WR-38,198-04
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
AUSTIN, TEXAS
Transmitted 9/23/2015 3:50:24 PM
Accepted 9/23/2015 4:46:03 PM
ABEL ACOSTA
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS CLERK
IN AUSTIN, TEXAS
RECEIVED
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
9/23/2015
ABEL ACOSTA, CLERK
)
EX PARTE JULIUS MURPHY, )
)
) WRIT NO. _ __
APPLICANT )
MOTION FOR STAY OF EXECUTION
JULIUS MURPHY IS SCHEDULED
TO BE EXECUTED AFTER 6:00PM ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 3, 2015.
SARAH CUMMINGS CATHERINE E. STETSON
NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT US LLP Lead Counsel
2200 Ross Avenue, Suite 3600 pro hac vice application pending
Dallas, TX 75201-7932 KATHRYN MARSHALL ALI
Tel: 214.855.8000 pro hac vice application pending
Fax: 214.855.8200 JACLYNL. DILAURO
Texas Bar No. 24094609 pro hac vice application pending
sarah.cummings@nortonrosefulbright.com HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP
555 Thirteenth Street NW
Washington, DC 20004
Tel: 202.637.5600
Fax: 202.63 7.5910
cate.stetson@hoganlovells.com
Counsel for Julius Murphy
TO THE HONORABLE JUDGES OF THIS COURT:
Julius Murphy was convicted of capital murder and is facing an imminent
execution date of November 3, 2015. At Murphy's trial, the State relied on the
testimony of two critical fact witnesses: Javarrow Young and Christina Davis.
The District Attorney's Office never disclosed any threats of prosecution or
promises of leniency made to Young or Davis, as Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83
(1963), and Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972) require.
We now know, however, that the District Attorney's office failed to make
the required Brady disclosures regarding threats to Young and Davis that they
would face charges of murder (Young) or conspiracy to commit murder (Davis) if
they declined to testify for the State. Young's sworn statement attests that "the
prosecutor threatened me with a murder charge and said they had enough evidence
on me if I did not testify for them against Julius." Ex. 1 (Young Aff.) ~ 10. And
Davis has similarly, and separately, attested that the prosecutor "told me that if I
did not testify they would charge me with conspiracy to commit murder," and that
she "believed them." Ex. 2 (Davis Aff.) ~ 13. Only after she testified did "the
District Attorneys t[ ell] me for the first time that I would not be charged with any
crime." /d.~ 16.
This information is squarely within Brady and Giglio. And it is plainly
material, because it would have allowed defense counsel to impeach and
2
undermine the credibility of both of the key fact witnesses who testified against
Murphy. With regard to both witnesses, the District Attorney violated Brady and
Giglio.
There is more. New evidence has emerged that Javarrow Young also
testified falsely at Murphy's trial, in addition to testifying under an undisclosed
threat of prosecution. Specifically, Young has sworn in an affidavit that he "did
not tell the jury the whole truth" when he testified at Murphy's trial. Ex. 1 (Young
Aff.) ~ 11. The "whole truth" Young withheld from the jury was that another man,
Chris Solomon, murdered the victim: Young now attests that he "never told [the
police] that Chris pulled the trigger." Ex. 1 (Young Aff.) ~ 11. This bombshell
squares with Young's admission to a third-party witness earlier this year that "he
had made a deal and did whatever he had to do to keep himself out of trouble,
including lying during his testimony at Mr. Murphy's trial." Ex. 3 (Hopson
Hancock Aff.) ~ 7. It does not matter whether the State knew or did not know that
Young offered false testimony at Murphy's trial; as the Court of Criminal Appeals
has explained, permitting such false testimony to stand violates a defendant's due-
process rights "notwithstanding the absence of the State's knowledge of the
perjured testimony at the time of trial." Ex parte Chabot, 300 S.W.3d 768, 772
(Tex. Crim. App. 2009).
3
In light of these new facts and the new legal basis provided by Ex parte
Chabot, it is now clear that Murphy was not convicted on the basis of truthful
testimony. He is entitled to a new trial for this reason as well.
Murphy's conviction and sentence should be set aside for yet another reason.
In the years since he filed his most recent state habeas application, nationwide
standards of decency have evolved to the point where Texas's death penalty no
longer is constitutional under the Eighth Amendment to the United States
Constitution. Due to its arbitrary application, unduly restrictive conditions of
confinement, and egregious delays attending any execution, imposition of this
ultimate penalty violates the Constitution.
Mr. Murphy respectfully requests that this Court stay his execution pursuant
to Tex. R. of App. P. 52.10 and authorize further proceedings in the 102nd Judicial
District Court pursuant to Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Art. 11.071 § 5.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
For the reasons above, and those stated in his Application For Post-
Conviction Writ of Habeas Corpus, Mr. Murphy requests that this Court:
1. Grant a stay of his execution, scheduled for November 3, 2015;
2. Enter an order finding that his claims satisfy the requirements of Tex.
Code Crim. Proc. Art. 11.071 §5(a), and remand these claims for
proceedings in the District Court; or in the alternative,
4
3. File and set th is case for ful l briefing on the appl ication of Article 11.071
§ 5 to these proceedings.
Murphy further requests any other rel ief that law or justice may requ ire.
uc
Respectfull y submitted,
SARAH CUM-;-TN~
NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT U S LLP
2200 Ross Avenue, Suite 3600
Dallas, TX 7520 1-7932
Tel: 2 14.855 .8000
Fax: 214.855.8200
Texas Bar No. 24094609
CA THERlNE E. STETSON
pro hac vice application pending
KATHRYN MARSHALL ALI
pro hac vice application pending
J ACLYN L. DILA URO
pro hac vice application pending
HOGAN LOYELLS U S LLP
555 Thirteenth Street NW
Washington, DC 20004
Tel: 202.637.5600
Fax: 202.637.5910
cate.stetson@hoganlovells.com
Counsel for Julius Mwphy
5
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WITH RULE 52.10
Pursuant to Tex. R. App. P. 52.1 O(a), I hereby certify that on September
22nd, 2015, Applicant notified all parties by telephone that a motion for temporary
relief will be filed .
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on this 23rd day of September, 2015, I served via
Federal Express a true and correct copy of the foregoing pleading, with attached
exhibits, upon opposing counsel, Bowie County District Attorney, Jen·y D.
Rochelle, and Assistant Attorney General of Texas, Jefferson David Clendenin.
Bowie County District Attorney's Office
Bowie County Plaza
60 1 Main Street
Texarkana, TX 75501
Jefferson Clendenin
Assistant Attorney General
Office of the Attorney General ofTexas
P.O. Box 12548
Austin, Texas 78711