Appellant is a 62 year old lady who has operated her medical practice as a
primary care physician in Victoria, Texas for 26 years. She is well respected
by her community and by her medical peers. She has resided in Victoria,
During 2006, Appellant made changes in the manner that she handled her
requires spending more time with each patient and focusing on the patient’s
overall health, instead of just focusing on their current symptoms. (Ct. Rep.
interrupt her life. She has been successful in functioning at a high level of
ability. She has been successful as a wife and mother; as a respected family
community.
1
Post Traumatic Stress Disorder
(PTSD).
situation where one could rationally be fearful, the PTSD will result in the
on hyper alert status; one’s pulse goes up; blood pressure goes up; one
To an outside observer, one suffering from PTSD can look irrational, crazy.
2
had problems with Blue Cross Blue Shield (BCBS). BCBS refused to pay
some of the costs incurred by Appellant’s patients that were associated with
the new system. BCBS sought the support of the Texas Medical Board. The
TMB backed BCBS, which led to Appellant’s activism against the TMB and
resist Blue Cross Blue Shield’s effort to control the medical treatment
Appellant’s activism also focused on Dr. Keith Miller, who was a member
of the Texas Medical Board. Dr. Miller was also on BCBS’ payroll.
Family Physicians (TAFP). Dr. Curran was also on BCBS’ payroll. (Ct Rep
While driving on the highway the night of 9/29/07, Appellant was suffering
A. Her husband of many years had been diagnosed with Alzheimer’s, with
rapid decay.
3
B. Appellant’s activism had become very tense and stressful, which included
activism, Dr. Miller was forced to resign from the TMB in August, 2007
On the night of 9/29/07, Appellant was pulled over on her way to a meeting
with Dr. Curran. The meeting included a discussion with Dr. Curran about
Appellant’s criticism and claims that Dr. Curran has a conflict of interest
when acting as President of TAFP and, at the same time, being on BCBS’
payroll.
Due to Appellant’s disability, these stresses and the manner in which the
DPS officers handled the event, Appellant’s ability to channel and process
information was inhibited. (Ct Rep R, Vol 4, pgs 9-39; Vol 8, D-6)
Appellant was pulled over by the state police, on a dark highway, for going
the circumstances that unfolded caused Appellant to panic. She was not able
to process information; she could not think clearly; she was afraid that she
would be harmed.
4
Specific Facts
Appellant was trying to relax while on her way to meet Dr. Curran. She was
listening to a CD; driving in the left lane. The DPS officer startled Appellant
when he turned on his siren and flashing lights when the DPS car was close
behind her. Appellant was not able to move to the right lane. She pulled off
the road to the left, onto the medium, stopped and turned on her emergency,
flashing lights. Appellant expected the DPS car to pass by. (Ct Rep R, Vol 4,
pgs 50-55)
Instead of passing by Appellant, the DPS car stopped about 30 yards back
and began using a bull horn instructing Appellant to drive to the right side of
the highway. This action further intensified Appellant’s stress. Cars and
minutes, the DPS officer “zipped” his car across the highway behind
Appellant.
By this time, Appellant’s stress level was high. Appellant became confused
and fearful. She locked her doors and got her driver’s license out and put it
against the window. The DPS officer would not read the information on the
5
The DPS officer told Appellant to roll down her window. Appellant told the
officer that she was afraid. The officer said, “Do you want to go to jail?”
“negative.” Appellant asked if the officer would call another officer to the
scene. The officer replied “negative.” Appellant asked the officer if she
Appellant’s stress level continued to intensify. She began honking her horn,
but no one stopped. Appellant told the officer that she had to drive to the
next lighted area and asked the officer to follow her. Appellant drove off
slowly. She was driving within the speed limit, with the DPS car following
her. She thought that the officer was going to allow her to go to the next
quickly next to her car. The car was too close and was crowding her off of
the highway. Appellant pulled over off the highway because it was not safe
6
to keep driving. Appellant had not reached a lighted area. Her stress
When the officer from the unmarked car came toward her car, Appellant put
her driver’s license against the window. The officer would not look at the
driver’s license. The officer told Appellant “If you don’t open the door, I’m
going to break out the window and take you out by force.” Appellant replied
“Don’t do that. I’ll have to leave if you do that.” Appellant’s stress level
toward the highway. As the officer knocked the window out, Appellant
panicked. She drove onto the highway. Appellant was speeding for 93
seconds before she realized how fast she was going. She then slowed down
she saw Wharton police cars and pulled over. (Ct Rep R, Vol 4, pgs 75-91;
Vol 8, SX-1, 2)
7
APPELLANT’S CONVERSATION WITH DPS OFFICER AFTER ARREST
After pulling over, Appellant got out of her car and was arrested. The DPS
officer asked “Why would you take off.” Appellant replied “Because you
scared me. You terrified me.” (Def Exh D-1, pg 5-20:39:25; pg 11-21:18:32)
When officer Ochoa was driving Appellant to the hospital to get a blood test,
hospital. Ochoa asked why she wanted to talk to a doctor. Appellant replied
a doctor to give her an examination, get a history of the events, her disability
and her medication, for later medical analysis. (Def Exh D-1, pg 18-
22:02:18; pg 19-22:06:34)
8
JANUARY 7, 2008-INDICTMENT AND SUICIDE
As Appellant and District Attorney, Josh McCown moved forward into this
case, each side acted and reacted in response to the other. Set out below are
some of the highlights of the events, actions and reaction, in the order that
they occurred.
McCown: On Oct. 29, 2007, McCown filed suit to seize Appellant’s car. (R,
pg 42)
because Appellant insisted that the DPS altered the video of the event; that
there was a conspiracy among the Texas Medical Board, DPS and Josh
9
Appellant: In May and June, 2008, Appellant filed multiple documents
attacking the honesty and integrity of the DPS officers and Josh McCown.
Copies of the claims of illegal conduct were sent to the head of Department
Indictment, which added a 1st degree felony, as part of his plan to take
offering to reduce the three felony counts to one misdemeanor, with a fine;
that McCown’s condition for the plea agreement was that Appellant agree to
donate her car to McCown. Appellant declares that she “will not give in” to
McCown’s illegal bribe, even if she has to go to prison. (R, pgs 171-176).
In June, 2009, Jerry Payne became Appellant’s attorney. When Payne first
became involved in this case, he went to Wharton, Texas for a hearing on his
motion for continuance. Payne met with Josh McCown, the District Attorney
10
and asked for McCown’s agreement on the continuance. McCown agreed to
conduct by the Texas Medical Board from being mentioned in front of the
jury. Payne agreed to limit the focus of the trial to the events on the
At the meeting, Payne asked Mr. McCown to recognize that Appellant has a
medical disability; that her conduct was influenced by her disability. Payne
asked McCown to dismiss the charges since Appellant did not intend to
commit a crime. Mr. McCown rejected Payne’s request and told Payne that
he was going forward with the case. Mr. McCown told Payne that he has a
relationships with the DPS officers involved. McCown stated that he intends
reputation and honor of the officers; that Appellant insulted the officers in
the motions she filed when she was acting as her own attorney. (R, pgs 323-
11
TRIAL OF THE CASE
Due to Appellant’s stipulations and her defense on the charges of fleeing, the
only questions for the jury on the fleeing charges were (a) whether
Appellant was fearful that harm would occur to her if she did not go to
a lighted area before opening her car door and (b) whether an ordinary,
prudent 60 year old lady could have been afraid, under the same
circumstances.
Appellant’s Stipulations
her was proper because she was speeding; that she drove off, knowing
Appellant’s Defense
Dr. Brams testified on the issue of whether Appellant drove off because she
was afraid and on the issue of whether an ordinary, prudent 60 year old lady,
under the same circumstances, could have been afraid. Dr. Brams’ testimony
12
was the only expert, medical evidence on these subjects. Dr. Brams testified
that Appellant was afraid and that an ordinary, prudent 60 year old lady
could be afraid, under the same circumstances. (Ct Rep R, Vol 4, pgs 9-39;
Vol 8, D-6)
The State did not produce any evidence countering Dr. Brams’ testimony on
these issues. Instead, the State’s approach at trial was to demonstrate, during
Appellant did not follow the instructions of the DPS officers on the highway
because she thinks she does not have to follow the same rules as the rest of
us, because she is a doctor. (Ct Rep R, Vol 4, pgs 92-125, 157, 162)
The State filed its motion in limine, which was agreed to by Payne. Neither
party was to talk about the testimony or documents involved in the Texas
Medical Board hearings or the complaints against the Texas Medical Board;
talk about Appellant’s claims of conspiracies involving the DPS and the
13
Pursuant to the trial court’s order, Appellant’s attorney told Appellant that
she was not to violate the Court’s order; that she was not to talk about the
against doctors at the TMB; that she was not to refer to any testimony or
documents that involved her proceeding at the Texas Medical Board; that
limit the areas on which Appellant would testify. This effort included (a)
the subject areas of her testimony (b) presenting the Summary Statement to
the trial court and the D.A., requesting that Appellant’s testimony be limited
14
to the areas in the summary (c) presentation of the testimony of Dr. Brams,
testimony concerning the event on the highway. (Ct Rep R, Vol 8, Exh D-7)
Appellant proposed, to the district attorney and the trial court, that the
about the subject areas in the summary. Appellant argued that her disability
would prevent her from functioning unless she knew ahead of time the
issues on which she must give testimony. The district attorney refused to
informed the district attorney and the trial court of Appellant’s disability. Dr.
Brams testified that Appellant’s PTSD, with her underlying bipolar disorder
15
The district attorney’s cross-examination of Dr. Brams was minimal, with no
cross that challenged Dr. Brams’ conclusions. However, the district attorney
did obtain a confirmation from Dr. Brams that Appellant’s disability was
present during the trial. (Ct Rep R, Vol 4, pgs 9-39; Vol 8, D-6)
After Dr. Brams’ testimony, before taking the stand, Appellant again
testify without being inhibited by her disability. Again the district attorney
to the areas in the Summary Statement. (Ct Rep R, Vol 4, pgs 45-47, 309-
326)
The State’s cross-examination did not focus on the facts that occurred on the
general, unclear questions asking for opinions. The objective of the cross-
16
examination appears to be to demonstrate to the jury that Appellant is
arrogant and uncooperative. The D.A. turned each question into a debate
over semantics. Examples of the D.A.’s approach are set out below:
1. Pages 93-100 are the beginning of the D.A.’s cross-examination. This first
set of questions displays the D.A.’s methodology. The D.A. asks whether
Appellant was speeding when pulled over on the highway; whether speeding
Appellant thinks Ochoa was truthful when he testified that he was intending
2. On page 98 (line 10), is the first of many times that the D.A. called the
lean forward).
3. The D.A. asked Appellant’s opinion about Dr. Brams’ analysis of her
17
6. In the middle of a confrontational debate between Appellant and the D.A.,
forward; try not to be afraid; you look like you are being uncooperative; try
and the Texas Medical Board; about testimony from the TMB hearing; about
conflicts between Appellant and the TMB; about conflicts with Dr. Miller;
about conflicts with Dr. Curran; about conflicts with Blue Cross Blue
Shield; about details of things prohibited by the trial court’s order. (pgs 107-
124).
8. When the D.A. asked questions prohibited by the State’s motion in limine,
Appellant told the D.A. that her attorney said not to talk about the TMB
hearings and the claims of conspiracies. The trial court instructed Appellant
116-117)
9. Appellant’s attorney was forced to ask the trial court to stop the
18
10. The visual picture of Appellant on the witness stand, during cross
examination, was that of a person who did not want to answer the D.A.’s
questions. The picture got so bad that Appellant’s attorney was forced to
interrupt the cross examination by telling the Appellant, in front of the jury,
that she looked as if she was not being cooperative. When Appellant was
told that she appeared to be uncooperative, she made every effort to respond.
She leaned forward, held the microphone and tried hard to correct her image.
However, when the district attorney continued his cross, Appellant reverted
could try to help Appellant regain her ability to testify. (Ct Rep R, Vol 10,
19
The D.A. argued that Appellant was not afraid on the highway, just arrogant
and uncooperative:
“I have no idea why the defendant did what she did. Was she under some
sort of mental influence? I don’t think we’ve seen any real credible evidence
of that. Was she ticked off? This cop had the nerve to stop her and demand
that she present her driver’s license, a lowly police officer daring to confront
a medical doctor? You’ve seen her attitude. She’s arrogant with me. What
do you think she treated him like?” (Ct Rep R, Vol 4, pg 162)
After the jury retired to deliberate, Appellant presented a Motion for Mistrial
to a fair trial. The trial court Denied the Motion for Mistrial. (Ct Rep R, Vol
5, pgs 1-4)
VERDICT
Public Servant.
20
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
acts by the district attorney, which the trial court allowed to occur over
argument. The trial court erred in denying Appellant’s motion for mistrial.
FACTS
by her disability.
21
5. Appellant previously acted as her own attorney in this case. During this
time she filed motions claiming conspiracies and illegal conduct among the
district attorney and the DPS officers. Appellant sent copies of her motions
6. Right after Appellant’s claims of illegal conduct by the D.A. and the
this case was to vindicate the honor of the DPS officers, who Appellant had
without being inhibited by her disability. Instead, the D.A., with knowledge
8. In closing argument, the D.A. told the jury that the reason Appellant drove
off was not because she was afraid; that the reason she did not cooperate
that she thinks she does not have to follow the same rules as the rest of us,
22
because she is a doctor; that her arrogance and lack of cooperation during
9. The trial court erroneously denied Appellant’s motion for mistrial, which
The jury’s verdict, that Appellant used a “Deadly Weapon,” when fleeing
of verdict.
review of the error to determine if the error adversely affected the integrity
of the conviction.
23
ARGUMENT AND AUTHORITIES
an inference drawn from the totality of the facts in a particular case, in light
and the risk that the procedures employed will lead to erroneous
In the case of Menzies v. Procunier, 743 F.2d 281, 288, (5th Cir. 1994), the
“An unfair trial has been characterized as one that has been ‘largely robbed
of dignity due a rational process.’ Whether a criminal defendant has received
such ‘dignified’ or ‘fair’ trial, as mandated by the 14th amendment, must be
determined by examining the particular facts of each case. ‘A trial that is
unfair, whatever the cause of such unfairness, violates Fourteenth
Amendment due process”
totality of the facts show that Appellant was denied “fundamental fairness”
24
fundamental fairness, is a violation of due process rights under the
Constitution.
In the case of Rougeau v. State, 783 SW2d 651, 657 (Tx. Cr. App, En Banc,
illegal conduct by the DPS officers. McCown stated that his objective in
The 5th Circuit has said that the due process concept of prosecutorial
most basic sort to punish a criminal defendant because he has done what the
law plainly allows him to do, and that it is patently unconstitutional for a
25
prosecutor to pursue a course of action with the objective of penalizing the
defendant for relying on his legal rights in the processes of his case. (Salazar
seek to discover any facts that were not already known. The objective was to
The ADA requires that one with a disability have the same rights as others.
The Due Process Clause of the Constitution requires the States to afford
the enactment of the ADA, Congress requires the States to take reasonable
26
measures to remove barriers to a disabled person’s ability to participate. The
that would have allowed her to testify without being dismantled during
without notice, began asking about testimony and documents that were part
of the Texas Medical Board hearings and other things that were prohibited
confuse Appellant; that the questions were prohibited by the trial court’s
order; that the questions were unclear and confusing, causing the appellant
to seize up. The Court overruled the objections to the District Attorney’s
conduct.
27
Appellant told the D.A. that her attorney told her not to talk about the details
told Appellant not to follow the instructions of her attorney; that she was to
Appellant lost her ability to accurately process the questions and respond to
the situation. As she displayed her lack of ability to function by leaning back
in the witness stand, the District Attorney repeatedly told Dr. Pigott, in front
of the jury, that she should sit up, lean forward so he could hear her. The
clear intent was to get the jury to focus on what appeared to be a lack of
willingness to cooperate.
one occasion he told Appellant, in front of the jury, to try to relax, sit up and
lean forward so that you look like you are trying to answer the questions.
continued his abuse. The success of the district attorney’s plan was clear;
28
DENIAL OF DUE PROCESS-JURY ARGUMENT
The next step in the D.A.’s vindictive effort to convict Appellant was his
of Appellant being arrogant and uncooperative, the D.A. finished his effort
“I have a job under the law to see that justice is done. Not to be hell-bent on
convictions. Now I will concede in this case, based on what this defendant
did and what she put those officers through, yeah, I’m hell-bent on a
conviction in this case. But I’m going to do it the right way.” (Ct Rep R, Vol
4, pg 157)
“I have no idea why the defendant did what she did. Was she under some
sort of mental influence? I don’t think we’ve seen any real credible evidence
of that. Was she ticked off? This cop had the nerve to stop her and demand
that she present her driver’s license, a lowly police officer daring to confront
a medical doctor? You’ve seen her attitude. She’s arrogant with me. What
do you think she treated him like?” (Ct Rep R, Vol 4, pg 162
put those officers through.” The D.A. admitted that his motivation is to
defend the DPS officers; that the motions Appellant filed accusing the DPS
29
According to the 5th Circuit, it is a due process violation for a prosecutor to
The D.A. is not allowed to use closing argument to get evidence before the
uncooperative because she is a medical doctor; that she thinks she does not
have to follow the same rules that the rest of us have to follow, because she
is a doctor.
statement is “Doctors think they are gods.” The D.A.’s argument was for the
cross-examination.
DEADLY WEAPON
30
The jury’s verdict that Appellant used her car as a “Deadly Weapon” when
fleeing from both her 1st stop and from her 2nd stop, should be set aside on
Penal Code
The definition of “Deadly Weapon” is set out in Section 1.07 (a) (17) (A)
(B). Section 1.07 (a) (17) (B), which is applicable in this case, requires an
evaluation of the use and intended use of the car to determine if the car
For Appellant’s car to qualify as a Deadly Weapon under Section 1.07 (a)
(17) (B), the evidence must show, beyond a reasonable doubt, that there
In this case the evidence does not support the jury’s verdict on Deadly
is a clear indication of the jury’s prejudice; that the jury did not follow the
31
trial court’s charge when concluding that the car was used as a deadly
weapon.
Appellant’s use of her car when driving off from her 1st stop is void of any
evidence that the car was used as a deadly weapon. Appellant did not even
Appellant’s use of her car when driving off from the 2nd stop is void of
evidence that she used her car as a deadly weapon. Although Appellant
panicked when the DPS officer smashed out her window and drove over the
speed limit for 93 seconds, she did not use her car as a weapon. There is no
risk of harm from Appellant’s use of her car. (SOF, pgs 6-7)
Ambiguity of Verdict
There is uncertainty as to the intent of the jury’s verdict that Appellant used
a deadly weapon under count 1 and under count 2. This uncertainty raises
questions as to what the jury intended in its verdict and whether the verdict
was influenced by the D.A.’s effort to prejudice the jury against Appellant
by arguing that “she thinks doctors do not have to follow the rules.”
32
Both the State and the defense presented argument to the jury that the issue
of “deadly weapon” under count 1 asks about use of the car when driving off
from the 1st stop and that the issue of “deadly weapon” under count 2 asks
about use of car when driving off from the 2nd stop.
However, the trial court concluded that the jury’s verdict of “deadly
weapon” under count 1 and the verdict of deadly weapon under count 2
were both intended as a verdict that Appellant used the car as a “deadly
weapon” when driving off from the 2nd stop. (Ct Rep R, Vol 10, pgs 8-15)
constitutional right to a fair trial. (Stahl v. State, 749 S.W.2d 826, Tx Cr Ap,
1988).
reverse the judgment of conviction and grant a new trial unless the Court
33
determines, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the error did not contribute to
stated:
In this case, the controlling issue for the jury was whether Appellant was
really afraid on the highway or just arrogant and uncooperative. (SOF, pgs
11-13)
There can be little doubt that the D.A.’s argument that Appellant was
CONCLUSION
34
What was Mr. McCown’s motivation for obtaining a superseding
indictment, 10 months after the event on the highway, adding the 1st degree
anyone.
Is it only a coincidence that right before McCown sought the 2nd indictment,
Appellant filed motions claiming that McCown and the DPS officers were
Some of Appellant’s claims against McCown and the DPS officers may very
well be invalid. It is reasonable that any invalid claims could make McCown
angry. However, it is not acceptable for Mr. McCown to use the power of
complainant.”
35
The district attorney’s vindictive conduct has infected the entire prosecution
Respectfully Submitted,
Jerry S. Payne
SBN 15658000
11505 Memorial Dr.
Houston, Texas 77024
713-785-0677
Fax-713-781-8547
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that a copy of this brief was served on Robinson Ramsey by
electronic service on 10/20/10.
______________
Jerry S. Payne
36