*1 670 аsking practice ine unfair insurance might such evidence be discoverable
While (e.g., prove to motive or case. some cases id.), intent, see why reneg- it is hard to see Accordingly, hearing argu- without oral offer makes ing on some other settlement ment, conditionally grant we the writ of probable it more or less the insurer and direct the trial court mandamus 192.3; Tex.R. P. reneged on this one. Civ. discovery vacate its order and reconsider Tex.R. Evid. 401. scope permissible discovery light Tex.R.App. 52.8(c). See P. opinion. of this plaintiffs argue the defen if The writ will issue the trial court objections by preserve dants failed to their comply. fails to failing provide regarding why details discovery But here was burdensome. objected requests plaintiffs’ Allstate (and by necessity thus over-
as irrelevant
broad). requests for irrelevant Overbroad whether are improper
information are not,
burdensome or so the defendants required
were not to detail what might encompass. Corp., See In re CSX SCOTT, Appellant, Michael 153; 124 In re Pac. Res. S.W.3d Union v. (Tex.1999). Co., S.W.3d of Texas. The STATE plaintiffs argue also the defen PD-0862-05. No. objections by obscuring dants waived their objec unfounded them amidst numerous of Texas. Appeals Court Criminal 193.2(e). P. Allstate tions. See Tex.R. Civ. 6, 2007. June plaintiffs’ objected every one of the requests ground on the it owed no
discovery standing with no party action it. Even if
bring against a direct (an objection unfounded issue we reach), it did not obscure Allstate’s
do and over-
objections regarding relevance
breadth. discovery necessarily re-
“Reasonable” proportion. sense of With
quires some of a
today’s technology, it is the work discovery request every to reissue
moment sent to an insurer before.
one has ever request
But definition such a is not In re
“reasonably tailored.” See Graco Prods., 598, 601 210 S.W.3d
Children’s
(Tex.2006) CSX, curiam); 124 S.W.3d (per scope limited
at 152. Given the issue, and the amount at
plaintiffs’ claims by compelling discov-
the trial court erred imag- could
ery everything plaintiffs *2 Austin, Payan, Appellant.
Ariel for Case, Jr., D.A., Bryan Asst. Mat- Carl Paul, Austin, Attorney, thew State’s State.
OPINION
PRICE, J.,
opinion
delivered the
Court,
WOMACK, JOHNSON,
in which
COCHRAN, J.J., joined.
HOLCOMB
Scott, was con-
appellant,
Michael
victed of the offense of murder
into evidence
robbery
capital
the content of
statement
burglary,
of a
course
trial,
held the
offense,
during
for his involvement
the so-called
under the
occurred in
error to be harmless
constitu-
“Yogurt Shop Murders” that
analysis embodied in Rule
prior,
of 1991. In a
tional-harm
Austin December
*3
44.2(a)
сo-defendant,
trial,
Appellate
of the Texas Rules of
his
Robert
separate
peti-
capital
also convicted of
Procedure.4 We refused
State’s
Springsteen, was
review,
offense,
discretionary
which chal-
tion for
murder for this
and sentenced
holding
appeals
the court of
lenged the
of
Supreme
death. After the United States
juve-
that constitutional error occurred. But we
declared that the execution of
Court
petition for discre-
Eighth
granted
appellant’s
Amend-
nile offenders violates the
Simmons,1
ment,
tionary
challenges
review in which he
Roper v.
Governor
appeals’s determination
sentence to court of
Springsteen’s
commuted
death
beyond a
error was harmless
jury
life in
The
constitutional
prison.
a term of
however,
case,
reasonable doubt.5
appellant’s
answered the
way
a
that the
special
first
issue
such
appellant’s petition
granting the
Since
him in
obliged
trial court was
to sentence
review,
resolved
discretionary
we have
imprisonment.2
to life
the first
instance
unpub-
In an
Springsteen’s
appeal.6
direct
his
Accordingly,
appellant prosecuted
Springsteen’s
we reversed
opinion,
lished
appeal
Appeals.
in the Third Court of
a
remanded his cause for
conviction and
trial,
trial court erred
holding
new
that his
the issues that
Among
excerpts
admit
claim that
under
appeal
raised on
was the
Crawford
into evi-
police
of
statement
appellant’s
trial court erred to admit evidence
him,
finding that
against
expressly
statement
dence
Springsteen’s
content of
beyond a rea-
harmless
objection that
this error was not
appellant’s
over the
holding
Springs-
doubt.7 Our
rights under the Confron-
sonable
this violated his
course,
not,
mandate
appeal
In
teen’s
does
tation
of the Sixth Amendment.
Clause
judgment
of the court
appeals
that we reverse
published opinion,
the court of
erred,
case. Never-
appeals
appellant’s
the trial court
acknowledged
theless,
ap-
facts of the
particular
on the
Washington,3
v.
to admit
under Crawford
review,
551,
1183,
the court
subject to harmless error
THE AND FACTS PROCEDURAL necks, around their and Jennifer’s hands POSTURE back, if were found behind her she had bound, though binding been no was discov- Undisputed Facts8 *4 her ered. Eliza’s hands were tied behind p.m. night Friday, At 11:47 on the of bra, back and Sarah’s were similar- with 6, 1991, firefighters December were called of Both ly pair panties. bound with a “I Yogurt” shop to the Can’t Believe It’s gagged.10 Eliza and had been Sarah (hereinafter, “yogurt in north shop”) Aus- There was evidence that Sarah had been tin. In burning the back establish- assaulted, sexually scoop lay and a metal ment found the nude bodies of four legs.11 on the floor between her teenage girls: seventeen-year-old Eliza yogurt shop The front door of the Harbison, Thomas and Jennifer who both locked, key single with a in the door on the yogurt shop; fifteen-year- worked at the obviously inside. The Harbison, been sister; old Sarah Jennifer’s their friend, closing-up the middle of routine when thirteen-year-old Amy Ay- Sarah’s killings firefighters occurred. The dis- ers. The .22 caliber top wound to the door, Amy’s fatal, covered that the back which ordinari- head was not but she had ly throughout been shot a second time in remained closed and locked the back of the shift, evening head with a .380 caliber had been left “cracked weapon, which open,” killed her.9 The other Al- apparently three were shot assailants. fatally bullets, though the back of the head with a .22 all four .22 caliber weapon. Amy’s caliber body casing, was located .380 caliber bullet and shell were three, apart recovered, from other on her stom- never were able police ach. A forensically any particular knotted t-shirt was found beneath match them her. had a weapon. She bruise on the inside of her An office in the back store lip which was consistent with a blow or a remained locked was never entered body fall. Eliza’s had been “stacked” on during the offense. The revenue from the During arguments, may 8. prosecu- ligature final around neck The Jennifer’s commented, long tors “This been a trial. has gag away have been a that had fallen from longest I think to date it has been the trial suggest- her mouth. There was no evidence county.” ever tried in this We do not know contrast, ing strangled. Amy By she had been whether this is an accurate observation. But strangled, been but she was still alive summary likely no of the evidencе is to com- gunshot when she suffered the wounds. pletely justice length complexity do to the of the trial. variously 11. The identifies this as a record scoop scoop. metal and an ice The court of 9. The was indicted and convicted appeals scoop.” it an "ice Scott called cream capital Amy for the offense of the murder of State, supra, patholo- v. 33. The forensic Ayers by shooting strangling her or her gist vaginal found abrasions that were consis- robbery burglary. course of The having sexually been assault- tent Sarah was authorized to convict him either as a primary scoop. party actor or as a to the offense. ed with the handle of this metal voluntarily days, submit- already “dropped” into six
day shift had been lengthy interrogations three dif- in ted a “slot” in the floor safe that was located detectives, combinations, ferent various office, but not the revenue from the locked culminating gave in a written statement he estimated night shift. Some $540 September yet a fourth detective missing night to be from the shift’s busi- 14th, essentially summarizing the informa- ness. had elicited from him dur- police tion that effort, Despite investigative an extensive ing interrogations. those re- until, in Septem- the crime went unsolved interrogations, and corded these various that had ber of a task force been eighteen hours of video and audio record- to review the organized year before played jury during for the trial. ings appel- to re-interview the cold case decided statement written lant, days interrogation, and after ob- through first introduced the State’s wit- inculpatory tained an written statement. jury. aloud to the As it ness and read forensic evidence Because there was no record, reporter’s it reads appears offense, the tying part: in pertinent critically upon con- depended State’s case *5 6, 1991, my I with On December was vincing that his confession was Maurice, Springsteen, Rob friends reliable, of a six-weеk and over the course * * * Forrest. trial, the defense team de- guilt phase at sitting Mall We were Northcross voted the bulk of its cross-examination at the food court. Mau- challenging that a round table case-in-chief evidence to get needed to brought up rice reliability. I remember money. don’t some Appellant’s discussed, Statement but I about what was specifics brought that this is what do know —what murders, on'De- Eight days after the all this to be. brought what [sic] 14, 1991, had arrested six- police cember * * * Rob talked Maurice and teen-year-old Maurice Pierce at North- They said this would robbing place. a Mall, yogurt shop, close to the cross money. way to some be the easiest along pistol, of a .22 caliber possession fifteen-year-old companion, Pierce’s with * * * exactly what I remember don’t questioned the Forrest Welborn. Police was, daylight. We time it but it was still shop killings, and the yogurt two about the Maurice said were all at the table when they independently questioned day next around. I and look go we needed to roommate, Springs- and his appellant, find he wanted to believed him to mean teen, any involvement as well. All denied place a to rob. murders, testing forensic and later left, driving was his we Maurice pistol as the murder When failed to establish sitting LTD. Rob was gray dad’s Ford In launched review weapon. I sat back be- in front seat. case, “tip” right Pierce the cold and the inwas 9, 1999, Forrest de- hind the driver. September re-examined. On around me. drove with We back seat arranged question tectives around the at the businesses Pierce’s and looked knowledge to his respect up to the drove area. We night of the murders. Northcross whereabouts Believe It’s the I Can’t strip mall where they began Shortly into the interview at the at. looked Yogurt shop was We withholding suspect that the Mau- at the mall. that were of the next businesses information. Over the course something through parking rice was the one that said like drove back We go “lets inside and take a look at the lot and then back the rear building I was on yogurt shop.” store. remember side, left the car. the driver’s side of bought Maurice went doors, just stopped past the double We swirl, chocolate and vanilla. I followed past not more that 50 feet the doors. down, I Rob inside. sat and Rob came only thing Forrest that the Maurice told something over and said me and we that he had to do was honk the horn if got up and made it look like we were coming. anyone was going to the restroom. I pulled gun. Maurice out his believe talking
Maurice at the counter I that he had it between the seat. to at least one of the I girls. remember gun know Rob had because he looked talking that he was to the dark-haired at it before went inside to make sure we girl. supposed Maurice was to distract it was loaded. Before we went Mau- them. Rob and I walked out the back rice told me to make that I brought sure and walked around to the front of the Zippo lighter the can of fluid. It was building. got When we around to the * * * front, bigger metal can. I believe already Maurice was car Maurice wanted to use it to cover our eating yogurt. tracks. We drove back to mall and we sat * n * at the just same table. went into the back door. Maurice We We talking, first, Rob, not about fixing what was went in then and then I fol- happen. lowed them. One of the said some- *6 like, you, you
thing hey, doing? what are belong girl You don’t here. This was I walked around the mall with Rob. wearing a T-shirt I believe that had the ran again We into Maurice we when name “I Believe it. Yogurt” Can’t it’s on were walking around. Maurice told us working I in the that it believe she was go. got was time to We back into back we the back. his car. room when entered driving. Maurice was I inwas seat, stay right to and there stop Rob told me back and Rob and Forrest anyone and not let out the back. We were the car with us. We drove surprised expected were all we neighborhood around because more. I think girls to find two inside the store we looking were for a route to take and girls up and there were two other at the there cops was talk about how often the dining sitting front in the room area drove around and if there a general was commotion going down. I could see the route drove around in. on front. I remember Maurice told I know it was dark when we left me to check the front door to make sure Mall. Northcross Most of the busi- it locked. He to also told me check got nesses were closed when we over to anyone to see if there was out front that yogurt shop. drove We across the could see us. lot and parking through alley drove behind the stores. We wanted to see if I checked the door and it was locked. parked there was in the key vehicles There was one the lock. The back, any people or if there were locked. I looked outside to back door was there. I in. looking believe we even wanted to see make sure no one was As slight- got if the double doors I more along back were still this went more and ly register I open. open. scared. heard the cash last turned being
I lifted and lock one time and around to heard drawer happened. I girls back. Maurice at the see what One slammed saw already and I him some- dead. I think Maurice register put cash saw shot shot, myself thing pocket. thought in his I that one. After the Maurice said just fuck put money pock- again that he had “Where in the is rest of money?” et. And there was second shot. girls All the were in the back with Rob, I looked out check the front I went to the back and saw and
Rob. say something girls I heard he had one of the dark-haired again. Maurice on rest of the her hands and knees and he’s raping like “Where fuck is the her, crying raping I heard and her hard. I told Rob money?” girls right. all not girls one of the said “That’s there is. this wasn’t That’s what he already you up, here I dropped It’s been can’t came for. Rob stood if I did get tо it.” don’t know he finished. not see his dick. say, help I me heard Rob “Come with I went back there and he wanted I know that Maurice was back this.” tying up. gone them I into help When went back there with Rob. Maurice girls girls I were an office and one of the there saw all four he had down I way squatting I believe him. He was naked. this is open a pulling trying I don’t remember think she was safe or because something. I me to do pile their clothes off. went to the Rob told girls. clothes to I it was the one that picked up clothes and some believe T- up. just them I he had use to tie remember did.
shirt and a bra we used to tie them pussy He told me not to be and told up. didn’t, if I I was next. We laid me then got I on crying whimper- top floor and not to I from the front. I ing. They were for us her. tried do her begging want to They kill them. didn’t want looked at her. I didn’t look said *7 paper put piece terry a it face. had a of white got die. I towel and her She I girls’ I towel on mouth. looked inside one of the mouth. remem- cloth her to see my finger through away because I didn’t want her. pushed ber that I get up I it in her I couldn’t it because knew trying towel when was to stuff * * * may doing wrong. so I was mouth. This not have worked I what was make Rob think I something else to I sort of faked it to may have had use I remember got up mouth. white like did her. and either stuff in her It was to finish telling The on their me her. terry girls cloth. Maurice Rob I were stand- knees. don’t believe I remember revolver grabbing I at looking because down ing up was Maurice. me to finish her. from He told them. the floor I girl was still on I tried to pointed gun me to front. at her and shoot
Rob told check the told me to what it first but couldn’t. Maurice up front and remember went pointed I trying I next. do it or would be sounded like of the fired into screaming saying gun again at the once Maurice scream. was pushed I me mon- her head. Rob the fuck is the rest of the remember ‘Where was in the I a a crack. It sound- toward Maurice. Maurice ey?” bang, heard I girl. I other room with the other don’t gun going like a off. checked ed safe, I seeing you rеmember but I don’t a nice knife. I told all before that doing keys, remember what she was down on had taken a set of but it was a the floor. knife. I remember now that it was a knife. looking doorway
I remember already I Rob and were back gun my and the is still in hand. Mau- I it, got if car when Maurice there. asked rice asked Rob I did and Rob said “Yea, Maurice where Forrest was. He said he finished her.” Maurice tole * * n me, I you that he must have took off. neck-deep already. are this I think we were in there about 20 to 25 profile girl. saw the side had She I’m sure. were in the minutes. not We like white shirt on. I think she had car, way and on the out we saw Forrest. standing right dark hair. Rob was somewhere, parking He was in the lot there and he had the small semiautomat- picked up. and we him gun. ic I driving, I remember but don’t re- not I puss. Rob told me to be a think member what direction we went. We I shot her the head. I’ve been not stopped bridge. at some It was about wanting remember this. I know I away shop. 10 to 15 minutes from the I you have told something differ- [sic] got up out and threw over the raihng ent, I did her too because Maurice bridge. I took the knife and threw pressuring Rob were me. I it over rail also. I it made sure was dropped the revolver. Maurice was mad gone. I I remember trees and don’t at me. He lighter asked me where the seeing any I got remember water. back thought fluid was and I had I had left into the car. I don’t know what hap- in the car. go He told me to out to the I at pened being next. remember back car and it. apartment. I looked at Forrest I and then looked = nn n gUn that Maurice had was the floorboard and picked revolver, a black .22 caliber small. I lighter say fluid. Forrest did grips. gun think it had wood I word. went back inside. Rob told me a small semiautomatic pis- Rob place. to burn the I girls laying saw the clip. tol. It had a I think it a .38. pulled there and I one of the girls top -writing gun Some of the on the of the other. Rob was I watching me as scratched off. gathered up napkins, cups, paper split up and I from Mauriсe and Rob piled top towels and them on spent Forrest. Rob and I some time at girls. sprayed three I Zippo top fluid on *8 apartment. girls. emptied I lighter the can of fluid. I a Zippo lighter with me and I that I got remember on the weekend I lit the fire. I heard a whoosh sound of yellow gold jeep Mary. into a to see caught the accelerant when it fire. Mary camp is a I met at music who Helotes, in lives which is near San Anto- I don’t remember what I did nio. can. I pile could have threw on the in the I I think For- driving
stuff back of the store. remem- Maurice was my only and I rode with thought bered rest was with us. Rob stayed out. I went outside and remembered them to Antonio. We there San I a anymore. maybe got that Forest was not in the car an hour. a hold of news- reading I a I shop. paper, had taken knife from inside the remember I I murders. I got yogurt shop believe it off the counter. It was the fire and the offense), Morgan after the everybody. (presumably We
read it out loud to boys At this time she again. ran into the drove back to Austin. boys the two she did not saw that one of of the evidence was The balance State’s thought appel- it had been the know—she jury that convincing the devoted to lant, the butt she was uncertain —had reliable, sufficiently written confession was sticking out of his waistband.13 gun of a evidence, to by other because corroborated justify guilty a verdict. investigator analyze The first arson scene, Depart- Fire from the Austin The Remainder of the Evidence ment, that the fire started on concluded was in mother testified she Eliza’s in room where along shelf a wall the back 8:30 yogurt shop sometime between appel- were found. After the the bodies mur- night on the of the p.m. and 10:00 1999, however, in lant’s confession time, teenage boys During that two ders. opinion from a fire sought State second boys one of the shop, came into the Alcohol, Tobac- from the Bureau expert A asked for the location of bathroom. expert, This second who cо and Firearms. Jones, witness, two Lucelia saw second itself, concluded the scene never viewed shop approx- at teenage boys yogurt in the actually originated on the fire had witness, p.m. Yet a third imately 8:15 paper products placed styrofoam cups and Croft, “young man” Dearl observed three stacked bodies top of the who shop p.m. at about 10:00 yogurt room, just as the center of the of the go to the back asked be allowed After in his written statement. asserted of these shop to the restroom. None use agent’s report ATF reviewing the appel- identified the specifically witnesses arson the local photographs, crime scene boys they had among teenage lant as opinion to concur investigator changed his testimony Although this tended seen.12 about the agent’s ATF conclusion with the written state- appellant’s coiToborate Investigators found nei- of the fire. origin shop gone yogurt to the ment that he had a can of an accelerant nor ther trace of 6th, it evening Nevertheless, of December earlier at the scene. lighter fluid that it “still his claim conflicts with accelerant out that an they did not rule Morgan, daylight” at that time. Chandra the defense part, For its had been used. Pierce’s, Pierce, accompanied analyst with sub- a friend of presented a crime-scene Welborn, boys not reconstructing she did crime and two other experience stantial (but she identified He testified that involving know one of whom fire. scenes used, shop an accelerant been appellant) opinion, court as the But accord- have found. p.m. 10:00 it should been approximately some trace of estimation, Moreover, began the fire boys she did in his testimony, to her the two ing floor, an located within left the on the (including appellant) not know somewhere door, the center through away area that was from front shop through the had been bоdies room in which the written the back door as stacked.14 night Later indicates. statement *9 credibility Morgan’s night of the offense. “tentatively” Pierce as one identified 12. Jones during final parties their teenage boys had seen. of the she was debated arguments. impeached Morgan's testimo- 13. The defense reputation ny had a with evidence that she appeals that "Scott’s observed 14.The court of Moreover, police when the untruthfulness. cross-examining the spent hours trial counsel Morgan she told them interviewed to discredit experts in an effort State's arson yogurt shop nothing having been to the about re-entered, shop Throughout trial a and then later there was controver- doors.15 via the back sy respect locking to the kind of man- mechanism on the back doors. The Adair, appellant a friend of the Sarah ager yogurt shop of the testified on direct Pierce, Welborn, knew who also that she examination was “certain” Springsteen, questioned by police back doors were locked with a “thumb murders sometime yogurt shop about the inside, latch” on the and could be unlocked police in December of 1991. The had only key. per- on the outside with a She friends, of her questioned her about other doors, sonally kept key a to those appellant approached but afterwards the anybody not if could “recall else did.” On police her to find out whether the had it cross-examination was shown that him. also appellant asked her about 1998 she had been unable to remember the wanted to know whether the had kind locking mechanism that was on the someone had ar- inquired about who been door, back and that she it had decided pistol rested at the mall with a .22 caliber only been a latch Pierce). thumb after she viewed a (presumably appellant photograph of the lock it had been Af- unusually persistent inquiries. his after changed terwards, sometime re- appellant On talked to Adair’s after fire. sister, testimony say direct she revised her older Amanda Statham. When why recall, appellant po- Statham asked the to the best of her the back him, lice had talked to “he told [her] doors had had a “thumb latch” mechanism. he had—that he had done it.” Afterwards A manager similarly shift testified that she it Al- laugh off.” “[t]ried thought that the back doors had what though appellant’s upset comment lock,” she called a “twist and could not Statham, when she told her mother about recall having key ever open it, seriously, not her mother did take inside, them from the but on cross-exami- report would not let Statham it to the nation she to admit that she was police. On an earlier occasion Statham certain. The defense strove to convince had overheard the tell Welborn jury, primarily from photographs of keep fucking “to mouth shut.” the crime scene that apparently dim- ly indistinct, was, lit fact, there arrested, After the and as mechanism, that, no thumb latch being jail, booking he was into booked the time of the offense the back doors him routinely officer asked whether he had inside, opened, could be even from the contemplated ap- ever suicide. When defense, key. with a In the view of the had, pellant answered that he the officer por- this evidence tends to contradict that appellant replied asked him when. The tion 6, 1991, of the written statement in thought that on December he had exited, which he admitted that he had shooting first himself. not, testimony. sufficiently their The defense did howev- The State was worried about the er, proffer any impact appellant’s expert contradictory expert prosecu- testimo- during
ny.”
“where going I inside. Scott: don’t remember informed the prompting, out Pierce, told on, girls that one of the Michael. You detectives Come [Detective]: already said, They’ve anymore. isn’t you Earlier “We “There went inside. then shot two of drop.” their Pierce Meaning the car.” made ran back out to said, the counter.24 Maurice, girls there behind and Robert. You you, asked, just doing thing. Why you that? It's immediately are 21. One of the detectives appellant replied, way open?” you.” going "All the to fuck way open. And that’s what decided "All the We They go the front. would it. would place day appellant would 23. Later in the with the car.” Later the meet them out back of the inci- the end this event more toward changed story, insisting the door dent, and he would assеrt thought it open, far.” “I "[n]ot was real say girl. could not slapped the He still also way open. But that propped all the which it was. He could not remem- doesn’t make sense.” with, open even if propped ber what it found behind the 24. None of open propped at all. it was counter, suggest did the forensic evidence nor there. "Michael, of them had been shot you doing? you what are do see minimizing your involvement You’re still Michael, immediately began inquire, detectives wearing? gimme. that’s anything girls?” easy “Did do else to these That’s an one. They assured the al- Scott: Not a whole lot.
ready happened knew what had Not a whole lot. [Detective]: *13 girls they wearing[.]” were “[w]hat their tie Scott: Used own clothes to The appellant could not remember. them up. break, After appellant remem- Used their own clothes to [Detective]: girls up, bered the had been tied but could up. tie them You and Rob. And not thought remember with what. He done, you the time were what were they wearing were their uniforms when they wearing? Say it. they up. were tied The detectives immedi- Nothing. Scott: ately him “starting go accused off in suggested Next the detectives tangent this other us bullshit with appellant Springsteen that Pierce and had again.” The appellant replied, “I can’t him “something girls. made do else” to the going even remember place, inside the appellant they The first asserted that had guys. I don’t walking through remember him kicking made “start them.” Told that Pressed, the doors.” appellant first it,” asked, “that ain’t he next “I didn’t girls said that the had been tied with an them, choke one of did I?” When this did extension cord. Then he said it was a either, satisfy appel- not the detectives napkin, or “something Finally white.” he said, lant “I think I raped don’t them. told the detectives: raped?” That’s not me. Was one of them Scott: A say T-shirt. And I want to query, responded by To this the detectives electrical cord. asking appellant whether one or two of No. Think [Detective]: harder. A T- girls raped. in fact appel- were something shirt and else. responded: lant “I think of them got one Scott: Um— raped.” Perhaps thinking of the metal I’m going you. [Detective]: tell scoop, the began pressur- detectives next you Because know. I want to hear it ing appellant to tell them “how” the you. from raped. point But at no dur- remember, Scott: I ... I’m trying to ing interrogation pro- the remainder of the guys. appellant cess did the ever mention the Something else. [Detective]: scoop. metal Scott: It was a T-shirt something pressure Under renewed to tell the de- else. do, had tectives what he been made to you helped [Detective] And Rob tie appellant reported, first that he had been up? them garrote girls, forced one of the then guess I think —I I Scott: did.25 bludgeon he had been forced to them. Fi- observed, nally, appellant Yeah. You did. “I had a [Detective]: What girls wearing by pocket were the the time knife on me.” The detective inter- jected: tied up? Kicking, strangling, What were “That’s four. Heretofore, appellant responded, had not volun- “I don’t remember helped girls up. teered that he had tie helped if I or not.” Asked whether him then Instead, just colloquy, detec- have,” before this "might replied, “I he tive had observed that would not guess I did.” have been able to tie them himself. knifing. junc- suddenly bludgeoning, remembering No.” At this girls again “may have shot one of the other appellant asked: ture the Even because she was still alive.” after them, They Scott: didn’t make me shoot epiphany, the con- apparent they? did tinued to claim that all four had been Well, they? Tell us. I did [Detective]: shot “behind counter.”27 Without fur- Did ei- they? to hear it. Did want the detectives prompting, ther he told you Maurice Robert make ther thought he had heard “a total of five shots. girls? shoot those two Or both of positive.” But I’m not it, Say Is that them? Michael? what gears The detectives shifted talk happened? *14 appellant the fire. claimed that The I Scott: think so. styro- by piling up Pierce had started it You think so? [Detective]: cups and napkins “[c]lose foam the I think so. Scott: Later he that Pierce girls.” volunteered gun, assert- appellant Asked with what the top girls, the may piled have stuff on of the he had revolver.26 ed that used Pierce’s point this maintained that but at he still First he claimed have shot one in the they had all been shot behind counter of the the other the the back head and part front Pierce in the the store. then after, prompting But temple. soon at the a Zippo lighter. the fire with Almost set detectives, changed again, of the he of one immediately changed the his sto- appellant acknowledging girls that had shot both he however, he ry, telling the detectives did of the in the back head. the not see who set fire.
Next, know the detectives wanted the appellant’s request, At the detectives anyone with Springsteen whether had shot yogurt the the him out to scene where took appellant The pistol. the semiautomatic there shop had been. What occurred went that one of indicated had shot unrecorded, they the time returned girls whom had earlier claimed room, the two he appellant interrogation the the shot behind counter. One were the additional memo- reported had certain asked, girls, then one of the detectives “So first for the time ries.28 remembered saying, was twice?” This is you’re gone shot had into that he and the one of the anyone evening the first mention that shop earlier in the time girls may have been shot second the back door. He also remem- exited said, gun. appellant seeing keys front door.29 For different bered time, suggestion clearly at the he asserted that the “no.” But detectives’ the first break, dur- all to the back they immediately girls took another were taken “flashback,” helped point appellant At this appellant shop. had a ing which again point 26.Presumably appellant re- once re- he the .38 caliber 27. At this meant marked, doing any of "I don’t remember the detectives volver he earlier told Later, shit.” yogurt shop. had taken Pierce into gun appellant would describe Pierce’s ap- of the detectives testified 28. One a 22 or a 38. all I can remem- "either That's suddenly these addi- pellant had remembered keep thinking But I it was a 38 revolv- ber. talking at the site. facts as tional detective, previously had not er.” A new who erroneously interrogation, been in on the then plural here. It 29. Note the form commented, saying appellant "You You've been think? until his written statement key along, there been 22 all from what I understand.” asserted door. A tie their hands and feet.30 Pierce shot the did.” short time later he told the detec- store, first two in the back of the tive, all telling you you “I was all what appellant Amy, then the was made to shoot crying, wanted to hear.” He broke down but he did not kill her. As he headed out a break. took door, appellant the back heard two appellant again After the break the ac- gunshots. more acknowl- knowledged gun that he had fired the edged response to a leading question once, and that he had set the fire. “I that the last shot he heard had sounded of Zippo remember can fluid.” The de- from the different others. pressured tectives to tell 10, morning, September The next on fire, them he had where set the to which appellant initially denied he replied, “I ... I piled top gone yogurt shop had ever into the other “Michael, me,” them?” don’t ask one of than to into the step back door after he the detectives told him. A short time la- so, gunshots. heard the Even he claimed ter, affirmed, “I weeping, set having keys to remember seen the ‘Yes, Michael,” them on fire.” the same door, looking front out the front win- so, detective assured him. Even a short *15 shop. dow of the The detective then as- later, pile time when asked how close the the appellant they sured had no doubt girls, apрellant replied, was to the “I he was shop, and that he yet. don’t I remember will remember.” “pulled trigger” ap- while there. The thought empty Zippo he threw the can pellant soon acknowledged “proba- that he pile onto then set the fire. He bly shot one of guess them. I made a could not remember where. yesterday of it who was. But I’m not happened Asked what else had sure.” The detective then used a visual- set, girls appellant before the fire was ization technique try to enhance the admitted, “They made me rape one of but, appellant’s memory, although for the them.” He could not remember which first time he tentatively suggested he puzzled one.31 He seemed when a detec- might fire, have been the one to set the he asked, tive you rape “What did her still claimed not to be able to remember with?”32 prompting, With some he said having any shot girls. The detective began girls longer no screaming to accuse the were be- appellant having girls. gagged. shot all four of the cause were appellant The detectives responded, “I can’t shooting remember assured him he could remember what anybody. with, You all telling not, are me that I gagged but he could other physical verify appellant There was no evidence to A short time later the stated that girls’ that the feet were bound. girl raped, he shot the same he and that he girls had shot her in the face. None of the 31. One of the detectives asked the if regis- was shot in the face. The detectives raped girl Springsteen he had the same skepticism, appellant, tered asked the raped. appellant replied that he had. part you put gun, "What of the head did asked, immediately The detective "Or was it questioning, ap- Michael?” After further one, another one? Was it the same itwas them, pellant story, telling amended his "I one, another Michael?” The re- remember I her the head.” shot sponded, "It was another one. don’t Nо—I Yes, myself. want to contradict a dif- during 32.One of the detectives admitted one, ferent but I don’t remember the face.” testimony hoping that he was to obtain an girl. At he claimed first it was a dark-haired respect scoop, admission with to the metal thought Later he it "had to have been the but never mentioned it. blond.” brief, Then, seeing relatively he remembered say
than to that it had been white.33 girls separate in a appel- Pierce with one of apparent attempt in an an of- thought might he have been Amy had been left room lant to admit that room, thought gagged that he had pile not on the fice. He also part another of the paper nap- with towels or girls, girls the detectives asked: one of the with the other that the Finally, again recalled kins. you told us that Now [First Detective]: with had come gun he had shot run earlier. of the Pierce, rather than Springsteen from Right? persistent that it was a .22 caliber. Under I don’t remember. Scott: he failed to remember questioning, okay. Hold on It’s [First Detective]: certainty the caliber of the second who, any- ... if just a Who second. it had a semiauto- gun, thought been saying I’m body, raped her? And matic caliber. .38 was, just asking. I’m Did that she anybody— Springsteen’s Statement No. Scott: I don’t think so. 15, 1999, September several On at? was she [Second Detective]: Where interviewed Rob- investigating detectives you were Detective]: Whenever [First and a half hours ert for five girls, fluid on these squirting lighter Charleston, Virginia. One of the West girl at? where was that what detectives summarized I’m not sure. I I’m not sure. of the inter- during Scott: told them the course view,34 don’t—I’m not sure. thus: *16 Springsteen Mr. ad- Q. right. All Did press continued to the detectives When yogurt shop in the participation mit how the bodies had been him to tell them you? murders to that answered arranged, Yes, A. sir. pile him “to them Pierce had instructed the inter- them.” At the end of me he you and burn tell what Q. right. All Can that it had been topic. view he remembered you regard to told Pierce, had handed not who Springsteen, to him—he talked A. Hе said as we time, and, for the first he gun, him the did not know that he originally said to leave to have been the last one claimed murders, not even know did about the setting the bodies on yogurt shop after until he had been occurred they had fire. police. interviewed continued, he re- 1999, the interview inter- As police September
On newspaper and bought he membered the last time be- viewed way Pathfinder on it in a stolen statement read gave them his written fore he interview, During the interview, to San Antonio. In that last which day. the next give a written Springsteen did not this sub- the detectives returned to 33. When later, po- Springsteen's guessed transcript been a ject it had A of confession. evidence, girls. gag one of the that he had used to into interrogation bra admitted lice him, again they press us- continued to jury When only. heard purposes for record but try techniques to enhance ing to visualization were portions his statement as those recall, a "white he claimed he had used summary by the detec- paraphrased form say what towel.” He could not Terri-cloth text, tive, post. appears in the as gagged girls been with. the other that three of the were evidence shows towels. gagged, with socks rather than Springsteen position Amy’s Robert admitted teen involve- demonstrated the body they had left it. The in the the floor as telling ment murders us that compare State to jury invited the simi- went yogurt shop prior he into the image photo- larities between this still and robbery and the back door opened it graphs Amy’s body as had been found way he in. get so at the scene. The detective assured the Springsteen Robert said he went Springsteen’s interrogators did door, through the then front went to the say him prompt he had left the Springsteen Robert bathroom. said shop open back yogurt door of the so that looking when no one was he unlocked he in that way. could later back Nor opened the back door. Robert did that he suggest say to him should Springstеen propped open by said he it that the used in the gun second offense using cigarettes a folded pack or a caliber, was a .380 had read a keep rock to from shutting door all Antonio, newspaper on the drive San way, saying un- wasn’t noticeable that he the bridge had vomited at after the you right less at it. looking Rob- offense. Springsteen point ert at some said evening. time he went back that Argument The Final he through said went the back door. length complexity Given the Robert Springsteen said there was a trial, the trial allotted each court side sev- .880 handgun silver automatic used in argument. eral Very early hours for final shop. Robert on, prosecutor argue first alluded to raped a girl; said stated he did not 1) the fact that was aware of ejaculated. think he He said he shot a 2) Amy’s position killed, when she was back of head with the .380 Springsteen’s that the assertion killers had she crawling, screaming, cry- 3) door, in through come the back ing. position He demonstrated the that Springsteen’s explanation he had died, Amy Ayers position which was the propped open cigarette the door with a found we her after the fire was extin- Later, or a after pack rock. the defense *17 guished. argument, had concluded its final the State Springsteen Robert talked about addressed the issue of the false confes- shots, six, a hearing maybe total of five prosecutor sions. The second contrasted but remembered And five. after the by confession explicitly robbery, Robert Springsteen said he left pointing Springsteen out that had corrobo- yogurt shop, to a bridge it, went where rated individuals whereas the whom the got he out of up. the car and threw implicated partici- false confessions had as Then he ended the interview pants flatly complicity before we denied complete. provided alibis.35 detective the jury The also showed a still prosecution The the bulk of its saved image Springsteen’s аrgument from the video of in- respect Springsteen’s terrogation. image Springs- very In that until last. still statement Just before Well, prosecutor argued: Springsteen. this crime with Robert Well, said, go Springsteen. let’s talk to Robert Shawn Smith I confesses stood you Springsteen says, around while Lorrie Justin and and Robert know what? Robert Okay. go did you this murder. We talk to hey, go. Big I did it too. There Differ- like, they those three and are I didn’t do it ence. and I have an alibi. Michael Scott. I did jurors deliberate, they question that elicited that re- retired heard prosecutor following sponse detectivejsaying: lead make was [another
argument: just your I You remembered. saw head about move. Tell me it. gives Michael
So Scott confession to police investigating Springsteen: and as Answer Mr. At [one some says, time, through still have homework to in came point officers] we the back door, go Virginia opened Says do. So to West door. he back door, Springsteen talk to Robert who has the front went to the through went 1992, early in part looking, been Austin since no he bathroom. When door, opened 1992. And the tactics that were em- unlocked it and the back silently ployed-sitting in his room for 10 a rock pack cigarettes used folded waiting or 12 him to keep shutting minutes decide the door from all the you way. confess. That’s the tactics heard about, among obviously. others Michael Scott’s written statement coming through back in
Michael written talks about Scott’s statement Springsteen, in Robert same newspaper about the the Pathfinder— back door. Virginia day. the next So you you get thing I’ll West let read when back point in time went But talks it. at some in he [sic] room. he through evening, came Springsteen’s Robert interview. Robert back door. bought a back remembered it newspaper and read in a stolen Path- Michael statement Scott’s written the way finder on to San Antonio. Springs- Robert about sexual assault. okay. can teen’s interview —that’s We got through ques- back go We there. just right leave that one this response. They tions led to just you asked him: Do remember a Robert interview. Mi- Springsteen’s said, Pathfinder? He we went to San gun as a chael Scott described a bought Antonio and a matter of fact a small semiautomatic. gun, James Bond way it newspaper Bought on the down. Very you And one here in court. saw Sunday morning millimeter, 6 a.m. That small, before equivalent of nine came from without Robert hand. palm you fit in Michael will being police. fed information It’s gun. calls Robert Scott James bond record. That it’s a silver .380. Springsteen said closely guarded fact information was Ten minutes THE COURT: investigation. Springs- in this Robert you. MR. SMITH: Thank I’m run- *18 that question. answer to teen knows the time, you out of so know what ning or he Amy Said was shot described restroom, says Michael Scott about the crawling, person the he shot as she in, they the opened up how went back you to screaming crying. going Are and door, so could come ajar they left information in me on all that tell based Springsteen back. Robert West Vir- by the office wall the corner over there state, ginia, completely a different who say flop she anybody that can that didn’t by talked to the en hasn’t been never crawled? around and she police department, route to the whose going on statement about up entire confession there is video- Michael Scott’s throwing up. Robert tape, says they yogurt bridge went into the to a Virgi- thing in West robbery, opened up Springsteen, to the the same shop prior re- way to in. The that elicited this they get questions back door so a nia. sponse from were: Appeal Robert On said, to? He you Where did drive thank challenged appeal On you, you. bridge, thank There is legal sufficiency of the evi- and factual little stream there over dence, presently an issue that is not before shop. you What did do? He mentions rejecting In of these us. the context that he These up. threw facts are not error, points appeаls recog- of of the court That, suggested to gen- him. ladies and against case nized that the State’s jury, right tlemen of the there is a neu- predicated on his own state- only tral fact. A fact that neutral these police, ments to the since there was no people two know. tying forensic evidence to the you evidence, through As wade I independent offense his statement. of objective you. have some facts I acknowledged court appeals of that there objective have you. some facts for Mi- components appellant’s state- describing chael body posi- Scott ments that not to the did match crime tions, girl two like this. One laying Nevertheless, scene. court observed (cid:127) top. talking Robert many appellant’s of the details of the about that he killed. Those are facts, account do coincide with known objective right facts. That’s information jury and held that a rational could have there, gentlemen, ladies and found him guilty beyond reasonable the people who committed this offense doubt, jury having and that the appellant’s could know. him guilty found did not amount to a mani- injustice fest on the facts this case.36
Stay in long you there as have to. If somebody decides have a itWhen later came to consider whether problem case, you with them to Springsteen’s the admission of statement explain information, these two pieces might jury’s guilty have contributed and that piece of information in the mid- verdict, the court of seems appeals to have dle where going both know to problems potential discounted the with the a bridge throwing up. appellant’s might statement have jury caused a rational doubt its reliabili- essence, In the prosecutor thus invited the ty.37 appeals The court of conceded that jurors to they might resolve doubt Springsteen’s paraphrased statement was the reliability otherwise have about appellant’s] [the corrobоrate “admitted considering confession how rebut appel- statements and thus to [the closely it corresponded Springsteen’s, claim lant’s] defensive that his statements itself, both in the details of the offense were unreliable untrue.”38 The court other, “neutral” aspects. urged also that, appeals identified three jury nevertheless to consider unlike with the converged that it appellant, interrogating circumstances believed officers had supply from jury, quite apart Springs- suggested Springsteen. answers statement, “overwhelming sup- from teen’s p.m. deliberated 3:34 on a *19 Friday p.m. following port finding appellant’s] [the until the a that [for] 3:15 Sun- day guilty reaching before a verdict. are trae.”39 statements State, supra, 36. Scott v. Id. at 48. at 39-41. 38. Id. at 48-51. Id. at 51.
37. 39.
690
First, statement on material appeals court of cited the the out-of-court the 4) many appellant’s statements of the points; strength details the overall the physical that to evidence corresponded the of prosecution’s ap- case.44 As court Second, ap- court of at the scene.40 the noted, rightly emphasis the of a peals that not until the peals stressed was 44.2(a) analysis to Rule pursuant harm investigators informed where the propriety on “the should be that their originated fire realized say, of That the outcome the trial.”45 is to the original expert’s assessment of fire’s reviewing is not question the court Third, court origin wrong.41 the of jury supported the verdict was whether in- appeals pointed to other evidence Instead, question the is the the evidence. of dependently aspects corroborated the constitutional likelihood that the error ap- of appellant’s statements.42 The court actually contributing jury’s a factor in the acknowledged prosecutor the peals arriving at that verdict— deliberations jury length at argued the some whether, words, ad- other the error appellant’s the nature of the interlocking рro- the versely integrity affected “the of But the Springsteen’s statements. leading In cess conviction.”46 signifi- appeals court discounted decision, reaching reviewing court argument cance of the State because consider, in addition to the fac- may also majority argu- of its spent great alia, above, the source and tors listed inter ment the other facts that emphasizing error, extent, any, to what if nature of the matched version State, by the and how emphasized it was follows, analysis that murders.43 In the may have the erro- weighty found consider- we will address each these compared neously evidence be admitted ations turn. respect to the balance of the evidence with to which
to the element or defensive issue THE LAW these considerations it is relevant.47 With mind, must ask reviewing court determining specifically In possi- a whether there is reasonable itself Craw whether constitutional error under error moved bility may beyond be declared harmless a Crawford ford non-persuasion a to one jury from state of doubt, recently we observed reasonable particular issue.48 Ulti- persuasion 1) following factors relevant: that the are considering fac- mately, after these various important state how out-of-court tors, reviewing court must be able 2) case; ment to whether the the State’s satisfied, confi- itself level of declare cumulative of out-of-court statement was doubt, “that 3) beyond reasonable dence evidence; presence or absence other the convic- error did not contribute to corroborating contradicting of evidence alia, State, 48, citing, inter supra, v. at 45. Scott 40. Id. at 48-49. State, 568, (Tex. v. Harris S.W.2d 587 790 Crim.App.1989). 41. Id. at 49. State, supra. v. 46. Harris 42. Id. Id. 47. Id. at 49-51. State, 852-53, quoting supra, v. 48. Davis State, State, 103, (Tex. (Tex. v. 29 S.W.3d 44. Davis v. Wesbrook 203 S.W.3d Crim.App.2000). Crim.App.2006).
691 But theory might tion” before it can affirm it.49 our have it is certain After been. record, statement, own review of the we are Springsteen’s containing unable to account, highly achieve that of damaging level confidence that similar Springsteen’s posture. statement did not contribute this defensive to the appellant’s conviction. (cid:127) money He the had been knew that “dropped.” OF THE
APPLICATION LAW describing girls In what one had THE TO FACTS handling told respect Pierce with the Appellant’s Statement Matches day’s receipts, the seemed to Physical the Evidence know prompting specific without termi- appeals initially The court of fo nology “dropped”—that employees of the — appellant’s cused on assertions oral yogurt shop day-shift receipts used. and written statements corroborated already “dropped” had been the floor physical evidence. We will examine offense, safe at the time not the corroborative value those assertions night-shift receipts. more or less in the order the court of (cid:127) girls knew one of had been appeals listed them: slapped, a fact confirmed evidence (cid:127) knew that the front Amy had an abrasion on her lip. doors were and that key locked pathologist Amy The forensic testified that been left the lock. had a lip contusion that was consistent This fact was known to some of the re- with or a fall. At sustaining a blow firemen, sponding and defensive evidence point, describing girls while one of the suggested that some informa- telling money had already Pierce that the tion may known to the firemen have been appellant, been dropped, obviously public. disseminated to the It is also nota- “visualizing” again, “I asserted: hear ble that the appellant did not mention that somebody get slapped.” He could not re- it single was a key that had been left in slapping got member who did the or who the door until he gave written state- slapped, pur- but the context which he ment. ports suggests it it remember (cid:127) He knew that the killers had entered Jennifer, slapping Pierce Eliza one of door, through the back which had been employees, Amy. rather than Later open. left he told the detectives that One of the recurring during slapped girls issues one of the whom he had course of “spun beginning trial was the nature of the lock- at around” ing If, mechanism on the back door. offense. as He did not remember which contended, was, the defense at the time of this he described her but since opened wearing uniform, unlikely offense the back could be is it door could with a key, Amy. then account have been later he Still revised his that he story say happened had left the back that it had toward open door so that could reenter later the end of the incident. When revis- perpetrate time, likely slapping the crime would be ited the incident one more false, not It photographs corroborative. is difficult to with of all dis- tell from a plausible played, cold record how manifested confusion Tex.R.App. State, (1967); 44.2(a); L.Ed.2d supra, Chapman v. v. Davis Proc. Rule 18, 24, California, 386 U.S. 852-53. 87 S.Ct. *21 slapped. the the had girls
as which had been On detectives what been tied with, and day again persistent of his most assertion was interrogation second he once Only that it an early the had been electrical cord. happened asserted that incident late, after one of the detectives alluded to what rather than and that rather Pierce girls the were that wearing (intimating than had done Springsteen slapping. the all) they wearing were at nothing did the short, In the inci- slapping account of appellant assert that had been tentative, vague, vacillating. dent was and stripped naked and bound with their own hap- At he to doubt it had times seemed Indeed, clothing. very the few of corrobo- pened at all. He left it out of his written by rative details court of appeals cited the altogether. statement are to the appellant’s immune criticism (cid:127) weapons knew the type He of used. suggested that were either to the of Throughout early part the the interview varying by appellant degrees the inter- that process, the maintained officers, already rogating or were available had Pierce carried .38 caliber revolver. at portion public large to some expressed uncertainty Later he some by supplied indicated the accurate details .22 whether it had been a .38 caliber or a by some of the known false confessors. caliber, he the encouraged and was Moreover, gave like who known others police to believe it had been the latter.50 police, appel- false confessions to the the He came to that later assert the semiauto- supplied many lant that con- details either Springsteen matic that had carried was the with, flict not or at least are corroborative guarded .38 closely caliber. The most of, ex- physical the known evidence. For fact, weapon “hold-back” that second ample, according appellant’s persis- to the caliber, actually had was a been .380 account, trying to tent Pierce was appellant apparently detail did (presumably two that girls first were shot fact know. The that revealed Jennifer) Eliza to tell employees, relatively little detail to with money right him to the where the was incriminating was to the prompting very But shot them. Eliza was point that he appellant. mouth, gag found with a over her which (cid:127) that Amy He knew was still alive after talk, for her to would have made difficult her, he knew the number he shot gag, also had a albeit one Jennifer fired. shots had around her neck slipped down suggested It who detectives first For most of the time she was discovered. ... girls that “one of the appellant’s interrogation insisted sugges- Only was shot twice.” after this had shot behind the girls that all four been appellant first tion did the remember store, but there counter in the front girls shot one of the a second any no evidence that physical at time. It would not have been difficult girls were shot there. him to calculate that he must point girls’ hands helped tie the claimed to have have a total five shots. heard their feet, though no evidence indicates It also court of might be added not know that feet were tied. did appellant asserted appeals’s gagged list that with socks. Investi- girls been Zip- tied articles of can of gators empty been found neither an fluid, vestige of an clothing. appel- lighter their But at nor po own first The appellant loss tell the accelerant at the scene. complete lant 50. See note ante.
693 that the con- claimed Pierce had taken one of the claimed and State’s re-evaluation office, firmed, girls altogether. into the but it uncontested at a third location was the might that the office remained locked for the These circumstances have led of the the of jury duration offense. He also claimed to doubt corroborative value that a shirt account with the appellant’s respect the office still had the on, though all of girls origin, appellant’s four found nude. fire’s had the version were He claimed at various he shot not been times that the events otherwise corroborat- girls the in in temple by one of the or the ed confession. Springsteen’s face, though none of shot in the was Corroborating Evidence Other places. Finally, despite repeated
these ef- part the of interrogators forts on his Although Morgan Chandra corroborated so, appellant him to do the never offered claim oth- appellant’s the that he and the any mention of the metal scoop. the the yogurt shop ers had cased before offense, testimony impeached, her Origin Point of Fire of the other none of the witnesses who were appeals greatest court of placed yogurt shop evening posi- the that could upon identify emphasis tively appellant. Only the fact that it was not the of appellant’s until the interrogation the the statements suspicious appellant the investigators shortly fire realized fire had that the made to friends after the offense actually been set top girls’ directly incriminating, on of the wit- and the bodies, stacked-up rather than on a shelf did not ness’s mother take admission they had originally thought. enough as The court at the the seriously notify time to appeals During argument, of characterized the “most final the police. this as one of fact,” placed emphasized critical corroborating prosecutors appellant’s the great weight upon analysis.51 it in its harm book-in that he had contemplat- statement However, 1991, the court failed appeals of ed himself on shooting December the fact that consider whether the fire had the the offense. out night pointed of She actually been set appellant as the eventual- for the have admitted ly during interrogation, very described suicide on of considering night the statement, repeated then implicated his written the him in offense the offense the perhaps hotly quite apart most contested is- from statement he had the jury sue of trial. A given during that believed the the interview expert testimony origin jury State’s of process. as to the would have been more ap- justified viewing the fire would indeed this have found than the evidence reasonably account pellant’s highly way. jury might corroborative. But the also nothing But the State’s own local had not expert have discounted evidence as originally thought the started appellant’s fire had as more than confabulation on the described, ap- part later and the by-product unreliable —another pellant’s expert “visualizing,” faulty crime scene reconstruction “revivification” expressed opinion presence memory-enhancing techniques used jury Springsteen’s that the ei- police, fire had nоt started confession shelf, believed, originally appellant’s ther or on inculpatory corroborated girls, bodies as the statements. State, ("Under supra, v. police suggestion. 51. Scott unintentional intentional or circumstances, very description unlikely simply a Scott’s accurate And it was it was origin product guess.”). could not fire’s be the short, though In was a amount and oral accounts of the offense suffi- there fair independently corroborating ciently physical corroborated evi- of evidence account, of it dence and other witnesses almost none should deem them rehable. Each side unchallenged unimpeached in one went *23 the that highlighted evidence record respect another the We do defense. supported it re- position believed its with justified appeals not think the court of locking to as spect critical issues such the characterizing corroborating in evi- the origin the and the mechanism on back door a “overwhelmingly support[ing] dence as the They argued pro of the fire. and con finding true.”52 that Scott’s statements are reliability who provided of the witnesses that suggest by We do not mean to this corroboration, signifi- independent the jury rationally the could not convict- have They of false confessions. de- cance the Springsteen’s ed the even absent non, vel of the suggestibility, bated the contrary. a con- quite the But statement — interrogation techniques. detectives’s does turn on analysis stitutional harm not Along way prosecutors the mentioned the whether, erroneously the ad- discounting times, several Springsteen’s statement evidence, remaining mitted the evidence already. have we summarized Instead legally sufficient to convict.53 whether, question given the is the of state punctuate To its the State argument, whole, court reviewing the record as a the of emphasized importance Springs- say, beyond can to a level of confidеnce case. lead to its The teen’s statement erroneously doubt that the ad- reasonable jury reminded the prosecutor pointedly mitted to the evidence did not contribute Springsteen that both the jury’s in of the Especially verdict.54 view independently provided to infor- arguments, final cannot prosecutors’ we bridge over a throwing mation about say that beyond offense, a reasonable doubt reading newspaper after the did contribute Springsteen’s day. statement the next in stolen account SUV jury’s verdict. veracity urged jury accept He regard appellant’s statement Argument The Prosecutor’s Final shop because the back door of said quoted Springsteen, prompting, verbatim without appeals court Virginia the next prosecutor’s thing final in portion the same “same West that day.” emphasized we argument have set out earlier posture in comment opinion.55 accurately could describe Amy’s body. And signifi- had left appeals court of made about the which however, he reiterated mostly importantly, argument, perhaps cance of that closely most say up only it took four out of seven- knew fact, that the second “hold-back” ty-seven pages argument guarded the State’s kill had been a .380 Amy reporter’s gun record. This bare observa- used jury to He invited the weapon. take account the fact caliber tion failed to into but to resolve deliberating, its practically jury argument the entire take time have might an intensive debate between whatever doubt constituted reliability appellant’s statements parties written whether the State, supra, Id. at 51. 54. 52. Scott v. 249, 258-59, Texas,
53. v. 486 U.S. Satterwhite State, supra, Scoff at 49-51. v. (1988). 284 108 S.Ct. L.Ed.2d KELLER, P.J., dissenting them to which comparing Springsteen’s. We say HERVEY, beyond MEYERS, KEASLER, cannot level of confidence jury a reasonable doubt that the did not do JJ., joined.
just during days its two of delibera- I turn first to the first “confession” —the tions.56 that the appeals We hold court of guilt by appel- various admissions of made failing erred in to conclude that there is at during lant to interviews law enforcement possibility least a reasonable that the erro- conducted 1999. What reason did he Springsteen’s neous admission of state- falsely? have to confess In a case as ment moved the from a state of non- Murders, Yogurt Shop infamous as the persuasion to a state of persuasion with *24 sometimes come forward and con- people respect reliability of the appellant’s falsely limelight. to be in But fess statements, inculpatory and thus contrib- limelight. did not seek the uted to its verdict. 1991, in again
denied involvement denied CONCLUSION 1998, involvement in and denied involve- For the reasons stated above we reverse during ment much of the interviews con- judgment appeals, the court of re- Only dogged ducted in 1999. after and appellant’s conviction, verse the and re- interrogation skillful were the officers able custody mand him to the of the Travis slowly to draw out the truth. County Sheriff to answer to the indict- question then is whether there is
ment. any reason to that appellant believe
KELLER, P.J.,
Nothing
coerced into a false confession.
dissenting
filed a
opinion
MEYERS, KEASLER,
suggests
which
the record
that police officers
HERVEY, JJ.,
and
joined.
any
physical
used
sort of
coercion. As the
circumstances,
many
In
admission of a co-
different from that which the defendant
56.
might
damaging
told,
defendant's confession
be
to
alleged
himself is
to have
but enor-
when,
here,
a defendant’s case even
his
confirms,
mously damaging if it
all
es-
against
own confession is also admitted
him.
respects,
alleged
sential
the defendant's
York,
186,
In
Newv.
481 U.S.
107 S.Ct.
Cruz
might
It
confession.
be otherwise if the
1714,
(1987),
95 L.Ed.2d
Supreme
162
confession,
standing
defendant were
his
whether,
question
Court addressed the
ain
in which case it could be said that
trial,
joint
jury
limiting
jury’s
a
instruction
codefendant’s confession does no more
use of a codefendant’s confession would be
support
very
than
defendant’s
own case.
protect
sufficient to
the defendant’s Sixth
litigation,
But in the real world of criminal
rights.
Amendment confrontation
New York
seeking
the defendant is
to avoid his confes-
that the
contended
rule of Bruton v. United
ground
sion-on the
that it was not accurate-
States,
123,
1620,
391 U.S.
88 S.Ct.
ly reported,
really
or that it was not
true
(1968),
apply
L.Ed.2d 476
should not
in a
when made.
confession,
case in which the defendant’s own
A. fact involved in. It is one leading questions may prompted ap- have smoke, Q. you And go when out to half pellant inaccurately to recall details re- you. the time there’s no one with You go by yourself. Right? to the bathroom garding how the victims were restrained set, quite or how the fire was but it is A. Yeah. say leading questions another Q. you’re You know not under arrest. mistakenly would cause him to remember A. I’m not. being involved four murders. . Q. you And we don’t want to feel—I mean, you come go. Moreover, incrimi- several A. I walked to the front gate and nating statements were volunteered. Ear- you waited on all. guys.” “Come on interview, in ly apparent slip in an So, if appellant police believed the tongue, group he mentioned that the him trying pressure into a false confes- firearms, possessed original story when his sion, just he could have walked out. possessed had been that Pierce The Court using faults the interview, firearm. Later in the he volun- leading questions that suggested the an- previous teered that he lied in a interview swers wanted appellant give. But seeing jeep pass fights with its why leading questions would ap- motivate later, turned off. Even after he had ac- pellant falsely to confess involvement knowledged presence such a serious crime? Was he such a murders, stated, shop at the time of the mentally weak individual that he would prompting, without that he set the fire. In *26 agree anything suggested, to no matter addition, stated, prompting, he without how detrimental such agreement would be that nightmares regarding he had the inci- to his own self-interest? A review of the acknowledges, dent. And as thе Court interrogation notion, itself refutes that appellant, prompting, quoted without appellant disagreed many with statements responding of the victims to Pierce’s de- made the officers. canOr we conclude money mand for as follows: “There isn’t appellant easily that was led because he They’ve already more. made their intelligence lacked the to understand the drop.” incriminating significance of cannot, true import questions? of the We that last statement should not be mini- because interrogation the shows a reason- Every night, yogurt mized. the shop’s ably very astute individual who understood daily dropped revenues were into a floor police well what the In- asking were him. explanation given safe. No for how deed, many of the leading ques- so-called appellant money would know that would be required degree tions a intelligence suf- “dropped” yogurt shop at the other than ficient to read between the lines to come having actually his heard the statement up with the correct answer. Or can we during robbery. Appellant also knew that, say by suggesting the an- “correct” that a a revolver and small automatic were swers, leading questions corrupted ap- robbery. may it used While be fair pellant’s memory might of events? That say police questioning that be a valid concern if the case turned on “leading” appellant that conclusion appellant some minuscule detail that re- used, appellant two firearms were still had inaccurately. leading ques- called But a correctly “guess” that one of them massively corrupt appel- tion should not so memory him was a revolver and that the automatic was lant’s as make believe he was involved in a crime that he not in a firearm. small appellant’s February appellant
Also In telling was reaction told law police Springsteen smoking ciga- ruse that and enforcement that he was Pierce him. оutside Appellant had blamed stated rette Northcross Mall after dark. they jeep both bars that Pierce He claimed saw a out of were and that he drive ass.” lot anything yogurt shop parking lights would “do to save his own with its Appellant he also commented that he believed off. He stated that left the mall further Springsteen car, Pierce implicating possibly Springsteen and Pierce’s Welborn, in something they they him had done. But drank while beer (before driving Appellant earlier interview became around. stated accusatorial), already placed yogurt had had seen the commotion at the in a company shop away himself at the mall and drove different di- Springsteen evening, and Pierce that rection none of them wanted to because already placed police. himself at home with have to do with Ob- anything (his roommate) during serving appel- would place commotion vicinity period time in which murders took lant and his friends within the p.m., place. in the mur- 11:47 the time shop Pierce’s involvement after rising patrol ders would tend to be inconsistent —and officer first observed smoke Springsteen’s building. Appellant involvement be com- from the said would ini- pletely inconsistent —with arrived home at 2:00 a.m. exculpatory tial version of events. 1999, however, In claimed that day away showed drove from the mall between second interview appellant initially p.m. arrived at the house scrambling to deflect 8:30 to 8:45 from earlier admis- of one of friends around 9:00 investigation Pierce’s Appellant sions of that he that he arrived at his guilt. p.m. stated claimed “dug” p.m., “a hole” he did not home 10:30 and 11:00 himself own between having “know how to out of.” After and that he and remained it, Contrary for the to his 1998 night sleep night. had concoct- there statement, a new that he of events would story. sequence ed He was now sure *27 shop appellant into rob- home before law en- yogurt during place went at responded to bery, firefighters but claimеd so he that he did forcement and shop. at makes hearing gunshots. after He volunteered the fire What is story suspect that this even more new was “total contradicto- his 1999 statement arriving that home ry” day appellant to what he said the before. This admitted story inter- because apart during appellant new soon fell at 10:30 was “unusual” “usually out be- rogation. stayed and his friends o’clock in the morn- tween 2:00 and 3:00 police If the had a false really produced appellant’s If ing.” one believed confession either or the through coercion memory day’s of timeline of events of then would ex- power suggestion, him hazy, expect one would not to describe story given during the initial pect significantly from differing a timeline so of inter- stages the interview —before the practices. his usual accusatorial, police view became when course, story ver- continued simply trying appellant’s appellant’s were to elicit Of As progressed. But the as the interview sion the events—to be true. shift 1999 observes, him- he contradicted story given during stages the initial the Court details, many giving details ap- first 1999 what on interview contradicted self and at other year officers a earlier. that were times consistent pellant had told inconsistent police, appellant questioned. times with the forensic evi- had been Amanda, a Appellant appellant’s dence. would often contradict close friend sister, Sarah’s older went over to his house space single himself within the of a breath. going “to what was on” when she met see He claimed “a numerous times that he had surprised Welborn. This her because she piss-poor memory.” Defense counsel did not know and Welborn were appellant’s characterized video statements friends. She heard tell Welborn “an evolving involving confession” keep ing “to his mouth shut.” She “constantly changing story.” Both the f— appellant why police ques- asked suggest court and defense сounsel that the him, tioned and he told her that she did in appellant’s shift phenome- stories was a police ques- not want to know. After the non that would enable a rational factfinder Sarah, appellant tioned at the arrived Stat- really possessed conclude no began hurriedly ham asking residence and knowledge of the offense at all. police her what the had asked her and disagree. I The evidence shows that whether he was mentioned. Amanda took appellant’s “poor memory” was caused appellant aside and asked him to tell her him making stuff as he went along. He going what on. After appellant men- difficulty remembering what lie he had Springsteen, tioned Pierce and Amanda earlier clearly told. This fact is shown him again why police asked were talk- the contradiction between his 1998 and him, ing to and he said “that he had done exculpatory statements. The later slapped it.” she him him When and called inculpatory statements simply were more bastard, off, a sick he tried to laugh while, All same. appellant was response unconvincing was so she constantly trying to minimize his criminal concluded he had told the truth. She was involvement as he struggled story to find a upset so that she told her mother. Al- police buy that the would in light of the though her mother told her not to tell the other evidence he thought they might that, because police partly supposed she — have. The sheer number of lies and if they guilty, would focus amount of equivocation in this case would them, step and Amanda could for- leave appellate court uncertain about ward then —she did advise Amanda to many offense, of the details of the includ- nothing have further do appellant, to with ing the exact played by roles the various and Amanda followed that advice. participants. But the fact that Morgan gave testimony Chandra also was involved in the crime is not left uncer- in- was consistent with tain. To the extent that thе might details criminating statements but inconsistent *28 important be in determining appellant’s exculpatory with his earlier stories. Al- culpability relative purpose of de- though appellant initially denied enter- termining punishment, no harm occurred ing yogurt shop day, at all that Mor- in this case because received a she, Pierce, gan appellant, testified that life sentence. respect guilt, With the Welborn, boy another and entered equivocation lies and the simply are more fur- shop open. Morgan while it was still tying appellant evidence to the offense. that, later, ther testified after fire trucks
But the record contains another confes- appearing yogurt shop, were at the she sion, by appellant made near the time of picked up accompanied boys and testified, crime Elementary. to someone who was not an to Gullet She also confessions, agent of law enforcement. Sometime be- consistent with boys fore Sarah Statham the other questioned Welborn was beyond picked up, at the she was but he soon statement was harmless a reason- time dissent. joined (arriving respectfully from the able doubt. I them direction the yogurt shop). suggest ap- circumstances
Various
pellant’s turning point hit a at the time life above,
of the murders. As discussed broke off
Amanda Statham their Mend-
ship. Appellant and also
parted ways Early around time. in SANTANA, Ex Pedro Jose interview, Parte pegged Applicant. stealing his Springsteen’s concert tickets falling as the reason for their out. And as No. AP-75284. observes, response Court to book- ing question regarding when he had con- Appeals Court of Texas. Criminal templated committing suicide, appellant 27, 2007. June 6, replied that on December 1991—the thought date of the murders —he
shooting himself.
Appellant to the police. confessed Amanda two
confessed to Statham. His
exculpatory statements to the con- police
flicted other and with each with the testi-
mony All of another witness. of his state-
ments, inculpatory exculpatory, both Pierce, company
placed him
Springsteen, day and Welborn murders, the time of the around by appellant police made
statements
and to Amanda Statham indicate that the boys
other were involved or connected money Appellant
to the crime. knew the shop
taken “dropped” a revolver and small automatic 6, in the crime. used December noteworthy day in appellant’s was a
life: suicide contemplated committing thereafter, shortly at least day, and friendships
two of close broke down.
That tried to mislead the
in his statements and concede thought get away
much he could as he
does create a reasonable doubt about that he
the truthfulness of admission murder. I would hold involved admitting Springsteen’s error in