Jump to content
hayden_horn

greg kelley's guilty verdict overturned

Recommended Posts

I’m just picturing this Jonathan fellow coming home and the kid yells “Greg!” and he’s just like “yeah it’s me greg. Now put this in your mouth”

Hearing that kid tell his version of the story was really tough to listen to. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting. I haven't finished the series but have attended many a legal conference w/Patricia Cummings at which she gave talks about Michael Morton, actual innocence, false confessions, etc. All I can say is she seemed like a genuinely ethical person who was always very friendly and approachable. One of these continuing legal ed. conferences occurred after the Kelly conviction, and she did address it. She had a very pained demeanor and said she really doesn't know what happened -- that they all expected he would be acquitted. I think that was true of nearly all of us in the crim. legal field at the time -- I know I was expecting acquittal, particularly after the shitshow of the 2nd kid recanting and the prosecution not even asking to take a pause. Anyway, no further insight, but hearing hints of episodes 3-5, it's disappointing and disheartening to hear what seems to have gone on w/Cummings and knowing she was well-liked and respected by her peers. I do think the ineffective assistance claim would have been a hard sell given that it's not unreasonable, per se, to strategize that the offense(s) simply didn't occur. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/6/2020 at 12:30 PM, wutang75 said:

What I keep wondering - how bad was his original counsel?? The two most basic ideas to vindicate someone it seems would be determining where they are during the crime and a visual ID. Did it say why they didn’t pull his cell phone records the first time?

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

The film doesn't explicitly come out and say this but child victims and child witnesses are not required by law to give an actual in-court ID and identification can be proved by circumstantial evidence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, ChuckNorrisActionJeans said:

Interesting. I haven't finished the series but have attended many a legal conference w/Patricia Cummings at which she gave talks about Michael Morton, actual innocence, false confessions, etc. All I can say is she seemed like a genuinely ethical person who was always very friendly and approachable. One of these continuing legal ed. conferences occurred after the Kelly conviction, and she did address it. She had a very pained demeanor and said she really doesn't know what happened -- that they all expected he would be acquitted. I think that was true of nearly all of us in the crim. legal field at the time -- I know I was expecting acquittal, particularly after the shitshow of the 2nd kid recanting and the prosecution not even asking to take a pause. Anyway, no further insight, but hearing hints of episodes 3-5, it's disappointing and disheartening to hear what seems to have gone on w/Cummings and knowing she was well-liked and respected by her peers. I do think the ineffective assistance claim would have been a hard sell given that it's not unreasonable, per se, to strategize that the offense(s) simply didn't occur. 

Assuming you're a lawyer, I'd like to hear your interpretation of everything after watching the entire series. And all the other lawyers here who have watched in its entirety. This is a fascinating case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Gourmand said:

I disagree, I think the focus should be on the law enforcement jackasses here in Williamson County.

Having said that, I think it's obvious that she made some big mistakes because her client was ultimately fully exonerated unanimously by a conservative CCA, but I also believe that the documentary veers a little of course with the implication that there was a significant conflict of interest at play because of her past legal role with two of the McCarty brothers. I am not convinced about that and I think the series kinda ran through some lights pretty fast in Hampton's car when discussing Cummings. I need to go back and watch it again because I thought some of the legal arguments Hampton raised wrt ineffective counsel and the emails etc were a little confusing and not fleshed out by the filmmakers.



Sent from my Pixel 3a using Tapatalk
 

Maybe i just need to rewatch it, but if that many people are telling you to look into McCarty, and you know they lived together, and you know they look similar, you HAVE to entertain the idea that maybe I should look into that. The fact that it was shot down so nonchalantly is why i said what I said. I can’t think of a single scenario where that makes any sense, and maybe it’s easier for me to say that in hindsight. But if she simply decides “hmm, if all of these people are telling me to look into it. Maybe I should look into it”, I don’t think Greg spends a day in jail.
 

I don’t think she’s a bad person or that she had bad intentions, I just think that part of it was the single biggest head scratcher for me. Every other fuck up can somewhat be explained away, if for no other reason than they were looking out for their own best interests, and getting a conviction was in your best interest. But for the defense attorney? Makes no sense at all. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, youdunnf'dup said:

Maybe i just need to rewatch it, but if that many people are telling you to look into McCarty, and you know they lived together, and you know they look similar, you HAVE to entertain the idea that maybe I should look into that. The fact that it was shot down so nonchalantly is why i said what I said. I can’t think of a single scenario where that makes any sense, and maybe it’s easier for me to say that in hindsight. But if she simply decides “hmm, if all of these people are telling me to look into it. Maybe I should look into it”, I don’t think Greg spends a day in jail.
 

I don’t think she’s a bad person or that she had bad intentions, I just think that part of it was the single biggest head scratcher for me. Every other fuck up can somewhat be explained away, if for no other reason than they were looking out for their own best interests, and getting a conviction was in your best interest. But for the defense attorney? Makes no sense at all. 

Just keep in mind that you have the benefit of hindsight and you're not thinking about it as a trial lawyer with a story to tell a jury and her client's life on the line. She had to pick the most compelling story and stick to it. Try to erase everything you know now and take yourself back to 2013. Your client is facing super aggravated sexual assault of a child (or whatever they call it) and there are two child accusers saying your client did it. One or both have named "Greg." Are you going into court with the defense that these are false accusations resulting from improper child interview techniques or are you going to admit the assaults happened but that the child was confused over whose penis was put in his mouth? Which defense sounds like the stronger defense? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Were the cell phone pings that showed he wasn’t at the home in the original trial or did Cummings miss that too?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If your defense is “it didn’t happen”, then it would seem that your client not being at the scene of the “crime” would be an incredibly obvious argument. And this is not something that just came to light.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Shawn Dick looks like a poor man's Robert Kardashian. 

When he was just an ada in wilco, dick and his wife sat next to me at longhorns games in the old north endzone.
We both had season tickets.
CSB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Native Horn said:

maybe the city of Burnet council members started watching the episodes over the weekend and said "holy shit, we are gonna hire this guy!!????"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The PI for P Cummings, AJ Kearn was an ex Leander PD detective. Really great detective and good guy.
He testified he noted the similarities in greg and mccartys appearences and brought it up to cummings but she said no, not going there.
Dick impressed with his willingness to speak out and go on record for kelley. Pretty impressive of him putting his rep on the line. I know his dad was a DA in Fort Bend County I think it was.
P Cummings was known as a pretty good def atty around the courthouse. Cops knew if she was a def atty on your case to watch out as she could be tough. So many red flags for her to delve into in this case she never followed. If she was focused on the events never happpening why didnt she rip apart the flawed investigation by CPPD, the CAC interviews (it was pretty standard pilice SOP not to interview the kid, I mean thats why the CACs are there for), not looking at alt suspects, no police photos of the home, no interviews of all that had access to the house or lived there. Hell even the ranger pulled phone records and computer info ( years later), no bedding or clothing (sponge bob pajamas)taken from the house.?Really odd behavior in continuing to do all she did to sabotage kelleys defense team.
Fyi, she did always were skimpy outfits around the courthouse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess Mannix can just go back to enjoying retirement.

He's gonna have to keep a low profile & look for a smaller, more remote force to hire him.

I wonder how many pensions he's collecting? He spent 37 years as a LEO: 10 in Alameda, CA, 20 at APD (last position was assistant chief), and 7 at CPPD. Is he triple dipping already and looking for a 4th?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
7 hours ago, cattail said:

Were the cell phone pings that showed he wasn’t at the home in the original trial or did Cummings miss that too?

 I don't think that's indicative of an ineffective assistance of counsel claim because Cummings believed that the overwhelming nature of a child sex assault charge would outweigh details like the date of the offense and that they could just change the date to fit the timeline, which the detective and Puryear did when they back dated it to April 15th.

Edited by Gourmand

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Gourmand said:

I don't think it adds up. I think she made a tactical legal decision to fight the case by attacking the credibility of the allegation and arguing that the sexual assaults never happened

You may be right.

My thought process considered that once in a trial I can see sticking to your strategy.  That makes sense so as not to get sidetracked and veer off message.  However, she was unwilling to even consider this as part of a strategy in the months leading up to trial while she should have been exploring ALL possible strategies that gave her client the best defense. 

To say "We aren't going there" when the question of McCarty's presence in the home and his striking resemblance to Kelley were brought to her by multiple people seems odd and out of character with how a defense attorney would operate when the job is to raise anything that provides reasonable doubt to a jury. 

It's not like the suggestion was "hey, maybe some strange doppelganger broke in, told the kids he was Greg, and molested the kids - let's throw that against the wall."   For someone who by all accounts is otherwise intelligent and competent to make the conscious decision to ignore this and discourage talk of it point me to see another motive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Reagan1k said:

You may be right.

My thought process considered that once in a trial I can see sticking to your strategy.  That makes sense so as not to get sidetracked and veer off message.  However, she was unwilling to even consider this as part of a strategy in the months leading up to trial while she should have been exploring ALL possible strategies that gave her client the best defense. 

To say "We aren't going there" when the question of McCarty's presence in the home and his striking resemblance to Kelley were brought to her by multiple people seems odd and out of character with how a defense attorney would operate when the job is to raise anything that provides reasonable doubt to a jury. 

It's not like the suggestion was "hey, maybe some strange doppelganger broke in, told the kids he was Greg, and molested the kids - let's throw that against the wall."   For someone who by all accounts is otherwise intelligent and competent to make the conscious decision to ignore this and discourage talk of it point me to see another motive.

I suspect her thought process was along the lines of "these kids know both Greg and Jonathan very well, they've been around them for months and interacted with them both..." I'd guess that she knew that if she went into court with that argument the prosecutors would have an easy time proving the children's familiarity with Greg Kelley. The fact that the kid named Greg was a huge burden to overcome. I don't think the jury would have bought it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Gourmand said:

Just keep in mind that you have the benefit of hindsight and you're not thinking about it as a trial lawyer with a story to tell a jury and her client's life on the line. She had to pick the most compelling story and stick to it. Try to erase everything you know now and take yourself back to 2013. Your client is facing super aggravated sexual assault of a child (or whatever they call it) and there are two child accusers saying your client did it. One or both have named "Greg." Are you going into court with the defense that these are false accusations resulting from improper child interview techniques or are you going to admit the assaults happened but that the child was confused over whose penis was put in his mouth? Which defense sounds like the stronger defense? 

She’s either incompetent or corrupt. I don’t know about the latter, but what she pulled during the writ was horse shit. It was all about self-preservation and not about helping a former client she believed to be innocent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lol wait, so did Mannix and/or the city of Burnett just watch this series and think “you know what, Maybe this is a bad idea.” Awesome news. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
24 minutes ago, Dr. Beeper said:

She’s either incompetent or corrupt. I don’t know about the latter, but what she pulled during the writ was horse shit. It was all about self-preservation and not about helping a former client she believed to be innocent.

Refresh my memory again because that's a part that I thought ran over some details a little too fast. Or maybe I just wasn't paying close enough attention. I view her response as natural and defensible because her professional reputation was under attack by Keith Hampton and it rightfully pissed her off. Now the docuseries is doing the same thing all over again and viewers aren't getting a full picture. The Court of Criminal Appeals in Ex Parte Kelley did not agree with the ineffective counsel claims and said that  her defense was reasonably professional and of sound strategy.  Maybe she should have participated and been interviewed because the filmmakers tell a different version in a much more critical tone. I don't know.

For whatever reason I feel bad for Cummings and I think it's regrettable to see her getting dragged through the mud right now because I think the focus should solely fall on the inept law enforcement process in Williamson County. I see both Cummings and Hampton as strong advocates for their client and I support them both, but circumstances took them from colleagues to adversaries. Patricia Cummings isn't a shitty person or a bad lawyer and imo she deserves a little more benefit of the doubt.

 

 

Edited by Gourmand

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you hit the nail on the head for part of the issue. If everything she did was so defensible, why not take part in the series? Why not tell your side of the story to protect your professional reputation? Mannix tried to do that, but failed miserably. It seems like she didn’t want to take part in the series because she knew it would rightfully make her look terrible. Not responding just makes it seem like she’s willing to accept a full on character assassination. I think most people would’ve cooperated with this doc if they felt like they were in the right, but maybe I’m wrong 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think you hit the nail on the head for part of the issue. If everything she did was so defensible, why not take part in the series? Why not tell your side of the story to protect your professional reputation? Mannix tried to do that, but failed miserably. It seems like she didn’t want to take part in the series because she knew it would rightfully make her look terrible. Not responding just makes it seem like she’s willing to accept a full on character assassination. I think most people would’ve cooperated with this doc if they felt like they were in the right, but maybe I’m wrong 
Or she thought that there were legal nuances that would not be adequately presented and she couldn't control that. My guess is that she feels like the CCA ruling exonerating Kelley exonerated her as well and that's all that matters.

Sent from my Pixel 3a using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, youdunnf'dup said:

I think you hit the nail on the head for part of the issue. If everything she did was so defensible, why not take part in the series? Why not tell your side of the story to protect your professional reputation? Mannix tried to do that, but failed miserably. It seems like she didn’t want to take part in the series because she knew it would rightfully make her look terrible. Not responding just makes it seem like she’s willing to accept a full on character assassination. I think most people would’ve cooperated with this doc if they felt like they were in the right, but maybe I’m wrong 

As an attorney, there is very little she could say without getting into attorney-client privilege or attorney work product information.  She would not have been able to fully discuss her side of the story and would probably looked worse by even attempting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Jerry Callo said:

As an attorney, there is very little she could say without getting into attorney-client privilege or attorney work product information.  She would not have been able to fully discuss her side of the story and would probably looked worse by even attempting.

I see. Fair enough. Honestly though, call me chompers because it still doesn’t change my mind. Fuck that bitch. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Gourmand said:

The Court of Criminal Appeals in Ex Parte Kelley did not agree with the ineffective counsel claims and said that  her defense was reasonably professional and of sound strategy.

Hampton withdrew the ineffective counsel claim in his writ.  My understanding was that because of this all evidence of such would not have been been part of the motion that the CCA reviewed. 

Maybe I am not understanding the law and the context of the CCA, but that appeared to me to be a statement of opinion by a couple of judges simply stating that she had a reasonable strategy, but it did not come across to me to be a vindication of conflict of interest issue nor a rebuff of ineffective counsel because that claim was not in front of the court.

You can present a "reasonable" strategy but not the best defense if you have a conflict of interest.   Those aren't mutually exclusive.

Criminal lawyers would have to weigh in and correct or expand upon that issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That the CCA said hers was a sound strategy is an indictment on the CCA. It was an idiotic strategy. She may be getting unfairly blamed here with respect to any conspiracy theories with the McCartys (I generally don’t buy that bullshit), but her terrible, terrible strategy combined with her behavior during Hampton’s efforts are unforgivable. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, williemackgarza said:

Really odd behavior in continuing to do all she did to sabotage kelleys defense team.
Fyi, she did always were skimpy outfits around the courthouse.

When she and homeslice from The Innocence Project were testifying before that committee and changing the state law, her tits were just about fully exposed. I think I may have saw (or imagined) some nips because I can guarantee I was looking and rewinding.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, Steel Shank said:

When she and homeslice from The Innocence Project were testifying before that committee and changing the state law, her tits were just about fully exposed. I think I may have saw (or imagined) some nips because I can guarantee I was looking and rewinding.

Are you Vic’s brother?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Steel Shank said:

It's July. It's hot. I'm thirsty.

So get a fucking beer, grab a sandwich, and lay off the fatties. 

Nothing is worse than fat chicks. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, GhostOfTomJoad said:

I guess Mannix can just go back to enjoying retirement.

He's gonna have to keep a low profile & look for a smaller, more remote force to hire him.
 

Would love to see him land a Barton Creek Mall or WalMart gig and have the GRK followers show up to protest there. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Longhorn said:

Would love to see him land a Barton Creek Mall or WalMart gig and have the GRK followers show up to protest there. 

I agree with you on the indignation, but Mannix would be the type of mall cop who breaks a kids jaw in some dark chase way for not respecting his authority.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cummings was one of the instructors at UT Law's Criminal Defense Clinic when I took it in 2007 or 2008. I liked her a lot, and she was a very good defense attorney and effective instructor.

But man, this whole thing. I don't have an issue with her not participating/giving interviews. Pretty much everything they would have been interested in would have been privileged. But I'm hindsight, once questions started coming out about the other kid that looked the same, she should have withdrawn from representing GK.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One thing the docu didnt show was how she attacked with her theory that it didnt happen.
Id think if cross examing dailey and the shoddy investigation she coulda brought in all kinds of doubt not to mention the other red flags brought up by hampton.
Its interesting how her shitty “lawyering” is being covered by some on here as “not even close to ineffective counsel” but same folks all in on BLM the system is broken mantra. I think this case shows how the entire system got it wrong and GK suffered irreparable damage to his life from it. Yet here we are with some giving Cummings the benefit of the doubt.
Makin mannix squirm is exactly what he deserves. I wonder what dailey is doing or planning on working somewhere else in law enforcement?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, williemackgarza said:

One thing the docu didnt show was how she attacked with her theory that it didnt happen.
Id think if cross examing dailey and the shoddy investigation she coulda brought in all kinds of doubt not to mention the other red flags brought up by hampton.
Its interesting how her shitty “lawyering” is being covered by some on here as “not even close to ineffective counsel” but same folks all in on BLM the system is broken mantra. I think this case shows how the entire system got it wrong and GK suffered irreparable damage to his life from it. Yet here we are with some giving Cummings the benefit of the doubt.
Makin mannix squirm is exactly what he deserves. I wonder what dailey is doing or planning on working somewhere else in law enforcement?

I couldn’t even imagine if this dude was just a regular ass black student who wasn’t a football player at that high school...ESPECIALLY at that high school 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, williemackgarza said:

One thing the docu didnt show was how she attacked with her theory that it didnt happen.
Id think if cross examing dailey and the shoddy investigation she coulda brought in all kinds of doubt not to mention the other red flags brought up by hampton.
Its interesting how her shitty “lawyering” is being covered by some on here as “not even close to ineffective counsel” but same folks all in on BLM the system is broken mantra. I think this case shows how the entire system got it wrong and GK suffered irreparable damage to his life from it. Yet here we are with some giving Cummings the benefit of the doubt.
Makin mannix squirm is exactly what he deserves. I wonder what dailey is doing or planning on working somewhere else in law enforcement?

 

You should remember that you are forming these opinions about Cummings based on hindsight and the perspective of a documentary filmmaker tasked with telling a story. The story isn't as compelling if Cummings is cast in a role of a good faith actor who made some tactical mistakes instead of a potentially bad faith actor who was motivated by a personal relationship with the McCarty family, which is laughable on its face. I would urge you to go read the concurring opinion in Ex Parte Kelley and you will see that her conduct was not as devilish as Outcry presents. She presented a defense of Kelley attacking the shoddy investigation and the interview tactics of the children at CAC, but the film doesn't bother to show any of the trial footage. Why is that?

Here's a Statesman article from July 2014 covering the trial:

Quote

Defense attorney Patricia Cummings spent this morning attacking the way a Cedar Park Police detective investigated the child abuse case against Greg Kelley.

 

Detective Chris Dailey testified that he had deleted emails related to the allegations that two four-year-old boys in a Cedar Park in-home daycare had made against Kelley, a former Leander High School football star who temporarily stayed at the home.

“You actually deleted the majority of the emails, correct?” said Cummings.

“Correct,” said Dailey. Dailey never said in the morning why he deleted the emails. Cummings pressed on the issue again during testimony this afternoon, though.

“So are you making a judgment call when you delete emails?” Cummings said.

“It depends... if the email has an attachment, a lot of times I will take the attachment off and put it into the report,” he said.

“Isn’t the policy in your department not to destroy documents produced in an investigation?” said Cummings.

“Correct,” said Dailey.

Kelley, 19, is on trial this week on charges of aggravated sexual assault and indecency with a child by contact.

 

One boy has testified Wednesday that Kelley sexually assaulted him twice at the daycare in the summer of 2013. A second boy told his parents that Kelley made him touch Kelley inappropriately at the daycare, also during the summer of 2013. The second boy, however, changed his story this week during testimony, saying the abuse never happened.

Dailey testified this morning that he believed the children’s allegations.

“As a result you believed you did not need to investigate the possibility of something else having happened?” said Cummings.

“Correct,” said Dailey.

He said he decided not to investigate the physical layout of the daycare where the abuse allegedly happened and he also didn’t gather information about other adults and children at the daycare.

“You decided there was no need to investigate any other witnesses?” said Cummings.

 

“There weren’t any other witnesses,” Dailey said. He said Kelley was alone in the room with each of the boys when the alleged abuse happened.

 

As part of the investigation, the boys were interviewed at the Williamson County Children’s Advocacy Center by trained counselors. During his first interview at the center, the second boy denied any abuse happened.

Dailey said today that he had not previously interviewed the boy’s parents and decided to schedule a second interview for the child because he had just received information that the boy had told them of the alleged molestation.

“You thought the first interviewer had not established a proper rapport?” said Cummings.

“Correct,” said Dailey. The boy report abuse at the second interview, either, so Dailey said he walked into the room as soon as it was over to question the child himself.

“When you do it you actually have a gun on your hip?” said Cummings.

“Yes,” said Dailey.

“How many seconds do you think you spent building rapport with him before you started asking him about allegations against Greg?“said Cummings.

“I didn’t attempt to build rapport,” said Dailey.

Cummings then asked Dailey if he had learned in training he had received on child sexual abuse investigations that it was not a good idea for a detective to interview a child.

“Correct,” he said.

Dailey obtained statements from the boy alleging Kelley had molested him at the daycare. Cummings asked Dailey what he said to another official after he finished interviewing the boy.

“Do you remember telling her that you knew the manner in which you interviewed with direct questions was going to cause problems with the case?” Cummings said.

“Yes,” said Dailey.

 

Edited by Gourmand

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

An expert witness testifying for the defense Friday in the Greg Kelley trial said the likelihood of children making false accusations in sexual abuse cases increases if the children are interviewed multiple times.

“There’s a reason why we want to get an interview done one time and put it on video so a child doesn’t have to do it anymore,” said Stephen Thorne, an Austin psychologist.

Both of the boys who said Kelley had sexually abused them at a Cedar Park day care facility in the summer of 2013 were interviewed multiple times, according to testimony this week.

Kelley, a 19-year-old former Leander High School football player, was living at the day care from June 2012 to June 2013 because both his parents were in the hospital. A classmate’s parents ran the in-home facility.

He is on trial for charges of aggravated sexual assault and indecency with a child by contact.

The boys were both 4 years old when they told their parents of the alleged abuse. One of the boys said Kelley had sexually assaulted him twice at the day care. The second boy said Kelley had asked him to inappropriately touch Kelley.

The second boy told his parents about the incident but didn’t describe any abuse during two subsequent interviews with counselors at the Williamson County Children’s Advocacy Center. A Cedar Park police officer then interviewed him at the advocacy center and the boy changed his story, saying Kelley had abused him.

Thorne said Friday that, when children are interviewed by someone they perceive to be an authority figure, the children “frequently have a desire to want to please that person and to acquiesce to what they believe the person wants to hear.”

He said if someone consistently denies something but then reports that something happened when faced with suggestive questions from a “high status” authority figure, “that’s a red flag.”

 

Prosecutor Geoffrey Puryear cross-examined Thorne on Friday, saying, “can you completely disregard child number one and child number two when they are both naming the same perpetrator?”

 

“No, sir,” said Thorne.

The boys also testified in court this week via closed-circuit television. The first boy repeated his allegations that Kelley had sexually assaulted him. The second boy changed his story again and said Kelley hadn’t abused him.

There is no physical evidence in the case.

Shama McCarty, the owner of the Cedar Park day care where Kelley was living, testified Friday that she never left the children in the day care without adult supervision. But prosecutor Sunday Austin challenged her, saying McCarty had previously told an investigator that she never left her home while the children were there.

McCarty said she had a female friend helping her out at the day care. Austin asked her why she wouldn’t provide an investigator with the last name or the phone number of the friend.

“Do you think maybe you were trying to hide she was a convicted felon?” Austin asked.

“No, I didn’t know that,” said McCarty. Austin said that McCarty’s friend had served time in jail for possession of a controlled substance.

The trial continues Monday with more testimony from McCarty.

https://www.statesman.com/NEWS/20140711/Expert-for-defense-testifies-in-Greg-Kelley-molestation-trial

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Defense attorney Patricia Cummings spent much of Thursday questioning the way a Cedar Park police detective approached the case against Greg Kelley, a former Leander High School football star accused of molesting two 4-year-old boys.

In testimony that spanned about four hours, Detective Chris Dailey acknowledged deleting emails related to the boys’ allegations of abuse, and said he decided not to investigate the physical layout of the Cedar Park day care where the alleged abuse occurred last year, or gather information about other adults or children at the facility.

Dailey also described how he stepped in to question one of the boys who had told his parents he was molested but denied the accounts from two trained counselors at the Williamson County Children’s Advocacy Center. Cummings questioned whether Dailey properly conducted the interview with the young boy.

When you do it, you actually have a gun on your hip?“Cummings asked.

“Yes,” replied Dailey.

“How many seconds do you think you spent building rapport with him before you started asking him about allegations against Greg?” Cummings asked.

“I didn’t attempt to build rapport,” Dailey said.

“So essentially, in a nutshell, you said ‘How come you’re not telling us what you told your parents about what Greg did to you?’ ” Cummings asked.

“I don’t believe that’s exactly what I said,” Dailey said. “I don’t remember.”

According to other testimony in the trial, the child told Dailey that Kelley had sexually abused him. When he took the stand Wednesday, however, that boy answered “no” to all questions about whether he might have been molested.

Waco psychologist Lee Carter testified Thursday that people interviewing children about sexual abuse need to establish rapport and ask questions that are as “open-ended as possible.”

 

Carter also said that it was “OK” to ask a child a question such as “I understand you have said something about somebody that is of concern; I’d like to ask you if that’s true.”

Kelley, 19, is on trial this week on charges of aggravated sexual assault and indecency with a child by contact. The state will finish presenting its witnesses Friday.

Jurors heard from both accusers on Wednesday. While the one boy testified he wasn’t molested, the other boy described in graphic detail how he was sexually abused at the in-home day care in Cedar Park.

Kelley temporarily lived there with a classmate whose family ran the day care because his own parents were in the hospital. His father had suffered a stroke, and his mother had a brain tumor.

There is no physical evidence in the case. Dailey, the detective, said he believed both boys’ allegations of abuse.

 

“As a result you believed you did not need to investigate the possibility of something else having happened?” said Cummings.

“Correct,” Dailey said.

He acknowledged deleting many emails in the case, though he did not explain why. Dailey said if the email had an attachment, “a lot of times I will take the attachment off and put it into the report.”

“Isn’t the policy in your department not to destroy documents produced in an investigation?” said Cummings.

“Correct,” Dailey said.

https://www.statesman.com/NEWS/20140711/Defense-grills-Cedar-Park-detective-in-Greg-Kelley-molestation-trial

 

One more article detailing the defense at trial that doesn't square with the way she's characterized in the documentary series. Sorry to beat a dead horse here but I just think it's regrettable that Kelley's post-conviction appellate strategy turned an ally into an adversary. Maybe I'm wrong but I celebrate Kelley's perseverance and the strong advocacy of all his attorneys.  I just don't believe Cummings did anything wrong,  the jury just got it wrong the first time and focused completely on "believe the children" and stopped listening beyond that. I'll keep my focused outrage on the bad cops and DAs in Williamson County. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, APMP said:

 But in hindsight, once questions started coming out about the other kid that looked the same, she should have withdrawn from representing GK.

Why is that? Genuinely asking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know shows skew the narrative. Im just wondering why if Cummings former client was trying to push the post conviction hearing with a different attorney how Cummings can hide behind atty client privilege. Cant the client waive that privilege and why did Cummings threaten to go all balls to the wall scorched earth vs her former client? Thats part of current issues and the flaws in our current system that no 1 wants to admit they made a mistake or could have done things differently ala mannix and dailey or even cummings.
As for the bad Wilco DA and cops I agree lots of bad apples.
But still here the sitting DA has helped get GK freedom. He needs credit for standing up for justice.
As it should be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, williemackgarza said:

I know shows skew the narrative. Im just wondering why if Cummings former client was trying to push the post conviction hearing with a different attorney how Cummings can hide behind atty client privilege. Cant the client waive that privilege and why did Cummings threaten to go all balls to the wall scorched earth vs her former client? Thats part of current issues and the flaws in our current system that no 1 wants to admit they made a mistake or could have done things differently ala mannix and dailey or even cummings.
As for the bad Wilco DA and cops I agree lots of bad apples.
But still here the sitting DA has helped get GK freedom. He needs credit for standing up for justice.
As it should be.
 

Cummings wasn't hiding behind atty/client privilege. In fact, it was in her best interests to give detailed answers to protect her professional reputation but she was unable to do so because if she had violated that she could have faced sanctions or disbarment. I don't agree that Cummings went scorched earth against Kelley, and I think she always believed in his innocence. She was protecting her professional reputation against Hampton's ineffective counsel claims. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just finished the doc, really well done. Needs to go back to prison for that frizzy man bun though. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder who gave the Ranger intel about Kelley and his phone that caused him to seek the subpoenas? Who needed to all of the sudden cover their ass? Cummins? Seems to make sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why is that? Genuinely asking.
Cummings wasn't hiding behind atty/client privilege. In fact, it was in her best interests to give detailed answers to protect her professional reputation but she was unable to do so because if she had violated that she could have faced sanctions or disbarment. I don't agree that Cummings went scorched earth against Kelley, and I think she always believed in his innocence. She was protecting her professional reputation against Hampton's ineffective counsel claims. 
Why is that? Genuinely asking.


To be fair, I making some assumptions and drawing some inferences. If my assumptions are wrong then my conclusion is probably not justified. But, here it is in a nutshell.

1. My understanding is that Cummings said "Nope not gonna go there" at one or more points in time in response to the theory that GK was not the perp, but rather the kid that looked like GK was.

2. My understanding is that Cummings was representing family members (sibling(s)?) of that other kid on unrelated matters.

3. While it may have seemed to be reasonable strategy to focus the defense on "didn't happen" rather than "you got the wrong guy," I wonder if a different lawyer would have spent more time on the latter theory. I get that hindsight is 20/20 here, I am likely influenced by the fact that we now know that GK wasn't there, and I may be dismissing how late in the game the other kid theory came up.

4. In my opinion, because the representation of the siblings could have influenced the consideration of the alternate perp theory, Cummings should have withdrawn. To be sure, Cummings would not be found to have behaved unethically by the bar, and it would never really rise to the high standard for ineffective assistance of counsel. Cummings put on a the best defense she could. But for the above reasons, I think that she should have withdrawn and let a different lawyer decided how to treat the alternative perp theory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


mpu


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Recruiting ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Help ... For Sale ... Politics ... Board Discussion
×
×
  • Create New...