## 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
, 4 6 4

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 e l l 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

. 9 8

- 0 6

- 0 0 7 5 0

- C R F R O M T H E

4 1 0 T H J U D I C I A L D I S T R I C T C O U R T O F M O N T G O M E R Y C O U N T Y

A L C A L A , J

. , f

i l e d a d i s s e n t i n g o p i n i o n

.

O P I N I O N

I res pe ct fu ll y di ss en t. I co nc lu de th at Neal Ham pt on Ro bb in s i s en ti tl ed to

rel ie f on hi s ap pl ic at io n fo r a writ of ha be as co rp us on th e gr ou nd th at he was de ni ed

du e p ro ces s o f la w by th e St at e’s us e o f fal se tes ti m on y to ob ta in hi s co nv ic ti on

. 1

Although I ag ree wi t h m an y o f the assessments in the Honora ble J udg e Cochran’ s dissenting 1 opinion, I do not join that opini on beca use the chang e in Dr. Moore’s t estimony is not due to new
scientific principles but is instead, acc ording to her, due to her having more experience as a medical examiner, and accor ding to t h e t ri al court’s finding s, due to her trial testimony being the result of

prosec utorial bias. None of the medical examiners who tes t i fi ed fo r t he application for writ of
habea s corpus descri b e t heir testimony as stemming from new scientific principles. Compare Ex
parte Hende rson , 246 S.W .3d 690, 691 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (“T h at materia l [affidavits and

repor ts of sever al scient ists] indicates that what is called the biomedical analy sis of infant head

trauma (an are a of scientific rese arc h that was beg inning to develop in 1995 when applicant was triedRobbins-2

I. Fal se Tes timony

The Due Pro ces s C l a u s e of th e Fo ur te en th Am en dm en t is vi ol at ed whe n th e

St at e kn owi ng ly or un kn owi ng ly us es pe rjure d te st im on y to ob ta in a co nv ic ti on

. Ex

pa rt e Ch ab ot

, 30 0 S.W .3d 76 8, 77 0- 71 (Tex

. Cri m

. App

. 20 09 ); Ex pa rt e Na pp er ,

32 2 S.W .3d 20 2, 24 2 (Tex

. Cri m

. App

. 20 10 ) (“ Ch ab ot si m pl y st an ds fo r th e

pr op os it io n th at th e pr ep on de ran ce of th e ev id en ce st an da rd is ap pr op ri a t e f o r th e

un kn owi ng us e of pe rjure d te st im o n y th at th e ha be as ap pl ic an t ha d no pr io r

op po rtu ni ty to di sc ov er.”)

. The te rm “ pe rjury” in th is co nt ex t req ui res pr oo f th at th e

te st im on y “ gi ve s th e tri er of fact a fal se im pr es si on ,” bu t it do es no t req ui re pr oo f of

th e el em en ts of “ pe r

ju r y” a s t h a t te rm is de fin ed in th e pe na l co de

. Se e Ex pa rt e

Gha hr ema ni

, 33 2 S.W .3d 47 0, 47 7- 78 (Tex

. Cri m

. App

. 20 11 ); se e al so Na pp er , 32 2

S.W .3d at 24 2 (ci ti ng Est ra da v. St at e , 31 3 S.W .3d 27 4, 28 7 (Tex

. Cri m

. App

. 20 10 )

(“ [W] e he ld on di rect ap pe al th at fal se te st im on y th at was no t pe rjury res ul te d in a du e

pr oc es s vi ol at io n whe n th ere was ‘a fai r pr ob ab il i t y th at [th e] de at h se nt en ce was

ba se d u po n . . . in co rrec t t es ti m on y .’ ”).

an d convicted) now shows that the ty pe of head injuries that Br andon Ba ug h suffe red could h av e been cause d by an acc idental short fall onto concr ete.” ). The testimony Dr. Moore g ave at the writ
hear ing conce rning her uncer tainty about cause and manner of death is very simil ar to the testimony

g iven by Dr. Robert Bux, the medical examiner testify ing for Robbins at the trial, and her chang ed testimony is not due to advanc es in scienc e.Robbins-3

The t r i a l c o ur t fo un d th at Dr. Mo or e’s tri al te st im on y was fal se

. The tri al

co ur t’s fin di ng s st at e th at “ Dr. Mo or e’s tri al op in io ns were no t tru e. The y were ba se d

on fal se pr et en se s of co m

pe te nc e, ob

jecti vi ty, an d un de rlyin g pa th ol og ic al reas on in g,

an d were no t gi ve n in go od fai th .” The tri al co ur t ch a r a c t e r i z e d he r te st im on y as

“ ex pe rt fic ti on cal cu la te d to at ta in a cri m in al co nv ic ti on .” The reco rd s u p p o r t s t he

tri al co ur t’s ch arac te riz at io n c on cern in g t he fal se ne ss of t he tes ti m on y

.

The reco rd sh ows th at

, a s t he so le wit ne ss es ta bl is hi ng cau se an d m an ne r of

de at h fo r th e St at e at Ro bb in s’s tri al

, Dr. Mo or e te st ifi ed th at

, ba se d on he r sc ie nt ifi c

op in io n be y on d a reas on ab le do ub t, th e cau se of Tris te n Ri ve t’s de at h was as ph y xi a

du e to co m

pr es si on of th e ch es t an d ab do m en , an d th e m an ne r of de at h was ho m ic id e.

In he r ev id en ce co nc ern in g t h i s a p p l i c at io n fo r a writ of ha be as co rp us , sh e no w

co nc lu de s t ha t t he cau se of d eat h was, bey on d a reas on ab le do ub t, no t co m pr es si on

as ph y xi a, an d u nd et erm in ab le as t o h om ic id e, as ph y xi al or o th erwi se

. Dr. Mo or e’s

su bs eq ue nt te st im ony is a co m pl et e refu ta ti on of he r tri al te st im on y be cau se , al th ou gh

he r tri al te st im on y st at ed th at

, b e yo n d a r e a so na bl e do ub t, th e cau se of de at h was

co m pr es si on as ph y xi a an d th e m an ne r of de at h was ho m ic id e, sh e no w sa y s th at th e

cau se an d m an ne r of de at h are, be y on d a reas on ab le do ub t, “ un de te rm in ab le .” Bo th

po si ti on s can no t be tru e. Th i s w h ol es al e refu ta ti on of he r pr ev io us ly pr of es se d

sc ie nt ifi c cer ta in ty nul li fie s t he ve raci ty of th e co nc lu si on it se lf.Robbins-4

I reco gn iz e th at

, as no te d by th e m ajor it y op in io n, th e reco rd sh ows th at ne it he r

Dr. Mo or e no r an y of th e ot he r te st ifyin g ex pe rts can “ ex cl ud e” as ph y xi al ho m ic id e

as a po ss ib le cau se of de at h or “ ru l[e ] ou t ot he r reas on ab le hypo th es es by whi ch

Tr is te n di ed .” In ot he r wor ds

, be cau se Dr. Mo or e pr es en tl y ack no wled ge s th at th e

cau se of Tris te n’s de at h co ul d po s s i b l y h av e be en ho m ic id e an d po ss ib ly by

as ph y xi at io n, th e m ajor it y op in io n de te rm in es th at he r ne w te st im on y do es no t sh ow

th at he r ear l i e r t e s t i m on y is fal se

. Bu t Dr. Mo or e is m erel y ack no wled gi ng th e

po ss ib il it y th at th is cau se an d m an ne r of de at h co ul d be tru e be cau se he r op in io n is

,

be y on d a reas on ab le do ub t, t ha t s he do es no t k no w th e cau se an d m an ne r of de at h.

The fact th at a wit ne ss ack no wled ge s a m ere po ss ib il it y of an al te rn at iv e hypo th es is

is no t a f ai ls afe e sc ap e fo r du e p ro ces s v io la ti on s.

The Su pr em e Co ur t ha s di sa ll owe d th is te ch ni cal sp li ci ng of th e tru th to av oi d

du e p r oc es s vi ol at io ns

. In ev al ua ti ng whe th er ev id en ce is fal se , it ha s fo cu se d on

whe th er th e te st im on y , ta ke n as a w h o l e , gi ve s th e jury a fal se im pr es si on

. Se e

Alco rt a v. Texa s , 35 5 U.S. 28

, 31 (1 95 7) (h ol di ng Alco rta ’s d u e p r o ces s rig ht s

vi ol at ed whe n th e St at e, al th ou gh no t so li ci ti ng f a l s e e v id en ce, al lo wed it to go

un co rrec te d whe n it ap pe ared

, an d st at in g, “ It can no t se rio us ly be di sp ut ed th at [th e

wit ne ss ’s] te st im on y , ta ke n as a who le

, ga ve t h e ju r y th e fal se im pr es si on th at hi s

rel at io ns hi p wit h pe ti ti on er’s wife was no th in g m or e tha n tha t of casu al fri en ds hi p.” ).Robbins-5

Fu rth erm or e, th e Su pr em e Co ur t ha s de te rm in ed th at a st at em en t is fal se ev en

whe n th e wit ne ss ha s ack no wled ge d th e ex is te nc e of a si m il ar si tu at io n. Se e Na pu e

v. Ill in oi s , 36 0 U.S. 26 4, 2 7 0 (1 95 9) (h ol di ng Nap ue ’s du e pr oc es s rig ht s vi ol at ed

be cau se wi t n es s’s te st im on y th at pu bl ic de fen de r ha d of fere d to he lp hi m if he

te st ifi ed fo r th e St at e di d no t tu rn “ wha t was ot he rwis e a ta in te d tri al in to a fai r on e”

whe n tru e ev id en ce sh owe d th at pr os ecu to r ha d pr om is ed “ co ns id erat io n” if wit ne ss

te st ifi ed at N a p u e ’s tri al ). The se Su pr em e Co ur t de ci si on s il lu st rat e th at a du e

pr oc es s vi ol at io n can no t be ex cu se d by th e m ere ack no wled gm en t th at it is po ss ib le

th at th e tri al te st im on y co ul d ha ve be en tru e. Dr. Mo or e’s ne w te st im on y , whe n ta ke n

a s a who le

, is th at

, be y on d a reas on ab le do ub t, th e m an ne r an d cau se of de a t h i s

un de te rm in ab le

, an d it is th at te st im on y th at was im pr op erl y pr ecl ud ed fro m

Ro bb in s’s t ria l. 2

Perh ap s Dr. Mo or e’s te st im on y co ul d no t be cal le d “ fal se ” if, fo r ex am pl e, sh e

co ns is te nt ly de te rm in ed

, be y on d a reas on ab le do ub t

, t h a t t h e m an ne r an d cau se of

E x p a r t e Chavez

, a case on which the majority opinion relies, does not support the majority ’s 2 position. No. AP-76,291, 2010 Tex. Crim. App. Unpub. L EXI S 6 8 6 (T ex

. Crim. App. Nov. 17, 2010) (not desig nated fo r p u b l i ca t i o n). I n the trial in Chavez

, the State’s expert testified that she
could not identify the rec overe d hair as belong ing to Chavez and confirme d that it was “quite possible that folks of the same rac e would share char acte ristics on their [hair] samples.” Id

. at *12-
13. L ater

, DNA results confirme d that the hair did not belong to the defe ndant. Id

. at *14. The DNA
evidenc e mere ly diminis hed the probative value of the hair compar ison testimony at trial. I t did not disprove the expert’s testimony that the hairs share d phy sical char acte ristics. Id

. at *20. Taking the
hair expert’s testimony as a whole, the DNA evidenc e did not show it was untrue, and, there fore

, Chavez ’s holding is unpersua sive in this context, i n wh i ch the same witness is g iving two

contra dictory

scientific opinions conc erning the exact same subjec t.Robbins-6

de at h co ul d be es ta bl is he d wit h sc ie nt ifi c cert ai nt y an d th at th e m an ne r of de at h was

ho m ic id e, bu t was un cert ai n whe th er th e cau se of de at h was as ph y xi a by so m e m ean s

ot he r th an co m

pr es si on

. Se e Berg er v. Uni te d St at es , 29 5 U.S. 78 , 82 (19 35 ) (“ The

tru e in qu iry, th eref

or e, is no t whe th er th ere ha s be en a va ria nc e in pr oo f, bu t whe th er

th ere ha s be en su ch a va ria nc e as to ‘affect th e su bs ta nt ia l rig ht s’ of th e accu se d.” ).

Bu t Dr. Mo or e’s ch an ge d te st im on y is no t m erel y a va ria nc e in p ro of

. Her pr es en t

po si ti on ack no wled ge s th at th e cau se an d m an ne r of de at h co ul d po ss ib ly be na tu ral

ca u s e s or ho m ic id e an d th at bo th are eq ua ll y li ke ly. An ack no wled gm en t th at tri al

te st im on y co ul d po ss ib ly be co rrec t be cau se no on e can de te rm in e th e cau se an d

m an ne r of de at h wit h sc ie nt ifi c cert ai nt y is v a s t l y d i ffer en t fro m ev id en ce th at th e

cau se an d m an ne r of de at h are pr ov en be y on d a reas on ab le d o u b t wit h sc ie nt ifi c

cert ai nt y . I, th eref

or e, ag ree wit h th e tri al co ur t’s as se ss m en t t ha t t he reco rd sh ows

th at Dr. Mo or e’s te st im on y was fa ls e.

II . Harm Anal ys is

Hav in g de te rm in ed th at Dr. Mo or e’s fal se te st im on y co ns ti tu te d “ pe rjury” i n

th e co nt ex t of th is du e pr oc es s an al y si s, I co nc lu de

, as di d th e tri al co ur t, th at Ro bb in s

h a s s ho wn by a pr ep on de ran ce of th e ev id en ce th at th e us e of th is fal se ev i d e n c e

co nt rib ut ed to hi s co nv ic ti on

. It is un di sp ut e d t h a t Ro bb in s ha d no op po rtu ni ty to

di sc ov er Dr. Mo or e’s bi as an d im pr op er in te nt io ns pr io r to he r reca nt at io n, an d,Robbins-7

th eref or e, res ol ut io n o f th is cas e res ts on whet he r he m et hi s b ur de n t o sh ow h arm

.

Reg ard le ss whe th er t h e S ta te ’s us e of th e pe rjury was kn owi ng or un kn owi ng , th e 3

st an da rd of ha rm req ui res th at th e ap pl ic an t pr ov e by a pr ep on de ran ce of th e ev id en ce

th at th e erro r co nt rib ut ed to hi s co nv ic ti on or pu ni sh m en t. Se e Ex pa rt e Fier ro , 93 4

S.W .2d 3 7 0

, 37 4- 75 (Tex

. Cri m

. App

. 19 96 ) (“ [W] e ho ld th at th e kn owi ng us e of

pe rjure d te st im on y is tri al erro r, su bjec t to th e ha rm le ss erro r st an da rd ap pl ic ab le on

ha be as co rp us ,” an d “ we ho ld th at th e ap pl ic an t ha s th e b u r d e n t o pr ov e by a

pr ep on de ran ce of th e ev id en ce th at th e erro r co nt rib ut ed t o h i s c o nv ic ti on or

pu ni sh m en t.”) ; Ch ab ot

, 3 0 0 S.W .3d at 77 1 (“ Alt ho ug h th e pr es en t cas e in vo lv es

un kn owi ng , rat he r th an kn owi ng , us e o f te st im on y , we see no reas on fo r su bjec ti ng

th e two types of e rro r to di ffer en t s ta nd ard s o f ha rm .”); Na pp er , 32 2 S.W .3d at 24 4

I nconsistently with this harm require ment, our court has absolved an applicant from having to 3

prove harm, as follows: “When a habea s applicant has shown that the State knowing ly used false,
materia l testimony

, and the applicant was unable to raise this claim at the trial or on appea l, we will

g rant relief from the j udg ment that was obtained by that use.” E x p a rte Ghahremani

, 332 S.W .3d 470, 483 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011); see also Ex parte Carmona

, 185 S

. W

. 3 d 492, 496 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (due p ro ce s s v iolated and habea s relief g rante d wher e witnesses’ materia l testimony

rec anted “or t heir bias a

nd lies . .

. exposed.”). “[W ]e trea t perjure d testimony as knowingly used
i f t h e witness was a member of the ‘prose cution team.’” Ex parte Napper

, 322 S.W .3d 202

, 2 4 3 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010). Knowledg e possessed by a mem b er of the “prose cution team” must be imputed to the prosec utor actua lly try ing the case

. Ex parte Castellano

, 863 S.W .2d 476, 485 (Tex.
Crim. App. 1993); Ex parte Brandley

, 781 S.W .2d 886, 892 n.7 (Tex. Crim. App. 1989). Every one here ag ree s that the State’s prosec utors did not, themselves, knowing l y s p onsor false testimony

. Some evidenc e sug g ests that Dr. Moore was a member of the “prose cution team” in that she was the
assistant medical examiner employ ed by the county and the State’s sole witness to establish criminal

cause and manner of death. Be cause Robbi n s i s ab l e to show harm by a preponde ranc e of the
evidenc e, I need not deter mine whether Dr. Moore was a member of the “prose cution team” and do
not addre ss whether

Robbins shoul d be absolve d of the burde n to prove ha rm.Robbins-8

(“ Fo r ha be as co rp us pr oc eed in gs in vo lv in g th e un kn owi ng us e of pe rjure d te st im on y ,

th e h arm st an da rd wou ld be pre po nd eran ce o f th e ev id en ce”)

.

The reco rd su pp or ts th e tri al co ur t’s fin di ng s th at Dr. Mo or e’s te st im on y was

“ cri ti cal ” to res ol ut io n of th e cas e an d th at “ he r op in io ns were th e so le ba se s of th e

St at e’s cas e as to cau se an d m an ne r of de at h, wit ho ut whi ch th e St at e wou ld no t ha ve

ob ta in ed a co nv ic ti on .” W e m us t de fer to th es e fin di ng s, as th ey are am pl y su pp or te d

by th e reco rd

. Se e Gha hr ema ni

, 33 2 S.W .3d at 47 8 (req ui rin g de fere nc e to fin di ng s

su pp or te d by reco rd ). Alo ne , Dr. Mo or e co nd uc te d th e au to ps y of Tris te n’s bo dy an d

was th us th e so le te st ifyin g wit ne ss wit h pe rs on al kn owl ed ge of th e m ed ic al fin di ng s.

And he r tri al te st im on y al on e pr of es se s th at th e cau se of Tris te n’s de at h was , be y on d

a reas on ab le do ub t, ho m ic id e (as ph y xi al or o th erwi se ). Abs en t t hi s t ria l tes ti m on y ,

th ere is no ev id en ce of th e cau se of de at h— th at is

, no ev i d e n c e th at a cri m e

oc cu rred —b ecau se R ob bi ns ’s de fen se ex pe rt m ed ic al ex am in er, Dr. Ro be rt Bu x,

te st if i e d t ha t Tris te n’s de at h co ul d ha ve be en fro m na tu ral cau se s. Dr. Mo or e no w

ag rees wit h Dr. Bu x’s m ed ic al as se ss m en t. W it ho ut Dr. Mo or e’s tri al te st im on y , th e

jury wou ld ha ve be en le ft so le ly wit h th e ev id en ce fro m Dr. Bu x, who st at ed th at th e

cau se an d m an ne r of

Tris te n’s d eat h a re u nd et erm in ab le

.

Mer e co ns id erat io n of whe th er th e jury wou ld ha ve co nv ic te d ba se d so le ly on

th e rem ai n i n g c i rcu m st an ti al ev id en ce ab se nt Dr. Mo or e’s te st im on y do es no tRobbins-9

su ffi ci en tl y m eas ur e he r te st im on y ’s m at eri al it y

. Se e Uni te d St at es v. Jo hn so n, 14 9

F.2 d 31 (7 th Ci r. 19 45 ) (“ ‘T he re is no way fo r a co ur t to de te rm in e th at th e pe rjure d

te st im on y di d no t ha ve co nt ro ll in g weig ht wit h th e ju r y, a n d, no twi th st an di ng th e

p e r ju red te st im on y was co nt rad ic te d at th e tri al

, a ne w li gh t is th ro wn on it by t h e

ad m is s i o n t h at it was fal se ; so th at

, on a ne w tri al

, th ere wou ld be a st ro ng

ci rcu m st an ce in fav or of th e lo si ng pa rty th at di d no t ex is t an d th eref or e co ul d no t

ha ve be en sh own , at th e ti m e of th e or ig in al tri al .’ ”) (q uo ti ng Mar ti n v. Uni te d St at es ,

17 F.2 d 97 3, 97 6 (5 th Ci r. 19 27 )). Fi rs t, Dr. Mo or e’s su bs eq ue nt te st im on y act ua ll y

co rro bo rat ed de fen se wit ne ss Bu x’s te st im on y th a t t h e c a us e of de at h was

un de te rm in a b l e

. S e e Alco rt a , 3 55 U.S. a t 31 -3 2 (in rev ers in g jud gm en t, st at in g, “ If

Cas ti ll eja’s rel at io ns hi p wit h pe ti ti on er’s wife ha d be en tru th fu ll y po rtr ay ed to th e

jury, i t w ou ld ha ve , ap art fro m im pe ach in g hi s cred ib il it y , te nd ed to co rro bo rat e

pe ti ti on er’s co nt en ti on th at he ha d fo un d h is wife em br aci ng Cas ti ll eja.”). Seco nd

,

he r te st im on y th at was in tro du ced at tri al affi rm at iv el y m is le d juro r s t o reac h a

da m ni ng co nc lu si on on th e m os t cru ci al is su e th at

, bu t fo r th at te st im on y , th ey li ke ly

wou ld no t ha ve reac he d. Se e id

. at 32 (d et erm in in g th at ap pl ic an t’s du e pr oc es s rig ht s

were vi ola te d by m is le ad in g te st im on y de nyin g se xu al rel at io ns hi p be twee n de ceas ed

an d wit ne ss th at was pe rti ne nt to pr oo f of su dd en pa ss io n ari si ng fro m an ad eq ua teRobbins-10

cau se ). Dr. Mo or e’s tri al te st im on y th us pr ev en te d “ a tri al th at co ul d in an y real se ns e

be ter m ed fai r.” Se e Na

pu e , 36 0 U.S. at 27 0. 4

II I. Conc lu si on

I co nc lu de th at Ro bb in s’s du e pr oc es s rig ht s were vi ol at ed by th e fal se ,

m a t e r i a l t ria l te st im on y by th e St at e’s so le m ed ic al ex pe rt es ta bl is hi ng cau se an d

m an ne r of de at h. In acco rd an ce wit h th e reco m m en da ti on by th e co nv ic ti ng co ur t to

gr an t re li ef fro m

th e jud gm en t, I wo ul d re m an d fo r a n ew tr ia l.

Fi le d: Ju ne 29 , 20 11

Pu bl is h

Dr. Moore acknow ledg es that she had been cited for improper work and evalua ted as being biased 4
in favor of the prosec ution. Her supervisor, Dr. J oy e Carter

, had questioned her impart i al i t y and

sug g ested that she had not succe ssfully transitione d in to th e n e u tr a l p o s it io n of a fore nsic patholog ist.

Fur thermore

, Dr. Moore had p ro v i d ed simil ar rec antations in other case s as well. This evidenc e

seems to support the trial court’s finding s that the false trial testimony by Dr. Moore was not g iven
in g ood faith. Howeve r, I need not rea ch the issue of whether Dr. Moore acte d in bad faith, beca use Robbins has met the burden of proof to show by a preponde ranc e of the evidenc e that he was harme d by Dr. Moore ’s fa lse testimony

. See Nappe r , 322 S.W .3d at 243-44.