BECCA'S TESTIMONY - Credibility issues
Transcript re: Becca and Geoff. They were roommates for 5+ years. She testified that their lease was in her name only because Geoff had a criminal incident "way back before I met him". This is deceptive. She began living with him in 2014, and Geoff was arrested in July and again in October of 2017, while they were living together. It was for this conviction that he was on probation while living with her.
Edward's 2022 personal statement swears that Becca sold drugs for Geoff so he would not get caught and have his probation revoked. Geoff's history of weapons and drug possession support this. More importantly, Edward also personally witnessed her cover for Geoff in a 2019 shooting incident in a parking lot of an Amarillo apartment complex. While Edward did not ask nor was involved in any details, he witnessed Becca and Geoff plan their cover story-- that Geoff did not have a gun nor was he involved. Edward was in the room when the detective called Becca as she told them Geoff had no involvement and did not have any gun. That was deception to police officers to protect Geoff from probation revocation. As a result, charges were never filed against Geoff. Eight months later, she accused Edward of assault two weeks after he broke up with her.
Our question is this: What does this say about Becca? With a history of covering for Geoff and lying to police officers, it is our position that Becca had motive and opportunity to cover for Geoff again. He was still on probation during the time of the alleged assault. She also testified (in that same transcript above) that she and Geoff had a bad fight about Edward before she came to stay with Edward. Again, moving back in with Geoff after their breakup, tension surrounding the topic of Edward at their home, drinking and drugs mixed with a history of assault and fighting-- these are all critical pieces of information creating enormous reasonable doubt that Becca should have been confronted on by Edward's trial counsel. The police records of any interviews with Becca about Geoff should have been used at trial by the defense counsel to impeach her credibility.
Transcript of Becca saying she was punched in the face with a left hand (Geoff is left-handed) one after the other, multiple times, and had two black eyes. As the very first photo taken and forensic expert support, there are no black eyes nor injuries to the face. If she describes this in detail but the photo and expert do not support it, what does this say about Becca?
Becca saying the officer didn't want to take pics and she had to point out the bump on her forehead. The officer testified he only saw a lump on her forehead and marks under her arms, neck (no black eyes mentioned). Her friend said she saw a lump on her forehead and a mark on her neck (no black eyes). Her coworked said the same (never mentioned two black eyes). We believe this is indicative that police officer saw no facial injury to photograph. While the other photos do show marks under her arms and a lump on her forehead, and we are not saying nothing happened to Becca (we simply don't know)...we use the first photo and her conflicting testimony to question only her credibility.
Deceptive filing of Protective Order request -- When the charges were initially filed, it automatically created a protective order for 6 months. When it expired in September 2020, Edward received a phone call from his attorney saying Becca called the victim advocate at the DA office, claiming Edward was frequently driving by her house in his truck, and she need the protective order issued again. This was impossible as he had already been in NJ for over a month and had a full-time job with paystubs to prove it. It was dismissed once they could not corroborate her story compared to his time sheets at work in NJ. She did not know Edward had moved out of state and assumed she would be believed, speaking again to her credibility.
Recent police records obtained prove Becca is involved in drugs and shootings, and officers noted in their report that her story was suspicious and changed multiple times.
Police report, Internal Affairs, and false statement under oath
The Police Report and no follow up investigation, also Edward's home address written 5 times, though the detective stated he had no idea where Edward lived and therefore couldn't interview him.
Trial Transcript where detective said he thinks it's absolutely necessary to interview the accused before determining probable cause, but he had no idea where Edward lived, although it was listed in his report five times. He also checked his criminal record, and then closed the case without contacting Edward.
Internal Affairs Complaint about the lack of investigation, failure to follow standard procedures in Texas Manual for Detectives (TCOLE).
Amarillo PD Letter: Claims Unfounded and Emails to I.A. Director asking for clarification on Unfounded, and his response confirming the detective violated no policy and followed standard protocol for investigating.
the prosecutor and TRIAL COUNSEL'S ACTIONS
This Discovery Document
1. It shows the Detective checked the criminal record on March 18, 2020, spotted the 20-year-old charge that misled him into thinking he was guilty of sexually assaulting a child, and did not explore to see it was exempted (false). This would have meant that Edward has no prior assault history at 35 years old. That same day, the Detective sent the case to the DA for charges to be filed.
2. It shows the prosecutor disclosed four-year-old evidence central to their case until the last minute despite 3 Requests for Evidence (39.14) between 2020 and 2023.
3. It shows the prosecutor knew about the 2003 judicial exemption in 2022. Even though he knew the truth--that the charge was judicially deemed non-violent, age-based, and consensual--he still misused it by presenting the past charge to the jury without the exemption.
4. It shows the DA was sent three requests for Discovery: 2020, 2022, and 2023, and never disclosed the 2020 Facebook messages or multiple police reports involving Becca (required to be disclosed under Michael Morton Act 39.14)
Edward's personal affidavit sent to his attorney in 2022, which was sent to the prosecutor in 2022: both were aware that his testimony would point to her roommate of 5 years, Geoff, and expose a much more likely suspect. Edward had no idea that Becca would testify she was punched with a left hand. As you can see from his affidavit written in 2022, he went watch-shopping one time with Geoff, and he put the watch on his right hand, proving he is left-handed. Edward is right-handed. He had no idea when he wrote this in 2022 that the watch shopping trip would be so critical. However, his trial counsel never pointed this out to the jury.
The pre-trial motion transcript showing his attorney took no opportunity to object to its admissibility.
With the court-ordered exemption and mitigation to a non-violent, age-based offense, plus being from 20 years ago, this prior charge should have never been admitted as evidence. It was inadmissible by all accounts in the Code of Criminal Procedure. Edward's attorney made it seem like it he could do nothing to stop it. He told him as long as he did not take the stand and testify, it would never be brought up. WRONG. It was brought up at sentencing as the prosecutor argued for the maximum time in prison (ten years). If Edward had known that, he would have testified so the jury could hear the truth about that charge, along with the truth about Geoff and Becca.
Pattern of injury expert: no facial injury
Paul S. Uribe, MD, Deputy Chief Medical Examiner – Fort Bend County, the (Great) State of Texas – DMH Forensic Consulting, LLC
This medical expert says about the photo shown as State's Exhibit #1:
"The photo doesn't match the testimony as there is no visible evidence of injury or black eyes on the photograph."
Dr. Uribe's Affidavit is underway and will be uploaded upon receipt and added to the Habeas Corpus exhibits.
STATE'S EXHIBIT #1
Compare this photo to her description of what happened, and consider her credibility. Becca testified that she was punched “multiple times, one right after the other,” up close in the face, resulting in “two black eyes.” This photo—State’s Exhibit #1—was taken approximately five hours after the alleged assault. While other photos later show marks under her arm, a scratch on her neck (no scratch visible here), and a lump on her forehead (no lump or bruise visible here), this first image directly contradicts her description. Edward’s attorney never consulted a medical expert (we have one now) or emphasized this discrepancy at trial to demonstrate that the photographic evidence does not support the State’s claims.
***her name has been changed for this website.*** Trial Transcripts of her testimony is further down this page. The photo given to us was black and white; we converted it to color and did not alter it.
For reference, this photo shows a woman who was punched in the face multiple times.
PROSECUTOR PRESENTS PEN PACK TO JURY W/O EXEMPTION