Michael Vincent Moore v. Bobby Lumpkin, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division
HabeasCorpus
PETTIONER'S INTERNET FALEBOOK PAGE AND SEEING HIS TAN AND WHITE OG WHEN THE PROSECUTOR RECEIVED THE DNA REPORT ON H/D/AOL ONE WEEK BEFORE FILING AFFIDAVIT TO THE COURT, MAY bADI) DNA REPORT LiSTING "HAIR FROM TRUNK AS BIACK AND PROFILED AS BEONGING TO THE VICTIM? APPENDX'G EXHIBIT "ANA RPT. PAGE OF3)
DAVIS V. STATE 83IS.W.2d4A6 (TEX.CRiM.APP.I989) EX-PARTE BRANDIEY79IS.W.2d 886 (TEX.CRIM.APP.1989) U.S. V. LEDN1 468 U.S.897(1984) VIDATIDN(S) DF U.S. CONSTITUTION AMENDMENT (S) FOURTHFIFTHTFOURTEENTH FED.R.APP. P. RUIE 56 (G),
2.HOW iS IT LEGAL FOR THE TRiAI COURT TO AllOW AND IGNOR IRRELEVENT INADMISSIBLE MISIEADING CEHI PHONE TESTiMONY AND EVIDENCE TO BE AAMITED WHEN CIEARIY. THE MOTION FOR MiSTRIAI SHOUID HAVE BEEN GRANTED AT: I7RR.83-8Y (EXHIBIT "L"), THE STATES ACCUSATION /SPECULATION WAS "LACK IN CALL ACTIVITY' FOR THE DAYS IN QUESTION. (EXHIBIT."N PAGE I3WHICH 'S PROVEN TO BE THE OPPASITE WITH GRAPH AND PHONE RECORDS AT: EXHIBITS"C" PAGES I THRU NS., (APPENDIX'G" EXHIBIT"L""N" AND 'C'). COBIE V. STATE330S.W.3d 25329A (TEX, CRIM.APP.2O1O) JACKSON V. VIRGINIA 443 U.S.307.99 S.CT.2781-82(1979) 8.HABEA5 CORPUS 45.2(1). TEXAS RUIES OF EVIDENCE TRE) RUIE HOR (IRRELEVANT EVIDENCE INADMISSIBIE) TRE - RUIE 4O3 (VIOLATIONS U.S.CONST. AMENDS: 5TH6TH AND (H4TH)
H. IF THE TiME OF DEATH iS/WAS I2 TO BL HOURS BEFORE THE VICTIM WAS FOUND) HOW COUID PETITIONERD, COUID HAVE STRANGIED THE VICTIM SHORTIY AFTER SEXUAIIY ASSAUITING HER (STATED BY THE STATE AT EXHIBIT"N' PAGE IA WHEN THE DNA WE/E SEV E S THAT-WAS FOUND WAS MEDICALY/SCIENTIFICALLY PROVEN TO HAVE BEEN DEPOSITED FIVE (S)DAYS OR ONE HUNDRED TWENTY (IAD) HOURS BEFORENOT IA TO 36 HOURS DUE TO THE TAILS BEING MISSING WHICH TAKES IAO HOURS OR S DAYS AS PER EXHIBITS LPAGE 2LO-A6) AND "M3" PAGES
Whether the prosecutor's submission of an affidavit for probable cause listing a tan animal hair found in a wicker trunk, when the DNA report received a week before the affidavit showed the hair did not belong to the victim, violated the defendant's Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights