Bullet Points by decree


									          Charles Anthony Nealy:

 A victim of Abuse and Neglect on behalf of
police, state and judiciary – An Innocent man
              on Texas Death Row

               Claim for Retrial:

                       1            CAN – Bulleted Facts of Case 2002
Described by Dallas Morning News as „the quickest death penalty trial in Texas history‟, the case
of Charles Anthony Nealy, now on Death Row in Texas, was misconducted, manipulated, rushed
and appallingly handled from beginning to end. There are dozens of facts, examples of appalling
neglect, ineffective counsel and other more worrying „undercurrents‟ that accompanied the trial,
which are now only coming to light. This report aims to outline just a few of these areas;

Charles Anthony Nealy was arrested on 22 nd August 1997 for committing murder and armed
robbery within the state of Texas. His nephew Claude Nealy was also convicted of the same
offence and was sentenced to life imprisonment.

Charles has maintained his innocence throughout. Although Charles did have a previous criminal
record (he was sentenced to 35 years in 1980 for committing aggravated robbery at the age of 16 -
for stealing a car) he has no record of violence whatsoever. However, Charles was released early
from his sentence for good behaviour and at the time that the crime was committed, he was
actually working as a Welfare Benefits Advisor with a local organisation based within the South
Dallas projects, which assisted with rehabilitating ex-offenders by assisting them to improve and
achieve future employment opportunities. In addition to this, Charles also worked as a supervisor
at „Better Home Products‟ where he was responsible for hiring, training and providing
transportation for those in need.

The supporters of Charles Anthony Nealy believe that the police responsible for investigating the
case sought a „quick conviction‟ for the two murders which had taken place at the Express Mart
Store in Dallas on 20 th August 1997 and that given Charles‟ previous incarceration in prison, they
decided that he would be a „suitable‟ candidate for conviction. In doing this, the police also had
to „fit‟ Charles‟ nephew Claude Nealy as an accomplice to the murder (as Claude and Charles
were together during the night that the incident took place).

The police ignored overwhelming evidence that Charles and Claude were not even in the state of
Texas at the time that the shooting occurred. Furthermore, they actively falsified statements,
lost vital evidence, manipulated and blackmailed witnesses and ignored the information that
Charles could provide as to the identity of other possible murderers.

Charles Nealy‟s state-appointed attorneys failed to provide or prepare for any effective „defense‟
for their client. Indeed, evidence strongly suggests that the defense team worked closely with the
Prosecution in order to secure a conviction (i.e. all black people on the jury „pool‟ list were
deselected so that Charles was tried by an entirely white jury). The presiding judge failed to
challenge the evidence presented and allowed their judgement to be swayed by a colleague who
was also the Prosecutor in 1980 whom prosecuted the case when Charles Nealy was sentenced to
his first term in prison (and who later was forced to offer an „apology‟ for racist statements made
during previous trials, such as “better get rid of those blacks” – as potential jurors in a separate

                                                 2                       CAN – Bulleted Facts of Case 2002
Summary Report of Gross Neglect and
Manipulation within the Capital Trial of Charles
Anthony Nealy


     The defense prepared no „defense‟ whatsoever for their client. They worked
      closely with the Prosecution in order to secure the conviction of Mr Nealy and
      assisted the Prosecution with pre-selection of the jury list so that the jury
      selected was all white (and this fact of the trial was purposely and negligently not
      held on court record)

     As well as apparently attempting to „defend‟ Charles Nealy, the defense team
      were „managing‟ a total of three capital defendants at the same time

     The evidence against Charles Nealy‟s involvement in the crime was
      overwhelming; the defense inadequately prepared and neglected to focus even on
      the most obvious inconsistencies i.e. The physical descriptions provided by the
      sole witness did not remotely describe Charles Nealy‟s appearance at the time of
      the incident, the witnesses failed to pick Charles from the line-up on every
      occasion, no prints were taken, witnesses (and potential witnesses) were
      interfered with, alibis were not investigated and police neglect and corruption
      were overlooked.


     Police investigators categorically invented Charles Nealy‟s „statement‟ and
      interrogated him for 12 ½ hours, preventing him from making a telephone call
      or contacting a lawyer until he signed the „statement‟

     Police investigators ignored and lost vital pieces of evidence supplied by Charles

     Police Investigators consciously manipulated the witness and suspect prior to

     Police investigators only managed to call individuals to testify against Charles by
      use of blackmail and „pacts‟ designed to reduce the sentences that these
      individuals were already facing. Both Police and Defense failed to provide the
      falsified „statement‟ to the Court and did not disclose which person the stolen
      money was found on, that no prints were taken on either the money, that no guns
      were discovered at any point in time and that the person on whom the money was

                                           3                     CAN – Bulleted Facts of Case 2002
      found, had an outstanding warrant for their arrest in relation to possession of
      crack cocaine.


     The presiding judge for the case neglected to challenge the deselection of black
      jurors and frequently sought advice from colleagues during the trial. Her contact
      with another judge who had prosecuted Charles Nealy many years ago negatively
      influenced the outcome of the trial (as this judge when later running for the Texas
      Court of Criminal Appeals was forced to apologise for remarks such as “better get
      rid of those blacks” in reference to the pool jury).

     Charles Nealy‟s case also highlights the extent of corruption and sabotage that
      still prevails throughout the appointment of counsel in death penalty cases within
      Dallas County (between 1997 and 1998, of the 105 qualified attorneys able to
      handle death penalty cases within Dallas county, why did the presiding district
      judge appoint the same two attorneys to handle more than half of the death
      penalty cases during this time?

                                           4                    CAN – Bulleted Facts of Case 2002
       Full Report of Abuses and Neglect

Neglect and Abuse by Court-Appointed Attorneys

The court-appointed attorneys did not follow up the information supplied by their client,
Charles Nealy. The attorneys clearly abused and neglected Charles‟ case, knowing that it
was virtually impossible for him to do anything about it.

Charles Nealy‟s defense attorneys failed to question basic and circumstantial evidence
presented by the State, despite the fact that the Prosecution had no substantial evidence
against the accused. The particular areas that the defense neglected to focus on included:

De-selection of Black Jurors

      Why did the defense assist the Prosecution with de-selecting all black members
       of the jury? Why was Charles Nealy – a black man allowed to stand trial with an
       all white jury? Why did Charles‟ defense not insist that this peculiarity should be
       confirmed on court records?

Identification of Suspect / Video tape evidence

      Why did the defense overlook the fact that the only witness to the crime (Sam
       Vallabhbai – the store clerk) claimed that the suspect had gold teeth? Why did
       the defense fail to point out that neither Anthony Nealy nor Claude Nealy had
       gold teeth, but that „S‟s (Anthony‟s common law wife) son (RW) and his close
       friend „B‟ (with whom S - Charles Nealy‟s former partner, was having an affair
       with) both had gold teeth. Why did the defense not question Anthony‟s co-
       workers/ friends/ family as to whether he actually had gold teeth?

      Charles Nealy was 33 at the time of the crime. Why did the defense not challenge
       the descriptions of early newspaper reports of the attempted murderers? (i.e.
       referring to the men who shot Mr Bhakta and Mr Patel as being 25 years old and
       having „gold teeth?

      Why did the defense not follow up the fact that the only witness to the murder
       (Sam Vallabhbai) picked out RW (S‟s son) first at the police line-up; and NOT
       Charles Nealy? The witness was then told by the police that RW was „not the
       right person‟, Charles was never picked from any police identification parade.
       The first time that Sam Vallabhbai ever saw Charles Nealy was 14 months after
       the incident, when he returned to the US from India and appeared in Court in
       order to identify Charles as „the man with the shotgun‟ during actual proceedings.

                                            5                     CAN – Bulleted Facts of Case 2002
   Why did the defense not question the fact that the sole witness described the man
    who was alleged to be Charles Nealy as having short hair, yet Charles Nealy had
    considerably long hair at the time which would have been clearly identifiable had
    he been wearing a small-brimmed cap (as the witness claimed). Why were
    relatives/ friends/ co-workers not called to testify about the length of Charles
    Nealy‟s hair – or his general appearance, at the time of the shooting?

   Why did the defense not question the fact that the video tape „evidence‟ of two
    black men entering the store was clearly of very poor quality. Also that the video
    tape itself clearly demonstrated that the only witness had his back to the first
    man to enter the store had his back to this man during the whole time. Yet the
    Prosecution claimed that the only state witness (Sam Vallabhbai) accurately
    identified Charles Nealy as the murderer.

   Why did the defense fail to point out that the video began with the only witness
    (Sam Vallabhbai) putting out boxes at the store and that he could not have seen
    the faces of the men that entered the store and committed the murders

   Why did the defense fail to ensure that Charles Nealy was able to view the video
    tape of the robbery prior to the trial? Charles Nealy only saw the video one time -
    during his actual trial!

   The police actually admitted to the Jury during the capital trial that they did not
    “look for any other subject”. Why did the defense not follow up on this?!

   Why did the defense not investigate the very distinctive pendant allegedly worn
    by one of the killers (as described by Sam Vallabhbai)? i.e. a man named „RD‟
    who was friends with S‟s sons wore such an unusual pendant.
   Why did the defense not question the police about the loss of motel receipts
    provided by Charles Nealy which proved that he and Claude were in Oklahoma
    on the 20th August 1997 – the evening of the murder? Why did the defense not
    check themselves on the customer records of the motel in Oklahoma?

   Charles and Claude Nealy stated that Claude‟s girlfriend, „J‟ stayed at the motel
    with them that evening. J was their most solid alibi. Why did the defense not
    question the police‟s neglect to interview J? As a consequence of this, there was
    no record made on court records that Anthony and Claude Nealy were
    accompanied by a third person at their motel in Oklahoma. The Motel receipts
    provided by Charles Nealy would have shown that two rooms were booked (one
    for Charles and one for Claude and J). If Charles and Claude (and even RD, as he
    claimed) had stayed together at the motel, it would have been very unusual for
    three males to rent out two separate rooms unless there was the presence of
    another person there, requiring further privacy i.e a female partner. Why were the
    motel records never checked out?

                                         6                     CAN – Bulleted Facts of Case 2002
     Why did the defense not contact Claude Nealy‟s girlfriend (J) in order to question
      her as to their movements on the night of 20 th August 1997?

     Why did the defense never question the fabrication of the police statement (or
      even mention its existence in court)? The statement has clearly been altered in
      order to provide a confession that Charles Nealy did carry out a shooting.
      However, even if Charles Nealy had admitted to being involved in an accidental
      shooting as the second and later part of the „statement‟ suggests, why did the
      Defense not press for the jury to be provided with the option of a verdict of
      „involuntary manslaughter‟?

     The sole witness claimed that the car used during the robbery was a 1992 Blue
      Mercury Sable. The car that Anthony Nealy drove at the time was a 1982 model.
      Why did the defense not follow Mr Nealy‟s advice and investigate the household
      close to Mr Nealy‟s where the occupants also owned an identical car to his and
      where Charles Nealy was aware that criminal activity had been taking place.

     The defense lawyers had clearly prepared no defense for Charles Nealy. When
      Mr Nealy was being sentenced, they called him into the holding cell where he was
      asked if there was „anyone‟ he could call to defend him! The motives of the
      defense were clearly not in the best interest of the client. During the trial for
      example, both Prosecutor and Defender were overheard to be discussing the joint
      purchase of a boat at the start of a trial.

Role of Other Suspects and/ or potential Accomplices

     Why did the defense not question the police as to why no prints taken at the scene
      of the crime?

     Why did the defense not question the state police as to why no prints taken from
      the money stolen during the robbery (and later found on Charles‟ former partner,

     Why were the jury not told that the money was found not on the accused, but on
      „S? Why was the money not presented in the courtroom as evidence on behalf of
      the State?

     Why were the jury not informed that there was already a warrant out for the
      arrest of „S‟ when she was found with the money on her person?

     Why were the jury not informed that at the same time the money was discovered
      on the person of „S‟, she was also found to be in possession of a quantity of

                                          7                     CAN – Bulleted Facts of Case 2002
     Why did the defense not question the circumstances which S was released under?
      (i.e possession of marijuana, an outstanding Warrant etc)

     Given the above evidence, why was S released after an extremely short time in
      comparison to the 12 ½ hours in which it apparently took the police to question

     Why did the defense not call S to defend Charles Nealy? (but she was called to
      testify against Claude Nealy)?

     The vast majority of the evidence which supports the innocence of Mr Nealy,
      points to a clear link between the behaviour of S and her co-operation with the

         o Following the arrest of Claude and Charles Nealy, S was convicted for
           selling crack cocaine from the home of her and her former partner (Mr
           Nealy). Ms Wade had moved a new boyfriend into the home only one
           month after the crime had taken place. She also misled Charles Nealy
           with regards to information about the trial of Claude Nealy

         o Following her conviction for selling crack cocaine in October 1997, S was
           released from prison and spent time visiting the team responsible for
           prosecuting Mr Nealy. Almost a year later in September 1998, she was
           arrested again for exactly the same offence (following selling Mr Nealy‟s
           furniture and possessions) and again was released (following her
           agreement to testify against Claude Nealy).

         o S clearly knew men who fit the descriptions of the men who carried out
           the murders and she also provided a home for RD, who openly admitted to
           being at the scene of the crime. Why was S never called by the Defense?

         o There is strong evidence to suggest that S knew for certain that her son
           and another had committed the murders, but that a „pact‟ was made with
           the police to charge Charles Nealy (already possessing a criminal record)
           in order to let her son „off the hook, along with her own convictions for
           drug offences

Manipulation and / or Bribery of Other Prosecution Witnesses

     Statements were taken from the other five who were taken into custody by the
      police (S, RW , K, KE, Memphis) but defense attorneys did not even attempt to
      obtain copies of statements from the police. This strongly indicates that one at
      least one of these five would have made a statement in support of Charles‟

                                           8                    CAN – Bulleted Facts of Case 2002
   Why was „Little A‟ not arrested? (he was also referred to, along with RD in
    Charles „statement‟ to the police)

   Memphis Nealy (Charles‟ other nephew – and Claude‟s older brother) was put on
    the stand in order to testify against Charles (although not his own brother…) Why
    did the defense not seek to clarify the confusing line of questioning that was put
    to Memphis Nealy when he took the stand to provide evidence against his Uncle,?
    Memphis Nealy has low intelligence and it was clear that he was unable to grasp
    legalistic terms and that he was both confused and anxious about the terminology
    used. He was intellectually unable to comprehend so-called „objective terms‟ as
    used in a court of law. This was clearly demonstrated when Memphis Nealy was
    asked “Is your Uncle the black male sitting in the court room on trial today?”
    Memphis actually answered “No”, although his Uncle, Charles Nealy, was the
    only other black male within the court room

   Why did the defence fail to follow up on a key fact actually admitted by the
    Prosecution in their response to the direct appeal brief filed on Charles‟ behalf,
    that “there was no evidence at the continuance hearing that Memphis and
    Reginald were certain to testify for the state in trial. Both men were unlikely
    state witnesses: Reginald was a co-defendent with a fifth Amendment right not to
    incriminate himself, whilst Memphis was appellant‟s nephew and a brother to co-
    defendent, Claude Nealy”.

   This very same continuance hearing was held in June 1998; three months before
    the capital trial (and eleven months after the initial arrest). Clearly ip until this
    point, Memphis was not going to testify against Charles; he had told the
    prosecutors on several occasions that he did not know who the man on the video
    tape at the store was. Clearly the prosecution managed to „persuade‟ Memphis to
    testify against his uncle – Memphis himself admitted during the capital trial that
    the prosecutors „told‟ him who the man on the video tape was supposed to be.
    What else had been said to Memphis by the Prosecutors only weeks before the

   The police stated that Memphis claimed that Charles‟ excuse to rob the store was
    that he was going to go „back to the store to get „em‟ because they would not sell
    him cigars. However, Charles Nealy was 33 at the time of the crime. Why would
    any store refuse to sell him cigars? Charles did not smoke cigars, a fact which
    could have been clearly communicated to the Court by friends, family and co-
    workers. Similarly, if Mr Nealy had been refused cigars at the store on a previous
    occasion, why was this incident not shown on another video during the trial?

   The Prosecution also called „SC‟ to take the stand in order to testify against
    Charles Nealy. SC was called with the express purpose of proving that Charles
    Nealy was capable of violence. In fact, the only „fight‟ that Mr Nealy had ever
    gotten involved with during any time of his incarceration was where SC
    physically abused a younger and much smaller inmate than himself. Mr Nealy

                                          9                     CAN – Bulleted Facts of Case 2002
    only became involved in the incident in order to defend the weaker party. This
    was witnessed by Cornelius Henry who the defense also failed to call in defense
    of Mr Nealy

   Why was this fabrication not anticipated and dismantled by the Defense?
    Charles Nealy should have been provided with adequate time to prepare for
    several witnesses to attend court in order to testify that he had no record of
    injury, physical injury or prison history of violence. It is clear that the defense
    attorneys were unprepared and were not communicating with each other. One of
    Mr Nealy‟s attorneys had been informed by the Prosecution the day before the
    trial, that Mr Baker would indeed testify. However, when questioned by Charles
    Nealy as SC took the stand, the lead attorney claimed that he did not know what
    was „going on‟.

   In addition to this, the defense failed to inform the jury that SC was incarcerated
    in jail during that time for the offences of assault and battery

   In order to anticipate effective preparation of additional defense, Charles Nealy
    informed his attorneys that a Mr Leonard Davis would be willing to testify to his
    defense by revealing „blackmail‟ attempts used by the Prosecution in order to
    persuade inmates on the same „tank‟ as Charles to fabricate information about him
    in return for a shorter prison sentence. However, the defense neglected to purse
    this issue. They also neglected to contact Mr Edward Charles Cherry on Mr
    Nealy‟s advice, or to call him to defense. Mr Cherry was also present in Mr
    Nealy and Davis‟ cell at the time that the discussions surrounding „blackmail‟
    between the two parties took place) .

   The defense failed to take the lead that one of the men who testified against
    Charles Nealy („RD‟) had been living at Mr Nealy‟s house for several months
    prior to the murder. They also failed to challenge his claim that he did not turn
    himself into the police until Charles Nealy had done so. They also failed to
    initiate the argument that it would have clearly been more sensible for RD to turn
    himself into the police and inform them about Mr Nealy‟s involvement, rather
    than waiting for Mr Nealy to be arrested. Clearly RD had admitted to
    involvement at the scene of the crime, although Charles and Claude Nealy
    would not admit to this involvement? Why did the defense not question the
    discrepancies between the testimonies?

                                        10                     CAN – Bulleted Facts of Case 2002
Judicial Misgivings

      During the capital trial, the appointed Judge (Janice Warder) held up proceedings
       several times in order to contact staff attorneys and other judges so that she could
       discuss the case with her colleagues. One of these judges was Michael E Keasler,
       who was at that time sitting on the bench next door to Judge Warder. According
       to her, at one point, one of these judge‟s left his courtroom in order to help her
       from „seeing this case again‟. In 1980, Judge Michael E Keasler sentenced Mr
       Nealy, then aged 16 years old, to a term of 35 years. Judge Michael E Keasler
       was later forced to apologise during his campaign for election to the Texas
       Criminal Court of Appeals for making racist statements promoting the deselection
       of black jurors during the course of his work. As Associate Justice it was a
       definite conflict of interest for him to participate in proceeding in deciding
       Charles Nealy‟s appeal, which was consequently denied.

      This unjust interference with the trial was later mentioned by Mr Nealy to his
       appointed attorney (for the state writ) who, after several attempts on behalf of Mr
       Nealy to urge her to take action, did nothing. Clearly a conflict of interest should
       have been identified by any future defense acting for Mr Nealy.

      Why was the examining trial allowed to take place, despite the fact that the only
       witness to the crime did not testify at this trial?

[NB See further documents available from the supporters of Charles Anthony Nealy on
the „Appointments of Counsel in Death Penalty Cases in Dallas County‟ by emailing

Police abuses of Case

During the investigative phase, the recording of statements and evidence and the
presentation of facts to the Court, the State police clearly failed to carry out a thorough
and fair investigation. The main points are listed below and should also have been
recognized and challenged by Charles Nealy‟s defense team:

      Why was Charles Nealy not allowed a lawyer or his entitled phone call unless he
       „co-operated‟ with the police. His first phone call (to his sister) was made at
       21:30 pm hours, although he had been in police custody from 10:00 hours.

      Why was Charles Nealy told that the only evidence against him was 1) that
       provided by RD and 2) the money which was actually found on someone else.
       However, Charles was later informed that the witness to the incident and
       Memphis were now also witnesses for evidence.

                                             11                      CAN – Bulleted Facts of Case 2002
   Why did all other five individuals initially detained for involvement with the
    crime leave police custody only a few hours later, but Charles Nealy was held in
    custody for a total of 12 ½ hours until a statement was made

   Why was Charles Nealy‟s interview with the police never taped?

   When reading the statement – it is clear that there are grave inconsistencies,
    which indicate that the statements were in fact „fabricated‟ by the police

       o Charles Nealy is conveniently made out to sound that he was drunk at the
         time that the crime occurred – i.e. he states that he did not know who else
         was in his car beside himself. However, the rest of the statement is
         disjointed and „Charles‟ makes several errors which he would never have
         made himself. For example:

       o Charles Nealy is said within the statement to refer to Claude Nealy as
         „Claude‟, rather than „Spudney‟ which is the name that everyone who was
         familiar with Claude referred to him as

       o The statement says that Charles Nealy purchased beer from Lamar Street.
         However, Mr Nealy never bought beer here, although he was a regular
         visit to the store at Bear street (where he purchased cigarettes early on the
         day of the crime – 20th August 1997, prior to collecting Claude from his
         home and before travelling to Oklahoma – the defense also failed to check
         this with the Bear Street store owner in order to validate Mr Nealy‟s
         movements on the day of the crime)

       o Why does Charles Nealy suddenly refer to Claude Nealy as his „cousin‟
         during the „statement‟ made to police? This is the kind of mistake
         Charles Nealy would never make, given the fact that he was extremely
         close to his nephews and brought them up as a substitute father.

       o The statement allegedly dictated by Charles Nealy, first of all declares that
         Mr Nealy entered the store and saw that one of the guys was sitting on a
         chair and „was dead. On my way out I tripped over a guy on the floor. We
         left the store‟. How then, can this statement be seen as a „confession‟ by
         Charles Nealy when it actually contradicts the State‟s case that Mr
         Nealy committed the murder i.e the later part of the statement seeks to
         ad substance to this declaration by admitting that Charles Nealy stated;
         “I only fired it once. The gun accidentally went off because the guy
         pulled the gun towards him causing the gun to shoot”.


                                       12                     CAN – Bulleted Facts of Case 2002
   OF ‘INVOLUNTARY MANSLAUGHTER’? (refer to other ‘Neglect
   by Court-appointed attorneys’ – outlined above)

o Throughout the statement allegedly made by Claude Nealy, the person
  relating the statement constantly refers throughout to „I‟, „We‟ or „One of
  the Guys‟. Such a statement should have been taken at face value by the
  police and court- yet why were none of the „other guys‟ prosecuted with
  the vigour that Mr Nealy and his nephew were? However, the court
  were never even allowed the opportunity of examining such a

o During the statement, the person „RD‟ is spelt as „RD Dawg‟. RD‟s
  nickname was not spelt in such a way by his friends and associates. This
  can be interpreted as a white person‟s simplistic assumption of the way
  that a black person‟s pronunciation would be spelt-out ( literally). It is yet
  another inconsistency of the case that the police investigators should
  attempt to phonetically spell the name „RD‟, yet neglect the clear verbal
  references that Charles Nealy would have made to „Spudney‟ (Claude
  Nealy) and „Steen‟ (S) should he have been making a verbal statement of
  confession with anyone.

o How could Charles Nealy be so drunk as to be able to remember that RD
  was present in his living room immediately after the shooting, but was
  not present in his car?

o The police statement alleges that when he realised he had „fucked up‟, Mr
  Nealy „gathered clothes‟ in order to „be away‟. However, if Mr Nealy had
  committed the crime, why would he then simply return the next day to
  his own home in order to be arrested?

o Throughout the 10 hour „interview‟ with Mr Nealy, Detective Harding
  constantly moved in and out of the room – most likely altering her
  approach in relation to what S (also being held in police custody) was
  telling her/ prepared to tell her

o It is absolutely apparent that the initial statement was „added to‟ by the
  police when they realised that they had not collected enough evidence in
  order to convict Mr Nealy. There are two obvious parts to the statement:

          For example, the first six pages of the statement has no mention
           of firearms whatsoever. However, by page 7 (when the altered
           times indicate that the initial statement was added to) Mr Nealy is
           supposed to make the admission that the gun was pulled „towards
           him and went off‟. Again, this „confession‟ to an accident makes
           absolutely no sense when the first six pages of the statement are

                                13                     CAN – Bulleted Facts of Case 2002
                   examined; the final statement only dictates that Mr Nealy saw a
                   person sitting in a chair, after they had been shot. i.e. if the
                   police investigators had been more clever and careful about
                   fabricating Charles Nealy’s confession, they would have
                   abandoned the previous statement and re-written the entire
                   statement with the „new story‟. However, their approach was
                   sloppy throughout and instead of re-writing the statement, they
                   simply „added‟ an ad-hoc confession!

       o Charles Nealy only signed the police statement because he mistakenly had
         faith in the US Constitution and felt that no court in the country would
         believe the shoddy evidence that had been collected. In particular, after 12
         ½ hours in police custody (10 am to 9.30 pm) when faced with police
         coercion and interrogation techniques, Mr Nealy was sufficiently
         exhausted in order to be persuaded that he should sign the statement.
         Furthermore, the copies of the statements clearly demonstrate that the
         times of the interview has been amended – in order to make the time
         period appear to be shorter than it was in reality.

       o In particular, note the „X‟ symbol marked on page 6 which indicates that
         the statement had ended. However, this also suggests strongly that after
         re-reading the „confession‟, the police officers felt that there was
         insufficient „confession‟ in the statement, and therefore more
         information was added from page 7 onwards

   The police failed to note that the video began with the only witness putting out
    boxes at the store and that he could not have seen the faces of the men that
    entered the store and committed the murders

   The police actually admitted to the attorneys during the trial that they did not
    look for any other subject who may have committed the murder
   Why did the police overlook the fact at the capital trial, that the only „witness‟,
    Sam Vallabhbai. had no records of residence within the US (Immigration

   Why was the only witness told directly by the police that the man who had the
    shotgun was going to be the guy „in the courtroom‟ (i.e. Charles Nealy was the
    only black male in the courtroom) i.e. Why was Mr Nealy clearly directly
    identified as the „murderer‟ to the witness Sam Vallabhbai, without him being
    asked to independently validate the accused as the „murderer‟.

                                          14                     CAN – Bulleted Facts of Case 2002
                         THE ‘CAN NETWORK’ OF FRIENDS


Charles has a growing group of friends across the world who individually established
contact with Charles and who, as a result, have built up a friendship with him. Often this
support for Charles has indirectly been extended to our friends, family and other contacts
when they hear about the conditions on Texas death row and the treatment that he has
received at the hands of the state of Texas. Charles‟ friends are appalled at the injustice
that he has received and we do as much as we can for him in terms of generating
publicity at a local, regional or national level.

We live in a number of countries – including England, Ireland, Italy, the USA, Denmark,
France, Germany, Australia and Canada. However, we keep in touch with each other via
e-mail and/or snail mail and we are always looking for people interested in Charles‟ case
to contribute in any way they can to his campaign.

If you would like to find out how you can help – or if you would just like to register your
interest or support, you can contact Charles‟ friends based in England, UK – Christina
Longden and David Ashall at contact@anthonynealy.com. Please indicate if you would
like to be put into contact with another friend of Charles’ in the country in which you

The inmates on death row in Texas do not have access to television or the internet and it
is virtually impossible for newspapers and magazines to be purchased. This means that
the inmates always appreciate letters and news from the „outside world‟ and Charles in
particular enjoys receiving letters and postcards. You can write to him at the Polunsky
Unit in Texas. Please note that Charles has very little money and cannot always afford
the stamps in order to reply to any letters, but he reassures us that he will always do his
best to keep in touch with people.

Charles Anthony Nealy # 999289
Polunsky Unit
3872 FM 350 South
TEXAS 77351

                                            15                    CAN – Bulleted Facts of Case 2002
NB – it IS possible to send a book to Charles, providing you use the Amazon.com service
(not the .co.uk site or any other country service as this charges overseas postage and

Simply select a book that you would like to send to Charles and make sure that the
DELIVERY address is entered onto the website as the address shown above and that the
ADDRESS FOR RECEIPT is your own home address. Please note that your credit /
debit card details would not be contained within the parcel sent to Charles.

Charles‟ birthday is 23rd March. He particularly enjoys reading historical novels,
philosophy („Sophie‟s World‟ being a favourite) politics and current affairs.

END OF REPORT ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                               16                       CAN – Bulleted Facts of Case 2002

To top