At a Glance: Why Edward Deserves a New Trial
1. No investigation or eyewitnesses — based only on her word, the detective never interviewed Edward, collected evidence, verified his phone number, and closed the case within hours after seeing Edward's criminal history and not knowing it was judicially exempted.
2. Unverified digital evidence — Four-year-old Facebook screenshots appeared days before trial, were never authenticated, and contained no deletion or timestamp forensic logs.
3. Ineffective assistance of counsel — failed to request a continuance for forensic analysis, failed to object to inadmissible prior-history evidence, failed to impeach key witnesses, and failed to investigate and present evidence pointing to a highly likely alternate suspect: her left-handed roommate of five years, who had a documented history of violence and whom she had previously lied to police about in order to protect him while he was on probation. Edward was prevented from testifying because of these trial errors from his trial counsel.
4. Appeal contradiction — the State’s appellate brief said the Facebook messages did not need forensic authentication because they were not central to conviction, yet the 7th Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction stating they were central and substantial to the guilty verdict. If they were central to guilt, they need forensic authentication.
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, he 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 -- and 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. As a result, charges were never filed against Geoff.
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.
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. 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.
GEOFFREY JACKSON'S BACKGROUND
Despite everything, Edward knows what it's like to be accused of something with no chance to respond, to have your mugshot used as a presumption of guilt. So we post this with a disclaimer: we are not accusing Geoffrey Jackson of being the guilty party in this matter; he simply should have been investigated as a more than likely suspect as her long-time and current roommate. Had any law enforcement interviewed Edward, he would have had the opportunity to talk about Geoff and Becca. The fact is, Geoff has been convicted several times of assault, aggravated assault, assault with a deadly weapon, etc. Edward, at 35 years old when the charge came down on him, had zero history of assault. So, we post Geoff's record in defense of Edward and what happened to him. In our view, the reasonable doubt is undeniable.
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.
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.
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 a 20-year-old charge, did not explore to see it was exempted. This would have meant that Edward has no prior assault history at 35 years old. That same day, he 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.
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.
Edward's Exemption, army contract, & other documents
His Petition for Exemption from 2003 Charge - In this file is Edward's petition and documentation that the person in charge of his release increased his risk factor score incorrectly. When he FOIA'ed the records for his petition, then it was corrected. Also included are the polygraph test and a letter from the sex offender parole officer stating he is not a sex offender.
HIS COURT-ORDERED EXEMPTION FROM 2003 CHARGE -- The Dallas County Criminal Court agreed that he was not a violent sex offender. This exemption shows the mitigating circumstances being non-violent, age-based, and consensual. This is what the prosecutor never told the jury or judge, and Edward's trial counsel never spoke up about it either, at pre-trial or at sentencing. The prosecutor presented the Sexual Assault of a Child conviction Penitentiary Packet to the jury without the exemption, and his lawyer never objected, though he had a duty to do so.
PROSECUTOR PRESENTS PEN PACK TO JURY W/O EXEMPTION
Trial transcript for sentencing where the prosecutor tells judge he wants to present the pen pack for admission in the jury's presence, and Edward's attorney says "No objection." This is where Edward's attorney should have objected to make sure the judicial exemption was included or even mention it himself to the jury, but he did neither.
The Pen Pack is blurry and hard to read; the copy they sent with the trial record came that way. But it was clear and readable to the jury.
THANK YOU
Dear Reader,
Thank you for being here as we work to get Edward a new trial with a Petition for Habeas Corpus (look up TX 11.07).
Dear Reader,
Thank you for being here as we work to get Edward a new trial with a Petition for Habeas Corpus (look up TX 11.07).
Please help us by emailing, sharing, and posting about Stand With Edward James.
If you want to talk or have questions, please email us at Help@StandWithEdwardJames.com.
Please help us by emailing, sharing, and posting about Stand With Edward James.
If you want to talk or have questions, please email us at Help@StandWithEdwardJames.com.
Check back for frequent updates!
Sincerely,
The Stand With Edward James Team
Check back for frequent updates!
Sincerely,
The Stand With Edward James Team