IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES October Term, 2017 No. _____________ ROBERT LYNN PRUETT, Petitioner, -VSLORIE DAVIS, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division, Respondent. § § § § § § § § § § § § NO. _______________ *CAPITAL CASE* ORIGINAL PETITION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS This is a death penalty case. Robert Pruett is scheduled to be executed on October 12, 2017 after 6:00 pm. David R. Dow* Texas Bar No. 06064900 Jeffrey R. Newberry Texas Bar No. 24060966 University of Houston Law Center 4604 Calhoun Rd. Houston, TX 77204-6060 Tel. (713) 743-2171 Fax (713) 743-2131 Email ddow@central.uh.edu Counsel for Robert Pruett, Petitioner * Member, Supreme Court Bar Table of Contents Questions Presented ......................................................................................................iv Parties to the Proceeding ................................................................................................ v Table of Authorities .......................................................................................................vi Table of Exhibits ............................................................................................................ix Statement of Jurisdiction ............................................................................................... 2 Constitutional and Statutory Provisions Involved ........................................................ 2 Introduction……… .......................................................................................................... 3 Factual and Procedural History ..................................................................................... 7 Pruett’s Trial: The Case Against Him ............................................................... 10 Inmate Testimony. ............................................................................................. 10 Junk Science. ...................................................................................................... 14 Pruett’s Attempts to Establish His Innocence. ................................................. 19 Reasons for Granting the Writ. .................................................................................... 29 Conclusion………….. ..................................................................................................... 33 Certificate of Service ..................................................................................................... 34 Exhibit A……................................................................................................................. 35 Exhibit B……… ............................................................................................................. 38 Exhibit C……… ............................................................................................................. 78 Exhibit D……….. ........................................................................................................... 84 Exhibit E……….. ........................................................................................................... 89 Exhibit F…….. ............................................................................................................... 92 ii Exhibit G…….. .............................................................................................................. 97 Exhibit H………........................................................................................................... 101 Exhibit I……… ............................................................................................................ 104 Exhibit J………............................................................................................................ 107 Exhibit K……….. ......................................................................................................... 110 iii Questions Presented 1. Does the Eighth or Fourteenth Amendment prohibit a State from carrying out the execution of someone who is actually innocent? 2. If the Constitution prohibits the execution of someone who is actually innocent, is such a claim cognizable in federal habeas corpus proceedings, and if so, what burden of proof must an inmate adduce to warrant relief? 3. Is the death penalty for any crime other than treason, murder of an elected official, or terrorism cruel and unusual punishment, and therefore prohibited by the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments? iv Parties to the Proceeding Mr. Pruett resides on death row, located at the Polunsky Unit, in Livingston, Texas. Lorie Davis, the Director of the Correctional Institutions Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, resides in Huntsville, Texas. v Table of Authorities Cases Albrecht v. Horn, 485 F.3d 103 (3d Cir. 2007) .................................................................................. 6 Cress v. Palmer, 484 F.3d 844 (6th Cir. 2007) ................................................................................ 6 Dist. Attorney’s Office for the Third Judicial Dist. v. Osborne, 557 U.S. 52 (2009) .............................................................................................. 19 Dowling v. United States, 493 U.S. 342 (1990) ............................................................................................ 18 Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62 (1991) .............................................................................................. 18 Felker v. Turpin, 518 U.S. 651 (1996) .......................................................................................... 2, 6 Gimenez v. Ochoa, 821 F.3d 1136 (9th Cir. 2016) ............................................................................ 18 Han Tak Lee v. Glunt, 667 F.3d 397 (3d Cir. 2012) ................................................................................ 18 Herrera v. Collins, 506 U.S. 390 (1993) .............................................................................................. 6 House v. Bell, 547 U.S. 518 (2006) .............................................................................................. 6 In re Pruett, 609 F. App’x 819 (5th Cir. 2015) ........................................................................ 12 Lucas v. Johnson, 132 F.3d 1069 (5th Cir. 1996) .............................................................................. 6 McQuiggin v. Perkins, 133 S. Ct. 1924 (2013) .......................................................................................... 5 vi Murray v. Giarratano, 492 U.S. 1 (1989) ................................................................................................ 30 Pettit v. Addison, 150 F. App’x 923 (10th Cir. 2005) ........................................................................ 6 Pruett v. State, No. AP-77,065, 2017 WL 1245431 (Tex. Crim. App. Apr. 5, 2017) .................. 26 Schlup v. Delo, 513 U.S. 298 (1995) ............................................................................................ 31 Woodson v. North Carolina, 428 U.S. 280 (1976) ............................................................................................ 30 Rules and Statutes 28 U.S.C. § 2241(a) ......................................................................................................... 2 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3) ...................................................................................................... 2 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a) .......................................................................................................... 2 Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 64.03. ................................................................................................. 22 Other Authorities Angela L. Williamson, Touch DNA: Forensic Collection and Application to Investigations, 18 J. Assoc. Crime Scene Reconstruction (2012) ................................................. 21 Associated Press, 4 state corrections officers charged with bribery, Amarillo Globe News, Jan. 27, 2000, available at http://amarillo.com/stories/012700/tex_LD0612.001.shtml#.WVaJf8aZNuU [https://perma.cc/6Q62-W7ZS]. .............................................................................................. 4, 8, 9 Crime Watch Daily, Is Man on Texas Death Row Innocent? – Pt. 2, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lno7_cIjdrE .......................................................................... 8 M. Barash, et al., The Use of Adhesive Tape for Recovery of DNA from Crime Scene Items, 55 J. Forensic Science 1058 (2010) .................................................................................... 24 Maurice Chammah, Scheduled Execution Revives Debate Over Prison Staffing, N.Y. Times, Apr. 18, 2013, available at http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/19/us/executionrevives-debatedebate-over-texas-prison-staffing.html. ................................................................... 4 vii Nate Blakeslee, Shades of Gray: In Texas Prisons, It’s Hard to Tell Who Your Enemies Are, Austin Chron., Apr. 28, 2000, available at http://www.austinchronicle.com/news/2000-04-28/77012/ [https://perma.cc/8ARMLFNB]…………… ..................................................................................................................... 4, 8 Nat’l Research Council Comm. on Identifying Needs of Forensic Sci. Cmty., Strengthening Forensic Sciences in the United States: A Path Forward (Nat’l Academies Press 2009) ............................................................................................................................... 16-17 viii Table of Exhibits Exhibit A Affidavit of Scott Kimes Exhibit B Special Prosecution Unit Records Exhibit C State’s investigator’s notes from Hall interviews Exhibit D State’s investigator’s notes from Ross interviews Exhibit E Affidavit of Jimmy Matthews Exhibit F James Richard’s July 21, 2013 letter Exhibit G James Richard’s September 5, 2013 letter Exhibit H Affidavit of Karen Kafadar Exhibit I Second Order Granting Post-Conviction DNA Testing Exhibit J Affidavit of Scott Carrigan Exhibit K TDCJ records related to James Richard’s death ix IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES October Term, 2017 No. _____________ ROBERT LYNN PRUETT, Petitioner, -VSLORIE DAVIS, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division, Respondent. § § § § § § § § § § § § NO. _______________ *CAPITAL CASE* ORIGINAL PETITION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS This is a death penalty case. Robert Pruett is scheduled to be executed on October 12, 2017 after 6:00 pm. A quarter-century ago, when this Court decided Herrera v. Collins, 506 U.S. 390 (1993), there had been fifty-three people released from death row in the U.S. after being deemed innocent. Today, that number has increased three-fold to 159. At the time of Herrera, there had been only ten DNA exonerations nationwide; today that number is 350. The number of death row and DNA exonerations would increase by one if the evidence in the case of Robert Lynn Pruett were viewed as a whole; and the actual perpetrator could be identified if the State would permit 1 existing DNA evidence to be tested. Robert Lynn Pruett is in imminent danger of being executed by the State of Texas for a crime he did not commit. As will be discussed, no reasonable juror would vote to convict him if the jury had available to it all the evidence that has been developed since trial. And if the State of Texas would release additional evidence and permit it to be examined by Pruett’s counsel and independent analysts, in accordance with Pruett’s numerous requests, or if the State would finally do what it is obligated by statute and court order to do already, Pruett could conclusively establish not only that he is actually innocent, but also who the actual murderer probably is. Without this Court’s intervention, Texas will carry out the execution of an innocent man. Statement of Jurisdiction. The Court has jurisdiction to entertain this original petition and grant relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2241(a), 2241(c)(3), and 2254(a). See also Felker v. Turpin, 518 U.S. 651, 658-62 (1996). Constitutional and Statutory Provisions Involved. “ . . . nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.” U.S. Const. amend VIII. “ . . . nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” U.S. Const. amend XIV. 2 Introduction. Robert Lynn Pruett was convicted on April 23, 2002, of killing Daniel Nagle, a correctional officer at the McConnell Unit, where Pruett was incarcerated. Pruett had no history of violent crime. He was at the McConnell Unit because, at the age of seventeen, he was sentenced to 99 years as a party to a murder committed by his father, a career criminal. (Pruett, who was fifteen at the time, was present at the scene of that crime, but took no part in carrying it out.) Pruett denied any connection to or knowledge of the murder of Officer Nagle. The prosecution’s theory of motive was that Pruett was mad at Nagle because Officer Nagle had disciplined him for carrying a sandwich into the prison’s recreation yard, where inmates are not permitted to bring food. Torn pieces of the disciplinary report were found scattered around Officer Nagle’s body. Nagle was stabbed by a shank constructed from a piece of a metal rod, which was wrapped with masking tape. He was stabbed some eight times. As one would expect, the scene of the crime was profusely bloody. Blood covered Officer Nagle, the floor, and the surrounding area, and there was spatter on the walls. None of Pruett’s DNA was on the victim, or the victim’s clothes, or the pieces of the torn disciplinary report, or the murder weapon. None of the victim’s DNA was on him. In a word, there is no physical evidence – none – connecting Robert Pruett to the murder of Officer Nagle. From the moment he was first questioned, Pruett has maintained his innocence, and the State’s theory of motive – that Pruett was upset about being 3 reprimanded for a sandwich – is absurd. But there were in fact a number of people who had a motive to kill Officer Nagle. In the months leading up to the murder, Daniel Nagle had been working on a lengthy grievance against TDCJ; in the grievance, Nagle identified, among other things, safety concerns and corrupt senior officers.1 He was a whistleblower, and other guards knew what Officer Nagle was up to. We know Nagle was worried about his safety, for he confided to others that his life had been threatened. Then, a month after Nagle was killed, three correctional officers (two males and one female) who worked at the McConnell Unit were indicted on felony bribery charges after being accused of agreeing to launder drug money for inmates.2 As Pruett continued to insist he was innocent, some members of the correctional officers union suspected Office Nagle might have been killed precisely because he provided names of officers who were involved in the money laundering operation.3 But if the TDCJ conducted an internal investigation to determine whether there was a connection between the corruption at the McConnell Unit Officer Nagle was complaining about and his murder, evidence documenting such 1 See Nate Blakeslee, Shades of Gray: In Texas Prisons, It’s Hard to Tell Who Your Enemies Are, Austin Chron., Apr. 28, 2000, available at http://www.austinchronicle.com/news/2000-04-28/77012/ [https://perma.cc/8ARM-LFNB]. 2 Associated Press, 4 state corrections officers charged with bribery, Amarillo Globe News, Jan. 27, 2000, available at http://amarillo.com/stories/012700/tex_LD0612.001.shtml#.WVaJf8aZNuU [https://perma.cc/6Q62-W7ZS]. 3 Maurice Chammah, Scheduled Execution Revives Debate Over Prison Staffing, N.Y. Times, Apr. 18, 2013, available at http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/19/us/execution-revivesdebatedebate-over-texas-prison-staffing.html. 4 an investigation has never been provided to Pruett or his counsel. There is an additional suggestive fact: After Nagle had been mortally wounded, officers were in no hurry to render aid. Other correctional officers left him there to bleed to death, before finally attending to him. Exhibit A (Affidavit of Scott Kimes) at pp. 36-37, paras. 4-8. There were people at the prison with a motive to commit murder, but Robert Pruett was not among them. How, then, did Pruett get convicted? With no physical evidence linking him to Officer Nagle’s murder, the State relied on notoriously problematic evidence: (1) testimony from Nagle’s co-workers, many of whom, we now know, may have had an incentive to lie; (2) testimony from inmates who were incarcerated with Mr. Pruett, many of whom, we now know, received special treatment in exchange for their testimony in deals that were not fully disclosed to Pruett’s trial counsel;4 and (3) junk science, to give the jury a patina of something credible. Today, a decade and a half following Pruett’s trial, we know what Pruett’s 4 Although the State did reveal prior to trial it had agreed to drop an assault charge for Anthony Casey, and had told Harold Mitchell, Michael Hall, and Ross Kirkpatrick they might write a favorable letter to the parole board in exchange for their testimony, the State did not disclose that Mitchell had been told he could elect to be transferred out of state if he testified. The State similarly did not disclose that its investigator told Hall he would attempt to have Hall transferred to a unit closer to his family in exchange for his testimony. See Exhibit B (Special Prosecution Records) at p. 42 (indicating the inmates had not been promised a letter but had been notified that the Special Prosecution Unit’s practice was to do so); Exhibit C (State’s investigator’s notes from Hall interviews) at p. 83. Exhibit B is an excerpt of 227 pages of records provided to undersigned counsel by the then Executive Director of the Special Prosecution Unit. Exhibit C contains notes taken by the State’s investigators during his pretrial meetings with Michael Hall. These notes and his notes from his meetings with Michael Scott Ross (Exhibit D) were not revealed to Pruett’s trial counsel. The State did not disclose this information to Pruett until the state habeas court convened a hearing on his initial state habeas application. The state habeas court admitted these notes into the evidence at that hearing. 5 jury did not: that the evidence against Pruett was bought and paid for; that Pruett’s witnesses were coerced into silence;5 that junk science put on by the State purported to link him to the crime; that no physical evidence connects him to the crime; and that there is, in fact, physical evidence connecting other, unknown individuals, to the murder. Pruett has come to this Court as a last resort. His attempts to demonstrate his actual innocence have been met with sheer indifference by the state courts, which have literally permitted the prosecution to repeatedly change its story and not comply with their orders; and by the lower federal courts, which appear to believe they lack the authority to intervene and halt this imminent injustice. This Court recognized in Felker v. Turpin, 518 U.S. 651, 660-61 (1996), that its original jurisdiction to entertain a habeas corpus application survives the enactment of AEDPA; previously, in Herrera v. Collins, 506 U.S. 390 (1993), this Court suggested that, upon a proper showing, the Eighth Amendment might bar the execution of someone who is actually innocent.6 Mr. Pruett comes to this Court actually 5 See infra note 10. 6 This Court has since, on occasion, assumed without deciding that such claims may be cognizable. See, e.g., McQuiggin v. Perkins, 133 S. Ct. 1924, 1931 (2013). The courts of appeals are generally somewhat divided on whether a so-called stand-alone innocence claim is cognizable in federal habeas proceedings. See, e.g., Albrecht v. Horn, 485 F.3d 103, 122 (3d Cir. 2007) (innocence claims cognizable where “extraordinarily high” threshold is met); Pettit v. Addison, 150 F. App’x 923 (10th Cir. 2005) (assuming such claims not cognizable if clemency procedure available); Cress v. Palmer, 484 F.3d 844, 854 (6th Cir. 2007) (same); Lucas v. Johnson, 132 F.3d 1069 (5th Cir. 1996) (asserting innocence claims not cognizable). To some extent, the inconsistency in the lower courts is mirrored by this own Court’s decision in House v. Bell, 547 U.S. 518 (2006). The increased sophistication of DNA testing developed in the decade since House, however, leaves the footing of the decision in House uncertain and has increased the urgency of the need that this Court resolve the issue. 6 innocent yet out of options. If this Court does not intervene, it will allow the State to execution an innocent man. Factual and Procedural History. Officer Nagle was killed on December 17, 1999, in the multipurpose room of the McConnell Unit. The shank that was used to kill him was recovered from that room. The handle of the weapon was wrapped in what appeared to the investigating officer to be masking tape. 42 R.R. 236, 274, 321.7 The prosecution said Pruett cut his finger during the attack on Officer Nagle, but Pruett’s prints were not on the weapon, nor was his blood or DNA. Indeed, no blood belonging to Pruett was anywhere on Officer Nagle or his clothes, nor was any of Officer Nagle’s blood found on Pruett or anything (including clothes) connected to him. 42 R.R. 346-47, 360; 44 R.R. 49. The disciplinary report found near Officer Nagle’s body had been torn into seven pieces and was scattered on the floor of the bathroom inside the multipurpose room. That report did contain biological material. One piece of the report had blood. The blood that was tested on the disciplinary report belonged to Nagle. 42 R.R. 331-33, 366. Latent prints were found on several pieces of the disciplinary report. 43 R.R. 41-42; 52 R.R. 337-38. The prints on the report did not belong to Pruett. In fact, none of the blood found anywhere in the multipurpose room Citations to the Reporter’s Record of Pruett’s 2002 Capital Murder trial in the 156th District Court, which was appealed to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals (CCA) as Pruett v. State, No. AP-74,370, are cited in this pleading as [volume number] R.R. [page number]. 7 7 belonged to Pruett. Neither blood on the report nor any of the other physical evidence collected from the multipurpose room identified Pruett as having been present there. 44 R.R. 49. In the months leading up to his death, Officer Nagle had been drafting a lengthy grievance against TDCJ. This grievance complained (among other things) of corrupt senior officers at the unit where he worked. Blakeslee, supra. Officer Nagle’s sister revealed Nagle had confided in her that he had received threats on his life from his fellow officers at the McConnell Unit. Crime Watch Daily, Is Man on Texas Death Row Innocent? – Pt. 2, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lno7_cIjdrE. The grievance he was penning proved to be both shocking and prescient: A month after Nagle was killed, three correctional officers who worked at the McConnell Unit were indicted on felony bribery charges after being accused of agreeing to launder drug money for inmates. Associated Press, supra. One of those officers arrested was Eliseo Martinez. Martinez was apparently the first TDCJ official to implicate Pruett in the murder when investigators from the TDCJ’s Internal Affairs Division8 began interviewing officers and inmates the day that Nagle was killed. Martinez told investigators that the day before Nagle was killed, Pruett had indicated to him that he either had possession or knew the location of a shank. Exhibit B at pp. 44, 54, 69. No other testimony at Pruett’s trial corroborated this assertion, and it defies credulity that an inmate told a guard he 8 The Internal Affairs Division is now known as the Office of the Inspector General. 8 had knowledge of a shank yet the guard took no further steps to investigate. A month following Nagle’s murder, Martinez was arrested for transporting a package that he believed contained $60,000 of laundered drug profits for inmates. Associated Press, supra. Eliseo Martinez was part of a broader criminal enterprise – an enterprise Officer Nagle knew about and hoped to destroy. The evidence that some of these officers may have had a motive to see Officer Nagle dead is not mere speculation; according to Scott Kimes, who was incarcerated at the McConnell Unit when Nagle was killed, correctional officers knew that Nagle had been attacked but allowed him to lay in the multipurpose room dying before they made any effort to save him. Exhibit A at pp. 36-37, paras. 4-8. The jury that convicted Pruett knew none of this. It did not know about the corruption or the arrests; it did not know Officer Nagle was in the midst of preparing a grievance; it did not know others had a motive to kill Nagle, or that he had been worried someone might; it did not know none of Pruett’s DNA placed him at the scene, or that the likelihood someone could commit this murder yet remain spotlessly free of the victim’s blood approached zero; it did not know none of Officer Nagle’s blood was on Pruett or any of his possessions; it did not know other DNA could have been left at the crime scene by one of every three people at the prison the day of the murder; and it did not know unidentified DNA, belonging to neither Pruett nor Nagle, was left on the murder weapon. 9 Pruett’s Trial: The Case Against Him. No correctional officers claimed to have witnessed the attack; the only officer who connected Pruett to the crime in any manner was Martinez. Consequently, the only supposed eyewitness testimony came from inmate informants. The State was aware of the credibility problems with this evidence. It therefore supported its case against Pruett by relying on junk science to connect him to the murder weapon. Inmate Testimony. Every single inmate who testified against Pruett was promised something in exchange for that testimony; some of these deals were revealed to defense counsel (and thus known by the jury), others were not. Specifically: Prosecutors agreed to drop an assault charge for Anthony Casey in exchange for his testimony. 42 R.R. 69. The circumstances of this testimony, if known, would give any reasonable juror pause. Casey was not included among the many inmates investigators spoke to following Officer Nagle’s murder. A full seven months after the crime, Casey requested to speak to the investigators, writing that he “may have some information.” Exhibit B at pp. 72-73. Eventually he gave a statement to Investigator Glen Boldt in exchange for a deal. Id. at pp. 74-75. At trial, Casey testified that Pruett asked another inmate where to find a shank and then later told Casey not to go into the multipurpose room because he (Pruett) was about to do something in there. 42 R.R. 58-60. Harold Mitchell’s testimony was equally suspect. A month after Officer Nagle’s murder, Mitchell wrote a letter to Pruett in which he admitted being 10 nowhere near the crime scene when Officer Nagle was killed. A year later, prosecutors told Mitchell they would write a favorable letter to the parole board for him if he changed his story and testified against Pruett. 42 R.R. 246, 258-60. So Mitchell changed his story. Mitchell said Pruett told him he planned to kill Nagle, and he placed Pruett at the location where Nagle was stabbed. Mitchell also testified he was not promised anything – other than that the prosecutors would do their best to ensure his safety – in exchange for his testimony. According to Mitchell, prosecutors told him they might write a favorable letter on his behalf to the parole board. 42 R.R at 246. Notes maintained by the Special Prosecution Unit (SPU) reveal that Mitchell received far more than was revealed. Mitchell told prosecutors he wanted to be transferred out of state in exchange for testifying, Exhibit B at p. 58, and the SPU agreed to do so, Exhibit E (Affidavit of Jimmy Matthews) at p. 90. This deal was not revealed to Pruett’s trial counsel or known to the jury. (Moreover, the State failed to correct Mitchell’s false testimony that he was not promised anything other than that the State would try to ensure his safety and might write a favorable letter to the parole board.) Like Mitchell, Robert Lewis initially told investigators he could not identify Nagle’s killer because of his poor vision. By the time he testified at Pruett’s trial, Lewis had been paroled – and his vision had apparently improved. He testified he saw Pruett kill Nagle. 42 R.R. 175, 181-84; Exhibit B at p. 57. 11 Michael Hall, who testified for the State as a rebuttal witness, also testified falsely. Hall claimed that shortly after Officer Nagle’s murder, he was incarcerated with Pruett at the Michael Unit and that Pruett told him he killed Nagle. 45 R.R. 161-65. During cross-examination, Hall testified that the State had not promised him anything in exchange for his testimony. 45 R.R. at 170. Notes obtained from the State’s investigator, Ken Thompson, however, reveal that Hall lied. Those notes indicate Thompson specifically told Hall the State would try to get him transferred to a unit near either Huntsville or Bryan if he testified against Pruett.9 Exhibit C at p. 83. Either the State knowingly put on false evidence, or did not correct testimony it knew to be false. In either case, the jury was unaware Hall was lying. As one might expect when virtually every witness relied on by the State agreed to testify only after being promised favorable treatment, there were serious credibility issues with this inmate testimony. Most notably, the testimony of the various inmates was internally inconsistent. Compare 41 R.R. 160 (Allen Thompson testifying Pruett laid on the floor after killing Nagle) with 42 R.R. 228 (Jimmy Mullican testifying that Pruett did not lay down); compare id. at 92 (Anthony Casey testifying only Harold Mitchell and Pruett were in the multipurpose room) with id. at 240-41 (Harold Mitchell testifying Johnny Barnett was also in the multipurpose room). Indeed, the testimony was so manifestly 9 In denying an earlier Motion for Authorization filed by Pruett, the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit found the testimony offered by Michael Hall and Michael Ross to be a basis for finding Pruett could not demonstrate that no reasonable juror would find him guilty knowing what we now know. In re Pruett, 609 F. App’x 819, 823 (5th Cir. 2015) (“he admitted to other inmates that he had killed Officer Nagle”). However, that court did not know that these inmates, like Harold Mitchell, received deals that were not disclosed to Pruett’s trial counsel. 12 inconsistent that the State made excuses for it in closing argument. 46 R.R. 15 (“And in this case we knew before we brought you these inmates that the peripheral things, which way did he arrive, what kind of clothing was he wearing, did he keep his shirt on or not, we knew that was going to be a jumble.”). The prosecution was not content to buy testimony against Pruett; it also took steps to coerce witnesses with exculpatory evidence to remain silent. Inmates who intended to offer supportive testimony were cowed into silence by other guards.10 For example, Mitchell, who ultimately testified for the State, said that until he agreed to do so, he was punished with cold showers and cold meals. 42 R.R. 263. Kevin Veschi would have testified that officers yelled at him and threatened to “kick [his] ass” because he planned to testify for Pruett, but the trial court would not allow the jury to hear this testimony believing it to be hearsay. 42 R.R. 92. The negative treatment doled out to inmates who refused to testify for the State far exceeded the cold showers and cold meals about which Mitchell testified. According to James Richard – who was an inmate at the McConnell Unit when Nagle was killed – he, like Mitchell, was initially offered a transfer out of state in exchange for testifying for the State. Exhibit F (James Richard’s July 21, 2013 10 Exhibit D at p. 88 (According to the State’s investigator, the correctional officers at the Connally Unit “are treating the def[ense] witnesses like shit – we need to move [Michael] Ross” (who initially indicated he planned to testify for Pruett but subsequently agreed to testify for the State) “to the Stevenson Unit”); see also 44 R.R. 91-94 (outside of the presence of the jury, witness Kevin Veschi describing how he and other defense witnesses were treated at the Connally Unit). 13 letter) at p. 94; Exhibit G (James Richard’s September 5, 2013 letter) at p. 99.11 When Richard refused to testify, agents for the State threatened his life and physically assaulted him. Exhibit F at p. 94. Guards beat him so badly that Richard had to be transported by helicopter to the nearest hospital. Id. Because he refused to testify for the State, Richard spent eight and one-half years in administrative segregation. Exhibit G at p. 99. Junk Science. Given the fact no prison officials actually saw the murder occur, given that no physical evidence placed Pruett at the scene, and given the numerous internal inconsistencies in the inmate testimony, the prosecution needed something else besides silencing the inmates who desired to testify on Pruett’s behalf. That something was junk science. Jimmy Wayne Mullican, an inmate incarcerated with Pruett, worked in the prison’s craft shop. According to Mullican, shortly before Officer Nagle was killed, Pruett’s cellmate, Shakey Phillips, gave him some tape from the craft shop and asked him to give it to Pruett. 42 R.R. 202,204. During the investigation of Nagle’s murder, fifty-six rolls of tape were collected from the craft shop. Id. at 310. Lisa Harmon Baylor, a forensic analyst employed by the State, performed a process that she called “physical match comparison” in an attempt to identify from 11 On September 11, 2013 – six days after writing the letter included as Exhibit G in this Petition, James Richard was found dead in his cell. TDCJ officials have stated they believe Mr. Richard killed himself. Exhibit K (TDCJ records related to James Richard’s death) at p. 116. 14 which, if any, of the fifty-six rolls the tape wrapped around the weapon came. Id. at 313. According to Baylor, What I did was I took – there were multiple rolls of tape. I examined each roll of tape individually. I wrote down all the physical characteristics from size, any markings that might be on them; catalogued all of that information. Then I took the evidentiary – took the piece of tape that was removed from the metal rod and did a physical comparison between those after I had catalogued all the characteristics from that piece of tape. 42 R.R. 309. Baylor continued: You take the end of the roll of tape and then you take the end of the roll of tape that was taken from the metal rod. And I took the two ends, and I compared them and looked under a stereoscope and after writing down all the characteristics looked to see if there was an actual fit, jigsaw fit. … It’s like doing a jigsaw puzzle. Id. at 313. When Pruett’s trial counsel questioned whether testimony about the physical match comparison should be heard by the jury, counsel for the State responded: I mean, I don’t see any difference between using a stereoscope to look at and match up striations on a bullet and having that be admissible in court and being unable to use a stereoscope to match up the ends of two pieces of tape and saying that’s admissible in court. It’s the same concept. It’s the same basic science. You’re matching up a pattern that matches. 42 R.R. 315. At the time of Pruett’s trial, so-called bite mark analysis was in the news after being repeatedly challenged by scientists and others as junk. The judge at Pruett’s trial worried that Baylor’s “jigsaw analysis” seemed similar to bite mark analysis that was already being challenged. 42 R.R. 316. Yet he allowed her testimony anyway. She told the jury that, based on her “analysis,” the roll of tape 15 that had been taken from Phillips’ workstation was the source of the tape that was used on the weapon. Id. at 339. This bogus evidence gave the prosecution’s case a veneer of authority and respectability, and the prosecution leaned on it heavily. During his closing argument, counsel for the state argued: There is a whole bunch of evidence. In this case you get the tape, this one right here. Shelton “Shakey” Phillips was that man’s cellmate. Shelton “Shakey” Phillips had some tape sent over to the multipurpose room. That tape ended up on this shank. Shelton Phillips asked Jimmy Mullican to Give it to my cellee. The analysis showed that this tape was on this shank. There is the shank. That’s how they found it. He put it on. 46 R.R. 16 (emphasis in original). The scientific and forensic communities now unequivocally deem this type of so-called evidence to represent junk science. In its 2009 Forensic Report (issued well after Pruett’s trial, as well as subsequent to his initial state and federal habeas proceedings) the National Academy of Sciences (“NAS”) discredited analysis based on physical match comparison (such as that offered by the State’s expert at Pruett’s 2002 trial regarding the tape that was wrapped around the weapon that killed Officer Nagle). According to the report: Often in criminal prosecutions and civil litigation, forensic evidence is offered to support the conclusions about “individualization” (sometimes referred to as “matching” a specimen to a particular individual or other source) or about classification of the source of the specimen into one of several categories. With the exception of nuclear DNA analysis, however, no forensic method has been rigorously shown to have the capacity to consistently, and with a high degree of certainty, demonstrate a connection between evidence and a specific individual source. 16 Nat’l Research Council Comm. on Identifying Needs of Forensic Sci. Cmty., Strengthening Forensic Sciences in the United States: A Path Forward 7 (Nat’l Academies Press 2009) [hereinafter 2009 NAS Report]. Like bite mark comparisons, the type of comparison conducted by the State’s expert on the tape wrapped around the weapon in the investigation of the death of Officer Nagle does not have a widely accepted protocol; for that reason, it is not scientific. In colloquial terms, the evidence introduced against Pruett to connect him to the murder weapon is junk. Karen Kafadar, the Chair of the Department of Statistics at the University of Virginia who served on the committee that drafted the 2009 NAS Report, reviewed the portion of Lisa Baylor’s testimony in which Baylor described the process she used to determine from which roll of tape the sample she observed supposedly came. As Dr. Kafadar has confirmed, it is impossible to have any confidence in a match announced through the process employed by Ms. Baylor because there is no consensus regarding the number of individual characteristics needed to make a positive identification. In other words, the process employed by Ms. Baylor is exactly the type of process that was identified in the NAS report as being unreliable; it is junk.12 This Court has concluded that the introduction of faulty evidence is 12 See Exhibit H (Affidavit of Karen Kafadar) at p. 102, paras. 2-5. In a 2015 motion for authorization filed by Pruett in the Fifth Circuit, that court wrote the 2009 Report “did not address analysis of fiber evidence such as the tape,” In re Pruett, 609 F. App’x 819, 823 (5th Cir. 2015). However, at that time, the Fifth Circuit did not have the opportunity to review Dr. Kafadar’s affidavit and instead relied upon the State’s interpretation of the Report. Dr. Kafadar has since confirmed this type of comparison is addressed in the “Other pattern/impression evidence” chapter of the Report. Exhibit H at p. 102, para. 9. 17 unconstitutional when “its admission violates ‘fundamental conceptions of justice.’” Dowling v. United States, 493 U.S. 342, 352 (1990) (quoting United States v. Lovasco, 431 U.S. 783, 790 (1977)); see also Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 70 (1991) (considering whether admission of battered child syndrome evidence against defendant represented due process violation). Consistent with this holding, the Ninth and Third Circuits have held an inmate can establish a due process violation by alleging a conviction based on junk science testimony. See Gimenez v. Ochoa, 821 F.3d 1136, 1143-44 (9th Cir. 2016) (recognizing that a due process claim based on faulty evidence “is essential in an age where forensics that were once considered unassailable are subject to serious doubt”); Han Tak Lee v. Glunt, 667 F.3d 397, 407 (3d Cir. 2012) (holding that, if disproven, trial testimony based on unreliable science undermined fundamental fairness of petitioner’s entire trial, making a prima facie case for habeas relief on due process claim); see also Gimenez, 821 F.3d at 1143-44 (expressly noting Ninth Circuit’s alignment with Third Circuit). The underlying premise of these holdings is that the reliability of the jury’s determination of guilt is undermined when the jury’s decision rested in part on ostensibly expert, scientific testimony that is subsequently revealed not to be science at all. Unusually for a capital murder case in Texas, jurors spent an entire day deliberating the issue of guilt/innocence. Pruett was found guilty on April 23 and was sentenced to death on April 30. 18 Pruett’s Attempts to Establish His Innocence. Prior to Pruett’s trial, in 2001, the Texas legislature enacted Chapter 64 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The legislature took notice of the scores of DNA exonerations nationwide, including exonerations from death row, and therefore provided a means through which convicted persons like Pruett could seek to prove their innocence. Chapter 64 gives convicted inmates a state-created right to attempt to prove their innocence through DNA analysis. As this Court has held in District Attorney’s Office for the Third Judicial District v. Osborne, 557 U.S. 52 (2009), the existence of the statutory right carries with it the protections of the Due Process clause. Through two rounds of DNA testing conducted pursuant to Chapter 64 (which will be discussed in greater detail below), Pruett has demonstrated two affirmative facts and a negative fact as well. To begin with the negative: All testing on all the evidence conducted since Pruett’s trial – including further testing of the clothes, the weapon, and the disciplinary report – has confirmed the absence of any biological material or other physical evidence connecting Pruett to the crime or the victim to Pruett. In addition, the testing has revealed two salient affirmative facts. First, a partial DNA profile was recovered from the torn pieces of the disciplinary report. That testing reveals that one-third of the inmates and guards present at the McConnell Unit the day of Officer Nagle’s murder cannot be excluded as contributors of the biological material. (So far as Pruett’s counsel are aware, state 19 officials have made no attempt to determine whether the DNA deposited on the disciplinary report belongs to Martinez, or any of the other indicted guards, or anyone else whose profile is maintained in law enforcement databases.) Second, the most recent round of DNA testing reveals a profile on the murder weapon belonging to neither Officer Nagle nor Mr. Pruett. From the very moment this profile was revealed, the State has desperately insisted, with absolutely no evidence to support its insistence, that the DNA is the result of contamination. But the State has offered no proof; more astonishingly, although there are simple methods that would allow for the State’s naked claim of contamination to be scientifically tested, the State has not voluntarily undertaken to conduct any of this testing, and the repeated efforts by Pruett to compel it (either through enforcement of state statutory law or the trial court’s orders) have been rebuffed without justification. Because the State elected not to voluntarily subject any of the physical evidence collected in the case to newer forms of forensic analysis, Pruett was compelled to file two different Chapter 64 petitions; Pruett also filed numerous additional motions asking the state court to enforce its own orders and compel compliance with state law. Yet the state courts have acquiesced in the prosecution’s refusal to carry out testing which could unquestionably corroborate Pruett’s claim of innocence by identifying the actual murderer. This stonewalling has violated Pruett’s right to Due Process and led to the specter where the execution of an innocent man is imminent. 20 The first round of chapter 64 proceedings began in 2013. As indicated, the torn pieces of a disciplinary report were found at the scene of the murder, and the government’s theory of motive was that Pruett killed Officer Nagle and left the disciplinary report next to the dead body because he was mad at Nagle over the contents of that report. At the time of the trial, the process of using skin cells to construct a DNA profile was not widely used; by 2013, however, so-called touchDNA analysis was common. Consequently, on May 9 of that year Pruett filed a Motion for Post-Conviction DNA and Palm Print Testing. 1 2014 C.R. 2.13 Believing the presence of a palm print on the report indicated there were likely sufficient epithelial cells on the report that a DNA profile could be developed through new scientific processes, Pruett asked the trial court to order that the pieces of the disciplinary report be tested. 1 2014 C.R. 2-28.14 Some months later, the lab that performed the analysis (i.e., the University of North Texas Center for Human Identification (UNTCHI)) issued a report stating 13 Citations to the Clerk’s record in Pruett’s 2014 appeal pursuant to chapter 64 to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, Pruett v. State, No. AP-77,037, appear as [volume number] 2014 C.R. [page number]. This record contains the pleadings related to Pruett’s motion for forensic analysis filed in May 2013. Citations to the Reporter’s record in the same proceedings appear as [volume number] 2014 R.R. [page number]. 14 The process by which epithelial cells could be analyzed, known as Touch DNA, did not become widely available until 2007 or 2008 – well after Pruett’s trial, and after his state and federal habeas applications had been filed. For a brief description of various touch-DNA collection techniques, all dating to the years after Pruett’s trial, see Angela L. Williamson, Touch DNA: Forensic Collection and Application to Investigations, 18 J. Assoc. Crime Scene Reconstruction 1 (2012). In addition to the DNA analysis, Pruett further requested that the palm print on the report be compared to the palm print database maintained by the Department of Public Safety (DPS). 1 2014 C.R. 15. The trial court granted the request, but the DPS reported it was unable to match the palm print on the report with any of the prints maintained in its database. 21 the results of its analysis were inconclusive.15 Although it is true that the results were inconclusive in the sense that a full genetic profile could not be developed from the torn pieces, once the UNTCHI report and underlying data were finally provided to Pruett’s counsel, it was also clear that the new testing had nonetheless produced something new and meaningful, namely: The raw data in the file revealed the presence of genetic markers at several loci, but neither the lab nor any other agency of the State had made any attempt to determine whether Pruett or Nagle could be excluded as possible contributors to the sample. Because it appeared that the UNTCHI analysts were acting not as independent scientists but instead as agents for the prosecution, Pruett retained his own expert to review UNTCHI’s raw data. That expert determined that the DNA found on the report could have come from approximately one-third of the guards and inmates at the McConnell Unit on December 17, 1999. See 2 2014 R.R. 3. Thus, in a case where numerous corrupt guards and inmates had a motive to commit the murder of Officer Nagle, post-conviction DNA testing confirmed that the disciplinary report could have been scattered over his body by one out of every three 15 The reason undersigned counsel states the lab “apparently” issued the report in July is that although the report is dated July 9, it was not shared with Pruett’s counsel at the time. More than three months later, on September 10, 2013, counsel learned that the testing was complete when he received a two-page report from the University of North Texas Center for Human Identification (UNTCHI), dated July 9, indicating the testing of the disciplinary report was inconclusive. Texas law requires that the testing results and all underlying data be provided to the inmate (see Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 64.03(d)(3) (noting “on completion of the DNA testing, the results of the testing and all data related to the testing required for an evaluation of the test results” are to be provided to the person that requested the testing)). The lab, however, refused to turn over the testing results or underlying data to counsel until Pruett obtained an additional court order directing UNTCHI to do so. 1 2014 C.R. 46. 22 people at the prison the day Nagle was killed. A second round of DNA testing followed. Having learned from the 2013 testing that the raw data can be probative even where the State claims testing has been inconclusive, shortly before Pruett’s then-scheduled execution in 2015, Pruett’s counsel requested that the State provide it the raw data generated in connection with testing of the murder weapon. To their surprise, Counsel learned there were no post-trial data, because the State had never bothered to subject the murder weapon to additional testing, despite the testing that was occurring pursuant to the 2013 proceedings. Pruett therefore filed a motion seeking to have that weapon analyzed.16 Specifically the motion asked the court to order the blood found at the handle end of the metal rod be subjected to newer, more sophisticated DNA analysis, which might be capable of yielding a genetic profile from the stain (which had yielded inconclusive results through the analysis conducted fifteen years earlier). 1 2015 16 The decision of the Fifth Circuit declining to authorize a successive habeas petition faults Pruett’s counsel for waiting to demand testing of the shank. The testing Pruett has requested, however, touch DNA testing, was not widely available until recently. (Indeed, it remains unclear to this day whether the government-operated laboratories in Texas even perform this analysis.) Nevertheless, perhaps it is true counsel’s assumption that the State had previously undertaken testing of the murder weapon in a case where no other physical evidence connected the accused to the murder and where there were manifestly other people who had an incentive to commit the crime was unwise; even so, the testing had been demanded for over two years now, and it is hard to envision how counsel’s erroneous assumption as to whether the State had already examined the weapon justifies the State in not performing this testing now, where State law provides for it. The government’s suggestion that an inmate should be executed because his lawyer should have asked for testing sooner, essentially adopted by both the State courts and the Fifth Circuit, even though the inmate has been asking for over two years, is simply unconscionable. 23 C.R. 83.17 Pruett also asked the court to order that the shank be analyzed to determine whether any epithelial cells could be tested. Id. Finally, Pruett asked the court to order the adhesive tape that had been wrapped around the handle end of the weapon be analyzed, given that the sticky side of tape is widely known to be a rich source for DNA extraction. See, e.g., M. Barash, et al., The Use of Adhesive Tape for Recovery of DNA from Crime Scene Items, 55 J. Forensic Science 1058 (2010). Although it was not necessary that he do so, given the mandatory language of state law, Pruett nevertheless requested that any unidentified profiles developed during testing be compared to the databases maintained by the DPS and FBI. In April 2015, the trial court ordered such testing to occur. The following month, on May 8, 2015, the court signed a second order; this second order was agreed to by Pruett and the State, and was drafted by lawyers representing the State. This second 2015 order directed that, in addition to testing the shank itself and the tape “for possible DNA analysis, including epithelial cells,” several other items, including the pants and shirt Officer Nagle was wearing at the time he was killed, should also be tested.18 Weeks went by between the time the lab apparently issued its reports on June 25, 2015 and the time the reports were finally revealed to counsel for Pruett. Citations to the Clerk’s record in Pruett’s 2016-17 appeal pursuant to chapter 64 to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, Pruett v. State, No. AP-77,065, appear as [volume number] 2015 C.R. [page number]. This record contains the pleadings related to Pruett’s motion for forensic analysis filed in April 2015. Citations to the Reporter’s record in the same proceedings appear as [volume number] 2015 R.R. [page number]. 17 Second Order Granting Post-Conviction DNA Testing, State v. Pruett, No. B-01-M0150-PR-B (156th Dist. Ct., Bee County, Tex. May 8, 2015) (attached as Exhibit I). 18 24 When counsel finally received them, it was apparent the results of the report were staggering: DNA testing of the murder weapon revealed a partial DNA profile belonging to neither the victim nor the accused. 1 2015 C.R. 27. Faced with what any reasonable observer would view as powerful exculpatory evidence, the State asserted, without any evidence whatsoever, that the DNA of the stranger was deposited as a result of post-trial contamination of the weapon. Initially the State insinuated the contamination occurred because the weapon had been handled by a member of the defense team. When the defense team offered to have that member’s DNA compared to the DNA on the weapon, the State demurred, and suggested instead the DNA on the weapon might have been deposited by four other individuals. Again Pruett suggested all four have their DNA compared to the evidence on the shank. At that point the State changed its argument yet again, and suggested an untold number of people had handled the weapon, without taking the precaution of wearing gloves, prior to, during, and subsequent to Pruett’s trial. As required by article 64.04, the trial court convened a hearing to address the results of the testing. At the August 13 hearing, the thrust of the State’s argument was that the testing of the weapon conducted in 2015 was the same as what had been performed in 2000;19 and therefore, because the unknown DNA profile had not 19 The practice of collecting epithelial cells during forensic analysis (known as touch-DNA analysis) was in its infancy in 2000 and was far from being widely available. See supra note 15. It is counsel’s understanding that this technology was not being regularly used, and perhaps not at all, by the DPS labs at the time of Pruett’s trial. Indeed, the fact the State chose to have the UNTCHI perform the 2013 analysis in this case (which included touch-DNA analysis) suggests that even as late as 2013, this type of analysis was not conducted at the DPS lab. Even in May 2015, the DPS lab suggested that any touch-DNA analysis should be performed by the UNTCHI. 25 been found in 2000, the newly present DNA must have resulted from contamination. The trial court denied Pruett relief, finding that the results of the analysis alone would not have led Pruett’s jury to find him not guilty.20 The trial court based its ruling on its belief that the evidence had been contaminated. But the State’s assertions, and the state courts’ judgment, simply do not comport with the evidence. In the first place, touch-DNA analysis was not widely performed in 2000,21 and was not performed at all by the lab in Texas that performed the pretrial testing, so there would have been no reason for the analyst in 2000 to swab the portions of the murder weapon that were swabbed in 2015.22 In short, the assertion this same testing was performed at the time of Pruett’s trial is simply not credible. 20 The finding a trial court must make in a chapter 64 proceeding concerns whether the results of the analysis alone would have changed the outcome of the trial. Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 64.04. The trial court did not consider what this Court must when considering Pruett’s claim that he is actually innocent: whether the totality of the evidence would have resulted in a different verdict. See infra pp. 29-32. Pruett appealed the trial court’s findings to the CCA. That court affirmed the trial court’s findings. Pruett v. State, No. AP-77,065, 2017 WL 1245431 (Tex. Crim. App. Apr. 5, 2017). 21 See supra note 15. 22 The analyst intimated at the 2015 hearing she had swabbed the entire surface area of the weapon in 2000, but that testimony was flatly belied by contemporaneous drawings she made at the time of the original testing. Compare 2 2015 R.R. 64-65, with 3 2015 R.R. 3. Those illustrations, drawn by the analyst during the 2000 testing, indicate that her analysis of the weapon at that time was limited to the two bloodstains found on the weapon. 3 2015 R.R. 3. This is consistent with her testimony from the 2002 trial, and it is precisely what one would expect given the technology available in 2000. 42 R.R. 337. However, at the August 13, 2015 hearing, she insisted that the 2000 analysis included swabbing the entire weapon to determine if epithelial cells were present. 2 2015 R.R. 64-65. The analyst claimed her memory of this testing – completed fifteen years earlier – was more accurate than the diagrams she created while conducting the analysis. Id. at 63. The analyst suggested she might have other drawings or notes that would indicate she swabbed the entire weapon during the 2000 analysis. Id. Yet no data handed over to counsel supports the claim that the entire weapon was swabbed prior to Pruett’s 26 Moreover, there are portions of the murder weapon that incontestably have not been and could not have been contaminated (i.e., the area under the evidence tag, and the adhesive side of the tag), yet, despite an order directing that this evidence be tested, the State has steadfastly refused to do so. Finally, by comparing the profile discovered in 2015 with DNA profiles maintained in law-enforcement databases, a match might be generated, which would conclusively disprove the contamination claim. Orders issued by the state court, and the mandatory language of Chapter 64, require these steps to be taken, yet none of them has. Ignoring both court orders and state law, the State has simply refused to compare the partial profile recovered from the murder weapon to DNA profiles maintained in either the FBI or local law enforcement databases, or to guards who were arrested shortly after Officer Nagle’s murder, or to inmates who worked in collusion with those guards. In the face of evidence strongly corroborating Pruett’s claim that he had nothing to do with the murder, the State’s actions are truly astonishing; they exhibit stunning indifference to the specter of executing an innocent man and to learning who actually murdered Officer Nagle. The State’s cavalier behavior regarding the murder weapon is part of a broader pattern of indifference to the truth. In its May 2015 order, the trial court directed that the clothes that Officer Nagle was wearing at the time he was murdered be analyzed to determine if the person who killed him deposited trial. Nor does the lab at which the analyst worked in 2000 appear to even have been performing so-called touch-DNA analysis at the time. See supra note 15. 27 epithelial cells on his clothing. The State has ignored the order entirely. Similarly, under state law, the State is obligated to hand over all of the raw data of the testing it did perform to Pruett’s counsel; it has not done so. The State is obligated to compare DNA profiles recovered from the crime scene to others maintained in law enforcement databases; it has refused. Time and again, in instance after instance, the State has had the opportunity to learn more – to learn whose DNA is in fact connected to the murder of Officer Nagle – and on every occasions, the State has refused. In sum: New DNA testing conducted since Pruett’s trial (some in 2013, some in 2015), using more sophisticated techniques than were available at the time of trial, has revealed the following: (1) None of Pruett’s blood or DNA is at the crime scene, on the murder weapon, on the disciplinary report, or on the victim; (2) none of the victim’s blood or DNA is on anything belonging to Pruett; (3) the DNA found on the torn pieces of the disciplinary report could have been left there by one-third of the people who were present at the prison unit where Officer Nagle was killed on the day of the murder; (4) DNA belonging to neither Pruett nor Nagle is on the murder weapon. The jury that convicted Pruett knew none of these things. It also did not know about corruption at the McConnell Unit, or that corrections officers were indicted shortly after the murder. The jury was unaware of the deals prosecutors made with other inmates to secure their testimony, or that prison officials threated inmates who intended to testify on Pruett’s behalf. It did not know the so-called 28 tape match testimony is junk science. If the case against Robert Pruett were presented to the jury today, that presentation would not remotely resemble the one presented at Pruett’s trial. Knowing what we know today it is unfathomable that a reasonable juror would vote to convict Mr. Pruett, much less sentence him to death.23 Reasons for Granting the Writ. Viewed as a whole, the evidence presented at trial as well as evidence unavailable to the jury demonstrates Pruett’s innocence. This Court should rule that stand-alone claims of actual innocence are cognizable in federal habeas proceedings and articulate the standard for granting relief in such cases. The new evidence in this case falls into seven distinct categories, all of which was unknown to the jury that voted to convict. First, post-conviction DNA testing has established conclusively that no physical evidence connects Pruett to the crime. Second, in view of the corruption at the McConnell Unit, the arrests of prison officials following Nagle’s murder, the fact Nagle was preparing a grievance, and the fact Nagle was worried about his safety, it is clear others at the prison had a motive to commit murder. Third, the 2013 DNA testing on the pieces of the disciplinary report demonstrates the presence of biological material that could have been deposited by one-third of the inmates and guards at the McConnell Unit the day Officer Nagle was killed. Fourth, the only so-called expert or scientific 23 In fact, at least one juror, the foreman of Pruett’s jury, has sworn that he would not have agreed to vote in favor of conviction if he had known simply that the prosecution had made deals with inmates not disclosed to the jury, or if he had known the State threated witnesses who desired to testify on Pruett’s behalf with physical violence or other forms of retaliation. See Affidavit of Scott Carrigan, at p. 108, paras. 8-9, attached as Exhibit J. 29 testimony offered against Pruett has been discredited and is now known as junk. Fifth, the State did not reveal to Pruett’s counsel, and therefore the jury did not learn, of the deals it had entered with all the inmates who testified against Pruett. Sixth, the State did not reveal to Pruett’s counsel, and therefore the jury was unaware, that inmates who desired to testify in favor of Pruett were threatened with retaliation, and therefore cowed into silence. Finally, the jury did not know that DNA belonging to neither Pruett nor Nagle is on the shank used to commit the murder. The jury knew none of this. If it had, no reasonable juror would have voted to convict. In its contemporary death penalty jurisprudence, this Court has, on numerous occasions, recognized that death is different. E.g., Woodson v. North Carolina, 428 U.S. 280 (1976). What makes death different is that it is final. See, e.g., Murray v. Giarratano, 492 U.S. 1, 29-33 & nn.9, 11 (1989). If the State wrongfully imprisons an inmate, there is an opportunity for that inmate to prove his innocence and gain release. If the State carries out a wrongful execution, the grotesque injustice cannot be cured. This Court has never expressly addressed the question of whether the federal courts, and this Court in particular, have jurisdiction to entertain and grant relief to a prisoner who asserts a claim of actual innocence. This case provides this Court with an opportunity to address that question directly. However, even if this Court prefers a narrower approach, there is a firm doctrinal basis for granting Pruett 30 relief. In Schlup v. Delo, 513 U.S. 298, 327 (1995), this Court held that a prisoner seeking review of a successive habeas application based on a claim of actual innocence “must show that it is more likely than not that no reasonable juror would have convicted him in light of” new evidence. In Pruett’s case, as indicated, the new evidence includes both Brady material, (i.e., the State’s withholding material, exculpatory evidence relating to deals struck with other inmates, and its presentation of false testimony through Harold Mitchell and Michael Hall); the State’s use of “junk science” testimony at trial; and post-conviction DNA analysis (which utilized techniques not available at the time of Pruett’s trial), demonstrating both that numerous people at the prison cannot be excluded as contributors to biological material at the crime scene, that Pruett’s DNA is not where one would expect the DNA of a murderer to be, and that the murder weapon contains the DNA profile of an unknown individual. The State’s behavior in this case evinces indifference to the possibility it stands to execute an innocent man. It has had in its possession for more than a decade biological material that could corroborate Mr. Pruett’s consistent claim of actual innocence and identify the actual murderer of Officer Daniel Nagle, yet it has taken no action on its own initiative to have the evidence tested. Only as a result of persistent and repeated demands by Pruett’s counsel have the state courts ordered testing to occur. Yet even after testing has been ordered, the government and its agents refuse to fully implement these orders – and the state courts countenance 31 this refusal to comply. Given the complete absence of any physical evidence connecting Pruett to this bloody murder, the State’s figurative act of burying its head in the sand shocks the conscience. We already know with certainty that DNA belonging to neither Robert Pruett nor Officer Daniel Nagle has been discovered on the murder weapon. Perhaps, as the State says and hopes, we would learn that the unknown DNA on the weapon is indeed the result of contamination. But unless and the State carries out the testing it has been ordered to conduct, that state law mandates, and that justice, the Due Process clause, and the Eighth Amendment require, we will never know. If the testing is performed, we will. Mr. Pruett’s execution would violate the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments because he is actually innocent. No reasonable juror would have convicted him had they been presented the results of the DNA analysis conducted in 2013 and 2015. No reasonable juror would have convicted Pruett had they been presented the 2009 NAS Report that discredits the junk science testimony offered by the State’s expert at trial. No reasonable juror would have convicted Pruett had they known that numerous other people in the prison had a motive to see Officer Nagle dead, that the DNA evidence does not exclude those others, and that no physical evidence connects Pruett to the murder. 32 Conclusion. Accordingly, Pruett requests that this Court: 1. Stay Petitioner’s execution scheduled for October 12, 2017; 2. grant his original petition for writ of habeas corpus and address the questions presented in that petition; 3. order, if appropriate, either a special master or the district court to conduct an evidentiary hearing; and 4. grant such other relief as law and justice require. Respectfully Submitted, /s/ David R. Dow ____________________ David R. Dow* Texas Bar No. 06064900 Jeffrey R. Newberry Texas Bar No. 24060966 University of Houston Law Center 4604 Calhoun Rd. Houston, Texas 77204-6060 Tel. (713) 743-2171 Fax (713) 743-2131 Counsel for Robert Lynn Pruett * Member, Supreme Court Bar 33 Certificate of Service On October 10, 2017, I served a copy of the foregoing pleading on Jay Clendenin, Assistant Attorney General via email to: Mr. Jefferson David Clendenin, Assistant Attorney General Office of the Attorney General P.O. Box 12548 Austin, Texas 78711-2548 Jay.clendenin@texasattorneygeneral.gov /s/ David R. Dow _________________ David R. Dow 34 Eh?tA AFFIDAVIT OF 5155,51,"? mg I am over the age of eighteen and competent to give this af?davit. 1. m: (in?ew1?1115 (?1131:1111 ?11x11. ?4,191 A1 ?1112. 11mg: (9111:3415? Mew-111w 11.1.1. 1:1 1111 ,5 i7 emf-.1: 1v?111wzwa-1?1MO .113 ?111 MeCpnmef 1,111+ 2 (9,51Lae111551121w?i. MK 3 hi1 13.13 K, {uh} ?e 111W: Tia-=1" ?11117?. mar-,1, 515,513, p555? Mei, 9115? 11.: L1) 65?1wa akin (1 1:1: 51,1125 01mm 111 1111: 11381111312 1. J) ?1,91 151:} F?mei: 1:11" 5111111 (131% $511 Wt ?111:5Jr ?.muggw?" 1111;" 1:10:11 "1111.. iumm$?ff 1 1 (11:11 1<1 "-1111", "?1111. (11111:? EAL 1651* 3, 011151 1:31?. 1?71?""151g 9.. 3. 1.111115% 11131 ?31mxr1?wze 21-1 1e?wq $311191. 11:1 mew, 11111? (5311? 111:":1 [31311.1 13111113131721 Qig?w? 5 6?1 be?. ?1 ?311 14?; he}; 1111:2111 11?11 ,5 {313.1 .11 I, 1w1 1111 115 V1 91911511? 11 Lag-Emu" 1?111 13?: 111.11,? 1 T1: ??11 131"" 1'11 "111:; 1.25)qu M11311, 11111 ?mzm 51'C?19w11y, ?11111?: mm (71141.1:1? 14:; {35:55 1313 15211115 pp W111. 4. 131111711" "116* 6? (11:3131 <1 153:1 11:15:11,551 1.. 6351110 "311*??1 14 5: @1111 "1 :13 111%? 1.11131 111173 ?1361111131? ?s?ehbd 31:? (Q .5 ?41515? 1? <11. MS 1:23 1: 13111131112137? wee? N1 ??111; ?211,111" Cinq1 (511nm? ?11 {331? ""111111 1 1 5. 12111 M1 131.34 1:113" 11 111151419119 "1?fo1?10" 3 5951'3 kg? 1.11 ?11:11; "g 1:1le [11?111 ?13 5 ?45.11 161 3:19ng 113,311,.? (71.11? I?1Lw?i. {317-2111 {i 1.. 1: ?11: @115 6111?73?11? :3 {$11.53; J1 @3619? {5165.15.55.565135 {We {31112. ?551.21: 53,11?. 1% vi? (if 191111 .1 r1111! 1,55,25,11,; 5555, 6. ?111.. 111115,,1141111 "$117.51. .51. 1 5:55 A ?5.1.5.1 1 141+ a; 1.1 111.5 mm 1: 1 1:11 11:15:55 b31119 .1519r1 We 1. Initial 036 ,Exi?af?Et?c . Z: ":iibd H?3Eiem?w"y?fz "mic? i3 . i, ?w?ki" ($471ng gig"? f? ?it; CAPE. ?if af?xf?i?iy (?an if" Aging? aiding" (we: g; "If "at? 96.253 3 ?C?aiga?ci inc.)- "Arm. e; Wilm? - 8- EXQEH "1 Cyan?; ?ikg, (2&qu ("ii Chum 4" Wu?" :3 EMEECQ {at "Pi" :4 k" ?51k; Wm" "giving 173 djh+kx "?ir?mq agi?: hi!? .21., ?hm 0&5} "2w?20". 2: (Tia. (TQM I?m (vii; "5&4 :c?i?igj we gunk; HJM ?i"xtf?" :5 "rim "Kg ?figs; ??fi?fx?w Wm?, Eaggii Em. miEE" ,3 (ME Mia-E. 9 Aria.? ME H023 (?iga?w? 9 ?g Law; {353* (CM ?Lat-u": as? A gig?CM?" "it? twig L?iua {w {img?? Ejmg ?iklu 035% "2414314; bug.? 11E ??29ng ??whful?wi a" {301% $3?ng 6: "Km!?gvf?ifiiw?h?" if", ($02135. It? ?Qf?bih?i?cng q?k Eta-r ?fe. ?is? gwyma} 10. 3? (a mi, "Egg" ("Silk Qyiwwj Cg?sg (32x1 f5; (Mafk; in ?Egg? "3?2 cm . i i big); Ci M?E?Ec?obaii . 113% is." "gin (he; gore, at Egg {m kg Awi? "wig. "mi; mil!? Eanqgw ?g if; Avm WEE 5i 5% "in: Emma; i" c?ifc?g? I declare We?en?y of perjury that the foregoing IS true and correct. Execu on this 7 day of M2013 - Mg Declarant to"? i . Signed and sworn before me this day of 2013. . \u F. . PUblm? ?5mm" Texas JEFFREY ROBERT NEWBERRY Notary Public, State of Texas Commission Expires 04-04- 2015 1 037 Eh?tB SPECIAL PROSECUTION UNIT 340 Hwy. 75 N., Suite A Huntsville, TX 77320 (936) 291-2369 Fax (936) 291-0845 January 17, 2013 eff NeWberry Texas Innocence Network 100 Law Center Houston, Texas 77204-6060 RE: Open Records Request - Robert Pruett Dear Mr. Newberry: Reference is made to your Public Information Request which I received via fax on December 21, 2012 and you clari?ed for me on January 9, 2013. Enclosed please ?nd the documents in this of?ce?s possession in response to your re} uest. . GmaM. DeBot Executive Directo 039 Texas Innocence Network .100 Law Center Houston, Texas 77204-5060 Jeff Newberry Legal Clinic Supervisor Phone: 713.743.6343 Facsimile: 713.743.2131 Email: December 21, 2012 VIA FAX Gina M. DeBottis Executive Director Special Prosecutions Unit 340 Hwy. 75N., Suite A Huntsville, TX 77320 Fax: (936) 291-0845 Ph: (936) 291-2369 Re: Records Request Robert Pruett; DOB: 9/ 8/ 1979 Dear Ms. DeBottis: I assist in the representation of Robert Pruett (TDCJ #999411), who is currently incarcerated at the TDCJ Polunsky Unit under a sentence of death. I am writing to request any records containing disciplinary information andfor adjudicatiOns (regardless of result) pertaining to Mr. Pruett. This request is for documents including, but not limited to, a charging instrument, case referral, investigation notes and/or ?ndings, formal or informal recommendations, and information relating to the dismissal of any case. Please ?nd the enclosed release of information signed by Mr. Pruett. If the total costs for this request exceed $40, please provide a itemized list of the anticipated costs prior to processing the request. Please do not hesitate to contact me by telephone at (713) 743?6843 if you have any questions or if my request is in any way unclear. Thank you for your time and attention, and I look ferward to your response. Why, Jeff 6 my Z?d veeaweu 04? Jewnsuoo J05 Jetueo demo at LE 090 041 TEXAS SPEC rlo: Fax From: Date: Re: Message: 10 war r, HC 02 BOX 966 TX. 78102 TEL: (361) 362.6314} ram (361) 362.6314 TRANSMESSEGN Joseph Collins 36169925941 AL HERNANDEZ April 12, 2002 1. Criminal convictions for inmates anticipated for Monday and Tuesday 2. Giglio clarification 1. Criminal convictions for inmates anticipated for Monday and Tuesday9 run on this date 2. Giglio clari?cation: No witnesses were speci?cally promised a favorable letter to the Parole Board, but they were noti?ed that our practice has been to send a letter informing the Parole Board when an inmate truthfully testifies in one of our cases. more pages follow this cover sheet. This facsimile transmission is a privileged, confidential communication. Improper interception or dissemination is a violation of Federal law. If you have received this facsimile in error, please contact the person listed above at the phone number listed above. You will be given instructions on the procedures to take to ensure the proper disposition of this facsimile transmission. 042 Pruett000021 Texas Department of Criminal Justice INTERNAL AFFAIRS DIVISION SUPPLEMENT OFFENSE REPORT OFFENSE IAD CASE Capital Murder, PC 19.03 (5) (A) 99-256OTDCJ LOCA DATE OF OFFENSE: McConnell Unit December 17, 1999 VICTIM: DATE OF SUPPLEMENT REPORT: NAGLE, Daniel J. C03 February 24, 2000 CASE NARRATIVE: Unit Pro?le: The McConnell Unit is a maximum-security prison located in Beeville, Bee County, Texas, and mile southwest of Highway 202 on Highway 181. The McConnell Unit has a maximum capacity of 2,900 minimum, medium, close, and administrative segregation offenders. There are approximately 798 total employees on the unit, of which, approximately 589 are security employees. There are approximately 117 non-security employees, 72 contract medical employees, and 20 education employees. On December 17, 1999, there were 2,793 offenders assigned to the McConnell Unit. 424 offenders were assigned to 3-Building, which houses minimum-custody level offenders. 3? Building consists of 3 Pods (A, B, C) each containing 72, 2-Man cells for a maximum capacity of 432 offenders. 3-Bui1ding contains a Craft Shop, a Multi-Purpose Room, and an Offender Barber Shop. The Multi-Purpose Room has a television and offers offenders an alternative to television programs that are being watched in the pods. The Craft ShOp is available to offenders with a Line-Class l, or better, custody level and clean disciplinary record for a continuous six- month period. Those offenders allowed Craft Shop privileges work on a variety of crafts including leatherwork, carpentry, and artwork. On December 17, I999, Of?cer Daniel J. NAGLE, was assigned as the 3- Building Desk Of?cer located just inside the entrance to 3-Building. At approximately 3:30 PM, Offender Neil Moffatt ANDERSON, 654811, entered the Administration Building (l-Building) and informed Captain Richard CRITES, Lieutenant Darren WALLACE, Sergeant Enrique ORTIZ, and Frank BELCHER, ., Risk Management Coordinator, that an of?cer had been assaulted in the Multi-Purpose Room in 3-Building. CRITES, WALLACE, and ORTIZ ran to 3- Building and found Of?cer NAGLE lying on the floor, face-up, in the doorway of the Multi- IS FURTHER STATUS OF CASE CASE. DISPOSITION ACTION CI ?Cieared Cl Complainant Refused YES NO Cl Not Cleared Io Prosceule Cl Case Presented and CI Unfounded Prosecution Refused ?l?endlm; Prosecution IA-OZCS (cams/1999) 043 000006 TDCJ-IAD SUPPLEMENT OFFENSE REPORT IAD CASE NUMBER: 99-2560TDCJ PAGE 2 of 29 Purpose Room. NAGLE was unresponsive. Security staff placed NAGT on a stretcher and rushed him to the in?rmary whe1e Dr. Maximiliano HERRERA, initiated CPR. All attempts to revive Of?cer NAGLE were unsuccessful and NAGLE was pronounced deceased at approximately 3. 55 PM by Dr. HERRERA. Bee County Justice of the Peace, Precinct Joe LYVERS was noti?ed at approximately 4:15 PM and authorized a complete post?mortem examination of Of?cer NAGLE. body had numerous puncture wounds con?ned to the head and upper body. At the time of the incident, security staff totaled approximately 125, with eight of?cers and one sergeant, assigned to 3-Building. Internal Affairs staff immediately began an investigation. The scene of the assault was secured to preserve physical evidence. The Texas Department of Public Safety was asked to dispatch Criminal Laboratory Technicians to assist in processing the crime scene. Initially, approximately 180 offenders assigned to 3~Building were interviewed to obtain direct evidence. The investigation has disclosed the following information: On December 16, 1999, Offender Robert PRUETT, 754890,?approached Sergeant Eliseo MARTINEZ, . PRUETT had received a disciplinary case for possessing gambling paraphernalia and offered to tell MARTINEZ the location of a ?weapon? if MARTINEZ agreed to have the disciplinary case dismissed. MARTINEZ referred PRUETT to Lieutenant WALLACE. PRUETT spoke to Lieutenant WALLACE and informed him that it had been several days since he had seen the weapon and he did not know if it was still in the same location. PRUETT did not identify the location to WALLACE. WALLACE did not pursue the matter any further. On December 17, 1999, Offender PRUETT reported to work in the ?eld squad at approximately 7:00 AM. The squad was under the supervision of Of?cer Michael LATHAM, . At approximately 11:35 AM, the ?eld squad returned to the building. Offenders PRUETT and Paul MENEFEE, 687482, asked LATHAM to issue them new boots. LATHAM escorted both offenders to ?A?Side Necessities? where they were each issued new boots. At approximately 11:55 AM, LATHAM escorted both offenders to the dining hall for their noon meal. Lieutenant WALLACE told LATHAM that the dining hall was closed and instructed LATHAM to give sack lunches (johnnies) to PRUETT and MENEFEE. LATHAM obtained ?johnnies? for PRUETT and MENEFEE and instructed them to return to their assigned housing areas. At approximately 12:40 PM, PRUETT attempted to take his ?johnnie? on the 3 4 Building Recreation Yard. PRUETT was stopped by Of?cer NAGLE at the 3?Building Desk. NAGLE informed PRUETT that he could not take the ?johnnie? onto the recreation yard; he could either eat it in the lobby of 3-Building or take it back to his assigned housing. NAGLE told PRUETT that he would be written a disciplinary case for attempting to take his lunch on the recreation yard. Of?cer Charles JOHNSON, had just conducted a ?channel- . check? for offenders in the Multi?Purpose Room and overheard the confrontation between NAGLE and PRUETT. JOHNSON stood by until PRUETT ate the ?johnnie? and left for the recreation yard. JOHNSON returned to his assigned duty station. Offender PRUETT moved to various parts of the 3 4 Building Recreation Yard, 3?Building Multi?Purpose Room, and his assigned housing in 3?Building, A-Pod, until approximately 3:00 (own/1999) 04? 000007 TDCJ-IAD SUPPLEMENT OFFENSE REPORT IAD CASE NUMBER: 99-2560TDCJ PAGE 3 of 29 PM. At approximately 3:05 PM, PRUETT approached the 3-Building Craft ShOp door. Offender Shelton PHILLIPS, 775261, who was cellmate in A?Pod, Cell, was inside the Craft Sh0p. The door to the Craft Shop was closed and locked. PHILLIPS was assigned to the Craft Shop as a leather worker. PHILLIPS slid a 6 8 inch sharpened metal rod under the Craft Shop door to Offender PRUETT. PRUETT picked up the metal rod and took it into the Multi-Purpose Room. A short time later, Of?cer NAGLE entered the Multi?Purpose Room and spoke with PRUETT about the disciplinary case. PRUETT attacked NAGLE with the sharpened metal rod. NAGLE defended himself and fought PRUETT into the Multi-Purpose Room?s restroom. The struggle continued out of the restroom and towards the door where NAGLE fell to the ?oor unconscious. PRUETT bent over NAGLE and stabbed him in the neck with the metal rod. PRUETT threw the weapon on the ?oor and ran out of 3-Building onto the 3-Building Hallway where he laid down and placed his hands behind his back. PRUETT realized no security staff members had seen him so he got up and walked towards 3-Gym where an unknown offender handed PRUETT a change of clothes. The Necessities Department is near 3-Gym in the 3-Building Hallway, and had been issuing necessities to offenders waiting in the necessities line. PRUETT was observed to have what appeared to be blood stains on the front of his shirt and was concealing his hands and arms with a towel. At approximately 3:35 PM, Captain CRITES, Lieutenant WALLACE, Sergeant ORTIZ, and Mr. BELCHER were in of?ce in l?Building when they were informed by Offender ANDERSON that Of?cer NAGLE was being stabbed in 3nBuilding. CRITES, WALLACE, ORTIZ, and BELCHER rushed to 3?Building. As they passed the Necessities Department and 3? Gym, all the offenders in the necessities line and those standing near the door of 3?Gym were secured inside 3?Gym, including Offender PRUETT. PRUETT walked directly into the 3?Gym restroom and washed himself and threw the towel that he had been carrying in a trashcan. PRUETT changed clothes and took the clothes that he had been wearing and put them in a trashcan near the front door. PRUETT was bleeding from a wound on one of his hands and was holding a small 1ag over it. PRUETT dripped blood on the ?oor but cleaned it up before it was discovered. A short time later, ente1ed the and identi?ed all the offenders. PRUETT turned around and placed his hands behind his back as the of?cers approached him. Confused by his actions, the of?cers told him they needed to see his identi?cation card. The of?cers recorded his identi?cation and continued identifying other offenders. After identifying all the offenders, the of?cers left the gym. Several minutes later, security of?cers returned to 3?Gym with a video camera, escorted by Internal Affairs Investigator John DAVIS. The video camera was activated and Offender PRUETT was ordered to submit to hand restraints PRUETT complied and was escorted to 11 Building where he was strip? ?s.earched Investigator J. DAVIS con?scated the clothes that PRUETT was wearing at the time as evidence. Lieutenant WALLACE had been the ?rst to arrive in 3?Building, followed by Captain CRITES, Sergeant ORTIZ, and, Mr. BELCHER. Of?cer NAGLE was discovered lying face-up, unconscious, on the ?oor in the doorway of the Multi?Purpose Room. NAGLE had puncture wounds on the left side of his neck. There was a small pool of blood on the ?oor under head. NAGLE was immediately placed on a stretcher and rushed to the in?rmary where Dr. HERRERA initiated resuscitation efforts. The resuscitation efforts were unsuccessful and NAGLE was pronounced deceased by Dr. HERRERA at approximately 3:55 PM. Bee County Justice Of The Peace, Precinct Joe LYVERS, was noti?ed and arrived on the unit at 000008 IA-OZCS (05/03/1999) 045 SUPPLEMENT OFFENSE REPORT IAD CASE NUMBER: PAGE 4 of 29 approximately 4:15 PM. Judge LYVERS conducted an inquest and authorized a post?mortem examination of Of?cer body. On December 20, 1999, at approximately 9:52 AM, Nueces County Medical Examiner Dr. Lloyd WHITE conducted the autOpsy and concluded that Of?cer NAGLE died as a result of Cardiac during a violent assault, associated with multiple stab-puncture wounds to the neck. STATEMENT: NAGLEiDaniel J., C03, McConnell Unit: Of?cer NAGLE received fatal injuries as a result of the attack and was never interviewed. STATEMENT: PRUETT, Robert, Lynn, 754890, Offender, Michael Unit: Offender PRUETT was informed of his Miranda Warnings on December 17, 1999, at approximately 10:37 PM, by Region IV Internal Affairs Chief Bill LAZENBY. After being informed of his Miranda Warnings, PRUETT provided the following statement: PRUETT stated that when he came in from the ?elds his ?boss? escorted him to get a new pair of boots. After receiving the boots he was informed that the dining hall was closed and he would be issued a sack lunch (johnnie). PRUETT took the ?johnnie? to his assigned housing and attempted to go on the recreation yard. NAGLE was at 3-Desk and asked PRUETT, ?What are you doing eating in my hallway?? PRUETT attempted to explain to NAGLE that he had missed lunch and was given the ?johnnie?. PRUETT stated that NAGLE was yelling at him and threatened to ?le a disciplinary case against him. PRUETT replied, ?Well, you might as well.? NAGLE stated, don?t care, I?m going to write you a case?. PRUETT stated that he watched NAGLE write the case from the recreation yard. PRUETT admitted that NAGLE made him mad and that he was with NAGLE at approximately 3:00 PM. At one point during the interview, PRUETT stated, ?I?m gonna die anyways, so justice would be done ifI did do it!? PRUETT admitted speaking to Lieutenant WALLACE on December 16, 1999, about having a disciplinary case dismissed if PRUETT would ?give up a sha PRUETT stated that Lieutenant WALLACE refused to deal with him and told him that he didn?t care. PRUETT replied, ?Well then, you never know what will happen with that shank. That may have been the shank that someone found anyway.? PRUETT stated, ?Of?cer NAGLE was a bad boss. Even other of?cers didn?t like him and that?s bad when your own kind don?t like you.? PRUETT stated that he felt like ?there was two of him.? PHILLIPS, Shelton4 775261, Offender, Estelle Unit: On December 30, 1999, at approximately 10:50 AM, Offender PHILLIPS was interviewed at the Estelle Unit, Huntsville, Texas, by Chief LAZENBY and Investigators DAVIS and SCOTTEN. After being informed of his Miranda Warnings, PHILLIPS provided the following statement: PHILLIPS stated that he went to the Craft Shop at 7:30 AM, December 17, 1999. PHILLIPS stayed in the Craft ShOp all 0% 000000 (05/03/t999) TDCJ-IAD SUPPLEMENT OFFENSE REPORT IAD CASE NUMBER: 99-2560TDCJ PAGE 5 of 29 day. The only time PHILLIPS left the Craft Shop was to go to the dining hall for lunch. PHILLIPS admitted that Offender PRUETT came to the Craft Shop door at least two times during the day, prior to death. PHILLIPS stated that PRUETT was at the Craft Shop door between 2:30 3:00 PM, right after count cleared. Officer NAGLE was at the desk. PHILLIPS stated that PRUETT asked him for some tape. PHILLIPS wrapped some tape around the end of a broken, purple toothbrush and slid it under the Craft Shop door. PRUETT asked PHILLIPS to have it sent to the MultinPurpose Room for him. Offender Jimmy MULLICAN, 658959, was at the Craft Shop door. PHILLIPS asked MULLICAN to take the tape to PRUETT in the Multi?Purpose Room. MULLICAN picked up the tape and slid it under the Multi?Purpose Room door. PRUETT was not in the Multi~Purpose Room at the time. He had gone down the hallway. PRUETT walked back to the Multi-Purpose Room. MULLICAN told PRUETT that the tape was in the Multi-Purpose Room. NAGLE let PRUETT in the Multi? Purpose Room. PHILLIPS refused to say whether or not he ever saw NAGLE go back to the Multi-Purpose Room while PRUETT was in there. The next time that PHILLIPS saw PRUETT was when the incident occurred. PHILLIPS stated that PRUETT had recently received a disciplinary case for gambling and attempted to offer a ?shank? to security staff and have the disciplinary case dismissed in return. PHILLIPS stated that Lieutenant WALLACE informed PRUETT that he would not dismiss case unless PRUETT ?pinned the shank to a body.? PHILLIPS stated that PRUETT Spoke to Lieutenant WALLACE the day before NAGLE was killed. PHILLIPS denied that PRUETT was keeping the ?shank? in their cell or that PHILLIPS had ever seen it. PHILLIPS stated that he was aware that PRUETT had the ?shank? and that he was trying to get the disciplinary case dismissed with it. PHILLIPS stated that when PRUETT asked him for the tape he thought that PRUETT had found an officer to dismiss the disciplinary case. PHILLIPS stated that he thought PRUETT needed the tape to ?put a handle on the shank.? PHILLIPS stated that he did not see NAGLE chase PRUETT into the Multi?Purpose Room. When questioned as to whether or not he saw anything occur in or near the bathroom of the Multi-Purpose Room, PHILLIPS replied, ?I?m not going to answer that question.? When questioned as to whether or not he saw PRUETT after the incident occurred, PHILLIPS replied, ?I?m not going to answer that.? PHILLIPS stated, seen the incident occur, who killed NAGLE, and how it went down from the moment it started in the Multi-Purpose Room but I?m not going to answer any questions related to that incident.? PHILLIPS denied passing a weapon under the Craft Shop door. PHILLIPS stated that the disciplinary cases that PRUETT had received for gambling had been ?eating at him.? Had NAGLE written case that day he would have gone to 8- Building and he did not want to go. PHILLIPS stated that PRUETT became so obsessed with the cases that he offered two of?cers a c?shank?. PHILLIPS stated assume it?s, I?m pretty sure it?s the exact same one that was used to kill NAGLE with, and it could have been got, for a measly case, a piss?ant gambling paraphernalia case.? PHILLIPS stated that the door to the Multi?Purpose Room was locked before the incident involving NAGLE occurred. There were four offenders in the Multi-Purpose Room, one being Offender PRUETT. NAGLE walked to the door *of the Multi-Purpose Room and unlocked it. {osto3/ 999) 047 I 0000-10 TDCJ-IAD SUPPLEMENT OFFENSE REPORT IAD CASE NUMBER: 99-2560TDCJ PAGE 6 of 29 Something was said to draw NAGLE in and that is when the incident occurred. The other offenders in the Multi-Purpose Room were white. PHILLIPS failed to identify them any further. PHILLIPS stated that NAGLE took three quick steps into the Multi-Purpose Room and he ?got stuck.? Three of the offenders left the Multi-Purpose Room when the incident started. PRUETT told PHILLIPS, the evening before the incident, that he had hidden the ?shank? in the Multi-Purpose Room. WITNESSES: . BAUCH, Charles, Investigator II, Region IV Internal Affairs Division: Can testify to various aspects of the investigation. BOLDT, Glenn, Inve?gator II, Region IV Internal Affairs Division: Can testify to various aspects of the investigation. DAVIS, John, Investigator II, Region IV Internal Affairs Division: Can testify to various aspects Of the investigation. DAVIS, Tony, Investigator II, Region IV Internal Affairs Division: Can testify to various aspects of the investigation. FRONTZ, Donna, Investigator II, Region IV Internal Affairs Division: Can testify to various aspects of the investigation. GUAJARDO, David, Investigator II, Region IV Internal Affairs Division: Can testify to various aspects of the investigation. KOENIG, Matthew, Investigator I, Region IV Internal Affairs Division: Can testify to various aspects of the investigation. LAZENBY, Bill, Regional Manager, Region IV Internal Affairs Division: Can testify to various aspects of the investigation. MANN, Charles, Inve?gator II, Region IV Internal Affairs Division: Can testify to various aspects of the investigation. MCWHORTER, Pat, Regional Supervisor, Region IV Internal Affairs Division: Can testify to various aspects of the investigation. - MAREK, Elisa, Investigator Trainee, Region IV Internal Affairs Division: Can testify to various aspects of the investigation. MARTINEZ, Jesse, Investigator 1, Region IV Internal Affairs Division: Can testify to various aspects of the investigation. MELTON, Cathy, Investigator II, RegionVI Internal Affairs Division: Can testify to various aspects of the investigation. (05/03/l999) 048 000011 TDCJ-IAD SUPPLEMENT OFFENSE REPORT CASE NUMBER: 99-2560TDCJ PAGE 7 of 29 ROMANO, Richard, Investigator Region IV Internal Affairs Division: Can testify to various aspects of the investigation. RUIZ, Oscatilnvestigator II, Fugitive Operations, Internal Affairs Division: Can testify to various aspects of the investigation. SANTANA, Juan, Investigator of the Inspector General, Internal Affairs Division: Can testify to various aSpects of the investigation. SCOTTEN, Michael W., Investigator II, Region IV Internal Affairs Division: Can testify to various aSpects of the investigation. CRITES, Richard L., Cap_tain, McConnell Unit: Can testify that on December 17, 1999, at approximately 3:35 PM, he was in his of?ce in the Administration Building with Lieutenant WALLACE, Sergeant ORTIZ, and Frank BELCHER, -, when Offender Neal ANDERSON, 654811, informed them that he had heard from another offender that an of?cer in 3-Building was being assaulted. CRITES, WALLACE, ORTIZ, and BELCHER ran to 3?Building and observed Of?cer NAGLE lying, face-up, on the ?oor unresponsive. NAGLE appeared to have been stabbed. WALLACE, Darren B., Lieutenant, McConnell Unit: Can testify that on December 17, 1999, at approximately 3:30 PM, he was in Captain of?ce with Captain CRITES, and Sergeant ORTIZ when Offender ANDERSON entered the of?ce and informed them that Of?cer NAGLE was having an emergency in 3-Building and something about a stabbing. WALLACE ran to 3-Building and observed Of?cer NAGLE lying face-up on the floor, unresponsive, in the doorway of the Multi-Purpose Room. WALLACE observed large cuts on the left side of neck. WALLACE can further testify that on December 16, 1999, Offender PRUETT approached him and offered to turn over a ?weapon? if WALLACE would have a previous disciplinary case that PRUETT had received dismissed. PRUETT informed WALLACE that he had not seen the weapon for several days and was unsure if it was still in the same place. PRUETT failed to provide WALLACE with further information. WALLACE did not pursue the matter further. AMBRIZ, Aurelio, Lieutenant, McConnell Unit: Can testify that he responded to 3?Building and observed Of?cer NAGLE lying on the ?oor, face-up, in the doorway of the Multi-Purpose Room. AMBRIZ proceeded to 4-Building to assist in having all offenders placed in their cells. AMBRIZ returned to 3-Building and Was approached by an unknown of?cer who informed him that a piece of clothing with possible blood stains was on the ?oor in A-Pod in front of #4-Cell. AMBRIZ instructed the of?cer to remain with the clothing item. AMBRIZ informed an Internal Affairs Investigator of the clothing item. GARZA, Juan En Sergeant, McConnell Unit: Can testify that he spoke with Offender Allen J. THOMPSON, 559019, at A-Turn-out. THOMPSON informed GARZA that he had seen Of?cer NAGLE get assaulted and that he knew who did it. 049 00001:), Pruetl000027 SUPPLEMENT OFFENSE REPORT IAD CASE NUMBER: 99-2560TDCJ PAGE 8 of 29 THOMPSON informed GARZA that it was a tall, white guy who lives in 3-A-3 Cell. THOMPSON informed GARZA that he had seen NAGLE get stabbed two times. GARZA can further testify that he proceeded to 3-Building and observed Of?cer NAGLE lying on the floor in the Multi-Purpose Room and that NAGLE had what appeared to be two puncture wounds around his throat area. MASTERS, Kelvin D., Sergeant, McConnell Unit: Can testify that he escorted Offender Shelton PHILLIPS, 775261, from the 3-Building Craft Shop to a holding cell in the Administration Building. ORTIZ, Enrique, McConnell Unit: Can testify that he was in Captain of?ce with CRITES and Lieutenant WALLACE when Offender ANDERSON informed them that an of?cer was being stabbed in the 3-Building Multi?Purpose Room. ORTIZ, WALLACE, and CRITES ran to 3~ Building. ORTIZ observed Of?cer NAGLE lying on the ?oor with his eyes open and a small amount of blood on the floor. ORTIZ observed several wounds on neck. . ORTIZ can further testify that he located Offender PRUETT in 3-Gym, placed him in hand restraints, and escorted him to ll-Building where ORTIZ observed Internal Affairs Investigator John DAVIS take custody of the clothing being worn by PRUETT. ANDRADE, Armando Jr., -, CO3, McConnell Unit: Can testify that on December 17, 1999, he located some bloody clothing lying on the floor of 3-Building, A-Pod. ARTHUR, Andrew, PMcian?s Assistant, UTMB, McConnell Unit: Can testify that on December 17, 1999, at approximately 3:25 PM, medical staff was summoned to 3- Building for an ?of?cer down.? While enroute approximately 6?8 of?cers were rushing Of?cer NAGLE to the in?rmary on a gurney. ARTHUR observed NAGLE to have a dusky color, mouth and eyes were open, and his pupils were ?xed. ARTHUR also noticed two stab wounds on the left side of neck. ARTHUR can also testify to the efforts to revive NAGLE in the in?rmary. BARNES, Joseph L., . CO3, McConnell Unit: Can testify that on December 17, 1999, he was assigned to security duty in 3-Building. At approximately 3:00 PM, BARNES took his thirty-minute break in the Of?cer?s Dining Room (ODR). BARNES remained in the ODR for approximately twenty minutes. BARNES left the ODR and walked to the A-Tum Out Gate and remained there for approximately two minutes before walking back to 3-Buildingf At approximately 3:27 PM, BARNES entered 3-Building and observed Of?cer NAGLE sitting at the desk. BARNES reported to B-Pod, 3-Building. BARRERA, LeroLJl CO3, McConnell Unit: Can testify that on December 17, 1999, he was assigned to security duty at the A-Turn Out Security Desk. Sometime between 3:30 and 4:00 PM, BARRERA observed several of?cers running toward 3-Building. BARRERA began clearing offenders from the area. A short time later BARRERA observed several of?cers carrying Of?cer NAGLE on a stretcher to the in?rmary. At approximately 4:30 a. 000013 Pruett000028 TDCJ-IAD SUPPLEMENT OFFENSE REPORT IAD CASE NUMBER: 99-2550TDCJ PAGE 9 of 29 PM an unknown black offender approached BARRERA and stated, know!? BARRERA summoned Of?cer Gina C. DANCER, and she escorted the offender to speak with a supervisor. BARRERA, Dino, C03, McConnell Unit: Can testify that on December 17, 1999, at approximately 4:30 PM he conducted a perimeter check around the outside of 3- Building and did not ?nd any weapons. BARRIOS, Rachael 8., CO3, McConnell Unit: Can testify that on December 18, 1999, she was assigned to security duty in IO-Building, in the Medical Unit. At approximately 9:15 AM, BARRIOS overheard Offender PRUETT, who was con?ned in Cell-14, call out her name. PRUETT informed BARRIOS that he came to TDCJ when he was 15 years old for a murder that he did not commit. PRUETT informed BARRIOS that he got tired of NAGLE telling him to tuck his shirt in, or get on the yellow line. BARRIOS can further testify that PRUETT stated, ?All NAGLE did was yell and that PRUETT was going to plead the ?fth.? BARTLETT, David, Physician?s Assistant, UTMB, McConnell Unit: Can testify to the efforts to revive Of?cer NAGLE in the in?rmary. BELCHER, Frank, L., Risk Management Coordinator, McConnell Unit: Can testify that on December 17, 1999, he was in Captain of?ce speaking with CRITES when Offender ANDERSON informed them that an of?cer was being stabbed in 3? Building. CRITES and BELCHER proceeded to 3~Bui1ding. Upon arrival in 3?Building, BELCHER observed Of?cer NAGLE lying face?up on the ?oor. BELCHER can also testify to the location of physical evidence at the crime scene. BENAVIDEZ, Juan M., McConnell Unit: Can testify that on December 17, 1999, at approximately 5:05 PM, he was assigned to roster and escort the offenders in 3-Building Craft Sh0p for Internal Affairs interviews. BENAVIDEZ, Leonora C., CO3, McConnell Unit: Can testify that on December 17, 1999, she was assigned as the 3?Building, A-Pod Control Of?cer. At' approximately 3:35 or 3:40 PM, BENAVIDEZ observed Offender PRUETT enter A?Pod with ?red stains? on his shirt BENAVIDEZ can further testify that on December 27, 1999, she was shown a photo line-up by Internal Affairs Investigator John DAVIS and that she identi?ed photo #4 of photo Spread #2 to be the same offender she observed enter A?Pod with ?red stains? on his shirt. CORDOVA, Guadalupe, CO3, McConnell Unit: Can testify to the collection of clothing worn by Offender PHILLIPS. . CUBBAGEJ Rhonda, A RNLUTMB, McConnell Unit: Can testify to the efforts to revive Of?cer NAGLE in the in?rmary. 000014 (05/03/1999) 051 a? ,1 that appeared to have drops of blood on them. DEPAU can further testify that he and TDCJ-IAD SUPPLEMENT OFFENSE REPORT IAD CASE NUMBER: 99-2560TDCJ PAGE 10 of 29 DANCER, Gina C., C03, McConnell Unit: Can testify that she rostered and identi?ed all inmates in the necessities hallway and that she and Of?cer BARRERA identi?ed Offender Allen James THOMPSON, Jr., 559019, as having witnessed the attack of Of?cer NAGLE. DELBOSQUE, Edward, ,_Recreation Specialist IV McConnell Unit: Can testify that he and Of?cer Mario DEPAU, ,located a pair of offender pants in a trash can near the entrance door of 3- that appeared to have drops of blood on them. . DELBOSQUE can further testify that he and Of?cer DEPAU located a towel 1n a trashcan In the If) t? it 7" .., offender restroom in 3- -Gym that appeared to have drops of blood on it. DEPAU, Mario 13., . .CO3 McConnell Unit: Can testify that he and Coach DELBOSQUE located a pair of offender pants in a trash can near the entrance door of 3- DELBOSQUE located a towel in a trashcan in the offender restroom in 3-Gym that appeared to have drops of blood on it. DOSS, La Nell I., . RN, UTMB, McConnell Unit: Can testify to the efforts to revive Of?cer NAGLE in the in?rmary. GLEW, Lorelei V., CO3J McConnell Unit: Can testify that she was assigned to security duty at the 3 4 Security Gate on December 17, 1999, until she was relieved at approximately 3:35 PM and that she never noticed any unusual offender activity while assigned there. GLEW can further testify that the last time she saw Of?cer NAGLE alive was at approximately 2:15 PM. GOMEZ, Rosa M., Patient Care Assistant, UTMB, McConnell Unit: Can testify to the effortsto revive Of?cer NAGLE in the in?nnary. GONZALEZ, Dolores P., . CO3, McConnell Unit: Can testify that she assisted medical staff with efforts to revive Of?cer Nagle 1n the in?rmary and that she secured Of?cer belongings and turned them over to Internal Affairs Investigator John DAVIS. HERRERA, Maximiliano J., Unit Medical Doctor, UTMB, McConnell Unit: Can testify to the efforts to revive Of?cer NAGLE in the in?rmary and that he pronounced Of?cer NAGLE deceased at approximately 3:55 PM, December 17, 1999. HUDSON, Bryan JamesL CO3, McConnell Unit: Can testify that on December 17, 1999, at approximately 5:00 PM, he was instructed by supervisors to keep security on ?bloody clothes? that were discovered on the ?oor of 3-Building, A-Pod, l-Section, near the shower area. JOHNSON, Charles, CO3, McConnell Unit: Can testify that on December 17, 1999, he was assigned as a Rover in 3-Building, C?Pod. At approximately 12:40 PM, JOHNSON went to the Matti-Purpose Room to provide a ?channel-check? for the offenders in (om/mo) 000015 052 Pruett000030 TDCJ-IAD SUPPLEMENT OFFENSE REPORT IAD CASE NUMBER: 99-2560TDCJ PAGE 11 of 29 there. As JOHNSON was leaving the Multi-Purpose Room he noticed that Of?cer NAGLE was having problems with Offender PRUETT at the security desk. JOHNSON stood by to provide support. PRUETT had a ?johnnie?(sack lunch) and had attempted to take it on the recreation yard. NAGLE informed PRUETT that he had to eat the ?johnnie? before going on the recreation yard or take it back to his assigned housing. NAGLE informed PRUETT that he would write a disciplinary case on him if he refused to comply With his orders. PRUETT informed NAGLE that a sergeant had given him the ?joiumie.? PRUETT ate the ?johnnie? and then walked out on the recreation yard. JOHNSON returned to C-Pod. At approximately 3:25 PM, JOHNSON left 3-Building for his daily break. JOHNSON informed NAGLE that he was going to take his break. JOHNSON observed three unknown offenders standing in the lobby. JOHNSON proceeded to the Of?cer?s Dining Room and had only been there a few minutes when he overheard radio transmission that an of?cer was down in 3-Building. JOHNSON left the Of?cer?s Dining Room and walked back towards 3-Bui1ding. JOHNSON assisted other of?cers in carrying Of?cer NAGLE tothe in?rmary on a stretcher. JOHSE, Russell, .-, CO3, McConnell Unit: Can testify that on December 17, 1999, at approximately 5:30 PM, he was assigned to hold security over blood and clothing evidence near the entrance door of 3?Gym. KAUL, Robert D., McConnell Unit: Can testify that on December 17, 1999, at approximately 3:30 PM, he was assigned to 18 19 Building and observed several of?cers running towards 3?Building. Almost immediately KAUL overheard offenders taking about Of?cer NAGLE being stabbed. -KELLEY, Danny K., . CO3, McConnell Unit: Can testify that on December 17, 1999, at approximately 3:35 PM, he was instructed by Captain CRITES and Lieutenant WALLACE to retrieve a video camera and proceed to 3?Building. Upon arrival in 3-Building, KELLEY observed Of?cer NAGLE lying, unconscious, on the floor in the doorway of the Multi-Purpose Room. NAGLE had red markings on his neck and there was a small pool of blood under his left ear. KELLEY began videotaping the crime scene. KELLEY continued videotaping as of?cers carried NAGLE to the in?rmary on a stretcher. KELLEY ceased recording when NAGLE was taken into the in?rmary. KELLEY returned to 3~Building to assist in crime-scene preservation. LATHAM, Michael, . C03, McConnell Unit: Can testify that he supervised the ?eld squad that Offender PRUETT was assigned to on the morning of December 17, 1999, and that Offenders PRUETT and MENBFEE, requested new boots when LATHAM turned the ?eld squad in at approximately 11:35 AM. LATHAM escorted both offenders to necessities where each offender was issued a new pair of boots. LATHAM then escorted both offenders to the dining hall and was informed by Lieutenant WALLACE that the dining halls were closed. WALLACE instructed LATHAM to issue sack lunches to each offender. LATHAM retrieved sack lunches for each offender and instructed them to return to their assigned housing areas. LEE, Wayne E.i CO3, McConnell Unit: Can testify that on December 17, 1999, he was assigned to security duties in 3-Building. At approximately 3:20 PM, LEE hadjust been relieved in B?Pod and walked to the security desk? and spoke with Of?cer NAGLE. NAGLE informed LEE that Of?cer JOHNSON needed a break in C-Pod. LEE relieved Pruett000031 . 0 0 0 0 1 6 053 5 ?(Ct.I'r . .3, . . TDCJ-IAD SUPPLEMENT OFFENSE REPORT IAD CASE NUMBER: 99-2560TDCJ PAGE 12 of 29 JOHNSON and JOHNSON went on break. At approximately 3:40 PM, LEE observed numerous staff members enter 3-Building. A short time later LEE observed Of?cer NAGLE being carried out on a stretcher. LEE can'further testify that he did not observe any offender attempting to gain access to C-Pod that was acting in an unusual manner. MARTINEZ Eliseo Former Employee: Can testify that on December 16, 1999, he was assigned as a Building Se1geant 0n the McConnell Unit. At approximately 10: 30 1 1:00 AM, Offender PRUETT approached MARTINEZ and asked if he could dismiss a disciplinary case that had been ?led against him if he gave information relating to the whereabouts of a weapon. PRUETT failed to divulge any further information about the weapon. MARTINEZ referred PRUETT to Lieutenant WALLACE. MORALES, Bruna, . Patient Care Assistant, UTMB, McConnell Unit: Can testify to the efforts to revive Of?ce NAGLE in the in?rmary. PARHAM, Brent, COLMeConnell Unit: Can testify that on December 17, 1999, he was assigned to security duty in the 3 4 Building recreation areas. PARHAM observed Offender Hanis VAUGHN, 697443, looking into the window of3 Building. VAUGHN turned and ran away from the window and sat down near PARHAM. VAUGHN informed PARHAM that ?a boss man just got hit?f and he did not want to ?get involved. VAUGHN informed PARHAM that Of?cer NAGLE was dead. PARHAM then observed Captain CRITES, Lieutenant WALLACE, and Sergeant Enrique ORTIZ run into 3 Building. A short time later, several of?cers exited 3?Building carrying Of?cer NAGLE on'a stretcher. POPLE Kerg S. ., . Security Threat Sergeant Garza West Unit: Can testify that on December 17, 1999, he examined the tattoos on Offender Shelton PHILLIPS, TDCJ- 775261, and that PHILLIPS had several that were White- Supremacist related. PEREZ, Norma J., Commissary Managg, McConnell Unit: Can testify that on December 17, 1999, the Commissary was servicing offenders from 18 19 Dormitories. RANDALL, Donna, . LVN, Unit: Can testify to the efforts to revive Of?cer NAGLE in the in?rmary. BHASLVirginia ILL. 1 LVNJ Unit: Can testify to the efforts to revive Of?cer NAGLE in the in?rmary. ROMANOS, Roberto, CO3, McConnell Unit: Can testify that he and Of?cer ANDRADE located a white offende1 shirt with possible blood stains on it in front of A- 04 Cell 1n 3- Building. SAENZ, Ramiro R., CO3,_McConnell Unit: Can testify that on December 17, 1999, he was assigned to security duties at the A-Turnout Security Desk. At approximately 3:45 PM, SAENZ observed several of?cers running towards 3-Building who informed him that a mozcs (05/03/1999) Pruett000032 054 000017 If '0 TDCJ-IAD SUPPLEMENT OFFENSE REPORT IAD CASE NUMBER: 99-2560TDCJ PAGE 13 of 29 stabbing had occurred in 3-Building. SAENZ was relieved by Of?cer BARRERA and proceeded to 3-Building to assist. Upon arrival in 3-Building SAENZ observed Of?cer NAGLE lying unconscious in the doorway of the Multi- -Purpose Room. SAENZ began clearing offenders from the area as other of?cers placed NAGLE on a stretcher and proceeded towards the in?rmary. SANCHEZ, Richard AL C01, McConnell Unit: Can testify to the chain of custody of the clothing and personal items belonging to Offender PHILLIPS. SCI-IAEFFER, Peter D., CO3, McConnell Unit: Can testify that on December 17, 1999, at approximately 3:Building Security Gate when Captain CRITES, Lieutenant WALLACE, and Sergeant ORTIZ ran through towards 3-Building. SCHAEF FER was instructed to secure the area and not let anyone through the gate. A few minutes later, several of?cers exited 3-Building carrying Of?cer NAGLE on a stretcher. SCHAEF ER did not observe any offender acting in an unusual manner prior to the incident. SERRATA, Melissa, CO3, McConnell Unit: Can testify that on December I7, 1999, she was assigned to the Searcher?s Desk in the Administration Building. SERRATA was responsible for keeping track of the shift break roster and log of?cers in and out when they go on break or return from break. SIFFORD, Kevin A.L 303, McConnell Unit: Can testify that on December 17, 1999, he was assigned to security duties at the 4?Building Control Desk. At approximately 3:00 PM, SIFFORD observed several of?cers running toward 3-Building. A short time later he was instructed by a supervisor to secure the building. VIERA, Bernardina, CO3, McConnell Unit: Can testify that on December 17, 1999, she was assigned as a roving of?cer in 3-Building, B-Pod. Of?cer NAGLE was assigned to the 3- Building Desk. At approximately 2:35 PM, Of?cer NAGLE telephoned VIERA and advised her to send offenders for necessities. A few minutes later, NAGLE telephoned VIERA for the same reason. VIERRA was never aware that there was a problem with NAGLE until she was telephoned by Of?cer BENAVIDEZ, the A-Control Of?cer. VILLARREAL, Abigail, CO3, McConnell Unit: Can testify that on December 17, 1999, she was assigned to security duties in 3- Building, C-Pod. At approximately 3 .45 PM, VILLARREAL was informed by Of?cer LEE that Of?cer NAGLE had been hurt and was being taken to the in?rmary VILLARREAL never observed any offender acting in an unusual manner prior to her learning that NAGLE had been hurt. ,Con?den?tial Informant Can testify that he was in the 3-Building Craft i . Shop when Of?cer NAGLE was assaulted. At approximately 3:05 PM, MWS-02-99-ML and Offender Shelton PHILLIPS, were standing at the Craft Shop door waiting to be let out by Of?cer NAGLE. Offender PRUETT came to the door of the Craft Shop. PHILLIPS slid a ?weapon? under the door to PRUETT. MWS-02-99-ML described the weapon as being a six to eight inch metal rod with a rag or light-colored tape handle. Of?cer NAGLE was sitting at the desk talking on the telephone. NAGLE saw PRUETT reach down and pick up the weapon. NAGLE hung up the phone. PRUETT ran into the Multi?Purpose Room and into the offender 055 . 000018 (05/03/[999) Pruett000033 7 34? MK ?6 ll. SUPPLEMENT OFFENSE REPORT IAD CASE NUMBER: 99-2560TDCJ PAGE 14 of 29 restroom. Three offenders ran out of the Multi-Purpose Room at that time, two white 'offenders and one black. Of?cer NAGLE ran into the Multi-Purpose Room and opened the restroom door. PRUETT began attacking NAGLE as soon as NAGLE opened the door. NAGLE attempted to defend himself and appeared to have been stabbed in the hand and wrist area and then in the side. lost sight of them momentarily due to the wall structure. NAGLE fell on the ?oor in the doorway of the Multi-Purpose Room and was motionless. PRUETT pulled head back and stabbed him several times in the neck. PRUETT dropped the weapon and ran out of 3-Building and laid down outside the 3-Building entrance door. When PRUEIT saw that no of?cers were in the area he got up and ran towards 3-Gym. Of?cer NAGLE remained motionless on the ?oor until approximately 3 :30 PM when additional staff arrived. Con?dential Informant testify that he was in the 3-Building Craft Shop on the afternoon of December I7, 1999, when he heard someone yell, ?They are ?ghting in the craft shop!? looked up and saw Of?cer NAGLE fall in the doorway and Inmate PRUETT standing over him. Pruett stabbed NAGLE in the neck three times. Con?dential Informant Can testify that he was in 3-Gym on December 1999, participating in a weight class when he was approached by an unknown black offender ?who informed him that ?Of?cer NAGLE was dead.? paid no attentiOn to the offender and continued lifting weights. A short time later a large group of offenders were escorted into the from the 3-Building Hallway. Several minutes later several of?cers ran by 3-Gym carrying Of?cer NAGLE on a stretcher. saw Offender PRUETT enter the and was bloody. An unknown black offender gave PRUETT a ?roll of clothes.? PRUETT entered the restroom and ?washed up.? PRUETT threw the towel he was using in the trash can and took the clothes that he had been wearing and threw them in the trash can near the entrance door. PRUETT sat down and was holding a torn-off pocket on his hand because he was dripping blood. PRUETT dripped blood from the weight sets to the. entrance door but cleaned it up with the torn-off pocket. Security staff entered the and identi?ed all the offenders. When they approached PRUETT he turned around and placed his hands behind his back. The of?cers told PRUETT that they needed to see his identi?cation. The of?cers identi?ed all the offenders and left the gym. A short time later the of?cers came back in the with a video camera and ?arrested? PRUETT. . \Con?dential Informant 02- 2000-ML: Can testify that on December 17, 1999Gym. At approximately 3: 25 PM, 02- 2000- ML observed Offender PRUETT walking towards 3- -Gym on 3- Hallway PRUETT had a towel covering his hands and part of an ami. PRUETT entered 3-Gym. observed blood on the front of shirt. PRUETT walked directly into the restroom. After approximately 30 45 seconds later, walked to the restroom and asked PRUETT if something was wrong. PRUETT told to stay away from him. noticed that PRUETT was washing his hands and observed that a ?rusty-color? was coming off his hands in the sink. walked out of the restroom and observed several of?cers running towards 3-Building. A short-time later PRUETT approached and asked him for an extra set of clothes. told PRUETT that he had none. Before walking away PRUETT asked#MWS-02-2000-ML not to testify against him056 Pruett000034 Pruett000035 SUPPLEMENT OFFENSE REPORT IAD CASE NUMBER: 99-2560TDCJ PAGE 15 of 29 cu Neil 654811, Offender, McConnell Unit: Can testify that on <}December 17, 1999, at approximately 4:00 PM, he was standing near ?A-Turnout? and was a 1. approached by Offender Alan THOMPSON who informed him that ?a young little white dude? \i had stabbed Of?cer NAGLE 1n 3- Building. Anderson walked to Captain CRITES of?ce 1n 1- i/ Building and informed CRITES of what Offender THOMPSON had told him 1) Nb ANDERSON can further testify that on December 16, 1999, he spoke with Offender PRUETT. PRUETT was seeking his assistance about a disciplinary case that PRUETT had received. PRUETT asked ANDERSON if he thought he could get a disciplinary case drOpped if he turned a ?shank? over to the unit administration. BARNETT, Johnny Leon, 593117, Offender, Michael Unit: Offender BARNETT refused to provide a written statement. However, BARNETT provided a voluntary verbal statement and can testify that on December 17, 1999, at approximately 3:Building Multi-Purpose Room lying down on a bench. Offender PRUETT was in the Multi- 5 Purpose Room as well. BARNETT heard Officer NAGLE enter the Multi Purpose Room and address PRUETT about a disciplinary case. NAGLE told PRUETT that he was going to tear up the disciplinary case. BARNETT was still lying down and heard what he thought was paper tearing. BARNETT heard PRUETT say, ?It?s too late for that, BARNETT then heard what sounded like a struggle and?looked up to see PRUETT and NAGLE engaged in a physical altercation. They fought into the restroom where NAGLE fell on the ?oor. BARNETT observed PRUETT making stabbing-like motions with a hand and saw blood on \g hand. BARNETT got up and left the Multi-Purpose Room and went out on the 3-Building hallway near 3?Gym. BARNETT observed PRUETT exit 3-Building and lay down and put his hands behind his back. Unknown offenders on the recreation yard yelled at PRUETT to get up. PRUETT got up and ran towards 3-Gym. 57 111m 623801,_Offendg, McConnell Unit: Can testify that he was W/assigned to ll-Building, 25?Cell when Offender PHILLIPS was placed in solitary, two cells away from JONES. JONES overheard PHILLIPS talking to an unknown offender who called . JONES overheard PHILLIPS tell the unknown offender that Officer 4 PHILLIPS ?Shaky? . NAGLE had been killed and that PHILLIPS and a fellow named ?Youngster? had done it. JONES can further testify that he overheard PHILLIPS say that the weapon had come from 3- Building Craft Shop and that he had given it to the youngster. jib LEWIS Robert M. 225063, Offender, McConnell Unit: Can testify that he was i e?f? in the 3 Building Craft Shop when a tall, white, and skinny offender assaulted Officer NAGLE. 0) LEWIS was unable to identify assailant due to poor eyesight. LEWIS wears a) prescription glasses and was not wearing them at the time the incident occurred. MCCURRY, Jason Allem 752704,. Offender, Eastham Unit: Offender MCCURRY refused to provide a written statement. However, MCCURRY provided a voluntary verbal statement and can testify that on December 17, 1999, at approximately 3: 30 PM, he observed Offender PRUETT outside the 3- Door. Shortly after that all the offenders on 3- Building hallway were escorted into 3- and secured. MCCURRY observed PRUETT sitting alone near the weight machines. Late1, MCCURRY observed PRUETT discard some clothing 1n the trash can near the entrance door of 3- Gym. MCCURRY can also testify that PRUETT sat 000020 (05/01/1999) 057 TDCJ-IAD SUPPLEMENT OFFENSE REPORT CASE NUMBER: 99-2560TDCJ PAGE 16 of 29 next to him on the ?oor in the center of the and that was holding a rag over his right hand. PRUETT was also concealing his hands inside his pants when security staff came near him. MCKEE, Titus Jr., 4394?2 Offender, McConnell Unit: Can testify that he was in Wk! (hthe 3-Building Craft Shop on December 17, 1999, and that at approximately 2:45 PM he heard 1?53; gsomeone say, ?Fight, someone? ?ghting MCKEE looked out the window and observed an unknown offender bent over Of?cer NAGLE making swinging motions with his arm. MCKEE described the offender as being tall and thin, white or light Hispanic with light brown or blond hair 687482, OffendeL McConnell Unit: Offender MENEFEE . refused to provide a written statement. MENEFEE stated that he and Offender PRUETT worked in the ?elds in the same ?eld squad on the morning of December 17,1999. MENEFEE and PRUETT was each issued new boots by Of?cer LATHAM, and then escorted to the dining hall W, When they arrived at the dining hall they were informed that the dining hall had closed. MENEFEE and were issued ?johnnies? and ordered to return to their assigned housing. MENEFEE stated that he stopped at the A-Turnout Gate and PRUETT continued on towards 3- Building. MENEFEE stated that he never saw PRUETT again after that. 09/ 629800, Offender, McConnell Unit: Can testify that he was in the Multi-Purpose Room 011 December 17, 1999, and that Offender PRUITT was also there :10; wjen MITCHELL left at approximately 2:658952, Offender, .McConnell Unit: Can testify that on I l, .. December 17, 1999, at approximately 2:50 PM, he was waiting in the 3- -Building lobby for pill Of?cer NAGI to let him in the Craft Sh0p. Offender PHILI IPS pushed a piece of green plastic, with masking tape wrapped around it, under the Craft Shop door and asked MULLICAN to give it to his ?cellie? (Offender PRUETT) 1n the Multi- -Purpose Room. MULLICAN picked up the piece of plastic and slid it under the Multi-Purpose Room door. MULLICAN did not see PRUETT in the Multi- -Purpose Room. MULLICAN saw PRUETI walking towards him from (I, 9 the A- Pod Hallway. Of?cer NAGLE let MULLICAN 1n the Craft Shop. Someone? whipping NAGLE. MULLICAN looked through the window and saw Of?cer NAGLE lying on his back 1n the doorway of the Multi- -Purpose Room. Offender PRUETT was standing over NAGLE with his hands close to chest. MULLICAN saw PRUETT stand up and had what appea1ed to be blood on the front of his shi1t. PRUETT took off his shirt and ran toward the front of PENA, Daniel, 51104LOffender?VIcConnell Unit: Can testify that 011 December 17, 1999, he reported to work in the 3-B11ilding Barber Shop at approximately 6:30 AM. 90 Offender Rufus SELLERS, 419150 was also assigned to the 3?Building Barber 3 Shop. Of?cer NAGLE opened the Multi-Purpose Room at approximately 7:30 AM. At approximately 10:00 AM, PENA used the restroom in the Multi?Purpose Room. The door was unlocked at that time. PENA returned to his assigned housing area at approximately 1 1:30 AM- (03/01/1999) 000021 058 poi 67 MULLICAN can further testify that he was in the back of the Craft Shop and heard someone say, Pruett000036 tit?? it? i? 0 .. TDCJ-IAD SUPPLEMENT OFFENSE REPORT IAD CASE NUMBER: 99-2560TDCJ PAGE 17 of 29 12:00 PM. Offender SELLERS remained in the barbershop. When PENA returned to his assigned housing the Multi-Purpose Room door was unlocked. SELLERS, Rufus, Jr., 419150, Offender, McConnell Unit: Can testify that he worked in the 3?Building Barber Shop on December 17, 1999, from 7: 30AM 2: 30PM. Offender Perry THOMPSON, TDCJ-ID 575592, relieved SELLERS. As SELLERS was leaving the building he observed 5 6 unknown offenders in the Multi Purpose Room and Of?cer NAGLE sitting at the sergeant? desk. THOMPSON, Allen James 559019, Parolee: Can testify that on December 17, 1999, he was walking to the 3 4 recreation yard from his assigned housing. When THOMPSON passed the Multi-Purpose Room he saw an offender and an of?cer ?ghting. The offender was ?sticking? the of?cer with something. The of?cer fell to the ?oor and the offender ran out of the Multi-Purpose Room and into the hallway of 3-Building and laid down and put his hands behind his back. The offender waited two or three minutes for officers to come to him. When no one came the offender got up and walked to the where an unknown offender gave him a set of clothes. THOMPSON can further testify that he was shown a photo line-up by Investigator John DAVIS and that he identi?ed picture #3 of folder #2 as the offender who stabbed Of?cer NAGLE. THOMPSON, Perry, 575592, Offender, McConnell Unit: Can testify that on December 17, 1999, he was working in the 3?Building Barber Shep until approximately 2:55 PM when he left to go to 3-Gym. THOMPSON saw Offender PRUETT in the hallway. PRUETT was holding a roll of clean clothes and appeared to be nervo?s. THOMPSON stood in the Commissary Line for a while before being forced into 3-Gym when several of?cers ran by headed towards 3-Bui1ding. In 3-Gym, THOMPSON saw PRUETT sitting on the ?oor. Security staff ordered all offenders to stand up and show their identi?cation. When security staff approached PRUETT, PRUETT placed his hands behind his back. Security staff paid no attention to PRUETT. Security staff came back to the a short time later and placed PRUETT in hand restraints and esconed him out of the building. VARGAS, Victor, 673316, Offender, McConnell Unit: Can testify that on December 17, 1999, he entered the 3-Building Craft Shop at approximately 2:38 PM. A while later, VARGAS heard someone say, ?Of?cer down!? VARGAS looked out the window and observed Of?cer NAGLE lying on the ?oor on his back. VARGAS saw no one else around NAGLE. NAGLE remained on the ?oor for some time until additional staff arrived. VAUGHN, Hanis, 697443, Offender, McConnell Unit: Can testify that on December 17, 1999, at approximately 2:55 PM, he was on the recreation yard when several unknown offenders ran out of 3-Building saying that Of?cer NAGLE had been stabbed. EVIDENCE: On December 17, 1999, at approximately 4:37 PM, Investigator Chris KING began an assessment of the crime scene in 3-Building. The following is a list of evidence collected by Investigator KING from inside the 3-Building Multi?Purpose Room, including the restroom. Investigator KING maintained this evidence until it was turned over to the Department of Public Safety (DPS) Crime Laboratory Technicians. - IA-02CS 999) 000022 Pruett000037 3x? SUPPLEMENT OFFENSE REPORT IAD CASE NUMBER: 99-2560TDCJ PAGE 18 of 29 One metal rod, approximately 7 inches in length, wrapped with tape at one end and sharpened to a point at the other end. There was a spot of what appeared to be blood on the sharpened tip of the rod. One plastic identi?cation tag belonging to Of?cer NAGLE, found by the entrance door of the Multi-Purpose Room. One set of keys found inside the restroom of the 3-Building Multi?Purpose Room. 018-69) One writing pen, found in the restroom of the 3n?Building Multi-Purpose Room. 018-70) Five pieces of torn paper, found in the 3?Building Multi?Purpose Room. Placed in separate bags and tagged as evidence. Two pieces of torn paper, found in the 3-Buiulding Multi?Purpose Room. Packaged together and tagged as evidence. Region IV Internal Affairs Chief Bill LAZENBY collected the following evidence in the McConnell Unit in?rmary. After collection, Of?cer GONZALES, under instruction from Chief LAZENBY, secured the evidence until it was turned over to Investigator John DAVIS. Investigator DAVIS turned the evidence over to DPS Crime Laboratory Technicians. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14 15. 16. One gray, TDCJ Uniform Shirt removed from Of?cer NAGLE in the McConnell Unit In?rmary. White paper, containing bloodstains, that item #7 was placed on after removal from Of?cer NAGLE. One pair of gray, TDCJ pants with belt removed from Of?cer NAGLE in the McConnell Unit In?rmary. 1 8?75) White paper, containing bloodstains, that item #9 was placed on after removal from Of?cer NAGLE. One TDCJ identi?cation holder, removed from Of?cer NAGLE. One handcuff case, removed from Of?cer NAGLE. One pair of white, thermal underwear pants, removed from Of?cer NAGLE. 79) White paper that item #13 was placed on after removal from Of?cer NAGLE. 80) One white, thermal underwear shirt, removed from Of?cer NAGLE. White paper that item #15 was placed on after removal from Of?cer NAGLE. 82) IA-UZCS (05/03/1999) . 000023 060 TDCJ-IAD SUPPLEMENT OFFENSE REPORT IAD CASE NUMBER: 99-2560TDCJ PAGE 19 of 29 17. One pair of black boots, removed from Of?cer NAGLE. 18. One pair of white socks, removed from Of?cer NAGLE. 19. One gray, TDCJ uniform shirt containing blood stains, removed from Captain CRITES after performing CPR on Officer NAGLE. Mr. Richard WOODCROFT, Physician?s Assistant for the University of Texas Medical Branch, assigned to the McConnell Unit, collected the following evidence on December 18, 1999. 20. Two vials of blood taken from Offender PRUETT. Turned over to DPS Crime Laboratory Technicians. 1 8-8 6) 21. Head/hair samples taken from Offender PRUETT. Turned over to DPS Crime Laboratory Technicians. Investigator John DAVIS collected the following evidence. 22. One pair of black, leather boots, removed from Offender PRUETT. Turned over to DPS Crime Laboratory Technicians. 23. One pair of socks, removed from Offender PRUETT. Turned over to DPS Crime Laboratory Technicians. 24. One pair of boxer briefs, removed from Offender PRUETT. Turned over to DPS Crime Laboratory Technicians. 25. One pair of white TDCJ?issued offender pants, removed from Offender PRUETT. Turned over to DPS Crime Laboratory Technicians. 26. One white TDCJ-issued offender shirt, removed from Offender PRUETT. Turned over to DPS Crime Laboratory Technicians. The following evidence was collected by Investigator GUAJARDO in 3-Building, A-Pod, outside of #4-Cell. 27. One pair of white boxer briefs. Turned over to DPS Crime Laboratory Technicians. 28. One pair of TDCJ?issued socks. Turned over to DPS Crime Laboratory Technicians. 29. One pair of white, TDCJ-issued offender pants. Turned over to DPS Crime Laboratory Technicians.- 30. One white, TDCJ?issued offender shirt. Turned over to DPS Crime Laboratory Technicians. IA-OZCS (0510311999061 SUPPLEMENT OFFENSE REPORT CASE NUMBER: PAGE 20 of 29 31. One pair of boxer briefs. Turned over to DPS Crime Laboratory Technicians. 97) The following evidence was collected on December 20, 1999, by Nueces County Medical Examiner Dr. Lloyd WHITE, and turned over to Investigator KING. The collected evidence was delivered to the DPS Crime Laboratory, Corpus Christi, Texas. 32. One purple-tOp vial of blood, taken from Of?cer NAGLE during post-mortem examination. 33. One small envelope containing hair samples, taken from Of?cer NAGLE during post- mortem examination. 34. Nail clippings taken from each hand of Of?cer NAGLE during post-mortem examination. 018- 100) Investigator KING submitted the following evidence to the DPS Crime Laboratory on December 20, 1999. 35. One roll of masking tape for comparison to the tape on item The masking tape was removed from the 3?Building Craft Shop, workstation which is the workstation assigned to Offender PHILLIPS. The following is a list of evidence collected during the course of the investigation and is being retained in the Region IV Internal Affairs Evidence Room. 37% 36. One leather identi?cation case with the initials containing photographs, identi?cation car, and key. Removed from Offender cell, 3- Building, A- Pod, Cell. 018~1) 37. Of?cer identi?cation card. 38. Offender Copy of Disciplinary Case #20000120728, recovered in 3-Building, A-Pod, Cell, under the top bunk mattress. 39. Twenty-three Polaroid photographs of Of?cer injuries, taken by Chief LAZENBY. 40. Videotape of Of?cer NAGLE in the in?rmaly after having been pronounced deceased by Dr. HERRERA. Video taken by Of?cer GONZALES. 018 6 41. Videotape of Offender PRUETT being taken into custody in 3 and subsequent escort to pre? ?hearing detention. 0187) 42. Videotape of Offender PRUETT being escorted ?018- 43. Videotaped interview of Offender Neil ANDERSON, TDCJ 654811. -018? 9) 000025 062 SUPPLEMENT OFFENSE REPORT - NUMBER: 99-2560TDCJ PAGE 21 of 29 (N 44 Videotaped interview of Offender Allen TDCJ 559019. 018- 10) ..A 45. One VHS videotape of 3-Building showing the line of sight of A, B, and Control Pickets. 018 11 46. One VHS v1deotape of 3- Hallway from the offendel dining hall to 3 Building ~12) 47. One dlcal pass issued to Offender Alfred RECTOR TDCJ 632944, by Of?cer NAGLE. 018- 13) . 48. Two videotapes and Polaroid photographs of' offenders assigned to 3?Building. 018-14) 49. TDCJ?issued offender clothing removed from 753076. 50. TDCJ?issued offender clothing removed from Offender Shelton PHILLIPS, 775261. 51. One TDCJ-issued blue uniform jacket belonging to Of?cer NAGLE. 52. One photographic line-up (Photo?Spread shown to Offender THOMPSON. 018-18) 53. One photographic line-up (Photo-Spread shown to Offender THOMPSON. 018-19) 54. One photographic line-up (Photo?Spread shown to Of?cer BENAVIDEZ. 20) 55. One photographic line-up (Photo?Spread shown to Of?cer BENAVIDEZ. 21) 56. Two VHS Videotapes containing interview of Offender PHILLIPS. 57. Wristwatch face attached to a string belonging to Offender PHILLIPS. Released to Offender PHILLIPS by Chief LAZENBY. 58. One pair of prescription eyeglasses belonging to Offender PHILLIPS. Released to Offender PHILLIPS by Chief LAZENBY. 5 9. One pair of TDCJ~issued offender boxer briefs from Offender PHILLIPS. 60. One TDCJ?issued offender shirt, removed from Offender PHILLIPS. 61. One pair of TDCJ?issued offender boots, removed from Offender PHILLIPS. 27, 28) 62. One pair of TDCJ?issued offender pants, removed from Offender PHILLIPS. 29) IA-OZCS (05/03/[999) 000026 063 TDCJ-IAD SUPPLEMENT OFFENSE REPORT IAD CASE NUMBER: 99-2560TDCJ PAGE 22 of 29 63. 64. 65. 66. 67. 68. 69. 70. 71. 72. 73. 74. 75. 76. 77. 78. 79. 80. One pair of TDCJ?issued offender work gloves, removed from Offender PHILLIPS. 31) One set of six (6) keys on a leather strap, belonging to Offender PHILLIPS 018- 32) One TDCJ-issued white, offender undershirt, removed from Offender PHILLIPS. 018-33) One pair of TDCJ?issued offender socks, removed from Offender PHILLIPS. 34,35) One TDCJ?issued offender sock, removed from Offender CARPENTER. 1 8-3 6) One pair of TDCJ?issued boxer briefs, removed from Offender CARPENTER. 018-37) One pair of TDCJ~issued slip-on tennis shoes, removed from Offender CARPENTER. Two rolls of masking tape, removed from 3-Building Craft Shop, locker #40, assigned to Offender Robert CHAPMAN, .6 1 6989.- 1 8?3 9) Three rolls of masking tape, removed from 3 ?Building Craft Shop, locker #18, assigned to Offender Manuel Val TERRA 663275 018 40) One roll of masking tape, removed from 3?Building Craft Shop, locker #41, assigned to Offender 1 841 Two rolls of masking tape, removed from 3- Building C1aft Shop, cubicle #19, assigned to Offender ROb'erj't MACHEST TDCJ 382634 018 42) Three rolls of masking tape, removed f1 om 3- Building Craft Shop, cubicle assigned to Offender Billy CARPENTER TDCJ 753076 018? 43) Four rolls of masking tape, removed from 3 -Building Craft Shop, cubicle #28, assigned to Offender Jimmy MULLICAN 658959 018? ?44) Three rolls of masking tape, removed from 3- Building Craft ShOp, cubicle #10, assigned to Offender Orbie CHAMBLISS TDCJ 531225 018? ~45) Two rolls of masking tape, removed from 3?Building Craft Shop, cubicle assigned to Offender Tuah 2709.122, 8-46) One roll of masking tape, removed from 3?Building Craft Shop, cubicle assigned to Offender 575592.. 8?47) Th1ee rolls of masking tape, removed from 3 Building C1aft Shop, locker #19, assigned to Offende1 Tony NIX TDCI 767597; 018? 48) One roll of masking tape, removed from 3- Building Craft Shop, locker #16, assigned to Offender Stacy Cook TDCJ 531505. 018- 49) IA-02CS (0510311999) 00002? 064 TDCJ-IAD SUPPLEMENT OFFENSE REPORT IAD CASE NUMBER: 99-2560TDCJ PAGE 23 of 29 81. 82. 83. 84. 85. 86. 87. 88. 89. 90. 91. 92. 93. 94. 95. 96. 97. One roll of masking tape, removed from 3 -Building Craft Shop, locker #16, assigned to Offender Larry DOWNING TDCJ- 480518 018? 50) Two rolls of masking tape, removed from 3 Building Craft Shop, locker #44, assigned to Offender Gus- MAYS 654840 018 51) One roll of maskmg tape, removed from 3 Building Craft Shop, cubicle #16, assigned to Offender Eugene GOHLINGHORST TDCJ 310407 018- 52) One roll of masking tape, removed from 3-Building Craft Shop, cubicle assigned to Offender 7-5 17-29; Three rolls of maskmg tape removed from 3? Bu11d1ng Craft Shop, cubicle assigned to Four rolls of masking tape, removed fro 3 B?uilding Craft Shop, cubicle #12, assigned to ifIsreal PATINO TDCJ 403544 018- 55) Two rolls of masking tape, removed from 3?Bu11d1ng C1aft Shop, cubicle #17, assigned to Offender Eduardo RODRIGUEZ 570007 018- -56) One roll of masking tape, removed from 3 Building Craft Shop, cubicle assigned to Offender Jesus TOVAR 638336 ?018 ?57) Three rolls of maskmg tape, removed from 3 Building Craft Shop, cubicle #11, assigned to Offender Collm DUNN TDCJ 537006 ?0?18?58) Eight rolls of tape, removed from 3 Building Craft ShOp, cubicle #27, assigned to Offender Robert LEWIS TDCJ 225063 018- 59) Two rolls of masking tape, removed from 3- -Building Craft ShOp, cubicle #15, assigned to Offende1 Gerardo REYES 659300 018? 60) One 1011 of masking tape, removed from 3-Bu1ld1ng Craft Shop, cubicle #22, assigned to One roll of maskmg tape, removed from 3- Building C1 aft Shop, cubicle #24, assigned to Offender T1t1s MCKEE TDCJ 439494 018 65) 1 One VHS videotape of escort of Offender PHILLIPS. One TochiqiTokei Quartz clock, 01? 189. 018? 63) One audiotape ofinterview of CI, Fifteen photographs of Offender PRUETT. The following is a list of evidence that was collected by DPS Crime Laboratory Technicians. 98. One blue, TDCJ baseball cap, belonging to Of?cer NAGLE, removed from the toilet in the 3-Building Multi?Purpose Room. (05/03/999) 065 000028 TDCJ-IAD SUPPLEMENT OFFENSE REPORT CASE NUMBER: 99-2560TDCJ PAGE 24 of 29 99. One pair of white, TDCJ-issued offender pants, removed from 3-Gym. 100.0ne pair of white, TDCJ-issued offender pants, removed from the trashcan inside 3-Gym. 101. One white towel, removed from trashcan in bathroom of 3-Gym. 102. One piece of white cloth, removed from 3-Gym. 103.Apparent blood sample, removed from concrete walkway outside 3-Gym. 107) 104. Apparent blood drop, removed from 3-Building Multi?Purpose Room. 105. Apparent blood drop, removed from 3-Building Multi?Purpose Room. 106. Apparent blood drop, removed from 3-Building Multi-Purpose Room. 107.Apparent blood swipe pattern, removed from 3-Building Multi-Purpose Room. 018?111) 108. Apparent blood spatter, removed from 3?Building Multi-Purpose Room. 12) 109. Apparent blood drop, removed from 3-Bui1ding Multi-Purpose Room. 13) 110. Apparent Bloodstain, removed from 3?Building Multi-Purpose Room. 14) 111.Apparent blood cast-off stain, removed from 3-Building Multi-Purpose Room. 018-115) 112. Apparent blood drop, removed from 3-Gym. 16) 113. Piece of cloth, removed from 3?Gym. 114. White pants pocket, removed from concrete walkway outside 3-Gym. 18) 115. One swabbing, removed from side of Offender back. 19) 116.Two photographs of weapon, taken by Dr. Lloyd WHITE, Nueces County Medical Examiner. 1 8? 120) 117.Sixteen photographs of Of?cer NAGLE, taken by Dr. Lloyd WHITE, Nueces County Medical Examiner. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Miranda Warning Form dated December 17, 1999, signed in acknowledgement by Offender PRUETT. 2. Consent to search form dated December 17, 1999, signed by Offender PRUETT. PRUETT consented to a search of his person and to the taking of samples of blood, saliva, hair, and ?ngernail clippings. (05103? 999) 000029 066 TDCJ-IAD SUPPLEMENT OFFENSE REPORT IAD CASE NUMBER: PAGE 25 of 29 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. Miranda Warning Form (IA-12I), dated December 30, 1999, signed in acknowledgement by Offender PHILLIPS. Copy of TDCJ Employee Treatment Report for Of?cer NAGLE, dated December 17, 1999, completed by Registered Nurse Rhonda CUBBAGE. Copy of Authorization for Autopsy Form, dated December 17, 1999, signed by Judge Joe LYVERS, Justice of the Peace, Precinct 4, Bee County. Autopsy Rep01t, ME dated December 20, 1999, completed by Dr. Lloyd WHITE. According to the report, the cause of death was cardiac during a Violent assault associated with multiple stab/puncture wounds of the neck. Copy of Death Certi?cate, #180-1999, for Daniel NAGLE, dated and ?led on December 18, 1999. Voluntary Statement of Con?dential Informant, identi?ed by dated January 13, 2000. Voluntary Statement of Con?dential Informant, identi?ed by dated December 22, 1999. Voluntary Statement of Offender Allen THOMPSON dated December 17, 1999, Voluntary Statement of Offender Allen THOMPSON dated December 17, 1999. Copy of photograph line?up that was shown to Offender THOMPSON on December 17, 1999, by Investigators John DAVIS and Oscar RUIZ. Two voluntary statements of Offender Neil M. ANDERSON dated December 17, 1999. Voluntary statement of Offender Harold D. MITCHELL (undated). 1 Voluntary Statement of Offender Hanis VAUGHN dated December 19, 1999. Voluntary Statement of Offender Jimmy MULLICAN dated December 19, 1999. Voluntary Statement of Offender Robert M. LEWIS dated December 17, 1999. Voluntary Statement of Offender James L. JONES dated December 22, 1999. Voluntary Statement of Offender Perry THOMPSON dated December 17, 1999. Voluntary Statement of Offender Rufus SELLERS, Jr., dated December 19, 1999. Voluntary Statement of Offender Daniel PENA dated December 19, 1999. Voluntary Statement of Offender Rogelio B. GARCIA dated December 21, 1999. Voluntary Statement of con?dential informant, identi?ed by dated December 19, 1999. 000050 mozcs (05/03/3999) 067 TDCJ-IAD SUPPLEMENT OFFENSE REPORT IAD CASE NUMBER: 99-2560TDCJ PAGE 26 of 29 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. Voluntary Statement of Offender Titus McKee, Jr., dated December 19, 1999. Voluntary Statement of Offender Victor VARGAS dated December 19, 1999. Voluntary Statement of Offender Alfred RECTOR dated December 19, 1999. Voluntary Statement of Captain Richard CRITES. Two voluntary statements of Lieutenant Darren WALLACE dated December 17, 1999. Voluntary Statement of Lieutenant Aurelio AMBRIZ dated December 28, 1999. Voluntary statement of Sergeant Juan E. GARZA dated December 17, 1999. Voluntary Statement of Sergeant Kelvin MASTERS. Voluntary Statement of Sergeant Enrique ORTIZ dated December 17, 1999. Voluntary Statement of Of?cer Armando ANDRADE, Jr., dated December 17, 1999. Voluntary Statement of UTMB Physician Assistant Andrew ARTHUR dated December 17, 1999. Voluntary Statement of Of?cer Joseph BARNES dated December 18, 1999. Voluntary Statement of Of?cer Leroy J. BARRERA dated December 19, 1999. Voluntary Statement of Of?cer Dino BARRERA dated December 17, 1999. Voluntary Statement of Of?cer Rachel S. BARRIOS dated December 19, 1999. Voluntary Statement of UTMB Physician Assistant David BARTLETT datedDecember 17, 1999. Voluntary Statement of Unit Risk Management Coordinator Frank L. BELCHER dated December 18, 1999. Voluntary Statement of Of?cer Juan M. BENAVIDES dated December 19, 1999. Voluntary Statement of Of?cer Leonora BENAVIDEZ dated December 17, 1999. Voluntary Statement of Of?cer Leonora BENAVIDEZ dated December 27, 1999. Copy of photographic line?up that was shown to Of?cer Leonora BENAVIDEZ on December 27, 1999, by Investigator John DAVIS. Voluntary Statement of Of?cer Katherine CLARK dated December 17, 1999. Voluntary Statement of Of?cer Guadalupe CORDOVA dated December 17, 1999. Voluntary Statement of UTMB Registered Nurse Rhonda CUBBAGE dated December 17, 1999. . (05/03/1999068 TDCJ-IAD SUPPLEMENT OFFENSE REPORT IAD CASE NUMBER: PAGE 27 of 29 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. 58. 59. 60. 61. 62. 63. 64. 65. 66. 67. 68. 69. 70. 71. Voluntary Statement of Of?cer Gina DANCER dated December 17, 1999. Voluntary Statement of Of?cer Gina DANCER dated December 19, 1999. Voluntary Statement of Unit Recreation Specialist Edward DELBOSQUE dated December 17, 1999. Voluntary Statement of Of?cer Mario E. DEPAU dated December 19, 2000. Voluntary Statement of UTMB LVN Donna RANDALL dated December 17, 1999. Voluntary Statement of UTMB LVN Virginia Y. RIVAS dated December 17, 1999. Voluntary Statement of UTMB Registered Nurse Lanell I. DOSS dated December 17, 1999. Voluntary Statement of Of?cer Lorelei GLEW dated December 18, 1999. Voluntary Statement of UTMB Patient Care Assistant, Rosa M. GOMEZ, dated December 17, 1999. Voluntary Statement of UTMB Patient Care Coordinator. Voluntary Statement of Of?cer Dolores P. GONZALEZ dated December 17, 1999. Voluntary Statement of UTMB Physician, Dr. Maximiliano J. HERRERA, dated December 17, 1999. Voluntary Statement of Of?cer Bryan J. HUDSON dated December 17, 1999. Voluntary Statement of Of?cer Charles R. JOHNSON dated December 18, 1999. Voluntary Statement of Of?cer Russell JOHSE dated December 17, 1999. Voluntary Statement of Of?cer Robert D. KAUL dated December 18, 1999. Voluntary Statement of Of?cer Danny K. KELLEY dated December 18, 1999. Voluntary Statement of Of?cer Michael LATHAM dated December 19, 1999. Voluntary Statement of Of?cer Wayne E. LEE dated December 18, 1999. Voluntary Statement of Former Employee Eliseo MARTINEZ dated December 17, 1999. Voluntary Statement of Of?cer Brent PARHAM dated December 18, 1999. Inter~Of?ce Communication from STG Sergeant Kerry POPLE, dated December 17, 1999. Voluntary Statement of Of?cer Roberto ROMANOS dated December 28, 1999. Voluntary Statement of Of?cer Ramiro R. SAENZ dated December 19, 1999. (05703/1999069 TDCJ-IAD SUPPLEMENT OFFENSE REPORT IAD CASE NUMBER: 99-2560TDCJ PAGE 28 of 29 72. 73. 74. 75. 76. 77. 78. 79. 80. 81. 82. 83. 84. 85. 86. 87. 88. 89. 90. 91. 92. 93. 94. 95. Voluntary Statement of Of?cer Richard S. SAENZ dated December 17, 1999. Voluntary Statement of Of?cer Peter D. SCHAEF ER dated December 18, 1999. Voluntary Statement of Of?cer Melissa SERRATA dated December 27, 1999. Voluntary Statement of Of?cer Kevin A. SIFFORD dated December 19, 1999. Voluntary Statement of Of?cer Bernadina VIERA dated December 18, 1999. Voluntary Statement of Of?cer Abigail VILLARREAL dated December 18, 1999. Copy of McConnell Unit Shift Roster for A?Card, 1St Shift, General Population, dated December 17, 1999. Employee Break Roster for A-Card, 13t Shift, General Population, dated December 17, 1999. McConnell Unit In?Coming Medical Calls Log dated December 17, 1999. Of?cer?s Dining Room Log dated December 17, 1999. McConnell Unit Activity Log dated December 17, 1999. McConnell Unit Telephone Switchboard Log dated December 17, 1999. Garza West Unit Telephone Switchboard Log dated December 17, 1999. McConnell Unit Commissary Activity Records for Commissary, dated December 17, 1999. Copy of Offender TDCJ Health Evaluation dated December 17, 1999. Copy of Offender TDCJ Clinic Notes, dated December 17 and December 18, 1999. Copy of Offender TDCJ Travel Card Records. Copy of Offender TDCJ Case Summary. Copy of Offender TDCJ Disciplinary History. Copy of Offender TDCJ Disciplinary Case #20000022787, dated September 18, 1999. Copy Of Offender TDCJ Disciplinary Case #200000120728 dated December 14, 1999. Copy of Offender Criminal History. Copy of Offender TDCJ Health Evaluation, dated December 17, 1999. Copy of Offender TDCJ Clinic Notes, dated December 18, 1999. (0903/1999) 000033 070 SUPPLEMENT OFFENSE REPORT IAD CASE NUMBER: PAGE 29 of 29 96. Copy of Offender TDCJ Travel Card Records. 97. Copy of Offender TDCJ Disciplinary History. 98. Copy of Offender Criminal History. 99. Criminal Supplement Report completed by Investigator SCOTTEN, dated February 24, 2000. 100. Copies of DPS Crime Laboratory Evidence Submission Forms, on documented evidence released to the DPS Crime Laboratory. 101. Criminal Supplement Report completed by Investigator John DAVIS, dated March 20, 2000. 102. Inter-Of?ce Communication from Investigator SCOTTEN disclosing results of DPS Laboratory Latent Print Examinations completed by DPS Latent Print Examiner, Charles Parker. 103. Inter-Of?ce Communication from Investigator SCOTTEN disclosing receipt of DPS . Crime Laboratory Report of examinations to determine the presence of blood orany other trace evidence, completed by DPS Criminalist, Lisa dated May 25, 2000. 000034 IA-OZCS (05/03/1999) 071 Pruett000101 TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION INMATE REQUEST TO OFFICIAL REASON FOR REQUEST: (Please check one) PLEASE ABIDE BY THE FOLLOWING CHANNELS OF COMMUNICATION. THIS WILL SAVE TIME, GET YOUR TO THE PROPER PERSON, AND GET AN ANSWER TO YOU MORE QUICKLY. 1. Unit Assignment, Transfer (Chairman of Classification. Administration Building) 2. CI Restoration of Lost overtime (Unit Warden-if approved, it - will be forwarded. to the State isc' linary Committee) 3. Request for Promotion in 0/25 or to Trusty Class (Unit Warden-if approved, will be rded to the Director of Classification) 4. Clemency-Pardon, parole, early out-mandatory supervision (Board of Pardons and Paroles, 8610 Shoal Creek Blvd. Austin, Texas 78711) TO: r/M?g/A? (Name and title of otlicial) ADDRESSVisiting _L_ist (Asst. Director of Classification, Administ tion Building) 6. CI Parole require and related information (Unit Pan Counselor) 7. CI Inmate Pris ecord (Request for copy of record, inl mation on arol eligibility, discharge date, detainers-U Administration) 8. Personal Interview with a representative clan outside 89: cy (Treatment Division, Administration Building) 000037 DATE: ?154? Pruett000102 SUBJECT: State brie?y the problem on which you desire assistance. Av/ know /f 54%; hy/ (. 01/7 Mon/ I) 0 0 I I {40% 4:4 x?L/Xz?w/ 7/44? 4??wa Cc JAC My?" Dec /7 127;; 7f/Lu7/ X?yc? A 1 Name: ?zn/Zm No: 5789?4)? it: 3?4 Work Assignment: Living Quarters: DISPOSITION: (Inmate will not write in this space) l-60 (Rev. 11-90) 073 Texas Department of Criminal Justice AFFAIRS DIVISION CRIMINAL CASE VOLUNTARY STATEMENT STATEMENT OF Offender Anthony CASEY, 518515 GWEN THIS 27th DAY OF July 2000 at 9:00 O?clock El AM PM My name is Anthony CASEY2 518515 My telephone number and address are (830) 583-4003 Connally Unit I am not under arrest, nor am I being detained by any law enforcement agency. I understand that I am ?ee to leave at any time I choose. I voluntarily give this statement. I am presently con?ned at the Connally Unit. I requested to talk with Internal Affairs investigators concerning my knowledge of events that took place on the McConnell Unit on December 17, 1999, and the murder of Of?cer Daniel NAGEL. On December 17, 19-99, I was con?ned at the McConnell Unit and housed in 3-Building, A-Pod, I 33-Cell. I left my cell and went to C-Pod, 71-Cell to get a tattoo. The person who was con?ned there was an offender I know as ?Flash.? ?Flash?s? cellmate was named was in the 70-Cell tattooing ?Cameron.? We were smoking a cigarette when o??ender came to the cell door. He told us not to start any tattooing because he was going to do something to get the unit locked down. ?Flash? and PRUITT had a conversation. I could not hear all of the conversation, but I heard them say something about a prison made weapon. PRUITT seemed to be ?Vvired? I let him smoke some of the cigarette. told him to get a better weapon. told PRUITT to go to the shower on three rows and look in the vent. About 20 minutes later the cell doors opened for the ?in and out? and I left. I was walking down the hallway going toward the Sergeant?s Desk. O?icer NAGEL was at the Desk talking to some offenders. I kept my head down and took a right turn, which took me to the multi-purpose room. PRUITT was inside standing at the door. The door was locked. PRUITT said, ?don?t- come in here.? An offender named ?Mitch? was also in the multi-purpose room sitting at a bench watching television. I turned aroundjid?pg; {@er AGEL writing passes. my . '0 Sigiqure 7-27-00 intent Date masons/311999) Page 1 of 2 000038 074 Pruett000103 VOLUNTARY STATEMENT OF: O?'endcr Anthony CASEY, 518515 -u -.. walked to the outside recreation door. The door was unlocked and I walked onto the recreation yard and watched the handball game. I went back toward the building to get a drink of water and use the restroom. I looked thrOugh the window and saw the Sergeant?s Desk, the barber shop and the door to the multi-purpose room. I saw PRUITT and Mitch both watching the Sergeant?s Desk. Of?cer NAGEL was still at the Sergeant?s Desk. I turned around again and went back to the handball court. I watched handball for less then a minute. I walked toward the water fountain and saw O?icer NAGEL get up and walk toward the multi-purpose room. He had the television remote in his hand. I returned to the water fountain and got a drink of water then walked to the weight machine and talked to O??ender Kenneth KENNEDY. After talking to him a few minutes, I turned and walked toward the Building. I looked in the hallway. I did not see any one around. Suddenly PRUITT ?popped up? in front of the Sergeant?s Desk, like he fell or trippedand was getting up off the ?oor. The door to the multi-purpose room was open. PRUITT walked toward C-Pod and I went back to the handball court. After about ten minutes PRUITT came down the hallway that lead to A-Tumout. An offender named ?Jason? was walking toward the building. Jason said something to PRUITT. I looked at PRUITT and saw blood on his pants. PRUITT said something to Jason about changing clothes. Jason said ?right here.? PRUITT took his pants and shirt and pushed through the gas port onto the recreation yard. PRUITT took clean clothes that Jason had and put them on. PRUITT went toward 3-4 gate. I looked at the picket then took the clothes PRUITT had pushed through the gas port and put them in the recreation yard equipment box behind the weight machine. After about 10 minutes Captain CRITES came running down the hallway toward 3-Building, yelling ?stop movement, stop movement.? A?er a few more minutes Of?cer NAGLE came down the hallway on a stretcher with four or ?ve of?cers canying him. At some point shortly after that I saw PRUITT come out of 3-Gym in handcu?fs. On July 13, 2000, the SSI that works in ll-Building here at the Connally Unit came to my cell in 8-Building. He told me PRUITT was in ll-Building and wanted my name and TDCJ number so he could call me for a witness. On July 15, 2000, I wrote to the Internal Affairs investigators asking them to talk with meAmg? 24% 7,37,03 itness Date Page 2 of2 000039 075 Pruett000104 Texas Department of Criminal Justice INTERNAL AFFAIRS DIVISION SUPPLEMENT OFFENSE REPORT . OFFENSE (ADGASEADJ Capital Murder, PC 19.03 99-2560TDCJ LOCATION: DATEOFOKEVSE: McConnell Unit December 17, 1999 DATE OF SUPPLEMENT REPORT: NAGLE, Daniel August 03, 2000 On July 24, 2000, Investigator Glen BOLDT, Connally Unit, received an Offender Request to Of?cial, Offender Anthony CASEY, 518515. CASEY made reference to the ?incident? that occurred on the McConnell Unit on December 17, 1999, and that he had some information pertaining to that incident. Investigator BOLDT placed Offender CASEY on the telephone to Investigator Mike SCOTTEN. CASEY agreed to provide a voluntary, written statement. On July 27, 2000, Offender CASEY provided a voluntary, written statement to Investigators BOLDT and Donna FRONTZ. The following is a synopsis of the statement that CASEY provided: Offender CASEY stated that he is presently con?ned on the Connally Unit and that he requested to speak with Internal Affairs concerning knowledge that he had of the murder of Correctional Of?cer Daniel NAGLE. On December 17, 1999, CASEY was con?ned on the McConnell Unit, 3-Building, A-Pod, 33-Cell. CASEY left his cell and went to 7l?Cell to get a tattoo. CASEY identi?ed the offenders assigned to 71-Cell only as and was in 70-Cell tattooing CASEY stated that they were smoking a cigarette when Offender PRUETT came to the cell door. PRUETT told them not to start tattooing because he was going to do something to get the unit ?locked down.? CASEY stated that PRUETT and spoke to each other about a prison-made weapon. PRUETT seemed to be ?Wired.? told PRUETT to go to the shower on 3-Row and look in the vent. CASEY stated that approximately twenty minutes later the cell doors were opened for ?in and out? and he left C- Pod. Casey stated that he observed Of?cer NAGLE at the sergeant?s desk talking to some offenders. CASEY walked toward the Multi-Purpose Room and observed PRUETT standing inside the door. The door was locked. An o??ender known to CASEY only as was sitting-on a bench in the Multi-Purpose Room. CASEY stated that PRUETT told him not to come in. CASEY stated that he walked to the outside recreation yard and watched a handball game. CASEY walked back towards the building to get a drink of water. CASEY looked through the window and observed PRUETT and looking towards O?icer NAGLE at 5) srarus or CASE case msposmon if Vv Cleared Complinmt Re?ned (2L YES NO to 0 Not Claret! Cl Cm MN mom ammo: Cl Untoundat mm Re?ned Mending Minn I (0510911999) 076 I 000035) Pruett000105 IAD SUPPLEMENT OFFENSE REPORT CASE NUMBER. - 7" PAGE 2 of2 the sergeant?s desk. CASEY returned to the handball court for about, a minute and then walked back towards the water fountain. CASEY observed Of?cer NAGEE leave the sergeant?s desk and walk towards the Multi-Purpose Room. NAGLE had the remote control for the television in his hand. CASEY got a drink of water and then walked to the weight machine and spoke to O?'ender Kenneth KENNEDY, 621743. CASEY stated that he spoke to KENNEDY for a few minutes and then walked toward the building. CASEY could not see anyone inside the building. CASEY stated that PRUETT appeared as if he had tripped or fallen on the ?oor and was standing up. The door to the Multi-Purpose Room was open. PRUETT walked toward C-Pod. CASEY went back to the handball court. CASEY stated that approximately ten minutes later he observed PRUETT walking down the hallway towards A-Iumout. An offender known to CASEY only as was walking toward the building. JASON said something to PRUETT. CASEY saw blood on pants. PRUETT said something to JASON about changing clothes. CASEY heard say, ?Right here.? PRUETT took his pants and shirt off and pushed them through the gas port on the fence on to the recreation yard. PRUETT took some clean clothes that JASON had and put them on and walked toward 3?4 Gate. CASEY stated that he took the clothes that PRUETT had pushed through the fence and put them in the recreation yard equipment box behind the weight machine. Approximately ten minutes later, CASEY observed Captain CRITES running down the hallway toward 3-Building, yelling, ?Stop movement, stop movement!? CASEY stated a few minutes after that he observed Of?cer NAGLE being carried out of the building on a stretcher. Sometime later CASEY observed PRUETT being escorted out of the in hand restraints. CASEY stated that on July 13, 2000, the SSI (offender trusty) that works in ?Building on the Connally Unit came to his cell in 8-Building and told him that in Il-Building and wanted name and number so that he could call him as a witness. The offenders that CASEY referred to as and in 3-Building, C-Pod, 71- Cell have been identi?ed as Offenders Gary Lee JACKSON, 623084, and Ryan Kevin 673097. 70-Cell, has been identi?ed as Offender Paul CAMERON, 792069. ATTACHMENTS: 1. 1-60, Offender Request to Of?cial, from Offender CASEY, dated July 19, 2000. 2. IA-33CF, Voluntary Statement of Offender CASEY, dated July 27, 2000. (05/031 I999) 000036 077 Eh?tC ~ J I/M lVIICHAEL HALL# 424157 INTERVIEW - 5/15/0 I - E-2/HS Inmate Hall stated he was assigned to the Michael Unit, 3 Bld'g, 34 Cell, on 12/17/99. Hall said he didn't know either Pruett or Nagel, at that time. Hall said that in early Jan. of 2000 he was moved to In-transit status, in 11 Bld'g, 1 Row, 1 Cell, still on the Michael Unit. Hall said Pruett was already there, in 11 Bld'g, directly across the hall from him, in what may have been cell #5 or #9. Hall said the cell doors had wire mesh on the windows of the doors and the cell next to Pruett was empty, so they talked to each other a lot. Hall said the first day Pruett was "checking ~m out" with casual conversation. Hall said he didn't know what Pruett was there for, but he "knew it was serious" because of the extra security and the fact that the staff always video recorded when they had to take Pruett out of his cell. Hall said he was there in 11 Bld' g for· 5 or 6 days and talked often with Pruett. He said they would sometimes sleep all day and talk all night. Hall said Pruett first told him he was "suspected" in the Nagel killing. (This was 2 or 3 days after Hall arrived there) Pruett knew Hall by Hall's AKA, "Prince." Hall said when Pruett told him he was worried he, Hall, tried to reassure him, telling him if he didn't do it he would not be found guilty. Hall said Pruett told him the reason he was worried was because he "did do it." Hall said Pruett was cursing Nagel, calling him a "sorry motherfucker." Hall said he sent a Bible to Pruett, telling him he could ask God for forgiveness. Hall said Nagel "fucked with him all the time" and "gave him cases." Hall said Pruett told him a "boss man" had approached him and gave him $60.00 in commissary for him to "take care of Nagel" or to "take Nagel out." Hall said Pruett told him Nagel was about to "tum in" some other "bosses." Hall said Pruett told him that at first he was just going to scare Nagel, but then he got, "like an adrenalin rush" and "couldn't stop sticking him." Hall said Pruett said he had "stuck" Nagel in the neck and chest and "kinda' went into a daze." Hall said Pruett told him that he could hear people yelling at .him but he "just couldn't stop." Hall said Pruett told him he was just supposed to scare Nagel and "he wasn't supposed to die." Hall said Pruett seemed very sincere when telling him all this and appeared to be wanting to "get it off his chest." Hall said when he was moved off 11 Bid' g Pruett was still there. Hall said his two "homeboys" were also suspects, but they had been separated. This guy is clean-cut in appearance, articulates well and should make a good witness. 079 yaw}. Jyk?xzwz/a AM A A ?Am a. 080 -: ) UM :rvIICHAEL HALL - 424157 RE-INTERVIEW - E2(H/S)- 5/30/01 Hall got his visit with his family on 5/26/01. They expressed many concerns about his being a State's Witness, primarily his safety. Hall is very distracted, right now, due to his 70 year old father being near death. Hall said I would probably be contacted by members of his family, their preacher and possibly the family attorney. Hall assured me h~ wanted to do the right thing and testify. / 082 ,_ IIM MICHAEL HALL· 424157 DA UNIT- 12/18/01 Hall was in good spirits, he's been here since 11/10/01 & says ifs 9 times better that E-2, HS. Hall is still anxious to testify & seems to be holding up well. Hall was informed that he may be moved closer to HV & he had no problems with that. We discussed his disc. record & Hall promised me that he wouldn't catch any more cases. Hall wants to go to a unit near Bryan, where his people are, after the trial. He prefers Pack, but would be happy with a unit in Huntsville. I told him we'd do our best. Hall asked me to call his sister, & I will. She seems to think Brazoria Co. can't be reached from Bryan. Also, I need to check & see which units, including Pack, can receive only medium custody I/Ms, & not close custody I/Ms. I need to get this info back to Hall. My take is, he'll make a good witness for the State. 083 Eh?tD -INTERVIEW - CY UNIT-4·26-01 I/M :MICHAEL ROSS # 384732 \ I l/M Ross stated he was assigned to ML Unit, 3 Bld'g~ A-2 Sec., 31 Cell, on 12/17/99. He said his cellie was named Salinas. Said Nagel was by-the-book and "over.did it," but he said he had never had any problems with Nagel> because he knew not to tty anything around him. Ross ~aid the knew Pruett ''pretty well/' for the year prior to the murder. Said Pruett was a "pretty good kid, kinda high-strung, who had a lot of heart.'' Said he didn't know Pruett was 1 ' prospecting" with ABT. When asked what was his first indication that something unusual was going on, on the day of the murder, Ross said he was in A-2 Section Dayroom, had just finished showering, when an officer came onto the section. Ross said the officer was checking the showers and appeared to be looking for someone. Ross said a little while later they were, "racked up." Ross said a couple of "mexican" inmates came onto the section about the same time as the officer and said that somebody had gotten in a fight with Nagel. ~ Ross said that several hours later someone on the section heard about the murder on their radio. He said that about midnight IAD started pulling the inmates out from his section for interviews and that he, too, was interviewed that night. Ross said be asked IAD why his '1>uddy," Shelton Phillips, had been '1ocked up,,, and was told by IAD that it was because he (Phillips) was Pruett's cellie. Ross said he had known Phillips since Jan. '98, when Phillips first came to McConnell. Ross said Phillips was a ''good dude" and he had helped Phillips out by keeping him out of trouble and away from the gangs. Said Phillips was called, "Shaky," because he was a Desert Storm veteran and the nerve gas had affected him. Ross said he was on the rec. yard, playing handball with Pruett:1 from app. Noon that day until he (Ross) left the rec. yard to shave and shower. Ross said he knew Pruett bad a sandwich on the rec. yard, but didn't know Nagel had told Pruett not to take the sandwich on the yard. This guy is ready to testify, on behalf of Pruett, but about all he can say is that, in bis opinion, Pruett was a great guy and Nagel was not a popular officer. He has not yet been contacted by the defense team. 085 111'-'~ t,,Vl'll'IAIJ l lll'l 1 .l .. ····---t~-~fu~-\.--\'-\ ___ b~~~-\\'t.~·-···· ... J.J,;UO '\~ +.~'<\.~\'.\- ~o~ ~~OA'L 'f\ c~\~'\..."\' \\a.~~y.... ~~ \.)1-v\''-\ \ Y"\~~\.Q.\t'\\- ~ ~ ~ -s_ ~~i_?t \(_ ~Cl"\<- (.:i'l''yL ~\'~ \ - " "t... ~.\Q.\~~ 'Sy"!...'L\O..\ ~o~~~\~~ U"''i+ ~~~u~~:~ c.._~_x-_.~<-~~:.\. '"'OM'\)~f\ "..,__~ -\ ~'L. ?Y\'Z.,°"I_ ~\>O\LJc... \0 ~ ~'\.. ,_ -·" ~~\\\~+ ~\Mt;~·-.. ~ ~-6:~~:.~~~t... ~_; . ~"~c' 0,a\\-\-0..~\. ~'i ~- \S::· I.)·'-OQA ~\'\"-'\~~1'1'\Z,. ~~~"'-" -.\-0 ~°'-l...\ , J:_ ~"t..'L\ ...,....~VI- ~do- '"So'(V'\"'L \~~~-'.\\)\'\ +~o.-r XV\.~~ ~n. . \t"'\\x:>~-\-0.."\;-\· ~o -\-~-i.:,~ ~~\... • "I.. "'0\)1- >t- ~+. \ <;;! '--\ 0---1.~ ~~ \-\....'-. 0''~ .\-o ~'<'t.\-0.~J- Cf(\ t ~-- 9. \ ~"":.V..'\.. ~(j...t \._;.),\\. "5'-'- \-~Q..i.- ..\-\...,"'I... ~)O\) c._--;:. \) 'l.\'":::() (\ \'"'L~"C\\.)'\..-.,,. ..\.-\.._\ ~ < \\-.CM. \L ~ tf\\ Q.,"~L\ ~.~~~ ~~l\l~':l.. \\-\~- ~ .. ~ f\t.U~\\ ~~,Q). o.~v._ ~o '!'.)·~ 0. ~O.\'~ o~ \\.~,~ n""\~\ '("\ ~"\. \. \) ~ \:)'l\)''\ ~,,. <::>""' ~\.-\\. \ \ ""''- -1, "1. \! '!.......\ I Y"'\ '--\ \ \ cq.~ ~~c.::F::f~'i_ c. ~ \. \ V\. ~\ Q). "\.~ 086 \,..;> "l.. \ \ I/M MICHAEL ROSS CY UNIT - 4/4/02 Went to interview Ross after receiving a letter from him to Warden Mendoza, received by the Warden today, requesting to see me. Ross was chained to CY as a def. witness. I had interviewed Ross last year & he had indicated he might testify for defense. Ross said he was interviewed Tuesday, 4/2/02, by Dixon. Ross said Dixon showed him a letter from Pruett asking him to corroborate l/MJames Richard's testimony that he had been in the rec yard with Pruett, shortly before the murder, and witnessed Pruett injure his right thumb by a metal pin on the weight machine. The letter went on to say that after the injwy both Ross & Richard tried to get Pruett to go to medical but Pruett said he didn't want to be charged the $3 copayment & said he would treat it himself. Ross said he wouldn't tell a lie under oath. Dixon told Ross he would be taken off their witness list & he could be sent back to CO Unit. ~ . J Ross, who, if you recall, is a big buddy of Shaky Phillips', said him & Jason Mccurry, rode the same chain bus with Shaky to Connally unit last wee~ from Walls. When Ross & McCurry got off at CY they knew Shaky was going to Stevenson because, "That's where the State's witnesses are going to be held." Ross said that, after the murder he was housed with Anthony Casey & Casey told him about the clothes from Pruett which Casey put in the box in the rec. yard. Ross said after the lock-down was lifted he went & saw the bloody clothes in the rec. box. Ross was assigned to CY Unit for more than a year, after the murder. He visited with Pruett there, often. Pruett ran the whole thing down to Ross, including the fact that Harold Mitchell was in the M/P Room when the attack occtlrred. Ross said he was in the rec. yard, playing handball with Pruett, the afternoon of the murder. Ross said Pruett was eating a sandwich on the rec. yard, and he was aware that Pruett had had a confrontation with Nagel over the sandwich. Ross said that when Nagel came on the rec. yard for the coun~ which I think was app. 30-45 minutes prior to the murder, Pruett "Cussed him." Ross said that, just a little later, maybe 15 minutes, as Nagel was coming back down the walkway from the gym area, Pruett cussed him again. I""""\ . - Ross said Pruett left the rec. yard app. 15 minutes before he did. Ross said he went to the barber shop & got a "clipper shave," then headed down to A-Pod, where he lived. Ross said he was in D-space, waiting to be let onto A-Pod, when a Mexican I/M, who he doesn't know, came up behind him & said, ''Pruett got Nagel." Ross went on to bis cell, knowing they would be locked down. (He walked by the desk probably 30 to 45 seconds before the murder) / 087 As you might expect, Dixon didn't leave the letter from Pruett with Ross. The officers @ CY are treating the det: witnesses like shit - we need to move Ross to the Stevenson Unit. He's got some good stuff for rebuttal, if he comes through. He's not yet committed, & rm not giving odds on him. I told him rd try to visit him next week, and bring some of our attorneys, if I could. We need to stay on this & see how it shakes out. As a footnote, if this guy comes through, we've got some serious security concerns. We're talking about an I/M who rebutts a confirmed ABT Captain, in the trial of an ABT Prospect. Ross thinks, and I agree, that he won't be safe in any 1DCJ Unit. 088 Eh?tE STATE OF TEXAS COUNTY OF BEXAR Af?davit of Jimmy Matthews 1. My name is Jimmy Matthews. I am over the age of eighteen years and am otherwise competent to give this affidavit. 2. I am the brother of Harold Mitchell. 3. Around the time of Robert Pruett?s trial, I was also in prison. During this time, Harold and I often wrote each other. After I was released, I visited Harold several times. 4. Harold told me that he had testi?ed for the State against Robert Pruett. Harold said that he felt guilty about it and had not wanted to testify against Pruett. He told me that the Internal Affairs Division threatened to charge him for the murder of Of?cer Nagle if he did not testify. 5. In exchange for testifying, Harold asked to be transferred to a prison in Virginia because he was from there and had sisters that lived there. The Internal Affairs Division agreed but said they would not be able to help him make parole if he was in Virginia. The person with whom he was negotiating said he knew a person that had served on the parole board who would give a positive testimony about Harold to the parole board the ?rst time he came up for parole. Because of this, Harold decided to stay in Texas. 6. When Harold came up for parole, the person who was supposed to testify on his beahalf did not show up or contact Harold. Harold was not released. The second time he was up for parole, he asked his wife and me to try to ?nd the person that was supposed to testify on his behalf. I called the Internal Affairs Division but was told the man had retired and would not be able to testify for Harold. 7. Harold was released from prison in November 2012 and committed suicide on May 10, 2013. 4 (3 la; Initial here 090 I have read the above 7 paragraphs and I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed this day of JLMUZ 2014. ,Msz Emmy WW3 X371 dayof KIMTL ,2014. . SHIRLIE SALAZAR Notary Public STATE OF TEXAS My Comm. Exp. 10-09-2016 091 Eh?tF July 21,2013 Hey Cori. I've received your letter and your jpay and it's very good to hear back from you. Wow, this should keep me busy for a while! Of course I have nothing else to do and need something to keep me busy. So write all you want.and ask what you I will always I may have to break it down into a couple of letters. My ex?wife wrote off and on for several years and I tried to get her help on my appeals. but the drugs have really messed her mind up and she is not dependable at all. She once wrote me ano80 page letter! I wonder how long that took.:) I finally convinced her to divorce me about seven years ago. She had to go to the court and file because I can't do it from in here. I had tried to get her to do this for years but she wasn't trying to hear it. She claims to be a christian and would always tell me that in the eyes of God she was my wife and always would be. Now I don't particularly care for Christians and I don't like there's nothing worse than a chr? istian junkie!:) I finally had to write and say some really terrible things to her to make her divorce me. I sometime feel bad for some of the things I said to her (although most of it was true). I just didn't want her carrying my name any longer. I guess I should hate her for her involvement in all of this. But how can you feel real hate for someone that you onoewlovednmore than anything? Anyway, I have really enjoyed your letters. It's great to have an intell? igent person to correspond with. You wouldn't believe some of the replies I've received! But then I'm no great intellect myself. I'm just a middle class. blue?collar, country boy. And being that I grew up in Southwest Lou? isiana close to the Texas state guess that makes me about half Ca? jun and half cowboy.:) Actually my fathers side of the family is Cajun and my mothers side is Scandinavian. I know it was really great to be able to visit Rome. I envy you!:) I've read about Pompeii and would love to see it. And the Amphitheatre. wow! That's great. I would also love to visit the Greek Acropolis. And of course I've always been intrigued by the English standing stones. I would love to have been able to travel to Europe. Which I would probably have been doing about now at my age. If I wouldn't have come to prison. Our political views are really much the same on the things you wrote abam out. America to is becoming a socialist state. It's very different now than when I was young. And it's happening very fast. Our politicians have been letting all of these immigrants in for years (especially Mexicans) and th? ey are dependant on the government for welfare, food stamps, housing, etc. And as you said,?many are almost like children who desperately need their father."And of course the more you depend on the government the more power you give it. And that's not good! I've become very antiugovernment. Our government, and especially our judical system, have become very corrupt. I believe we need to do away with what we've become and start over. Of course that will take a rebellion like what's happening in the middle?east. And as long as most people still have a job and can afford to buy a six-pack and watch their reality TV that?s not going to happen. But this country is heaa dad for another cival war. I truly believe that. And I fear for my children. Yes, many Americans see Edward Snowden as a traitor. But most Americans are just "sheep? headed for the slaughter. They can't think for themselves. They need Big Brother (or father) to think for them. Havevyoa ever read George Orwells "1984"? He was righttabout everything but the time. Anyway, yeah I think Snowden did the right thing. But I also think that he wasted his life for nothing. What he did isn't going to change anything and most people don't even care. 093. Okay. Let me answer some of your questions. My daughter (her name is Haley) is doing well. Considering what she has been through. She and I are very close. She writes and visits when she can. But she works and has two boys to raise so she stays pretty busy. It's also a six hour drive for her to get here but she does try to make it every couple months or so. She is so much like me that it never ceases to amaze me. When I went to Corpus in "94" and all of this went down with those Haley and her boy? friend picked me up at the airport and on the way to bring me to my hotel is when she told me about her mother. She also told me that she was not living with her mother because of that. She was staying at her boyfriends parents house. She was also pregnant. At fifteen years old! Her boyfriend (Mark) is a couple years older than Haley and they got married. They are still together and now have two boys. My son (Justin) is also married and has two children. He is an aircraft mechanic (military aircraft) and also flies helic0pters. I haven?t seen or heard from him in over four years now. I guess he just doesn't want anything to do with me anymore- I think he's embarressed to have a father in prison. Haley keeps me informed on what's going on with him and sends me pictures of his kids sometimes. I have a sister but she lives in her on little world and I haven't heard from her in probably ten years or so. I also have a brother but his nineteen year old son died in a house fire five years ago and I haven't heard from him since then. Haley says he hasn't been the same since. I've lost my parents. And I had a few friends that stayed in touch for a while but eventually fell off (out of sight out of mind). One friend died of cancer. As for the girl that called me Desperado I had known her since we were kids. She was my girlfriend in the seventh grade. But I married Lisa (my ex) and she married some other guy. After Lisa and I separated we got together somet-r ime. When we could. But she was still married. Her husband was having an affair and she was going to divorce him. But she was murdered. And that was a long time ago. All I have left is Haley and'I love her and worry ab? out her so much. She tries to do things for me but I will not accept money from her. She has a family and needs the money more than I do. My friend on Death Row is named Robert Pruett. I met him in 1996 on the Connelly Unit. Connelly and McConnell Units are only about 30 miles apart and if you get shipped off one of these units chances are you'll go to the other one. These were considered the worse units in the system in the 90's. McConnell had the highest murder rate in America for a few years. It was mostly gang violence. Anyway, when I met Robert he was sixteen years old and had just arrived on one of the worse units here. In fact, atnthe time, he was the youngest inmate ever sent to an adult prison. So I kept an on him to make sure he didn?t get into anything he couldn't handle. And to make sure the Mexicans and Blacks treated him fairly. Because if you're White you're going to have to fight the Mexicans and Blacks. And if there isn't any other Whites to back you up they'll sometime gang up on you and beat you down. And you must fight because if you don't then you belong to whoever claims you. But Robert did good. He had a very good boxing game and I gained much respect for him. He had been certified as an adult and given a life sentence because his father had killed their neighbor and had brought Robert and his brother with him. Then in December 1999 a prison guard was found stabbed to death and Robert was charged with his death. I was with Robert most of that day and know he did not do it. There was no physical evidence against him. He was convicted solely on inmate testimony. And of course the state cut deals with these inmates for their testimony. They seged me and then tried to cut a deal with me also. They told me that if I testified against Robert they would transfer me.out of Texas to anot? her state (like my home state), make sure I got to a good prison and out of seg, and they would also send a letter of recommendation to the parole board for me. And when I told them no they threatened my life. At one point several guards ran in on me in my cell and beat me really bad..Hours later the next shift found me and had to life?flight me to the nearest hospital. I actually tried to testify for him and have been trying to help him ever since. I recently did the interview for BBC and I know they'll retaliate. - I just don't know how yet. They tried to intimidate me before I went to the interview. But I don't intimidate easily. I really didn't want to do the interview with BBC because I don't trust them. They said that they wanted to put together the story of Robert's life and that they had already inter? viewed his father and brother and they had told of his life up until he Was fifteen years old. But Robert told them that from the time he came to pri~' son until he was charged with this-murder charge I was the person whoiknew him best. But I told these people with the BBC that I couldn't really talk much of life in prison and what was going on at McConnell at the time. BeCe ause to give a proper account of what was going on and what it was like there I would have to talk about inmates and officers and the illegal act~ ivity taking place. But that is considered snitching. And I don't snitch. Not to mention that it wouldn't help Robert's case any. And even though I told them up front that Ilwouldn't talk about any of that once they had me on camera they kept asking those questions. What I wanted to get on camera was what happened the day of the murder and that's the only reason I didn't end the interview right from the beginning. Because that's the only thing that may have any chance at all of helping Robert. And that's all I'm con? cerned with. I also know how these people with the media will edit the int? erview and cut parts and take what I say out of context to make it Seem I'm saying things I'm not. No, I really don't believe this will help Robert at all. But if there's the slightest chance at all of helping then I will do it. The state has made up their mind to kill him and nothing will stop them. There has been a couple people that has been proven innocent there at the end and the state has known these people were innocent and killed them any? way. One of the female inmates was executed several years ago and she had people and organizations from around the world pleading for her life. The pope even plead for her life and Texas killed her anyway. Even though I faced the death penalty myself I'm not opposed to it. But I believe only the most heinous of crimes should qualify for death. Serial killers, people who kill children, and maybe police officers in some cir~ cumstances. But I believe even that's not possible until our entire jud? icial system is restructured. And yes, like yourself. I would prefer the firing squad to any other form of execution. The Ad Seg here on Hughes Unit is exactly the same as death row. The same type of prison and the same conditions. And we do get one hour of outside rec twice a week. Actually it's right here in the building. But it's just an area that has bars instead of a roof. I love Richard Dawkins! He's my favorite atheistlz) And I do agree that he has become a bit of a militant atheist. The first book I read by him was ?The Blind Watchmaker". And still my favorite. But like yourself I consider myself an agnostic. I do believe it's all just a lot of super? stitious nonsense. But I'm not so closed minded that I couldn't see the truth if proven. I also do not like the label ?Atheist? because most of these idiots (sheep) here in America think you're a devil worshiper if you claim to be an atheist. I've read some Jung. Also Sohopen? hauer. Spengler, etc. The reason I had ask for legal help in my profile is because I had a sit? uation last year with these folks here on the unit. I had a seizure and was brought to a local hospital. They broke my ankle during transport. And at the hospital they had me chained up and chained to the hospital bed for five days. What they do when they transport you is they put leg irons (shackles) on you legs (around your ankles). Then another chain goes around your waist (they use padlocks on the chains). Then they put handcuffs on your wrists. They make you cross your arms and they put this black box on between your wrists and over the handcuffs so that your arms are immobile. This box is an inhumane torture device! It's very painful. They then pull your arms down and padlock this box to the chain around your waist. Then there's another chain that goes from the chain around your waist to your leg irons. They pull this chain until you're curled up and have to walk bent over with very small steps. They are Only suppose to use this during transport but I spent five days in the hospital with all of this on. I was also chained and locked to the hospital bed. This was all very painful. The box and cuffs cut into my wrists and blood was running down my arms. The chain around my waist cut into my back. And the leg irons were pulled tight around my BROKEN ankle all this time. My hands were swollen to twice their normal size. And I still have the scars around my wrists. I went 18 days with a broken ankle before they put a cast free? world hospital many peoplle saw what was going on. Doctors, nurses, etc. And I wanted to file a lawsuit on TDCJ and the hospital. But the law library would not bring me the legal material I needed to do this. So I was hoping that I may get a para?legal or someone with knowledge in civil suits to help me. But my time limit to file is up next month so I guess I'll just blow it off. As for the Capt. Murder charge, no I did not kidnap Haley. When I was first arrested I was charged with one count of murder and one count of agg. assault. But then politics took over and my charges were raised to Capt. Murder and Att. Capt. Murder. The DA was up for re?election and the public+ ity and conviction of a death penalty case would just about guarantee the election for him. The guy that lived and testified against me eventually said that I kidnaped them at knifepoint. And that's where the kidnapping charge came in. Now think about kidnapping two grown men with a knife. That's just crazy. This guy also changed his story three times on the stand. And he admitted that they had been smoking crack. There's a lot to this case and you really need to hear the entire story to know what really happened. But that's a tale for another day. If you're really interested I'll tell you about it sometime. I appreciate this information on the website for solitary confinement. I'll think about it. But truthfully I don't see where anyone really cares. And I already have enough heat on me for trying to help Robert. Well I need to take a break so I'll close for now. I look forward to hearing back from you. Tell me about your family, your friends, your job, what you do in your spare time, etc. You're an intelligent and interesting person and I'd like to hear more about you. RegardsEh?tG S?ptember 532013 Hi Cori: I've received both of your jpays. And I'm glad you finally received my letter. It took a while to get to you but at least you did get it. That's more than I can say for some of my mail. Haley hasn't been getting any of myymail. She got one letter that was mailed like five weeks before. I'm not real sure what's going on but I guess I'll have to file on the mailroom and the officers that pick up the mail. I'll get it worked out though. I've be? en through this several times before on other units. 80 if you're late gete ting a letter from me don't think it?s because I've stopped writing you. I would not do that without explaining why. It would only be because they are screwing with my mail or because something happened here. Anyway, I really enjoy your letters. You and I are like?minded in many ways. It seems that we share many old school (traditional) morals and valu? es. And it's very rare for me to find someone like at your age! The vast majority of the sheep have all been brainwashed with political correctness (or religion). It's truly refreshing to find someonekwho can th? ink for theirself. So I truly do value your friendship. I'm very direct and will usually say exactly what's on my mind. I did say in my profile that I'm not into playing games and that there is nothing fake about am who I am. And many people can't handle that. Well congratulations on your new job! I'm glad you found something that you enjoy doing. Kids are great. And only a 15 minute drive; that's cool. What's happening in Germany is happening in all Western nations. I look at America and see us going down the same road that Rome did. Except at a much faster pace because of technology. We're doing through immigration wh? at Rome did through imperialism. There can be no cohesion when you have so many cultures, religions,and races all living together. Rome became a melt" ing pot like: America has become over the past 50 years. And no society has ever survived that. They say that whites will be a minority here in the next 20 years or so. What do you think will happen when the blacks and Mexicans outnumber us? They hate us! And prison is a microcosm of American society as a whole._Whites are vastly outnumbered here. And that's why the first white gangs were started during the race riots of the 60's. They stuck to? gether and were willing to kill or do whatever they had to do to survive. When a white person comes to prison the blacks and Mexicans are going to try to break you. There are many ways they do this. but you are going to have to fight multiple times and sometime multiple people, and if you quit or if you're not willing to fight then you're lost. Your life will become a night? mare. I've seen young white guys come in with just five or ten year senten? ces and end up with a lot more time or life sentences for trying to protect themselves. The point I'm trying to make is that although it's bad out there now just wait until they have the upperhand and see what happens. I worry for my kids and grandkids because they are going to have to live through this. Yes. I agree with you that all white children are being taught. from a very young age, that our race is evil and that we are responsible for all that's wrong in the world. I wrote an article for a pro white magazine years ago concerning this. The government really started pushing the anti?white agenda in the early 60's and in the 70's the teen suicide rate skyrocketed. among white teens. And has pretty much stayed that way. I believe our teens are confused'and that we.have lost our cultural spirit as a people (yes, I was reading a lot of Jung at the time As for appealing my sentence the only way I could get back in court is if I had new evidence that wasn't available to me at my trial. The only thing I can see that would help me is if the guy that lived would tell the truth. But I don't see that happening. That idiot had the nerve to write me a let? ter a couple years after I came to prison. It looked like a five year old just learning how to write wrote the letter. He printed the letters and 098 at the beginning of the sentence they would start off small and then get larger and then small again. All the letter was about was that he had got saved and was now a christian and that I should give my life to the lord also. Of course there was no return address, but I would like to have told him that if he was such a good goddamn christian why didn't he go tell those se people what really happened! The DA that prosecuted me also claimed to be a christian but that didn't stop him from trying to give me the death penalty just so he could get re?elected. When I was in seg the first time part of the deal they offered me to teS+ tify against Robert was a transfer back to Louisiana or any other state I wanted to go to. They also said that I would get out of seg and they would see that I got on a good unit and had a good job etc. Of course I turned them down. So I spent 8% years in seg and I'm still catching hell because of it. But I did what I thought was right so I accept that. I did say that loyalty was my strongest I'm down for you then I'm down all the the wheels fall off! Yeah, some prisons do serve only two meals a day. They're trying to do it system wide and I'm sure they will eventually. When I first came down they were serving VitaPro here. VitaPro was made by a company in Canada and used as a supplement for hog feed. The executive director of TDC at the time had a contract with these people to use this stuff to feed Texas inmates. Not only was he getting kickbacks but he was also getting paid a salary as a re? presentative for the company. They fed us that stuff for a couple years and it was bad! It came in five gallon buckets and it had on the bucket "Not For Human Consumption?. They were feeding us this shit straight; and for all th? ree meals. Some of the guys eating this stuff were breaking out in boils all over their bodies- It was also causing internal organ failure on some guys. I tried it and it was terrible! But I was lucky to be able to make commiss? ary so I didn't have to eat it. Anyway; the executive director went to pri? son because of that. My point is that that's just the way they do things he? re. After that the meals weren't that bad. Then about eight years ago they started to decline and it's bad now. Not as bad as VitaPro;but bad all the same. So if you really want to try to do a little something for me, and you can afford to. then I will not turn down the offer of help. They really have me in a bind being isolated back here in seg. In population I could make enough to support myself. Anyway Cori, our friendship does not depend on is. If you can help I would be grateful, but if you can't afford it then do? n?t worry about So, with my letters going through email (or electronic mail) I guess that means the NSA is reading everythinglz) Even if they were there's not much they could do to course, maybe I could come up with something that would make them come get me and put me in a federal prison! I wish(HA1) Anyway, since Texas offered me a deal on an interstate transfer back to Louisiana (or wherever) to testify against Rob and I refused they arennow. They want to keep me right here where they canwmake sure to try to make my life as miserable as possible. And if I went back to Loui? siana now I would go to Angola and that's on the other side of the state and way too far for Haley to travel. And Haley is really the only one I have le? ft so I need to try to stay as close as I can to her. Actually there's a un? it in Beaumont Texas that's close to the Louisiana state line and only 70 miles from my home in Lake Charles. I've been trying to get there for years but they would never transfer me there. They give these blacks hardship tra? nsfers all the time; but my father was dying and his doctor sent Huntsville a letter explaining his medical condition and requesting they transfer me closer to home and they wouldn't do it. And that pisses me off more than any~ thing else they've done! Like yourself, history has always been an interest of mine. And I've always felt that I was boun too late. My favorite poem has always been "Miniver Ch? eevy" by Edward Arlington Robinson. He says it all. 099 Yeah. Robert is a pretty cool guy. It's been a while since I've had any direct contact with him though. But I do remember his belief in the afterw life. Maybe he was reading a little too much Quantum Physics!:) But then I guess most people don't want to believe that there's just nothing after dea? th. And who knows, maybe there isn't. I just don't see any point in worrying about it. I think we should live the life we have here to the best of our ability and not worry about something that we can know nothing about. Getting more than one letter in circulation at a time sounds great. I just got my back from the mailroom and they said that all mail goes out wi?n thin 24 hours of them receiving it. And of course it your mail is flagged and being held for some reason. And they can't hold your mail un? less they have a damn good reason. You must be under investigation for some? I am not! As I said, I've been through this before and I'll get it worked out. I think part of it is the officers,that pick up the mail. The officers working the block (different ones each day) are who pick up the mail so I'm just going to have to be careful who I give it to. Actually the officers aren't suppose to pick up the mail at all. The mailroom is suppose to come each day and pick it up themselves. I don?t know if you know what's been going on with the US Postal Service? Well, they've been losing.quite a lot of money each year and have been clo? sing post offices all around the country. So mail is taking longer to arrive because it's having to go further out of the way. That slows down things a little but my main problem is here on the unit. As for the Florida postmark on the email I think it is sent electronically to a service there and then mailed out from there. "Well, there's a couple of these officers that are trying to work each other and?themselves up into doing something because they're mad about me doing the interview with BBC. I don't think they'll do anything because they're really not the type .they' re just trying to act tough with each other.: They also have to work back here everyday and if they with me I'll eventually ca? them slipping and get mine. And they know that. Anyway, my daughters son took off to Brownsville with some girl and Haley is really worried about him. Brownsville is NOT a good place! A lot of viole? nce with the Mexican drug cartels. It very dangerous there! She was talking about going down there to get him and that freaked me out because I sure do? n't want her down there. She doesn't know where he's at and he doesn't want to go home anyway. He's 18 years old now and she can't make him do anything. They are coming around picking up mail and if I want this to go out tomo? rrow (Friday) then I need to close for now. Our mailroom is closed on Satur? days. I have much more to say so I'll have something else coming to you at the first of next week. (The postal service is about to stop running mail on Saturdays also) Take care Cori. I really do enjoy your letters! We'll get this mail issue worked out soon. looking forward to t-he pictures. - Hearing from you really does mean a lot to me! Best Wishes, Jay Eh?tH STATE OF VIRGINIA COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Af?davit of Karen Kafadar 1. My name is Karen Kafadar. I am over the age of eighteen years and am otherwise competent to give this af?davit. 2. I am the Commonwealth Professor and Chair of the Department of Statistics at the University of Virginia. 3. From 2006 until 2008, I served on the National Academy of Sciences Committee on Identifying Needs of Forensic Science Community. 4. The Committee was appointed in 2006 by the National Academies of Sciences to address the Senate?s charge to conduct a study on forensic science. 5. The product of the Committee?s study is the 2009 Report, Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: A Path Forward (National Academies Press, 2009). 6. I have reviewed pages 313 through 316 and 336 through 339 of volume 42 of the Reporter?s Record of Robert Pruett?s 2002 capital murder trial wherein the State?s expert described the process (physical match comparison and jigsaw ?t analysis) to determine from which roli of tape the sample she observed came. 7. ?Masking tape? is one example of ?Other patternfimpression evidence? as described in Chapter 5 of the 2009 Report, beginning on page 145. 8. Referring to analyses on ?Other patient/impression evidence? in Chapter 5 of the NRC report, page 149 states, ?there is no consensus regarding the number of individual characteristics needed to make a positive identi?cation, and the committee is not aware of any data about the variability of class or individual characteristics or about the validity or reliability of the method. Without such population studies, it is impossible to assess the number of characteristics that must match in order to have any particular degree of con?dence about the source of the impression.? 9. The ?rst paragraph on page 162 of the Report acknowledges that ?Another type of ?ber analysis consists of physically matching two remnants that appear to be torn from one another.? Hence, although ?masking tape matching? is not speci?cally discussed in the 2009 NRC report, the report makes clear that it lies in the domain of ?pattern matching,? analogous to the matching of shoe and tire prints (contained in the section of chapter 5 titled ?Other patternfimpression evidence? beginning on page 145). 102 10. As stated on page 161 of the report, ?Fiber examiners agree, however, that none of these characteristics is suitable for individualizing ?bers (associating a ?ber from a crime scene with one, and only one, source), and that ?ber evidence can be used only to associate a given ?ber with a class of ?bers.? The report makes clear that this statement applies to other forms of pattern/impression evidence, such as masking tape. 11. Regarding the analysis of ?bers as one type of pattern evidence, the Report states on page 163: ?there have been no studies to inform judgments about whether environmentally related changes discerned in particular ?bers are distinctive enough to reliably individualize their source, and there have been no studies that characterize either the reliability or error rates in the procedure.? As indicated in the Report, it is impossible to specify a level of con?dence in asserting a ?match? using this method of comparison, because the studies on the variability of the ?features? being matched (analogous to ?pieces? in a jigsaw puzzle?) have not been conducted (page 163), ?the community has not de?ned precise criteria for determining whether two samples come from the same source class? (p.170), and hence ?there is no consensus regarding the number of individual characteristics needed to make a positive identi?cation? (p.149). 12. These same concerns are raised in the Report?s assessment of toolmark and ?rearms analysis (pages 150-154): signi?cant amount of research would be needed to scienti?cally determine the degree to which ?rearms-related toolmarks are unique or even to quantitatively characterize the probability of uniqueness. additional studies should be performed to make the process of individualization more precise and repeatable? (page 154). I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed this day of giant ,2015. Mm l4 Miriam/e 103 Eh?tl THE STATE OF TEXAS CAUSE N0. IN THE 156? DISTRICT v. COURT OF ROBERT LYNN PRUETT BEE COUNTY, TEXAS SECOND ORDER GRANTIING POST-CONVICTION DNA TESTING On April 28, 2015, this court granted an order for post-conviction DNA testing in the above case. In that order, dated April 28, 2015, this Court granted the request to test the piece of metal, also known as the shank, and to also test the tape that was wrapped around the handle of the shank. The Court now ?nds that the following items, which are in the possession of the Texas Department of Public Safety (DPS) Crime Lab in Corpus Christi, Texas, or have previously been tested by this DPS lab, shall also be tested for possible DNA analysis, including epithelial cells: (The submission number and item number referenced in this list originated from the DPS lab when these items were originally submitted to that lab, and are used herein for the bene?t of that DPS lab.) I. 2. Submission 1, Item 2, Stain on pants Submission 1, Item 3, Stain on pants Submission II, Item 2, Stain on TDCJ uniform shirt Submission II, Item 4, Stain A on TDCJ uniform pants Submission II, Item 4, Stain on TDCJ uniform pants Submission Item 5, Stain A on shirt Submission Item 5, Stain on shirt Submission IV, Item I, Stain on metal rod Submission IV, Item 1, piece of blue plastic removed from metal rod Second Order Granting Post?Conviction DNA Testing Page I of 2 105 10. Submission IV, Item 1A, masking tape removed from metal rod 11. Submission I, Item 8, apparent blood drop found in the multi-purpose room of Building 3 12. Submission I, Item 1 1, apparent blood splatter 13. Submission I, Item 12, apparent blood drop 14. Submission I, Item 13, apparent blood stain 15. Submission I, Item 15, apparent blood drop IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the piece of metal, also known as the shank, and the masking tape, which was removed from the shank, shall be immediately delivered to the Texas Department of Public Safety Crime Lab in Corpus Christi, Texas, and that those two items, along with all other items listed above that are already in the possession of said DPS lab, shall be further tested for any possible DNA analysis. SIGNED AND ENTERED THIS 1 day of May, 2015. {5:3 gr- g? MM IGDG PRESIDING BY ASSIGNMENT 1?6th istrict Court Bee County, Texas APPRO . Mark Special Prosecution Unit 90:111121 1111211151112 David Dow i w/ pm? Attorney for ROBER LYNN PRUETT 115315} Second Order Granting Post?Conviction DNA 'l?esting Page 2 of 2 106 ?in? ii 1 3 .121 2310.1 up ,m 11.: STATE OF TEXAS COUNTY OF NUECES Af?davit of Scott Carrigan 1. My name is Scott Carrigan. I am over the age of eighteen and am otherwise competent to give this af?davit. 2. I served as a juror in Robert Pruett?s 2002 capital murder trial. I was elected the foreman of the jury. As the foreman, several of the jurors looked to me for guidance during deliberations. 3. The kind of evidence I would have considered to be mitigating during the punishment phase of Robert Pruett?s capital murder trial is evidence that Robert Pruett and was physically and sexually abused as a child. Mr. Pruett?s attorneys did not present any evidence that he had been physically or sexually abused during the trial. I have now been shown af?davits from Nancy Scott, Troy McLain, Michelle Perrault, Bonnie McLain, Charles Nash, Tommy Henson, Tammie Pruett, and Donnie Creed. If the evidence presented in these af?davits had been presented at trial, I would have answered the second special issue, the mitigation question, differently. Had the testimony contained in these af?davits been presented at trial, I would have answered that there were suf?cient mitigating circumstances to sentence Robert Pruett to life in prison instead of to death. Had evidence been presented during the guilttinnocence stage of Robert Pruett?s capital murder trial that the informants that testi?ed for the State had been promised things such as being transferred out of state or receiving other special treatment that was not disclosed at trial, that evidence would have in?uenced the degree to which informant testimony influenced my decision. 8. Had evidence been presented at trial that inmates that desired to testify for Robert Pruett had been physically abused or received other negative treatment because {sf their desire to testify for Pruett instead of for the State, this, too, would have in?uenced the degree to which inmate testimony in?uenced my decision. 9. Because the State?s case relied so heavily on inmate testimony, it is reasonably probable that had evidence similar to that described in paragraphs seven and eight been presented at trial, my decision would have different. 108 I declare under malty of perjuymgoing nine paragraphs are true and correct. Executed on this i 0 day of 2014. 832311 Carfg?an/ Signed and sworn before rm: this {b day of TS 2014? tar}r Public, State of Texas mm? BURCZEWSH Notary Pubiic STATE OF TEXAS My (10mm. Exp. 109 Eh?tK TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL Bruce W. Toney John C. West Inspector General General Counsel June 12, 2014 Jeff Newberry Texas Innocence Network 100 Law Center Houston, Texas 77204-6060 In re: Open Records Request OR-2014-00122 Concerning James Richard, 741339. Dear Mr. Newberry: The Of?ce of the Inspector General has received your request pertaining to the above referenced matter. Please note that the OIG is a separate entity from the Texas Department of Criminal Justice (TDCJ) and as such, we handle all requests for information independently of TDCJ. OIG is a law enforcement unit and serves as the investigative entity for TDCJ. The OIG mission is to investigate any administrative or criminal violations occurring in TDCJ operations. Please ?nd enclosed a copy of the basic information you requested. Although the Open Records Act allows a governmental body to charge for copying documents, in accordance with Texas Government Code section 552.267 the enclosed is being provided to you at no charge. The OIG is but one entity associated with the Texas Department of Criminal Justice (TDCJ) which may have had records responsive to your request and which may be responding to your request. You may be hearing from other department(s) within TDCJ under separate cover. We consider this open records request closed. Re ds, iasth Records Release Section Of?ce of the Inspector General Enclosures P.0. Box 4003 I Huntsville, Texas 77342 0 Phone (936) 437?5150 0 Fax (936) 437-5010 0 Email: 111 TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL Bruce W. Toney John C. West Inspector General General Counsel June 12, 2014 Jeff Newberry Texas Innocence Network 100 Law Center Houston, Texas 77204?6060 Dear Mr. Newberry: We have received your public information request for James Richard, dated May 29, 2014, and received May 29, 2014. The information you requested contains personal information that relates to: a peace of?cer; a county jailer; a current or former employee of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice; a commissioned security of?cer; an employee of a district attorney, criminal district attorney, or county or municipal attorney whose jurisdiction includes any criminal law or child protective services matters; or 0 an of?cer or employee of a community supervision and corrections department. The requested information includes this public employee?s home address, home telephone number, social security number, and/or family member information. As allowed by section 552.1175 of the Texas Government Code, this public employee has chosen to make this personal information con?dential. Our of?ce is prohibited by law from releasing this personal information to you, and therefore we have removed this information from the enclosed information we are providing to you. Normally, we must request a ruling from the Texas Attorney General before we can withhold any of the information you requested. However, section 552.1175 allows us to withhold this speci?c information without requesting a ruling from the attorney general. You have the right to appeal our decision to withhold this information from you. Instructions for appeal are at the end of this letter. If you do not want to appeal, you do not 112 Jeff Newberry June 12, 2014 need to do anything else. Please note that we are only withholding the speci?c categories of information that are con?dential under section 552.1175. We will process the rest of your request for information in accordance with the terms of the Public Information Act. Si erely, t. 1 Eastham Records Release Section Of?ce of the Inspector General P.0. Box 4003 Huntsville, Texas 77342 0 Phone (936) 437-5150 0 Fax (936) 437-5010 0 Email: 113 Jeff Newberry June 12, 2014 How to appeal the withholding of information under Gov?t Code section 552.1175 If you wish to appeal the withholding of information discussed on the previous pages, you must send the following to the attorney general: 1) a signed, written statement indicating your wish to appeal the withholding of information; 2) the name of the governmental body that withheld information from you; 3) the date you made your original request for information; and 4) a copy of your original request for information, or if you are unable to provide a copy, a description of your original request for information. You may also submit written comments stating why you think the information should be released to you, but you are not required to do so. Send your appeal by mail or fax to the attorney general at: Open Records Division PO. Box 12548 Austin, Texas 78711-2548 Fax: 512-463-2092 Within forty-?ve business days after receiving all of the above-listed items necessary to ?le your appeal, the attorney general will issue a written ruling on the matter. You will receive a copy of this ruling in the mail. P.O. Box 4003 Huntsville, Texas 77342 0 Phone (936) 437-5150 0 Fax (936) 437-5010 0 Email: 114 1 of2 2013.03528 8 1 st Texas Department of Criminal Justice OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL CRIMINAL CASE INFORMATION WORKSHEET Case Number Hughes Unit or Location Sep 11, 2013 Date of Offense Sep 11, 2013 Date Case Opening Victim Complainant or Witness I I i I I . Last Name I First Name Statutes I Rank 3 DOB Race Otfenderl -. - RICHARD JAMES VIcllm . Parolee i 00741339 CCP49.1BS FULLER Witness .5 Employee I I I I i - Lieutenant I I 3 2 0* MITCHELL i LEONARD i \Mh?tess I Employee Correctional I I I 5 Of?cers i I I I Sergeant of Iwrrness Employee 3 :Corredional i i I I I Officers - WOODS Ethinness Employee I I . 2 I i RANEY IKRISTOPHER I Witness Emponee MARTINEZ IWItness Employee Correctional FULTON i MICHAEL I Witness I Employee Ot?riceer AsianIr LEFOTU ILNDSAY vamess Employee 5 PaciContractor i i Lords I WItness IVolunteer . Contractor CLARK MICHAEL Witness I [Volunteer Contractor II MARY I \Mtness [Volunteer I . I I I Contractor I i . a ELMOORE i SHONNA iWitness I [Volunteer ?Nurse: i . I I.-. JONES I BEVERLY Witness Civilran I I Whrte I Female I I 6/5/2014 11:33 AM 115 20f2 I. I I Victim Complainant or ??tness Party Person I TDCJ I LastNama FirstName Type Type Number Statutes Rank IE Race Sex SSN MaEle PEERWANI NAZM Civilian SCHUMAK BOGDAN Witness? Civilian . RAMOS LEDWN witness 1 i LAY DANIEL Witness: Civilian i 2 i i i i Contractori - . . HAFERKAMPE MAGGIE \Mtness momma?; . --. .. i I MOSELEY JOHN wimessE Empioyee . 5 i i HARRY ABU Witness; Employee i Suspects Last Name i First Name Person Type TDCJ Number Statutes Rank DOB 2 Race Sex SSN SUMMARY OF OFFENSE On 9/11/13, at approximately 6:30 AM, Offender James Richard, #741339,was pronounced deceased by Dr. Chumack. hanging in his cell, from an apparent suicide attempt- the time he was discovered until he was pronounced. The suicide occurred inside of 12-Building, C?Pod, 22?Cell, ordered an autopsy. at the Alfred Hughes Unit- Exact Location of Incident AH emergency room Investigator Initials JXA Opened By OIG Region :Region-A 116 At 6:00 AM, Offender Richards was discovered CPR was administered from Judge Beverly Jones has 6/5/2014 I :33 AM Custodial Death Report Page 1 of 3 17%! Custodial Death Report iris?? Filed: 9-12-2013 9:38 am ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS PA13435P GREG ABBOTT Agency/Facility Information Name: Texas Department Of Criminal Justice Address: 2503 Lake Road, Suite 5 City, Zip: Huntsville, 77340 Phone: 93 6?437-51 16 Director: Brad Livingston Name of Report Filer: Deana Lackey Email of Report Filer: deana.lackey@tdcj.state.tx.us Identity Of Deceased Name: James Michael Richard Race/Ethnicity: Anglo Sex: Male DOB: 12?02-1961 Age: 51 Date Of Custody (arrest, incarceration) 9-28-1994 12:00 am Date Of Death 9-11?2013 6:35 am Where did the event causing the death occur? Address: 3201 FM 929 City: Gatesville County: Coryell Has a medical examiner or coroner conducted an evaluation to determine a cause of death? Yes, results pending Apparent Manner Of Death: Suicide Medical Cause Of Death: Suspected suicide Was the cause of death the result of a pro-existing medical condition or did the deceased develop the condition after admission(It/?n1/l Custodial Death Report Page 2 of 3 Not Applicable; cause of death was accidental injury, intoxication, suicide or homicide Had the deceased been receiving treatment for the medical condition after admission to your jail's iurisdiction? Not Applicable yge of Custody TDCJ acility/Unit: Alfred Hughes Unit What were the most serious offenses with which the deceased was (or would have been charged with at the time of death)? 1. Capital Murder Status: Convicted Type of Charges Violent Crime Against Persons Did the deceased die from a medical condition or from injuries sustained at the crime/arrest scene? Not applicable If injured at the crime/arrest scene, how were these injuries sustained? Self-in?icted Suicide Was the deceased under restraint in the time leading up to the death or the events causing the death? No At any time during the arrest/incident, did the deceased: Appear intoxicated (either alcohol or drugs)? No. Threaten the of?cers(s) involved? No. Resist being handcuffed or arrested? - No. Try to escape/?ee from custody? - No. Grab, hit or ?ght with the of?cer(s) involved? - No. Use a weapon to threaten or assault the - No. Other - No. Not Applicable - Yes. What type of weapon(s) caused the death? Not Applicable Where did the deceased die? Elsewhere Specify: State Prison 118 ?r:nl~lr n11n0r:r1?Qn1q (IQ/qnifl Custodial Death Report Page 3 of 3 What was the time and date of the deceased's entry into the law enforcement facility where the death occurred? 9?28?1994 12:00 am At the time of entry into the facility, did the deceased: Appear intoxicated (either alcohol or drugs)? - No. Exhibit any mental health problems? - No. Exhibit any medical problems? - No. Not Applicable - Yes. If death was an accident or homicide, who caused the death? Not applicable; cause of death was suicide, intoxication or illness/natural causes If death was an accident, homicide or suicide, what was the means of death? Hanging, strangulation Summarv of How the Death Occurred: On September 11, 2013, Offender James was pronounced deceased by medical staff. 119 ?IE/?n1/l