May 11, 2018 - DNA ISSUE

DNA ISSUE

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS JOINT MOTION MAY 11, 2018

rransmitted 5/1$ïfLiTrHi;

Accepted511112018 1:40Pl\ DEANAWILI-IAI\4SOT CLER},

frlo.AP-77,046

IN THE

FILED COURTOF CRIMINAL APPEALS

HENRY WATKINS SKINI{ER, Appelle,nt, v.

THE STATB OF TEXAS On Appeal from the 31st Judicial District Court, Gray County, Texas

JOINT MOTION TO SCHEDULE FILING OF SUPPLEMENAL BRIEFS

I.

Background Appellant \Masconvicted of capital murder and sentencedto death

in 1995;this Court affirmed his conviction in 1997. Seegenerally Skinner u. State, 956 S.W.2d 532 (Tex. Crim. App. L997). The present proceeding concernswhether, had DNA test results obtained pursuant to Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ch. 64 been available at the time of Appellant's trial, it is reasonably probable that he would not have been convicted. See Tex. CodeCrim. Proc.art. 64.04;seealso Skinrueru. State,No. AP- 77,04G,20IG WL 899097,at *1 (Tex. Crim. App. Mar. 9,2016). Before decidittgthat question, this Court determined that further fact-finding and analysis by the trial court were in order. Id. at *8. Accordingly, the Court abated

Ç

the appeal and remanded the case pending reanalysis of the DhIA test results, with instructions to the trial court to make any additional necessaryfindings. Id. In June 2016and May 2AL7,the TexasDepartment of Public Safety laboratory issuedreports completingthe reanalysis. On January 9, 2018, the trial court heard evidence. At the conclusion of the testimoily, the trial court ordered that the parties file proposed fi.ndings within thirty days of being provided with the Reporter's Record of the hearing testimony. The parties thereafter submitted proposedfĂŽndings on April 2.

On May 3, the trial court entered findings. The record has been returned to this Court for the reinstatement of Appellant's appeal and such further prCIceedings as the Court may direct. fI.

Supplemental briefing will assist the Court in resolving this appeal, and setting a schedule for the filing of supplemental briefs will facilitate the orderly disposition of the case.

The issue before the Court is straightforward: whether it is

reasonably probable that, had the results of post-convicrionDNA testing been available at the time of trial, Appellant would not have been convicted. But resolving that question is a fact-intensive process that will require the Court to assessthe evidenceand arguments presented at

Ç

trial in tight of the results obtained from multiple rounds of postconviction DI{A analysis. All the briefing previously filed by the parties predatesthe Court's March 2016 decisionremanding the caseto the trial court for further frndings. As a result, neither party has yet briefed for the Court the significance of the testimony at the January 2018 hearing or the arguably changed evidentiary picture created by the trial court's May 2018 findings. Supplemental briefing is necessary for the parties to provide the Court their respectiveviews on those issues.

Setting a schedulefor the filing of supplemental briefs will facititate the orderly disposition of the case. To that end, the parties respectfully suggestthat the Court direct Appellant to file any supplemental brief no Iater than June 20, and the State to file its responseno later than Juty 20.

PRAYER The parties jointly request that the Court permit the filing of supplementalbriefs, and ask that the Court set Jun e 20,20L8,as the due date for Appellant's supplementalbrief and July 2A,2018,as the due date for the State's response.

Respectfully submitted, FRAI{KLIN MCDOhIOUGH