The following are the key people involved in this case and the allegations of injustice against them. For documentation that supports each allegation click on the hyperlink that follows each.
Danny K. Easterling
right to due process right to have witnesses
right to his own defense attorney misconduct
Violation Of 5th Amendment
Client not given opportunity to plea bargain
Ineffective defense of Miranda Violation
Violation of 6th Amendment
Client did not have all possible witnesses heard
Client did not have counsel--"for his own defense"
Violation of Texas Rules of Misconduct
1. Client-Lawyer Relationships
1.01(b)(1)(2) Competent and Diligent Representation
Waters arrives on the scene. Talks to the stepfather (Kedran) before he speaks to the witness. Kedran tells him I’m Kiki; the person who did this is also a Kiki.
Kedran was not an "eye-witness" of the crime to know anything. Waters states to his knowledge Kedran has not talked to any witness (Latoya) to have known any information.
Based upon that--together Kedran and Waters began to pursue LeKeith "the first guy".
Officer Waters is escorted by Kedran to find "the first guy". In fact, Kedran and Waters go to his "the first guy" apartment and set up surveillance and Waters is listening to Kedran's story.
Waters is helping Kedran build a case against "the first guy". It is entrapment and witness tampering.
Sunday: Entrapment.
He questions Latoya many hours later that morning and his focus was building a case against "the first guy". Later that day, she identifies Windeon as the shooter.
At that time, the officers (Waters and Swaim) only file charges, seek a warrant and pursue "the first guy"--still building a case against him (LeKeith) for capital murder.
In fact, they arrest "the first guy" as the murderer. Later, they arrests Windeon.
Upon the discovery of other facts (drugs) the officers learn that Kedran is not who they want him to be, neither is "the first guy". LeKeith is cleared but still is not released until they have another name.
Kedran is never arrested for the drugs found in his home.
Monday: Improper Conduct.
On their way to get the warrant, Shaun turns himself in at the police station.
Waters knowing his blunder was determined to salvage the investigation. Waters uses coercive, hearsay and duressive tactics to attempt to get a statement.
unfair and partial inconsistent rulings admitted illegal evidence jury issues
Violation of 8th Amendment (cruel and unusual punishment)
Admitted a tape that had been doctored by the prosecution (by their admission) and an autopsy report that was changed on the stand.
Admitted the "oral statement" although there was more than reasonable doubt the officers were not being honest.
He saw Shaun’s indictment named him to be the shooter yet he denied the motion for dismissal or reduce sentence.
Honorable Ellis was aware witnesses were not testifying consistently, even admitted Latoya had changed her testimony yet he side with the prosecution to play a tape, not in evidence, under bogus pretenses. He heard the tape not clarifying the particular issue in question. He could have sided with the defense. He could have stopped her after the 20th inconsistency or "I don’t know" or "I don’t remember" and stated she is not capable of standing trial; yet, he allowed those things to happen.
Honorable Ellis heard the police officers caught in those lies they needed to "clear up" and he sat back and laughed through most of the testimonies.
Ellis allowed witnesses to read from the first (Windeon) trial transcript then testify to what they read without anyone knowing what they were reading and testifying too. In fact, they were only reading from a few lines, therefore specifically Latoya, could have testified to a statement she later recant or one where she agree to "whatever".
Ellis was not consistent in his decisions, nor did he enforce his own rulings. Ellis granted the state’s Limine Motion that the jury was not allowed to know what the state wanted (which was the death penalty for capital murder) or received (which was not guilty of capital murder, but felony murder) in Windeon‘s trial. He denied Easterling the ability to question Windeon about his conviction, after Windham questioning of Windeon became more prejudicial than probative.
Honorable Ellis did not select alternate jurors and two jurors express a need to not remain in the trial specifically due to the time it too them away from other obligations. He knew that the jury made a quick decision. He knew what they had before them and the period of time they returned. He spent more time indicating this would be "fast", "in and out", "over soon". They asked them about staying late in an effort to "get it over".
Ellis was not consistent in overruling objections. He allowed Windham to use wrongful tactics in his questioning.
Perhaps, Ellis chose to rule only when/if the opposing counsels had an objection; however, in the fullness of things, something in that judiciary prowess should have suggested that justice was not served. Ellis received a letter requesting a new trial from Shaun and he denied it. However, Ellis signs the charge nearly six years later for ineffective assistance of counsel.
Windham did more testifying than any of his witnesses. If you remove the questions and view only the responses the majority of the answers were to either agree or disagree.
When his witnesses did not give the testimonies that he wanted he would stop them in mid-sentence and guide them towards the answers he wanted; or would rephrase the question non-stop until he got the answers he wanted. Many times he would tell them what they testified too, whether they did or did not.
Windham began his cross-examination of Windeon Sanders by telling him he should answer all of his questions yes or no. However, he was asking him questions that pertained to them both.
He would not allow Windeon to differentiate between he and Shaun even when his questions pertained to both.
He arrange his questions with the intent to confuse; also questions were ask in a way where one would be unclear as to what part of the question was being responded to.
He accuses Easterling of doing the exact illegal thing he did--more than once when he stated Easterling accused his witness (Latoya) of "testifying under tutelage".
Latoya’s testimony about what occurred is inconsistent.
Latoya is not able to give details about what she testified to. She has been lead into making statements since her taped statement with Waters the morning of, yet when she gets to trial she can not consistently support those statements. Do not fail to understand the significance: If you are asked a specific question--What did you do before going to bed last night? Answer: Read the bible. Then you should also be able to support your answer with a modicum of detail. "I read Genesis." "I read in bed." "I read with a flashlight." Even with a hard-fighting lawyer, it is nearly impossible to get to the truth when a witness can not give details.
Latoya made statements to the officers that night, testified during the first trial and testified during Shaun’s trial and her story changes every testimony.
Her most consistent answer is "I don’t know" and "I don’t remember". (Consistent in number but not accuracy. )
Her answers vary depending upon who asks the question and whether they ask a yes-no question.
Windeon's confession was made to benefit Windeon. His concern was to not appear "worse" than his younger brother. He either did not realize or did not care that those statements would party Shaun to a murder.
Easterling was asked about talking to Windeon to see if he could benefit Shaun. He was ask about this and never did he indicate it was a poor idea. He thought it was a great idea and the family nor his client were ever informed what could be asked of Windeon, that his prior record would be admissible.
Easterling put Windeon on the stand after having spoken to him briefly the day before. The extent of that meeting was for Windeon "to tell the truth".
Shaun and Windeon maintained two different statements. Windeon was not interviewed pretrial; therefore, took the stand and testified to his statement; which had major inconsistencies to what Shaun’s statements were.
He was placed on the stand and there were, qualitatively, no questions asked to defend Shaun. Easterling does not defend Shaun and Windham accuses them of doing everything together. Windham instructed Windeon to answer all of his question yes or no; even those that coupled Shaun.
There were many times that Windeon attempted to clarify information through Windham’s cross examination that was not covered by Easterling’s direct. In Easterling’s redirect, he acknowledges that Windeon does not get to explain his answers and offers him opportunity to clarify but he can’t get clarity for his client, Shaun Sanders because he does not know what to ask.
Windeon takes the stand and either lies or tries to remember specific events that occurred nearly two years before. He is made to testify to information that he clearly informed the prosecutor he did not know and did not remember. There was no objections by Easterling or instructions by the judge.
The problem with Moore was his refusal to hear, acknowledge or expose the injustices and ineffectiveness of the first trial; therefore turning a blind eye to it.
He wrote the appeals brief based upon the lies that were presented at trial. He would not allow Shaun to present or defend those lies against him. Shaun was not given opportunity to view the transcript or brief before its filing. Shaun did send him information after the fact; but no supplemental brief was filed.
Moore used NOTHING to warrant a New Trial. He takes the word of Easterling and does not pursue grounds for a new trial. Inside the appeals brief he furthers those things 'undefended and adopted' by trial the attorney.His appeals brief was not based upon credible facts or viable argument. This site has documented innumerable lies, discrepancies and issues of ineffective assistance of counsel.
Moore does not argue relevant issues that pertains to the law of parties. This site takes the case facts and proves the accused not guilty by definition of the offense as presented by the prosecution.
Moore had personal family crisis that interfered with his preparing Shaun's appeals brief. He had Shaun's transcript for three months and had not read it due to his father-in-law being in a hospice.
Charged client $400.00 for a copy of the clients transcript that should have been free.
(a) A person is criminally responsible for an offense committed by the conduct of another if:
1. acting with the kind of culpability required for the offense, he causes or aids an innocent or nonresponsible person to engage in conduct prohibited by the definition of the offense;
2. acting with intent to promote or assist the commission of the offense, he solicits, encourages, directs, aids, or attempts to aid the other person to commit the offense; or
3. having a legal duty to prevent commission of the offense and acting with the intent to promote or assist its commission, he fails to make a reasonable effort to prevent commission of the offense.
Case Law Basis of Rule 7.02
7.02 Rule of Criminal Responsibility of Another
(a) A person is criminally responsible for an offense committed by the conduct of another if:
1. acting with the kind of culpability required for the offense, he causes or aids an innocent or nonresponsible person to engage in conduct prohibited by the definition of the offense;
2. acting with intent to promote or assist the commission of the offense, he solicits, encourages, directs, aids, or attempts to aid the other person to commit the offense; or
3. having a legal duty to prevent commission of the offense and acting with the intent to promote or assist its commission, he fails to make a reasonable effort to prevent commission of the offense.
The prosecutor states:
Shaun Sanders is guilty of capital murder by law of parties because he attempted to aid in the murder when he cocked the silver gun then gave it back at the point when Windeon had problems cocking it; thereby getting it ready for him.
To Windeon Sanders
P124 And then, at some point in time, you-all switched out the guns, didn’t you? A Yes, sir, we did. And the reason why you did that, you know, initially is because when you had that silver gun you had some problem --I don’t know -- you had a problem cocking it. You gave it to him. And he cocked it for you, didn’t he? A No, sir, not at all. P125 He helped you, aided in getting that gun ready by cocking it for you and handing it back to you, didn’t he? A No, sir, not at all.
There are 5 ways to be guilty of capital murder based upon the law of parties.
Attempt to aid is the one Windham choose.
Windham stated Shaun cocked the Silver gun and gave it to Windeon--getting it ready for him to use. This is his entire and only allegation for the law of parties. The silver gun, he cocked it.
There are different statements made by Latoya in this regard HOWEVER all of the statements are proof of his innocence.
Latoya's trial statement:
Her first "20?" answers (to the same question) are--I did not say that. I do not remember his doing that. She changes her statement to I said that at another hearing--when prompt by Windham. Then to Easterling said she doesn't remember saying it at another hearing.
Note: In order for "attempt to aid" to occur; the person has to know murder is imminent and actions should reflect that of wanting the act to occur.
Argument: Her testimony in this trial is that it did not happen, at all.
Latoya's statement to Officers Waters at the scene:
She said that he "cocked" the gun but in her testimony is not clear when. HOWEVER in that same statement to the police she says before the shooting Windeon was messing with the slide "trying to get it off safety."
Note: In order for "attempt to aid" to occur; the person has to know murder is imminent and actions should reflect that of wanting the act to occur.
Argument: IF he cocked the gun and she does not know when, where or why then it can not be deemed an attempt to aid by definition of the rule because he had to KNOW and act with intent. HOWEVER, in the continuance of her statement to the police, and in both trials Latoya is clear to say that Windeon (minutes before the shooting) was trying to pull the trigger and it would not pull because the gun was on safety. If the gun was on safety then Shaun did not get it ready to be fired.
Argument: Windeon was not found guilty of capital murder. Windeon was tried first and found not guilty of an intentional shooting; these factors should have then made Shaun not guilty of capital murder because the end results were there was no capital murder. How can someone be guilty of something that someone else did; after it was determined the other party "didn't do it"?
Shaun received a greater sentence and harsher punishment inspite of the massive discrepancies in testimonies.
This is the proof of innocence. To view the proof of injustice begin with the case facts
What was not reported, was that Shaun was NOT the shooter, yet he is doing more time than his brother.
What was not reported, was that Shaun did NOT go to the Shelby house to commit robbery.
What was not reported, was that Shaun was LIED TO by his brother, Windeon into thinking they were going to the Shelby residence to discuss an incident concerning their little brother. The little brother had been kidnapped from in front of his home, bound, gagged, blindfolded and taken to an unknown location, beaten and then dumped in a field that way.
Something the viewer must always bear in mind as it is a judicial fact: Windeon Sanders was not convicted for capital murder. The state said Windeon is not guilty of cold blooded murder, a fact that will never change. The state says the shooting was an accident. Had the judge not approved the motion to withhold this information from the jury they "NEVER would have given such a verdict" per a juror--rightfully, judicially so.
Blind Eye only intends to show on this website that by the state's verdict on Windeon Sanders, there was no capital murder.
http://www.freewebs.com/blindeye/latoyahill.htm