Case Information

*0 RECEIVED COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS 9/23/2015 ABEL ACOSTA, CLERK

*1 WR-38,198-04 COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS Transmitted 9/23/2015 3:50:24 PM Accepted 9/23/2015 4:46:03 PM ABEL ACOSTA IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS CLERK IN AUSTIN, TEXAS ) EX PARTE JULIUS MURPHY, ) ) ) WRIT NO. __ _

APPLICANT ) MOTION FOR STAY OF EXECUTION JULIUS MURPHY IS SCHEDULED TO BE EXECUTED AFTER 6:00PM ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 3, 2015. SARAH CUMMINGS CATHERINE E. STETSON NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT US LLP Lead Counsel pro hac vice application pending 2200 Ross Avenue, Suite 3600 Dallas, TX 75201-7932 KATHRYN MARSHALL ALI Tel: 214.855.8000 pro hac vice application pending Fax: 214.855.8200 JACLYNL. DILAURO Texas Bar No. 24094609 pro hac vice application pending sarah.cummings@nortonrosefulbright.com HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP

555 Thirteenth Street NW Washington, DC 20004 Tel: 202.637.5600 Fax: 202.63 7.5910 cate.stetson@hoganlovells.com

Counsel for Julius Murphy

TO THE HONORABLE JUDGES OF THIS COURT:

*2

Julius Murphy was convicted of capital murder and is facing an imminent execution date of November 3, 2015. At Murphy's trial, the State relied on the testimony of two critical fact witnesses: Javarrow Young and Christina Davis. The District Attorney's Office never disclosed any threats of prosecution or promises of leniency made to Young or Davis, as Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), and Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972) require.

We now know, however, that the District Attorney's office failed to make the required Brady disclosures regarding threats to Young and Davis that they would face charges of murder (Young) or conspiracy to commit murder (Davis) if they declined to testify for the State. Young's sworn statement attests that "the prosecutor threatened me with a murder charge and said they had enough evidence on me if I did not testify for them against Julius." Ex. 1 (Young Aff.) ~ 10. And Davis has similarly, and separately, attested that the prosecutor "told me that if I did not testify they would charge me with conspiracy to commit murder," and that she "believed them." Ex. 2 (Davis Aff.) ~ 13. Only after she testified did "the District Attorneys t[ ell] me for the first time that I would not be charged with any crime." /d.~ 16.

This information is squarely within Brady and Giglio. And it is plainly material, because it would have allowed defense counsel to impeach and *3 undermine the credibility of both of the key fact witnesses who testified against Murphy. With regard to both witnesses, the District Attorney violated Brady and Giglio.

There is more. New evidence has emerged that Javarrow Young also testified falsely at Murphy's trial, in addition to testifying under an undisclosed threat of prosecution. Specifically, Young has sworn in an affidavit that he "did not tell the jury the whole truth" when he testified at Murphy's trial. Ex. 1 (Young Aff.) ~ 11. The "whole truth" Young withheld from the jury was that another man, Chris Solomon, murdered the victim: Young now attests that he "never told [the police] that Chris pulled the trigger." Ex. 1 (Young Aff.) ~ 11. This bombshell squares with Young's admission to a third-party witness earlier this year that "he had made a deal and did whatever he had to do to keep himself out of trouble, including lying during his testimony at Mr. Murphy's trial." Ex. 3 (Hopson Hancock Aff.) ~ 7. It does not matter whether the State knew or did not know that Young offered false testimony at Murphy's trial; as the Court of Criminal Appeals has explained, permitting such false testimony to stand violates a defendant's due process rights "notwithstanding the absence of the State's knowledge of the perjured testimony at the time of trial." Ex parte Chabot, 300 S.W.3d 768, 772 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009).

*4 In light of these new facts and the new legal basis provided by Ex parte Chabot, it is now clear that Murphy was not convicted on the basis of truthful testimony. He is entitled to a new trial for this reason as well.

Murphy's conviction and sentence should be set aside for yet another reason. In the years since he filed his most recent state habeas application, nationwide standards of decency have evolved to the point where Texas's death penalty no longer is constitutional under the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Due to its arbitrary application, unduly restrictive conditions of confinement, and egregious delays attending any execution, imposition of this ultimate penalty violates the Constitution.

Mr. Murphy respectfully requests that this Court stay his execution pursuant to Tex. R. of App. P. 52.10 and authorize further proceedings in the 102nd Judicial District Court pursuant to Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Art. 11.071 § 5.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

For the reasons above, and those stated in his Application For Post- Conviction Writ of Habeas Corpus, Mr. Murphy requests that this Court: 1. Grant a stay of his execution, scheduled for November 3, 2015; 2. Enter an order finding that his claims satisfy the requirements of Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Art. 11.071 §5(a), and remand these claims for proceedings in the District Court; or in the alternative, *5 3. File and set th is case for ful l briefing on the appl ication of Article 11.071 § 5 to these proceedings.

Murphy further requests any other rel ief that law or justice may requ ire. uc

Respectfull y submitted,

SARAH CUM-;-TN~

NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT U S LLP

2200 Ross Avenue, Suite 3600 Dallas, TX 7520 1-7932 Tel: 2 14.855 .8000 Fax: 214.855.8200 Texas Bar No. 24094609 CA THERlNE E. STETSON

pro hac vice application pending KATHRYN MARSHALL ALI pro hac vice application pending J ACL YN L. DILA URO pro hac vice application pending

HOGAN LOYELLS U S LLP

555 Thirteenth Street NW Washington, DC 20004 Tel: 202.637.5600 Fax: 202.637.5910 cate.stetson@hoganlovells.com Counsel for Julius Mwphy

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WITH RULE 52.10

*6 Pursuant to Tex. R. App. P. 52.1 O(a), I hereby certify that on September 22nd, 2015, Applicant notified all parties by telephone that a motion for temporary relief will be filed .

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

*7 I hereby certify that on this 23rd day of September, 2015, I served via Federal Express a true and correct copy of the foregoing pleading, with attached exhibits, upon opposing counsel, Bowie County District Attorney, Jen·y D. Rochelle, and Assistant Attorney General of Texas, Jefferson David Clendenin.

Bowie County District Attorney's Office Bowie County Plaza 60 1 Main Street Texarkana, TX 75501 Jefferson Clendenin Assistant Attorney General Office of the Attorney General ofTexas P.O. Box 12548 Austin, Texas 78711