1 ... S ee T EX . R. A PP . P. 47. 4. 

## COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICTOFTEXAS FORT WORTH
NO . 2- 06- 091- CR
M AUR I CE GL E NN W I L L I S , S R
. AP P E L L ANT V
. TH E STA TE O F TEXA S STA TE

----- ----- -- FR O M THE 372ND DI STRI CT CO URT O F TARRA NT CO UN TY

----- ----- -- 

### M E M ORANDUM OP I NI ON ON R E M AND A ND O N R E HE AR I NG 1

----- ----- -- A f t err evi ew i ng Appel l antM aur i ce G l enn W i l l i s, Sr
. ’ s m ot i on f orr ehe ar i ng,
w e den y t he m ot i on. W e w i t hdr aw ourJun e 12, 2008 opi ni on a nd j udgm ent
o n re m a n d a n d s u b s ti tu te th e fo l l o w i n g . T h i s c a s e i s b e f o r e u s o n r e ma n d f r o m t h e c o u rt o f c r i mi n a l a p p e a l s . On
or i gi n a l s u b mi s s i o n , we o v e r r u l e d W i l l i s ’ s f i v e p o i n t s c o mp l a i n i n g o ft h e t r i al
c o u rt’s d e n i a l o f h i s p o s t-c o n v i c ti o n m o ti o n fo r fo re n s i c D N A te s ti n g . S e eW illis

v. S tate , N o . 0 2 -0 6 -0 0 0 9 1 -C R , 2 0 0 7 W L 2 7 9 2 5 1 8 , a t * 3 (T e x . A p p .— F o rt2

W or t h S ept . 27 , 20 07 ) ( m em . op. ) ( not desi gnated f orp u b li cat i on)
. The day bef or e w e handed dow n t he W illis opi ni on, t he cour tofcr i m i nal appeal s handed dow n i t s opi ni on i n Bl a ckl o ckv. S tate , 235 S
. W
. 3d 231 ( Tex. Cr i m . A pp. 200 7)
. The cou rtofcr i m i nal ap pea l s su bs equ ent l y gr ant ed W i l l i s’ s pet i t i on f or d is c r e t io n a r yre v ie w , v a c a t e d o u r ju d g m e n t , a n d r e m a n d e d t h e c a s e b a c kt o t h is
c o u rt to c o n side r th e effe c t, i f an y , o f Bl acklock o n t h e r e a s o n in g a n d a n a ly s is i n ourpr evi ous opi ni on. Se eW i l l i sv. S tate , No. PD- 1741- 07, 2008 W L 3 8 3 0 6 2 , a t * 1 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . F e b . 1 3 , 2 0 0 8 ). W e w i l l o n c e a g a i n a ffir m . Bl ackl o c k wa s c o n v i c t e d i n 1 9 9 5 o f a n a g g r a v a t e d r o b b e r y a n d an
a g g ra v a te d s e x u a l a s s a u l t. Bl acklock , 235 S. W
. 3d at232. The com pl ai nan t k n e w B la c k lo c ka n d id e n t if ie d h im a s t h e o n e w h o ro b b e d a n d s e x u a lly
a s s a u l te d h e r. Id
. The St at e r el i ed on e vi den ce ofD N A t es t i ng ofs em en f r om t he com pl ai nan t ’ s vag i nal s m ea r s t o s how t hata se xua l as sa ul toc cur r ed, but th e e v i d e n c e w a s i n c o n c l u s i v e o n th e i s s u e o f i d e n ti ty . Id
. I n 2 00 5, Bl ackl ock f i l ed a m ot i on f orD N A t est i ng of t he sem en f r om t he com pl a in ant ’ s vagi nal
sm ear s and ofs em en l ef tby herat t ac ke ron h erpa nt s and pan t i es dur i ng t he2 ... A tr i a l co u rtm u st o rde r D N A tes ti n g o n l yi f t h e sta tu to ry req u i rem e n ts

o f arti c l e 6 4 .0 3 are m e t, tha t i s, o n l yi f ( 1 ) th e ev i d e n c e sti l l ex i sts an d i d e n ti ty w as ori s an i ss ue i n t he ca se ; an d ( 2) t he co n v i c te d p e r so n e st abl i sh es by a pr epon der ance of t he evi dence t hatt he per son w oul d not have been convi ct ed i f e x c u l p a to ryre s u l ts h a d b e e n o b ta i n e d th ro u g h D N A te s ti n g . T EX . C ODE C R IM . P R OC . A NN . a rt. 6 4 .0 3 (V e rn o n 2 0 0 6 ). 3 at t ack. 2 Id
. B l a c k l o c ka l l e g e d i n p a rtt h a tt h e r e wa s n o i n d i c a t i o n t h a tt he S ta te te s te d th e s e m e n o n th e p a n ts o r p a n ti e s . Id . T h e t r ia l c o u rtd e n ie d h is
m ot i on, f i ndi ng i n par t t hat he had f ai l ed t o show t hat i denti t y w as or is an i ss ue and ha d a l so f ai l ed t o s how , by a p r epo nde r anc e o ft he evi den ce , t hathe

w oul d notha ve bee n c onvi ct ed i f exc ul pat or y r es ul t s had be en obt ai ned t hr ough D N A te s ti n g . Id
. T h e c o u rt o f a p p e a l s a ffir m e d th e tri a l c o u rt’s ru l i n g d e n y i n g B l a c k l o c k ’s
mo t i o n f o r D N A t e s t i n g , r e a s o n i n g i n p a rt t h a t i d e n t i t y wa s n o t an i ss ue bec aus e Bl ac kl ockha d f ai l ed t o a l l ege t hat i den t i t y i s an i ss ue and be ca us e t he
com pl ai nan tt es t i f i ed at t he 199 5 t r i al “t hats he kne w [ Bl ac kl ock ] an d t hathe had r obb ed and sexual l y assaul t ed her
. ” Id
. The c ourtofcr i m i nal ap pea l s di sa gr ee d w i t h t he cou rtofap pea l s, s t at i ng i n part , “That t he vi ct i m t est i f i ed t hatshe knew appel l antand i denti f i ed hi m as herat t ackeri s i r r el evantt o w het herappel l ant ’ s m ot i on f orD N A t est i ng m akes h is id e n t it y a n is s u e a n d w h e t h e rits h o w s t h a te x c u lp a t o r yD N A t e s t s w o u ld pr ove hi s i nno cence . ” Id
. at 233
. A cc or di ngl y, “ The l ang uag e a nd l egi sl at i ve hi st or y ofA rt i cl e 64. 03( a)( 1 )(B ) m ak e i tve r y c l ea rt hata def end ant , w ho4

re q u e s ts D N A te s ti n g , c a n m a k e i d e n ti ty a n i s s u e b ys h o w i n g th a t e x c u l p a to ry D N A t es t s w oul d pr ove hi s i nnoc enc e. ” I nde ed, “ a d ef end antpr ove s hi s r i ght t o D N A t e s t in g o fe v id e n c e b ys h o w in g t h a te x c u lp a t o r y D N A re s u lt s w o u ld est abl i sh t he def endan t ’ s i nno cence. ” Id
. n . 4. Th e cour tobser ved t hatBl ackl ock’ s m ot i on al l eged i n par tas f ol l ow s: H ad t he bi ol ogi ca l evi den ce bee n su bj ec t ed t o pr ope rD N A t es t i ng capabl e ofdet er m i ni ng t he i denti t y of t he don or of t he sem en, as def end antbe l i eve s i s pos si bl e t oda y, an d s uch r es ul t s exc l ude d t he def end antas t he dono r, i t i s r ea so nab l y pr oba bl e t hatt he def end antw oul d notha ve bee n pr os ec ut ed orco nvi ct ed. Id
. atn. 2. The cou rtr easoned t hatBla c k lo c k ’s m ot i on f orD N A t est i ng “has f ai r l y a l l ege d, a n d s how n bya pr epo nde r anc e o ft he evi den ce , t hatt he [ com pl ai nant’ s] l one at t acker i s t he don or oft he m at er i al f orw hi ch [ Bl ackl ock]
s e e k s D N A t e s t i n g , ” t h u s “ a p p e a r [in g ] t o a lle g e t h a tD N A t e s t in g o ft h is
m at er i al
. . . w i l l excl ude [ Bl ackl ock] as t he [ com pl ai na n t’ s] at t acker
. ” Id
. at 23 2. I t concl uded , “Thu s, on t hi s r ecor d, excul pat or y D N A t est re s ul t s, excl udi ng [ Bl ackl ock] as t he don or of t hi s m at er i al , w oul d est abl i sh [ Bl ackl ock’ s] i nno cence. ” Id
. I n t h e c a s e b e f o r e u s , t h e c o u rt o f c r i mi n a l a p p e a l s s t a t e d t h a t w e had af f i r m ed t he t r i al co urt ’ s den i al ofW i l l i s’ s se con d m ot i on f orD N A t es t i ng “b as ed i n part on t he t r i al cou r t ’ s f i ndi ng t hat i den t i t y w as not an i ss ue i n t he
c a s e b e c a u s e [W i l l i s ] c o m m i tte d th e m u rd e r i n th e p re s e n c e o f a th i rd p a rty .” S e eW illis , 2008 W L 383062 , a t *1. Consi der i ng t hi s obs er vat i on i n l i ghtof5

t he r ea so ni ng a nd ho l di ng i n Bl acklockt hat a c om pl ai nan t ’ s t es t i m ony t hats he knew t he accused and her i denti f i cat i on of hi m as t he per pet r at ori s i r rel eva nt
a s t o wh e t h e r t h e d e f e n d a n t c a n ma k e i d e n t i t ya n i s s u e wi t h e x c u l p a t o r yDN A t estr esul t s, ourt ask her e i s t o det er m i ne w het her

— notw i t hst andi ng ou ror i gi nal opi ni on’ s r el i a n c e on t he t r i al co urt ’ s f i ndi ng t hati den t i t y w as notan i ss ue b e c a u s e W illis c o m m it t e d t h e m u r d e rin t h e p r e s e n c e o fa t h ir d p a rt y — W illis
m a d e id e n t i t y a n i s s u e b ys h o w in g t h a te x c u lp a t o r yD N A re s u lt s w o u ld
e s t a b l i s h h i s i n n o c e n c e . S ee Bl acklock , 235 S
. W
. 3d at233. W i l l i s di d not
m a k e s u c h a s h o w i n g . The r el eva nt port i on of W i l l i s’ s se con d m ot i on f or f or ens i c D N A t es t i ng
r eads as f ol l ow s: Th er e w as evi dence contai ni ng bi ol ogi cal m at er i al t hatw as secur ed i n r el a ti o n t o t he of f ens e t hati s t he bas i s oft he cha l l eng e[ d] convi ct i on and w as i n t he possessi on of t he S t at e dur i ng t he t r i al o f t h e o ffen se , [b]u t: ( 1) w as notpr evi ous l y s ubj ec t ed t o DN A t es t i ng (B ) th ro u g h n o fa u l t o f h i [m ][.] F o r re a s o n th a t a re o f a n a tu re su ch t hatt he i nt er es tofj us t i ce r equ i r e DN A t es t i ng. And t hatt he nat ur e of t he f or [ e] goi ng st yl ed and num ber ed cause re q u i re D N A te s ti n g [c ri m i n a l p ro c e d u re A rti c l e 6 4 .0 1 a .b .] M o v a n tp r e s e n t [s ] t o t h e c o u rt t h a t t h e r e w a s m a t e r ia l e v id e n c e in t he possessi on of t he st at e dur i ng t he pr osecut i on of t he case, an d a t th eti

m eo f co n vi

c ti o n it wa s kn o wn tha t i f sub j e c ted to sci entif i c tes ti ng it would m ore l

i k e ly th [

a]n not es tabl i shthe iden tit yo f

th ep er s o n wh o c o m m it te d

th eo f f en s e, o r ex clu deh im f ro m th egro up o f

p er s o n [ s]wh o c o uld

h a vec o mmit te d

the off ense . [c o d e o f c ri m i n a l p ro c . A rt. 3 8 .8 9 ] [E m p h a s i s a d d e d .]6

W i l l i s t hu s a l l e ge d t ha ts c i e n ti f i c t e s t i ng o ft he m a t e r i a l w ou l d ( 1)
es t abl i sh t he i den t i t y of t he per so n w ho com m i t t ed t he of f ens e o r( 2) ex cl ude h im f r om t he gr oup of per sons w ho coul d have com m i t t ed t he of fe n s e . It

w oul d s ee m t hatW i l l i s m ade a si m i l ars how i ng byhi s al l ega t i ons as t he app el l anti n Bl

acklock , buthe ha s not . A s di d t he cou rti n Bl acklock , w e m ust consi derW i l l i s’ s al l egat i ons i n l i ght oft he f act s oft he case; w e do not consi der hi s al l ega t i ons i n a va cuu m . I n Bl acklock , t he vi ct i m had been sexual l y assaul t ed, and t he S t at e had col l ect ed sem en sam pl es f r om t he vi ct i m ’ s vagi nal sm ear s, pant s, and panti es. The a ppe l l ant ’ s al l ega t i on t hati tw as r ea so nab l y pr oba bl e t hathe w oul d not have been pr osecut ed or convi ct ed had t he bi ol ogi cal evi dence been subj ect ed t o p r o p e rD N A t e s t in g , a n d s u c h re s u lt s e x c lu d e d h im a s t h e d o n o r , c e rt a in ly di d m ake t he necessar y show i ng t hatexcul pat or y D N A r esul t s w oul d est abl i sh hi s i nno cence bec aus e the sem en wasthat of the “l one attacker ” and

no o ne el se . Id
. at 232
. I nde ed, t her e w as no evi den ce r ec i t ed i n t he opi ni on t hatt he
sem en cam e f r om anyon e but t he per pet r at or . Th us, l ogi cal l y, i f t he m at er i al

w a s t e s t e d a n d e x c lu d e d t h e a p p e lla n ta s t h e d o n o r , t h e n t h e re s u lt s w o u ld
es t abl i sh hi s i nnoc enc e b ec aus e t he donorof t he m at er i al

— w ho i s t he per so n
r es pons i bl e f ors exu al l y as sa ul t i ng t he vi ct i m an d no one el se — w oul d notbe t he
a p p e l l a n t.3 ... W illis r e q u e s t e d t h a t t h e f o llo w in g it e m s b e t e s t e d : f in g e rn a ils , t e n n is

sh oes , t w o j ac ke t s, s hi rt , s hort s, box er s, pi l l ow ca se , m at t r es s pad , i r on, t el eph one , pag er , ca rt r i dge s, w ood c l ub, duf f el t enn i s sh oes , r ug, an d w at ch.
7 O u rc a s e i s di f f e r e n tf r o m Bl acklock because i ft he m at er i al w as t est ed and exc l ude d W i l l i s as t he donor , t hi s r es ul tw oul d n o t est abl i sh hi s i nno cence bec aus e t he donoroft he m at er i al i s notne ce ss ar i l y t he per so n— or“ l one at t ac ke r ”— ul t i m at el y r es pons i bl e f orm ur der i ng W i l l i s’ s st epf at her
. The d onor oft he m at er i al coul d be W il li s ’s st epf at herorany ot herper son w ho had p r e v io u s lyb e e n in , o n , a r o u n d , o rs o m e h o w in c o n t a c tw it h t h e it e m s t h a tW illis
s e e k s t o b e t e s t e d a n d le f tb e h in d D N A m a t e r ia l. 3T o p u t i ti n t h e s a me t e r ms
as t he cou rti n Bl

acklock , on t hi s r ec or d, W i l l i s has not m ade i den t i t y a n i ss ue bec aus e h e h as not“ f ai r l y” al l ege d a nd s how n, by a p re p o n d er anc e o ft he evi den c e , t h a tD N A t e s tr e s u l t s o ft h e ma t e r i a l t h a th e s e e k s t o h a v e t e st ed,
e x c l u d i n g h i m a s th e d o n o r, w o u l d e s ta b l i s h h i s i n n o c e n c e . S ee Bl acklock , 235 S .W .3 d a t2 3 2

– 3 3 . R a t h e r , t h e o n lyt h in g t h a tt e s t in g t h e m a t e r i a l w o u ld
e s ta b l i s h i s th a t i t i s s o m e o n e ’s o r s o m e th i n g ’s D N A m a te ri a l
. See Pr i ble v. S tate , 24 5 S
. W
. 3d 46 6, 4 7 0 (T ex. C r i m . A pp. 20 08 ) ( “Evi dence of another per son’ s D N A i n addi t i on t o A ppel l ant ’ s i s not excul pat or y evi dence i n t hi s case due t o t he addi t i onal evi dence pr esent ed att r i al
. Thu s, even if th e evi dence

w a s re t e s t e d a n d d e t e r m in e d t o c o n t a in a n o t h e r p e r s o n ’s D N A
. . . , itw o u ld notes t abl i sh by pr epo nde r anc e o ft he evi den ce t hatA ppe l l antw oul d notha ve8

been con vi ct ed i f t he j ur y had hear d t hatD N A f r om a t hi r d- par t y w as pr esent . ”) (c i ta ti o n o m i tte d ); se ealso Bel l v. S tate , 90 S. W
. 3d 301, 306 ( Tex. Cr i m . A pp. 200 2) ( con si der i ng a ppe l l ant ’ s due pr oce ss cl ai m and r ea so ni ng t hat , w i t hout
m or e, t he pr es enc e of ano t her per so n’ s D N A at t he cr i m e sc ene w i l l not
c o n s ti tu te a ffir m a ti v e e v i d e n c e o f a p p e l l a n t’s i n n o c e n c e ). Becau se t he Bl

acklock opi ni on do es notal t er t he out com e i n ourpr evi ous d e c i s i o n o n th e i s s u e o f i d e n ti tya n d s h o w i n g i n n o c e n c e , W illis , No. 02- 06- 00091

- CR, 2007 W L2792 518, a t*2–3 ( Te x. App
. — Fo rt W o rt h Se pt . 27, 200 7) , w e aga i n af f i r m t he t r i al cou rt ’ s den i al ofW i l l l i s’ s pos t
- con vi ct i on m ot i on f orf or ens i c DN A t es t i ng. 4

DI XON W
. HOL M AN J U S T I C E PA N EL F: DA U PH I N O T, H O LM A N , an d W A LKER, JJ. DA UPHI NO T, J. di ss ent s w i t houtopi ni on. DO NOT PUBL I SH T EX . R. A PP . P. 47. 2( b)4 ... The c ourtofcr i m i nal ap pea l s han ded dow n i t s opi ni on i n R o uti er v. S tate , N o . A P -7 5 ,6 1 7 , 2 0 0 8 W L2 4 8 6 4 1 7 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . J u n e 1 8 , 2 0 0 8 ), s h o rt ly a f t erouror i gi nal opi ni on i ssued on Jun e 12 , 20 08
. W i l l i s t her eaf t er ti m e l y f i l e d a m o ti o n fo r re h e a ri n g a l l e g i n g th a t “ th e fa c ts o f th i s c a s e a re si m i l art o t hos e i n Routi er . J u s t a s t h e Co u rt o f Cr i mi n a l Ap p e a l s o r d e r e d DN A t e s t in g in t h a t c a s e , t h is C o u rt s h o u ld o r d e r D N A t e s t in g in t h is c a s e .” W illis speci f i cal l y di r ect s us t o a por t i on of t he Ro u ti er opi ni on r ea so ni ng, “ W e t hi nk t hataddi ng D N A evi dence t hatw oul d cor r obo r at e t he appel l ant ’ s accountofan u n k n o w n i n tru d e r to th e e v i d e n ti a rym i xc o u l d r e a d i l yh a v e ti p p e d th e j u ry ’s ver di cti n t h e a p p e ll a n t’ s f avor . ” Id
. a t* 1 2
. An d , “ I n o u re s t i ma t i o n , DN A evi den ce s how i ng t hatan unk now n i nt r ude r . . . ha d l ef tbl ood o n t he ni ght s h irt a n d t h e d o o r f r o m t h e u t ilit yro o m t o t h e g a r a g e , a lo n g w it h a f a c ia l h a ir a n d a p u b i c h a i r, w o u l d m o re l i k e l y th a n n o t h a v e c a u s e d th e j u ry to h a rb o r a r easonabl e doub tas t o t h e a p p e ll a n t ’ s gui l tand decl i ne t o conv i cther
. ” Id
. W i thouts pec i f i ca l l y s t at i ng a s m uch , W i l l i s t hen s et s f ort h a num berof r ef er ences f r om t he r ecor d t hat have t he ef f ectofr ai si ng t he i m pl i cat i on t hat J a m e s “S h o rt y ” H o w ze , a n a c q u a i n tan c e o f L o ren zo “L o ” W a tts, th e d e c e d e n t, m a yh a v e b e e n the i n d i v i d u a l res p o n sibl e for m u rde rin g W a t t s. H e p o i n ts to tri a l te s ti m o n yth a t W a tts h a d fi re d a g u n a t H o w z e a fe w d a y s b e fo re W a tt’s b o d yh a d b e e n f o u n d , t h a t H o w z e s t o le t h e g u n f r o m W a t t s , t h a tW a t t s t o ld H ow z e t o s t ay outofhi s hous e, an d t hathe an d W at t s ar gue d a l ot . Havi ng once agai n exam i ned al l of t he t est i m ony at hi s Jul y 20 00 t r i al, w e d isagr ee w i t h W i l l i s’ s as se rt i on t hat t he f ac t s oft hi s ca se ar e s i m i l art o t hos e i n Routi er . U nl i ke i n Routi

er, i n w hi ch t he appel l antcont ended t hatan unkno w n i nt r uder w as r esponsi bl e f or m ur der i ng her chi l dr en, t he evi dence i n t hi s case show ed th a t H o w ze , w h o w a s W a tts’s “g o o d fr i e n d ,” n o t o n l y l i v e d n e x t do o r t o W a tts i n a p r o p e rtyo w n e d b yW a tts , b u t th a t h e w a s a re g u l a r v i s i to r o f W a tts ’s a b o de
. Ass um i ng a s w e m us t t ha t a l l of t he po s t
- c on vi c t i on DN A t e s t i ng to w hi ch W i l l i s i s ent i t l ed w oul d pr ove f avo r abl e t o hi m , t he j ur y w oul d l i ke l y no t h a v e c o n s i d e r e d i t si gni f i c a n ti n i t s a s s e s s me n to ft h e e v i d e n c e t h a tDN A m at er i al l i nke d t o How z e w as di sc ove r ed on t he i te m s th a t h e r equ es t s be te s te d i n l i ghtoft he obvi ous f ac tt hatH ow z e l i ved ne xtdoort o W at t s and of t en vi si t ed W at t s’ s r es i den ce . I nde ed, t he j ur y c oul d ve r y w el l ha ve r ea so nab l y exp ec ted t hatH ow ze’ s D N A m at er i al w oul d be di scover ed at W at t s’ s r es i den ce . And unl i ke i n Routi er, W i l l i s has notspeci f i cal l y i denti f i ed w hatf or m ofbi ol ogi cal m at er i al t he r equest ed i t em s ar e appar ent l y suppo sed t o c ont ai n. W e t hus do n otkn ow i fhe s ee ks t o ha ve hai r , bl ood, s a l i v a , or (c o n ti n u e d ...) 9 DEL I VERE D: J ul y 17, 2008 4(
. . . con t i nue d) 4 som e ot herbi ol ogi cal m at er i al t est ed. C o n s equen t l y, w e m ustconcl ude t hat t h e r e is a le s s t h a n 5 0 % c h a n c e t h a t W illis ’s ju r y w o u ld n o th a v e c o n v ic t e d h im h a d i t b e e n a w a re o f p re s u m p ti v e l y fa v o ra b l e D N A te s t re s u l ts . S e eid
. a t*11. 10