SUSAN HAWK CRIMrNAL DISTRICT ATTORNEY DALLAS' COUNTY, TEXAS
December 15, 2015 _
Texas Court of Criminal Appeals P.O.B0x12308 ' Austin, Texas 78711
Re: Exparte Stanley O. Mozee; WR~82,467-01, W99-02631(A) and Exparte Dem'zis L. Allen; WR-56,666-O3, W00-01305(B)
Dear Mr. Acosta:
Enclosed are the following documents related to the above-referenced case numbers: State 's Objections to Trial Court's Supplemental Findings ofFact on Reman'd and State's Motion for General R_emand. Please file the original and return the enclosed copy, file-marked, to me at Patricia Curnmings; Assistant District Attorney; 133 N. Riverfront Blvd.,» LB 19; Dallas, Texas 75207.
Please contact me at 214-653-3600 if you have any questions. Thank you for your time and attention in a ance.
fineerely, , ll ` v , y dt(@€ .l/{/m/mm REoEr\/ED lN
‘ pATRICIA C MM[NGS COURT OF CRH\/HNAL APPEALS
Assistant Distrr /'§rttorney Conviction lntegrity Unit 4 ` Dallas County, Texas f DEC 18 2015
EI'IC] . \
Abel Acosta, C|erk
Frank Crowley Courts Building, 133 North Riverfront Boulevard, LB~19 Dallas, 'l`exas 75207-4399 (214) 653-3600
SU) ,totlw~o?>
NOS. WR-82,467-01& WR-56,666-03 CAUSE NOS. F99-02631-R, F00-01305-R WRIT NOS. W99-02631-R(A) and W00-01305-FR(B)
EX PARTE . RECE\\/ED iN § IN THE DISTRICT COURT
COURT oF CR\M\NAL APPE’§LS 203“” JUDICIAL DISTRICT - § DALLAS CoUNTY, TEXAS lEc 18 2015 § AND STANLEY oRSoN MoZEE § ' - . ' §ENNIS LEE §\\tiseiif\?ma’ C|erk § - §:FNITIEN§?SA(£§§ITSOF _ h
STATE'S OB|ECTlONS TO TRIAL COURT'S
SUPPLEMENTAL FINDINGS OF FACT ON REMAND
The State, having been notified of the Trial Court's Findings of Fact on Remand in the above numbered and entitled causes, respectfully asserts the
following objections in these habeas corpus proceedings:
' THE TRIAL COURT'S SUPPLEMENTAL FINDINGS ARE UNSUPPORTED BY THE RECORD
On October 28, 2014, after considering the entire record in these causes, l the trial court signed Agreed Findings of Fact and'Conclusions of Law finding
that the State suppressed exculpatory evidence1 in violation of Brady v.
1 The suppressed exculpatory evidence is numerous letters from two testifying jailhouse informants and the substantive discussions the State had with the informants underlying the
correspondence '
State 's Objections to the Tria/ Court ’s F indings of F act an Remand Page l of l l Stanley O. Mozee - WR-82,467-01; W99-0263 l -R(A); F99-0263 l-R . Dennis L. Allen ~ WR-56,666-03; W00-01305-K(B); F00-013()5-R
_Maryland and that the State presented false testimony from one of the informants that went uncorrected by the'State. On February 4, 2015, this Court issued a remand order directing the trial court to providethe trial prosecutor an opportunity to respond to the Brady claims. Following receipt of the remand order, the ]udge recused herself sua-sponte and Applicants’ cases were transferred to the 203rd ]udicial-District C_ourt.2 H l An evidentiary hearing was held on' OCtober 26 - 27, 2015, during Which testimony from the lead trial prosecutor ~` Rick ]ackson - was heard. On October 27, 2015{ ]ackson informed the trial court and the parties that he had a . doctor's appointment early that afternoon. As a result, the trial court and the parties agreed to excuse ]ackson early with the understanding that he would 3 be kept under the rule and remain available for further testimony. Then, before either party rested and closed, the trial court entered its Findings of Fact on Remand3 on Novem_ber-lO, 2015 - approximately ten days before the reporter's record was prepared. The trial court’s supplemental findings specifically find ]ackson’_s
testimony to be credible. They also find that, even though ]ackson has no
z 2 The term of the Judge of the 2_65"' Judicial District Court who signed the Agreed Findings of Fact - the Honorable Mark Stoltz - expired on December 3 l, 2014. The new Judge of the 265th Judicial District Court, the Honorable Jennifer Bennett, recused herself from these cases upon its remand. As a result, the cases were reassigned to the Judge of the 203rd Judicial District Court - the Honorable Teresa Hawthorne. _ ~ 4
3 Hereinafter referred to as the trial court’s supplemental findings
State ’s Objeclio_ns to the Trial Court ’s F indings of F act on Remand ‘ Page 2 of ll l
Stanley O. Mozee - WR-82,467-01; W99-0263 l-R(A); F99-0263 l-R Dennis L. Allen ~ WR-56,666-03; W00-01305-R(B); F00-01305-R
independent recollection of turning over the informant letters, both ]ackson's meticulous trial notes, and ]ackson's belief that an entry he found on one of those notes, support that the informant letters were “turned over" to defense l counsel for both Applicants.4
The State respectfully objects to the trial court’s supplemental findings in both cases because they are unsupported by the record. See 'Ex parte Bagley, 509 S.W.Zd 332 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974) (holding that the Court of Criminal '_ Appeals is not bound by the trial court’s findings in a habeas corpus proceeding and may make contrary findings when the trial court’s findings are not supported by the record.)
A. The Trial Record
A thorough review of the entire trial record in both cases establishes the informant letters were not disclosed to defense counsel. The State's circumstantial case against Applicants relied heavily on informant testimony.
At the time of trial, Applicant Allen was represented by lim Oatman who
4 Although the trial court’s supplemental findings say “turned over,” Jackson testified he was unable to say whether the informant letters Were shown or copies provided. The trial court also entered a finding that Jackson testified that he did not violate Brady v. Maryland in this cause. This finding-is not supported by the record.
State ’s Objections to the Trz`al Courl's F indings of F act on Remand Page 3 of l l
Stanley O. Mozee - WR-82,467-Ol; W99-02631-R(A); F99-0263l-R , Dennis L. Allen ~ WR-56,666-03; WOO-Ol30_5-R(B); F00-01305-R .
argued-to the jury he personally- believed he was representing an innocent man.5 Applicant Mozee was represented by Matt Fry.6
On August 28, 2000, the day Applicant Allen's jury trial-'began, the trial court conducted a pretrial hearing before voir dire affording both sides an opportunity to address matters that needed to be resolved prior to-trial. During the hearing, the defense made an extensive record regarding the issue of exculpatory evidence. Oatman started out by discussing exculpatory evidence that had been previously disclosed by the State and then followed up by specifically requesting additional information regarding those exculpatory disclosures7 Then Oatman made a recordj regarding exculpatory information that had not been disclosed by the State. Throughout the hearing, the defense requested copies of all documents that contained the exculpatory information.l
A significant amount of time during the pretrial'hearing was spent
discussing the State's failure to disclose exculpatory information regarding a
5 Oatman is deceased and his trial file no longer exists. During the writ hearing, both Rick Jackson and former District Judge John Cruezot testified that Jim Oatman Was a very good attorney. ` '
6 Fry’s trial file was_turned over to Applicant Mozee. Part of the evidence Applicant Mozee intended to introduce once the Writ hearing Was reconvened was either testimony or an affidavit from Fry. Unfortunately, the trial court’s supplemental findings Were entered before the hearing could be reconvened. However, it is important to note two significant facts. First, the supplemental findings fail to address the fact that the note relied on to support the finding that the informant letters were turned over was found in the Allen DA trial file, it was written after the Mozee trial and it specifically referred to Oatman. Second, Jackson admitted in his testimony that the second Zane Smith letter was exculpatory and he never disclosed it to Fry.
7 It appears that the defense was referencing exculpatory information turned over by the State which was listed on Jackson’s note dated December 8, 1999 titled “Items Turned- Over to A Atty J im Oatman for A = Dennis Allen,” admitted at the writ hearing as Defense Exhibit` 15.
State 's Objections to the Trial Court 's F indings of F act on Remand Page 4 of l l
Stanley O. Mozee - WR-82,467-01;_W99-0263 l-R(A); F99-0263 l-R Dennis L. Allen ~ WR-56,666-03; W00~01305-R(B); F00-01305-R
witness named Steven Linwood. Ultimately, even though ]ackson's own trial notes (Defense Exhibit '14) list Linwood’s information under the heading “exculpatory,"_ jackson argued to the trial court that the Linwood information was not exculpatory, yet he agreed to give Oatman the relevant investigative notes.
At the conclusion of the pretrial hearing and after the parties were released by the trial court to reconvene for jury selection at 1:30 p.m., the trial court inquired as to whether any other hearings needed to be conducted. Then ~ after a discussion off the record, ]ackson made the following statement:
judge again, out of an abundance of caution, there was some
~ anonymous information given to the detectives that was followed up on with no result. And I'm going to turn over investigative notes on those just so there’s - and tha-t's everything that I can think of that’s even remotely exculpatory, even though it didn't lead _ to anything. So technically it's not exculpatory, but out of an abundance of caution I'm going to turn it over just so he has it. (TRRZ: 56) (emphasis added) Although it is not clear, it appears Oatman's thoroughness in making a record 'of the exculpatory evidence provided by the State may have prompted ]ackson
to make those statements Notably, the informant letters were not mentioned in ]ackson’s statements to the trial court nor were they addressed directly or indirectly anywhere else i_n the pretrial record.
During voir dire in Allen's trial, both sides questioned the panel about
the use of informants The State elicited information from the panel by
State ’s Objections to the Trial Court 's F indings of F act on Remand Page 5 of l l Stanley O. Mozee ~ WR-82,467-01; W99-0263 l-R(A); F99-0263 l-R Dennis L. Allen - WR-56',666-03; W00-01305-R(B); F00-01305-R
suggesting that informant witnesses fell into three categories - those that Were paid, those that received a deal in exchange for their testimony, and those that testified simply because they were concerned citizens. 4 The State then informed the`panel that i~f_ an informant witness had a deal with the State, the jury would hear about the deal so they could use that fact ,to determine Whether the informant witness was credible.
During the defense voir dire, Oatman questioned the jury panel i_n general about informant testimony,' and in particular about the State's dealings with informants and Oatman's inability to point -to any document indicating that a deal existed between the State and an informant When questioned by the panel as to what he meant, Oatman said, "I’m saying that the witness says there is no deal. And I'm not there, I wasn't there When he negotiated withthe State of Texas or the police or both. And I can't bring you a written contract because they don't have written contracts for deals." (TRRZ: 1'7_0). He then attempted to make it clear to the panel that if such a ”deal document" existed and he had it, he would certainly use it to impeach the witness's credibility - but otherwise jurors would have to ultimately rely on their common sense to determine the credibility of the testimony.
Further, the trial record reflects Oatman continued to Zealously
represent Applicant Allen throughout the entire trial. He conducted intense
State 's Objecll`ons to the Trial Court's F indings of F act on Remand Page 6 of ll Stanley O. Mozee - WR-82,467-01; W99-0263 l-R(A); F99-0263 l-R ' Dennis L. Allen - WR-56,666-03; W00~01305-R(B); FOO-Ol305-R
l cross examination of witnesses, including the authors of the informant letters, Lonel .Hardeman and Zane Smith.8 The record is clear that Oatman was attempting-to impeach Hardeman and Smith with t_he very type of information contained in the informant letters -_ however, as foreshadowed during voir dire, he had no extrinsic evidence to assist him in the impeachment process. The simple fact that Oatman did not use the informant letters during cross- examination of these witnesses ~ in light of the fact that Hardeman testified completely contrary to what he wrote in his letters and there was no mention of the Smith letter directly addressed to jackson - supports the conclusion that Oatman had no knowledge that the informant letters even existed.
During the 'Mozeetrial,-the State's rebuttal case relied heavily on Smith's testimony. Smith's testimony was inconsistent with information contained in both of his letters. Fry, however, did not impeach Smith with the first letter. A note in Fry’s trial file written by Fry on the first day of trial reflects that jackson never advised Fry of Smith's existence, let alone his statement, until . that day. Further, there is no indication in Fry’s note that ]ackson disclosed the _
\
first Smith letter to Fry.
8 There are two informant letters at issue with Smith -the first one is dated June 28, 2000, and the second one is_ dated August 2, 2000. There is no reference to the first Smith letter anywhere in the Mozee trial. The second Smith letter was written less than 30 days after Mozee was convicted and sentenced. The first letter was used in the Allen trial, the circumstances of which constitute
further evidence as to the failure of the State to disclose any of the informant letters. , State 's Ohjeclions to the Trial Court 's F indings of F act on Remand Page 7 of l l Stanley O. Mozee ~ WR-82,467-01; W99-0263 l-R(A); F99-0263 l-R . Dennis L. Allen - WR-56,666j03; W00~01305-R(B); FOO-Ol305-R
B. The Writ Hearing
During the writ hearing, jackson was extensively questioned about his discovery'practices during the prosecution of Applicants. He admitted at the hearing that the informant letters were exculpatory information that the defense would have been entitled to under Brady v._ Maryland. However, ]ackson testified repeatedly that he did not have any specific, independent recollection of turning over the informant letters. He' also testified that_` although he Was provided an opportunity to review the DA’s trial file and he was given an electronic copy of the reporter's trial record, `he spent only a few . hours refreshing his recollection and preparing for his testimony.
According to lackson,-when the State provided him access to his DA trial file in preparation for his testimony, he concentrated his efforts on combing through the file in an effort to find proof that heturned over the informant letters. While he did not find any specific documentation that he turned over the informant letters to defense counsel, jackson found his handwritten note in the Alleri DA trial file titled “Show Oatman," dated on the first day of Applicant Allen's trial -'August 28, 2000. It is this note that ]ackson and the trial court
believe supports the conclusion that he produced the informant letters to
defense counsel in both cases.
State's Objections to the Trial Court's F indings of F acl on Reman'd Page 8 of l l Stanley O. Mozee »- WR-82,467-01; W99-0263 l-R(A); F99-0263l-R Dennis L. Allen ~ WR-56,666-03; W00-01305-R(B); F00-01305-R
]ackson testified that the entry on the "Show Oatman” note reflecting that he showed Oatman the “Knife + Rest_ of Physical .Evidence" means that he disclosed the informant letters to Oatman on the first day of trial (emphasis added)'.°»’ However, the argument that this note constitutes proof that jackson disclosed the informant letters because they are “physical evidence" is not credible. ln general, the ordinary and common use of the term."physical evidence" in the criminal context does not include witness statements
In this case in particular, ]ackson’s trial practices establish he understood this distinction in light of the remaining entries on the note. Specifically, the note reflects how methodical jackson was in documenting the , production of exculpatory information ln fact, the last five lines written on the note summarize the exculpatory information discussed and produced in the pretrial hearing precisely detailing the author and date of each investigative report for documentation purposes See State's Objection Exhibit 1.
ll. . THE FINDINGS ARE BASED ON AN lNCOMPLETE RECORD During the writ hearing, Applic_ants advised the trial court that they
intended to present further testimony and noted that they may need to recall
9 F rom a practicality standpoint, Jackson’s interpretation of the note is not tenable given the size of the DA trial file, the process Jackson described he would have used to disclose the informant letters to Oatman, and the time frame that was available the first day of trial given the extensive pretrial hearing and the fact that voir dire started at 1:30 p.m. See WRRl: 132-35.
Stale 's Objeclions to the Trial Court’s F indings of F act on Remand Page 9 of l l
Stanley O. Mozee ~ WR-82,467-Ol; W99-0263 l-R(A); F99-0263 l-R
Dennis L. Allen ~ WR-56,666-03; W00-01305_-R(B); F00-01305-R
]ackson.l°. Applicants also advised the trial court that, in light of ]ackso.n's testimony, they`planned to amend their writ of habeas corpus applications which would further necessitate a continuation of the hearing. The Court agreed to set another hearing date. w
Applicants filed their amended habeas applications after the hearing was recessed. Instead of setting'another'hlearing date to allow the parties to further develop the record and conclude the hearing, the trial courtissuedv its . supplemental findings.ll. As a result, the State is filing a Motion for General Rem_and so this Court can have a fully developed record on all of the issues in Applicants’ writs.
II‘I. CONCLUSION
For the aforementioned reasons, the State respectfully requests the Court of Criminal Appeals reject the trial court’s Findings of Fact on Remand and render relief as set out in the trial court’s findings on October 28, 2014. Alternatively, the State requests that the Applications and Amended 4
Applications be remanded to the trial court for further fact finding as
requested in the State's Motion for General Remand.
10 Jackson informed the trial court and the parties that he would be unavailable to testify from November 5, 2015 until early January 2016.
" Since the hearing, the State has continued to investigate Applicants’ claims and has discovered additional exculpatory evidence which appears to further support Applicants’
claims and impeach jackson' s testimony.
State s Objectl`ons to the Trial Court’ s Findings of F act on Remana' Page 10 of 1 1 Stanley O. Mozee - WR-82,467-01; W99-0263 l-R(A); F99-0263 l-R
Dennis L. Allen - WR-56,666-03; W00-01305-R(B); F00-01305-R
R{e/\pectfully submitted,
/l/ZHZ% tdi gmc/r1 wi<\/)
Susan Hawk d ' #atricia CumhL/g in s Criminal District Attorney ` Special Fields Bureau Chief Dallas County, Texas j . Assistant District Attorney '
State Bar No. 05227500
Cynth)'la R. Garza ""‘\ {/ Assistant District Attorney
State Bar No. 24045924
Frank Crowley Courts Building 133 N. Riverfront Blvd., LB-19 Dallas, Texas 75207-4399 (214) 653-3600
(214) 653-3643 [fax]
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
l hereby certify that a true copy of the foregoing response was served on Gary A. Udashen - attorney for Applicant Allen - and on Ezekiel Tyson , ]r. - attorney for Applicant Mozee - on December 15, 0 5.
State ’s Objections to the Trial Court 's F indings of F acl on Remana’ - Page 1 1 of l 1 Stanley O. Mozee - WR_-82,467-01; W99-0263 l -R(A); F99-02631-R Dennis L. Allen ~ WR-56,666-03; W00-01305-R(B); F00-01305-R
State's Objection Exhibit 1
Jackson’s “Show Oatman” note with attached DPD investigative supplements referenced therein
__p(_,,\ j.-,..
_____________ ___\Z»:~>¢/F'-€€________l '1’___@\.°'__1)1~\1>~¢'-1~__¢~1_-_'4%>¢._(
” 1529__€€~1»1_1¢¢52>__§~_»_1' ` l ` ‘ ___
. _OM'£_'¢S__ T_ _O_*s't&"__ _S_Ttul,~.\_ ___ ___________1\-1' L.-L)-z)___ _t’_¢_e~__ _;b“m MMM-
_________________‘_/CMM'__X{>_~B_______ a_\__ L>c-\¢-é»»<"`=€¢ ¢evxe»_<~__ __m¢=,-r____£-z'_e<_.<»aac_f\?.me§¢'~________________________
_________ _______‘/TL‘»L\( ‘\l»¥ _____=1__%1»~».___1~1___1*»_<\<9 __1)'1»5___ _l_%w.~, ___________ ________c_/'l?‘ara( >_'_lz ____Lt)o_¢~__w» _Q_w__ oe__ 9\_ seq ,_v__ _9-_.~:-»___ w _'JZ»911_ . ___________‘/M(\~\ _________2°"1'?" l511~->.1~#4¢1»- _§/sY _&9'4.-»"'9 Tw'-»)~ kw_>.)*__ _01-)'1¢4.9___ _____ _______ Mz__.?t»_~a___Ut§zzr_»__~_____*£c/_:»_»___W_,__\.‘4-___¢1____ 115~»~»€¢ __ _________ _.
~.1_-»~-_“.1-....»_-.~.\_.,1.._.~__........_.-.\_.1..,_`...\... n.__..,4._-.-_.-.»....."_.._~,,r..,....=.~_ ..~..…_... . _ ., ._
.M-»./-
SERVICE #: 238462-H
COMPLAINANT¢ BORNS, JESSIE _ FOR DET. : BERRY
INVESTIGATIVE INFORMATION
SUBMITTING OFFICER: Clark DATE: 4-23-99
INFO OBTAINED VIA: Phone OBTAINED ON DATE: 4-23~99 AT TIME: 7:00 pm
TOPIC: POSSIBLE OFFENSE INFORMATION
NARBAILME:
On 4-23-99, Detective Carollo received a phone call regarding this case. A black male, who only identified himself as Ronny, phone # 214/426-6461, stated that a person who might know Something about this offense was at the Royal Palace Club parking lot. He described the individual as a black male, tan shorts, striped shirt, and gold rim glasses. '
Detectives Clark and Reideler went to the Royal Palace Club at Colonial and Pennsylvania but were unable to locate the subject_ “ Ronny” was recontacted by phone, but he was no longer at the scene and did not provide any additional information. “ Ronny” also advised that “ Carol”, 214/371-7045, might also have additional information.
while in the area, an unidentified black male and black female told officers that a black male had been bragging about committing this offense. They pointed the Suspect out and he was detained by Detectives Clark and Reideler. He was identified as_Loyce Gassaway, B/M/8-9»52_ Detective Berry has already spoken to this subject. The unidentified black male and black female left the area and could not be located_
working for a
The _black male Subject told Detective Clark that he was “ Miami"
Mesquite P.D. detective looking for a robbery suspect known as who was known to frequent the area.
ev~w§€ bMG%V& §§VMAK£: £[H) §' l'g%
CMO'L §HW K€>c £111)1~11~10
3'5’7 l/Tn H 111»11311~511>1)§ ;‘er>`; `»-’>’ rig jc._,' _ -’_Z/t) ~1{_'{ !' 3 5 ( l Follow up required: Yes No Key words: l [\ Supervisor Approval: Léjl\j
Document§ 9
000292
COMPLAINANT: BORNS, JESSE ` SERVICE #: 238462~H FoR DE:T_ 1 BERRYV
_ , INVESTIGATIVE INFoRMATION
SUBMITTING OFFICER; BERRY DATB; 4 / 2 8 / 9 9 INFO _osTAINED vIA: INTERVIEW OBTAINED ON DATE: 4/27/99 AT TIME:
TOPIC: INTERVIEW OF RODERICK MAY
disastth
While taping a Crime Stoppers segment, I spoke to Roderick Charles at the Envogue Hair Salon. He introduced me to the following: - `QTW\_LT §
l ~ _- » ~‘1 " l.""'§ Roderick May B/M/7_15_79 oimi~AL As<§_z lwib
1323 Lenway Wr§t Ch¢§ii§ Dallas, Tx. `_ ,£__ _Ka (214_) 421-2997 U‘*) 39 ""‘ work - Ben Howard Plumbing 2830 M.L. King (214) 421-4206
May told me that around lO:OO p.m.on the night before the
~_ complainant's body was discovered, he was walking on Colonial
1 towards M.L. King when he was approached by two subjects who attempted to sell him some pagers. He stated that the pagers were inside of a plastic Minyards sack, and were different colors. He stated that they wanted to sell him the whole sack of pagers for $5_00 a pager_ May declined the offer and walked away. He stated that he observed the subjects walk in to the Colonial Motel.
May stated that he had seen these subject before in the . neighborhood, but had not since this meeting. He stated that he had seen them at the Colonial Motel, the Hasty Liquor Store, and some apartments on the north side of M.L. King, across the street from the offense location.
May described these subjects as follows:
l. B/M/32-33, "bright" complexion; 5'6", medium build; Short hair, light beard; Scar under left eye; “Something black on his neck"; Wearing a plaid shirt and black tennis shoes.
2. B/M/35, dark complexion; 5'9“, medium build; Medium length hair, full light beard; wearing a blue jean shirt and blue jean pants.
8462hjbn.rb16' 2 _
Follow up required: Yes No y Key words: Supervisor Approval: 1//¥ § Document2 V°L§¢J
0(_)()300
COMPLAINANT: BORNB, JESSE ' SERVICE #: 238462-H FOR DET.: BERRY
INVEST!GATIVE INFoRMATION
SUBMITTING oFFIcER; BERRY DATE: 5/3/99 INFO osTAINED vIA; INTERVIEW
OBTAINED ON DATE: 5/3/99 AT TIME:
TOPIC: INTERVIEW OF STEVEN LINWOOD
NABBAI;ME:
Alvin Degraftenreed had been interviewed regarding this offense (see note 8462hjbn.rbl7.) He stated that a person he knew by the name of Steve might have-some information regarding this
offense. At approximately 9:00 p.m., I was paged by Degraftenreed, who
.stated that Steve was sitting at the bus stop at M.L. King and
Colonial_ l contacted Detsz Perez and Carney, and they went to that location and contacted the following:
Steven Lee Linwood B/M/8~10-64 1818 S. Ervay (Bunkhouse Shelter) Dallas, Tx.
Work - Jack McAdams 1211 Levee St.
(214) 748~6417
Officer Starr #7420 transported Steven Linwood_to CAPERS.
I interviewed Linwood regarding this offense. He stated that he had no direct knowledge regarding this offense. He did he recall the night of this offense because he had a run in with a group'of teenagers who threw bottles and other objects at him and
some other men as they sat at the bus stop. He stated that around
7100 p.m. that evening he saw the following person in the area of the offense location:
B/M/40, 5'8", 150-160 lbs; "Bright“.complexion; Thick mustache, low cut hair; Scar on the right side of his neck; Dressed in plaid shirt.
Linwood stated that he had seen this subject walking back and forth from the Sportsmans Lounge to the bus stop several times during that afternoon and evening. `The subject appeared to be intoxicated, and at times spoke to the group that Linwood was with. Linwood stated that this subject talked to a person that
Linwood described as follows:
"Anthony's cousin", B/M/ZS; S'lO"y 210 le.}
Linwood stated that this subject had been fired from a beer store on M.L. King, west of the KFC, sometime in the past couple of 2
Follow up required: Yes No Key words:__
Supervisor Approval; 8462hjbn_rb18
000302
weeks. Linwood stated that he saw the first subject sitting on a
bench in front of the Sportsmans Lounge on Thursday, 4/29/99.
During this interview, I showed Linwood the videotape from the EZ Mart Store. I asked him if he recognized anyone in the videotape. He stated that the shorter individual resembled a person he knew by the name of "Dave", who drives a yellow `Cadillac. He stated that this subject had been picked up by detectives and interviewed about this offense. I showed Linwood a six-photo lineup of Daniel Jennings, B/M/l-15-4S, whom Det. Davison and I had interviewed on 4/29/99 (see Davison‘s note_) Linwood identified Jennings as the shorter person wearing plaid shown in the videotape. .
8462hjbn.rb18
_ ; [,(1' f/ LOW UP REQUIRED: YES NO KEY WORDS:
000303
,,__...._
_ 9_~.1‘ 9-._,~.~ ~\_
~_go,
COMPLAINANT: Borns, Jesse FOR DET. .: Berry
INVESTIGATIVE FOLLOW-UP INFORMATION
‘SUBMI`ITIN('S OFFICER: J.A. Davison DATE: 05/ 14/ 99
INFO OBTA_INED VIA: 4 OBTAINED ON DATE: 04/ 28/ 98 AT TIME:
`TOPIC: NARMTIVE:
,On 04/28/99 Ned and I interviewed Ronald Shumaker b/m/05/01/59, 3217 Utah,
214/371-7045, at his residence Prior to this interview Shumaker notified Homlclde Detetective Carollo on 04/23/99 regarding possible offense information Shumaker told Ned and I that there was a black male in the area of Co|onia| and Martin Luther Klng talking about this offense On 04/29/99 at 8:30 p.m. Ned and l located Danlel Jennlngs b/m/Ol/15/45, 514 Ft_ Worth Avenue #32, at a bus `stop on Colonlal at Martln Luther King Blvd. Jennings agreed to go to Capers and was later interviewed by myself first and then Berry.
Jennings told me that he didn't know anything about what happened Jennings denied any involvement 'Jennings says he _dldn’t know the comp, didn't know about the killing'. Jennl_ngs also said he didn't know where the place was where the comp was kllled. Jennlngs said he has never been at the place where the man
~ was killed. Jennings had no alibi. Jennlngs said he doesn't know where he was
the day the offense occurred
Jennings had a pocket knife on his person. The knife was confiscated and submitted to PES by Detective Berry_ Jennlngs gave consent to Berry to search his yellow C_adlllac and his residence
238462H BORNS BERRY.kayl
SERVICE #: 238462H
000293
’COMPLAINANT: BORNS, JESSE SERVICE #: 238462-H ' FOR DET.: BERRY
INVESTIGATIVE INFORMATION
SUBMITTING OFFICER: BERRY DATE: 7/23/99 INFO OBTAINED VIA: INTERVIEW OBTAINED ON DATE: 7/8/99 AT TIME:
TOPIC: INTERVIEW OF STAN MOZEE
NABBAIL!E:
On 7/7/99, I spoke to Charles Manning and asked him if he knew someone named "Stan" who may be an associate of D.A. Manning stated that he did. He stated that Stan was homeless, and had once shared a vacant apartment with D,A. and his girlfriend, Felicia. Manning stated that Stan was about 6‘0", 200 lbs., and had a salt/pepper beard.
On 7/8/99, Manning contacted me by phone and told me that he had seen Stan at the Shell Gas Station located on M.L. King at S.M. Wright. Det. `Muniz and I went to the Shell Station and contacted the following:
Stanley Orson Mozee B/M/4-21~59 Homeless, Dallas
I told Mozee that his name had come up in an investigation and asked him to come to CAPERS to talk about it, He agreed to come. I asked him if he had any information regarding this offense, and he stated that he did not. I asked Mozee if he knew the complainant, and he stated that he-had done some work for the complainant a few times before his death. I asked him if he remembered where he was on the-night of this offense, and he_ stated that he did not remember. I asked Mozee if he knew anyone named D.A., and he stated that D.A. had pulled a knife on him once after Mozee had gotten into an argument with D.A.'s girlfriend, Felicia. .I asked Mozee if he had heard any talk on the street regarding this offense, and he _stated that he had heard that a guy named "Black Ice“ might be involved. I asked Mozee if he would find out Black Ice's real name and contact me with that information; and he stated that he would.
8462hjbn.rb25
Follow up required: Yes _ No Key words:
Supervisor Approval: 8462hjbn.rb25
000317