Overview of Concerns in Lasher’s Case
State of Texas VS. Mark Anthony Lasher
278th Judicial District, Leon County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. CM-01-203.
Introduction
Mark Anthony Lasher was convicted in June 2002 in the 278th Judicial District, Leon County, Texas, for an alleged crime based solely on contradictory unsubstantiative and evolving testimony. The case against him lacked physical evidence, relied on flawed investigative practices, and was marred by procedural misconduct that denied him a fair trial.
Background of Outcry
The alleged victim’s aunt testified that on November 25, 2000, A.G., Lasher’s niece, told her that she had been sexually assaulted by her father, grandfather, and uncles. The aunt reported the allegations to Child Protective Services (CPS). However, records show that A.G. had already been permanently removed from her home by November 20, 2000, five days before this alleged outcry. She was placed in CPS custody and later entered foster care.
While in CPS custody, forensic experts conducted videotaped interviews with A.G. In some of these interviews, she claimed Lasher assaulted her twice—once on Thanksgiving (November 23, 2000) and again on the following Saturday, November 25, 2000. These interviews became key evidence in Lasher’s trial. However, A.G.'s testimony was presented through written interrogatories, meaning Lasher and his defense could not cross-examine her.
The prosecution claimed A.G. was too traumatized to testify, citing PTSD, nightmares, and hallucinations. They used this argument to admit her videotaped interview as evidence. This decision became highly controversial as it prevented the defense from questioning A.G. directly.
Note: The dates mentioned here are based on testimonies, CPS documentation, and court records presented during the trial. They are not fabricated nor misconstrued; they can be found in the court transcripts of the case.
Key Concerns Identified
1) Flawed Jury Selection and Bias
During jury selection, several jurors expressed clear bias yet were allowed to serve on the jury. One juror openly admitted that simply hearing the accusation made them want to punish the accused, while another misunderstood the burden of proof, stating, “If you prove he’s innocent, then I’m all for it.” A person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Despite these red flags, the defense failed to challenge the inclusion of these jurors adequately, creating an unfair trial environment from the outset.
Juror expressed clear bias towards Lasher solely based on the accusation.
Vol. 3, Pg. 63
2) Lack of Forensic Evidence
The prosecution’s claims of repeated sexual assault were not supported by forensic evidence. A medical examination conducted six days after the alleged last incident showed no physical signs of abuse, contradicting the State’s claims. Nurse practitioner Jane Riley, who conducted the examination, testified that no trauma, tearing, or abrasions were found, further discrediting the accusations. Despite this, the jury was led to believe that physical evidence was unnecessary, supposing that somehow the young girl had recovered from being violently penetrated by a grown man in a matter of days as young girls “healed” fast.
A medical examination conducted by a nurse showed no evidence of aggravated sexual assault.
Vol. 4, Pg. 27
3) Violation of the Right to Cross-Examine Witnesses
A critical issue in the trial was the use of videotaped testimony instead of live testimony. The prosecution relied on pre-recorded statements from the accuser, preventing the defense from cross-examining her in real time. The court ruled that she was "unavailable" and allowed the tapes to be played for the jury, despite objections from the defense that this violated Mark’s Sixth Amendment right to confront his accuser.
Lasher’s state attorney objects to playing the videotape.
Vol. 4, Pg. 8
4) Failure to Establish Key Legal Elements
The timeline of the alleged abuse was impossible, as records showed that the alleged victim had been removed from the home by November 20, 2000. Yet, she claimed the initial incident happened on Thanksgiving (November 23, 2000), and the final incident occurred on the following Saturday (November 25, 2000). Furthermore, her aunt testified that she made the outcry on November 25th, 2000. Even though during that time she had been safe with her aunt Ruth Cambell or in CPS custody, the alleged assault A.G spoke of was said to have happened at her parents’ house, which was not where she was and also never returned to. Additionally, no other witnesses provided direct evidence linking Mark Lasher to the crime.
The date of the assault was alleged to happen after A.G was removed from her parents’ home.
Vol. 4, Pg. 26
5) Inconsistencies in the Accuser’s Statements
The accuser’s accusations evolved. Once she was in CPS custody, she first accused only her parents and then her grandfather after her sister came forward with an accusation, one that she would later recant, stating it was false. The alleged victim then made additional unfounded accusations against other relatives, eventually including Mark Lasher after repeated questioning while in CPS custody. These inconsistencies cast serious doubt on the credibility of the allegations that led to Mark’s conviction.
Lasher’s state attorney states that Mark was not mentioned when A.G was first questioned by experts.
Vol. 4, Pg. 25
6) Use of Emotion Over Evidence
The prosecution relied heavily on emotional manipulation, framing skepticism of the accuser’s claims as equivalent to harming the child. Instead of focusing on inconsistencies in the evidence, prosecutors pressured jurors into believing that a conviction was the only way to support the victim. These tactics undermined the presumption of innocence and encouraged a verdict based on emotion rather than fact
Prosecuting attorney relies heavily on emotional tactis during closing statement.
Vol. 6, Pg. 58
7) Law Enforcement Bias and Prejudicial Testimony
During the sentencing phase, Texas Ranger Jim Huggins was called by the prosecution to testify about Mark Lasher’s “bad reputation.” However, Huggins admitted that he had never met Mark before his arrest. His testimony was based entirely on opinion, not facts, and should have been inadmissible. Despite this, the court allowed his testimony, giving the jury a false perception that law enforcement had prior knowledge of Mark as a bad actor. This biased the jury’s sentencing decision and contributed to an unjust outcome.
Texas Ranger admits that he did not know Lasher prior to his arrest for this accusation.
Vol. 7, Pg. 14
Disclosure: The aforementioned information was not compiled by licensed attorneys or legal professionals but rather by ordinary American citizens and criminal justice advocates with the assistance of artificial intelligence using court transcripts and case records. It is not a legal opinion or formal legal advice. This content is intended for informational purposes only and reflects concerns identified in the case documents, not a professional legal assessment. Readers should consult qualified legal professionals for official legal guidance. The concerns highlighted here are not the only issues found in the transcripts and case records, but rather the most significant ones identified. To view the source material used for this analysis, download the court transcripts files. Note that A.G.’s name has been redacted from these documents.
New Potential Exculpatory Evidence
Documented Recantation Attempts
2011 – Mark first became aware that the accuser had attempted to contact him to recant her accusation. After learning this, he reached out to the University of Texas Actual Innocence Clinic to ask if they could assist in proving his innocence. The clinic took in his case for review.
2018 – The accuser contacted Mark’s brother via Facebook messages, informally recanting her story once again. There is photographic evidence of this recantation.
2022 – The accuser messaged Mark via JPay, but he was unaware of this message until he was issued a tablet the following year.
July 2023 – The accuser registered her phone number through the TDCJ prison phone system, allowing her to call and message Mark.
August 2023 – Mark and the accuser began communicating through phone calls and e-messages. She then successfully reached out to the Actual Innocence Clinic to support Lasher’s exoneration.
October 2023 – The accuser visited Mark for two hours at the William R. Boyd Unit. It was an emotional visit, during which they took a picture together. Afterward, she continued to support his innocence.
November 2023 – An attorney from the Actual Innocence Clinic agreed to legally represent Mark in this case, with the accuser’s cooperation.
January 2024 – Mark’s attorney obtained the forensic interview videos from the trial and insisted that the accuser watch them before signing a sworn declaration, stating it was necessary to prove Mark’s innocence.
January 2024 – In a phone call, the accuser excitedly told Mark that she had watched the forensic interview video and was comfortable moving forward in helping him with his exoneration.
February 2024 – The accuser spoke to Mark’s attorney but stated she was no longer willing to move forward, though she would advocate for his parole. She explained that the videos had retriggered other painful childhood memories and elevated her anxiety.
Recorded TDCJ Phone Call
This timeline alone may not be sufficient to exonerate Mark. However, as noted in the timeline, he has been in contact with the accuser, who has even registered her phone number to communicate with him. In many of these calls, the accuser provides further details about events leading up to Mark’s indictment, revealing that she was coerced into making false accusations against him. Since these phone calls are consensually recorded and stored in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice (TDCJ) phone record database, they serve as verifiable evidence.
Numerous Texts Affirming Mark’s Innocence
Multiple text messages from the accuser indicate that she believes—or explicitly states that she knows—Mark is innocent. These messages were sent to friends and family, and in them, she has clearly expressed a desire to help overturn his wrongful conviction.
Why This Case Needs to Be Reexamined
Mark Anthony Lasher’s case needs to be reexamined due to significant legal and factual concerns that call his conviction into question. The most compelling reason is the accuser’s alleged recantation, in which she has admitted to being coerced into making false statements. Over the years, she has repeatedly attempted to retract her accusations through documented communications, phone calls, and in-person visits, making it clear that Mark was wrongfully accused.
Beyond the alleged recantation, Mark’s conviction was based solely on testimony without any supporting physical evidence. A medical examination conducted six days after the alleged incident found no signs of abuse, directly contradicting the prosecution’s claims. Additionally, his trial was riddled with due process violations, including biased jury selection, the denial of his right to cross-examine the accuser, and the introduction of prejudicial testimony from a Texas Ranger who had never even met Mark before his arrest.
The accuser’s allegations also changed multiple times over the years, initially accusing other individuals before later implicating Mark. Her psychological history, including documented suggestibility and hallucinations, further raises doubts about the reliability of her testimony. Moreover, this case reflects broader issues of misconduct and systemic failures within the justice system, as seen in similar wrongful convictions. Given these factors, along with heavy interest from an innocence clinic, Mark’s case deserves urgent reexamination to prevent a continued miscarriage of justice and to ensure that an innocent man is not left behind bars.