THE STATE OF TEXAS Respondent V.S. SAMUEL BENITEZ Cestui Que Vie Trust, Petitioner N.o TC# F-085659R-H
CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT NO. 1 DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS PETITION FOR PRODUCTION AND INSPECTION OF GRAND JURY PROCEEDINGS AND/OR TESTIMONY TEXAS CODE CRTM. PROC. ARTTC.LE 20.02(d)(e) TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT: NOW COMES, SAMUEL BENITEZ, Petitioner in the above stvled and cause, Pro Se, Resnectfullv moves the court pursuant fo Texas rode of Criminal Procedure (T.C.C.P.) Article 1.26, ArH.de 20.02(dWe) , Article 20.19 and Article 1, Section 10 and 19 of the Texas Consti*nfcion. The Petitioner Shows the followinq; 1) Petitioner, SAMUEL BENITEZ, without counsel is relying on Haines v. Kerner, 40^ U.S. 519, for less stringent pleading standards. 2) Petitioner is incarcerated in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice Institutional Division-Bill Clements Unit. In this present incarceration:. Peitioner is at a disadvantage due to not having access to legal reference materials in Prison on par with those of the District Attorney's Office and and other Persons answering this Petition. 3) This Petition is in accordance with (T.C.C.P) and the Laws of Texas upon which Petitioner relies, same binding as promised performance, a benefit due this Petitioner, an entitlement to equal Protection of the law under administration of Justice Procedures. 4) SAMUEL BENITEZ, the Petitioner herein is aCestuiQue Vie Trust unless otherwise evidenced. See TEXAS RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE Rule 52 

### 5) Petitioner requests that he be permitted toexamineand and all testimony 

## of each witness that testified beforetheGrandJury. pRfiSElVIHDzll^need COURTOFCRIMINALAPPEALS 

### MAY27 &osta,tfor the Grand Jury witness testimony— is a strong: interest in ensuring accuracy of testimony outweights government interest in secerecy. In re 

### Grand Jury, 490 F.3d 978,988,990. (D.C. Cir.2007). Petitionercontemplates that aparticularized need for the testimony can be shown as follows: a. To discover impeachment evidence b. To discover Prior inconsistent Statements- Washington v. Texas 388 U.S. 14 (1967) 

### c. To discover mitigating andexculpatory evidence- Bradyv. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963). d. All witnesses that testified inGrand Jury testified on direct examination pursuant to the Jenks.Discovery Act 18 USC $ 3500. The need for allwitnesses that testified is herebyrequested byPetitioner In the alternative the specific testimony that Petitoner requests is as follows: ALMA AVALOS, who testified under Direct Examination JESSENIA AVALOS, who testified under Direct examination JENNY PATRICIA ABREGO, who testified under Direct examination MARINA GARCIA, who testified under Direct examination ROGELIO PORTILLO, who testified under Direct examination DETECTIVE RICHARD DODGE, who testified under Direct examination OFFICER BRANDON INNES, who testified under Direct examination DETECTIVE EDUARDO IBARRA, who testified under Direct examination ANDRA LEWIS-KRICK, who testified under Direct examination VICKI HALL, who testified under Direct examination 6) In the interest of justice Petitioner is further pursuing relief from

### his final conviction in a Habeas Corpus Petition under the GatewayClaim -Schlup v. Delo,. 115 S.Ct. 851 (1995). In his claim, Petitioner is asserting trial counsel was ineffective. Upon such assertion, Inorder to find that 

### counsel was effective, an inquirey must bemade according toTex. Code of 

### Crim. Proc. Article 27.03. Accordingly, Petitioner was relying ontrial counsel to know the law and represent him to thebest of counsels Knowledge. The Law states," All objections andexceptions to thecharging instrument must be made in writing (T.C.C.P.) Art. 27.10; A motion to set aside , dismiss, 

### or quash an indictment should be made at the first opportunity and must be presented to the trial court prior to.that Party's announcement of ready." Neal v. State, 150 S.W.3d ,169(Tex. Crim. App. 2004); Where counsel is to 

### Motion toSetaside indictment Counsel must do sobased on thefollowing: 1. That it appears by the record of the court that the indictment was not founded by at least nine Grand Jurors, or that the information was not based upon a valid complaint; 2. That some person not authorized by lawwas present when the Grand Jury
was deliberating upon the accuation against the defendant, or was voting the same; 3. That the Grand Jury was illegally impaneled; Provided, however inorder to raise such question on a motion to setaside the indictment, the Petitioner must show that he did not have an opportunity to challenge the array at the time the Grand Jury was impanelled. As required 

### byArticle 19 and 20 (T.C.C.P). Pe^vio^^ o^<^>tvn£».c.viv\ceureev<xV<a4. Furthermore, In Vasquez v. Hillery, The Supreme court held," That evidence of racial discrimination in the Grand Jury selection process compromisesthe structural protections because such abuses leave the reviewing court incapable of determining, if a properly "constituted" Grand Jury would have indicated the defendant, at 474 U.S. 254,264 (1986). In the interest of JUstice Petitioner finds a Particularized need for the Grand Jury Proceedings. 

### 7) The Petitioner requests the production ofall the above. InAlternative 

### Petitoner requests the Review of that which the court .may order inpart. 8) Under Article 20.02 (d) (T.C.C.P) Petitioner maypetiton a court to order 

### the disclosure of a recording ortypewritten transcriptions under Article 

### 20.012 as amatter preliminaryto or in connectionwith aJudicial Proceeding. 

### The court may orderdisclosure of information, recordings, or transcription on a showing bythe defendant of aparticularized need. 

### (e) APetition fordisclosure under subsection (d) must be filed in theDist rict court inwhich the case is pending. The defendant must file also a copy 

### of thp petitionwith the Attorney representing theState, theParties to the Judicial Proceedings and any otherrequired by the court to receive a 

## copy of the petition. All persons receivingaPetitionunderthis subsection are entitled to appear.before the court. The court shall provide interested 

## Parties with anopportunitytoappearandpresentarguments for thecontinu ation of or end to the required secrecy. 

### 9) Finally, "In felonycases, filingasufficient indictment invokes acourt's 

## personal jurisdiction over the defendant."Fairfield v. State610 S.W. 2d 771, 779(Tex. CRIM.APP.1981). The Indictmentalsogives theDistrict Court 

## Subject Matter Jurisdiction. "Subject-Matter Jurisdiction neverforfeited or waived: U.S, V. Cotton, 535U.S. 625, 630 (2002). "Jurisdictionmaybechallenged at any time. Once State and Federal jurisdiction has been challenged ,it must be proven,-Texas Dept. of Public Safety;V,S<BXJyvor\y'26 S.W.3d 5.76 (Tex. App. Houston rlDist.n 2007^; Estrada v. State 1^8 S.W.3d>506)SubjectMatter Jurisdiction is a power that exists by operation of law only, and cannot be conferred upon any court by consent or waiver, and thus a judgment will never be considered final if the court lacked Subject-matter jurisdiction -Dubai Petroleum Co. v. Kazi, 12 S.W.3d 71; When a cause of action is derived from a statute, the statutory provisions are mandatory and exclusive and must be complied with in all respects or theactions is notmaintainable for ]ack of Jurisdiction- Grounds v.. Tolar Independant School Dist, 707 S.W. 

### 2d 889; "A plea to the jurisdiction is a dilatory plea, its purpose is to defeat a cause of action without regard to whether the claims asserted have merit,"Nuecesr County v. Dale- Hoff, 105 S.W.3d 208. The Petitioner hereby asserts that the . indictment is founded on fewer than the required number of Grand Jurors votinq in favor of a true bill, The actual foreman failed to deliver, the bill. Accordingly, Forgery of the forman's signature or even 

### inadvertent sigriiingq and returning of a bill in a case not reviewed by the 

### Grand Jury are all fundamental defects in charging instruments process which would vitiate the instrument, vitiate trial Court jurisdiction and be subject 

### to first complaint onAppeal despite the failure topresent objection prior to trial on the merits. Aguilar v. State 810 S.W.2d 230 Petitioner asserts that the trial court had no Subject-Matter Jurisdiction 

### due to theImproper.grand juryproceedings, and void indictment. For the reasons shown above Petitioner has asserted a Patricularizedneed 

### for. thedisclosure of the Grand JuryProceedings and/or Witness Testimony.WHEREFORE: Good cause shown and in the interest of justice, the Petitioner respectfully prays that this Court GRANT this Petition in all things 

# On jSj-h dayof flJM 2015

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, By: for SAMUEL BENITEZ-Cestui Que Vie Trust, Petitioner ^1543909-Bill Clements unit 9601 SPUR 591 Amarillo, Texas 79107