Grand Hustle #2

By Jay Goodman

In my last chapter I wrote about how Lowrence Bernal was arrested for Capital Murder, and of all of the insanity that led to the date of November 17, 2000. The first day of the trial. Here again in his own words is the details of that trial.

My lawyer Sam Moore has believed since day one that I am guilty. He came to the jail and spoke to me only three times. Sam never spoke to any of my witnesses or checked the backgrounds of the two people that were testifying against me. Sam never sat down with me before my trial to work out any kind of strategy. He had a report from his private investigator, but as my lawyer he was no more prepared for my trial then I am right now to go to the moon. My lawyer moved to quash second indictment, denied. I was re-indicted the exact same way as the first. They still had me killing Andrew Phillip Sorenson two ways. Blunt force trauma to the neck or by strangulation. I also made an oral motion to fire my lawyer Sam Moore. This was denied even though I told the judge Sam had not spoken to any of my witnesses or to me.

During Voire Dire (picking of the jury) the D.A struck as many Mexicans as he could, my lawyer did the rest. The judge invoked the rule where no witnesses could hear the testimony of each other, and they were not to speak to one another. A lot of luck they’d have with that, especially since the two people testifying against me slept together. The D.A in a stroke of genius asked the judge to let him use his personal private investigator Gary Lindsey and Texas Ranger Johnny Billings. I told my lawyer Sam, “You know Gary Lindsey signed off on my second indictment?” “So what’s wrong with that?” said Sam. I said, “My accuser cannot be my prosecutor, what about that rule?” Sam gets pissed, “How do you know that?” I ignored his question. Sam objects; Judge Parker overrules it. Judge Parker granted very few motions. One being a motion in limine and objections to admission to extraneous offenses.

What this basically means is the D.A can bring up anything he wants against you, whether it’s fact or fiction. If your lawyer doesn’t object to it, it’s taken as a fact. Later I will explain more on that. Let’s get to the trial. After the picking of the jury, it’s opening statements. My lawyer Sam gives a good opening statement. I’m impressed, nice form, looks the part of a top-notch attorney. When the witnesses began being called for the prosecution, he starts asking questions. I’m waiting to see where this line of questions is going. Trust me when I say it went somewhere. His bi-polar disease must have kicked in, because he went blank when it counted. When Joel Hewitt took the stand, he’s mumbling and no one can understand him. The judge sends the jury out. Then the fireworks started. The D.A asked Joel, “Are you going to testify here today?” Joel’s wiggling in his chair like a fish on a hook. He was looking for help. He only has the D.A, the judge, my lawyer pressuring him to testify. Finally looking like a whipped dog, he agrees.

The jury is brought back in. I can hear the circus music in the background, do-do-dute-do-do-dute. The D.A asked Joel what happened that night. Joel said that David, Lisa and myself plotted to kill Andy. That we gave him a syringe full of dope, then left to complete our nefarious deed. My lawyer Sam was in the Twilight Zone. Earth to Sam, come in Sam. At this point I asked Sam to question Joel about his six-year deal with the D.A, for armed robbery. He said he will deny it. O.K, just ask the question. Sam asks, Joel denies the deal. This may seem petty on my part, but you’ll all understand this later, I promise.

Now, it’s Lisa Jernigan’s turn to take the stand, and she gives an Oscar-worthy performance. The only problem with her testimony is she’s caught lying. She also said how we gave Andy a syringe full of dope before we killed him. Keep that in mind, it’s important. When the Pathologist takes the stand, he bats one thousand. When asked how Andy died, he states, “He was strangled, his larynx was crushed. This caused his lungs to fill with blood, suffocating the victim.” Next, the D.A asked him what type of drugs were in his system. His answer was, “He had no drugs in his system. He had a high alcohol blood content You could hear a pin drop. In my statement, I was the only one who talked about drinking. They grill him, but he stands firm on his 22-year reputation. An important note, this Pathologist is the court's Pathologist. He worked for the state. I still smile as I remember the look on their faces. While they thought it was a nail in my coffin, it was, in fact, my saving grace. It confirmed that both witnesses for the state lied. I thought to myself it’s over, because how can your version of the events that night be accurate? You can not circumvent science with fantasy.

I tell my lawyer Sam to press the issue. He gets up and moves next to the D.A’s desk. He leans over and whispers something to the D.A. The D.A moves on with his plan of attack. My lawyer, the D.A, and the judge act like nothing happened. Even though it’s been proven that the states only two witnesses have just lied. I knew then that my lawyer did not care that I was innocent. He didn’t even ask the court to dismiss my case, because the states only witnesses just perjured themselves. From there we moved to closing arguments. The D.A gives a halfhearted closing. Then my lawyer Sam approaches the jury and states, “Lowrence went out there with them, he did not know they were going to kill Andy.” On cue the D.A jumps up and states, “See even his lawyer knows he’s guilty!” I sat there staring at them, it was obvious that was all planned. Does my lawyer object? Does the judge say anything? No. The jury is in disbelief. They look between Sam, the judge and the D.A, who’s gone back to scribbling on his note pad. I thought that he was probably sketching out the last line of hanged man. The jury goes into deliberation. They sent out a note to the judge. He called them back and said go by the charge. They go back in and sent out another note. I never found out what that note said.

My lawyer, the judge and the D.A stood in a huddle, then the judge sent a note back to the jury. About an hour later they sent a note out saying they’d reached an agreement. I was found guilty of murder. The judge looked like he was ready to scream at the jury. After he gets his anger under control, I looked over at my law Sam Moore.  He is shocked that the jury found me guilty of murder and not Capital Murder. He said, “Don’t get your hopes up, they can still give you 99 years.” Thanks for the confidence I told him. “They wouldn’t have found me guilty if you hadn’t placed me at the crime scene.” “You’re lucky you didn’t take the stand.” he said. “Why Sam, because I would have been questioned by two District Attorney’s?” They decided to bring in the jury back on Saturday for sentencing. Saturday, Sam had made a deal with the D.A to talk about the parole laws. Someone was supposed to bring him some statistical information; of course it never shows up. After the D.A’s opening statements, my lawyer goes into a half-hearted argument about what I can expect when I hit TDCJ and how they give consideration to parole. The D.A gets his final shot in. He talks about drug use, that never came up about me. They now go into deliberation.

The judge, D.A and my lawyer pull out a TV now so that they can watch the Texas A&M football game. They ordered pizza and were all sitting around a table laughing together. My private investigator was also there, he looked at me and said, “I’ll drink a shot for every year that you get.” My lawyer tells him he’d better get a half-gallon. My lawyer said, “It’s less than I would have given you.” I said, “I’ll wait for you in hell.” He sits there staring at me. The jury is looking at the low end of sentencing, they sent out several notes. Of course, I never get to see any of them. When the jury comes back in I hear 45 years, my lawyer smiled at me. I thanked the jury and they looked at me like I was retarded. Little did they know of the plotting by the judge, D.A and my lawyer. I could not be angry with the jury, because if it were not for them I would be sentenced to death. Truthfully more than likely I would have already been put to death.

Looking back now on everything that I know about the law, I’m still amazed at what happened. I look over the trial and at the witnesses and my lawyer and can not feel many different emotions. I believed back then that Jones County was corrupt. But, from my viewpoint now, it seems that the whole system is set up for you to fail. After the trial, I wrote my appeals attorney and asked him to challenge my indictment because it was defective. He sent me a letter on February 2, 2001 telling me, “It is not my practice to visit with appeals clients personally because the work I do is based Strictly on record from the trial.” So, I wrote my judge, Judge Parker a letter asking him to remove my appeal lawyer Tim Copeland, no response. I get a copy of my appeal from Copeland. I was so angry that I could not finish reading it. My lawyer writes and informs me he’s filing my P.D.R. I write him back and tell him to file a motion for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence.

Joel Hewitt received a six-year deal for both armed robberies in Taylor County. This showed that he lied on the stand. My lawyer writes back to let me know that you can only file a motion for a new trial within 60 days after the trial. They waited passed the 60 days to sentence Hewitt. This way I could not file a motion for a new trial. If this wasn’t enough dirt kicked in my face, Copeland wouldn’t say anything to the court of criminal appeals in Austin. They denied my P.D.R on June 26, 2002. Bernal vs. State,74 S.W 3d 76C Tex. App.-Eastland 20027. Now for a little double talk from the court system. In headnote 2-defendent failed to preserve for appellate review his claims that the trial court erred in allowing the state. In arguments to the jury during the punishment phase of the trial. To repeatedly discussing the effect that the parole law would have on the defendant. There was no objection to the statement in question. For everyone who does not understand this law, since I did not object to the testimony, I did not preserve the error. Remember, I tried to fire Sam Moore, my attorney. This oral motion, because they refused to take my handwritten one, was denied. Since my lawyer Sam did not object to the statements, they were allowed to present them as facts.

In Texas there is no hybrid representation. This means that I am not allowed to object because I have an attorney. Allowed me to show some case law. Hazelwood vs. State, 838 S.W.2d 647 Tex.App- Corpus Christi 1992)- in Texas an accused has the right to self-representation or to retained or court-appointed counsel. A defendant who has counsel representing him in, trial cannot object to anything during trial. How is it the dependents fault for their failure to object to anything the D.A brings up that violates the law? Shouldn’t the opinion from the court of criminal appeals read, the trial attorney failed to preserve for review claims that the court erred in allowing the state, in arguments to the jury during the punishment phase of the trial, to repeatedly discuss the effect that the parole law would have on defendant? It should say that, but the Texas prison system is a big business.

As I sit here thinking over how I was treated, I cannot help but to think of something I once read in Olmstead vs. United States, 48S. ct. 564. “Decency, security and liberty alike demand that government officials shall be subjected to the same rules of conduct that are commands to the citizen. In a government of laws, the existence of the government will be imperiled if it fails to observe the law scrupulously.” [... Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example.] Crime is contagious if the government becomes a law unto itself, it invites anarchy. To declare that, in the administration of the criminal law. The end justifies the means-to declare that the government may commit crimes in order to secure the conviction of a private criminal- would bring terrible retribution against that pernicious doc- trine-this court-should resolutely set its fare.

With almost 20 years under Lowrence Bernals belt, he is left devoid of empathy, compassion, or sorrow. He tells me he wakes up each day and realizes he is as cold as concrete and steel. He said when he thinks of those words by a justice so long ago, the feeling is biblical. How could he see what would come to pass? When generations today see the law, not as a great hustle, but as a Grand Hustle. A cash cow that has no end. Lowrence asked me, “Are you or anyone else convinced that my case is an anomaly? Does anyone dare ask me to prove my facts and files? Do you want to know? Do you care to know? Ask me in all honesty and I’ll remove your veil. How many secrets I possess, how many lies to tell about. How many crimes of justice have I witnessed, who speaks for us Jay? No one does, that’s the shame of it all. If your lawyer doesn’t fight for you, oh well, that’s just part of the trial strategy. Not ineffective assistance of counsel. So you depend on your appeal attorney. He doesn’t argue solid points that have been objected to. So you lose your appeal.”

Now, welcome to T.D.C.J. This is where you will find this exact inscription over its intake doors:

“ALL YE THAT ENTER HERE, ABANDON ALL HOPE.”