Thompson, Timothy Randal, WR-63,871-03

Background

Timothy Randal Thompson was convicted of murder in 2001 and sentenced to 25 years; conviction was affirmed on direct appeal.
Thompson filed multiple habeas applications raising (1) challenges to the State’s DNA evidence and trial counsel’s handling of it, and (2) later claims of ineffective trial and appellate counsel; trial-counsel witnesses testified at live habeas hearings in 2015.
In a 2015 supplemental habeas filing Thompson alleged the crime-scene investigator, Mark Ball, gave false testimony that he did not find bullets or bullet holes when he searched Thompson’s living-room floor on March 31, 2000.
In 2008, forensic examiner Edward Hueske recovered two bullets from the living-room floor; in 2015 he concluded those bullets were fired from Thompson’s pistol. Thompson contends this contradicts Ball’s trial testimony and violated due process.
The State argues Ball’s testimony was not proven false (he testified about what he personally found and acknowledged he might have missed items), the defense was able to attack the investigation at trial, the self-defense theory was presented to the jury through other evidence, and any inaccuracy was not material to conviction or punishment.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Ball gave false or perjured testimony about not finding bullets/bullet holes	Ball testified he searched and found none; Hueske later recovered bullets from the floor and tied them to Thompson’s gun, proving Ball’s testimony false	Ball testified as to what he personally observed and acknowledged he could have missed bullets; nothing shows he intentionally lied or that his testimony as a whole was false	Ball did not present proven false testimony; at most an arguable inaccuracy or sloppy investigation, not deliberate falsehood
Whether any falsity was material to guilt (due-process violation)	The post‑trial discovery that bullets from the floor matched Thompson’s gun creates a reasonable likelihood the jury’s verdict was affected	The defense extensively attacked investigation at trial; Thompson presented multiple self-defense versions and physical evidence (casings, gun); Thompson’s own conduct undermined self-defense; review of the entire record shows no reasonable likelihood the verdict was affected	Any purported falsity was not material to the conviction; no due-process violation established
Whether any falsity was material to sentencing	Ball’s testimony was relevant to guilt and scene facts	Sentencing evidence included abundant other, independent unattributable-to-Ball aggravating evidence (prior conduct, drug history, admissions, efforts to dispose of body)	No reasonable likelihood Ball’s testimony affected sentencing
Whether this case is controlled by precedents finding due-process violations for false testimony	Thompson relies on cases where false testimony was central and proved (e.g., a witness later shown by DNA to be the perpetrator)	The State distinguishes those cases: there the false testimony was key, proven scientifically false, and sometimes deliberate; here Ball’s testimony was only one piece and not conclusively disproved	Precedents finding due-process violations (e.g., where testimony was proven false and material) are factually distinguishable; they do not compel relief here

Key Cases Cited

Ex parte Chavez, 371 S.W.3d 200 (Tex. Crim. App.) (false testimony—materiality and reasonable-likelihood standard for due-process violation)
Ex parte Robbins, 360 S.W.3d 446 (Tex. Crim. App.) (due-process inquiry does not require proof of perjury, only falsity and materiality)
Alcorta v. Texas, 355 U.S. 28 (U.S. 1957) (jury misimpression from false evidence can violate due process)
Ex parte Chabot, 300 S.W.3d 768 (Tex. Crim. App.) (false witness testimony proved by scientific testing that was central to conviction)
Ex parte Ghahremani, 332 S.W.3d 470 (Tex. Crim. App.) (materiality and prosecutorial knowledge relevant in false-testimony/Brady-type claims)