Judge Finds Charles Stobaugh "Not Indigent"

I read an article today from the Denton (TX) Record-Chronicle, dated August 20, 2011. According to this story, Charles Stobaugh – convicted murderer of Kathy Munday Stobaugh - had his motion for indigent status denied in the 362nd District Court this past week. That’s right! Charles Stobaugh pled “indigent”! Apparently Judge Bruce McFarling ruled that Stobaugh’s plea of indigence was “not credible.” Now Mr. Stobaugh must shell out $10,000 from his own pockets to pay for the transcript of his original trial, a prerequisite to the upcoming appeals process.

Evidently Judge McFarling and Mr. Stobaugh have different ideas of the meaning of indigence. For Charles Stobaugh, apparently indigence is the equivalent of having only some $500,000 or so in liquid assets. Judge McFarling, on the other hand, felt that indigence meant that a particular person is “broke.” Charles Stobaugh, it turns out, has nearly $500,000 in cash, and another $500,000 in property and miscellaneous assets. In a welcome burst of judicial wisdom, Judge McFarling decided that Stobaugh could buy his own transcript if he wanted one. I am sure he will eventually part with the ten grand in an effort to overturn his conviction. It is good to know, however, that the “State” (you and me, Texans) will not be paying for the trial transcripts OR the appeal, should Stobaugh actually go through with it.

Even more interesting are two other articles I ran across on the Internet. The first article was posted on a totally unfamiliar web site, Ethicsalarms. It was a discussion of the recent Anthony verdict and can be accessed at the following link:
http://ethicsalarms.com/2011/07/07/the-ethics-of-no-body-murder-prosecutions

In what I consider to be a compliment to the people of Texas, the author of the story stated that, had the Anthony trial been conducted here, there would likely have been a different verdict. Indeed, the article went on to say that the Stobaugh jury acted correctly. The prosecution, while producing no body, no crime scene, and no forensics, did produce motive, means, the opportunity, and most importantly, the preclusion of ALL other REASONABLE explanations, something the prosecution failed to do in the Anthony trial. This article also deals with the theory that there could be no conviction of murder if no body (corpus delecti) was found during the investigation. This theory has its roots in our English common law, and is a difficult burden to overcome for a successful prosecution.

The second article appeared in the professional journal for the Texas District and County Attorneys Association. The article was written by one of the prosecutors, Mrs. Piel. It can be found at the following link:

http://www.tdcaa.com/journal/vanished-without-trace

This article briefly summarizes the Stobaugh trial. It tells of key witnesses that were able to eliminate the other possibilities, demonstrating that the only reasonable conclusion was that Kathryn Munday Stobaugh had been murdered and that Charles Stobaugh was the only person who would have committed the murder. Unfortunately, this article also chronicles the rift in the Munday-Stobaugh family, and the tragic way that Charles Stobaugh used his children to back up his testimony, which of course was riddled with contradictions and lies. Some of Charles Stobaugh’s own relatives reached the same conclusion as the jury, only years earlier. For the Mundays (and part of the Stobaugh family) this was a double tragedy, as they lost Kathy and had Kathy’s children stripped from their lives by Mr. Stobaugh. In tragic desperation both children stood by Charles Stobaugh in the face of overwhelming circumstantial evidence of their father’s guilt.

Charles Stobaugh, even after paying his original attorneys, has the means to pay for an appeal of the trial verdict. I have little doubt that he will file his appeal shortly, if he has not initiated it already. In the appeal process, the entire trial is not “re-enacted.” Instead, a panel of judges reviews the trial transcripts and legal briefs filed by both sides. The judges are looking for judicial errors in the original trial. They are not necessarily concerned with hearing actual testimony. The various attorneys answer the panel’s questions. If an error is found, the case may be remanded back to the original court for correction, including a new trial, if warranted.

I am all for our justice system in its assurance that indigent persons have access to the appeals courts; however, Charles Stobaugh’s plea for indigent status is, as the district judge said, “not credible.” I commend Judge McFarling for his decision. This decision leaves the appeals process open to Charles Stobaugh, but places the financial burden squarely on his shoulders. In the coming days and weeks, Mr. Stobaugh’s attorney may file his notice of appeal. I will be looking for indications of this filing, and will keep you informed.


We miss you Kathy, and we will never forget you.