4. May the Record Reflect

Summary

---

The Unforgotten – Season 5: Riding Shotgun

Episode 4: "May the Record Reflect"
Release Date: April 13, 2026
Host: Michelle Pitcher (Free Range Productions, Texas Observer)
Summary by Podcast Summarizer

---

Episode Overview

This episode delves into the murder trial of Charles Don Flores, focusing on the 1999 conviction which led to his nearly three decades on Texas’s death row. With the title "May the Record Reflect," the episode examines the trial’s legal intricacies, the role of the controversial "law of parties," shifting witness testimony (most notably influenced by hypnosis), prosecutorial tactics, and the uneven paths of Flores' co-defendants, Rick Childs and Jackie Roberts. Through new interviews with juror number seven (Brian), defense attorney Brad Lawler, and other key voices, the episode asks whether justice was truly served and if the record accurately reflects Flores’s guilt.

---

Key Discussion Points and Insights

---

1. Case Background and Key Players

• Charles Flores was tried and sentenced to death for the 1998 murder of Betty Black.
• Co-defendants: Jackie Roberts (Black’s former daughter-in-law), and Rick Childs (Jackie’s then-boyfriend). Both implicated, but received lighter sentences or had charges dropped.
• The Law of Parties: In Texas, it's sufficient for a jury to find someone guilty of murder if they participated in a felony where a death was foreseeable, even if they didn’t pull the trigger. This concept is central to Flores’s conviction.
• Quote: "The person driving the getaway car is just as guilty as the person going inside, and they can both be convicted for killing the clerk. That’s just the way it is."
  — Jason January, Lead Prosecutor [03:50]

---

2. Uneven Justice Among Defendants

• Only Flores faced the death penalty; Jackie’s charges were dropped, Rick received a plea deal after admitting (in writing) to being the shooter.
• Prosecution prioritized deals with those who cooperated, a pattern January defended as routine but which defense called selectively unfair.
• Vocals: Racism allegations (Rick is white, Charles Hispanic) arose but were dismissed by the lead prosecutor, who attributed outcomes to cooperation and previous records.
• Quote: "Most of the time, it’s who’s cooperating, who is trying to work a plea bargain... Flores... was a dangerous criminal before and during and after."
  — Jason January [07:35]
• Quote: "It happens because the prosecutor allows it to happen. And that’s the only way I can put it."
  — Brad Lawler, Defense Attorney [08:55]

---

3. The Trial: Strategy, Evidence, and the Law of Parties

Jury Selection and Legal Framing

• Jury selection lasted over two months.
• Jurors received frank descriptions of the mechanics of capital punishment and what it would mean to sentence Flores to death.
• Quote: "If we prevail, the defendant will one day lie dead on a gurney in the death chamber in Huntsville."
  — Mary Miller, Assistant District Attorney (Read by Wes) [05:58]

Circumstantial Evidence

• No direct evidence (no fingerprints, fibers, or eyewitness to the murder).
• Prosecution relied heavily on circumstantial evidence, including testimony from drug associates and neighbors.
• Quote: "Rarely did you have anything but circumstantial, and that’s what makes murder cases the most difficult, is that your eyewitness is dead."
  — Jason January [11:25]

Key Witnesses and Their Flaws

• Jackie Roberts: Admitted motives, claimed to have drawn a map for the babysitter, but earlier told police she gave a map to Rick the morning of the murder; caught lying about sobriety.
• Doug Roberts: Offered conflicting timeline details and possibly protected friends.
• Vanessa (Rick’s ex): Testified to seeing Rick and Charles together—this contradicted Charles’s alibi story.

Jill Barganier and Hypnotically-Refreshed Memory

• Neighbor Jill Barganier, after months of being unable to identify Flores and after police hypnosis, testified at trial she was "over 100% certain" he was the man she saw the morning of the murder [16:09].
• On cross, it was revealed she failed to identify Flores in a police lineup after hypnosis; doubt was cast on her recollection’s validity.
• Juror perspective: It was "definitive" in the courtroom, but Brian (Juror 7) confesses in hindsight he wishes the hypnosis issue had been emphasized; it "would have caused me pause, for sure." [16:34–17:33]
• The jury’s only instruction was to consider or disregard testimony if they distrusted it due to hypnosis—no strong emphasis was placed on this warning [17:54–18:48].

Confessions and Secondary Testimony

• Two people (Homero Garcia and Jonathan Waite) testified Flores confessed aspects of the crime to them; both had serious credibility issues (drug use, legal leverage, inconsistent statements).
• The defense argues these confessions were coerced or unreliable.

---

4. Defense Case and Hurdles

Lack of Time, Evidence, and Discovery

• Defense attorneys had little time and access to evidence due to the judge’s and prosecution’s rush to trial.
• No police files, witness statements, or co-defendant interviews were available before trial.
• Quote: "The judge was pushing us to go to trial and Jason was pushing us to go to trial. So there I was kind of stuck."
  — Brad Lawler [29:10]

Surprise Witness and Disputed Affidavit

• Jill Barganier’s in-court identification was unexpected, leaving the defense scrambling.
• Lawler later issued an affidavit (which he now disavows) appearing to say Charles admitted guilt—a pivotal document now in dispute [35:41–38:54].
• Lawler claims the prosecution wrote it, he may have signed it, but its contents are untrue.

Challenge in Challenging Damaging Testimony

• Cross-examining prosecution witnesses was hampered by lack of discovery.
• Key witnesses against Flores had potential reasons to lie or embellish (leniency, legal pressure, criminal motives).

Potential Alternate Suspect Not Pursued

• Alan Weaver, a friend of Jackie’s with a similar description to the VW passenger, was ruled out for unclear reasons.

---

5. Prosecutorial Tactics and Fairness Concerns

• Lawler alleges the prosecution withheld exculpatory evidence (e.g., DNA from gum found at the scene, potentially belonging to a third man).
• Witnesses for the defense were threatened with criminal prosecution, leading Flores’ family and girlfriend not to testify even as character witnesses during sentencing.
• Quote: "They arrested my parents at their house... like on TV. 20 of them showing and beating on the door... they're 60-year-old church people... They start interrogating them... 'If you don't, we're going to send you to prison for 20 years.'"
  — Charles Flores [51:51]

---

6. The Sentencing Phase

Absence of Mitigating Evidence

• The defense did not present any family/character witnesses (in large part due to threats of prosecution).
• The prosecution painted Flores as violent and dangerous, unchallenged by mitigating context.
• Testimony regarding an alleged prior assault and miscarriage was not substantiated but allowed to stand by the judge.
• Quote: "It was painfully glaring... that the defense just wasn't offering up a rebuttal."
  — Michelle Pitcher [49:53]

Jury Deliberations and Aftermath

• Jury found Flores guilty within two hours, then quickly sentenced him to death [42:32–43:28].
• Brian (Juror 7) says hypnosis concerns weren’t highlighted; "it felt like an open and shut case" [42:32].
• In retrospect, Brian is disturbed by new evidence about hypnosis and Rick Childs’s later confession, and he questions whether the right person was sentenced.
• Quote: "I would hate to have been a part of something that missed or definitely... put the blame on the wrong person."
  — Brian [53:36]

---

Memorable Quotes and Moments

• On the Power of the Law of Parties:
  "Our current law of parties undermines the integrity of the Texas capitol punishment system." – Rep. Jeff Leach [05:09]

• On the Jury's Understanding of Hypnosis:
  "Did I miss that? Like, I felt bad... if it was gained by a faulty witness like that, that would have caused me pause, for sure." – Brian, Juror 7 [16:34–17:33]

• On Withholding Evidence:
  "They weren't turning over evidence. They were threatening potential witnesses... and they didn't disclose that there was a plea deal in the works with Rick Childs." – Brad Lawler [24:35]

• On Post-Conviction Regret:
  "Why hasn't the state gone back and said, okay, we at least need to relook at this again?" – Brian, Juror 7 [54:03]

---

Timestamps for Key Segments

• [00:32] – Juror Brian reflects on being re-contacted decades later.
• [02:09] – Map-drawing, Jackie's motives, and Rick Childs's role.
• [03:50 - 05:20] – Law of parties explained; political and ethical concerns.
• [11:00 - 12:57] – Reliance on circumstantial evidence and Jackie’s changing testimony.
• [15:19 - 17:08] – The hypnotized witness and its effect on the defense.
• [19:43 - 21:47] – Witness reliability and forced “confessions.”
• [24:10 - 29:10] – Defense attorney Lawler’s struggles, withheld evidence, and pressure to go to trial.
• [31:05 - 34:28] – Defense’s “plan B,” Lawler’s closing and miscommunications.
• [35:41 - 38:54] – The problematic 2001 affidavit and Lawler’s disavowal.
• [42:32 - 43:08] – Jury reaches verdict quickly, reflecting on hypnosis.
• [45:51 - 48:33] – Prosecution’s unchallenged painting of Flores’s violent history; impact of unsubstantiated testimony.
• [51:04 - 51:27] – Defense unable to provide mitigation due to prosecution threats.
• [53:36 - 54:32] – Juror’s regret and inability of the courts to correct possible miscarriages of justice.

---

Tone and Narrative Style

• The hosts maintain a balanced yet probing tone—sympathetic to the stakes and complexities, but unsparing in raising doubts about process and fairness.
• The inclusion of Brian’s hindsight is particularly humanizing, showing evolving attitudes and deepening the episode’s theme: how well (or not) the official record can ever represent the full truth.

---

Takeaways for New Listeners

• The episode is a searing investigation into how a capital case can hinge on circumstantial evidence, questionable witness identification (including under hypnosis), and procedural choices.
• It reveals systemic vulnerabilities: uneven justice among co-defendants, prosecutorial overreach, and the inefficacy of post-conviction review in Texas.
• The episode’s in-depth interviews with direct participants (juror, defense lawyer, defendant) frame these enduring issues in human terms and highlight room for reform.

---

For the next episode: The story will shift to examining prison life and Flores’s persistent claim of innocence—further probing whether the conviction and sentence truly fit the crime and the man.

---

Transcript

[Progressive Insurance Announcer]

As a small business owner, sometimes it feels like no matter how much planning you do, there's always surprises, like an urgent, expensive repair. But here's a surprise you will like with Progressive. Small business owners save 13% on their commercial auto insurance when they pay in full. So enjoy a surprise for once. Get a quote in as little as 8 [e-mail], progressive Casualty Insurance Company and affiliates. Discounts not available in all states or situations.

[Brian (Juror Number Seven)]

You know, when you started calling me, I was like, what is this about? I hadn't thought about this case. Honestly, I haven't thought about this case since then. Probably I had thought he had already been put to death. I just assumed.

[Michelle Pitcher (Host/Narrator)]

Today we're talking about the state of Texas versus Charles Don Flores. The trial to determine whether he was guilty of murdering Betty Black. We know what happened from thousands of pages of trial transcripts, but we also talked with the attorneys, with Charles Flores, and with one of the jurors who sat in the room. You just heard from him. His name is Brian, juror number seven.

[Brian (Juror Number Seven)]

So when he called me out of blue, I was like, what's going on?

[Michelle Pitcher (Host/Narrator)]

We'll get to Brian soon. But first, let's go back to January 1999, when the prosecution and the defense are preparing for the trial. Jackie Roberts, her boyfriend Rick Childs and Charles have all been implicated to some extent in the murder of Jackie's ex mother in law, Betty Black. Jackie had a motive. Her monthly allowance had been slashed and she knew there was a huge amount of cash hidden somewhere in the Black's house. She thought it was in the bathroom walls. She tells police that she drew a map to Betty Black's house and gave it to Rick the morning of the murder. She'll later deny this, saying she had drawn the map sometime before to give to the babysitter in case of emergency. But some people think that she was more involved than she let on. After all, why did the robbers mistakenly think the money was in the bathroom walls if she hadn't given them that idea herself? Here's Jeff Ashabanner, the former Farmer's Branch narcotics officer. You heard from him in episode one.

[Brian (Juror Number Seven)]

Balkan to Jackie Gary Black's ex. She actually drew them a map. It was all over a drug deal Charlie Flores thought he got ripped off of. She was saying she was afraid that he was going to kill her. Yeah, she had to make it right. She told him she knew where the money was. She drew him a map to the house. She told him how they could get in, but they didn't. Find the money. But it was there. She drew on the map and everything, and we tried to follow a case on her.

[Brad Lawler (Defense Attorney)]

Dallas county wouldn't take it.

[Brian (Juror Number Seven)]

DA's office wouldn't take it.

[Michelle Pitcher (Host/Narrator)]

Jackie will be a key witness in the trial against Charles Flores, but the jury will notably not hear from Rick Childs. As of 1999, Rick Childs is still in jail, waiting for trial. He's writing letters to girlfriends, talking about a plea deal, and for some reason, he's not being asked to testify against his co defendant. So Charles is the first person to face a judge and jury for Betty Black's murder, and the state is asking for death. At the risk of spoiling the story, I want to mention something important. Rick Childs will later admit in writing to shooting and killing Betty Black. This is part of a plea deal he makes for a lighter sentence. But legally, that confession doesn't really matter for Charles case. Prosecutors didn't even need to prove that Charles was the shooter, just that he was at the house on Bergen Lane that morning to commit a burglary, and he knew someone might be killed in the process. In Texas, this is referred to as the law of parties. It means if a group of people commits a crime and one of them kills someone in the process, they can all be guilty of murder.

[Jason January (Lead Prosecutor)]

When we talk at Bordeau to prospective jurors and talk about the law of parties, we say, you know, we give an example of the bank robbery. You know, the person driving the getaway car is just as guilty as the person going inside, and they can both be convicted for killing the clerk. That's just the way it is.

[Michelle Pitcher (Host/Narrator)]

Not only can they be convicted, but they can be sentenced to death. And in Texas, that has real teeth. Texas's death chamber is active. In 2025, the state executed five people. But since 1982, the state has put nearly 600 people to death. 168 men and women sit on death row as of the beginning of March20. But in the time between when we're recording this episode and when it airs, another man will be put to death. But even in Texas's conservative state house, the law of parties is a little controversial.

[Brian (Juror Number Seven)]

Capital punishment should be handled with the

[Michelle Pitcher (Host/Narrator)]

utmost seriousness and should only be utilized

[Brian (Juror Number Seven)]

when there is absolute confidence in the crime and the perpetrator. And under the existing law of parties, as it is today, we simply cannot do that, and there needs to be changes.

[Michelle Pitcher (Host/Narrator)]

That's Republican state representative Jeff Leach talking to the Texas House of Representatives. In 2021.

[Brian (Juror Number Seven)]

The death penalty, as I Said should be reserved for the worst of the worst offenders, for the most heinous crimes. But our current law of parties undermines the integrity of the Texas capitol punishment system.

[Michelle Pitcher (Host/Narrator)]

Charles was indicted for killing Betty Black, and the jury could find him guilty if he was just a party to it. If he was there, intended to rob her, and knew someone might have been killed in the process. Again, it didn't matter if Charles wasn't the one who actually pulled the trigger. The potential jury members heard about this legal concept during jury selection. They also heard about the realities of Texas death penalty. The prosecutors on this case actually gave a pretty detailed spiel to each one about what it meant for them to vote for death. Wes is going to read a bit from the transcript, a part where Assistant District attorney Mary Miller is talking to a potential juror.

[Wes Ferguson (Executive Producer/Co-host)]

Yeah, here's what she said. And she's talking about Charles. If you can look over at him, you see that he's a living, breathing human being. Absolutely nothing abstract about him. If we prevail, the defendant will one day lie dead on a gurney in the death chamber in Huntsville.

[Michelle Pitcher (Host/Narrator)]

Miller describes the process. If he's found guilty, he'll be held in a cell about the size of a jury box. Once his execution date comes around, he'll be taken to the death chamber in Huntsville. In the death chamber, he'll be put on a gurney like one you might find in a hospital, except with these big leather straps. He'll be strapped in, and they'll put a needle in his arm. Then a technician will push the drugs into his body. Miller says that after this, he'll be dead within 15 to 20 minutes. But during those minutes, some things may happen. His eyes may roll back, he may gasp for breath, he may go into convulsions. But one thing is for certain, he will lie dead there within 15 to 20 minutes. Then his body would be allowed to be claimed for burial.

[Wes Ferguson (Executive Producer/Co-host)]

Okay, so, Michelle, that's what's at stake for Charles, but not for the other two people, Jackie and Rick.

[Michelle Pitcher (Host/Narrator)]

Right. At this point, the state has only said that they're seeking the death penalty for Charles. And we know now that all of Jackie's charges will actually get dropped. And Rick gets a pretty sweet plea deal that lets him walk free in 2016. I asked the lead prosecutor in the case, Jason January, how you decide who gets what punishment in a case where you don't know for sure who pulled the trigger.

[Jason January (Lead Prosecutor)]

Most of the time, it's who's cooperating, who is trying to work, you know, a plea Bargain. I've seen stories where they're trying to make this, you know, a racial deal. Well, the white guy got a better sentence than the Hispanic guy. Well, let's look at their records. You know, let's look at who cooperated. Let's look at who didn't flee and hurt people and bite people and shoot people and give false names to police and hit female police officers and grab guns and mace and basically everything you can think of that any, you know, animal would do. That was Flores. He was a dangerous criminal before and during and after.

[Michelle Pitcher (Host/Narrator)]

In fairness, Charles wasn't the only one who tried to flee. He was just the only one who actually got away. You might remember that two days after the murder, police pulled Rick over while he was trying to leave his grandma's house in a disguise. He had a packed bag with him and the truck had a full tank of gas. An investigator noted in a search warrant application that Rick was about to leave town. So he tried to run. He just wasn't successful. But as you can see, the state was willing to negotiate in order to get some semblance of justice for this crime. By this point, it was clear that justice would be uneven. I asked someone else about this imbalance. Brad Lawler CHARLES ORIGINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY it

[Brad Lawler (Defense Attorney)]

happens because the prosecutor allows it to happen. And that's the only way I can put it. Jason January allowed the co defendants to get away with what they got away with.

[Michelle Pitcher (Host/Narrator)]

From Free Range Productions and the Texas observer, this is season five of the Unforgotten writing Shotgun. I'm your host, Michelle Pitcher.

[Wes Ferguson (Executive Producer/Co-host)]

And I'm Wes Ferguson. This is episode 4 may the record reflect.

[Michelle Pitcher (Host/Narrator)]

The criminal trial of Charles Flores started in January 1999. This is when lawyers called hundreds of people to the courthouse to start picking out a jury. I asked people who were actually in the courtroom during the trial if they remembered what it was like. There was a lot of coverage in the newspaper, the Dallas Morning News, but when I tried to find video of the news reports, I came up empty. The judge hints that at the time, this case wasn't actually all that high profile. He says from the bench. The media has not exactly been beating our door down. Judge John Nelms would hear the case. He'd been working in the legal system for 36 years by this point. For the state, The Dallas County DA's office sent over a team of prosecutors. Jason January as the lead, along with Greg Davis and Mary Miller, Charles had a court appointed team, Brad Lawler and Doug Parks. In capital cases, jury selection is a little Different, A little more intense. Each side is allowed to question potential jurors individually. They're trying to figure out if anyone has opinions that would sway them. Opinions about the case, about crime and punishment, or about the death penalty. In Charles case, It takes over two months to sit a jury of 12 and an alternate when the trial starts. Charles pleads not guilty. Then the state makes its case. In the absence of direct evidence, like fingerprints or an eyewitness to the actual murder, the prosecution had to piece together a picture of that morning.

[Wes Ferguson (Executive Producer/Co-host)]

Here's prosecutor Jason January.

[Jason January (Lead Prosecutor)]

Again, direct evidence, meaning a witness saw, you know, Richard Childs and or Charles Flores pull the trigger. They were on the inside, you know, eating popcorn, watching the thing go down. Or if he had a video, that might be direct evidence. But everything else is circumstantial.

[Wes Ferguson (Executive Producer/Co-host)]

January says relying on circumstantial evidence is a big part of prosecuting a murder case.

[Jason January (Lead Prosecutor)]

Rarely did you have anything but circumstantial, and that's what makes murder cases the most difficult, is that your eyewitness is dead.

[Michelle Pitcher (Host/Narrator)]

About two dozen witnesses will take the stand, but a few will be key. Jackie Roberts testifies that very first day, and she almost immediately gets caught in a lie on the stand. She says that she's been sober for two years, but then multiple people testify to doing drugs with her in that time. It's moments like this that Charles lawyers jump on to discredit the state's witnesses. If she's lying about something like that for seemingly no reason, what else might she be embellishing? Jackie tells the jury her version of the story, but distances herself from the crime. Despite what she'd told police, she now says she hadn't actually drawn the map for Rick and Charles, but rather for a babysitter sometime before she promises on the stand that she hadn't been offered any deal in exchange for her testimony.

[Wes Ferguson (Executive Producer/Co-host)]

So, like Jackie says that she didn't draw this map for Rick and Charles. She drew it for a babysitter. But does the map show where there's supposed to be money in the walls?

[Michelle Pitcher (Host/Narrator)]

No. So it's this very crudely drawn map that shows generally how to get from Jackie's house to the house on Bergen Lane. So they weren't actually that far apart. It certainly wasn't detailed, but it showed basically the route that the men would have taken that morning.

[Wes Ferguson (Executive Producer/Co-host)]

Okay, so you have Jackie on the stand, and she's distancing herself from everything. The next witness up is Doug Roberts. And, Michelle, can you remind us who Doug Roberts is?

[Michelle Pitcher (Host/Narrator)]

Doug Roberts was Jackie's ex. He's also the one who initially tipped off police to Rick Child's identity. Doug testifies that he was at Jackie's place when Rick dropped her off the morning of the murder around 7:15am he couldn't see who else, if anyone was in the car because of its tinted windows. Doug also tells the jury that Jackie did know about the money and she'd sometimes tell people about it. But the next day when Doug takes the stand, he. He changes the time that Jackie got home. Now he says it was closer to 6.30am this comes right before another person, Rick's ex girlfriend Vanessa, testifies that she saw Rick and Charlie together without Jackie around 6:30 that morning. Vanessa was having landlord problems and she remembers Charles saying that she could stay with him and his then girlfriend Myra until she got back on her feet. She says she and Charles smoked meth together and that he was as calm as he'd always been. This testimony stuck with me because if it's true, it means Charles story can't be true. It means he couldn't have stayed back at the trailer after Rick and Jackie left that morning. That timeline just wouldn't work. I reached out to Vanessa, but she told me she didn't want to talk. She said her story about that morning has never changed. When I asked Charles, he said that that conversation did happen, just on another day. But the jury didn't hear Charles argument. What they do hear are the varied descriptions from the neighbors on Bergen, Michelle Babler and her son Nathan. Robert Barganier, and then Jill Barganier, Robert's wife. And the hypnotized witness comes into play. The judge agrees to hold a hearing without the jury in the room to talk about whether Jill should be able to testify. That will happen the next morning. But in the meantime, she drops a bombshell. After months of not being able to ID the passenger she saw get out of the VW bug, she tells attorneys she's ready to make an in court identification. She's ready to tell the jury that Charles Flores is the man she saw that morning 13 months before, once it

[Brad Lawler (Defense Attorney)]

became obvious that the next door neighborhood was going to testify. I knew at that point that it wasn't a fair trial.

[Wes Ferguson (Executive Producer/Co-host)]

So she, for over a year, she has not been able to identify Charles. She said it was the white guy with long hair, not the Hispanic guy with bald hair. And then suddenly at trial she says, yes, I saw Charles Flores.

[Michelle Pitcher (Host/Narrator)]

Yes. And if you'll remember, she actually was shown a lineup shortly after her hypnosis where Charles Flores's picture was included. And she didn't pick him out. She didn't pick anyone out of that lineup. She says that she doesn't remember that. But on the stand, she says she's over 100% certain.

[Charles Flores (Defendant)]

Wow.

[Michelle Pitcher (Host/Narrator)]

So Lawler in the defense argued vehemently against letting Jill's testimony in. They said that any ID she provided was tainted, either by hypnosis or by over a year of seeing Charles face on the news. But the judge allowed her to testify in front of the jury. She told them Charles was the passenger in the VW Bug and that she was positive.

[Brian (Juror Number Seven)]

I just remember it feeling like, at least in the room, it felt like she was definitive.

[Michelle Pitcher (Host/Narrator)]

That's juror number seven again, Brian.

[Brian (Juror Number Seven)]

That's why the hypnosis thing kind of surprised me. Like, I don't remember hearing about that. Did I miss that? Like, I felt bad. And one sense, because I'm like, I hate. I would hate to know that I. That we. I was a part of somebody being put to death. If it was gained by faulty. A faulty witness like that, that would be. That would have caused me pause, for sure. I think. I hope. I mean, again, I can't go back to where I was and what state of mind I was in and all that.

[Michelle Pitcher (Host/Narrator)]

I think the most y' all would have heard was the judge saying, feel free to consider or not consider this witness's testimony. Investigative hypnosis was used so it wouldn't been a big issue that y' all were aware of at the trial. But you think that if you had noticed it or if they had made a bigger deal about it, you might have had more reservations about that testimony.

[Brian (Juror Number Seven)]

I hope I would have, because I know that a lot hinged on that witness. And from just even going back and rereading some stuff, I felt like that was the main. One of the main reasons why Charles was put away.

[Wes Ferguson (Executive Producer/Co-host)]

Michelle, did the jury actually hear that Jill was hypnotized, or was that something they didn't hear about?

[Michelle Pitcher (Host/Narrator)]

So I went back through all of the trial transcripts after I talked with Brian, and most of the conversation about hypnosis happened when the jury wasn't around. Jill did mention that she was hypnotized when she was on the stand. So during questioning. And then the judge, when he was giving his super long spiel about legal definitions and jury instructions and logistics, did give the jury a note saying that if they had any reason to disbelieve her testimony because she had been hypnotized, they could just throw it out, they could not consider it. Like I said, it was part of a very long winded speech, part of a very long trial. And like Brian said, it kind of flew over a lot of people's heads.

[Wes Ferguson (Executive Producer/Co-host)]

Yeah, it would make sense. I mean, you're getting all this information thrown at you and then this kind of offhand reference to like, oh, yeah, this witness was hypnotized. It's easy to see how that might

[Michelle Pitcher (Host/Narrator)]

slip through the cracks at this point. We know how big of a deal that became. But the jury wasn't in the room when the lawyers were arguing back and forth about whether this sort of, you know, game changing testimony would even be allowed. So to them, it was just another witness speaking about what she saw that morning to everyone else in the room. They knew the significance of what was going on.

[Wes Ferguson (Executive Producer/Co-host)]

Interesting.

[Michelle Pitcher (Host/Narrator)]

Okay. Hypnosis aside, there are a couple other big, compelling angles to the state's case. The jury also hears from two people who say Charles had confessed to them. His friend Homero Garcia told FBI agents that Charles told him he'd shot the dog. Also remember Charles's girlfriend, Myra. Her dad, Jonathan Waite also testified that Charles told him he was involved.

[Wes Ferguson (Executive Producer/Co-host)]

Two confessions from these two different people does seem pretty damning.

[Michelle Pitcher (Host/Narrator)]

You're absolutely right, and it's certainly more than some prosecutions are built on. But both Homero and Jonathan were complicated witnesses. Homero had traded guns with Charlie shortly after the murder, and he was afraid that he now had the murder weapon. Tests would later show that that wasn't the case. But Homero also had gun possession and other charges hanging over his head. He was forced to testify against Charles, and on the stand, he says he barely remembers that conversation with FBI agents. He'd been awake for about four days on a meth binge.

[Charles Flores (Defendant)]

The bottom line is that dude was a little bitty dude. He was, I think five, two or five, three, maybe 120 pounds. And he was scared of prison. And January was giving out get out of jail free cards.

[Michelle Pitcher (Host/Narrator)]

I reached out to Homero but never heard back. Myra's dad, Jonathan Waite Sr. Died in 2012. But back in 1998, he was a drug user himself, and he had only met Charles a few times. His story of the alleged confession that Charles showed up at his house one night unprompted and asked for a ride to an auto parts store. That he spilled some incriminating details to this man he'd met less than a month earlier didn't make much sense in this context. His girlfriend's dad, Someone he barely knew would have been an odd choice of confidant. Jonathan Waite also had a history of snitching. He'd been in witness protection before. After testifying in drug and murder trials, he had several known aliases. On top of these alleged confessions, the jury also hears about Charles time on the run, which you heard about in episode three, the flight to Mexico, the drunk driving arrest, the Parkland hospital fight. All actions, the state will say, point to Charles guilt in the murder.

[Jason January (Lead Prosecutor)]

Their narrative is we had no other evidence and it was just the one hypnotized witness and this was all some big conspiracy or whatever against him because he's Hispanic. No, the guy was a known and convicted. You know, been to the penitentiary for robberies and drug dealing before.

[Michelle Pitcher (Host/Narrator)]

After four days of testimony, the state rests its case. Up next, the defense.

[Wes Ferguson (Executive Producer/Co-host)]

I've been doing a little spring reset with my clothes. These days we're heading into the hot season, so that means new T shirts, new shorts, new pair of shoes. And this time around I'm focusing a lot more on quality over quantity. And that's why I keep coming back to quints. The fabrics feel elevated, the fits are thoughtful, and the pricing actually makes sense. Quince makes beautiful everyday pieces using premium materials like 100% European linen, organic cotton and super soft denim with styles starting around $50. I've bought a range of stuff from Quince and have been really surprised by the high quality for such a reasonable price. Refresh your spring wardrobe with quince. Go to quince.comUnforgotten for free shipping and 365 day returns. Now available in Canada too. Go to q U-N-E.comUnforgotten for free Shipping and 365 day returns. Quince.comUnforgotten for a small business owner, every

[Progressive Insurance Announcer]

day is full of surprises. Some great, some not so great. Like when a client cancels their order at the last minute. But here's a surprise you will like. Progressive provides small business owners with 30 customizable coverage options to help keep their business going strong. So go ahead, surprise yourself. Get a quote in as little as 8 minutes@progressive commercial.com progressive casualty insurance company and affiliates and third party insurers. Coverage is not available in all states or for all vehicles and coverage selections.

[Brian (Juror Number Seven)]

This Michelle hello, I'm Nancy.

[Michelle Pitcher (Host/Narrator)]

Nice to meet you.

[Brian (Juror Number Seven)]

Yes, watch Nancy just take off the seat.

[Michelle Pitcher (Host/Narrator)]

That's perfect. Saves time. Thanks for letting me into Yalls home.

[Brian (Juror Number Seven)]

Well, come on in here.

[Michelle Pitcher (Host/Narrator)]

I met Brad Lawler at his house in Dallas in October this was more than 26 years after he was appointed to defend Charles Flores in his murder trial. Lawler had defended clients in capital cases before, and he'd previously worked as a Prosecutor in the DA's office, so he was no stranger to the process. What sets a death penalty case for a defense lawyer? What sets it apart from other types of cases?

[Brad Lawler (Defense Attorney)]

Oh, gosh, it consumes you.

[Michelle Pitcher (Host/Narrator)]

Brad has a ring of white hair around his head and these steely gray blue eyes, but he's not exactly intense. He sits back in his chair and has a slow, easy way of speaking. A couple years back, he retired after nearly five decades as a lawyer. He also did something he's never done before. He stuck his nose back into one of his old cases. He hadn't been necessarily dwelling on Charles case in the decades since the trial. But an appeals attorney, Gretchen Swen, reached out to him, and he decided to make his concerns with the trial part of the record. He wrote and signed an affidavit last year in 2025. In it, he says the state wasn't playing fair during the 1999 trial. They weren't turning over evidence. They were threatening potential witnesses with legal consequences if they didn't help the state's case. And they didn't disclose that there was a plea deal in the works with Rick Childs. They didn't disclose any conversations about exchanging leniency for testimony. He writes that January dropped charges against two witnesses after they testify, including Homero Garcia, Charles friend, who claimed he had confessed, but January didn't tell the defense about these deals. There's also an issue I want to get into. There was a freshly chewed piece of gum lying on the bloody carpet by the dog, Santana. The state ran a DNA test and determined there was DNA from one man on the gum, but it wasn't Rick Childs or Charles Flores. They didn't test to see if it belonged to Bill Black, which, if they could rule him out, would prove that there was another man in the house the morning of the murder. But Lawler couldn't push for this. He didn't even know the gum had been tested until he was cross examining a witness in the middle of the trial.

[Brad Lawler (Defense Attorney)]

It was very frustrating dealing with both Jason and the case itself because I didn't think he got a fair trial from the beginning. He was kind of an anomaly. You know, the rest of the cases were so obvious that the defendant was guilty. Who they put in charge of the prosecution didn't really matter, but this case did. And Jason was appointed to represent the State by the da. You know, that's the way it went.

[Michelle Pitcher (Host/Narrator)]

January also required Jackie Roberts to meet with him on a weekly basis during trial preparations, all while threatening to revoke her probation. I have to note here, I heard criticisms of lead prosecutor Jason January from a few different people during my reporting. I looked into him to see if I could learn anything about his ethics or reputation on the job. I found out that In October of 2000, a little over a year after the Flores trial, January abruptly resigned from the DA's office. No two weeks notice, no reason shared with the public. He'd been a bit of a celebrity prosecutor in Dallas, one of the assistant DAs who mostly handled death penalty or high profile cases. So his abrupt departure made headlines. Articles were actually speculating about why he left. It likely had nothing to do with Charles trial, but the actual theory was too good. Not to mention many thought that he left because the job got in the way of his barbershop quartet dreams. There's a little shamrock that the Irish say will bring you luck if you find it someday. His group was actually very good. They were nationally known. And the performance dates had conflicted with court dates in the past. During one capital murder trial, January took a midweek vacation day perform in New York. Perhaps more likely, people thought he may have left because his prosecutorial ethos didn't gel with the new DA. It's still unclear, but in 1999, January was in the home stretch of his career as a prosecutor in Dallas. While the state had over a year to build a case against Charles Flores, the defense didn't have long to prepare. There was both a lot to do and very little to work with. Lawler said they didn't get any discovery from the prosecution before the trial started. They didn't have files from police investigations, witness statements or transcripts of interviews with the co defendants. Basically they had no idea what the state was working with.

[Brad Lawler (Defense Attorney)]

The judge was pushing us to go to trial and Jason was pushing us to go to trial. So there I was kind of stuck.

[Michelle Pitcher (Host/Narrator)]

The case wasn't going to be easy to defend either.

[Brad Lawler (Defense Attorney)]

He was so guilty of burning up the Volkswagen that that kind of overshadowed things.

[Michelle Pitcher (Host/Narrator)]

A lot was made of the fact that Charles, you know, had burned the car and had fled to Mexico. And as I understand it, the state was saying that that was all evidence of his guilt because guilty people run. What do you think about a that argument and be like, have you seen that idea in other cases too?

[Brad Lawler (Defense Attorney)]

Yeah, I have. It was pronounced in this case because that's all that Jason had and it worked. So you know, what can I say?

[Michelle Pitcher (Host/Narrator)]

But according to Lawler, Charles was insistent that he wasn't guilty. It's common for people facing this sort of charge to negotiate instead of facing a jury. In Charles case, it was especially risky because of all the crimes he had committed before and after the murder. Lawler knew a jury wouldn't find him sympathetic, but Charles still refused to seek a plea deal.

[Brad Lawler (Defense Attorney)]

But in this case he was absolutely not guilty. You know, there was no fingerprints, there were no DNA, no fibers, nothing that connect him to the offense at all except these co defendants. And then all of this came out after the trial. Jason had talked to one of the co defendants on a weekly basis forever. And then he pulled this neighbor out of the air, out of thin blue air, you know, she was a total surprise during the trial.

[Michelle Pitcher (Host/Narrator)]

Lawler's involvement in Charles case after all these years is interesting for a few reasons. There was a moment in the original trial during the defense's closing argument when Lawler seemed to concede the point that Charles was at the house on Bergen Lane that morning despite what Charles said. Lawler has talked about his closing arguments in recent years saying his words were misunderstood, that he was so thrown off by the in court ID by Jill Barganier that, that he wasn't clear. He was laying out an extended hypothetical if the jury believed that Charles was there, it's a load bearing if they still shouldn't find him guilty of capital murder. Here's a quote from the transcript where Lawler poses an alternate theory for why Charles fled to could it not also

[Wes Ferguson (Executive Producer/Co-host)]

be true that he was doing those things because he was there at the scene at the time of the murder committed by Rick Childs, that he knew that the Volkswagen was the vehicle that they had gone over there in that sooner or later the police were going to figure out who did it, who was there, who was involved. So I mean reading that quote, it does sound like Lawlor is conceding that maybe Charles was there at the house that day. So what does he now say he means by that?

[Michelle Pitcher (Host/Narrator)]

So Lawler was basically trying to take down the state's case piece by piece. So he had this argument, he was saying, there's the argument that Charles was not there that morning, he wasn't at Bergen Lane that morning. In that case, acquit not guilty. There's the argument that maybe he was there but he didn't intend for anyone to be killed. Again in that case, he's not guilty of capital murder. And the defense was mostly Going with argument one. But in this closing argument, Lawler does open the door to argument two. And it's kind of this like, Hail Mary. He knows that things aren't going well. He knows that the jury likely believes that Charles was there after hearing the id, the in court identification from the hypnotized witness. And so he's basically just asking them to remember that the state hasn't proven that Charles necessarily would have known that someone would be killed if he were there that morning. Does that make sense?

[Wes Ferguson (Executive Producer/Co-host)]

Yeah, it's like, you know, if he can sense that the jury isn't buying the claim that Charles wasn't there at all. Well, okay, yeah. Time for plan B. Like, even if you believe that, which I'm not saying he was, but if you believe it, then these other things can also be true.

[Michelle Pitcher (Host/Narrator)]

Exactly. And one of the state's main points was that if Charles was there, he went in carrying a gun. And Lawlor said, if Charles was there and had a gun, that didn't necessarily mean that he intended to use it. He was really always known for carrying a gun. Wes is going to quote again from Lawlor's closing statement.

[Wes Ferguson (Executive Producer/Co-host)]

Now, what does that mean? Do we just let him go? No, find him guilty of murder. Find him guilty of whatever you want to, but it's not capital murder.

[Michelle Pitcher (Host/Narrator)]

Again, this is kind of the Hail Mary moment. He sees the writing on the wall. He knows that a very believable witness has placed Charles Flores at the scene. Jill Bargainier, the witness who was hypnotized. And he's just reminding the jury that all of these elements have to be met in order for them to find him guilty of capital murder. He's basically trying to mitigate disaster here. And in 2025, Brad Lawler was unequivocal. Charles has always maintained his innocence. But that was a confusing point to a lot of people back in 1999.

[Charles Flores (Defendant)]

You gotta be able to understand legal jargon and what they're saying, what the arguments are.

[Michelle Pitcher (Host/Narrator)]

This is Charles thinking back to those moments in the closing argument.

[Charles Flores (Defendant)]

Man, at the beginning, I didn't. It was like they were talking in Greek, you know what I mean? And so, like, for instance, when Lawler got up there and how the hell did he say, you know, let's suppose that Charlie was there or something like that? Man, it just flew over my head. I didn't even realize what he had said.

[Michelle Pitcher (Host/Narrator)]

Here's another big point. There's an affidavit signed by Lawler from 2001. The DA's office has used this document again and again as a trump card to strike down any appeals attempts. That statement says that Lawler didn't call Myra to the stand as an alibi witness because he knew her testimony would be perjury. It says he knew this because Charles had told him he was there that morning. Now Lawler has disavowed this affidavit. He says he didn't even Write it in 2025. He wrote, quote, I was shown an affidavit that the state obtained in opposing the writ in 2001. I had no memory of that affidavit and do not believe that I drafted it. He says that it was common practice for the state to draft these affidavits and then to just get sign off from defense counsel. He says he may or may not have signed the document, but he sure didn't write it. He says that the statements in the affidavit from 2001 are untrue, but it still sits in the record. He's adamant that a confession never happened, that Charles never told him he was there that morning.

[Brad Lawler (Defense Attorney)]

He always swore that he wasn't guilty of the murders, wasn't even there.

[Wes Ferguson (Executive Producer/Co-host)]

So that's pretty crazy, if I'm understanding what you're saying. So the prosecution wrote this affidavit on Lawler's behalf, and then Lawler apparently signed it because it's his actual signature on the affidavit. But now he says, I don't remember that, and I definitely didn't write it.

[Michelle Pitcher (Host/Narrator)]

Exactly. So without getting too far into the weeds, this affidavit came from one of Charles's appeals. And in appeals, it's very common to claim that your defense counsel was ineffective. In that case, the attorney client privilege kind of evaporates and your defense counsel is able to defend themselves. So that would have been the context in which this affidavit would have come into play. And so Lawler is saying that the state, which is the one that fights against the appeals, would have drafted this affidavit defending against Brad Lawler asked him to sign it. And if he did sign it, he says he likely didn't read it because it, you know, everything in it is untrue. And he would have known that it was untrue back in 2001.

[Wes Ferguson (Executive Producer/Co-host)]

It's unfortunate he would sign something without reading it, apparently.

[Michelle Pitcher (Host/Narrator)]

Yeah, it's a really, really tricky point. There is, again, this document that exists in the record that appears to show Charles's own attorney saying that Charles confessed to being there that morning. And if so, you know, kind of case closed. But the fact that Lawler is now vehemently disavowing it just adds more murkiness to the water. It's just very unclear what was going on in the DA's office at the time that this affidavit would have come about.

[Wes Ferguson (Executive Producer/Co-host)]

And we know for sure that it really is Lawler's signature on the affidavit.

[Michelle Pitcher (Host/Narrator)]

He at least doesn't explicitly say he didn't sign it. He says he may or may not have signed it, but he absolutely did not write it.

[Brian (Juror Number Seven)]

Wow.

[Wes Ferguson (Executive Producer/Co-host)]

So it's like, do we believe Lawler back then or we believe him now?

[Michelle Pitcher (Host/Narrator)]

What do we believe? Who do we believe? Whose memories do we believe? It's a recurring theme.

[Wes Ferguson (Executive Producer/Co-host)]

Yeah.

[Michelle Pitcher (Host/Narrator)]

So back to the trial. In the end, the defense's case was much shorter than the state's. They pointed out a few really interesting things to the jury that I want to mention. First, if Jill Bargainer had looked out of her window from a lit house on the pre dawn street, would she have seen anything other than her reflection? Then there was the question of Doug Roberts, Jackie's ex. He'd lied to the police multiple times. He seemed to want to protect Jackie, and he also wanted to protect another friend named Allen, who was notably wearing a jumpsuit similar to what some witnesses remember the passenger in the VW Bug wearing the morning of Betty Black's murder. He was also at Jackie's house that morning, but for some reason, he wasn't a suspect. Doug's timeline was also off. He swore that Jackie had gone to register a business name the day of the murder. It was part of his whole timeline of the day, but official documents show that that happened a full week before. So another situation in which a witness is saying something happened the day of the murder that might have happened a different day. Remember, Jackie, for her part, had made a significant change to her story between speaking to police and taking the stand. She told police that she drew a map to the Black's house that morning. But on the stand, she denies it altogether, distancing herself more and more from culpability.

[Wes Ferguson (Executive Producer/Co-host)]

So this friend, Alan, I think this is the first time that we've heard about him and he's wearing that jumpsuit. Does he have long hair?

[Michelle Pitcher (Host/Narrator)]

So it's actually really hard to get a good description of Alan Weaver from the documents that we have. So police did speak to him. He was one of the first people police spoke to. They tested his fingerprints. It's very unclear why he was ruled out as a Suspect as the passenger, but he was definitely someone who generally fit the description, was in the orbit and we just kind of have no idea why he was ruled out. There was also a witness who cast doubt on the idea that the robbery was this spur of the moment decision, a reaction to being shorted in a drug deal. Deborah Howard had dated Rick childs back in 1997. And she testified this three weeks before Betty Black was murdered. Rick asked her what she would do if she knew where some money was that was owed to her. What would she do, say, if she knew that there was a hundred thousand dollars worth of drug money stash at someone's parents house. In criminal trials, it's the state's job to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the crime. The burden of proof isn't on the defense. So it's not all that unusual for the defense's case to be shorter. Lawler believed that the state hadn't proven their case. So after bringing up these key points and calling a handful of witnesses, the defense rested. Then the judge explained to jurors what they had to do. First, they had to decide whether Charles Flores was guilty. It took them less than two hours to come back and announce their verdict. Here's juror number seven Again, it was

[Brian (Juror Number Seven)]

a good conversation, mainly because it just felt like such an open and shut case. Again, I think the only thing that would have caused us to pause a little bit more is if, if the hypnosis thing would have been chewed on a little bit more or brought to light. But I think because there was such little evidence of the fact that the defense admitted that he was there, it's just there was not anything that caused any of the people on the jury to pause. There wasn't anybody that was sounding an alarm of going, you know this guy, should we not convict him? It felt like an openage. That's what it felt like from what I remember.

[Michelle Pitcher (Host/Narrator)]

Now the jury had another task. They'd come back to the courtroom for the second part of the trial to hear arguments for why Charles Flores should or shouldn't get the maximum death.

[Progressive Insurance Announcer]

For a small business owner, every day is full of surprises. Some great, some not so great. Like when a client cancels their order at the last minute. But here's a surprise you will like. Progressive provides small business owners with 30 customizable coverage options to help keep their business going strong. So go ahead, surprise yourself. Get a quote in as little as 8 minutes@progressive commercial.com, progressive Casualty Insurance Company and affiliates and third party insurers coverage is not available in all states or for all vehicles and coverage selections.

[Michelle Pitcher (Host/Narrator)]

You know what they say early bird gets the ultimate vacation home. Book early and save over $120 with VRBO because early gets you closer to the action, whether it's waves lapping at the shore or snoozing in a hammock that overlooks, well, whatever you want it to so you can all enjoy the

[Progressive Insurance Announcer]

payoff come summer with VRBO's early booking deals.

[Michelle Pitcher (Host/Narrator)]

Rise and shine. Average savings $141 select homes only Juror number seven Brian was 27 years old and in seminary school when he sat on the jury for Charles Flores murder trial. We're only using his first name because he's worried his involvement in the case could jeopardize his job. He didn't have many reservations about the death penalty at the time. He accepted it as the law of the land. Juries in capital cases sit through two separate phases of the trial, one to determine guilt or innocence and one to determine the punishment. A lot of this second phase involves humanizing the defendant, introducing family and friends and character witnesses. The idea is to bring mitigating circumstances into the picture, make jurors think about rough upbringings, mental or physical illness, other hardships that might have led the defendant down a bad path. But the defense in Charles case didn't do that, lawler said. The reason was simple.

[Brad Lawler (Defense Attorney)]

We were thinking that the jury would find him not guilty going into the

[Michelle Pitcher (Host/Narrator)]

trial before he knew that Jill was about to change her witness statement. Lawler didn't think the state had enough evidence to convict, so they didn't prepare for the second half of the trial, which wouldn't have taken place if Charles had been acquitted. Here's Brian again.

[Brian (Juror Number Seven)]

I don't think anybody was a character witness, including family, which I thought was interesting.

[Michelle Pitcher (Host/Narrator)]

The prosecution brought forward witnesses from Charles past crimes, and they painted an intimidating picture. It was true that Charles Flores had a temper, he had a criminal record and he had been violent before. A former employee at an auto parts store said Charles had shoved him after he confronted him for shoplifting in 1990. That same year, a manager caught Charles and his friends trying to steal ladders off of his mechanical company's work vans. He testified that the men threw beer cans at him and a co worker and smashed the glass out of his car window. In 1993, a man tried to intervene when Charles and a group of his friends were driving drunk. Charles and his friends responded by beating him up at a gas station. And from 1997 the most serious allegation, one with some open questions. A man testified that Charles had forced himself into his house looking for money that he said had been taken from him. He and the man fought for the gun, and Charles kicked his girlfriend, who was three months pregnant, in the stomach. The gun went off, but no one was hit. Both the man and the woman refused medical treatment that night, and they didn't make any written statement. The woman was never called to testify, even though she was at the courthouse. So what the man said on the stand was all the jury had to go on. It was strongly implied that Charles had caused the woman to have a miscarriage. The defense knew about the incident, but didn't know about this allegation. But they didn't have the chance to challenge the story. The couple said that they had medical records to back it up. But when lawyers asked the couple to produce these records, they said, sure, we'll go get them. And then they just never showed back up to the courthouse. The DA's investigator got hold of the medical records on his own, and they seemed to disprove at least part of the story. The only time the woman went to the hospital that year was when she hurt her tooth trying to open a beer bottle at work. She had had an incident the previous year when she was four months pregnant and. And a friend threw her down a flight of stairs. Lawler knew how bad this implication looked, and he asked the court what he could tell the jury to undo the damage now that they knew the testimony might be false. The judge didn't seem to think it would be a problem, and he refused to compel the couple back to the court for more testimony. He said that Lawler could mention to the jury that the couple never returned with the records and that the claim about the miscarriage was, quote, unsubstantiated by the record. And I think that would cure any ill effect it might have. But as it turns out, you can't unring that bell.

[Wes Ferguson (Executive Producer/Co-host)]

That is awful. And like you said, even if the jury is told to ignore that, you know, I don't think I would be able to just put that aside. And it's really going to factor into how I view Charles when determining his.

[Michelle Pitcher (Host/Narrator)]

His sentence 100%. And, you know, you can clearly see that that was the case, given the outcome of the trial. Like, he had a violent criminal history. He was on drugs, he was committing crimes, he was getting into fights. It's not like he was an altar boy who was plucked off the street. And that image, that idea that he's capable of something like this, so he must be capable of something else. Is just like such a human reaction. It's such a human assumption to make. And it's hard to imagine that anyone who was in the room hearing that account was able to push that aside.

[Wes Ferguson (Executive Producer/Co-host)]

To be perfectly honest, I think there will be a lot of listeners who are going to hear this and then it'll be like, oh well, screw him, you know. But then our job is to look beyond that because we're looking at actual guilt or innocence here.

[Michelle Pitcher (Host/Narrator)]

Yeah. And I think that it's important to remember that you can be guilty of some heinous, heinous stuff. That doesn't mean that you should be wrongfully convicted of something you didn't do. And I think that it's a very reasonable feeling to just want justice in a situation like this, to want someone who could do something like this to get off the street. And I think that for a long time that was the prevailing opinion was that, you know, any criminal will do. So it's important to remember the stakes, which include that if someone else was there that morning at Bergen Lane, they have walked free for 26 years while someone else has been sitting in prison for their crime. After all of that vivid testimony of Charles criminal history, it was painfully glaring to everyone in the room that the defense just wasn't offering up a rebuttal. Anything to make the jurors look past the criminal, the violent acts. Here's Brian again.

[Brian (Juror Number Seven)]

I did not feel like the defense had much, if anything, which was sad. It was sad too. I mean, just the fact that the defense did not put out. It didn't seem like, at least from what I can remember, any shred or. Oh, but this is somebody who could be. From a society standpoint, it would have been nice to have something from a family member from. I would have thought that there would

[Michelle Pitcher (Host/Narrator)]

have been something while the jury was out of the room. The reason for this was addressed. Lawler alluded to it earlier, the tactic of threatening criminal charges against potential witnesses. Charles parents, Caterino and Lily, were both under indictment for hindering apprehension after they allegedly helped with Charles's escape. Myra too was subject to a grand jury investigation.

[Charles Flores (Defendant)]

They arrested my parents at their house. I mean like on tv, you know what I'm saying? Like how you're seen up there in Minneapolis, 20 of them showing and beating on the door. We're going to kick the door down. You don't open the damn door. And they're, they're 60 year old church people you know what I'm saying? They start interrogating them, right? Yeah. You better tell us what Charlie told y'. All. We know that he told you everything and this and that. And if you don't, we're going to send you to prison for 20 years. And then they tell them that, and then they put them in the holding tail. Nobody's going to go to prison for me. And I told him, you better not

[Michelle Pitcher (Host/Narrator)]

come up here in court. An attorney advised Charles's parents that if they got up on the stand, even as a character witness, they should plead the fifth. So Charles was left without people to speak for him. After all of the testimony and the punishment phase is over, Texas juries and Capitol cases are asked to answer three questions. First, is the person a continuing threat to society? Second, did they cause a death or anticipate that a human life could be taken? Lastly, are there any mitigating circumstances to warrant a life sentence over death? The jury left the courtroom just before noon to deliberate on these questions. By 2pm they had sentenced him to death. Juror 7 Bryan hadn't thought much about the case since the trial. After I first reached out to see if he wanted to talk about his experience on the jury, he did some research. He found the articles talking about the concerns with the case, mostly about the hypnosis and the fact that Rick Childs later admitted to pulling the trigger.

[Brian (Juror Number Seven)]

I'm obviously more curious. I would hate to have been a part of something that missed or definitely would have, you know, put the blame on the wrong person. So in that sense, I would not want to see anyone go to death for crying those wrongfully pleads. And it sounds like that one guy that came out and admitted he killed the woman, wasn't that the case? Like there was a guy that admitted to it for a plea deal?

[Michelle Pitcher (Host/Narrator)]

Yes.

[Brian (Juror Number Seven)]

And so why hasn't the state gone back and said, okay, we at least need to relook at this again?

[Michelle Pitcher (Host/Narrator)]

Texas is the land of the law of parties, where you don't have to pull the trigger to get the harshest sentence. And justice comes down to who turns on their co defendants the quickest. And there's a bigger picture. Courts really hate to overturn convictions. In Texas, innocence claims are nearly impossible to prove.

[Brian (Juror Number Seven)]

I wish the defense had been able to bring just even one person back then. And that doesn't mean that, you know, as a society, we can't look and see change and just decide to alter the law or change or I think that we should be open to those kind of things. Especially in this sense where you've got somebody on record that's admitted to being a shooter. I think that's that should count for something.

[Michelle Pitcher (Host/Narrator)]

Next time on the Unforgotten. Everyone thinks that in prison. Everyone says they're innocent, but after a while, people don't. They accept it. Often it can be badge of, you know, of honor or courage or something to admit that you murdered someone. It keeps you safe.

[Wes Ferguson (Executive Producer/Co-host)]

Thank you for listening to the Unforgotten, A Free Range Production Season five Writing Shotgun was created in association with the Texas observer and the season is written, reported and hosted by Michelle Pitcher, a staff writer for the Observer. Editing by Aislin Gaddis audio engineering and sound design by Austin Sisler with Eastside Studios. I'm executive producer Wes Ferguson. Stay up to date with us when you sign up for our [e-mail].

[Progressive Insurance Announcer]

Every day as a small business owner feels like solving a puzzle. One moment you're cruising along and the next there's a shipping snag that has you scrambling. But here's a surprise you will like with progressive Small business owners save 13% on their commercial auto insurance when they pay in full. So go ahead, surprise yourself. Get a quote in as little as 8 [e-mail] Progressive Casualty Insurance Company and affiliates discounts not available in all states or situations.

[Michelle Pitcher (Host/Narrator)]

You know what I realized the hardest part about building a website isn't making it look good, it's getting what's in my head onto the page. But I've been playing with the new WIX Harmony editor and I'm impressed. You can literally just tell it what you want, or if you're picky like me, jump in and move things around yourself. The nice part is you can hop between AI and hands on editing so you end up with a site that actually looks the way you pictured it. Try it out for [e-mail] Harmony.