NO. 10-0859 - Supreme Court of Texas

More documents

Recommendations

Info

abuse and J.W.A. was fifteen. I CR 266. In her December 2006 deposition, L.K.A. testified that both children had made their initial outcries to her the summer before, prior to their leaving Texas. III CR 324. However, instead of reporting the abuse then, L.K.A. waited until days after the children’s father located them in Florida to reveal these facts to the Florida authorities. III CR 324. Facing the threat of an order demanding the children’s return to Texas and the threat of arrest for theft and parental kidnapping, L.K.A. again fled with the couple’s children in November 1997, this time to her mother’s home in Muscatine, Iowa. III CR 163. And, again, she succeeded in secreting the children from S.E.A., this time for almost a year. In August 1998, S.E.A. located his children in Iowa and again filed an interference with custody action against L.K.A.. III RR 90-91. And, as in Florida, L.K.A. repeated the sexual abuse allegations to Iowa authorities for the first time days after being served with suit. III CR 163. These allegations were not L.K.A.’s first sexual abuse allegations made in the heat of a custody dispute, nor were they her last. In 1993, when L.K.A. was separating from her first husband, Daniel Profit, she alleged to California authorities that he had sexually abused their daughter Vanessa. V CR 53. The authorities investigated the claim and determined it was without merit. V CR 53. In 2000, L.K.A. contacted Texas CPS to report that J.W.A. and M.P.A., along with S.E.A., were all abusing her children. III CR 254. Of course, by this time, J.W.A. and M.P.A. were both in prison, and the authorities dismissed the case. III CR 257 (“Currently there are [sic] no risk to the children. The alleged perpetrators are incarcerated and the children reside in a stable 2
home with their father.”). L.K.A.’s claim in Iowa, though, prompted an investigation by authorities in Texas, ultimately leading to M.P.A.’s and J.W.A.’s prosecution for allegedly abusing both S.A. and A.A. III CR 98-100. 4 II. M.P.A.’s adjudication and disposition. A. Based primarily on the testimony of the alleged victim, M.P.A. is adjudicated delinquent. The State called four witnesses in the adjudication phase of M.P.A.’s trial: S.A.; S.A.’s brother A.A.; Alice Lindner, a nurse who examined the two children months after the alleged abuse; and Dr. Pamela Green, an OB/GYN who examined the children shortly after Ms. Lindner. As the court of appeals noted, S.A.’s testimony was “somewhat equivocal or inconsistent when, where, and how often specific incidents occurred and who might have been present.” 2010 WL 2789649, at *2. However, on leading questions from the State, S.A. did manage to testify that she thought M.P.A. made her put her “mouth on his private parts” and thought that he caused his “private parts” to contact hers. I CR 117-18. Her brother, A.A., did not testify as to any specific acts that M.P.A. committed, I CR 133, and the court directed a verdict against the State on the charge involving conduct with A.A. I C.R. 253. The jury then heard from nurse Lindner and Dr. Green. Nurse Lindner testified that her examinations of the two did not reveal anything out of the ordinary, though she did testify, over hearsay objections, that both children told her they had been 4 Tellingly, when S.A. was asked about the alleged sexual assault by Iowa officials, she “became very anxious and said she couldn’t continue because she needed to talk to her mother about what to say.” III CR 183. She even told an Iowa Detective that she would only talk with them if she first “could practice with [L.K.A.] by having [L.K.A.] ask her questions.” V RR State’s Ex. 9. 3
Page 1 and 2: NO. 10-0859 _______________________
Page 3 and 4: TABLE OF CONTENTS Identity of Parti
Page 5 and 6: INDEX OF AUTHORITIES CASES Page(s)
Page 7 and 8: STATEMENT OF THE CASE Nature of the
Page 9 and 10: STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION The Court
Page 11: STATEMENT OF FACTS I. Background: A
Page 15 and 16: Willoughby then testified about the
Page 17 and 18: IV. Willoughby’s false testimony
Page 19 and 20: While media attention does not just
Page 21 and 22: Willoughby testified as an expert,
Page 23 and 24: Shockingly, the authors of these st
Page 25 and 26: elied heavily on Willoughby’s tes
Page 27 and 28: CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify th
Page 29 and 30: TAB 1
Page 31 and 32: TAB 2
Page 33 and 34: M.P.A.
Page 36: S.A. A.A. J.W.A. M.P.A.
Page 39 and 40: Page 1 Not Reported in S.W.3d, 2010
Page 63 and 64:
Page 25 Not Reported in S.W.3d, 201
Page 65 and 66:
Page 27 Not Reported in S.W.3d, 201
Page 69 and 70:
M.P.A. S.A. A.A.
Page 71 and 72:
TAB 5
Page 73 and 74:
Format Dynamics :: CleanPrint :: ht
Page 75 and 76:
Austin Chronicle: Print an Article
Page 77 and 78:
Page 79 and 80:
Page 81 and 82:
Page 83:
TAB 7
show all

NO. 10-0859 - Supreme Court of Texas

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?