Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
1Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Pigott Motion for Rehearing 13th court of criminal appeals

Pigott Motion for Rehearing 13th court of criminal appeals

Ratings: (0)|Views: 27|Likes:
Published by Shirley Pigott MD
Motion for rehearing in the 13th court of criminal appeals
Motion for rehearing in the 13th court of criminal appeals

More info:

Published by: Shirley Pigott MD on Sep 17, 2011
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

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

07/04/2012

pdf

text

original

 
1
NO. 13-10-00234-CR
 
SHIRLEY PERSONS PIGOTT
'
 IN THE COURT OF APPEALSVS.STATE OF TEXAS
'
 FOR THE 13
th
JUDICIALDISTRICT
APPELLANT
’S
MOTION FOR REHEARING
SUMMARY OF MOTION
The Record shows that the prosecutor, through a carefully planned series of acts,intentionally inflamed and prejudiced the jury against Appellant. As the prosecutorbegan his cross-examination of Appellant, he was aware that
the crucial questionfor the jury was whether Appellant was arrogant and uncooperative on thehighway OR whether she was afraid
, when she tried to go to a safer place. As anintentional strategy, the prosecutor leveraged
Appellant’s disability during cross
-examination to make Appellant appear arrogant and uncooperative. Then theprosecutor, during final argument, told the jury that Appellant
’s arrogance and
failure to cooperate during cross-examination is proof of her guilt; that Appellantthinks that she does not have to follow the rules like the rest of us, because she is adoctor.
This conduct represents constitutional error.
After constitutional error there is an assumption of harm, with the burden of proof on the harm analysis shifted to the State.
 
2
The Court failed to recognize o
r address Appellant’s constitutional claims.
 Instead, the Court focused most of its analysis
on the “Deadly Weapon”
issue,which
Appellant’
s brief clearly states is not the basis for this appeal. (Reply Brief,pg. 3-4, 17-18)
Court’s Analysis
of Constitutional Claims
The erroneous methodologies used by the Court to summarily reject the
Appellant’s
constitutional claims include the following:1. Separating the
components of the prosecutor’s strategy
into separate events andanalyzing each event separately, instead of as part of the strategy.2. After viewing each component
separately, concluding that Appellant’
s brief violated
TRAP 38.1(i); that Appellant’s
brief fails to present anything for review.
3. Failing to consider the prosecutor’s admission
s of vindictiveness as evidence
that the prosecutor’s misconduct during trial was intentional.
 4. Relying on arguments and authorities that are not applicable when a prosecutorintentionally inflames and prejudices the jury against a defendant.5. Failing to recognize that before cross-examination of Appellant, the crucial issuefor the jury was whether Appellant was arrogant and uncooperative on the dark highway OR whether she was afraid, when she tried to go to a safer place.
 
3
DISCUSSION OF COURT’S OPINION
 Deadly Weapon Issue
 
(CT’s
. Opinion, pgs. 3-15)
The jury verdict on “Deadly Weapon” is not significant to the issues in this
appeal.The only relevancy of this issue is set out in the Reply Brief on pages 3-4, 17-18.As argued by Appellant, t
he jury verdict on “Deadly Weapon” is
relevant only asevidence of harm ca
used by the prosecutor’s effort to prejudice the jury
.
Prosecutor’s
Strategy Analyzed as Separate Events
(Ct’s Opinion, pgs. 15
-22)The Court begins its analysis of the constitutional issues by separating thecomponents of the
 prosecutor’s
strategy into separate events. The Court thenproceeds to view and evaluate each event separately, while overlooking therelationship of the separate components
to the prosecutor’s
intentional effort toinflame and prejudice the jury.
Appellant’s brief cites
numerous authorities, none of which have been disputed bythis Court or by the State, holding that a combination of acts by the prosecutionthat function together can have a synergistic effect in prejudicing the jury; thatsuch a combination requires an examination of the entire picture, rather than anexamination of each component separately; that the synergistic effect of a juryargument improperly referring to the
 prosecutor’s
cross-examination can createconstitutional error. These authorities include cases similar to this case, where the

You're Reading a Free Preview

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