Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): exculpatory DNA evidence would prove his innocence under Article 64.03(a)(2)(A).”). 55 . In Whitaker v. State, 160 S.W.3d 5 (Tex.Crim.App.2004), we held that testing blood found on the gun used as the murder weapon and finding that it did not belong to the defendant in a case involving three conspirators would not be exculpatory since the blood could have belonged to the victim or one of the other co-conspirators, or it could have been left on the rifle prior to the murder. Id. at 9. 56 . See, e.g., Prible v. State, 245 S.W.3d 466, 470 (Tex.Crim.App.2008) ("without more, the presence of another person's DNA at the crime scene would not constitute affirmative evidence of the appellant’s innocence” requiring relief under Chapter 64); Bell v. State, 90 S.W.3d 301, 306 (Tex.Crim.App.2002) (<HOLDING>). 57 . Rivera, 89 S.W.3d at 60. 58 . Tex.Code 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that evidence of another persons dna if found on hair cigarette butt and bloodstained bath mat collected from crime scene does not constitute affirmative exculpatory evidence (B) holding the government has an affirmative duty to disclose exculpatory evidence to a criminal defendant (C) holding that the state has no affirmative duty to seek out and gain possession of potentially exculpatory evidence (D) holding that a new trial was necessary due to the petitioners counsels failure to seek dna testing on hairs gathered from the crime scene (E) holding prosecutor has affirmative duty to disclose material exculpatory evidence
Output (English): holding that a new trial was necessary due to the petitioners counsels failure to seek dna testing on hairs gathered from the crime scene