1. The plain reading of the statute indicates that counsel must be appointed to learn if biological evidence exists, yet Texas courts have specifically held that such is not necessary Russell argues that this violates due process.

2. Under subbhapter section 64.035 if DNA was previously tested and is s.till in the form to be compared under acceptable standards then such should be done to not do so violates equal protection and due process .

3. The Second Court of Appeals never issued a judgment or written opinion as such Russell has no specific idea of the basis for the To fail to offer a written opinion making denial of DNA testing. it's basis for a decision clear violates the underlying ideas of fairness and dueiprocess.

4. The courts have both at the appellate level and trial courts have made judicial decisions/interpretations about what constitutes {'identity " for the purpose of testing. This has resulted rin only 10 people out of thousands tuhorhave-Applied for testing, being actually tested. Russell argues that this standard is being applied differently for pro se litigants and those who are represented by counsel, which violates equal protection and favors the wealthy over the common many

Whether the Texas courts' interpretation of the statute requiring appointment of counsel to determine if biological evidence exists violates due process