10 DECEMBER 2001 - Voice For The Defense Online

NO. 123454
THE STATE OP TEXAS § IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF
OF THE
Keith S. Hampton
MOTION FOR FORENSIC DNA TESTING OF SAMPLES OF SPERMATOZOA
DEFENDANT hereby peiitions this Hono~xble Court under the authority of chapter 64 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure to appoint the undersigned attorney for pu~poses of this Motioa pmuant to Article
64.01 (c) of the @de of Criminal Procedure, and order the - County District Attorney's office to make
available acertain sample of forensic evidence for testing by nameand address of qert. Insupport theteof,
Applicant respectfully shows the Court the following miters as set fort11 in this motion:
Statement of the Case
Defendant was convicted of capital nlurder and sentenced to death on April 19, 1990. His death penalty
conviction WRS ilfern~ed by the Texas Court of Crimind Appds on June 28, 1995. See Patrlck u. St*
906 S.W.2d 481 (Tex.Crim.App. 1995). After an unsuccessful petition for certiorari to the United States
Supreme Court, he filed his state wit application. On December 4, 1997, after a hearing, tlus coua issued
finding of fact and conclusio~ls of law and recommended that relief be denied. On Aplil22,1998, the Texas
Court of Crimm;llApp& denied his writ application. Elrpmle Patrlck, 1998 WL 210579 (Tex.Crim.App.
No. 71,105, delivered Apr1122,1998) (unpublished). 1Ie laterued a federal writ petition, which iscl~rrently
pending in the District Court under Civil Action No.
Samples Confaining Biological Materid Exist
And Can Be Subjected to DNA Testlug
In tbe possession of the - County District Attorney's Office are certain samples of forensic evidence
nsed in the state prosecution of Applicant, namely, samples of spermatozoafound in the vicietim's body
and blood samples from Applicant. Tbe DNA from these items have never been compared to determine if
tl~e spermatozoa m e f~om Applimnt.
These itenls were collected pursuant to the Comty Distdct Attorney's Office 1989 capital murder
prosecution against Applicant. h preption for trial, the District Attorney3 Office sent various itents
collected ham the c&ne scene to the Southwestem Institute of Forensic Sciences (SWiFS). The SWlFS
Agency Refaence Nnmber i s . These an! the same items identifled by other agencies' numbem:
Jolice Depa~Zment number is . County bkdical E~aminer's Department number
is
On September 12, 1989, "arper8 t~atne'~ of tbe Southwestern Instih~te of lrorcnsic Sciences sent a vaginal
swab from victim to "MI ~Vflme'! The accession number for the vaginal swab is . On
September 21, 1989, 'kvp~Bnome" sent a blood san~ple from Defendant as weU. The resulb were later
introduced as evidence in trial as State's Eddbit #94 (gene ampltfication from the swab) and State's Wbit
87 (gene amplification from ddendent blood type). The reference number for Applicant's blood sample
is known by the
County District Attorney's o5ce.
On the vaginal swab,
could not do m RFLP an;dysis, bnt did do PCR testing. However, at
that time no DNA could be amplined from the spermatozoa. "Inl, hhe" nowlias the technology to extract
the DNA from the vaginal swab sample and compare it with Dcfendnnt's DNA, Applicant therefole nloves this
Coua to order this DNA testing, costs to be borne by Applicant.
State is Required to Deliver Bvidence to this Court on Receipt of Motion
Article 64.02 oftl~e Code of Criminal Procedure provides:
On receipt of this motion, the convicting court sld provide the anor~~ey~epresenting thestate
with a copy of the maion, and require the attorney representing tbe state to deliver the evidence
to the court, along dtb a description of the condition of the evidence, or explain in
writing to the court why the state cannot deliver the evidence to the court.
Court's Authority to Order DNA Testing
Article 64.01 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides that the convicting court may order forensic
I6 VOICE FOR THE DEFENSE WW.TC0M.COM OECfMBER 2001