BEFORE THE HON. GEORGE W. BUSH GOVERNOR OF THE ST A TE OF TEXAS AND THE TEXAS BOARD OF PARDONS AND PAROLES RICHARD WAYNE JONES, Applicant

Size: px
Start display at page:

Download "BEFORE THE HON. GEORGE W. BUSH GOVERNOR OF THE ST A TE OF TEXAS AND THE TEXAS BOARD OF PARDONS AND PAROLES RICHARD WAYNE JONES, Applicant"

Transcription

1 This document is housed in the Capital Punishment Clemency Petitions (PP-4) collection in the M.E. Grenander Department of Special Collections and rchives, University Libraries, University at lbany, SUNY. BEFORE THE HON. GEORGE W. BUSH GOVERNOR OF THE ST TE OF TEXS ND THE TEXS BORD OF PRDONS ND PROLES In Re RICHRD WYNE JONES, pplicant PPLICTION FOR REPRIEVE FROM EXECUTION, COMMUTTION OF DETH SENTENCE, ND CONDITIONL PRDON REUEST FOR HERING PURSUNT TO 37 TEXS DMINISTRTIVE CODE (b)(3) ND DMINISTRTIVE PROCEDURES CT et seq. REUEST FOR COMPLINCE WITH TEXS OPEN MEETINGS CT (TEXS GOVERL"\TMENT CODE et seq.) REUEST FOR COMPLINCE WITH RTICLE 4, 11, CONSTITUTION OF THE ST TE OF TEXS WILLIM S. HRRIS ttorney and Counselor at Law 307 West Seventh Street, Ste. 05 Fort Worth, Texas voice fax Texas Bar No ROBERT C. OWEN Schonemann, Rountree & Owen. LLP 510 South Congress venue, Ste. 308 ustin, Texas voice fax Texas Bar No TTORNEYS FOR PPLICNT RICHRD WYNE JONES

2 This document is housed in the Capital Punishment Clemency Petitions (PP-4) collection in the M.E. Grenander Department of Special Collections and rchives, University Libraries, University at lbany, SUNY. certified copy of the Indictment. certified copy of the judgment and sentence including the jury verdict. certified copy of the docket sheet. certified copy of the Order setting execution.. i certified copy of the death warrant. Mr. Jones's execution date is set for ugust 22, Statement of the Offense: Richard Wayne Jones was convicted in Tarrant County, Texas, of murdering Tammy Livingston. s explained in much greater detail below, Mr. Jones maintains he is innocent of this crime. 5. Statement of the ppellate History: Richard Wayne Jones was convicted of capital murder and sentenced to death in the 3th Criminal District Court of Tarrant County, Texas, in July 87. The Texas Court of Criminal ppeals (hereafter "C.C..") affirmed, Jones v. State, 843 S.W.2d487 (Tex. Crim. pp. 92), and the U.S Supreme Court denied review. Jones v. Texas, 507 U.S (93). Mr. Jones sought post-conviction relief in state court, filing an application for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to former rt of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure on November 1, 93. fter an evidentiary hearing, the trial court recommended that relief be denied; the C.C.. adopted that recommendation on May 25, 94, Ex parte Jones, No. 25, (Tex. Crim. pp. 94), and refused to reconsider that decision in an order dated June 28, 94. fter obtaining new counsel, Mr. Jones filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus 2

3 This document is housed in the Capital Punishment Clemency Petitions (PP-4) collection in the M.E. Grenander Department of Special Collections and rchives, University Libraries, University at lbany, SUNY.. f. Introduction Richard Wayne Jones is scheduled to be put to death on ugust 22, Mr. Jones' case presents this Board and Governor with the final opportunity to correct a fundamental miscarriage of justice -- the conviction (and if no one has the courage to intervene, the execution) of a man who may well be innocent. Governor Bush has repeatedly stated that he considers only two questions in determining whether to grant clemency to a death row inmate: (1) whether the inmate has had fair access to the courts to raise his legal claims; and (2) whether there is any question that the inmate might be actually innocent of the offense. Mr. Jones respectfully submits that if the Governor and the Board fairly apply the latter criterion, they should act to prevent Mr. Jones' execution. B. Information Required by 37 TC Name of pplicant: Richard Wayne Jones 2. Identification of gents Presenting pplication: William S. Harris, ttorney for Mr. Jones Robert C. Owen, ttorney for Mr. Jones 3. Required Copies of Court Documents: ttached as Exhibits to pplication are: 1

4 This document is housed in the Capital Punishment Clemency Petitions (PP-4) collection in the M.E. Grenander Department of Special Collections and rchives, University Libraries, University at lbany, SUNY. in federal district court on ugust 12, 94. Because several additional important issues had not been developed in state court, that court permitted Mr. Jones to voluntarily dismiss his case and return to state court..! Mr. Jones then filed his second application for state post-conviction relief, which was denied by the C.C.. without a hearing on pril 7, 95, Ex parte Jones, No. 25, (Tex. Crim. pp. 95). Mr. Jones returned to federal district court, filing a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus on pril 10, 95. Mr. Jones' case was referred to a U.S. Magistrate Judge, \vho eventually recommended that relief be denied. The district court adopted those findings and conclusions on October29, 98. Mr. Jones' motion to reconsider that judgment was denied on January 15, 99. Mr. Jones filed a timely appeal in the U.S. Court of ppeals for the Fifth Circuit. That court affirmed the district court's decision in an unpublished opinion issued pril 7, Jones v. Johnson, No (5th Cir., pril 7, 2000). Mr. Jones has filed a petit10n in the United States Supreme Court seeking review of that decision. t the time of this writing, the Supreme Court has not acted on Mr. Jones' petition for review. 6. The Legal Issues Raised: On direct appeal Mr. Jones contended: (1) The Court erred in refusing to admit the grand jury testimony of Yelena Comalander. (2) The Court erred by admitting evidence seized from the petitioner's home. (3) The Court erred by restricting the petitioner in his inquiries of the jury panel concerning factors they would consider in answering the punishment issues. (4) The Court erred in denying petitioner's motion in limine to prevent the state from informing the venirepersons of the effect of their answers 3

5 This document is housed in the Capital Punishment Clemency Petitions (PP-4) collection in the M.E. Grenander Department of Special Collections and rchives, University Libraries, University at lbany, SUNY. to the punishment issues. (5) The trial of petitioner after a mistrial declared during jury selection violated his right to avoid double jeopardy. (6) The Court erred by preventing petitioner from presenting evidence of the parole procedures that would be applied to the - t petitioner should he receive a life sentence. (7) The Court erred in preventing the petitioner from asking certain questions on voir dire. (8) The Court erred by preventing proof of witness Ruthie mata's deferred adjudication probation for theft. (9)(10) The capital punishment procedure in Texas is unconstitutional because the state only has to prove probability of future danger and this is vague and indefinite. (11) The sentence is unconstitut_ional because the jury was not allowed to consider mitigating factors. ( 12) The Court erred by excusing for cause a qualified juror. (13) The Court erred for not allowing petitioner to explore on voir dire the effect parole law would have on the jurors if considering the lesser offense of murder. (14) The Court erred by excluding evidence about threats against petitioner's companion. (15)(16) The Court erred by permitting improper argument by the state. (17) The Court erred by denying petitioner's motion for a jury view of his cell. () The Court erred in permitting the state to introduce hearsay evidence of his identification as a suspect in this case. ()(20) The Court erred by allowing identification of a blood sample by a witness who lacked first hand knowledge and admitting hearsay information on the blood sample. () The Court erred by allowing the state to prove the facts surrounding a prior conviction of the petitioner. (22)() The Court erred by admitting photographs that were more inflammatory than probative. (24) The Court erred by admitting an autopsy photograph that was cumulative and repetitious. 4

6 This document is housed in the Capital Punishment Clemency Petitions (PP-4) collection in the M.E. Grenander Department of Special Collections and rchives, University Libraries, University at lbany, SUNY. In his initial state application for writ of habeas corpus, Mr. Jones contended: (1) Petitioner is actually innocent and his execution would violate the constitutional guarantee of due process of law. (2) State intimidation of Yelena Comalander violated. I petitioner's right to due process oflaw and compulsory process. (3) Exclusion of the transcript of Yelena Comalander's grand jury testimony violated due process of law. (4) Petitioner's right to confront witnesses was denied by the Court's refusal to allow him to impeach Ruthie mato with her deferred adjudication for theft which petitioner maintained demonstrated bias. (5) The introduction of petitioner's involuntary confession violated his right to due process of law. ( 6) The admission of several gruesome photographs violated the petitioner's right to due process of law. (7) Requiring the defendant to wear leg shackles during trial violated his right to due process of law. (8) Juror misconduct violated petitioner's constitutional rights when a juror described her personal knowledge of the scene of the abduction of the Tammy Livingston during the jury's deliberations on guilt. (9) The Court's denial of petitioner's request for psychiatric assistance violated his right to due process of law. (10) The Court's exclusion of evidence about the likelihood of petitioner's eligibility for parole ifhe received a life sentence violated his right to due process of law.and his right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment. (11) The Court's failure to define reasonable doubt denied the petitioner due process and equal protection of the law. In his second state petition for habeas corpus Mr. Jones raised the following additional contentions: (1 )(2) Exclusion of the transcript of Douglas Daffem's and James King's grand jury testimony violated notions of fundamental fairness and Mr. Jones' due process rights. (3) Failure to address that exclusion on direct appeal constituted 5

7 This document is housed in the Capital Punishment Clemency Petitions (PP-4) collection in the M.E. Grenander Department of Special Collections and rchives, University Libraries, University at lbany, SUNY. ineffective assistance of counsel. ( 4) Failure to offer Yelena Comalander' s grand jury testimony in a manner that preserved on appeal the error of excluding that testimony was ineffective assistance of counsel. nd, (5) The failure to require an inquiry by the trial ~ t court into the appropriateness of the claim of privilege by Scott Christian constituted ineffective assistance of counsel. In his federal Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, Mr. Jones contended: (1)(2) Exclusion of the grand jury transcript of the testimony of Douglas Daffern and James King violated his right to due process oflaw. (3) Failure to raise this issue on appeal constituted ineffective assistance on the part of petitioner's appellate counsel. ( 4) Failure of the trial attorney to offer the transcript of Yelena Comalander' s and Jam es King's grand jury testimony in a manner that preserved the issue for appellate review constituted ineffective assistance of counsel. (5) Trial counsel's failure to seek a review by the Court in camera of the legitimacy and scope of the claim of fifth amendment privilege by Scott Christian constituted ineffective assistance. (6) Exclusion of Yelena Comalander's grand jury testimony violated petitioner's right to be free of cruel and unusual punishment and his right to due process oflaw. (7) Executing petitioner without meaningful review of his claim of innocence violates due process of law. (8) Refusal to allow petitioner to show bias on the pru;t of witness Ruthie mato violated his right to confrontation of the witness against him. (9) Intimidation of Yelena Comalander by the state violated petitioner's right to due process and his right to compulsory process under the federal constitution. ( 10) Exclusion of evidence regarding petitioner's parole eligibility violated his right to due process oflaw. (11) The trial court's failure to define "reasonable doubt" denied petitioner's right to due process and equal protection of the law. (12) The admission of 6

8 This document is housed in the Capital Punishment Clemency Petitions (PP-4) collection in the M.E. Grenander Department of Special Collections and rchives, University Libraries, University at lbany, SUNY. petitioner's involuntary confession violated his right to due process oflaw. (13) The denial of petitioner's request for psychiatric expert assistance violated his right to due process of law. nd, (14) the admission of numerous gruesome photogq1phs of the deceased violated petitioner's rigth to due process oflaw. On appeal to the U.S. Court of ppeals for the Fifth Circuit, Mr. Jones raised the following issues: (1) The district court erred in concluding that Jones' claim of actual innocence does not "state a ground for federal habeas relief absent an independent constitutional violation occurring in the underlying criminal proceeding." (2) Mr. Jones's trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance when they failed to seek an independer evaluation of the legitimacy of and scope of the assertion of the Fifth mendment privilege by Scott Christian. (3) The district court erred in finding, without hearing evidence, that Jones' trial attorneys defaulted his challenges to the trial court's refusal to admit the grand jury testimony of Douglas Daffern and James King. (4) The district court erred in refusing to excuse Mr. Jones' alleged procedural defaults because he did not "demonstrate his actual innocence." (5) The trial court's refusal to admit the grand jury testimony of Douglas Daffern and James King denied Mr. Jones a fundamentally fair trial. (6) The trial court's refusal to admit the grand jury testimony ofyele~a Comalander denied Jones a fair trial. (7) Trial counsel's failure to offer the testimony of Comalander and King in a manner that preserved the error of exclusion of the testimony for appellate review constituted ineffective assistance of counsel. nd, (8) the district court erred in concluding, without hearing evidence, that Jones' confession was not coerced. Mr. Jones is currently urging the following issues in the United States Supreme Court: (1) Is federal habeas relief precluded by Herrera v. Collins, 506 U.S. 390 (93), 7 --

9 This document is housed in the Capital Punishment Clemency Petitions (PP-4) collection in the M.E. Grenander Department of Special Collections and rchives, University Libraries, University at lbany, SUNY. as the court below found, where a Petitioner shows that he is probably factually innocent of the crime but cannot prove that constitutional error tainted his trial, or may relief be granted in such circumstances, as the Ninth Circuit has held in, e.g., Jackson v. Calderon, 1 F.3d - t 1148, 1164 (9 1 h Cir. 2000))? (2) The Fifth Circuit concluded that due process was not violated when the trial court excluded exculpatory prior testimony by unavailable defense witnesses, because their testimony was "not wholly reliable" and not "necessarily inconsistent" with Petitioner's guilt. Does that holding conflict with Ohio v. Roberts, 448 U.S. 56, 66 (80) (testimony is assumed to be reliable if it satisfies a "firmly rooted" exception to the hearsay rule, such as the prior testimony exception); Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 4, 435 (95) (exculpatory evidence need not be "necessarily inconsistent" with a defendant's guilt); and Chambers v. Mississippi, 410 U.S. 284, 302 (73) (state evidentiary rulings which seriously threaten the "fairness and reliability [of] the ascertainment of guilt" can violate due process)? (3) Did the Fifth Circuit impermissibly dilute both the Sixth mendment right to counsel and the guarantee of compulsory process when it held that Petitioner's trial counsel provided effective assistance when he declined the trial court's invitation to conduct in camera questioning of a critically important defense witness who had decided to claim his Fifth mendment privilege? (4) Did the Fifth Circuit err in finding Petitioner's confession voluntary, where that conclusion rested on the state trial court's decision to credit a police officer's implausible recantation of his earlier direct and unqualified admission that threats were made against Petitioner's girlfriend to induce him to confess? nd, (5) Did the Fifth Circuit err in refusing to excuse alleged "procedurai defaults" in state court under the "actual innocence" exception of Schlup v. Delo, 513 U.S. 298 (95), where the Fifth Circuit's analysis completely ignored substantial extra-record 8

10 This document is housed in the Capital Punishment Clemency Petitions (PP-4) collection in the M.E. Grenander Department of Special Collections and rchives, University Libraries, University at lbany, SUNY. evidence consistent with Petitioner's innocence that was never heard by the trial jury, and instead consisted essentially of an assessment of whether the jury's verdict of guilt was supported by sufficient evidence? 7. Requested Length of Reprieve: l 120 days. Because of the extraordinary nature of this case, Mr. Jones seeks a reprieve of at least 8. Grounds for Commutation, and/or Reprieve: (1) Mr. Jones maintains that he did not murder Tammy Livingston. (2).Mr. Jones has demonstrated in his years on Death Row that he is a non-dangerous prisoner who can lead a meaningful life behind bars and need not be put to death in order to ensure public safety. C. Why Relief Should be Granted: 1. Commutation or conditional pardon is appropriate because of enduring substantial doubts about whether Mr. Jones committed the crime. a. Factual background. The Offense On February, 86, sometime between the hours of 6: and 7:30 p.m., Tammy Burkhart Livingston was abducted in her own car from a store parking lot in Hurst, Texas. 1 Shortly before midnight that same evening, her burned body was found in a field by the Fort ll of the factual assertions in this statement of facts are supported by either police reports, the trial record, the record on the first state habeas hearing, the various decisions of the courts that have reviewed the case, or witness statements gathered by the defense investigators. While petitioner use footnotes to designate the source of the various contentions, if any contention in particular is of interest to the Board, the petitioner will supply the source material if not otherwise noted. 9

11 This document is housed in the Capital Punishment Clemency Petitions (PP-4) collection in the M.E. Grenander Department of Special Collections and rchives, University Libraries, University at lbany, SUNY. Worth Fire Department when they extinguished a grass fire in east Fort Worth. 2 She had been stabbed seventeen times in the neck, upper chest, and face. Ms. Livingston's car was recovered one and a half days later, abandoned in the parking lot of an apartment complex - f in Fort Worth. 3 The Police Investieation and rrest There were three eyewitnesses to the abduction of Tammy Livingston: a forty-one year-old woman and her two teenage daughters. The adult eyewitness, Ruthie mato, called the police with information of the apparent kidnaping, but gave no information as to the kidnapper's description during the call. Two days after the incident, mato met with police and described the perpetrator as a white male, early thirties, close to six feet tall, a medium build, and having reddish brown hair, clean cut, and wearing a red shirt. 4 It should be noted that Richard Jones has blonde hair and was wearing a large mustache at the time of Ms. Livingston's murder. ccording to evidence submitted by the state at his trial, Richard was wearing a brown and gray plaid shirt the night of the murder. 5 witness who resided near the field where Ms. Livingston's body was found told police she had heard screams between 9:20 and 9:45 p.m. on the night of the murder T.R {References to the trial record will be designated by volume, then the initial T.R. followed by the page number.) 50 T.R T.R T.R T.R

12 This document is housed in the Capital Punishment Clemency Petitions (PP-4) collection in the M.E. Grenander Department of Special Collections and rchives, University Libraries, University at lbany, SUNY. The night after the discovery of Ms. Livingston's body, a nineteen year old woman named Yelena Comalander was apprehended while attempting to cash one of the victim's checks. It was later determined that Ms. Comalander and her boyfriend, Richard Wayne. t Jones, had used the victim's credit cards just prior to Ms. Comalander's arrest for possessing the checks. The night of her apprehension for having the victim's check, Ms. Comalander told police she had obtained the checks from her boyfriend. The interrogation resumed the following morning, and Ms. Comalander was advised she was a suspect for a capital murder after the body found in the field had been identified as that of Tammy Livingston. fter a morning of interrogation, Ms. Comalander signed her first written statement. 7 In this statement Ms. Comalander admitted she was in the victim's car with Richard Jones, that they tried to use the victim's TM card, and that they used the victim's credit cards. She allowed investigators to search her home, where additional items belonging to the victim were found, including a bag from the store Ms. Livingston had left just prior to being abducted. Ms. Comalander's second statement was described by police officers as being an "oral admission" during their ride to her residence, during which she implicated Richard in the murder. These oral statements were eventually reduced to writing. fter having spent ten hours with police officers during which she was interrogated, signed her first statement, was present for the search of her house, and allegedly made incriminating oral admissions, nineteen year old Yelena Comalander signed her second statement implicating Richard in the murder oftammy Livingston. Ms. Comalander admitted to defense investigators during 7 50 T.R

13 This document is housed in the Capital Punishment Clemency Petitions (PP-4) collection in the M.E. Grenander Department of Special Collections and rchives, University Libraries, University at lbany, SUNY. Richard's appeal that at the time she signed the statement, she had been scared of the police and that during her interrogation the detectives changed what she said about the incident. 8 During the evening Ms. Comalander was being interrogated about the murder of -! Tammy Livingston, Richard was met by police at the home of his parents as he came in from work. He was arrested and taken by the investigators to the police department for questioning. 9 Thus began a police interrogation that was both intense and emotionally charged. The first interrogation of Richard Jones lasted twelve hours, from 7:00 PM until he was finally taken to a jail cell at 7:00 the next morning. 10 During these twelve hours, Richard was denied food, deprived of sleep, and was subjected to what can be described as psychological torture by police officers. He was provided photos of the victim's burned corpse and questioned extensively about the murder of Ms. Livingston. 11 Richard was kept overnight in a room referred to as "the pink room" with the lights on and police officers dropping in every few minutes to threaten him with physical harm of both himself and of his girlfriend. The detectives investigating Ms. Livingston's murder convinced Richard that both he and his girlfriend Ms. Comalander, who was at the time pregnant with Richard's child, would be going to death row; that their child would be born there and then taken from Defense interview of Yelena Comalander T.R Interview with petitioner by defense investigators. 5 T.R

14 This document is housed in the Capital Punishment Clemency Petitions (PP-4) collection in the M.E. Grenander Department of Special Collections and rchives, University Libraries, University at lbany, SUNY. them; and that he and Ms. Comalander would be executed. 12 Richard repeatedly told the detective that he had obtained the victim's property from aman he called "Walt" and that he did not kill Ms. Livingston. 13 I Less than an hour after finally being taken to a cell the next morning, Richard was removed from the cell by an investigator on the case. fter being booked and processed, Richard was placed in a line-up. Ruthie mato, the eyewitness, identified Richard during the police line-up, even though her original description of the perpetrator did not match that ofrichard. 14 Her teenage daughter -- also an eyewitness to the abduction of Ms. Livingston -- failed to identify Richard during this same line-up, but this failure was deliberately omitted from the police report by detective Steffler. 15 Richard then spent the day riding around with detectives to various locations associated with Ms. Livingston's abduction and murder: the parking lot from which she was kidnaped and the field in which her body was discovered. He took them to retrieve his knife and the clothing he wore on the night of the murder: denim jeans and a brown plaid shirt. During the drive, this detective and the two officers accompanying him continued to apply pressure with regard to Ms. Comalander, telling Richard how upset she was and that she might even lose their baby due to all the stress of the situation. They reminded Richard that the faster the case was resolved, the better off his girlfriend and their unborn child would be T.R. 272, and interview with petitioner by def~nse investigators. Id. 49 T.R. 96, T.R

15 This document is housed in the Capital Punishment Clemency Petitions (PP-4) collection in the M.E. Grenander Department of Special Collections and rchives, University Libraries, University at lbany, SUNY. When they arrived at the crime scene, the investigator had Richard climb over the fence and walk through the field where the fire had been set and the body had been found. While there, the detective provided Richard details of how he thought the crime had ' occurred. The detective took Richard to a fast food restaurant on their way back to the jail that afternoon. 16 This was Richard's first meal since he had had lunch the day of his apprehension, more than twenty-four: hours prior. Richard was returned to the jail and the interrogation resumed. fter being in custody for twenty-one hours, Richard told the police what they wanted to hear, based on his conversations with the officers that same day at the various crime scenes. When Richard voiced second thoughts about signing a statement, the officers told him the only thing keeping Ms. Comalander in jail at that point was him not giving a statement. 17 It is interesting to note that the details given in Richard's statement reflect only those details about the offense known by the investigating detectives at that time. Richard signed the statement, then was allowed to visit with Ms. Comalander for about twenty minutes. During this time, she told Richard the officers threatened her by saying Richard had left town after she was arrested., leaving her to take blame for a murder. s they had done during the interrogation of Richard, officers allegedly told Ms. Comalanderthat her child would be born on death row and immediately taken from her, and that she would eventually be executed for the murder of Tammy Livingston T.R Defense interview with Richard Jones. 4 T.R

16 This document is housed in the Capital Punishment Clemency Petitions (PP-4) collection in the M.E. Grenander Department of Special Collections and rchives, University Libraries, University at lbany, SUNY. Richard was arrested, charged with capital murder, and lodged in the Tarrant County Jail. Yelena Comalander was charged with four felonies pertaining to having possession of and having used the victim's checks and credit cards, as well as capital JJturder. The subsequent police investigation also revealed: there was a fingerprint left by Richard on the driver's side window of Ms. Livingston's car; there were two small spots of blood on the lower left leg of his denimjeans; 20 and a knife recovered from Richard's sister was consistent with the weapon that caused Ms. Livingston's stab wounds. The spots of blood found on Richard's jeans were determined to be consistent with the victim's blood type. 22 There was not blood on his shirt. Traces of blood found on the knife and on Richard's boots were so small that it was impossible to even determine if the blood was of human origin. 24 What the police investigation did not reveal was what had happened to Ms. Livingston during the two to three and a half hours between the time of her abduction and the time of her murder. In his statement, Richard does not describe what happened during those hours, because neither he or the police knew what had happened. dditionally, there was a great deal of blood around the body, which indicated Ms. Livingston was murdered while in the field. The fatal wound was a severing of her carotid artery, a wound from which T.R. 291, T.R T.R T.R T.R T.R. 688,

17 This document is housed in the Capital Punishment Clemency Petitions (PP-4) collection in the M.E. Grenander Department of Special Collections and rchives, University Libraries, University at lbany, SUNY. a great deal of blood would have spurted. 25 Yet, Richard's shirt had no blood on it and his jeans were stained with only two small drops of blood. lso of note is the physical and trace evidence taken from the crime scene and from..! the victim's car which did not match Richard Jones. Fingerprints and hair samples collected by police from the two scenes have yet to be matched to any person. Richard Jones' ccount of the Events of Februarv, 86 In February, 86, Richard Jones was employed by a construction company and worked on a road crew for which his father was a foreman. On February, Richard got off work at approximately 6:00 p.m. fter dropping some equipment in Haltom City, Richard and his father arrived at his parent's house at around 7:15 p.m. 26 fter visiting with his family for a few minutes, Richard drove to the home on venue H where he lived with Yelena Comalander, his sister Karen, Karen's husband and their two children. When Richard arrived at the house, the adults were just sitting down to eat dinner. fter they finished eating, Richard went out to the backyard for awhile, where Yelena eventually joined him. When Yelena went inside the house, Richard went to the front of the house in order to lock up his car. s he was walking out to the front yard, Richard saw one of his sisters,.brenda Jones shmore, walking up the driveway. Richard and Brenda had been very close as children, but were somewhat distanced in recent years due to her very serious drug habit T.R Defense interview with Jones and affidavit introduced at first state habeas as Defense Exhibit 6. 16

18 This document is housed in the Capital Punishment Clemency Petitions (PP-4) collection in the M.E. Grenander Department of Special Collections and rchives, University Libraries, University at lbany, SUNY. Brenda asked Richard for a ride to a friend's house. When Richard pointed out that it was almost ten o'clock and that he had to get up early the next morning for work, Brenda pleaded with him to drive her to the friend's house, saying it was very important. During the. f drive, Brenda told Richard that she was in trouble because she and Walter Sellers had been involved in the robbery of a man and a woman. Brenda began crying, and told Richard that they had killed the man and woman. 27 Richard was not inclined to believe Brenda's story, because she was high and was prone to tell lies when she was on drugs. When they arrived at Brenda's destination, a house on Panola Street frequented by drug users and dealers, Richard entered the house with Brenda. There, he saw Walter Sellers, who more or less confirmed Brenda's story. He gave Richard some of what later turned out to be Ms. Livingston's jewelry to give to Yelena. He encouraged Richard to buy checks and credit cards from him, as they needed money for drugs for Brenda. Both Sellers and Brenda pressured Richard to help them, saying Brenda would go to jail if the crime were to be discovered and that he was the only person they could trust. Sellers offered Richard the victim's car in exchange for helping dispose of the bodies. Sellers showed Richard the field where Ms. Livingston's body was, but did not actually show him the body. Sellers then took Richard to where the victim's car was parked. Richard retuil].ed home in this car, in order to pick up Yelena and a gas can. Richard and Yelena drove in the victim's car to retrieve his mother's car. fter hiding Ms. Livingston's car at an area apartment complex, Richard drove his mother's car, with Yelena in the 27 Richard does not know why Brenda said there were two victims rather than one. 17

19 This document is housed in the Capital Punishment Clemency Petitions (PP-4) collection in the M.E. Grenander Department of Special Collections and rchives, University Libraries, University at lbany, SUNY. passenger seat, to the field. He lit the body and field on fire while Yelena waited in the car. Then, they returned to their home. 28 Richard's version of the events on the evening of the murder is not inconsistent with. t the uncontroverted evidence. His fingerprint was found on the window of Ms. Livingston's car because he drove the car from the parking lot where Sellers had taken him to the apartment complex where the car was eventually located by police. The blood on his pants consisted of two very small spots, which could have rubbed onto his pants while he walked through the high grass surrounding the body as he set the fire. In the statement of Yelena Comalander, she noted Richard was shaking when he returned to the car after lighting the fire. This is a reasonable response for someone who has just viewed the body of a murdered woman, but not a reasonable response if one is also the murderer. It should be noted that Ms. Livingston could have been murdered by a woman: she weighed only ninety pounds and most of the stab wounds were shallow. nd, the statement provided to police by eyewitness mato does not match Richard in terms of hair color, being "clean cut" or the shirt he was wearing. It does, however, roughly match the description of Walter Sellers, who had brown hair and was clean shaven at the time of the murder. The Grand Jurv Process During this stage of the State's investigation, several witnesses came forward with information that corroborated Richard's original claim that he had not killed Tammy Livingston and that he had obtained her property from Walter Sellers. 28 Id.

20 This document is housed in the Capital Punishment Clemency Petitions (PP-4) collection in the M.E. Grenander Department of Special Collections and rchives, University Libraries, University at lbany, SUNY. Yelena Comalander told the Grand Jury that Richard had told her of obtaining the checks and credit cards they were using from Sellers, and that Sellers had asked him to burn the body. She also informed the Grand Jury of the reason she had s_ifned a statement implicating Richard in the death of Ms. Livingston: she was fearful of being charged with capital murder herself, of giving birth to her child while on death row, and ofbeing executed for something she did not do. 29 Douglas Daffern testified before the Grand Jury that a nervous and paranoid 30 Sellers had attempted to sell him credit cards, checks, and a car when he came to Daffern' s room at an area motel Sellers was known to frequent. Daffern specifically recalled that the name on the checks was Livingston and that Sellers claimed he had killed two women. Daffern did not know Richard Jones. Even though Daffern provided information as to others who may have been present when Sellers made efforts to sell the victim's property, there appears to have been no effort by police to locate them. 31 James King also told the Grand Jury of seeing Sellers with the victim's property. During the incident King described, Sellers came to a drug house both men frequented and offered to sell checks, identification, and a car to several people there. King specifically recalled Sellers appeared to have blood on his clothing Trial Record exhibit, Defense Exhibit Sellers was listening at the walls with a stethascope to see if anyone in the adjoining rooms was listening. Trial Record exhibit, Defense Exhibit Id. Trial Record exhibit, Defense Exhibit.

21 This document is housed in the Capital Punishment Clemency Petitions (PP-4) collection in the M.E. Grenander Department of Special Collections and rchives, University Libraries, University at lbany, SUNY. Scott Christian gave a sworn statement to police that shortly after the murder Sellers had come to his house on Panola Street, appeared upset and nervous, and was spattered with what appeared to be blood. Christian told police that Sellers had attemptec;l to sell to him the ~ } identification and checks of a woman fitting the description of Ms. Livingston. This occurred prior to Richard Jones coming to the house. dditionally Christian said he witnessed Sellers sell the checks to Richard. 33 The Defense Pre-Trial Preparation Richard was represented by two Fort Worth attorneys during his trial: Jack Strickland and Bill Lane. They hired private investigator Eric Delaughter to assist them with the trial preparations. Richard rarely saw any member of his defense team during the fifteen months between his arrest and his trial for the murder of Tammy Livingston. He had not even met Mr. Lane prior to the beginning of the jury selection process. It was obvious to Richard that his attorneys did not believe his claims of innocence. 34 nd, unfortunately, Richard did little to assist their efforts to defend him. He did not confide in his attorneys or their investigator that he knew Walter Sellers through his sister Brenda, that Brenda had confessed to him that she was involved in the murder of Tammy Livingston, and that he set the field afire as a means of protecting his sister. Richard continued to "protect" his sister from being implicated in the murder, all the while assuming she would voluntarily come forward and clear him before he was convicted. Had his attorneys spent more time with Richard, a trust may have been developed that would have made him feel comfortable in confiding in them Trial Record exhibit, Defense Exhibit 12. Defense interview with petitioner. 20

22 This document is housed in the Capital Punishment Clemency Petitions (PP-4) collection in the M.E. Grenander Department of Special Collections and rchives, University Libraries, University at lbany, SUNY. However, this was not the case and we \vill never know if Richard would have exposed his sister as a witness I participant in the murder or whether he would have intentionally risked the death penalty in an ill-conceived effort to allow Brenda to come forward on her own.. f Due to the length of time that has passed since Richard's trial, and perhaps in defense of his own work on the case, the trial investigator has not been of assistance to attorneys who represent Richard on appeal. Because only a handful of pages of notes made by this investigator have been made available to the current attorney, little is known about the depth or comprehensiveness of the pre- trial investigation conducted on Richard's behalf. Even though the pre-trial investigative efforts were likely hindered by Richard's initial hesitancy to disclose the role his sister played in the offense, and his denial of setting the field afire, Richard's defense team could have worked around this obstacle by using information about Sellers made available to them by the prosecution. For example, Richard's defense team knew about the statements of Doug Daffern, James King, and Scott Christian. However, none of these men were interviewed by the attorneys or their investigator. If these men had been interviewed, Richard's defense teams would have learned the identities of additional witnesses to Sellers possessing and attempting to sell the victim's property prior to Richard having it. s all three of these men were incarcerated during a significant portion of the year between Richard's arrest and trial, the defense team should have had no trouble finding them. 35 Had the defense undertaken a comprehensive investigation with regard to Walter Sellers, the person their client claimed to be responsible for the death of Tammy Livingston, 35 Defense investigation of jail records in Tarrant, Dallas and Denton Counties.

23 This document is housed in the Capital Punishment Clemency Petitions (PP-4) collection in the M.E. Grenander Department of Special Collections and rchives, University Libraries, University at lbany, SUNY. they would have learned several interesting facts. For example, during the years 85 through the time ofrichard's trial, Walter Sellers was arrested for six instances ofauto theft, possession of drugs, and unlawful carrying of a weapon (a gun). Granted, none of his arrests. f were for violent crimes. However, he was known to trade in the same kinds of stolen goods that were taken from the victim and which Richard claimed to have bought from him. His criminal record certainly proves Sellers was on a crime spree during the months before and after the murder. dditionally, Sellers was arrested one month after the murder with what was described by the police as "a dagger" in his possession. This knife was confiscated by the Fort Worth Police Department and was in their evidence locker room at the time ofrichard's pre-trial investigation and at the time of his trial. It has since been destroyed, so no forensic testing may be conducted. nother example of evidence that was available for the defense team to discover involves witness Doug Daffern, who testified before the Grand Jury and implicated Sellers in the murder. Daffern was incarcerated with Sellers in Denton County prior to the beginning of Richard's trial. Daffern maintains that during their incarceration together, Sellers, upon learning of the Grand Jury testimony, tried to convince other Denton County Jail inmates to kill Daffern. 36 look at Sellers' crimes committed prior to the murder and during the year between Richard's arrest and trial reveals some interesting facts. He was arrested for several felonies during this fifteen month period, and seemed to have been favored with several "lucky 36 Defense interview with Doug Daffern post

24 This document is housed in the Capital Punishment Clemency Petitions (PP-4) collection in the M.E. Grenander Department of Special Collections and rchives, University Libraries, University at lbany, SUNY. breaks" during this time. fter each arrest. Sellers would be released on bond, even though he would later fail to appear in court again and again. lthough he was on parole, it was never violated for any of these arrests. The defense investigation did apparently make an effort to interview Walter Sellers, who was in custody on unrelated charges in Denton County. Based on notes made by Richard's investigation, it appears that Sellers refused to speak to the investigator about the night of Ms. Livingston's murder. Comments made by Sellers during the meeting with the defense investigator should have aroused suspicion, however. ccording to the hand-written notes, Sellers told the investigator that he had contacted a Tarrant County District ttorney investigator and asked for advice on how to handle the claims of Richard and other witnesses that he was involved with the murder of Ms. Livingston. The D.. investigator had advised Sellers to get an attorney. If what Sellers told the defense investigator is true, he had initiated a contact with the District ttorney's office, and but neither the police nor the D.. had interviewed him with regard to his possible involvement in the Livingston murder. lso of note is an odd event that transpired during the trial of Richard Jones. Thirtyone year old Michael Barton contacted the office of Jones' attorney and confessed to the murder of Tammy Livingston. Barton, then an inmate at the Tarrant County Jail, confessed that he and Walter Sellers abducted a woman, took her car, and killed her. His description of the woman and ofhei car matched those of Ms. Livingston. Barton claimed to have been using drugs at the time of the offense and claimed he had just learned that Richard Jones had been charged with the murder. Barton told them he was having thoughts of suicide because he felt guilty about Ms. Livingston's murder. He admitted to previous hospitalizations for

25 This document is housed in the Capital Punishment Clemency Petitions (PP-4) collection in the M.E. Grenander Department of Special Collections and rchives, University Libraries, University at lbany, SUNY. psychiatric problems. It is not clear as to how the defense team came to discount Barton's confession. It is clear that they did not present this information to the jury. The Pretrial Hearine. ' pretrial hearing was held and several pretrial motions decided on March 25 & 26, 87. On the first day of the pretrial hearing, during the hearing on the motion to suppress the petitioner's statement, Detective L. T. Steffler admitted that Richard was threatened with the charging of his girl friend, Yelena Comalander (who was carrying Mr. Jones' child), \Vi th capital murder if the petitioner did not confess. He told petitioner that the baby would be born while Ms. Comalander was in custody and would be taken from her. The court recessed for the day and when Detective Steffler resumed testifying on the following day, he recanted his admissions saying that he had been inattentive the preceeding day. 37 He admitted that he had been "talked to" about the effect ofhis testimony on March 25, 87, by the prosecutors who had told him that his testimony created problems. Steffler obligingly changed his testimony. review of the questions and answers from the preceding day reveals that both the questions and answers were relatively straight forward and Steffler's answers were responsive to the questions asked. 38 Subsequently, a second officer, Detective Pendergraf, who had also been present during petitioner's interrogation, said that he had told petitioner that Comalander would! J probably go to prison for forgery and that she would not be allowed to keep the baby, but he T.R. 66-1; 5 T.R Id. 24

26 This document is housed in the Capital Punishment Clemency Petitions (PP-4) collection in the M.E. Grenander Department of Special Collections and rchives, University Libraries, University at lbany, SUNY. denied that he tied what happened to Comalander to whether petitioner gave a confession. 39 Interestingly, after Richard confessed, Comalander and he were allowed to visit, her bond was reduced, she made bond and, ultimately, she was placed on probation for her involvement in this case. Despite this improbable recantation and the admission by Pendergraf that a statement very similar to the threat that Steffler had originally admitted had been made, the trial court accepted the cleaned up version of the interrogation provided by the state on the second day of pretrials. The Trial of Richard Wavne Jones The case presented by the State of Texas during Richard's trial consisted of his having possession of the victim'::: oroperty, his fingerprint on Ms. Livingston's car, the two spots of blood on his jeans, the similarity of his pocket knife to the murder weapon, the eyewitness identification and most importantly, Richard's confession. The defense presentation consisted only of the testimony of Richard Jones. 40 s he had asserted at the beginning of the investigation, Richard testified to the jury that he had not killed Ms. Livingston, but that he had obtained her checks, credit cards, car, and other property from a man named Walter Sellers. Richard testified that Sellers, a friend of his sister Brenda, had sold him the car and other items the night of Ms. Livingston's murder. Richard testified that he was at the house on Panola Street because he had given his sister Brenda a ride there to meet Sellers. Richard also testified that during his visit to the house on Panola Street, he noticed Sellers had what appeared to be blood on his shirt and forearms T.R T.R

27 This document is housed in the Capital Punishment Clemency Petitions (PP-4) collection in the M.E. Grenander Department of Special Collections and rchives, University Libraries, University at lbany, SUNY. Richard told jurors that his confession to the murder was a result of coercion by police and their threats concerning his girl-friend and unborn child. Unfortunately, Richard's alibi for the time of the murder was not investigated by his. f attorneys. Furthermore, the substantial evidence that corroborated Richard's testimony was not presented to the jury when the evidence of the four most important defense witnesses was not allowed before the jury. s a result ofher testimony before the Grand Jury, which conflicted her signed police statement, Yelena Comalander had been charged by the State with ggravated Perjury. When called as a defense witness during Richard's trial, Comalander invoked her fifth mendment right against self-incrimination, out of fear that the State would charge her with an additional count of perjury for testifying at trial contrary to what was in her statement to the police. 41 By charging Comalander with felony perjury, in addition to the other felony charges pending against her at the time of Richard's trial, the State had effectively cut off Richard's access to the crucial information Comalander could have supplied to the jury: more detail with regard to R.ichard's whereabouts on the evening of the murder, that he had told her he obtained the victim's checks and other property from Walter Sellers, and that the police had coerced her into providing a false statement implicating Richard. The Court misunderstood the law on the admissibility of the grand jury testimony, and disallowed it. Thus, the jury did not get to hear the non-hearsay parts of that informati-::n. Richard's defense counsel claimed to be unable to locate either Doug Daffern or ' James King at the time of the trial. n effort to allow the jury to hear the Grand Jury T.R

28 This document is housed in the Capital Punishment Clemency Petitions (PP-4) collection in the M.E. Grenander Department of Special Collections and rchives, University Libraries, University at lbany, SUNY. testimony of these witnesses was unsuccessful, because the judge ruled the Grand Jury transcripts inadmissible. 42 The jurors were not provided information that two witnesses had seen a blood-spattered Walter Sellers attempting to sell the victim's property at two separate locations prior to his meeting with Richard at the Panola Street house. The fourth key.defense witness, Scott Christian, also invoked his Fifth mendment right against self-incrimination and so did not testify (1) as to his knowledge of a bloodspattered Sellers attempting to sell the victim's property before Richard came to Christian's house and (2) that he witnessed Sellers attempting to sell these items to Richard. t the time of Christian's original statements to the police and the District ttorney that implicated Sellers, he was under indictment for felony charges unrelated to the Jones investigation. During his statement about Sellers to the District ttorney, Christian made references to his prior drug dealing. When called by the defense to testify at Richard's trial, Christian feared being charged by the State as a result of his admissions to criminal activity, even though those admissions were totally unrelated to his knowledge of Sellers having possession of the victim's property. Because Richard's trial attorneys and the trial judge did not ascertain whether Christian's invocation of his right against self-incrimination was justified under the circumstances, the jury never heard his testimony. 43 Richard was sentenced to death in July of 87. lthough it is understandable why the trial jury determined him to be guilty (his confession, his possession of the victim's property, the as-of-that-time unexplained spots of blood on his pants, and the statement of T.R T.R ; ffidavit of Scott Christian dated***. 27

29 This document is housed in the Capital Punishment Clemency Petitions (PP-4) collection in the M.E. Grenander Department of Special Collections and rchives, University Libraries, University at lbany, SUNY. his girlfriend), it is clear the jurors were not presented with all available evidence of his innocence. nd, given the fact that during gui It phase deliberations the jurors requested they be allowed to view a photo of Walter Sellers. it is apparent they were wpling to consider Richard's version of the events that transpired the night Ms. Livingston died. Had they been provided the testimony of Doug Daffern, James King, Scott Christian, and Yelena Comalander, the verdict might have been different. The state repeatedly emphasized the lack of corroboration of defendant's story in their closing argument. 44 lack of corroboration they had engineered. Once Richard lost the opportunity to present the testimony of these witnesses to the jury, his only hope was to be granted relief on appeal and be granted a new trial during which he could present this crucial evidence of his innocence. But, due to errors made by his trial attorneys, Richard had lost the opportunity to win an appeal based on these issues. Richard's ppeal: the State Process On the direct appeal, the Court of Criminal ppeals ruled that the trial court erred in refusing to admit the non-hearsay portions of Yelena Comalander's grand jury testimony. However, because Richard's trial attorneys did not offer the non-hearsay evidence separately from the hearsay, any error was waived. The appellate attorneys for Richard did not raise the issue of the court's similar ruling excluding the grand jury testimony of Daffern and King, even though they were admissible (insofar as they were not relating statements by others) under the same rule that should have provided for the admission of Comalander' s T.R. 963,

30 This document is housed in the Capital Punishment Clemency Petitions (PP-4) collection in the M.E. Grenander Department of Special Collections and rchives, University Libraries, University at lbany, SUNY. testimony. Mr. Strickland, Richard's lead trial attorney, and Mr. lan K. Butcher were Richard's counsel on direct appeal. The Court of Criminal ppeals affirmed. During the state-level habeas corpus review of a death sentence, the.convicted person '! has the opportunity to document evidence that was not previously presented due to errors by the trial attorney. In the case of Richard Jones, it was his trial attorney, along with a new cocounsel from the direct appeal, who represented him at this crucial stage of the proceedings. Perhaps for this reason, the competency of his trial defense team was not scrutinized. To Richard's advantage, however, was the fact that his trial attorney had the assistance of an attorney working for the Texas Resource Center (TRC). During 93, Richard's defense team was comprised of his lead trial attorney Jack Strickland, lan Butcher (who was co-counsel on direct appeal), an attorney from the TRC, and a private investigator. During the fall of 93, Richard, who was facing an execution date, wrote a letter to his mother to be read after he was dead, explaining what had really happened the night of the murder. 45 Richard did not want his mother to ever believe he had killed someone. His TRC attorney read this letter, in which Richard for the first time detailed his sister's involvement in the murder and the fact that he did bum the field where the victim's body lay, as a means of helping his sister conceal the crime. fter reading the letter and confronting Richard with n}s admissions, the attorney shifted the focus of the investigation and added more investigators to the defense team. forensic scientist was hired to review the evidence presented at trial State Habeas Record (S.H.R.), Defendant's Exhibit 6. 29

31 This document is housed in the Capital Punishment Clemency Petitions (PP-4) collection in the M.E. Grenander Department of Special Collections and rchives, University Libraries, University at lbany, SUNY. By the time the state habeas petition was filed, in November of 93, Richard's new defense team had learned several things previously undiscovered by Richard's trial counsel. They learned Walter Sellers had a history of stealing and selling checks,, credit cards, and cars. They learned rrom several sources that Brenda would sometimes get high and cry about Richard being in jail for a crime he did not commit; she expressed guilt that he was there. nd, they learned from a former inmate of the Tarrant County Jail that Sellers had all but confessed to the crime right after Richard's conviction. They also learned that the men who had worked on the construction road crew with Richard the day of the murder now had few memories about that specific date, due to the passage of time since it happened. Thus, even though his alibi might have been developed in 86, when the events of that day were fresh, it could not be developed in 93. Now, both of the potential alibi witnesses are dead. In 93 Richard was granted a hearing by the judge who had presided over his trial; the issue under consideration was his innocence. During the hearing, just prior to petitioner being called to testify as the last witness on his behalf, circumstances arose that caused Richard's attorneys to reconsider presenting his testimony and to petition to withdraw from the case. s a result, he was again denied the opportunity to present all available evidence of his innocence to the person deciding his fate. Worse, the petition to withdraw suggested to the trial judge, the trier of fact, that Richard's own lawyers believed he was about to perjure himself in his testimony. The problem arose in this manner. Midway through the December, 93 hearing, Richard's defense team received the results oftests conducted by their forensic scientist on the clothing Richard had worn the night of the murder. The test indicated the denim jeans Richard had worn had, at one time, been heavily spattered with blood but had since been 30

32 This document is housed in the Capital Punishment Clemency Petitions (PP-4) collection in the M.E. Grenander Department of Special Collections and rchives, University Libraries, University at lbany, SUNY. washed out. (The test procedure, done with the chemical Luminol, though accurate for proving an item was stained with blood prior to being laundered, cannot provide information necessary to determine if the blood is animal or human in origin.) Co~fronted with this unexpected physical c. i dence in the middle of their hearing, Richard's defense team failed to appreciate that those test results were consistent with Richard's version of the events and even substantiated it. During the trial, the State presented evidence that two small spots of blood on the lower leg of Richard's jeans was consistent with the victim's blood. Further, their expert testified that the pants had not been laundered after the apparent blood of the deceased had been deposited on them. 46 If this evidence was accurate, then it is impossible to believe the blood that was on his pants prior to them being laundered also belonged to Ms. Livingston. The fact that blood on Richard's clothing consisted only of two small spots on the lower leg is consistent with his admission of walking through the grass near where the victim was stabbed during his efforts to set the field afire. Had he stabbed Ms. Livingston, Richard's clothing would have been covered in blood. Given the circumstances at the time of the December 93 hearing, however, Richard's appellate attorneys were unable to calmly reflect on the significance of the Luminol testing and the blood evidence. Because they erroneously believed the results of Luminol testing was evidence of Richard's guilt, his attorneys attempted to withdraw from his case in a manner that suggested to the judge they believed Richard would perjure himself on the witness stand. So, the attorneys cut short the hearing and presented Richard's testimony by way of a written statement, an affidavit consisting of the letter he had written T.R

33 This document is housed in the Capital Punishment Clemency Petitions (PP-4) collection in the M.E. Grenander Department of Special Collections and rchives, University Libraries, University at lbany, SUNY. for his mother in contemplation of his execution. What the defense team overlooked was the fact that their own investigators had already been given a plausible explanation for the blood that had been laundered out ofrichard'sjeans prior to the Livingston murder. Members of.! Richard's family had already informed investigators of Richard's participation in the slaughtering and cleaning of chickens at a ranch where one of his sisters lived, just a month or so before his arrest. 47 In addition to Richard's letter/affidavit, his attorneys presented the judge with statements of two women who claimed Brenda had told them her brother was innocent. During the hearing, Richard's sister Brenda testified that she was not well acquainted with Sellers and denied knowing anything about Ms. Livingston's murder. Prior to her testimony, she had signed an affidavit for the State saying she had never been to the house on Panola Street and that she did associate with Sellers at that time. lthough these statements could have been discredited by Brenda's own friends and acquaintances, Richard's attorneys did not present such witnesses at the hearing, other than by affidavit. Richard's request for relief was denied when the judge signed the State-drafted proposed findings. In essence, the judge agreed with the prosecutor that Richard had failed to provide the court with credible information to ~upport his claim of innocence. The judge ruled that Richard's letter/affidavit lacked credibility in light ofit's timing. The State opined that certainly Walter Sellers and Brenda Jones shmore were not involved in the murder. fter all, both had signed statements prior to the hearing denying involvement in the murder 47 Defense rncmorandum of interview with Sharon Juarez in October

34 This document is housed in the Capital Punishment Clemency Petitions (PP-4) collection in the M.E. Grenander Department of Special Collections and rchives, University Libraries, University at lbany, SUNY. of Tammy Livingston. 48 The D.. was positive that Sellers' claim of non-involvement was credible, and besides, Richard's trial jurors h;id already rejected the "Sellers-did-it" defense theory. Neither the judge nor the state ackno\\'ledged the obvious: that it 1 was unlikely that Walter Sellers would admit to having murdered Tammy Livingston, and that the jurors who rejected Richard's defense at trial were not provided the overwhelming evidence of Sellers' involvement. The trial jurors had only Richard's testimony that he had obtained the victim's property from Walter Sellers. They were not provided the testimony from other witnesses who saw a blood-spattered and anxious Sellers trying to sell Tammy Livingston's property and who saw him actually hand her possessions to Richard. Richard's Federal Court ppeal Upon reaching the federal stage of the appellate process, Richard was appointed a new attorney. William S. Harris began his representation of Richard in June, 94. fter filing an appeal in federal court, Mr. Harris realized that no issues relating to ineffective assistance of counsel had been raised during the state-level appeal, although the record suggested such issues exisisted. s all issues to be raised during the federal appeals process must first have been raised in state court, Harris took the steps necessary to return the case to state court. During his representation of Richard in state court in early 95, Harris pointed out the failure of the trial lawyers to preserve issues relating to the admissibility of the Grand Jury testimony of the four key defense witnesses. s a result of this ineffectiveness, no one in a position of deciding Richard's fate had been told what these witnesses would have 48 It is ironic that the state is willing to accept such denials from convicted felons without independent investigation, but in this instance it suits their purpose to do so. 33

35 This document is housed in the Capital Punishment Clemency Petitions (PP-4) collection in the M.E. Grenander Department of Special Collections and rchives, University Libraries, University at lbany, SUNY. testified about Walter Sellers' possession of the victim's property and his possible involvement in the murder of Ms. Livingston. Richard's second habeas petition, the second one filed in state court, was denied, again after being reviewed by the same judge who had - ; presided over his trial. t a conference to determine whether to grant an evidentiary hearing, the court adopted the states requested findings of fact and conclusions oflaw without even allowing petitioner's attorney an opportunity to read them before they were adopted. Mr. Harris immediately filed an application for a writ of habeas corpus in federal court, alleging the same claims as had been previously heard in state court regarding the ineffectiveness of Richard's trial attorneys, among other things. Once again, the goal was to educate a new judge about the entirety of circumstances surrounding Tammy Livingston's death and the manner in which Richard Jones came to be in possession of her property. Mr. Harris again requested the court to determine whether it was error for the judge not to allow Richard's jury to hear the testimony of witnesses Yelena Comalander, Doug Daffern, Jam es King, and Scott Christian, and whether it was ineffective assistance for the trial attorneys to fail to properly present the grand jury testimony and to fail to properly seek evaluation of the claim of privilege by Scott Christian. Richard's trial attorneys, Strickland and Lane, signed affidavits for the State, defending their actions at Richard's trial. In Strickland's affidavit, he voiced resentfulness at the suggestion that he did not defend Richard adequately. 49 The federal court did not rule on this appeal for more than three years. During this time, the investigation on Richard's behalf resumed. No efforts to speed up the judge's 49 These affidavits are attached to the state's answer to the petitioner's second petition for writ of habeas corpus in state court. 34

36 This document is housed in the Capital Punishment Clemency Petitions (PP-4) collection in the M.E. Grenander Department of Special Collections and rchives, University Libraries, University at lbany, SUNY. decision-making process were made by Richard's attorney, because the longer it took for the judge to rule, the more time was available for the continued investigation into the case (and more time was available for Richard to live without the burden of having an execution date. ' scheduled). The federal judge ruled against Richard in October, 98. Soon afterward, Mr,. Harris asked the court to reconsider. 50 Mr. Harris presented to the federal court a statement signed by a witness who relates that Walter Sellers told him, after Richard's conviction for Ms. Livingston's murder, that Richard Jones was in fact innocent of the crime. This witness, Terry Gravelle, was incarcerated with Sellers during the year following Richard's trial and death sentence. Sellers told Gravelle details about the abduction and murder of Ms. Livingston that suggest Sellers was intimately involved, although he did not admit direct involvement in the crime. ccording to Mr. Gravelle, Sellers told him Ms. Livingston had been taken to a motel and held there while attempts were made to use her checks and credit cards. However, problems of an unspecified type arose and Ms. Livingston was subsequently murdered. Sellers told Mr. Gravelle the victim's checks and credit cards were given to Richard Jones because they were "too hot" to use. Mr. Gravelle also disclosed having seen Richard's sister, Brenda, soon after Richard's arrest for murder. Brenda, who was searching for Walter Sellers, told Mr. Gravelle that she suspected Sellers had gone into hiding and that she knew he had killed the victim. lthough Mr. Gravelle had provided this same information to a member of Richard's defense team during a 93 interview, inexplicably no one at that time had taken his statement or subpoenaed him to the Motion filed pursuant to Rule 59( e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Jones v. Johnson, No. 4:95-CV-245-Y, filed November 13,

37 This document is housed in the Capital Punishment Clemency Petitions (PP-4) collection in the M.E. Grenander Department of Special Collections and rchives, University Libraries, University at lbany, SUNY. hearing. When the investigation into Richard's case resumed in late 96, the investigator initiated efforts to locate Mr. Gravelle. He \Vas not located until right before the judge ruled against Richard in 98. In this same legal document, Richard's attorney addressed the fact that no one, prior to the statement given by Mr. Gravelle, had ever discussed the victim's whereabouts between the time of the abduction and the time her screams were heard. lthough there are some inconsistencies with regard to the actual time Ms. Livingston was abducted, it is clear that a time interval of between two and three and a half hours had lapsed from the time of her kidnaping to the time witnesses heard screams. Then, another interval of approximately one and a half to two hours passed between the time of the murder and the time the fire department received a call regarding the grass fire. The elapsed time between the abduction and murder is a factor inconsistent with Richard's police statement, in which he claimed to have driven Ms. Livingston directly to the field and killed her immediately following his abduction of her. The drive from one location to the other takes fewer than fifteen minutes, and there is no explanation in Richard's statement as to how he spent the remaining one and a half to three hours. However, Walter Sellers' statement to Mr. Gravelle accounts for this time, in that Sellers described Ms. Livingston being held at a motel for a time prior to being taken to the field and killed. nd, finally, in this same filing Mr. Harris again noted for the federal court the vast inconsistencies between the physical evidence and the State's theory of Richard's guilt. Contrary to the State's claim, the evidence is very consistent with Richard's version of the events. For example, the two small spots of blood on the lower leg of his pants are more 36

38 This document is housed in the Capital Punishment Clemency Petitions (PP-4) collection in the M.E. Grenander Department of Special Collections and rchives, University Libraries, University at lbany, SUNY. likely the result of him walking through the grass to set the field on fire than the result of having stabbed the victim seventeen times. In their response to Mr. Harris' filing, the State again argued the evidence Mr. Harris. ' presented was not credible and was not new evidence of Richard's innocence. Incredibly, the prosecution again opined that since Walter Sellers and Brenda Jones shmore had in 93 denied involvement in the Livingston murder, the statement of Terry Gravelle must be a false one. The judge apparently agreed, and declined relief yet again. In 99, Mr. Harris appealed the federal judge's ruling to the United States Fifth Circuit Court of ppeals. The Fifth Circuit, comprised of a panel of three judges, listened to oral arguments from Mr. Harris and a representative from the office of the Texas ttorney General in November, 99. In an effort to dissuade the Court from ruling in favor of Richard, the ttorney General filled in the gaps of the government's evidence against Richard with conjecture and speculation. For example, in response to the glaring inconsistency in the nature of the victim's wounds and the minuscule amount o fb lood found on Richard's clothing, the ssistant ttorney General suggested that after forcing Tammy Livingston into the field, Richard had disrobed, stabbed Ms. Livingston seventeen times, walked to a near-by stream to bathe the blood fro~ his body, redressed himself, and then left the field. 51 Since the filing of the Petition for Writ of Certiorari in the U. S. Supreme Court, investigators for the petitioner have found another person who heard Walt Sellers state that Richard Jones is not the killer of Tammy Livingston, and suggesting that he, Sellers, is either 51 Tape recording of oral argument before the United States Court of ppeals for the Fifth Circuit on November 1,

39 This document is housed in the Capital Punishment Clemency Petitions (PP-4) collection in the M.E. Grenander Department of Special Collections and rchives, University Libraries, University at lbany, SUNY. the killer or knows who the real killer is. Robert Dean Miller has given an affidavit, which is attached to this petition, in which he recounts that he and Walt Sellers were incarcerated together in the Dallas County jail sometime around 87. news show on television. ' mentioned Richard Wayne Jones and his com iction in this case. Sellers began talking to Miller, not knowing that Miller had met Jones in the Tarrant County Jail the year before. Sellers said that Jones did not kill the girl, that he had not gotten the checks from her, and that he, Sellers, had had Livingston's checks. When Miller told Sellers that he knew Richard Jones, Sellers lost interest in talking to Miller. Shortly thereafter, Sellers was moved from that particular area of the jail. In Summarv: Evidence Inconsistent With Richard's Guilt It is interesting to note that the only details given in Richard's confession mirror those details known by investigating detectives about the offense and that nothing is said about what happened with the victim between the time of the abduction and the time of the murder. ccording to evidence presented by state witnesses, there was an elapsed time span of between two and three and a half hours from the time of the abduction to the time of the murder. In his statement, Richard does not describe what happened during these hours, because neither he nor the police knew what had happened. In addition to this, other evidence presented by the state at the trial is questionable. With regard to eyewitness Ruthie mato, there were numerous inconsistencies between the description she offered police right after the event and the description she gave at Richard's trial, which occurred a year after the event. The jurors were not allowed to hear evidence that mato was on deferred adjudication (probation) at the time of her identification of 38

40 This document is housed in the Capital Punishment Clemency Petitions (PP-4) collection in the M.E. Grenander Department of Special Collections and rchives, University Libraries, University at lbany, SUNY. Richard. nd, it is unclear why her daughter, who had failed to identify Richard in a police line-up, was "unavailable" for the trial. Most importantly, the fact cannot be overlooked that three witnes_ses saw a bloody - : and anxious Walter Sellers with the victim's property. One of these witnesses saw Sellers attempting to sell the property to Richard. sale that ultimately took place. nd then there are the witnesses who had conversations with both Sellers and Brenda Jones shmore after the trial in which both made indirect admissions to being involved in the crime or knowing that someone other than Richard was responsible for Ms. Livingston's murder. There are five such witnesses at this time, all of whom describe separate conversations with Sellers or shmore. Their statements are attached to this petition. When viewed in totality, this evidence suggests there was more to the abduction and murder of Tammy Livingston than was presented by the State when they sought the death penalty of Richard Jones. s is often the policy of prosecutors, there has been no attempt on the part of the Tarrant County District ttorney or the Texas ttorney general to revisit the police investigation. During the last thirteen years, when evidence has been presented to them that is inconsistent with Richard Jones being the murder, the prosecutors have made every effort to maintain their conviction of him. Since his conviction in 87, Richard Jones has been scheduled for execution five times. On a few of these occasions, Richard has come within a couple of days of dying before a judge would grant a stay of execution. Now he faces yet another date of execution. 39

41 This document is housed in the Capital Punishment Clemency Petitions (PP-4) collection in the M.E. Grenander Department of Special Collections and rchives, University Libraries, University at lbany, SUNY. This despite his unflagging attempts to point out to the government that he is innocent of this murder. 52 b. rgument Governor George Bush has repeatedly stated that he considers only two questions in determining whether to grant clemency to a death row inmate: ( 1) whether the inmate has had a fair access to the Courts to raise his legal 'claims; and (2) whether there is any question that the inmate might be actually innocent of the offense. While the petitioner has had access to the courts, the combination of those court's unwillingness to look at the questions raised by the evidence regarding the petitioners guilt when viewed as a whole, and technical rules of procedural default that the courts have applied to petitioner have made his strong showing of innocence unavailing. The Courts have essentially held that the rulings that stripped the petitioner of his witnesses at trial were in error, but that the error, incredibly, was harmless. The Court of Criminal ppeals ruled that the trial court was wrong in not admitting the grand jury testimony of Yelena Comalander, at least in so far as the testimony was not hearsay, but that the failure of the trial counsel to offer the testimony in a manner that separated the admissible from the inadmissible waived any error. 53 The 5 1 h Circuit Court of ppeals held that the record supported the petitioner's claim that the grand jury testimony of King and Daffern was offered on the same 52 Copies of the affidavits of Richard W. Jones, Douglas Daffern, James King, Scott Christian, Terry Gravelle, Robert Dean Miller, Donna Davis, Carla Suzzann Smith, and Sharon Jones Juarez, are attached hereto and incorporated for all purposes. The originals of these affidavits, with the exception of the affidavit of Miller, have all been previously filed as a part of the record in various court proceedings. 53 Jones v. State,843 S.W.2d 487, (Tex.Cr.pp. 92). 40

42 This document is housed in the Capital Punishment Clemency Petitions (PP-4) collection in the M.E. Grenander Department of Special Collections and rchives, University Libraries, University at lbany, SUNY. basis as that of Comalander, but that its erroneous exclusion was harmless. The 5 1 h Circuit also agreed that the proper course for evaluating the 5 1 h mendment claim by Scott Christian was an in camera review of that claim, but also found that trial counsel's self-serving statements that he changed his strategy and no longer sought Christian's testimony was a legitimate strategic decision and thus protected from being classified as ineffective assistance. s 4 This despite the fact that in the record, the trial counsel continued to vigorously pursue immunity for the witness in an attempt to get his testimony. (It was settled law in Texas at the time of trial that immunity could only be granted upon the motion of the state.) The Board of Pardons and Paroles and the Texas Governor derive their clemency authority from the Texas Constitution. rt. 4 Sec. 11 (b) of the Texas Constitution provides: In all criminal cases, except treason and impeachment, the Governor shall have power, after conviction, on the written signed recommendation and advice of the Board of Pardons and Paroles, or a majority thereof, to grant reprieves and commutations of punishment and pardons; and under such rules as the Legislature may prescribe, and upon the written recommendation and advice of a majority of the Board of Pardons and Paroles, he shall have the power to remit fines and forfeitures. The Governor hall have the power to grant one reprieve in any capital case for a period not to exceed thirty (30) days; and he shall have power to revoke conditional pardons. With the advice and consent of the Legislature, he may grant reprieves, commutations of punishment and pardons in cases of treason. Ibid. This is their "exclusive" authority because the framers of our Constitution reserved this power only to the executive branch.ss See,Exparte Black, 59 S.W.2d 828 (Tex.Cr.pp. 33) (The power 2000). 54 Jones v. Johnson, No , Unpublished Slip Opinion, pp (5n 1 Cir. 55. The Executive Branch necessarily includes both the Governor and the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles.. R.R.E. v. Glenn, 884 S.W.2d 9, 2-3 (Tex. pp.-ft. Worth 94 ). Under our Constitution, the Governor may never grant a greater form of clemency than that recommended by the Board of Pardons and Paroles. Ex parte Lefors, 303 S.W.2d 394 (Tex.Cr.pp.57). However, the Governor is empowered to grant lessor forms of clemency than that recommended by the Board. Ibid. 41

43 This document is housed in the Capital Punishment Clemency Petitions (PP-4) collection in the M.E. Grenander Department of Special Collections and rchives, University Libraries, University at lbany, SUNY. to grant clemency is reserved for the Governor). Under the separation of powers doctrine, neither the judicial or legislative branches of our state government may abridge or infringe upon the clemency powers vested in the executive branches. State v. Flood, 814 S.W.2d 548, 550. t (Tex.pp.-Houston [1st Dist] 91) ("... [W]e find... unconstitutional because only the governor, not the legislature nor the judiciary, has the power of clemency under the Texas Constitution."); Ex parte Giles, 502 S.W.2d 774 (Tex.Cr.pp. 73) (Legislature may not exercise the power of clemency on its own and may not enact a statute which abridges or infringes upon the Governor's power to grant clemency); and, Sanders v. State, 580 S.W.2d 349, 352 (Tex.Cr.pp. 79) ("Clemency powers embodied in the parole system are beyond the reach of interference by the judicial branch... "). There can be little doubt that this Board and Governor are aware of the great significance that clemency has recently acquired in our capital sentencing scheme. The United States Supreme Court found that clemency is likely the one element in our capital sentencing scheme which protects the constitutionality of the scheme, Herrera v. Collins, 506 U.S. 390, 113 S.Ct. 853 (93). It is the ability of the executive branch to extend clemency that in part justifies statements in Herrerra, id. that suggest that factual innocence is not relevant on habeas review. Clemency has several forms. Our Constitution refers to the clemency powers as the ability to grant pardons, commutatiqns and reprieves. Tex. Const. rt. IV, Sec. 11 (b ). The Constitution does not define these terms. Blacks Law Dictionary defines "clemency" as: Kindness, mercy, leniency. Used e.g. to describe act of governor of state when he commutes death sentence to life imprisonment, or grants pardon. BLCKS L w DICTIONRY, 228, 5th Ed. 79 (emphasis added). This same source defines "pardon" as 42

44 This document is housed in the Capital Punishment Clemency Petitions (PP-4) collection in the M.E. Grenander Department of Special Collections and rchives, University Libraries, University at lbany, SUNY. n act of grace, proceeding from the power in trusted with the execution of the laws, which exempts the individual on whom it is bestowed from the punishment the law inflicts for a crime he has committed... BLCKS LW DICTIONRY, 1002, 5th Ed. 79 (emph~sis added). See also, Exparte Lefors, 303 S.W.2d 394 (Tex.Cr.pp. 57) (Pardons are "acts of grace."); Ex parte Graham, 853 S.W.2d at 568 (Mahoney, J., concurring and dissenting) ( pardon is an "act of grace"); and, Ex parte Rice, 162 SW. 891 (Tex.Cr.pp. 13) ( pardon is an "act of grace."). Webster's New Dictionary of Synonyms 152 (84) provides the following synonyms for clemency: "mercy," "charity," and "lenity." Historically, the concept of clemency, in any form, was tied to the concepts of mercy or grace. 56 Indeed, Blackstone, perhaps the most often cited legal commentator, "said that the Crown's use of the pardon power to ensure that justice was administered with mercy was one of the great advantages of monarchy over any other kind of government, because it softened the rigors of the general law." Daniel T. Kobil, The uality of Mercy Strained: Wrestling the Pardoning Powerfronz the King, 69 Tex. L. Rev. 586 (91) (citing4 w. BLCKSTONE, COMMENTRIES, at 388) (emphasis added). Thus, clemency in the earliest of times was a merciful concept and "served the salutary purpose of mitigating a system of criminal justice which was harsh and inflexible." Id., at 588. There is no better opportunity for the Board and the Governor to exercise clemency than when an innocent man is facing execution. 1'he overall circumstances surrounding the trial and conviction of petitioner are such that no fair and reasonable man can be confident that the proper 56 Some commentators have traced clemency to biblical times. See, Kobil, supra at 572, n. 9, quoting: Ephesians 4:32-5:2 ("... be kind to one another, tenderhearted, forgive one another, as God in Christ has forgiven you. Therefore be imitators of God, as beloved children and live in love, as Christ loved and gave hiruself up for us....");and, Matthew 5:7 ("Blessed are the merciful, for they will receive mercy."). 43

45 This document is housed in the Capital Punishment Clemency Petitions (PP-4) collection in the M.E. Grenander Department of Special Collections and rchives, University Libraries, University at lbany, SUNY. rt?s u It has been reached by the justice system in this case. If Richard Jones is put to death on ugust , a double injustice will occur. man whose conviction is obtained through a judicial process so flawed as to lack reliability will die. t the same time, the real killer of Tammy. I Li\ ingston will escape justice. 2. During his imprisonment, Mr. Jones has demonstrated that he can be a well behaved inmate, and he has formed lasting relationships with people who have come to care for him. The petitioner has beel1 on death row for more than thirteen years. During that time he has avoided major disciplinary actions and has only been punished for minor infractions. Many of these infractions, while.understandably punished in a penitentiary setting would not be violations of the law in free society. copy of Mr. Jones disciplinary will be added as a supplement to this petition. Further, during his years on death row, petitioner has formed friendships with several people who have come to care for him. Many of these relationships began through correspondence, but have since lead to numerous visits to the prison by these friends. Many of these friends live in Europe and traveling to visit the petitioner involves substantial time and expense. Nevertheless, they have routinely visited Mr. Jones. dditionally, these friends have invested their own money and time to circulate petitions which are attached to this petition asking for the favorable consideration of this petition. They have created a fund that has paid for Mr. Jones de(ense in the Circuit Court of ppeals, before the United States Supreme Court and before this Board. Their substantial investment of time, money and love demonstrate their belief that the petitioner, as he is today, is a man worthy oflove, concern and ultimately, of life. 44

46 This document is housed.. in the Capital Punishment Clemency Petitions (PP-4) collection in the M.E. Grenander Department of Special Collections and rchives, University Libraries, University at lbany, SUNY. D. CONCLUSION This case demands courage. Courage to reopen the investigation of the death of Tammy Livingston. Courage to admit that the state has obtained a conviction by deprivi_1w the fact finders of significant evidence of innocence. Courage to admit an error that threatens to allow the true killer to escape justice. t the same time, the facts of Richard Jones' life, and the positive contributions he has made to the lives of others since his incarceration on the present case in 86, call for thoughtful consideration as grounds for the exercise of mercy. If Richard Jones's death sentence were commuted to a sentence oflife imprisonment, it is doubtful that he would ever be released. s this Board knows well, the simple possibility of parole does not guarantee that release will occur. dditionally, Mr. Jones respectfully requests that the Board grant him a hearing, pursuant to 37 T..C (b)(3) anddministrativeprocedures ct et seq, and allow him to present evidence in support for his request for a conditional pardon, reprieve and commutation. He further requests the Board comply with the Open Meetings ct, et seq Texas Government Code, and with the Texas Constitution, rticle 4, 11 requirement that the Board give its reasons for its actions in granting or denying this application. Respectfully submitted, WILLIM S. HRRIS ttorney and Counselor at Law 307 West 7th Street, Suite 05 Fort Worth, Texas (817) ; Fax (817) wsharris@onramp.net State Bar No / ; /., By: L,_ :_./_-_,,._... ~_._,,_ -_ _ _ ~_4--_.._.;,,._.;0_;.;_, William S. Harris TTORNEYS FOR PETITIONER ROBERT COWEN Schonemann, Owen & Rountree 510 S. Congress ve., Suite 308 ustin, Texas (512) ; Fax (512) robowen@earthlink.net Statei#oBa o tt. By: ~ Ro ert C. Owen ' 45

47 i This document is housed in the Capital Punishment Clemency Petitions (PP-4) collection in the M.E. Grenander Department of Special Collections and rchives, University Libraries, University at lbany, SUNY. BEFORE THE HON. GEORGE W. BUSH GOVERNOR OF THE STTE OF TEXS ND THE TEXS BORD OF PRDONS ND PROLES r-.( In Re RICHRD WYNE JONES, co(' '"';J pplicant EXHIBITS (VOLUME 1) PPLICTION FOR REPRIEVE FROM EXECUTION, COMMUTTION OF DETH SENTENCE, ND CONDITIONL PRDON WILLIM S. HRRIS ttorney and Counselor at Law 307 West Seventh Street, Ste. 05 Fort Worth, Texas voice fax Texas Bar No ROBERT C. OWEN Schonemann, Rountree & Owen, LLP 510 South Congress venue, Ste. 308 ustin, Texas voice fax Texas Bar No TTORNEYS FOR PPLICNT RICHRD WYNE JONES

48 This document is housed in the Capital Punishment Clemency Petitions (PP-4) collection in the M.E. Grenander Department of Special Collections and rchives, University Libraries, University at lbany, SUNY. BEFORE THE HON. GEORGE W. BUSH GOVERNOR OF THE STTE OF TEXS ND THE TEXS BORD OF PRDONS ND PROLES In Re RICHRD WYNE JONES, pplicant EXHIBITS (VOLUME 1) PPLICTION FOR REPRIEVE FROM EXECUTION, COMMUTTION OF DETH SENTENCE, ND CONDITIONL PRDON WILLIM S. HRRIS ttorney and Counselor at Law 307 West Seventh Street, Ste. 05 Fort Worth, Texas voice fax Texas Bar No ROBERT C. OWEN Schonemann, Rountree & Owen, LLP 510 South Congress venue, Ste. 308 ustin, Texas voice fax Texas Bar No TTORNEYS FOR PPLICNT RICHRD WYNE JONES j.

49 This document is housed in the Capital Punishment Clemency Petitions (PP-4) collection in the M.E. Grenander Department of Special Collections and rchives, University Libraries, University at lbany, SUNY. INDEX OF EXHIBITS (VOLUME 1) Exhibit 1 Exhibit 2 Exhibit 3 Exhibit 4 Exhibit 5 Exhibit 6 Exhibit 7 Exhibit 8 Exhibit 9 Exhibit 10 Exhibit 11 Exhibit 12 Exhibit 13 Exhibit 14 Certified copies of court documents December 93 affidavit of Richard Wayne Jones May 86 grand jury testimony of Yelena Comalander June 86 grand jury testimony of Douglas Daffern June 86 grand jury testimony of James King January 94 affidavit of Douglas Daffern March 95 affidavit of James King June 87 affidavit of Scott Christian March 95 affidavit of Scott Christian October 98 affidavit of Terry Gravelle July 2000 affidavit of Robert Dean Miller December 93 affidavit of Donna Davis November 98 affidavit of Carla Suzzann Smith March 95 affidavit of Sharon Jones Juarez l

50 This document is housed in the Capital Punishment Clemency Petitions (PP-4) collection in the M.E. Grenander Department of Special Collections and rchives, University Libraries, University at lbany, SUNY. EXHIBIT 1 Certified copies of court documents (Indictment, Judgment & Sentence, Jury Verdict, Docket Sheet, Order Setting Execution, Death Warrant)

51 This document is housed in the Capital Punishment Clemency Petitions (PP-4) collection in the M.E. Grenander Department of Special Collections NME and rchives, University Libraries, University, OFFENSE at lbany, S.'.2I'r;'.L SUNY. ;'!'.J,lilL~ DDRESS '.lbz7i., IT FT V0RT~ Tl 7~1~5 RCE W SEX, 1 GE 28 DOB CSE NO. FILED: (DTE) C127G15: PM R. ~. ~. "'"' ~, r "~'I',, r~ T.r r,:, v TRif:is'r'E:'R: 'cou'rt " DTE DTE C.C. GENCY INDICTMENT NO. IN THE NME ND BY UTHORITY OF THE STTE OF TEXS: THEGRNDJURORSOFTRRNTCOUNTY,TEXS, & HBITUL 02-U--~'3 J.P. NO. c'>7'l'i53 OFFENSE NO. 3 :,.:ll')'7'. '<':>?~<;; ~ COURT duly elected, tried, empaneled, sworn and charged to inquire of offenses committed in Tarrant County, in the State of Texas, upon their oaths do present in and to the * * * * * * * * * CRIMINL DISTIICT COURT NO. 4 of said County that * * hereinafter called Defendant, in the County of J l.''j Tarrant and State aforesaid, on or about the l:jt;{ day of F"":ii':."!' f'..f SS. did 'l'rlji:fj ND TH~R r:: LI'!INGSTON, BY TH'F.tJ ND THf.rt~ 0:'.' ;~IDN.PPHJG rnn:~ it T.O ~Ir,'[, t \" c ;\!TS::: Trrn D i.:'.l' J 0 f, ~.N H!."I!JE1[J,I L' ".' ;' '1:1'[ ST.11TII'.!G na \!I't'f! t'..ithf:;, ND '.J.'J.H: SHD ~.IC'L'l~L~ ::HH JJN ~S i1u;i IN THE CJURS~ nr SJMMITTING.ND lr~ipting ro CJ~~rr pq~ JiFENS~ Of TMMV LIVINGSTON; FLtUC:1'!'.'B 'i"::ri: J;t:T I 1 IS T":JnT'::m Ptn;smJT'ED IN Nt :J SII' CC) 1;i?r, I'rr\ 2 l"j'; ~no n:::i;n:i Wnrn JOMFS, IN TB't: COLJNTY OF T.F,Rl\.Nl' 11.i id ST\'Jo: \~:)!~~SP.In, o~: JT: ibjilr 'l''.rn 1''9: DY OF [P!J'ifl"1JT, USS, DID rh'.~n.nd T:ir:R;\; INJ''d!'tIOtlLT.': ::r.11:-'.' 'P:Jf, r>?l':i Ji'.~N INDIVIDGT., TMMY T.IVIfvGSTJ I, BY 3'1:1\LBH!C: fl1;:{ Hr r!\ ~C I'!''", ~Nfl 'J'I[: SUD!l.ICfT~.liD WYNE JON:~s l;/p,s TU~N!~ND ~'f;.!:jrn IN THE Cif'lSC Ch' '.:J1'1f"~n'1'H:i ~.ND TT~MPTING TO COMMIT THC JFFENSE OF RO]B~RY Of TM~[ LIVl~~STON; ~~HNCEMENT PR~JRPH ONI: ~~D IT IS FORTB~R PR~S~N~~D Ir ~~D TJ S~ID ~J1RT, 'l'itt PRIOR TO TIT1 COMMISSIO~ JF Tq8 ftfor~s!id orfen~e C! rg~ SID RICHnD ~YN~.J 0 \! 'P. s 0 ~l 'J' 'l F.?. f', rft D,\Y '.) :",l\.(t c. us I' 1J 3 '.) ' rn r H Ii: c r. I.1 HH [, i:r s 'I' H ~ 1' : 0 J '( '!' ti J J,'if. OP 'J'Tlil.N'l' ::'.WNTY, 'n~:.-.~s. r~: C:ilfJSC ~.[J~1I;:~'{ 552:.iP., :'ij,i, S!;JD :nc:1~:1n?!t:r."1' JJ1f1:3 ~,!S CONVICTED OF F~:~J1;1. '.'C-~JI r. t.j.gr\vi~'\'ed ;{J31l'i':;y ':'I'l','1 ' SLt.DLY \1: :t..l'or:, 1.'o-wn: PI1EPc~1. ~rm S.E co~,:vi~:ir::;1: ;-c:,\;1c n;n.1 p,:.rn~~ cro :;:n: '.:0'11rssro;~ ::n' TG~ ijresit OFriNs~; l':~'f[f,'jcf"1t::~it PR.Gfl?~r l':! J:.fl[) r:r IS n::i.n~~fl. P~: ::s:::r df,;f, IN,Hi'l n.0!'.i' ~i:j't-lt, J'H.'l' PRIOR TO Tflli; C0~1"1ISSION OF 1Ccf CF T'{t;,'lf(llU:S,\Iil ;Jf<'F1~r;sc:; h" ''if, ':oii:< RICUTID WH!n J01ii ~S, 0~' 'l'h~~ ljth DT'..);;' J.H'J:t", lj?c), r;' 'l''j~; :;r~: ::':. -:1:J':1ICJ' 80::JT1T NU'1R::.''R. TB.R.:i:r. o~, r:ui.h.r.'i co:n:ty. 'ri'yf.s, Ir: C;id~;:., ~:r: 1;j1:!, 1L"... '.. 'ill) nrcrfrd WYNE JOtrJi;S \VS CO~Jl/ICTf~n Ot ' li'1~ljn:t', 'l'j.. ~iit': i:'..:.. }11\.<.V' '.Ji, ff!bittion, &ND SID CONVICTIM EEC"1E FIN&L P~IOR ~o rjr co~~issij~ J. 2CJ J{j' THE FORESID OFFENSES, CERTIFIED C~ ~ -fv-'\.<\ti'est:----t--1---~~-~ TIIOM.. \S. \VILDER.. DISTRI C:T CLERK 1. 3Y:n~ GINST THE PECE ND DIGNITY OF THE STTE. Filed (Clerk's use only) [: l L [ D J. \'I f'.\l\ :;:'.~:. c.:r Cc~RK T /- ~ ::: :.s /:. Tun-.;. r, \ '!. I ;y ~- Criminal District ttorney INDICTMENT -ORIGINL Foreman of the Grand - ;r

52 <1., " ')- ) This document is housed in the Capital Punishment Clemency Petitions (PP-4) collection in the M.E. Grenander Department of Special Collections NME and rchives, University Libraries, University OFFENSE at lbany, s~.l'i'ri\l SUNY. icjiiilt;~ DDRESS DTE 02-U-~'J J.P. NO. Z'."'73'!53 0 3'3. 1!~ E: FT ~ORTH TI 7~1~~ RCE W SEX, 1 GE 20 DOB '.H-"lg-:::J CSE NO. FILED: (DTE) ~~7C15~ 0~ 2~-J~ p:; tk):~s'f\1t T!~duttF'-'E' DTE I. p. C.C. GENCY OFFENSE NO. :02:::<:;~ INDICTMENT NO. IN THE NME ND BY UTHORITY OF THE STTE OF TEXS: THEGRNDJURORSOFTRRNTCOUNTY,TEXS, w u... _ , & llbi'l'ul 3.,.:Ii::: COURT Jl'':i duly elected, tried, empaneled, sworn and charged to inquire of offenses corrunitted in Tarrant County, in the State of Texas, upon their oaths do present in and to the * * * * * * * * * CRIMINL DISTIICT COURT NO. 4 of said County that * * hereinafter called Defendant, in the County of Tarrant and State aforesaid, on or about the L T;: day of F', 0 ;:; ~ e. f 33, did '1'1[li:N Mm TH';R:;: H~'l'Ft<TT0t. 1 r.t.t,\' c.~~tst' -rru Dt.'.!.';j Oi' f,t; IW'IVE'U?L, ~ : 1:1i LPitWSTOM, BY ST.r,nr~.JG HT:'.R.,!T'l'ft!;..~t;u::;, r,nd '1'1H: S:\ID '.:.I(: 1 r.\~,~ ::i,fr<'~ J'.JNi~S "i;\:) TH~N ND TH~Rl IN THE C~URSX or ~JMMITTIMG ~ND ~1T~1PTI~G ro ~J1~Ir r~~ JiFBN3~ O~ ~IDN,PPINJ 01 TMM' LIVINGSTO~; HHt.r.1"1"'!1 'j'"::ri: M!r I:' IS ":r;1t~'efl. P1n:sr.~nn I~l Nf,,'J SID C'.l 1 1.tr' rrti c i''i"; sn [) 2I8I;R'.'l WYNE JO~ffS, IN 'l'hr.: COCiNTY Of>' T.F,Rl\.NI' ~.l id ST\'J'~: \~J'l:':SP.Ifl, O~/ JT: [ljijr 'T";~ Dl''.1 DY OF lp1l'lftl1y, un, C1ID rn:~n ND T,.i';[l,:; If.l'l'\l~'J'IOi l/\j,t.'r ::r.11s : 'f'h;: f1;1::':i Ji' ~.N INDIVIO~:n, TMMY I.IVIl C SI'J'i, GY 3r1UBH!'.: fl;i::( "ill''!!1 :OU' :, l\.~;n J'l[\ S'\Ill ~ICRRD WYNJ JON~S WS TU~N tnd ~L~RE IN TBE ~oa~s~ Cr :;o~mii'tin1 ~ND 'l'tt::mpt'it\g '1'0 C0~'i:1l'r rh::' )fll'fi:nsi'. ')F f~otib.::~:ly c 'fp.:11".'l LIVI1 ;ils10~;; :\~'R:iNCF:M1 ~N'l' P.\/l.\JP.l'fl 0'.J'-: r;t:d I':' IS FU~Tll'. :R PR1~S.\Nmf.T! H'. '.ldl rj SUlJ r. '.nrr, 'l"n,'1' PrlTO;J. 'ro TH CO M'1ISSI0'~ JF Tqi<; ~E'R:~SHD Oh'i!'H-':'l; 1:'. Pf-'.f, :::ud ttef~!:d ''YM::.Jr 'lps, OM rt1c"ff.?.~>r~ Dt\f :~; /UJC:u.Sl 1, 1J:".?>, I~! rr!f: ~f~i:!in:\l 1:rsr ~1I ;1' -~~l:l 1!' NJ. J~Ji.! '.)T 'J'n;JWI' ~'.WNTY, T~~: -:\S, r; : '.:1l'JSC '.U~!L:: :,: 552Jll., :'ijj; S!diJ :nc.nnn ~ip.r.'!l' J)'1JJ::> ~S CONVICTED o~ I\. P~t0~1. ~0-~If. ~GGaVhlED JOB?~Y ~I~IT ~ CLtDLY 0~ro~. TO-WI'r: : 0 ne1\rm,!\:-jd SE' co~.:vi~'.!'i0r. ~"C~,\: n: : INU ~'.:IO.{ l'j l"h: C0'1HSSIO.i 0[' TUE i)r~sid OTFENS~; r:~ 1 :rt.~jcl?m~nt P.~RGrl.PIT rc:o: ~i!d n IS r'ur.t'eh. P:l,:s~:NTEL rn,\ti:j n 3P.II' co:ru, 1'Hl1.'1' PTIIOfl '!'() TfTli: COi'1'1ISSI00: OF ;,:~GI{ CF')';{;; ili'{")p,~'.s:\ij) 0!"F1 ;Ns:;~ ii\' p:n; SHfl flicith[) ~:H!~ JOrn.:s, 0~' Till<~ ljth [),'..'[Cd J,\i'JM:'', ur1, r: ''"ii::.::.r'1i:j:,i. ni:jl':lll'!' CO!Jn'l' NU~1P.~:1 'ri\hli:ji' Of 'Hfi.au r r;o~/wi'l', 'l'fh,s, H' cr.-1:.:: ; ~:r~.~;j: 1, 11 : ;._, :'ri:. ~;ilill flichrd lv!i.ynt~ JOf\IF.S \vs CDrllfICT8n Oio' FGLONf, 'l'j-.il'r: H'.,1~.}11\.<.1' 01' 1, BBITTION, ND SID CONVICTION BEC~E FINL ~RIOR ~o PJt co~~issio~ o~ ~C3 JF THE FORESID OFFENSES, CE~Til'IED COJP~ 2., ~/' \ TlbT. - t L/b-' THOM ~S. WILDER DJSIT<lCTCLERK, B~T~~\ D UTY. GINST THE PECE ND DIGNITY OF THE STTE. Filed (Clerk's use only) Fl LED J. Vi f:ihi~i :1'1tl, DIST. CLERK Tf.,~::: < ; c:1~j:!r\r. ~c/:.n.s Criminal District ttorney Foreman of. the Grand Juf y

53 VoL"'m e- 3 DISPOSITION OF CSE: DETINER RREST DTE (CRIMINL) DISTRICT COURT CRIMINL DOCKET ~ I 1. TRNSFERRED TO 1-1 UV~ ~ ( lfr,,, ''-toc-" l:y,,/,,t l(".yi I.a,_) ~V\!,_J \'M'-"t '1<e-I07ft 10!/ll ):,_ru. b~ hlililf!flu.. ~l l - r I I D ~~:~!Finger State's ttorney Thomas P. Hughes DISTRICT CLERK Y.TEXS 2.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-+~~~ 3.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~--t~~~ ~, tl~ - ~ J:i:.uL On Probation Revocation Defendant's ttorney µ ~.\~_JL,.,J,,,, - ~ i.~ On Probation Revocation f-;)_4'- 4.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~--'-~- Surety_~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~- This document is housed in the Capital Punishment Clemency Petitions (PP-4) collection in the M.E. Grenander Department of Special Collections and rchives, University Libraries, University at lbany, SUNY... r t I l '

54 i, l THE srte OF TEXS VS RICHRD WYNE JOOES # State 1 s answer to defendant 1 s notion for disoove:cy and inspection. Pre Trials. State nnounced Ready. Reset;Not reached this week. PreTrials. State nnounced Ready. Reset; Not reached this week., State's brief regarding the discoverability of prior jury service filed. Defendant's mtoion to suppress statarents and physical evidence filed. l'btion for change of venue filed. l'btion to suppress filed. Dafendant's l'btion to appoint expert, notion to quash indictm:mt filed. M'.>tion in limine to prohibit proof of prior convictions, extraneous offense and acts of misconduct and Defendant's notion to list state's witnesses punislurent. Precept to serve copy of narres of juror surmoned. State's First supplemental answer to defendant's notion for discovei:y and inspection. State's first supplemental answer to defen:lant's notion to list state s witnesses. State's first supplemental answer to defendant's notion to produce inconsistent evidence. M:>tion for handwritten exemplars of the defendant. State s answer to defendant's notion for change of venue State's answer tci defendant's notion to list state's witnesses. State's second supplroental answer to defendant's notion for discovery and inspection. State's second supplemental answer to defendant's notion to list state's witnesses (all persons contacted) State's second supplemental answer to defendant's notion to produce inconsistent evidence. fution for continuance filed. Defendant's notion to rescue prosecutor. State's answer to defendant's notion to list state's witnesses. Bench warrant issued to Denton county. ssessroont of punishrrent filed. State's request to fingerprint the defendant. l'btion in limine Number one. M:>tion in limine Number blo. ssessroont of ~isl-anent filed. Jury seated and sworn. Defendant arraigned and entered a plea of Not Guilty to count one and paragrarh u-u. Testinony began. Waiver of sequestration filed. Court's charge filed. Defendant requested special charge nurrber one. Defendant's requested special charge number u-u. Defendant's requested special charge number three. Defendant's requested special charge number four. Jury Verdict: Guilty to Count munber one. Court's charge on punis!-anent filed. JUcy Verdict: Death. Sentenced to Death. Special issue nurrber one - yes. Special issue nurrber U-U - yes. utauatic ppeal. cer,tifjed COPY.t.Ff"'f ~"1 ::J '??\ - CV"\ n 1.o;..,,.,3. WILDER Dl~~ ; :z>~'.t cu:rk n.11~.} ~ ~...'" - ~ T~ s -~, '>.. TY This document is housed in the Capital Punishment Clemency Petitions (PP-4) collection in the M.E. Grenander Department of Special Collections and rchives, University Libraries, University at lbany, SUNY.

55 1 Form D.C. 148 c.c. 208 THE STTE OF TEXS vs. PICHRD MYNE JO~ES Sharen Wilson Bob Gill STRICKLND,JCK CRIMINL DOCKET ttorney's T IH CURRYPltf: Bill Lane Deft. Date of I Orders of Court Orders C.'512?6 I INOICTME~T RETU'<tlED t<c CPIS ffcered. BOND SET T 'l'ransfcncd to District Cl.\ld & ~...--" MY :ru~ant.eo.. :r~ J.:: JaCk StriCklaii:l appointed. Defense M:ltions filed. f.btion for investigator filed and granted. State's nnouncenent of Ready Filed. Pre. TrllilS:- StatemiOUnOeel Ready. Bill Lane appointed as Co-Counsel. Reset;~t reached this w==.. Offense CP IT L CFFEN~E D TE 02//86 ~URDE'< Docket No. o? '5 t: f' CSE M~. ~ l~o.k~ M:ltion to produce records of prior jw:y service and in the alternative to allow inquiry into prior jury service. -d~ten:'!aiit's rrotion to list state s witnesses. Defendant's rrotion to designate location of physical evidence. beferidarit's rrotion requesting the prosecution to file a list of fhysical evidence. Defendant's rrotion to list state's witnesses. Deferidarit' s rrotion to require answeis_in_w:r1ting. Defendant's rrotion to allow additional pre-trial and trial rrotion. MOEion to pi'oduoe inoonsistent evi.c.u::1... M:ltion to require law enforcarent officers to maintain personal notes.. on to c:lisoover criminal records of witnesses. M:ltion for discovery of agreenents with anv witnesses. M:ltion for disclosure of grants of inmmfty, leniency or plea bargaining. Defendant's rrotion to require the endorsement of name or witnesses upon whose testirrony the indictnent was found.. on for the production and inspection orgrand jw:y transcript. Defendant's rrotion for. discovery and inspection. l-btion for investigative fees in excess of five hundred dollars. State's answer to defendant's rrotion for disclosure of cirants or ircmmitv, leniencv or olea naroain~ '1~ 6 State'Elanswer to defendant 1 s-nviloo to require the endorsement of names of witnesses upon whose testim::my the indictnent was found. State's nswer to.defendant's rrotion to list state's witness. State's answer- to deferoant's rrotion to discover criminal records of witnesses. State's answer to defendant's rrotion requestinq the prosecution to file a list of ohvsical evidence. State's answer to defendant's rrotion to designate location of I;hysical evidence. State's answer to defendant's rrotion ' CERTIFIED COP], TIEST: ' ~ ~ d_ nrc~.~:"s /\.WILDER o;~:; '. TCLERK TR.R: cc~~s BY: cri{t),.;~ ' _ This document is housed in the Capital Punishment Clemency Petitions (PP-4) collection in the M.E. Grenander Department of Special Collections and rchives, University Libraries, University at lbany, SUNY.

56 ( I Form D.C. 148 c.c. 208 Date of Orders Uli-..l!/-01 u~-l.li-li/ THE STTE OF TEXS vs. SHREN WILSON. OOB GILL CRIMINL DOCKET ttorney's RICHRD WYNE JONES JCK STRICKLND BILL LNE Deft. Pitt: Orders of Court fvbtion for free statanent of facts and affidavit of inability to pay filed. uraer appm.nu.ng ~y :tot: appeal filed. Hon. Rick lley appointed. Letter to attorney. ~r ror LOurt Reporter to prepare statace11t of facts filed. fvbtion for New Trial filed. - J.V.. n;.i.on ror 1'R::W 'lrj.a.i..,.,,... dlju Ut:lLL<:>.l Defendant to be transferred to Texas nepartrrent of Corrections. ~uer appoim::.ing :i;u.1. appeal-. Hon. llan Butcher ani Jack Stricklani appointed. Ul:OSl.gna'Cl.On OI: ~u vu appeal :i:ueo.. CPITL MURDER 4Jne=f.~ Offense. J\ldge,.3th District Court Transcripts transmitted to Court Of Criminal ppeals. Mandate Received, Filed, ffirmed. certified copy mailed to IDTDCJ Bench Warrant issued. Order Setting Execution date filed in open court. Execution set for Thursday, before the hour of sunrise. Death warrant issued with conv of Order Settino Execution. Ord"'r Returnina Deft. To Pl"r"' Of ConfinPmPnt ;,,,,"r1 Motion To Vacate Order Setting Execution Filed. Order Staying Execution Of Deft. filed. copy mailed to IDTDCJ. Order Settino Execution Date filed in onen court. Death Warrant ic:c:upd, Motion for Pre-Filing Discovery in Post Conviction Proceedings. State's Motion To Dismiss for Want Of Jurisdiction. CE~TIFlED COPY~( Docket No This document is housed in the Capital Punishment Clemency Petitions (PP-4) collection in the M.E. Grenander Department of Special Collections and rchives, University Libraries, University at lbany, SUNY TI'EST: J -O_ TIIC'.~ tt'.~. WILDER D!S'L.. :'"! CLETU{ BY: YHttLWuifi~-:XS J EPUTV <

57 This document is housed in the Capital Punishment Clemency Petitions (PP-4) collection in the M.E. Grenander Department of Special Collections and rchives, University Libraries, University at :-- lbany, ~~~D SUNY. co7 j/ L)d... THE STTE OF TEXS NO D FILED THOMS. Wl.OER. ~T. CLERK TRRNT COUNTY TEXS 1HOM..S. \VILDER DIS1RlCT CLERK BY:T~cm-rr IN THE 3Tf'l();s;~~ vs. MY 0 9 ~00 RICHRD WYNE JONESrllllt /:.7 By <: Deputy COURT OF TRRNT COUNTY, TEXS ORDER SETTING EXECUTION The Texas Court of Criminal ppeals affirmed Richard Wayne Jones' conviction on September, 92, Jones v. State, 843 S.W.2d 487, 497 (Tex.Cr.pp. 92), and mandate issued on January, 93. The United States Supreme Court denied Jones' petition for certiorari. Jones v. Texas, 507 U.S. 1035, 113 S.Ct. 58, 1 L.Ed.2d 479 (93). Subsequently, in unpublished orders, the Court of Criminal ppeals denied both of Jones' petitions seeking state habeas corpus relief. Jones' federal post-conviction writ of habeas corpus was also denied and, in an unpublished opinion issued pril 7, 2000, the United States Court of ppeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed that denial. Richard Wayne Jones' conviction is final. Therefore, this Court enters the following order: IT IS ORDERED that the Defendant, Richard Wayne Jones, who has been adjudged to be guilty of Capital Murder as charged in the indictment and whose punishment has been assessed by the verdict of the jury and juegment of the Court at Death, shall be kept in custody by the Director of the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice at Huntsville, Texas, until Tuesday, the 22th day of ugust, 2000, upon which day, at the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice at Huntsville, Texas, at some t. time after the hourof6:00 p.m., in a room arranged forthe purpose of execution, the Director, acting by and through the executioner designated by the Director as provided by law, is

58 This document is housed in the Capital Punishment Clemency Petitions (PP-4) collection in the M.E. Grenander Department of Special Collections and rchives, University Libraries, University at lbany, SUNY. commanded to carry out this sentence of death by intravenous injection of a substance or substances in a lethal quantity sufficient to cause the death of Richard Wayne Jones and until Richard Wayne Jones is dead, such procedure to be determined and supervised by the - J Director of the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. The Clerk of this Court shall issue and deliver to the Sheriff of Tarrant County, Texas, a certified copy of this order and a Death Warrant in accordance with this Order, directed to the Director of the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice at Huntsville, Texas, commanding the Director to put into execution the Judgment of Death against Richard Wayne Jones. The Sheriff of Tarrant County, Texas, is ORDERED, upon receipt of the Death Warrant, to deliver the Death Warrant and a certified copy of this order to the Director of the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Huntsville, Texas. SIGNED ND ENTERED this q day o f14ay, Judge.C. " " Cooke Presiding Judge cting by ssignment 3th District Court Tarrant County, Texas ~ JUDGE C. C. K1r COOKE SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE th JUDICIL OISTRiCT Of TEXS The State of Texas vs. Richard Wayne Jones Order Setting Execution Page2 =~IEDC01i Cj/~ TII0t.1S. WILDER DIS11U,::::T CLERK a/m~

59 This document is housed i!lll!ia: in the Capital Punishment Clemency Petitions (PP-4) collection in the M.E. Grenander Department of Special Collections and rchives, University Libraries, University at lbany, ( SUNY. _;.-,_:~.t;;:. THE STTE OF TEXS vs. CUSE NO RICHRD WYNE JONES DETH WRRNT IN THE 3TH DISTRICT COURT OF TRRNT COUNTY, TEXS To the Diiector of The Institutional Division Texas Department Of Criminal Justice, or in case of his death, disability or absence, the Warden of the Huntsville Unit of the Institutional Division Texas Department of Criminal Justice or in the event of the death or disability or absence of both the Director of the Institutional Division Texas Department Of Criminal Justice and the Warden of the Institutional Division Texas Department Of Criminal Justice, to such person appointed by the Board of Directors of the Institutional Division Texas Department Of Criminal Justice, Greetings: Whereas, on the 22ND day of JULY,.D. 87, in the 3TH District Court of Tarrant County, Texas, RICHRD WYNE JONES was duly and legally convicted of the crime of Capital Murder, as fully appears in the judgment of said Court entered upon the minutes of said court as follows, to-wit: Judgment attached and, Whereas, on the 24TH day of JULY,.D., 87 the said Court pronounced sentence upon the said RICHRD WYNE JONES in accordance with said judgment fixing the time for the execution of the said RICHRD WYNE JONES for any time after the hour of 6:00p.m. on TUESDY, the 22ND day of UGUST,.D., 2000, as fully appears in the sentence of the Court and entered upon the minutes of said Court as follows, to-wit: Sentence attached. These are therefore to command you to execute the aforesaid judgment and sentence any time after the hour of 6:00 p.m. on TUESDY, the 22ND day of UGUST,.D., 2000, by intravenous injection of substance or substances in a lethal quantity sufficient to cause death and until the said RICHRD WYNE JONES is dead. Herein fail not, and due return make hereof in accordance with law. Witness my signature and seal of office on this the 9TH day of MY,.D., Issued under my hand and seal of Office in the City of Fort Worth, Tarrant County Texas this 9TH day of MY, t - CERTIFIED COPY?>.- TTEST TII Ct-1.::\. \V't.LDER :i- I LL..!... THOMS. WILDER, CLERK OF THE DISTRICT COURTS OF TRRNT COUNTY, TEXS... \..

60 This document is housed in the Capital Punishment Clemency Petitions (PP-4) collection in the M.E. Grenander Department of Special Collections and rchives, University Libraries, University at lbany, SUNY. RETURN OF THE DIRECTOR OF THE TEXS DEPRTMENT OF CORRECTIONS Carne to hand, this the day of and executed the day of, by the death of RICHRD WYNE JONES DISPOSITION OF BODY: DTE: TIME: DIRECTOROFTEXSDEPRTMENTOFCORRECTIONS

61 255 '\ This document is housed in the Capital Punishment Clemency Petitions (PP-4) collection in the M.E. Grenander Department of Special Collections and rchives, University Libraries, University at lbany, SUNY. THE STI\'IE OF TEXS IN THE 3th x vs x DISTRICT COURr RICHRD WYNE JONES x OF TRRN!' CXXJNI'Y, TEXS J U D G M E N T On July 16, 87, this cause was called for trial and the State appeared by her Criminal District ttorney, ssistant District ttorney, Sharen Wilson and Bob Gill, and the attorneys, Jack Strickland and Bill Lane, for the defendant, Richard Wayne Jones, announced ready for trial; and, the State having made kn= that it would seek the. death penalty in this cause and the Defendant having been heretofore arraigned; and, it appearing to the Court that the Defendant was rrentally a:rrq:ietent and the Defendant having been charged in the indictment with Capital ltlrder; thereupon, a Jury of good and lawful rren and \oo!len, to-wit; Jarres David Watson, Foreperson, and eleven others, was duly selected, impaneled and sworn, and the said ssistant District ttorney read to the Jury, Count One and Paragraph 'I\..o of the indictment herein, and the Defendant entered his plea of NOl' ajil.ty to Count One and Paragraph 'I\..o, hereto; and the Jury, after hearing the evidence, and being duly charged by the Court, retired to consider its verdict, and after deliberation, returned into open Court on the 22nd day of July, 87, the following verdict, to-wit: WE, THE JURY, FIND THE DEFENDNI', RICHRD WYNE JONES, GUil.TY OF THE OFFENSE OF CPITI\L MURDER, S U.EXE) IN PRGRPH ONE OF THE INDICIMENT. SIGlED: J1\MES DVID WTSON, FOREPERSOO nd the Jury, having heard all the evidence, and being charged by the Court, retired to consider its verdict, and after due deliberation, returned into open Court, on the 24th day of July, 87, their answers to the following issues, and their verdict: SPEX:IL ISSUE NO. l CE~~~lED co5 \t -{;[J. ~.~... ~.. ~-+-~- ruo:~ti\s. \V!LDER DISTR.I :T C::..?:RK T~CO\JN~ BY:~.~ - f)eputy Was the corrluct of the Defendant, Richard Wayne Jones, that caused the death of Tamny Livingston, ccmni.tted deliberately and with the reasonable expectation that the death of the deceased or another would result? NSWER We, the Jury, unanhrously find and detennine beyond a reasonable doubt that the answer to this Special Issue is "Yes". W\T. 30

62 This document is housed in the Capital 256 Punishment Clemency Petitions (PP-4) collection in the M.E. Grenander Department of Special Collections and rchives, University Libraries, University at lbany, SUNY. SPEX::IL ISSUE ID. 2 Is there a probability that the Defendant, Richard Wayne Jones, v.ould cormit criminal acts of violence that ~uld constitute.a continuing threat to society? We, the Jury, unan.i.rrously find and detennine beyond a reasonable doubt that the answer to this Special Issue is "Yes". VERDicr OF THE JURY We, the Jury, return in open court the above answers as our answers to the Special Issue sul:mitted to us, and the same is our verdict in this case. SirnED: JMES DVID WTSON, FOREl?ERSCN nd the Court duly accepted the verdicts and ORDERED the sarre to be filed. Upon receipt of the Jury Verdict, the Court then discharged the Jurors aro then proceeded to sentence the Defendant, Richard Wayne Jones, as follcms, to-wit: 'llle Defendant, Ridlard Wayne Jones; was asked by the Court whether he had anything to say why sentence should not be pronounced against him, aro the Defendant answered nothing in bar thereof: 'llle Court proceeded, in the presence of the said Defendant, Richard Wayne Jones, ' and his counsel of record, to pronounce sentence against him as follows: It is the ORDER of the Court, that you, the Defendant, Ridlard Wayne Jones, who has been adjudged to guilty of capital Mirder as foond by the Jury in Paragraph One of. the iroictrrent, it being mandatory that your punishlrent be death, it is therefore the ORDER of this Court that your punisl"lnent be Death, aro that before the hour of sunrise on a date to be detennined by this Court upon a Maroate of ffinnance issued by the Texas Court of ppeals, at the State Penitentiary at Huntsville, Texas, you be caused to die by intravenoos injection of substance or substances in a lethal quantity sufficient to cause your death aro until you the said Richard Wayne Jones, are dead; said execution procedure to be determined and supervised by the Director of the Texas Departrrent of Corrections, am that the Clerk of this Court issue a Death Warrant in accordance with this i:;entence, directed to the Director of the Texas Department of Corrections or in case of his Death, disability or absence, the Warden l of the Huntsville Unit of the Texas Departrrent of Corrections, or in the event of the death,. disability or absence of both such director aro warden, then to such other person as is appointed by the BoaJ:d of Directors of the Texas Departrrent of Corrections T.ru>-"""M"' ly:..u~~~~~---1 for that µirpose and to deliver such warrant to the Sheriff of this County of Tarrant, State of Texas, to be by him delivered to the said Director of the Texas Depart:rrent

63 This document is housed in the Capital Punishment Clemency Petitions (PP-4) collection in the M.E. Grenander Department of Special Collections and rchives, University Libraries, University at lbany, SUNY. 25 of Corrections, together with the Said Richard Wayne Jones, and the said Richard Wayne Jones, is remanded to jail to await transportation to the Texas Departm:nt of Corrections at Huntsville, Texas, DTE j -

64 This document is housed in the Capital Punishment Clemency Petitions (PP-4) collection in the M.E. Grenander Department of Special Collections and rchives, University Libraries, University at lbany, SUNY. EXHIBIT 2 ffidavit of Richard Wayne Jones (Introduced at December, 94 state habeas hearing as Defendant's Exhibit 6)

65 This document is housed in the Capital Punishment Clemency Petitions (PP-4) collection in the M.E. Grenander Department of Special Collections and rchives, University Libraries, University at lbany, SUNY. On Fe.b1tu.a..~ I 111Utt to wo.k. wi..t.h. m:; dad at 6?am. I/le.. a.1<.lli..ved at about 6:JOa.m on. the. iob 4i..te, a.n.d we.nt t~ wo.k 1 I wotth.ul up ti.l Lun.ch. ti.me. wh.i.c!t L-i a.l noon, un..le..s. we. cu.e i.n th.e. m.i.dc!lc. o! pu.tti.nj- Li..me... on the Jtoa.d4.. "tte.1e. Lu.1t.c.h. 1 I wen. t 6 a.ck to wo 1tk and wo.k e.d u.p t i..l. ab ou. t 6: OOpm. Uih.ur. my. da.d pullc.d u.p. lrt h.i...d. t1t.uch., a.n.cf!le..lled a.t m.ft.. to c.om«.. th.e1te 1 I wc..nt a.nd h.e. told me. to '}O 9:-e.t anot.h.e... ';1)04.ke.ll a.11d c.ome. ba.ck 1 a.nd..s.o l wejtt a.rtd <;ot an.oth.t.1t 9-Ujt a.n.d... e..tu1tru.d to. u.< what lte llla.n.ted. a.n.d ht!.. told u4 to 9-o hn.ock th.e. Li..me. ol/ o/ t!te. tlluck.4 a.n.d 9-e.t tlte.m 1tc.a.d~ to move to ou.11. fl.ext j.06.4.i.f.e.i.40 we. di..d, Th.e.1t. 111e. d11.ove.. ovt...t to th.e. oth.e.1c. /ob..t..i.te.. i.n. Haltom. '' 01t 1t.e.a th.e.11.e. 11 and we. d1top ped o// tlte. t.1tuc.k. 1 f/j1- d.a.d wa..6.. /ollowi..tt9- u and we 9-ot c..n th.e. t1tuc.k. ui..th. lti.m1 and he tooh. th.c. oth.eit <J.UV ba.ck to th.e. iob.d.i..te. th.at we. 1Da...s. wo1r.k.i..rt9- a.t, 4.0 h.e. could 1e.t i.n h.i..4. t11.u.ch. and 9-o ~omc. 1 a.!ld me. a.nd m.~ dad wc.nt h.ome.. I wa.4. 1<i..di.1t.9- ba.ck a.1t.d Collt wi.th. m~ da.d. I meet i.m a.t h.i...m a.ttd my. mote..1t.4.. h.ome..?..ve..c.51 /ftomr.i...11<;- a.n.d 1tode. to wo.h wlth. h.i..m. a.tt.d ha.ck h.om.e wtth. ~i..m i.n. th.~ e.v~n.i.tt2-.d. We.. a.10.lved a.t lll!j pa.t..n.t4 h.om~ a.ta.bout 7 : 15pm a.n.d. mf. and. m1 dad we.n.t i.n. tftt.. ou.d..e. 1 I ta.lk.ed wi-tlt m~ "t oth. t. tt Iott a.wh. i.l e. a.n.d h.a.d a. / e.w b e.e a.n.d. 1 <f O t i.n my. 1otlte..1t.d. ca a.n.d I d"-.ove. h.om.e. to my. ltou.4.e. on ave.n.ue. H. fjlh.e.n. : 9-ot. lt.ome. 1 l!jv 4.i..4.te..t Ka.1u.n. a.1t.d my. <;i..l,l~i.e.nd!je..le.tta. h.a.d uppe..1t Ort th.e. ta.ble., 40 I h.l.i.tj.r!-d mv 9-_i.ttL/.ti..e..n.d a..1.. a.lwa.1-_4.n t.ttd we..nt i..n.. th.e. ba.tlt1toom a.nd cle.a.n.e..d. up a.n.d <;-Ot 11.ea.d1-?01t tttn~e.ll 1.4~t down an.d a.te...4.upp_e.ll. Tlte.n I we.n.t out.4.i...de l.tt tli.e,, ~!fa.ltd, a.n.d mad.e. 4.U~e a."1.1. te.. c.h.i...cke.tt. 1t1a.'1 ltt th.e. P.e.rt 1 t.ttd. 1 pla.j!.e.d a.1tou11d wi..th. mlf c.a.f.e., a.n.d!/c.le.n.a. ca.me. ou.t t.h.c.1te.. t1t.d. 4.h.e e.t and. 1 4.ta."-.te.d Wtte.tli...ni I/le pla.~e..d attoun.d l.o~ r.wh. i.le., a.n.d 4.h.e. "'1a.. i..d.h.e wa a i..n.<;- to ;t.o i..n a.n.d wa..4..h. d i..ah.e.. ~n.d h. K <:r;tt e.n. cl e.a.n th. e k {. tch. e.n wit e.n 4/a... we.fl. t i..rt 1 I P. u.t :h.e. ca. e. c..n th.e. 4h.e.d and ma.de. -icue. c.ve.ity.th t..lt.~ wa.. Lock.e.d. 'P an 1 wa.lkcd up ta th.e. /..1ton.t y.a.11.d to make -s.u.1tc th.e. 1i..n.dottJ.4 111e.1t.e.. 1toLLt!.d up a.nd to "Lock up mff moth.e ca.it. fj/h.e.tt I ~ iot to t.h.e. /itont a.1td 1 m:1-.i..te.1t 81te.nda. wa..4. iu...t wa.lki..n.g.. up :n~h.e. d11.tvt. wa.~. nd J a..4.ke.d h.e.1t wh.a.t..h.e wa.-1.. doln.~ 1 a.nd h.e. '.a.i..d. tlta.t. -i.h.e. n.e..e..de..d a. 1tldt. to a. /11.i.e.ttd o/ h.e..1t.4.. h.ou4e... 1 ~li.ked h.e..1t. wh.(.1t.e 1 and.4fte. 4a.i.d ovc.1t the.... e. o// la.n.c.a4te..1t. I :old h.e..1t c.. t wa.4 a.lmo.4. t tul o 1 c.lock a.n.d I h.a.d to 9-e.t up e.a.lv rn.d. 9-0 to wo1tk. a.n.d...4/i.e..ai..d 'PLe.a..d.e. '/( i...ck1'. I nf'..e.d to i-c.t. 1 vt.1t th.e..1te. i.t i.4. ve.1<!f i..trtpo1tta.n.t. So 1 -ia.i..d we.l..l Lc.t me. tell 't!..l.e.na. 111h.e11..e. I a.m 9-0i.fl.9- I )ta.llted to wa.lk of/. wit.en..4.h.c. li.a.i.d. '.u4t tt..1.l lr.e.1t 1ou. a.1te a.oi..rt<;- to th.e..s.f:.01te... iu..t.t. roalked ln ~he. h.ou4c. a.n.d!jule.d, r a.m 1oi..nr;. to ttun u.p th.e. 4.ttte.1?.t, I 1 i..ll be. ha.ch..-j.no1ttly., a.f!.d. l?-ot i.11 mf;_ moth.c.,1..e.. ca1t. a.nd took lc.lt ove.1t to lte.1t /.1ti.f'..n.d4 h.ou.e.. on. 'Panola. St1tc.c.t wh.i..c.h i.4. :6ou.t two bloc.k..s. o/j Ga..4.t la.ttca.4.te th.i..nk!? On. th.e wa.:i Ve.It th.e..te. 1 Sh.c. 1 told me. tlta.t.t..he. and TJ/a.Lt h.a.d. Ro66e.d. th.i.11 '.a.d.~ a.n.d. ma.n. find. I ald BuLL..h.i.t. fbe.c.a.u..4.e. 4/te. Li.e..4.. a Lot. I '.u.t.d.h.~ 4a.i..d. 'Re.a.LLy.. So I a.4kul. h.e.ll wlia.t th.c. :_ g..ot,. /low much. lotte.y..?. a.jtd 4.h.e...s.a.L.d lie d.i..d.rt 't count i.t. Th.en...s.h.e..4.ta.11.t.c.d.tf rt2- a.n.d told. me. th.a.t the.v- kllle.d th.e.m..! (Now ~ou kn.ow :ocv B1t.t!..1td.a. i...4. wh.e.n 4.fte. i..4. on. tlia.t dope.). SO I 1u-t.t 4af..d 'e..a.h..i.9-ltt. a.11.d. 4-h.e.. a.i..d 4fr.e. wa. not 6uLL.4.h.i.tti.n.9- /Jut I di.d -: OEFENDNT'S- 1 EXHIBIT \ ; lo ~

66 This document is housed in the Capital Punishment Clemency Petitions (PP-4) collection in the M.E. Grenander Department of Special Collections and rchives, University Libraries, University at lbany, SUNY. - ~- ot bt.1.ct..v': he..: (}11.~i..L I 9-ot to th..t.. ltou.,s.c., a.n.d.h.e...a.i..~ wa.i..t /oil. me., tlt.l LL -JU4t ta.he. a. mlnule. and 11.0 I 4a.t 1..n th.e. ca.tr. a.n.d wa. i. l e..d 1 a.n.d j U./J. t a. coup Le. o /. m. i..n.u. l e we.it t 6 ~ e. a.n.d li.e.1tf.,,,he.. ca.me. wi..lh. "tla.lt se.lle./l 11 T.e.1- wa.lh.e.d u.p. to lli.e. daott and. :Va.Lt 4._a.ld. J h.eatt ~ou all. Lo'!ki..n.9- /ott a.. mo.ton. /011. _ij.ou.-1t tll.uck. a.rtd I '1.a.C..d Yt..4 l a.m. nd he. 4.a.i..d h.e ha.a <Jn.e. /011. me. a.1td a.d.ke.d i../ I wa.ttte.d. tcj Look a.t i..t 1 and I..a.i..d :;u. 1 a.nd. h.e..4.ai..d com.e. on /ollow me., 4.o 1 9-0t out o/. the. ca.j1. 1 a.n.d. 1_ walkt!d wi..th. l.m a.bout tfttle.~ Oil J,oull!tou..tC down. /"-om wlce.tr.e. /i.e.. and 8e.nda. h.a.d. iu.t ca.me. out.. rul..,,.lu?.. ope.n.e.d lh.c. doott t<j th.i la.ti..on wa.9-on, <iot i..n. i...t a.1td 4f.a..te.d the. ca. 1 a.11.d.a.a.i.d.. It 1tun11 9-ood. a.n.d. h.e. iot out ol i..t, a.nd we. wa.l.ke..d i..n.to t!te. ltou..4e. a.n.d ft~.al on the. 4.0[a a.n.d B11.~1tda. wc.ttt i..n. tlr.e. ];a.ck i..ttto a. bed/loom. a.nd Le/t l9a.lt a.nd m.e. i..1t. lite. Li..Yi..n:;...ootn.. _n_d. Via.Lt a.4k~d mt!. i../. I cou.ld 4.t.i..LL ~e..l i..nto th.e. ~f~n.d. I 4a.i.d Jv_.,s. wl11;. 1 a.nd fte.. told me. th.a..t ice. wa.n.te.d me. to do 4ometlti..n9- /<)It hi..m. Tlta.t i../. I would do Lt, fl~ wou.ld Le.t me. h.a.ve.. th.e. mcjtott out o~ th.a.t ca.tt. I a.i.k. h.i..rn what h.e.. wa.nte..d nte. to do. a.n.d 7h.a.t i.'1 wh.en. /311.e.11.da. ca.lle...d lti..rn ta the. ba.ck be.d1t.oom. fie. wa.. c;.one. a. /q,;p mi..nulf!-4 1 an.d h.c. ca.m~ ba.ck i.n. tlte.. Li..vi..rtt;-.oom. ca.1t1ty.i..n.9- a. [u1te. 11 hand ba<; 11 he.. 4.czt down a.nd..itan.te.d. d.lr;..'}ln..r;. tlt.tr.ou9- i..l, and Ula. 4.a.!fi..ll e..nda. -4.a.V. y.tju a.n.d!fe.le.11..a. a.1te. <;cji.n.9- to 9-.et ma.1t1ti...e..d. 1.d.a.i..d. Je.a.h we. a1t.e. P.La.n.1ti...n.r;. on lt. attd e..ta.i..d 1 ha.ve..j.u.4.t wlia.t y.ou. n.e..e.d. a..n.d 'h.e. pu.lle..d ou.t 11ome. 9:oLd 'R i..n.~ a.nd 4.h.owe.d tfie..m. to me. 1 1!ooke.d a.t tit.~ an.d lie. 4.a.i...d; 1 '1.a.ve. 4.ome ch.e.c.k.4. an.d C.1te.dlt ca.11.d-!. too. and I told h.i.m.l ha.ve.n. 't.veit u.4.e.d a.1t)t a.n.d h.e. t.ol(i me. th.at i..t wa.4 e.a.4~. :UL 1 had _to do wa i..n. th.e.. 4i.o.t~ 9-f!..t wlta.t l wa.n.l a.n.a Lav- th.e. catt.d down.. i_n.. /tr.on.t o/ the ca4.h.le.1t. Th.a.t th.e.y. wr;u.ld. not a.k a.n.y. /uutc.on.4. lie..d.a.ld a.ll he. wa.n.te..d wa $]00.00 a.nd 1 told. ltlm. cou.ldtt 1 f... tln.d 8tt.e..n.da. c.czatt. out of. th.e. 1toom a.nd '1.a.t dowll an.d 4.la.te.d.av.i..n.<;. Com.e.. on. 'f<.i.c.ky.. ij/e. ne.jz..d t.h.t.. motte..y. 6a.d. nd '/ia.lt 4.a.i..d. 1~i..ck.~ ~ou ca.n ma.ke. t~n f.i..me.-4. th.a.t 6a.ck wi.th. tlt~e ca.1t.d. and ch.e.c.k. a.n.d 1.4.a.i.d. l di..dn. 1 t h.a.ve. th.a.t. much.. mon.ey.. t.h.a.t a.ll 1 ft.a.a' wa.. $ a.nd. h.e..d.<li..d, I 1Di.LL ta.ke. th.a.t.. Jott tt..m. a.11.d 4.o Li.h.ea. dumb a... u. I 6ou.~t tli.e.m.. I malnl..lf wa.nte.d th.e LJz.g.4. But Lt wa4 a. pa.c..ha.')-e..d. d..e.a.l.!in.d 4.0 I.a.i..d 1 lle..y. I <}cjt to '}et. h.orne. 1 1 lta. ve. to ~e.t.. u.p tra.r.lv_ /oil. wo ttk 1 a.nd I told. B"" ejtcla. tha.t 4h. e.. kn. e..w It ow aa.d. UICZ.4. c..n.d l C u.l dn. It /; e a. t. e., (}It. h. e.. lij<) u.1.. d. L e<l v e. t1ji.~ltout m.e.. an.d. 1 ta.t.l!.d to walk ou.t o/ th.c, h.ou..d.c..,a.n.d fi/a.lt..4a.1-d 1 /Jo ~ou. 11Ja.1tf. th.a.t moto11..?. I 4a.i_d 1 1 ca.tt l a.~/or.c. i.t.. a.nd. h.e 4.a.ld, lle.r;.. l wi..ll Le.t y.ou ha.ye. th.e.. ca.it i..t vou. wi...ll ta.ke.. ca.1te. ol.4.ome.tlr.ln9: /ott me..! a..h.e.d. h.i.r.z wh.a.t. a.n.d /i.e. 1';.a.i..d. bu1ty. ome.th.i..n9: a.~ th.e 1..a.na'li.LL Jott au:. a.n.d. I 4a.~d. '/Jh.a.t? a.nd h.e..4.ald t'"h.e. ma.n. a.n.d. woman.. the!/- R.ob6e..d. ltn..d I 4.a.i..a,!Jou ki.lle.d. lt./te..m??. a.n.d. he.. a.i..d!f.c. we. di..d.. r1na.' I 4.a.i.d WH!J.? nd lt.t. 4ald t!ta.t th.t..y. /u.cke..d OY.1t t.h.e.m ott a. d.~al. nd 1 4.a.ld. I ca.n 't?u.1ty. th.t..tn.. I ca.n. 't 9-c,t i.n.to tlte a.n.d/i..LL the.y, h.a.ve cha.rtg.e..a Lock. a.nd the.y. ha.ve. came.1t.a..4. a.nd 4.e.e. c.~c...~tlr.ln<; tlra.t. sz.oe..-i 01t /ttom th.~ ti.me. y.ou. 9-et i.tt th.e.. ~~te. tll ~ou pa the.. wei..<;..'1.i.ri:;. block.4.. lln.d B..e.1tda. 4ta.1t.te..d Cll.Jl-Ln.'} a.)li..1l9: tlte..'1 wh.e..1r..e.. 9-o'-n.7- to 9-o to ja.i..l i./ th.t.. bod.i..e..1. cva.4n 't bu..le.a, and lie. a.4.ked me... to ple.a..-t.e. he..lp t.hc.m. 7 lr.a.t the..~

67 .-.,,,_. lll!lljll.ljllllllll... This document is housed in the Capital Punishment Clemency Petitions (PP-4) collection in the M.E. Grenander Department of Special Collections and rchives, University Libraries, University at lbany, SUNY. -3- di..d.tt 't. kn.ow cut~6ody. U.4..e. the!/- c.ou.ld. t.ut. I a.4.kc.d tltun. wh.!i wa.lt couldn. 't bu.1ty. tltt.. 6odi..c..J. a.n.d lte 4.a.i_d he. di.dn. 't luiow.0111 lo 1tu.n t!te.m m.ac.li.i.ttc.4. l -s.ai.d 111h.e.1te. a1te tlte. 6odi..t a.n.d th.e.:t. hotlt 4ai..d In. a. lei.lei. clo.tj..e to whe.~t.. OU u.e. to Li..ve.I! lin.d 1 4.a.ld Sltoro m.e.. Jo walt ;;.ot i.n. t!te.. 4tati.on. wa.9-on. a.n.d 1 4.a.i..d. wi.ll /ol~ow!jou.. 81ten.d.a went i.n th.e h.ou4.e.. So I /ollowe..d _{,Ila.Lt. n.a lie. d.11.ove. down to la.4t Fi..1t4.t St... e.e.t a.n.d lu.1tne.d. c/f. at 'Ra.n.da.Lmi..LL Roa.d 1 a.n.d. 4tcippe.d a Li..tt.Le. wa.)t4 down th.e. 4{~e.~t, a.n.d. I 9'.ot out and wa.lh.e.d up to tlte..ta.ti.on. wa.9-on. 1 and It e. It a LL e.d Cl. own. t.lte. wi..nd. ow 1 a.n.d. po ln. t ed. a.n.d..4a. i.d. 1 S e.c. that 9-a.te.. th.e.1- a..te. a.6out JO Je.e.t /1tom tlte ~ate. u.p i.n th.e. wood.4. 1 t.old. li.i.m I d.ldn. 't know wh.e.11.e. to bult!f th.run o~ a.n.~th.i..n_2.. a.n.d he. th.ou~lr.t a.6ou.t. Lt /01t a. fwj.tj.~c.ond.4 1 a..rz.cr.'.d.ai..d, 1-u.c.k Lt.!}u4t..s.e.t tlte. /.e.i..ld on. {i.k.e.. Th.a.t tullj. bu..tt tltt..m. and e.ve.1tv-th. i.tt; e.l-4..«. up. n.d h.e..ti.a. i..d 1 / ff OU do ta. t, Jou. ca.n. luive. th.l. ccu. t1n.d I 4.a.i..d., I wlll '1e.t th.e. /i.ud on. /i.1te.. 1 But 1 am n.ot touc.li.f..n.<;- a.tt~ 6od.l..e.4. -nd li.f!. 4.a.i..d., l/llt1 don. 't ~ou. /ollow me. up to wht!.t.. I have. m.~ ca...? It i...&. /u4t up tht!. 1toa.d 1 a.nd did,./le. d.11.ove. ta th.e Sa./t!..lDa.fl. a.jt. pa1tk.e.'d. te.. ca.it. a.n.d 51-ot out a.n.d wa.lkc.d ove.1t to a 61\own. C.<t. artrl 9-"t l.n. lt-. tf.n.d l 4.a.ld, lie.ff Ii.aw cz.m 1 :;.oi.n.9- to 9-c.t both. th.e..d.e. ca..4 back?. If. V""' wa. <;-oi..n.~ to do th.i Yo11. 4ftou.Ld h.a.ve. m.ade. 81ttUJ.da. come. wi.th. U.4. I h.a.ve. to g.o to wo11.k i..n. tit t!.. mo11.n.i..n.9- > n.d h.e. 4.a.i.d. I don. 't know 111/i.a.t cue ~oi.n.'} ta 1 o. I a.n.d. lte.. pulle.d o/f. So I <;-ot i.n. th.c..tati.on wa.~<m 1.. e.ca.u:.4.e. lt h.a.d mo11.e. 9-a."- i.tt Lt. a.nd I dttov'!- ta lttff h.ou.e. to ~e.t a $1-a..d. can.. fj/h.e.n. I d.1tove. up i..n. th.c. d.1ti.ve. wa.~ 1 / 4t!C.Jt Je..Lt!.n.a Look out th.e wi.n.do1.11_ 1 40 I!f-eLLe.d /011. h.e.11. to 9-e.t d.lf.e..4.e.d. and come. wi.tlr. m.e. 1 Vih.e.n 4.h.~ wa.lke.d. out tlte. doo1t 1 told.. h.e.t. to 9-"?-e.t t.h.e 9:a..d. c.a.jt 1 a.n.d. /J.h.e rli.d.. lfn.d wh.e.n..:ihe. 9-ot <.It th.i!. c.a1t.. I d1tove. all ba.ch to th.e. Sa/WJa.;t On t.h.e. wa.~ te.11.e. 1 I told lte... l.t.o66c.d a.n.d h.ll.le.d. a. La.d. a.n.d. mcut. a.n.a'.d.a.i.d I k.i.lle.d th.e.m 6eca.u.u. tltc.u we.1te. fi..9-_h.ti.n.9- wi..th. me.. 1 lta.n.de.d h.e.. tlr.e. h.an.d6a;;. I g..ot /tto;,, f.!ja.lt. n.cl told h.e.. to 9-0 th.1toug.lt l.t. a.n.d a...s. I d.t.ove.. lo th.e.. Sa./.e.wa.!f 1 Site. wc.n.t th.tt.ou:;.h. the. Eia.i. 1 g.ot to th.e..1.a./ejjja.!f n.d tol<i h.e.r. to 9-e..t i.n. m!f motlte..1t4 c.a..t a.n.d lollolfl mt. 1 an.cl...s.h.e. di.cl.. l d.ove. to 4ome. a.pa.1clm.t.n.t4 6t.lr.Ln.cl tit"- /,a.n.k o//. l.a.n.c.a.te.r. a.ttd pa1tla.d. the. ca..t, I took. e.ve.1tptlr.ln.9- ou.t a/ th.e. ca. 1 th.offtt. wa..4. an~ 51-ood.. a.n.d 1 _J.Ot <..n. m!i "'ot.1z.e.1t.s. ca.jt 1 a.ttd I d.ove. a /, Slie..4.a.ld te..1te. wa.~ a. 6a.n.k ca1td ln. th.e. h.a.n.d.ba.f} a.nd I 4a.i. ca.n. fl"" u.4.e. Lt, a.nd.s..!t.e 4a.ld.4.h."- kll..f.iu h So I 4topped at tlr.e. ba.n.k,.d.h.e. wa.lhed ln a.nd t11.i.e.d to u.e. lt 1 But came. hack and 4.a.i.d i.t. wou.ldn.'t wo1tk. Jo I d.ovt. to tlte. /i.c.l<i/a..thln9- th.e. ca.it on. tlr.e. 1toa.d.. I l\<ttt «CJtO.S.4. tlte. 4.lR.e.e..t, j.umpe. ove.tt. the. :;.ate., lt~tt up ln. th.e. ile.lri wh.e.r.e. I th.ou.iltt to be. JO /e.e.t 1 a.nd 1 wa..s..4.ta.n.d.i.n.9- Off a. bi.<; Lo'} <Z<i Jt.ta..te.d th.1towi..n.g. the f0.4. a.ll ov-c.1'. tlte. pi.a.ct. l.n. ln.on.t ol me.. a.n.d 1 4ta.1tlc.d tlt.e. /<.1te.. ltn.d wlte.n i..t Li..t up. I.tJ.e.e.n bod!/- a.n.d I tu.11.n.e.d and 11.a.rt a...i f.a...s.t '"" I cauld, -J. umpe.d i.n. tlr.e. ca.-t a.nd. t1ti.e.d to d11.i.ve. Offi hut 1 4 4/r.a.kltt_?-.io 6ad. l..s.at tlte.1te. j.u.4.t /011. a. /e.w Jt.e.cond.4 a.n.d dl(.ov7 a//1 a.n.d!le.le.1ta. cu.e.d. me._ wh.a.t. wa.4. 11/k.Ofl.$- wh.!f tu<u ta.k.'-.rt9- o. 6a.d. lln.d. I..s.a.i.d. lite. /1.1tt!. L1.t up a.ll. a.1tou.11ct me. 'lih.i.ch. 1 c.ou.ldn 't. u.rtde.1t4.t.a.nd 4i.nc.e. l ju.it pou1te.d <)-a.. on I

68 This.,.---~ document is housed in the Capital Punishment Clemency Petitions (PP-4) collection in the M.E. Grenander Department of Special Collections and rchives, University Libraries, University at lbany, SUNY. - l+ - f. /i.<..l.d i..n. /'-on.t o/ m~. fjj!ie.n. I 4..lt th.at l.a.di..e..4. bod:i:.._ ;.i..n.<) t.he.tte.. It ca.11.e.d me O badl.st I cvuldn 't ta..lk.~ a.n.d l he.a.de.fl home., I <;ot clo;j.~ to home. and I a.4.ke.d Yc.Le.na i../. 4fte 9-_0-i e.ve.11.~tfti..1t.~ ou.t o/ that ba9-1 a.n.d '2.h.e..4.a.i..d ~e.d I «l..~o.ve. flown a da.11.k ltte.c..t wh.e1te. pe.ople du.r.tp the.lit itta.ft a.lot a..n.d...!..s.lun.9- t.e. ba'} r_nto th.e. dc..tch.. and I h.e.a.ded!tome.. ~izn~ Jde..n.a."':'j;'J.1i..'t."'.'~.0-e. ~iiio.u.1d..~~ ~ :...-W.41.t~ :;1_i_'.:..::1:'.'.~ ~"!- ~ ~~"t;.f.~ ~ -:.f.~t.cju.. :.:;ii..n.d.:::.:u.~_~~ _,J...,--'"""....J J -,.L.,... J ? -r a..n.. I/I t~ tl Jr. L -- J"',.. \J7.o:.. 1.ow.Jt'44. :. n.a.,. ""'.ne.. :.-:J,,ac..u._.;..."'f/1... ~-- c. a.~... nt!...-.c e.cr,,.,.. ~... an.::.1.1..i:.j-n.:.:~.f/te.jft'.j.u..a~~:_lu~'!-:<t.~~g~ fo ;,:t:a.11_-~-;:::l..d.a.i.d ~o~, i../ -that L;1 wlta,-.t ~ou. wan.t to do. I :f.u.jj.t <ion. t. iva.n.t ~ou le.tt1..n9- ln t1tou6le.. ~. we.n.t h.om.e. a.n.d Took a. 4.h.owe.1t a.nd we.n. lo be.d. It wcz..:t. a.6ou.t 12: JOa.m. I ~<Jl u.p a.t 5:00a.m a.n.d 9-<Jt ttea.dy. (.'ott wott.~, d11.ove. ove.jt to m!i pa.11.e.n.t,s, Ii.om<?. a.n.d 1tode. tcj wo1tk w1..th. m~ dad, wo11.ke.d a.ll da.~ un.ti..l 6:]0 ttode. h.ome. wi..th. m~ da.d. 'Ru.n. i..n. t.e. h.ou.ll.e. a.n.d 4poh.rz.. to nt~ moth.e.tt a.rtd I we.n.t h.om.e. 1 wcjtt i..tt th.e. h.ou.4e. t<joh. a.1.ltowe.jt an.cf!j e.le.tta. a.n.d I wen.t to tf.e. m.a.ll a.n.d u.4e.d them ca.tr.d4 1 an.d 4toppe.d al a. 4tOl{e. a.rid 6ou_.<;:h.t "1om.e. /ood a.nd 4 tu./ f 1 th. e.n we. wen. t to th. e. Sa.(. e.wa.9-. ~'/c.it e J e.le.n.a. tea. a1t1t<!-4. te.d a.nd ta.ke.n. to j.a i..l. F <nc. pa.44. i..n.9. a. j Ott9-~d. ch.e.ck. l we.rtt h.om.e., a.n.d I th.ou~h.t a.bout e.ve.tt.y.th.ln.9- a.n. I g.ot 40 m.a.d, I we._n.t 1.ooki..n.9- /.ott wa.1.t. Be.ca.u.4.e. I ca.lle.d m - moth.e.n. f.ttom th.e. ~'!-..~!:... ~o_/..~.n.~ ~u.~. u:lta._t -~i.j~... 60~~~4-. nt~ d~_d 1'.1e.a.tt4.. 'jj.n.~;;m1-.:?'!:"ihe.~ a4"ji.~.:a.. m~. 1..f... l... h.a.. if...a.e.e.n.... B.1u...D.d.a. l. _4a.c.d...;1tat._.t"da.. 1U.h.~.-.DJtd-..'li..e:J 4Cz. L.d. t.ji_a"t. ~~tftc.: ~ ~.. a L i.~e:~~:::iia._d..~~~.'! a U.tta_:~- c. =--::--t Uta.Le..... '.~:.b o4v- :~ Oi.n ~,'a f {i..~d:- 11r.a_~ 4omefo~y.. lta.ri: -4~a.6be..d )r.~1t.: nia.:z. - ti.me..i: an.d..4e.t._lt~jr. f '6 f. : on. ~ tc..~e. nd If.he.'...s.a.c.d..he. h.ope.d-~z.t. _1Da4.1t 1 t.buul.a.. :lh.a.ti 8,.,,-n.d.a. i1.adn. t 6_~en a.k.ou.n.d. /ott. a._ /,va ".da.y:.d.. l told m. 111.atlte1t ttot ta u, 01t1ty. 1 th.a.t ~tte.n..da. wa.a. ok 1 I would LcJok Jott h.e.tt. a.n.d I Looke.d /r111. h.e.11. a.n.d. Wa.Lt. I /ou.n.d Cl/a.Lt. lie. wa-4 wa.lki..r9. up to th. e. It a u.-s.e. on. 'P a.n.ola.. I 4. t.o p P. e.d i..m a:n.d a..-i.k e..d h. i..r;z w"fi. e.1r.. e- 81t e.n.da. wa.. He..a.a.i..d th.at. th.e. l.a.&t h.e..d.e.e. h.e.tt, Tha.t 1J.he wa.4 wi..tli...s.ome. 9-,i..ttL, o.n..d tlu.. ~ we.11.e. h.e..a.de.d to the. mote.l of.f. 820 to.co1te.. So I a.4.ke..d h.i..m wh.a.t th.e de..a.l wa.'1 a.6out them pc.opl<!.. th.a.t wa.'1 ltt th.e.. ii..e.ld. lie. a.'1ke.d me. wh.a.t. 1 me.ant. and I 4a.Ld. He.y.. Th.e.~ tound a. le.male.. bod~ th.at wa.1.1. t.a.b6e.d a. 1t.u.mbe.1t at ti..me.4.. Th.e.y._ di..'dn.'t 4.a.~ a.n!fthf...',1'} a.bou.t /i..n.d.i.ng. a.n!i ma.n4. 6 od ff. 11.n..d h.e. 4.a la. T Ir.at th. c..1t e. wa.tt f:. a.n V. man;j. bad ;t.../ t wa.4. j.u.1j.t -lilte. La.d'l-. a.rul llta.t 4.he. wa.4.n. 't 4.ta.661?.d a n.u.mbe.tt o/.. t~~/ th.at lte.. iua.4 j.u4.t 4f.a.bbe.d one. ti.me.. -?.a.~ -:.e- ~lt.a.d :f..e.i.'d.1 It u.. ltct.tt~ -o v~jc :.. 1r.e.1t.:'.f!C~u~fr.. :-;.. l.:1... ~alt~.:~~'it!a...d.(l...'_t "rn.a:v i..1ttj ~-:. a..nd.. 1 B1te11;d.a f.4.t.a.hb~t:i h.e.1t. orte.. :.t'-'!'"-.-;-:t...n-_t_~&--.n.t.c.k. ~Jf lold h.r_r.z. I dt...dn. t 7'-ve. a. J"uck a.bout. a.ll th.at. Th.a.t!le.Lena. wa. i.n. ia.i.l /ott.. pa.;1/.j..lrl.9::_ one. ol. th.em Ch.e.ck.a.. lln.d I h.ave.. t<j ~et lre.11.. out vi ; a.i..l. n.d I told. 'h.l~ t.lta.t h.e. 111<2.4 a!le.a.l a.44. hole.. Tli.a.t.!te. Ir.a me.. d1ti..vi..1t9-_ t!ta.t. ca.it. a.nd 11.unn.i..n.;;- a.ttou.nd u...i..n.!)- th.e.m ca.ttd4 a.rtd c.e.c.h... Knowln9; tlta.t. t'fte. Juy. would b~ ou.t Looki...n.<; /olf. h.e.1t. 1!1td. lr.e.. 4a1...dlt/i.a.t h.e. Ira Ca.LLe..d. the. n.umbe.tt on. tlie. ch.e..ck...i..9-ltt alte... h.t.. Le../t /'-om. ~e.t.ti..tt'} h.i...11 ca... ttd tlte. 9:U1' '1.IU.tiJc.1te.d. th.e ph.on.e. a.nd h.e. h.a.d. t.alk<!..d to h. i..m. n.d told h lm that h.~ u.e to wotth wlt~ lr.lm. attd.. wa.1.. ju4t c.a.lli..n~ to 4~e. ~ow h.e '.'a.4. But tlttt.. g.u~ "1.a.t...d. t.lta.t kt...-j. wr_~e. IVCZ-i La.te.. "{.llom '}e.t.tt..n.9- h.o....:.. tlia.t Ii.<!. thou.p.'h.t 4.ome.t!t ln.tf wa.4. w,._on.r;..attd h.e. n.e.e.de..d. to ke~p lite. Li..n.t.. orje.n i..n. c.a..11.e. lte. ca.ll. net 1 told h.i..r:: that lte wa...t tu.ll of. 6u'.!..L-ilti..t a.nd tlta.t I di..dn. 't want lti..m a.n.~wl:.e.1te.

69 .- :-'..,._, This document is housed in the Capital Punishment Clemency Petitions (PP-4) collection in the M.E. Grenander Department of Special Collections and rchives, University Libraries, University at lbany, SUNY. -s- 1toun.d me. Tha.t lie.!tad 6ette..1t h.ope. 1 ccrn 9'.e.t!le.l.e.n.a. out ~I,;a.LL. I 11la.ted to pu.1.l o/i, a.n.d e..ij.a.i.d. 1 h.ope. jou. kee.p :; mouth. 4.u. t...!jou know wh.at.h.a.ppe.n.-4.to. -1.n.~t.ch.e.~. an._d_y.ou hon.ow 1 kn.ow ivlte.11.e e.ve.ttf1bod!f Lc..ve... na. J, -iat..d,!/e.a.h., FU.ch.. 1-ou. 1 a.n.d I d1t.ove. oj/. a.n.d we.n.t ham'!.. an.d. I 4.a.t a.11.ou.n.d wa.i.ti..n.!)- /vtt ti.me. lo Jo to wottk. and I ci1t.ove. to nlfl pa1tc.n.t.4 h.ome. ajtd 111e.nt i..n.. an. «1a4. wa.i.ti.n.<; /011..'ll!f. dad to 9-e.t 1ttl.a.d~ 1!~' e..n. n:.y. m of.it e.11.. ca.ll e.d me. i.n. to th. e. k L tch. Ut a.n.d.d.a. i.d 7U.. ch.!i. Je.Le.n.a l.4. i.n. ia.i.l, 4.h.e. ca.lla..d, a.n.d 4..a.i.ci 4.h.e. wou.ld ca.ll a.11.ound 6:00a.m. So 1 wa. wa.i..li.n..9- to11. he.tr. ca.ll, lh.e. ph.on.e. 11.an9- a.n.d i.t wa.4. h.e..1t, Site. told me. that the. poli.crz. told lte.tt t..a.t t!te ch.e.clt4. a.n.d. ch.e.c.k 4.h.e wa.4. ca.u.9-!tt wi.th., B <1..Lona.e.d to a. 9-i..ttL who.ad 6e.en. mi..4.4.i.n.- to1t a.lm.cj..t th.1te.e. da.g11. and th.at i../.-1.lte. 4h.ow11 u.p de.a.d, 4Jie. wou.ld be. /a.ci..n.j Capi..taL ~u.1tde1t c.h.a.1t2-e.4.. I t.o[d!je.l.e.na.1. To.e.l.L th.fl. poli..ce. I $Cl.Ye. l:.e.1t. th.e.m. clte.c.k4 a.n.d 4tu//. T!ta.t 1 boug.lr.t th.~ t11.om. VlaLt. Sh.e. told. ma. th.at 4.he. wa..iln. 1 t 9-oi.n9- to do th.a.t. be.ca.u.4e I iua.4. on pa.1t0le.. 1 toi.d h.e.1t. to te.1.l_tem. a.tttpua.~. ~ttd a..4. we. a.ll kn.ow. V~e.n I ~at home t1tom h. I h.etr.e. wa4 pcjlc..ce. e.ve1t~we.1te.. attd cj/.1- to j.'a.l.l I 1:1eJ1.t.. I a'!! 4.l.tti i.tt a. 11.oom, poli.c.e. a."1.h.i..n.r;. me. mi..lli..oru ol <[U.ii...d.ti..on.. I elli..n.<; me. Ir.aw _r;. 1 a.m. a.n.d. how mu.ch. t11..ou6le. 1 am l.n. an.d whe.1te. I a.m. h.ea.de.d..!jou.' 1te. e.a.de.d to th.e. 6 i..q. ftou4e. 'Ri.c.lta1td!J.on.u. 1te.!IOU. ~oi..n..a. to take.!ie.le.n.a. wi..th. iou.?!jcju. kn.ow 4.e. Can't ke.ep tlr.a.t ba.~~ i..n. ptti.4.on.. Th.e.y. wi.ll ta.ke. i..t "Wa.1- /;1tom. h.e.1t. an.d n.e..lth.e.1t ;/ y.ou. wi...ll 4.e.e i.t. So he.tte. I : t. 1 a.m 4.u.tte. a4 h. e.ll n. ot 9-o i..n.'f to L rz. t!j e.l e.rta. take. th. e. ola.me. /01t a.nffilti..n.'} I Love h.e.1t 1 4.lte. L4. ca.1t11..$1.i.nr;. m;; Li..ttLe. bc1.b1- JJ-i...tr..L. So I a.m 9:oi..n.r;. tcj do any.tlti.n.'f a.n.d. e.ve.1tf!ih.?tt9- I pu44.l.bl~ can to make. 4.u1te..t..h.e do~tt t 9-e.t blame.d. / a.n.1-tlti..n.:;.. nd 811:e.n.da. i..4 m:;. ~i..1.1te1t. I a.m n.ot 9-o'-n.9- to.te t.h.e.m. th.e.. ttr.u.th.. On. 4..h.e. ""1u.Ld. Otl.. ~i.tti.n9- h.e.n.e. on. de.a.th. ttow. lotr.d kn.ow.t we. don 1 t wa.nt t.jr..a.t. Bo~ wh.at a. 4.olttt!f ple..ce. cj {. 4h. i. t I cvo u.ld 6 e.. So 1.4..a. t. the.. fz. ma.k i.rtt} up a lo It :f th. a. t WcJ u.ld l "- e.e.!j e.l..e.na. 1 F 11.rz.e. fj n.e.n.d a. 1 8 u. t.ti.ll!}fl. l {:; a..l t. LL th. e.!f ruou.lrl h.ave to <io U. lttve..-ili.si-a.te.. Bu.t 4.h.i.t n.o. That wa.n.'t 9-oorl e.n.ou.9-h. nd 4.o th.e.~ pu.t me. i..tt a. l.lltl.e. pi.n.4. ttoom, wi.~h. iu.4.t a Li.ttLe. wi..1t<io:.r1 on. th.e. doolf.. 1 cold.. 1 da.111.p. no /00<1. 1 c i.~alt Lt t c: a.n.d e.v e..f- t f.lll m i..n.u. t. '!-4. th. e.<!.. wa.4 4 om e. p ol i.c e. ope.n.i..n9' tf..e.. wf:-n.dow, -e.1.l ln.9- T h.e..1tu. th.a.t..tlch m.oth.e.. tuc.h.e11...!jou. tte.e.ri to 6e. h.i..lle.d. Tlte.y.. "1.pi.t i..n. th.ette., a.t me.. 'C.a.LLe.d me e.ve.n.y.thi.n9- u.nde.1<. th.e. l.tit. :.Uh.en th.e.fl> pu.ll.e.a me. out /.on. att!f.th.i..1t~ 1 th.e.1' pu4fte.d nte. a1toun.d.. T a.lk.e.d. to me. Li..ke. I wa.1.1. a. pi.e.ct. ai d.i..1tt. llie.!f. Loch.e.d me u.p 1 Ch.a.Jf..~e.d me. wlth. ca.pi..ta.l mu.jc.de..t. I told th.e.rt w!ta.t. th.ev- wa.n.te.d to h.eatt. ~Vi..tli.ou.t 61r.i.n.g.i.n.g. -~1t.e.nda.4 n.amt. i.n. i.t. o. an. th.i..n;;..?hat. wou.ld Lead to li~1t. nd I told th.et I 4.i..tt~e.r:t th.e cli.e.ck4. wlie.n. I dlrlrt 't. 11i.SJ-n. 4.h.i.t. I tltou1h.t th.e..e. wa wa.y. tjia.t a..ju.1t!l_ i..1i; tlut. wo.ld. wou.ld. /i..nd me. i;.u.llt'i- o{: c.a.pi..ta.l m.ulf..de.tc.. But I wa.4. th. i..n.i, f..rt9- a.~. tlta. t. ti.me. t/r.a. t ~ $' 4 i.4 t elf.. tuo u. L d. s;e. t up t.li t. If. e. 1 a.n.d te.ll t.lte.m illalt. done. i..t. I ;,u..t h.ne.jjj lie. wou.l.dn t l.c.t i!etr.. ~ 61r..ot.h.e1t he. pu.t t.o 4Le.e.P. 1.i.ke. all old 4.i.c.k do9-1 l-01t 4.CJme.tlr.i..n.9- h.e.1t a.nd h.e.1t dope. h.e.a.d /1ti.e.ttcl done.. 13u.t Site. ma.de. a. be.l.i.e.ve.tt out ot me.. lie.. Li..ttLe. d.opc. - 6u.ddi.e.'1. Li../e i.4.. mo1te.. Un.pottt.a.n.t lo h.e1t tlta.n h.e.1r.. own b1toth.e.1t4. 0 eca.ue. 4"J,~ h.ttow4 I

70 This document is housed in the Capital Punishment Clemency Petitions (PP-4) collection in the M.E. Grenander Department of Special Collections and rchives, University Libraries, University at lbany, SUNY. -6- don. 't Llke. th.a.l dope. Ou-1.i.tte.d.. Bu.t h.'-!f; th.at do~n. 't ma. t t e.ic.. 11.d pl e.a.4.e. don. 1 t th lnh. I wan. t a.n. o /!f OU to! e. e.l..d.oltlt~ /a. me.. l wa4. th.t!. 4.tu.pi..d_ /ool wh.o ma.de. tfte. ch.olc.ll. to ke.e.p m.~ mouth.,,.h.ut. tln.d I can Li.ve. wi..th Ct.. I.ju,,_t thou.if.t tlta.t e.ve..tsi 01te. ot!f,ou. th.at h.a..d. ~otten. a copfl. o/ tfti.4 Le.tte.tt..11h.ou.Ld kn.ow the. 't11.uth. I know th.al tfou. a.l.l kn.ow, th.at th.c.tte i."1. no way. i.tt he.ll 1 wou.ld h.u.1c.l a.- wom.a.tt Li..e. th.at. t1.nd th.c.t i. wha.t malle.tt..i. Th.e. ittu.th. i.-1. w_~at matle.1t.d.. <fod kn.ow.d. t!te. Tttu.th.. l!n.d we. a.ll know, He. i."1 the. Otte an.cl. on..l ittu.e. iud9-e. So 1 a.4.k y.ou a.ll. ijo not h.old Lt a.9:ai.n-t.t. 8"-e..n.da. 1 ma.de. t.h.e. c.h.oi..ce to k.e.e.p m.!f mou.th. 4/1ut. Tlte cou.1tt...t kn.ow n.ot!ti.n.9- about what I h.a.ve. 1.1J1t.i.lte.n. i..n. tlr.c~ Le.tte.1t. 1 have. ke.e.p th.i.4 to m;;.4.e.l/ a.ll the."1.e. ~c.a.1t4.. 8e.cau4e. the. pe.oplll. I Love. a.ttd mfi. /a.mi.ly. mf!.a.n. moitc. to me. tf...a.n. Li.J'e.. l i./e. me.ar.4 ttotltln.j to me. a.n.!fmo11.c... Be.cau,.j_e. tfte. on.l!i wa.!f!f.ou. u1ou.ld h.a.ve. ~otten ti..4 Le.ttc1t i...4 be.ca.u.4e I h.a.ve. be~!f!l"exe.cute.d. Bff.e.n.da.,!JOU. a.11.~ pttoba61.st tte.a.di..n.i th.i.4 L~tte1t 1 an.d tlti.n.h.i.n9- to!fou.11.4.el.! 1 ~I.a.t a..()tttt{j moth.e.1t fu.ch.e.11.. {~ 1 h.9 cou.ldtt 't f..e. k.e.e.p i.. mrju.th..,..ftut.!l We.LL LL l h.a.ve. to 4a.1 1 l.s., I di..<. a.n.d th.at (.4 wh.!j. f;tu. att.e a.ble. to te.p..ad tht_,,_ Le.tte.1t. But ~Lea.4.~ 1 do n.ot,leel ba.d, 011. bla.me. ~ou...4.e.l/.!}u.11t l h.a.n.h. './Od. I h.a.t!f-ou. h.ad a. 4.lu.pi..d bte.oth.e.1t th.at th.ou9-_h.t mott.e. ot :1ou. o.n.d. tlte. tt.e.1.1t of OU.It /a.mll!f- 1 an.d ;ou-t clii..[d.1r.en. th.a.n. he. tltou.9:_h.l, a.bout.i..'tz4e.l/ 01t h..i.-1 Li../e.. /I!Jon. 1 t,l:e.e.l.oltlt!f /on. me: T am 11.e..ti..n.7 i.n. pe.ace.. _ T~4 L~tte.11. wa.4 w11.i.tten, ~u.l~ 1 11,9J. lo a.ll who ha.ve 11.e.ce..i.ve..d a. cop,~t, o/ tlti..,:.. 1.e.ttc..tt.. 1 want jtol.i. to kn.ow tlta.t I h.a.ve. w1r.ltte.n. an.a -ie.n.t. th.i.4 to -~"'' On.l.y. be.ca.u.il.<?- I f.e.e.1. y.ou h.oul.d h.n th.e. f.ttu.th.. a.n.d out ol. 1te...pe.ct a.nd Love.. I have. ~i.ve.n. jou. th.e. t11.uth../!. '?/ i... t It. L o v e, a.n. d tt e f!.. e c t a.tt d b e.,._ t. w i...il. h e.., ~i..ch.c11.d Wa.~n.~ ~on.e. ~~~~ t~e.cute.d on th.i.4 ~ap, month. Jea.1t. fa~~c<.z,~ ~~ ;... E.l! OF LUTE.~... ~~...

71 ..--..,... This document is housed in the Capital Punishment Clemency Petitions (PP-4) collection in the M.E. Grenander Department of Special Collections and rchives, University Libraries, University at lbany, SUNY. EXHIBIT 3 86 Grand Jury Testimony of Yelena Dean Comalander t.

72 --- ~-.. This document is housed in the Capital Punishment Clemency Petitions (PP-4) collection in the M.E. Grenander l Department of Special Collections and rchives, University Libraries, University at lbany, SUNY. ;... _ I I I BEFORE THE.GRND JURY OF TRRNT COUNTY, TEXS... 8 ~ ' ; ~... ~ r. '':. r.j... :.. ~;,; TESTIMONY op l. "" :~ -~~:.~-_... \..... YELEN DEN COMLNDER ; i ~-. -:~;~:~~;:;~.. ~.'.". : :.. ~ :......!:"" :... ' :" ~ ;' t" t ;:.: )~L~ ~ - -,- -...~:-.._ ::... " ~ ;. : -~~.' : DOROTrtY CRPENTER, CSR Of f1c1al Court Reporter 24 Tarrant County Grand Jury... #..:....:-~:'~ 25 Friday, May 16 t 86 "' " J I..

73 I._... This document is housed in the Capital Punishment Clemency Petitions (PP-4) collection in the M.E. Grenander Department of Special Collections and rchives, University Libraries,.. University... at lbany, SUNY..2 : - 1 NO ;Si. ~.... "" ~&. ~.. 2 THE STTE OF TEXS I BEFORE THE GRND JURY vs. I OP.. RICHRD.WYNE. ~ JONES... L.,... I,. "... ~... '...:!=-. ~~--... ~. : "". TRRNT COUNTY, TEXS ~... f r " BE.. IT- REMEMBERED that on.the l()th day or.. _......:... ;....:.... ~....., ~-...,. \ ~,,. ~i... ~... -:-~-... ~..._;.::... _.... "':'".. ~.! May, 86, the abo~e.. mimbe~; 'aiui- e'ntitled- 'matter came. on ;... :;."... ~ : ;;"~:-. -~ ~;. -~..,. > ~... t~: be." cons1der.e_d.. by t~e::ar~iia~ JUri l o.r:' TS:rrant County I Texas..,. ~. ' -... '..... t "-. t... ~~.:... :< ~~...' '! 9 10., being ~o?ket Numbers 457.~~ough.462 on the docket of said \. ~ \; ". Grand Jury : '. '... *. '.:.;..._:-:..- -~..> : :. : ;.;....(..... ' : ~ 'J;tli~~~~ -id.: ~-... ' PP~~NCE~::... :: ~>. ('jj-::(}:t:.:..:,..: :~ ' v'-. :.~ ~.;.. "::~ J:: ~:.. '.:~':! ~-: :;;t;.:..~.}j,.:-:..... ;'...'. '.:: TIM CURRY, Cr1m1na1 Di ~trict ttorney..... ~.. '.._\.~.By- Sfi'B.ren W1lson,~~'. s ifistant' District ttorney.~:-:: ;,. < _: ::-,:: ~o<f.west: Belknap.,._.. :~ ~,-".".'-~~~ ~~ Fort Worth, Texas _. ~..:, :... * \......, _; ~ /::... ~ '...., ~.-,,... ~ i. ; :- :..... ' !'-,,.

74 ,_, :, :. - This -~ document..:--..._..-.:.:;:.;za is housed in the Capital Punishment Clemency Petitions (PP-4) collection in the M.E. Grenander Department ~r~.".~"-:"".:.1'! 111_... ~., of Special Collections and rchives, University Libraries, University at lbany, SUNY I N DEX 3 WITNESS: PGE. ;,_. e Reporter's Yelena Dean Comalander Certificate.. :..... ~. 72.i.-t ;.io:.. ~;;.: ' :.;... :.. i I, i ' l I \ ~ ' i ' "',?.::- ~ -.. " '. I l ~-.... '..... ~..:.. ' : ~ ~.....,.. ~.!......!.: I. ".,... ~.. : ;.,...,.. t I ~ ;;:.. t: H E I~ ~ <'...,,.,. '....!: 7.~-- : "" ~ ".,. '. ~ -. -~;,: ~::;-.;~:.: :~~~;... '""" ~ _;,.. : -~~ \.--

75 ..-,~ This document is housed in the Capital Punishment Clemency Petitions (PP-4) collection in the M.E. Grenander Department 1 of Special Collections and rchives, University Libraries, University at lbany, SUNY..., COMLNDER, 7 was called aa a witness ~)having been first duly sworn by the ssistant Foreman ot a~ Grand Jury, upon her oath, testified as follows: BY MS. WILSON:,.;4... :....., State your.full 'name and spell all or it, please.,.;;.~j Yelen~ Dean ComailiDder. Y-e-1-e-n-a D-e-a-n c-o~m-a-1-a-n-d-e-r. Ms. Coma lander, my name is Sharen Wilson and I'm an ssistant District ttorney-. You and I have never had a : i chance to talk directly, is that correct?.. ;,.. Yes. I think it was approximatel7 a week' ago when your mother came down here to Grand Jury with you, is that also correct? Yes..,. '".. ~~ ~ '!';:' ~,: ~.>.; :--: This is the Tarrant County Grand Jury and they are ). investigating a capital tmlrder of Tamm.y- Livingston that occurred on February nineteenth of 86 and Richard Wayne Jones is charged with capital murder in her death. i. Do you understand what the questions will be about? Yes. O.K. Prior to comin; 1n here to the Grand Jury! I ll : f 't ; ' '', ; ; : '; I.! : : i. ' 'f...

76 This document is housed in the Capital Punishment Clemency Petitions (PP-4) collection in the M.E. Grenander Department 1 of Special Collections and rchives, University Libraries, University at lbany, SUNY. 2 3 ~om, ~Were 1n Cr1m1rial District ~"'N#~;.;1th. ;~ court appointed lawy~r, Brantley Pringle, 1n front of Judge Joe Drago, is that correct? 5 Yes. 5 nd he explained to you that you had been granted 6 testimonial immunity tor your answers to quest1ona in here 7 and he has explained what that means, 1a that also correct? 8 Yes. 9 You do understand that?.10 Yes, ma'am. 11 O.K. t th1s time you currently have one pending 12 misdemeanor case. Do you lalow what that charge is? 13 Tampering with evidence, I think. Tampering with evidence? 15 Yes. O.K. You are really going to have to speak up as ',!. r : t, I i! I I.! 1 r I 17 loud as you can. O.K.? You have made bond on that case and have moved to Houston, or the Houston area, is that correct? O.K. Where are you living now? In Porter, Texas. BY GRND JUROR: Porter? Yes, s1r.

77 l~- 9.:;:.~::=:~~~ :. ~- '. This document is housed in the Capital Punishment Clemency Petitions (PP-4) collection in the M.E. Grenander Department 1 of Special BY ks. Collections wll..sii and. rchives,!~;:~: University.. Libraries, University at lbany, SUNY. /6. 2 nd who are you living with?" MT mother and rather. nd what are their names?. Jania and Patrick Coma.lander. I need an ad.dress and a phone number. P. O. Box 11. The Zip Code is number is 713/25~ The phone nd hqw long have you been living down there with -your parents? Since I got out of jail. '1 i!. l Do you remember what day that was? No,.. ma 'am When did you move to Fort Worth? January, I believe. What year? 1 I l l I nd have you graduated from high school? Yes, ma'am. 20 What hig~ achool? (Inaudible. ) 22 nd when did you graduate? t. In 1 85, May. 24 nd what did you do between May 1 85 and January of.. ".., ZS 86?

78 ~ ~- ~.7 I worked at a place 1n a mall tor a little while This document is housed in the Capital Punishment Clemency Petitions (PP-4) collection in the M.E. Grenander ~ Department of Special Collections and rchives, University Libraries, University at lbany, SUNY. and then I moved to Midlothian with my rather and worked at a construction company. Now, 1a this your ~ather, Patrick Coma.lander? e - '. 1 Yes, ma'am. Did the whole family move to Midlothian or Just-- No. Just my father. 8 Was that for a particular Job there 1n Midlothian? Yes S So how is your father employed? Right now he is not. O.K. Back in May how-was he employed? In May? O.K. I'm sorry. In January when you moved to Midlothian with your father, how was he employed? He worked at Metric Constructi. on. What did he do there? He was a concrete finisher. O.K. What dtd you do? I was Just a laborer and I worked in the office a little bit. O.K. What kind of labor did you do? t- Right then we was filling dirt banks for the electrical.crew. Do you know the person that is charged 1n this :i. ' ; ~ 1, : i '' 't ;,h '!'I '! \; II ti r I JI

79 ' -. This document is housed in the Capital Punishment Clemency Petitions (PP-4) collection in the M.E. Grenander Department of Special Collections and rchives, University Libraries, University at lbany, SUNY. Richard Wayne Jones? 3 5 ' 7 t e Yes 1 I do. What name do you call him? Ricky. When did you first meet Ricky? In October. or 85? loth1an? Yes, DJ.a 1 am. How did you know him? We worked tog~ther. Where was that? t Metric Construct1.on. When did you and your father first move to Mid~ Well, rrry dad, he moved there I think 1n ugust. I'm not real sure~-and then I moved there in October. O.K. Earlier you said that you moved to Fort Worth 1n January or 86 and that was when you moved from Midlothia ' to the City or Fort Worth? Yes, ma'am. O.K. You were actually in this area since October. I 'I I l! ii I I j 'l l :'' 1 : l I I Yes, ma'am. Did your father \.alow Richard Wayne Jones? ~. -

80 This document is housed in the Capital Punishment Clemency Petitions (PP-4) collection in the M.E. Grenander Department 1 of Special Collections -~es, and ma rchives, 1am. University Libraries, University at lbany, SUNY. 2 --~ ~ Did he lalow him prior to October 85? 3 4 No. You all met at the same time on the Job? 5 6 No. I met Ricky first. O.K. What was Ricky doing? 7 8 He is a heavy equipment operator. Were you living with your father at a house or 9 apartment when y~u f.1rst met Ricky Jones? Yes. Where was that? The Candler1dge partments in Midlothian what construction? it s.,.- nd what were you all building there in Midlothian, It was a cement plant for box cars. On 287? No, ma'am. I'm not sure of the address. I think lmew who he was? there. How did you and Ricky first meet? \ Just at work. Do you remember the first time that you met him and ino, not really. It was Just when I started working O.K. Did he come up to you and talk to you or did -..: '. "~ ~I, ~ :!. ~~:-~ -. - r-.'" <I.. '!'"~. o,,. i... ~ ~ '. ~--~... :...

81 !: This document is housed you talk in the..,o Capital him? Punishment Clemency Petitions (PP-4) collection in the M.E. Grenander Department of Special Collections and rchives, University Libraries, University at lbany, SUNY. 2. tm - - two cc you came to know each other. i Just want to 1cn~.~~th1ng acout how th 10 3 Well, we was working together, we was on the same 4 5 e , crew and we Just started tal~g. 0. t some point 1n your rclationohip with Ricky, did you move 1n with him?. Yes. 0. When was that? It was 1n November. 0. Where was your father living in Novemb~r of 1 85 when you moved 1n with Ricky? In the apartment with us. O. So the three of you all were living there together?!.! ' i t. I I I ' I! :! : I 14 Yes,ma'am Were you and Ricky' living together at that time? By that I mean were you living together as husband and wife, or having sex together at that time? Yes, ma'am O. Where was your mother during all of this time? She was 1n Porter. O. Did your father approve of Ricky? Yes, ma'am. O.i. Did either of you know anything about him or his background? 25 I \mew a little bit.

82 ~ This document is housed in the Capital Punishment Clemency Petitions (PP-4) collection in the M.E. Grenander 1 Department of Special Collections and What rchives, did you University know ; Libraries, University at lbany, SUNY. 2. I ~ew that he was-in pr13on before and that he 3 was out on parole. 4 O.K. Did he tell you what he was in prison tor? 5. It was a robbery. 6 7 robbery? Did he tell you anything about the details of that 8 No. a Did you ever ask him about 1t? r 12 with him? No, ma'am. t what point did you decide that you were 1n love (., When he moved in. So about a month at"ter you met him? Yes. re you pregnant right now? Yes, ma'am. nd how tar along are you? Five months., O.K. Do you ~ow who the father of that child is? Yes, ma'am. Is it Ricky Jones? Yes, rna am.. Have you spoken with Ricky Jones since he was arre~ e for capital murder?

83 This document is housed in the Capital Punishment Clemency Petitions (PP-4) collection in the M.E. Grenander Department of Special Collections and rchives, University Libraries, University at lbany, SUNY. 1 Yes. 2 How frequentl.t? 3 He calls eveey Sunday, or about every Sunday. Were you aware when you moved 1n with h~m 1n Nov- 5 ember 85 that he was married? 8 Yee, ma' am. 7 Is it your understanding that he 1s still married? children? Yes,ma. am. Is it also your understanding that he has two! f I!. ; I 11 Yes, ma'am. 12 How old are those two kids? 13 I believe five and two. 1< '5 Do you lolow whether or not he or his wire have filed for divorce? futures? j He has. He has filed ror divorce? Yes. Did he tell ~ou where he filed for divorce? No, ma'am. Has he indicated any plans for the two of your No. Has he told you he wants to marry you? Yes, ma'am. i I r. I.! I. I

84 --t~~-~. This document.. is housed in the Capital Punishment Clemency Petitions (PP-4) collection in the M.E. Grenander "- - - Department 1 of Special Collections and rchives, University Libraries, University at lbany, SUNY.. :;,~~-you plan to marry- him ~I t:ie future? 2 Yes.. ma' am. 3 When would that be?..;~ I don't know. e this? When he gets a divorce or when he gets out from 7 Yes 1 ma'am. When he gets a divorce. 8 So it's your intention to marry him while he is 9 in Jail?.10 Yes,, ma'am ' Has he told you when he filed for divorce? No 1 ma'am. Or what county or where he filed? No 1 ma'am. O.K. Let's go back to November of 85. How long did you and your father and Ricky live together? Since January of 1 86 and then rrry father moved back to Midlothian. O.K. When did he move back to Midlothian? I'm not sure. It was Just in January. O.K. So the three of you lived together 1n November thrjugh December until January and then your rather moved back to where? Midlothian. '! I. 1 t r 1. f t!. ~ t t. f ~ ;! ' }

85 -~... 1 This document is housed in the Capital Punishment Clemency Petitions (PP-4)....;~.. collection in the M.E. Grenander Department of Special Collections and Where rchives, were University you and Libraries, your University ~ath~~ lbany, and Ricky SUNY. ~iv1ng? --'"".. : a \.' ' ~-~--;~> c r.. :.-: : l.. Why? :~- :. ;._..c: :... : :~"":.:-::...~.. ~.:. ~-.: -~~-~~- 25.

Court of Appeals. First District of Texas

Court of Appeals. First District of Texas Opinion issued May 26, 2011 In The Court of Appeals For The First District of Texas NO. 01-10-00680-CR JOSE SORTO JR., Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 412th District Court

More information

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS. No. 98-CF-273. Appeal from the Superior Court of the District of Columbia (F )

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS. No. 98-CF-273. Appeal from the Superior Court of the District of Columbia (F ) Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the Atlantic and Maryland Reporters. Users are requested to notify the Clerk of the Court of any formal errors so that corrections

More information

SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS No. CR

SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS No. CR SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS No. CR 10-936 CLEVELAND EVANS, VS. STATE OF ARKANSAS, APPELLANT, APPELLEE, Opinion Delivered February 3, 2011 APPEAL FROM THE PULASKI COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, NO. CR 2008-5049, HON.

More information

Court of Appeals of Ohio

Court of Appeals of Ohio [Cite as State v. McMichael, 2012-Ohio-1343.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION Nos. 96970 and 96971 STATE OF OHIO PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE vs. TREA

More information

Decided: February 6, S16A1781. SMITH v. THE STATE. Appellant Christopher Rayshun Smith was tried and convicted of murder

Decided: February 6, S16A1781. SMITH v. THE STATE. Appellant Christopher Rayshun Smith was tried and convicted of murder In the Supreme Court of Georgia Decided: February 6, 2017 HUNSTEIN, Justice. S16A1781. SMITH v. THE STATE. Appellant Christopher Rayshun Smith was tried and convicted of murder and related offenses in

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA. No / Filed November 15, Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Robert Hanson,

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA. No / Filed November 15, Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Robert Hanson, IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA No. 6-892 / 05-0481 Filed November 15, 2007 STATE OF IOWA, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. ROBERT MONROE JORDAN JR., Defendant-Appellant. Judge. Appeal from the Iowa District Court

More information

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF JACKSON COUNTY, MISSOURI. v. ) No. 16CR

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF JACKSON COUNTY, MISSOURI. v. ) No. 16CR IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF JACKSON COUNTY, MISSOURI STATE OF MISSOURI, ) ) Petitioner, ) ) v. ) No. 16CR03006321 ) KEITH CARNES, ) ) Defendant. ) DEFENDANT S MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL BASED UPON NEWLY DISCOVERED

More information

Qualified Immunity Applied to Prosecutors and Police Officers Who Failed to Disclose Inadmissible Evidence About Alternative Murder Suspects

Qualified Immunity Applied to Prosecutors and Police Officers Who Failed to Disclose Inadmissible Evidence About Alternative Murder Suspects Civil Rights Update David A. Perkins and Melissa N. Schoenbein Heyl, Royster, Voelker & Allen, P.C., Peoria Qualified Immunity Applied to Prosecutors and Police Officers Who Failed to Disclose Inadmissible

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI PATRICK BERNARD GILES NO KA STATE OF MISSISSIPPI BRIEF FOR THE APPELLEE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI PATRICK BERNARD GILES NO KA STATE OF MISSISSIPPI BRIEF FOR THE APPELLEE E-Filed Document Aug 25 2015 17:45:18 2013-KA-01888-SCT Pages: 19 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI PATRICK BERNARD GILES APPELLANT VS. NO. 2013-KA-01888 STATE OF MISSISSIPPI APPELLEE BRIEF

More information

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON Assigned on Briefs February 1, 2011

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON Assigned on Briefs February 1, 2011 IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON Assigned on Briefs February 1, 2011 STATE OF TENNESSEE v. MICHAEL HARRIS AND EDDIE HARRIS Direct Appeal from the Criminal Court for Shelby County

More information

Marc James Asay v. Michael W. Moore

Marc James Asay v. Michael W. Moore The following is a real-time transcript taken as closed captioning during the oral argument proceedings, and as such, may contain errors. This service is provided solely for the purpose of assisting those

More information

STATE OF MAINE CHRISTIAN NIELSEN. [ 1] Christian Nielsen appeals from a judgment of conviction entered in the

STATE OF MAINE CHRISTIAN NIELSEN. [ 1] Christian Nielsen appeals from a judgment of conviction entered in the MAINE SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT Decision: 2008 ME 77 Docket: Oxf-07-645 Argued: April 8, 2008 Decided: May 6, 2008 Reporter of Decisions Panel: SAUFLEY, C.J., and CLIFFORD, ALEXANDER, LEVY, SILVER, and MEAD,

More information

I N T H E COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

I N T H E COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT Donald J. Frew Fort Wayne, Indiana ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Curtis T. Hill, Jr. Attorney General of Indiana Caryn N. Szyper Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana I N T H E

More information

STATE OF OHIO ERIC SMITH

STATE OF OHIO ERIC SMITH [Cite as State v. Smith, 2010-Ohio-4006.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 93593 STATE OF OHIO PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE vs. ERIC SMITH DEFENDANT-APPELLANT

More information

United States Court of Appeals

United States Court of Appeals United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT No. 01-3272 Keith A. Smith, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Western District of Missouri. Michael Bowersox,

More information

COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH

COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH NO. 02-08-012-CR GERALD DEWAYNE LUSK APPELLANT V. THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE ------------ FROM THE 371ST DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY ------------

More information

COX, Robert Craig (W/M) DC# DOB: 10/06/59

COX, Robert Craig (W/M) DC# DOB: 10/06/59 COX, Robert Craig (W/M) DC# 113377 DOB: 10/06/59 Ninth Judicial Circuit, Orange County, Case # CR88-364 Sentencing Judge: The Honorable Richard F. Conrad Trial Attorneys: Patricia Cashman & Kelly Sims,

More information

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION. No. 115,609 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee,

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION. No. 115,609 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION No. 115,609 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, v. ANTHONY STEPHEN NICHOLS, Appellant. MEMORANDUM OPINION Affirmed. Appeal from Riley

More information

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION File Name: 10a0370n.06. No UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION File Name: 10a0370n.06. No UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION File Name: 10a0370n.06 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT OSCAR SMITH, v. Petitioner-Appellant, RICKY BELL, Warden, Riverbend Maximum Security

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE Dockets.Justia.com Dawkins v. Phelps et al Doc. 24 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE BRYAN L. DAWKINS, v. Petitioner, PERRY PHELPS, Warden, and ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE

More information

State of Wisconsin: Circuit Court: Milwaukee County: v. Case No. 2008CF Motion to Suppress Statements

State of Wisconsin: Circuit Court: Milwaukee County: v. Case No. 2008CF Motion to Suppress Statements State of Wisconsin: Circuit Court: Milwaukee County: State of Wisconsin, Plaintiff, v. Case No. 2008CF000534 Mack Smith, Defendant. Motion to Suppress Statements PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on the _16th day

More information

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC J.B.PARKER, Appellant, - versus - STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee.

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC J.B.PARKER, Appellant, - versus - STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC01-172 J.B.PARKER, Appellant, - versus - STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. ON APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE NINETEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR MARTIN

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR CLARK COUNTY, OHIO. v. : T.C. NO. 06 CR 1487

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR CLARK COUNTY, OHIO. v. : T.C. NO. 06 CR 1487 [Cite as State v. Moore, 2008-Ohio-2577.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR CLARK COUNTY, OHIO STATE OF OHIO : Plaintiff-Appellee : C.A. CASE NO. 2007 CA 40 v. : T.C. NO. 06 CR 1487 MICHAEL MOORE : (Criminal

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA. No / Filed October 6, Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Webster County, Kurt L.

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA. No / Filed October 6, Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Webster County, Kurt L. STATE OF IOWA, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA No. 0-495 / 09-1500 Filed October 6, 2010 KENNETH LEE MADSEN, a/k/a KENNETH LEE DUNLAP, Defendant-Appellant. Judge. Appeal from the

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1996

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1996 NO. 95-181 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1996 APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Eleventh Judicial District, In and for the County of Flathead, The Honorable Ted 0. Lympus, Judge presiding.

More information

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON Assigned on Briefs September 1, 2009

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON Assigned on Briefs September 1, 2009 IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON Assigned on Briefs September 1, 2009 PATRICK HARRIS v. STATE OF TENNESSEE Appeal from the Criminal Court for Shelby County No. 03-01420 John P.

More information

[Cite as State v. Smith, 2009-Ohio-5692.] Court of Appeals of Ohio. vs. DONNELL SMITH JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART AND REMANDED

[Cite as State v. Smith, 2009-Ohio-5692.] Court of Appeals of Ohio. vs. DONNELL SMITH JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART AND REMANDED [Cite as State v. Smith, 2009-Ohio-5692.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 92320 STATE OF OHIO PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE vs. DONNELL SMITH DEFENDANT-APPELLANT

More information

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED March 11, 2003 v No. 234749 Berrien Circuit Court ROBERT LEE THOMAS, LC No. 2000-402258-FC Defendant-Appellant.

More information

STATE OF OHIO DONTA SMITH

STATE OF OHIO DONTA SMITH [Cite as State v. Smith, 2008-Ohio-6954.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 90996 STATE OF OHIO PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE vs. DONTA SMITH DEFENDANT-APPELLANT

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI NO KA STATE OF MISSISSIPPI BRIEF FOR THE APPELLEE

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI NO KA STATE OF MISSISSIPPI BRIEF FOR THE APPELLEE E-Filed Document May 15 2015 07:20:38 2013-KA-01629-COA Pages: 22 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI ROBERT BUFFORD APPELLANT VS. NO. 2013-KA-01629 STATE OF MISSISSIPPI APPELLEE BRIEF

More information

Center on Wrongful Convictions

Center on Wrongful Convictions CASE SUMMARY CATEGORY: DEFENDANT S NAME: JURISDICTION: RESEARCHED BY: Exoneration Steve Smith Cook County, Illinois Rob Warden Center on Wrongful Convictions DATE LAST REVISED: September 24, 2001 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

More information

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P 65.37

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P 65.37 NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA Appellee : : v. : : JUSTIN JAMES ROZNOWSKI, : : Appellant : No. 1857 WDA

More information

No. 104,839 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, CASSIDY LEE SMITH, Appellant. SYLLABUS BY THE COURT

No. 104,839 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, CASSIDY LEE SMITH, Appellant. SYLLABUS BY THE COURT No. 104,839 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, v. CASSIDY LEE SMITH, Appellant. SYLLABUS BY THE COURT 1. Motions to suppress are intended to exclude evidence obtained

More information

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE Assigned on Briefs July 27, 2010

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE Assigned on Briefs July 27, 2010 IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE Assigned on Briefs July 27, 2010 STATE OF TENNESSEE v. DON SIDDALL Appeal from the Hamilton County Criminal Court No. 267654 Don W. Poole, Judge

More information

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION. No. 116,499 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, CLETE ADAM HARGIS, Appellant.

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION. No. 116,499 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, CLETE ADAM HARGIS, Appellant. NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION No. 116,499 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, v. CLETE ADAM HARGIS, Appellant. MEMORANDUM OPINION Appeal from Sedgwick District Court;

More information

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT January Term 2010

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT January Term 2010 STEVENSON, J. DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT January Term 2010 MICHAEL A. WOLFE, Appellant, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. No. 4D07-4555 [May 12, 2010] A jury convicted

More information

OCTOBER 2002 SESSION PRISONER REVIEW BOARD STATE OF ILLINOIS

OCTOBER 2002 SESSION PRISONER REVIEW BOARD STATE OF ILLINOIS OCTOBER 2002 SESSION PRISONER REVIEW BOARD STATE OF ILLINOIS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, ) ) Docket No. \ vs. ) ) JAMES TENNER ) Inmate No. B01473 ) ) SUBMITTED TO THE HONORABLE GEORGE RYAN, GOVERNOR

More information

STATE OF OHIO DARREN MONROE

STATE OF OHIO DARREN MONROE [Cite as State v. Monroe, 2009-Ohio-4994.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 92291 STATE OF OHIO PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT vs. DARREN MONROE

More information

SCIENCE DRIVE AND TOWERVIEW ROAD BOX DURHAM, NC (919) FACSIMILE (919) CO-DIRECTORS

SCIENCE DRIVE AND TOWERVIEW ROAD BOX DURHAM, NC (919) FACSIMILE (919) CO-DIRECTORS WRONGFUL CONVICTIONS CLINIC DUKE UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW SCIENCE DRIVE AND TOWERVIEW ROAD BOX 90360 DURHAM, NC 27708 0360 (919) 613 7133 FACSIMILE (919) 613 7262 JAMES E. COLEMAN, JR. JARVIS JOHN EDGERTON

More information

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE T. HENLEY GRAVES SUSSEX COUNTY COURTHO USE RESIDENT JUDGE ONE THE CIRCLE, SUITE 2 GEORGETOWN, DE 19947

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE T. HENLEY GRAVES SUSSEX COUNTY COURTHO USE RESIDENT JUDGE ONE THE CIRCLE, SUITE 2 GEORGETOWN, DE 19947 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE T. HENLEY GRAVES SUSSEX COUNTY COURTHO USE RESIDENT JUDGE ONE THE CIRCLE, SUITE 2 GEORGETOWN, DE 19947 James D. Nutter, Esquire 11 South Race Street Georgetown,

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI NO KA STATE OF MISSISSIPPI BRIEF FOR THE APPELLEE

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI NO KA STATE OF MISSISSIPPI BRIEF FOR THE APPELLEE E-Filed Document May 1 2018 16:12:56 2017-KA-01170-COA Pages: 10 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI RODNEY WAYNE SMITH APPELLANT VS. NO. 2017-KA-01170 STATE OF MISSISSIPPI APPELLEE BRIEF

More information

Norman Blake McKenzie v. State of Florida SC >> THE NEXT CASE ON THE COURT'S AGENDA IS MCKENZIE VERSUS STATE. >> MR. QUARLES LET'S HEAR ABOUT

Norman Blake McKenzie v. State of Florida SC >> THE NEXT CASE ON THE COURT'S AGENDA IS MCKENZIE VERSUS STATE. >> MR. QUARLES LET'S HEAR ABOUT The following is a real-time transcript taken as closed captioning during the oral argument proceedings, and as such, may contain errors. This service is provided solely for the purpose of assisting those

More information

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JANUARY TERM v. Case No. 5D

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JANUARY TERM v. Case No. 5D IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JANUARY TERM 2006 JOHN EDWARD DAVIS, Appellant, v. Case No. 5D05-2173 STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. / Opinion filed March 10, 2006 Appeal

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT MEIGS COUNTY

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT MEIGS COUNTY [Cite as State v. Smith, 2011-Ohio-965.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT MEIGS COUNTY STATE OF OHIO, : : Plaintiff-Appellee, : Case No. 09CA16 : vs. : Released: February 24, 2011

More information

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON Assigned on Briefs August 5, 2008

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON Assigned on Briefs August 5, 2008 IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON Assigned on Briefs August 5, 2008 STATE OF TENNESSEE v. NICHOLAS ALLEN MONTIETH Direct Appeal from the Circuit Court for Hardeman County 07-01-0431

More information

Dana Williamson v. State of Florida SC SC

Dana Williamson v. State of Florida SC SC The following is a real-time transcript taken as closed captioning during the oral argument proceedings, and as such, may contain errors. This service is provided solely for the purpose of assisting those

More information

ENTRY ORDER SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO JULY TERM, 2011

ENTRY ORDER SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO JULY TERM, 2011 Note: Decisions of a three-justice panel are not to be considered as precedent before any tribunal. ENTRY ORDER SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 2010-473 JULY TERM, 2011 In re Grievance of Lawrence Rosenberger

More information

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JANUARY TERM v. Case No. 5D

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JANUARY TERM v. Case No. 5D IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JANUARY TERM 2006 EDDIE MCHOLDER, Appellant, v. Case No. 5D04-3957 STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. / Opinion filed January 13, 2006 Appeal

More information

Warfield Raymond Wike v. State of Florida

Warfield Raymond Wike v. State of Florida The following is a real-time transcript taken as closed captioning during the oral argument proceedings, and as such, may contain errors. This service is provided solely for the purpose of assisting those

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION 0 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) Docket No. CR ) Plaintiff, ) Chicago, Illinois ) March, 0 v. ) : p.m. ) JOHN DENNIS

More information

Murphy v. State, 773 So.2d 1174 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000) (en banc). Affirmed.

Murphy v. State, 773 So.2d 1174 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000) (en banc). Affirmed. ACKER v. STATE Cite as 787 So.2d 77 (Fla.App. 2 Dist. 2001) Fla. 77 Murphy v. State, 773 So.2d 1174 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000) (en banc). Affirmed. ALTENBERND, A.C.J., and WHATLEY and NORTHCUTT, JJ., concur.,

More information

THE COURT: All right. Call your next witness. MR. JOHNSON: Agent Mullen, Terry Mullen. (BRIEF PAUSE) (MR. MULLEN PRESENT)

THE COURT: All right. Call your next witness. MR. JOHNSON: Agent Mullen, Terry Mullen. (BRIEF PAUSE) (MR. MULLEN PRESENT) not released. MR. WESTLING: Yes. I was just going to say that. THE COURT: ll right. Call your next witness. MR. JOHNSON: gent Mullen, Terry Mullen. (BRIEF PUSE) (MR. MULLEN PRESENT) THE COURT: Sir, if

More information

Supreme Court of Florida

Supreme Court of Florida Supreme Court of Florida PER CURIAM. No. SC13-2246 DERRICK TYRONE SMITH, Appellant, vs. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. [October 5, 2017] Derrick Tyrone Smith, a prisoner under sentence of death, appeals two

More information

The Privilege of Self-examination Rosh Hashanah, Day Two September 15, Tishrei 5776 Rabbi Van Lanckton Temple B nai Shalom Braintree, Massachus

The Privilege of Self-examination Rosh Hashanah, Day Two September 15, Tishrei 5776 Rabbi Van Lanckton Temple B nai Shalom Braintree, Massachus The Privilege of Self-examination Rosh Hashanah, Day Two September 15, 2015 2 Tishrei 5776 Rabbi Van Lanckton Temple B nai Shalom Braintree, Massachusetts The arraignment of Johnny Peanuts was my first

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before any court except for the purpose of establishing the defense of res judicata, collateral

More information

ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS

ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION III No. CACR09-80 JEFFREY PAUL GOLDEN V. STATE OF ARKANSAS APPELLANT APPELLEE Opinion Delivered SEPTEMBER 30, 2009 APPEAL FROM THE FAULKNER COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, [NO.

More information

Testimony of Detective Jimmy Patterson (2)

Testimony of Detective Jimmy Patterson (2) Testimony of Detective Jimmy Patterson (2) THE COURT: Mr. Mosty, are you ready? 20 MR. RICHARD C. MOSTY: Well, that 21 depends on what we're getting ready to do. 22 THE COURT: Well. All right. Where 23

More information

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF JACKSON COUNTY, MISSOURI AT INDEPENDENCE COMPLAINT. Count I. Murder 2nd Degree ( Y )

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF JACKSON COUNTY, MISSOURI AT INDEPENDENCE COMPLAINT. Count I. Murder 2nd Degree ( Y ) IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF JACKSON COUNTY, MISSOURI AT INDEPENDENCE POLICE NO. : 17-058838 PROSECUTOR NO. : 095440950 STATE OF MISSOURI, ) PLAINTIFF, ) vs. ) PATRICK L. BARKWELL ) 11409 E. Anderson, ) Sugar

More information

Girding for new trial in 1993 Lockmiller murder

Girding for new trial in 1993 Lockmiller murder Girding for new trial in 1993 Lockmiller murder By Pat Milhizer Law Bulletin staff writer A decision by the Illinois Supreme Court overturning his conviction for the murder of a college student made it

More information

Considered by DOYLE, P.J., MANSFIELD, J., and MILLER, S.J. FN*

Considered by DOYLE, P.J., MANSFIELD, J., and MILLER, S.J. FN* Slip Copy, 2010 WL 3894400 (Table) (Iowa App.) Judges and Attorneys Only the Westlaw citation is currently available. NOTICE: FINAL PUBLICATION DECISION PENDING Court of Appeals of Iowa. STATE of Iowa,

More information

MOTION TO SUPPRESS STATEMENTS

MOTION TO SUPPRESS STATEMENTS IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FOURTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR DUVAL COUNTY, FLORIDA. CASE NO.: 16-2013-CF-005781-AXXX-MA DIVISION: CR-D STATE OF FLORIDA vs. DONALD SMITH MOTION TO SUPPRESS STATEMENTS

More information

ASSEMBLIES OF THE LORD JESUS CHRIST

ASSEMBLIES OF THE LORD JESUS CHRIST ASSEMBLIES OF THE LORD JESUS CHRIST JUDICIAL PROCEDURE Printed: February 2006 ASSEMBLIES OF THE LORD JESUS CHRIST JUDICIAL PROCEDURE Printed: February 2006 JUDICIAL PROCEDURE INTRODUCTION The purpose of

More information

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS. No. 94-CF Appeal from the Superior Court of the District of Columbia

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS. No. 94-CF Appeal from the Superior Court of the District of Columbia Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the tlantic and Maryland Reporters. Users are requested to notify the Clerk of the Court of any formal errors so that corrections

More information

>> ALL RISE. SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA IS NOW IN SESSION. PLEASE BE SEATED. >> GOOD MORNING TO BOTH OF YOU. THE LAST CASE THIS WEEK IS CALLOWAY V.

>> ALL RISE. SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA IS NOW IN SESSION. PLEASE BE SEATED. >> GOOD MORNING TO BOTH OF YOU. THE LAST CASE THIS WEEK IS CALLOWAY V. >> ALL RISE. SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA IS NOW IN SESSION. PLEASE BE SEATED. >> GOOD MORNING TO BOTH OF YOU. THE LAST CASE THIS WEEK IS CALLOWAY V. STATE OF FLORIDA. >> GOOD MORNING, MY NAME IS SCOTT SAKIN,

More information

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED May 5, 2005 v No. 252308 Wayne Circuit Court ROBERT JARMEL ANDERSON, LC No. 03-007705-01 Defendant-Appellant.

More information

Perjury Warrant Denied Against Former DPD Deputy Chief James Tolbert

Perjury Warrant Denied Against Former DPD Deputy Chief James Tolbert KYM L. WORTHY PROSECUTING ATTORNEY COUNTY OF WAYNE OFFICE OF THE PROSECUTING ATTORNEY FRANK MURPHY HALL OF JUSTICE 1441 ST. ANTOINE STREET DETROIT, MICHIGAN 48226-2302 Press Release July 12, 2016 Five

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI BRANDY NICOLE WILLIAMS NO KA-1839-COA STATE OF MISSISSIPPI

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI BRANDY NICOLE WILLIAMS NO KA-1839-COA STATE OF MISSISSIPPI E-Filed Document Apr 4 2014 14:46:44 2012-KA-01839-COA Pages: 18 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI BRANDY NICOLE WILLIAMS APPELLANT VS. NO. 2012-KA-1839-COA STATE OF MISSISSIPPI APPELLEE

More information

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT CRITTENDEN COUNTY APPELLEES SECOND MOTION AND BRIEF FOR RECONSIDERATION

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT CRITTENDEN COUNTY APPELLEES SECOND MOTION AND BRIEF FOR RECONSIDERATION IN THE CIRCUIT COURT CRITTENDEN COUNTY PAM HICKS and JOHN MARK BYERS APPELLANTS v. CV-2012-290-6 THE CITY OF WEST MEMPHIS, ARKANSAS, and SCOTT ELLINGTON, in his Official Capacities as Prosecuting Attorney

More information

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED June 24, 2014 v No. 315267 Grand Traverse Circuit Court STEVEN RICHARD, LC No. 13-011510-FH Defendant-Appellant.

More information

COUNTY OF HENNEPIN FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT. Plaintiff, Defendant. hearing before the Honorable Daniel C. Moreno, one of

COUNTY OF HENNEPIN FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT. Plaintiff, Defendant. hearing before the Honorable Daniel C. Moreno, one of STTE OF MINNESOT DISTRICT COURT COUNTY OF HENNEPIN FOURTH JUDICIL DISTRICT State of Minnesota, Plaintiff, v. Chrishaun Reed McDonald, District Court File No. -CR-- TRNSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS Defendant. The

More information

Marshall Lee Gore vs State of Florida

Marshall Lee Gore vs State of Florida The following is a real-time transcript taken as closed captioning during the oral argument proceedings, and as such, may contain errors. This service is provided solely for the purpose of assisting those

More information

STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT ************

STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT ************ STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT 04-1399 WILLIAM T. LOWERY, SR. VERSUS GREGORY ALLEN HERBERT, ET AL ************ APPEAL FROM THE TWENTY-SEVENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, PARISH OF ST. LANDRY,

More information

Michael Duane Zack III v. State of Florida

Michael Duane Zack III v. State of Florida The following is a real-time transcript taken as closed captioning during the oral argument proceedings, and as such, may contain errors. This service is provided solely for the purpose of assisting those

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR CLARK COUNTY, OHIO. v. : T.C. NO. 08 CR 0399

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR CLARK COUNTY, OHIO. v. : T.C. NO. 08 CR 0399 [Cite as State v. Nelson, 2010-Ohio-383.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR CLARK COUNTY, OHIO STATE OF OHIO : Plaintiff-Appellee : C.A. CASE NO. 2008 CA 97 v. : T.C. NO. 08 CR 0399 DEREK NELSON : (Criminal

More information

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CARBON COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CRIMINAL DIVISION MEMORANDUM OPINION

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CARBON COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CRIMINAL DIVISION MEMORANDUM OPINION IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CARBON COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CRIMINAL DIVISION IN RE: PRIVATE CRIMINAL : COMPLAINT OF : NO. MD-042-2014 GERALD J. SMITH : Seth Miller, Esquire Cynthia A. Dyrda-Hatton Gerald

More information

No. 48,458-KA COURT OF APPEAL SECOND CIRCUIT STATE OF LOUISIANA * * * * * versus * * * * *

No. 48,458-KA COURT OF APPEAL SECOND CIRCUIT STATE OF LOUISIANA * * * * * versus * * * * * Judgment rendered November 20, 2013. Application for rehearing may be filed within the delay allowed by Art. 922, La. C.Cr.P. No. 48,458-KA COURT OF APPEAL SECOND CIRCUIT STATE OF LOUISIANA * * * * * STATE

More information

STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT **********

STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT ********** STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT 11-1326 STATE OF LOUISIANA VERSUS JOSEPH SAVOY ********** APPEAL FROM THE TWENTY-SEVENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT PARISH OF ST. LANDRY, NO. 08-K-5271-B

More information

vs. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee.

vs. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. No. 78,460 STEVEN EDWARD STEIN, Appellant, vs. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. [January 13, 19941 PER CURIAM. Steven Edward Stein appeals his convictions of two counts of first-degree murder and one count

More information

1 STATE OF WISCONSIN : CIRCUIT COURT : MANITOWOC COUNTY BRANCH vs. Case No. 05 CF 381

1 STATE OF WISCONSIN : CIRCUIT COURT : MANITOWOC COUNTY BRANCH vs. Case No. 05 CF 381 1 STATE OF WISCONSIN : CIRCUIT COURT : MANITOWOC COUNTY BRANCH 1 2 3 STATE OF WISCONSIN, 4 PLAINTIFF, 05 CF 381 5 vs. Case No. 05 CF 381 6 STEVEN A. AVERY, 7 DEFENDANT. 8 DATE: September 28, 2009 9 BEFORE:

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI JAMES LEE JOHNSON, III NO KA STATE OF MISSISSIPPI BRIEF FOR THE APPELLEE

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI JAMES LEE JOHNSON, III NO KA STATE OF MISSISSIPPI BRIEF FOR THE APPELLEE E-Filed Document May 9 2017 14:57:35 2016-KA-01406-COA Pages: 18 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI JAMES LEE JOHNSON, III APPELLANT VS. NO. 2016-KA-01406 STATE OF MISSISSIPPI APPELLEE

More information

No. 107,248 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. RUSSELL LEE SHUMWAY, Appellant, STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee. SYLLABUS BY THE COURT

No. 107,248 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. RUSSELL LEE SHUMWAY, Appellant, STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee. SYLLABUS BY THE COURT No. 107,248 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS RUSSELL LEE SHUMWAY, Appellant, v. STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee. SYLLABUS BY THE COURT 1. To establish ineffective assistance of counsel, a defendant

More information

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN NO. 03-04-00457-CR Bernard Malli, Appellant v. The State of Texas, Appellee FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 403RD JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. 3013458,

More information

MR. NELSON: Mr. Chief Justice, may it please the Court, counsel: I m somewhat caught up in where to begin. I think perhaps the first and most

MR. NELSON: Mr. Chief Justice, may it please the Court, counsel: I m somewhat caught up in where to begin. I think perhaps the first and most MR. NELSON: Mr. Chief Justice, may it please the Court, counsel: I m somewhat caught up in where to begin. I think perhaps the first and most important one of the most important things to say right now

More information

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION. No. 117,387 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. DAVID SMITH, Appellant, REX PRYOR, Warden, Appellee.

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION. No. 117,387 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. DAVID SMITH, Appellant, REX PRYOR, Warden, Appellee. NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION No. 117,387 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS DAVID SMITH, Appellant, v. REX PRYOR, Warden, Appellee. MEMORANDUM OPINION Appeal from Leavenworth District Court;

More information

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF JACKSON COUNTY, MISSOURI AT INDEPENDENCE

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF JACKSON COUNTY, MISSOURI AT INDEPENDENCE IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF JACKSON COUNTY, MISSOURI AT INDEPENDENCE POLICE NO. : 19-000697 PROSECUTOR NO. : 095451472 OCN: STATE OF MISSOURI, ) PLAINTIFF, ) vs. ) ) CLIFTON L. JACK ) 1404 NE Ivory Lane )

More information

First Group: OMOREGIE, NWOKEH and ODEGBUNE:

First Group: OMOREGIE, NWOKEH and ODEGBUNE: SENTENCING REMARKS OF HHJ CHRISTOPHER MOSS QC CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT 20 APRIL 2012 R V CHRISTOPHER OMOREGIE, OBI NWOKEH, SAMSON ODEGBUNE, FEMI OSERINWALE, ADONIS AKRA, SAMUEL ROBERTS, ENOCH AMOAH AND TYRONE

More information

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION. No. 117,712 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, SAWAN DILIP PATIDAR, Appellant.

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION. No. 117,712 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, SAWAN DILIP PATIDAR, Appellant. NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION No. 117,712 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, v. SAWAN DILIP PATIDAR, Appellant. MEMORANDUM OPINION Affirmed. Appeal from Dickinson

More information

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT. v. Case No. 5D

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT. v. Case No. 5D IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED DAVID SMITH, II, Appellant, v. Case No.

More information

Condcnsclt! Page 1. 6 Part 9. I don't think I could have anticipated the snow. 7 and your having to be here at 1:30 any better than I did.

Condcnsclt! Page 1. 6 Part 9. I don't think I could have anticipated the snow. 7 and your having to be here at 1:30 any better than I did. IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR BALTIMORE CITY, MARYLAND STATE OF MARYLAND, V. ADNAN SYEO, BEFORE: Defendant. Indictment Nos. 199100-6 REPORTER'S OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS (Trial on the Merita) Baltimore.

More information

JANUARY 22, 2014 STATE OF LOUISIANA NO KA-0397 VERSUS COURT OF APPEAL EDWARD AUGUSTINE FOURTH CIRCUIT STATE OF LOUISIANA * * * * * * *

JANUARY 22, 2014 STATE OF LOUISIANA NO KA-0397 VERSUS COURT OF APPEAL EDWARD AUGUSTINE FOURTH CIRCUIT STATE OF LOUISIANA * * * * * * * STATE OF LOUISIANA VERSUS EDWARD AUGUSTINE * * * * * * * * * * * NO. 2013-KA-0397 COURT OF APPEAL FOURTH CIRCUIT STATE OF LOUISIANA APPEAL FROM CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT ORLEANS PARISH NO. 504-596, SECTION

More information

COLUMBIA'S FIRST BAPTIST FACES LAWSUIT OVER FORMER DEACON'S CONDUCT

COLUMBIA'S FIRST BAPTIST FACES LAWSUIT OVER FORMER DEACON'S CONDUCT 1 of 8 1/17/2014 6:06 PM State, The (Columbia, SC) 2002-05-26 Section: FRONT Edition: FINAL Page: A1 COLUMBIA'S FIRST BAPTIST FACES LAWSUIT OVER FORMER DEACON'S CONDUCT RICK BRUNDRETT and ALLISON ASKINS

More information

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT January Term 2006

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT January Term 2006 TAYLOR, J. DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT January Term 2006 ANDRE LEON LEWIS, Appellant, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. No. 4D05-1958 [ June 21, 2006 ] Andre Lewis appeals

More information

FILED: ONONDAGA COUNTY CLERK 11/16/ :25 AM

FILED: ONONDAGA COUNTY CLERK 11/16/ :25 AM FILED: ONONDAGA COUNTY CLERK 11/16/2016 09:25 AM STATE OF NEW YORK CICERO TOWN COURT COUNTY OF ONONDAGA INDEX NO. 2016EF4347 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 36 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/16/2016 TOWN OF CICERO, Petitioner, MOTIONS

More information

No. 51,498-KA COURT OF APPEAL SECOND CIRCUIT STATE OF LOUISIANA * * * * * versus * * * * *

No. 51,498-KA COURT OF APPEAL SECOND CIRCUIT STATE OF LOUISIANA * * * * * versus * * * * * Judgment rendered August 9, 2017. Application for rehearing may be filed within the delay allowed by Art. 992, La. C. Cr. P. No. 51,498-KA COURT OF APPEAL SECOND CIRCUIT STATE OF LOUISIANA * * * * * STATE

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO [Cite as State v. Smith, 2008-Ohio-2561.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO STATE OF OHIO, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. CHRISTOPHER SMITH, Defendant-Appellant. :

More information

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b) File Name: 15a0209p.06 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT JAMES HOLLAND, JR., v. STEVEN RIVARD, Warden,

More information

Supreme Court of Florida

Supreme Court of Florida Supreme Court of Florida PER CURIAM. No. SC07-1167 HERMAN LINDSEY, Appellant, vs. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. [July 9, 2009] Herman Lindsey appeals from a conviction of first-degree murder and a sentence

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI JOHNNY MCINNIS APPELLANT VS. NO.2008-KA-1576 STATE OF MISSISSIPPI APPELLEE BRIEF FOR THE APPELLEE APPELLEE DOES NOT REQUEST ORAL ARGUMENT JIM HOOD, ATTORNEY

More information

A Word of Caution: Consequences of Confession

A Word of Caution: Consequences of Confession A Word of Caution: Consequences of Confession Vida B. Johnson I. INTRODUCTION Once you are accused of a crime, no one likes you anymore. The police officer so detested you that he arrested you and put

More information

Daniel Lugo v. State of Florida SC

Daniel Lugo v. State of Florida SC The following is a real-time transcript taken as closed captioning during the oral argument proceedings, and as such, may contain errors. This service is provided solely for the purpose of assisting those

More information