Hernandez, Ritchie Elbert AKA Hernandez, Ritchie E.
WR-84,080-01
| Tex. App. | Nov 2, 2015Background
- Applicant Ritchie Hernandez filed a habeas application claiming ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to investigate whether the knife found by police could have been the murder weapon.
- Hernandez submitted an affidavit from retained crime-scene expert Edward E. Hueske concluding the discovered knife could not have been the murder weapon.
- The district court adopted the State’s proposed findings and conclusions without holding an evidentiary hearing and found counsel not ineffective, characterizing Hueske as unqualified and his opinions unsupported.
- Hernandez contends Hueske is highly qualified (CV attached) and that qualification and opinion reliability were credibility issues requiring live testimony and cross‑examination.
- Hernandez asks the Court of Criminal Appeals to reject the district court’s recommendation and order an evidentiary hearing to test Hueske’s qualifications and opinions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate the knife as the murder weapon | Hernandez: counsel failed to investigate; expert affidavit shows knife could not be murder weapon | State/District Ct.: Hueske unqualified; affidavit unreliable; no hearing needed | District court denied relief without hearing; Hernandez seeks reversal and live evidentiary hearing |
| Whether the habeas court erred by resolving expert-qualification/credibility on paper | Hernandez: qualification and credibility are live issues requiring a hearing and cross-examination | State: adopted written findings; relied on record to reject expert | Hernandez argues district court improperly decided credibility from CV/affidavit alone |
| Whether an evidentiary (gatekeeping) hearing was required before excluding expert opinion in habeas | Hernandez: Rule 702 gatekeeping and precedent require a hearing in advance of admitting/excluding expert testimony | State: proceeded via proposed findings without hearing | Hernandez urges remand for a live hearing to apply Rule 702 standards |
| Whether denial of an evidentiary hearing violated petitioner’s right to full and fair hearing/discovery | Hernandez: factual dispute entitles petitioner to discovery/hearing under Fifth Circuit precedent | State: no full hearing afforded | Hernandez requests relief (remand/hearing); district court recommendation to deny challenged |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. State, 17 S.W.3d 664 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000) (trial court should hold hearing to determine if expert meets Rule 702)
- Shaw v. State, 329 S.W.3d 645 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2010) (trial court held hearing outside jury and found expert qualified)
- Alba v. State, 905 S.W.2d 581 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995) (hearing on admissibility of expert testimony is mandatory upon timely request)
- Coble v. State, 330 S.W.3d 253 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (trial judge must perform gatekeeping analysis for scientific evidence when requested)
- Charles v. State, 146 S.W.3d 204 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004) (affidavits are useful to identify disputed facts but not always suited to resolve credibility)
- Ex parte Byars, 176 S.W.3d 841 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (cross-examination is the crucible for testing witness reliability; concurring emphasis)
- Perillo v. Johnson, 79 F.3d 441 (5th Cir. 1996) (petitioner entitled to discovery when factual dispute, if resolved for petitioner, could entitle to relief and no full evidentiary hearing was afforded)