In the past ten years more than ten people on Texas Death Row have been found to be wrongly convicted and incarcerated, over 150 nationwide. These are just the ones that have been found and this number does not include the innocent man in prison in the general population. I mention this to stress the seriousness of the topic being discussed and the mathematical probability that we have already executed many innocent citizens in America. The question that begs to be answered is: Why have so many Americans been wrongly convicted and imprisoned? What exactly is wrong with the American justice system? From personal experience, I can tell you that contrary to popular belief our justice system rarely seeks justice but actually the warehousing of humans—it seeks convictions. If justice was actually sought then before the accused is offered a plea deal there would be a full investigation to determine their guilt. Yet, that doesn’t happen and daily people are encouraged by their “court-appointed” attorneys and coerced, by threat of imprisonment and maximum sentencing by D.A.s, to plead guilty to crimes that haven’t been fully investigated — some having not been investigated at all.
Prison reform is a term thrown around loosely by politicians and the likes of those who have no idea of its significance.
For thousands who are actually innocent and incarcerated in America’s dungeons (which is a modest assumption given today’s statistical evidence of U.S. exonerations), it means the difference between life and death! Whether our society says we don’t care that we have wrongfully imprisoned thousands of our own, or admits that we have a problem and intends to fix it, is a matter of great interest for those personally effected or whose home and hearts have been affected as by-products of this system.
Of the many intricate parts of this system that are problematic the main flaw of the system is that of transparency. If Judge Judy had presided over criminal court cases she would have never been on television. Our justice system is a complicated and perplexing matter of business which mostly always takes place out of the public’s view. A public that is quick to assume that those they give authority and power to uphold that which is right, just, and lawful will always place those things above financial and political ambitions.
Here I present the story of a man in the form of an interview which took place on the rec yard on the Polonsky Unit (which houses Texas Death Row). The Innocence Project of Austin, Texas, has picked up his case. His story warrants public scrutiny and illuminates the infractions within the justice system. This is an unheard-of story of a man who is innocent and incarcerated. Who would have known that making a phone call to your local weed man would lead to this?
[EDITOR’S NOTE: In 2006, Robert Dion Williams was charged with capital murder in the course of committing robbery. The jury found Williams guilty. The State did not seek the death penalty, and the trial judge assessed the mandatory punishment of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. Albert Barnes believes he’s an innocent man in prison.]
Q: So, if you call someone who is being murdered I can understand that you’d be a suspect. It’s suspicious. The guy was at his mother’s house, where he sells drugs, with his girlfriend. According to her, three black males ran into the house with guns, tied them both up, and killed the guy when he couldn’t produce the drugs. (Remember I told you he was waiting to get more.) Anyway, on one of the two cell phones that [the dealer] operates on, the girlfriend looks at his call logs when he steps outside and sees the name “big boy.” Apparently one of the three suspects was a large man so she tells detectives that “big boy” and two other black males did this.
Did she give an accurate description of you or any of the three robbers for that matter?
A: Hell no! The woman said, big boy (the person at the house) was about 5’10” and 300 lbs. I’m 6’3”, that’s not going to change. At the time I was well over 360 lbs. But she never actually described anybody. It wouldn’t have been hard to describe me. I’m light brown complexion, very visible tattoo on my neck and arms, and I had dark spots on my cheeks that could not be missed. She said none of that! I had gold and diamond on my entire top and bottom that I never left home without. The only thing she said about the other guys was one was tall and slim, while the other was short and fat.
Q: Did the police ever locate them?
A: I don’t think they attempted to find them! The only males I hang with are my play bother, my cousin, and my younger brother, period. They showed pictures of my play brother to the eyewitness (which is the girlfriend), the guy’s mother, and his baby momma.
My play brother was at work, thus having an alibi.. He probably would have been locked up too had he not been at work!
Q: You say the guy had your cell number programmed as “big boy.” Did the witness testify to hearing that name, or any other name that you go by, during the course of the robbery?
A: No, she testified that she didn’t hear any names called.
She saw a fat guy and assumed it was “big boy,” which is not the name I go by. Everybody has called me Fro-Yo, or Fro, since high school.
Q: What about the guy’s other cell phone? You said he had two that he operated on.
A: It was never recovered and the detectives never subpoenaed the records to see the incoming and outgoing calls. The phone I called was still on the charger and it showed two incoming calls from me that were played while the police were there. Why would I still be calling? I just left from robbing and killing this man?!
Q: This is getting deep. Do you think you were set up?
A: No, not initially anyway. I feel like I was a convenient suspect in a lazy investigation. I just want my side of the story to be heard and then let the jury decide.
Q: Why do you say you don’t know if the eyewitness had anything to do with it?
A: As I said, I’m not here to speculate—The only thing I am here to preach are the facts as I know them. On the night of the murder, the witness gave a written statement of what happened. She said, in the statement, that when the three suspects left she untied herself and called 911 and stayed on the phone with them until the police arrived. She said the same thing in another statement a few months later. Then, two and half years later, when I finally go to trial, she says that when she got free from her restraints, the first person she called was a “friend.”
Q: Like her girlfriend for support? I can see that.
A: I could see that maybe as well but, no. The first person she called after her boyfriend was shot in the head and killed was her ex-boyfriend.
Q: Are you serious?!
A: Absolutely. The whole courtroom looked surprised, especially the guy’s family. My lawyers and the prosecutors were looking dumb because they didn’t know.
Q: But they should’ve! They would have had there been an investigation. I want to talk more about the investigation before we get to trial. How were you identified? Through a live lineup or a photo lineup?
A: Through a photo lineup but listen to this, there’s only one witness to the murder. Instead of showing the eyewitness the photo spread first, to the guy’s mother and his children’s mother. All of these women were in contact with each other. My photo was in the #6 when he showed all three women the spread. On top of that the detective shows these women a 8×10, head to toe photo of me.
Q: Why would he do that? I thought you weren’t supposed to show a single picture of a potential suspect to a witness?
A: You’re not. But not only did the detective do that, he also failed to include the fact that he did it in his report.
Q: It can’t possibly get worse?
A: On the photo spread and the single 8×10, they’re both signed, dated, and timed by the eyewitness at the exact time.
Q: So which one did he show her first?
A: Exactly! He said he showed her the photo spread first. Even if he did, he tainted the lineup because he showed it to someone else first who could actually identify me because they’ve seen me.
Q: You had never seen the eyewitness before?
A: My first time seeing that women was at my trial. She said in her initial statement, that she had seen me before. At the trial, she said she “thinks she may have seen me before,” but couldn’t say for sure. I’ve seen the guy’s mother numerous times because [her home is] where he sells his drugs. I also seen his kid’s mother more than once purchasing drugs from her but neither women would’ve identified me had he not shown that huge photo of me to them. I’m more than positive she wouldn’t have identified me.
Q: Were these facts presented to the jury?
A: Indeed, they were, but they weren’t elaborated. Like, at the time, I didn’t even know the seriousness of showing that lineup to the other two women first, so I know the jury didn’t.
The fact that he showed that photo to those women when he knew he wasn’t [supposed to] shows me an act of desperation. I didn’t feel like that then and I kept trying to figure out why they were presenting the “evidence” that they were presenting.
Q: Can you recall any specific instance in your trial where you questioned why was this or that evidence presented to the jury?
A: All throughout my first trial, which resulted in a hung jury, I kept trying to figure out what they had to gain by presenting what they had, which was nothing, and it wasn’t until the second trial when I realized the trial wasn’t for justice for a murdered man, but for a bonus, commission, and favor for the state which was, and still is, a higher incarceration state.
For instance, the victim was killed with a .380 semi-auto handgun, and on the day the detective showed up at my mother’s apartment (where I don’t live), no one answered, but when he headed back to the car he finds a .380 shell casing in the parking lot, at his convenience out the blue, and he takes it to be tested to see if it matches the crime scene shell casing.
Q: Did it match?
A: No, ballistics showed it was impossible for both shells to come from the same handgun. I really didn’t understand why they were presenting non-tangible evidence but I felt like I was being railroaded because the information had nothing to do with the case. So the only reason I can think of was to influence the jury into “assuming” some sort of connection.
Q: So what evidence did they have to point to you?
A: None, the witness said that the three confederates wore no mask or gloves, but still my fingerprints tested negative to the ones from the crime scene. My DNA came back negative as well, and when I turned myself in the detective said they would use the cell phone tower to pinpoint my exact location. I told him to go ahead because I never made it to his house because he quit answering the phone.
Q: So if the cell phone tower could prove you weren’t at the scene, why are you here?
A: They never got them! I guess I told him too confidently because they didn’t even attempt to get them until it was too late. He told me he’d get them on 1-4-2007, but didn’t attempt to until sometime in April 2009. I got that info in an email from my police report after my conviction.
Q: And your lawyer didn’t get them either, why?
A: No, he didn’t. I had a private investigator (hired through the court-appointed attorney administrative) come to see me. I told him everything I knew. I have his report in my transcripts, and he told my lawyer to get those records because they could corroborate with my claims of not being there.
Every time I saw my lawyer I asked him about those records and every day I was thinking they’d come in to prove I was/am the wrong guy and I’d be released. Instead all my lawyer kept saying was, “We don’t have to prove your innocence, the state has to prove your guilt.”
Q: Wow, so this is what the court defines as adequate trial representation? Apparently, plus court-appointed attorneys are known to be backed up with tons of cases and clients, which makes them care about most of the cases they handled.
So basically you were too poor to afford an attorney that would actually fight for you, and it was too much of an inconvenience for the lawyer you had to put up a fight. In your eyes was there any kind of misconduct you seen or heard from the prosecutors?
A: They [prosecutors] would sneak little comments in here and there and my lawyer would object. But during the closing argument, the prosecutors can pretty much freestyle without an objection. The jury is instructed that closing arguments are not evidence but persuasive statement only. Anyway, the prosecutor says to the jury, “I know we don’t have the murder weapon, and we don’t have any fingerprints or stolen property, but the fact remains that “BIG BOY” called and lured this man to his death. It’s not a coincidence that a heavyset black male is the killer and either this man is guilty or all the stars in the universe are aligned up against him and he has the worst luck in the world. After that the jury gets caught up in the theatricals.
Q: Very strong words! So what exactly did they have to prove your guilt?
A: The fact that I called him prior to the murder and a witness but they didn’t actually prove anything, all they did was convince the jury I did the crime, there’s a big difference.
Q: Let’s back up a little. You said earlier that you had two trials and the first was a hung jury. What happened different between the two?
A: Nothing really. In the first trial, the witness said it was dark in the room when the three gunmen entered, but in the second trial, she said that someone made the victim cut the lights on. Also, on the last day of my first trial they brought this lady from my job to the stand just so she could confirm that the cell number I wrote on the application was the same one that called the victim. Well, the prosecutor asks her has she seen me before at the workplace and she says “yes,” she seen me more than once.
Now, I’m looking at this lady and I know I haven’t seen this women before but whatever, maybe she has seen me, no big deal. Later on that night after trial, I get a visit in the country from my girl and she says my mother (who also works at the company I work at) said that the lady didn’t get hired until well after I had been incarcerated. I told my attorney the next day and he said it don’t matter because we are about to have closing arguments. Moments later I get a hung jury.
Now, fast forward four months later to the second trial, they called her back up and I’m ready for her. I reminded my attorney and he asked her, has she seen me at the workplace, she said yes. My lawyer then asked to approach the bench to speak with the judge and the prosecutor. When they’re done talking, they excused the jury and made them go to the back room.
He went up to the lady and asked rather aggressively this time had she seen me before. She said “yes.” He asked her when did she start working there. She said she forgot the date, but it didn’t matter because it was still after I was incarcerated. So he tells her that I’ve been in jail since 1-5-07. She then says it must have been my brother.
Q: Do you have a brother, and do you both resemble each other?
A: I have a brother but we look nothing alike. I’m 6’3”, he may be 5’9”. I don’t even think he weighs over 200 lbs. Anyway, they bring the jury back out and my attorney asked the lady, isn’t it true you just stated to the jury that you had seen my client before at the workplace? She says yes. He says isn’t it also true that you were mistaken and you’ve never seen him before? She says yes. No further questions. She leaves and the jury is looking just as confused as I am. It’s like they gave her a script and getaway.
Q: This is what I’m talking about, why did the jury have to leave? The jury should have been able to see the aggressive questioning and the confused look on the woman’s face when she realized that she, in fact, did not see you at all. Especially considering the fact that the evidence linking you to the crime was an eye witness, this scene that was held out of the presence of the jury would’ve made the jurors question more of the validity of the only and other witness.
Right, and instead, they got to see a recomposed, complacent women who basically said, “My bad.”
Q: All the stars in the universe, huh? This reminds me of what my mother told me in my visit after trial, she said, “Baby, this ain’t nothing like how they show it on Law and Order.”
A: Every last one of them!
Q: Did you testify at either trial?
A: No, I did not. My first attorney, who passed away before we went to trial, told me every murder case that he’d won, his client got on the stand and told the jury they didn’t do it. The lawyer I went to trial with felt otherwise. He convinced me not to testify during the first trial, and we got a hung jury. During the second trial, I told him I wanted myself and my girlfriend to testify, she was my alibi witness. My lawyer advised against it and convinced my girl not to testify.
Q: Why didn’t he want you to testify?
A: He said that I have a prior conviction and that the jury didn’t need to know that. He said that would “open a whole new can of worms.” In his mind, the hung jury was a victory, it was a stalemate to me. A “close but no cigar” for both parties.
Q: How did you feel after the hung jury?
A: Honestly, like I was about to be released because in some states it’s Double Jeopardy to try you again after a hung jury, but not in the state of Texas!
Q: Let’s talk about the witness. How was her demeanor during trial?
A: Very defensive. I felt like she was confused about the event that took place and there was times when I felt like she was flat out lying. Like, why didn’t she tell the police that she called her ex-boyfriend immediately after the gunman left while her current boyfriend was dying?! Plus, why weren’t they considered suspects after that suspicious phone call, and how long was it?
Q: So you were convicted with no evidence and no co-defendants for a crime that three men allegedly composed. What is your sentence?
A: Life without the possibility of parole, basically death by incarceration.
Q: What were your thoughts after being convicted in such a way?
A: Honestly, I couldn’t believe it. The judge had the audacity to ask me if I had anything to say after the verdict. I meant no disrespect to the victim’s family but I was pretty speechless, and the only thing I could get out was, “this some bullshit.” I didn’t raise my voice and I wasn’t aggressive, I was just shocked.
Q: You’ve been trying to prove your innocence for over 12 years. What’s taking so long?
A: Apparently the wheels of justice turn very slow. It’s frustrating to say at the least.
Q: Can you describe the appeal process?
A: I was told that because I got life without parole that I’d get an automatic appeal. All that means is that, if you can’t afford representation, you’ll be appointed another attorney to do nothing. More than go through the motions. It’s really a waste of tax dollars on an appeal that’s appealing to the same court that convicted you. For them to grant said appeal would be for them to say we messed up. That doesn’t happen too often.
Q: So your direct appeal, as they call it, was denied?
A: Indeed.
Q: I feel like we’re stretching this out a bit, but I want to make sure the people get a clear picture of how Texas justice system works for the courts and not the people. What’s to come next?
A: After my direct appeal, we have one year to file an 11.07 writ of habeas corpus. Now, let me remind you that potential lawyers go to school for years to become a lawyer and some never pass the state bar! But they give us one year to not only learn the ins and outs of the law, but to adequately represent ourself against a system designed for us to fail no matter if you’re guilty, innocent, mentally challenged, race, age, or gender.
Q: Our units have what’s called law libraries. Have you ever been, and if so, what is it like?
A: I used to go to the law library all the time and it’s intimidating. It’s a confusing maze of books with all kinds of cases and most legal words are in Latin. Why? Who knows? Anyway, the unit tries to make your law library experience as unpleasant as possible. We can’t talk and they took away your right to use the restroom. We only get two hours and most inmates leave out more confused than when they came in.
Q: Do you have your transcripts from your trial, and if so, how much were they?
A: I have them from both of my trials. I tried to buy them from the convicting court and they [cost] $1 per page, which was over $2,000. The Court of Criminal Appeals charged me 10 cents per page, just over $200. I had hell trying to get my police report though.
Q: Why? I mean, they’re “Public Records,” let them tell it, right?
A: That’s what they say. I had my ex-wife and adopted brother to try and get them on my behalf. After filing for them and paying an application fee (I forgot how much), they both were denied.
I had my mother pay an outside source to obtain copies. It was very informative! That’s when I learned when they tried to get those cell phone records. They never told the jury when they tried to get them because they forgot and it was too late.
Q: Okay, you have your transcripts, police report, and you filed a writ. Why or for what reason did the appellate court deny your trial?
A: They’re not really telling me anything. My writ was denied without a written order. Basically, they can deny it and not tell me why. It’s a scam! My conviction is a conviction for them and they care less until they’re proven wrong and unjust. It took me a long time to come to that realization.
Q: How have the pass twelve years been for you?
A: Confusing; Makes you question God, society, family, and yourself. You see, these tragedies happen around the country with the young brothers get murdered in cold blood and you see people being released from prison after 20 to 30 years for crimes they didn’t commit. All of these things can be avoided if justice and equality are put before conviction rate and probability of guilt. But, throughout all of this, I’ve found me! Friends and family I thought would be here every step of the way have either turned their back on me or jump ship. It has made me stronger than what I gave myself credit for being. I don’t know when these doors will open for me, but, when they do, I’m going to take pride in knowing I’ve let a negative situation help me to evolve into a positive person. Enough is enough, and my situation is one of many, and I’m ready for my voice to be heard not only for me but for others who are “INNOCENT AND INCARCERATED.”
Arnold Barnes III #01633044
Telford Unit
P.O. Box 660400
Dallas, TX 75266-0400
