Evans, Thomas Lee, WR-61,869-03

Evans, Thomas Lee

WR-61,869-03

| Tex. App. | Jul 21, 2015

Check Treatment

Case Information

*1 Thomas Lee Evans TDC: 43521 / Adyowth Unit $810 F A 2821$ Hentsville, Texas 77349

Tiths 16, 2015

Court Of Censual Appeals, Clerk, Mr. Abel Acosta P.O. Box 12308, Capitol Station

Austin, Texas 78711

RECEIVED IN COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS JUL 212015

Abel Acosta, Clerk

RE: Ex parte Thomas Lee Evans, 4104, Rsturt Court, Montgourer, County, Lease No. 19180-0, Judg's Deval of Wr't (sec.P.At. 1103) whent allowing me to subant addece whearing.

To The Rovorable Clerk, Mr. Abel Acosta: Please fundexclased as th this letter, the following information is response to the trial judge's blendet deval of my wort based upon th the it has tafow ree to leam the law and file my wort:

Applenut's Reponse To Distort Court's Dendet Deval of Wr't Dosed Lpou Leches, 6 pages, with Inmate's Deteration;
Exhibit 41, Affidavit of due Dispence for Court of Cencenal Aypeals, 20 pages, with Inmate's Deteration
Exhibit 42, Affidavit of Mr. Curtis (ook, Expert Ene Examwer, 5 pages, with oath, Deteration;
Exhibit 43, Affidavit of Mo. Larry Regle, Expert from the letter for the Foremost Screuses, 22 pages, wcheding oath/deteration;

Exhibit 94, Portion of Statement of Facts, Volume III, Pages 765389, with Administration Form from Director, Robert Schaudt, San Houston Regional Libros + Research Center, Los Liberty, Texas. This is an support of Mr. Regle's affidavit showings to State and its witness heed, and that de PAS. Thetrist was allowed to give hearsay testirons about the Hov Specialists Footings.

Sir, would you please allow me to have copies of these items? I am an indigent person with no access to a copper. Please file these papers with the court in response to the final courts' several of my wirt, 11.07, TEX.P. Thank you very much for your assistance.

Respectfully submitted,

The Eir

Thomas Lee Evans TDCJ#455211/abpwue 1801 S10 FM 2821 Handsville, Texas 77349 P.S. I hope this stickers are not wrong. Please revise thee of the are. I simply wanted it to be easier to loade.

*3 COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS: APPLICANT'S RESPONSE TO DISTRICT COURT'S BLAMED DEMIAL OF WRIT, BASED UPON LACHES $⋆ ⋆ ⋆$ CAUSE NO. 19180-(1) EX RITE Thomas Lee Evans

In The District Court for
The 410th Judicial District,
Montgomery County, Texas

RECEIVED IN COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS JUL 212015

To The Honorable Court of Criminal Appeals: Abel Acosta, Clerk

My name is Thomas Lee Evans, the Applicant, in wirt of Habeas Corpus, under Article II. 07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedures, brought before the above styled court. In my Application I brought seven issues before the court alleging inetlective assistance of appeal counsel for failing to raise the issue in my behalf in my first appeal. I will not reiterate those issues raised in my wirt and the memorandum, but will address the Judge's Blantet Denial to Hear All of My Issues Because Of The Amount Of Time That Has Passed. As the attached Affidavit of Due Disgrace will prove I have dutifully attempted to learn the law, gather affidavits to prove my claim of aclical innocence, thou present my wirt witticn 7 months of my last entry. (I obtained a letter from the Tepas Medical Board, regarding my 1886 inquiry, about one of the States alleged "Exports" and the, had no listens on March 6, 2019.)

*4 RICHMADS V. GUHETERMAN 578 F. Supp. Ad 849; 2008 U.S. Post. 187154620

In a mirror image of the above Richards case, the Court received my writ, found previously unresolved issues in dispute and order the court appointed appeal attorney to make an attendant addressing my clums within 30 days. After 118 days I ask in a motion reporting legal assistance if caused has violated the 30 day order, he then responds with 'no memory." The State then files its claim, and the Judge accepts the States claim, that they cannot respond to my writ because of the delay in my filing the writ date. The reasons the State gave for denying the whole writ was the clerk said she hasn't seen the reporter's wort service about 2008, that the lawyer has no memory of my alterations against him, and I wanted to long without any explanation about why it has taken so long. In a Richards type hearing I was not allowed to present any evidence in my own behalf, not allowed to be present and thus object to the oversided presentment of evidence. Investigation, just like in Richards, my writ judge was different than my trial judge.

Objection. And Evidence I should have becooked In a hearing to determine the facts of the effects of all the above mentioned State presented evidence I would respectfully ask that the contraverted issuer be resolved in my favor due to the following facts: 11. I contacted the Trial Clerk and her constitute two numerous times about determining a transcription of the notes and they never once told me that it could not be focused. I have returned every letter and in my Affdant of the Abgeance, attached here 2.

*5 for your consideration are each of the entries. I purchased my copy of the Appeal File, including the trial betimowes quoted by Volume 7 , 9 , 9 and the throughout my wirt. It is of no fault of my own that the Clot could not come to terms with her loss each of the times I asked for it. With the trial betimowes found in the appeal file, the truth of my issues are just as obvious. I copy can be obtained for 10 t a page at the Seer Houston Regional Law Library + Research Center over in Liberty TX. It is my understanding that the records are to never be destroyed. As an incarcerated person I can't come to terms with this being my fault. #2. The State claimed that I funded to address my delay in filling the wirt. (They act as it I was incarcerated lawyer who sat around waiting for time to pass.) As my affidawit for your court shows, I also included an affidawit for them. When I filed my wirt the Clot stamped my study filed and retrieved copies to me. I don't know why they tended to pass on my affidawit. I also had two other affidawts in there, one from Larry Eagle, a former Specialist, (from the State and its wittness lired in my trial, etc), one from Gertz Cook, who has been in the eye examination tield for over 45 years (have he was a kid working for his dad) who said the Seeres' wittness lied in my trial about an eye glass prescription, and a letter to Trans Medical Board, who said they had no listing for the Seeres' wittness as a doctor, or any other part of the field. The D.A. told the Judy and Detuve that she was an ophthalmologist, a 'master' of her field. Did the clork mail all of thee stems to gave as ordered by the Judy? As she did not send me a copy of the file I have to idea. #3. The astiving is merary loss is again written that can't possibly be astributed to me. It would be a rockery of the justice system for this guy's recovery to be the bases upon which my wittness denied. I was given court appointed counsel who had never led a jury trial and

*6 one other way due of a jury, with all of the scientific, technical astor history and the after she was taken off my case they give me this appealcaused who file one error for me (incorrectly) and did not exclude any of the exhibits in the appeal file. Because of him, the judge, the D. A. and the Cerk, I have been here all three years by way to learn the new exoxpt, to raise some of my issues in my quest for unvocewer. Now can anybody say that I didn't learn the less fast exoxpt? I washed dishes and served food. I had around a T. 5-7.9 grade average with a G.E.D. I had no training. I wasn't a lawyer and I'd not our now. I've been doing my best with my limited spatial abilities. $⋆ 4$ . Please refer to any affidavt. Iin tired to take you pays through all of it. I simply would not set here in prison if I wasn't forced to.

$⋆ ⋆$

Ex parte Smith, 463 S.W. 2 d 1855 (Ter. Grt. App. 1971) In sinth, above, the background of our weeperence is wcarly exact. Where, at the time of my wobtreat was returned against me, I was 18 year of age, was indigent and weeperenced in legal matters, I received an advice from my our appointed counsel, or anyone else, with reference to my constitutional and legal rights in a criminal trial, I should be entitled to habeas w/pw relief as ground of ineffective assistance of eared. In addition to this I had about a T.S- 2.9 grade average, and a vised dishes and served food before my arrest. I had a GED only, and no law financing.

$⋆ ⋆$

Ex parte Gordon, 829 S.W. 2 d 61 (Ter. (cun. App. 1994) one of the issue the State claims it can't address as that of my prior conjections. In an exact same prior's question, involving wotfectude

assistance for taking to investigate them, the Court in Jordan ordered a hearing to determine the facts. Regarding the "fine" issue, the prior Iran Cardanis 1994 ruling was in 1959, in Lounsiana, about 36 years prior.

Some of my other issues are right on the page. The D.A. compared my right to cross-examine the complementar as being assaulled for a second time. How hard is it for the State to look on the page, reading case law and agree with my issue? At punishment the D.A. again, constantly violated my right to remain silent during punishment by commenting on my tears, the reasons for them Don his own imagination, and asked the juicy guetions they should ask me. Two so-called exports lied, and now I have proof. Look on the pages I quoted, there is my affidavists and compare fiction to reality. Please, please don't force me to learn the law and then prewish me for leavering it too slow. I can waste dishes, fix cals, not the law.

Conclusion/Player

In conclusion, in Richards V. Ghenteman, 578 F.Supp. 2d 849, 2008 u.S. Dist. LEXIS 662d, the one-sided paper hearing was addressed. As in there, My trial judge is different than my wirt judge and the state was allowed to submit all of the evidence (Clerks claim, leavers affidavist and the time with my excuse) and the Court called such actions a "maternal" At the very least, it is my prayer that you will hold a hearing on this issue so that I can at least present the real facts into the record of my due dilence as is found in my affidavist, here attached.

Thank you for your consideration.

Respectfully submitted,

*8 The ras Lee Evans TACI #43521/Enyow West 810 FM 2821 Hewtsville, Texas 77349

"Inmate's Declaration" I suste under the fear of the penalty of perjicts that wengheny in this Respouse and Sue Algarro affidavit are true to the best of my ability to bwao. Today's date is July 16, 2015, Sugwature: Thea Re E Thoreas Lee Evans

I hope this is not improper but at the conclusion of each of my wirt issucs I made the statement that ever with this last chure of andeure thows out because of my atbebavics by true experts, I would still attempt to engage the State in a monuogful plece agreement. I doint want to go to a new bral and subject the complenant and my family to that again. I don't want to see the state or bed roorth then as any way. All I want is to get out, get to work, save money and pass my last ten years writing as my boots and thanking best for ny treedare.

I a wik you for your consideration. Respectiely gubmitted. In the Ea

*9 EXHIBIT #1 COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

EX Parte Thomas Lee Evans & In The HIO TA District Court Trial Court Writ Number: 19180-08-01 & & of Montgomery County, Texas

AFFIDAVIT OF DUE DILIGENCE FOR COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

My name is Thomas Lee Evans and I am before the Court of Criminal Appeals today to share this Affidavit of Due Diligence in support of my defense against the allegation of the State, and the Unit Judges acceptance of the allegation, that my writ of habeas corpus application presented under the T.C.C.P. Art. 1107, was not timely filed, which prevents the State from addressing any of the issues raised there, and should be in all things denied because of that factor.

I am presently housed at the Geyawe Unit, Walter County, Texas, and I aware under the fear of the penalty of perjery that following information is true.

EXPLAZIVE Asustance OF Counsel

Primary Reason for delay in Filing

The reasons for my delay in filing my writ are many, but they all fall under the primary fact that my court appointed trial and appellate counsels to the failed me. Though declared indigent before and during the trial, the original trial judge, Judge Martin, of the 2nd/9th District Courts, took my indigency following my trial and insisted that I pay for my own lawyer and pay for the records to be produced. Even following a hearing to show my extrane poverty, the judge still refused to reustate my indigent status, a stall factor that set off a chain of events that lasted almost two years.

*10

Trial counsel, Ms. Gustave Lwedicke, had never led a jury trial, though she had participated in a vour due before. My case was very technical, with expert witnesses, and she was up against a very experienced team of Bstinct Keterways. She taught under the defense that the evidence was facteally insufficient to prove guilt, but Affidavits I was have prove that the D.A. used his witnesses had in my trial, under oath, and that there lies, which are the only evidence to substantiate the allegations, went right over all of our hands. When the trial ended the judge took my metgeucypand her, offing case. When the Court of Appols finally made the judge give me a lawyer, the court judge assigned Imme Price, but didn't tell him of the appointment for about five months. (His letters to the Appeal Court are in the file I obtained from the San Beniston Regional Law Library - Research Center over in Liberty.) Mr. Price had no knowledge of the October 1986 trial, yet he allowed a record to be produced that had been carefully edited and rewritten as to some key testinowires and did not have any of the exhibits made part of the file. This guy did not conter with me, did not allow me to see the records (I would have known them of he had), and one day I simply received his brief showngy a single error raised. I have the appeal file showing two letters to them, one of which comptains, in my case uneducated bestow, that he failed to address my aetical innocence clear. They did not help me. I have seuse learned that Mr. Price did not file his only wror correctly, nor did he address the other issues I raised in my wirt under wotfective assistance of courtappointed appeal attorney. Since he was not even notified of his appointment until about five months later, the time for filing the New Trial Mortars had passed.

$* * *$

To Become A Langer

In a due diligence case like move, it comes down to the amount of time it has taken me to learn the law, and get possession of the facts that proves that the only evidence the State could manipulate before the jury and judge, was false testinowng given under oath. Though unskilled, and with a somewhat

*11 shower ability to comprehend the meaning of the various laws, I have managed to do what my attorney's refused to do. It's not the best but at least I tried. I in sorry that I couldn't learn guister. The guiding factors and fears that effected the time of has taken me are as follows: 1. In Texas, we have a wort of habers corpus system that assures the connected that there is no time limit for filing, but then drop into my quest I learn that this fact is misleading; and that time it takes over to perfect the law can bear them from actually utilizing the wort beyond filing a piece of paper, as the state just showed me by having the Judge scud me away following a weighing of evidence I was not even allowed to comment on. 2. To add to the pressure of forcing an uneducated dishwaser and food server to become an attorney, I read that every issue I intend to meet must be passed the first time, because there are no two bites at the apple. I am still not raining all of my issues because I'm still confused by exactly what can be raised in a wort, and what can be raised in an appeal. I was praying that a new appeal would be grounded and that I could have a real counsel help me in that. 3. I will not reiderate appeal counsel's actions here, but all of what I have gone through is because he didn't stand up and do what was right from the beginning. This is a smart fellow and I can't imagine him not knowing that he was not representing me on my first appeal as an advocate. 4. When I tried to get the stores to prove my innocence, the trial testrouses, the photos proving the imperversibly suggestive photographic and other identification procedures, the statements that conreadated trial testrouses, etc., I ran into a wall in Montgomery County. As the section of this affidavit titled "Chronological Table of the Bligant Events" will show, they best around the bush, sent me to other places, refused to give me what I asked for, tried to sell me stuff. I didn't ask for, responded but failed to answer my questions and often just ignored my letters altogether. The clerks once told my more that all the appeal files were lost,

*12 sold her"sut worth" of papers she found in the D.A's file. Some of the letters, as I mentioned, were not copied at this early stage, but 8 of them were returned by the Appeal Court, and when I eventually had a new Appeal Court clerk send me to the San Monton Reparal Law Library, Research Center over 10 Liberty, they had to of my letters in the appeal file I bought for 80 a page. (There may be others I can locate if required.) Equipped with the appeal file, and the trial test-mounts the appeal attorney allowed to be filed, I had numbers and names of people and places I could ask for documents to help prove the facts. Some helped and others didn't. So, Having learned through an private that I have to eventually file a visit to have my case heard I began to do research by reading any cases I could find. Most obviously, did not relate to my selection, nor had they been reversed if they were similar. I eventually raw across a reference by a Judge to Ennau's Revisible Errors and my man found me a used copy of of ebeys. It had some things recusing and stopped its supplements at 2000, but many of my issues had been thoroughly covered by the various courts before then. I eventually found a case that easily explained the Federal Institutions of the Evidence ballance, and thus equipped I began putting all of the facts down and contactless places in search of legal help. None helped me, pernod, but half up my hopes and left me having there. (Insecurity Projects are a big part of the delay because we automatically think they are going to seek justice at all costs. They don't. The last place who recently wrote was started that they avoided get around to use an account (Simmons, I threw the letter away) Another place was scanned very near out of 850500 . 6. When the DNA testing papers were handed out in here I put together a motion to have the two status and the her's listed. (Remember, some of them enabled me in 1986.) Now the two had multiplied, but not willing to believe the state or its followers would tamper with evidence, I allowed for the testing. If matched, but with no explanation about odds (number) when the DNA is that of a relative, I adopted having my letter tested. (How he died) I also have an

*13 attidwit questowny all of the evidence based on lapses in the time and mewer in which it was handled, tape cut, etc. My goal is to NOT go to a new tical but to engage the state in a meaningful plea-to avoid the effects of a trial on my family and the conplenownt. An attorncy, Mr. Cantus, who assisted me for a time with the DNA request, wrote a letter to me after rearewng the trial testimony and the lack of enibits and questioned how an appeal attomey withurthar with the teral would allow ow womppote record to be produced oacrins the perishneat stay only. This is one of the nare howest people I have met. *7. Because of my wubility to decipher the technical jargon associated with the D.P.S. testimonics and papers findmy need for a DNA test to prove once and for I didn't do this) Icowracted a writer, who happens to have been owe of this wationis greatest forensics experts, Mr. Larry Engle. He reviewed my papers pro bows from a 1880 perspective, and gave ne an attidwit for DNA testing. It was through his 'second' attidwit and the letters precodung it, that the D.P.S.chenist becl in my trof, that I was excluded as the owner of the havis was back thelithes, the police, did no follow ap, tues me or wortring and that the only link to ne was that I was a male person. Mr. Engle said that I should hade had the right to the Hovr Speciatist as my witness, but he wover showed up for the trial. I found another case Cole v. State, 839 s.w. 2 d 798 (farm.pp. 1992), with the same etart thung happening with, the same etart guy, Mr. Suyder, not stowung up for thet. That case was reversed. Iw relation to the above Eole case, in which Mr. Suyder also tarled to show for the tiual, in relation to the State's clann today that it can't possibly respond because of the latewees of my wirt, I would ask, how hard is it to look at the file,

*14 wate that Mr. Snyder was subpoeweced, the sub. cane up misscug toon the file, the D.A. stopped up to say he didn't know anything about the missung sub. but that our witnesses were "ou call" and that he planned to have then ow as his witnesses? My witnesses thew becane State witnesses, and the only owe to show up gave talisc testinousy about the findings of the other. (Gaw extorcerent officers, such as P.P.S. people, are wot allowed to do this.) Then, compare my affidavit by Mr. Rage, and agree that I had the right to have the P.P.S. Hair Specialist, Mr. Seyder, ture to testifs in a light favorable to me as to why he eriluded me as the donor of all the haris found in the complacenor's bell. (She seore under earth that wo person had been on her bed in about 2 years.) Does this violate my right to a fair trial? Should the appeal extorw, have rersed this? No matter how old the case is, these facts, along with my atedavit from Mr. Rage, is easily prowow. All Mr. Rage has done to me is enflain the stieft. I could not understand. Verify it through some other nuetral parly. Owe gave know its wrong it is obvious. *8 The DUA not Anvestated me but, with the chomst's failure to define the adde(ntias) with a relative is also asupet I begow to search for a way to have my father tested. bhew the test cane but I was rore determined to do this thow ever. I had a ewelspo with his DUA on the flap but his dooth made it lead torore to justify. I smply couldn't figure out has to do it. My reesow for this way of thinking are many. My father molested my sester, then robisted my cown's daughter (fep-doustie). When he visited me he referred to the complacenor as that bitch" and the tist $6^{''}$ as if he twees her and her character forllying. Her ongrwal statement was of a red hawed (curly hawed), will several days growt of beard, 5-9 etc. I was 6 that, blood hair and blue eyes, stungyand could not grow a beard. She first

*15

sud her assailant was in his late 20s, but then as the officer sstarted questioving her based on his betef that I was the support she changed the description to between 18-20. (My father and I look young for our ages.) All of the above takes time to recouler from and decide what to do wort. 49. In Novembu 2017 net a Mr. Curtis look who had worted in the egecranmation field for about 45 years or so. I asked him to rewen nyy tual testimowes and he agreed to do so pro bono. He wrote me aw aftitbout on Jan. 6, 2010 stating that the States so-called expert was bying. She suare under oath, that the glosses found at the crime scene were a perfect match for me. Mr. Cook pointed out to me that Mr. English gave oue prescription as Direct that was different than the oue given on Cass. His question was, "Which is it? It can't be both." Lobady w ny trial prectiowed the extegnity of the's master" of her fietit. Mr. Cook, however, pointed out to me that he betiwed the D.A. hadtled to the Judje and nyy tual lawyer when describing her as aw expert. 410. Now as I am sonretlores, 20 finally downed on me to write the Board of Medical Examiners to see it they had a listing for her back in 1886, and they wrote back and said they had no listing for her on any level of the field. Tons Mediod Board letter is dated March 6, 2014.

CONCLUSION OF YEARS OF RESCANCIV

I had by this time accumulated about 100 lbs of paper ( 9 buys) and itcuss time to try and weed at all down to something that would fit in the 50 page rule. It wouldit so I had to get rid of any issue I teared would be ignored because it shouldthave been tiled in a wort. It you will consider the time from ny most powerful prices of new edicure you will see that it really has wt been that long: Forcusses Expert, Larry Kegles Affidavit, Jan 31,2008; Mr. Cutts cook, Eire Evarestion

*16 Expect, January 10, 2010; Texas Medical Board, March 6, 2014. My start was filed October 29, 2014, about seven (?) months from this last entry. The County suit on the w/1t until June 29, 2015, which was out of my control.

Ex parte Smith, 463 S.W. 2d 185 (рисли App. 1471) In sinth, above, the Court acknowledged an individual's shortcomings, and the inability to act because of these shortcomings, in relation to an ineffective assistance claim, as follows: "Where, at time of indictment was returned against him, petitrower was 16 years of age, was indigent and notperceived in legal matters, and petitrower received no advice from his count appointed attorney, or anyone else, with reference to his constitutional and legal rights in a criminal trial, petitrower was entitled to habeas corpus relief on ground of ineffective assistance of counsel. (Texas code of Criminal Procedures, Article 44.2)" In my case, at time of indictment I was 19 years of age, was indigent and had never been a jury trial, with scientific evidence, and I received no advice from court appointed counsel, or anyone else, with reference to my constitutional and legal rights in a criminal trial of this welfare, and I had to come down and learn the law on my own. I had about a T. 9 grade average and a GED. I was put on the most violent w/1t in the T.P.C.3. after I was beaten, roped and forced to work all day. I literally was learning the law to live, and no amount of state speculation can change the fact that I would have filed my w/1t years ago if I could have. I, here today, at this time, because counsel failed me and it took me all these years to learn about I I know. It has been learn or die since they are.

*17 Ex parte Jordan, 879 S.w.2261 (ver Cn-App, 1994) Please note the dates of the evidence to be leated in this 1994 case. In Jordan the court held that the petitioner was entitled to relief with respect to his claim that counsel was ineffective for tailing to investigate the validity of a prior used for enhancement purposes at perishment phase of his trial. The prior was from 1959 (about 26 years post, in another state, Louisiana. I raised the same exact issue, but for a different background reason, and my priors are from 1984 +1985, from Harris +460 (perry Londres.

$* ⋆$

Carlos Trevino v. Thaler (U.S. Supreme Court, May 2013)

In this Trevino, U.S. Supreme Court ruling, as a 5-4 ruling the Court decided to hear an ineffective assistance case for the first time in a federal unit, though not raised on appeal out of Texas. I put this here because of the statements made by the Justices regarding Texas appeal system regarding ineffective assistance claims, because the rules of Texas procedure made it virtually impossible for has to raise that issue during an appeal in state court, and that a system like that of taxes does not offer most defwikants a meaningful opportunity to prescint a claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel in an appeal.

What if, as in my case, it is a claim against both counsel for trial and appeal? I love our state and the Great Limit, but learning to use this system as a long, difficult process. It's not a complete dummy, but what of the guys who are? There's no help coming, ever.

*18 I Here Address State + Judge Reasons For Denial

On June 26, 2015 the State filed its own "State's Answer To Apphcations For Postconversion wort of Habous Corpus," and it filed one for the Writ Judge titled, "Findings of Fact And Endessous of Lack." This last case they made for the Judge was signed December 29, 2015.

Objection To Ruling This is a Not-Disgance Affidavit presented here because the wort Court did not allow ne the chance speak and presert evidence in my own behalf. I was barred from the hearing so all I can do also is address the issues the State and Lort Judge made on these papers, which do not prevent them from addressing my wort issues.

Richards v. Gunterman, 578 F. Supp. 2d 849; 2008 U.S. Dist. 120566221.

The facts in the Richards case are exactly the munc: I filed my wirt on October 29, 2014. The State created its own "State's Exposed Desguation of Issues" and one for the wort Judge titted, "Desguation of Issues," on December 21, 2014. The Judge made his on Order on November 24, 2014. The Judges' order clearly state's that he has considered the application, and the file in the case, and finds that all of my effective assistance of counsel Alarrs as appeal, should be resolved. To resolve these fact issues he Orders appeal counsel to provide as affidavit in 30 days. After 118 days I file a motion requesting as attisney to help me with the case and ask if counsel has decided to violate the 30 day order. The appeal counsel then produces as affidavit claiming us memory.

*19 Then, on June 26, 2015, the State files two more documents, its own "state's Answer to Application for Postconviction Unit of Habeas Corpus, and are for the Unit Judge, 'Findings of fact And Continuous Of Law." The Unit Judge signs hes as an Order on June 29, 2015. As in the Richards case, the Unit Judge is different than the trial judge, the appeal counsels' affidavit is the only piece of evidence outside of the record allowed us to the hearing, and I was not allowed to participate or show all the evidence I is showing here. In the Richards case the higher court called this system for denying a charade.

The issues in the State and Judges' form, made by the State, show the following reasons for denying my application. I would address each of the because the each claim to be a problem because of the latewees of my will filing:

Court Appointed Appeal Counsels Loss of Memory: As was expected, counsel has lost his memory about everything related to my case. I can't even begin to understand how he can say this and that it's my fault. I am here because of him, for the most part, and his lack of recency does not atter my accusations as prawn in the trial records, the case law + US + Texas Constitutions, and my Attidavists in support.
The State claims that the Clerk claims (no athehurt in support of the statement) that the reporter's record from the application's terial is univulable, and hes not been in the clerk's possession save at least 2005. They can buy, as I did, the entire Appeal File, with the trial testimonies the Appeal Counsel filed, from the Seer Houston Regional Law Library + Research Center over in Liberty, Texas, as did I for 10 t a page. Is the State suggesting that this is inadequate for a wirt hearery but olay for my appeal? Again, I don't know how I can be held

*20 accovitable for her copy. It is my understanding nothing is to ever be lost or destroyed. It may wist issues against counsel, I quoted the page and have numbers, and the facts outside the record were included in the Affidavits + the Medical Board letter, which were included. These are facts that Iawit be deweed, no matter how much time has passed. 3. The state claimed that I did not offer any excuse as to my delay in tility the application, yet I did. On October 29, 2014, the Clerk received my application and everything in support of my claims, made copies of them and returned them to me. This are as follows: A. Letter To Clerk. Ask her to please file all documents and and copies to the D.A. B. To wort Judgy Asked permission to file wirt. C. Motiow for Hearing To Determine Findings of Facts + Conclusions of Law. D. Motiow Requesting "Order" To Parties To Produce Dementals. E. Affidavit of Judgency. F. Writ Application Under TC.C.P., Article 11.07. 6. Memorandum's Introduction Page. Table of Contents (page 11). shows my Exhibit #4, Affidavit of the Misewce, T. Evans (in pages) Rebirthcovers my due diligence issue), and Table of Activities By Grand Number. H. Applicavit's Memorandum, 50 pages as is the law. I. Appendices Contents Page, which shows six items: "Appendices Content's Page; "Applicavit's "3 male Declaration" T. Evans, (in page); "Exhibit #2, Affidavit, Mr. God, Applacent, (5 pages); "Exhibit #3, Tens Medical Board letter, (2 pages, letter envelope; #5 Exhibit #3, Affidavit, Mr. Risle, Forensics Expert, (22 pages); and "Exhibit #4, Affidavit of the Migence, T.L.Evans, (11 pages). (A team to EA shows my title page for this item attached to the item. A2, A2, A3, A4, A5, A6, are there, as described above. Ite 6 A is clearly identified in two places and is found on page 6A. I addressed 12.

*21

issue of the hacks. I don't know why the State cleaned I made no offer to explain the issue. Did they be? Did the Clerk again lose a witer? $⋆ ⋆ ⋆$

As this Affidust of the Dilegence for Court of Criminal Appeals has covered the issue, I now believe that the issue of hacks has now become our“ theat needs to be resolved. As I have raised the case law of Richards v. quartemen, S.T.S.F.Supp. 2d 849, 2008 U.S. Post LEEIS 66221, I believe the issue could be more readily addressed in a fair hearing, with counsel, where both sides are heard, not the State above.

CHRONRICOTIC TABLE OF DUE DILIGEN EVERITS

*22

BREET

My better to Applet
My best
Noth App louser
Motow for Bheeng
Motow for Bheeng

BRIEF SUMMARY

Porphow of louser's 3 error, failed to bue My bural 3 woL. 10. 94 buat App louser to bue. Granted 9-7-88 20. Motow for Bheeng

SAH Paes Not Apper Error Correct!,

Overruled No. Submitted The Sam Invorret Argument 2/38/2-88 Refused 0RDEK, Final Rating, Refusek 3/10/89 The end of wot, failed to but Records, sevited Roudy Roudon 22. Atleapls To but Records, Measess wotne Aushw Sate Louser, Roudy Rappad louser, 20088 Weft called a round, we dly found. But How to 11 23. Atrathlous Louser 24. 94 buat Louser, 1/1/89, sold for 1905 to 11-31-8001 25. Atrathlous Louser 26. 94 buat Louser, 1/1/89, sold for 1905 to 11-31-8001 27. 94 buat Louser, 1/1/89, sold for 1905 to 11-31-8001 28. Non Paged 29. Removed 5 F. 31. Justivol Louser Lueing 32. Lueing, 7 K 33. 94 Appod (not Paged) Rouds ed. ReLlouser wov 3 have 25 and 3000 I wov wots 34. Most. louser, 7 D. 2 Wov Woprest Investigation Info. 35. Louser's who (anlob Rejuss 36. Non Bouslet 37. Removed Report 38. Carlisle Repled 39. Hout louser, Records Pymuon Aabed for all of st. 40. Response 41. Removed Report

BAYES

$9 - 2 - 88$ $9 - 7 - 88$ $11 - 2 - 88$ $11 - 16 - 88$ $11 - 22 - 88$ $12 - 8 - 88$ $2 - 22 - 89$ $5 - 10 - 89$ $5 - 10 - 89$ $89 - 14 - 93$ $94 - 27 - 01$ $5 - 30 - 02$ $6 - 24 - 03$ $7 - 12 - 02$ $7 - 02$ $7 - 17 - 02$ $7 - 17 - 03$ $9 - 24 - 04$ $10 - 16 - 02$ $10 - 20 - 02$ $2 - 6 - 03$ $2 - 10 - 03$ $8 - 24 - 07$ $9 - 4 - 02$ $9 - 15 - 02 (?)$ $4 - 10 - 03 (?)$ $10 - 44 - 02$

*23

CHEATS

W. Requered apan/heath

D. P.S.

Respondd/He, beis for
Revived my agnost
Revieved
Thank you letter
Houston Lab
Mr. Ryle/Power Expert forole as fated perns. to write PRO BCKDDS Pornission to write/sand documents
D.P.S. Excavational

Refuses all hobb 54. County Clect 103. County Clect 104. Deputy Respond 105. Report Prors wn Pictowal of Facts Eadly have to SF. 10-28-62 106. Report Pors 107. Requeat from Selem 108. Wrote Aloun 109. Self Cawel for Dibujes Mr. Prithes whist help me. 110. County Clect 111. wrote Reporter 112. Wrote Appol Cawel 113. Wrote Appol Cawel 114. Trial Cawel/He Lnodate / Our royands wo monsay (her first trial)) 115. Eye glasses, why fults that / Asked for test results. 116. Roray Not Eye Unw

Same thing. 6v. Eye Clwic /M. Fagdist States so-called apent /ayy of results etc. 69. Classification TIDET. Records Measured to tifod to hie der. Cometling 70. Stiles and Hoked Reparls Eye gheers into 71. Stiles Holf/Met Ms. reppls same request

WITET

$12 - 3 - 62$ $1 - 28 - 03$ $2 - 13 - 03$ $3 - 10 - 03$ $7 - 21 - 03$ $9 - 27 - 03$ $4 - 23 - 03$ $4 - 30 - 03$ $5 - 31 - 03$ $- - - 03$ $8 - 21 - 02$ $10 - 22 - 02$ $10 - 28 - 62$ $4 - 9 - 03$ $4 - 16 - 03$ $4 - 30 - 03$ $5 - 5 - 03$ $6 - 9 - 03$ $- - 2 - 03$ $- - -$ $5 - 19 - 06$ $10 - 22 - 02$ $1 - 9 - 03$ $1 - 9 - 03$ $1 - 9 - 03$ $1 - 29 - 03$ $2 - 27 - 03$

*24

*25

EVENTS:

Harris County
White Justice Dept.
Blackton Law School
Blacks Towe's Response
JUNOCO. Project
JUNOCO. Project
JUNOCO. Project
JUNOCO. Project
JUNOCO. Project
JUNOCO. Project
JUNOCO. Project

DEVELOPMENTARY

My Repows to 552,880,000 equity (No response) see if my recorded decaldures 2014/1 March 2314.10:25-26 Reyond 14-23-05 that I should seek local help (PREF)

You may have no 8 for choices / I need to know

No issues.

Help me.

No help re.

No health caregests 2 and writers (1008) located my abbi witnesses in 88 Jack Bowels legal Support Services (No Response 1004)

You start/how, serous, etc./Help read-to many behind things

Howed/Return To Smoker/wort help request.

My business / No response

You have thee reyns or peripatients case two)

Report Receptiates for "See"rest

Not Authorized To Support, etc.

Revoivtion + Assocmors/Post 8/No Response

No. Mortuce (Bost says my help no. 41103)

No. Mortuce (Her friend wonn/Just ways)

I can't Repetולing thet. Covert ANOS phone

To prove prior wrong dates, etc.

The price.

You have 1004 my 1005. 10:25-26

You're 1004 my 1005. 10:25-26

You're 1005. 10:25-26

*26 | Event | BRIEF SURVARY: | DATE: | |------|-----------------------------|------| | 12. Tumor. Project | B. School/Adult for help | 11-29-10 | | 18. Langer Longest Poverty | For help plus a form as has other case-lying outcomes | 12-31-10 | | 19. Puzzle Burstony. Mergers Go/Sumbed post during RANALA potential too Tally | 1-10-05- | | 19. Houseworn Crowell | Ask writer for help. | 12-3-10 | | 191. HMO Swamp pastes | Enice that, indeed someone to meet Subalative HMO? | 12-3-10 | | 192. Response HMO | Fires to locate some / other at person who wortg the / that | 1-12-12 | | 122. Halo Followed up | A record of would show up / and text-remes. | 10-9-12 | | 122. Halo Followed up | Seeds 250 for an address. | 1-16-13 | | 128. MMT Jowery, Work | Larger) 23/1 be help? as R. Purchased at paper to be. | 2-6-13 | | 131. MMT Jowery, Work | Request for documents | 1-17-05- | | 131. MMTly. Clerks | Asked for planet starts in H.M.M.U. | 5-10-05 | | 128. MMTly. Clerks | Bought some / reported other / (Ethnicity) | 6-13-05 | | 28. Response | Send Ethnicity in Registers Adoptive, and find us go more | 6-24-05 | | 129. Manifest Non-Whose | Redefine method, Inc. (Seen Artist) | 2-11-13 | | 129. Wrote me | Offered help with a lawyer for 395 | 2-11-13 | | 129. Wrote me | She payed 8795 | 2-12-13 | | 129. They wrote | Form letters/down working | 3-17-13 | | 129. They wrote | Form letters/down working | 5-16-13 | | 129. They wrote | Form letters/down working (Reuburny 16 a seen) | 7-1-13 | | 129. Wrote than a year | Form letters - Trash (State my most) | 3-5-14 | | 129. Writ. / Bet. B2. Boker. (For next people they seen | This time send Morn's money to bet | - | | 129. Count 100. App. | Book said by act of the PMR (Writ is above) | 9-8-14 | | 129. C.C.A. Response | App lawyer's PMR filled 1995 / Me after a allowed | 9-17-14 | | 129. MMTjowery. Count, Work | Grand Day Minutes / an English Fats / And A.B. to the? | 7-30-14 | | 131. MMTj. Count, Work | I asked for specifics | 7-26-14 | | 152. Response Haves | Send 8/1 per page, but not page count! | 8-1-14 |

*27 EVERY:

Cust Resp. fadions 154. Trans Medical Band 154. State Bar 155. State Bar
1. Find Met 1607
See Filed I 4
State Files
Today 5,500
If.ie.
State Files
Judgesqum
Noticed by Cust

C.C.A.

Ifie:

Date Cust 165. Ifie:

C.C.A.

Ifie:

DESEF SURVEY:

By fee to "research to issue" Answers PPE injury (of PPE) (of PPE) and for N. Expleat) About D. A. Mr. Stover Giving

Said I failed to marre a lawyer (thought be men a lawyer)

Said Cust will find good letter process Addis Ababa, Addis Ababa, 19-29-19 *

Filed over fractions, /refidants /fice/stamped with good Gypes

Judges "Designation of Issues"

Judge signs thence filed for him. (So days for Appom Afe) Attidants Matron for App. of Lawsof (for days and Ap. law. But 6,700 1. It's own" Yehus kowker of PPE. No Post Cunict of Hd 90)

And Judges" Funding of Part + Gancs. of Law"

Judge signs thence for him she sewer File to C.C.Aapp. buof (I required 9 days to.) she sewer me 100 reps of what The said (has my Aft. included) Compt of Cen. App. (Don't know reps precedures) Matron for Ext. of En. to Beyond To Put. conch Boiled Bow, District Court "Objection to Ralug" (Pp. 11-15 Matron to Respond Attidowit /fictiosive Gavenge of See Dil. (and PPE 9)

As mentioned, there were people I wrote without making copies, and sometimes I forgot to put dates. All of the above was because trial + appeal comserts failed me. In regards to this Holes issue my Pee Edgence is obvious. I'm wot the smartest person in the bunch but at least I tried. Most important there wereis stow states wot that long ago and they are critical to the States case and my claim of actual innocence. Mod the information been made to trial and appeal comserts, and had they wot been court agree uted, the outcome of guilt and sentence would leave been different. From the moment of the letter from the Trans Medical Board stating no PPE's history to the States alleged Expert, Meach 6,200 until fitem of the wot on September 29, 2014, is only about 7 months.

The only thing I could add to my investigation would be a traweryplian of the Grand Jury Hearing where I'm sure the D.A. Mr. Stover, Iow wild, and

*28 to locate the local agency who conducted the investigation of my trial judge, Judge Mathew, in part during my 1956 trial, ordered by the Justice Dept., for his violation of an unrelated person's rights. I reason that investigators of this matter, record things. As some of Judge Mathew's actions were in the Court from I wanted to simply ask an investigator if they had wadertously recorded my trial. That would prove that I'm telling to thel.

Thank you for your time and consideration in just reading this roughly document.

Respectfully submitted, En the Eerere Thome, Lee Eown TDCJ #435211, however short 810 FM 2821 Humboll, Texas 77349

"Iwurates Declaration." I'ware under the fear of the penalty of peciey that everything in this Affidant of Dee Négence is true and correct to my own personal kwastedge, Today's date is: July $15, 2015$ . segnator: Ee the Eerere Thomes Lee Eowns

*29

Exhibit "2"

AFFIDAVIT

THE STATE OF TEXAS COUNTY OF BRAZORIA

BEFORE ME, the undersigned authority, on this day personally appeared CURTIS COOK, who by me duly sworn, upon oath deposes and says, "I am CURTIS COOK. For nearly forty years I have been 1 icensed by the American Board of Opticianary, and have worked within the field of opticianal practice at all 1eve1s of the trade. My complete professional credentials are included in my curriculum vitae, which is part of this affidavit.

Thomas Lee Evans contacted me in November of 2009, and told me that he had been in a jury trial, [Cause No. 19,180 ] in which a pair of glasses were used in his trial to link him to a crime. He asked me if I would review the testimony of a Texas Department of Corrections optometrist, a Mrs. Nanette English, and a Mrs. Denise Arnaud, a Texas Department of Corrections employee in charge of Medical Records. His objective was to verify or disclaim a statement by Mrs. Arnaud that a Comparison Test made by a T.D.C. employee for the police as part of their investigation, of the glasses found at a crime scene to a prescription form made while Mr. Evans was in T.D.C., was in fact "Records kept in the normal course of business of the Texas Department of Corrections"; and whether or not this Comparison Test was "Records that were made in connection with your official duties with the Texas Department of Corrections." I agreed to read his documents and give him an opinion, pro bono.
MRS DENISE ARNAUD, In Charge of Medical Records of the Central Region of the T.D.C.: (a) Under Oath, Mrs. Arnaud stated that State's Exhibit #12, are "Records kept in the normal course of business of the Texas Department of Corrections,"(S.F. Vol. IV, page 400, 1ines 8-11); and that they are "optician records of inmate Thomas Lee Evans,"(S.F. Vol. IV, page 400, 1ines 12-25, thru page 401, 1ines 1-5); and specifically agreed with the District Attorney that, "these records that were made in connection with your official duties with the Texas Department of Corrections,"(S.F. Vol. IV, page 401, 1ines 6-9). It is revealed that the last page is the results of the Comparison Test made against the crime scene glasses against Mr. Evans' prescription while he was incarcerated in T.D.C.,(S.F. Vol. IV, page 408, 1ines 15-25, thru page 409, 1ines 1-12).

QUESTION: Is the Comparison Test made by a T.D.C.

*30

employee for the State as part of its criminal investigation, a "Record kept in the normal course of business of the Texas Department of Corrections."

ANSWER: No. I have been associated with the opticiand field for about forty-five years and I never heard of an optometrist, or an un1icensed, self-proclaimed"Clinic Supervisor" in charge of "dispensing glasses," conducting an examination of criminal evidence and then holding a Comparison Test of those results to our records. The analysis of evidence and the Comparison Test are not part of our"normal course of business." The prescription made while Mr. Evans was in T.D.C. is, the analysis of evidence and the results of the comparison test are not.

Mr. Evans also pointed out to me that he was not in prison during this Comparison Test, but in the county jail. I don't see T.D.C. being in control of Mr. Evans in any way.

3. MRS. NANETTE ENGLISH, Wa11s Clinic Supervisor:

In addition to the above, I made several independent observations regarding the testimony of Mrs. English, a "Supervisor of the Wa11s Clinic of the Texas Department of Corrections"(S.F. Vo1. IV, page 403, 1ines 18-20); whose job description is "I run the eye clinic there dispensing glasses" (S.F. Vol. IV, page 403, 1ines 23-24). The District Attorney, Mr. Stover, before the trial began during a pre-trial hearing, stated that she was an "ophthalmologist from TDC" and that she had: "come down to testify and said it was the glasses prescribed to him and given to him while he was serving time at TDC." The Judge responds "Okay." Since the trial has not began yet, I presume she testified in a Grand Jury Hearing. (S.F. Vol. II, page 183, 1ines 22-25, thru page 184, 1ines 1-3). At any rate, I question whether or not Mrs. English is an ophthalmologist, a Doctor,qualified to make any observations. She made several statements to the lawyers that showed a lack of experience in the opticiand field, which in my opinion is misleading to the lay person, and would wrongly support the State's claim that these glasses were positive1y Mr. Evans'. She specifically states, "the glasses match the prescription," (S.F. Vol. IV, page 409, 1ines 8-12," as if she is an authority on the subject of testing a pair of glasses found at a crime scene, and then comparing that analysis to a known prescription. As I'11 show, I have reason to believe that she is not an authority in the opticiand field. I also notice that the lack of opticiand knowledge by every person there, including the judge, allowed Mrs. English and the D.A. to introduce a false statement as if it were true. A truly skilled practitioner, such as I, could have easily discredited Mrs. English's testimony, or verified its authenticity. (a) QUESTIONS FOR MRS. ENGLISH:

Did you test Mr. Evans while he was in prison? At (S.F. Vol. IV, page 404, 1ines 15-16) she states that a "doctor" does the testing. At Page 406, 1ines 10-11,

*31 she says that the Ramsey III Eye C1inic conducted the examination (another prison); and confirms the State's question of whether or not "the order actually issued was for the glasses that the doctor ordered for him,"(S.F. Vol. IV, page 408, 1ines 11-14); and then "the eye clinic actually ordered the exact prescription that the doctor had said?" "Yes, sir."(S.F. Vol. IV, page 407, 1ines 20-22). Who are these doctors? Are they 1 icensed? Is the document even authentic? I wouldn't question this but for the fact of this testimony being deceptive. (Her and the D.A. testifying as if she is qualified, an ophthalmologist (S.F. Vol. II, page 183, 1ines 22-25, thru page 184, 1ines 1-3) qualified to give a professional opinion, when she is obviously not.) If she will mislead the layman in this manner, then what else would she do? 2. The D.A. asked Mrs. English if she has a "machine" she can test glasses on and she says"yes."(S.F. Vol. IV, page 408, 1ines 18-21.) She then admits to testing the crime scene evidence on this machine and coming to the conclusion that these glasses were exactly the same as those ordered for him,(S.F. Vol. IV, page 409, 1ines 3-15).

My question here, is, what qualifies her to do a test of these glasses on a 1ensometer? Is she a 1 icensed optomitrist? Where did she get her training? 3. Had she told me she knew how to use a 1ensometer I would have asked her to demonstrate the procedures. It would be easier for the unexperienced person to "say" they have made an exact finding than to actually recieve one by proper operation. (b)OVERALL there is no "professional" analysis here, and the only "proof" I see here of "her" conclusion is her "own" opinion. The most glaring example of her inexperience is found on Direct and Cross-examination. When asked at (S.F. Vol. IV, page 406, 1ines 12-22) what kind of vision problem Mr. Evans had, she simply said "Myopic," which is a legitimate analysis, accurately defined as "nearsighted," which the D.A. defines as "he can see close up, okay, but can't see things far away." But, on Cross-examination at(S.F. Vol. IV, page 413, 1ines 14-25) she is asked the same question and states, "Myopia with an astigmatism" which is a completely different prescription. For example, a person with myopia could not even see through a pair of glasses of someone with an astigmatism. Which is it, myopic, or myopic with an astigmatism? And then she falsely defines this prescription as, "That means he's nearsighted, can see close up; but can't see far off. An astigmatism reflected has to be put in to correct different angles," and Mr. Evans' lawyer says, "Okay." This is not okay. An astigmatism means an "irregular cornea," not an "astigmatism reflected has to be put in to correct different angles." Merriam Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, Tenth Edition, defines it as:"Astigmatism:1: a defect of an optical system (as a lens) causing rays

*32 from a point to fail to meet in a focal point resulting in a blurred and imperfect image. 2: a defect of vision due to a stigmatism of the refractive system of the eye and esp. to corneal irregularity. 3: Distorted understanding suggestive of the blurred vision on an astigmatic person."

Mrs. English's only attempt at technical jargon associated with my trade proved that she was not a skilled practitioner. Had a truly skilled optician been called upon by Mr. Evans' lawyer, such as I, to question Mrs. English, her inexperience would have been easily revealed and the outcome of the eye glasses testimony and the admissibility, would have possibly been much different. Nothing in this entire testimony convinces me that the glasses tested, if they were tested, were the exact same as those issued to Mr. Evans while in prison. I quit practicing two years ago after forty-seven years in the field, and I can in good conscience make this claim based on my own extensive qualifications.

*33

EMPLOYMENT Curriculum Vitae

CURTIS COOK

MASTER CERTIFIED OPTICIAN

Education:

Apprenticed Under My Father, Beginning At Age Fourteen Master's Achieved In 1979 American Board of Opticianary International Academy Of Texas Certified Ophthalmic Association Of Texas Employment: Self-emploed For Forty Years, Certified Optician's Office

INMATE'S DECLARATION "I. under both Federal law (28 U.S.C. $\$ 1746 $) a n d S t a t e l a w (V . T . C . A . C i v i l P r a c t i c e & a m p; R e m e d i e s C o d e,$ \ $132.001 - 132.003$ ), CURTIS COOK, TDCJ #1585493, incarcerated at Ramsey One, in Brazoria County, Texas, declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing INITIALED pages of this affidavit are true and correct.

Executed on January 6, 2010.

*34

Exhibit " 3 "

AFFIDAVIT

THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ORANGE

BEFORE ME, the undersigned authority, on this day personally appeared Larry Ragle, who being by me duly sworn, upon oath deposes and says, "I am Larry Ragle. I am with the Center for the Forensic Sciences.

My professiona 1 credentials are included in my curriculum vitae which is part of this affidavit.
Thomas Evans contacted me by mail dated December 1, 2003. He had obtained a copy of my book, Crime Scene, AvonHarper/co11ins, 1995. Evans indicated in his letter that he had read the chapter on serology, specifically the section on secretor status and ABO typing of semen samples. He asked if I would review the laboratory and police reports that he had obtained regarding his case. I agreed to review his documents, pro bono.
I have reviewed several documents submitted to me for review related to Thomas Evans' case: a) Scene and Investigation Reports from the Montgomery County Sheriff's Office regarding case #86-14560; b) Texas Department of Public Safety Laboratory Reports-Case #L2H54833 (1) Serology Examination by Sondra Denney. (2) Hair Examination by Randy Snyder; (3) Transcript of Testimony of Sondra Denney at trial pages 365-389.
The serology report by Sondra Denney of the Texas Department of Public Safety indicates the presence of semen by P30 but in a quantity below the sensitivity of the Inderect ABO or secretor status techniques, used in 1986. There were two stains, however no attempt was made to combine them. No ABO activity (detection) is also explained when the sample is that of a non-secretor. Evans was determined to be a type A secretor, the victim a non-secretor. These results obtained do not implicate Evans in any way other than-he is male. This is an opinion based upon these 1986 results only. The ABO typing system is, today, totally obsolete for forensic purposes. At the time of Mr. Evans' trial it was the only test available. At best, ABO type, secretor status and PGM typing could exclude possible donors but could never be specific. In Evans' case, the results, as described above by the analyst, were inconclusive.
In a March 15, 2004 letter to me from Mr. Evans he asked several questions that I answered in a letter dated April 4, 2004. The following background information, questions and

*35 answers are excerpted from those two letters:

Mr. Evans' Letter, 3/15/04: Page 2: "NOTE: Nearly all of the following questions are critical of the procedures used by the officials mentioned. I can't help doing this. Though I would like to know your opinion based upon your full range of professional knowledge, in all fairness I have asked these questions with the limits in mind of the technology and understanding available to these people between June & October of the year 1986. These are the days between when the crime was committed and the trial's ending. * * *

"Crime Scene:

Patrol Officer, Mr. Robert Paul Dunn:

On the night of the assault, June 15, 1986, the first officer on the scene, (Mr. Robert Paul Dunn of the Montgomery County Sheriff's Dept.), interviewed the victim, (Ms. Maury Lynn Stryker), for about 20 minutes, and then escorted her and her friend, (Ms. Shirley Jordan), back to Ms. Stryker's apartment so that he could secure the scene, (S.F. Vol. III, page 315, lines 11-20).

Upon arrival they each noticed that the apartment door was open, and had been open for approximately 30 minutes. Officer Dunn told them not to disturb the door, (S.F. Vol. III, page 314, lines 21-24), and together the three of them entered the apartment and walked around to see what was out of place. During the course of their search they found several items of evidence inside the apartment, (S.F. Vol. III, page 324, lines 10-17), and after realizing that Ms. Stryker's purses were missing, found them outside the apartment by a sidewalk and some trees, (S.F. Vol. III, page 268. lines 16-25, through page 269, lines 1-18).

Sometime during this, a man showed up at the scene and claimed to be the apartment security. This person did not testify, and the fact that he was a black person, and his name, have been removed from the S.F. I would also like to point out at this time that Ms. Stryker's windows were securde, the sliding glass door was secured and with spiderwebs on it, and she said that she always locks her door.

Though the S.F. has been edited for the most part of the following, Officer Dunn and Ms. Stryker both stated that Ms. Stryker was not bleeding or in any need of immediate medical attention. Though not in need of immediate medical attention, Officer Dunn left the crime scene in the care of this guy who is said to be apartment security, (S.F. Vol. III, page 344, lines 17-21). Though called, no other police were present at this

*36 time, the door was left open, and there was two purses laying outside somewhere.

Question 1: Should Officer Dunn have 1et Ms. Stryker and Ms. Jordan walk around the crime scene?

Mr. Rag1e's Letter, 4/7/04: Answer 1. Re Dunn allowing Stryker and Jordan back into the scene. Answer: No. The scene should be examined and photographed first. After that, only the victim should be allowed to enter the scene, and then, just far enough to inform the investigator where events took place, what items are not hers, what has been moved or changed and what might be missing. In general, this is not a fatal blunder but certainly could compromise some investigations. A non involved person should never be allowed into the scene.

Evans' Letter: Question 2: Should Officer Dunn have left the crime scene in the care of this civilian?

Rag1e's Letter: Answer 2. Re Dunn leaving a civilian in care of the scene. Answer: No. However, it's not a fatal error. See #3 below.

Evans' Letter: Question 3: Because the security guy was left alone with the evidence, does his place in the chain of custody of all the items of evidence matter?

Rag1e's Letter: Answer 3. Re security guy breaking the chain of possession. Answer: He is in the chain of possession if he had sole control of the evidence for a period of time. If the DA failed to call him as a witness, Mr. Canlas (or appropriate counsel) can explain better than I, how it effects the admissibility of all the evidence.

Evans' Letter: "Crime Scene Investigator, Srg. Noel Stanley: In October of 2000, Identification Investigator, A.B. Carlisle, of the Montgomery County Sheriff's Dept., sent to me a copy of the enclosed packet I've tilted "Montgomery

*37

File, 86-14560", which is 4-pages. He sent me a color copy of some pictures as well, but I spilled some water and two small dots landed on them. If I can't get a new copy I may have to send these.

On page 1, you will see a form made by Srg. Noel Stanley titled "Supplementary Investigation Report", dated 6-15-86 at the top. On this form Srg. Stanley states that he arrived on the scene at "3:15 a.m.", and that he "photographed the scene as he saw it". In the trial he states that another fellow, (Mr. Jerry Jackson), photographed the scene "at his direction", (S.F. Vol. III, page 356, lines 6-20; and page 360, line 25, through page 361, lines 1-12).

In this Supplementary Investigation Report, Srg. Stanley also states that he was contracted at "2:35 a.m." by the Montgomery County Sheriff's Dept. Dispatch, and that an Identification Officer was requested by Srg. Billy Rogers, to go to the scene. In the trial, the D.A., Mr. F.M. "Rick" Stover, is questioning the victim, Ms. Maury Lynn Stryker, about these photos, and after Ms. Stryker identifies State's Exhibit No. 7, which has a clock dn dt, she assures Mr. Stover "twice" that the time on the clock is correct and shows the time the picture was taken. The time is described as "2:30 something a.m.", (S.F. Vol. III, page 309, lines 11-25, through page 310, lines 1-3).

Needless to say, if Srg. Stanley was contacted by phone at 2:35 a.m., and arrived at the scene at 3:15 a.m., and the pictures with a clock showing the time to be 2:30 something a.m., is true, then Srg. Stanley did not photograph the scene "as he saw it", and the statement he gave in the trial that these 6 pictures were taken by Jerry Jackson "at his direction" is not true. In this case the crime scene wasin the care of Mr. Jackson from at least 2:30 something a.m. until 3:15 a.m. At the very minimum Mr. Jackson walked around the crime scene taking pictures for 36 minutes.

Question 4: Does Mr. Jackson's place in the chain of custody of all the evidence matter, if he was there alone with the evidence for 36 minutes or more?

Ragle's Letter:

Answer 4: Re Jackson. Answer see #3. Anyone who enters the scene should be available as a witness. In California, the photographer may not be called if he didn't collect any evidence and an investigator testifies the photographs offered accurately represent the scene as it was first found. In this case however, if Jackson was alone and the scene was unprotected at first and later guarded by a civilian it may be an admissibility issue. Ask Mr. Canlas.

Evans' Letter:

*38

Question 5: If Mr. Jackson is inside the apartment at 2:30 something a.m. taking pictures, then the purses are outside in the custody of this security guy, or not in anyone's custody if the guy left.

Should Mr. Jackson have left the purses outside in this person's custody? (This is the same thing Officer Dunn did.)

Raqle's Letter:

Answer 5: Re the purses. Answer: Yes. The purses sjoold have been photographed in place and the collected, protected and packaged. Carbon dusting doesn't always work on odd surfaces but procedures for locating fingerprints on almost any type of surface were available in 1986. Superglue (cyanoacrylate) is a simple procedure available in almost any location (for example, at the local police station or at the scene). Further, most state labs, by 1986, had some type of laser or alternative light sources for locating prints on almost any type of surface.

Evans' Letter:

Question 6: Srg, Stanley is the one in charge of the crime scene investigation. Should Mr. Jackson have been walking around the crime scene alone, taking pictures, during the time Srg. Stanley was not there?

Raqle's Letter:

Answer 6: Re Jackson being alone. Answer: Stanley or Dunn should have maintained control of the scene, however, Jackson I assume, is an employee of the PD. If so, I don't see an issue other than what I have already listed.

PURSES:

Evans'Letter:

In Srg. Stanley's Supplementary Investigation Report, (Montgomery County File, page 1), he states: "I picked up the victims(sic) purse and contents from outside the apartment next to the concrete walkway and put it back in the victim's residence."

He is talking about only "one" purse. In the Statement of Facts, Ms. Stryker states that she, Ms. Jordan, (who is Ms. Stryker's friend), and Officer Dunn, returned to the crime scene, (which is before the above mentioned "2:30 something a.m." in the picture Mr. Jackson took, and before the "3:15 a.m." Srg. Stanley arrived), and they found

*39

"both" of her purses outside, (S.F. Vol. III, page 269, 1ines $15 - 16$ ).

The picture (State's Exhibit No. 10), of "two purses", one blue and one white, as "they" were found outside are discussed by Ms. Stryker again in (S.F. Vol. III, page 310, 1ines 22-25, through page 311, 1ines 1-5).

Ms. Jordan then testified that there was only "one" purse found, and she's looking at the same picture, State's Exhibit No. 10, (S.F. Vol. III, page 326, 1ines 2-11).

In officer Dunn's Direct, Mr. Stover, the D.A., refers Officer Dunn to State's Exhibit No. 10, and says "purse or purses", and then "purses", (S.F. Vol. III, page 344, 1ines $5 - 11$ ).

And in Srg. Stanley's Direct, by Mr. Stover, the D.A., the D.A. asked if the picture actually depicts the scene of Ms. Stryker's apartment and her "purse" outside the apartment as Mr. Stanley saw "them" that night, (S.F. Vol. III, page 356, 1ines 17-21).

I can't remember if Srg. Stanley recovered both purses, or if one was missing, or what. I do remember that there was confusion about this, but not the specifics. It has also occurred to me that someone has further confused the amount by rewriting some of this trial testimony. (I know for a fact that this happened in other places, unrelated to this.) If I can ever get the correct, unedited trial testimony when I will be able to add to or take away from this question.

Though edited out of the record for some reason, I do remember that Srg. Stanley stated in the trial that he didn't attempt tp print the purse(s), because they/it was of a type of material that he figured wouldn't hold a print, and though believed to have been handled by the assailant, no field test for trace evidence (such as semen) was conducted.

It is my understanding from your book that even under the most ideal conditions, the color and type of materials things are made of, as well as what kind of soaps they've been washed with, can help to hide trace elements and should not be solely relied upon. As mentioned above, one was white and one was blue, and made of a type of material that couldn't be printed.

Question 7: Should Srg. Stanley have taken these purse(s) into custody so that they could be sent off to the D.P.S. for their professional analysis?

Eagle's Letter:

Answer 7: Re the purses going to D.P.S. for examination. Answer: Yes, absolutely.

*40

Evans' Letter:

Evidence Found In The Apartment:

In the previously mentioned Supplementary Investigation Report made by Srg. Moel Stanley, (Montgomery File, page 1), you will see his list of the items of evidence that he "did" take into custody. They are described as follows:

Montgomery File, page 1: Item 1: Knife believed to belong to suspect. Item 2: Eye glasses(sic) believed to belong to suspect. Item 3: Blue mesh shirt believed to belong to suspect. Item 4: Shirt and panties of victim. Item 5: Blue tooth brush(sic) recovered from master bathroom believed used in assault.

Item 6: Bed lennin(sic) from master bed where assault took place.

And then at the bottom of the page he has written the following:

FOLLOW-UP INVESTIGATION:

On 6-17-86 at 4:30 pm, I packaged up the following items of evidence and.turned them over to Detective Eva Camp for transportation to DPS lab in Houston.

Bed linen from victims(sic) bed
Toothbrush
Envelopes containing hairs from victims(sic) bed

As you can see, the knife, eyeglasses, blue mesh shirt, all believed to belong to the assailant; and the shirt (it's also "blue" in the picture) and panties, of the victim but in contact with the assailant, were not sent off to the D.P.S. for their professional analysis. It is my understanding that the colors and types of materials, as well as detergents, can disguise trace evidence even under the most ideal conditions.

Question 8: In all fairness, I am asking this question from a 1986 perspective. Should Srg. Stanley have sent all of the above items to the D.P.S. for their professional analysis?

Rag1e's Letter:

*41 Answer 8: Re all of the victim's clothing, etc. Answer: Yes. Although detergents of other brighteners may interfere, biological stains can still be located and perhaps, identified.

Evans' Letter:

Evidence Submitted To The D.P.S.:

As mentioned above, at the bottom of this Supplementary Investigation Report, made by Srg. Noel Stanley on 6-15-86, he has made a follow-up investigation on "6-17-86", which is quoted here in the following:

FOLLOW-UP INVESTIGATION:

On 6-17-86 at 4:30 pm, I packaged up the following items of evidence and turned them over to Detective Eva Camp for transportation to DPS lab in Houston.

Now please refer to the enclosed D.P.S. File, page 2, which is the D.P.S. Physical Evidence Submission Form, dated "6-18-86", that has no signature, but is presumably made by Detective Eva Camp. This "6-18-86" date shows that evidence being submitted to the D.P.S. a day after Srg. Stanley gave her the items.

The next page, (D.P.S. File, page 3), which is the same type of form, shows the items of evidence gathered at the hospital in the sexual assault kit being also delivered. There is no date on this form, but if you will please turn to D.P.S. File, page 5, which is the Evidence Record Sheet, (Used for the Chain of Custody?), you will see that these items were "received" by the D.P.S. on "Jan. 18, 1986", and no time is indicated. This is a day after Det. Camp received the items from Srg. Stanley.

And again, in D.P.S. File, Page 7, (of a two-page form, 7-8), which is titled "Texas D.P.S. Criminalistics Results", Ms. Sondra Denney, the D.P.S. Chemist, has written a Submission Date of "6-18-86", submitted by Det. Camp in person.

The items were clearly given to Det. Camp on 6-17-86 at 4:30 p.m., and were not delivered until a day and night later on "6-18-86".

Question 9: Should Srg. Stanley have allowed these items to leave the security of his lab a day and night before they were intended to be delivered to the D.P.S.?

*42

Ragle's Letter:

Answer 9: Re Stanley allowing evidence to leave his lab. Answer: Biological and suspected stained evidence should be, at least, refrigerated (better frozen) while not being examined. There should be a logical reason why it was removed on the 17 th and an explanation as to whjere it was with Camp over night.

Evans' Letter:

Question 10: Does Det. Camp's place in the chain of custody matter, especially in light of the fact that she had to put the items somewhere overnight?

Ragle's Letter:

Answer 10: Re 'camp's place in the chain. Answer: Absolutely, for your reason stated and that the items remained sealed in their packaging.

Incomplete And Contradicting Forms:

In the enclosed D.P.S. File, Pages 2,3, &;4, which are the D.P.S. Physical Evidence Submission Forms, presumably made by Det. Camp, you will find the following contradictions and omitted information:

On pages $2 & a m p; 3$ , there is no signature.
On page 2, the submitting agency No. is "86-14560", and on pages $3 & a m p; 4$ , the submitting Agency No. is "TX 1700000".
They have my age on page 3 as "19", but on page 4 as "20".
Notice that on page 3, which contains the sexual assault kit evidence gathered off the victim, ms. Stryker, at the hospital, has my"name" as the suspect. The evidence was "received" by the D.P.S. on 6-18-86, (see the Evidence Record Sheet on page 5), which is the same day that I presume the other form must have been filled out by Det. Camp. I was already the suspect at this date, yet the handwritten form made by Det. Camp does not have my name on it as does the one that is typed up, (D.P.S. File, page 2). The way these forms are filled out, they look like they were made by either different people or at different times. One person wouldn't sit down and go through all the trouble to make these forms so different, in my eyes.
Page 3 has no Submission Date.
Pages $2 & a m p; 3$ have the zip Codes in the spaces labeled "Submitting Agency" and "Send Report To: (Agency)", as "77301",

*43

and on page 4 it is 77385 ".

Question 11: I tried to obtain the "Backs" of these forms but the General Counsel's Assistant, Pamela Smith, (Austin), would not allow me a copy and refused to assist me without an Order to do so. The copies they gave me didn't have backs on them, and I wanted to see exactly what the "Detailed Instructions On The Back Of The Sheet", stated, and to see what Det. Camp wrote under the "Note: A Brief Synopsis Or Offense Report Attached To This Submission Will Great1y Enhance Our Ability To Assist You With Your Investigation." My curiosity about this last was raised by the note written on the bottom of D.P.S. File, page 5, "Refrigerated only-6 days She is most interested in hairs", which teels me this was written at least four days after the evidence was submitted by Det. Camp, and that somebody is probably reading this from some other place, not remembering what Det. Camp said; and I was curious because the Chemist, Ms. Denney also testified in my trial that one of the hairs was short, with a slight cur1 to it, as if from the arm of a man, yet this is not supported by any of these documents found in the D.P.S. File.

Now, do you believe that it is a requirement that the D.P.S. Evidence Submission Forms, pages 2, 3, & 4, should be completely filled out, with uniform information on them?

Question 12: Should these D.P.S. Evidence Submission Forms be filled out completely and correctly, in order that the Chain Of Custody will be preserved?

Eagle's Letter:

Answer 12: Re complete forms. Answer: Obviously all forms should be completed and correct. Some errors or omissions may simply be due to sloppy work. However, if a person who is known to have examined the evidence, or opened it for any reason; has not noted this fact on the packaging (or evidence tag) or within a proper follow up report, the chain may be broken. Simple blunders (your age, for example) or omissions may be disregarded by some courts. Mr. Canlas (or appropriate counsel) will have to establish which of these chain faults prevented you from getting a fair trial. From my perspective, there are a lot of major issues that prevented you from getting a fair trial.

Evans' Letter:

Partial Or Whole Prints:

In Srg. Stanley's "Supplementary" Investigation Report, (Montgomery File, page 1), you will see that he has written: "I attempted to fingerprint several item(sic) without success."

*44

This is not true. In his "primary" 2-page report, that the officials will not let me have copys of, and in the portion of his trial testimony that has been carefully edited &; rewritten, he stated that a partial and/or a whole print were found on the edge of the glasses and on the knife.

The D.A., Mr. Stover, also held up the glasses in court and said that an overzealous officer would occasionally pick up an item to inspect it, meaning. Officer Dunn, and indicated that this is where the print came from. Mr. Stover just put this in there on his own, because there was no evidence in the trial to indicate that any of the evidence was compared to any other person than me. As he did. throughout the whole trial, when faced with an obstacle he just made up something and from then on it was the new fact.

The following is all that is left of Srg. Stanley's print testimony: S.F. Vol. III, page 357, 1ines 10-22:

Q:[BY D.A., MR. STOVER]Did you have an occasion to try to lift any fingerprints from State's Exhibit No. 1, the eyeglasses?

A: Yes, I attempted them. Q: Were you able to get any readable prints from State's Exhibit No 1 ?

A: No. Q: Did you attempt to lift any fingerprints from State's Exhibit No. 2, the knife?

A: Yes, I did. Q: Were you able to retrieve any readable prints from State's Exhibit No. 2?

A: Yes.

Question 13: Should a partial or whole print have been followed up on by the police?

Raqle's Letter:

Answer 13: Re partial prints. Answer: Yes. Standard operating procedure is to compare every recovered friction ridge information to all parties, suspects, victims, every one who is known to have been in the scene (the friend and the security guy) including all officers, investigators and civilian personnel (Jackson). Any amount of characteristics (minutia points) on the knife and glasses should have been compared to all of the above, at a

*45 minimum. An unidentified latent could indicate another suspect.

Evans' Letter:

In the following you will see that there was some type of "smears" on the doorknob. I'm not concerned with the fact that the smear was not a readable print, but what of the smear itself? Wouldn't a smear have to be made by some type of substance? Perhaps semen?

S.F. Vol. III, page 361, lines 18-23:

Q: [By Mr. Hall, Lawyer Assisting My Lawyer]What did you find on the doorknob, if anything?

A: Nothing that would indicate somebody might have touched it. It was just a smear across, like it might be two hands slipped or something like that, even if it was a hand. But it was just a smear.

And again, to the D.N., Mr. Stover:

S.F. Vol. III, page 363, lines 4-11:

Q: Sergeant Stanley, you described smears you found on the doorknob. Did you find smears in the other locations in the house that you attempted to lift prints from?

A: There was an indication that there was some type of touching or could have been fingerprints, but it was nothing that I could distinguish as fingerprints.

There is something here that he can actually see, if I am correct.

Question 14: Should or could these "smears" have gathered and sent off to the D.P.S. for analysis? If it would have been a smear made by bloody hands it would have been obviously collected. Why not semen? There were two semen stains on the sheet, so the substance was present.

Ragle's Letter:

Answer 14: Re smears. Answer: Your point is well taken but in 1986 only a skilled or experienced investigator would have the foresight to swab the smear on the door knob. It should be standard procedure today.

Evans' Letter:

*46

D.P.S. LABORATORY RESULTS:

Hair Analysis:

Enclosed with these questions is the previously mentioned packet of D.P.S. related documents I've titled, "D.P.S. File, L2H-54833". It is 22 pages, including their cover sheet. At my request, this information was sent to me by the General Counsel's Assistant, Ms. Pamela Smith, (Austin), in March 2003.

This packet contains, in part, the Hair Results of the comparison tests run against my hairs and those found at the crime scene and found on the victim, Ms. Stryker, in the sexual assault kit.

As already mentioned, this statement of Facts has been greatly edited, and in some places it now shows statements being made that didn't even occur.

Ms. Stryker stated in my trial that she had been divorced from her husband for nearly two years, and that"she'd not had sex with anyone in two years,"(S.F. Vol. III, page 312 lines 24-25, through page 313, lines 1-8), and that"no person had so much as walked into the bedroom portion of her apartment in those two years, (edited out)."

I should mention at this point that Ms. Stryker stated that her front door was locked when she went to sleep, yet no person with access to a copy of the keys were considered. Did her ex-husband have a key? The security guy?

All of the evidence gathered at the scene was believed by the police to be the link between Ms. Stryker's assailant and the crime. This belief was supported by Ms. Stryker's statement that only the assailant had been in her bedroom in nearly two years. From a police point of view, this should be the ideal crime scene for linking evidence to an assailant. Only Ms. Stryker and her assailant had been in the room in two years.

Hairs, fibers, fecal and semen stained sheets, were all sent to the D.P.S. for analysis, and when none of it was linked to me in any way, the State and its officials changed up their "words" and went around their original belief that it would be a link to the assailant. I was the only suspect and they made no attempt to follow up on anything contrary'1 to their belief that I committed this crime.

As mentioned, the D.P.S. Chemist, Ms. Sondra Denney, did testify in my trial, but the Hair Specialist, Mr. Randy Snyder, did not. I've also found a case in the law books where the chemist was allowed to testify for a hair specialist, just like my case, which was reversed because of this, and the guy's name is 'Warren' R. Snyder, (please see Cole v. State, 839 S.W.2d 798 (Tex.Crim.App.1992)). I've considered the possibility that this hearsay testimony given by Ms. Denney was edited because

*47

of this case. That someone has tried to hide it. At any rate, I had a right to have a hair specialist there to testify in my behalf, and because of that, this is probably the single most valuable group of questions I am asking outside of Ms. Denney's per jury.

Question 15: Based on the enclosed hair results, found in D.P.S. File, pages 17-22, does there appear to be any hairs not similar to the victim's or my own, that should have been followed up on by the police?

Ragle's Letter:

Answer 15: Re hair follow up. Answer; In 1986, until there was another suspect, un-excluded hair had no great value. Today, it is possible to identify one or two forms of DNA in hair. What is important here is that none of the hairs matched you so there were hairs that didn't belong to you or the victim, if I read your info correctly. So, someone else, male or female, was in that bed during or before the assault. Today, if there is tissue (skin cells) on the root, the sex of the donor could be established.

Evans' Letter:

Some of the hairs were Macro compared, but not Micro compared. I'm not sure why, but I presume that they were not Micro compared to mine because they were obviously not similar. I can understand this. But, some of the hairs were also Macro similar to Ms. Stryker's, and not Micro compared. It seems to me that Macro similar hair should be a reason for Micro comparing; to make sure. Some of these head hairs are even longer than my known hairs, and shorter than the victim's known hairs, (please see D.P.S. File, page 18, Item 7/J).

Question 16: Should any of the hairs that were Macro compared, have also been Micro compared?

Ragle's Letter:

Answer 16: Re Micro exams of the hairs. Answer: Yes, if they appear similar to one of the key people. It appears that the hair expert did properly examine all of the hairs and you were not a donor. The DA confused this clear picture with his misstatement of fact in his question to Denney. In my non-qualified opinion that alone should have got you a new trial, solely on that prosecutorial error.

Evans' Letter:

*48 Enclosed with these questions are a condensed version of some of the issues I am raising in a Texas Writ of Habeas Corpus, (T.C.C.P. article 11.07), under my ineffective assistance of appeal counse1 issue. They are titled: a. Factua11y Insufficient Evidence; b. Identity, which is the identity portion of the Factually Insufficient Evidence issue; c. Chain of Cuatody on the Eyeglasses, (because it further addressess this item of evidence); d. Suggestive Photographic &; Physical Identification Procedures, (which shows the steps to my being arrested and identified).

These 36 pages have been inciuded to aid you in answering this Question 17. If my lawyer can get the whole, unedited version of my trial, then I will try to have that forwarded to you because it will be more specific.

Question 17: Based upon your professional experience can you please give an opinion of the value of the hair results? In other words, what type of impact would a hair expert defense witness have had on a jury, under these facts of evidence, if one would have testified? Could a'reasonable doubt' have been put in the jury mind about my being the assailant, based upon the hair results? Should these hairs, gathered under the conditions previously detailed, have positively excluded me as the assailant?

Though edited out of this record, Ms. Denney, the D.P.S. Chemist, stated that a hair is always going to be pulled from the groins of two people having sex. To my untrained mind, Mr. Snyder, the D.P.S. Hair Specialist, makes it look as if my hair is unique because of the looping and triangular segment that is not found in any of these other hairs.

In your book you state that hairs can occasionally be raised to the level of a print. To my mind, here are all of these "prints", believed to be the link to the assailant, (until not linked to me), and they were ignored by the police. They were found either on the head and groin of a person who had not had sex in two years, or in a bed where no person had been in two years.

How strong of an impact should the hair specialist's statement that "No hair(public or head) similar to suspect's hair present.", have made on the jury if spoken by an expert with firsthand knowledge of the reasons for this conclusion? To me this is like undisputable evidence. If it would have

*49

been hair "similar" to mine, that fact would have been the dominating point made by the State to justify convicting me. (Please remember that I am asking this from a June-October 1986 perspective.)

Raqle's Letter:

Answer 17: Re calling the hair expert. Answer: absolutely, you should have been allowed to call Snyder. His factual report was entered into the record by your attorney and Denney said, at least twice, you were excluded as being a source of the hairs, but then the DA did another questionable trick. After he got Denney to answer his tricky question re his stating "Evans' hair found at the crime scene" he dropped another bomb, asking the question about pulling a hair from you now and then later comparing a known hair (from you). He asked, isn't it true that the most one could say is the hairs could have come from him (Evans)?

That was true at the time, matching hairs in every possible test were not an absolute identification. Is he trying to confuse the jury into believing that exclusion is not absolute? And then he mentions your blond hair for no apparent reason. This entire line of questioning should have been challenged.

AND FROM PAGE ONE OF RAGLE'S LETTER:

Perhaps the most shocking statement in the transcript is found on your page 387, line 4, where Mr. Stover recalls Denney's testimony 45 minutes earlier and concludes, "....hairs submitted to you that were collected at the scene that belonged to Thomas Evans." How did he get avay with that?

My over-all impression is, you are a victim of, 1. I11 prepared investigator's who failed to process the scene properly, 2. Serious defects in the manner in which the physical evidence was handled and the results presented in court, and 3. A prosecutor who misstated some critical issues.

*50

EMPLOYMENT Curriculum Vitae

JOHN L. (LARRY) RAGLE FORENSIC SCIENCE CONSULTANT

EDUCATION

University of California, Berkeley, Bachelors of Science, 1959 Major-Criminalistics California Peace Officer's Training Academy, 1957

EMPLOYMENT

1990-2006 Center for the Forensic Sciences - Consultant in: Management Facility Design Needs Assessments Case Review Trial Preparation 1976-1989 Orange County Sheriff-Coroner's Department, California Director of Forensic Sciences Directed the activities of the Criminalistics Laboratory, Toxicology Laboratory, Coroner's Investigations and Pathology Section, Identification and Scientific Crime Scene Investigations and the CAL-ID, AFIS/ALPS.

1960-1976 Orange County Sheriff-Coroner's Department, California Criminalist Responsible for evidence examination in a variety of crimes, crime scene evaluation, testimony and interpretation of evidence for the Grand Jury and in Municipal, Superior and Federal Courts.

1956-1960 City of Berkeley, California Patrolman/Investigator

*51 SPECIFIC EXPERIENCE Criminal Investigation Crime Scene Investigation Laboratory evidence evaluation Case management Case review Day to day laboratory operations Evidence security and control Evidence handling and chain of control (possession) Courtroom testimony Forensic Science training programs Laboratory management Laboratory safety Laboratory Information systems Automated fingerprint systems Laboratory design

FACILITY PLANNING, NEEDS ASSESSMENTS AND CONSULTING 1977-1985 Orange County Sheriff- Coroner's, California Planning, construction and operation.

1985-1989 Orange County Sheriff-Coroner's, California Planning new facility ( 189,000 sq. ft) 1989-1990 Hutton Development, Santa Ana, California Space Planning

1991-1992 San Diego Regional Forensic Laboratory, California Needs Assessment

1991-date Titan Corporation, San Diego, California Development - Laboratory Information Management System 1992-1992 Contra Costa County Sheriff-Coroner's Department, California Regional Needs Assessment.

*52

PROFESSIONAL ORGANIZATIONS

California Association of Criminalists
President 1973
American Academy of Forensic Sciences
Fellow
California Association of Crime Laboratory Directors
Emeritus
American Society of Crime Laboratory Directors
Emeritus

APPOINTMENTS

1986-1989 California Criminalistics Institute Advisory Committee California Department of Justice

1986-1989 CAL-ID RAN Operational Advisory Committee California Department of Justice

1985-1989 California State Epidemiology Work Group California Department of Health

1987-1989 Forensic Science Operations and Program Committee Federal Bureau of Investigation

1988-1989 Attorney General's DNA Advisory Board California Department of Justice

LICENSES AND CERTIFICATES

State of California, Commission on Peace Officer's Standards and Training- Advanced Certificate

State of California, Department of Health Licensed Supervising Blood Alcohol Analyst 1966-1989 State of California, Department of Education Life Time Special Designated Teaching Certificate

*53

California Association of Criminalists Certificate of Professional Competency 1989-1994

TEACHING AFFILIATIONS

1968 to 2006 California State University, Long Beach, Center for Criminal Justice. Lecturer - Forensic Sciences, Crime Scene Investigation.

1988 to 2002 University of California, Irvine Extension. Lecturer - Forensic Science.

1970 to 1976 California State University at Long Beach, Assistant Professor, Criminalistics Program.

1978 to 1984 Western State University of Law, Lecturer, Forensic Sciences. 1974 to 1978 State of California, Arson Investigation Training, Monterey, Ca. Crime Scene Investigation.

1964 to 1970 Riverside City College, Lecturer, Criminal Investigation, Crime Scene Investigation.

TECHNICAL AND MANAGEMENT PUBLICATIONS, PRESENTATIONS AND STUDIES.

Ragle, J.L., Extraction of Amphetamine from Urine, California Association of Criminalists, Semi Annual Meeting, 1963.

Ragle, J.L., Etal, Physical Evidence Manual, Federal Grant, Sections on Classification Of Evidence, Crime Scene Documentation. 1976.

Kenny, John, Editor, Etal, Principles of Criminal Investigation, Eagan, Minnesota, West Publications, 1979. Ragle, J.L., Chapter on Forensic Science and Crime Scene Investigation.

Ragle, J.L., The Falsification of Evidence, Fingerprints Don't Lie?, American Academy of Forensic Sciences, Annual Meeting, 1980.

*54 Ragle, J.L., Suchey, J. , A Human Jig Saw Puzzle Match, American Academy of Forensic Sciences, Annual Meeting, 1985.

Ragle, J.L., The Elusive Elastic Crime Laboratory, Presented to the American Society of Laboratory Directors. FBI Academy, 1989.

Ragle, J.L., Togneri, E. N. , Needs Assessment and Management Study, Consolidation of the San Diego Police, Sheriff's and Medical Examiner's Laboratories, Ruth and Going, 1992.

Ragle, J.L., Togneri, E. N., Needs Assessment for a Regional Forensic Laboratory, Contra Costa County, California. 1992

Ragle, J.L., Crime Scenes, The Value of Forensic Science, (tentative title) New York, Morrow / Avon, In publication, to be released October 1995.

*55 I have read pages 1 through 16 prepared by Thomas Evans and have reviewed my original document of 4-7-04 sent to Mr. Evans. Each answer attributed to me, #1 to #17 is taken, word for word, from the document of 4-7-04 that I prepared in response to his questions in an earlier letter. He has accurately positioned each answer, except answer #11 (see below), in relation to a question. These questions are in Mr. Evans' own words and are based on information from assorted documents (reports and transcripts) relating to his arrest and trial. I have read those documents and believe each question is relevant based on my recollection of the facts, although I cannot attest to the absolute accuracy of Mr. Evans' narratives between my answer and the next question.

All of the answers and statements attributed to me are based on my experience as a peace officer and a forensic scientist. I have examined similar cases. I have testified in California courts hundreds of times on a wide variety of crimes with absolute confidence that the lab results and the testimony given were fair and accurate.

Answer #11-Re backs of reports: Answer. Absolutely. If this is a discovery order you should receive every written document that could implicate or exonerate you, both sides of all written notes

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME on to certify which witness my hand and seal of office.

*56 CAUSE NO. 19,180 APPELLATE NO. 09-86-00240-CR P.D.R. CASE NO. 1382-88

PORTION OF STATEMENT OF FACTS VOLUME III, PAGES: 365-389

Sondra Denney's Complete Testimony: 365-373, Direct Examination. 373-386, Cross-Examination. 387-388, Redirect Examination. 389, Recross-Examination.

*57 I do hereby certify that the following 750 pages are true and correct copies of the Index To Instruments, Volume One and Two, Opinion "Convicted", Opinion "Delivered", Hearing On Motion For Indigency, Transcript of Trial, Brief For Appellant, Brief For The State, Appellant's Motion For Rehearing, Appellant Petition for Discretionary Review and the State's Response To Appellant's Petition For Discretionary Review for Case No. 09-86-00240-CR, in the Court of Civil Appeals for the Ninth Supreme Judicial District of Texas at Beaumont, The State Of Texas vs. Thomas Lee Evans, now on file in the Sam Houston Regional Library &; Research Center of the Archives &; Information Services Division of the Texas State Library &; Archives Commission.

Witness my hand and Seal of Office at Liberty, Texas on the 8th day of July, 2002.

Robert Schaudt, Director Sam Houston Regional Library &; Research Center

*58

SONDRA DENNEY,

a witness, called by the State, having been first duly sworn, was examined and testified upon her oath as follows:

DIRECT EXAMINATION

BY MR. STOVER: Q. Would you state your name to the ladies and gentlemen of the jury, please? A. Sondra Denney. Q. How are you employed, Ms. Denney? A. I'm employed as a chemist by the Texas Department of Public Safety Laboratory in Houston. Q. What training or education do you have to qualify you for the position you now hold? A. I have a Bachelor's of Science Degree in Chemistry, in addition to which I've undergone on-the-job training both at the Houston Police Department Crime Lab and the Texas Department of Public Safety Lab in Austin, in addition to which I've attended school, The Bladter Serology Research Institute in California and FBI Academy in Virginia. Q. How long did you work for the Houston Police

*59 | 1 | | Crime Lab? | | :--: | :--: | :--: | | 2 | A. | For almost three years. | | 3 | Q. | What years were those, do you remember? | | 4 | A. | Let's see, that would be, I believe it was 1981 through 19 -- of 1983. | | 5 | | Who was the director of the crime lab when you started work there? | | 6 | Q. | | | 7 | | A. Floyd McDonald. | | 8 | Q. | And is Floyd McDonald one of the recognized experts in the field of chemistry and toxicology in the police-department throughout the country? | | 10 | | | | 11 | | To my knowledge, he is. | | 12 | A. | And did Mr. McDonald leave during the period you were there? | | 13 | Q. | | | 14 | | A. Yes, he did. | | 15 | A. | Did Pete Christian then become the director of the lab? | | 16 | Q. | | | 17 | | Yes. | | 18 | A. | Did you receive on-the-job personal instruction from both of those recognized experts? | | 19 | Q. | | | 20 | | Not at that time. | | 21 | A. | Did you later -- or what type of training did you receive while you were working there? | | 22 | Q. | I received instruction from the head serologist of the laboratory. | | 23 | | |

*60 | 1 | Q. | What type of work did you do there? | | :--: | :--: | :--: | | 2 | A. | Serology. | | 3 | Q. | Would you explain to the jury what serology is? | | 4 | A. | Serology is the analysis of body fluid stains to determine the type of stains, i.e., semen or | | 5 | | blood or saliva. In other words, what sort of | | 6 | | fluid it contains, and also to determine the | | 7 | | origin as being human origina. And, also, to determine genetic markings present in the stain. | | 8 | Q. | Would you explain to the jury what you just said, please, so they -- I'm not real sure I | | 9 | | understood; so, let's start again. | | 10 | A. | You examine blood stains, serology? | | 11 | | I examine all sort of blood fluid stains. | | 12 | Q. | Blood, -- including, blood, saliva, semen or any other body fluids. | | 13 | | When you say "blood," do you do a test to | | 14 | A. | determine the blood type? | | 15 | | Yes. | | 16 | Q. | And when you find seminal stains, what can you | | 17 | | learn from examining a seminal stain? | | 18 | A. | You can determine in some cases ABO blood group, | | 19 | | and also determine a couple of other genetic | | 20 | | markers, provided that the stain is strong | | 21 | | enough. |

*61 | 1 | Q. | Do you do the same type of work for the Texas Department of Public Safety? | | --- | --- | --- | | 3 | A. | Yes, I do. | | 4 | Q. | I believe you said you worked in the Houston office? | | 6 | A. | Yes. | | 7 | Q. | Did you have an occasion to examine some evidence submitted by Detective Eva Camp from the Montgomery County Sheriff's Department? | | 8 | | Yes, I did. | | 9 | A. | Do you have a case number on that? | | 10 | Q. | Do you want her case number or my case number? | | 11 | Q. | Both of them. | | 12 | A. | The Montgomery Sheriff's Department number is | | 13 | Q. | 86-14560, and my laboratory No. is L2H-54833. Do you have a list of the items that were submitted to you for examination? | | 14 | A. | Yes, I do. | | 15 | Q. | And what would that list consist of? | | 16 | A. | The original evidence consisted of a toothbrush, a fiber sample, two hair samples, a fitted bedsheet, a flat bedsheet, a sexual assault evidence kit from the victim, a pair of sweat pants, a sweat shirt and a white paper sheet which was used to collect the victim's clothing |

*62

*63 The stains were collected and I ran what is called the P30 test. P30 is a substance which is found, exclusively found in semen and not in any other substance. It is a test which is specific for semen. And there was P30 present in the two stains on the bedsheet, which would indicate the presence of semen in those stains. And this is seminal fluid that comes from a male? Yes. Q. Did you run any further tests or were you asked to run any further tests?

Yes, I did. I made an attempt to determine the ABO blood group of the semen present. Was there sufficient semen present to make this test or to give you a positive or negative reading on it? A. The test was inconclusive. And I also attempted to determine the amount of semen present. From the determination of the amount of semen present, I concluded that there was not enough semen for the test to be conclusive one way or another. There has to be a certain amount of semen present in order to determine ABO blood group or genetic markers.

*64 the stains on the bedsheet, the only thing that you can conclusively tell this jury is that there was seminal fluid present; is that correct? That's correct.

But you could not tell them the blood group of the person that the seminal fluid came from? That is correct.

Now, were any tests done by the DPS on any of the hairs that were submitted? Yes, there were.

And you were submitted known head hairs and known pubic hair samples of the Defendant, Thomas Evans; is that correct? Yes.

And the tests and comparisons that were made of the other hairs, were any hairs found that you could conclusively say belonged to Thomas Evans? No.

Were there any tests run to determine whether the hairs belonged to Maury Stryker? No, there were not.

So, the tests that were run, the only thing you can conclusively tell this jury is that the hair samples that were submitted that were collected at Maury's apartment did not belong to this

*65

*66

*67 Would the jury please go back to the jury room.

(Jury leaves.)

(Jury returns.)

MS. LUEDICKE: Your Honor, may I approach the witness? THE COURT: Yes. Q. (By Ms. Luedicke) Ms. Denney, I'm going to hand you items that have been marked Defense Exhibits No. 3 through 10 for identification, and ask if you can identify them? A. Yes, I can. Q. And what are they? A. Exhibit 3 through 6 are work sheets which we use in the Serology Department of the laboratory, which I used primarily in this case, which would be serology examination sheets for all the items of evidence. Q. And are those reports written in your handwriting? A. Yes. Q. Were they prepared by you in connection with your

*68

*69 | 1 | | examinations expert. | | :--: | :--: | :--: | | 2 | Q. | Has that been in your file since it was prepared? | | 3 | A. | Yes. | | 4 | Q. | As part of your case report? | | 5 | A. | Yes. | | 6 | Q. | And Exhibit No. 10, what is that? | | 7 | A. | These are Randy 'synder's personal notes that he prepared at the time he was performing the hair examinations. | | 8 | | And are those notes, have they been in the case | | 9 | | A. Yes. | | 10 | Q. | And were they prepared at the time of the | | 11 | | examination and analyses in the case? | | 12 | A. | Yes. | | 13 | | MS. LUEDICKE: Your Honor, we'll | | 14 | | offer into evidence Defendant's Exhibit 3 | | 15 | A. | through 10. | | 16 | | MR. STOVER: May we approach the | | 17 | | bench, please, Your Honor? | | 18 | | THE COURT: Yes. | | 19 | | MR. STOVER: Your Honor, the State | | 20 | | has no objection to Defendant's Exhibit 3, | | 21 | | 4, 5 and 6, and although I think Exhibit | | 22 | | No. 7 is -- 7 and 8 are just absolutely | | 23 | | |

*70 rank hearsay, I have no objection to them. But Defendant's Exhibit 9 and 10, as the witness has testified, are handwritten notes prepared by somebody else. It is hearsay, and I object to that on that basis. And these are not reports made by her or anyone under her direction.

MS. LUEDICKE: Your Honor, if she's testified as to the hair samples and analysis of the hair sample, analysis tests --

Your Honor, we have subpoenaed Roy Snyder.

THE COURT: Overruled. It will all be admitted.

MR. STOVER: Thank you, Judge. (Defendant's Exhibit Nos. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 were admitted into evidence.) Q. (By Ms. Luedicke) Ms. Denney, I'm going to hand you Defense Exhibit 3 and again ask if you would explain for the jury's benefit exactly what that

*71 A. This is a sexual work sheet which we use in our B. laboratory. And this was the work sheet that I C. used when I was examining the items of evidence D. in the victim's sexual assault evidence kit. It E. is a listing of the items and the corresponding columns from left to right, are numbers of tests F. that had been initially run on the sexual assault G. kit items and the results of those tests, if they were proved. H. And I'd like to ask you now if you would, please, to explain to us the entries on the sheet, the results of the tests that you performed on it, starting with A. I. A is a set of vaginal smears which were in the sexual assault kit. And I looked at them under the microscope to attempt to see if spermatozoa, which are male reproductive cells, male ejaculate, are in the semen. And the results were that there were no sperm detected on the smears. Q. Continuing on, what was B? A. B is a set of anal smears, which again I examined microscopically for the presence of spermatozoa. And no spermatozoa were prsent.

*72 examined for spermatozoa, and no spermatozoa were detected. Q. All right, Ms. Denney. D is vaginal swabs.

Would you explain that for the jury? A. D, the vaginal swabs -- may I just demonstrate this?

Please continue reading. A. And $E$ , anal, and $F$ , for oral swabs, and all three of these items were tested for the presence of P30, which as I explained earlier, is a component of semen which is exclusively found in semen. If I had found this component P30, I could state that semen was present.

All three items tested were negative for the presence of P30, indicating that no seminal fluid was present on these items.

Item No. F, the oral swabs were also tested for amylase, which is a component of saliva, and were found to contain amylase and therefore determined to be conclusive. So, therefore, they were also tested for secretor status. This was to determine the secretor status of the victim and it was to determine the origin nonsecretor, meaning she does not secrete her body fluid in her body fluid ABO blood group. A certain

*73 percentage of the population are secretors, meaning you can get ABO blood group substances from their body fluid other than their blood. In this case this would not be the case.

Item G is a loose evidence collection envelope. And this is usually used to collect any loose evidence which is found on the body at the time of the doctor's examination. There were four pubic hairs recovered from this envelope.

Item H is a pulled pubic hair sample of the victim.

And Item I is a pulled head hair sample. Item $J$ is a loose head hair sample from the victim, which, again, is usually selected from the victim's scalp at the time of the examination by the doctor.

Item K is a nasal sample. Item L is a blood sample from the victim, which I determined to be Type 0.

Items M and N are right and left-hand fingernail scrapings which contain soil and no significant trace of evidence. Q. When you say "fingernail scrapings," are those taken from the victim? A. Yes.

*74 | 1 | Q. | For what purpose do you analyze those? | | :--: | :--: | :--: | | 2 | A. | In some cases, and I would say relatively few, | | 3 | | you can find important traces of evidence in | | 4 | | fingernail scrapings, such as blood or the tissue | | 5 | | samples, if she may have scraped the assailant; | | 6 | | or sometimes find microscopic fibers which can be | | 7 | | linked back to the assailant. | | 8 | Q. | And there was none in this case? | | 9 | A. | That's correct. | | 10 | Q. | Returning to the Item H, pulled pubic hair. Am I | | 11 | | correct, was that hair that was found at the | | 12 | | scene? | | 13 | A. | No. That would be hair that would be pulled from | | 14 | | the victim. | | 15 | Q. | From the victim. Would you please read to the | | 16 | | jury the description of that hair that you have | | 17 | | on your report. | | 18 | A. | This is a microscopic examination for my notes, | | 19 | | not by any means a hair comparison. You must -- | | 20 | | broken, slightly kinky and curly. | | 21 | Q. | Pulled hair, Item I. That is also from the | | 22 | | victim? | | 23 | A. | Yes. | | 24 | Q. | All right. And would you read the description of | | 25 | | that hair? |

*75 | 1 | A. | Brown, dark brown, straight and medium in length. | | :--: | :--: | :--: | | 2 | Q. | Okay. Item J is loose head hair. Was that also | | 3 | | from the victim? | | 4 | A. | Yes. There were a few hairs that were | | 5 | | microscopically similar to the victim's head | | 6 | | hair. | | 7 | Q. | And I believe one that says nasal sample. Would | | 8 | | you explain that? | | 9 | A. | Yes. Nasal sample is something that was included | | 10 | | originally in this particular rape kit. This is | | 11 | | a prepacked rape kit and it has since been | | 12 | | dropped from the rape kit. It is not used and | | 13 | | not working out the way it is supposed to work. | | 14 | | In other words, it has no real value. But these | | 15 | | kits are obviously older kits which still had | | 16 | | them, and any instructions to take samples; so, | | 17 | | the doctor took it. | | 18 | Q. | Ms. Denney, Defense Exhibit No. 4, would you | | 19 | | please read to the jury each of those entries? | | 20 | A. | No. 1 is a light brown toothbrush on handle Omni | | 21 | | 2. I'm sorry, O-N-N 2. There was no trace of | | 22 | | evidence detected on this item. | | 23 | | Item No. 2 is an envelope which was lab | | 24 | | dusted roughly and it contains one small red | | 25 | | fiber. |

*76 Item No. 3 is an envelope labeled "pillow sham," which contains one broken curly, possible pubic hair.

Item No. 4 is a ziploc bag containing a few broken, curly, kinky, apparent pubic hairs.

Item 5A is an off-white fitted bedsheet. And Item 6, there are two stains on this bedsheet, which I tested for both acid phospatase, which is a preliminary screening test for semen and P30, which is mentioned earlier, which was positive.

The inhibition test mentioned on here is, again, the determination of secretor status of the stains and the results on this were inconclusive. There were a few hairs -- I'm sorry, the wrong one.

5B is an off-white, flat bedsheet with eyelet trim, and there were a few hairs recovered from this bedsheet.

Q. Were any analyses run on the hairs that were recovered from the bedsheet?

A. Yes, they were. That would be in the hair results.

Q. Okay.

A. This is only the preliminary result of the

*77 serology report and collection of evidence. Q. Okay. Defense Exhibit No. 5? A. Item No. 6A is a blood sample from the suspect, Thomas Lee Evans. It was found to be blood Group A.

And Item No. 6B are some smears which are labeled "oral." There was no P30 present. I ran this test primarily because the submission test semen sample was present, and I could not find a semen sample. And assuming this might be a semen sample in that case inhibition test, again, a test to ABO blood group of detected and against A and H. Type A secreted, which told me that the suspect is a Type A secretor.

Again, on this I ran the amylase test. This is to determine the component of saliva. And I found a large amount of amylase was present, indicating a fairly strong dilution of saliva.

I also microscopically observed smears again, just to determine that they were indeed not seminal stains, and determined no sperm where present.

6C is a pulled pubic -- pulled pubic hair sample from the suspect, Thomas Lee Evans,

*78 microscopically observed, blond and curly. 6D is a pulled head hair of the suspect, Thomas Lee Evans, which is microscopically determined to be blond, very fine, and some slightly wavy.

Defense Exhibit 9, case report handwritten on, was that the hair analysis?

Yes.

Would you please read the contents of that to the jury?

No hair present in Items 3, 4, 5A, 5B or 8 that was similar to the suspect's pubic or head hair.

Ms. Denney, Defense Exhibit No. 10 are handwritten notes regarding hair analysis done in this case; is that correct?

Yes.

From those notes, can you determine whether or not an analysis was run on the hairs that were found at the scene of the offense and hairs taken from the accused, Thomas Evans?

Yes.

And what were the results of those tests?

Excuse me. As I said, the notes are just his notes. And they do not contain a conclusion that I can see, that I do see some evidence that the

*79 | 1 | 1 | hairs were indeed compared, but an analyst's notes are generally readable to one analyst, if you understand what I'm saying. In other words, he was making notes to himself for this case. | | :--: | :--: | :--: | | 2 | 2 | These were not notes made to any other analyst. Oh, he does have a conclusion at the bottom | | 3 | 3 | that says: No hair, pubic or head, similar to suspect's hair present, but that's the only | | 4 | 4 | conclusion there is. No analysis of his notes. | | 5 | 5 | But it does say there is no hair of the -- of Mr. Evans similar to that found, either pubic or head | | 6 | 6 | hair, as to that which was found at the scene of the offense? | | 7 | 7 | A. I would assume so. | | 8 | 8 | Q. I'm sorry, I can't -- I didn't hear what you | | 9 | 9 | said. | | 10 | 9 | I would assume so. I can't interpret his notes | | 11 | 10 | for you. I'm sorry. | | 12 | 11 | MS. LUEDICKE: Pass the witness, | | 13 | 13 | Judge. | | 14 | 14 | | | 15 | 15 | | | 16 | 16 | | | 17 | 17 | | | 18 | 18 | | | 19 | 19 | | | 20 | 20 | | | 21 | 21 | | | 22 | 22 | | | 23 | 23 | | | 24 | 24 | | | 25 | | |

*80 BY MR. STOVER: Q. Ms. Denney, just so there won't be any question.

I think that you testified on direct examination about 45 minutes ago that the analysis that was run there was done of the hairs submitted to you that were collected at the scene that belonged to Thomas Evans; is that correct? A. That is correct. Q. Now, just for curiosity's sake, let's assume that I went over and pulled a head hair from Thomas Evans and stuck it in an envelope and didn't tell you who that head hair belonged to, and then you went over a week or a month later and pulled a head hair from Thomas Evans; so, you had a hair in your hand that you knew came from his head. And when you made that comparison, what could you actually tell the jury? A. In a hair comparison case, it's generally a matter of excluding someone from having contributed the hair. The strongest statement which can be made in a hair comparison case, something to the effect if the hairs match my copy, that they could have come from a common

*81 | 1 | | origin. | | :--: | :--: | :--: | | 2 | Q. | Could have? | | 3 | A. | Could have. | | 4 | Q. | So, even under the conditions that I named where | | 5 | | I know that I took one hair from him and you know | | 6 | | I took the other hair from him and you later | | 7 | | compared them, the strongest statement you'd be | | 8 | | able to make scientifically is that they both | | 9 | | could have come from him? | | 10 | A. | That's correct. | | 11 | Q. | Okay. And I believe you said that the known head | | 12 | | hair that was taken from Thomas Evans was | | 13 | | described in the notes as blond and slightly | | 14 | | wavy; is that correct? | | 15 | A. | Yes. | | 16 | Q. | Thank you very much. That's all my questions. | | 17 | | Ms. Denney, I appreciate you coming down. | | 18 | | | | 19 | | | | 20 | | | | 21 | | | | 22 | | | | 23 | | | | 24 | | | | 25 | | |

*82

RECROSS-EXAMINATION

BY MS. LUEDICKE:

Q. Ms. Denney, I believe when Mr. Stover asked you about comparing hair samples from the same person; the best you will be able to trace is perhaps similar origin? A. That's correct. Q. However, I also understood you to say if they did not come from the same origin, you could positively exclude one from the other; is that correct? A. That's correct, if the microscopic characteristics were obviously dissimilar. Q. And is it your conclusion from the notes that you have available to you that Mr. Evans' hair is excluded from possibly being that that was found at the scene of the offense? A. That's correct.

MS. LUEDICKE: Pass the witness. MR. STOVER: I have no further questions. Thank you for coming down, Ms. Denney.

*83

ELLIS, L.L.C.

Attorneys&; Counselors at Law

Mr. Thomas Lee Evans TDCJ #435211 Beaumont, TX 77705-7635 Attention: Thomas Lee Evans

Attorney-Client Correspondence

January 2, 2004 Re: Writ for DNA Testing, Update

Mr. Evans: Progress on your file is slow. I have read through the entire clerk's file. There appears to be a lot of documents which are missing or never filed.

I have also spoken to some of the attorneys involved in the case. Rick Stover, the prosecutor, had a very good memory of your case. He voiced his opinions. However, he just passed away recently. Jimmy Price your appellate lawyer has no recollection of your case. He is not cooperative at this time.

It appears you may have a valid ineffective assistance of counsel claim against Jimmy Price. Apparently, your appellate lawyer wrote the brief for your appeal with only a partial statement of facts from the court reporter. His only point of error was the parol instruction. I don't know the reasons, but I question how a lawyer can write an appeal with all valid claims with only the statement of facts from the punishment stage. If you had any valid errors during the guilt innocence stage then he would never know.

I still need more time to locate evidence and organize your ease to make a valid argument to the Court for retesting. Today I was submitted the court reporter's record.

As for your Writ, do not do anything on that issue at this time. Forward all information to my office. I will inquire from the Court if I am to assist you in that matter too.

If you have any further questions please send me a letter or have someone call my office for you.

Richard Martin P. Canlas, Esq.