Summary Of Sam Mara Conspiracy Case

DISCUSSION
The facts are as follows with regards to our client Sam Mara’s alleged conspiracy case. Mr. Mara has hired us to find out the strength of the charge against him regarding the events of July 16, 2017. Mara was arrested for allegedly engaging in organized criminal activity by allegedly conspiring to commit a felony robbery of a store in the Houston Galleria. The robbery was never completed. Accordingly, Mara never received any money or merchandise. However, Mara was part of the group of friends who “discussed” a plan to steal from the Partista store. Following the incident, one of the alleged co-conspirators, Lisa Green, submitted to an interview with store security and in that interview, Ms. Green confirmed, “that all this started

Mara’s is not guilty of an “overt act” because Mr. Mara’s actions did not constitute an overt act in pursuance of an agreement to commit a robbery. Guilt requires two ingredients: (1) intent to participate in a criminal combination, and (2) that Mr. Mara’s performing some overt act, not necessarily criminal in itself, in furtherance of the agreement. Barber v. State, 764 S.W.2d 232, 235 (Tex. Crim.App.1988).

In the case of Mr. Mara, Ms. Green provided the only evidence of an overt act to promote criminal activity or intent to participate in the said criminal activity. Ms. Green’s voluntary testimony after she was caught does not seem to accurately relay the actions of Mr. Mara. The veracity of her testimony is in the fact that “she’ confesses when she says “I made a mistake,” the actions and mistake are hers and not Mr. Mara.

This was a joke, which now seemed to have spiraled out of control. It is the State’s responsibility to prove that Mr. Mara committed an overt act in pursuance of the agreement. Id. The State cannot reasonably meet that requirement by alleging that Mr. Mara’s “overt act” consisted of promoting or assisting in the commission of the offense. The state only provided evidence that friends got together. The friends drank too much. They did not get Mr. Mara’s quip. A reasonable jury when faced with the evidence would find it difficult to render a verdict beyond a reasonable doubt favorable to the State. Clayton, 235 S.W.3d at 778

Mara was not serious with his reaction to his friends’ initial conversation regarding robbing the Galleria store. In fact, it is in Ms. Green’s testimony where his intent is apparent. The State may argue that Mr. Mara’s actions with regards to the communication between all parties in some way constitute an overt act. But the facts demonstrate otherwise. For example, Mr. Mara received the only one text from Ms. Green. His response was facetious, frivolous and flippant as proven by his "YOLO" response. However, the State presented the testimony of Ms. Green regarding Mara’s response, attempting to show Mara’s behavior as an overt act. However, the State’s argument would fail the "any reasonable person" statute because nothing in Ms. Green’s testimony supports the theory of Mr. Mara’s unconditional agreement to participate in the robbery. A reasonable person concludes Mr. Mara’s response conclusively states no intent to be taken seriously, thus not establishing an overt act on his