In The

Judicial District Court
Parish Of Bossier, State Of Louisiana
26tb

STATE OF LOUISIANA,

Plaintffi

No. #

[F

ffiLE
DEC 0

6

2011

Þ
JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
28TH
763572 BOSSIËR PAR ISH, LOU ISIA¡'{A

v
Hon. Jeff Cox, Division C, presiding
ROBERT MCCOY
Defendønt.

DECLARATION OF LARRY ENGLISET
Larry English, under penaity of perjury, declares the followi¡g to be tue:

1.

My name is Lany English. I am over 18 years of age, of sound mind, and competsnt to make
this decla¡ation and personally acquainted with the facts stated herein.

2. I am an attomey barred in the State of Louisiana
counsel. From Ma¡ch 2010 untii August 2011

I

and am presently licensed as out of state
served as

bial

counsel

jn State v. Robert

McCoy.

3. I was retained by Mr. McCoy's

family to assume his representation and enrolied after M¡.

McCoy had dismissed his appointed public defenders. I received from the family only a small
fraction of the fees I had quoted for the case.

4.

Throughout the entùe period of my rqrresentation, Mr. McCoy adamantly maintained iris
i¡nocence and ciaimed that he was out of state at the time of the killings. Mr. McCoy has
maintained this position despite evidence that

I regarded as overwhelming that he did in fact

commit these kiilings.

5.

When

I

enroiled as M¡. McCoy's counsel

I

did not immediately challenge lr4r. McCoy's

innocence claim but instead said to him words to the effect

you,

oÎ I have no reason to disbelieve

I'll try to coliect all the evidence and get all tlie State's f,les and every'thing and once I

review it,

6. I believe

I'll

come back

in and I'11 give you my honest assessment of where i think the case is.

that usually when you are first dealing with a client facing

jail or death they are in

,

7 2'¿,

EXHIBIT

II
D

s

A

 denial and your task is to bring than aiong to deal with the reaiity of the situation, the state of
the evidence, the likely outcome of the

rational decision.
opportunity

I

bial.

Then they can emb¡ace the options and make a

kied to take Robert McCoy through this process but there r¡/as no

to do this. Robert McCoy believed that law

enforcement and others were

conspiring against him and he was simply unable to accept the evidence against him.

7. I am an experienced criminal practitioner

and

I have wo¡ked with many clients who I would

consider sociopaths who have tried to play me. Even witir the manipulators, what happens
99.90/,
even

of the time is that eventually they unde¡stand their situation and want to get the deal,

if it isn't until

the day of

tial.

Robert McCoy was very different to tbis, this was not part

of his mental makeup. I do not believe that Robert McCoy was denying his involvement in the
crime to manipulate me, the system, or anyone else. I am certain that he huly believed that he
was out of state at the time of the crime and that law enforcement and others were conspiring
against

him. Because

of this delusion Mr. McCoy was incapable of rationally dealing with the

evidence of his guilt.

8. As time passed I

became convinced that the evidence against Robert McCoy was

overwhelming. I negotiated with the Disbict Attomey's Office to open up the possibility of

a

plea of guilly in return for a sentence of life imprisonment. About a month before the July
2011 t-ial date

I confronted Mr. McCoy with the fact that I believed that his case couid not be

won and that he needed to take a plea. Mr. McCoy simply could not deal with this or accçt
this reality. As a result of my atter-npts to persuade him to take a piea, Mr. McCoy came to
believe that I was conspiring with the Distr-ict Attomey's Office and law enforcement to seli

him out.

9.

On July 72,201i I met with Robe¡t at the courthouse and explained to him that I intended to
concede that he had kilied the three victims in the guilt pirase of his trial

life. This was the first tirne that I had told Robert
was the

killer.

Roberl was furious and

in an effort to save his

that I intended to concede to the jury that he

it was a very

intense meeting. He told me not to make

that concession but I told him that I was going to do so. I explained that I feit I had an ethical

r')
r

6-]¡

ß
.'. þi

 duty to save his life, regardless of what he wanted to

do. i

ended the meeting as

it

was

becoming too intense. This was essentially the end of our professional relationship. From that

time on he saw me not as his lawyer but as his enemy - part of the system that was conspiring

to convict him of a crime he believed that he had not committed.

i0. I next went to see Roberl

at Bossier Max on the weekend before trial was due to

came out to the interview but expressed surprise and frush-ation that

sta¡t. Robert

I was there. He toid me

that he had already fired me and that I had no business on his sase anymore. Robert told me
that he had arranged for two other ia\¡/yers to come onto the case to replace

very angry with me and feit that I had betayed

him.

me. He rsmained

Robert made it very clear that he believed

that he was entitled to dischilge me as hìs counsel and that he had done

so. This was a

relatively short interview. I tried to see him again on the Monday but he refused to see me1

1.

I know that Robert was completely opposed to me teiling

the

jury that he was guilty of killing

the three victims and telling the jury that ire was cra.zy but I believed that this was the only way

to save his

life.

I needed to maintain my credibility with th" ju.y in the penalty phase and couid

not do that if I argued in the guilt phase that he was not in Louisiana at the time of the killings,
as he insisted.
believed that

I consulted with other counsei and was avr'are of the Haynes case and so I

I was entitled to concede Robert's guiit of second

had expressly told me not to do

so. I feit that

as

long

as

degree mu¡der even though he

I was his attomey of record it was my

eürical duty to do what I thougbt was best to save his life even though what he wanted me to do
was

to

get

him acquitted in the guilt phase. I believed the evidence to be overwhelming

and

that it was my job to act in what I believed to be my client's best inte¡ests.
12. On Tuesda¡ July 26,201 1, we had a hearing to determine whether Robert would be permitted

to discharge me. The court ruled that I would conti¡ue to represent Robert. I raised with the
court again the fact that I did not inte,lrd to present the defense that Robert wanted but would do
what I considered best. The trial judge directed me that this is what I should do.
13. Robe¡t was very detemined

to go to h'ial and concemed to avoid any delay. He was iooking

forward to the day finaily arriving and was excited about the prospect of confronting and
FJIìry
E þû

 chalienging what he saw as the lies and corruption in the case. Robert believed that he wouid
be successful at

tial

and would be released. Robert would not have agreed to me seekìng any

frrrther continuance of the case and ver-ymuch wanted to go to

bial on July 28, 2011. I

am

certain the Robert did not seek to discha:ge me as his counsel and either seek a substitute
attomey or seek to represent himself for the pulpose of delay.
sought to

rçlace me

because

concede that he was the

I wouid not present

kiiler. It is essentially

I firmly believe that Robert

the defense he wanted a¡d was going to

the same reason that he dismissed his earlier

appointed attomeys; because they did not accept

his claim of ilnocence and were not

investigating and preparing the defense he wanted_
14.

I ñrmly believe that Roberl McCoy is i¡sane and u'as not competent to be bied.
who

I

'was,

Robea-t knew

who the prosecutor a¡d the judge were, what our roles in the courkoom we¡e

supposed to be, that he was accused of tli¡ee mu¡ders and r.vas facing a trial in wb.ich he could

get a death penahy. However, he could not assist counsel or participate effectively in the
proceedings due

to his mental illness. He could not rationally

understand the proceedings

because he saw the evidence, the procedures and the rulings through the lens of his delusion

that law enforcernent, the prosecutor, the judge and ultimately myself rvere conspiring against

him. Robert could not consult with me with any ¡easonable degree of rational understanding

both because his paranoia and delusions destroyed

ou

professional relationship and also

because ä11information'was distorted or obscured by his delusions.
i 5. During my representation

I could

in these conversations as best

meet with Rober-t and talk to Robert and he would cooperate

as he was abie. However, Robert was unable

with the evidence of his guilt and the case against

him.

to deai rationally

Robert could not recall and reiate facts

pertaining to his actions and whereabouts at the time of the crime because he huly beiieved that

he was elsewhere at the time of the crime. He could not assist in locating and examining
relevant witnesses because his witnesses were a part of his delusions
relevance was dictated by his paranoia and his belief

in some cases o¡ their

in a large scale conspiracy against him.

Robert could not review discovery or listen to evidence and assist in assessing any distortions or

7 2Ê

 misstatements because he could not gapple with the evidence in the real

world. He could not

make rational decisions despite my efforts to clearly explain his alternatives and could not
testifu except to give vent to his delusions and paranora.
16. As a di¡ect rezult of his delusions and paranoia Robert was unable

to accept

a plea

offer that I

believe was in his best interests. Not only was Robert incapable of providing or discussing
useful factuai information about the crime, his extreme paranoia meant that efforts on my part

to discuss the

case realistically caused

him to see me as a part of the conspiracy against him,

destroying our working relationship.
17. Robert's delusions regarding his innocence and the conspiracy against

him also impaired my

ability to prepare for the sentencing hearing. He did not initially refuse to discuss things we
needed to prepare

for the penalty phase, but he cut off cooperation after I toid him I would

concede his guilt in the

killings despite his objections. However, even before that he could not

discuss the circumstances

of the offense in any realistic way and his paranoia had already

undermined the relationship

of trust

needed

to work on thè sentencing hearing. When I told

Robert he needed to plead guilty and began to strongly urge him to do so he developed a
profound dish-ust of me and anyone working with me.

I declare

to be

VI

of perjury this 4th day of December, 2011

English

/e-

4

20/

72?