WR-63,871-03
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
AUSTIN, TEXAS
Transmitted 10/26/2015 2:45:55 PM
Accepted 10/26/2015 3:06:42 PM
NO. C-2-010289-0764908-B ABEL ACOSTA
CLERK
EX PARTE § IN THE CRIMINAL DISTRICT
RECEIVED
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
§ 10/26/2015
§ COURT NO. 2 OF
ABEL ACOSTA, CLERK
§
TIMOTHY RANDAL THOMPSON § TARRANT COUNTY, TEXAS
STATE'S RESPONSE TO APPLICANT’S REPLY TO STATE’S RESPONSE TO
APPLICANT’S SUPPLEMENTAL HABEAS CORPUS CLAIM
COMES NOW, the State of Texas, by and through the Criminal District
Attorney of Tarrant County, Texas, and files this response to the applicant’s
reply to its response to his supplemental claim for habeas corpus relief.
I.
On September 24, 2015, the applicant filed a supplemental application
for writ of habeas corpus alleging that his due process rights were violated
because the crime scene investigator (Mr. Mark Ball) presented false
testimony regarding whether he found bullet or bullet holes while searching
the appellant’s living room floor. See Ex parte Thompson, No.
C-2-010289-0764908-B (supplemental application).
On October 15, 2015, the State filed its response explaining why Mr. Ball
did not present false testimony and, alternatively, why any falsity in his
testimony was not material to the applicant’s conviction and punishment.
See Ex parte Thompson, No. C-2-010289-0764908-B (state’s response to
applicant’s supplemental habeas corpus claim).
II
On October 20, 2015, the applicant filed a reply which essentially
accuses counsel of prosecutorial misconduct for defending Mr. Ball’s
investigation and testimony; specifically, stating that:
To act as if the experienced crime scene investigator was merely
negligent or sloppy in conducting his investigation rather than
recognizing he lied about the investigation elevates the desire to uphold
a conviction over the prosecutor’s duty to seek justice.
See Ex parte Thompson, No. C-2-010289-0764908-B (reply to state’s
response to applicant’s supplemental habeas corpus claim, page 2). This
statement, however, mischaracterizes Mr. Ball as an experienced crime scene
investigator when the record shows that he had been a crime scene
investigator for less than one month when he investigated this murder scene.
See Trial Reporter’s Record. IV:141, 143.1
1 Mr. Ball became a crime scene investigator on March 12, 2000. See Trial
Reporter’s Record IV:141. Mr. Ball investigated this murder scene on
March 31, 2000. See Trial Reporter’s Record IV:143.
2
III.
The applicant further claims that Mr. Ball hid the bullets and bullet
holes. See Ex parte Thompson, No. C-2-010289-0764908-B (reply to state’s
response to applicant’s supplemental habeas corpus claim, page 3). There is
nothing in the record to suggest that Mr. Ball intentionally concealed any
evidence given that he readily admitted that he could have missed bullets or
bullet holes while searching the floors. See Trial Reporter’s Record IV:187.
IV.
The applicant’s due process rights were not violated by Mr. Ball’s
testimony regarding his crime scene search for bullets and bullet holes. Mr.
Ball did not falsely testify before the jury regarding his crime scene
investigation. Alternatively, there is no reasonable likelihood that any
falsity in Mr. Ball’s testimony affected the applicant’s conviction or sentencing.
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, the State prays the Court find
that the applicant’s supplemental due process ground for habeas corpus relief
should be denied.
3
Respectfully submitted,
SHAREN WILSON
Criminal District Attorney
Tarrant County, Texas
DEBRA WINDSOR, Chief
Post-Conviction Unit
/s/ Steven W. Conder
STEVEN W. CONDER, Assistant
Criminal District Attorney
401 W. Belknap
Fort Worth, Texas 76196-0201
(817) 884-1687
FAX (817) 884-1672
State Bar No. 04656510
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
A true copy of the above response has been mailed and electronically
transmitted to the applicant’s counsel, the Hon. Robert Udashen
(rnu@sualaw.com), 2311 Cedar Springs Road, Suite 250, Dallas, Texas 75201,
on this, the 26th day of October, 2015.
/s/ Steven W. Conder
STEVEN W. CONDER
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
This document complies with the typeface requirements of Tex. R. App.
P. 73.1(e) because it has been prepared in a conventional typeface no smaller
4
than 14-point for text and 12-point for footnotes. This document also
complies with the word-count limitations of Tex. R. App. P. 73.1(d) because it
contains approximately 504 words, excluding any exempted parts, as
computed by Word 2010, the computer program used to prepare the
document.
/s/ Steven W. Conder
STEVEN W. CONDER
c18.thompson timothy randal.wr/supplemental/reply
5