 Valentin Moreno's News Forum Case No: CR-517-96-F Date of the Crime: 12-15-1995 Date of Conviction: March 1997 Capital Life Sentence for Capital Murder and Attempted Capital Murder. I must do 40 flat years before eligable for parole. | Valentin Moreno, Jr.possibly Innocent In Texas
|
|
The night this crime occurred I was at my neighbors' home. There was a boxing match with Oscar de la Joya, and myself along with my neighbors and their friends stayed to watch the fight. I was at my neighbors' home between 9:00 PM. and 12:00 PM. Before 10:00 PM I made a run to a store a block away and my home. During the night I made numerous calls and received several calls at my neighbors' home. According to police reports, this crime took place between 10:45 PM and 11:00 PM. During this time I was at my neighbors' home. This crime took place December 15, 1995. I was arrested on December 22, 1995. I believe I was picked out as a suspect due to suggestive procedures by an investigator. A state witness clearly confused me for my best friend. She tried explaining her confusion to the police and prosecutor. However, the more she explained herself, the more pressure and suggestive tactics the state used. This witness after trial recanted and admitted having confused me for my best friend. My court appointed attornies failed to conduct a dilegent investigation. Different witnesses that would have proven a mistaken identification or/and established my innocence were never even interviewed. Not every innocent person can prove they have been falsely convicted with DNA evidence. I am one of those innocent persons. However, this case has physical evidence and crime scene evidence that clearly shows the state's witnesses lied. I am not calling them liars, the evidence is! The evidence I speak about was never before my jury. That is because my court appointed attornies never investigated properly. I was on trial for my life, the state of Texas paid the defense investigator no more than US$ 500.00, in a capital murder case. What kind of investigation can one get for that kind of money? An eye-witness, that identified the assailants as two dark-complected and one light-complected with blondish hair, never testified. As you can see from my pictures, I am light-complected, "but" I have never had blondish hair. My hair has always been black. Everything this witness told police the night of the crime was supported by facts and the physical evidence. My attornies alleged this witness returned to Mexico and could not be found for my trial. If that was the case, they never asked Mexico in assisting them locating this witness for a life or death trial. Everything this eye-witness told police is the complete opposite of the testimonies put on by the State. I was convicted on the testimonies of three state witnesses. One has officially recanted and is willing to help in saying the truth. The other two, one claimed my face was covered with a bandana and hat and only saw my eyes at night. The other claimed he saw my face, no bandana or cap. Two different stories, but both claim seeing the same thing. The state's witnesses' oral testimonies are not supported by evidence. Simply put, I was falsely convicted with a mistaken identification (one that can be proven), a dirty police investigator, a prosecutor after a conviction - not justice -, and with trial attornies that did nothing but play a role in a bogus trial. All my attornies would speak about before and during trial was the appeals. We had not even begun trial, and they were already speaking about appeals. What chance did I possibly have? |
 |
|
The following is the essence of the eye-witness' testimony: Raúl [the murder victim] and Missial got off the truck to use the public phone. I stayed in the truck. Raúl had parked next to the phone. I saw five armed guys running towards our direction. Four positioned themselves at the front of the truck, the fifth guy was standing at the front driver's side. (See Exhibit A) The fifth guy I recognized as Joe García. He was arguing with Raúl, the driver's side door was between them. As they argued I focused on these guys' faces, at the front of the truck. That is when I saw Joe shot Raúl. Raúl pushed Missial in the truck, by this time all these guys were shooting. By the time Raúl got in the truck he had already been shot many times. Raúl got the truck on and drove away. I could still hear gunshots. According to this eye-witness [Ivonne Gonzalez], one of the shooters had his face covered with a bandana and beanie, so was only able to see his eyes. She stated she had never seen me before, but claimed she was 100 percent sure about my eyes. I was identified as the shooter with his face covered. Check this out: Gonzalez testified that when Joe shot Raúl, the driver's door was between them. That suggests a close range gunshot. Plus she alleged Raúl had been shot many times before getting in the truck. Fact: Raúl was only shot once. Raúl's sole bullet wound was identified as a "distant gunshot". The autopsy report and pathologist testimony, identifies an entry gunshot wound to the back, with an exit wound at the left upper chest. (See Exhibit B + C) The pathologist identified an abrasion to the right inner arm. However, explained this was not a gunshot wound. So, based on the facts, Raúl was shot once. Now for the best part. Gonzalez claimed she was focused on these guys' faces, when she saw Joe shot Raúl. The core of her testimony is Raúl gets shot while outside the truck, by these guys standing at the front of the truck. Facts: Raúl was shot while inside the truck, by a shooter firing from the rear of the truck. The truck's bed back wall has a bullet hole, as does the truck's cab back wall. There is a bullet hole through the driver's seat back rest. The sole bullet that struck Raúl, penetrated the truck's back walls, going through the driver's seat back rest, then piercing into Raúl's back. (See Exhibit C, D+ E) Gonzalez told the jury that she was focused on these guys' faces, when she saw Joe shot Raúl. The physical evidence tells us she never saw when Raúl was shot. She lied about having seen Joe shoot Raúl. What does that say about her claim of having been focused on these guys' faces when Joe shot Raúl? This testimony was crucial, during deliberations the jury wanted to hear this testimony again. (See Exhibit F) Just like the testimony of witness Beatrice Trevino (Trevino recanted after trial!), Gonzalez' testimony played a big part in the jury's verdict. The physical evidence was never broken down for the jury as explained herein. This issue has been submitted to the appeal courts, their ruling has been, "Moreno has failed to provide a testimonal affidavit by a qualified expert showing what his testimony would have been." For lack of an expert, my false conviction stands on lies and the truth remains suppressed. The physical evidence explained herein is undisputed, it is fact and on point. It must be mentioned that all spent bullet casings recovered, were found 20 to 30 yards away from the public phone. Suggesting there was never a shooting around the phone area. Plus all spent bullet casings were identified as coming from "two" weapons, not five. Remember, I have explained that the witness that could not be located for my trial told police there were three assailants and out of the three, only two were shooters. Furthermore, all the physical evidence explained herein supports what this witness told police that night. His name is Dolores Martinez. Plus his discription of the three assailants clearly does not match me. (See Exhibit G) |
