Vanessa Cameron

 

My goal today is to get several blogs put together and published. May the Force be with me (yes, along with many of my passions is a love for Star Wars) as I attempt to make that happen. I have several already researched and I have attempted to do this one more than once but I'm like the dog who sees the squirrel (yep, animated movies too) and loses my attention span!

I blog about more cases that go to trial than those that end in plea deals or any other way mainly because those are the better cases to research. There is always more information out there in cases that go to trial as there are more articles about information and those that end in convictions generally have appeals filed which also gives a lot of information. That being said, taking a case to trial is not always the smart thing to do for a defendant. It is said, and has often been proven, that prosecutors and judges prefer plea deals. It saves time and money for the county or state for one. Often prosecutors will offer to drop some charges if the defendant signs a plea deal or threaten to add more if they refuse.

In my opinion when there is clear cut evidence of guilt the only time someone would benefit from taking their case to trial is when it is a death penalty case. Even then it is iffy because most of the time a prosecutor will offer a deal that takes death off the table. I have seen a few that have signed plea deals where a defendant agrees and still takes the death penalty but those are rare. That being said even with clear cut evidence of guilt someone facing the death penalty has nothing more to lose to take their case to trial and hope for the best.

Vanessa Cameron in my opinion was lucky. She was involved in a murder in Texas, in fact, she admitted to being the instigator at one point, and the state apparently was not seeking the death penalty. Although there was a mention that the victims family indicated they would have been happier to see her get sentenced to death indicating it may have been an option after all. I cannot say that prosecutors did not offer her a deal but considering three others were given deals it seems unlikely they would not have also offered her one, but she took her case to trial. The biggest lesson to take from the Vanessa Cameron case is to be careful what you wish for.

In January of 2010 Samuel Johnson Jr. had a bright future ahead of him. He had dated, and lived with Vanessa Cameron for a while and at the time they had a one year old son. The relationship had not lasted and there was some turmoil involved there but other than that Samuel's life was going great. He had a fiancee, Erica and she was pregnant with their first child.

There is some confusion on just exactly what day Samuel was murdered. A lot of things will say January 17, 2010, but that was the day of his funeral. My research stated his body was found on January 13^th, but another article stated one of the witnesses claimed to witness his murder on that day, and from my understanding he was reported missing a day or two before his body was found. There is little confusion however on who caused Samuel's death.

As I stated Samuel and Vanessa were no longer together. However, there were claims that Vanessa owed Samuel money and this had been a contentious issue between the two. Things were not exactly clear on what this money owed was from but I got the impression that it had revolved around the fact that when the two had been living together their home had caught fire and Vanessa had received insurance money, some of which apparently was owed to Samuel. In January of 2010 Vanessa's sister, Susan Sutton and her common law husband, Bernard Brown were living with her in her San Antonio Texas home. It was said that neither Susan, nor Bernard worked, or worked very much and were all but completely dependent on Vanessa. Critics of Vanessa claim that she used this to her advantage to get the couple to do things for her.

Vanessa had left to visit a friend in Mississippi and it was said that Susan had contacted Samuel to tell him that Vanessa had left money at the home for him. When Samuel got there it was alleged that Bernard Brown's cousin, Lakisha Brown, hit him in the back of the head with a 2X4. It would then be claimed that Bernard beat Samuel. Lakisha and Bernard would then put duct tape over his mouth, handcuff his hands and tie his feet with rope, wrapped in a blanket and beaten again. The two cousins then drug him to his car, placed him in the trunk of his own car. They took his body to a cemetery in another town, in the “middle of nowhere” where before dumping him shot him nine times.

Police got a tip when Vanessa's friend from Mississippi was convinced that Vanessa was involved or at the very least knew way more than she was saying about Samuel's murder. The friend was certain that she had been used by Vanessa as an alibi. So investigators began digging a little deeper. Susan and Vanessa came in to be interviewed at the same time. It was said that Vanessa's mother (I am unsure if she was also Susan's mother), a San Antonio police officer at the time, had taken Vanessa into the police station to be questioned. It appeared at first that neither sister was going to crack and tell investigators what they knew. In fact, initially when told that her sister was telling the full story in the next room Susan did not believe the investigator and ended the interview. Susan was correct, Vanessa was not talking but it seems the longer Susan sat out in the lobby waiting for her sister to emerge, the longer she began to worry that maybe the investigator had been telling the truth. At some point the investigator had even gone in the lobby and simply mentioned again Vanessa was talking and walked away. A few minutes later the investigator got a call that Susan was ready to talk.

Susan would tell the investigator most of the story that I have described above. She would say that Vanessa had obtained a $750,000 life insurance policy on Samuel and that the motive for the murder was that policy and the money. After speaking with Susan the investigator with Vanessa told the story as they now knew it and Vanessa, on camera, agreed that was correct and basically that she was the “driving force” behind it. They were both arrested.

Lakisha and Bernard Brown would both arrested and brought in. Lakisha told the same story that Susan had told, only with more detail because while Susan was more involved in the planning, Lakisha was more active in the murder itself. However, Bernard refused to talk and admit anything.

Lakisha and Susan would plead guilty and admit their roles. Susan would receive a sentence of twenty-five years and while my research indicated that Lakisha received the same records indicate her sentence was twenty-two years. Of course this was on the condition that they testified against the other two if their cases went to court. They both held up their end of the deal. Lakisha is eligible for parole in January of 2021. Her “projected” release date, which is always the max time is for January of 2032. Susan is eligible in February of 2025 with a projected date in August of 2037.

Both Vanessa and Bernard decided to take their cases to court. For Bernard's part his defense was based off what appears to have likely been a “plan” the group had planned to say if they were caught. In my opinion the women had already blown that plan out of the water so his defense had to put some sort of twist to it. Now, lets be fair in saying this “plan” was not very plausible and would almost be comical if it had not ended with the death of a promising young man. The allegation was that Samuel had agreed to go along with being murdered so that his son could have access to this insurance money Vanessa had on him. This makes absolutely no sense what so ever. By all accounts not only was Samuel a good father to his son who he adored and would not have wanted to leave him without a father, but Samuel was extremely happy with Erica and they too were having a child together. It appears that at least one of the women may have said in the beginning that Samuel agreed but that when he backed out it had been decided to go through with the murder anyway. As I said, Bernard's defense used this as a base for their theory that they presented to the jury. Their story was that it was Bernard who talked Samuel out of the plan and that the girls had all conspired to continue with the murder and then blame him. The problem for the prosecution was that the only evidence they had that Bernard was involved came from the word of Susan and Lakisha and Texas law requires that a conviction can not be obtain solely on the word of a co-defendant. Bernard would walk away with an acquittal in 2013.

That just left Vanessa, who actually went on trial before Bernard. Well, at least the first time. In addition to the testimony of Susan and Lakisha they also had a few other things on Vanessa such as phone records showing that Lakisha had called her after the murder had occurred and comments and actions taken by her as described by her friend that she had visited in Mississippi. They also had her on tape admitting that she had been aware of the murder but also behind it too. It is unclear what kind of defense her attorney's offered.

Vanessa's trial ended in a conviction although I have to be fair in saying that I am unsure of the specific charges. The Texas Department of Corrections website simply says “murder” but that does not mean that it was not conspiracy to commit or first degree or any other number of way the state may categorize things. She was given a seventy year sentence.

As is often the case an appeal was filed by Vanessa's attorney's. Per usual there were many issues the defense attempted to use in the appeal arguing that Vanessa's rights were violated in some way. This is quite typical in cases. Defense attorney's will throw everything they can at the “wall” hoping something will stick. Two of the most common argument are “ineffective counsel” and “insufficient evidence.” I do recall that the latter issue was one of those raised. However, another issue was noted and one that I had never heard. The attorney's argued that Vanessa's rights to a public trial were violated when her family could not find a place to sit in the crowded courtroom during jury selection. Now, keep in mind that in order to have something addressed in an appeal it has to first be brought up in court to the presiding judge at the time. Then, if the judge rules in a way that the defense disagrees with they have the right to appeal based on that issue. This is law 101 really. So her attorney's had brought this issue up to the judge during jury selection. They had argued that the proceedings were basically “closed” due to the fact her family could not find a seat. It was explained that the proceedings were not closed as every door was open to the courtroom but that the seats inside were taken by members of the jury pool. The attorney's took issue with this and filed this in the appeal. Amazingly the court agreed with the defense. So, in 2014 Vanessa Cameron's conviction and sentence were overturned.

It is unclear why it took another nearly five years for Vanessa to go back on trial. But, that is what happened in early 2019. In March 2019 Vanessa was once again convicted for her role in Samuel Johnson's murder. At her sentencing phase Vanessa got on the stand and said, “It was his wish to die. He came up with the idea, and I said 'Ok'.” Again, it would be funny if it were not such a pathetic plan that cost a man his life and two children their father. The jury deliberated for less than an hour before deciding on a sentence.

Remember that Vanessa received seventy years the first time? It appears in Texas law she would have to serve about half of that before being eligible for parole so likely somewhere around thirty-five years before being parole eligible. But, while it would seem unlikely that she would live long enough to make it to a “projected” release date, at least she would have had one. This time around the jury recommended she receive a life sentence which the judge agreed. There are two types of life sentences in Texas. One is life without parole which mean literal life. The other life sentence requires that the person serve a minimum of forty years before being eligible for parole but the state can retain them for their natural life.

I cannot say that the prosecutors even offered Vanessa a plea deal for certain but it seems likely that they would have. This means that any deals offered were turned down hoping to get a better deal with a judge and jury. Whether her attorney's really believed her rights were violated during the jury selection is unclear. It is possible they were using my “wall” theory. I would almost gander to guess too that they were as surprised as anyone when the appeal was granted and the conviction thrown out. The ultimate goal for a defense attorney is general an acquittal for their client, barring that their second goal at that second trial would have obviously been a shorter sentence than seventy years. They failed in both endeavors.

At her 2019 trial Samuel's parents brought his urn of ashes to the sentencing. They said they wanted to show him that justice was being served and his death was not in vain.