David Wilson - Petition For Removal W Press Release

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Petition to Remove Midland County District Attorney Laura Nodolf

for Incompetency and Official Misconduct Filed Today
Midland, Texas (June 9, 2022): We trust those who enforce the law to follow it
themselves. During the course of our work in Midland, we have discovered facts
indicating Laura Nodolf is not worthy to continue as District Attorney because she is not
following the law. She has violated fundamental constitutional rights, basic legal
principles, and multiple ethical mandates every prosecutor knows. She has done this in at
least case that we can prove, namely by:
● Searching David Wilson's home without a warrant;
● Lying to a grand jury to secure David Wilson's indictment;
● Abusing the grand jury process in her quest to “win.”
Her actions have directly affected those in the court system and indirectly affected all
Midlanders by potentially subjecting Midland County to untold civil liability.
Accordingly, and with a heavy heart, we have filed a petition for the immediate suspension
and the ultimate removal of Laura Nodolf as Midland County District Attorney. It is
based on our discovery of independent facts demonstrating incompetency and official
misconduct.
As attorneys, the gravity of filing this petition weighs heavily on us. Given what we have
discovered, however, we feel we have no other choice. Midland County residents have
the right to know what is going on in their name and at their expense at the District
Attorney’s Office. They deserve better, but that process can only begin when people bring
the dark to the light. It is time to restore honesty, accountability, and integrity at the
District Attorney’s Office.
-Allison Clayton and Frank Sellers, on behalf of David Wilson
For his part, David Wilson would like to add this:
“For evil to flourish, it only requires good men do nothing.” - Simon Wiesenthal
“This is about being a responsible citizen. Knowing what I know, and after being
subjected to these abuses of power, I feel it would be irresponsible if I did not take action.
It’s time our District Attorney is held accountable.”
-David Wilson
Midland County - 385th District Court Filed 6/9/2022 3:33 PM
Alex Archuleta
District Clerk
CV58633 Midland County, Texas
Cause No. /s/ April Gomez
In the _______ District Court

In Re Laura Nodolf,
Midland County District of
Attorney
Midland County, Texas
Petition to Remove Midland County

District Attorney Laura Nodolf from Office
TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:
Petitioner, David Wilson, a resident of Midland County, Texas, having lived here for more
than the last six months, and not currently under indictment, moves the Court to remove Laura
Nodolf from Office of District Attorney, and in support shows as follows:
INTRODUCTION
In January 2017, Defendant took the Oath of Office for the Office of the District Attorney
and in doing so swore to “preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution and laws of the United
States and of this State.” In becoming a licensed attorney in the State of Texas, she swore to also
“honestly demean [herself] in the practice of law,” and to “conduct [herself] with integrity and
civility in dealing and communicating with the court.” Instead of abiding by her sworn oath,
Defendant has violated the federal and state constitutional laws, the Rules of Professional Conduct,
and likely state penal laws, by personally participating in at least one illegal search, a police
interrogation, lying to the grand jury on multiple occasions, and abusing the grand jury process. As
such, this Court should immediately (i) issue citation allowing this matter to proceed and (ii)
suspend Defendant and appoint another person to perform the duties of Defendant’s office. 1
1
See TEX. LOC. GOV’T CODE ANN. §§ 87.016, 87.017.
Petition to Remove District Attorney Laura Nodolf—Page 1

DISCOVERY CONTROL PLAN
1. Petitioner intends to conduct discovery under Level 2 of Rule 190.3 of the Texas Rules of
Civil Procedure.
PARTIES AND SERVICE
2. Petitioner David Wilson is a resident of Midland County, Texas, and not currently under
indictment. He can be contacted through undersigned counsel. He has resided in Midland
County for at least six months prior to the filing of this Petition.
3. Respondent Laura Nodolf is the elected District Attorney of Midland County, Texas, and
may be served with process at 500 N Loraine St., Midland, TX 79701.
JURISDICTION, VENUE, AND RULE 47 DISCLOSURES
4. Jurisdiction and Venue are mandatory and proper in Midland County, Texas, because
District Attorney Laura Nodolf both resides in Midland County and Midland is “the
county where the alleged cause of removal occurred . . . .” 2
5. This Court also has jurisdiction because the claims and causes of action asserted in this
Petition are within the jurisdictional limits of this Court and arise under the statutory and
common law of the State of Texas, as well as the Constitution of the State of Texas.
6. Pursuant to Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 47, Petitioner seeks non-monetary relief in the
form of relief that is properly allowed pursuant to Chapter 87 of the Local Government
Code.
2
See TEX. LOC. GOV'T CODE ANN. § 87.015(a).

LIMITATIONS TOLLED
7. Because the issues raised in this suit were parallel to Petitioner’s criminal proceedings, he
was barred by Supreme Court precedent from bringing any type of tort suit until his case
resolved in his favor. Therefore, limitations did not begin until Petitioner’s criminal trial
acquittal on December 8, 2021. 3
RELEVANT LAW
A. The Two Applicable Bases for Removing a Public Officer
8. Pursuant to Section 87.013 of the Texas Local Government Code:
(a) An officer may be removed for:

(1) incompetency; [or]
(2) official misconduct.
B. Incompetency
9. “Incompetency” means “gross ignorance of official duties; gross carelessness in the
discharge of official duties; or unfitness or inability to promptly and properly discharge
3
Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 484, 114 S. Ct. 2364, 2371, 129 L. Ed. 2d 383 (1994):
The common-law cause of action for malicious prosecution provides the closest analogy to claims of the
type considered here because, unlike the related cause of action for false arrest or imprisonment, it
permits damages for confinement imposed pursuant to legal process. “If there is a false arrest claim,
damages for that claim cover the time of detention up until issuance of process or arraignment, but not
more.” W. Keeton, D. Dobbs, R. Keeton, & D. Owen, Prosser and Keeton on Law of Torts 888 (5th ed.
1984). . . .
One element that must be alleged and proved in a malicious prosecution action is termination of the
prior criminal proceeding in favor of the accused. Prosser and Keeton, supra, at 874;Carpenter v.
Nutter,127 Cal. 61, 59 P. 301 (1899). This requirement “avoids parallel litigation over the issues of
probable cause and guilt . . . and it precludes the possibility of the claimant [sic] succeeding in the tort
action after having been convicted in the underlying criminal prosecution, in contravention of a strong
judicial policy against the creation of two conflicting resolutions arising out of the same or identical
transaction.” 8 S. Speiser, C. Krause, & A. Gans, American Law of Torts § 28:5, p. 24 (1991).
Furthermore, “to permit a convicted criminal defendant to proceed with a malicious prosecution claim
would permit a collateral attack on the conviction through the vehicle of a civil suit.” Ibid.

official duties because of a serious physical or mental defect which did not exist at the time
of the officer’s election.” 4
10. Unlike official misconduct, “[n]o violation of a statutory provision is necessary to support
a finding of incompetency.” 5
11. An incompetency inquiry asks “only whether the evidence is sufficient to support a finding
that appellant was grossly ignorant of his official duties or grossly careless in the discharge
of those duties.” 6
C. Official Misconduct
12. “Official misconduct” means “intentional, unlawful behavior relating to official duties by
an officer entrusted with the administration of justice or the execution of the law. The term
includes an intentional or corrupt failure, refusal, or neglect of an officer to perform a duty
imposed on the officer by law.” 7
13. The Texas Code of Criminal Procedure also defines “official misconduct” as “an offense
that is an intentional or knowing violation of a law committed by a public servant while
acting in an official capacity as a public servant.” 8
14. An elected officer can be removed for official misconduct only if he or she violates a specific
statutory duty that amounts to unlawful conduct, 9 or, stated differently, conduct without
reasonable grounds to believe the act is lawful. 10
4
TEX. LOC. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 87.011(2)(A)-(C).
5
Stern v. State ex rel. Ansel, 869 S.W.2d 614, 623 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1994, writ denied).
6
De Anda v. State, 131 S.W.3d 198, 202 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2004, no pet.).
7
TEX. LOC. GOV'T CODE ANN. § 87.011(3).
8
TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 3.04(1).
9
Stern, 869 S.W.2da at 619 (citing State ex rel. Edwards v. Reyna, 333 S.W.2d 832 (1960)).
10
Meyer v. Tunks, 360 S.W.2d 518, 520 (Tex. 1962).

FACTS
A. General Factual Background
15. Petitioner had a home security system that malfunctioned in the early morning hours of
March 5, 2019. The malfunction indicated someone had tripped an alarm at Petitioner’s
home even though no one had done so. The home was actually secure. There was no
beeping, alarm, or any kind of notice given to Petitioner that the alarm was malfunctioning,
and the alarm company did not call Petitioner to check on him. Instead, and unknown to
Petitioner, the alarm company dispatched police to an “ongoing burglary” at Petitioner’s
home.
16. Neither the alarm monitoring company nor the police ever contacted—or even attempted
to contact—Petitioner by phone.
17. When officers arrived at the home, they opened the front door, briefly looked around, and
closed it. When they opened the front door a second time, Petitioner—protecting his three
young daughters, wife, and himself—fired one shot in the direction of the front door,
striking and killing MPD Officer Nathan Heidelberg.
18. At no point before the shot was fired did anyone attempt to let Petitioner know that police
had been dispatched to his house.
19. Petitioner did not know that the person at his front door was an officer until he was taken
into custody several minutes after the shooting.
20. Immediately afterwards, MPD sent almost every available officer to respond to the scene
at Petitioner’s home.

21. After ordering everyone outside, in full tactical gear, police then “cleared” the home by
conducting a protective sweep.
22. Petitioner was arrested and transported to the Midland Police Department, where he gave
a complete statement to investigating officers.
23. At some point that evening, law enforcement contacted the defendant, District Attorney
Laura Nodolf.
B. Defendant Searched Petitioner’s Home Alongside Investigating Officers

Prior to Obtaining a Warrant
24. After being contacted by law enforcement, Nodolf went to Petitioner’s home with multiple
people who appear (on video) to be investigators employed by Nodolf’s office.
25. Even though the home had already been cleared and secured by MPD’s SWAT Team and
even though Petitioner was already in custody, Nodolf walked inside Petitioner’s home and
perused around it. This was after the house had been swept and secured but before she or
law enforcement sought a warrant to search the home.
26. Texas Ranger Cody Allen confirmed this during Petitioner’s criminal jury trial:
Q. We saw earlier that the police went in in full tactical gear before you arrived
at the house; right?
A. I would -- yes, sir. From the video I've watched, yes, sir.
Q. And they cleared the scene; right?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And so when you and Ms. Nodolf got there, you went back into the house,
didn't you?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And you walked around.
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And you looked around.
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And you searched it.
A. No, sir.
Q. Well, you knew the house was cleared. Midland PD had done that; right?

A. Somewhat, sir. There's two parts to that question.
Q. Okay. You knew that Midland PD had cleared the home.
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Told you it was secure.
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And so when Laura Nodolf arrives -- is that common that she comes to the
scene of an offense?
A. It's not common, but it's not uncommon, sir. Especially with something to this
scale, it is common for district attorneys to arrive on scene.
***
Q. All right. Went into the house without a warrant, didn't you?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Ms. Nodolf went in the house without a warrant, didn't she?
A. Yes, sir. 11
27. Petitioner’s home surveillance system also captured Nodolf alongside six police officers
searching the inside of Petitioner’s home several hours before seeking and obtaining a
search warrant.
~continued on following page~
11
2 RR Excerpt of Cody Allen Testimony 117-18 (attached in Exhibit 1). Because Petitioner’s underlying criminal trial
resulted in an acquittal, a complete Reporter’s Record has never been prepared. However, Petitioner requested the formal
transcription of certain testimonies from his trial. Those excerpt testimony volumes are cited in this Petition.

Here Nodolf is walking through the area between Petitioner’s dining room and living room:
Here Nodolf is looking at something on the table in Petitioner’s dining room:

Here Nodolf is still perusing around Petitioner’s dining room:
Here Nodolf, standing in Petitioner’s dining room, appears to be having a discussion with Texas
Ranger Cody Allen (to her right, wearing the hat) and other police officers:

28. District Attorney Nodolf and Ranger Allen obviously understood a warrant was needed to
re-enter the home. Indeed, after they took the evidence they needed to establish probable
cause to arrest Petitioner, they in fact got a warrant to go back to Petitioner’s home and
search it (again).
C. Defendant Directed Petitioner’s Interrogation at the Police Station
29. After she was done at Petitioner’s home (and still before seeking or obtaining any arrest or
search warrant), Nodolf went to the police station where Petitioner was waiting. At the
station, Nodolf again actively participated in the investigation.
Q. And what you were doing during that time was stepping out to discuss with Ms.
Nodolf the questions you should ask; right?
[RANGER CODY ALLEN]: Yes, sir. And Ranger Breeding once he arrived there at
the police department. 12
***
Q. And so when you testified previously that you were stepping out to clarify
things with Laura and figure out what questions to ask, that's really what you
were doing; right?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. No judge had signed a warrant for David Wilson's arrest at that point; right?
A. Correct, sir.
Q. No independent person had assessed whether probable cause existed, had
they?
A. Correct, sir.
Q. So, in other words, the prosecutor is getting involved even before a case has
been filed; right?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Before an arrest has been made.
A. Correct, sir. 13
12
3 RR Excerpt of Cody Allen Testimony 19 (attached in Exhibit 2).
13
3 RR Excerpt of Cody Allen Testimony 20 (attached in Exhibit 2).

D. Defendant Lied to the Grand Jury, Blaming a Non-Existent Contract
Between Petitioner and the Alarm Company for Creating the Deadly
Situation
30. Over the next two months, Texas Rangers, with help from District Attorney Nodolf,
investigated the cause of the alarm malfunction at Petitioner’s home.
31. During this investigation, Ranger Allen and District Attorney Nodolf herself spoke with
representatives of the company that installed Petitioner’s alarm system.
32. Neither the Rangers nor Nodolf could find a cause for the alarm malfunction.
33. Neither the Rangers nor Nodolf found a contract between Petitioner and the alarm
company.
34. There was never any executed contract between Petitioner and the alarm installation and
monitoring company. Petitioner never clicked, signed, or even saw such a “contract.”
35. Nevertheless, in May 2019, when presenting Petitioner’s case to the Grand Jury, Nodolf
claimed Petitioner was entirely to blame for creating the deadly situation leading to Officer
Heidelberg’s death. Nodolf contended Petitioner had, in a written contract, instructed the
alarm company to not call him before dispatching police and that he therefore had no right
to claim he was surprised by police showing up to his house unannounced.
36. To be sure she got her point across, Nodolf held up a document and suggested to the grand
jury it was the “contract” Petitioner supposedly signed:
MS. LAURA NODLOF: . . . one operator says, “We were unable to make
contact with the homeowner.” The supervisor gets on
and says, “No, we were told to dispatch the police
first.”
***
MS. LAURA NODOLF: Yeah, he actually has to go -- and I can pass [this
around] -- you have to actually check on the contract,

yes or no, do you want them to contact, and it hits in
this area - -
UNIDENTIFIED INDIVIDUAL: That first call --
GRAND JUROR: So was that change made after these other kind of false alarm
calls, or was that the initial contract? Has that always been the
same?
MS. LAURA NODLOF: I am looking to see if I can determine that. 14
37. No such contract existed. All of these statements, which were instrumental in obtaining
Petitioner’s indictment, were false.
E. Defendant Lied to the Grand Jury, Saying Acoustic Panels in Petitioner’s

Home Amplified Sound When in Fact They Muffled It
38. During the same Grand Jury presentation, District Attorney Nodolf again made false
statements about another material matter. As Ranger Allen was testifying about the layout
of Petitioner’s house, Nodolf interrupted him to point out acoustic panels on the ceiling in
the living room of the home. 15
39. Later on, one of the grand jurors circled back around to the acoustic panels that Nodolf had
raised in the first place:
GRAND JUROR: . . . as part of the investigation, did anyone stand where David
Wilson was in that video and try to have someone else try to
yell from the front door to see if it’s audible?
RANGER CODY ALLEN: No, Ma’am, we did not do that.
GRAND JUROR: Is there a reason that wasn’t done?
14
GJR 93-94 (attached in Exhibit 4). Defendant made a recording of her presentation to the first Grand Jury. The
Court later ordered that recording to be handed over to the defense, who had it transcribed. For unknown reasons,
Defendant did not record her presentation to the second Grand Jury.
15
GJR 68-69 (Exhibit 4).

RANGER CODY ALLEN: So we debated that back and forth at the crime scene.
We had the senior Rangers there and - - it’s because we
decided we cannot prove what he heard or did not hear.
MS. LAURA NODOLF: The - - the reason why we went back and forth on it was
because there is - - there is a time, point in time, and
the officers can testify to this, anybody who’s been
hunting before, where you kind of get in this point
where you're in the black, when you're focusing on one
thing.
And my argument was, 16 I think we should take
the audible measurements, to say it in different audible
points, having somebody say that, doesn’t mean that
he heard it, I can’t say that for sure.
GRAND JUROR: Would those acoustical things have created some sort of
anomaly where he was in a dead spot versus --
MS. LAURA NODLOF: No, actually, those acoustic panels are meant to
amplify the sound.
GRAND JUROR: Okay.
MS. LAURA NODLOF: They're from [one of the officer’s] body camera, the
sound of how clear it is, I think that’s in part due to
amplification, because [the officer] is behind [the
officer who was shot]. 17
40. Those acoustic panels are not designed to amplify sound. To the contrary, they are
designed to muffle it. As the original homeowner who built the house testified,
Q. And if someone were to have told a grand jury or anybody else that your house
was built to amplify sound, would that be true?
A. No, it would be the opposite. I was trying to go for as dead and quiet as I could
get it.
Q. And if you were ever in your master closet and someone were in the kitchen or
someplace in the house, was it easy or hard to hear that person?
A. Very difficult.
Q. And was that by design?
16
Note that here, Nodolf is clearly recounting how she was actively participating in the investigation alongside law
enforcement at Petitioner’s house.
17
GJR 74-75 (emphasis added) (Exhibit 4).

A. Well, I tried to make the house as quiet as I could. It was where I was going to
be forever. 18
CAUSES OF ACTION & ARGUMENTS AND AUTHORITIES
41. As set out below, each of the following actions qualify as incompetency, official
misconduct, or both.
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION:

ILLEGAL SEARCH
42. Petitioner realleges all preceding paragraphs and incorporates them by reference as if fully
repeated here.
A. Defendant’s Warrantless Entry into Petitioner’s Home Without

Probable Cause and Exigent Circumstances was Illegal
43. Police may not enter a home without probable cause and exigent circumstances. Payton v.
New York, 445 U.S. 573, 603 (1980). A search conducted without both probable cause and
exigent circumstances is illegal. See id.; Parker v. State, 206 S.W.3d 593, 597 (Tex. Crim.
App. 2006).
44. There is an exception to a warrantless home entry if it is done solely for a protective sweep.
45. A “protective sweep” is a “quick and limited search of premises, incident to an arrest and
conducted to protect the safety of police officers or others.” Maryland v. Buie, 494 U.S.
325, 327 (1990); Reasor v. State, 12 S.W.3d 813, 815 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000). This search
must be “narrowly confined to a cursory visual inspection of those places in which a person
might be hiding.” Buie, 494 U.S. at 327. For a protective sweep to be justified, the searching
18
RR Excerpt of Mitch Clark Testimony 13 (attached in Exhibit 3). At a status hearing several months after the Grand
Jury proceedings, counsel for Petitioner asked Ranger Allen where law enforcement had gotten the idea that the acoustic
panels amplified sound. Ranger Allen indicated they based those representations on “[j]ust from hearing the house was
built by a person who enjoyed music and was in the music business and then had the house built for sound, that was the
only information that I had heard throughout the community about this house.” Status Hearing Transcript 24.

officer must possess “a reasonable belief based on specific and articulable facts that the area
to be swept harbors an individual posing a danger to those on the arrest scene.” Id. at 337.
46. The Court of Criminal Appeals adopted the protective-sweep exception to the warrant
requirement in Reasor. 12 S.W.3d at 816–17. The court held, “When conducting an in-
home arrest, a police officer may sweep the house only if he possesses an objectively
reasonable belief, based on specific and articulable facts, that a person in that area poses a
danger to that police officer or to other people in the area.” Id. at 817. The protective sweep
must stay “within the appropriate scope” and “may last long enough to ‘dispel the
reasonable suspicion of danger.’” Id. “[E]very protective sweep must be justified under
the circumstances particular to that case.” Cooksey v. State, 350 S.W.3d 177, 187 (Tex.
App.—San Antonio 2011, no pet.).
47. When Defendant entered Petitioner’s home, there was no probable cause to do so because
the episode was over, and Petitioner was already in police custody and had been taken away
from the scene. See Buie, 494 U.S. 325, 335–36 (holding a protective sweep may last “no
longer than is necessary to dispel the reasonable suspicion of danger” and “no longer than
it takes to complete the arrest and depart the premises.” (emphasis added)). 19
48. When Defendant entered Petitioner’s home, there were no exigent circumstances to do so
because, again, the episode was over, and Petitioner was in police custody.
19
See also Johnson v. State, 161 S.W.3d 176, 182 n. 3 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2005), aff'd, 226 S.W.3d 439 (Tex.
Crim. App. 2007) (quoting Flippo v. W. Va., 528 U.S. 11 (1999), Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U.S. 385, 392–93 (1978))
(“Clearly, there is no ‘murder scene exception’ to the warrant requirement.”); State v. Smith, No. 2020-KK-00711, 2020
WL 6154322, at *1 (La. 2020) (per curiam) (“The issue of a protective sweep . . . would nevertheless not seem to be
applicable where, as here, the defendant was in handcuffs in a police car when the search was conducted.”).

49. Because there was neither probable cause nor exigent circumstances, Defendant’s
warrantless entry and subsequent search of Petitioner’s home was illegal.
B. Defendant’s Illegal Search of Petitioner’s Home Constitutes Official

Misconduct
50. On or about March 5, 2019, District Attorney Nodolf intentionally crossed the threshold
of Petitioner’s home. She walked around, searched, and had discussions with law
enforcement inside Petitioner’s home.
51. Nodolf was on the scene because she was the District Attorney, and in that role she
occasionally goes to crime scenes alongside investigating officers. 20
52. At the time Nodolf entered Petitioner’s home, she knew there was no warrant to do so, as
not enough time had passed for obtaining one, and she was with the investigating officers,
who were obviously not worried about obtaining a warrant either.
53. As District Attorney, Nodolf knew no state actor can enter a home without a warrant unless
they have probable cause and exigent circumstances. Having neither, Nodolf entered
Petitioner’s home anyway.
54. At the time of Petitioner’s trial, Nodolf asserted the home invasion was done as part of a
protective sweep. But video from the house security system shows police had already
completed a protective sweep.
55. At the time she entered the home, Defendant was in custody. His wife and children had
also been escorted elsewhere by police. So even if Nodolf did not know about the earlier
protective sweep, there was no reasonable belief that the home still harbored an individual
20
2 RR Excerpt of Cody Allen Testimony 117-18 (Exhibit 1).

posing a danger to those on the scene. See Buie, 494 U.S. at 337. At no point was a protective
sweep authorized under the law.
56. Nodolf, acting in her role as District Attorney, intentionally engaged in unlawful behavior,
i.e. entering Petitioner’s home without a warrant or without probable cause and exigent
circumstances. In doing so, she committed official misconduct sufficient to expose her to
both criminal charges and the instant removal action. 21
C. Defendant’s Illegal Search of Petitioner’s Home Constitutes

Incompetency
57. If not official misconduct, District Attorney Nodolf’s actions in entering, looking around,
and searching Petitioner’s home on March 5, 2019, qualifies as incompetency.
58. If, at the time she entered Petitioner’s home, Nodolf did not understand the laws she was
breaking, or if she thought her position as District Attorney somehow permitted her
unlawful entry into a private residence, then she would be grossly ignorant.
59. This is a blatant Fourth Amendment violation, which Nodolf committed knowingly or in
reckless disregard for the law, and with gross carelessness in the discharge of her official
duties.
60. Accordingly, Nodolf’s actions in entering Petitioner’s home without a warrant or without
probable cause and exigent circumstances constitutes incompetency justifying her removal
from office. 22
21
See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 3.04(1); TEX. LOC. GOV'T CODE ANN. § 87.011(3).
22
TEX. LOC. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 87.011(2)(A)-(C).

Second Cause of Action:
Testifying as an Unsworn Witness Before the Grand Jury
repeated here.
A. The Attorney for the State Cannot Also Be a Witness to the Grand Jury
62. The Texas Code of Criminal Procedure greatly limits who may participate in the Grand
Jury process and what their role is. Regarding the prosecutor, the Code delineates his or
her role as follows:
The attorney representing the state is [i] entitled to appear before the grand jury and
[ii] inform the grand jury of offenses subject to indictment at any time except when the
grand jury is discussing the propriety of finding an indictment or is voting on an
indictment. 23
63. The grand jury may independently solicit the participation of the prosecutor, but the
prosecutor’s involvement is still very finite:
The grand jury may send for the attorney representing the state and ask the attorney's
advice on any matter of law or on any question regarding the discharge of the grand
jury’s duties. 24
64. Texas law very clearly does not permit the prosecutor to be a witness before the Grand
Jury.
(a) While the grand jury is conducting proceedings, only the following persons may
be present in the grand jury room:
(1) a grand juror;
(2) a bailiff;
(3) the attorney representing the state;
(4) a witness:
(A) while the witness is being examined; or
23
TEX. CODE CRIM. PRO. ANN. art. 20A.103.
24

(B) when the witness’s presence is necessary to assist the attorney
representing the state in examining another witness or
presenting evidence to the grand jury. 25
65. Another provision also establishes as follows:
(a) Only a grand juror or the attorney representing the state may examine a
witness before the grand jury.
(b) The attorney representing the state shall advise the grand jury regarding the
proper mode of examining a witness. 26
66. Even if a prosecutor could become a witness to the jury, he or she would still have to be
sworn:
Before each witness is examined, the foreperson or a person under the foreperson’s
direction shall administer the following oath to the witness . . . 27
67. The purpose of the oath is to promote truthfulness to the Grand Jury, as lying to the Grand
Jury derails the entire judicial process that follows an indictment. This is why lying to the
Grand Jury constitutes aggravated perjury and is a felony in Texas. 28
B. Defendant Testifying as an Unsworn Witness to the Grand Jury

Constitutes Official Misconduct
68. Defendant made statements to the Grand Jury regarding the underlying facts that she had
personal knowledge of by virtue of her own investigations in the case. Here are just some
examples of testimony that was introduced to the Grand Jury not via Ranger Allen (the
sworn witness testifying at the time), but via Laura Nodolf:
● The person who made the 911 call that night was with a third-party monitoring
company in New Jersey. 29
25
26
27
28
TEX. PEN. CODE ANN. § 37.03.
29
GJR 22 (attached in Exhibit 4).

● The alarm monitoring company had called Petitioner on prior instances when the
alarm had gone off. Nodolf referenced that she personally had listened to those
calls between Petitioner and the alarm monitoring company. 30
● Later on in the proceedings Nodolf herself played and walked the Grand Jury
though the recordings of prior instances where Petitioner had spoken with the
alarm monitoring company about tripped alarms. 31
● Petitioner’s “entire house [is] surrounded 360 degrees with video cameras that can
be accessed on television, on a cell phone, on a monitoring panel, and in another -
- in a - - like a computer area.” 32
● There acoustic panels towards the living room on the ceiling of Petitioner’s home. 33
69. Defendant also made statements bolstering Ranger Allen’s credibility on the underlying
facts in this case. Here are two examples of important instances where Nodolf vouched for
Ranger Allen’s testimony:
● The front door to Petitioner’s home, though large, opens easily. 34
● The alarm company thought the alarm was tripped and contacted the police
department. When it re-ran the system everything was fine, but no one canceled
the alarm with the police. 35
70. When Defendant made statements regarding the underlying facts in this case, she was not
under oath. She made herself an unsworn witness to the Grand Jury.
71. Defendant intentionally recounted to the Grand Jury substantive facts in the case as a
prosecutor, not as a witness, and without first taking the requisite oath. This both
30
GJR 23 (Exhibit 4).
31
32
GJR 35 (Exhibit 4).
33
GJR68-69 (Exhibit 4).
34
GJR 29 (Exhibit 4).
35
GJR 31 (Exhibit 4).

intentional and unlawful behavior displayed during the course of her role as District
Attorney compels removal for official misconduct. 36
C. Defendant Testifying as an Unsworn Witness to the Grand Jury

Constitutes Incompetency
72. As District Attorney, Defendant should know the law regarding presentation of a case to
the Grand Jury. Specifically, Defendant should know that as the attorney for the State, she
was only permitted to inform the Grand Jury about the offense or, if the Grand Jury asked,
advise it on any matter of law. 37
73. Defendant should know the attorney representing the State cannot make representations
regarding facts discovered during the underlying investigation.
74. Defendant demonstrated gross carelessness in her presentation to the Grand Jury by
making herself an unsworn witness to the Grand Jury.
75. Consequently, Defendant is subject to removal for incompetence. 38
~continued on the next page~
36
See TEX. LOC. GOV'T CODE ANN. § 87.011(3).
37
See TEX. CODE CRIM. PRO. ANN. arts. 20A.103, 20A.151.
38
See TEX. LOC. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 87.011(2)(A)-(C).

Third Cause of Action:
Lying to the Grand Jury About a Contract that Does Not Exist
repeated here.
A. Lying to the Grand Jury
77. Any properly sworn witness who lies to the Grand Jury commits the felony of aggravated
perjury. 39
78. Any attorney who lies to the Grand Jury violates multiple Rules of Professional Conduct:
● A lawyer shall not knowingly: make a false statement of material fact or law to a
tribunal. 40
● A lawyer shall not knowingly: offer or use evidence that the lawyer knows to be
false. 41
● A lawyer shall not engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or

misrepresentation. 42
79. Any District Attorney who lies to the Grand Jury violates the Oath of Office for District
Attorneys, which is established in the Texas Constitution:
(a) All elected and appointed officers, before they enter upon the duties of their offices,
shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:
“I, _______________________, do solemnly swear (or affirm), that I will
faithfully execute the duties of the office of ___________________ of the State of
Texas, and will to the best of my ability preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution
and laws of the United States and of this State, so help me God.” 43
80. Any District Attorney who lies to the Grand Jury also violates the Oath of Admission to the
Bar:
39
40
TEX. DISCIPLINARY R. PROF. COND. 3.03(a)(1).
41
42
43
TEX. CONST. art. VIX, § 1.

I, ______________ , do solemnly swear that I will support the Constitutions of the
United States, and of this State; that I will honestly demean myself in the practice of
law; that I will discharge my duties to my clients to the best of my ability; and, that I
will conduct myself with integrity and civility in dealing and communicating with the
court and all parties. So help me God.
B. Defendant Lying to the Grand Jury About a Contract that Does Not
Exist Constitutes Official Misconduct
81. As recited above, when Defendant was asking the Grand Jury to indict Petitioner for
murder, she placed the blame for a horrible tragedy squarely on Petitioner’s shoulders.
Specifically, she said Petitioner had created the situation that led to the shooting because
he had instructed his alarm company to not notify him if the alarm was tripped. Instead,
she stated Petitioner affirmatively told the alarm company to immediately dispatch police
without first notifying him.
82. In a display bolstering her false statement, Defendant held up a document that she told the
Grand Jury was the contract between Petitioner and his alarm monitoring company
memorializing Petitioner’s wishes for the police to be dispatched to his house without first
trying to contact him.
83. Here is a still shot from the video of the Grand Jury proceedings where Nodolf hands the
document—the purported contract—to a juror:

84. There is no such written contract between Petitioner and the alarm company.
85. Defendant intentionally told the jury a contract between Petitioner and the alarm company
existed. She intentionally held up a document, suggesting it was the actual executed
contract even though no such contract exists. She lied to the Grand Jury about a “fact”
central to the State’s request for indictment.
86. Had Defendant been a properly sworn witness, she herself would be subject to indictment
for aggravated perjury.
87. In making this misrepresentation of material fact to a judicial tribunal, Defendant violated
multiple Rules of Disciplinary Procedure.
her oath as District Attorney.
her oath as an attorney licensed by the State Bar of Texas.

90. Consequently, Defendant engaged in official misconduct and is subject to removal. 44
C. Defendant Lying to the Grand Jury About a Contract that Does Not
Exist Constitutes Incompetency
91. As an attorney, Defendant should know what a signed contract looks like.
92. As an attorney, Defendant should know that lying to any judicial tribunal about the
existence of a key contract constitutes a violation of multiple Rules of Disciplinary
Conduct.
93. As District Attorney, Defendant should know that lying to the Grand Jury about the
existence of a key contract is an ethical violation of multiple oaths and, for witnesses, a
criminal offense.
94. Defendant made a serious misrepresentation of a material fact to the Grand Jury in the
course of her representation as the State’s attorney.
95. In doing so, Defendant demonstrated gross carelessness in the discharge of her
official duties.
96. Consequently, she is subject to removal for incompetence. 45
Fourth Cause of Action:

Lying to the Grand Jury About the Acoustics of Petitioner’s House
repeated here.
98. As detailed above, at least one grand juror was interested in whether Petitioner could have
heard Officer Heidelberg announcing that he was with the police when he entered
44
45

Petitioner’s house the second time. The grand juror’s question was directed at Ranger
Cody Allen, a properly sworn witness before the Grand Jury at the time. Defendant
interrupted Ranger Allen’s testimony to talk about the course of the investigation inasmuch
as determining whether someone in Petitioner’s position could have heard an
announcement at the front door. The grand juror then asked Defendant directly about
whether the special acoustic panels in Petitioner’s house would have blocked any sound.
Defendant responded, “No, actually, those acoustic panels are meant to amplify the
sound.” 46 Trial testimony established the opposite—the panels are designed to muffle
sound.
99. The main issue in the case was whether Petitioner knew or should have known that the
people coming into his house were police officers. Accordingly, the effect of the acoustic
panels was material to whether Petitioner was acting in self-defense, as reflected by the fact
the grand juror was asking about it.
100. Defendant’s misrepresentation about the effect of the acoustic panels directly impacted the
discussion on whether to indict Petitioner.
A. Defendant Lying to the Grand Jury About the Effect of the Acoustic
Paneling in Petitioner’s Home Constitutes Official Misconduct
101. Defendant intentionally interrupted the testimony of a properly sworn witness about the
course of investigation regarding the acoustic panels.
102. Defendant intentionally represented to the Grand Jury that the acoustic panels in
Petitioner’s home amplified sound at the front door.
46

103. This statement was not only incorrect, but the opposite of the truth.
104. Had Defendant been a properly sworn witness, she herself would be subject to indictment
for aggravated perjury.
105. In making this misrepresentation of material fact, Defendant violated multiple Rules of
Disciplinary Conduct.
106. In making this material misrepresentation of fact to a judicial tribunal, Defendant violated
her oath as District Attorney.
107. In making this material misrepresentation of fact to a judicial tribunal, Defendant violated
her oath as an attorney licensed by the State Bar of Texas.
B. Defendant Lying to the Grand Jury About the Effect of the Acoustic
Paneling in Petitioner’s Home Constitutes Incompetence
109. As District Attorney, Defendant should know that only Ranger Allen—the properly sworn
witness—could testify about the acoustic paneling before the Grand Jury.
110. As District Attorney, Defendant should know that her only role before the Grand Jury was
to inform the Grand Jury of the offense and answer any questions of law the Grand Jury
may have had. Her role was not to give any statements of underlying facts to the Grand
Jury. It certainly was not to give incorrect statements of underlying facts to the Grand Jury.
111. As District Attorney, Defendant should have known how to permit Ranger Allen to testify
without her hijacking his testimony.
47

112. Defendant made a serious misrepresentation of material fact regarding the acoustic
paneling to the Grand Jury in the course of her representation as the State’s attorney.
113. In doing so, Defendant demonstrated gross carelessness in the discharge of her official
duties.
Fifth Cause of Action:

Abuse of Official Capacity
repeated here.
A. Abusing Official Capacity
116. Abuse of Official Capacity occurs when “with intent to obtain a benefit or with intent to
harm or defraud another, [a public servant] intentionally or knowingly . . . violates a law
relating to the public servant’s office or employment . . . .” 49
117. “’Harm’ means anything reasonably regarded as loss, disadvantage, or injury, including
harm to another person in whose welfare the person affected is interested.” 50
118. By the plain language of the statute, harm is broadly defined. There is no requirement that
it be physical harm, nor is there any requirement limiting it to pecuniary harm. 51 Although
both of those are certainly forms of harm, they are not the only forms contemplated by
Texas Penal Code § 1.07(a)(25). 52 Harm can include damage to one’s reputation in the
48
49
50
TEX. PEN. CODE ANN. § 1.07(25).
51
Dauben v. State, No. 10-13-00047-CR, 2014 WL 2566470, at *3 (Tex. App.—Waco June 5, 2014, no pet.) (citing
Hudspeth v. State, 31 S.W.3d 409, 411 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2000, pet. ref’d) and White v. State, No. 14-05-0045-
CR, 2006 WL 2771855 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] Sept. 28, 2006, pet. ref’d)).
52
See id.

community or just being arrested in front of one’s children. 53 It can also include causing a
person to be indicted, arrested, or prosecuted.54
B. Defendant Abused Her Official Capacity by Breaking the Law with the
Intent to Harm Petitioner
119. As District Attorney, Defendant should know actions that constitute criminal offenses in
the State of Texas.
120. As detailed above, Petitioner intentionally or knowingly violated the law acting in her role
as District Attorney. She did this by conducting an illegal search of Petitioner’s home, by
testifying to material facts as an unsworn witness before the Grand Jury, by lying to the
Grand Jury about the existence of a contract Petitioner never executed, any by lying to the
Grand Jury about the acoustics of Petitioner’s home.
121. Defendant intended to harm, and in fact did harm, Petitioner with her actions.
122. Defendant’s illegal search of Petitioner’s home was done with the intent to gather evidence
to prosecute Petitioner for a first-degree felony.
123. Defendant testified as an unsworn witness to the Grand Jury because she was trying to
persuade it to indict Petitioner. In fact, in speaking with media after Petitioner’s acquittal,
Defendant herself indicated, “she had always believed that this case should be tried by a
jury.” Iris Foster, Jury: Wilson is not guilty of murder, Midland Reporter Times (Dec. 8,
2021). The material, factual evidence Nodolf introduced to the Grand Jury, alongside her
efforts to bolster Ranger Allen’s testimony, were done because she was determined to
obtain an indictment against Petitioner.
53
Brazelton v. State, 947 S.W.2d 644, 649 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1997, no pet.).
54
Tidwell v. State, No. 08-11-00322-CR, 2013 WL 6405498, at *16 (Tex. App.—El Paso Dec. 4, 2013, pet. ref’d).

124. Defendant lied to the Grand Jury about the existence of the contract between Petitioner
and the alarm monitoring company because she was trying to place blame for the accident
on Petitioner. She was doing so because she was seeking an indictment against him.
125. Defendant lied to the Grand Jury about the acoustic panels in Petitioner’s home amplifying
sound because a juror was rightly questioning whether Petitioner could have heard Officer
Heidelberg’s announcement. The juror was clearly reasoning that if Petitioner could not
hear the announcement, then he would be justified in using deadly force against an
unknown intruder. Defendant shut down that correct line of inquiry by the juror by
representing that the acoustic panels in fact amplified the sound. Defendant lied about the
acoustic panels because she wanted the Grand Jury to indict Petitioner.
126. Mere indictment alone would constitute “harm.” But there was additional, easily
foreseeable, harm that came to Petitioner as a result of that indictment, including damage
to his reputation in the community; trauma visited upon he and his family, including his
three young daughters; damage to his business; and immeasurable anxiety.
127. Because Defendant broke the law with the intent to harm Petitioner, she is liable to answer
for potential criminal charges of abusing her official capacity.
C. Defendant’s Actions Constitute Official Misconduct and Incompetency
128. Defendant intentionally behaved in an unlawful fashion (and in a variety of ways). In
addition to each one of those behaviors establishing the basis for Defendant’s removal,
they also constitute an abuse of Defendant’s official capacity, which is a criminal offense.
129. Defendant’s intentional behavior constitutes a knowing violation of law, i.e. the prohibition
on abuse of official capacity.

131. Moreover, in engaging in official misconduct, Defendant demonstrated gross carelessness
in the discharge of her official duties.
Sixth Cause of Action:

Official Oppression
repeated here.
A. When Official Oppression Occurs
134. Official Oppression occurs when “[a] public servant acting under color of h[er] office or
employment:”
(1) intentionally subjects another to mistreatment or to arrest, detention, search,

seizure, dispossession, assessment, or lien that he knows is unlawful; [or]
(2) intentionally denies or impedes another in the exercise or enjoyment of any

right, privilege, power, or immunity, knowing his conduct is unlawful . . . . 57
B. Defendant Engaged in Official Oppression, Which Constitutes Official

Misconduct and Incompetency
135. Defendant intentionally subjected Petitioner to arrest, detention, and search Defendant
knew was unlawful by:
a. Searching Petitioner’s home without a warrant;
55
56
57

b. Aiding, assisting, and encouraging officers to continue to detain Petitioner
for hours, in a locked room, handcuffed, with paper bags over his hands,
when no warrant or probable cause had been sought or established;
c. Aiding, assisting, and encouraging officers to interrogate Petitioner after
his illegal arrest and detention but well before a warrant or probable cause
had been sought or established.
136. Defendant misused the Grand Jury for a second indictment for murder based on a legal
theory Defendant never even presented at Petitioner’s trial. This was actually Defendant’s
attempt to secure a continuance of the trial setting in order to deny Petitioner his
constitutional right to a Speedy, Public Jury Trial as guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment
to the United States Constitution. 58
137. Defendant’s intentional behavior constitutes a knowing violation of law, i.e. the prohibition
on official oppression.
139. Moreover, in engaging in official oppression, Defendant demonstrated gross carelessness
in the discharge of her official duties.
58
Charge In MPD Officer Heidelberg Trial Upgraded To Murder, MIDLAND REPORTER TELEGRAM (Nov. 2, 2021),
https://www.mrt.com/news/crime/article/Charge-in-MPD-Officer-Heidelberg-trial-upgraded-16585935.php (last
visited May 27, 2022) (“Wilson was able to be re-indicted because the state presented a new legal theory, according to
Assistant District Attorney Timothy Flathers. The defense had the option to request more time but chose to move forward
with a jury trial, he said.”). In addition to these public statements made by Defendant’s employee, Defendant’s co-counsel
suggested repeatedly at a last-minute hearing prior to Petitioner’s criminal trial that Petitioner seemed to be asking for a
continuance. Petitioner was not seeking to delay his trial by continuance. Rather, the State was attempting to deny
Petitioner his right to a speedy, public trial by re-indicting Petitioner for a more serious charge hoping Petitioner would ask
for a continuance. Finally, and perhaps most egregious, upon information and belief, Defendant was heard saying to co-
workers and/or police officers that Petitioner’s counsel “called her bluff” when Petitioner did not seek a continuance.
Defendant as a principal actor and under the law of parties committed official oppression.
59

JURY DEMAND
141. Petitioner requests trial by jury and hereby tenders the jury fee.
MOTION TO ISSUE CITATION
142. On an ex parte basis, pursuant to TEX. GOV’T CODE § 87.016 (a) & ( d), 61 Petitioner
requests the Court order issuance of a citation and service by certified copy of this Original
Petition to Mrs. Nodolf and require her to file an answer as required. 62 Petitioner asks for
an immediate trial setting so that these matters may be resolved as soon as possible.
REQUEST FOR SUSPENSION PENDING OUTCOME
143. Pursuant to TEX. GOV’T CODE § 87.017(a) Petitioner seeks the temporary removal of Mrs.
Nodolf from office pending trial of this matter. 63 After the Court orders the issuance of the
citation and service via certified copy of the petition, Petitioner asks the Court, ex parte, to
remove Mrs. Nodolf on a temporary basis until the resolution of this matter. In the
alternative, Petitioner requests the Court to set a hearing on the Temporary Removal of
Mrs. Nodolf. The public needs assurance that the highest law enforcement office for this
County will remain in business, without misconduct and incompetence, while this matter
is being resolved.
60
61
TEX. LOC. GOV'T CODE ANN. § 87.016(a) (“After a petition for removal is filed, the person filing the petition shall apply
to the district judge in writing for an order requiring a citation and a certified copy of the petition to be served on the
officer.”).
62
TEX. LOC. GOV'T CODE ANN. § 87.016(d) (“The citation shall order the officer to appear and answer the petition on a
date, fixed by the judge, after the fifth day after the date the citation is served. The time is computed as it is in other suits.”).
63
TEX. LOC. GOV'T CODE ANN. § 87.017(a) (“After the issuance of the order requiring citation of the officer, the district
judge may temporarily suspend the officer and may appoint another person to perform the duties of the office.”).

June 9 2022,
Respectfully submitted ___________,
/s/ Allison Clayton /s/ Frank Sellers

Allison Clayton Frank Sellers, P.C.
Texas Bar No. 24059587 Texas Bar No. 24080305
LAW OFFICE OF ALLISON CLAYTON WESTFALL SELLERS
P.O. Box 64752 1701 River Run, Suite 801
Lubbock, Texas 79464 Fort Worth, Texas 76107
P (806) 773-6889 P 817.928.4222
F (888) 688-6515 F 817.385.6715
E Allison@AllisonClaytonLaw.com E Frank@WestfallSellers.com
Attorneys for Petitioner David Wilson

Exhibit 1
Trial Testimony of Ranger Cody Allen
pages 117-18
1
Trial on Merits - December 1, 2021
Excerpt Testimony of Cody Allen
1 REPORTER'S RECORD
VOLUME 2 OF 3 VOLUMES
2 TRIAL COURT CAUSE NO. CR53361
3 THE STATE OF TEXAS ) IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF

)
4 vs. ) MIDLAND COUNTY, TEXAS
)
5 DAVID C. WILSON ) 142ND JUDICIAL DISTRICT
6
7
8 _____________________________________________
9 TRIAL ON MERITS
10 EXCERPT TESTIMONY OF CODY ALLEN
11 VOLUME 2 OF 3 VOLUMES
_____________________________________________
12
13
14
15 On the 1st day of December 2021, the following

16 proceedings came on to be held in the above-titled and
17 numbered cause before the Honorable Tryon Lewis, Judge
18 Presiding, held in Midland, Midland County, Texas.

19 Proceedings reported by Ann M. Record, CSR, RMR,
20 CRR, CMRS, CRI, TMR, TCRR, CCR, Certified Shorthand
21 Reporter in and for the State of Texas by computerized

22 stenotype machine.
23
24
25
Ann M. Record, CSR, RMR, CRR, CMRS, CRI, TCRR, TMR, CCR(NM)
Deputy Official Court Reporter - Midland County
(432) 688-4371 ****** ARecord@mcounty.com
2
1 APPEARANCES
2 MS. LAURA A. NODOLF

SBOT NO. 24042348
3 E-mail: LNodolf@mcounty.com
Mr. Andrew van der Hoeven
4 SBOT NO. 24073119
E-mail: AVanDerHoeven@mcounty.com
5 Mr. Eric Kalenak
SBOT NO. 11079985
6 E-mail: EKalenak@mcounty.com
Midland County District Attorney's Office
7 500 North Loraine, Suite 200
Midland, Texas 79701
8 Telephone: (432)688-4411
Fax: (432)688-4938
9 Counsel for The State of Texas
10
MR. FRANK SELLERS
11 SBOT NO. 24080305
Westfall Sellers
12 1701 River Run, Suite 801
Fort Worth, Texas 76107
13 Telephone: (817)928-4222
Fax: (817)385-6715
14 E-mail: frank@westfallsellers.com
15 MR. BRIAN CARNEY

SBOT NO. 03832275
16 Brian Carney Law
1202 W. Texas Avenue
17 Midland, Texas 79701
Telephone: (432)686-8300
18 Fax: (432)686-1949
E-mail: brian@carneylawfirm.com
19
MR. DANIEL W. HURLEY
20 SBOT NO. 10310200
Hurley & Guinn
21 1805 13th Street
Lubbock, Texas 79401
22 Telephone: (806)771-0700
Fax: (806)763-8199
23 E-mail: dwh@hurleyguinn.com
Counsel for Defendant, David C. Wilson
24
25
3
1 VOLUME 2
2 Trial on Merits - December 1, 2021
3 Excerpt Testimony of Cody Allen

4 PAGE VOL.
5 Proceedings ....................................... 7 2
6 Cody Allen Direct Cross V.Dire

By Ms. Nodolf 7 v2
7 By Ms. Nodolf 42 v2
By Mr. Sellers 79 v2
10
Reporter's Certificate .......................... 134 2
11
12 ALPHABETICAL INDEX OF WITNESSES
13 Direct Cross V.Dire
14 Allen, Cody 7 v2 96 v2 79 v2
15 Allen, Cody 42 v2 87 v2
82 v2
16 89 v2
17 EXHIBITS OFFERED BY STATE
18
Use is indicated as follows:
19 J - Jury R - Record Only D - Demonstrative
B - Bill of Exceptions
20
21 EXHIBIT DESCRIPTION OFFERED ADMITTED USE
22 41 Flash drive - David 8 v2 9 v2 J

Wilson Interview -
23 condensed
24 44 Uniform pants 43 v2 43 v2 J
25 45 Ballistic vest 44 v2 44 v2 J
117
Cody Allen - December 1, 2021
Cross-Examination by Mr. Sellers
1 Q. We saw earlier that the police went in in full
2 tactical gear before you arrived at the house; right?
3 A. I would -- yes, sir. From the video I've

4 watched, yes, sir.
5 Q. And they cleared the scene; right?
6 A. Yes, sir.
7 Q. And so when you and Ms. Nodolf got there, you
8 went back into the house, didn't you?
9 A. Yes, sir.
10 Q. And you walked around.
11 A. Yes, sir.
12 Q. And you looked around.

13 A. Yes, sir.
14 Q. And you searched it.
15 A. No, sir.
16 Q. Well, you knew the house was cleared. Midland
17 PD had done that; right?
18 A. Somewhat, sir. There's two parts to that

19 question.
20 Q. Okay. You knew that Midland PD had cleared
21 the home.
22 A. Yes, sir.
23 Q. Told you it was secure.
24 A. Yes, sir.
25 Q. And so when Laura Nodolf arrives -- is that
118
1 common that she comes to the scene of an offense?
2 A. It's not common, but it's not uncommon, sir.
3 Especially with something to this scale, it is common

4 for district attorneys to arrive on scene.
5 Q. And she walked through the house with you.
6 A. Yes, sir.
7 Q. And y'all looked at the security system.
8 A. No, sir, not looked. Saw where the camera
9 was, but that's it.

10 Q. Saw where all eight cameras were.
11 A. No, sir, I have no clue where all eight are to
12 this day.
13 Q. All right. Went into the house without a
14 warrant, didn't you?
15 A. Yes, sir.
16 Q. Ms. Nodolf went in the house without a
17 warrant, didn't she?
18 A. Yes, sir.
19 Q. All right. You told the jury yesterday that
20 it was -- that David Wilson waited for you there about
21 two hours at the station.

22 A. Yes, sir.
23 Q. You now know it was more like three or four;
24 right?
25 A. It was two hours from the time I arrived on
134
1 STATE OF TEXAS
2 COUNTY OF MIDLAND
3 I, Ann M. Record, Deputy Official Court Reporter in

4 and for the Midland County District Courts of Midland
5 County, State of Texas, do hereby certify that the above
6 and foregoing contains a true and correct transcription

7 of all portions of evidence and other proceedings
8 requested in writing by counsel for the parties to be
9 included in this volume of the Reporter's Record in the

10 above-styled and numbered cause, all of which occurred
11 in open court or in chambers and were reported by me.
12 I further certify that this Reporter's Record of

13 the proceedings truly and correctly reflects the
14 exhibits, if any, offered by the respective parties.
15 WITNESS MY OFFICIAL HAND this 1st day of April

16 2022.
17
/s/Ann M. Record
18 Ann M. Record
CSR, RMR, CRR, CMRS, CRI, TCRR, TMR, CCR (NM)
19 TX CSR #4747/NM CCR #89
Expiration Date: 10/31/2022
20 Deputy Official Court Reporter
Midland County District Courts
21 500 N. Loraine, Suite 1001
22 (432)688-4371 / ARecord@mcounty.com
23
24
25
Exhibit 2
Trial Testimony of Ranger Cody Allen
pages 19-20
1
1 REPORTER'S RECORD
3 THE STATE OF TEXAS ) IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF

)
)
6
7
8 _____________________________________________
9 TRIAL ON MERITS
10 EXCERPT TESTIMONY OF CODY ALLEN
11 VOLUME 3 OF 3 VOLUMES
_____________________________________________
12
13
14
15 On the 2nd day of December 2021, the following



23
24
25
2
1 APPEARANCES

SBOT NO. 24042348
3 E-mail: LNodolf@mcounty.com
Mr. Andrew van der Hoeven
4 SBOT NO. 24073119
E-mail: AVanDerHoeven@mcounty.com
5 Mr. Eric Kalenak
SBOT NO. 11079985
6 E-mail: EKalenak@mcounty.com
Midland County District Attorney's Office
7 500 North Loraine, Suite 200
8 Telephone: (432)688-4411
Fax: (432)688-4938
9 Counsel for The State of Texas
10
MR. FRANK SELLERS
11 SBOT NO. 24080305
Westfall Sellers
12 1701 River Run, Suite 801
Fort Worth, Texas 76107
13 Telephone: (817)928-4222
Fax: (817)385-6715
14 E-mail: frank@westfallsellers.com
15 MR. BRIAN CARNEY

SBOT NO. 03832275
16 Brian Carney Law
Telephone: (432)686-8300
18 Fax: (432)686-1949
19
MR. DANIEL W. HURLEY
20 SBOT NO. 10310200
Hurley & Guinn
21 1805 13th Street
22 Telephone: (806)771-0700
Fax: (806)763-8199
23 E-mail: dwh@hurleyguinn.com
Counsel for Defendant, David C. Wilson
24
25
3
1 VOLUME 3
2 Trial on Merits - December 2, 2021
3 Excerpt Testimony of Cody Allen

4
5 PAGE VOL.
6 Proceedings ....................................... 5 3
7 Reporter's Certificate .......................... 105 3
8
Cody Allen Direct Cross V.Dire
9 By Mr. Sellers 5 v3
By Ms. Nodolf 10 v3
By Ms. Nodolf 52 v3
By Ms. Nodolf 99 v3
12
13
15 Cody Allen Direct Cross V.Dire

52 v3 5 v3 10 v3
16 99 v3 11 v3
82 v3
17
18
19 EXHIBITS OFFERED BY STATE
20
Use is indicated as follows:
21 J - Jury R - Record Only D - Demonstrative
B - Bill of Exceptions
22
23 EXHIBIT DESCRIPTION OFFERED ADMITTED USE
24 84 Grand jury subpoena 74 v3 75 v3 J

issued to Bam's A/V
25 with records
19
1 supplement, you just make another statement, don't you?
2 A. Yes, sir.
3 Q. All right. But for police officers, just one

4 statement.
5 A. Yes, sir.
6 Q. Okay. I would like to talk to you now about

7 your interview with David Wilson. Do you understand?
8 A. Yes, sir.
9 Q. You would agree with me that Ms. Nodolf showed

10 up at the Midland Police Department to observe your
11 interview with David Wilson.
12 A. If she was at the police department, sir, if

13 she was observing, I don't have any knowledge to that.
14 Q. All right. Well, you -- the jury has seen
15 that a few times -- I think three, maybe four -- you say

16 you needed to get some water, coffee, take a bathroom
17 break, I'm going to step out. Do you remember that?
18 A. Yes, sir.
19 Q. About three or four times; right?
20 A. Yes, sir.
21 Q. And what you were doing during that time was

22 stepping out to discuss with Ms. Nodolf the questions
23 you should ask; right?
24 A. Yes, sir. And Ranger Breeding once he arrived

25 there at the police department.
20
1 Q. Ms. Nodolf was there giving you input, wasn't
2 she?
3 A. More as guidance, sir.

4 Q. All right. She was there helping you guide
5 the interview.
6 A. No, sir, more of the guidance on input of,

7 Hey, this is -- here's what was said. What do you
8 think, law-wise and everything else.
9 Q. And so when you testified previously that you

10 were stepping out to clarify things with Laura and
11 figure out what questions to ask, that's really what you
12 were doing; right?

13 A. Yes, sir.
14 Q. No judge had signed a warrant for David
15 Wilson's arrest at that point; right?

16 A. Correct, sir.
17 Q. No independent person had assessed whether
18 probable cause existed, had they?

19 A. Correct, sir.
20 Q. So, in other words, the prosecutor is getting
21 involved even before a case has been filed; right?

22 A. Yes, sir.
23 Q. Before an arrest has been made.
24 A. Correct, sir.
25 Q. During your interview with David Wilson, you
105
1 STATE OF TEXAS
2 COUNTY OF MIDLAND




15 WITNESS MY OFFICIAL HAND this 1st day of April

16 2022.
17
/s/Ann M. Record
18 Ann M. Record
19 TX CSR #4747/NM CCR #89
23
24
25
Exhibit 3
Trial Testimony of Mitch Clark
page 13
1
Trial on Merits - Excerpt of Testimony
December 7, 2021
1 REPORTER'S RECORD
3 STATE OF TEXAS ) IN THE DISTRICT COURT

)
)
6
7
8 _____________________________________________
9 TRIAL ON MERITS - EXCERPT OF TESTIMONY

_____________________________________________
10
11 On the 7th day of December 2021, the following


19
20
21
22
23
24
25
2
December 7, 2021
1 APPEARANCES

SBOT NO. 24042348
4 Midland County District Attorney
500 North Loraine, Suite 200
Telephone: (432)688-4411
6 Fax: (432)688-4938
E-mail: lnodolf@mcounty.com
7 Counsel for State of Texas
9 MR. BRIAN CARNEY

SBOT NO. 03832275
10 Brian Carney Law
Telephone: (432)686-8300
12 Fax: (432)686-1949
13 Counsel for Defendant
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
3
December 7, 2021
1 Trial on Merits - Excerpt of Testimony
2 December 7, 2021
3
4 PAGE VOL.
5 Proceedings ....................................... 4 1
6
7 Mitch Clark Direct Cross V.Dire
By Mr. Carney 5 v1
8
9
10
12 Direct Cross V.Dire

Clark, Mitch 5 v1
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
13
Mitch Clark - December 7, 2021
Direct Examination by Mr. Carney
1 Q. And if someone were to have told a grand jury
2 or anybody else that your house was built to amplify
3 sound, would that be true?

4 A. No, it would be the opposite. I was trying to
5 go for as dead and quiet as I could get it.
6 Q. And if you were ever in your master closet and

7 someone were in the kitchen or someplace in the house,
8 was it easy or hard to hear that person?
9 A. Very difficult.
10 Q. And was that by design?
11 A. Well, I tried to make the house as quiet as I
12 could. It was where I was going to be forever.

13 Q. Okay.
14 (Sotto voce discussion)
15 Q. (BY MR. CARNEY) Thanks, Mr. Clark. I

16 appreciate it. Thank you for coming in. I appreciate
17 it.
18 A. You're welcome.
19 THE COURT: Pass the witness?
20 MR. CARNEY: Pass the witness.
21 THE COURT: State have any questions,

22 Mr. Kalenak?
23 MR. KALENAK: No questions.
24 THE COURT: All right. Thank you.

25 You request this witness be excused from
15
December 7, 2021
1 STATE OF TEXAS
2 COUNTY OF MIDLAND




15 I further certify that the total cost for the

16 preparation of this Reporter's Record is $97.50
17 and was paid/will be paid by Mr. Frank Sellers.
18 WITNESS MY OFFICIAL HAND this 24th day of May 2022.

19
/s/Ann M. Record
20 Ann M. Record
21 TX CSR #4747/NM CCR #89
25
Exhibit 4
Grand Jury Proceedings
excerpts
1
10 TRANSCRIPT OF RECORDED GRAND JURY PROCEEDINGS
11 IN RE: DAVID WILSON
12
13
14
15
16
17
18 Voices on Tape Include:
19 Ms. Laura Nodlof
20 Ranger Cody Allen
21
22
23
24
25
2
1 INDEX PAGE
2
Proceedings ---------------------------------- 3
3
Transcriber's Certificate Page --------------- 112
4
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
22
1 an EMS, or anything else.
2 The alarm does not have to be set, and on
3 3-5-2019, the alarm was not armed. We did not have this
4 knowledge that night. About a week later, I finally had
5 a chance to go interview Advance Complete, which is who
6 installed the controller box, and that's when they told
7 me what the actual deal was.
8 The alarm is monitored -- Advance Complete
9 hires COPS Monitoring out of New Jersey to watch all the
10 screens for any alarms that pop up.
11 MS. LAURA NODLOF: So this is actually a
12 third party monitoring company, that's not anybody
13 that's local. They're in New Jersey, and the gist of it
14 is their -- their job is just to say, look, fail, call
15 the cops, or everything checks out okay.
16 GRAND JUROR: So why did they call it a
17 burglary?
18 RANGER CODY ALLEN: Because that was the
19 random zone that was generated, that was -- so it
20 tripped, when it generated that random alarm, that alarm
21 that it generated was burglary, west pool overhead door.
22 MS. LAURA NODLOF: Which is interesting,
23 because the area that it generated, that was an area
24 that is detached from the house. You can't get into the
25 house from that area.

23
1 RANGER CODY ALLEN: Right, which I'll show
2 you pictures here on the next one.
3 MS. LAURA NODLOF: We know that, in the
4 past, that the monitoring company has called David
5 Wilson when an alarm has gone off. So he has it set up
6 in like two different -- it's kind of like two different
7 ways, it's like house is set up one way to call him,
8 because I've listened to those calls from the monitoring
9 company, and he also -- but he also made further
10 statements that they had had problems with that back
11 building before.
12 RANGER CODY ALLEN: So the pool overhead
13 door, and you'll see here in a little bit, is like a
14 garage door. So he said he had problems with the wind
15 before, because y'all know West Texas, --
16 GRAND JUROR: Yes.
17 RANGER CODY ALLEN: -- and the wind lately,
18 holy smokes, right? So he said the wind causes those
19 issues and it kept tripping.
20 GRAND JUROR: So it happened more than once?
21 RANGER CODY ALLEN: Yes, sir, this -- this
22 door had gone off before, officers were dispatched, he
23 was out of town, then he canceled once the officers had
24 arrived.
25 And I'll kind of hit some more on that note,

28
1 an audible that says, you know, "Front door open."
2 RANGER CODY ALLEN: Correct. So Officer
3 Heidelberg then closes the door. At this time, from
4 David Wilson's interview, Amy Wilson wakes -- wakes up
5 David Wilson, because she hears the door open, which we
6 know is "Front door open." She wakes up to that alarm,
7 or the audible noise of it.
8 That is unknown to Officer Heidelberg and
9 Allee that they've woken up, or anything else. Fourteen
10 seconds later, Officer Allee notifies Midland Police
11 Department of an unsecure door. The reason you have
12 that playing, you'll see on her body camera, is she's
13 never had an unsecured door before in her three months,
14 so she's asking how to do this.
15 I can tell you this was Officer
16 Heidelberg's, as his primary unit, this was his 464th
17 alarm call he's responded to in five years. So here is
18 the front door, now the door that's on your right,
19 you're looking at the screen, that door was closed at
20 the time. These are big, heavy metal doors. They have
21 three opaque glass panels in between.
22 So you see how it has -- that other door
23 that's open is the same exact way. These are metal
24 doors on metal frames, they're heavy.
25 They also have the handle knobs, similar to

29
1 the ones in here, that you can easily hit and they open.
2 We tested that door that night, that door comes open
3 very, very easily. I have that video, if y'all wanted
4 to see that.
5 MS. LAURA NODLOF: It's actually pretty
6 fantastic, because it's one of the senior Rangers
7 ordering him to open and shut the door. But it is -- it
8 may be big and heavy, but it doesn't take much to --
9 RANGER CODY ALLEN: To open it.
10 MS. LAURA NODLOF: -- to open it.
11 RANGER CODY ALLEN: On 1:22:39, Amy Wilson
12 walks around and sees what caused the door to open.
13 David and Amy, they walk around the house, see what's
14 going on. Officer Allee sees the movement inside, tells
15 Officer Heidelberg, "Someone's moving in the house."
16 Officer Heidelberg, "It's probably the
17 homeowner," just like you'll hear on Officer Allee's
18 body camera. "It's probably the homeowner, I'll ring
19 the doorbell." He rings the doorbell. We know the
20 doorbell rang, you cannot hear it on the body camera, I
21 will test this in the videos, you cannot hear the
22 doorbell from the outside interior. It's just a rock
23 house with those big heavy black doors. Rings the
24 doorbell.
25 They then -- David Wilson then retrieves his

31
1 changed it, because that's a huge deal.
2 No red and blue lights are on. This is a
3 burglary alarm. They turn off their red and blue
4 lights, like you'll see in their statements. They're
5 afraid they'll alert a burglar and they can't catch the
6 burglar.
7 So his actual radio traffic, "Officer Mimms,
8 if y'all can kindly hot step it up there, we may have
9 someone inside." That is his last radio traffic.
10 Officer Mimms and Dewel arrive on scene. They are
11 physically running up to the scene, to the front door.
12 Officer Heidelberg, you'll see in the video,
13 shines his flashlight back at them, because it's a
14 pretty large property, where he's exactly at.
15 GRAND JUROR: Is there an actual alarm going
16 off?
17 RANGER CODY ALLEN: No, ma'am, there's no
18 audible alarm.
19 GRAND JUROR: Okay.
20 MS. LAURA NODLOF: Because, again, the alarm
21 company has -- all they know is that something didn't
22 check out, but they -- the thing is they -- once they
23 called the police department, they also ran a system
24 check like one minute later, and all systems checked
25 out, and they failed to cancel the alarm.

68
1 pulled the view of his front porch camera, we'd like to
2 see again from this camera (inaudible) but here it is.
3 MS. LAURA NODLOF: But we know for sure,
4 from all of it, that he was not inside the residence.
5 RANGER CODY ALLEN: Correct, he never
6 entered in. I tried to click around these triangles,
7 and we'll end up in the backyard in about two seconds.
8 That will really screw things up.
9 Okay. So here is your entryway, here's your
10 dining room table. Here's the handgun that David Wilson
11 used. You can see it's lodged, this was not cleared by
12 any officers or anything else. It was not clear until
13 we cleared it. So it's exactly how he left it, minus
14 the photo marker for 11. Front door, this is right
15 about that corner, looking into the front door. Here's
16 your dining room again, the pistol's right here.
17 This is like a hallway, it's a rock wall,
18 like a black textured rock wall. The previous owner of
19 this house, that we know of, was a big music stage
20 builder and was real big into music. So he had built
21 this house for audio purposes, then he sold this house
22 to David and Amy Wilson. So you'll see like the ceiling
23 is a little funky and everything else, that's how it
24 was, it's not our scanner.
25 MS. LAURA NODLOF: They're actually acoustic

69
1 panels that are on the ceiling.
2 RANGER CODY ALLEN: Yes. Yes. See how the
3 ceiling is kind of a little different? This is the
4 living room sitting area, like you saw on the deal, that
5 camera is right up here. And I'll show you in the next
6 scan that it's a -- pretty big. Here's the hallway that
7 leads to his master bedroom.
8 Here's that sitting area, here's where that
9 living room camera was. And, again, I can pull up that
10 video if you'd like to see that view again of what he
11 saw, but here it is. Here's that office/bathroom area,
12 and here's that master bedroom. So this is pretty much
13 the angle we saw from the living room, just a lot lower.
14 Here's that office area. Here's that
15 hallway that kind of leads -- splits, master bath goes
16 this way, master bed goes this way. Photo Marker Number
17 12 represents a cartridge case that was found, and one
18 was located -- was located there. When the officers who
19 made entry on the house, their statements, that casing
20 was right there, that cartridge casing, where we found
21 it.
22 So we don't know if -- who kicked it around,
23 or anything else. David Wilson could have kicked it
24 when he was skipping back, or walking back, or Amy
25 could've kicked it, or when the officers initially made

74
1 So this is the corner of that where he approximately
2 shot from. I'm sorry, it's wanting to be a little
3 difficult all of a sudden. I've never had that issue
4 with it. 14.39 feet.
5 GRAND JUROR: How -- and then did you go
6 around to the front door?
7 RANGER CODY ALLEN: To the front door, I
8 previously gone around, and that's 15.5 feet. I can
9 pull that up if you'd like.
10 GRAND JUROR: You know the measurement, but
11 as part of the investigation, did anyone stand where
12 David Wilson was in that video and try and have someone
13 else try to yell from the front door to see if it's
14 audible?
15 RANGER CODY ALLEN: No, ma'am, we did not do
16 that.
17 GRAND JUROR: Is there a reason that wasn't
18 done?
19 RANGER CODY ALLEN: So we debated that back
20 and forth at the crime scene. We had the senior Rangers
21 there and -- it's because we decided we cannot prove
22 what he heard or did not hear.
23 MS. LAURA NODLOF: The -- the reason why we
24 went back and forth on it was because there is -- there
25 is a time, point in time, and the officers can testify

75
1 to this, and anybody who's been hunting before, where
2 you kind of get in this point where you're in the black,
3 when you're focusing on one thing.
4 And my argument was, I think we should take
5 the audible measurements, to say it in different audible
6 points, having somebody say that, doesn't mean that he
7 heard it, I can't say that for sure.
8 GRAND JUROR: Would those acoustical things
9 have created some sort of anomaly where he was in a dead
10 spot versus --
11 MS. LAURA NODLOF: No, actually, those
12 acoustic panels are meant to amplify the sound.
14 MS. LAURA NODLOF: They're from Allee's body
15 camera, the sound of how clear it is, I think that's in
16 part due to amplification, because she's behind him.
17 GRAND JUROR: Yes.
18 MS. LAURA NODLOF: And you can hear it
19 clearly.
20 GRAND JUROR: It's hard to tell from this
21 image, but those acoustic panels are in the living room
22 ceiling, but they're not in the entry ceiling, correct?
23 MS. LAURA NODLOF: Correct.
25 GRAND JUROR: I have a question.

86
1 GRAND JUROR: Uh-huh.
2 RANGER CODY ALLEN: -- that -- that same
3 question. Why would they not at least warn them, this
4 is a system failure --
5 GRAND JUROR: Right.
6 RANGER CODY ALLEN: -- in short words
7 instead of an alarm. They said it's up to the actual
8 dispatcher of the monitoring company, if they put that
9 or not. They said sometimes, the ones who have been
10 there a while do, sometimes they don't. It's just -- if
11 they do or don't, it's their discretion.
12 GRAND JUROR: Did you say in the
13 instructions when they set off the alarm -- the
14 instructions for the failed test were to call police
15 first?
16 RANGER CODY ALLEN: For the overhead pool
17 door. The pool overhead west door was to call the
18 police, --
19 MS. LAURA NODLOF: Right.
20 RANGER CODY ALLEN: -- not to notify the
21 homeowner. A failed test, that's what generated the
22 random alarm.
23 GRAND JUROR: Okay. So it wasn't to call
24 police first, and then the homeowner, it's don't call
25 the homeowner at all, call police?

87
1 RANGER CODY ALLEN: Correct, that's what it
2 said.
3 MS. LAURA NODLOF: For -- for that pool
4 house. So here is -- we -- we have copies of previous
5 calls between the company and Mr. Wilson. So here's one
6 call that was made June 4th, 2018. Oh, it helps if I
7 unmute my end.
8 MR. WILSON: No, ma'am, there's not. It's
9 an accident. I'm trying to deactivate my alarm and just
10 haven't --
11 UNIDENTIFIED INDIVIDUAL: Hey, this is
12 Brittany with BAMS Security. Notified -- is this an
13 emergency? Is assistance needed?
14 MR. WILSON: No, ma'am, there's not. It's
15 an accident. I'm trying to deactivate my alarm and just
16 having some trouble with it going through.
17 UNIDENTIFIED INDIVIDUAL: Okay, sir. May I
18 have your central station passcode?
19 MR. WILSON: 8182.
20 UNIDENTIFIED INDIVIDUAL: Thank you. And
21 may I have your name?
22 MR. WILSON: David.
23 UNIDENTIFIED INDIVIDUAL: Thank you. As
24 long as everything is all right, we'll disregard this
25 for you.
88
1 MR. WILSON: Thank you very much, it is.
2 UNIDENTIFIED INDIVIDUAL: You're welcome,
3 sir.
4 MR. WILSON: Bye.
5 UNIDENTIFIED INDIVIDUAL: Bye-bye.
6 GRAND JUROR: And what was that call --
7 MS. LAURA NODLOF: That call was on June
8 4th, 2018. It appears that there were two calls that
9 day. Here's another one.
10 UNIDENTIFIED INDIVIDUAL: Hi, this is Erin
11 with BAMS Security on a recorded line. Is emergency
12 assistance needed?
13 MR. WILSON: No --
14 UNIDENTIFIED INDIVIDUAL: I'm sorry?
15 MR. WILSON: No, ma'am, it's not.
16 UNIDENTIFIED INDIVIDUAL: Okay. Do you have
17 the central station passcode or password?
18 MR. WILSON: Is it 8182?
19 UNIDENTIFIED INDIVIDUAL: All right. Yes,
20 that's it. May I have your name?
21 MR. WILSON: David.
22 UNIDENTIFIED INDIVIDUAL: David, as long as
23 everything's okay, I will disregard. It's a burglary
24 parameter for Zone 49.
25 MR. WILSON: Zone 49, thank you.

89
1 UNIDENTIFIED INDIVIDUAL: Yes, sir. My
2 pleasure. Bye-bye.
3 MS. LAURA NODLOF: Which I'm trying -- what
4 was Zone 49?
5 RANGER CODY ALLEN: A parameter (inaudible),
6 but we don't know --
7 MS. LAURA NODLOF: We don't know which one.
8 GRAND JUROR: We didn't know if either of
9 those calls were the same people.
10 RANGER CODY ALLEN: I do have one that BAMS
11 called before.
12 MS. LAURA NODLOF: This is the --
13 RANGER CODY ALLEN: This would've been in
14 March --
15 MS. LAURA NODLOF: March 30th, 2018.
16 MESSAGE SYSTEM: This is an automatic voice
17 message system, 806-790-9816 is not available. At the
18 tone, please record your message. When you have
19 finished recording, you may hang up or press 1 for more
20 options.
21 Hi, this is a call back from BAMS Security
22 calling for David, calling in regards to David Wilson's
23 residence at 3306 Eagle Cove Boulevard. Today's March
24 the 30th at 8:57 a.m., (inaudible) Zone 49. We're
25 calling to let you know since the police were notified.

90
1 Again, this is a call from BAMS Security, 806-687-4644,
2 thank you.
3 RANGER CODY ALLEN: I have the other side of
4 that one, Laura, where David called 911.
5 MS. LAURA NODLOF: That was Zone 49 that the
6 other call was also --
7 RANGER CODY ALLEN: But we don't know --
8 MS. LAURA NODLOF: We don't know about --
9 RANGER CODY ALLEN: The zones and all that
10 get very complicated on that kind of reason that it gave
11 us.
12 UNIDENTIFIED INDIVIDUAL: (Inaudible) Hi,
13 this is a call from BAMS Security. I have a residential
14 burglary (inaudible) number. What's the address?
15 UNIDENTIFIED INDIVIDUAL: Address is 3306
16 Eagle Cove Boulevard.
17 UNIDENTIFIED INDIVIDUAL: And the resident?
18 UNIDENTIFIED INDIVIDUAL: David Wilson.
19 UNIDENTIFIED INDIVIDUAL: I'm sorry, you
20 said you were calling with who?
21 UNIDENTIFIED INDIVIDUAL: BAMS Security,
22 B-A-M-S.
23 UNIDENTIFIED INDIVIDUAL: Can I have a call
24 back number for you, please?
25 UNIDENTIFIED INDIVIDUAL: 800-633-2677.

91
1 UNIDENTIFIED INDIVIDUAL: Okay. And what is
2 the alarm showing?
3 UNIDENTIFIED INDIVIDUAL: The parameter
4 Zone's 49.
5 UNIDENTIFIED INDIVIDUAL: Does it give a
6 description, living room, bathroom, the kitchen?
7 UNIDENTIFIED INDIVIDUAL: No, just says 049.
8 UNIDENTIFIED INDIVIDUAL: Okay. Did we
9 attempt to contact --
10 UNIDENTIFIED INDIVIDUAL: Because when I
11 call, I wasn't able to reach anyone, because they're out
12 of town, but no.
13 UNIDENTIFIED INDIVIDUAL: The Operator
14 Number is 366, your reference number for (inaudible)
15 cancellation is 656.
16 UNIDENTIFIED INDIVIDUAL: You said 656?
17 UNIDENTIFIED INDIVIDUAL: Yes, ma'am.
18 UNIDENTIFIED INDIVIDUAL: All right. Thank
19 you.
20 UNIDENTIFIED INDIVIDUAL: Thank you.
21 UNIDENTIFIED INDIVIDUAL: Bye-bye.
22 GRAND JUROR: I have two questions about
23 that. In three of those instances, when in Zone 49,
24 they still called the homeowner after calling P.D., but
25 in this instance they did not.

92
1 MS. LAURA NODLOF: Correct.
2 GRAND JUROR: Do we know why? Did you ask
3 why?
4 RANGER CODY ALLEN: We -- we -- they have no
5 answer for that.
6 GRAND JUROR: Okay. And then from that
7 call, the dispatch, or whoever that person is, I'm not
8 sure what you call them, they asked if the homeowner had
9 been contacted, but that was not asked on the night in
10 question. Is that typical for the caller --
11 MS. LAURA NODLOF: They did ask.
12 GRAND JUROR: They did ask?
13 MS. LAURA NODLOF: They did ask that, right.
14 RANGER CODY ALLEN: It's at the very end.
15 MS. LAURA NODLOF: It's at the very end.
16 GRAND JUROR: Oh, okay.
17 MS. LAURA NODLOF: And then what happens is
18 the dispatcher says, "We were not able to make contact,"
19 and then that's when her supervisor comes back and says,
20 "The homeowner has said" --
22 MS. LAURA NODLOF: -- "to call -- to
23 dispatch the police first, don't call."
24 GRAND JUROR: Got you. Okay.
25 MS. LAURA NODLOF: So these calls were prior

93
1 to that date.
3 MS. LAURA NODLOF: And so these were in
4 March and June of '18, and -- but then on that other
5 call that -- from the actual incident on 3-5, it says
6 that they did not -- they did not make -- she -- one
7 operator says, "We were unable to make contact with the
8 homeowner." The supervisor gets on and says, "No, we
9 were told to dispatch the police first."
10 The police department, I can tell you, did
11 not know until this happened, that alarm companies were
12 dispatching without making contact with a homeowner or a
13 key carrier, and immediately changed their policy.
14 GRAND JUROR: Then supervisor said first, so
15 they make it sound like they were going to follow up --
16 MS. LAURA NODLOF: And they made no
17 follow-up, none whatsoever, that we can show. We
18 requested their records from New Jersey, which has been
19 an experience, but there was -- just the thing that we
20 do know is that even after they contact the police
21 department, they ran the system check again, and it
22 passed.
23 GRAND JUROR: Uh-huh.
24 RANGER CODY ALLEN: Here's the alleged call
25 to verify for that pool house.

94
1 MS. LAURA NODLOF: Yeah, he actually has to
2 go -- and I can pass -- you have to actually check on
3 the contract, yes or no, do you want them to contact,
4 and it hits in this area --
5 UNIDENTIFIED INDIVIDUAL: That first call --
6 GRAND JUROR: So was that change made after
7 these other kind of false alarm calls, or was that the
8 initial contract? Has that always been the same?
9 MS. LAURA NODLOF: I am looking to see if I
10 can determine that.
11 GRAND JUROR: They got tired of getting a
12 phone call --
13 GRAND JUROR: Yeah, that's -- I --
14 GRAND JUROR: Well, and then they end up
15 sending you a bill to the house if they come out more
16 than --
17 GRAND JUROR: More than one a year.
18 GRAND JUROR: Well, that's unfortunate that
19 the dispatcher has the right to do what they want to do
20 and that got a man risking his life --
21 GRAND JUROR: And that's -- yeah, what's why
22 I'm curious, was that contract always that way, or did
23 that contract change because, you know, by David's
24 testimony, his questions --
25 GRAND JUROR: They need to be held

112
1 TRANSCRIBER'S CERTIFICATE
2 THE STATE OF TEXAS )
3 COUNTY OF LUBBOCK )
4 I, BREANN M. HAYS, do certify that the foregoing
5 contains a true and correct transcription of an audio
6 recording to the best of my ability.
7 WITNESS MY OFFICIAL HAND this the 5th day of
8 May, 2022.
10
11 /s/ Breann M. Hays

Breann M. Hays, Texas CSR 4211
12 Expiration Date: 07/31/22
Official Court Reporter
13 137th Judicial District Court
Lubbock County, Texas
14 P.O. Box 10536
15 (806) 775-1034
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

David Wilson - Petition For Removal W Press Release

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

David Wilson - Petition For Removal W Press Release

Uploaded by

Copyright:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Petition to Remove Midland County District Attorney Laura Nodolf

-Allison Clayton and Frank Sellers, on behalf of David Wilson

For his part, David Wilson would like to add this:

In the _______ District Court

Petition to Remove Midland County

TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:

Nodolf from Office of District Attorney, and in support shows as follows:

Petition to Remove District Attorney Laura Nodolf—Page 1

PARTIES AND SERVICE

indictment. He can be contacted through undersigned counsel. He has resided in Midland

may be served with process at 500 N Loraine St., Midland, TX 79701.

JURISDICTION, VENUE, AND RULE 47 DISCLOSURES

county where the alleged cause of removal occurred . . . .” 2

Petition to Remove District Attorney Laura Nodolf—Page 2

acquittal on December 8, 2021. 3

A. The Two Applicable Bases for Removing a Public Officer

8. Pursuant to Section 87.013 of the Texas Local Government Code:

(a) An officer may be removed for:

9. “Incompetency” means “gross ignorance of official duties; gross carelessness in the

discharge of official duties; or unfitness or inability to promptly and properly discharge

Petition to Remove District Attorney Laura Nodolf—Page 3

of the officer’s election.” 4

includes an intentional or corrupt failure, refusal, or neglect of an officer to perform a duty

imposed on the officer by law.” 7

that is an intentional or knowing violation of a law committed by a public servant while

acting in an official capacity as a public servant.” 8

reasonable grounds to believe the act is lawful. 10

Petition to Remove District Attorney Laura Nodolf—Page 4

A. General Factual Background

Petitioner, the alarm company dispatched police to an “ongoing burglary” at Petitioner’s

striking and killing MPD Officer Nathan Heidelberg.

had been dispatched to his house.

into custody several minutes after the shooting.

Petition to Remove District Attorney Laura Nodolf—Page 5

conducting a protective sweep.

a complete statement to investigating officers.

B. Defendant Searched Petitioner’s Home Alongside Investigating Officers

people who appear (on video) to be investigators employed by Nodolf’s office.

law enforcement sought a warrant to search the home.

Petition to Remove District Attorney Laura Nodolf—Page 6

~continued on following page~

Petition to Remove District Attorney Laura Nodolf—Page 7

Here Nodolf is looking at something on the table in Petitioner’s dining room:

Petition to Remove District Attorney Laura Nodolf—Page 8

Petition to Remove District Attorney Laura Nodolf—Page 9

C. Defendant Directed Petitioner’s Interrogation at the Police Station

station, Nodolf again actively participated in the investigation.

Petition to Remove District Attorney Laura Nodolf—Page 10

investigated the cause of the alarm malfunction at Petitioner’s home.

representatives of the company that installed Petitioner’s alarm system.

to claim he was surprised by police showing up to his house unannounced.

jury it was the “contract” Petitioner supposedly signed:

Petition to Remove District Attorney Laura Nodolf—Page 11

UNIDENTIFIED INDIVIDUAL: That first call --

MS. LAURA NODLOF: I am looking to see if I can determine that. 14

Petitioner’s indictment, were false.

E. Defendant Lied to the Grand Jury, Saying Acoustic Panels in Petitioner’s

the living room of the home. 15

raised in the first place:

RANGER CODY ALLEN: No, Ma’am, we did not do that.

GRAND JUROR: Is there a reason that wasn’t done?

Petition to Remove District Attorney Laura Nodolf—Page 12

GRAND JUROR: Okay.

Petition to Remove District Attorney Laura Nodolf—Page 13

CAUSES OF ACTION & ARGUMENTS AND AUTHORITIES