himself in. Lacy opened the door and the defendant went out.

The defendant left behind the gun and the sweatshirt. Lacy testified that after the defendant left, she and her children "hugged each other real, real tight; and we praised God that we didn't get killed." Lacy testified that the defendant never pointed the gun at her or her children and he never threatened them with the gun. 

Tennille Davis, a friend of the defendant's, testified that she saw him before and after the shooting. The defendant repeatedly suggested to Davis that he had been with her the entire day of the shooting. She testified that she corrected him and said she had seen him early that day and then again after the officer was shot, but that she had not been with him the entire day. 

Several weeks later, Gallagher selected the defendant's photograph from an array and then identified the defendant in a lineup. At trial, Gallagher identified the defendant as the man who shot him. Pitre viewed a photographic array, but did not identify anyone, even though the defendant's photograph was in the array. Pitre subsequently selected the defendant from a lineup and identified him at trial. Bonnie Lacy viewed a photographic array and the lineup but did not positively identify anyone. A fingerprint left on the glass mug was matched to the defendant. 

The theory of the defense was misidentification. A woman in the neighborhood had seen a black male being chased by a police officer, but she testified that it was not the defendant. Defense counsel also introduced evidence that the Lacy children had not selected anyone from the photographic array and challenged the eyewitness and fingerprint evidence.

Here's the pop quiz.

customer surveys

I'll cast the first vote. I vote Guilty. If you dare vote Not Guilty, I ask that you explain yourself in the comments.

ADDENDUM:
We have a verdict.