Jake's book Captured by Love and Forgiveness is now available!
Please go to XulonPress to buy it!

Previous Trial Page    Next Trial Page: Judge Logue's Testimony

Here is the complete testimony of Jacob Blackmon at this trial for the murder of Christopher Schumacher.

Jake's trial testimony is first, followed directly by Jerry Wilson's:

You will notice that on cross, D.A. Long (starting on Page 104) spends quite a bit of time asking Jake about his prior run-ins with the law. Notice, too, that his lawyer raises no objection to this.

What Jake is testifying to are called "Prior Bad Acts". The University of Houston Law Foundation has an article called "Advanced Education and Discovery: Credibility and Impeachment," which you can find in total here. On Page 19 the article discusses Prior Bad Acts," and on Page 22 there is this:

Now, Jake's lawyer, Mr. Hurley, did not raise any objection to this, as you can see in the trial testimony.

It would seem that none of the exceptions outlined in Rule 609(a) are met: the witness did not "open the door" and the witness's prior conduct doesn't seem relevant to proving bias or interest. In fact, D.A. Long does not attempt to link Jake's previous conduct to anything.

And this is Rule 609:


(a) General Rule. For the purpose of attacking the credibility of a witness, evidence that the witness has been convicted of a crime shall be admitted if elicited from the witness or established by public record but only if the crime was a felony or involved moral turpitude, regardless of punishment, and the court determines that the probative value of admitting this evidence outweighs its prejudicial effect to a party.

(b) Time Limit. Evidence of a conviction under this rule is not admissible if a period of more than ten years has elapsed since the date of the conviction or of the release of the witness from the confinement imposed for that conviction, whichever is the later date, unless the court determines, in the interests of justice, that the probative value of the conviction supported by specific facts and circumstances substantially outweighs its prejudicial effect.

It seems simply an attempt, and probably a successful one, to convict Jake, at least partly, on the basis of previous unrelated actions. And his attorney said nothing.

Following Jake was Detective Wilson:

There is more to come!