Brief Summary and Plead for Help
EMAIL: ph111sg@bellsouth.net
Please request copies of the following documents - via email with a fax number.
Sorry for the inconvenience, I could not post the original copies on the website.
- Voluntary Consent for Search and Seizure
- Voluntary Consent for Taking of Samples of Blood, Urine, or Hair.
- Police Reports and Police Testimonies
POLICE REPORTS
(Portion of Sgt. Gafford's :police report page 2.011 verbatim)
TO THE MURDER SCENE, AND THE FACT THAT PRESTON HUGHES DOES KNOW BOTH THE COMPLS AND EVELYN, SGT. GAFFORD NOW ARRESTED PRESTON HUGHES AS A SUSPECT IN THIS CASE.
SGT. GAFFORD IMMEDIATELY READ HUGHES HIS LEGAL WARNINGS FROM THE BLUE CARD PROVIDED BY THE DISTRICT ATTORNEYS OFFICE , AND AFTER EACH INDIVIDUAL WARNING SGT. GAFFORD ASKED HUGHES IF HE UNDER STOOD THEM. HUGHES STATED, "YES, SIR" EACH TIME HE WAS ASKED ABOUT UNDERSTANDING THE WARNINGS, AND HE FURTHER STATED THAT HE WOULD WAIVE HIS RIGHTS AND TALK TO SGT BECAUSE HE DIDNT DO ANYTHING, AND HAD NOTHING TO HIDE. SGT. GAFFORD LEFT THE ROOM AND CONFERRED WITH SGT. BLOYD ABOUT ANY NEW INFO PRIOR TO BEGINNING ANY FURTHER QUESTIONING. THERE WAS NOTHING TO ADD AT THAT POINT AND SGT. GAFFORD REENTERED THE ROOM AT APPROXIMATELY 0450 HOURS, AFTER HAVING MADE THE ARREST AT 0430 HOURS. DURING THIS INTERVAL HUGHES HAD REQUESTED A ClGARETTE AND SGT PROVIDED ONE.
(FOR COMPLETE DETAILS OF THE INTERROGATION OF HUGHES SEE THE INTERROGATION OF SUSPECT PORTION OF REPORT, THIS WILL BE ADDRESSED ONLY BRIEFLY AT THIS POINT)
FOR SOME TIME HUGHES CONTINUED TO DENY ANY INVOLVEMENT IN THIS INCIDENT, AND HE INSISTED THAT HE HAD NOT SEEN SHAWN IN APPROXIMATELY 2 MONTHS. AFTER HEARING HUGHES' DENIALS FOR A PERIOD OF TIME SGT. GAFFORD PRESENTED HIM WITH A "VOLUNTARY CONSENT FOR SEARCH AND SEIZURE" FORM. SGT HAD FILLED IN HUGHES' NAME AND ADDRESS, PRESTON HUGHES III, 2310 CRESCENT PK #138A, EXPLAINING THAT HE WAS IN NO WAY REQUIRED TO SIGN THE FORM ALLOWING INVESTIGATORS INTO THE APT. HE WAS FURTHER ADMONISHED THAT HE HAD AN ABSOLUTE RIGHT NOT TO CONSENT TO SUCH A SEARCH, YET HUGHES STILL SIGNED THE FORM ALLOWING ENTRY TO THE APT, STATING "I TOLD YOU THAT I DONT HAVE NOTHING TO HIDE". HUGHES SIGNED THE FORM WITNESSES AFFIXED THEIR SIGNATURES AT APPROXIMATELY 0530 HOURS.
SGT. GAFFORD THE CONTINUED THE INTERROGATION, AND AFTER A TIME CONTINUING TO DENY INVOLVEMENT IN THE CASE, HUGHES BROKE DOWN, STATING THAT HE WAS AFRAID TO GO TO JAIL, AND THAT HE DID NOT WANT TO GO TO JAIL. HE ADMITTED AT THIS TIME TO COMMITTING THE OFFENSE, AND STATED THAT HE HAD KILLED THE #1 COMPL, HOWEVER WOULD NOT MAKE DIRECT MENTION OF KILLING THE THREE YEAR OLD, EXCEPT TO SAY THAT HE JUST KEPT STABBING DIDNT KNOW WHAT HE WAS HITTING. SGT. GAFFORD WAS IN THE PROCESS OF TYPING THE SUSPECTS WRITTEN STATEMENT WHEN HE STATED, WHILE POINTING TO THE VOLUNTARY CONSENT FOR SEARCH AND SEIZURE FORM, "I GUESS YOU'RE LOOKING FOR THE KNIFE". PRIOR TO THE SUSPECTS SAYING THAT HE JUST "KEPT STICKING" THE PERSON WITH A KNIFE, AND HIS STATEMENT ABOUT SGTS LOOKING FOR THE KNIFE, SGTS HADNT MENTIONED TO THE SUSPECT THE METHOD BY WHICH THE COMPLS WERE KILLED. AS THIS WAS DURING THE VERY EARLY MORNING HOURS, THERE HAD BEEN NO NEWS REPORTS OR ARTICLES BY THE WHICH THE SUSPECT COULD HAVE LEARNED THAT THE INCIDENT WAS A STABBING, AND THEREFORE IT WAS CLEAR THAT THE SUSPECT HAD DIRECT KNOWLEDGE OF THE INCIDENT. THE SUSPECT GAVE A DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE LOCATION OF THE MURDER WEAPON, AS WELL AS THE CLOTHING HE WAS WEARING AT THE TIME, AND SGTS GAFFORD PASSED THIS INFORMATION ALONG TO SGTS D. FERGUSON AND E.T. YANCHAK, OF THE DAY SHIFT HOMICIDE DIVISION, AND THEY SUBSEQUENTLY DROVE TO THE SUSPECTS APT AND RECOVERED THESE AND OTHER ITEMS OF EVIDENCE.
AFTER COMPLETION OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT SGT. GAFFORD PRESENTED PRESTON HUGHES WITH A"VOLUNTARY CONSENT FOR TAKING OF SAMPLES OF BLOOD, URINE, OR HAIR. SGT. GAFFORD EXPLAINED THIS FORM TO THE SUSPECT IN THE SAME MANNER AS HAD BEEN DONE WITH THE VOLUNTARY CONSENT FOR SEARCH AND SEIZURE FORM, AND HE STATED THAT HE "MIGHT AS WELL NOT HOLD ANYTHING BACK NOW", AND HE SIGNED THE FORM, KNOWING THAT HE HAD A RIGHT NOT TO SIGN THE FORM. THIS FORM WAS RETAINED WITH THE CASE FILE
AFTER BEING WITNESSED AT APPROXIMATELY 0745 HOURS BY SGTS. BLOYD
AFTER BEING WITNESSED AT APPROXIMATELY 0745 HOURS BY SGTS. BLOYD
(Portion of Sgt. Bloyd's Police Report page 2.014 verbatim)
CORRECT PRESTON THAT HAD REFERRED TO BY THE COMPL BEFORE HER DEATH, SGT. GAFFORD ARRESTED THE SUSPECT (IN THE HOMICIDE OFFICE AT 0430 HOURS) AND READ HIM HIS LEGAL WARNINGS FROM THE BLUE CARD SUPPLIED BY THE DISTRICT ATTORNEYS OFFICE. SGT. GAFFORD READ EACH WARNING INDIVIDUALLY, AND AFTER EACH ONE SGT WOULD STOP AND ASK THE SUSPECT IF HE UNDERSTOOD THE WARNINGS. THE SUSPECT STATED "YES, SIR" EACH TIME HE ASKED ABOUT HIS UNDERSTANDING OF THE WARNINGS, AND HE THEN STATED THAT HE WOULD TALK TO SGT ABOUT THE CASE. THE SUSPECT APPEARED INTELLIGENT, AND GAVE EVERY INDICATION OF BEING LITERATE AND CAPABLE OF UNDERSTANDING WHAT WAS BEING SAID, AND IT SGTS BELIEF THAT THE SUSPECT FULLY UNDERSTOOD THE WARNINGS.
THE SUSPECT REQUESTED A CIGARETTE, AND SGT. GAFFORD OBTAINED ONE FOR HIM FROM LT. NEELY OF THE HOMICIDE DIVISION. THE SUSPECT SMOKED THE CIGARETTE WHILE SGT GAFFORD CONFERRED BRIEFLY WITH SGT. BLOYD, AND SGT. GAFFORD RETURNED TO THE INTERVIEW ROOM AT 0450 HOURS. SGT WENT OVER THE SEQUENCE OF EVENTS OF THE SUSPECTS DAY, AND LEARNED THAT THE SUSPECT WENT TO WORK AND GOT OFF AT APPROX 6:30 PM. HE WAITED FOR A FRIEND AND THEN HE AND SEVERAL BUDDIES WENT TO A LIQUOR STORE ON
THE CORNER NEAR FRANKLIN AND AUSTIN STREETS DOWNTOWN. THEY DRANK ON THE PARKING LOT UNTIL ABOUT 10 MINUTES AFTER 8PM, AND AT THAT TIME TWO OF THE FRIENDS DROPPED HIM OFF AT FANNIN AND WALKER TO CATCH THE BUS. SKIPPING SEVERAL OF THE STATEMENTS DETAILS, HUGHES RODE FELL ASLEEP ON THE BUS AND ENDED UP AT END OF THE ROUTE AT HWY 6 AND WESTHEIMER. HUGHES CALLED A CAB AND WAS TAKEN HOME TO THE LAKEHURST APTS. HE STATED THAT HE WENT INTO THE APT AND CHECKED THE FOOTBALL GAME SCORE AND AFTER THAT HE WENT TO BED.
THE CORNER NEAR FRANKLIN AND AUSTIN STREETS DOWNTOWN. THEY DRANK ON THE PARKING LOT UNTIL ABOUT 10 MINUTES AFTER 8PM, AND AT THAT TIME TWO OF THE FRIENDS DROPPED HIM OFF AT FANNIN AND WALKER TO CATCH THE BUS. SKIPPING SEVERAL OF THE STATEMENTS DETAILS, HUGHES RODE FELL ASLEEP ON THE BUS AND ENDED UP AT END OF THE ROUTE AT HWY 6 AND WESTHEIMER. HUGHES CALLED A CAB AND WAS TAKEN HOME TO THE LAKEHURST APTS. HE STATED THAT HE WENT INTO THE APT AND CHECKED THE FOOTBALL GAME SCORE AND AFTER THAT HE WENT TO BED.
IT WAS APPROXIMATELY 0520 HOURS WHEN SGT. GAFFORD PRESENTED HUGHES WITH THE VOLUNTARY CONSENT FOR SEARCH AND SEIZURE FORM. AS REPORTED EARLIER IN THIS SUPPLEMENT THE SUSPECT SIGNED THE FORM AFTER BEING PROPERLY INSTRUCTED ON HIS RIGHTS AND THE USE OF THE FORM. THE FORM WAS WITNESSED BY SGTS. BLOYD AND ROSS AT APPROXIMATELY 0530 HOURS.
THE SUSPECT REQUESTED ANOTHER CIGARETTE AND SGT. GAFFORD AGAIN OBTAINED ONE FOR HIM AS SGT AGAIN STARTED QUESTIONING HIM ABOUT THE INCIDENT. SGT. GAFFORD LISTENED TO THE SUSPECT CONTINUE TO DENY INVOLVEMENT IN THE DEATHS OF THE COMPLS UNTIL APPROXIMATELY 0540 HOURS WHEN SGT CONFRONTED THE SUSPECT WITH THE FACT THAT THE COMPL WAS GIVEN HIS NAME AS THE ONE WHO HAD STABBED SHE AND THE #2 COMPL. THE SUSPECT WAS VISIBLY UPSET BY THIS FACT AND SGT CONTINUED THAT IT WAS SGTS FIRM BELIEF THAT HE WAS IN FACT THE ONE THAT HAD STABBED THEM. THE SUSPECT HAD NOT BEEN TOLD THE CONDITION OF THE #1 COMPL, BUT WAS AWARE OF THE #2 COMPLS DEATH, ALTHOUGH HE HAD PREVIOUSLY DENIED KNOWING WHO SGT WAS TALKING ABOUT IN REFERENCE TO MARCELL TAYLOR.
THE SUSPECT BEGIN TO TREMBLE AND STATED, "I JUST DONT WANT TO GO TO JAIL". SGT WAITED AS THE SUSPECT CONTINUED TO THINK TO HIMSELF. SGT THEN ASKED THE SUSPECT IF HE WANTED TO TALK ABOUT WHAT HAD HAPPENED. THE SUSPECT SAID THAT HE DIDNT MEAN TO HURT ANYONE. THE WENT INTO A NARRATIVE ABOUT WHAT SEEMED TO BE AN
POLICE TESTIMONIES
(Sgt. Gafford - direct pre-trial testimony page 275 verbatim)
not true?
A No.
Q Did he ever tell you that you had misstated his comments to you and left things out or
added things in there?
A No, sir, he said it was just like he wanted it.
Q After he was given the opportunity to read it and make changes in the statement, what
did you do?
A After everything was done, I called in some other detectives and they looked over the
did you do?
A After everything was done, I called in some other detectives and they looked over the
statement, asked him questions about it, about the circumstances of the statement and again,
he stated that it was his statement, that everything was correct, and they asked him about the
warnings and asked him then to sign the statement if it was his.
Q That would have been Sergeant Smith and Ross that witnessed the statement?
A That's correct.
Q Now, during the period of time that you let him read the statement, did you go over again
with him the rights which are presented at the top of the statement of person in custody form?
(Sgt. Gafford - direct Trial testimony page 118 verbatim)
with him the rights which are presented at the top of the statement of person in custody form?
(Sgt. Gafford - direct Trial testimony page 118 verbatim)
Q Did he seem to be in a state of mind that you felt was necessary to let him get himself back
together or was this a short-lived thing or what?
A It was very short. He broke down for just a second there and was just saying that he didn't
want to go to jail and he was silent there for just a few seconds, probably, maybe 30 seconds
after that and then again we began talking and he was fine after that.
Q Again, did you promise him anything to get him to start talking to you?
A No, sir.
Q Did you do anything that would indicate to him that if he talked to you or if he gave a
confession, things would go easier on him?
A No, sir.
Q Did anyone else, while you were present with the defendant, make any threats to him, hit
him, promise him anything or have any contact with him?
A No, sir.
Q After the defendant agreed to sign the statement, looked over the
statement, did you ask anyone to come in to be a witness?
(Sgt. Gafford- direct Trial testimony page 119 verbatim)
A Yes, sir, I did.
Q Who did you ask to come in to be a witness?
Q Who did you ask to come in to be a witness?
A Sergeants smith and Ross.
Q Did you stay in the room while Sergeants Smith and Ross witnessed his execution of the
statement?
A I was there for just the first few minutes after the
introduction. Then I believe I stepped to the door. I don't think I ever just went completely
away, but I was in the general area there.
Q Did he then sign the statement in their presence, or how did that happen?
A Actually, after each page that we typed, I would give it to him and allow him
to read over that particular page. when that page was completed and he agreed
with the way it was, then he would sign that page; and then we would do the same
with the way it was, then he would sign that page; and then we would do the same
thing with each subsequent page. Once they came into the room, they went over
the statement, asked him if it was his signature and then asked him to do a few
other things on the paper.
Q Okay. On the bottom of the first page, his signature appears both over the line where
(Portion of Sgt. Gafford's police report page 2.015 verbatim)
UNRELATED INCIDENT, BUT THE SUSPECT LATER TIED THAT INCIDENT TOGETHER WITH THE KILLING OF THE COMPLS. JUST A FEW MINUTES PRIOR TO THE SUSPECT BREAKING DOWN, THE SUSPECT REQUESTED THAT SGT GET HIM A COKE AND A PACK OF CIGARETTES, WHICH SGT DID. DURING THE TIME THAT THE SUSPECT WAS GIVING THE STATEMENT HE WAS DRINKING THE COKE AND SMOKING THE CIGARETTES, AND HE WAS SEATED IN A PADDED CHAIR IN A COMFORTABLE POSITION. HE WAS NOT HANDCUFFED, AND HAD NOT BEEN AT ANYTIME PRIOR SINCE HE WAS NOT ARRESTED UNTIL AFTER HIS ARRIVAL IN THE HOMICIDE OFFICE.
IN SHORT, THE SUSPECT STATED THAT ABOUT TWO WEEKS AGO HE WAS ACCUSED OF SEXUALLY ASSAULTING A GIRL BY THE NAME OF LINDA. HE STATED THAT HE WAS NOT GUILTY OF THAT INCIDENT AND PROVED IT SO HE WAS NEVER ARRESTED, ONLY QUESTIONED. HE STATES THAT LINDA'S BROTHERS AND HUSBAND, HOWEVER, BELIEVE HE DID ASSAULT HER, AND THEY HAVE MADE THREATS AGAINST HIS LIFE. DUE TO THIS FEELING THAT THEY ARE AFTER HIM, THE SUSPECT BEGAN TWO WEEKS AGO CARRYING A KNIFE. THE KNIFE WAS DESCRIBED AS AN ARMY KNIFE WITH A 5" OR 6" FIXED BLADE WHICH HE WORE IN A SHEATH ON HIS BELT.
PRESTON HUGHES STATED THAT TONIGHT HE WAS WALKING ON THE TRAIL BETWEEN THE THE APT COMPLEX AND THE FUDDRUCKERS AND SOMEONE
WALKED UP BEHIND HIM AND TOUCHED HIM ON THE SHOULDER. HE STATED THAT
HE THOUGHT IT WAS ONE OF THE BROTHERS TRYING TO KILL HIM, AND THEREFORE HE JUST TURNED AND THREW A BLOCK WITH HIS LEFT ARM, AND STARTED STABBING WITH THE KNIFE IN HIS RIGHT HAND. HE EXPLAINED THAT HE WAS STABBING BOTH HIGH AND LOW, AND THAT AFTER THE FIRST COUPLE OF STABBING MOTIONS HE REALIZED THAT IT WAS SHAWN. HE SAID THAT HE COULDNT BELIEVE IT AND THEN GOT SCARED AND CRAZY, AND JUST KEPT
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
HE THOUGHT IT WAS ONE OF THE BROTHERS TRYING TO KILL HIM, AND THEREFORE HE JUST TURNED AND THREW A BLOCK WITH HIS LEFT ARM, AND STARTED STABBING WITH THE KNIFE IN HIS RIGHT HAND. HE EXPLAINED THAT HE WAS STABBING BOTH HIGH AND LOW, AND THAT AFTER THE FIRST COUPLE OF STABBING MOTIONS HE REALIZED THAT IT WAS SHAWN. HE SAID THAT HE COULDNT BELIEVE IT AND THEN GOT SCARED AND CRAZY, AND JUST KEPT
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
DURING THE TIME THAT THE STATEMENT WAS BEING TAKEN, PRESTON HUGHES DID NOT APPEAR EMOTIONAL ABOUT THE FACT THAT HE HAD KILLED ANYONE. THE ONLY CONCERN THAT HE VOICED THAT IF HE DIDNT GET TO WORK TOMORROW HE WOULD LOOSE HIS JOB. SGT GAFFORD HAD THE SUSPECT SIGN EACH PAGE INDIVIDUALLY AS IT WAS COMPLETED, AND SGT WOULD THEN GO TO THE NEXT PAGE. THE STATEMENT CONSISTED OF THREE TYPED PAGES, WITH THE FIRST BEGINNING AT 0555 HOURS, THE SECOND BEGINNING AT 0613 HOURS, AND THE THIRD BEGINNING AT 0633 HOURS. PRIOR TO SIGNING EACH PAGE OF THE STATEMENT THE SUSPECT READ THE PAGE, AND ONCE THE ENTIRE STATEMENT WAS COMPLETE THE SUSPECT RE-READ THE ENTIRE STATEMENT. THE SUSPECT TOLD SGT THAT THIS WAS THE WAY THAT THE INCIDENT HAD HAPPENED.
SGT. GAFFORD CALLED SGTS. T.M. ROSS AND L.B. SMITH INTO THE ROOM, AND THESE SGTS SPOKE WITH THE SUSPECT ABOUT THE CIRCUMSTANCES SURROUNDING THE GIVING OF THE STATEMENT. SGT. GAFFORD REMAINED IN THE ROOM FOR A FEW MOMENTS AND THEN LEFT THE ROOM SO THAT ROSS AND SMITH COULD QUESTION THE SUSPECT TO INSURE THAT THE STATEMENT HAS BEEN VOLUNTARY. AFTER COMPLETING THIS PROCESS, SGTS SMITH AND ROSS AFFIXED THEIR SIGNATURES TO THE STATMENT AS WITNESSES AT APPROXIMATELY 0715 HOURS.
(Sgt. Ross - direct pre-trial testimony page 331 verbatim)
coercion or threats?
A Not to me, he didn't.
Q Did you personally observe the defendant, Preston Hughes, III, sign
A Not to me, he didn't.
Q Did you personally observe the defendant, Preston Hughes, III, sign
these documents, all three pages of this document?
A Yes, I did.
Q Did he sign it more than one place on each page?
A Yes, he did.
Q Where did he sign it?
A He signed it where there's a line for the person that makes the statement to sign and also at the very end of each -- the last sentence of each page.
Q Did he make any changes, alterations or deletions from the statement at the time that
he signed it, that you recall?
A Well, there was a markout area on the first page and I had him initial it so that he would
know it had been changed at the time it was signed. I don’t know when it was marked out.
Q If you would look at that exhibit there before you where I think the eleventh and twelfth
lines of the first page of the statement are underlined and then looking around outside is
(Sgt. Ross - direct Trial testimony page 211 verbatim)
(Sgt. Ross - direct Trial testimony page 211 verbatim)
Q Okay. Did he initial them while you were watching him there?
A Yes.
Q Did he initial each of his rights that are listed on each of those pages?
A On the first page only.
Q Did he initial each of his rights that are listed on each of those pages?
A On the first page only.
Q Did he do anything else to indicate that he wanted to make any changes in that statement or
add anything to it or take anything out of it?
A A change was made, and I had him initial that change.
Q Did he indicate, after he made that change, that he wished to change anything else?
A No.
Q Did he wish to take anything out of the statement, or did he tell you that he wished to add
anything to the statement?
A Not that I recall, no, sir.
Q Okay. After the defendant initialed his rights and made the changes
that you've indicated, what happened?
A Well, I had him sign it.
Q Okay. Did you have him sign each page of the statement?
A Yes, I did.
A Well, I had him sign it.
Q Okay. Did you have him sign each page of the statement?
A Yes, I did.
(Sgt. Ross - direct Trial testimony page 212 verbatim)
Q At the end of the text portion, I guess?
A Yes.
Q Were you satisfied in your mind that the defendant signed the statement voluntarily?
A Yes, I was.
Q All right. Did the defendant say anything in your presence which would indicate that
A Yes.
Q Were you satisfied in your mind that the defendant signed the statement voluntarily?
A Yes, I was.
Q All right. Did the defendant say anything in your presence which would indicate that
someone had threatened him in any way to get him to sign the statement?
A He did not say anything to me.
Q Did he indicate that anyone had made him some promises, perhaps, that things would go
easier for him if he made a statement?
A No.
Q Did he say anything to indicate to you that threats or coercion of any kind had been used to
easier for him if he made a statement?
A No.
Q Did he say anything to indicate to you that threats or coercion of any kind had been used to
obtain his signature on his statement?
A No.
Q Have you ever witnessed a statement before?
A Yes, I have.
Q On many, many occasions?
A Several occasions, yes, sir.
Q After the defendant signed this statement, which is marked State's Exhibit 3,
(Portion of Sgt. Ross' police report page 2.027 verbatim)
WOOD "HAD BEEN CROSSED OUT.
AFTER HUGHES HAD INITIALLED EACH OF HIS RIGHTS AT THE TOP OF ALL THREE PAGES AND SIGNED HIS NAME AT THE LINE PROVIDED AT THE BOTTOM OF EACH PAGE, SGTS. SMITH AND ROSS THEN SIGNED AS WITNESSES ON THE APPROPRIATE LINES ON ALL THREE PAGES. SGT. ROSS THEN REQUESTED THAT HUGHES SIGN HIS NAME AGAIN AT THE END OF THE LINE AT THE BOTTOM OF EACH PAGE TO SHOW WHERE THE STATEMENT ENDED ON EACH PAGE AND HUGHES THEN SIGNED HIS NAME AT THE END OF THE LAST LINE ABOVE THE SIGNATURE LINE.
HUGHES ASKED IF HE COULD USE THE PHONE SO HE COULD CALL HIS BOSS AND TRY TO SAVE HIS JOB. HE WAS TOLD HE COULD USE THE PHONE IF HE WANTED TO AND IT WAS NOTED BY SGT. ROSS THAT HE WAS DRINKING A COKE. WHEN SGT. ROSS WENT BACK TO THE ROOM BECAUSE HE WAVED TO HER TO COME, HE STATED THAT HE HAD TALKED WITH HIS BOSS AND HIS BOSS HAD TOLD HIM THAT IF HE MISSED MORE THAN THREE DAY, THAT HE WOULD BE FIRED. HE WAS ASKED IF SHE THOUGHT HE COULD GET OUT ON A PI BOND AND SHE TOLD HIM THAT IT WAS NOT UP TO HER, THAT THE PEOPLE IN PRE-TRIAL RELEASE AND/OR THE COURT WOULD HAVE TO MAKE THAT DECISION BASED ON SEVERAL FACTORS. HE STATED THAT HE WORKED AT A STEADY JOB. SHE TOLD HIM THEY WOULD TAKE THAT INTO CONSIDERATION BUT THERE WERE OTHER THINGS, SUCH AS IF HE WAS ON PROBATION OR PAROLE OR ON BOND. HE THEN SAID THAT HE WAS ON PROBATION AND ASKED IF HE COULD CALL HIS PROBATION OFFICER. SGT. ROSS TOLD HIM TO GO AHEAD AND CALL AND THEN SHE LEFT THE ROOM AT 7:25A.M. WHEN HE FINISHED TALKING ON THE PHONE, HE AGAIN WAVED FOR SGT. ROSS TO COME TO THE ROOM AND ASKED HER WHAT HE WOULD BE CHARGED WITH--THAT HIS PROBATION OFFICER WANTED TO KNOW. SGT. ROSS ADVISED HIM THAT IF AND WHEN HE WAS FILED ON, IT WOULD BE FOR MURDER. HE THEN REQUESTED SGT. ROSS GET HIS ADDRESS BOOK FROM SGT. BLOYD SO THAT HE COULD CALL HIS AUNTIE. THE BLUE ADDRESS BOOK WAS RETRIEVED FROM SGT. BLOYD AND HE AGAIN USED THE PHONE.
AT 7:42AM, SGTS. ROSS AND BLOYD WITNESSED PRESTON HUGHES SIGN A "VOLUNTARY CONSENT FOR TAKING OF SAMPLES OF BLOOD, URINE, OR HAIR." AFTERWARDS, HUGHES AGAIN USED THE PHONE AND SGT. ROSS LEFT THE
ROOM FOR THE LAST TIME.
ROOM FOR THE LAST TIME.
SUPPLEMENT ENTERED BY = 36217
REPORT VIEWED BY-GA EMPLOYEE NUMBER-080660
DATE CLEARED- 09/27/88
DATE CLEARED- 09/27/88
(Prosecutor - Final Arguments Trial Innocent/Guilt page 44 verbatim)
time and I don't think she's clear about exactly what time. It was late. Sometime around 9: 00,
something in that time, late in the evening. And where did she leave her? Virtually underneath
the window of Preston Hughes' apartment. He could have looked out the window and spit on
them. That's the last time she saw Shandra Charles alive, in the parking lot behind his
apartment.
What else do you have? And yes, we've been the line -- my God, we did scientific testing. Shame on me. We asked the chemist to test these things. They drug their feet around but they finally got it done. If they hadn't done it, you would be hearing lawyers up here saying, "Where's the scientific evidence? Where is it at?" We did the best we could. It's inconclusive, I agree.
MR. McCULLOUGH: It's outside the record, contrary to the record, "They did the best they
could."
THE COURT: overruled.
MR. NOLL: Mr. Bolding testified to you he checked the clothing found in the defendant's
apartment and he found on the shirt and on the jeans evidence of blood. Not enough to determine it was human blood, not enough to type it. If he
(PHIII 's LETTER TO ATTY RANDOLPH A. MCDONALD VERBATIM)
June 22, 2006
Mr. Preston Hughes III
#000939
3872 PM 350 South
Livingston, Texas 77351
#000939
3872 PM 350 South
Livingston, Texas 77351
Randolph A. McDonald, P.C.
Attorney at Law
3000 smith St.
Houston, Texas 77006
Attorney at Law
3000 smith St.
Houston, Texas 77006
Dear Mr. McDonald:
I am writing to you today concerning a phone conversation you and I had
several years ago, during the time you were appointed to represent me on
appeal, concerning a certain piece of evidence that was used in the
wrongful capital conviction against me. In that conversation you told me
of a picture that depicts the pair of eyeglasses, that were admitted into
evidence, at the crime scene where the victims in the case were found. I
have not been able to obtain a copy of that picture because it, and other
evidence that can prove my innocence and save my life, is being purposely
witheld from me.
several years ago, during the time you were appointed to represent me on
appeal, concerning a certain piece of evidence that was used in the
wrongful capital conviction against me. In that conversation you told me
of a picture that depicts the pair of eyeglasses, that were admitted into
evidence, at the crime scene where the victims in the case were found. I
have not been able to obtain a copy of that picture because it, and other
evidence that can prove my innocence and save my life, is being purposely
witheld from me.
I am now in the very late stages of my appeals and I can really use your
assistance in helping me to save my life. I will gratefully appreciate
your letting me know what it will cost me to have you provide me with a
clear copy of the picture depicting the eyeglasses at the crime scene
where the victims in the case were found. I will like to have a hardprint
or hardcopy, NOT a xerox or photocopy.
assistance in helping me to save my life. I will gratefully appreciate
your letting me know what it will cost me to have you provide me with a
clear copy of the picture depicting the eyeglasses at the crime scene
where the victims in the case were found. I will like to have a hardprint
or hardcopy, NOT a xerox or photocopy.
I will like to thank you in advance for your time and cooperation in the
above matter. Your assistance is gratefully appreciated. I look forward to
receiving a letter of response or visit from you to further discuss the
above matter. Please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you.
above matter. Your assistance is gratefully appreciated. I look forward to
receiving a letter of response or visit from you to further discuss the
above matter. Please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Preston Hughes III
(ATTY R. A. MCDONALD'S RESPONSE TO PHIII'S LETTER OF 6/22/06 VERBATIM)
Randy McDonald, P.C.
Attorney at law
3000 Smith Street
Houston, Texas 77006
Attorney at law
3000 Smith Street
Houston, Texas 77006
Board Certified Criminal Law 713-521-2585
Texas Board of Legal Specialization Fax: 713-521-3324
June 29, 2006
Preston Hughes III
TDCJ No. 000939
3872 FM 350 South
Livingston, TX 77351
TDCJ No. 000939
3872 FM 350 South
Livingston, TX 77351
Dear Mr. Hughes:
I received your correspondence of June 22, 2006. I do not have the
requested information that you asked for. I believe you might be able to
obtain them from attorney Dick Wheelan.
I received your correspondence of June 22, 2006. I do not have the
requested information that you asked for. I believe you might be able to
obtain them from attorney Dick Wheelan.
Please do not hesitate to contact me should you need further
assistance. Good luck!
assistance. Good luck!
Yours truly,
Randy McDonald
RAM/1t
(Sgt. Gafford - direct pre-trial testimony page 291 verbatim)
admonishments or warnings?
A No, sir.
Q Instead did you read him his rights from your little statutory card?
A Yes.
Q And you know, of course, that there is no requirement
Q Instead did you read him his rights from your little statutory card?
A Yes.
Q And you know, of course, that there is no requirement
that he go before a magistrate, that you need --
MR. McCULLOUGH: Objection to that, Your Honor.
THE COURT: That will be sustained.
BY MR. NOLL:
Q Why didn't you take him to a magistrate?
A Because we're normally not required to do that. We read him his warning on our own and provide him with every opportunity
A Because we're normally not required to do that. We read him his warning on our own and provide him with every opportunity
to not speak to us and that's the reason.
Q Do you know someone in the homicide division by the name of Garrison?
A No, sir.
Q Have you ever heard of any other sergeants in the homicide division using the name of Garrison?
A No, sir.
Q Did anyone representing themselves to be
(Sgt. Gafford - cross pre-trial testimony page 298 verbatim)
Q Do you know someone in the homicide division by the name of Garrison?
A No, sir.
Q Have you ever heard of any other sergeants in the homicide division using the name of Garrison?
A No, sir.
Q Did anyone representing themselves to be
(Sgt. Gafford - cross pre-trial testimony page 298 verbatim)
Q Did you tell him he was free to go anytime he wanted to?
A Yes, sir, he was there voluntarily.
Q Did he know that?
A Yes.
Q And that was the last piece of information you received before 4:30 that persuaded you that you had probable cause to arrest him?
A I don't know what the last piece was. He detailed each of
A Yes, sir, he was there voluntarily.
Q Did he know that?
A Yes.
Q And that was the last piece of information you received before 4:30 that persuaded you that you had probable cause to arrest him?
A I don't know what the last piece was. He detailed each of
those -each of the things I detailed previously regarding his knowledge of the complainant in this case, the fact that he lived directly behind the location of their death and the fact that she named him, named Preston as the person that had stabbed them was combined to formulate that opinion in our minds.
Q Incidentally, I understand that the using of the word "Preston" was relayed to you from some other officer. You didn't hear that, yourself?
A No, I didn't.
Q Would that have been Officer Hamilton?
A Sergeant Hamilton.
Q Now, at 4:30 in the morning there is
(Sgt. Gafford - cross pre-trial testimony page 299 verbatim)
Q Incidentally, I understand that the using of the word "Preston" was relayed to you from some other officer. You didn't hear that, yourself?
A No, I didn't.
Q Would that have been Officer Hamilton?
A Sergeant Hamilton.
Q Now, at 4:30 in the morning there is
(Sgt. Gafford - cross pre-trial testimony page 299 verbatim)
some magistrate available to give magistrate's warnings, is there not?
A I'm not sure. Normally there's not.
Q Isn't there a list of municipal court judges who are available, for instance, to give
Q Isn't there a list of municipal court judges who are available, for instance, to give
magistrate's warnings around the clock?
A I'm not sure of that.
Q Well, there for sure is by, say, 8:00 o'clock in the morning, is there not?
A Probably so.
Q There was no urgency in taking the statement from Mr. Hughes that could not
A I'm not sure of that.
Q Well, there for sure is by, say, 8:00 o'clock in the morning, is there not?
A Probably so.
Q There was no urgency in taking the statement from Mr. Hughes that could not
have been delayed until he could have been given a magistrate's warning at 8:00
o'clock, is there?
A I felt there was.
Q Did you feel he wouldn't give a statement if you delayed until 8: 00 o'clock?
A No. I was interested in talking to him as quickly as possible. The longer an
A I felt there was.
Q Did you feel he wouldn't give a statement if you delayed until 8: 00 o'clock?
A No. I was interested in talking to him as quickly as possible. The longer an
investigation is prolonged and the later we wait, the less _chance of everything
coming together in a row. It's proven time after time that the longer an
investigation drags out, the less chance there is of clearing a case.
Q Actually, if you were afraid Mr. Hughes
(Sgt. Gafford - cross pre-trial testimony page 300 verbatim)
Q Actually, if you were afraid Mr. Hughes
(Sgt. Gafford - cross pre-trial testimony page 300 verbatim)
had time to think over what he was about to do, that he would not have made a statement if he
had had a couple of hours to think about it?
A No, sir, that was not a consideration.
Q Well, you didn't have any other suspects, did you?
A No, sir, that was not a consideration.
Q Well, you didn't have any other suspects, did you?
A Not at that time.
Q But there was nothing physically or otherwise to prevent you from having
delayed taking the further statement from Mr. Hughes or conducting further
interviews with him until after he could have been warned by a judge of his legal
rights?
A I read him his warnings and I felt that was all that was necessary.
A I read him his warnings and I felt that was all that was necessary.
Q But you're not a magistrate?
A No, sir.
Q And your position in this investigation was not neutral? You were an investigating officer?
A I would say it is neutral. I have nothing against Mr. Hughes, have no reason to want to put
A No, sir.
Q And your position in this investigation was not neutral? You were an investigating officer?
A I would say it is neutral. I have nothing against Mr. Hughes, have no reason to want to put
him in jail.
Q What did you tell Mr. Hughes when he told you he didn't want to go to jail? You say,
Q What did you tell Mr. Hughes when he told you he didn't want to go to jail? You say,
(Sgt. Gafford - direct pre-trial testimony page 280 verbatim)
A No, sir.
Q Did he ask you any questions at all about what his rights would be in relationship to signing
or not signing the form?
A No.
Q Did he seem to understand or did you explain to him that the purpose of that form was to
A No.
Q Did he seem to understand or did you explain to him that the purpose of that form was to
find evidence to use against him?
A Yes, sir.
Q Was this form signed after you had advised him of his statutory warnings that you
A Yes, sir.
Q Was this form signed after you had advised him of his statutory warnings that you
administered?
A Yes, it was.
Q Did he sign that form voluntarily in your presence?
A Yes, it was.
Q Did he sign that form voluntarily in your presence?
A Yes.
Q Did you ask other officers to witness his signature on this form?
A Yes, I did.
Q Were those officers' names on that form?
Q Did you ask other officers to witness his signature on this form?
A Yes, I did.
Q Were those officers' names on that form?
A Yes, they are.
Q That's Sergeants Bloyd and Ross is that correct?
A That's correct.
Q Did you also ask him to sign any other?
(Sgt. Gafford - direct pre-trial testimony page 281 verbatim)
Q That's Sergeants Bloyd and Ross is that correct?
A That's correct.
Q Did you also ask him to sign any other?
(Sgt. Gafford - direct pre-trial testimony page 281 verbatim)
consent forms that day?
A Yes, sir, I did.
Q What was that form?
A That was consent for samples of body fluid, hair, urine samples.
Q What was that form?
A That was consent for samples of body fluid, hair, urine samples.
Q That's a separate form altogether?
A That's correct.
Q Did he also sign that form?
A That's correct.
Q Did he also sign that form?
A Yes, he did.
Q Did Sergeants Bloyd and Ross also witness that form?
Q Did Sergeants Bloyd and Ross also witness that form?
A I believe they did. I believe they ' re the ones.
Q Did you bring that form with you, by any chance, in your copy of the offense
Q Did you bring that form with you, by any chance, in your copy of the offense
report?
A I believe there is a copy in there.
A I believe there is a copy in there.
MR. NOLL: Your Honor, could we ask -
BY MR. NOLL:
Q Your report is --
A It's on the file cabinet in the hall.
MR. NOLL: Could I step right out, Your Honor?
THE COURT: You may.
Q MR. NOLL: May I approach the witness, Your Honor?
(Sgt. Gafford - direct pre-trial testimony page 282 verbatim)
(Sgt. Gafford - direct pre-trial testimony page 282 verbatim)
Judge, I would like to ask the witness remove a portion from his report, if it's all
right.
THE COURT: Very well.
(State's Exhibit No. 2 was marked for identification.)
BY MR. NOLL:
Q Sergeant Gafford, let me show you what's been marked as State's Exhibit No. 2 for
identification. Do you recognize this document?
A Yes, I do.
Q Is this the document you just removed from your report?
A Yes, it is.
Q What is this document?
A Voluntary consent for takinq of samples of blood, urine or hair.
A Yes, I do.
Q Is this the document you just removed from your report?
A Yes, it is.
Q What is this document?
A Voluntary consent for takinq of samples of blood, urine or hair.
Q Is there a signature on this document?
A Yes, sir, there is.
Q Whose signature is it?
A Yes, sir, there is.
Q Whose signature is it?
A Preston Hughes, III.
Q Is it the same defendant you previously identified in this courtroom?
Q Is it the same defendant you previously identified in this courtroom?
A Yes, it is.
Q Again witnessed by Sergeants Bloyd and
Q Again witnessed by Sergeants Bloyd and
(Sgt. Ross - direct trial testimony page 208 verbatim)
homicide division on September 27th of 1988, a Monday?
A Yes, I was.
Q And that Monday morning, did you have have occasion to witness a statement given by the
Q And that Monday morning, did you have have occasion to witness a statement given by the
defendant, Preston Hughes, III?
A Yes, I did.
Q And do you see that man, Preston Hughes, III, in the courtroom this morning?
A Yes, I do.
Q Would you point to him and describe him, please?
A He's sitting there in the blue blazer and gray slacks and kind of a maroon tie.
MR. NOLL: Your Honor, may the record reflect the witness has identified the defendant?
A Yes, I did.
Q And do you see that man, Preston Hughes, III, in the courtroom this morning?
A Yes, I do.
Q Would you point to him and describe him, please?
A He's sitting there in the blue blazer and gray slacks and kind of a maroon tie.
MR. NOLL: Your Honor, may the record reflect the witness has identified the defendant?
THE COURT: Record will so reflect.
BY MR. NOLL:
Q How did you first come in contact with the defendant, Preston Hughes, III, on
that morning?
A Sergeant Gafford asked me to come into the room and witness his statement.
Q And was there anyone else present in the room at the time you witnessed his statement?
A Sergeant Gafford asked me to come into the room and witness his statement.
Q And was there anyone else present in the room at the time you witnessed his statement?
- Please request Consent Forms Search and Seizure and Taking Blood, Urine or Hair.
(Portion of Sgt. Gafford's police report page 2.034 verbatim)
SUPPLEMENT ENTERED BY = 88141
REPORT REVIEWED BY-EG EMPLOYEE NUMBER-025810
DATE CLEARED- 09/27/88
REPORT REVIEWED BY-EG EMPLOYEE NUMBER-025810
DATE CLEARED- 09/27/88
NO-0012
OFFENSE- CAPITAL MURDER
STREET LOCATION INFORMATION
NUMBER- 2400 NAME-KIRKWOOD TYPE- SUFFIX-S
APT NO NAME-02400 TYPE- SUFFIX
NUMBER- 2400 NAME-KIRKWOOD TYPE- SUFFIX-S
APT NO NAME-02400 TYPE- SUFFIX
DATE OF OFFENSE-09/26/88 DATE OF SUPPLEMENT-04/24/89
COMPL(S) LAST-CHARLES FIRST-SHANDA MIDDLE
COMPL(S) LAST-CHARLES FIRST-SHANDA MIDDLE
LAST
RECOVERED STOLEN VEHICLES INFORMATION
STORED- BY- PH#- (000) 000-0000
OFFICER1-D.J.GAFFORD EMP#-064486 SHIFT-3 DIV/STATION-HOMICIDE
STORED- BY- PH#- (000) 000-0000
OFFICER1-D.J.GAFFORD EMP#-064486 SHIFT-3 DIV/STATION-HOMICIDE
SUPPLEMENT NARAATIVE
ON SATURDAY, APRIL 22, 1989, SGT.GAFFORD MAET WITH ASST DA CHUCK NOLL, THE PROSECUTOR OF THIS INCIDENT AND REVIEWED THE EVIDENCE WHICH HAD BEEN SUBMITTED TO THE PROPERTY ROOM. THE TRIAL IS SCHEDULED TO BEGIN ON MONDAY, MAY 2, 1989. AFTER REVIEWING THE EVIDENCE, NOLL ASKED SGT TO HAVE THE CRIME LAB EXAMINE ALL OF THE EVIDENCE FOR THE PRESENCE OF BLOOD.
ON MONDAY, APRIL 24, 1989, SGT RECEIVED A TELEPHONE CALL FROM ADA NOLL, AND SGT WAS ADVISED THAT THE VAGINAL SWAB OBTAINED DURING THE AUTOPSY WAS BEING HELD AT THE MEDICAL EXAMINERS OFFICE, AND NOLL REQUESTED THAT THIS EVIDENCE ALSO BE SUBMITTED TO THE CRIME LAB. SGT. GAFFORD DROVE TO THE HARRIS COUNTY MORGUE AND TOOK CUSTODY OF THE EVIDENCE AND SIGNED FOR ITS RELEASE. SGT THEN TOOK THE EVIDENCE TO THE CRIME LAB WITH A SUBMISSION FORM REQUESTING EXAMINATION. SGT GAFFORD DELIVERED THE SWAB TO JIM BOLDING OF THE CRIME LAB.
CRIME LAB : ATTN. JIM BOLDING
PLEASE EXAMINE THE VAGINAL SWAB SUBMITTED 4/24/89 AS REQUESTED, AND EXAMINE ALL OTHER EVIDENCE PREVIOUSLY SUBMITTED TO THE HPD PROPERTY ROOM UNDER THIS INCIDENT NUMBER FOR THE PRESENCE OF BLOOD. THIS EVIDENCE IS NEEDED FOR A CAPITAL MURDER TRIAL WHICH WILL BEGIN ON MAY 1, 1989.
SUPPLEMENT ENTERED BY = 64486
DATE CLEARED- 09/27/88
DATE CLEARED- 09/27/88
END OF PAGE TWO
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)