SAID CAUSE NUMBER .£~1~'
SPECIFICALLY ON PAGES 2.011,2.015, and 2.017, SHOWS THAT ON
,:!!!!!~!!.!2.z.l2..2,!!_, ALTHOUGH THERE WERE NO SUSPECTS, DNA WAS DETECTED. DURING THE VICTIM'S MEDICAL EXAMINATION, RECEIVED JRO~ CENTRALIZED I
EVInENCE, AND RETAINED AT THE LABORATORY FOR FURTHER ANALYSIS, (SEE ATTACHMENT "A';), WHICH CONFIRMS THAT BIOLOGICAL MATERIAL SECURED BY
OFFICIALS EXISTED AND COULD BE SUBJECTED TO DNA TESTING. HOWEVER,
DURING THE PETITIONER'S TRIAL WHICH WAS APPROX. A YEAR AND A HALF LATER, ~NA WAS NOT ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE~ CONVICTING THE PETITIONER WAS ' SECURED BY STATEMENTS, AND .!.Q! BY DNA OR ANY KIND OF BIOLOGICAL
MATERIAL.
~· .: ... .-2- I,~~~Q~_I~_!~QUE~_!l£~196, RESPECTFULLY REQUEST THAT THIS HONORABLE ' COURT TAKES JUDICIAL NOTICE PURSUANT TO TEXAS RULES OF EVIDENCE, RULE
(20l(d)), OF ALL THE FOLLOWING ISS~ES AND EVIDENCE PRESENTED IN THIS
MOTION,
ISSUE PRESENTED -------------- I. THROUGH RECENT ACQUIRE OF THE INVESTIGATING/ARRESTING RECORD IN
---- REFERENCE TO CAUSE No.2 6·18 S, A GOVERNMENTAL RECORD, STATING THAT . ,DNA '::-;·
WAS DETECTED ON .:!!;~.!!!!.Y.2.L.l22.~ AND THE PETITIONER BEING ARRESTED ON
~!RCli_l.L.l.2.2~• HAS REASONABLY PROVOKED THE FILING OF THIS MOTION.
INITIALLY THERE .WERE NO SUSPECTS IN THIS CASE. ACCORDING TO THE
INVESTIGATING/ A~RESTING RECORD, THE PETITIONER liHO WAS A JUVENILE. AT
TljE· TIME, WAS CLASSIFIED AS ONLY A W.ITNESS. THE OFFENSE OCCURRED ON
Q!£EMJ!!!_£!i.L.l.2.21 AND SIX (6) DAYS LATER, .:!!!!!!!.n_l.t.l2.2~• THE RECORD
SHOWS THAT DNA WAS DETECTED. THR~UGH-OUT MONTHS OF VIOLATING iHE ,. . JUV~NILE'S DUE PROCESS RIGHTS UNDER THE 14th AMENDMENT OF THE UNITED
STATES c·ONSTITUTION, QUESTIONING/INTERROGATING. THE CHILD WITHOUT THE
INFORMANCE, CONSENT, OR NOTIFICATION OF THE CHILD'S PARENT(s),
COMMITTING PLAIN ERRORS THAT WERE PREJUDICIAL, AND VIOLA1ING FAMILY/
PARENTAL NOTIFICATION CODES AND REQUIREMENTS,~ !!.Q!!L!!!~_J!!~!!L!H!.J!!~·
THE PETITIONER'S "ARREST" HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH DNA OR ANY KIND
OF PHYSICAL EVIDENCE. THE "ARREST" WAS BASED ON THE VIOLATIONS· AND·
ERRORS.~ENTIONED ABOVE, NOT FROM CONFIRMATION OF. DNA. THE PETITIONER'S
CONVICTION WAS FOUNDATED, BUILT·ON AND SECURED BY AN ILLEGAL TAKEN
STATEMENT~ VIOLATING VERNON'S ANN. TEXAS CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDUlE
II. WITH THE INVESTIGATING RECORD SHOWING THAT DNA WAS DETECTED o• .:!!!!l!!.!_1.z.l2.2.~• PETITIONER'S TRIAL DID NOT OCCUR UNTIL AROUND
.:!!!1!_£Q.L.l2.2.1· THERE WAS NO DNA ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE AT TRIAL
CONFIRMING THE J:>ETITIONER AS THE PERPETRATOR. DUE TO THE ILLEGAL TAKEN
STATE~ENT/CONFBSSION BEING AQHITTED INTO EVIDENCE ALONG WITH THE
:~, ..
JUDICIAL CONFESSION UPON THE PETITIONER TAKING THE STAND DURING THE PUNISHMENT PHASE OF TRIAL, THE BELIEF IS TO BE FALSE OF DNA CONFIRMING THE PETITIONER AS THE PERPETRATOR, AND WHICH IS ALSO REASONABLE FOR
FILING THIS MOTION, (~!:!!I!!_:_:Y...:._E!TAT!_l£..?._§_.:.!!.:.2.£_1~l._ll!.:.AP_!:.:.£.Q..Q.1)• THE PETITIONER PLEADED NOT GUILTY. IF THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN DNA CONFIRMING THE PETITIONER AS THE PERPETRATOR, THE PETITIONER WOULD NOT HAVE PLEADED NOT GUILTY. III. DUE TO THE ILLEGAL TAKEN STATEMENT BEING ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE, THE PETITIONER FELT THE NEED TO TESTIFY, ATTEMPTING TO OVER-COME THE IMPACT THE ILLEGAL TAKEN STATEMENT HAD ON THE JURY. ONCE THE PETITIONER TOOK THE STAND [HIS DECISION TO TESTIFY WAS NOT "VOLUNTARY",
S EE : ( 1!!.!!~!-Y..:._ ST~!!_.2_!!2..-~.:.~.:.££ , .!! _?_.£l and at .?.ll] ] , HI M TAKI NG THE STAND