D: DNA testing, by nature, has no way of identifying which of tie two
individoals who? BNA was found in the hat, would have been wearing the.
hat on the time and dote of the offense. Wheredore, such relevant testimony
would have immediately then placed ample dought tn all minds, incleding the
ery’, as to if the applicant, verses the second inknown DVA contributor, was
ever infact deaning the hat during the time od dote of’ the ollense.

As shown the mafer contributer verses minor contribotor ef DVA in fhe
hat, does usthing at all to place the hot on applicants head on that date

and time, It simply shows applicant to have wern the hat rire thay
the sther individual ‘contributor, of ony time prier to the offense date,

Thus when Ceviewed by reason, there wes only a 50% chance of guilt or
janocense , There dace, equalling reasonable doogit.

Tor such reasons, the hat alone was not enough to convict on ary level, save
fhe the. introduction of additionol supportive evidence 1s overcome reason-
ble devght. Because it has been shown that +the witness testimony
was inadmissable to the Jury, ne additional supportive evidence
ever actually existed to support a Finding of guilt. Lt woold. have
been altogether different [#] applicants DNA vould have been found +o be

the only. contributor inthe hat, Though it was not, No reasonable individoel
ot tier of fact covlal dispute this argument.

m. Conclusion

Wherefore, Premises Considered, Applicant is confined in violation of tHe ©
Texas and United Stodes Constitutions, and is entitled t all relied thereof:

Executed this [3 of Apeil 2015’
Respectfully, Submittect,

13
"Demarke Dean Cooper 41789486
Applicant :
Ce . Coffield Unit
countess a . . 1b Fm 2054
es . Tennessee Colony Tk. 75884


——" 4B-SICK 351 (1972) Washington v. Texas 389 Us [¥,19, 87 5:c4, 1920,1923 (9.

Moreover the particu lar hearsay testimony in guestion, concerns the detective

offering third party non- testifying witness statements of’ an alleged third suspect
named Robert Simpson (An individual that was never at any point produced at 4 rial).
Indact, it is questionable as to if such an individal ever actually existed at
all to have “Hered the detective such informations Concerning the applicant *
alleged partteipation in Ke crime. Lndeed, it such an individual did ext,
the applicant then had the Fix, Amendment nght to call and be contrented
with Simpson. Washington _v. Texas, 87 Sct at 19423("The right to compe( witness
attendance, if necessary ,i5 in plain terms the right to preseat a defense “),see
also Hardin v. Estelle 484 £1d 94 ($4 Cir, 1973) Relief granted for denial of Compulsory
process of witnesses,

The hearsay festimeny was clearly inadmissable as evidence onder TRE.
Thos it should not have been allowed to have been presented tothe jury as such
for weighance im the decision of” guilt or innocense of the applicant at tral.
Trial covasel foiled to protect the applicant by having not objected to such
inadmissable hearse testimony , or the applicants denial of contrortation 0s ith
the alleged actoal witness [Simpson], Lt is teasonable that such objections, if
“they would have been made, woold have changed the outcome of the verdict
mu applicants favor, for a Finding of not grilty, due to an entire lac King of
witness testimony to reasonabl, determine Cooper to have been invelvedt in
or committed -the’ crime. Thus., by trial counselé further failores and ine lective
assistance of counsel, applicant sullered serious injories of unlawholl conviction
and subseguent incarceration. Strickland y, Washington , 466 US. b6 (484);

Ex parte Pattecrison 243 S.Wi2d WY, US (Tex. Crim, App. (999).

Finally, such failores to object, ondfor deficiencies, of' trial covasel did indact
substantially have te effect of changing the out cone of -the trial, ad securing
an vnlowfull conviction, because, the onl, evidence presented by the Stote oiler

dhe coorse of'+he trial consisted ov |) Witness testimeny, shen above to have
heen inadmissable fo the jury, ol 2,DNA presence jn the hat found ot the
érime Scene, As set oh in applicants H.07, he was denied the right to
secure and call an expert of his own, knosledgable and worthy of' testifying
in the field of DWA testing. Tf such a right would have been geantedt, it is
reasonable that such expert woeld have shown the jury thot indact 1. There
was DNA identitred inthe hat (minor contribotor) other than Coopers; and,

y


$2,511 “6!

In The Covet OF Criminal Appeals .

of Texas .
Ex Parte _ ; No. WR=62,$(7-01
Sd . ECE
DeMarko Dean Cooper, ee : § fae oft EGEIVED IN
Applicant ee a ~~ APR 17 2015

Applicant ' Response in Opposition to Trial . Abs! Acosta, Cler
Courts Findiags of Fact and Conelusions of Law

Comes now, DeMarko Dean Loop Applicant, and herein files his nes poase
in oppyition to Trial Courts Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, priorly
Ordered and submitted vato this Court on or about April | ,.2015. Applicant

respectdully futher pleads: ee .

1. Statement of the Case

_. Applicant DeMarks Dean Cooper was Convicted by a jury of aggravated robbery
cand assessed a Sentence of 50 years continement: His conviction was linmed
on direct appeal. Demarko Deon Cooper v. State , No, 05-12 -0067{-CR (Tex. App-~ Dallas,
August 26,2013, no pets) Applicant Filed «a first application for a writ of habeas Corpus
in this court, asserting his valawdul jncarceration as in violation of his United Stotes
and. Stote constitutional rights,on moltiple grounds set forth, within his Il,07
Application, This Court Ordered the trial Gurt and Counse ( to respond fo the
applicants’ claims. of ineffective assistance. of counsel.on Janvary I, 2015,
Accordingly, trial court responded and submitted its findings of fact and
conclusions of laws, therein as. Ordered with this Court on April |, 2015. Applicant

herein responds.

t.Argument and Authority

Trial Court presents a Finding of no need Lr applicants trial counsel t
object @ finding that no such objection was made) tothe States clearl, coercive,
overly suggestive , ond valawdull’ pretrial lineups, existed. Such « Finding is
entiely in eC, in that, the record itself shows thot Saleem Lakhani openly
admitted ty initial investigating oficers , immediately following the robbery, when
Lakhani ® recollectlon would have been imminently fresh, that he did not

vane Loe : 1:

F


get a geod look of the assailaist, therein itself recluding any future visual
identification of any individued porportedly fo have committed the crime. By the
vietems oun adwittion, he could net visually identity te actoal assadant.
This im itself precluded Me. Lakhani > identifreation of the applicant at all,

and any point, including ducing the subseguent line up lor] ater the prosecutar
produced the photo of the applicant during trial, Therefore, in thet trial
counse| failed te reconize and object to such facts at trial, he was then
deficient ond ineffective. Strickland y. Washington Abb V5. b6F (489); Ex parte
Patterson, 993 SWi2d 114, 11S (Tex. Crim. App. 1999), °

Applicant was heavily prejudiced, vpen such grounds, by the ine Mectiveness of
trial counsel,and his failure to object fo such highly relevant tacts, victems awn
admittion of inability to visually identify the ossailont immediately following the
offense ythe victem later identifying individuals otter than the applicant, beth
doting lineups ond in open court, and the trial court allowing the victems

» identification testimony of the applicant, im which was not only preclusive bn
nature ;but clearly coercerced by police and the prosecution at focal, te be
presented tothe jury for consideration and weighance. Where ,but for the failore
to cbject te the foregoings as the trial court has now found the detectives
testimony to have been inadmisrable hearsay statements, no. witnesses od?
having identified or witnessed the Applicat t have been the shooter andlor
involved in the erime wouled exist, precluding troduction or weighance of
such false and inadmissable witness tertimonies otherwise offered unto the
jury thus sthe jury would not have been introduced to such testimonies, in
hich it reasonable used in greot weight to convict the applicant of the
crime. Wherefore, the applicant suffered actual ond substantial injury. by a

wrong full conviction ma subsequent incarceration ,dve direct] to the inneMective

. assistance of counsel, and his ilote to abject to suck defielencies doriag

trial, Ld.

Mopting the identicle facts and argument, notwithstanding Mr, Lakhonis admission
cand clear inabilities +o identify the assoilant,it 1s shown on record that Mr,
Lakhani was introduced onto a lineup (er several), where not only, did he
plainly declare indi viduals sther than the applicant to be the assailant of
fact ty the crime then, again pointed ovt a juror during trial as the culprit,
it was. a clear case of beth inability to identify ,and misidentification ,
showing beyond a reasonable dovght thet the applicant could not be identified,
positively, or otherwise, by any individual witness or victen ofthe crime,

a


~includiag.anchmestespecially.Me.Lakbani,.yet applicants trial counsel sshile
knowing al f this, didnot abject. to. any. of the forego: Aecing trial whieh

f had_the effect. of allowing the. same. indreduction..o€ Me. Lakhani s witness
testimony... to. the,..Juty, Jdesctifying the applicant (als, by,.sais ‘deatifi.cation) itr

whieh the jucy,teasenably. used as evidence iinconvictien,.Wheee but bur. the
F fai iensies. at trial,

fond g d sentenced

ot drial_coenselagain. .

wlt.is ne
to.a.ten
directly..c

Teal covnsel Knew, of Hie. prior. line vps rohene. te defectives, 5..
record,plainly.coerced. Saleem. Lakhanis, ultimate. identitrestion,.of Hea
by having informed: Lakhani..that. he. identified the wrong. san in.prion lineups,
thencontinved, with subseg vent. lineups, until, Lakhan aud. ultimately decided .
onthe, .opplicant,_The detectives, wknersLakhan' had infeceredl Hee. priocly. thet
he didnot _get.a_geed.look atthe, actual. shooter. They then Knew Lakhani
Could..net...dentity,..any. assailant, yet. needing .Sucla..identification anyliay,
wond.a,tinal..conviction.oct.onr cost.” the. detectives. abused their.avthocity..
uby..proceeding with. theLinevps..in the manner, Hey. aid. infarraing, Lakhani of
tis. misidentifications watil hed finally, chosen the applicant. Beth..a. reasonable
Court..and Dury..weuld. tind, such. lass.entorcement, Conduct. abusive ond extremel,
coercive..ot Me,,Lokhanit.ultimate .identifrestti the .applicant,.A. reasonable
ucourt.tou! trike. such, .witness... mony. trem the necond..and/or wold
wot allot ewe. .beenpresented.te the suru. Ardfes Ae jury..ewould have.
found. reasonable.dought. astothe truth..of Me. Lakhani? testimony , Wherein
chewttimately once identified the applicant. as. the. assailant. Especially where
thece atte i not.again. Identify, the,.applicant..in the .2pen..covcd,
wattrial.._.Whereas, ence..again,by..ard through. trial. .coonseli..failure to.object
| to.any, or.all.of the, foregoing, at toial, hers clearly. shovon...to have. been...
| ineMective..as.covnsel. for. applicant, whichresultedininjuries.of conviction...
ond. incancecation..Cn.violativa of applicants. Constitutional. rights. ED.. see
walsofoster.v 4..VsSod4O, 84S M27, 968). Court held. thet te ...
| aidentification.procedures,.violated.due process, where. defendant. could not. be

| identified inlineup. es

wisp negate ryan yore eam

lal couct.has..now ancluded the lead detectives. testimony, to. have .

-been_hearsay..ond inadmiscable at tria lin violation.of apalicants Sixth...
alyht to.condront. the witness against hin... Webb v. Texas 409 U.S. 4S,

anstnambiiaenennietemnsrmcnmnmnamanetattastw bent My «-Pepla mune‘ aw siGetae ain sits ware