NO. 10-0859 - Supreme Court of Texas

More documents

Recommendations

Info

B. Because the State’s reliance on Willoughby’s testimony directly contributed to the sentence M.P.A. received, the error was harmful...................................................................................... 14 Conclusion and Prayer....................................................................................................... 15 Certificate of Service......................................................................................................... 17 Index to Appendix ............................................................................................................. 18 iii
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES CASES Page(s) Burnett v. State, 88 S.W.3d 633 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002)................................................................. 10 Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993) ............................................................................................... 11 E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co. v. Robinson, 923 S.W.2d 549 (Tex. 1995) .......................................................vii, ix, 9, 10, 11, 14 Ex parte Chabot, 300 S.W.3d 754 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009)............................................................... 10 Ex Parte Fierro, 934 S.W.2d 370 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996)............................................................... 14 Ex Parte Johnson, 654 S.W.2d 415 (Tex. 1983) .................................................................................. 10 Gammill v. Jack Williams Chevrolet, Inc., 972 S.W.2d 713 (Tex. 1998) .................................................................................... 9 In the Matter of M.P.A., No. 03-08-00337-CV, 2010 WL 2789649 (Tex. App.—Austin July 14, 2010, pet. filed) (mem. op.).........................................................viii, 3, 8, 13, 14, 15 In re D.I.B., 988 S.W.2d 753 (Tex. 1999) .................................................................................. 11 In re D.W.P., No. 06-07-00113-CV, 2008 WL 53211 (Tex. App.—Texarkana Jan. 4, 2008, no pet.).......................................................................................................... 11 In re M.A.F., 966 S.W.2d 448 (Tex. 1998) .................................................................................. 10 In re M.P.A., No. 03-00-00211-CV, 2000 WL 1759444 (Tex. App.—Austin Nov. 30, 2000, no pet.) (mem. op.) .......................................................................................vii In re M.P.A., No. 03-02-00068-CV, 2002 WL 31833562 (Tex. App.—Austin Dec. 19, 2002, pet. denied) (mem. op.) ................................................................................vii iv
Page 1 and 2: NO. 10-0859 _______________________
Page 3: TABLE OF CONTENTS Identity of Parti
Page 7 and 8: STATEMENT OF THE CASE Nature of the
Page 9 and 10: STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION The Court
Page 11 and 12: STATEMENT OF FACTS I. Background: A
Page 13 and 14: home with their father.”). L.K.A.
Page 15 and 16: Willoughby then testified about the
Page 17 and 18: IV. Willoughby’s false testimony
Page 19 and 20: While media attention does not just
Page 21 and 22: Willoughby testified as an expert,
Page 23 and 24: Shockingly, the authors of these st
Page 25 and 26: elied heavily on Willoughby’s tes
Page 27 and 28: CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify th
Page 29 and 30: TAB 1
Page 31 and 32: TAB 2
Page 33 and 34: M.P.A.
Page 36: S.A. A.A. J.W.A. M.P.A.
Page 39 and 40: Page 1 Not Reported in S.W.3d, 2010
Page 55 and 56:
Page 17 Not Reported in S.W.3d, 201
Page 57 and 58:
Page 59 and 60:
Page 61 and 62:
Page 63 and 64:
Page 65 and 66:
Page 69 and 70:
M.P.A. S.A. A.A.
Page 71 and 72:
TAB 5
Page 73 and 74:
Format Dynamics :: CleanPrint :: ht
Page 75 and 76:
Austin Chronicle: Print an Article
Page 77 and 78:
Page 79 and 80:
Page 81 and 82:
Page 83:
TAB 7
show all

NO. 10-0859 - Supreme Court of Texas

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?