Medrano, Abel
Opinion
' ga ,Or§@/O/
Abel Medrano #1743611 Dalhart Unit TDCJ 11950 FM 998 Dalhart, Texas 79022
May 18, 2015
Abel Acosta, Clerk RECE|VED|N ‘Court Of Crimi`nal App@als couRT oFchMlNALAPPz-:ALS P.O. Box 12308, Capitol Station
AUStil'!, TeXaS 78711 MAY 26 2015 RE: WR-82,939-Ol v .
Sub= Applicanth Pro Se Rebuttal Abel ACOSU, 918¥§(
Dear` Cl€l`k!
Enclosed please find for filing Applicant's Por Se Rebuttal to the State's Re- sponse to Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus, §§11.07, ll.O73. Please file date stamp and bring to the attention of the Court;
Also enclosed, please find a copy of this letterhead. Please file date stamp
same and return in the provided self addressed stamped envelope. Thank you for your assistance on this matter.
Sincerely,
Abel Medrano
AM/ cc: FILE » Attorney for the State, Larry Allison, VIA SNAIL-MAIL
QY‘ ”/” @'MM p/m f/M/ Mé/¢f 4 /4,,, z /v ge .[,/e@/ ¢€MAMY /Ac /9£//)£¢'/.1' Aev't/'M A¢!m/,;/`
No. wR-82,939-01
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
AUSTIN/ TEXAS
EX PARTE § oRIGINATING IN THE 2711h § DISTRICT COURT IN AND FoR ABEL MEDRANO ` § LAMPASAS cOUNTY, TEXAS
APPLICANT's PRO SE REBUTTAL To THE STATE's RESPoNsE To APPLICATION FoR wRIT oF HABEAS coRPUS, §§ 11.07, 11.073
TO THE HONORABLE JUSTICES OF THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS:
COMES NOW, Applicant Abel Medrano, Texas Department of Crim- inal Justice(TDCJ)-ID #1743611 hereinafter Medrano and files this Applicant's`Pro Se Rebuttal to the State's Response UJApplication for Writ of Habeas Corpus, §§ ll.O7, ll.073, and offers this Hon-
orable Court the following in support thereof:
Statement of the Facts and Procedural History
On January 28, 2015, Medrano filed his State Application for writ Of Habeas corpus, §§ 11.07, 11.073, in thezvth Juaicial nis- trict Court of Lampasas County, Texas, by depositing same in the TDCJ Dalhart Unit's internal mailing system pursuant to the Texas Rule Appellate Procedure(TRAP) Rule 5. On or about March 26,2015, vMedrano received notice that this Court's Clerk had received and ence to district clerk requesting a copy of the State's Response. -On or about April lO, 2015, Medrano received same correspondence back from the district clerk stating the following: "Please know that the information you are requesting is on page 93 in the paper work that was mailed out to on February 27th, 2015." Pursuant to TRAP Rule 5, Medrano filed Motion to Stay Proceedings in this Court, which was denied on the l4th. Conformation of same was received on the l7th, On or about April 23, 2015, Medrano re- ceived a copy of the State's Response accompanied by the Findings of Fact and Conclusion of Law. This notification was received as regular mail due to the clerk's failure to put return address on envelope. Thus, there will be no record in the Dalhart Unit's mail room log. (see Exhibit A). Summary of the Arqument The State has issued their Response to Medrano's Application' for Writ of Habeas Corpus,§§ll.07, ll.O73, which is nothing more than a general denial (boiler plate) resulting in a decision that is contrary to, and based on an unreasonalbe determination of the facts and the records, in light of the evidence presented at the state court proceeding. Argument The State's Response to Medrano's State Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus,§§ 11507, ll.O73, is nothing more than a general denial, basically printing a formatted screen off their computer, after adding the proper names and dates, ect., only addressing the first fact from the first ground, even though they acknow- ledge that there are eleven grounds total that were presented. Due to the fact Medrano is actually innocent and the State's "Findings of Fact" only briefly'addressed Ground Two, Exculpatory Scientific Evidence-Untested,§ll.O73j a new addition to the Code of Criminal Procedures(CCP), which provides in part: (a) This article applies to relevant scientific evidence that: (l) was not available to be offered by the convicted person at the convicted person's trial; or (2) contradicts scientific evidence relied on by the State at trial. (b) A court may grant a convicted person relief on application for writ of habea corpus if: v ` (l) the convicted files an application, in the manner provided- by Article ll.O7, ll.O7l, or ll.O72, containing specific facts in- dicating that: -(A) relevant scientific evidence is currentlyavailableand was not available at the time of the convicted person's trial be- cause the evidence was not ascertainable through the rexercisex of reasonable diligence by the convicted person before the date of or during the convicted person's trial; and (B) the scientific evidence would be admissible under the Texas Rules of Evidence at a trial held on the date of the appli- cation; and (2) the court makes the findings described by Subsection (lHA) and (B) and also finds that, had the scientific evidence been pre- sented at trial, on the preponderance of the evidence the person would not have been convicted. see CCP §ll.O73(Vernon's Ann. 2013) this rebuttal will begin there, incorroporating Ground One within and extend into Grounds Three, Four and Six, due to the relevancy of documents now available° and being brought to light and offered ° See Original Memorandum at page 7 °. to this Court to ensure a fundamentally fair proceeding. Medrano contends that the State's "Findings of Fact's" claim "Applicant's claims under ll.O73 are not supported by any factual basis or claim of scientific evidence that was not available at the time of trial or contradicts any evidence presented at trial" is in itself contradictive to the record, erroneous, and without merit, citing no facts the State based their unreasonable deter- mination on. Medrano's first two facts of Ground Two in his application, plainly states: l) The only scientific evidence relied on by the State, fails to prove beyond a reasonable doubt the allegation of sexual assault by penetration. 2) Additional exculpate scientific evidentual DNA evidence, or the 'lack of' from withindjuepants Lisa put back on right after the alleged incident and wore back to Burnet without panties, will not indicate the presence of semen. while same is supported by the record and clearly cited in his Memorandum in Support beginning at ll. Medrano contends the only factual and scientific evidence a- vailable and relied upon by the State in his conviction, fails to provide evidence beyond a reasonable.doubt, the allegations con- tainedc within the charging instrument of sexual assault by pene- tration. (C.R. l, p. 12). Medrano argues that the State both possessed and unconstitu- tionally suppressed exculpatory evidence from the defenseand that that evidence not only was favorable to [M]edrano because it was, and still is exculpatory and impeaching, Healy v. Spencer, 397 F. Supp.2d 269, 289 (D.Mass. 2005), but the favorable evidence could very well have been reasonably taken to put the whole case insudi a different lightas to undermine the confidence dithe guilty ver~ dict./Strickler v. Greene, 527 U.S. 269, 290, 119 S.Ct. 1936 (quot- ing Kyles v. Whitley, 514ILS.'419, 435, 115 S.Ct. 1555, 131 L.Ed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
' ga ,Or§@/O/
Abel Medrano #1743611 Dalhart Unit TDCJ 11950 FM 998 Dalhart, Texas 79022
May 18, 2015
Abel Acosta, Clerk RECE|VED|N ‘Court Of Crimi`nal App@als couRT oFchMlNALAPPz-:ALS P.O. Box 12308, Capitol Station
AUStil'!, TeXaS 78711 MAY 26 2015 RE: WR-82,939-Ol v .
Sub= Applicanth Pro Se Rebuttal Abel ACOSU, 918¥§(
Dear` Cl€l`k!
Enclosed please find for filing Applicant's Por Se Rebuttal to the State's Re- sponse to Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus, §§11.07, ll.O73. Please file date stamp and bring to the attention of the Court;
Also enclosed, please find a copy of this letterhead. Please file date stamp
same and return in the provided self addressed stamped envelope. Thank you for your assistance on this matter.
Sincerely,
Abel Medrano
AM/ cc: FILE » Attorney for the State, Larry Allison, VIA SNAIL-MAIL
QY‘ ”/” @'MM p/m f/M/ Mé/¢f 4 /4,,, z /v ge .[,/e@/ ¢€MAMY /Ac /9£//)£¢'/.1' Aev't/'M A¢!m/,;/`
No. wR-82,939-01
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
AUSTIN/ TEXAS
EX PARTE § oRIGINATING IN THE 2711h § DISTRICT COURT IN AND FoR ABEL MEDRANO ` § LAMPASAS cOUNTY, TEXAS
APPLICANT's PRO SE REBUTTAL To THE STATE's RESPoNsE To APPLICATION FoR wRIT oF HABEAS coRPUS, §§ 11.07, 11.073
TO THE HONORABLE JUSTICES OF THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS:
COMES NOW, Applicant Abel Medrano, Texas Department of Crim- inal Justice(TDCJ)-ID #1743611 hereinafter Medrano and files this Applicant's`Pro Se Rebuttal to the State's Response UJApplication for Writ of Habeas Corpus, §§ ll.O7, ll.073, and offers this Hon-
orable Court the following in support thereof:
Statement of the Facts and Procedural History
On January 28, 2015, Medrano filed his State Application for writ Of Habeas corpus, §§ 11.07, 11.073, in thezvth Juaicial nis- trict Court of Lampasas County, Texas, by depositing same in the TDCJ Dalhart Unit's internal mailing system pursuant to the Texas Rule Appellate Procedure(TRAP) Rule 5. On or about March 26,2015, vMedrano received notice that this Court's Clerk had received and ence to district clerk requesting a copy of the State's Response. -On or about April lO, 2015, Medrano received same correspondence back from the district clerk stating the following: "Please know that the information you are requesting is on page 93 in the paper work that was mailed out to on February 27th, 2015." Pursuant to TRAP Rule 5, Medrano filed Motion to Stay Proceedings in this Court, which was denied on the l4th. Conformation of same was received on the l7th, On or about April 23, 2015, Medrano re- ceived a copy of the State's Response accompanied by the Findings of Fact and Conclusion of Law. This notification was received as regular mail due to the clerk's failure to put return address on envelope. Thus, there will be no record in the Dalhart Unit's mail room log. (see Exhibit A). Summary of the Arqument The State has issued their Response to Medrano's Application' for Writ of Habeas Corpus,§§ll.07, ll.O73, which is nothing more than a general denial (boiler plate) resulting in a decision that is contrary to, and based on an unreasonalbe determination of the facts and the records, in light of the evidence presented at the state court proceeding. Argument The State's Response to Medrano's State Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus,§§ 11507, ll.O73, is nothing more than a general denial, basically printing a formatted screen off their computer, after adding the proper names and dates, ect., only addressing the first fact from the first ground, even though they acknow- ledge that there are eleven grounds total that were presented. Due to the fact Medrano is actually innocent and the State's "Findings of Fact" only briefly'addressed Ground Two, Exculpatory Scientific Evidence-Untested,§ll.O73j a new addition to the Code of Criminal Procedures(CCP), which provides in part: (a) This article applies to relevant scientific evidence that: (l) was not available to be offered by the convicted person at the convicted person's trial; or (2) contradicts scientific evidence relied on by the State at trial. (b) A court may grant a convicted person relief on application for writ of habea corpus if: v ` (l) the convicted files an application, in the manner provided- by Article ll.O7, ll.O7l, or ll.O72, containing specific facts in- dicating that: -(A) relevant scientific evidence is currentlyavailableand was not available at the time of the convicted person's trial be- cause the evidence was not ascertainable through the rexercisex of reasonable diligence by the convicted person before the date of or during the convicted person's trial; and (B) the scientific evidence would be admissible under the Texas Rules of Evidence at a trial held on the date of the appli- cation; and (2) the court makes the findings described by Subsection (lHA) and (B) and also finds that, had the scientific evidence been pre- sented at trial, on the preponderance of the evidence the person would not have been convicted. see CCP §ll.O73(Vernon's Ann. 2013) this rebuttal will begin there, incorroporating Ground One within and extend into Grounds Three, Four and Six, due to the relevancy of documents now available° and being brought to light and offered ° See Original Memorandum at page 7 °. to this Court to ensure a fundamentally fair proceeding. Medrano contends that the State's "Findings of Fact's" claim "Applicant's claims under ll.O73 are not supported by any factual basis or claim of scientific evidence that was not available at the time of trial or contradicts any evidence presented at trial" is in itself contradictive to the record, erroneous, and without merit, citing no facts the State based their unreasonable deter- mination on. Medrano's first two facts of Ground Two in his application, plainly states: l) The only scientific evidence relied on by the State, fails to prove beyond a reasonable doubt the allegation of sexual assault by penetration. 2) Additional exculpate scientific evidentual DNA evidence, or the 'lack of' from withindjuepants Lisa put back on right after the alleged incident and wore back to Burnet without panties, will not indicate the presence of semen. while same is supported by the record and clearly cited in his Memorandum in Support beginning at ll. Medrano contends the only factual and scientific evidence a- vailable and relied upon by the State in his conviction, fails to provide evidence beyond a reasonable.doubt, the allegations con- tainedc within the charging instrument of sexual assault by pene- tration. (C.R. l, p. 12). Medrano argues that the State both possessed and unconstitu- tionally suppressed exculpatory evidence from the defenseand that that evidence not only was favorable to [M]edrano because it was, and still is exculpatory and impeaching, Healy v. Spencer, 397 F. Supp.2d 269, 289 (D.Mass. 2005), but the favorable evidence could very well have been reasonably taken to put the whole case insudi a different lightas to undermine the confidence dithe guilty ver~ dict./Strickler v. Greene, 527 U.S. 269, 290, 119 S.Ct. 1936 (quot- ing Kyles v. Whitley, 514ILS.'419, 435, 115 S.Ct. 1555, 131 L.Ed. `2d 490 (1995)): This scientific, exculpatory and impeaching prima facie evidence that is purportedly untested is not justthe pants' failure to indicate the presenceand STR DNA profile of biological evidence that is a match to Medrano's profile but, is the State's experts* inability to provide factual and scientific evidence of sexual activity by penetration, clearly favorable to the defense. Medrano arguesv had Lisa factually been "wet“ in her vaginal area, "the same kind of feeling" she has "felt after having sex," (see Exhibit B*) and since she put those pants on right after the alleged incident and wore them without panties back to the AmVets Club, where she got into her car and drove herself all the way to Burnet,approximately 38 miles,thepresence and STR DNA profile of Medrano‘s 'biological evidence, without a doubt, would definitely been present in the crotch area of those pants. Yet, not only did Watson purportedly opt not to test such prima facie evidence (R.R. 8,p.'HJ but, even though Ryan diligently`soughtout and purposely included same with the other items sent to the Waco DPS Crime Lab (seeExhibit C* and D*, yellow highlight), specifically requesting an analysis to "determine the presence and STR DNA profile of bo- ological evidence" (see Exhibit H*,pink highlight), the State and Ryan purportedly approved of this failure to comply with his_re- guests and failure to follow protocol? * Photo copy of same. Medrano argues that this sort of prima facie evidence was in fact tested and the results of said tests were unconstitutionally withheld from the defenser Medrano contends that the State knew that the lab's analysis came back negative to the STR DNA.profile of the biological fluid found on the vehicle's passenger's car seat, but chose not to ad-' vise the defense of Watson's conclusion, in violation of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963). Medrano argues that this compelling exculpatory and impeach~ ing prima facie scientific evidence, or the conceded lack of same clearly and convincingly implicates Lisa's allegations as being perjured and impeaches her testimony; Medrano argues had his trial counsel properly developed, in- troduced and, presented to the jury, the factual results of this certain alleged exculpatory and impeaching prima facie scientific evidence,ide., Lisa's pants' failure to indicate the presence and STR DNA profile of Medrano's biological fluids, see Washington v. Murray, 952 F12d 1472, 1476 (C.A. 4, 1991), this certain and-fav- orable evidence would reasonably be taken to put the whole case in such a different light as to undermine the confidwence of the verdict. Id., Strickler, 527 U.S. at 290, 119 S.Ct. 1936. Had the pro se motion for forensic DNA testing been granted, (see Exhibit F*) and DNA tests completed on Lisa's pants, Medrano would be able to provide the necessary prima facie evidence hihis State habeas proceeding to prove his innocence. Therefore, for the aforementioned reasons in Grounds One and Two, this Honorable Court should grant habeas relief/ vacating the conviction and remanding the case back to trial court for further proceedings, i.e., discovery/evidentiary hearings on the exculpa- tory results and remand the matter for a new trial; In Ground Three Medrano contends the State knowingly and in- tentionally introduced and presented tothe state court fraudulent testimony of Lisa and their expert witnesses Watson and Coats at trial, thereby incriminating Medrano and undermining theintegrity of the verdict. Carter v. Johnson, 110 F.3d 1198, 1104 (5th Cir. 1997). To succeed on such a claim and obtain reversal based on the State's presentation of perjured testimony, a defendant must est- ablish three elements showing UJ the testimony was actually false and presented at trial;(2)that the State had actual knowledge that the testimony was false; and(3) the false testimony is "material," so as to be a highly significant factor reasonably likely to have affected the jury's verdict. Blackmon v. Scott, 22 F.3d 560y 565 (5th cir. 1994); See also ciglio v. Unitea states, 405 U.s. 150, 92 S.Ct. 763, 766, 31 L.Ed.2d 104 (1972); May v. Collins, 955 F.2d 299, 315.(5th cir.),cert.aenied, 504 U.s. 901', 112 s.ct. 1925, 118 L.Ed. 2d 533 (1992). Medrano contends now that he is in the possession of his le- gal documents necessary to provide factual evidence as proof be- yond a reasonable doubt that:_U) testimony by both of the State's expert witnesses Watson and Coats, were factually fraudulent; (2) the State had actual knowledge of same; and (3) the false testi- monies were "material," so as to be a highly significant factor reasonably likely to have affected the jury's verdict. Id.. First and foremost, State's expert witness Watson, testified that he opt noy to test prima facie evidence) i.e., Lisa's pants, even though the State's lead Sgt.Investigator Tim Ryan diligently soughtout and purposely included said pants with the TXlOO-Sexual Assault Evidence Collection Kit and thefour swabs used to collect possible 0NA from the vehicle, specifically requesting UJ"Process for DNA and find possible match"(seeExhibitE*,yellow highlight). Watson's reasoning for opting not to test the pants wmathat semen from the car seat had identified Medrano even though identity was never an issuer (see Exhibit E,I*,J*Z,K*3, blue highlight). Medrano argues that, records are now available that clearly and convincingly state otherwise contradicting Watson's testimony that he .opt not to test Lisa's pants because semen from the car seat had identified Medrano. (R.R. 8, p. 71). Thus providing sub- stantial evidence that, at least that portion of his testimony to be in fact perjured, as discussed below. . The first pertinent record pertaining to this ground, is the "Laboratory Submission Form," which not only clearly indicates on October 30, 2009¢ did Ryan submit the collected items to the Waco DPS Crime Lab, specifically requesting:&x watson to "Processvfor DNA and find possible match"`(ld.), but most importantly, (l) Me- drano has already been identified prior to any STR DNA profile's search (see Exhibit E,I, blue highlight); and (2) in a brief case synosis Ryan typed the following: 2 In the State's Response to Movant's Request for DNA Testing, the State clear- ly and convincingly acknowledge "Identity was not an issue in the case_tried to a jury in this cause ..." l 3 "since the victim has identified Abel Medrano'as the person who assaulted her . . . " "Points of interest in this sexual assault case. Suspect,/Medrano has not been located to arrest and therefore there is no DNA swabs taken from him however, he is a convicted felon and there may be DNA for him on the CODIS. The jeans submitted were left as receiv- ` ed and worn after the sexual assault without underwear, which were never found." (Id.) (see pink highlight). Therefore, Ryan not only informed Watson of the significance of testing the pants but, also informed him that Medrano was in fact identified as the sole suspectin thecase and that there was no DNA swabs available Untest against any profiles hopefully recovered from any of the items submitted, especially from Lisa's pants. The second record, the “Evidence Return Report" (see Exhibit G*), clearly indicates that Watson returned same to the Lampasas Police Depart., where a Charlie Roswell placed same back into the evidence room on August 12, 2010. The third.and foremost, pertinent record) the "Serology,/DNA Report" (see Exhibit H*), clearly indicates that Watson completed his report and submitted same to Ryan on September 24, 2010, with Medrano identified as the sole "Suspect(s)" (see blue highlight), and listing all of the "Evidence Submitted" by name and giving an "Item" number to each, with tisals pants listed as "Item 3 Jeans" (see yellow highlight). `It then clearly indicates the "Requested Analysis" with only two distinct requests. (l) Determine the pre- sence and STR DNA profile of biological evidence; and (2) Enter profiles into the Combined DNA Index System(CODIS). Thus) speci- ficially requesting Watson to determine if [M]edrano's STR DNA biological fluids were present on any of the items because if the Court will take notice, Ryan pluralized the word "profile" hoping to find the presence and STR DNA profile of biological evidence on more than one of the items submitted (see Exhibit D and E). Medrano argues that no where in Ryan's requested analysis or in his brief case synopsis for that matter does Ryan give any in- ' dication that he wanted Watson to stop testing when the CODIS had located a possible match from the first and only item that tested positive for the presence and STR DNA profile of Medrano's biolo- gical fluids. Especially from the one item every one already knew would prove to be linked to that of Medrano's profile. i.e., Item 2, swabs from vehicle. Nor, does Ryan ever state identity was the issue he was wanting the answer to. When in fact, by the State's own admission in their Response to Movant's Request for DNA Test¢ ing, at I, the State clearly and convincingly state “Identity was not an issue in the case tried to a jury in this case..J'(see Ex- hibit J*, blue highlightl. Medrano renews his argument that evidence of the presence of` semen on a car seat does not prove penetration. Medrano contends, due to the fact Watson has preformed forensic testing in criminal 5 case for a number of years,_he understood the significance of umw pleting tests -on all of the itms submitted by Ryan, especially Item 3..Eor the prsence and STR DNA profileof biological evidence- in the» crotch area of Lisa's pants matching that of Medrano's, without a doubti would be unprecidented evidence against the de- fense, that penetration had in fact occurred. Medrano argues that Ryan and the State also knew the significance and that there is no possible way either of them would have allowed Watson not to test lO such prima facie evidence for the presence and STR AND profile of Medrano's biological fluids. However, on the other hand,the fail- ure to indicate same, would in fact be unprecidented evidence favorable for the defense. Medrano contends, even though Watson, Ryan and the State knew the significance of such a failure, those pants had to be tested for two reasons. Ryan and the State had to know whether or not the results would.prove favorable to them for their case, and, for such a failure would and in fact has, denied Medrano of his due process rights because the forensic scientist, Watson did not follow accepted standards when analyzing the evi~ dence in his case and thereofre rendering the results of his an- alysis to be unreliable. See Ex parte Roslyn,_394 S.W.3d 573 (Tex. Crim.App. 2013)LEXIS 748, NO.AP-76,973. Medrano contends, since Watson was hired by the State to re- cover, test, document the findings of.specific evidence,ige., the STR DNA profile of Medrano's biological evidence, and find match} Watson did in fact test those pants. But when tests proved favor- able to the defense, the findings were simply enough, never re- corded, insofar as not to have to disclose same to the defense in violation of Brady. Id;, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. ll94r Medrano argues, that such a failure for the pants not to in- dicate the presence of his biological evidence would, at the very least, impeach Lisa's testimony that she felt "wet down there", causing at lleast a 51% or better chance that Medrano would not have been convicted. Smith v. State, 165 S.W.3d 361, 363-364 (Tex. Crim.App. 2005). Medrano argues, since the adversary parties did not want to ll disclose such favorable evidence to the defense, `Watson chose to give false testimony at trial, testifying that he opt not to test the pants because semen from the car seat had identified Medrano, (R.R.8, pp.68-69), even though "Identity was not an issue in the case tried to a jury in this case‘i (see Exhibit J*, at I,see blue highlight), and,."the results of such a test cannot positively i- dentify a defendant as the perpetrator,"(see Hilliard va Spalding/ 719 F.2d 1443, 1445(1983). Furthermore, the Court concluded, "but the test can conclusively exculpate an individual if the blood types do not match." Id. As in the case at bar where the test did or will exculpate Medrano because only Lisa's SlR DNA profile was present. Medrano contends, had his trial counsel hired a forensic scientist to test Lisa's pants and document the analysis not only would the tests fail to match that of Medrano's but, it will only match Lisa's profile. And in the same token, Medrano would not have disclosed the_results to the State, making them find out_on their own as Medrano has already tried. Had his Motion for Foren- sic DNA Testing been granted, the exculpate results at this time) would have been available to be introduced in this proceeding and provide substantial evidence that: (l) Medrano is actually inno- cent; (2)there was no sexual assault; and (3) portions of Lisa's Coats' and Watson's testimonies are in fact perjured} Medano now contends that, the same applies to Coats and;her testimony (R.R. 7, p. 206), and her purported findings she both documented and failed to document during the exam on the Sexual Assault Examination Forensic Report Form. (see Exhibit I*).\ Since Coats had been a sexual assault nurse examiner for the past 14 years, certified by the Office of the Attorney General as a sexual assault nurse examiner (S.A.N.E.) for both pediatric and adult patients (R.R.7, p. 175L and not only hired by the State to' examine the alleged victim but, to produce a S.A.N.E. report that the State would be able to offer as evidence through her aaa wit+ ness against Medrano, that penetration had in fact occurred (R;R. 7, p. 181). Therefore, she could not submit a report which failed to meet the statutory requirements to assist the State in proving a sexual assault occurred. For such a document at the very least, would prove favorable to the defense instead of the.State. Thus, Coats did in fact, chose to falsify key pertinent portions of the Sexual Assault Examination Report Fornl(see Exhibit I*-l thru 1-8, pink highlight), insofar as to make it appear Lisa had been phys- ically and sexually assaulted, as discussed below. Coats falsified the following pertinent portions (l) checked the "penetration" box without authorization; (2) "noted stains on car seat and clothes" without examining either herself; (3) noted at Hymen'"%cm abrasion note at.4 O'clock"; (4) marked same on the Body Diagrams at I-5; (5) marked unexplained bruises on next Body Diagrams at I-6. Coats also failed to document and describe medi- cally the abrasion which she purportedly observed and admitted it was the only evidence she-saw of penetration. Coatsweven purports edly destroyed her underlying noted from the exam that formed the basis for the S.A.N.E. report. Coats went as far as to testify that Lisa told her.penetration has occurred (R.R. 7, p. 206) even though Lisa failed to testify to same herself insofar as to just- ify her checking the "penetration" box. On cross examination, Coats admitted while the "penetration" box was checked on the patient history form, nowhere did the pate ient herself write the statement that she was penetrated, despite explicit instructions that she do so in that section of the examr Protocol demanded that Lisa detail that element of the assault in her own words. (R.R.77 p.206L She then "noted stains on car seat and clothes" without examining the car seat herself and without any of Lisa's clothes worn the night of the alleged incident even being available to Coats.during the exam. f(SéeiExhibitaI-Q;ipdnk highlightj. In fact it was not until 17 days later after Lisa was able to locate and hand over her pants to Ryan, were they avail- able to examine. (see Exhibit C, yellow highlight). She then not- ed a %fcm abrasion at 4 O'clock on Lisa's hymen and drew same on the first of two body diagrams (see Exhibit 1-5), but testified that if an injury had occurred on that date, it would have been healed by the time and date she made the examination. (RiR. 7, p. 197). She then testified that the injury to the hymen was con~ sistant in time with the reported sexual assault and that pene# tration had to have occurred for there to be the type of injury noted to the hymen. (R.R. 7, p. 230). Thus, posing the question, if the injury had already healed (Id.,at 197)/ how could she have noted a § cm abrasion? (Id.,at 230). Coats also testified that she destroyed her underlying notes from the exam that formed UKabasis \ for the S.A.N.E. report (R.R. 7, p. 91) and most importantly, she failed to document and describe medically the § cm abrasion [s]he purportedly observed on Lisa's hymen, which was the only evidence [she] saw of penetration. (R.R. 7, p. 218-222). But then conceded ( that it could have other causes, including sex with someone else, ~ or vigorously cleaning herself. (R.R. 7, pp. 225¥231). Therefore, it is possible the abrasion was caused by a finger rather than. Medrano's sexual organ as stated in the indictment. Thus posing the questions, why would an expert SiA.N.E. nurse oflA years fail 'to follow the demanded eastablished S.A.N.E. protocol so miserab~ ly when conducting and documenting a sexual assault examination on the alleged victim? Was it because she was employed by the State and discovered somethingwshedid not want to disclose to the defense as Watson did? Medrano argues, because of Coats actions, or inactions, the answer is "yes" without a doubt. Had Coats truthfully completed the report form and followed eastablished protocol, the form not only would .have been of little to no value to the State in pro- viding' evidence in determining if penetration had occurred but, the report form would have been more favorable for the defense, and Coats did not want that sort of prima facie evidence to be handed over to the defense.on her account. Medrano argues Coats committed perjury when she testified Lisa had told her penetraiton had occurred (R.R. 7, p. 206), not only for the simple fact Lisa could not testify to same but, she failed to tell any one else despite being asked about it "piont- edly." (R.R. 8, pp. 45-46). Medrano contends that this was just lanother way 'Coats knew how to assist in the investigation since she was purportedly an expert witness for the State. What jury is going to question an expert even if she failed unfollow protocol? Medrano now argues that Coats' testimony and her drawings on the Body Diagrams (see Exhibit 1-5,1~6), of the purported z cm a- brasion on Lisals hymen 'and the *many unexplained bruises and tenderness on Lisa's'body" (see`Exhibit L*, yellow highlight), is also perjured testimony. (R.R. 7, pp. 218-222). § cm abrasion that wascm Coats testified that she observed a Lisa's hymen note at 4 0'clock and then drew a diagram showing what [s]he purportedly saw. Therefore, the abrasion was on the lower left side of her hymen. Yet, Lisa was in the passenger seat Medrano would have' had to come from the driver's seat to where she was. From that position, Medrano argues the abrasion would have more likely than not, been on the oposite side of her hymen¢ being at the 9, 10 or 11 0'clock position because of the slanted angle he would have been coming from. This includes whether orrmt it _was his sexual organ or, his finger. Which would have beenv pushing towards the upper right side of her hymen instead of her left side. Thus, making it virtually impossible for an abrasion to be where Coats testified she observed and documented same. Al- though the necessary documents are not available, Medrano argues, that the 4 0'clock position is Coats' most reported position¢of abrasions and her past documentations of same on past sexual as- sault patients will affirm this accusations. Thus posing the ques- tion, has Coats, or anyother S.A.N.E. nurse for that matter, ever examined an alleged sexual assault victim and found that there had been no sexual assault? Regardless how the 4 0'clock position came to be chosen, Coats had to say there was an abrasion of some sort, vforit would provide the necessary evidence to prove pene- tration and the report would prove to be favorable to the.State. See Appellee's Brief at 3 and 6, which provides in part: 3. "The SANE report was offered as Exhibit #l for the State through this witness." (R.R. 7, p. 181). ' 6. "There is evidence that penetration did occur both from the vic- tim and from the SNAE report." Then there is the many unexplained bruises and point tender- ness(PT) on Lisa's body Coats reported she observed. (see Exhibit I-6). Medrano argues Ryan put it clearly enough by stating "unex- plained bruises." (see Exhibit L*). Coats indicated 16 of them on her body. Yey the alleged incident took place inside a car on the padded seat that was reclined. (R.R. 6, p. 42). Thus posing the , question, how could have Lisa sustained all of those "unexplained bruises?" Thus causing Coats' testimony to lack credibility. Medrano now contends that portions of Lisa's testimony given at 'trial and on her voluntary statement, are also perjured, as discussed below. Lisa testified she wastpassed out"and did not remember any- thing Medrano did or said to her until she heard Walker screaming [her] name and banging on the door. (R.R. 6, pp. 41-425. Yet, an eyewitness, Christopher 0ortez Hernandez(Hernandez) not only gave a statement to Ryan (see Exhibit M*, yellow highlight), but, also testified that he watched Medrano walk down to the passenger side door, and when the car's enterior lights came on while he was standing there} he could see him talking with Lisa, but could not hear what they were saying{22 He then watched Medrano go around to 22 The trial court records have not been made available to Medrano for viewing purposes. Therefore, he is unable to cite the record to this account. the back side of the car and get in the driver's door. Therefore, Lisa could not have been "passed out" as she claimed, and she had to have turned on the enterior lights to the car and unlocked_the car door so Medrano could get in, since the car doors were locked according to her statement on the History of Assault. (see Exhibit I-2, yellow highlight). Lisa then testified, that Walker woke her up screaming [her] vname (R.R. 6, p. 41). Yet, both trial and voluntary statement re- cords, clearly indicate that Walker screamed "Moses'" name, inter alia, not Lisa's name (R.R. 6, pp. 76-77)(see Exhibit M*, N*¢ O*, and P*, pink highlight). No where in Walker’s testimony, does she indicate she ever yelled Lisa's name. She also testified she felt "wet down there" (R.R.6, pp. 59~ 60), stating "the same kind of feelin" she has "felt after having sex" (see Exhibit B). Medrano contends, Lisa made this statement to make it appear penetration and ejaculation had occurred, even though it did not. Had this factually occurred and she felt wet in\her vaginal area, Watson's `forensic tests on Lisa pants would have indicated the presence and STR DNA profile of Medrano's biological body fluids, due to the fact Lisa put those pants on right after the alleged incident and without panties. (see Exhibit B, green highlight). Yet tests_did, or will only indicate the presence of Lisa's bio- logical body fluids. Lisa went as far as to testify and state Walker drove her to Burnet in the first trial.22(see Exhibit B, pink highlight). Lisa then testified in the second trial that she drove herself home to Burnet, where when she got there, she went straight in and took a shower. (R.R. 6, pp. 50-51). Even though Walker has always main- 'tained that Lisa drove herself to Burnet, she testified that Lisa turned at the Storm's restaurant, instead of going home.22(seeEx~ hibit Nz yell`ow-highlight)..4 Which was not in the vicinity of her parents' house whom she lived with. Thus, not only indicating she did not go home but, why she could not find the pants she wore on that night until 7 days later, where she stated she had located them in another dirty clothes hamper. (see Exhibit C, blue high- light). Thus posing the questions, where did she actually go once_ she got to Burnet? Once she got to where ever she went, what hap- pen there? n Medrano argues she went to a place she has stayed before and that she had some of her clothes there. The question then arises, was it a male's house? If so, what happen after she got there? Medrano contends these are questions that should have been asked by Ryan with substantial answers from Lisa so Ryan could investigate her story- Medrano argues Lisa had a motive and said so when she stated Medrano purportedly stole approximately $150.00 from her.(see Ex- hibit Q*, blue highlight). Thus causing Lisa's testimony to lack credibility with portions perjured as in Coats' and Watson's tes- timonies. l The due process clause prohibits the use of perjured testi- mony to obtain a conviction. See Giglio v. U.S., 405 U.S. 150, 92 S.Ct. 763, 766, 31 L.Ed.2d 104 (1972); see also kayford v. Thaler 130 S.Ct. 1506-2011 U.S.Dist. LEXIS 152309;-B1ack v. Collins, 962 F.2d 394, 407 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 504 U.S.992, 112 S.Ct. 2983, 119 L.Ed.2d 600 (1992). False testimony is material if "there is any reasonalbe likelihood that the false testimony could have af- fected the judgment of the jury. Creel v. Johnson, 163 F.3d`385, 391 (5th Cir. 1998), cert. deniedy 526 U;S. 1148, 119 S.Ct. 2027, 143 L.Ed.2d 1038 (1999), quoting Kirkpatrick v. Whitley, 992 F.2d 491, 497 (5th Cir. 1993). To obtain a reversal based upon the prosecutor's use of per- jured testimony, he must show that (l) the statements were actu- ally false; (2) the state knew they were false; and (3)the state- ments were material, i.e., highly significant factor reasonably likely to have affected the juryls verdict. U.S. v. Blackburn, 9 F.3d 353 (5th Cir. 1993). Medrano argues he has shown that the statements were in fact actually false, that the state new they were false and the state- ments were material. Therefore, for the aforementioned reasons asserted in Ground Three, this Honorable Court should grant habeas relief, vacating the conviction and remanding the case back to the trial court for further proceedings, i.e., discovery/evidentiary hearings and re- mand the matter for a new trial. v In Ground Five, -Medrano argues that the indictment is viod. He contends that he is now in the possession of the necessary do- cument that clearly substantiates his claim. (see Exhibit R*). First and foremost, tthe pseudonym form is in fact deficient vand was partially filled out by someone other than Lisa.. Nor did Lisa sign and date the form like it was supose to have been to be § legally considered`as a pseudonym. Then comparing the handwriting `with that of Lisa's signature on the form completed by Coats (see Exhibit I-l), it is clearly obvious that it was not filled out by her. For whom ever filled out this form, they even misspelled her middle name "Renee", leaving off the last "e". Then there is a se- cond party who wrote "Lisa Jo Evans" where the Pseudonym* name is to be written on the form. Thus causing the indictment itself, to be fatally flawed because it does in fact fail to include all the necessary elements of a properly and legally filed indictment. Therefore, this Honorable Court, should grant habeas relief, vacting the judgment for want of jurisdiction and_remand the case back to the trial court for further proceedings. i.e., evidentiary hearing, reinstate and grant motion to quash the invalid and void indictment and remand the case back to trial court for further proceedings. § In Ground Six, Medrano not only argues the State, knowingly but, unconstitutionally suppressed material exculpatory prima facie evidence, or the lack of, from the defense in violation of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S.83, 83 S.Ct.1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963). Besides the Brady violation, the State also suborned perjury andi tampered with evidence both before and at trial. See Shuh Wei Su_v. Filion, 335 F.3d 119, 127 (2d cir.2003). Thus denyi§g Medran@ his right to a fair trial. Hilliard v. Spalding, 719 F,2d 1443, 1445 (c.A. wash), U.s.App.LEXIS 15451. The rule of Brady requires the state to disclose to the de- fendant all favorable evidence either to guilt or punishment. The suppression of favorable evidence is material "if there is a rea- sonable probability thaty had the evidence been disclosed to the defense, the result of the proceeding would have been different. Id., at 373 U.S§ 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194; see also Brogdon v. Blackburn 790 F.2d 1164 (5th Cir.l986), cert. denied,-U.S._____! 107 S.Ct. 1985, 95 L.Ed.2d 824 (1987); Barnes v. Lynaugh 817 F.2d 336, 338- 339 (5th Cir.l9870. The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, requires the. State to disclose to criminal defendants favorable evidence that is material either to guilt or to punishment. Id., Brady 373 U.s. 83} 83 s.ct. 1194: see also United states v. Agurs, 427 U.s. 97, 96 S.Ct. 2392, 49 L.Ed.2d 342 (1976); Californis v. Trombetts 467 U.S. 479, 81 L.Ed.2d 413. An individual prosecutor has a duty to learn of mulfavorable evidence to a defendant known to the others acting on the govern- ment's behalf in a case, including the police. Avila v. Quaterman 499 F.Supp.2d 713,715, 716-717 (W.D.Tex. 2007). Significantly for Medrano's case, the rule in Brady encompasses evidence known only to the police investigator and not personally known by the prose- cutor. Strickler v. Greene, 527 U.S. at 280-81, 119 SJR. at 1948; Kyles v; Whitley, 514 U;S. 419, 438, 115 S.Ct. 1555, 1558 (1995). As stated in both this brief and Memorandum.in Support, the State called expert witness Watson, the forensic scientist hired by the State to perform two distinct tests on items collected for this sexual assault case (see Exhibit E, yellow highlight)._Among the itmes were Lisa's pants, in which she put back on right after the alleged incident and wore all the way to Burnet without pant- ies. Thus causing this item to become prima facie evidence either for the State or defense, pending the outcome of Watson's tests. Yet; Watson purportedly failed to complete the two distinct tests requested by Ryan. When questioned as to why he chose not to test such prima facie evidence, Watson testified he opt not to because semen' from the car seat had identified Medrano (R.R; 8, p. 71), which is false by all means, as discussed below. Medrano argues the State suborned perjury and, tampered with evidence as well both prior andzattrial. Specifically, the State suborned perjury in connection with the grand jury and trial tes- timony of Watson's, by coercing him to testify falsely and with- hold exculpatory evidence, having him testify that he "opt" nm:to test Lisa's pants because semen from the car seat had identified Medrano, even though identity was never an issue. (see Exhibit E, 1-2, J, K, M, N, O,.P), blue highlight). Even by the State's own admossion in their Response to Movant's Request for DNA Testing} they clearly and convincingly state "Identity was not an issue in the case tried to a jury in this case..i" (see Exhibit J, at blue highlight at l.). Medrano'argues, Watson did in fact test Lisa's pants. For it was not only his duty to test those pants but, it was the State's duty as well, to make sure he did test them, insofar as to learn of any evidence, whether or not favorable of the State.ld., Avila 499 F.2d at 716-717. Medrano argues it was only after the tests failed to provide the, evidence Ryan had hoped for (see Exhibit D), did the State decide not to disclose such favorable exculpatory, impeaching and mitigating evidence to the defense in violation of Brady. Id~ 373 U.s. 83, 33 s.ct. 1194. Medrano contends, had the trial court granted his motion for DNA testing to be completed on Lisa's pants, he would have been able to provide this Honorable Court with the necessary exculpate results, where Lisa's pants only indicated the presence of Lisa's STR DNA profile, or that of some unknown profile, but not that of his. Thus-constituting favorable exculpatory, impeaching and mit- igating information suppressed by both the State and Watson. Enfre United States, 267 F.3d 132 (2d Cir. 2001). Medrano argues had the presence of his STR DNA profile been indicated» in Lisa's pantsi it would have with out a doubt, been precidented evidence against the defense. But since there was not- any indication, it would have been, and still is, unprecidented evidence in favor of the defnse, that the State knowingly and un- constitutionally suppressed from the defense in violation of Brady. Id., 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194. For the aforementioned reasons, this Honorable Court, should grant habeas relief, vacating the judgment, reinstate and grant the Motion for DNA Testing of Lisa¥s pants, and remand the case back to the trial court with the exculpate evidence for a new trial. CON_CLUSION Medrano contends due to thwe fact his personal trial court records, at no fault of his, were not made available prior to the filing of his initial State habeas, he did make some errouneous assertions that this Honorable Court should deem as moot.e.g.,Il- legal Seizure of Applicant's DNA, Ground Four, inter alia. But, overall, Medrano's assertions are fact based and contained within the trial court records and its documents, as shown and discussed in this brief. PI{A`YE R WHEREFORE PREMISES CONSIDERED, Medrano prays this Honorable Court grants habeas relief, vacating the judgment and remands the case back to the trial court for further proceedings. So prayed. Respectfully submitted, /,// L// Abel Medrano #1743611 Dalhart Unit TDCj 11950 FM 998 Dalhart, Texas 79022 Pro Se l CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Abel Medrano, due hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing document was served on Larry All- ison, Lampasas County District Attorney, P.O. Box 327, Lampasas, Texas 76550, on this the 18th day of May, 2015. Same was deposited salso on this 18th day of May, 2015, sent to the Clerk of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals,at P.O. Box 12308, Capitol Station, Austin, Texas 78711, VIA U.S. Postal Mail Service, postage prepaid, first class. EXHIB'lT-A >®§ if §§ n I.§§ csm§sslc:~¢d h\©@\ Ps§»o 3a §§ \.~. tl. .l.. .,.nwss§§§_§lasssss_s__._.l_s_s_.ss_ ..x\... . ......\..... ... . . . .. . .\... .Uihh"u? €<4.",) EXHIBlT-B 9\ V. ' LAMPASAS POLlCE DEPARTMENT CFS #2009007816 lncident #2009007816 was on the news for and I did not know but it looked like the same guy and l remember he supposedly had a darker mark on one side of his face. When l saw Able l automatically thought of the picture on the news. Able never spoke to us and l never spoke to him. Eventually Able got up and left and Angela and l sat down and continued to talk to Ramon. We stayed at the end of the bar and talked all night. Albert Perez who was the DJ came over and spoke to us at times. We drank beer and shots of |iquor. l had about 5 to 6 beers and about 3 shots of Yeager Bombs during the_night. l do drink beer on weekends but seldom take shots because they usually make me sick, l don't handle them well.` _ At about 2:00 am, or closing time we decided to go home but, Angela wanted to go talk to Nloses. l do not know Moses' last name but l know of him and know he is a friend of Angela. l think Moses was at Robert Castro house, but do not know whose house it is. l think Angela said it was Rob's house, which is Robert Castro. l was fine while in the bar and while leaving the bar. l never left my drink unattended and when l went to the restroom Angela watched my drink. We do this all the time, if.we both go then we take our drinks with us. l rode with Angela to Robert's house and while on the way to Robert's house, l already started feeling bad. l knew l was not going to feel good, l remember having my eyes closed and was just laying their. l know we turned up a road by Mr. Gattis' and then seems like we made a couple of other turns and parked in the front of Robert's house. l think we parked the wrong way, illegally in front of Robert's house, l remember telling Angela not to stay long and she said she was just going to be in there for a little bit. l was already starting to pass out. l don't remember a street light on. l know after she got out of the car l passed out. Angela shook me and said l will be right back. l was in the front passenger with the seat laid back and | know l had my seatbelt on when we left AmVets. l cannot tell you how long she was in there or her even really getting out of the car. v …U, The next time l woke was when l heard Angela banging on the passenger side window and rv . yelling my name. l also found Able on top of me. Able was more or less centered over me and l tried push back up into the rear of the seat to get out from under him. l don't know what was pinning my left leg down but l could not get out from- under him. l know Angela walk away from - the car and then returned. The doors unlocked. lt all happened so fast, l started saying get off, let me out, and things like that, and then he got off me and left the car and went around the front of the car. Angela was at the passenger door and told me she would help me and got into the car and we left. l don't remember seeing him with his clothes on or off, ljust can't remember. My legs were open and he was in between them with something over my left leg. lt was then l realized my shirt and bra were pulled up towards my neck exposing my breast, but neither were off my body. My heels (shoes), pants and panties were completely off my body. l remember hearing a man's voice and remember covering my lower body with my hands and arms. l remember putting my clothes on as we turned left around the first corner or street. l remember l felt wet in my vaginal area, the same kind of feeling | have felt after having sex. | ,..\ found my clothes kind of over the center console area as if he tried to throw them to the ‘:?,lf§"` driver's seat. l never found my panties and put my blue jeans pants on with out them. My missing panties were a fuchsia color with little blue dots, they were bought at Wal-Mart and l do not know the brand name. The were medium size and bikini cut style. - l know Angela took a side road back to AmVets where my car was. When we got to AmVets, l told Angela ‘l did not want_todrive home;and sh'e_to`ok me home te`Burnet§ We went straight to Burnet and did not talk about anything. Angela asked me if l was alright. l did not want to talk. l was not feeling sick because of the alcohol any more and was now feeling sick because of what happened. When l got out at my house, Angela told me to call her ifl needed to talk. l told her l 09/13/2010 13143 301 EAST FOURTH S_TREET LAN|PASAS, TX 76550 Page 5 Of 19 if EXHIBlT-C 3 LAMF’ASAS POL|CE DEPARTMENT CFS #2009007816 lncident #2009007816 'what was being said. l then’saw Abel walk around the back of the car and get in on the driver's side. Abel was in the car between the times Angela went to the restroom to the time she came back outside. Angela sat down for a minute and l think Moses told Angela something like "Check on your friend." Angela went down to her car and then l heard her start screaming, "Get the fuck out of my car." Then Angela yelled something like "Moses, get him the fuck out of my car." Moses went down there. l heard Moses say, "Primo, get the fuck out of the car,' they are trying to leave." l think Abel got out of the passenger side door. Angela was at the driver's side door. Abel walked back up to the garage (carport) and did not say anything to me at a~ll. Abel had his clothes on. Angela and _Theresa left. Me and Abel went to another friend‘s house. The friend was Joseph. l don't know what Joseph's last name is. l don't know where exact Joseph lives but it is on the same side of town. We stayed there and ate at the Country Kitchen the next morning. The next day, Moses told me that Theresa was missing $150 and something about sexual assault that she was going to make a complaint against Abel for sexual assau|t. l think it was the same day Moses called me about it, that Abel told me Theresa let him have sex with her. l told Abel if he did not do it he'needed to go down and straighten it up, because he looked guilty by-running. investigator Ryan asked me ifl had seen any. clothing lying around the area after they |eft. l did not see any clothing around. Abel has not said anything about it except, he did not do it. l believe him and think the girl just got-embarrassed. | know Theresa too and feel bad for her if it did happen. l have nothing to hide or gain from this. l have read this entire statement, consisting of 2 page(s), each of which bears my signature, and l affirm all the facts and statements contained here in are true and correct. Criminal lnvestigator Tim Ryan has read this entire 2 page statement aloud to me and l again confirm this statement is true and correct. l have given this statement freely and voluntarily to lnvestigator Ryan to use for whatever investigative purposes he may desire. This statement was given without any threats or promises having been made by anyone. l have completed 9grades in school and have a GED. l read, write and understand the English language. After taking the 2 page statement from Hernandez, l read it back to him aloud to assure that it Was true and correct. Hernandez said it was true and correct and initial|ed and signed the statement indicating so. The original statement was attached to the case file as evidence (Case remains open) [Supp|emenf' Ryan's #4 Supplement / Evidence l On October 16, 2009, |, Sergeant lnvestigator, Tim Ryan called Te_resa Rob|es to talk to her about the case and to make sure she did not have any questions concerning her case. bles ` "" " hehad. h`"v“vj;§re*th`ev"ni‘g'rs ximall¥a'“§'sault._ F{ On October 19, 2009, at approximately 2115 pm, l met With Robles in Burnet. Rob|es handed me the pair of pants she Wore the night she was sexau|ly assaulted {fhe pants Were in a H.E.B. paper sack. l 09/13/2010 13243 301 EAST FOURTH STREET LAl\/|F’ASASl TX 76550 Page 15 of 19 il ' LAlVlPASAS POL|CE DEPARTMENT - CFS #2009007816 lncident #2009007816 took the pants back to the Lampasas police Department and completed an evidence tag and attached it to the sack, then placed the pants in the evidence room after being logged into evidence. The pants were never removed from the paper sack, so not to disturb any possible evidence on the pants. l§jpp|emenf; Ryan's #5 Supplementl Robert Castro ` gi On Ocotber 21, 2009,_at approximately 2115 pm, |, Sergeant lnvestigator, Tim Ryan stopped by Roberts Castro's residence located at 306 North Porter to talk to him about the sexual assault reported to have occurred at or near his residence on the morning of October 10, 2009, Nobody Was home and l left one of my business cards With a note asking for a return call. Later that afternoon, l spoke with Patro| Corporal, Jase Herring and asked that during his shift,`if he would stop by Castro's residence and talk to him about coming by the police department to talk to me about the incident Corporal Herring said he would attempt to talk to Castro later in the evening.' On October 22, 2009, during the morning hours, l returned to Castro's residence and.left another business card explaining that | needed to speak with him about the incident The card l left the previous day was gone. Later in the day, Castro called`me and said that he had gotten the card | left and stated he would come down and talk to me around 5:00 pm, if that was alright l agreed to the time and told him l would be waiting for him. ‘ At approximately 5:15 pm, l met with Robert castro in the police department lobby, then escorted him back to my ofnce where | spoke to him about the incident and What he knew. After talking to Castro for awhile about it, l took the following statement from Castro. VOL UN TAR Y S TA TEMENT lVly name is Roberto Castro. l live at 306 North Porter, Lampasas, Texas 76550. My home _ telephone 512-566-0412. My social security number is 451-71.-5146. My birth date is July 16, 1980. My Texas Driver's License Number is 17645113. l work for Randall Electric out of Bee Cave, Texas. l am giving this statement freely and voluntarily to lnvestigator Tim Ryan of the Lampasas Police Department. The date is October 22, 2009. The time is 5:41 pm. On the night of October 9, 2009, at about 10:30 pm to 10:45 pm, l dropped Moses Loya off at the Lampasas AmVets. | decided to stay and visit until my girlfriend got off work at 11:30 pm, l figured | had a little time to mingle. When l got there my brother, Ramon, Chris Hernandez, Abel Medrano, Angela Walker, and girl l only know as Theresa were there. Abel, Moses, Chris, and l sat at a table, while Angela and Theresa sat on the far side of the bar with Ramon. ' They were on the side next to the pool tables. l know this because before l left l went over and talked with my brother, to make sure he is alright. l always do that. Ra_mon and the girls never came to the table we were at while l was there. l think l was only there until about 12:15 am or 12:30 am,_ max. l left and went to my house and my girlfriend picked me up there and we went to her house. le girlfriend is Molly. l am really unsure of her last name because l have not known her that long. l stayed at her house until 09/13/2010 13;43 301 EAST FOURTH STREET LAMPASAS, TX 76550 Page_ 16 of 19 EXHIBIT'~D t»`-, ;"L”_AMPASAS POL|CE DEPARTMENT CFS #2009007816 lncident #2009007816 iSupplement: Bailey . j On l\/londay, 10/26/2009 Sgt. Tim Ryan provided a copy of a bill from SANE Debbie Coats. l completed a reimbursement form to be submitted to the Attorney General‘s Office. This was presented to Kelli Sanguinet to be mailed with an itemized bill to the AG's office once payment for the exam was made No further information On 11/05/2009 l, Bai|ey, received from Chief Angermann check#_120936883 from the Texas Comptro|ler of Pub|ic Accounts for $366.00 for reimbursement for SANE. This check Was given to Caro| Boberg with the City of Lampasas iSupp|ement; Ryan's `#6 Supplement/Warrant l On October 27, 2009, l, Sergeant investigator Tim Ryan completed the necessary paperwork to obtain a Warrant-of Arrest against Abel l\/ledrano for Sexual Assault. The paperwork included a three page Probable Cause Affidavit for Warrant of Arrest, the written complaint and the actual Warrant of Arrest Document At approximately 10:25 am, l met with Lampasas l\/lunicipal Judge, Robert Gradel and presented the paperwork and case to him. After reviewing the paperwork and case, Judge Gradel signed the Warrant of Arrest against l\/|edrano and assigned Cause Number 102709-A to the paperwork | returned to the police department and turned the original Warrant over to Data Entry Clerk, Kelly Sanguinet and asked that she enter l\/ledrano into the Texas Criminal information Center as a wanted person. At approximately 1115 pm, Sanguinet did get Medrano entered into TC|C as a wanted person, and provided a copy of the paperwork confirming his entry. (Case open pending warrant service) |§upp|ement; Ryan's #7 Supplement/ Lab Submission 1 »- j On October 30, 2009, upon arriving at work, |, Sergeant investigator Tim Ryan completed a Texas department of Public Safety Crime Laboratory Service Laboratory Submission Form to submit the TX100 Sexual Assau|t Evidence Co|lection Kit, the four swabs l_ieutenant investigator Jody Cummings collected from Angela Walker's vehicle, and the dark blue denim pant Theresa Rob|es turned over to me, for processing and the hopes offinding evidentual DNA. A copy of the Lab Submission Form was placed in the notebook for the form located int he evidence room. A't approximately 12:10 pm, | arrived at the Waco Crime Lab and submitted the evidence |n return.l received a copy of the Lab Submission Form with a decal indicating it had been received The lab tracking number was L6W-130683. This copy was added 'to the case file as evidence (Case remains open pending warrant service) [§jpp|ement; Ryan's #8 Supplement/Warrant Service Serveral months ago, Sergeant investigator Charlie BosWel|-contacted U.S. l\/larshal Aaron Greenwood in an attempt to assist in locating Abel l\/ledrano. O_n September 10, 2010, l\/larshal Greenwood had tracted l\/ledrano to`Dallas, Texas and further knew of his place of employment 09/13/2010 13;43 301 EAST FOURTH STREET LAlVlPASAS TX 76550 . d Page 18 of 19_ "v aj EXHIBlT-E swabs taken from him hovi/§,e,v,ermhl e is a convicted feior_ida"hd there ay be DNA for him in COD|S The jeans submitted wer received and were worn after the sexual assault without underwear, which were never found§ §Have any of these exhibits been previously analyzed by a laboratory? m Yes- - No if so, What Exhibit #'s? TExAs DEPARTMENT oF Pusuc si L GW 1 3 0 6 8 3 ' cR11v1E LAsoRAToRY sEvacE - ¢ Laboratory Submission Form Received Agency case Number 2009007815 1 0/30/09 1 2: 1 7 P M Offense Sexuai Assault Texas DPS Waco bare of offense 10/10/2009 Crime Laboratory /_/&\ County of_Offense Lampasas Agency Lampasas Police Department :::§ence Rec.d' Case Cohtact Person Name Tim Ryan v Tiiie Sergeant-investigator Maiiing - Address 301 East Fourth Phone 512-556-3644 Fax 512-556-2838 Cify, State v ` E '| . Lam asas, Texas 76550 ma' _ _ Z'P Code p Address tryan@ci.|ampasas_tx_us Suspect Victim l Name (Last, First Middle) Race Sex DOB DL# / SS#llD# W‘ l:l iMed’a"°» Abe' . w 1v1 02/01/1974 x oL18307261,ssN 460-25-285 |:] Robies, Theresa Rene ' W F 10/31/1975 X DL 12594390, SSN 460-89-326 Description of Evidence Submitted Exhibit # Number Descrlption of Evidence ' Origin Exam Requested of items 1 1 ' 1 TX100 Sexual Assault Evidence Coiiection Kit Evidence taken from Victim / Rob|es process f?r DNA and find ~ _ possible match. Four swabs used to collect possible DNA S_tain On front passenger s_eat Where Process for DNA and find 2 2 4 . -victlm was passed out during sexual _ _ evidence _ possible match_ assauR 3 3 1 Dark blue denim jeans worried before and after From V§Ctim l Rob|es Process for DNA and hnd sexaui assault occurred ' possible match. 4 5 6 _ _ l 1 ` 1 l . f g i__l________ __ i_______ __ . i______________ __ ____ _____;____ _ ______ ____ ____ ’ _______i_ ' - i ____ _ __ __ __ __ _ _______ __ ________ _______ _________ _____ _________ __T For some non- -drug cases, it may be appropriate to attach a copy of the offense report Please include brief case synopsis, unusual examination(s) requested, and/or relevant case priority information Points of interest for this sexual assault case Suspect / Medrano ,as not been Mlocated to arrest and therefore there _ §Are known standards (biood sa|iva hair inked prints clothing fabrics etc ) submitted for comparison? E] Yes No LAB-oe Rsv_oo 111/2002) - » Psge !_ of 1 EXHIBIT-F `\ Abel Medrano #1743611 6999 Retrieve Rd., Scott Unit Angleton, Texas 77515-6618 December Z: , 2013 Lampasas County District Clerk P. O. BOX 327 Lampasas, Texas 76550 RE: Filing Of MOTION FOR FORENSIC DNA TESTING in Cause NO. 8602 Dear Clerk: Enclosed herein, please find the Original of my MOTION FOR FORENSIC DNA TESTING in the above referenced cause number. Please file it among the papers of this cause and bring it to the Court's attention on its first day of busi- ness after receipt hereof. Thank you for your time and attention in this matter. I will await your response herein. Sincerely, > C: files . "> CAUSE NO.. 8602 ax PARTE § m THE ABEL MEDRANO, § LAMPASAS coUNTY, TEXAS novani~. § 27th JUDICIAL DISTRICT MOTION `E`OR FORENSIC DNA TESTING TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT: , NOW COMES, Abel Medrano, Movant herein, and respectfully sibmnits this motion for forensic dna testing of biological material current`in the posses- sion of the State of Texasr-pursuant to ier;Code Crim.proc. 64.01. In support thereof, Movant will show this Court as follows, to-wit: I- BACKGROUND Movant was indicted in Cause No. 8602 for Sexual Assault; a jury found Movent guilty and the trial court sentenced Movant to 35 years. _Movant filed a timely notice of appeal and the appeal was affirmed by the Third Court of Apeals. A petition for discretionary review was refused by the Court of Crimi- nal Appeals. n Movant requests testing of biological material of a pair of pants submit- ted to the Texas Department of Public Safety (TDPS) Crime Lab for testing but which were not ‘tested because the serologist testified he did not need to test the pants because he had obtained a profile match to the semen found on the seat of the car which matched Movant's DNA profile. These pants were seaized and made a part of the sexual assault evidence collection kit in this ~ "') case. Movant contends that those pants were not previously subjected tc)DNA testing, and that through no fault of Movant for reasons that are of a nature such that the interests of justice require DNA testing. III. REQUEST FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL Pursuant to Art. 64.01(€), Movant requests the court appoint counsel in these proceedings because there exist reasonable grounds for such appointment because the material evidence requested to be tested would establish Movant did. not have sexual- intercourse with the complainant as she allegedly wore (or put back on) those pants immediately after the alleged sexual assault. The trial record supports this contention. Movant has attached an Affidavit in support as required by Art. 64.03(B)(a)(2)(h) & (B). PRAYER WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Movant prays this Honorable Court will grant this motion and (a) appoint counsel and (b) ORDER DNA testing of the pants in questions herein; and grant any other relief, at law or in equityl and consistent with the relief requested herein. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED/ WW "”"` ABEL MEDRANO #1743611 6999 RETRIEVE RD-, WAYNE SCOTT UNIT ANGLETON/ TEXAS 77515-6618 Movant Pro-Se Cause No. 8602 Ex PARTE § m iran ms ABEL MEDRANO, § LAMPASAS cou.'ni, AFFIANT` § 27th Junlcl DISTRICT AFFIi)AvIT 11 Abel Medrano, being of sound mindl over the age of 18 years¢ and capable of making this affidavit, am personally acquainted with the facts related herein, do declare under penalty of perjury that: "I would not have been convicted if exculpatory results had been obtained through DNA testing of the pants in the possession of the State of Texas; and, "This request for DNA testing is not made to unnecessarily delay the execu- tion of sentence or administration of justice; "Affiant further contends that through no fault of his, the evidence was not tested for DNA biological evidence- "Affiant further and unequivocally avers he is innocent of having sommitted a sexual assault upon the complainant. "Further, Affiant sayeth not." ll ABEL MEDRANO, BEING PRESENTLY INCARCERATED AT THE WAYNE SCOTT UNIT IN BRAZORIA COUNTY/ TEXAS¢ DO DECLARE UNDER ?ENALTY OF PERJURY THAT THE ABOVE AND FOREGOING IS TRUE AND CORRECT. EXECUTED ON DeCember//z}z l 2013. d::§z42g§225:§;;§;:;2:::¢,,',,//,_ ABEL MEDRANO #1743611 6999 RETRIEVE RD., WAYNE SCOTT UNIT ANGLETON¢ TEXAS 77515-6618 AFFIANT PrO~Se \ EXHIBIT-G `~.'"121 1 1 1 1 ::) la Lampasas County Attorney 5125564572 p.3 EVIDENCE RETURN RECORD Laboratory Case Number: L6W~130683 Submitting Agency: Lampasas Police Department Submitting Agency Case No.:20090078]6 Package Description: Sexual Assault Kit White Paper Sack Paper Sack RETURNED To-; C/~K=\@c /r-; /§s% .4¢ flicer`s Sjgnature RE'l`URNED BY: EVIDENCF. AUG 1 2 2010 RETURNED I)ATE RETL=RNED: §,76( ’L-’ IVIE'I`HOD RETURNED: z Personal ly Certifxed Mail # Notes: M SFM l'~ " ~T' s ‘,‘. EXHIBI T-H J'~J»" 1 ». "- Sgt. lnv. Tim Ryan Lampasas Police Department 301 E. 4th Lampasas, Texas 76550 Laboratory Case Number L6W -1 30683 §s`*irr"?"p_eg"i?§)' i Me:onl 'A! N,‘ '©Ll"'§ offense: Sexual Assault County of Ottense: Lampasas (1 41) Evidence Submitted 1A Blood sample 1 B Vagin al swabs 10 Vaginal smear 1 D Oral swabs 1E Oral smear 1 F F\ngernai| scrapings 1 G Buccal swabs ltern 2 Swabs from vehicle ltem 3 Jeans Requested Ana|ysis Resutts of Analysis and lnterpretatlon cells ® Jan lt ZU].]. IZZZL'H"N L,'lt.§j Of' LampaSaS CR|ME LABORATORY 1617 EA.ST CREST DRNE WACO, TEXAS 16705-1598 V°ice 254-759-71 80 Fax 254»-759-71 85 Serology\DNA Report september 24, 2010 Agency Case Number 200900781'6 viciim(s) ROBLES, Theresa Rene ln person by Tim Ryan on October 30, 2009: ltem 1 Sexual assault kit from Theresa Robles containing § Determine the presence and STR DNA profile of biological evidence`\ lEnrer profiles into the combined DNA index system (coprs)) 'Semen was detected on two swabs from the vehicle (2A & ZC), A presumptive test lor semen was positive on the remaining two swabs from the vehicle (ZB & 2D). Semen was not detected on the vaginal swabs or the oral swabs. ' ltems 1A,1C,1E 1F, and 3 were not examined. CUURTBY- S£R'W:E- PRCT`ECTM| alc"'aao"coao p_o TExAs DEPARTMENT oF Pus\_\c sAFETv JOHN STEE| CARN \|ARCY BARTN Otfense Date l 0/ 1 0/09 A portion of the victim’ s bucoal swabs was extracted by a method that recovers DNA from nucleated Swabs 2A and 20 trom the vehicle were extracted by a two-step method that will first recover the DNA of non-sperm nucleated cells (eplthelial traction), and then recover the DNA of sperm cells (sperm fraction). ACCRE)UEJ BY THE AMERICAN $OClETV OF CRlIlE LABORATGRY DlRECTDR$- LAB ACCRED!TAT|ON BOARD ExHIBIT-I .` `s ` _9. ’c-/' ,’c):'/ 711/nc STEP .1 REQUESTFORMEDICALFORNESICEXAMINATION, TREATMENT, COLLECTI()N OF EV]DENCE, AND RELEASE OF MEDIC AL RECORDS K\_\$L_>\“;\_\\ R\S`:"~ ` €i‘llafi'\"€ Of \\/-§\ \l:"-\.|-\:\\ \'l\'?*>\}\§\\\ \ \/‘""\1\1'-\ , a rcprc se (Name of Examiner) (Namc of Hospital) l liefbe &U llqu 10 perform a medical forensic examination, treatment and the collection of evidence l rurther permit the photographic documentation\ and release o_ copies o_f the complete report to the law enforcement agency l release \\\`"1\\\ \KQ\`\\K\ and its representatives from legal responsibility or liability for (Name of Hos pital) the release of this informationII. CURRENT PROCEEDINGS
Medrano, Abel (Medrano, Abel) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.