*1 925 said, lice Chief Harold Hurtt has “I think very prudent Dominique
it would be sys- for a Ex Parte us as Jerome tem, justice GREEN, a system, Applicant. criminal delay to further executions until op- we’ve had an No. WR-45219-03. portunity to re-examine evidence that Court of Criminal of Appeals Texas. played particular a in role the conviction of an individual that was sentenced to death.” 26, Oct. 2004. The Houston Police Chief does not have Court, Appeal from the 262nd District confidence in the reliability of the evidence Anderson, County; Harris Mike Judge. in
used cases such as applicant’s. the Charlton, Houston, Michael B. Ap- for In application his original for habeas pellant. relief, corpus the applicant notes that seri- Roady, Atty., Jack Asst. District Hous- ous concerns have been raised about the ton, Paul, Austin, Atty., Matthew State’s firearms identification unit of the HPD for State. applicant’s crime lab. The conviction was based on firearms identification evidence. PRICE, J., filed a dissenting statement Until addressed, these concerns have been to the dismissal of the application. writ I would not any execute defendant whose conviction was had on the basis of evidence STATEMENT processed at the HPD crime lab. I continue to believe that the Court stay should the in execution this case be-
Because a death sentence cannot be re- problems cause of the with the Houston out, versed once earned I grant would a Department Police Crime Lab.1 I write stay of execution in this case until the again disagree because I with the Court’s evidence used to convict applicant the can conclusion applicant that the not has met be independently verified. I suggest that requirements the of Code of Criminal Pro- there be a moratorium on all executions in 11.071, cedure Article 5. Section cases where convictions were had based on evidence from the HPD crime lab until the Section 5 permits the to Court consider reliability of the evidence has been veri- the merits of a subsequent application for fied. corpus writ of habeas if the factual basis for the claim was unavailable when the Because a majority of the Court votes applicant initial application.2 filed his Sec- otherwise, I respectfully dissent. 5(e) says tion that the “a factual a basis of
claim is unavailable on or
a
before
date
(a)(1)
by
described
Subsection
if the factu-
al basis was not
through
ascertainable
the
exercise of
diligence
reasonable
on or be-
fore that date.”
applicant’s
The
application
initial
was
31,
May
denied
problems
2000. The
with
the
Department
Houston Police
Crime
Green,
(Tex.
1.
parte
11.071,
See Ex
5(a)(1).
Lab did not come to late jury in requirements improper has of results in conduct the applicant The met the that affects the ver- impermissibly met the room Section 5. Once a defendant has 5, improper speculation Here it was requirements of re- dict. Section we should case, may In it a findings parole. about another be convicting mand the court for to juror using personal experience, unrelated of law.3 of fact and conclusions bar, to the at to influence the vote of case grant stay I of and would the execution jurors, juror such as a who has been other findings. case Because a remand the for burglarized talking about the sense of vio- otherwise, of the votes I majority Court urging lation feel and that such victims respectfully dissent. punishment conviction or severe based not juror’s burglary, the but on the own on JOHNSON, J., a filed statement in to response a differ- emotional distress of dissenting to the dismissal the writ not the burglary. ent We should invade PRICE, J., joined. apphcation, in which jury purpose, pro- room for little but due way that be a to ad- cess demands there STATEMENT 606(b) dress blatant misconduct. Rule trial, applicant’s at During deliberations A any process. examination of the bars juror of at one considered the effects least if are jury trial be fair deliberations cannot Jury parole on the sentence. instructions tainted. always include an instruction that this is juror an
not to done. This submitted be have applicant It is that could said she affidavit that states that beheved at in writ. point previous raised this his Giv- applicant the that could would be time or 606(b), clearly Rule even if he en estab- jury paroled years in as few five if the as newly it discovered evi- lished that was a of did assess sentence death. She not dence, inability The he could not raise it. that speculated during also deliberations a jury is violation challenge to misconduct this true. was a applicant’s right process and of to due trial. respectfully fair I dissent. that, appli- the of
The truth is at time trial, parole the minimum time for cant’s thirty- murder
eligibility capital for was years to
five and has since been increased trial, juries
forty At time of his years. the eligibility
were not of minimum advised changed, juries That has and
times. also mini- forty-year
are advised of the now appli- That not avail for this mum. does BRIGGS, parte Brandy Ex DEL speculation cannot if cant. know that We Applicant. jury, the but we do affected the decision of No. WR-60515-01. ig- specific know that instructions were nored. of Appeals Texas. Court of Criminal argues that Rule of The state under 17, Nov. 2004. 606(b), juror may impeach not Evidence a jury. a the or deliberations of verdict the that impulse produced that rule
While the 11.071, 6(b). §
3. Crim. Proc. Art. Tex.Code