Trials and Errors

Trials and Errors

Rice testified at my first trial, which ended in a mistrial- the jury
couldn't come to a unanimous decision. A new trial date was to be
scheduled. Tim Rice's brother, H.E. Rice began trying to kill me. He
shot at me, cut my tires repeatedly, left messages at my door
threatening my family. I finally had had enough. I couldn't take it
anymore. I wrote a letter to the FBI asking for their help. I had no
gun to protect myself, the Rangers had taken them. No one came from the FBI.

     Rule and I sold the car and got on a bus and went to Monterrey,
Mexico. I rented a flat there and we applied for jobs. I was trying to
teach English to the taxi drivers there and Rule was delivering spices
to convenience stores. I didn't even know when my trial was to be. I
went back to Pittsburg and got my half of the income tax return and gave
Barry, my ex-husband, my address in Mexico and told him when the FBI
come to please give it to them.   He gave my address to the Rangers
instead. We were arrested in Monterrey by Federalis and flown to the
border to Nuevo Laredo where Customs agents picked us up and took us to

Laredo jail. I insisted on speaking with an FBI agent, and Ranger
Howard Dunham and Liz Temlin came to get us and take my statement.

We awaited trial.

Agent Dunham testified at my trial that I had written
to them before going to Mexico, but they hadn't investigated.

(click on the file below to read Louanne's Statement to FBI)

     At the second trial, Rice refused to testify. This nullified his plea
bargain. The D.A. and 2 lawyers read his testimony from the first trial
transcripts to the jury. The D.A. held up a pair of men's 32"X32"
Wrangler jeans that had blood spatter on them and told the jury they
were mine and that I had been wearing them. They were not mine, and I
had no idea how they had gotten into my apartment closet. Before the
jury came back with a guilty verdict, they sent a note out to the court
requesting to see those jeans. Therefore, those jeans were relevant to
the finding of guilty. Those were not my jeans, nor had I worn them.
If a trace evidence search was done on the inside waistband of the jeans
for skin particles, sweat particles, etc., it would prove not only that
I wasn't wearing those jeans, but who was.

Testimony at the trial revealed that the victim, Baker, worked for H.E. Rice at his store and the Rice's believed he had stolen a sofa and loveseat from them. H.E. was having an affair with Baker's girlfriend, who worked at the store also. Baker's mother testified at the first trial. Because her testimony was favorable to me, the D.A. didn't call her to testify at the 2nd trial. I didn't even know Cedric Baker or his family.

Testimony revealed that the victim, Wardlaw, had been paid by Tim Rice to overhaul his truck, but Wardlaw had not done so. Statements at trial showed I told the Rangers, Rice killed them. Tim Rule's statement said Rice came out of the room saying he killed them and he had blood on his glasses. Cheryl Riggs testified that earlier that night, Tim Rice told her he was going to "take out" Baker and Wardlaw. Contrary to rumors Rice started, Eddie Wardlaw was a good person. He helped me at the club on occasion, changed the oil and worked on my car. There was no motive or reason why I would want him harmed or killed. The D.A.'s theory was it was over $30.00 missing from the door cover charges. Eddie told me who took it and I believed him. His life mattered to me, and though I didn't know him, Baker's did too. I love people and would not kill anyone. Tim Rice did.

Rule and I were tried together. Rice had a trial later on. The entire
trial from the arrest to conviction is based on statements Tim Rice
gave to Texas Ranger, Howard Dunham. He lied. Eventually telling
Rangers five different statements.

At my first trial, he had plea bargained with District Attorney pro
tem, James Finstrom for 15 years for murder in exchange for testifying
against me. He testified at my first trial. He admitted shooting
Cedric Baker betweent he eyes. He said yes, his brother thought Cedric
had stolen a sofa and love seat from their store. He said Eddie Wardlaw
had been paid to overhaul his truck and had not done so, which was
verified by Wardlaw's mother. He said the only way he would have known
that I had been a police officer and responsible for the search warrant
ran on his house would have been if Tim Rule had told him that. Rule
and Rice were friends and lived together long before I met either one of
them. They set me up because of the warrant.

Rice was barred from my club. He had not called me or talked to me
that night- he talked to Rule in the bar area on that phone. I didn't
even know he called or was coming to the club. To be a party to a
crime, a person has to promote, assist, knowingly and intentionally,
which I had no knowledge of. In Christenson v. State 240 S.W. 3d 25, on
the law of parties, if the evidence is legally insufficient to support
conviction i.d. 35- Deception after the event is alone not enough to
show intent.

Also, flight may infer guilt, but I was there through one trial and had
no reason to doubt the next trial would end in a conviction. Months
later we left because H.E. Rice kept trying to kill me because he was
afraid I'd testify against his brother. I knew first-hand what these
men were capable of and was justified in trying to survive.

In the clippings from the media, "Flowers" is Brantley Foster, and
though Rice killed both men, he only admitted to killing Baker. In Beck
v Alabama 100 S.C.t. 238z note [15] p. 12-13, "if he did not murder
Clark, then the murder of Boyd was not Capital Murder since the
appellant did not murder more than one person. the Court therefore
erred in not giving the jury a change on the lesser included offense of
murder. The judgement must be reversed and remanded for new trial."

In Moore v. State 969 S.W.2d 4 (Texas), the Court of Criminal Appeals,
Womack Judge, held that (1) defendant was entitled to jury charge on
voluntary manslaughter as lesser included offense of Captial Murder,
overruling Bradley v. State 688 S.W. 2d 847 and Ojeda v State 712 S.W.2d 742 and (2) defendant was entitled to jury charge on murder as lesser included offense of Capital Murder. Reversed and remanded. Note 13- If, in Capital Murder case, there is some evidence before the jury that would permit it to rationally find that a defendant intentionally or
knowingly caused the death of another, but that the additional element
in Captial Murder statute was not proved, then the defendant is entitled
to a charge on the lesser included offense of murder.

Ann. Texas C.C.P. art 37.09 VTCA Penal Code Sec 19.02, 19.03
(a)(7)(A)(1993), Note #10- In determining whether to give a charge on
lesser included offense, it is not the Court's function to determine the
weight to be given the evidence raising the issue; rather, it is the
jury's duty, under proper instructions, to determine whether the
evidence is credible and supports the lesser included offense. Vernon's
Ann. Texsas C.C.P. Art. 37.09. Because my first trial ended in a
mistrial because some of the jurors determined I was innocent, the
probability I would have received a lesser sentence is, if given the
instructions for one to the jury, is great. If my attorney had told the
truth and allowed me to testify, I would not have been convicted at all.

The clippings from the newspaper say that Eddie Wardlaw was shot in the head. He was not. Bullets entered his torso at an angle that only a
taller person than me (Rice or Rule) would have had to been the one
doing the shooting.

Clippings show the inaccuracies of the news media.

(Click on the Files Below Page to Read the Articles)

Tim Rice Receives 99-year sentence

Murder Suspects Apprehended in Mexico

Change of Venue Not Granted Yet

Appeals Court Overturns Man's Murder Conviction

Article From the Bee Regarding Tim Rule Appeal Upheld

All testimony from Rice's relatives to Cheryl Riggs said that they did not see me.

Rice's relatives testified he and Rule alone were on the road
and at their house after the crime, and had the 99mm Beretta in their
possession. They were trying to take it apart. (Perhaps to swap out
the barrels?) I was not with them, so how could I be in control of
anything? They both admitted they loaded up the bodies and carried them to Rice's home county in Red River,

an area I'm not even familiar
with. The prosecutor's comments are contrary to what was testified at
my first trial. He knew he was misstating facts to the media when he
said it. His whole theatrics on my case were staged to help him get
elected as Marion County District Attorney. He had been temporarily
appointed over my case.

The comments on my blonde hair- If the Department of Public Safety will release the

photo from the last time I renewed my driver's license, way
before the crime occurred, they will see my hair was blonde. I did not
dye it to escape from law enforcement as he claimed.

Setting my bond at $2 million and my co-defendant's, who was charged
with the same crime at $1 million, shows such discrimination as to
border on malicious, vindictive prosecution.

The District Attorney stating to the media before the trial,
"I'm asking the Judge to set Rule's bond at a million dollars and hers
at 2 million, because she's the mastermind" is a violation of the
Government Code.

My business ledger that showed Wardlaw did not owe me money was confiscated by

Rangers and suppressed by the Court over my lawyers objection. According to the

Texas Rules of Evidence Art X Rule 1001:

(a) Writings and Recordings- letters, words, or numbers, set down by handwriting ,

typewriting, or electronic recording

Rule 106: Writing or Recorded Statements

Rule 1002: Requirement of Originals to prove the content of writing or recording is required.

Rule 902 (10) (A): Business Records may be entered accompanied by an affidavit.

In Dykes v State 325 S.W. 2d 135, the comments made by the prosecutor such as

"the highly paid attorneys are only a mouthpiece for a bunch of rapists, thieves, and murderers"

was reprimanded and reversed. Mr. Finstrom said many comments such as

"if you want to prosecute the devil, you have to go to hell for the witnesses," and "these people are up
using drugs, murdering people all night when decent people are in bed,"
which is not true. I worked very hard, was not the devil, but tried to
HELP people, and there was no evidence of drug use or of me selling drugs,

only lies told by Tim Rice to pass blame on to me for a crime HE committed.

In C.C.P. 38.17, it says two witnesses are required for a conviction.
What the Court had was one- Tim Rice passing blame. Rule said in his
statement that Rice came out of the room with blood on his glasses and
said he killed them. Cheryl Riggs testified Rice told her earlier in the night he planned to kill them.

Relevant Evidence is admissible. My business ledger was relevant as it proved Wardlaw did not owe anything.

Rule 404: Texas Rules of Evidence- Character of the victim. It was
not entered either by the prosecution or my attorney that Cedric Baker
had been released from Dallas County Jail on an armed robbery charge.
His mother, Ruth Baker knew this, but no one let her speak.

Eddie Wardlaw had been kicked out of his parents home because of his drug use.

In 890 S.W. 2d 158, the Court of Appeals overruled Tim Rule's
conviction, saying his statement was inadmissable in court- the same
statement used against me. It was heard by the jury, but he did not
testify which violated the confrontation clause. In his statement, he
inferred that I was in the office too. He also lied and said he thought
Eddie owed me money at one time.

In Rice's appeal 893 S.W. 2d 734, the jury at his trial found he LIED.
He changed his story between my two trials and refused to testify at my
2nd trial. His jury found he lied, so if he lied, that means I'm
innocent and he's guilty. His appeal was denied.

When H.E. Rice tried to kill me, law enforcement officers said, "No,
he's a decent businessman. He wouldn't do a thing like that.", and I
received no protection at all. In H.E. Rice 96 S.W. 3d 642, i.d.
648-649, the appeal judges in his appeal on a divorce found he was
violent and cruel and his appeal was denied. So that proves what I was saying all along is true.

Tim Rice was a known drug dealer, known violent also. I believe the
trial (my arrest and bond) was an attempt by the Rangers and prosecution
to make big headlines because I was a police officer at the time. The
prosecutor most likely wanted to be elected to position of District Attorney to which he

had only been temporarily appointed. He succeeded.

* There is no record on any of the autopsy reports the "time or date the victims were killed".

None at all.

* The luminal used by the Crime Lab Techs from Austin would have shown where blood was even

if someone had cleaned it. Because there was scarcely a minute amount of blood located in the office,

I suggest that speck came from when Rice said he kicked Wardlaw in the mouth.

The men could have been ordered to lay on the floor and bullets could have been shot into the sofa,

which was a sofa bed folded up. They could have
been killed somewhere else- it's highly probable because of the actual
lack of evidence.

* Penal Code Section 9.22: Necessity. Conduct is justified if:

(1) the actor reasonably believe the conduct is immediately necessary to avoid imminent harm,

(2) the desirability and urgency of avoiding the harm clearly outweigh,
according to ordinary standards of reasonableness, the harm sought to be
prevented by the law proscribing the conduct, and

(3) a legislative purpose to exclude the justification claimed for the conduct does not otherwise plainly appear.

I felt I would have been killed, and I felt Rule would be killed and
possibly other innocent people if anyone approached Rice in his state. I
did call the Task Force for help. They said they would send someone,
but no one came. Later, when H.E. tried to kill me, I sent a letter to
the FBI requesting help, none came, so I left. I felt there was nothing
else to do to stay alive. This is why I went to Mexico.

*Howard Dunham testified he knew what was supposed to be on a warrant and

he knew at the time there was no probably cause in the warrant.

What I am striving to show is- although I didn't commit the crime, according to the law,

even if I had, I should not receive a capital sentence.

I made bad decisions, wrong choices, and am far from perfect, but I did
not kill those men, nor did I know it was going to occur.

I just want to go home!