“It boggles the mind that neither side knew about this during trial,” Ellis said. “Both sides in this case were spectacularly incompetent.”
That’s Judge Mark Kent Ellis of the 351st District Court commenting, on the record, on the performance of “defense lawyer” Ronald Ray, Sr. and an as-yet-unidentified prosecutor. Not just incompetent but spectacularly incompetent.
Both Ronald Ray, Sr. and the DA’s Office had the same response: Me no Alamo. Me no Goliad (history lesson for my non-Texas readers):
“If the defense had raised the issue either prior to or during trial, the prosecutor would have immediately investigated his claims and taken the appropriate action,” said the DA’s Office.
Ray “believes it was unfair Montgomery had to show he was innocent when the burden in the case rested with prosecutors, who had to prove he was guilty.”
This is what generally happens when the defense relies on the presumption of innocence: the government proves the defendant guilty. So unfair!
Speaking of Ronald Ray, Sr.: he was the “trial lawyer” on this case, in which, after his client was convicted of sexual assault, Ray advised the client to plead “true” to a prior conviction that resulted in a mandatory life sentence. He would have done no worse had he pled “not true” and forced the government to prove the out-of-state conviction to the jury, and might have done substantially better.