# 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
. W R

- 7 3 , 4 8 4

- 0 2

E X P A R T E N E A L H A M P T O N R O B B I N S , 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 C A U S E N O
. 9 8

- 0 6

- 0 0 7 5 0

- C R ( 2 ) I N T H E 4 1 0 T H D I S T R I C T C O U R T

M O N T G O M E R Y C O U N T Y

J O H N S O N 

## , J
. , f

i l e d a c o n c u r r i n g o p i n i o n .
C O N C U R R I N G O P I N I O N

The various pos i tions on statutory interpre tation seem to ag ree that the leg islative history
indicates that the intent of this statute is to provide relief to those who wer e convicted on scienc e or scientific methodolog y

that is now known to be unsound. My first observa

tion is that “scie ntific method” and “scie ntific methodology ” are not the

same. “Scientific method” is the observa tion of some phenomenon in the world, the formulation of

a theory –a possible explanation of that phenomenon–a nd testing of that possible explanation to see
if the phenomenon is indeed explained by that theory

. For example, in the 18 centur y , inoculation t h



## ag ainst smallpox used the live smallpox virus itself, producing a high risk of contra cting the disease

## 2

and dy ing. Dr. Edwar d J enner , among others, observe d that milk maids who had suffe red throug h

cowpox, a rela tively mild disease, did not contra ct small pox

. His theory was that having had

cowpox protec ted one ag ainst smallpox

. He tested his theory by inoculating 24 subjects wit h pus
from the cowpox blisters on a local milkmaid and then exposi ng those persons to smallpox

. None
of hi s subjects developed s mallpox , thus verify ing his theory

. A qui rk of the s ci en t i fi c m et h o d is that, even after the t heory has been thoroug hly t es t ed and proven to be an acc urate explanation of
the observe d phenomenon, it is still ref err ed to as a theory , as in “the theory of g ravity ,” even though
the “theor y ” has be come univer sally acc epted a s fac t. “Scientific methodology ,” on the o t h er hand, is the m eans by which a theory is tested. I n
J enner ’s case s, the methodology was to scra pe pus from a human who had active cowpox and using
that pus to inoculate other humans, then exposi ng them to smallpox to confirm that the inoculation
with cowpox provided immunit y to smallpox

. I f the theory being tested is that blood is thicker than

water , the methodology is l i k el y t o involve measuring the viscosity of blood and water and

compar ing the results. Automobile manufa cture rs constantly test new theories abou t injury

preve ntion and mitigation with cra sh-test dummies.
The words of Article 11.073 state that it “applies to rele vant scientific evidenc e

. . . that was

not a vailable to be offe red

. . . at the convicted person’ s trial; or

. . . contra dicts scientific evidenc e
relied on by the state at trial.” Relief may be g rante d if “re levant scientific evidenc e is curr ently
available and was not available at t he ti me of

. . . trial beca use t he evidence was not asce rtainable throug h the exercise of rea sonable diligenc e by the convicted person befor e the date of or during the convicted pe rson’s trial.”
“Evidenc e” is what is prese nted at trial in support o f t h e l i t i g ants’ positions. “Scientific

## 3

evidenc e” is prese nted by scientists, and the content of that evidenc e depends on the knowledg e of
that particula

r witness about the scienc e at issue. “B ad scienc e” and “bad scientists” are insepara ble.

A scientist may not intend to prese nt bad scienc e, nor must that scientist be a bad scientist in ever y
situation. L inus Pauling won a Nobel Priz e in chemistry and would cer tainly be a g ood s ci enti fic
witness if he testified about his work in chemistry

. Howeve r, he would be a bad scientist prese nting
bad scie nce if

he we re c alled as a

witness to the unlimit ed powe rs of vitamin C.

Be cause evidenc e i s wh at i s prese nted at trial by a witness and is there fore limit ed by the

persona l knowledg e of that wi t n ess, logic ally the s tatute m ust be int ended to addre ss the personal knowledg e of scientific witnesses. P er s o nal knowledg e incre ases over time as one g ains new knowledg e and ref

ines one’s understand i ng of one’s older knowledg e. New law g radua tes may
know book law, but most have not y et lear ned how to integ rate book law wi t h trial tactics. And

some skills simply cannot be lear ned any wher e except in the cruc ible of prac tice in the rea l world.

New lawy ers are likely to lose trials that a more experience d lawy er would not, mere ly beca use they
have not y et develope d the interpre tive skills of that more experience d lawy er. Or they might choose

to tr y a case that a more experience d lawy er, afte r car eful consideration of the fac ts, w ould c hoose
to settle.
The same is true of phy sicians. Be cause of inexperience , a resident may miss a diag nosis that

a more experience d doctor would have made, mere ly beca use the older doctor had seen the g rouping
of appar ently unrela ted sy mptoms before or

was knowle dg eable about uncommon disease s or just
knew more about what questions to ask the patient. Some prac titioners, of law or medicine, may not keep up with the curr ent lite ra t u re. The result of inexperience or out-dated knowledg e may be testimony that may rig htfully be called bad scienc e, even if not intentionally so, and that testimony

## 4

may persua de a jur

y to convict when it should not.

T h i s is just such a case

. Testimony indicated that the child’s injuries could h av e b ee n
inflicted intentionally , but it also indicated that the injuries could have resulted from improper CPR ; 1



## how much of the g ener al public knows that CPR on infants is done with two fing ers and at 100 beats per minute? Only

Dr. Moore testified at trial that the cause of de ath was homicide . Ex perie nced 2



## p at h ologists testified that the cause of death could not be deter mined. At the time of the o ri gi n al trial, Dr. Moore had only 18 months of experience as an associate medical e x aminer a nd had bee n
cited for de fec tive and improper work. With eight more y ear s of experienc e, she testified that she

Q

. N o w , I 'l l g i v e y o u a n o t h e r s i t u a t i o n

. A n E

. M

. T

. c o m e s u p t o t h e l o c a t i o n w h e r e t h e a d u l t s a r e t r y i n g t o 1 d o C P R a n d t h e y a r e p u t t i n g a l o t o f p r e s s u r e o n t h a t k i d a n d b l o w i n g a l o t h a r d e r t h a n t h e y s h o u l d , a n d s h e s a y s , " I f
s h e 's n o t a l r e a d y d e a d , y o u 'r e g o i n g t o k i l l h e r ; s t o p t h a t , " a n d p r o c e e d e d t o s h o w t h e m t h e p r o p e r w a y
. W o u l d y o u s a y t h a t s o m e o f t h a t c o u l d h a v e l e d t o i n j u r i e s t o t h e c h i l d , a d u l t s p u t t i n g t h e i r f u l l w e i g h t d o w n a n d t r y i n g t o r e v i v e t h a t c h i l d ? A

. Y o u s h o u l d s e e i t m o r e a n t e r i o r l y t h a n p o s t e r i o r l y
. Q

. P a r d o n ? A

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

j u r i e s

. Q

. I f y o u 'v e g o t y o u r p a l m s o n t h e f r o n t a n d y o u 'v e g o t l i t t l e r o c k s a n d s t i c k s o n t h e b a c k , y o u 'l l s e e i t o n t h e b a c k , y o u 'l l s e e i t o n t h e b a c k , w o n 't y o u ?

A

. Y e s

. Y o u 'd s e e b r u i s e s o n t h e b a c k

. Q

. B u t y o u w o u l d n 't n e c e s s a r i l y s e e t h e m o n t h e f r o n t i f t h e y 'r e p u s h i n g w i t h t h e i r p a l m s , w o u l d y o u ? A

. N o

. Q

. A n d t h e y c o u l d b e m i s f i r i n g a n d h i t t i n g d o w n i n t h e a r e a o f t h e e l e v e n t h a n d t w e l f t h r i b s a n d c a u s e t h a t
s o r t o f d a m a g e w i t h o u t a n y n o t i c e a b l e t r a u m a f r o m l o o k i n g a t t h e s k i n , c o u l d n 't t h e y ? A

. I f t h e y 'r e p u s h i n g d o w n l o w e r , y e s

.
R o b b i n s v

. S t a t e , 8 8 S

. W

. 3 d 2 5 6 , 2 5 8 ( T e x
. C r i m

. A p p

. 2 0 0 2 )

.

“ G i v e 3 0 g e n t l e c h e s t c o m p r e s s i o n s a t t h e r a t e o f a t l e a s t 1 0 0 p e r m i n u t e

. U s e t w o o r t h r e e f i n g e r s i n t h e 2

c e n t e r o f t h e c h e s t j u s t b e l o w t h e n i p p l e s

. P r e s s d o w n a p p r o x i m a t e l y o n e - t h i r d t h e d e p t h o f t h e c h e s t ( a b o u t 1 a n d a h a l f i n c h e s )

. ” h t t p : / / d e p t s

. w a s h i n g t o n

. e d u / l e a r n c p r / i n d e x
. h t m l ( U n i v e r s i t y o f W a s h i n g t o n )

“ P l a c e 2 f

i n g e r s o n t h e b r e a s t b o n e

– j u s t b e l o w t h e n i p p l e s

. M a k e s u r e n o t t o p r e s s a t t h e v e r y e n d o f t h e b r e a s t b o n e

. K e e p y o u r o t h e r h a n d o n t h e i n f a n t 's f o r e h e a d , k e e p i n g t h e h e a d t i l t e d b a c k

. P r e s s d o w n o n t h e i n f a n t 's c h e s t s o t h a t i t c o m p r e s s e s a b o u t 1 / 3 t o 1 / 2 t h e d e p t h o f t h e c h e s t

. G i v e 3 0 c h e s t c o m p r e s s i o n s

. E a c h t i m e , l e t t h e c h e s t r i s e c o m p l e t e l y
. T h e s e c o m p r e s s i o n s s h o u l d b e F A S T a n d h a r d w i t h n o p a u s i n g

. C o u n t t h e 3 0 c o m p r e s s i o n s q u i c k l y :

‘ 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 1 0 , 1 1 , 1 2 , 1 3 , 1 4 , 1 5 , 1 6 , 1 7 , 1 8 , 1 9 , 2 0 , 2 1 , 2 2 , 2 3 , 2 4 , 2 5 , 2 6 , 2 7 , 2 8 , 2 9 , 3 0 , o f f

. ’ ” h t t p : / / w w w
. n l m

. n i h

. g o v / m e d l i n e p l u s / e n c y / a r t i c l e / 0 0 0 0 1 1

. h t m ( N a t i o n a l I n s t i t u t e s o f H e a l t h )

## 5

believed that the cause of the child’s death could not be deter mined. Th at “re levant scientific
evidenc e

. . . was not available at the time of the convic t ed p er s o n ’s trial,” and it “wa s not

asce rtainable throug h the exercise of rea sonable dilig ence by

the convicted person before the date
of or during the convicted person’ s trial;

. . ..” The only person who now cling s to a firm opinion

o f h o m i cide is Dr. Norton, who closed her prac tice, moved from her home, and declined to be deposed f or a ha beas he aring

. As has been noted, some examples of “contr adicted scientific evidenc e relied on by the state
at trial” inc lude ar son, infant trauma , bullet-lead analy sis, bite marks, som e ballis tics tests, bloodspatter patterns, and scent li ne-ups. Some such evidence has involved misint erpr etation based on
out-dated knowledg e, some are simply junk scienc e that has never b ee n subjected to any kind of
scientific investiga

tion. Whether “debunke d” or “re fined” fo r incre ased acc urac y , chang es in
scientific knowledg e in g ener al, and there fore chang es in scientific testimony by individuals, must
be acknow ledg ed and addre ssed. As J udg e Cochran noted in her disse n t i n appli cant’ s orig inal application for

habea s corpus,
When scientific experts honestly and sincere ly thought “X” was true at the time they testified, but the scienc e has chang ed or the experts’ understanding of the scienc e has chang ed and their opinions have chang ed, what cog nizance of that chang e should the criminal justice sy stem take long afte r a pe rson has be en convic ted? Ex parte Robbins , 360 S.W .3d 446, 469 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011)(Cochra n, J ., dissenting)

. The leg islature has made it clea r that advanc es in DNA technolog y may be the basis for reexamining convictions. Advanc es and chang es in other forms of scientific knowledg e, and thus in
scienti fic testimony from individuals, should also be available as bases for re- examination of
convictions.

## 6

I join the opinion of the Court.
Filed: Nove mber 26, 2014 Publis h