I am an innocent man currently serving 75 years for Felony Murder in the Texas Department of Corrections Facility. Please allow me to demonstrate my innocence and how the court system of Texas disregards their own rules and procedures along with the United States Constitution of America.
The [sole evidence] presented before a jury, was my own illegally obtained custodial confession. (Ellis v. State, cause no. 718891) According to the arresting detective’s testimony, the custodial interrogational confession was [never recorded]. (cause no. 718891, Vol. 3, pg. 48, lines 8-16) Police must make an electronic record of any statement made by a suspect while in custody. Davidson v. State, 25 W.W. 3d 183 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003). “No oral statement of the accused made as a result of custodial interrogation shall be admissible against him in a criminal proceeding, unless, prior to the statement, but during the recording, he is given the warning in Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Annotated article 38.22 section 2 (a), and he knowingly and intelligently and voluntarily waives the rights set out in the warning”. Woods v. State, 152 S.W. 3d 105; (2004). According to my testimony, I never agreed to murdering the deceased, but stated that the confession was a “lie”, that I was scared for my safety due to physical and mental coercion, told the detectives anything, and the confession are the detectives own words he typed up on his laptop. (cause no. 718891, Vol. 3, pg. 103, lines 14-25; pg. 114, lines 17-24; pg. 115, lines 1-17; pg. 119, lines 20-25; pg. 120, line 1; pg. 139, line 11; lines 19-25; pg. 140, lines 1-9). In order for a defendant to establish that his confession was involuntary, he must demonstrate that it resulted from coercive police conduct, and it is essential that there be a link between the coercive conduct of the police and the confession of the defendant. Hernandez v. Thaler, 787 F. Supp. 2 d 504 (2011).
According to the arresting detective’s testimony and the record, he never brought me before a magistrate to be properly arraigned and without a legitimate explanation. (cause no. 178891, Vol. 3. Pg. 41, lines 17-22; pg. 45, lines 6-18). I told the jury in trial, that had I been brought before a magistrate, I would have asked for the assistance of counsel since one was never provided upon request. (cause no. 718891, Vol. 3, pg. 101, lines 12-22; pg. 102, lines 8-25; pg. 103 lines 1-15). The person making the arrest or the person having custody of the person arrested shall, take the person arrested before some magistrate of the county where the accused was arrested. Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Annotated article 15.16 (a) How Warrant Is Executed. In each case enumerated in this code, the person making arrests shall without unnecessary delay, take the person arrested or take him before a magistrate of the County but not later than 48 hours after the person is arrested. Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Annotated article 15.17 (a) Duties of Arresting Officer and Magistrate; 14.06 MUST TAKE OFFENDER BEFORE MAGISTRATE.
The testimony of the arresting detecting stated that he (det.) and two (2) fellow homicide detectives, witnessed the signature of my custodial compassion. (cause no. 718891, Vol. 3, pg. 36, lines 2-5; pg. 38, lines 6-14). In this article, a statement of an accused means a statement signed by the accused or a statement bearing his mark, when the mark has been witnessed by a person other than a peace officer. Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Annotated article 38.22 Section 1. “In a criminal trial, it is the responsibility of the Trier of fact to fairly resolve conflicts in the testimony, to weigh the evidence, and to draw reasonable inferences from basic facts to ultimate facts”. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 61 L. ed. 2d 560, 99 S. Ct. 2781, reh. Denied (U.S.) 62 L.ed. 2d 126, 100 S. Ct. 195 (1979), 443 U.S. at 319.
The aforesaid, demonstrates the arresting detectives intention to knowingly violate the laws of the state, due to the fact he taught the course at the Academy, Interview and Interrogation, on [tricking] defendants to make statements on themselves. (cause no. 718891, Vol. 3, pg. 68, lines 14-24). In this code: (1) “Official misconduct” means an offense that is an intentional or knowing violation of a law committed by a public servant while acting in an official capacity as a public servant. Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Annotated article 3.04. Official Misconduct. These aforesaid violation(s) of the arresting detective, further demonstrates that [procedural safeguards] to secure the privilege against self-incrimination were never activated.
“The prosecution may not use statements, whether exculpatory, stemming from custodial interrogation of the defendant unless it demonstrates the use of procedural safeguards effective to secure the privilege against self-incrimination”. Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. at 444, 16 L. ed. 2d 694, 86 S. Ct. 1602, 10 ALR 3d 974.
Exhibit(s) one and two, are my Indictor’s inconsistent statements that were admitted into the evidence at my trial. (cause no. 178891, Vol. 3, pg. 61, lines 9-11). “When statements are inconsistent, the witness must be afforded an opportunity to explain or deny such statements. Texas Rules of Evidence article 6, rule 613 (a). The record reflects that my Indictor was [never] placed on the witness stand to be confronted according to the United States Constitution (6th), and the Indicator was the [sole] reason, a probable cause affidavit was issued for my arrest. It was withheld in my probable cause affidavit, that the Indictor made inconsistent statements and how he (Indictor) failed a polygraph as to being truthful. So, it is safe to say, that I was indicted upon [hearsay] testimony. A statement is not hearsay if the declarant testifies at trial or hearing and is subject to cross-examination concerning the statement. Texas Rules of Evidence article 8, rule 801 (c), (1). “The Confrontation Clause, providing that the accused has right to confront and cross-examine witnesses against, applies not only to in-court testimony, but also to out-of-court statements introduced at trial, regardless of admissibility of statement under law of evidence”. Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 158 L. ed. 2d 177 (2004), U.S. at 50. “A criminal defendant’s confrontation right is violated by admission into evidence of compassion given by his non-testifying co-defendant that incriminates both defendants”. Finley v. State, 917 W.W. 2d 122 (1996).
My Indictor has written, since trial, an unsworn declaration claiming now, that he was tricked with promises, to make a statement against me, by the arresting detective, naming me as the shooter. Please be reminded, that the arresting detective taught the course at the Academy, on tricking people into making false statements. (cause no. 178891, Vol. 3, pg. 68, lines 14-24). The aforesaid detective, once again, has demonstrated that he has no regard for the law and the prosecutor who worked with the detective, disregarded the laws of the state of Texas and the United States Constitution of America, positioning me in a fundamental miscarriage of justice. It shall be the primary duty of all prosecuting attorneys, including any special prosecutors, not to convict, but to see that justice is done. Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Annotated article 2.01. Duties of district attorney’s.
God bless you.