- Page 1 and 2: NO. AP-75,363 IN THE COURT OF CRIMI
- Page 3 and 4: TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Identity of
- Page 5 and 6: Appellant’s Ninth Point of Error
- Page 7: (a) The trial court committed rever
- Page 11 and 12: Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 1
- Page 13 and 14: Napue v. Illinois, 360 U.S. 264 (19
- Page 15 and 16: United States v. Lewis, 592 F.2d 12
- Page 17 and 18: Bufkin v. State, 207 S.W.3d 779 (Te
- Page 19 and 20: Matamoros v. State, 901 S.W.2d 470
- Page 21 and 22: Smith v. State, 70 S.W.3d 848 (Tex.
- Page 23 and 24: Vasquez v. State, 919 S.W.2d 433 (T
- Page 25 and 26: TEX. CODE OF CRIM. PROC. Art. 19.06
- Page 27 and 28: TO THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF
- Page 29 and 30: answered special issue No. 3, the "
- Page 31 and 32: STATEMENT OF FACTS Midnight on July
- Page 33 and 34: front doors was Felsher (the only f
- Page 35 and 36: police he could probably identify h
- Page 37 and 38: At Max Soffar’s retrial, the tria
- Page 39 and 40: officer interpreted as meaning that
- Page 41 and 42: owling alley and Bloomfield entered
- Page 43 and 44: took their wallets. (30 RR 163). Af
- Page 45 and 46: 24 then allegedly showed them the g
- Page 47 and 48: 9) Soffar did not mention the ruse
- Page 49 and 50: Alvin at approximately 9 or 10:00 a
- Page 51 and 52: 33 could find in the family’s med
- Page 53 and 54: When Soffar was given positive atte
- Page 55 and 56: as Soffar’s childhood, focusing o
- Page 57 and 58: justification to block its admissio
- Page 59 and 60:
shot him. Id. In his sworn affidavi
- Page 61 and 62:
1980, providing a foundation for in
- Page 63 and 64:
53 Burks, 876 S.W.2d at 904-05. Coo
- Page 65 and 66:
inquiry by Cook, who had no connect
- Page 67 and 68:
court had relied on state evidentia
- Page 69 and 70:
affidavit. (26 RR 91-94). The prose
- Page 71 and 72:
68 perpetrator” theory. The one-s
- Page 73 and 74:
scene that matched those of Soffar
- Page 75 and 76:
Other evidence confirmed that Soffa
- Page 77 and 78:
other than the Defendant committed
- Page 79 and 80:
Defense counsel’s request was for
- Page 81 and 82:
was available. (26 RR 91-94). His t
- Page 83 and 84:
United States v. Waddell, 507 F.2d
- Page 85 and 86:
wore no mask or disguise. (32 RR 89
- Page 87 and 88:
101 to lie in a group, either in a
- Page 89 and 90:
proposed a crime-scene expert who c
- Page 91 and 92:
were remarkably similar to the Fair
- Page 93 and 94:
operandi inadmissible. This Court h
- Page 95 and 96:
First Point of Error. Precluding Re
- Page 97 and 98:
Exhibits 58, 60). See also (45 RR 3
- Page 99 and 100:
the defense could not point to the
- Page 101 and 102:
In any event, there was evidence sh
- Page 103 and 104:
esult was a prosecution case untest
- Page 105 and 106:
43 RR Defense Exhibits 7, 8, and 9
- Page 107 and 108:
testimony (via admission through st
- Page 109 and 110:
1970-1980 Representation of Women A
- Page 111 and 112:
CODE CRIM. PROC. Arts. 19.01; 19.06
- Page 113 and 114:
and Appellant’s right to a fair c
- Page 115 and 116:
section and due process claims. See
- Page 117 and 118:
RR 19). Because the State failed to
- Page 119 and 120:
159 including Sims’s shirt, bulle
- Page 121 and 122:
degree of negligence involved, the
- Page 123 and 124:
ecause of factual insufficiency. Wa
- Page 125 and 126:
present a defense. Because the pros
- Page 127 and 128:
Finally, ineffective counsel missed
- Page 129 and 130:
Sgt. Clawson and Officer Willoughby
- Page 131 and 132:
State’s Exhibit 108). The content
- Page 133 and 134:
[accused’s] statement to be a req
- Page 135 and 136:
protecting the rights of suspects d
- Page 137 and 138:
Following Appellant’s second puta
- Page 139 and 140:
617 S.W.2d 211, 221 (Tex. Crim. App
- Page 141 and 142:
unimpeached, or contradicted.” Th
- Page 143 and 144:
198 (Tex. Crim. App. 1977). Failure
- Page 145 and 146:
to instruct the jury on this issue
- Page 147 and 148:
202 circumstantial evidence charge)
- Page 149 and 150:
the defendant proffers in support o
- Page 151 and 152:
ight to present reliable evidence o
- Page 153 and 154:
Court should set aside Soffar’s d
- Page 155 and 156:
introduce relevant mitigating evide
- Page 157 and 158:
out of place) and (3) that the atte
- Page 159 and 160:
(d) The trial court committed rever
- Page 161 and 162:
considering, and may not refuse to
- Page 163 and 164:
PROCEDURE Article 37.071, by the Si
- Page 165 and 166:
element of a greater offense.” Ri
- Page 167 and 168:
eyond a reasonable doubt. The trial
- Page 169 and 170:
polled and stated unanimous agreeme
- Page 171 and 172:
the difference between life and dea
- Page 173 and 174:
231 and 430% more than San Antonio.
- Page 175 and 176:
seek the execution of death-eligibl
- Page 177 and 178:
Crim. App. 1986). Where a preponder
- Page 179 and 180:
243 law was the only plausible reas
- Page 181 and 182:
Conclusion and Prayer WHEREFORE, PR
- Page 183 and 184:
Appendix A Shared Characteristics C