Ford, Jon Thomas, PD-1396-14

Ford was convicted of murder based largely on historical cell tower data (HCD), ATM photos, and DNA on a towel covering the victim’s face.
Evidence tied Ford to the victim’s condo vicinity around the time of death on New Year’s Eve/Day 2008–2009; defense attacked timing and links, including alibi and potential contamination.
State used AT&T records obtained via court order under Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 18.21 and 18 U.S.C. § 2703 to place Ford near the scene; warrants and affidavits were challenged.
Trial included demonstrative weapons (hole punch and power cord) whose probative value was disputed, and the State argued about speculative inferences tying them to the crime.
Ford challenged the admissibility and sufficiency of the evidence on multiple grounds (including Fourth Amendment issues, new-trial claims, and jury-note handling); the appellate court affirmed the conviction.
The Court of Appeals upheld the jury verdict and refused Ford’s requested relief; Ford petitions for discretionary review citing constitutional and evidentiary concerns.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether warrantless HCD collection violated the Fourth Amendment	Ford argues HCD was involuntary and a search	State contends third-party data is not protected; data was lawfully obtained	No; court held warrantless HCD admissible under applicable law
Whether use of third-party cell-site data violated Richardson or Fourth Amendment protections	Ford asserts third-party doctrine does not apply under Richardson/Constitution	State relies on third-party doctrine and Barfield-style rationale	Court affirmed use of HCD; data not excluded under the doctrine
Whether evidence supported murder conviction beyond a reasonable doubt given reliance on speculative links	Ford contends weapons, timing, and other links were speculative	State argues circumstantial evidence suffices when combined	Conviction sustained; evidence viewed cumulatively supported guilt beyond reasonable doubt
Whether court erred in denying new-trial based on newly discovered evidence and juror issues	Ford asserts new experts and juror bias require new trial	State contends evidence not newly discovered; juror bias lacking diligence	Denied; four-part standard satisfied and no abuse of discretion

Richardson v. State, 865 S.W.2d 844 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993) (pen register as search under Texas Constitution; third-party records)
Hooper v. State, 214 S.W.3d 9 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (sufficiency review; speculation not allowed for conviction)
Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (U.S. 1979) (sufficiency standard for criminal evidence)
Kyllo v. United States, 533 U.S. 27 (U.S. 2001) (privacy in information from home matters)
United States v. Jones, 132 S. Ct. 945 (2012) (GPS tracking; Fourth Amendment privacy interest in location data)
Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735 (U.S. 1979) (pen register/third-party disclosure doctrine background)
Barfield v. State, 416 S.W.3d 743 (Tex. App.—Houston (14th Dist.) 2013) (third-party data and privacy expectations; Barfield relied on historical data)
In re U.S. for Historical Cell Site Data, 724 F.3d 600 (5th Cir. 2013) (federal circuit approach to historical cell-site data)
Richardson v. State, 865 S.W.2d 944 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993) (discusses voluntary exposure to third parties and privacy expectations)
Madrigal v. State, 347 S.W.3d 809 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 2011) (evidence must be probative and not merely speculative)