PASSAGE ONE OF THE DAY: "The motion also included correspondence between Carter and (Prosecutor) Fagin that appeared to include details of A.M.’s statements and the results of her physical examination. The motion said this allowed Carter, who never interviewed A.M., to closely tailor his testimony to match A.M.’s account and better explain her delayed report of the alleged assault. Two days before the trial, Carter wrote to Fagin, “I’ve been thinking about how to best explain your V’s testimony (and inconsistencies) to the jury.” He would later write, “We can point out to the jury that these cases are often quite confusing re: timelines, dates, etc., but that it is important to rely on other factors.”
---------------------------------
PASSAGE TWO OF THE DAY: "Carter also explained in the correspondence how he planned to undermine Moore’s expected testimony that she didn’t witness any sexual abuse. “We probably need to get in the comment that the V’s statement takes [precedence] over the mother’s denial of abuse,” Carter wrote. “You might want to ask me specifically about the V’s perception of her mother given her mother’s willingness to completely submit to the D. If the mother’s disbelief is brought out, I think it would not be difficult to discredit her assertions.”
----------------------------------
GIST: "On July 5, 1999, police in Austin, Texas, were called to the home of Marshall Moreno and his partner, Rhonda Moore, to investigate a complaint of domestic abuse.
Police arrested Moore for assaulting Moreno in front of their two children: S.M., was 10 years old, and his sister, A.M., was 7 years old, five days away from turning 8.
On July 9, the Texas Department of Families and Public Safety removed the two children from the home and placed them in foster care.
Melissa Greer, a counselor with the Children’s Advocacy Center, interviewed A.M. that day. The girl described the domestic violence she had witnessed in her home. She did not mention any sexual abuse.
On July 16, the police report on the incident was changed. The reporting officer said he had reviewed all the evidence and made Rhonda Moore the victim and Moreno the suspect. A warrant for Moreno’s arrest was issued that day. At the time, Moreno was under community supervision for an earlier conviction related to domestic violence. That supervision was later revoked on November 12, 1999, and he was sentenced to 240 days in the Travis County Jail.
During August 1999, A.M. had started meeting with Michele Chandler, a therapist who saw clients referred to her by Child Protective Services (CPS) and other agencies. They met about once a week until January 2000. Chandler would later testify that she asked A.M., who was now 8 years old, if her father had ever touched her in an inappropriate way. According to Chandler, A.M. said no.
A.M.’s first foster placement was with her grandmother. She later moved to a shelter, and then to a non-relative foster placement, with the W. family. She and her brother were removed from that placement after the foster parents complained that the siblings were sexually acting out with other children in the foster home.
A.M. and S.M. were then placed in the group foster home of the B. family. On August 30, 2001, her foster mother contacted CPS to report that A.M. had misbehaved sexually with her foster siblings.
A.M. began seeing Laura Johnson, a therapist who provided services to foster-care agencies. During a session on September 13, 2001, Johnson asked A.M. if she had ever been sexually abused. A.M. said Moreno had sexually abused her prior to her entering foster care.
On October 12, 2001, Alisa Clanin, a forensic interviewer at the Children’s Advocacy Center, videotaped an interview with A.M. The girl provided additional details about the alleged incident and said that her mother had walked in on Moreno assaulting her and hit him with a broom or stick to get him off her. She also said she was eight years old at the time and that Moreno was arrested that night. (A.M. had been removed from the home prior to her birthday, and Moreno had been arrested on the domestic violence charge no earlier than July 16, 1999.)
A week later, Dr. Beth Nauert, a pediatrician and the director of a child abuse clinic that worked with the advocacy center, interviewed A.M. and gave her a physical examination. Nauert reported that she saw no evidence of injuries or scarring.
Police arrested Moreno, then 39 years old, on December 6, 2001, charging him with aggravated sexual assault and two counts of indecency with a child.
Moreno’s trial in Travis County Criminal District Court began on July 22, 2003. Prior to trial, Judge Brenda Kennedy granted the state’s motion to allow A.M. to testify via closed-circuit television.
A.M. testified about the purported abuse and said that Moreno had put his private part on her private part, that it hurt her, and that she asked Moreno to stop.
Asked about her relationship with Moreno, A.M. said, “Sometimes we got along.” Then she began crying.
During his cross examination, Nate Stark, Moreno’s attorney, tried to draw out the inconsistencies between A.M.’s statements and her testimony. A.M. had told Johnson that she bled on the sheets after the assault, but at trial she couldn’t remember if there was anything on the bed and couldn’t remember telling Johnson this detail.
A.M. had told Nauert that Moore was the first person she confided in about the purported incident, but at trial she testified that Johnson was the first. She had also told Clanin that her mother hit Moreno with a stick when she found Moreno with A.M. Those details weren’t part of her trial testimony.
Moore testified that she and Moreno had a relationship filled with fighting and abuse. She said the fighting scared A.M. Prosecutor Beth Fagin asked Moore whether A.M. ever told her about sexual abuse by Moreno. She said no.
Moore was then asked if she ever saw anything sexual between A.M. and Moreno. Moore began crying and asked for a short break to get some air. When Moore returned, Fagin asked her: “Rhonda, did you ever observe anything happening sexually between Marshall Moreno and [A.M.]?”
Moore answered: “I came in one time, and he popped up out of the bed, but I don't know what was happening.” She said she never actually saw any sexual activity.
Nauert, the pediatrician, testified about her examination of A.M. She said that A.M. told her she was asleep in her mother’s room when Moreno entered the room and sexually assaulted her, putting his penis inside and outside her “bottom part in the front.” Nauert also refuted part of A.M.’s testimony, testifying that A.M. told her that Moore was the first person she told about the alleged abuse.
Nauert testified that A.M.’s normal results from the exam did not mean she wasn’t sexually abused. “Those two things are not necessarily the same,” she said. “You can be sexually abused and have a very normal exam. In fact, most people do have normal examinations after they have been sexually abused.”
Later, she said: “There’s lots of kinds of touching, and there’s lots of kinds of sexual abuse. But if you talk to us about penetration, where something is put inside something else, that may or may not leave an actual physical mark or physical finding on that child. And if it does leave a mark or an injury, depending on how much time passes before the child is actually examined, what was there before may be gone.”
Dr. William Carter, a psychologist, testified as an expert witness. He said that the two-year gap between Moreno’s alleged abuse and A.M.’s disclosure was not unusual. He said: “If there is a lot of fear in the home and the child believes that to tell somebody or to stand up for herself is only going to draw more negative attention, it's quite common for the child to simply keep matters to herself, for fear of further retribution. So, you know, as long as the child is in a home environment like that and totally and completely dominated, the chances of her outcrying are going to be diminished.”
Carter had never interviewed A.M., but on cross-examination, he said his experience made him a keen observer of children.
“Oh, there is a certain look in the eye, a certain fear in the eye of a child that has been abused,” he said. “One of the things that I watch for very carefully is the child’s capacity to attach. You know, when I touch the child, does she respond, can you feel the tenseness about them; or are they overly responsive and they're too quick. I really look for attachment reactions, and then I also look for fear reactions.”
Moreno did not testify. His sister, Cynthia Morriss, testified that she never saw A.M. or her brother being harmed in any way.
During his closing argument, Stark said that A.M.’s testimony was inconsistent and had been shaped by numerous meetings with prosecutors and health-care workers. “When she came in and she testified, how did she appear to you all,” he asked. “I hope that you saw her the same way as I saw her; and that was the way everyone else has seen her, and that was hesitant, reticent, not wanting to testify at all. In fact, it was very difficult for the prosecutor to get the statement out of her.”
In the state’s closing argument, Prosecutor Melinda McCracken said A.M. had no incentive to falsely accuse Moreno. She urged jurors to remember Carter’s testimony that children who lied couldn’t fabricate their emotions. She said that was the smoking gun in the case, referring to the part of the trial when A.M. began crying after Fagin asked the girl about her relationship with Moreno. “She completely breaks down and cries,” McCracken said. “You can’t fake that, ladies and gentlemen. This child has no motivation, no reason to lie, and you certainly can’t fake that emotion.”
The jury convicted Moreno on all counts on July 24, 2003. Judge Kennedy sentenced him to 36 years in prison on the sexual assault conviction and concurrent sentences of six years and 12 years on the indecency convictions.
Moreno appealed, arguing that Judge Kennedy had erred in allowing A.M. to testify via closed-circuit television, which he said violated his Sixth Amendment right to confront a witness.
The Third District of the Texas Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction on March 10, 2005. It noted that “face-to-face” confrontation rights weren’t absolute; they could be adjusted in specific situations, such as when a child witness might be traumatized by the presence of the defendant. The court said that the state’s witnesses at the pre-trial hearing adequately explained A.M.’s anxiety and fear, and that Judge Kennedy’s ruling was “well within the ‘zone of reasonable disagreement.’”
In late 2020, A.M. contacted Charles Press, the director of the Actual Innocence Clinic at the University of Texas School of Law and recanted her testimony. She told Press that she had falsely accused Moreno of sexually assaulting her and testified falsely at his trial.
Press reached out to the Conviction Integrity Unit of the Travis County District Attorney’s Office, which began its own investigation and shared its case file with Press.
On November 4, 2024, Press filed a state petition for a writ of habeas corpus in Travis County District Court.
The motion, which said that Moreno was innocent, included an affidavit from A.M., who was now 33 years old. She had been adopted by the B. family and taken their last name and a new first name. In the affidavit, A.M., now known as D.B., said her adoptive mother had pressured her to falsely accuse her father and then to testify in court against him.
She wrote: “Keeping up with this lie has been eating me up from inside. I was tired of feeling guilt every single day of my life. I would wake up and go to sleep thinking about it.”
The motion also included correspondence between Carter and Fagin that appeared to include details of A.M.’s statements and the results of her physical examination. The motion said this allowed Carter, who never interviewed A.M., to closely tailor his testimony to match A.M.’s account and better explain her delayed report of the alleged assault.
Two days before the trial, Carter wrote to Fagin, “I’ve been thinking about how to best explain your V’s testimony (and inconsistencies) to the jury.”
He would later write, “We can point out to the jury that these cases are often quite confusing re: timelines, dates, etc., but that it is important to rely on other factors.”
Carter also explained in the correspondence how he planned to undermine Moore’s expected testimony that she didn’t witness any sexual abuse. “We probably need to get in the comment that the V’s statement takes [precedence] over the mother’s denial of abuse,” Carter wrote. “You might want to ask me specifically about the V’s perception of her mother given her mother’s willingness to completely submit to the D. If the mother’s disbelief is brought out, I think it would not be difficult to discredit her assertions.”
Prior to trial, Fagin was concerned about the inconsistency in A.M.’s statements and the delay in her report of the alleged assault. Fagin said in an email to a therapist she consulted with that A.M. appeared to have said the alleged sexual abuse occurred in a house she lived in when she was three years old, rather than her residence during the summer of 1999.
“The district attorney’s expressed doubts about the credibility of the story [A.M.] told as a child, reinforces the credibility of what [A.M.] is now saying as an adult—that her father never sexually abused her, and that she fabricated the story,” the motion said.
Judge Brandy Mueller held an evidentiary hearing on the habeas petition on July 10, 2025. D.B. was the only witness. Moreno attended the hearing via Zoom.
D.B. testified that Moreno never sexually abused her and that she had testified falsely at his trial. She also testified about how she first came to accuse her father of sexual abuse. “I felt pressured with my adopted family,” she said. “I felt like I had to do it to please them. I felt like they hated my dad, so I felt like I had to hate him, too. So, yeah, that's like one of the biggest—like I have so many, like, little different reasons as to why, but this is horrible. This is so horrible.”
She said once she made the initial false accusation, she was scared to tell the truth and upset the relative stability in her new life. “I probably would have been like, I don’t know, maybe like disowned by her or something, probably wouldn’t have got adopted,” D.B. said.
After the hearing, Moreno supplemented his habeas petition, asserting that the state violated his constitutional rights by presenting false testimony at his trial.
On September 15, 2025, Judge Mueller recommended that the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals grant the habeas petition based on D.B.’s recantation and Moreno’s actual innocence.
The ruling said, “To the extent that other witnesses corroborated D.B.’s false trial testimony, such corroboration was based entirely upon her false outcry; no independent or physical evidence supported the conviction.”
On November 20, 2025, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals granted Moreno’s petition as recommended by Judge Mueller.
The state dismissed the charges based on actual innocence on December 18, 2025. Moreno was released from prison.
“Although dismissing his cases won’t undo the 24 years Mr. Moreno spent incarcerated, we hope it helps him as he works toward rebuilding his life,” Travis County District Attorney José Garza said. “We are thankful for the courage shown by the main witness to come forward.”""
The entire entry (dated January 12, 2026, can be read at:
https://exonerationregistry.orgcases/
PUBLISHER'S NOTE: I am monitoring this case/issue/resource. Keep your eye on the Charles Smith Blog for reports on developments. The Toronto Star, my previous employer for more than twenty incredible years, has put considerable effort into exposing the harm caused by Dr. Charles Smith and his protectors - and into pushing for reform of Ontario's forensic pediatric pathology system. The Star has a "topic" section which focuses on recent stories related to Dr. Charles Smith. It can be found at: http://www.thestar.com/topic/charlessmith. Information on "The Charles Smith Blog Award"- and its nomination process - can be found at: http://smithforensic.blogspot.com/2011/05/charles-smith-blog-award-nominations.html Please send any comments or information on other cases and issues of interest to the readers of this blog to: hlevy15@gmail.com. Harold Levy: Publisher: The Charles Smith Blog.
SEE BREAKDOWN OF SOME OF THE ON-GOING INTERNATIONAL CASES (OUTSIDE OF THE CONTINENTAL USA) THAT I AMFINAL WORD: (Applicable to all of our wrongful conviction cases): "Whenever there is a wrongful conviction, it exposes errors in our criminal legal system, and we hope that this case — and lessons from it — can prevent future injustices."
Lawyer Radha Natarajan:
Executive Director: New England Innocence Project;
———————————————————————————————
FINAL WORD: (Applicable to all of our wrongful conviction cases): "Whenever there is a wrongful conviction, it exposes errors in our criminal legal system, and we hope that this case — and lessons from it — can prevent future injustices."
Lawyer Radha Natarajan:
Executive Director: New England Innocence Project;
—————————————————————————————————
FINAL, FINAL WORD: "Since its inception, the Innocence Project has pushed the criminal legal system to confront and correct the laws and policies that cause and contribute to wrongful convictions. They never shied away from the hard cases — the ones involving eyewitness identifications, confessions, and bite marks. Instead, in the course of presenting scientific evidence of innocence, they've exposed the unreliability of evidence that was, for centuries, deemed untouchable." So true!
Christina Swarns: Executive Director: The Innocence Project;
-------------------------------------------------------------------
