## I N T H E C O U R T O F C R I M I N A L A P P E A L S

O F T E X A S

N O

. A P

- 7 6

, 2 4 4

E X P A R T E B E N J A M I N E J O H N S P E N C E R

, A p p l i c a n t

O N A P P L I C A T I O N F O R A W R I T O F H A B E A S C O R P U S

I N C A U S E N O

. W 8 7

- 9 6 5 2 4

- T ( A ) F R O M T H E

2 8 3 J U D I C I A L D I S T R I C T C O U R T O F D A L L A S C O U N T Y R D

P R IC E

, J

. , f

i l e d a c o n c u r r i n g o p i n i o n i n w h i c h H E R V E Y a n d C O C H R A N

, J J

. , j o i n e d

.

C O N C U R R I N G O P I N I O N

I j o i n t h e C o u r t ’ s o p i n i o n

. T h i s c a s e h a s d r a w n a g r e a t d e a l o f c u r i o u s a t t e n t i o n

. I

w r i t e s e p a r a t e l y t o e m p h a s i z e w h y i t i s a p p r o p r i a t e f o r t h i s C o u r t t o e x e r c i s e i t s d u t y a n d

p r e r o g a t i v e

, a s t h e u l t i m a t e f a c t f i n d e r i n p o s t

- c o n v i c t i o n h a b e a s c o r p u s m a t t e r s

, t o t a k e 1

1

I n the context of post-convicti o n h abea s corpus, the convicting court is the “orig inal”

fac tfinder, and we ordinarily pay g rea t defe renc e to that court’s finding s of fac t and conclusions of

law when s u p p o rt ed by the rec ord. But that defe renc e is not boundless, and we do not simply

rubber -stamp the convicting court’s rec ommendations. This Court is the “ultimate” fac tfinder, with

the prer og ative to r ejec t the convicting court’s rec ommendations on those rar e occa sions whe n we

deem it a ppropriate

, even when they are supported by the rec ord, if we think another dispositi on is

manifestly better supported by the rec ord. Ex parte Ree d

, 271 S.W

. 3 d 6 9 8

, 727-28 & n.22 (Tex.

Crim. App. 2008).Spencer — 2

w h a t e v e r t i m e i s n e c e s s a r y o n a n e x t e n s i v e r e c o r d t o c a r e f u l l y c o n s i d e r a n d r e s o l v e a c l a i m

s u c h a s t h i s

. I t i s e s p e c i a l l y f i t t i n g t h a t w e s h o u l d n o t r u s h t o j u d g m e n t i n v i e w o f t h e 2

o p p o s i t i o n o f t h e d i s t r i c t a t t o r n e y ’ s o f f i c e

, a n o f

f i c e t h a t h a s a c u r r e n t r e p u t a t i o n f o r n o t

r e f l e x i v e l y o p p o s i n g p o s t

- c o n v i c t i o n c l a i m s o f a c t u a l i n n o c e n c e

— i n d e e d

, f o r a c t i v e l y

f a c i l i t a t i n g t h e i n v e s t i g a t i o n o f s u c h c l a i m s a s a r e a t l e a s t f a c i a l l y p l a u s i b l e

. 3

H a b e a s c o r p u s i s a n e x t r a o r d i n a r y r e m e d y

. A n y g r a n t o f p o s t

- c o n v i c t i o n h a b e a s

c o r p u s r e l i e f f

l i e s i n t h e f

a c e o f t h e S t a t e ’ s c o m p e l l i n g i n t e r e s t i n t h e f i n a l i t y o f i t s h a r d

- w o n

c o n v i c t i o n

. C l a i m s o f a c t u a l i n n o c e n c e t h r e a t e n t h e S t a t e ’ s f i n a l i t y i n t e r e s t e v e n m o r e t h a n

m o s t b e c a u s e

, t h o u g h t h e r e m e d y i s a n e w t r i a l

, i t i s r a r e t h a t t h e S t a t e c a n s u c c e s s f u l l y r e t r y

s u c h a c a s e i f h a b e a s r e l i e f i s g r a n t e d

. T e x a s i s o n e o f t h e f e w j u r i s d i c t i o n s s o f

a r t o

r e c o g n i z e a c t u a l i n n o c e n c e a s a c o g n i z a b l e d u e p r o c e s s c l a i m i n p o s t

- c o n v i c t i o n h a b e a s

c o r p u s p r o c e e d i n g s

. B e l i e v i n g t h a t t h e s o c i e t a l i n t e r e s t i n a c c u r a t e r e s u l t s i n c r i m i n a l t r i a l s 4

s h o u l d i n v a r i a b l y t r u m p t h e S t a t e ’ s o t h e r w i s e l e g i t i m a t e i n t e r e s t i n t h e f i n a l i t y o f i t s

c o n v i c t i o n s

, I h a v e a l w a y s c o n c l u d e d t h a t w e a r e r i g h t t o r e c o g n i z e a c t u a l i n n o c e n c e c l a i m s

2

The c ase w as ac tually

submitt ed to t his Court and has been pending written decision only

since Apr il 14, 2010.

3

See

, e.g., J ennife r S. For sy th & L eslie Eaton, The Exone rator: The Dallas D.A. is Rev iewing

Old Cases, Freeing Prisoners—and Riling His Peers , W A L L S T

. J ., Nov. 15, 2008.

4

See Glenn A Gar

ber & Ang hara d Vaug han, Actual-Innoc ence Policy, Non-DNA Innoce nce

Claims

, 239 N. Y. L

. J

. 65, Apr. 4, 2008 (“The high court s o f fi v e s t at es [i ncluding Texas] have

adopted some f

orm of fr eesta

nding a ctual innoce nce” claim).Spencer — 3

i n p o s t

- c o n v i c t i o n h a b e a s c o r p u s p r o c e e d i n g s

. B u t w e a r e a l s o r i g h t

, i n d e f e r e n c e t o t h e

S t a t e ’ s o t h e r w i s e l e g i t i m a t e i n t e r e s t i n f i n a l i t y o f i t s c o n v i c t i o n s

, t o i n s i s t t h a t e s t a b l i s h i n g

a b a r e c l a i m o f a c t u a l i n n o c e n c e s h o u l d b e “ a H e r c u l e a n t a s k

. ” 5

A c c o r d i n g l y

, w h e n w e f i r s t r e c o g n i z e d b a r e a c t u a l i n n o c e n c e a s a c o g n i z a b l e

, s t a n d

a l o n e c l a i m i n p o s t

- c o n v i c t i o n h a b e a s c o r p u s p r o c e e d i n g s

, w e d e l i b e r a t e l y d e s i g n e d t h e

s t a n d a r d t o b e e x c e e d i n g l y r i g o r o u s

. I n E x p a r t e E l iz o n d o

, w e h e l d t h a t

, t o s u c c e e d i n s u c h

a c l a i m

, a n a p p l i c a n t m u s t p r o d u c e n e w e v i d e n c e t o d e m o n s t r a t e t h a t h e i s “ u n q u e s t i o n a b l y

i n n o c e n t ” ; t h a t i s t o s a y

, t h e r e v i e w i n g c o u r t m u s t b e a b l e t o c o n c l u d e

, a f t e r f a c t o r i n g t h e

n e w

, e x c u l p a t o r y e v i d e n c e i n w i t h t h e i n c u l p a t o r y e v i d e n c e i n t r o d u c e d a t t r i a l

, t h a t t h e

a p p l i c a n t h a s s h o w n “ b y c l e a r a n d c o n v i n c i n g e v i d e n c e t h a t n o r e a s o n a b l e j u r o r w o u l d h a v e

c o n v i c t e d h i m i n l i g h t o f t h e n e w e v i d e n c e

. ” I n E x p a r t e F r a n k l i n

, w e e l a b o r a t e d t h a t a 6

c l a i m o f a c t u a l i n n o c e n c e r e q u i r e s a p p l i c a n t s t o p r o d u c e e v i d e n c e “ t h a t p r o v e s [ t h e i r ]

i n n o c e n c e a n d n o t m e r e l y r a i s e s d o u b t a b o u t t h e i r g u i l t [

. ] ” O n l y a f t e r t h e a p p l i c a n t h a s 7

p r o d u c e d s u c h “ a f

f i r m a t i v e e v i d e n c e o f [ h i s ] i n n o c e n c e ” n e e d t h e d e t e r m i n a t i o n t h e n b e

m a d e w h e t h e r

, b y c l e a r a n d c o n v i n c i n g e v i d e n c e

, w e i g h i n g b o t h t h e n e w a n d t h e o l d

, n o

5

Ex parte Brown , 205 S.W .3d 538, 545 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006).

6

947 S.W .2d 202, 209 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996).

7

72 S.W .3d 671, 677 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002).Spencer — 4

r a t i o n a l j u r y w o u l d h a v e c o n v i c t e d h i m

. 8

W e t y p i c a l l y s e e t w o t y p e s o f e v i d e n c e o f a c t u a l i n n o c e n c e t h a t m i g h t

, u n d e r t h e r i g h t

c i r c u m s t a n c e s

, q u a l i f

y a s “ a f f i r m a t i v e e v i d e n c e o f i n n o c e n c e

. ” F i r s t

, i f a n o f f e n d e r l e a v e s

b i o l o g i c a l m a t e r i a l s u c h a s b l o o d o r s e m e n b e h i n d

, a n d t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s s h o w t h a t h e a c t e d

a l o n e i n p e r p e t r a t i n g t h e o f f e n s e

, p o s t

- c o n v i c t i o n D N A t e s t i n g m a y c o n s t i t u t e a f f i r m a t i v e

e v i d e n c e o f a n a p p l i c a n t ’ s i n n o c e n c e i f i t r e v e a l s t h a t t h e b i o l o g i c a l m a t e r i a l w a s n o t h i s

.

S e c o n d

, i f t h e v i c t i m o f a n o f f e n s e r e c a n t s h i s t r i a l t e s t i m o n y t h a t a n a p p l i c a n t a s s a u l t e d h i m

,

t h e r e i s n o o t h e r e v i d e n c e t h a t a n a s s a u l t e v e n o c c u r r e d ( o r a t l e a s t t h a t t h e a p p l i c a n t w a s t h e

p e r p e t r a t o r )

, a n d t h e r e c a n t a t i o n i s d e e m e d m o r e c r e d i b l e u n d e r t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s t h a n t h e

t r i a l t e s t i m o n y

, t h e n t h e r e c a n t a t i o n m a y c o u n t a s a f f i r m a t i v e e v i d e n c e o f i n n o c e n c e

.

( I n d e e d

, u n d e r t h i s s e c o n d s c e n a r i o

, i t m a y b e c o m e e v i d e n t t h a t n o o f f e n s e e v e n o c c u r r e d ! )

T h e C o u r t c o r r e c t l y c o n c l u d e s t o d a y t h a t

, i n t h e i n s t a n t c a s e

, t h e r e i s n o c o m p a r a b l e

“ a f f i r m a t i v e ” e v i d e n c e o f i n n o c e n c e ; t h e r e i s o n l y e v i d e n c e t h a t c o u l d s e r v e

, h o w e v e r

c o n v i n c i n g l y

, t o c a s t d o u b t u p o n t h e c r e d i b i l i t y o f t h e S t a t e ’ s e v i d e n c e o f t h e a p p l i c a n t ’ s

g u i l t

. S u c h a t h r e s h o l d s h o w i n g d o e s n o t s e r v e t o o u t w e i g h t h e S t a t e ’ s i n t e r e s t i n t h e f i n a l i t y

8

Id

. at 678; see also Ex parte Brown

, supra

, at 546 (“the applicant must make a claim that,

if true, establishes aff

irmative evidenc e of his innocenc e. Then, at t h e h ear ing, the trial judge

assesses t h e witnesses’ cre dibilit y

, examines the ‘new ly discovere d evidenc e,’ and deter mines

whether that ‘new ’ evidenc e, when balanc ed ag ainst the ‘old’ inculpatory evidenc e, unquestionably

establishes the applicant’ s innocenc e.”) ; Ex parte Thompson

, 1 53 S.W .3d 416, 427 (Tex. Crim.

App. 2005) (Cochra

n

, J

. , co n curring) (in assessing bare innocenc e claim, convicting court must

deter mine whether the applicant’ s proff er of new evidenc e “by itself unquestion a b ly e stablishes [hi s]

innocenc e” befor e proce eding to inquire whether

, bal ancing the new evidenc e with the old,

inculpatory

evidenc e, no ra tional jury would convict).Spencer — 5

o f i t s c o n v i c t i o n

.

T h e a p p l i c a n t ’ s a c t u a l i n n o c e n c e c l a i m

, a s I u n d e r s t a n d i t

, i s p r e d i c a t e d o n e s s e n t i a l l y

t h r e e p r o n g s

. F i r s t

, t h e j a i l h o u s e s n i t c h w h o t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e a p p l i c a n t c o n f e s s e d t o h i m h a s

s i n c e r e c a n t e d

. S e c o n d

, o t h e r i n f o r m a n t s h a v e c o m e f

o r w a r d w i t h s t a t e m e n t s t h a t a n o t h e r 9

p e r p e t r a t o r a d m i t t e d t o a n o f f e n s e t h a t h a s c e r t a i n c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s r e m a r k a b l y s i m i l a r t o t h e

i n s t a n t m u r d e r

. A n d t h i r d

, a f o r e n s i c o p t o m e t r i s t h a s n o w p r o c l a i m e d t h a t w h a t t h e S t a t e ’ s

e y e w i t n e s s e s c l a i m t o h a v e s e e n o n t h e n i g h t o f t h e o f f e n s e i s b e y o n d t h e r e a l m o f h u m a n

v i s u a l a c u i t y

. N o n e o f t h i s e v i d e n c e ( a s s u m i n g i t i s n e w ) s a t i s f i e s t h e a p p l i c a n t ’ s p r e s e n t

b u r d e n t o s h o w

, b y c l e a r a n d c o n v i n c i n g e v i d e n c e

, t h a t h e d i d n o t c o m m i t t h e o f f e n s e

. A t

b e s t

, i t w o u l d g i v e a j u r y p a u s e i n d e c i d i n g w h e t h e r t o c r e d i t t h e e y e w i t n e s s t e s t i m o n y a t t r i a l

f r o m w h i c h i t c a n s t r o n g l y b e i n f e r r e d t h a t t h e a p p l i c a n t d i d c o m m i t t h e o f f e n s e

. I n m y v i e w

,

i t n e i t h e r s a t i s f

i e s t h e t h r e s h o l d s h o w i n g o f “ a f f i r m a t i v e e v i d e n c e o f i n n o c e n c e

, ” n o r d o e s

i t u l t i m a t e l y c o n v i n c e m e b y c l e a r a n d c o n v i n c i n g e v i d e n c e

, w e r e I t o g o o n t o b a l a n c e t h e

“ n e w ” e v i d e n c e a g a i n s t t h e “ o l d

, ” t h a t n o r a t i o n a l j u r y w o u l d h a v e o p t e d t o c r e d i t t h e

e y e w i t n e s s t e s t i m o n y a n y w a y a n d c o n v i c t e d t h e a p p l i c a n t a c c o r d i n g l y

. A l l t h r e e o f t h e

e y e w i t n e s s e s k n e w t h e a p p l i c a n t ; t h e y w e r e n o t p u r p o r t i n g t o i d e n t i f y a s t r a n g e r

. T w o o f

9

The convicting court conclude d that “ther e rema ins no evidenc e of [t he applicant’ s] g uilt[ ,]”

at least in part, beca

use the snitch’s trial testimony was “i n ad missibl e hear say .” See Majority

opinion, at 10. Even assuming that the applicant’ s confe ssion to the snitch would not fall under the

hear say exception for statements ag ainst in t er es t

, T E X R. E V I D

. 803(24), or that it would even

constitute hear say at all, T E X

. R. E V I D

. 801(e) (2)( A), the applicant did not make a hear say objection

at trial, and ina dmissibl e-but-unobje cted- to hear say has proba tive value unde r T E X

. R. E V I D

. 802.Spencer — 6

t h e m a l s o r e c o g n i z e d w h a t t h e y k n e w t o b e h i s d i s t i n c t i v e c a r a t t h e s c e n e

, a n d o n e s a w h i m

l e a v e i n i t

. I m i g h t b e w i l l i n g t o s a y o n t h e b a s i s o f t h e a p p l i c a n t ’ s n e w e v i d e n c e t h a t

, b y a

p r e p o n d e r a n c e o

f t h e e v i d e n c e

, n o r a t i o n a l j u r y w o u l d h a v e c o n v i c t e d t h e a p p l i c a n t ; a n d

, i f

s o

, I w o u l d b e w i l l i n g t o r e a c h o t h e r f e d e r a l c o n s t i t u t i o n a l c l a i m s h e m i g h t r a i s e i n a

s u b s e q u e n t w r i t

. B u t I c a n n o t a c c e p t t h e c o n v i c t i n g c o u r t ’ s r e c o m m e n d a t i o n t h a t w e g r a n t 1 0

t h e a p p l i c a n t r e l i e f o n h i s f r e e s t a n d i n g a c t u a l i n n o c e n c e c l a i m ; I a g r e e w i t h t h e C o u r t t h a t h e

h a s n o t e v e n p r e s e n t e d “ a f f i r m a t i v e e v i d e n c e o f i n n o c e n c e

, ” m u c h l e s s s a t i s f i e d t h e

a d m i t t e d l y

— b u t a p p r o p r i a t e l y

— “ H e r c u l e a n ” b u r d e n t o d e m o n s t r a t e b y c l e a r a n d c o n v i n c i n g

e v i d e n c e t h a t n o r a t i o n a l j u r y w o u l d h a v e c o n v i c t e d h i m i n l i g h t o f h i s n e w e v i d e n c e

.

W e f i l e d a n d s e t t h i s c a s e f

o r s u b m i s s i o n b e c a u s e t h e i s s u e o f a c t u a l i n n o c e n c e i s a t

l e a s t s u f f i c i e n t l y c l o s e t h a t t h e c o n v i c t i n g c o u r t r e c o m m e n d e d t h a t r e l i e f b e g r a n t e d

. U p o n

c a r e f u l a n d m a t u r e c o n s i d e r a t i o n ( w h i c h i n e v i t a b l y t a k e s t i m e )

, t h e C o u r t h a s p r o p e r l y

r e j e c t e d t h a t r e c o m m e n d a t i o n a s i n c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h e a p p l i c a b l e l e g a l s t a n d a r d

. W i t h t h e s e

a d d e d r e m a r k s

, I j o i n t h e C o u r t ’ s o p i n i o n

.

F I L E D : A p r i l 2 0

, 2 0 1 1

P U B L I S H

1 0

See T E X

. C O D E C R I M

. P R O C

. art. 11.07, § 4(a) (2), essentially codify ing Schlup v. Delo

, 513

U.S. 298 (1995), for purposes of our own abuse- of-the- writ doctrine with respe ct to subsequent state

post-conviction writs of ha beas c orpus in non-ca

pital felony

case s.