Reed, Jamal Anton

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: July 6, 2015
• Docket: WR-40,571-02
• Status: Published

Opinion

uo, 611/01

cAUsE No. wR-40,571-02

EX PARTE IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF

¢O‘>¢O'S¢O¢¢O\\¢O¢

AUSTIN/ TEXAS

HE@EWED

APPLIcANT*s PRoPosED FINDiNGs oF FA@W ' IN oBJEcTIoNS 'Io sTATE's REsPol\Ts§"`*'®[':"‘T op CR-WFNAL APPEALS .QUL 03 2015

mem@@§i@,©@@mk<

NOW COMES, Jamal `Anton Reed, Applicant in' the above mentioned cause

JAMAL ANTON REED

TO THE HONORABLE JUDGES OF SAID COURT:

hereby files this Proposed Findings of Facts in Objections.to State's Response in accordance with Article ll;O7 of the Texas Code: of Criminal Procedure

and would like to present to this Court the following:

FACTS TO SUPPORT OBJECTIONS

(l). The State is quick to state that these allegations are to be denied since they were not brought up on Direct Appeal.-The ruling majority continues to chastise any applicant from raising issues on a Writ of_Habeas Corpus _ that could have abeen raised on direct appeal. But, is the applicant to be chasitsed and punish aaplicant.when it was his attorney's job to raise those issues and is the applicant to suffer for his appellate cpounsel's failure to do so?

(2). Applicant has‘ trying from day one of his incarceration trying to obatin a copy of his psychological report from Dr, Burns but has been impeded by' the` state and appellate court from obtaining.such evidence and now the State has graciously provided him a copy which makes this newly discovered evidence.

In the report on page 3.it shown that the applicant was taking medication orhad taken medication for the symptoms during the time of his alleged offense. It. was for a sexually transmitted disease and the court failed to bring this evidence to light since the victim never shown any such symptoms if the appli~

cant was indeed part of the criminal act.

l.

(3). The applicant was lnot accused by the victim as being one of the assailants during her trying 'ordeal. He was either suspect l or suspect 27 since neither_ party had been unmasked to bee identified. His accuser was

e \l3-year old informant who was arrested for cutting off his monitor and made. a- statement”;n Then released _and arrested again and made a different Statement. This information wast not brought forth neither was the informant who made the statement by the state in order to prove identity. This was in a

direct violation of the.confrontation clause.

(4). The confession .of the.applicant is null and void since there was so much durress and coercion iused by the detectives by taking the applicant from one place to another and overbaring his will by not giving him any rest or a chance to be with his mother or attorney during the interrogation process.

See Affidavit in appl ication.

(5). On March 'lO, 1994 Cause .number 52783~J was dismissed since the applicant was certified in cause number 52784-J. This causeznumber dealt with section 22.021 and 30.02 of the Texas Penal Code. See Exhibit One. Once the l district court1 was' given jurisdiction-the sexual assault case was given a seperate indictment number' and the robbery a seperate indictment number. The sexual assault charge was.split.between 52783-J and 52784~J which indicated

two seperate sexual assaultsr_but only one incident.

(6). OnO4-l9-94 DNA test were run on parts of evidence in question were. the tests shown that the semen collected was not that of the applicant and there were 5 men tested and the only two that had matching issues was Atrice Oliver and Donald Bolden; There was not enough evidence to do extensive testing; See exhibit two.

"Test number two perfromed on April> 9, v2012 shown that the applicant . is to not be excluded. The. spemn fraction of the oral swabs from the victim z is a mixture of at least two individuals, including at least one male. But, yet two males and one woman is to not be excluded. Yet, there was concrete

evidence that the applicant was one of the actors. See Exhibit three.

(7). On March'lO, 1994, the juvenile court granted ststaeis motion to waive jurisdictin and transferred applicnt's case to the 297th Judicial Dis- ' trict oourt. ' '

The trial court entered a verdict of guilty and punishment of eighty (80) years confinement in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice-Corre- ctional Division ~on March l7, 1995. He was convicted of aggravated robbery with av deadly weapon, to wit: a firearm, and aggravated sexual assault with a deadly weapn, to wit: a firearm.

'His appeal was filed then affirmed on January 15,'2004, according to the State, 9 years after the verdict. `

On this Habeas-Application the applicant contends that the Court erred' in waiving jurisdiction. Specifically, he argues that the juvenile court ` abused ith discretion.because (l) it failed to provide a specific statement of its reasons for waiver to certify its fact'findings: (2) it misunderstood and misapplied the factors it uwas required ‘to consider in deciding to waive jurisdiction; (3) the finding related to applicant's sophistication and matur- itywas unsupported by the evidence; (4) its finding vrelated to adequate_ protection ’of the public and unlikelihood of rehabilitation was unsupported nby the evidence; and (5) it vbased its decision on factors .that are not proper 'considerations' in the waiver analysis; (6) failed to render a service ' of summons upon the applicant. n

-The State however, argues that the juvenile court followed proper proced~

ures in reaaching its decision and the evidence supported the court's find- ings. ` t In Kent v. U.S., 383 U.S. 541, 86 S.Ct:GlO45, 16 L.Ed; 2nd 84 (1966), the United States Supreme -Cburt"stated that "[i]t id clear beyond dispute that the lwaiver -of jurisdiction is a 'critically importsant' action determining vitally important statutory rights ofl the juvenile."id. at 556. The Court lcharacterized the "decision' as 'to waiver of jurisidiction and-transfer of the matter to the District Court [as] potentially as important to petitioner as the difference between five years imprisonment and a death sentence." id at557. '_ " ` , In Hildago v. State, 983 S§W.Zd 746 (Tex.Crim.App. 1999), this Court, likewise recognized that Vtransfer to criminal district court for adult pros- ecution is 'the single most serious act the juvenile court can perform...because` oncel waiver of jurisdiction occurs,' they child loses all protective and rehabilative possibilities available§'" id¢'at 755. This Court held in Hidalgo, that "transfer. was intended to be used only

in exceptional circumatances" and that "[t]he philosophy was that whenever

possible, children 'should be protected and rehabilitated rather than subjected toy the harshness of' the criminal system' because 'children, all children are worth redeeming.'”_id. at 754(citation omitted). 4

Section 54.02»'of the- Family Code authorizes.a juvenile court to waive its exclusive, original .jurisdiction and to transfer a child to a criminal district court if: a

(1), the child. is alleged vto have committed a felony: (2) the child was fourteen“ years 'of age or older if the alleged offense is a first degree felony or fifteen years of age or older if the alleged offense is a second degree felony: and (3) after a full investigation and hearing, the juvenile court determines that there is a probable cause to believe that the juvenile committed the offense alleged and that because of the seriousness of the offense alleged or the background of the juvenile, the welfare of the commun- ity requires criminal proceedings. Tex. Fam. Code Ann. §54.02(a) (West Supp. 2012), `

Before 1995, the family Code authorized civil appeals from an order "respecting transfer of the child to a criminal court for prosecution as an adult." In 1995, the legislature deleted former Family Code section 56.01 (c)(l)(A), which had allowed a civil" appeal from an order waiving jurisdiction. See Act of May 27, 1995, 74th Leg., R.S., ch. 262, §48, 1995 Tex. Gen. Laws 2517,' 2546. '

In the absence lof a lstatute allowing an appeal, the result was that the waiver-of-jurisdiction order could only be appealed as in criminal cases generally, `i.e., after final conviction in the criminal court. See Apolinar vi State, 820 S.W.2d 792, 793 (Tex.Crim.App. 1991).

To limit the juvenile court¥s discretion in making the waiver determinat- ion, the Supreme Court in gent set out a series of factors for juvenile courts to consider. Hidalgo, 983 S.W.Zd at 754 (citing Kent, 383 U.S. at 566-67). The factors are incorporated into section 54.02(f), which provides as follows:

(1) whether the alleged offense was against person or property, with greater weight in favor of transfer given to offenses against the person: (2) the sophistication and maturity of the child; (3) the record and previous history of the child; and (4) -the prospects of adequate protection of the 1 public/ and the liklihood of the rehabilitation of the child by use of proced-- ures, services, and facilities currently available to the juvenile court. Tex. Fam. Code Ann. §54.02(f).The juvenile court "may order a transfer on the strength of any .combination of the criteria" listed in subsection (f). Hidalgo, 983 S.W.2d at 754n.16 (citing U.S. v. Doe, 871 F.2d 1248, 1254-55 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 917, 110 S.Ct. 2761 107 L.Ed. 2d 257 (1989)).

Section 54.02(d). requires 'that, prior to the`hearing on the motion to ` transfer, the juvenile court's "shall order and obtain a complete diagnostic "

study, social evaluationand full`investigation of the child, his circumstances,

4.

and the circumstances of:the alleged offense." Tex. Fam. Code Ann. §54.02(d).

If the juvenile court waives jurisdiction, it must "state specifically in the order its reasons for waiver and certify its action, including the written order and findings of the court..."id. §54'02(h). Rigid adherrence to these requirements is mandatory before a court may waive its jurisdiction over a juvenile. In Re, J. R. C., 522 S. W. 2d 579, 582- 83 (Tex. Civ. App.-Texarkana 1975, writ ref'd .r.e.); see also In re, J.T.H., 779 S.W. 2d 954, 960 (Tex.

`App.-Austin 1989, no pet.). '

(8) In its Order to Waive Jurisdiction, the juvenile _court found that "because of the seriousness of 'the offense, the welfare of the community requires criminal proceeding. Tex. Fam. Code Ann. §54.02(a0(3). The juvenile Courtnoted that) in making, that determination, it had considered the four factors enumerated in section 54. 02(f); am

(9) Reed contends that the juvenile Court's finding to his sophistication and maturity is unsupported by the evidence. In Hidalgo, this COurt noted that a psychological examination is ordinarily required to assist the court in assessing a juvenile'sv sophisticatio, maturityi and' the likelihood of. rehabilitation as required by subsection (f). In his evaluation Dr. Burns concluded that Reed"is ain a low average range of general intelligence, his visual and motor skills are below expectation, he was basically very cooperat- ive and friendly, his thinking was appropriate with no bizzare thought content. He isn not well controlled emotionallyH`there was evidence of the lower level of aguisition of society's norms and values, essentially the results are consistent `with conduct disorder, behavior problems, or a characterological_ disorder. Nowhere did the Dr. state that Reed was sophisticated and mature but had a rationale to help his attorney. n

The aapplicant concedes that`the juvenile court is sole factefinder and can choose to believe 'or disbelieve any or all witness testimony. Nonethe less/ there' must be' some evidence to support the juvenile_court's finding that Reed was sufficiently sophisticated and mature enough for the reasons specified by the court in order to uphold its waiver determination. This court's dreview should preclude that there was no evidence supportive of the Ocurt‘s findings that Reed was "of sufficient sophistication and maturity to have intelligentlYM knowingly, and voluntarily waive all constitutional rights heretofore waived....[and] to have aided in the preperation of [his] defense." As such, the evidence to uphold the juvenile court's finding regard-

ing Reed's sophistication and maturity as legally insufficient.

5.

(10) Reed contends that the evidence adduced is insufficient to suuport the court's findings that "there is little, if any, prospect of adequate protection of the public, and likelihood of reasonable rehabilitation of [Reed] by use of procedures, services, and facilities currently avaiable to the juvenile court."

The State contends that the juvenile court did consider rehabilitation therefore} this. claim should be denied. See State's response page 6.' Thus,_ conceding that a juvenile court can properly find that the welfare of the community requires criminal proceedings because of the seriousness of the offense, the background of the individual, or both. However, a finding based on the seriousness of the offense under subsection (a) does not absolve the juvenile court's duty to consider the subsection (f) factors.

If, as the state is saying generally, the nature of the offense alone justified waiver, transfer would.automaticallybe authorized in certain clases of "serious" crimes such as sexual assault and armed robbery with a deadly 'weapon, and the subsection (f) factors should be rendered superfluous. See_§;§; L_,_ 541 s.w.zd at 846, noon v. state, 410 s.w.3d 376:_ ` "

(ll) Reed contends that the record shows that he has four mentioned in€i fractions were one went to adjudication. There was no report iprovided by his probation officer or_ any testimony given during certification hearing.

Dr. Burns in his 'assessment stated, " No unusal somatic concerns was expressed. At least mild anxiety was present, although Jamal did not express it directly. Emotionally, he related adequately. Conceptually, he was organized. He expressed no guilt feelings and denied anything in the offense, He was not excessively tense and showed no unusal mannerisms or posturing. He exhibit- ed no grandiosity or depressive mood. He was mildly depressed about being in the dentention facility. He was cooperative, not hostile, and not suspicious. He evidenced no hallucinatory behavior. His motor activity level was appr- opriate. Hw -was basically very cooperative and friendly. His thinking was logical and_ appropriate with no bizzare thought content. His affect was generally appropriate. v

` After careful consideration by this court of all the_evidence is insuf- ficient to supportl the juvenile court's finding. As to the protection to the public Reed has one erviolent act of evading arrest of_a police officer in which he was adjudicated with probation. it is hardly the sort of offense for which there- is little prospect of adequate protection of the public and

likelihood of rehabilitation by use of procedures, services, and facilities

6.

currently available to the juvenile court. Furthermore, there as Stated earlier, that there is no probation report

which offers any details as to Reed's time on probation.Since there was no testimony from Dr. Burns as to evidence of possible rehabilitation this court should conclude that the juvenile court erred in finding that there is no prospect of adequate protection of the public and the likelihood of reasonable rehabilitation of Reed by use of procedures, services, and facilities currently avaiable to the juvenile court is so great againstthe§roponderance of the evidence as to be unjust.

(12) Reed contends that he was never given a service of summons. The sum- monsv is directed to the juvenile and there is no record or petition that he personally recieved such summons at anytime. The district court lacked jurisdition on the applicant to charge him with either crime because of the failure to follow juvenile statutes pertaining to §54.02, §53.06, §53.07(a) of the Family Code.{ `

Family Code 53.06(a), states: "that the juvenile court shall direct issuance of a summons to;-(l) the child named in the petition as do §53.07(a) which gives instructions on how the summons shall be handled. If any of these procedures are not taken properly the jurisdiction of the juvenile exclusively retains to the juvenile court and voids any process or procedure taken before to certify the juvenile as an adult as stated in §54.02(B)(g)(G-l).

If said p%rocedures are not followed and the juvenile is to recieve such summons personallythee whole procedure to certify him as an adult is indeeed nixed and invalid. Light v. State, 993 S.W.Zd 740 (Tex.App.-Austin, 1999); In the Matter of H.R.A., 790 S.W.2d 102, 103-06 (Tex.App.-Beaumont 1990). '

v CONCLUSION Because the juvenile court abused its discretion waiving its jurisdiction over Reed and certifying him as aniadult¢ the district court lacked jurisdiction over this case. Therefore, this court is construed to vacate the district

court's judgment and dismiss the case.

CERTIFICATION OF SERVICE

A true and correct copy is being mailed to the District Clerk of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals at P.O. Box 12308, Capitol Station, Austin, Texas 78711 on thiszgf§&;_of July, 2015.

7.

Res_ ctfully Submitted,

4"¢70//7@<¢

amal Anton Reed TDCJ-CID l Pr`O-S€ 2101 F.M. 369 N. »JA 69

Iowa Park, Texas

~/l t

#701172' Applicant

APPENDIX EXHIBIT ONE. . . . . . . . . . .Petitioner ' s Motion to Dismiss EXHIBIT TWO. . . . . . . . . .1994 DNA Test ing Report EXHIBHIT THREE. . . . . . . . 2012 DNA TeStinq RepOrt.

ZL~.

EXHIBIT oNE (a)

52783-J IN THE MATT»H “ }{ ' IN THE 323RD DISTRICT oF }{ ` coURT oF JAMAL }{ , TARRANT coUNTY, TEXAS

/

i)i§;'i‘mc':' C h PETITIONER'S MOTION TO DISMISS

COMES NOW, on this the lOth day of March, 1994, TIM CURRY, Criminal District Attorney, in and for Tarrant County, Texasy by and through BROCK GROOM, Assistant Criminal District Attorney, and requests the Court to dismiss the above styled and numbered cause for the following reason(s).

1. The respondent was certified in Cause #52784-J.

TIM CURRY CRIMINAL ISTRICT ATTORNEY TA T UNT TEXAS

BY

BROCK GRooM“ . Assistant Criminal District Attorney, Tarrant County, Texas State Bar #00784181

AFTER PRESENTATION of the Motion and the Court's due consideration of said Motion, it is the Court's opinion that the above styled and numbered cause should be dismissed and accordingly

grants this Motion. §§

SIGNED AND ENTERED this the 526 day of 1994.

-PRB€T®IN@X§UDGE ”

16le 12

\\

§\

ExH;BIT oNE (b@

assocs banco sdzu>pe

\\\\1 §§ §§ Q§T§§W § \§§§ §\§§§ § §§ ~.vomD o:o¢w mda .H.-DO\O ...HO ENHQNO n.$mr.~Omo wang dan _ K. w \ ~ wm guam » corn dunn .E .m> vw mm . N QMQ Q QMMM ZOBZC JmQ F 582 isn H:VEWEQD dick ~Em . a own o .o ozEE so §§ §§< t ass rwszmoee< mm§¢

GO.NNw . O~.H>.:OZ . .~G

adm me>em c~... §

eo Q>z>w >zaoz wmmo

Q>_<§_.F >z_H_OZ Dm._mU

O)..A. 5 usa mo~. .H.E.B=n Oo==$~. A.SBM. 2 N.NQH E=Eo Ha. 5 35 O~J~ on dog 223 HWS.E:V , _€. .~.SSP

Hoem z>wom_ @. Fm > z. on 25 4 aw< on .m» o n~onr

\lll!z.Az§%m§mmxx§wa§z§www 8=@&§§§3¢§§§§~©§§»mo,=c

no m:m€m~ 25 cmEUo: o» 25 O~:=§m~ U~m»§n» >SoBm<. m om?om Hm:m:n Oo::$~. memm m now< o» ¢<~:or pm rm~m~o mgmnrma msa

\~memx qmw @§ mdma .5 mma OQEH on 35 . umw o» . H© . mmmw:m»

Q>z>r »zeoz wmmo

L mm.~mwh 19 mir mma win dmwnw ncavm~ma . -.~ 25 :mnc~m cm ¢

¢

rosa msa 90 mmm~ o» mma OOE,H m~ .om~om. 5 25 O~J\ cm 103 299 Z:m $:.~. |N|m.wmam< o» m.m:w

>.U.H© wh

Um@c$~

O~A.>€~OZ

7wN~mwQ

~Z Wm…udzdw_ >ZH_OZ wmm©

_mmCmU

Nm_Hm m.m:w mh .~.EM auv. o». 5

.H.=O~s>m w. mcnzmm Qo~x. UUSB noE.~ .~,»:m:~ noc=Q. ._,ox»m

m. . w< b wachme U£EJ`

2253 >,E.oxzm<

(0) HNO LIAIHXA

Dc-223 ' _ 'BETURN GPc.0754 Rev. 2-90 ' ' 4 v '

Came to'han: on th£d:; of

§ emma "‘ @ §§_§W@ m ock g M. ., on the ' ' "_` ay of 19 qq) by delivering to the

within named

Bo ’clock

each, in person, a true copy of this Citation together with the accompanying copy of Plaritiffs original petition, having first indorsed on same the date of‘delivery.

The distance actually traveled by me in serving such process was miles and my fees are

as follows: To certify which Witness my hand.

F`or Serving Citation---$

F`or mileage -------------- $ . r \ \of County, For Notary --------------- $ U'W( \®AMA_ ~Y""-/ Total Fees ----- $

(must be verified if served outside the State of Texas.)

Signed and sworn to by the said __________ before me this __________ day of

,19 , to certify which witness my hand and seal of office.

Notary Public, ' County

F.)

Evidence List Laboratory Number 131411 Crime Laboratory

Known blood from Wendy Hagins WRBC from Wendy Hagins Known blood from Donald Boldon WRBC from Donald Boldon Known blood from Darryl Willis WRBC from Darryl Willis Known blood from Barry West WRBC from Bar`ry West

EDTA~ from Arrice»ohvcr»- ED"TA.»froni' JamalReed .

Swabs from Atrice Oliver

Swabs from Jamal Reed

Saliva swabs from Barry West Sa.liva swabs from Donald Boldon

Saliva s`wabs from Wendy Hagins S'aliva' swabs~from Darryl Willis~~~- ~ lS/cc - pillowcase

lS/cc - sheet

28 - sheet

Wendy Hagins (paper towel) Wendy Hagins (lS/cc - panties)

Page 3 of 4

` w ` EXHIBIT Two ( B) EVIDENCE LIST LABORATORY NUMBER 131411 PROPERTY CONTROL

Invoice #93c04799: Sealed Sexual Assault Kit - Wendi Hagins

Invoice #93004771: J. C. Penney Credit Card

Invoice #93004770:

v One -:sack containi

Two - Phone cords" Two - Coiled Phone Cords One - Blue pullover blouse

One - Piece of Yellow Rope (bed) One - white fitted bed sheet

One - window screen

Page 4 of 4

_ _..\. vuan ruu\,c: ut:|~'ARHV|tNT

.§YIBIT TWO h chME LABORAroR" ‘ PHYS|CAL EV|DENCE EXAM|NAT'ON cwa 4_19_94 usomo¢zv ms No: 131411 $ERV'°E N°‘ 93 583462 ` °FFEN$E‘ s£xUAL AssAuLT susPEcr; M- V|CT|M: w, H_

TO: CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION DIVISION

S U P P L E H E N T A L R E P 0 R T ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE: ____________________

Collected at the Fort Worth Police Department from Atrice L. 01iver 2-23-94, 1155 hours

-17-l8. Blood samples.h 19. Saliva sample.

Collected at the Fors~Worth~Police”Department frbm‘JamaIMAZ Reed 2423494, 1425 hours by A. Watts: . .

20-21. Blood samples. 22. Saliva‘sample.

RESULTS OF.EXAHINATION: The following items were extracted for DNA testing:

KS'- Known`blood sample from Atrice Oliver. K6 - Known blood sample from Jamal'Reed.

High Molecular Weight Deoxyribonucleic Acid (DNA) was extracted from the above items

and each nestrictedmwithwthe Restriction EnzymeWHKE IIIT "DNK profiles for Genetic Loci DZS44, DlS7, D10828, D48139 and Dl4Sl3 were generated for KS and K6.

`Based on these results}'Jamal Reed is eliminated as the semen donor on the pillowcase (Q2. The DNA profiles of Atrice Oliver (KS) and the pillow case (QZ) match.

Statistics were generated for Genetic Loci 02344, DlS7, DlOSZB and D4Sl39. The probability of selecting an unrelated individual having a DNA profile matching Atrice Oliver is 1 in

1.3 billion people in the Caucasian population; 1 in 63 million people in the African- American population; and l in 310 million people in the Hispanic population.

-\ _ &}wi/Am L€ W/MYL/

Constance Patton, Serologist

SHDoOM

,` EXHIBIBT Two (D) /\

131411

RESULTS OF EXAMINATION:

1.

9.A

9.B and

IO.A

lO.B

l'I`.

13;

1.5..'

Semen was not detected. The victim's blood was typed as 0 Secretor, PGM 1+.

Presumptive tests for semen were positive. Quantity is not sufficient for extensive analysis.

Semen was detected with H antigen and PGM 1+1-.

Presumptive tests for semen_were positive. H antigen and PCM 1+1~ were' detected.

Donald Boldon is blood type 0 Secretor, PGM 1+1-.

Barry west is blood.type B, Secretor.

Daryl'Willis is blood type 0 Nonsecretor.“'

FoRT ;Z(

,."§Ex-HIBIT Two (E) .» y, tv _

meoRAroRY FILE No: 13141 1

DAT€= 1-24-94

senv\cr No_ 93 583462 OFFEN$E: sEquL AssAuLT suspect ' vlch; w H'

10:cRIMlNAL INvEsTIGAHoN nlvlslou

EVIDENCE"` SUB`M|T¥ED:

SEE ATTACHED SHEET (List of Evidence).

5 PHYS|CAL EVIDENCE EXAM|NATION §

RE$.‘!.U$ °F EXAM'NME"ATTACHED sHEE'r (Resulcs of Examinacion).

Dl$POS|TION OF EV|DENCE: Lisa Bergeron, Serologist

35506-€

EXHIBIT THREE

MF` O RC H l o C E L LMA RK 13988 oiplomar orive - suite 100 ~ Dauas,Tx 75234 ~ 214_271.8400 - 1.800.752.2774 - 214.271.8322 fax Report of Laborator‘y Examination April 9, 2012 Jas°n Kreag _ SUBJECT: Wendi Lou Hagins Innocence Project, Inc. 40 Worth Street SUSPECTS: Jamal Reed; Atrice L. Oliver Suite 701 New York, NY lOOl3 ORCHID CELLMARK NO: FRlZ-OO34 / AGENCY CASE NO: 0542042A/()542044A ADD'L AGENCY NO: N/A EXHIBITS Client Item OC Item Received Item Description PCR 0542042A/0542044A-l FR12-0034-01.01 2/28/2012 Oral Swab:Wendi Lou Hagins Y 0542042A/0542044A-l FRl2-0034-01.02 2/28/2012 Oral Swab:Wendi Lou Hagins Y 0542042A/0542044A-l FR12-0034-Ol.03 2/28/2012 Oral Swab:Wendi Lou Hagins Y 0542042A/0542044A-l FR12-0034-01.04 2/28/2012 Oral Swab:Wendi Lou Hagins N 0542042A/0542044A-l FR12-0034-02.0l . 2/28/2012 Swab:Wood's Lamp-Wendi I_ou Hagins N 0542042A/0542044A~l FR12-0034-02.02 2/28/2012 Swab:Wood's Lamp-Wendi Lou Hagins N 0542042A/0542044A FR12-0034~03.0l 2/28/20]2 Blood Swatch - Wendi Lou Hagins Y 0542042A/0542044A-l6 FR12-0034-04.01 2/28/2012 Buccal Swab - Jamal Reed Y 0542042A/0542044A-l6 FR12-0034-04.02 2/28/2012 Buccal Swab - Jamal Reed N 0542042A/0542044A FR12-0034-05.01 3/8/2012 Buccal Swab - Atrice L. Oliver Y 0542042A/0542044A FR12-0034-05.02 3/8/2012 Buccal Swab - Atrice L. Oliver N 0542042A/0542044A NOT EXAMINED 2/28/2012 Cardboard Box:Miscellaneous Items N 0542042A/0542044A NOT EXAMINED 2728/2012 Cardboard:Window Screen N 0542042A/0542044A-l3 NOT EXAMINED` 2/28/2012 Manila Envelope:Credit Card from Wendi Lou N Hagins 0542042A/0542044A-15 NOT EXAMINED 2/28/2012 Manila Envelope:Blood Sample-Jamal Reed N 0542042A/0542044A-1 NOT EXAMINED 2/28/2012 Coin Envelope:Vaginal,Swabs-Wendi Lou Hagins N O542042A/0542044A-l NOT EXAMINED 2/28/2012 Coin Envelope:Anal Swabs-Wendi Lou Hagins N 0542042A/0542044A-l NOT EXAMINED 2/28/2012 Coin Envelope:Perianal Swabs-Wendi Lou Hagins N 0542042A/0542044A-l NOT EXAMINED 2/28/2012 Small Manila Envelope:Pubic Hair Cuttings-Wendi N Lou Hagins 0542042A/0542044A-l NOT EXAMINED 2/28/2012 Small Manila Envelope:Pubic Hair Combings-Wendi N Lou Hagins 0542042A/0542044A-l NOT EXAMINED 2/28/2012 Slide Holder:Vaginal Slide-Wendi Lou Hagins N 0542042A/0542044A-l NOT EXAMINED 2/28/2012 Slide Holder:Anal Slide-Wendi Lou Hagins N 0542042A/0542044A-l NO'I` EXAMINED 2/28/2012 Slide Holder:Oral Slide-Wendi Lou Hagins N 0542042A/0542044A-1 NOT EXAMINED 2/28/2012 Medium Manila Envelope:Anal Specimen N Kit-Empty 0542042A/0542044A-l NOT EXAMINED 2/28/2012 Medium Manila Envelope:Oral Specimen Kit-Empty N 0542042A/0542044A-5 NOT EXAMINED 2/28/2012 Coin Envelope:Paper Towel N 0542042A/0542044A-6 NOT EXAMINED 2/28/2012 Coin Envelope:Panties-Wendi Lou Hagins N 0542042A/0542044A FR12-0034 l of 3

Accredited by the American Society of Crime Laborarory Directors /LaboraroryAccredirar/'on Board

Client Item OC Item Received Item Description PCR

0542042A/0542044A NOT EXAMINED 2/28/2012 Coin Envelope:Blood Sample-Wendi Lou Hagins N 0542042A/0542044A NOT EXAMINED 3/8/2012 Coin Envelope:Blood Sample-Atrice Oliver N SEROLOGY TABLE Seminal Fluid Seminal FluidSeminal Fluid (Prostate- (Acid (Sperm specific Saliva Sample No. Description Phosphatase) Search) Antigen) (Amylase) FR12-0034-01 Oral Swabs:Hagins Neg Pos NT NT FR12~0034-02 Swabs:Wood's Lamp ' Neg Neg Neg Ncg Key: Pos = Positive Neg = Negative lnc = lnconclusive NT = Not Tested

RESULTS

DNA testing using the polymerase chain reaction (PCR) and the AmpFlSTR IdentifilerTM Amplification Kit was performed on the indicated exhibit(s). The loci tested and the results obtained for each tested sample are listed in Table l (see attachment).

CONCLUSIONS

FR12-0034-01.01.2-EF

The partial DNA profile obtained from the epithelial fraction of the oral swabs from Wendi Lou Hagins is consistent with the DNA profile obtained for Wendi Lou Hagins.

FR12-0034-01.0l.2-SF

The partial DNA profile obtained from the sperm fraction of the oral swabs from Wendi Lou Hagins is a mixture of` at least two individuals, including at least one male. Wendi Lou Hagins, Jamal Reed and Atrice L. Oliver cannot be excluded as possible contributors of` DNA to this mixture.

STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

The approximate frequencies at nine loci in five North American populations of` the combinations of all possible types included in the mixture reported for the sperm fraction of the oral swabs from Wendi Lou

Hagins (01 .Ol .Z-SF) with respect to Jamal Reed, making no assumptions regarding the number of DNA sources, are as follows:

POPULATION DATABASE FREQUENCY Black l in 9. 144 million unrelated individuals Caucasian l in 4l .28 million unrelated individuals SOuthWeSt HiSpaniC l in 149.0 million unrelated individuals SOutheast HiSpaniC l in 2.197 million unrelated individuals

General Asian l in 326,700 unrelated individuals

Note: Locus Dl9S433 is not used in the statistical analysis for the Southeast Hispanic and General Asian populations

0542042A/0542044A FR | 2-0034

OkCHlD 2 of3 CELLMARK

Accredited by the American $ociety of Cn`rne Labola!ory Directors / Laborarory Accreditarion Board Dallas. TX

Apn‘l 9, 2012

The approximate frequencies at five loci in five North Amen`can populations of the combinations of all

possible types included in the mixture reporte=d'for_t_he sperm fraction of the oral swabs from Wendi Lou

Hagins (01 .01 .Z-SF) with respect to Atrice L. Oliver, making no assumptions regarding the number of DNA ' sources, are as follows: '

POPULATION DATABASE FREQUENCY BlaCk l in 2,225 unrelated individuals CauCaSlan l in 13,530 unrelated individuals SOuthWeSt Hispanic 1 in 50,170 unrelated individuals Southeast Hispanic l in 18,010 unrelated individuals General Asian l in 18,770 unrelated individuals

DISPOSITION

ln the absence of specific instruction, evidence will be returned to the submitting agency by Federal Express or another appropriate carrier.

REVIEW The results described in this report have been reviewed by the following individuals: ` ` Technical Analyst: HM~ ad ,Q»wb Revi@wer= /Lv,,,§ UM'~- Mi&r L. Smitlir / DNA Analyst ll Huma Nasir / §li`pervisor - Foénsic Casework

Procedures used in the analysis of this case adhere to the Quality Assurance Standards !`or Forensic DNA Testing Laboratories. Orchid Cellmark is accredited by the American Society of Crime Laboratory Direclors/Laboratory Accreditation Board and Forensic Quality Services-ln|ernational. The results in this report relate only to the items tested

ccc Steven W. Conder, A.D.A. cc: Attorney Michael Ware Tarrant County District Attorney's Office 1407 Texas Street 401 W. Belknap Suite 102 , Fort Worth, TX 76196 Fort Worth, TX 76102

cc: District Clerk Thomas Wilder Tarrant County 297th District Court-Criminal 401 W. Belknap

Fort Worth, TX 76196-0402 April 9, 2012

4_ 0542042A/0542044A FR l 2-0034 O Rc H r o 3 Of 3 C t L LMA RK

Accredited by the American Society of Cn'me Laboratory Directors / Laboratory Accreditation Board Da|las, TX

O-Gm=w humbng 20"

>OHZO< G>mm ZO" >UU.~L >QHZG< 20"

.~.»v_e ~

ECN-QOW¢ omawoew>\c§~o>e> Z\>

Eo=nm_m~.

-£oe§ e* rsce~.e~e§~ mms=:=ene=

C§:.g Ha::::.r.. mccree

A\©\No § w

m»=__o_e Ze=_¢

Umm:.~o 52 w: U

Gwm,:vQ

Gwm_wmm

.H=E

C~umw:

v_mmmwo

ongme

5 _ omaha

.:vOX

U~mmm_

trng

vwmw_m

m.O>

OB_ m<\ome~o§>-_

_r 3 wo.ww.w w. :

_N _m

o.w

ms _N

ZW

~N, _m

ws:

:._~

N_,Nw

OB_ m<<~&w..<\o§~o§>-_ >>

~r Tr _m Nw Zw

_P as :. _w

ms .N. mt o

~0. _N. 3

_s: _o~ _N §

X.<

:.~N

wm

e\oma~o§>

:. 3 wo.ww.~ w. :

:. §

gm

_N. §

~.\. mo

~N. _m

_m

ms:

_N. ~m

__._N

N_.Nw

r§m_ wang _..E N-oow»-os.o~.~ om»~os->\o§~ot>- l o

Tr 5 Nm.wm :. _w

_o,:

I. 5

quo

__.;

_c. _N

_o.:

~m. wm

NN

>500 r. O:\ome~o§>

:v _m ~® m

;. 3

:s-

_c. 3

Tr J

NN mo

mm H mendoza maenao= mm u means 1333

X H mo_:m_n

X.< H §m_n

>> n ._,:nmn ~Qw::m qa§nmm=~ 90 oma=EB 35 oc§=oa § sam wm:_m_o. 092 aug wm m=o_cana _: 30 emma m_o.

zw u 2c Womc:

iam _dm::m :m_& 5 5a 320 ao 39 aneon m:$=m_.$` &Kn:w:nnw. O:J\ m=o_nm exono&:m

oma~oe~>\ome~oe>>

_o».

_