Larson v. State 890 S.W.2d. 200
Rule v. State 890 S.W.2d. 158
Rice v. State 893 S.W.2d 734
H.E. Rice v. State 96 S.W.3d. 643 (to prove violent)

1)   A tape recorded and typewritten statement of co-defendant Rule was
heard and read by the jury.  He didn't testify and there was no
opportunity to cross-examine him, which violated Confrontation Clause. 
His statement was declared inadmissible against him at his appeal (see
above citing) and he was given a reversal of his case by Appeals Court
Judges.

2)   When returning to Jefferson after arrest in Mexico, the townspeople
had put mocking banners across the street saying, "Welcome back Tim and
Lou". It was on all the local TV stations and in all the local
newspapers.  No change of venue was granted. 

3)   The newspapers recorded the D.A. as requesting a higher bond for
Louanne, stating that she "controlled the flow of events...", before the
trial.  Pretrial opinions in the local paper are cause for change of
venue, which was requested by defense attorneys, but denied. 

Click here to read the article in the Longview News Journal.

4)   The prosecutor told the jury at voir dire, "When you prosecute the
devil, you have to go to hell for the witnesses." Improperly influencing
the jurors.

5)   Ira Rankin, at voir dire stated he could not make an unbiased
decision.  Defense attorney requested he be stricken from the jury list,
but he ended up being the Jury Foreman.

6)   The prosecutor held up a pair of mens 32"X32" jeans.  Experts had
testified that whoever had been wearing these jeans had been within 3
feet of the murders, determined by blood spatter on the lower pant
legs.  He told the jury they were found in my closet, though no chain of
custody was evident.  He told the jury I was wearing those jeans. 
Those were not my jeans, nor was I wearing them.  He also said miniscule
blood dots found in my office were the victims', but no DNA was done. 
Blood on the ceiling was there when I bought the club.  If a trace
evidence search was done on the inside waistband of the jeans for sweat
particles, skin particles, etc., it would prove I was not the killer, nor was I there in the room.

Louanne's request for DNA testing was denied, which she appealed.  Click on file below to read the reply.

7)   The tape recording of my statement was altered by the Rangers.  An
expert audio analysis on the tape would prove it.  Nor was the Miranda
Rights read to me on the tape as required by law. 

8)   The arrest warrant had no probable cause on it.  (See Exhibit A Below). 
The Rangers had met with a D.A. in Titus County and were told that they
had no probable cause.  He told them that the best they could do was
obtain a Consent to Search of my apartment.  They knowingly went to
Marion County and intentionally acquired a warrant with no probable
cause.  At trial, the judge said the "good faith" rule applied, but it
shouldn't have, because they were aware that there was no probable
cause.

9)   When Governor Perry made the DNA testing on biological matter
located law in Texas, I filed a motion for DNA testing inside the
waistband of those jeans, but it was denied.  Before the jury came back
with the guilty verdict, they had sent a note to the court requesting to
see those jeans.  The jeans were a deciding factor in the verdict. My
DNA motion was denied.   

 See Files Below for Denial of Appeal, Jury Request For Jeans, Evidence, and Jury Verdict.

10)  My office ledger that was confiscated by Rangers proved that Eddie did
not owe me any money at all.  It was allowed in as evidence at the first
trial, but not at the second.  It should have been allowed in under the
Business Writings rule.  Evidence favorable to me was suppressed.

11)  The jury was told at the beginning of the trial that it was a murder
charge and there would be a sentencing hearing at the end of the trial
in which they would sentence me.  This is not true.  It was a capital
sentence with automatic 35 flat years on a life sentence.  There was NO
sentencing hearing.  In California, the Federal Courts have ruled that
Determinate Sentencing takes away the sentencing by a jury, and is
illegal.

Other attempts for legal assistance have also been denied. 

Please see files below right for:

UT Law School Letter

Innocence Project Letter

Innocence Project of Texas Letter