Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more ➡
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Add note
Save to My Library
Sync to mobile
Look up keyword or section
Like this
3Activity
×
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Green Defense Mandamus Brief

Green Defense Mandamus Brief

Ratings: (0)|Views: 1,004|Likes:
Published by Mark W. Bennett
Defense brief to Texas Court of Criminal Appeals in opposition to mandamus, filed after the hearing on the unconstitutionality of the death penalty was stayed.
Defense brief to Texas Court of Criminal Appeals in opposition to mandamus, filed after the hearing on the unconstitutionality of the death penalty was stayed.

More info:

Published by: Mark W. Bennett on Dec 23, 2010
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See More
See less

11/10/2011

pdf

text

original

 
 Nos. WR-75,015-01, WR-75,015-02In theCOURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS ______________________________________________ In re THE STATE OF TEXASEX REL. PATRICIA R. LYKOSRelator,v.HON. KEVIN FINE, PRESIDING JUDGE,177 DISTRICT COURT OF TEXAS,
TH
Respondent. ______________________________________________ 
EAL
P
ARTY IN
I
NTEREST
J
OHN
E
DWARD
G
REEN
S
S
ECOND
B
RIEF IN
O
PPOSITION TO
M
OTION FOR 
L
EAVETO
F
ILE
P
ETITION FOR 
W
RIT OF
P
ROHIBITION AND
P
ETITION FOR 
W
RIT OF
M
ANDAMUS
Richard BurrJohn P. KeirnanRobert K. LopeSBN 24001005SBN 11184700SBN 124562300PO Box 525917 Franklin St., Ste 550111 W. 15 Street
th
Leggett, TX 77350Houston, TX 77002Houston, TX 77008713-628-3391713-236-9700713-880-9000713-893-2500 (fax)713-236-1802 (fax)713-869-9912 (fax)Counsel for Real Party in Interest, John Edward Green
 
i
Table of Contents
Introduction and Statement of the Case.............................................1Argument....................................................................3I.M
.
 
G
REEN
S
C
LAIM
I
S THE
IND OF
C
LAIM
T
HAT THIS
C
OURT
H
AS
H
ELD
C
AN
B
EA
V
IABLE
C
LAIM
.........................................................3II.T
HE
E
VIDENCE
G
REEN
H
AS
B
EGUN TO
P
RESENT AND
W
ILL
C
ONTINUE TO
P
RESENT
I
F
H
E
I
S
A
LLOWED TO
ESUME THE
H
EARING
B
EFORE THE
T
RIAL
C
OURT
I
S
ELEVANT TO
H
IS
C
LAIM
T
HAT THE
D
EATH
P
ENALTY
S
TATUTE AS
A
PPLIED TO
H
IS
C
ASE
C
REATES AN
U
 NACCEPTABLE
ISK OF
W
RONGFUL
C
ONVICTION
...........6A.The evidence presented thus far......................................101.The prosecutions case against Mr. Green........................102.Testimony from two different data collections about wrongfulconvictions................................................123.Testimony concerning eyewitness identification, the lack of discovery, and a Texas legislative response to the concern aboutwrongful convictions........................................194.Testimony concerning the use of informants as prosecutionwitnesses.................................................22B.Evidence yet to be presented........................................27III.T
HE
Q
UESTION
P
RESENTED BY
M
.
 
G
REEN
EQUIRES A
W
IDE
-R 
ANGING
E
XPLORATION OF
E
VIDENCE TO
A
SSIST THE
C
OURT IN
D
ECIDING THE
I
SSUE
P
RESENTED BY THE
P
ARTICULAR 
C
IRCUMSTANCES OF
M
.
 
G
REEN
S
C
ASE
,
ANDTHE
E
XPLORATION OF THIS
E
VIDENCE
I
S
S
QUARELY
W
ITHIN THE
C
OURT
S
P
OWER AND
D
UTY
............................................................31Conclusion..................................................................34Certificate of Service..........................................................35
 
ii
Table of AuthoritiesCases
 Atkins v. Virginia
, 536 U.S. 304 (2002)............................................32
 Buntion v. Harmon
, 827 S.W.2d 945 (Tex.Crim.App 1992).............................1
Curry v. Wilson
, 853 S.W.2d 40 (Tex.Crim.App. 1993)................................1
 Daubert v. Merrill Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
, 509 U.S. 579 (1993)....................21
 Morrow v. Corbin
, 62 S.W.2d 641 (Tex. 1933).....................................34
 Paredes
v.
State,
129 S.W.3d 530 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004).........................2, 3, 4
 Roper v. Simmons
, 543 U.S. 551 (2005)...........................................32
Scheanette v. State
, 144 S.W.3d 503 (Tex.Crim.App. 2004)..........................2, 4
State ex rel. Hill v. Fifth Court of Appeals
, 34 S.W.3d 924 (Tex.Crim.App. 2001)...........1
State v. Patrick 
, 86 S.W.3d 592 (Tex.Crim.App. 2002)................................1
Trop v. Dulles
, 356 U.S. 86 (1958)...............................................32
White v. Reiter 
, 640 S.W.2d 586 (Tex.Crim.App. 1982) ..............................34
Woodson
 
v. North Carolina
, 428 U.S. 280 (1976)................................32-33
Wright v. West 
, 505 U.S. 277 (1992)..............................................31
Treatises and Articles
Alexandra Natapoff,
Snitching 
(New York University Press 2009)......................22Biklé,
 Judicial Determination of Questions of Fact Affecting the Constitutional Validity of Legislative Action
, 38 Harv. L. Rev. 6 (1924)..............................31

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->