Writ of Habeas Corpus

FILED
2/16/2018 12:18 PM
Donna Kay McKinney
Bexar County District Clerk
Accepted By: Jessica Alvarez 2014CR5591-W1
GROUND ONE:
Defense Counsel were constitutionally ineffective due to their failure to call Dr. Paul Reed
as a witness who would have offered testimony to refute the opinion of Bexar County Medical
Examiner Jennifer Rulon ("ME" or"the ME") regarding the cause of the death of the
complainant.
FACTS SUPPORTING GROUND ONE:
This case centered on a three vehicle incident that resulted in a collision between the side of the
vehicle Frances Hall was operating and the motorcycle the complainant/decedent Bill Hall was
operating. The exact cause of this incident is still very much in doubt so the first defense theory
was that Frances Hall was not responsible for any collision. What is known is that the complainant/
decedent, Bill Hall, was riding a motorcycle, Frances Hall was driving a 2007 Cadillac ESV, and
the Aggravated Assault complainant, Bonnie Contreras, was driving a 2013 Super Charged Range
Rover. The ME offered her opinion that died as the result of a homicide that occurred as the result
of"multiple blunt force injuries." The ME based her opinion on nothing but a police report that she
herself described as"confusing." The ME did concede the fact that a trauma surgeon would have
more insight into any other potential causes of the complainant's death such as the treatment
provided to Bill Hall, his pre-existing conditions, and the fact that the Bi]] Ha]] was airlifted from
the scene without first having chest tubes inserted to help drain air, blood and any floods from the
area around the lungs. Specifically, when asked about the insertion of chest tubes prior to airlift the
ME testified as follows: "You need to ask a trauma surgeon that question, whether they would
prefer EMS putting chest tubes in in the field or waiting till they get to the ER so trauma surgeons
can do it. That's not a question for someone who does autopsies. That's a good question for a
trauma surgeon."
Dr. Paul Reed is an Emergency Room Physician who was retained by Frances Hall to
render an opinion regarding the cause of death of Bill Hall. Dr. Reed prepared a very detailed
chronology of the post-accident treatment of Bill Hall from the time of the vehicular accident to
his death. Dr. Reed concluded that Bill Hall's cause of death was respiratory and not the result of
any hemorrhagic cause. Specifically, Dr. Reed referred to the care Bill Hall received as"Pretty
shoddy," and stated as follows: "On reviewing the medical records provided by the coroner, UH
and AirLIFE it appears that Mr. Hall was alert and oriented though in respiratory distress and
shock at the time of injury and up until he decompensated and was intubated shortly after dust off
with AirLIFE. His VS and injuries combined with the fact that he was taken to altitude with
oneumothoraces su22:est that his vitals first decompensated due to a tension pneumothorax
... He [Bill Hall]would have required a great deal of care and time to recover from his injuries.
However no catastrophic injuries were identified on the coroner's report of the autopsv .
.. . however the VS recorded and the amount of blood product administered do not correlate. His
labs. historv. and presentation all pointed to a respiratorv rather than hemorrhagic cause
for his shock and eventual arrest." ( emphasis added). In sum, Dr. Reed's opinion would have
refuted the opinion of the ME and been of tremendous benefit to Frances Hall. The full
chronology and the conclusions of Dr. Reed are attached to the Memorandum of Law filed in
support of this Application and incorporated as if fully set forth herein.
Based on the testimony of the ME and the dispute over how the accident even occurred, the
testimony of Dr. Paul Reed would have made a tremendous difference in the outcome of the trial.
At a minimum, the testimony of Bill Hall would have allowed Frances Hall to receive a jury
instruction regarding concurrent causation. The decision to refuse to call Dr. Paul Reed as a
witness was made by Jean Brown over the objection of the petitioner, and Mrs. Brown's decision
6
GROUND TWO:
Defense Counsel was constitutionally ineffective due to her failure to elicit key exculpatory
evidence from witness James Gonzalez regarding prior damage to the vehicle driven by the
Aggravated Assault complainant Bonnie Contreras.
FACTS SUPPORTING GROUND TWO:

As stated herein above in support of Ground One, this case centered on a vehicular accident
the exact cause of which is still very much in doubt. What is known is that the
complainant/decedent, Bill Hall, was riding a motorcycle, Frances Hall was driving a 2007
Cadillac ESV, and the Aggravated Assault complainant, Bonnie Contreras, was driving a 2013
Super Charged Range Rover. A pivotal point of contention in the trial was whether or not Frances
Hall's Escalade ever made contact with the Range Rover that was owned by Frances Hall but
being driven by the Aggravated Assault complainant Bonnie Contreras. Contreras testified that
Frances Hall made contact with the Range Rover she was driving on numerous times while
Frances Hall maintained that there was no contact.
I made the opening statement on behalf of Frances Hall and in so doing I made it a point to
use the pictures of the Range Rover to show that there was little or no damage to the rear of that
vehicle where Bonnie Contreras had claimed she had been struck numerous times by the much
larger Cadillac Escalade ESV being driven by Frances Hall. James Gonzalez was a close friend of
the complainant/decedent Bill Hall and he was prepared to testify that any visible damage to the
rear of the Range Rover was pre-existing and had occurred when Bill Hall backed into a pole
while driving the Range Rover. Whether or not Frances Hall made contact with the Range Rover
driven by Bonnie Contreras was the key issue in the trial. Indeed, Paragraph IX of the Charge of
the Court in this case reads as follows:" ... Frances Hall did intentionally or knowingly threaten
imminent bodily injury to Bonnie Contreras, by striking a motor vehicle driven by Bonnie
Contreras with said deadly weapon, then you will find the defendant guilty of aggravated
assault... If you do not so find from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt or if you have a
reasonable doubt thereof, you will find the defendant not guilty in Count II of the indictment."
Furthermore, Frances Hall could only be guilty of the Felony Murder of Bill Hall if she was guilty
of the offense of the aggravated assault of Bonnie Contreras as reflected in Paragraph V of the
Charge of the Court that is attached to the Memorandum of Law filed in Support of this
Application and incorporated by reference as if fully set forth herein.
Based on the law and the facts of this case, the testimony of James Gonzalez regarding the
damage to the rear of the Range Rover was much more important to the defense of Frances Hall
then the medical testimony that is the subject of Ground One of this Application. Had James
Gonzales been asked about the prior damage his testimony would have very much supported the
defense theory that Frances Hall did not strike the vehicle driven by Bonnie Contreras as alleged
in the indictment. His testimony would have exculpated Frances Hall for the aggravated assault
and consequently exculpated her for the Felony Murder. Unfortunately, this very important
exculpatory testimony was never presented to the jury.
For reasons I am completely unaware, Jean Brown decided that she should direct James
Gonzalez even though she had not previously participated in the presentation of any evidence. In
anticipation of directing Gonzalez, Jean Brown prepared a list of questions from which she read
as she directed Gonzalez. This list of questions from which she read did include a question
regarding what, if any, damage James Gonzalez had observed to the Range Rover when he arrived
at the scene of the accident but this list strangely did not include a question about the prior
damage to the rear of the Range Rover.
While Jean Brown was in the midst of questioning James Gonzalez, it became apparent to
8
me that the most important question was not one of her scripted questions. For that reason, I orally
reminded her to ask Gonzalez about prior damage to the rear of the Range Rover. Again, the
primary purpose of calling James Gonzalez to the witness stand was to elicit that very testimony
so that the jury could know that any observable damage to the rear of the vehicle was pre-existing
damage and not caused by Frances Hall on the night of the accident. Leigh Cutter actually took
matters a step further and wrote down the question so that Jean Brown could simply read the
question about prior damage as she had done all the other questions she asked James Gonzalez.
For whatever reason, Jean Brown did not ask about the prior damage to the Range Rover.
As was the case with the exculpatory medical evidence regarding the Felony Murder count
one of the Frances Hall indictment, Jean Brown was ineffective because her performance fell
below an objective standard of reasonableness, and there was much more than a reasonable
probability that the result of this trial would have been different but for her failure and/or refusal
to ask a four word question, "What about prior damage?"
In fact, the petitioner is absolutely certain that the answer to that simple question would
have made a difference in the outcome of France Hall's trial because after the conclusion of the
trial, I spoke to members of the jury. Two jury members informed me and Leigh Cutter that they
were influenced to convict Frances Hall because they could see some damage to the rear of the
Range Rover in the high resolution pictures that were offered into evidence by the State. This
damage led them to believe that Frances Hall had made contact with the vehicle driven by the
complainant Bonnie Contrera s. Therefore, it cannot be disputed that the outcome of Frances
Hall's trial would have been different if James Gonzalez had been asked about the prior damage
to the rear of the Range Rover because that pre-existing damage is the very reason why Frances
Hall was convicted by the jury.
Either of these grounds would independently justify the reversal of Frances Hall's
convictions. Taken together the facts of this application present a compelling case for the reversal
of Frances Hall's convictions and a remand to the trial court for a new trial.
9
GROUND FOUR:
Defense Counsel Alan Brown was constitutionally ineffective because he was found
sleeping at least twice during the course of the trial.
FACTS SUPPORTING GROUND FOUR:

As stated herein above, Alan Brown was retained by Frances Hall to be the lead counsel in
her defense. Indeed, his name is on the Frances Hall judgments. Alan Brown has been an attorney
since 1969 and is Board Certified in Criminal Law. However, during the trial Esther Martinez, the
sister of Bill Hall who attended the entire trial, watched Alan Brown sleep on two occasions
during the course of the guilt-innocence stage of trial. Therefore, not only did Alan Brown allow
Jean Brown to dictate all trial decisions during the guilt-innocence stage to the detriment of his
client, he also slept while those horrifically bad decisions were being carried out during trial. It is
also important to note that Alan Brown opted to leave court and not be present for the jury verdict
at the guilt-innocence stage of trial in favor of tending to his dog over his client. When viewed in
light of the other errors these actions constitute ineffective assistance of counsel and require the
reversal of Frances Hall's convictions.
12
CASE NO. 2014CR5591-W1
________________
THE STATE OF TEXAS § IN THE COURT

§
vs. § OF CRIMINAL
§
FRANCES HALL § APPEALS OF TEXAS
MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF APPLICATIONS FOR A

WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS SEEKING RELIEF FROM FINAL FELONY
CONVICTIONS UNDER TEX. CODE CRIM. P. ART. 11.07
TO THE HONORABLE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS:
COMES NOW FRANCES HALL, Applicant herein, and files this her
Memorandum of Law in Support of her Applications for a Writ of Habeas Corpus
Seeking Relief from Final Felony Convictions under Tex. Code Crim. P. Art.
11.07, and in support thereof would respectfully show this Court as follows:
INTRODUCTION AND LEGAL STANDARD
1. This memorandum is intended to briefly address the legal aspects of the
Applications for a Writ of Habeas Corpus Seeking Relief from her convictions for
one count of Felony Murder and a second count of Aggravated Assault with a
Deadly Weapon issued pursuant to jury verdict of guilty that was heard by the
Honorable Jefferson Moore of the 186th District Court of Bexar County, Texas
(Said Judgments are attached hereto as Exhibit 1 and incorporated by reference
herein). By her two Applications, said applications are identical and one
1
application is filed for each judgment, Frances Hall is seeking relief from her
convictions based on the ineffective assistance of counsel she received. The right
to the assistance of counsel is guaranteed by the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments
to the United States Constitution and Article 1, Section 10 of the Texas
Constitution. This right to the assistance of counsel has long been understood to
include a “right to the effective assistance of counsel.” See, McMann v.
Richardson, 397 U.S. 759, 771, n. 14 (1970). It is undeniable that the right to
counsel is the most important of all constitutional rights because without the
effective assistance of counsel a defendant is unable to assert all of the rights
he/she is guaranteed by law. See e.g., Powell v. Alabama, 287 U.S. 45, 53 (1932).
The integrity of our criminal justice system and the fairness of the adversary
criminal process is assured only if an accused is represented by an effective
attorney. See, United States v. Morrison, 449 U.S. 361, 364 (1981). Absent the
effective assistance of counsel a “serious risk of injustice infects the trial itself.”
Cuyler v. Sullivan, 446 U.S. 335, 343 (1980). Thus, a defendant is constitutionally
entitled to have effective counsel acting in the role of an advocate. See, Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738, 743 (1967).
2. The United States Supreme Court in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668
(1984) established the standard for determining whether an attorney rendered
2
reasonably effective assistance of counsel and that standard was adopted by the
Texas Court of Criminal Appeals in Hernandez v. State, 726 S.W.2d 53, 57 (Tex.
Crim. App. 1986) adopted the Strickland test as the proper test under state law to
gauge the effectiveness of counsel. The Strickland test is a two part test that can be
summarized as follows: 1) the defendant must show that counsel’s performance
was deficient such that the counsel made errors so serious that counsel was not
functioning as the kind of counsel that the defendant is guaranteed by the Sixth
Amendment; and 2) the defendant must show that the deficient performance
prejudiced the defense. Basically, the defendant must show that counsel’s errors
were so serious as to deprive the defendant of a fair trial, a trial whose result is
reliable. See, Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. at 687. The burden of proving
ineffective assistance of counsel rests on the convicted defendant by a
preponderance of the evidence. Haynes v. State, 790 S.W.2d 824, 827 (Tex. Crim.
App. 1990).
FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND ARGUMENT AS TO GROUND ONE OF

THE APPLICATIONS
3. Here, Frances Hall can meet her burden that her counsel was ineffective for
both failing to put on medical testimony that refuted the state’s expert and for
failing to elicit exculpatory testimony by any standard of proof. As is delineated in
her Applications, Frances Hall was indicted and tried for committing the Felony
3
Murder of her husband, Bill Hall, during the commission of the Aggravated
Assault of her husband’s mistress, Bonnie Contreras. Paragraph I of the Charge of
the Court in this cause summarized the Felony Murder Charge as follows: “Our
law provides that a person commits the offense of murder if she commits or
attempts to commit a felony, other than manslaughter, and in the course of and in
furtherance of the commission or attempt, or in immediate flight from the
commission or attempt, she commits an act clearly dangerous to human life that
causes the death of an individual.” (Said charge of the court is attached hereto as
Exhibit 2 and incorporated as if fully set forth herein). The facts of this case
involved a three vehicle incident that resulted in a collision between the vehicle
Frances Hall was operating and the motorcycle the complainant/decedent Bill Hall
was operating. The exact cause of this incident is still very much in doubt. What is
known is that the complainant/decedent, Bill Hall, was on a motorcycle, Frances
Hall was in a 2007 Cadillac ESV, and the Aggravated Assault complainant, Bonnie
Contreras, was in a 2013 Super Charged Range Rover.
4. The state called Dr. Jennifer Rulon of the Bexar County Medical Examiner’s
Office (“Dr. Rulon” or “ME”) to offer an opinion as to the cause of death of Bill
Hall. Dr. Rulon was the only State’s witness who testified regarding the cause of
death of Bill Hall. Not surprisingly, Dr. Rulon opined that the death of Bill Hall
4
was a homicide that occurred as the result of “multiple blunt-force injuries” he
sustained when his vehicle was “intentionally struck by a vehicular” based on little
more than a police report that she herself described as “confusing.” (Page 28, line
10 and lines 22-25; and page 34, lines 1-23 of the attached transcript of the
testimony of Bexar County Medical Examiner Dr. Jennifer Rulon that is attached
hereto as Exhibit 3 and incorporated as if fully set forth herein). However, Dr.
Rulon conceded the fact that she knew little about the health history of Bill Hall
such as the fact that Bill Hall suffered from Chronic Obstructive Pulminary
Disease (“COPD”) because she never reviewed his medical records. (Exhibit 3
Page 39 lines 11-18). Dr. Rulon also conceded that she was not qualified to testify
about other potential causes of the complainant’s death including the fact that the
complainant was airlifted from the scene without first having chest tubes inserted
to help drain air, blood and any floods from the area around the lungs. (Page 42,
lines 6-14 of Exhibit 3). With respect to the issue of the insertion of chest tubes
prior to airlift Dr. Rulon testified as follows: “You need to ask a trauma surgeon
that question, whether they would prefer EMS putting chest tubes in in the field or
waiting till they get to the ER so trauma surgeons can do it. That’s not a question
for someone who does autopsies. That’s a good question for a trauma surgeon.”
(Page 43, lines 16-20 of Exhibit 3).
5
5. Of course, the purpose of the cross-examination of Dr. Rulon was to
advance and support the opinions of Dr. Paul Reed an Emergency Care Physician
who had been retained as a medical expert by France Hall. However, the actual
testimony of Dr. Rulon could not have been much better even if it had been
scripted by the defense counsel. In sum, Dr. Rulon admitted that she was/is not
qualified to render an opinion about alternative causes for the death of Bill Hall
and she directed Frances Hall to obtain the opinion of a trauma surgeon. Based on
her testimony, it would appear that Dr. Rulon was unaware that Frances Hall had
retained an emergency physician who had in fact opined that the cause of the death
of Bill Hall was not due to the injuries he sustained in the vehicular accident. That
is unless Dr. Rulon was intentionally trying to assist Frances Hall by giving
credence and reliability to the opinion of Dr. Reed who had opined that Bill Hall
did not die as a result of the injuries he sustained but that he actually died as the
result of respiratory issues relating to being airlifted with pneumothorax, 1 and
receiving the proper treatment upon his arrival at University Hospital. Specifically,
Dr. Reed stated that “His VS (vital signs) and injuries combined with the fact
that he was taken to altitude with pneumothoraces suggest that his vitals first
decompensated due to a tension pneumothorax… I believe his wounds may
1
The presence of air or gas in the cavity between the lungs and the chest wall, causing collapse
of the lung.
6
have been survivable had he been transfused a reasonable amount of blood
titrated to his blood pressure and been transferred to the ICU on ARDS
(Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome) ventilator settings. He would have
required a great deal of care and time to recover from his injuries. However
no catastrophic injuries were identified on the coroner’s report of the
autopsy… His labs, history, and presentation all pointed to a respiratory
rather than hemorrhagic cause for his shock and eventual arrest.” (Attached
as Exhibit 4 is the chronology of events and comments by Dr. Paul Reed and
incorporated as if fully set forth herein; Attached as Exhibit 5 is the email by Dr.
Paul Reed wherein he attached Exhibit 4 and made comments regarding same;
Said email is incorporated by reference as if fully set forth herein)(Emphasis
added).
6. The chronology and comments of Dr. Reed provide a fairly easy to
understand discussion of the treatment of Bill Hall and how he received “Pretty
shoddy care at UH (University Hospital)…and I don’t say that lightly,” and that it
was that shoddy care that led to his respiratory failure and death. (See, Exhibit 5-
Dr. Reed email). This medical evidence not only refutes the testimony of Dr.
Rulon regarding the cause of death but it is a refutation of that opinion by a
qualified physician who had a detailed basis to substantiate his refutation of Dr.
7
Rulon’s opinion regarding the cause of death of Bill Hall. (See also, Exhibits 16
and 17 that reveal Dr. Reed’s experience in emergency medical care).
Unfortunately, the jury in the trial of Frances Hall never heard this medical
evidence because Jean Brown, allegedly in consultation with Alan Brown, refused
to allow Dr. Reed to be called over the objection of the undersigned, and to a lesser
extent, the objection of Leigh Cutter.
7. Specifically, on September 5, 2016 at 5:51 p.m., Jean Brown rejected the
testimony of Dr. Paul Reed via text message as follows: “We are pretty firm that
we are not going down that road! We both think it will undo all the progress in her
case.” (Said text is attached as Exhibit 6 and incorporated by reference as if fully
set forth herein). What Jean Brown is referring to with respect to her “undo all the
progress” remark is unclear because Dr. Rulon was the only State’s witness who
did or could offer an opinion as to the cause of the complainant’s death, and at this
stage of the trial Jean Brown had not cross examined a single witness. Indeed,
throughout the entire almost month long trial Jean Brown directed only one
witness and her failure to elicit exculpatory evidence from that witness is the
subject of the second ground in support of the Applications for Writs of Habeas
Corpus.
8. On September 5, 2016, at 6:14 p.m., the undersigned counsel endeavored to
8
explain the obvious reasons why the testimony of Dr. Reed was so important to the
defense of Frances Hall as follows: “The ME (Dr. Rulon) was the only credible
witness who gave any testimony regarding the manner and means of Bill’s (Bill
Hall) death. She did so based on nothing but a “confusing” and flawed police
report but she gave her opinion. However, she also directed us to a “trauma”
doctor. Well, lo and behold, we have one who can cast doubt on her theory and
creating doubt is our job. We should let Frances decide this issue.” (Said text is
attached as Exhibit 7 and incorporated by reference as if fully set forth herein).
Two minutes later, on September 5, 2016 at 6:16 p.m., in response to the
undersigned counsel urging Jean Brown to disclose to Frances Hall her irrational
decision to refrain from offering key exculpatory evidence that would have made a
difference in the outcome of the trial, Jean Brown stated via text as follows: “No.
Alan and I will decide. And we have.” (Exhibit 8). The undersigned then asked
Jean Brown about her duty to keep her client informed of her decision to refuse to
offer expert testimony that refuted the State’s expert and she stated that she did not
have to disclose to Frances Hall what she strangely characterized as “ridiculous
legal theories.” (See, Exhibit 8). On September 5, 2016 at 6:27 p.m., Jean Brown
then asked for “some law that would support your [meaning Adam Cortez] theory
of relieving Frances of criminal liability on that theory.” (Exhibit 9 attached hereto
9
and incorporated by reference as if fully set forth herein). At 6:29 p.m., on
September 5, 2016, the undersigned continued to implore Jean Brown to appreciate
the significance of the testimony of Dr. Reed to the defense of Frances Hall as
follows: “It’s an evidentiary issue based on the evidence in our case. The law is we
have a fiduciary duty to our client.” (Exhibit 9). To which, Jean Brown responded
with another strange request for “law that supports” the notion that one has to have
caused a death to be guilty of murder. In order to appreciate the fact that Jean
Brown did not have any legitimate basis for refusing to allow the testimony of Dr.
Reed it is important to realize that she first claimed that the medical testimony
refuted the testimony of the State’s expert would “undo all progress,” and then
asked for “law” to overcome her objection to the admission of testimony that was
favorable to her own client.
9. In the texts delineated herein above, Jean Brown rejected the testimony of
Dr. Reed and requested some “law” to overcome her objection to the introduction
of that medical testimony when she herself had not even reviewed or studied the
expert testimony she was rejecting. It is undeniable that Jean Brown rejected the
testimony of Dr. Reed without knowing what his testimony would be because it
was not until September 5, 2016 at 7:12 p.m. when Jean Brown even asked to see
the report prepared by Dr. Reed, and it was not until September 6, 2016 at 7:03
10
a.m. that the report was emailed to Jean Brown. (Exhibit 10 attached hereto and
incorporated by reference as if fully set forth herein and Exhibit 5 which is the
September 6, 2016 email from Dr. Reed discussed herein above). It is unclear
whether or not Jean Brown has ever read and understood the importance of the
report prepared by Dr. Reed. What is clear is that it is inexplicable to reject
favorable expert testimony that refuted the testimony of the State’s expert because
it would “undo all the progress in her case” without having read or studied it while
at the same time characterizing that favorable expert medical testimony as a
“ridiculous legal theory.” It is equally inexplicable to be defending a murder case
and to not be aware that under Texas Penal Code 19.02 a person must have caused
the death of another in order to be guilty of murder. Certainly, the Charge of the
Court attached hereto as Exhibit 2 should have sufficed as the “law” that Jean
Brown was seeking so that she could appreciate the importance of the testimony of
Dr. Reed. Furthermore, it is a violation of Rule 1.03 of the Texas Rules of
Professional Conduct for Jean Brown to have refused to keep Frances Hall
reasonably informed of the expert medical testimony of her own expert so that she
could participate intelligently in decisions concerning her case.2
2 The undersigned counsel and Leigh Cutter conducted the bulk of the trial work but the
undersigned was not lead counsel and was retained only weeks before the trial of this case. For
that reason, the undersigned did not have a close client relationship. However, on September 4,
2016 at 4:37 p.m., via text to Frances Hall, I did urge her to allow Dr. Reed to testify as follows:
11
10. Jean Brown should have joined Frances Hall’s Applications for Writs of
Habeas Corpus and admitted that other than her own ego she had no legal or
rational basis to refuse to allow the testimony of Dr. Reed. The inconsistent and
irrational statements made by Jean Brown regarding her alleged basis for
preventing Frances Hall from having the benefit of the testimony of Dr. Reed
reveals the depth of the ineffective assistance of counsel that Frances Hall
received. Jean Brown requested “law” to overcome her objection to presenting Dr.
Reed as a witness. There is no law that permits defense counsel from offering
favorable expert testimony but there is significant authority for the proposition that
the failure of defense counsel to present favorable expert testimony constitutes
ineffective assistance of counsel. See e.g., Ex parte Overton, 444 S.W.3d 632 (Tex.
Crim. App. 2014) (Ineffective assistance of counsel established by failure to
present testimony of expert physician that refuted state’s case). Ex parte Briggs,
187 S.W.3d 458 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (Attorney ineffective for failure to
thoroughly investigate medical evidence before advising client to plead guilty to
injury to a child). Ex parte Ard, 2009 WL 618982 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009)
“Hello, call me when you can. No mad rush. I just want you to know if we can hire the trauma
doctor to come testify that Bill should’ve lived from his injuries. The point being that not only
did you not cause his accident, he didn’t even die from it.” (See Exhibit 11 attached hereto and
incorporated as if fully set forth herein).
12
(Attorney’s failure to adequately present expert testimony to jury was ineffective).
Rylander v. State, 75 S.W.3d 119 (Tex. App. – San Antonio 2002, pet. granted)
(Attorney’s failure to present qualified medical testimony in support of defendant’s
only viable defense when combined with other trial errors undermines confidence
in outcome of the trial and amounts to ineffective assistance). Ex Parte Overton
provides the most recent and likely the best authority in support of Frances Hall’s
Applications because that case involved the failure of defense counsel to present
the testimony of a well-qualified physician who was prepared to refute much of the
testimony of the State’s expert. Ex Parte Overton, 444 S.W.3d at 641.
11. In Overton, the defendants were charged with the capital murder of a four
year old child who they were in the process of adopting. Id. at 634. At issue in
Overton was whether or not the defendants gave the child toxic levels of sodium
and/or whether or not they failed to promptly seek treatment for the alleged sodium
intoxication the child suffered. Overton, 444 S.W.3d at 635. In Overton, the
medical examiner testified that the child’s death was a homicide and a treating
physician testifying for the State and that treating physician offered testimony that
supported the theory that the defendants were guilty of murder because they had
failed to seek treatment for the child in a timely manner and added testimony about
how the child imbibed may have imbibed the sodium. Id. During the middle of
13
Overton trial, a lawyer representing the defendants in a family law matter retained
Dr. Michael Moritz, an expert in sodium intoxication, who via a deposition offered
testimony that refuted the testimony of the treating physician regarding how the
child/victim may have imbibed the sodium that caused the intoxication, and who
also opined that it was extremely likely that the child/victim would have died even
if the defendants had quickly sought treatment for the child. Overton, 444 S.W.3d
at 637-638. Accordingly, the testimony of Dr. Moritz would have benefitted the
defendants in Overton. Unfortunately, as is the case here, the testimony of Dr.
Moritz was never admitted into evidence. At the Habeas hearing, two of the
defense counsel in Overton admitted to not reviewing the deposition of their own
expert and conceded that the failure to call Dr. Moritz as a witness constituted
ineffective assistance of counsel. Overton, 444 S.W.3d at 640. The only other
bases for the failure to call Dr. Moritz as a witness was offered by a third member
of the Overton legal team who indicated that the reason for not using Dr. Moritz’s
deposition testimony involved problems relating to editing his deposition, and the
reason for not calling him as a live witness involved issues related to travel
arrangements for Dr. Moritz. Id. Seven justices of the Court of Criminal Appeals
joined in finding that the defendant/applicant had met her burden under the first
prong of the Strickland test because the decision not to call Dr. Moritz as an expert
14
was not the result of any “thoroughly investigated trial strategy and was not a
reasonable decision” by defense counsel. Overton, 444 S.W.3d at 640-641. The
same seven justices also agreed that the second prong of Strickland test was met
because Dr. Moritz was a well-qualified expert on the issue at hand, sodium
intoxication, and that his “credibility combined with his testimony would have had
a strong impact on the jury.” Id. Accordingly, the Court reversed the capital
murder conviction and remanded the applicant’s case to the trial court for a new
trial. Overton, 444 S.W.3d at 641.
12. Overton provides Frances Hall with sufficient authority to justify the
reversal of her convictions but Frances Hall’s case actually presents a much
stronger case. In Overton, two justices dissented and argued that the application in
that case should have been denied because the defendant/applicant actually had the
benefit of the testimony a medical doctor who testified that the sodium entered the
child/victim’s body as the result of a mental illness, and that the defendants were
not responsible for failing to take the child for immediate treatment given the
subtly of the child’s symptoms. Overton, 444 S.W.3d at 58. Basically, the
dissenting justices found that the failure to call Dr. Moritz was not ineffective
assistance of counsel because the defendant/applicant had already had the benefit
of the same testimony he could have offered. Overton, 444 S.W.3d at 58-59.
15
Furthermore, the two dissenting justices argued that the decision to not call Dr.
Moritz was a good decision by the defense counsel because his testimony could
have opened the door to the admission of statements by the defendant/applicant’s
children that could have been damaging to her defense. Id. at 61-62.
13. Therefore, although Overton is similar to this case but it in fact presented a
much weaker case for the reversal of the applicant’s conviction because unlike the
applicant in Overton Frances Hall did not have the benefit of any medical expert to
refute the State’s expert and there was absolutely no potentially adverse effect that
could have occurred had he been called to the witness stand to give his well
substantiated opinions. Here, as was the case in Overton, the decision not to call
Dr. Reed as an expert to refute the testimony of Dr. Rulon was not the result of any
thoroughly investigated trial strategy. In fact, the decision was nothing more than
an irrational decision by Jean Brown allegedly in consultation with Alan Brown.
The impact of the failure to call Dr. Reed to testify can truly be appreciated when
you consider that the theory of the defense basically had two components: 1) With
respect to the vehicular accident, the theory was that Frances Hall did not make
any contact with the vehicle driven by Bonnie Contreras (the Aggravated Assault
Complainant) and the contact that Bill Hall’s motorcycle made with the side of
Frances Hall’s vehicle occurred as the result of Bill Hall illegally riding on the
16
shoulder of the roadway next to her vehicle; and 2) Frances Hall did not cause Bill
Hall’s death because the injuries Bill Hall suffered were survivable and the real
cause of death was his COPD, heart condition, and, most importantly, the
treatment he received including the fact that he was airlifted while suffering
pneumothorax. (See e.g., Exhibit 11—September 4, 2016 text from Adam Cortez
to Frances Hall).
14. The attached texts and emails establish that Frances Hall meets the first
prong of the Strickland test because as was the case with the defense counsel in
Overton, Jean Brown’s “Pretty firm” decision to refuse to all the undersigned to
call Dr. Reed as a witness because it would somehow “undo all the progress in her
case” was not the product of any thoroughly investigated trial strategy because she
had not even read the chronology of treatment and the opinions of Dr. Reed. (See,
Exhibit 6). Frances Hall also easily meets her burden with respect to the second
prong of Strickland because her irrational decision caused Frances Hall to be
denied the benefit of Dr. Reed’s very detailed chronology of the “shoddy”
treatment Bill Hall received that would have completely refuted the testimony of
Dr. Rulon regarding Bill Hall’s cause of the death. (See, Exhibits 4 and 5). As
stated herein above, Dr. Reed expressly stated that Bill Hall suffered “no
catastrophic injuries,” and that his “labs, history, and presentation all pointed to a
17
respiratory rather than hemorrhagic cause for his shock and eventual arrest.” Id.
Moreover, because Dr. Rulon conceded that her expertise was “autopsies” on dead
persons and not trauma issues regarding living persons, the testimony of an
Emergency Physician like Dr. Reed who deals with trauma situations on a regular
basis and knows that “Traumas are chaotic” would have greatly benefitted the
defensive theories put forth on behalf of Frances Hall. (See, Exhibit 3 Page 43
lines 16-21; Exhibits Tragically, Frances Hall never had the benefit of the
testimony of Dr. Reed and for that reason alone her convictions should be reversed
and her case should be remanded to the trial court for a new trial.
15. Attached as Exhibits 12 thru 15 and incorporated by reference as if fully set
forth herein is an email thread between the undersigned counsel and Dr. Paul Reed.
The thread begins on September 19, 2017 at 5:52 p.m. with the undersigned
emailing Dr. Reed to remind him who I was and to alert him to the fact that his
testimony could be needed. (See, Exhibit 12). On September 20, 2017 at 2:23 p.m.,
Dr. Reed responded to my email and indicated both that he recalled speaking to me
in September 2016 and specifically stated as follows: “I’m happy to consult on
the case if you need my help.” (See, Exhibit 13). During the first week of October
2017, the undersigned requested a transcript of the testimony of Dr. Rulon which
was not completed until December 21, 2017. The delay in receiving the transcript
18
resulted in the undersigned not contacting Dr. Reed again until January 16, 2018 at
8:16 p.m. when the undersigned emailed a copy of the testimony of Dr. Rulon and
directed him to some relevant portions of her testimony. (See Exhibit 14).
Strangely and surprisingly, on January 18, 2018 at 12:31 a.m., Dr. Reed retracted
his “happy” agreement to fulfill his obligations to Frances Hall as follows: “It has
come to my attention, in discussions with Mrs. Jean Brown and Ms. Leigh
Cutter, (Ms. Cutter is a close family friend and Mrs. Brown continues to
represent me as family law attorney) that my testimony as a medical expert
might be used against them in trial.” (See, Exhibit 15). Dr. Reed’s email reveals
a number of very serious issues. With respect to Dr. Reed’s alleged conflict
regarding his wife, it is unclear how Dr. Reed’s wife being an AirLife nurse creates
a conflict when she had nothing to do with the cause of the death of Bill Hall.
Further, if Dr. Reed’s wife had been a nurse that treated Bill Hall that is a fact that
would have been known to Dr. Reed and all defense counsel long before Dr. Reed
rendered his opinions in September 2016. It is equally unclear how Jean Brown
being Dr. Reed’s “family law attorney” would create a conflict regarding the cause
of death of Bill Hall. Moreover, the fact that Dr. Reed indicated in his email that
Jean Brown “continues to represent” suggests that Jean Brown did not just become
Dr. Reed’s family law attorney after September 20, 2017 when he agreed to
19
continue to serve as an expert for Frances Hall as he had done since her trial in
September 2016. It may be that Dr. Reed consulted with Jean Brown on some
matter but it cannot be denied that Dr. Reed has been employed and has been a
resident of the Washington, D.C. area for several years as evidenced by his
linkedin page and his biographical profile from the website of the Uniformed
Services University website both of which are attached hereto as Exhibits 16 and
17, respectively. Dr. Reed also strangely suggests that I somehow misled him into
believing that I was working with Leigh Cutter when in fact it is a public record
that I have worked with Leigh Cutter. Moreover, until I received Dr. Reed’s email
I was under the impression that Leigh Cutter would support the Applications of
Frances Hall given that she has made public comments confirming that the only
reason Jean Brown would not allow Dr. Reed to be called as a witness was because
Jean Brown was not capable of directing Dr. Reed herself and she did not want for
the undersigned counsel to receive any additional recognition during the trial.
16. For purposes of the pending Applications, the most significant revelation
contained in Dr. Reed’s January 18, 2018 email is the fact that it constitutes an
admission by both Jean Brown and Leigh Cutter that the failure to call Dr. Reed as
a witness was ineffective assistance of counsel. Neither Jean Brown nor Leigh
Cutter would have concerned themselves with taking any action to cause Dr. Reed
20
to change his mind about being a witness for Frances Hall if they did not believe
that his opinions would reveal that he clearly should have been called as a witness
at her trial and that his testimony would have made a difference in her defense. Dr.
Reed’s email also establishes that each of them is more concerned with
suppressing the evidence of that ineffectiveness so that they are not subject to any
civil liability for the $200,000.00 fee that Frances Hall paid Jean and Alan Brown
than they are with fulfilling their respective fiduciary duties to defend her.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND ARGUMENT AS TO GROUND TWO

OF THE APPLICATIONS
17. Frances Hall can also meet her burden that her counsel was ineffective for
failing to elicit exculpatory testimony regarding damage to the vehicle driven by
the Aggravated Assault complainant in the instant indictment. When as here
counsel fails to introduce exculpatory evidence courts are instructed to “look to the
totality of the evidence to determine whether there is a reasonable probability—one
sufficient to undermine our confidence in the verdict—that but for counsel’s failure
to investigate and obtain certain evidence, the jury “would have had a reasonable
doubt respecting guilt.” Strickland, 466 U.S. at 694-95. Basically, the Court must
“reweigh the evidence” that supports the conviction “against the totality of
available evidence…including the evidence that could have been offered but for
the error(s) by counsel. See Wiggins v. Smith, 539 U.S. 510, 534 (2003). In
21
Wiggins, the issue was a failure by counsel to offer mitigating evidence on behalf
of a defendant facing the death penalty. Id. The Court found that the failure to offer
mitigating evidence regarding the defendant’s childhood, “taken as a whole, might
well have influenced the jury’s appraisal” of his culpability. Wiggins, 539 U.S. at
538. Courts will find counsel to be constitutionally ineffective when the state’s
case is “relatively weak” and there is a reasonable probability that “but for” the
failure of counsel to offer the exculpatory evidence, the result of the trial would
have been different. Anderson v. Johnson, 338 F.3d 382, 393-394 & n. 55 (5th Cir.
2003).
18. As stated herein above, this case centered on a vehicular accident the exact
cause of which is still very much in doubt. What is known is that the
complainant/decedent, Bill Hall, was on a motorcycle, Frances Hall was in a 2007
Cadillac ESV, and the Aggravated Assault complainant, Bonnie Contreras, was in
a 2013 Super Charged Range Rover. A pivotal point of contention in the trial was
whether or not Frances Hall’s Escalade ever made contact with the Range Rover
that was owned by Frances Hall but being driven by the Aggravated Assault
complainant Bonnie Contreras. Indeed, Paragraph IX of the Charge of the Court in
this case reads as follows: “…Frances Hall did intentionally or knowingly threaten
imminent bodily injury to Bonnie Contreras, by striking a motor vehicle driven by
22
Bonnie Contreras with said deadly weapon, then you will find the defendant guilty
of aggravated assault… If you do not so find from the evidence beyond a
reasonable doubt or if you have a reasonable doubt thereof, you will find the
defendant not guilty in Count II of the indictment.” (See, Exhibit 2). Furthermore,
Frances Hall could only be guilty of the Felony Murder of Bill Hall if she was
guilty of the offense of the aggravated assault of Bonnie Contreras as reflected in
Paragraph V of the Charge of the Court that is attached hereto as Exhibit 2.
19. The State did not have possess or offer any overwhelming evidence to
support the theory that Frances Hall struck the vehicle driven by Bonnie Contreras
as alleged in the indictment. In fact, Detective Raul Arevalos was the investigator
responsible for filing the case against Frances Hall and he conceded both that there
was no significant damage to the rear of the Range Rover and that he was unaware
of any prior damage to the rear of the Range Rover. (See, Exhibit 18, Page 5, lines
20-22; Page 54, lines 10-15; and Page 56, lines 17-20—the excerpts of the
transcript of the testimony of Raul Arevalos attached hereto and incorporated as if
fully set forth herein). Detective Arevalos also conceded that the testimony of
Bonnie Contreras, the complainant in the Aggravated Assault case, was, at best,
unclear as to with respect to how the vehicle driven by Frances Hall made contact
with the motorcycle driven by Bill Hall. (See, Exhibit 18, Page 49, lines 9-12; Page
23
49, lines 21-25; and Page 50, lines 1-2). Indeed, Detective Arevalos ultimately
admitted that some of the testimony of Bonnie Contreras did not make any sense
based on what he had seen. (See, Exhibit 18, Page 78, lines 20-22). Both the State
and Frances Hall offered conflicting expert testimony regarding how the accident
occurred but none of them had the benefit of the testimony of James Gonzales
regarding the prior damage to the rear of the Range Rover. The conflict in the
testimony and the controversy over how the accident occurred is well documented
and was widely reported by the media covering the Frances Hall trial. (See Exhibit
19—Mysa.com article entitled, “Murder trial crash evidence seems to conflict with
girlfriend’s account of motorcycle crash;” and Exhibit 20—Mysa.com article
entitled, “Defense expert: Bill Hall’s motorcycle hit wife’s SUV—not the other
way around”). Accordingly, it is not simply the opinion of Frances Hall or the
undersigned counsel that the facts relating to how the vehicular accident occurred
were very much in dispute.
20. The undersigned made the opening statement on behalf of Frances Hall and
in so doing I made it a point to use the pictures of the Range Rover to show that
there was little or no damage to the rear of that vehicle where Bonnie Contreras
had claimed she had been struck numerous times by the much larger Cadillac
Escalade ESV being driven by Frances Hall. James Gonzalez was a close friend of
24
the complainant/decedent Bill Hall and he was prepared to testify that any visible
damage to the rear of the Range Rover was pre-existing and had occurred when
Bill Hall backed into a pole while driving the Range Rover. In his affidavit
attached hereto as Exhibit 21 and incorporated by reference as if fully set forth
herein, James Gonzales was prepared to testify that he arrived at the scene and got
“a good look at the rear of the Range Rover and it looked the same as it did right
after Bill backed into the poll a few weeks before that day…I also got to see the
front of the old Escalade ESV that Frances drove and it had plenty of damage. I
know that damage was there long before October 13, 2013 because both Frances
and Bill had many collisions with other vehicles in that Escalade including a few
with my own truck. On that day, the rear of the Range Rover was not in perfect
condition but all I could see was the same very minor damage that it had before
that day. I did not think that the minor scrapes I knew were on the back of Bill
Hall’s Range Rover were a big deal or at all important until after I was contacted
by the young lady attorney who was representing Frances and I learned that
whether or not Frances made contact with the rear of the Range Rover was an issue
in the trial.”
21. In his affidavit (Exhibit 21), James Gonzales also testified as follows: “when
I was on the witness stand Jean Brown never asked me about prior damage to the
25
vehicle. She only asked me if I observed any damage to the vehicle at the scene
and I testified that I did not. If she had asked about the prior damage, I could have
pointed out that Bill had hit that pole so that the jury would know that any damage
they could see in those pictures I was shown was already there. That could have
made difference in the trial. I have complained to Adam Cortez that I was
underutilized as a witness and to this day I do not understand why. I knew Bill Hall
well and I loved him. He taught me a lot of things that I still practice today. I knew
him well enough to know that he did not want his wife to be charged with any
crime much less get convicted and go to prison.”
22. The primary purpose of calling James Gonzalez to the witness stand was to
elicit that very testimony so that the jury could know that any observable damage
to the rear of the vehicle was pre-existing damage and was not caused by Frances
Hall on the night of the accident. It is unclear why or how Jean Brown failed to ask
James Gonzales. She was orally instructed to do so by the undersigned and Leigh
Cutter actually took matters a step further and wrote down the question so that Jean
Brown could simply read the question about prior damage as she had done all the
other questions she asked James Gonzalez. Of course, the reasons why she failed to
elicit the necessary testimony is unimportant.
23. What is important to this Application is the fact that the evidence would
26
have made a difference in the outcome of France Hall’s trial because after the
conclusion of the trial, the undersigned counsel spoke to members of the jury. Two
jury members informed both myself and Leigh Cutter that they were influenced to
convict Frances Hall because they could see some damage to the rear of the Range
Rover in the high resolution pictures that were offered into evidence by the State.
This damage led them to believe that Frances Hall had made contact with the
vehicle driven by the complainant Bonnie Contreras as alleged in the Charge of
Court. Therefore, it cannot be disputed that the outcome of Frances Hall’s trial
would have been different if James Gonzalez had been asked about the prior
damage to the rear of the Range Rover because that pre-existing damage is the
very reason why Frances Hall was convicted of the Aggravated Assault that was
the underlying felony alleged in Count One of the indictment (i.e. the Felony
Murder Count). (See, Exhibit 2 Paragraph V).
24. The testimony of James Gonzalez regarding the damage to the rear of the
Range Rover was likely even more important to the defense of Frances Hall then
the medical testimony that is the subject of Ground One of this Application. Had
James Gonzales been asked about the prior damage his testimony would have very
much supported the defense theory that Frances Hall did not strike the vehicle
driven by Bonnie Contreras as alleged in the indictment. His testimony would have
27
exculpated Frances Hall for the aggravated assault and consequently exculpated
her for the Felony Murder. Unfortunately, this very important exculpatory
testimony was never presented to the jury and that error alone was so serious that it
constitutes ineffective assistance of counsel and deprived Frances Hall a fair trial.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND ARGUMENT AS TO GROUND THREE

OF THE APPLICATIONS
25. Courts generally determine whether or not counsel was ineffective based on
the totality of the circumstances. See e.g., Ex Parte Raborn, 658 S.W.2d 602 (Tex.
Crim. App 1983). Ground Three of the Applications is intended to allow the Court
to appreciate the totality of the representation of Frances Hall. Frances Hall can
meet her burden that her counsel was generally ineffective because as alleged in
Ground Three of the Applications defense counsel did not have sufficient
knowledge of the facts of the case or the applicable law. “It is fundamental that an
attorney must have a firm command of the facts of the case as well as the law
before he [she] can render reasonably effective assistance of counsel” Ex Parte
Lilly, 656 S.W.2d 490, 493 (Tex. Crim. App. 1983). Here, Jean Brown in concert
with Alan Brown made a series of errors some intentional and some inadvertent
such as: 1) Failing to investigate and then offer the expert testimony of Dr. Reed
that directly refuted the state’s medical evidence; 2) Failing to elicit exculpatory
evidence from James Gonzales that went to the very heart of the case; 3) Failing to
28
generally have a strong command of the facts; 4) Failing to know the applicable
law; and 5) Choosing to act as lead counsel in the guilt-innocence stage of a felony
murder trial that she knew or should have known was beyond her competence in
violation of Rule 1.01 of the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct.
26. Here, Jean and Alan Brown worked together to deny Frances Hall a fair trial
because they did not have a strong command of the facts as Jean Brown admitted
to Leigh Cutter in the presence of the undersigned counsel. Jean Brown also did
not have a strong command of the law as was evident by her characterization of
Dr. Reed’s testimony that directly refuted the State’s case as “ridiculous legal
theories.” (See, Exhibit 8) and her closing argument wherein she made patently
inappropriate arguments including but certainly not limited to arguing a definition
of beyond a reasonable doubt that has not existed for at least eighteen years. See,
Paulson v. State, 28 S.W.3d 570, 573 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000) (The Court
specifically overruled prior law requiring trial courts to instruct juries on a
definition of beyond a reasonable doubt).
27. The errors described in Grounds One and Ground Two of the Applications
would independently justify the reversal of Frances Hall’s convictions. Ground
Three allows the Court considers all of the actions and omissions of defense
counsel including the decision to allow Jean Brown, a family law attorney, to act
29
as lead counsel. When viewed in total, the actions and omissions of defense
counsel delineated in the Applications were so irrational and ill-chosen to compel
this Court to reverse the convictions of Frances Hall because she was denied a fair
trial.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND ARGUMENT AS TO GROUND FOUR

OF THE APPLICATIONS
28. As reflected in the affidavit of Ester Martinez that is attached as Exhibit 22
and incorporated by reference herein, Alan Brown was retained to be lead counsel
for Frances Hall. It was Alan Brown who permitted Jean Brown to take control of
the guilt-innocence and make the horrific errors delineated in the Applications and
herein including but not limited to failing to refute the state’s medical expert and
failing to introduce exculpatory evidence. Alan Brown compounded that error by
sleeping at least twice during the course of the guilt-innocence stage of the trial.
(See, Exhibit 22). The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals has addressed this very issue
and it has held that a sleeping counsel is a violation of the Sixth Amendment
because it is tantamount to having no counsel at all. Burdine v. Johnson, 262 F.3d
336, 349 (5th Cir. 2001). If the undersigned counsel and Leigh Cutter had been free
to conduct the trial in an appropriate manner, the fact that Alan Brown slept during
trial may not have prejudiced Frances Hall. However, when the Court considers the
fact that Alan Brown slept after allowing Jean Brown, a lawyer not qualified to be
30
lead counsel in a felony murder case, to control the trial the issue of his napping
during trial becomes a larger issue. Here, Frances Hall was denied her Sixth
Amendment right to counsel because she had one incompetent counsel making
errors that both prejudiced Frances Hall and were errors that no reasonable
attorney would commit while her designated lead counsel slept. The facts of this
Application and the law compel the Court to reverse the convictions of Frances
Hall.
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Applicant prays that the Court
grant and issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus to the Sheriff of Bexar County, Texas,
directing and commanding production of Applicant before this court instanter, or at
such time and place to be designated by this Court, then and there to show cause, if
any there be, why Applicant should not be discharged from such illegal restraint.
Applicant further requests this Court, after receiving evidence, to grant Applicant
any relief to which he may be entitled.
31
Respectfully submitted,
THE CORTEZ LAW FIRM

14436 Old Bandera Road
Helotes, Texas 78023
Telephone: (210) 273-2277
Facsimile: (210) 579-1218
adam@cortezlawfirm.com
By:/s/ Adam C. Cortez

ADAM C. CORTEZ
State Bar No. 04844650
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
This is to certify that on February 16, 2018, a true and correct copy of the
above and foregoing document was served on the Bexar County District Attorney’s
Office via electronic mail and/or hand delivery.
/s/ Adam C. Cortez

Adam C. Cortez
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
This is to certify that this memorandum of law complies with Rule 73 of the
Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure.
/s/ Adam C. Cortez

Adam C. Cortez
32
EXHIBIT 1
No. 2014CR5591 COUNT IOFII. MULTICOUNTCONVICTION

INCIDENT N0./1'RK: 9111563443
THE STATE OF TEXAS § IN THE 186TH DISTRICT
§
vs. § COURT
§
FRANCES ARCELIE HALL § BEXAR COUNTY, TEXAS
§
STATE ID No.: TX50374492 §
JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION BY JURY
Date Judgment
Judge Presicting: HON. JEFFERSON MOORE 09-13-2016
Entered:
Appearances: Attorney for
SCOIT SIMPSO N ALAN BROWN /
...:.;A.t t_o_r_ne�y..._fo_r_S_tn;;.;...te_: ___________________D_e_fe_n_d_a_n_t:_ _____________________
Offense for which Defendant Convicted:
1,
MURDER
Charging Instrument: Statute for Offense:
COUNT I OF' THE INDICTMENT 19.02 PC
Date of Offense: Plea to Offense: Finctings on Deadly Weapon:
10-10-2013 NOT GUILTY DEADLY WEAPON FINDING
Degree of Offense: Foreperson:
1ST ZACHERY BO LAND
Verdict of Jury: Verdict of Jury: <PUNISHMENT)
WE. THE JURY, FINO THE DEFENDANT, FRANCES IIALI., OUILTY WE, THE JURY, HAVING FOUND THAT THE DEFENDANT IS GUILTY OF THE
OF MURDER AS CIIAROED IN THE INDICTMENT. OFFENSE OF MURDER, NOW RETURN'l'HIS VERDl(,""l" AS TO HER
PUNISHMENT. WE ASSESS KER PUNISHEME!\""I" AT CONl'INE�IF:NT IN TII I>
INSTITUTIONAL OMSION 01' THE TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICF.
FOR A TERM OF 'IWO (2) YEARS. IN ADDITION, WE ASSFSS A FINE OP 110,000.
Plea to 1 11 Enhancement Plea to 2nd Enhancement/Habitual

Paragraph NIA Paragraph:
Findings on 1st Enhancement Findings on 2nd
Paragraph: NIA Enhancement/Habitual Paragraph:
Punished Assessed by: Date Sentence Imposed: Date Sentence to Commence:
t-.. JURY 09-13-2016 09-13-2016
·00 Punishment and Place 2 YRS TOCJ- ID AND A FINE OF $ 10,000.00 IMPRISONMENT (INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION):
tO of Confinement:
Q THIS SENTENCE SHALL RUN CONCURRF.NT WITH WITH COUNT II
(6 SENTENCE OF CONFINEMENT SUSPENDED, DEFENDANT Pl.ACED ON COMMUNITY SUPERVISION FOR NIA
(l..
Fine: Court Costs: Restitution: Restitution Payable to:
$10,000.0 $ 444.00 0.00 0 VICTIM (see below) 0 AGENCY/AGENT (see below)
$
Sex Offender Registration Requirements do not apply to the Defendant. TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. chapter 62.
The age of the victim at the time of the offense was
If Defendant is to serve sentence in TDC.J onter incarceration periods in chronological order.
.;..I ' From: 10/11/2013 To: 10/12/2013 From: 09/08/2016 To: 09/13/2016 From: To:
G Time From: To: From: To: From: To:
l>
I .•
· Credited: From: To: From: To: From:
IfDefendnnt isto serve sentence in county jajl or is given credit toward fine and costs, enter days credited below,
To:
tO NOTES: N/A
\\..-!
.. All pertinent information, names and usessmenta indicated above are incorporated Into the language ofthe judgment below by reference.
Q This cause was called for trial in Bexar County, Texas. The State appeared by her District Attorney.
N
0)
Counsel/ Waiver of Counsel (select one)
;...j
di ORIGINAL 201◄Cl!oo91-CNVJRY Pago I of2
ti
EXHIBIT 2
1
1 REPORTER'S RECORD
VOLUME 1 OF 1 VOLUME(S)
2 TRIAL COURT CAUSE NO. 2014-CR-5591
3 THE STATE OF TEXAS * IN THE DISTRICT COURT

*
4 VS. * 186TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
*
5 FRANCES HALL * BEXAR COUNTY, TEXAS
6 ************************************
7 TESTIMONY OF DR. JENNIFER RULON
8 ************************************
9 On the 1st day of September, 2016, the following
10 proceedings came on to be heard in the above-entitled and
11 numbered cause before the Honorable Jefferson Moore, Judge
12 Presiding, held in the 186th Judicial District Court, San
13 Antonio, Bexar County, Texas:
14 Proceedings reported by Machine Shorthand.
15
16
17
18 Debra A. Doolittle, CSR

Official Court Reporter
19 300 Dolorosa
Cadena-Reeves Justice Center
20 San Antonio, Texas 78205
21
22
23
24
25
DEBRA A. DOOLITTLE, CSR - OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER

186TH DISTRICT COURT, SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS
2
1 A P P E A R A N C E S
3 Mr. Scott Simpson Mr. Alan Brown
4 DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE ATTORNEY AT LAW
5 SBOT NO. 00795840 SBOT NO. 03090000
6 101 W. Nueva 222 E. Main Plaza
7 San Antonio, Texas 78205 San Antonio, Texas 78205
8 Phone: (210) 335-2311 Phone: (210) 227-5103
9 Fax: (210) Fax: (210)
10 ATTORNEY FOR THE STATE ATTORNEY FOR THE DEFENSE
11 --and-- --and--
12 Ms. Stephanie Paulissen Ms. Jean Brown
13 DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE SBOT NO. 03138850
14 SBOT NO. 24086675 --and--
15 101 W. Nueva Mr. Adam Cortez
16 San Antonio, Texas 78205 SBOT NO. 04844650
17 Phone: (210) 335-2311 --and--
18 Fax: (210) Ms. Leigh Cutter
19 ATTORNEY FOR THE STATE SBOT NO. 24085965
20 ATTORNEYS FOR THE DEFENSE
21
22
23
24
25

3
1 CHRONOLOGICAL INDEX
2 VOLUME 1
3 TESTIMONY OF DR. JENNIFER RULON
4 SEPTEMBER 1, 2016 PAGE VOL.
5 Caption ..................................... 1 ....... 1
6 Appearances ................................. 2 ....... 1
7 Chronological Index ......................... 3 ....... 1
8 Exhibit Index................................ 4 ....... 1
9 Proceedings ................................. 5 ....... 1
10 STATE'S WITNESSES: DIRECT CROSS REDIRECT RECROSS VD
11 Dr. Jennifer Rulon 5, 17 31 14
12 Court Reporter's Certificate ................ 51 ....... 1
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

4
1 EXHIBIT INDEX
2 STATE'S EXHIBITS OFFERED ADMITTED VOL.
3 100 - Photo 13, 16 17
4 101 - Photo 13, 16 17
5 102 - Photo 13, 16 17
6 103 - Photo 13, 16 17
7 104 - Photo 13, 16 17
8 105 - Photo 13, 16 17
9 106 - Photo 13, 16 17
10 107 - Photo 13, 16 17
11 108 - Photo 13, 16 17
12 109 - Photo 13, 16 17
13 110 - Photo 13, 16 17
14 111 - Autopsy report 11 11
15 DEFENDANT'S EXHIBITS OFFERED ADMITTED VOL.
16 20 - Photo 44 44
17 21 - Photo 45 45
18 22 - Photo 46 46
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

5
1 P R O C E E D I N G S
2 (In the presence of the defendant and Counsel).
3 (The following is an excerpt from the trial in the
4 above-captioned cause).
5 MR. SIMPSON: State will call Dr. Rulon to the
6 stand.
7 (Witness takes the stand).
8 THE COURT: Ma'am, can you raise your right hand
9 for me, please.
10 (Witness sworn by the Court).
11 THE WITNESS: Yes.
12 THE COURT: Thank you. You can put your hand down.
13 Go ahead, State.
14 JENNIFER JEAN RULON, M.D.,
15 having been first duly sworn, testified as follows:
16 DIRECT EXAMINATION
17 QUESTIONS BY MR. SIMPSON:
18 Q. Dr. Rulon, can you introduce yourself to the jury.
19 A. My name is Jennifer Jean Rulon, R-U-L-O-N.
20 Q. All right. And what do you do for a living?
21 A. I work for Bexar County at the Bexar County Medical
22 Examiner's Office where I'm a medical examiner.
23 Q. And how long have you been a medical examiner with Bexar
24 County?
25 A. Since 2004, so that's 12 years.

6
1 Q. And how long have you been a medical examiner in total?
2 A. Probably close to 19 years now.
3 Q. Can you explain to the jury, besides the medical degree
4 requirement, what training you have to become a -- well, what
5 kind of doctor are you?
6 A. I'm what's called a forensic pathologist or a medical
7 examiner. I graduated from medical school in 1991 at the
8 University of Washington in Seattle. After that time, I
9 completed two years of internal medicine training followed by
10 four years of pathology training. At the end of that period of
11 time, I took a big test and passed it, became a board-certified
12 pathologist.
13 Q. Let me stop you there. Can you explain to the jury what
14 a pathologist is?
15 A. Right. A pathologist, we're doctors that you probably
16 don't meet. We're usually in the basement. We help run the
17 laboratory. Anything -- we sort of oversee all the laboratory
18 testing, the blood bank. If you have a tumor and you go to the
19 surgeon and they take a piece of the tumor, they'll send it to us
20 while you're still on the operating table. And we'll look at it
21 under the microscope and say if it's cancer or what is it and
22 report back. So we do a lot of diagnoses under the microscope.
23 We also do autopsies. If someone dies in the hospital and the
24 family wants an autopsy, the pathologist does an autopsy. So,
25 that's a general pathologist.

7
1 Some of us are interested in forensic pathology,
2 which relates more to injuries and determining cause and manner
3 of death, those people who die suddenly and unexpectedly.
4 So after becoming a board-certified pathologist, I
5 came to San Antonio, actually, in '97 and did a one-year
6 fellowship training, special training in forensic pathology. At
7 the end of that year, I took a test, passed it and became board
8 certified as a forensic pathologist and have been working since
9 then full time in Florida, briefly California for several years,
10 and came back to Texas in 2004.
11 Q. And in an average year, about how many autopsies do you,
12 yourself, perform?
13 A. Probably about 250 complete autopsies, and then another
14 150 what we call external examinations, or sometimes we only look
15 inside the head. So, 250 full autopsies.
16 Q. Did you end up doing an autopsy this morning?
17 A. Actually, yes, I was finishing one up from a few days
18 ago.
19 Q. All right. And so what kind of special continuing
20 education do you have to have and what kind of certifications do
21 you hold?
22 A. Basically, we have to be licensed physicians in Texas
23 and then Texas has its own continuing medical education just in
24 all licensing areas. And so, basically, we just sort of have to
25 keep up with the current information.

8
1 Q. All right. And can you explain to the jury: How is it
2 decided if someone gets an autopsy?
3 A. Whether an autopsy is performed depends on whoever --
4 whichever doctor is in charge of that person's death and it
5 really depends on the situation. Basically, if you need an
6 autopsy to determine cause and manner of death, we do one.
7 Sometimes someone might be in a -- say, in a motor vehicle crash,
8 and they live for three or four months and then they finally die,
9 a lot of times all the injuries are very well documented with all
10 x-rays for the last couple of months and sometimes in those
11 situations we may only do the outside of the body, which is an
12 external exam. So there are times where we just -- we do a
13 limited exam. But most times if we need it for cause and manner
14 of death, we do it.
15 Q. Now, so, I'm getting up there a little bit. In my
16 mid-50s. So, say my dad and grandfather both died at 70. So say
17 I'm 70, and like my grandad, I wash my car and have a heart
18 attack and die. Would you do an autopsy on me or how's that?
19 A. If you were outside, I would. But I'm very cautious.
20 Like, when someone dies outside, I always do an autopsy because I
21 worry someone may have come around and hit them on the head. And
22 my colleagues kind of laugh at me for being so cautious. But to
23 me, if someone dies outside, I want to do a complete autopsy.
24 Unless there's a witness and they collapsed and there's no foul
25 play. But if they're just found outside with the lawn mower

9
1 going, I will do an autopsy.
2 Q. All right. And then so how is the autopsy -- what do
3 you do when a body comes into your morgue?
4 A. When someone comes to our facility and they've died
5 suddenly and unexpectedly, they're given a unique case number
6 from the system. So all paperwork, everything related to the
7 death is kept under the one case number. Photographs are taken
8 as they arrive. And then usually the next day the person the
9 physician is on will do the exam.
10 Q. All right.
11 MR. SIMPSON: Can I approach the witness,
12 Your Honor?
13 THE COURT: Yes, sir.
14 Q. (BY MR. SIMPSON) I'm approaching you with what has
15 already been admitted into evidence as State's Exhibit Number 99.
16 Can you explain what the purpose of this photo is, State's
17 Exhibit 99?
18 A. State's Exhibit 99 is what we call the identification
19 photo. And we always take a picture of the person that we're
20 assigning this unique case number. So the unique case number is
21 below their head on a board. And I supervise the technicians as
22 they take this photo to make sure. So this is the person we
23 assigned this unique case number to.
24 Q. Well, and why do you get an ID photo before you start to
25 do anything with the body?

10
1 A. Just to be sure we know who we're all talking about and
2 so there's no questions later that we identified the person
3 properly or that the case number really goes to that person.
4 Q. And this is the photo that the jury has already seen.
5 And so this is what you call -- you call it just the ID photo?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. All right. All right. And then about -- do you do a
8 report when you make an autopsy?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. And are you the custodian of records for your autopsy
11 reports?
12 A. I'm one of the custodians, yes.
13 MR. SIMPSON: May I approach the witness?
15 Q. (BY MR. SIMPSON) I'm showing you what's been marked for
16 identification purposes as State's Exhibit Number 111. Okay. Is
17 this the autopsy report that you made on -- on Bill Hall?
18 A. Yes, this looks like a copy of the original autopsy
19 report.
20 Q. And is this made in the normal course of business?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. Okay. And are you the custodian of records for this
23 autopsy report?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. Okay. And is this report made by someone with actual

11
1 knowledge of the autopsy?
2 A. Yes, that would be me.
3 Q. And is this the exact copy of the original autopsy
4 report?
5 A. It looks like it. I just compared it and it looks the
6 same.
7 Q. And the actual original is here with you as we speak?
8 A. Yes.
9 MR. SIMPSON: Your Honor, at this point I'm going
10 to offer State's Exhibit Number 111 into evidence and I'm going
11 to tender it to defense counsel.
12 (State's Exhibit Number 111 offered).
13 MR. CORTEZ: No objection, Your Honor.
14 THE COURT: It is admitted.
15 (State's Exhibit Number 111 admitted).
16 Q. (BY MR. SIMPSON) All right. I'm going to leave this up
17 here with you. And can you explain -- before we get into
18 specifics of this autopsy, can you explain to me, generally, the
19 process for an autopsy in terms of the order of things.
20 A. The autopsy is a medical examination that's very -- we
21 do the same thing all the time. First, we look at the outside of
22 the body and I note any clothing that might be on the person, any
23 medical devices that may have been left on the body by the
24 emergency personnel.
25 We then take the clothing off and wash the person

12
1 up and look for scars and tattoos, anything sort of nonmedical on
2 the outside of the body. And then I focus on injuries. Are
3 there any injuries on the outside of the body? And write notes,
4 taking -- taking notes, measurements, photos of these injuries.
5 And so that's kind of the external exam.
6 The internal part is where we look inside the head,
7 the neck, the chest and the abdomen, looking to see if any
8 injuries on the outside correspond to injuries on the inside.
9 And we also look to see is there any natural disease. Is a
10 person full of cancer, or, you know, has a really bad heart. Is
11 there a natural disease that may have also contributed as well as
12 the injuries to why this person died. We take blood and urine
13 and some other fluids for toxicology testing on everybody and
14 that gets sent to the lab and they do their thing to look for
15 drugs and things like that. And then we finish and release to
16 the funeral home of the family's choice.
17 Q. And is there a difference between somebody who comes in
18 who has been found dead or somebody who's come in who they worked
19 on them -- worked on them at the hospital?
20 A. There's no difference from my point of view. There's
21 just different things -- each case -- each person is different,
22 presents a whole different set of circumstances. So you adjust
23 what you do to what you have in front of you but we follow sort
24 of the same thing every time.
25 MR. SIMPSON: Approach the witness again,

13
1 Your Honor?
3 Q. (BY MR. SIMPSON) I'm going to show you what's been
4 marked for identification purposes as State's Exhibits 100
5 through 110 and ask you if these are pictures that were taken
6 either by you or your assistant during this autopsy.
7 A. These are all photos that I personally took during the
8 autopsy.
9 Q. And these photos, will they help you to explain the
10 injuries that are caused?
11 A. Yes.
12 MR. SIMPSON: I'm going to offer State's Exhibits
13 Number 100 through 110 to Defense counsel and ask that they be
14 admitted into evidence.
15 (State's Exhibits Number 100 through 110 offered).
16 THE WITNESS: (To the Court) I need a little time
17 out to tell you something.
18 MR. SIMPSON: What's the matter?
19 THE COURT: Can't really address me, ma'am.
20 THE WITNESS: Okay.
21 THE COURT: Let's do this. Let's do this. I'll
22 take a quick break.
23 THE WITNESS: One minute.
24 THE COURT: Ladies and gentlemen, line up in the
25 hallway. We'll get you right back out here. All rise for the

14
1 jury.
2 (Jury exits).
3 THE COURT: All right. Thank you. Please be
4 seated. The jury is no longer present.
5 Ma'am, you had a question?
6 THE WITNESS: I just wanted to let you know that
7 one of the jury members, I'm pretty sure, is in our neighborhood.
8 It's someone in our neighborhood that I'll wave to when I walk
9 the dogs by and every once in a while we chit chat about yard
10 watering. I just think I recognize him.
11 THE COURT: Oh, okay. Thank you for bringing that
12 up. Any questions?
13 THE WITNESS: I didn't want to cause a mistrial.
14 THE COURT: Yes, thank you.
15 THE WITNESS: And what's funny is the last time I
16 testified, a different neighbor was a jury member. Anyway,
17 there's something going on in my neighborhood.
18 THE COURT: Yes, ma'am. I'll say. I'll say.
19 All right. Any questions from either side in
20 regards to the witness about that?
21 MR. CORTEZ: Well, I mean, may I inquire --
22 THE COURT: Of course, yes. That's why I'm asking.
23 VOIR DIRE EXAMINATION
24 QUESTIONS BY MR. CORTEZ:
25 Q. Dr. Rulon, I'm Adam Cortez, and I'm one of the attorneys

15
1 representing Frances Hall. Now, which -- do you know the name of
2 the juror?
3 A. I don't know his name. And please don't tell him I
4 don't know his name. I'm sure he's told me his name a hundred
5 times. Or, not a hundred times. But he's the third one from the
6 end, a little bit of a heavy-set Hispanic gentleman.
7 Q. Oh, okay.
8 A. I can't remember his name.
9 Q. And you speak to him regularly?
10 A. Probably once a month when we're walking the dogs. We
11 walk the dogs by his house and sometimes he's out watering his
12 lawn.
13 Q. Do you have any kind of close personal relationship at
14 all?
15 A. No, no, no. I mean, we're hi/bye neighbors.
16 Q. Oh, so you're acquaintances because you live in the same
17 neighborhood?
18 A. Right. I mean, if I saw him at the grocery store, I
19 would say hi.
20 Q. Okay. But beyond that you don't --
21 A. We don't socialize, no.
22 THE COURT: One at a time.
23 Q. (BY MR. CORTEZ) Just so we're clear, my question is:
24 You don't socialize or do anything at each -- either one of your
25 homes together?

16
1 A. No.
2 Q. And you never have?
3 A. No.
4 MR. CORTEZ: Okay. I have nothing further. I'm
5 fine.
6 THE COURT: Any objections proceeding with all 12
7 jurors?
8 MR. SIMPSON: No, not from the State.
9 MR. CORTEZ: Not from the Defense.
10 THE COURT: All right. Thank you. Bring in the
11 jury.
12 (To the witness) Thank you for doing that.
13 THE BAILIFF: All rise for the jury.
14 (Jury enters).
15 THE COURT: Thank you. Please be seated.
16 MR. SIMPSON: Judge, when we took a break, I
17 offered State's exhibits into --
18 THE COURT: Let me just say: The jury is now
19 present. And good afternoon. Thank you for your cooperation.
20 Go ahead, State.
21 MR. SIMPSON: I'll just re-urge the offering of the
22 State's exhibits. I don't remember the numbers.
23 (State's Exhibits Number 100 through 110 offered).
24 MR. CORTEZ: 100 through 110, and there's no
25 objection.

17
1 THE COURT: They are admitted.
2 (State's Exhibits Number 100 through 110 admitted).
3 DIRECT EXAMINATION (cont'd)
5 Q. Now, Dr. Rulon, about how many photos did you take,
6 total?
7 A. I probably took about 50 to 55 photos during the whole
8 autopsy.
9 Q. And did we go through those photos and just limit it to
10 the ones that you felt like were necessary to explain the
11 injuries to the jury?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. And is it fair to say that the autopsy photos are
14 sensitive in nature?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. And because of that, did we make a decision not to put
17 these up on the screen?
18 A. You did, yes.
19 Q. Yes, I did. So, I'm going to go --
20 MR. SIMPSON: May I approach the witness again?
22 Q. (BY MR. SIMPSON) What I'd like to do is on State's
23 Exhibit Number 111, your report?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. At the back of your report, do you make a chart of where

18
1 all these injuries are?
2 A. Yes. I make a diagram for -- specifically for the jury.
3 It's a generic-person diagram where I put the injuries so it's
4 easier for you all to look at, sort of a stick figure of a
5 person. So every time there's a case that makes it to a jury, I
6 do an injury summary diagram. And in this case, there were two
7 pages; one for the head and one for the body.
8 Q. And would that be helpful as we go through these
9 photographs for you to show -- show the jury where these
10 photographs relate to and what you noticed?
11 A. Yes.
12 MR. SIMPSON: And Judge, since this exhibit is
13 already into evidence, I've just blown up two pages from the
14 exhibit to use for demonstrative purposes.
16 Q. (BY MR. SIMPSON) Doctor, can you see that okay?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. And do you have a laser pointer up there? And can the
19 jury see that okay?
20 All right. Let's go through these a couple at a
21 time. I want to first look at State's Exhibit Number 100, 101
22 and 102. If you can tell me what injuries those are showing.
23 A. State's Exhibit 100, 101 and 102 were taken to show the
24 injuries to the head. And basically, they show the -- there's a
25 diagram of the head with the four different views of the head.

19
1 And you can see above the right here, there is a large abrasion
2 or scrape with some irregular tearing or lacerations. There is
3 a -- both a bruise and a scrape of -- The technical term for a
4 bruise is a contusion. And the technical term for a scrape is an
5 abrasion. So a bruise and a scrape on the right side of the
6 forehead between the forehead and the scalp here.
7 These photos also show on the left side, looking at
8 Mr. Hall's left side of his head, above the left ear there's a
9 large scrape. And in the middle of the scrape is a tear of the
10 skin or laceration. There is a bruise or a contusion on the
11 nose. On the right side of his cheek is an area of bruising and
12 little scrapes. And underneath the left side of the chin is
13 another scrape and bruise. So these are the main injuries on the
14 head that are shown in these Exhibits 100, 101 and 102.
15 MR. SIMPSON: Your Honor, may I have leave from the
16 Court to approach back and forth with these photographs?
18 MR. SIMPSON: Permission to publish these to the
19 jury?
21 Q. (BY MR. SIMPSON) All right. Now, I want to go over
22 State's Exhibits 103, 104 and 105. I'm going to approach you
23 with those photographs and ask you, first, before we go over the
24 injuries, is there evidence of medical intervention on these
25 photographs?

20
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. And can you explain to the jury what I mean by "evidence
3 of medical intervention"?
4 A. One of the things that happened to Mr. Hall when he went
5 to the hospital is they put what's called a chest tube or a tube
6 into each side of the chest to drain blood and I've left that in
7 the photo because when we take it out, it becomes kind of messy,
8 and you also have the stab wound that the surgeons used showing.
9 So I leave it in to show it's medical intervention. So you'll
10 see a tube coming out of the right said of the chest.
11 Q. But that's not injury, that's medical intervention?
12 A. Correct.
13 Q. All right, then. Go ahead. And if you could, explain
14 to me the injuries that those next three photographs are showing
15 us.
16 A. State's Exhibits 103 and 104 show the right side of
17 Mr. Hall's chest from the side view and the injuries that are
18 shown on the diagram, as well as the right arm. So I'm looking
19 at him from his right side. So there is a large abrasion running
20 along the front of his right side of his chest. There's also a
21 bruise that goes all the way around the right forearm. And this
22 is his right arm. And then on the other right -- the other view
23 of his right arm is over here. So on the back of this right arm
24 is a bruise area as well as some scrapes or abrasions along the
25 skin surface. But the main thing is a couple of -- there's a

21
1 small abrasion here on the right upper-anterior chest wall.
2 Couple of larger, longer ones as well.
3 Q. Does that cover all of them?
4 A. Pretty much.
5 MR. SIMPSON: Okay. Permission to publish these?
7 Q. (BY MR. SIMPSON) Okay. Now, maybe 106, I think you've
8 already talked about. But I'm going to approach you with 106,
9 107 and 108, and ask you what injuries these show us.
10 A. 106 is a photo of Mr. Hall's -- the back of his right
11 arm where in the other photos you could only see one side. So
12 now I've had my assistant hold his arm so we could see the other
13 injuries on the back side of his right arm.
14 107 is a better view of the scrape and lacerations
15 on the right side of the head above the right ear with the scalp
16 hair shaved away so that we can see it very well. And then
17 State's Exhibit 108 looks at Mr. Hall's back. We're looking at
18 the back portion of the left side of his body with all these
19 scrapes as indicated on the diagram in various locations.
20 Q. And before you move off of that one, is there any
21 lividity present in that photograph?
22 A. Yes. In 108, which is his back, where he's been laying
23 on his back, after death the blood sort of settles with gravity.
24 So the back of the body we have kind of a red discoloration that
25 can look like a bruise but it's not, it's just settling of the

22
1 blood. So on the back of his left shoulder in the diagram
2 there's a scrape. But you'll see in the photo a red area, that's
3 just lividity. And then if you're laying on the -- if you're
4 laying on the gurney, wherever your body is hitting the surface,
5 the blood can't settle there. So it looks pale in the middle
6 where you have pressure points on whatever you're laying on. So
7 the center part of his back is pale, and then there's a red area
8 which is just lividity, and then there's a scrape. So, it's a
9 little confusing to the untrained eye.
10 Q. So, if someone who didn't know better could look at
11 what's just pooling of the blood or lividity and mistake that for
12 bruising?
13 A. Exactly.
14 Q. Okay. Go ahead. I'm sorry.
15 A. So also it shows these other scrapes on the back side of
16 the left part of his body. That's what's shown on these.
17 Q. Thank you. Okay. And then the final two photographs
18 have close-ups of the trauma to the head. Is there anything -- I
19 want to go into more detail about that. What's going on there
20 with the scalp? What's causing that? It almost looks like a
21 starring effect? Is that (unintelligible) a term?
22 A. Photograph 109 shows the injury on the left side of his
23 head above the left ear and I've shaved the -- shaved the scalp
24 hair away. And there's a big scrape and then what we call a
25 stellate or star-shaped laceration or tear. And 109 shows it

23
1 with the ear so that the person can know, looking at this photo,
2 where this injury is. And then 110 is a close-up more just of
3 that injury. So the first one, 109, helps you orient where I --
4 where are you on the body. And then 110 shows more of a close-up
5 of the tearing.
6 Q. And beneath that injury that we see, is there a skull
7 fracture present?
8 A. No.
9 Q. Okay. Now, after we look, does that complete the
10 external injuries that were noticed in your autopsy?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Then after you do -- go through all the external, what
13 is the next step?
14 A. Then we do an internal examination of the body.
15 Q. And what type of internal injuries did you note?
16 A. In the head, what we do is we -- we reflect the scalp
17 and there's a lot of bruising on the underside of the scalp.
18 It's hard to see with the hair, but when you look on the
19 underside of the scalp, you can see a good bruise. So there was
20 a lot of bruising to his head. The only other thing on the
21 inside of the head was a little skull fracture right above the
22 right eye. There's a bone right above your right eye and I
23 believe it was about a half-inch long little fracture of the
24 skull at that location. But the neck joint was okay. The neck
25 was -- there were no internal injuries of the neck.

24
1 Looking at the chest, he had a lot of rib
2 fractures. And the rib fractures were displaced. So in other
3 words, they were sort of out of line with each other. On the
4 left side of his chest, he had from his second to his seventh
5 ribs -- We -- we number the ribs Number 1 up top and Number 12
6 down at the bottom. So it's Number 2 through 7 on the front of
7 the left chest cavity. And on the back of the left chest cavity,
8 he had another set from Number 2 through 8, posteriorly. So a
9 lot of those ribs had two rib fractures, both on the front and
10 the back of the body.
11 Similarly, on the right side there were fractures
12 of the second through the ninth ribs on the front of his body.
13 And then on the side of his body, the second rib through the
14 tenth rib. So, a lot of those ribs also on the right had two
15 sets of fractures running along the front and on the left -- left
16 on the back and on the right on the side. There was a little bit
17 of blood in each chest cavity where they had chest tubes in there
18 to drain. There was probably a quarter cup of blood at most in
19 each chest cavity.
20 Q. But that assumes that there was probably blood that was
21 draining out during the --
22 A. There could have been -- basically, all that's left when
23 I saw him was that much blood. And who knows how much blood is
24 lost at the scene or before we see the person.
25 And then the belly, the abdomen, there was no free

25
1 blood. There was bruising of the tissue that supplies, it's
2 called the mesentery of the bowel. You know what your bowel
3 looks like, and then there's some fatty tissue that all the blood
4 vessels run into to get to the bowel. There was some bruising in
5 that area as well. But the pelvis was not broken. There were no
6 other injuries to the belly, except some bruising of the tissue
7 in the middle.
8 Q. Now, what injuries are fatal? What's causing the
9 fatality?
10 A. All of these injuries together are fatal.
11 Q. It's the amount of injuries in total?
12 A. We look at the whole picture and part of the picture we
13 haven't talked about is a natural disease as well. Like I said,
14 when we do an autopsy, we need to see is there cancer running
15 everywhere or is there any natural disease. And in Mr. Hall's
16 case, he had an enlarged heart that was also dilated. A normal
17 man's heart is up to 400 grams. His was 550 grams, which is
18 about 37 percent enlarged, and also kind of dilated like a
19 balloon. And when you have a heart like that, it has a harder
20 time dealing with the stress of injuries. So in my opinion, the
21 heart contributed to death. But the real cause -- the real main
22 cause of death is all the blunt-force injuries together. The
23 head injuries and all the rib fractures and the effect that that
24 has on making the heart work harder because now you have all
25 these injuries and all taken together caused his death.

26
1 Q. What kind of force are we talking about to cause that
2 many rib fractures?
3 A. A lot.
4 Q. What -- and so how is that -- would affect his ability
5 to breath having all those rib fractures?
6 A. First of all, rib fractures are extremely painful. And
7 you need your rib cage to be intact so that when you take a
8 breath, the rib cage expands and helps suck air into your lungs.
9 But when it's all broken, you can try to inhale but it's not a
10 cohesive unit anymore. It doesn't -- you can't breath very well.
11 You will have a lot of trouble breathing. And then also, under
12 each rib is a little vein and an artery. And if you have
13 displaced rib fractures, all of those little arteries and veins
14 can start bleeding into the chest cavity. So now you don't even
15 have enough blood to keep your heart happy and you're not able to
16 breath and get oxygen into your blood. And it's just a cascade
17 of different -- many different things happening at once that can
18 really overwhelm; a person, even with a normal heart, it can lead
19 to death.
20 Q. Now, what's your opinion about the fact that the rider
21 was not wearing a helmet? How did that contribute to the cause
22 of death?
23 A. It doesn't matter to me at all.
24 Q. Have you seen motorcycle riders with helmets come into
25 your ward dead?

27
1 A. Very much so, yes.
2 MR. SIMPSON: Approach the witness again?
5 marked and already admitted into evidence as State's Exhibit 29,
6 30 and 31, and submit to you that this is the area where the body
7 was found. In terms of these injuries that the jurors have seen,
8 we've heard the term during this trial of "road rash." Is that a
9 term you would use medically?
10 A. No.
11 Q. Okay. These abrasions that we see throughout his body,
12 can they be caused by that grassy area that you see there in
13 front of you?
14 A. Abrasions are caused when something blunt impacts --
15 excuse me -- the skin's surface and there's some scraping action.
16 So whether it's a -- many different -- there's nothing specific
17 about any of these abrasions that tell me what it -- what the
18 body hit up against. So it could be a desk, it could be a brick,
19 it could be a vehicle, it could be a grassy field, it could be a
20 freeway. There's nothing specific. It's total -- I don't even
21 get into trying to figure that out. These are just abrasions,
22 they're there, they're associated with really bad injuries
23 inside. The person is dead. There's no way to look at these and
24 reconstruct, Oh, he hit this here and there and that. It just
25 doesn't work that way. So yes, I mean, there's grass here. He

28
1 came to rest here? Is that what you're saying?
2 Q. Correct.
3 A. This is where his body was found. Sure. Who knows. I
4 have no expert opinion on -- on that. But yes, you can get
5 abrasions from hitting grass.
6 Q. Now, do you have an opinion as to the cause of death of
7 Bill Hall?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. And what is that opinion?
10 A. The cause of death was the multiple blunt-force
11 injuries. And contributing to death is the enlarged dilated
12 heart.
13 Q. And do you have an opinion as to manner of death of
14 Bill Hall?
15 A. Yes. The manner of death is -- concerns the
16 circumstances surrounding the death. There's two things on your
17 death certificate; the cause of death and then the manner, how it
18 happened. Is it natural? Is it an accident? Is it a homicide?
19 Is it a suicide? Or is it undetermined? Sometimes we can't
20 tell. We can go undetermined. So the manner of death is an
21 opinion based on our understanding of the facts at the time we
22 make our opinion. And in this case, the facts that we were given
23 were that he had been intentionally struck by a vehicle, which
24 makes it a homicide. The actions of one person caused the death
25 of another person.

29
1 Q. And what do you -- do you know what you reviewed as you
2 were making that opinion?
3 A. Yes. We had police reports and I spoke on the phone, I
4 think it was Detective Arevalos. On the day of the autopsy, the
5 cause of death was clear but the manner of death was not. So,
6 the first death certificate I issued said: Cause of death,
7 multiple blunt-force injuries. Contributing, the heart. Manner
8 of death was pending.
9 And then a couple of months later, when
10 everything -- all the toxicology comes back and we, you know, all
11 the information starts coming in and we can sit there with a
12 clear head and look at everything, and that's when the opinion
13 was rendered that it was a homicide.
14 Q. Okay. And then as far as the toxicology, anything
15 remarkable about the toxicology?
16 A. In Mr. Hall's case, it was unusual in that he went to
17 the hospital and received a lot of blood transfusions. So by the
18 time I saw Mr. Hall, the blood that we're drawing is the blood
19 donor, the blood bank donor people, a lot of it is their blood.
20 So the hospitals know that we -- we would like to test the blood
21 that he -- that they first drew from him before he started
22 getting transfusions. So they actually sent us four tubes of
23 blood that he -- that they had drawn before he got all these
24 transfusions. So we ran our tox on that. We didn't run a tox on
25 the diluted-out blood that I had at autopsy. And what was found

30
1 in that blood, which was about -- taken about an hour after the
2 initial incident, there was no alcohol or drugs of abuse. There
3 were two drugs, resuscitation-type drugs he had been -- that they
4 typically give when they're trying to save someone's life.
5 Q. All right. And did you review any medical records of
6 Mr. Hall from -- from before the accident?
7 A. No.
8 Q. And then there's one other thing. On the first page --
9 A. Oh.
10 Q. -- of State's Exhibit Number 111, you had indicated to
11 me that there was one typo?
12 A. Yes. I made a typographical error that I didn't catch
13 when I was going over my report. When people come into the
14 hospital, they don't know who they are, so they give them a funny
15 name. They gave him a name, Unknown Yordan -- Y-O-R-D-A-N --
16 male. So he has a hospital tag that says Unknown Yordan male.
17 And that's the name that's on all the tubes of blood. And when I
18 got my reports done, I inadvertently left it as Jordan instead of
19 Yordan. So in the photos there's pictures of his name band that
20 says Yordan, but I typed in my report Jordan. So that's my
21 typographical error.
22 Q. And so where do they get these names from? Are they
23 like hurricanes? They just have a list of names?
24 A. Yes, that's a good analogy. I think they do kind of
25 have a strange list of names that -- Sometimes it's like Alpha

31
1 or -- different hospitals have different -- they come in with
2 really strange names. And then once they figure out who the
3 person is, they change everything over to that other name. But
4 it's kind of a clerical nightmare, as you might imagine, keeping
5 it all straight for the hospitals.
6 MR. SIMPSON: Thank you very much. I'll pass the
7 witness.
8 MR. CORTEZ: May I proceed, Your Honor?
10 CROSS-EXAMINATION
12 Q. Good afternoon, Dr. Rulon. I think we just met just
13 earlier today, correct?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. You know I'm Adam Cortez and I represent Frances Hall,
16 along with these other lawyers, correct?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. Dr. Rulon, you performed this autopsy on -- according to
19 your report, on October 12th, 2013, that was two days after
20 Mr. Hall was pronounced dead, correct?
21 A. Let me check what time he was pronounced dead.
22 Q. Do you have the exhibit in front of you?
23 A. I don't have the -- the date of death. The time of
24 death is not on my report. It's in another -- it's in the
25 medical records.

32
1 Q. But it was roughly two days after --
2 A. Let me check because I don't -- it's not something I
3 keep in my head. He was pronounced dead on the 10th of October
4 at 2155 hours. And I did my autopsy on the 12th of October
5 around 8 a.m. So yes, two days.
6 Q. And the autopsy, I believe, am I correct that the
7 autopsy was requested by Detective Arevalos or --
8 A. No, he -- no.
9 Q. It was a medical doctor, correct?
10 A. No. When you die suddenly and unexpectedly in
11 Bexar County, if there's any issue of trauma or drugs, the only
12 doctors that by law can sign the death certificate is the medical
13 examiner's office. The trauma surgeon cannot sign the death
14 certificate. By law, we are the ones who have to examine the
15 body and determine the cause and manner, unless it's a natural
16 death that the doctor's familiar with the person and will sign
17 the death certificate. So it's more a legal issue that he had to
18 come to our office. The only person able to or the only type of
19 doctor that can sign the death certificate was someone with my
20 training.
21 Q. I understand. Dr. Rulon, you indicated that you had had
22 conversations with Detective Arevalos regarding this matter,
23 correct?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. And you also reviewed reports. Do you recall which

33
1 reports or what they are? Do you have them in that file there?
2 A. Yes, they're the sheriff's county or the sheriff's
3 office report that was generated that they typed it all out.
4 Q. Do you have a copy of that report with you?
5 A. Yes. It's Bexar County Sheriff Office Case Number
6 2013-042563. The reporting officer was C. Morales.
7 MR. CORTEZ: May I approach the witness,
8 Your Honor?
10 THE WITNESS: It stays in my file. You can have a
11 copy of it.
12 Q. (BY MR. CORTEZ) Okay. No, I understand. Dr. Rulon,
13 I'm holding, as you described, BCS Case Number 2013-042563 of the
14 report of a Deputy C. Morales?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. Okay. So it's the report of Deputy Morales is the
17 report upon which you reviewed prior to conducting the autopsy or
18 after?
19 A. It would have been after.
20 Q. Okay. And the purpose of doing so was for what reason?
21 A. Our job at the medical examiner's office is two things;
22 cause of death and manner of death. And the autopsy is a small
23 part of it. In order to determine the manner of death, we have
24 to look at the circumstances as they are best known. So when we
25 make our opinion and it's just an opinion based on our

34
1 understanding of the facts. So we talk to -- we get police
2 reports, we get hospital records, and we fold all of that into
3 the findings of the autopsy to form our opinion. And in this
4 case, I actually -- I don't know if you've read any of these
5 reports. They're very confusing because they -- instead of
6 people's names, it's like O1, C1. They're very confusing. And I
7 actually have a note here that I'd spoken with Detective Arevalos
8 on the 14th of October, 2013, to clarify my understanding.
9 Because when you read it, you kind of get lost as who's who and
10 who's O1 and -- Anyway, so I read this and talked to
11 Detective Arevalos to help me understand what's in this report.
12 Q. So you base it on this confusing Deputy Morales report
13 and then a subsequent conversation with Deputy Arevalos?
14 A. Well, I found it confusing, initially, yes.
15 Q. I understand.
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. I'm just using your description.
18 A. Right. Yes.
19 Q. So there were no -- you didn't interview any witnesses
20 at the scene, correct?
21 A. Correct.
22 Q. Okay. And you haven't -- have you been to the scene?
23 A. No.
24 Q. Okay. So that's not part -- your part isn't to
25 investigate the actual manner in which this was -- this incident

35
1 occurred, correct?
2 A. My job -- everyone has -- you've probably noticed
3 there's a lot of people with different parts when something like
4 this happens. My part is to determine the cause of death and
5 render a medical opinion as to the manner of death. And this is
6 our opinion based on our understanding of the facts. And then
7 the legal system tries to figure out -- well, the law enforcement
8 figures out who did it and the legal system figures out if they
9 think they did it and what the punishment would be. So we all
10 have different roles. So our opinion is just based on our
11 understanding of the facts. We fill out the death certificate.
12 We let the legal system run its course. And that will be up to
13 some other people -- probably the jury -- to decide what they
14 think happened.
15 Q. So you're not saying that you did any kind of thorough
16 factual investigation as to the actual manner and means of the
17 incident, this vehicular incident? You did not do anything --
18 kind of personal investigation, correct?
19 A. I did a thorough investigation of the information that
20 was available at the time, but I did not personally go interview
21 anybody. We always on -- in homicide-type situations, we rely on
22 law enforcement and they go interview people. And at some point,
23 we -- we render an opinion if we believe what we're reading and
24 that's just our opinion and it can be figured out later by the
25 legal system.

36
1 Q. Okay. So it's for the jury to decide if those facts you
2 relied upon are actually true, correct?
3 A. Right. As an expert witness, we use hearsay all the
4 time to form our opinions. And that's as expert witnesses; we've
5 done that for eons and we always do that. So I use the hearsay
6 of what's in these reports to form our opinion.
7 Q. Okay. Because you understand that what's in that report
8 isn't necessarily legal evidence, correct?
9 A. I don't know anything about legal evidence.
10 Q. Okay.
11 A. If you told me that, I believe you. I don't really
12 know. I have enough to worry about with just the medical end of
13 things.
14 Q. Well, but just finally, all -- everything you've
15 reviewed with respect to a factual nature came from
16 Deputy Morales's report and one conversation with
17 Detective Arevalos, correct?
18 A. It may have been more than one conversation. And we
19 have our investigators who talk to -- I can't remember all the
20 people that I may have talked to, but in general I remember it
21 was talking with Detective Arevalos and this report that was the
22 most important to me.
23 Q. And it was just orally; is that correct?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. He didn't show you any other reports or anything?

37
1 A. No. I think we talked on the phone.
2 Q. No vehicle pictures?
3 A. No.
4 Q. Okay. Dr. Rulon, you mentioned multiple -- that the
5 cause of death, I wanted to talk about the cause of death. Now,
6 you talked about there, basically, multiple blunt-force injuries.
7 Is -- let's start with the first injury that you've listed as
8 multiple blunt-force injuries on your report under your Findings.
9 Do you have that in front of you?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. The first one is the skull fracture. Would that
12 fracture -- you indicated, at least it seemed like to me, that
13 that was kind of a -- it wasn't -- in and of itself, that could
14 not cause death, correct?
15 A. I wouldn't -- you can't take these injuries apart and
16 make conclusions like that from each one. You always have to put
17 the whole case together. It's one of the injuries that
18 contributed to the whole demise of this person. So, it's about a
19 one-half inch long fracture under the -- or above the right eye.
20 But there's a lot of force that caused that fracture. And then
21 you've got all the scrapes and things on his skin, so...
22 Q. Doctor, my question is, though, that -- that injury, in
23 and of itself, would not cause death, correct?
24 A. It would depend on the circumstance.
25 Q. Well, in this case if you say that if he only had that

38
1 injury, would he have died from that one skull fracture?
2 A. I don't know how to answer that because in this case he
3 had a lot of injuries. And I know that I would get the wrong
4 answer if you start picking apart and look at each injury, if --
5 if -- You can't do that. Or I -- I, as a forensic pathologist,
6 can't think that way because I know it will give me the wrong
7 answer.
8 You have to look at it -- it's like a puzzle, like
9 a jigsaw puzzle. And if you show me a blue puzzle piece, could
10 this be the sky? Yes. Could this be the girl's dress? Could
11 it -- You know, you have to look at the whole thing together.
12 And as soon as you start taking it apart and looking at each one,
13 you're going to get the wrong answer, and we've been heavily
14 trained not to do that. So I have a hard time answering that
15 question because I'm focusing on Mr. Hall and his injuries.
16 Q. Well, of course, I was referring to his -- his skull
17 fracture, in and of itself. You're saying you can't answer the
18 question that if he only had the skull fracture, he'd be alive
19 today?
20 A. Correct.
21 Q. Okay. And would that be the same with the -- the
22 displaced rib fractures? Well, actually, let me ask this way:
23 The displaced rib fractures, that obviously restricts his
24 breathing as you indicated, correct?
25 A. These are very severe injuries because there's so many

39
1 of them. I think I counted a total of --
2 Q. But my question is: The injuries restrict breathing,
3 these displaced rib fractures, correct?
4 A. Yes. He has 30 -- 30 rib fractures at the time. And
5 yes, these will be very severe and hinder breathing. And these,
6 you know, these are very severe injuries, especially combined
7 with everything else.
8 Q. You said you reviewed the medical records of Mr. Hall,
9 so are you aware that he had chronic obstructive pulmonary
10 disease?
11 A. Mr. Simpson asked me if I reviewed any medical records
12 prior to the accident and I said no.
13 Q. So you did -- you don't -- were you aware that he had
14 chronic obstructive pulmonary disease?
15 A. No.
16 Q. Okay. So this is the first time you're learning of
17 this?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. Okay. And obviously, with the displaced rib fractures
20 and the -- it's called COPD, I guess, correct?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. That further contributes to a restriction of breathing,
23 wouldn't it?
24 A. These rib fractures are so bad, it wouldn't matter if
25 someone had perfect lungs. It doesn't -- to me it doesn't matter

40
1 if someone had COPD.
2 Q. Well, it doesn't make it better, of course. Certainly
3 doesn't help.
4 A. It's such a miniscule point that I really don't care if
5 he had COPD or not.
6 Q. You don't?
7 A. No.
8 Q. Okay. Hemothorax is the next two findings that you
9 reflect there. Hemo -- that's blood in the lungs, correct?
10 A. Blood around the lungs. In the chest cavity, pooled
11 around the lungs.
12 Q. Okay. That chest tube, that chest tube that you
13 mentioned, that was supposed to help drain that in the hospital.
14 They put that in there. The procedure is to help drain the blood
15 fluid so that person can breath, correct?
16 A. Yes. He had a chest tube on both sides, actually; one
17 on each side. So what -- what we see may be a small amount of
18 what was initially there. I have no idea of how much blood they
19 got out of the chest prior to my seeing it.
20 Q. Are you aware that at the scene, maybe in your
21 conversation with Detective Arevalos, that Mr. Hall was conscious
22 and speaking and EMS technicians expressed to his family that he
23 was going to be okay? Did you get any of those facts?
24 A. No, no. I knew that he was -- from the emergency room
25 records they mention that he was initially conscious. But by the

41
1 time he got to the ER, he had a breathing tube in and was not
2 conscious. But I didn't have any of the details and certainly
3 not what the EMS told the family. I have no idea what they --
4 Q. No one -- no one has provided that to you, correct?
5 A. No.
6 Q. And do you know that he was air lifted from southwest
7 Bexar County over to University Hospital?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. Okay. And doesn't -- when you're in a higher altitude,
10 doesn't that affect your breathing? Doesn't that -- obviously,
11 that -- are you -- (unintelligible). I -- you're laughing, I'm
12 sorry.
13 A. I'm sorry, I just don't think the -- I don't know what
14 altitude the Air Life flies at, so I don't know.
15 Q. Well, just in general, just tell -- explain to the jury
16 when -- when humans are -- they're deprived of a little oxygen
17 the higher up in the air we are, correct? Maybe you have to
18 breathe harder?
19 A. When you're up at 12,000 feet climbing mountains, it's
20 lower, but I don't really have an expertise in that area. It
21 doesn't really affect what I do.
22 Q. Okay. Well, in this particular case you understand that
23 with these multiple blunt-force injuries to his chest cavity,
24 couldn't the fact that he was air lifted and the stress that it
25 puts on the lungs, because it does do that, doesn't it, Doctor?

42
1 A. I don't know. I would think they would want to get him
2 to the hospital as quickly as possible. So if that's -- that's a
3 decision that I don't ever have to make. And it just doesn't
4 sound like it has any relevance to him surviving or not, to me.
5 But I'm not an expert in that area.
6 Q. You can't tell us whether or not he had these chest
7 tubes inserted prior to being air lifted, whether or not that
8 would have helped, or whether or not the air lifting contributed
9 to his death? You're not qualified --
10 A. My opinion is that it did not. But that's just kind of
11 a layperson doctor opinion that that's kind of reaching for it.
12 Q. So based on your training here, you're not -- you're not
13 qualified to make -- give an opinion on that?
14 A. Not really. But I certainly would want to get to the
15 hospital as quickly as possible. And if that's by air flight, I
16 would take the flight.
17 Q. But you don't if it's going to contribute to your death?
18 A. No, I would -- I would get myself there. No one's going
19 to make that detailed assessment at the scene as to, okay, should
20 we drive there? Should we fly? You know, there's no predicting.
21 The idea is to get them to care as quickly as possible. I mean,
22 that's a decision someone else makes. And in my opinion, these
23 traumatic injuries are way worse than any kind of altitude or
24 flight delay or whatever you're trying to get at. But these
25 injuries are very bad and they need medical care immediately.

43
1 And I think if it was a significant factor of Air Life-ing
2 people, they wouldn't be Air Life-ing people.
3 Q. Well, Doctor, obviously it's not about air lift.
4 Obviously, I would like -- if it's me, I want to get to the
5 hospital as soon as possible. You understand that part?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. But I don't want it to be done if it's going to kill me,
8 correct?
9 A. How do -- you don't know if it's going to -- It's not
10 going to kill you to Air Life to the hospital.
11 Q. Doctor, let me ask you this way: Wouldn't it have been
12 prudent or at least it'd have been helpful, certainly would have
13 maybe helped save Mr. Hall's life if chest tubes had been
14 inserted prior to him being air lifted because of the obvious
15 effects of altitude, correct?
16 A. You need to ask a trauma surgeon that question, whether
17 they would prefer EMS putting chest tubes in in the field or
18 waiting till they get to the ER so trauma surgeons can do it.
19 That's not a question for someone who does autopsies. That's a
20 good question for a trauma surgeon.
21 Q. All right. Fair enough. Thank you.
22 MR. CORTEZ: May I approach, please?
24 Q. (BY MR. CORTEZ) Dr. Rulon, I'm going to show you what's
25 been marked as Defendant's Exhibit Number 20, 21 and 22. First

44
1 let me show you Defendant's Exhibit Number 20 and ask you if you
2 can identify those, please.
3 A. These are photos taken at autopsy that look similar to
4 some of the photos you've seen already. One shows the back of
5 Mr. Hall's right arm at the top. On the middle photo, shows the
6 abrasion that we see on the diagram that's running along the
7 front of the chest, and then his legs are shown in the bottom
8 one.
9 Q. Okay. This fairly and accurately depicts -- Are these
10 photos taken by your office?
11 A. I personally took them.
12 Q. Okay. Thank you.
13 MR. CORTEZ: I move for admission of Defendant's
14 Exhibit Number 20 and I'll offer it to -- for review by the
15 State.
16 (Defendant's Exhibit Number 20 offered).
17 MR. SIMPSON: No objection to Defendant's Exhibit
18 Number 20.
20 (Defendant's Exhibit Number 20 admitted).
21 Q. (BY MR. CORTEZ) Defendant's Exhibit Number 21, ask you
22 also if you can identify that for us, please.
23 A. This is a conglomeration of three photos that I
24 personally took during the autopsy and they're showing the left
25 side of Mr. Hall's torso, the upper part of his body, his left

45
1 arm, and then the back of his left leg and right leg.
2 Q. Did you personally take these pictures as well?
3 A. Yes.
4 MR. CORTEZ: Defense would move for admission of
5 Defendant's Exhibit Number 21 and tender to counsel for
6 objection.
7 (Defendant's Exhibits Number 21 offered).
8 MR. SIMPSON: No objection.
10 (Defendant's Exhibits Number 21 admitted).
11 Q. (BY MR. CORTEZ) Finally, I want to show you Defendant's
12 Exhibit Number 22, Dr. Rulon, and ask you if you can identify
13 those as well.
14 A. These are three photos that I personally took during the
15 autopsy. The top one shows the back of Mr. Hall. I think this
16 is similar to one we've already seen. The one in the middle
17 shows an abrasion on the flank, the left flank, on the back, and
18 then the photo on the bottom is a picture of Mr. Hall's torso and
19 genital area.
20 Q. All right. I don't want to -- these are obviously kind
21 of difficult pictures to look at but --
22 MR. CORTEZ: Can I have the witness step down and
23 may I show her the exhibit?
24 THE COURT: Before you do that, it has to be
25 admitted.

46
1 MR. CORTEZ: Has to be admitted? Oh, I'm sorry,
2 Your Honor. Defendant's Exhibit Number 22, move that for
3 admission. Apologize.
5 MR. SIMPSON: No objection.
6 THE COURT: It's admitted.
8 THE COURT: (To the witness) You can step down,
9 ma'am.
10 Q. (BY MR. CORTEZ) Dr. Rulon, you discussed earlier when
11 Mr. Simpson was questioning you about the abrasions here that we
12 were kind of referring to as road rash, which I know is not a
13 medical term, but these abrasions here, you indicated that you
14 can't tell exactly from what -- what impact, in other words, what
15 caused this friction, correct?
16 A. Right. I can't tell you how that scrape occurred.
17 Q. Okay. But is -- so is there -- are you saying there's
18 no way to tell whether it's more consistent with having fallen on
19 a pavement or on some two-feet-tall [sic] grass, is that your --
20 A. Correct. And there's also the issue of clothing. I
21 don't know if he had -- I'm assuming he had clothing on at the
22 time. But a whole bunch of issues. But there's no way to look
23 at autopsy at these injuries and say what exactly it was that
24 caused that scrape, the nature of that blunt object.
25 Q. Okay. So there's no way to definitively -- for the

47
1 record, I'm referring to Defense Exhibit Number 22, the middle
2 picture. There's a pretty -- is that abrasion, does that look
3 like it impact -- his body impacted something; roadway or
4 something?
5 A. There's no way to tell if something impacts the skin or
6 if the skin impacts something. For example, if I hit you on the
7 head and you had a scrape, I can't tell if you fell on the ground
8 and hit your bod -- or if something hit your head. There's no
9 way just from here to say how that exactly happened. There's
10 nothing specific about it. But yes, this is an abrasion that's
11 seen over here on this diagram here. We're looking at that part
12 of the body.
13 Q. And also, you -- there were no and you didn't note any
14 really significant injuries at all to his left leg; is that
15 correct?
16 A. There's a little scrape on the front, down towards the
17 front, but -- and on the back, in the -- back behind the knee. A
18 little scrape. Nothing major on the legs. Either leg was not
19 really very injured.
20 Q. So based on your examination, there's nothing to suggest
21 that either one of his legs came in contact with a vehicle or
22 anything?
23 A. Oh, you cannot make that -- you cannot make that
24 conclusion at all. The absence of an injury doesn't mean that
25 there was no impact at that site. We see people -- this is where

48
1 experience as a medical examiner -- We see all the car crashes
2 and motorcycle crashes, and it's amazing that there will be a big
3 crash and they're dead and there will be no -- sometimes there
4 will be nothing on the outside of the body and a whole bunch of
5 injuries, everything that can be broken on the inside is broken
6 and it just defies logic but a lot of times it's the clothing,
7 it's just the way it happened. But the absence of an injury on
8 the skin does not mean that there wasn't tremendous force at that
9 location. Even on child abuse cases, we see kids with nothing on
10 the skin and skull fractures. So, you almost have to see it to
11 believe it. But the absence of an injury, you can't say there
12 was no force. If you see an injury, you can say there was some
13 force; you can't say much about that force. But without an
14 injury, it's wrong to say there was no force.
15 Q. Dr. Rulon, with respect to -- there was no -- you didn't
16 document any left leg fracture at all?
17 A. Correct.
18 Q. And there's no left leg contusions at all? I mean, you
19 mentioned the two minor ones that --
20 A. There's minor abrasions but very few external injuries
21 to the leg, correct.
22 Q. But there's -- I mean, again, what my point is: There's
23 no leg fracture here, so there was no -- the blunt-force injuries
24 that you documented don't include any trauma to the legs?
25 A. Correct.

49
1 Q. Thank you. You didn't know he had COPD but you did
2 document that he had heart disease, basically. It's a
3 cardiomyopathy?
4 A. At autopsy I could see that his heart was enlarged, it
5 weighed too much and it was dilated, so that's something I can
6 see with my eye. And so that -- that finding was due to the
7 autopsy result.
8 Q. And obviously, as you indicated, the blunt-force
9 injuries are bad enough if you have a good heart. But if you
10 have an enlarged heart, that -- that contributes to the person's
11 death, correct?
12 A. It's harder for the heart to function properly if it's
13 enlarged and dilated. So if there's injuries that stress it,
14 it's going to be harder for it to keep working properly.
15 Q. And that's why you listed as a contributing factor
16 because if you're already in a position where you're having
17 difficulty breathing, it doesn't get any better when your heart
18 is -- when you have this heart condition, this enlarged heart,
19 correct?
20 A. Well, again, looking at Mr. Hall, someone with all these
21 injuries is going to need a good heart to optimize their chance
22 to survive. So it's not just the breathing trouble, it's
23 everything. And so his heart is not going to function as well as
24 someone with a healthy heart.
25 MR. CORTEZ: I appreciate it, Dr. Rulon. I have no

50
1 further questions. Pass the witness.
2 MR. SIMPSON: I have no further questions for this
3 witness.
4 (End of requested transcription).
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

51
1 STATE OF TEXAS )
2 COUNTY OF BEXAR )
3 I, Debra A. Doolittle, Official Court Reporter in and for
4 the 186th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, State of Texas,
5 do hereby certify that the above and foregoing contains a true
6 and correct transcription of all portions of evidence and other
7 proceedings requested in writing by counsel for the parties to be
8 included in this volume of the Reporter's Record, in the
9 above-styled and numbered cause, all of which occurred in open
10 court or in chambers and were reported by me.
11 I further certify that this Reporter's Record of the
12 proceedings truly and correctly reflects the exhibits, if any,
13 admitted by the respective parties.
14 I further certify that the total cost for the preparation
15 of this Reporter's Record is $_________ and was paid by
16 _________________.
17 WITNESS MY OFFICIAL HAND this the 21st day of December,
18 2017.
19
/s/ DEBRA A. DOOLITTLE, TEXAS CSR 4952
20 Expiration Date: 12/31/18
Official Court Reporter
21 186th Judicial District Court
Cadena-Reeves Justice Center
22 San Antonio, Texas 78205
23
24
25

EXHIBIT 4
Hall, Bill
1918-Injury
1940-AirLIFE at Patient “Pt(patient) was awake/alert GCS (Glasgow Coma Scale) 15 in severe respiratory
distress” “respirations were labored and shallow @ approximately 30 (minute) and shallow”
1940-1946-AirLIFE time on scene. Hand off from Acadian, initial assessment and stabilization. Spinal
immobilization. IV access. Supplemental O2 by NRB (non-rebreather mask).
1947-AirLIFE Dust Off on route to University
1948-RSI (Rapid Sequence Intubation) medications drawn and probably given Etomidate 20mg IV
(Induction) and Succinylcholine (Paralytic) 100mg IV
1949-First set of recorded VS (Vital Signs): BP 50/22, HR160, RR 32 (irregular, labored), SpO2 89% on 15L
by NRB, GCS 15 (interpretation: hypotensive, tachycardic, in severe respiratory distress and hypoxic
however alert and responding appropriately by GCS). This clinical picture along with the Pt’s mechanism
of injury and recent change in altitude likely represents development of a tension pneumothorax (PTx).
*For reference normal VS and standard abbreviations are as follows: BP (Blood Pressure
systolic/diastolic) 120/80 mmHg, HR (Heart Rate aka pulse) 60-99 minute, RR (Respiratory Rate) 12-16
minute, SpO2 (Pulse Oximetry) >94% on room air.
1950-RSI with 7.5mm ETT (EndoTracheal Tube) placement was confirmed by end tidal capnography. At
this point the Pt was medically paralyzed and intubated. From this point on, the Pt was ventilated with
positive pressure (air was blown into the Pt’s lungs instead of sucked in with the movement of the chest
and diaphragm.
1952-Bilateral NCD (needle Chest decompressions) No change with L NCD, Improved ventilation with R
NCD
1954-VS #2 Improved SP NCDx2 BP 80/95, HR 152, RR 18 (bagged), SpO2 94% on 100% FiO2, GCS 3T
1955-AirLIFE at UH, Transferred care to UH trauma team at 2004hrs.
2004-Primary and secondary survey by trauma team at UH
2007-VS #3 on presentation to UH (documented on intake note but not on trauma flowsheet) BP

120/60, HR 159, RR 16 (bagged), SPO2 89% on 100% O2
2010-CT (Chest Tube) placed in L chest (return of blood noted)
2011-1 Unit PRBCs (Packed Red Blood Cells) transfused #1
2012-Nursing note states BP 80s/60s
2014-CT in R chest (return of blood noted)
2014-1 Unit PRBCs transfused #2

2016-Lab: Lactate 5.3 (markedly elevated)
2019-Lab: Arterial Blood Gas pH 7.09, pCO2 73, pO2 130 (normal pH 7.35-7.45, normal pCO2 32-48,
normal pO2 88-103) this indicates a profound respiratory acidosis as indicated by a very low pH and
elevated pCO2. Most likely etiology impaired ventilation and gas exchange from pulmonary contusions
and hemopneumothorax.
2023-VS #4 (first vitals recorded on UH trauma flow sheet **possible discrepancy as initial VS should
have been recorded on this sheet and times may have been recorded in error. If this is not the case,
then transfusing 6 units of blood for these VS was likely inappropriate). BP 120/60, HR 169, RR 16
(bagged), SPO2 89% on 100% O2, GCS 3T.
2024-CXR AP Portable (Chest X-Ray Anterior to Posterior) read notable for multiple rib fractures
bilaterally, left greater than right patchy opacities consistent with pulmonary contusion given the rib
fractures and MOI (Mechanism of Injury), and bilateral pneumothoraces with the left one of moderate
size and right one of small size. (note: CXR was shot prior to CT insertion. Given successful NCD by
AirLIFE it is probable that the R PTx was larger in flight but was decompressed and less significant at the
time of the CXR.
2026-Nursing note (not trauma flow sheet) indicates BP 180s/120s after 6 units of PRBCs
2027-FAST (Focused Exam by Sonography in Trauma) performed and negative for abdominal free fluid
or pericardial effusion. Diagnostic Peritoneal Lavage performed as well and negative.
2027-1 Unit FFP (Fresh Frozen Plasma) transfused #1
2027-VS #5 (again, possible discrepancy as this BP was present prior to transfusion and the BP
documented 1 min before does not trend). BP 83/66, HR 170, RR 16 (bagged), SpO2 93% on 100% O2,
GCS 3T
2029-1 Unit FFP transfused #2
2029-VS #6 BP 142/119, HR 166, RR 16 (bagged), SpO2 98% 0n 100% O2, GCS 3T
2031-1 Unit PRBCs #7
2036-1 Unit PRBCs #8
2040-Pt taken to CT (computed tomography) scanner for CT scans of head, cervical spine/neck, chest,
abdomen, and pelvis. No injury to the great vessels of the thorax were noted, no intracranial
hemorrhage was noted, no intaabdominal hemorrhage was noted. (I interpret this as no major source of
bleeding identified.)
2110-Pt back from CT scanner
2115-Foley catheter placed
2139-Pulseless, HR 30s on monitor, CPR started
2139-1mg epinephrine IV #1
2139-VS #10 BP -/-, HR 45 (pulseless), RR 16 (bag), SpO2 89% on 100% FiO2, GCS 3T
2140-1mg atropine IV #1
2140-1mg epinephrine #2
2143-1mg epinephrine #3
2144- BP -/-, HR 33 (pulseless), RR 16 (bag), SpO2 --% on 100% FiO2, GCS 3T
2145-Bicarbonate 1oog IV #1
2145-Nursing note indicates asystole on the cardiac monitor
2146-Calcium 1gm IV #1
2149-Vasopressin 40 Units IV #1
2150-BP -/-, HR 32 (pulseless), RR 16 (bag), SpO2 --% on 100% FiO2, GCS 3T
2152-2 Units PRBCs transfused #9 and #10
2153- BP -/-, HR 30 (pulseless), RR 16 (bag), SpO2 --% on 100% FiO2, GCS 3T
2155-Time of Death, resuscitation ended, Pt declared dead.
2155-Total fluid in and out recorded by nurse:
Fluids in IV fluids, 800mL NS; blood products, 2500mL. total 3300mL fluids in (the average adult male has
around 4 L blood in circulation).
Fluids out: Urine output (foley) 300mL; OG tube 10mL; Chest tubes (R200mL, L 100mL) 300mL. Total out:
610mL
Balance: +2690mL…
On reviewing the medical records provided by the coroner, UH and AirLIFE it appears that Mr. Hall was
alert and oriented though in respiratory distress and shock at the time of injury and up until he
decompensated and was intubated shortly after dust off with AirLIFE. His VS and injuries combined with
the fact that he was taken to altitude with pneumothoraces suggest that his vitals first decompensated
due to a tension pneumothorax which was partially relieved by NCD. Intubation was likely inevitable due
to his massive chest wall trauma and rib fractures. At UH chest tubes were placed and blood was
transfused for hypotension. Vital signs were not documented again until the pt had received 6 units of
blood after which he was hypertensive. Most trauma centers have a goal of 90mmhg systolic. For BP.
This is referred to as hypotensive resuscitation and it follows the theory that the first clot is the best clot
and that elevating a patients blood pressure past 90mmhg wastes blood and may dislodge blood clots
providing hemostasis. This practice also avoids the massive pulmonary edema common with infusion of
large amounts of crystalloid and even blood products. Mr. Hall had signs of pulmonary contusion and an
MOI which matched making him even more susceptible to pulmonary edema and respiratory failure if
over resuscitated. His BP was 180s/100s after the first 6 units of blood. No VS were recorded between
blood. Even after while he was hypertensive he received a total of 4 additional units of blood and 2 units
of plasma. If he was bleeding badly enough to need that much blood he should have gone straight to the
OR for Exploratory Laparotomy. But instead he went to the CT scanner. About an hour after his massive
transfusion he went in to PEA arrest and died. I believe his wounds may have been survivable had he
been transfused a reasonable amount of blood titrated to his blood pressure and been transferred to
the ICU on ARDS ventilator settings. He would have required a great deal of care and time to recover
from his injuries. However no catastrophic injuries were identified on the coroner’s report of the
autopsy.
I was not there, and I know that sometimes things don’t get recorded in the heat of a chaotic
resuscitation…however the VS recorded and the amount of blood product administered do not
correlate. His labs, history, and presentation all pointed to a respiratory rather than hemorrhagic cause
for his shock and eventual arrest.
EXHIBIT 5
From: Leigh Cutter

To: Adam Cortez
Cc: Jean Brown
Subject: FW: Hall notes
Date: Tuesday, September 06, 2016 7:53:01 AM
Attachments: Hall notes, REED.docx
ATT00001.txt
Leigh R. Cutter
Attorney at Law
Jean Brown Law

Civil and Criminal Attorneys
222 Main Plaza
San Antonio, TX 78205
Office (210)354-2662
Fax (210)354-2602
Leigh@jeanbrownlaw.com
www.jeanbrownfamilylaw.com<http://www.jeanbrownfamilylaw.com/>
-----Original Message-----
From: Paul Reed [mailto:reed.paul3@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 06, 2016 7:03 AM
To: Jean Brown <Jean@jeanbrownlaw.com>; Leigh Cutter <Leigh@jeanbrownlaw.com>
Subject: Hall notes
Good morning Ma'am.
Here are my notes on Mr. Hall. I put everything they did for him in chronological order so one could follow it a little
better which merges all of the documents and gives an idea of what his course looks like it. Follow the vitals and
you can see where he started to "shit the bed" as it were. I put my thoughts as to why at the bottom. Pretty shoddy
care at UH...and I don't say that lightly. Traumas are chaotic...and I think a lot goes undocumented. It's hard to do
the right thing when you're not sure what the problem is...but this is a little absurd.
I'm happy to revise it into a formal report if you have a format you would like.
EXHIBIT 6
EXHIBIT 7
EXHIBIT 8
EXHIBIT 9
EXHIBIT 10
EXHIBIT 11
EXHIBIT 12
From: Adam Cortez

To: "reed.paul3@gmail.com"
Cc: "Yahoo!"
Subject: FRANCES HALL
Date: Tuesday, September 19, 2017 5:52:00 PM
Attachments: Hall notes REED.pdf
FW_ Hall notes.pdf
Dr. Reed,
You likely do not recall speaking to me because it has

been just over year since we spoke about you offering
testimony regarding the cause of death of Bill Hall. I assume
you have been contacted by Leigh Cutter in the last couple of
days but I wanted to let you know that your testimony
regarding the attached reports may be necessary sometime in
the next month or so. I do not know when you will be needed
but we will make sure that we give you plenty of notice and
that you are compensated for your time. I am copying Nikki
Hall on this email who is the daughter of Frances and Bill Hall.
Of course, the Frances Hall trial ended somewhat

tragically on September 13, 2016 without Frances Hall having
the benefit of your testimony that contradicted the testimony
of the ME who actually directed us to a doctor like yourself
without knowing that we had retained you. If you have any
question, I will be happy to answer them. For now, I just
wanted to apprise you that we may be securing your
testimony regarding your findings with respect to Bill Hall.
I look forward to working with you.

ADAM C. CORTEZ
CORTEZ LAW FIRM
14436 OLD BANDERA ROAD
HELOTES, TX 78023
TELEPHONE (210) 273-2277
FACSIMILE (210) 579-1218

EXHIBIT 13
From: Paul Reed
To: Adam Cortez
Subject: Re: FRANCES HALL
Date: Wednesday, September 20, 2017 2:22:57 AM
Good evening Mr. Cortez,
I recall speaking to you, though I'd have to refresh my memory on the case, I remember it
being an interesting one. I'm happy to consult on the case if you need my help. Just let me
know. Thank you for the heads up.
Respectfully Sent,
//SIGNED//
Paul H Reed, MD
Capt, MC, USAF
On Sep 19, 2017, at 15:52, Adam Cortez <adam@cortezlawfirm.com> wrote:
Dr. Reed,
You likely do not recall speaking to me because it

has been just over year since we spoke about you
offering testimony regarding the cause of death of Bill
Hall. I assume you have been contacted by Leigh
Cutter in the last couple of days but I wanted to let
you know that your testimony regarding the attached
reports may be necessary sometime in the next month
or so. I do not know when you will be needed but we
will make sure that we give you plenty of notice and
that you are compensated for your time. I am copying
Nikki Hall on this email who is the daughter of Frances
and Bill Hall.
Of course, the Frances Hall trial ended

somewhat tragically on September 13, 2016 without
Frances Hall having the benefit of your testimony that
contradicted the testimony of the ME who actually
directed us to a doctor like yourself without knowing
that we had retained you. If you have any question, I
will be happy to answer them. For now, I just wanted
to apprise you that we may be securing your
testimony regarding your findings with respect to Bill
Hall.


ADAM C. CORTEZ
CORTEZ LAW FIRM
HELOTES, TX 78023
TELEPHONE (210) 273-2277
FACSIMILE (210) 579-1218

<Hall notes REED.pdf>
<FW_ Hall notes.pdf>

EXHIBIT 14
From: Adam Cortez
To: "Paul Reed"
Subject: RE: FRANCES HALL
Date: Tuesday, January 16, 2018 8:15:00 PM
Attachments: 090116Rulon.pdf
Dr. Reed,
I hope you are doing well. I am still pursuing the issue of
the case of Frances Hall that we discussed months ago. It took
longer than it should have to get the transcript of the Medical
Examiner who testified, I think poorly, as to the cause of death
of Bill Hall. I have attached the ME’s testimony and I want to
direct your attention to pages 41-43. The ME specifically
mentions that a trauma doctor like yourself would know better
about inserting chest tubes before airlifting a patient. If/when
you get a chance, take a look at the transcript. I think you will
find it quite interesting.
I do appreciate your attention to this matter and I will

make sure the family pays you for your services. Thanks.
ADAM C. CORTEZ
CORTEZ LAW FIRM
HELOTES, TX 78023
TELEPHONE (210) 273-2277
FACSIMILE (210) 579-1218

Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2017 2:23 AM
To: Adam Cortez <adam@cortezlawfirm.com>


I recall speaking to you, though I'd have to refresh my memory on the case, I remember it being an
interesting one. I'm happy to consult on the case if you need my help. Just let me know. Thank you
for the heads up.
Respectfully Sent,

//SIGNED//
Paul H Reed, MD
Capt, MC, USAF
Dr. Reed,

You likely do not recall speaking to me because it
has been just over year since we spoke about you
offering testimony regarding the cause of death of Bill
Hall. I assume you have been contacted by Leigh
Cutter in the last couple of days but I wanted to let
you know that your testimony regarding the attached
reports may be necessary sometime in the next month
or so. I do not know when you will be needed but we
will make sure that we give you plenty of notice and
that you are compensated for your time. I am copying
Nikki Hall on this email who is the daughter of Frances
and Bill Hall.

somewhat tragically on September 13, 2016 without
Frances Hall having the benefit of your testimony that
contradicted the testimony of the ME who actually
directed us to a doctor like yourself without knowing
that we had retained you. If you have any question, I
will be happy to answer them. For now, I just wanted
to apprise you that we may be securing your
testimony regarding your findings with respect to Bill
Hall.


ADAM C. CORTEZ
CORTEZ LAW FIRM
HELOTES, TX 78023
TELEPHONE (210) 273-2277
FACSIMILE (210) 579-1218

EXHIBIT 15
From: Paul Reed
To: Adam Cortez
Date: Thursday, January 18, 2018 12:30:45 AM
Mr. Cortez,
I must respectfully decline your offer. While ordinarily I would be happy to offer you my
services as a medical expert, I’m afraid it is not ethical for me to do so in the case of Mr. Hall.
It has come to my attention, in discussions with Mrs. Jean Brown and Ms. Leigh Cutter, (Ms.
Cutter is a close family friend and Mrs. Brown continues to represent me as a family law
attorney) that my testimony as a medical expert might be used against them in trial. While you
initially led me to believe you were working with Ms. Cutter and Mrs. Brown, I have learned
that this is not the case. This represents a personal conflict of interest which would be difficult
for me to disengage myself from. Further, my wife is a flight nurse with Air Methods which is
the same company that owns AirLife. This represents a further, obvious, conflict of interest.
I’m sure there are many emergency physicians in San Antonio without such conflicts of
interest which could give you an unbiased evaluation. Thank you.
Respectfully Sent,
//SIGNED//
Paul H Reed, MD
Capt, MC, USAF
Emergency Physician
On Jan 17, 2018, at 13:04, Adam Cortez <adam@cortezlawfirm.com> wrote:
Dr. Reed,
I hope you are doing well. I am still pursuing the

issue of the case of Frances Hall that we discussed
months ago. It took longer than it should have to get
the transcript of the Medical Examiner who testified, I
think poorly, as to the cause of death of Bill Hall. I
have attached the ME’s testimony and I want to direct
your attention to pages 41-43. The ME specifically
mentions that a trauma doctor like yourself would
know better about inserting chest tubes before
airlifting a patient. If/when you get a chance, take a
look at the transcript. I think you will find it quite
interesting.

I do appreciate your attention to this matter and
I will make sure the family pays you for your services.
Thanks.

ADAM C. CORTEZ
CORTEZ LAW FIRM
HELOTES, TX 78023
TELEPHONE (210) 273-2277
FACSIMILE (210) 579-1218

Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2017 2:23 AM
To: Adam Cortez <adam@cortezlawfirm.com>


I recall speaking to you, though I'd have to refresh my memory on the case, I remember
it being an interesting one. I'm happy to consult on the case if you need my help. Just
let me know. Thank you for the heads up.
Respectfully Sent,

//SIGNED//
Paul H Reed, MD
Capt, MC, USAF

Dr. Reed,

You likely do not recall speaking to me
because it has been just over year since we
spoke about you offering testimony regarding
the cause of death of Bill Hall. I assume you
have been contacted by Leigh Cutter in the
last couple of days but I wanted to let you
know that your testimony regarding the
attached reports may be necessary sometime
in the next month or so. I do not know when
you will be needed but we will make sure that
we give you plenty of notice and that you are
compensated for your time. I am copying
Nikki Hall on this email who is the daughter of
Frances and Bill Hall.

somewhat tragically on September 13, 2016
without Frances Hall having the benefit of
your testimony that contradicted the
testimony of the ME who actually directed us
to a doctor like yourself without knowing that
we had retained you. If you have any
question, I will be happy to answer them. For
now, I just wanted to apprise you that we may
be securing your testimony regarding your
findings with respect to Bill Hall.


ADAM C. CORTEZ
CORTEZ LAW FIRM
HELOTES, TX 78023
TELEPHONE (210) 273-2277
FACSIMILE (210) 579-1218

<090116Rulon.pdf>
EXHIBIT 16'
2/16/2018 Uniformed Services University
EXHIBIT 17
Search
Paul Reed, MD, Captain, Public Health
Name: Paul Reed, MD, Captain, Public Health
USU Department of Primary Appointment: Preventive Medicine and Biostatistics

Title: Interim Director, Center for Global Health Engagement
Faculty Rank: Assistant Professor
Location: Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, Bethesda, MD
Research Interests:
Global Health
Pediatrics
Email: paul.l.reed@usuhs.edu (mailto:paul.l.reed@usuhs.edu)

Office Phone: (301) 294-1465
Department Website: Center for Global Health Engagement (https://www.usuhs.edu/cghe/)
Education
Boston University 1990; Boston University School of Medicine Class of 1994
Biography
CAPT Paul Reed, MD is a senior U.S. Public Health Service officer currently assigned as the Interim Center
Director and Director for Doctrine and Strategic Partnerships at the Center for Global Health Engagement.
CGHE has the mandate to integrate, lead and synchronize contributions of the U.S. Department of Defense
(DoD) Global Health Engagement (GHE) enterprise to National Security Objectives by providing a hub for
GHE thought leadership and knowledge, strategic communications and outreach, operational support,
research, and assimilation of education, training and planning capabilities. CAPT Reed’s principal
responsibility is to systematically engage all internal and external GHE stakeholders in partnership to
optimize and sustain DOD’s contribution to the larger USG and international global health agenda. CAPT
Reed also is responsible for developing and implementing an iterative strategic framework process for the
Center, establishing and evolving the strategic plan for the Center to ensure cross-organizational integration
of activities throughout the Center and its five Divisions, applying systematic approaches to strategic
https://www.usuhs.edu/national/faculty/paul-reed-md 1/3
communications, vetting of requests for assistance, and linked engagement planning.
CAPT Reed holds faculty appointments in Global Health, Military and Emergency Medicine, and Pediatrics at
the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences (USU), in Bethesda, MD. He is also currently
holding the position of primary investigator with principal oversight for the Disaster Preparedness Program at
CGHE.
CAPT Reed served in previous positions as the Deputy Director for Operations in the Division of Civilian
Volunteer Medical Reserve Corps (DCVMRC) and Director for Global Health Operations for the U.S. Public
Health Service, within the Office of the U.S. Surgeon General. In these capacities, his responsibilities
included support for readiness of volunteers as well as coordinating the readiness and deployment of
Commissioned Corps officers for domestic and international operations including humanitarian assistance,
disaster relief, civic assistance, emergency response and training.
CAPT Reed has extensive experience in operational medicine and applied public health, serving in
numerous capacities in both domestic and international humanitarian assistance/disaster response activities.
Media Affairs Give to USU

Job Opportunities The Pulse
USU Home Priv/Sec Notice EEO USA.gov Accessibility FOIA Emergency Contacts
Contact Us
© 2017-2018 Uniformed Services University 4301 Jones Bridge Road, Bethesda, Maryland 20814
NSAB CapMed WRNMMC
1
2 EXHIBIT 18
3
GH DRAFT
4 *** *** *** *** **T HIS IS A ROU
ED
5 *** *** *** *** *NO CERT ATTACH
6
REPORTER'S RECORD
7
VOLUME 1 OF 1 VOLUME(S)
R-5 591
8 TRIAL COURT CAUSE NO. 201 4-C
* IN THE DIS TRI CT COURT

9 THE STATE OF TEXAS
*
* 186 TH JUD ICI AL DIS TRI CT
10 vs.
*
* BEXAR COUNTY, TEXAS
11 FRANCES ARCELIE HALL
*** *** ***
12 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***
13 TESTIMONY OF RAUL AREVALOS

*** *** ***
14 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***
din gs
201 6, the fol low ing pro cee
15 On the 31s t day of Au gus t,
cau se
abo ve- ent itle d and num ber ed
16 cam e on to be hea rd in the
, hel d in
son Mo ore , Jud ge Pre sid ing
17 bef ore the Ho nor abl e Jef fer
Co unt y,
Co urt , San An ton io, Bex ar
18 the 186 th Jud ici al Di str ict
19 Tex as:
chi ne Sho rth and .
20 Pro cee din gs rep ort ed by Ma
21
22
23
Deb ra A. Do oli ttle , CSR
24
Of fic ial Co urt Re por ter
300 Do lor osa
25 r
Cad ena -Re eve s Jus tic e Ce nte
OFF ICI AL COURT REPORTER

DEBRA A. DOOLITTLE, CSR - ANTONIO, TEXAS
186 TH DIS TRI CT COURT, SAN
2
San An ton io, Te xas 782 05

1
4 A P P E A R A N C E S
5
Mr .
6 Mr .
E ATTORNEY AT LAW
7 DIS TR ICT ATTORNEY'S OF FIC
SBOT NO.
8 SBOT NO.
9 101 W. Nu eva
San An ton io, Te xas 782
10
Ph one : (21 0)
11 Ph one : (21 0) 335 -23 11
Fax : (21 0)
12 Fax : (21 0)
ANT
ATTORNEY FOR THE DEFEND
13 ATTORNEY FOR THE STATE
--a nd --
14 --a nd --
Mr .
15 Mr .
E ATTORNEY AT LAW
16 DIS TR ICT ATTORNEY'S OF FIC
SBOT NO.
17 SBOT NO.
18 101 W. Nu eva
San An ton io, Te xas 782
19
Ph one : ( 210 )
20 Ph one : (21 0) 335 -23 11
Fax : (21 0)
21 Fax : (21 0)
ANT
ATTORNEY FOR THE DEFEND
22 ATTORNEY FOR THE STATE
23
24
25
- OF FIC IAL COURT REPORTER

DEBRA A. DOOLITTLE, CSR ANTONIO, TEXAS
186 TH DIS TR ICT COURT, SAN
3
*** *** *** *

1 ROUGH DRA FT* *** *** *** *** *** ***
3
CHRONOLOGICAL INDEX
VOLUME 1
4
5 TESTIMONY OF RAUL AREVALOS

PAGE VOL.
6 AUGUST 31, 201 6
........ ....... . 1 . . 1
7 Cap tion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
............... . 2 . 1
8 App eara nce s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
............... . 3 .. . 1
9 Chr ono log ical Ind ex . . . . . . . . .
............... . 4 .. . 1
10 Pro cee din gs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
11
12 ROUGH DRA FT* *** *** *** *** ***

REDIRECT RECROSS VD
13 STATE'S WITNESSES: DIRECT CROSS
76 38, 61
14 Rau l Are val os 4, 39 44,6 2 71, 78
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
ICIA L COURT REPORTER

DEBRA A. DOOLITTLE, CSR - OFF
ONIO, TEXAS
186 TH DIS TRI CT COURT, SAN ANT
4
1 P R O C E E D I N G S
l held .
2 (The follo wing is an exce rpt from the tria
3 in the abov e-sty led caus e).

sel).
4 (In the pres ence of the defe ndan t and Coun
5 MR. SIMP SON: Stat e will call Rube n Arev alos to the
6 stan d.
7 (Wit ness take s the stan d).
8 THE COURT: Rais e your righ t hand .
9 (Wit ness swor n by the Cou rt).
THE COURT: Than k you, sir. You can put your hand
10
the hand le or
11 down . And then you can move this micr opho ne from
12 the base so you can spea k into it.
13 RUBEN AREVALOS,
as follo ws:
14 havi ng been firs t duly swor n, test ifie d
15 DIRECT EXAMINATION

ctiv es,
17 Q. Okay . How do you -- I know SAPD call s them dete
18 but in BCSO you' re calle d inve stiga tors ?
19 A. That 's corr ect. We also call each othe r dete ctiv es, as
20 well .
what you do
21 Q. I'm just used to calli ng offi cers who do
22 dete ctiv es.
23 A. Tha t's fine .

.
24 Q. Okay . But can you intro duce your self to the jury
riff' s
25 A. Sure . Dete ctive Rube n Arev alos, Bexa r Coun ty She
REPORTER
DEBRA A. DOOL ITTLE , CSR - OFFI CIAL COURT
186T H DIST RICT COURT, SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS
5
1 Off ice .
t do you do for a
2 Q. Oka y. And Inv est iga tor Are val os, wha
3 livi ng?
at the Sh eri ff's Off ice .
4 A. I wor k as a hom icid e det ect ive
8. I've bee n wit h the Bex ar
5 I'v e bee n in hom icid e sin ce 200
r 19 yea rs. I sta rte d at the
6 Cou nty [six ] for a lit tle ove
the inv est iga tor ove r the re for
7 med ical exa min er's off ice as
ar
8 abo ut fiv e yea rs tot al. A lit tle ove r 19 yea rs wit h Bex
9 Cou nty .
y how the rol es of
10 Q. Oka y. And can you exp lain to the jur
rol .
11 an inv est iga tor dif fer wit h pat
to ass ess and man age a
12 A. Our prim ary res pon sib ilit y is
tty muc h wil l sec ure
13 crim e sce ne. Pat rol get s the re and the y pre
e
one get s in and out , mak e sur
14 the crim e sce ne, mak e sur e no
tha t's the re. Our res pon sib ilit y
15 the re's no dis tur bed evi den ce
e
any wit nes ses aro und tha t wer
16 is, of cou rse , to see if the re's
tim e
l tal k to them [sic ] at tha t
17 pot ent ial or pos sib ilit y we wil
So
oth er evi den ce tha t's the re.
18 or lat er, to see if the re's any
man age the sce ne.
19 our mai n res pon sib ilit y is to
res pon sib le wit h fili ng the
20 Q. And so are you the det ect ive
h the DA 's off ice ?
21 cas e aga ins t Fra nce s Hal l wit
22 A. Yes , I am.
jur y how the dif fer ent
23 Q. And so can you exp lain to the
tor ,
out and how the lea d inv est iga
24 inv est iga tor s hel p eac h oth er
ple
h the she riff s, the oth er peo
25 how -- wha t the ir rol e was wit
ICIA L COURT REPORTER

DEBRA A. DOO LITT LE, CSR - OFF
ONIO, TEXAS
186 TH DIS TRI CT COURT, SAN ANT
6
1 mayb e help ing with state men ts --
2 A. Sure .
3 Q. -- what ever that is?

it's --
4 A. When we get to a crim e scen e, of cour se
pers on is dead , it's
5 espe ciall y when deal ing with hom icide s, a
of a
6 pret ty chao tic. Ther e's fami ly memb ers that show up all
don' t even see.
7 sudd en. Ther e's peop le outs ide that you norm ally
to see wha t's goin g on.
8 They all just want to come out, they want
help of othe r dete ctiv es
9 So, when we get to the scen e, we get the
er find
10 that 's ther e. We call some peop le to help us out, to eith
11 witn esse s, put you know , to look for othe r clue s as far as the
12 scen e is conc erne d. So we rely on othe r dete ctiv es to help us
13 out, as well .
rred to as the
14 Q. And did you make a repo rt gene rally refe
?
15 pros ecut ion guid e with rega rds to this case
16 A. Yes, I did.
rt?
17 Q. And is it fair to say it's a 14-p age repo
18 A. Yes.
up to you as you
19 Q. Woul d it be help ful to have this repo rt
20 testi fy?
21 A. Sure .
22 MR. SIMPSON: May I appr oach the witn ess,
23 Your Hono r?
25 Q. (BY MR. SIMPSON) I'm goin g to appr oach you with what
REPORTER
186T H DIST RICT COURT, SAN ANTO NIO, TEXA S
7
as Stat e's Exh ibit

1 has been mark ed for iden tific atio n purp oses
2 Numb er -- Crap . I can' t see. I can prete nd I can see.
3 (Mr. Simp son retri eves eyeg lasse s).
4 Q. 54.
5 You 'll get ther e, too. Don 't smir k.

for the
6 Is that the pros ecut ion guid e you prep ared
7 DA's offic e?
8 A. Yes, it is.
Hall 's body
9 Q. Did you make the scen e out ther e wher e Bill
10 was, wher e -- wher e the cras h occu rred?
11 A. Yes, I did.
goin g on?
12 Q. Okay . When you got to the scen e, what was all
cour se
13 A. Okay . When -- when I arriv ed to the scen e, of
ked off. Ther e was
14 ever ythin g -- the highw ay was alrea dy bloc
Rose Brar was alrea dy
15 Lead Dete ctive John Tura ck and Dete ctive
Traf fic
16 out ther e. They were work ing traf fic at that time .
17 inve stiga tion , I want to say. They were alrea dy out ther e
for me. They knew that

18 alrea dy kind of secu ring the crim e scen e
g a murd er at that
19 at that poin t that we'r e look ing at it bein
that case to me, so ...
20 poin t, so we went ahea d and they assig ned
21 Q. So, let me ask you. So, how is it deci ded that you' re
22 assig ned to it?

-- I gues s, when
23 A. They -- of cour se, when disc ussi ng with
24 we get to a scen e, if it's a, let's say, a suic ide or some thing
. So, they will assig n a

25 like that , homi cide does n't get invo lved
REPORTER
8
ting to that offe nse.

1 case to anot her dete ctive beca use it's rela
, the Hom icide Unit ,
2 Sinc e the offe nse was murd er at that case
e in the case .
3 such as myse lf, woul d be the lead dete ctiv
Q. But now, if I reme mber corr ectly , Inve stiga tor Maho n was
4
5 with homi cide, too, righ t?
6 A. Tha t's corr ect.

?
7 Q. So how is it pick ed who gets to be the lead
A. Sure . We go on a rota tion basi s. So if -- if one

8
ctiv es in Bexa r Coun ty,
9 dete ctiv e -- ther e's only 30 homi cide dete
t the year , so we woul d
10 so we get calle d mult iple time s throu ghou
11 go in a rota tion . So if the lead dete ctiv e was myse lf at that

be anot her dete ctiv e.
12 time , the next pers on woul d be up woul d
13 Q. All righ t. Now, and you know Serg eant Burc hell?
14 A. Yes, I do.
15 Q. And he's now retir ed from BCSO?
16 A. Yes. Rece ntly, yes.

of how you guys
17 Q. Woul d it surp rise you if he was crit ical
18 hand led the scen e ther e that day?

ty anim ated and
19 A. If you know Serg eant Burc hell, he's pret
20 he -- and he like s to form opin ions .
MR. CORTEZ: Obje ction , irrel evan t, call s for

21
22 spec ulati on.
THE COURT: Over ruled . Go ahea d.

23
was any
24 Q. (BY MR. SIMPSON) Now, as far as if ther e
the fami ly that were
25 criti que for you abou t not ques tioni ng all
REPORTER
9
poin t and get

1 ther e at that scen e, did you go back at some
was ther e?
2 state men ts from pret ty much every body who
3 A. Yes, I did.
4 Q. Let' s go throu gh that .
5 A. Sure .
6 Q. Okay . I want to -- I want to go throu gh -- Skip
7 Fran ces Hall for the mom ent.
8 A. Okay .
you
9 Q. Okay . But I want to go throu gh every body else that
10 got state men ts from . Okay . Let' s just -- let's just go throu gh
ts from .
11 your repo rt and tell me who you got state men
12 A. Okay .
firs t pers on
13 Q. Who 's the firs t pers on -- well , who' s the
14 liste d that you got a state men t from ?
15 A. Sure . The firs t pers on on my repo rt is
16 Mich elle Cisn eros .
17 Q. And why was she impo rtant ?

she rece ived a
18 A. She is the cous in to Bonn ie Cont reras and
was impo rtant to talk
19 phon e call arou nd that time , so we felt it
20 to her.
Bonn ie as
21 Q. Tha t's the pers on that was on the phon e with
22 this was occu rring ?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. So you got a writ ten state men t from her?
25 A. Yes.
REPORTER
DEBRA A. DOOLITTLE, CSR - OFFI CIAL COURT
10
1 Q. All right. Who's next?
2 A. Bonnie Contre ras.
3 Q. Okay. And how many written stateme nts did you get from
4 her?
5 A. I believe she did one out at the scene, handwr itten. In
6 this type of situati on, it's okay to do a handwr itten stateme nt,
7 but it's more importa nt to get a more formal stateme nt, so we
8 bring the individ ual in and we get a formal stateme nt. We type
9 it up. And I believe we took that stateme nt, as well. So
10 there's two; one handwr itten, one typed from Bonnie.
11 Q. All right. And who else did you get a stateme nt from?
12 A. The -- there was a person, Edward Botello , that I spoke
13 to, I didn't get a formal stateme nt from him.
14 Q. Okay. Well, let me -- let me ask you, why was he
15 importa nt?
16 A. He was the 911 caller that was in front of the vehicle s
17 when the inciden t happene d.
18 Q. And why were you unable to get him?
19 A. We -- I contact ed him, I spoke to him in detail as far
20 as what he saw and heard. At one point or anothe r, I asked him
21 to come in and he said he did not want to come in.
22 Q. All right. And who else did you get a stateme nt from?
23 A. The would be Hank Hall. Henry Hall.
24 Q. Okay. And why is Hank Hall importa nt?
25 A. He is Bill's first cousin and he had some inform ation as
DEBRA A. DOOLITTLE, CSR - OFFICIA L COURT REPORTER

186TH DISTRIC T COURT, SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS
11
1 far as histo ry.
2 MR. CORTEZ: Obje ction to any infor matio n that was
3 provi ded to him, Your Hono r. That was hears ay.
4 THE COURT: Over ruled . Go ahead .
5 Q. (BY MR. SIMPSON) All right . And -- and so where were
6 they -- where were they all headi ng that day?
7 A. They were headi ng to Hank 's house .
MR. CORTEZ: Obje ction , Your Hono r, that calls for

8
He only knows that from what he was told. It's

9 a hears ay.
10 hears ay.
11 THE COURT: I unde rstan d, but he's discu ssing it as
he is talki ng to a
12 far as his inve stiga tion in the case and why
him to at least
13 parti cula r witne ss or not, so I'm going to allow
14 expla in why he talke d to the witne ss.
15 And, sir, I'm going to ask you to refra in from
16 givin g spec ific state ment s from that witn ess.
17 THE WITN ESS: Okay.
18 THE COURT: Go ahead .
19 Q. (BY MR. SIMPSON) So you got a state ment from Hank Hall?
20 A. Yes, I did.
21 Q. What abou t his wife?
22 A. Meli ssa Hall, yes, I got a state ment from her, as well.
you not
23 Q. Did they come in toget her or sepa rate, or do
24 know?
25 A. Sepa rate occa sions .
TER
DEBRA A. DOOL ITTLE , CSR - OFFIC IAL COURT REPOR
186TH DISTR ICT COURT, SAN ANTO NIO, TEXAS
12
1 Q. All right. And then who else did you get a stateme nt
2 from?
3 A. Also from Connie Bidaliz .
4 Q. And why was she importa nt?
5 A. She is the sister to Frances Hall.
6 Q. And what did you -- what was your underst anding as to
7 whether she was at the scene or not?
8 A. She was at the scene. She was and also, there was
9 inform ation that I got that she had made a phone call to -- to
10 her, as well. Frances made a call to her.
11 Q. Okay. All right. And then who else did you get a
12 stateme nt from?
13 A. Cesar Chavez.
14 Q. Okay. And why was he importa nt?
15 A. He had some inform ation as far as some -- some history ,
16 as well, between Frances and Bill Hall.
17 Q. Did he -- was he one of the ones that knew how Bonnie
18 and Bill met
19 MR. CORTEZ: Objecti on, leading .
20 MR. SIMPSON: -- or not?
21 THE COURT: Overru led. Proceed .
22 THE WITNESS : Yes, Yes, he was.
23 Q. (BY MR. SIMPSON) All right. Who else did you get a
24 stateme nt from?
25 A. I believe I spoke to James Sulliva n, but I don't -- I
DEBRA A. DOOLITT LE, CSR - OFFICIA L COURT REPORTER

13
him. I spok e to him

1 don' t belie ve I got a form al state men t from
2 on the phon e.
3 Q. Okay . And why was he impo rtant ?

d some thing and
4 A. He was name d as some pers on that over hear
calle d him up to veri fy
5 I need ed to veri fy that infor mati on, so I
6 it.
ly mem bers?
7 Q. Is he in any way rela ted to any of the fami
8 A. No, I don' t belie ve so.

?
9 Q. And who else did you get a state men t from
10 A. I belie ve that was it.

itted
11 Q. Now, I want to show you wha t's alrea dy been adm
Can you
12 into evid ence . If you can look on the scre en up ther e.
13 see the scre en okay ?
14 A. Yes.
What is Stat e's Exhi bit Numb er 49? Why is that

15 Q.
16 impo rtant to your inve stiga tion ?

le.
17 A. I belie ve that is the title to the moto rcyc
18 Q. And who had that title ?

the Esca lade .
19 A. That was -- that pict ure was take n insid e
20 Q. And who was driv ing the Esca lade?
21 A. Fran ces Hall .
22 Q. So you were at the scen e that nigh t?
23 A. Corr ect.
all the phot os
24 Q. Do you know who the offi cer was that took
25 of the scen e that nigh t?
REPORTER
14
1 A. That was Anita Price. Deputy Anita Price.
2 Q. All right. And then after they get towed to your

in
3 eviden ce lot right there by the jail, the pictur es you took
this
4 the daylig ht, do you know what the time frame is from when
5 happen ed?
6 A. It would probab ly be a few days after the actual
7 incide nt. I would have typed up a search warran t for those
8 vehicl es. And once the search warran t was compl eted and signed ,
9 then we would contin ue with the search of those vehicl es.
10 Q. And at some point, you and a bunch of other office rs
11 took photos of these vehicl es and ...
12 A. Yeah, it's a collab orated effort as far as gettin g out

them
13 there and doing the measur ements of the vehicl es, puttin g
14 next to each other to try to make sense of it all.
15 Q. And so when you're doing these vehicl e photos later on
16 to try to figure out what happen ed, who was in charge of that
17 part of it?
A. That would probab ly be -- I mean, I was there, so I

18
19 would be probab ly the one leadin g everyt hing.
20 Q. Who's the person you use to talk about the crash
21 damage s?
22 A. John -- Detec tive John Turack . He was the one that was
I rely
23 under traffi c invest igatio n, so he -- you know, of course ,
24 on him as far as dealin g with traffi c stuff.
25 MR. SIMPSON: May I approa ch the witnes s,
DEBRA A. DOOLITTLE, CSR - OFFICI AL COURT REPORTER

186TH DISTRI CT COURT, SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS
15
1 Your Honor?
3 Q. (BY MR. SIMPSON) I'm showing you what's been marked for
4 identif ication purpose s as State's Exhibi ts 55 through 85. And
5 I'd ask you to just briefly look through those and tell me if
6 those picture s truly and accura tely show what we were just
7 describ ing; you guys lining up these cars a few days after the
8 inciden t.
9 A. Yes, it is. Yes.
10 MR. SIMPSON: Okay. Your Honor, at this point I'm
11 going to offer State's Exhibi ts 55 through 85 into evidenc e and
12 I'm going to retende r these to Defense .
13 (State' s Exhibi ts Number 55 through 85 offered ).
14 MR. CORTEZ: No objecti on, Your Honor.
15 THE COURT: They are admitte d.
16 (State' s Exhibi ts Number 55 through 85 admitte d).
17 MR. SIMPSON: Okay. We're going to be here for a
18 while.
19 Q. (BY MR. SIMPSON) All right. Can you see the screen
20 okay?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. Is the laser pointer still up there with you. Don't hit
23 me in the eye.
24 A. Got it?
25 Q. Is it working ?

16
1 A. Yes, it is.
2 Q. If you need the laser pointer , just let me know.
3 A. Okay.
4 Q. It's importa nt for the record that I -- sometim es I
5 forget to say which number we're dealing with, but I need to make
6 sure I let the court reporte r know which number we're dealing
7 with. And then if you're describ ing somethi ng on there, if you
8 can just let us know, I'm talking about, like, the right-h and
9 side of this exhibit , so -- so it can all make its way into the
10 record.
11 A. Okay.
12 Q. All right. So -- so 55. Some of these we won't have to
13 talk much about, but if you want to stop me, just stop me.
14 A. Okay.
Q. So State's Exhibit 55 is up there in front of you. What

15
16 is this showing ?
17 A. This is showing the Range Rover in front of the Escalad e
18 as depicte d by witness stateme nts.
19 Q. So so this is the same order of vehicle s that you
20 believe to be at the scene?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. All right. Next, State's Exhibi t 56. What is this
23 showing ?
24 A. Same -- same positio n of vehicle s, just differe nt angle
25 in the picture .

17
1 Q. State's Exhibit 57?
2 A. Same positio n, differe nt -- differe nt section where the
3 photogr aph was taken.
4 MR. SIMPSON: May I approac h the screen,
5 Your Honor?
7 Q. (BY MR. SIMPSON) So now, but in this picture , you can
8 actuall y see some items of importa nce here. What's going on with
9 all this right here?
10 A. Okay. So there's a -- there's a deep gouge into the --
11 the body of the vehicle here, some other scratch es right around
12 the door handle here, and this back windsh ield is comple tely
13 shatter ed.
14 Q. Okay. And when you say "the vehicle ,'' which vehicle are
15 we talking about?
16 A. This is the Escalad e.
17 Q. Driven by?
18 A. Driven by Frances Hall.
19 Q. All right. Next exhibit , 58 -- State's Exhibi t 58.
20 Why, when you're figurin g out evidenc e in terms of vehicle s
21 hitting each other, is it importa nt to take measure ments of the
22 height of the bumpers ?
23 A. Based on witness -- well, of course witness testimo ny,
24 they indicat ed there was a collisi on between both vehicle s. And
25 this were [sic] to show the bumper of the Range Rover compare d to

18
1 the bumper -- the front bumper on the Escalade.
2 Q. All right. And so on 59, can we tell which vehicle --
3 I'm not sure I
4 A. Yeah, that was the Range Rover.
5 Q. Okay. So this is which bumper?
6 A. This is the Range Rover bumper.
7 Q. Well, back or front?
8 A. The back. The rear.
9 Q. Number 60?
10 A. Same thing.
11 Q. Okay. Now, I know, for instance --
12 MR. SIMPSON: Can I approach the witness,
13 Your Honor?
15 Q. (BY MR. SIMPSON) When we look at that on the screen, it
16 doesn't quite look the -- the defect doesn't look as clear as
17 when we look at it in the photo.
18 A. That's fair.
19 MR. CORTEZ: Objection, leading.
20 THE COURT: Overruled. Go ahead.
21 MR. SIMPSON: Your Honor, can I publish the actual
22 photo to the jury as we talk?
24 Q. (BY MR. SIMPSON) So, what is your opinion as to when
25 you look at the exhibit itself versus up on the scene?

19
1 MR. CORTEZ: Objecti on to any opinion , unless he's
2 going to -- offerin g his expert testimo ny, Your Honor, which I
3 don't believe he's qualifi ed -- he's not been qualifi ed as an
4 expert or designa ted as such.
5 MR. SIMPSON: I think a laypers on can testify as to
6 how a picture looks versus on the big screen.
7 MR. CORTEZ: Well, not drawing conclus ions,
8 Your Honor. He can he can say what it looks like, but that
9 speaks for itself. He can't be drawing any conclus ions
10 whatso ever. He's not qualifi ed to do that.
11 THE COURT: I'll let him testify as to what he sees
12 in the exhibi t.
13 Go ahead, sir.
14 Objecti on overrul ed.
15 THE WITNESS: It appears that the picture , it looks
16 like more of a deeper and it looks wider as far as the scratch on
17 the vehicle in the picture .
18 Q. (BY MR. SIMPSON) All right. Now, State's Exhibi t 61.
19 Okay. What is importa nt about this photo?
20 A. The -- I don't know. I don't know. I think because of
21 the I guess some damage that's there, too.
22 Q. Okay. Can you use your pointer and show us what you're
23 talking about?
24 A. Yeah, right here. And right here.
Q. Okay. All right. Now, State's Exhibi t Number 62. Once

25

20
1 again, what is this?
2 A. That is the front bumper of the Escalade .
3 Q. All right. And so where is the damage reflecte d on
4 this?
5 A. The damage is -- you can see here along the front end
6 driver's side. And I believe there was some over here. But this
7 is not (unintel ligible) .
8 MR. SIMPSON: And once again, this photo, Judge,
9 I'm going ask to just publish the actual photogra ph itself.
11 (Mr. Simpson publishe s photogra ph to the jury).
12 Q. (BY MR. SIMPSON) All right. State's Exhibit Number 64.
13 A. Also depictin g the -- looks like differen t lines on the
14 car on the front bumper of the Escalade .
15 Q. Okay. That's what I was going to ask you. So this is
16 which vehicle?
17 A. The Escalade .
18 Q. Okay. Once again, 65.
19 A. Same picture, just moved the ruler.
20 Q. Now, 66, what are you doing here?
21 A. We tried to see whether or not we can get kind of, you
22 know, a measurem ent with comparin g the both vehicles and their
23 height, the way they set, so we threw the ruler in there to
24 depict the height level of both vehicles together .
25 Q. All right. State's Exhibit Number 67.
DEBRA A. DOOLITTL E, CSR - OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER

21
1 MR. SIMPSON: Oops. It's not on the screen.
2 That's fine but -- We're okay.
3 Can I approach again, Your Honor? I'm sorry.
5 Q. (BY MR. SIMPSON) That is not up on the screen. I'm
6 going to ask you specific ally to look at 67.
7 MR. SIMPSON: And Defense, this is the picture of
8 the grille.
9 THE WITNESS: This is the front end of the
10 Escalade .
11 MR. SIMPSON: I'll show him.
12 This one.
13 (Attorne ys speak sotto voce).
14 Q. (BY MR. SIMPSON) I'm sorry. I'm sorry. And what is
15 importan t about that picture of the Escalade 's grille?
16 A. It's kind of unusual to have a black piece of plastic or
17 somethin g right in the middle of the grille, so we collecte d that
18 piece.
19 Q. When you say "we," do you know who actually collecte d
20 it?
21 A. Jason Tibbs.
22 Q. And he was out there with y'all?
23 A. Deputy Tibbs. Yes, sir.
24 MR. SIMPSON: Permissi on to publish.

22
1 Q. (BY MR. SIMPSON) Once again, what's being publish ed to
2 the jury right now, that is from which vehicle ?
3 A. That is the Escalad e.
4 Q. There it is up there. She's a miracle worker. Okay.
5 68. All right. State's Exhibit 68.
6 A. That is underne ath the Escalad e, close to the
7 passen ger's side of the rear tire. So if you're looking at the
8 passen ger's side back tire, it's undern eath that area right
9 there.
10 Q. And now, do you know that this is from the acciden t
11 or
12 A. No, we don't. It just looked unusua l as far as it
13 looked pretty fresh. I mean, looked at it, it doesn' t look like
14 there's any other pieces around that area. It just looks like
15 specifi cally in that one spot.
16 Q. So what did you decide to do about docume ntation?
17 A. Just take photogr aphs of it.
18 Q. State's Exhibit 69.
19 A. Same thing as far as depicti ng both vehicle s and the
20 measure ment of the height of both vehicle s.
21 Q. And who is that holding the ruler?
22 A. That's me.
23 Q. That is?
24 A. That's me.
25 Q. All right. Lost some weight.

23
1 A. Thanks.
2 Q. Okay. State's Exhibit 70.
3 A. Same picture, just a closer -- closer view of it,
4 showing the height of the vehicles .
5 Q. All right. State's Exhibit 71.
6 A. Just a closer -- closer view, get the numbers.
8 A. Now, we remove the Range Rover out of the way and now we
9 put the Harley Davidson next to the Escalade to show their
10 height, also. That -- that -- that level.
11 Q. Okay. And then State's Exhibit 73, what is it you're
12 trying to figure out with this?
13 A. We know there was definite ly some impact on this side
14 here, so we were trying to figure out what part of the vehicle
15 hit against the Escalade . So, we tried to match it up and see
16 where there -- you know, where it actually hit.
17 Q. And State's Exhibit 74?
18 A. Just showing a close-up view of the damage to the areas
19 here, and, of course, the windshie ld and down here, as well.
20 Q. And then State's 75.
21 A. Just a back -- a rear view of both vehicles . Not, you
22 know, of course, not touching each other, but fairly close to
23 each other.
24 Q. Now, I guess -- okay, if I was going to be critical , I
25 would say, Well, if you really want to see the level, someone

24
1 should sit on it because --
2 A. Sure. And I think at some point we had someone kind of
3 balance it out and kind of do the measurem ent to get the right
4 height of the vehicle. I mean, the motorcy cle.
5 Q. All right. 76.
6 A. Same thing, just a differen t angle.
7 Q. And once -- and 77?
8 A. Just a closer view.
9 Q. And now 78, so what is hanging from that handleba r?
10 A. That is grass. That was when the vehicle went into the
11 field, that part still -- it's that long grass that was out there
12 in the field.
13 Q. Now, State's Exhibit Number 79, the -- the piece of
14 the the motorcyc le piece laying on the ground, tell me about
15 that.
16 A. Okay. Yeah, we couldn't attach it, since it was already
17 broken off. So we ended up just laying it down on the ground to
18 show that this is the right side of the saddleba g and this is the
19 left side. Here we indicate d, of course, there's some blood on
20 this right side, so we assumed that this -- this one was either
21 on top or undernea th Bill Hall when he was out in the field.
22 Like I said, there was debris pretty much everywhe re at the crime
23 scene.
24 Q. All right. So the crime scene photos show where all
25 this was found?

25
1 A. Yes, yes.
2 Q. Okay. What are we looking at -- what's the purpose of
3 State's Exhibit Number 8 [sic]?
4 A. We decided the view -- the vantage -- the point of view
5 where the vehicle would be just based on what -- you're driving
6 and you're looking in the rearview mirror or the side mirror,
7 what your view would be of that vehicle and you can see the
8 motorcyc le right there.
9 THE COURT: What exhibit number was that again?
10 MR. SIMPSON: That is State's Exhibit Number 80.
11 THE COURT: Eight zero?
12 MR. SIMPSON: Eight zero.
13 Q. (BY MR. SIMPSON) All right. So, the view we see in the
14 side-view mirror of the motorcyc le, is the motorcyc le in the same
15 position that we had seen in all the other photos?
16 A. Yes. Yes, it is.
17 Q. All right. All right. Once again, 81.
18 A. Same -- same thing. Just zoom in on the camera.
19 Q. And 82.
20 A. That is the trying to -- Like I said, the saddleba gs
21 were complete ly removed off. Trying to figure out where it was
22 sitting on the vehicle and the height level of it. That's our
23 best descript ion of the height level of that saddle bag.
24 Q. Okay. 83.
25 A. Showing the bottom part of where it sat on the

26
1 vehicle -- on the bike.
3 A. So we had someone balance it out, seeing whether or not
4 we could get that side, showing that the same -- same height
5 level of that saddleba g, the overall view of it.
6 Q. Who's sitting -- who's on the motorcyc le?
7 A. I believe that's Mike Martinez from the crime lab. I
8 called him up to assist in this investig ation.
9 Q. All right. And finally, State's Exhibit Number 85.
10 A. This is another marking that shows as far as it going
11 down like this, another marking here, here, and showing the
12 height level of from the ground on up.
13 Q. Now, does it surprise you that Bonnie Contrera s thinks
14 you're a member of the DA's office?
15 A. I introduc ed myself as a detectiv e. She came to the
16 Sheriff' s office, gave me a statemen t. So, I don't see why she
17 would think I'm part of the DA's office. But people think I'm
18 SAPD all the time and other you know, people think we're
19 differen t people as far as law enforcem ent, so I don't see
20 anything wrong with it.
21 Q. How many times did you meet with Bonnie?
22 A. Probably about three times.
23 Q. Tell me about that.
24 A. The first time, she came in as far as the first part of
25 the statemen t. It was, initially , the first statemen t we got.

27
1 Second time I believe this was some indicati on that there was
2 some still feud going on between Frances Hall and Bonnie. She
3 had come in to tell me. And then another time was she had called
4 for to pick up some clothing , Bill Hall's clothing and a cell
5 phone.
6 Q. And did you pick up Bill Hall's clothing and cell phone?
7 A. Yes, I did.
8 Q. How did you store that?
9 A. We -- I went out there to her. I think at that time she
10 was in some apartmen t with her mom. I picked up the clothing and
11 the cell phone. Once I gathered that up, I put it in the
12 property room.
13 Q. Okay. Now, how many times have you met with me
14 regardin g this case?
15 A. Probably about three, four times.
16 Q. And then how many times have you met with either
17 Defense -- a member of Defense team or Defense experts?
18 A. Probably about four times.
19 Q. All right. And tell -- so explain to the jury, all
20 right, what we just saw up there, happened where?
21 A. That happened at the Sheriff' s office in our back
22 secured lot.
23 Q. After that was finished , where did these three vehicles
24 go?
25 A. They go to our -- what's called a long-term storage lot.

28
1 It's the Mel Davis lot over on Donop Road off of 37 South. Those
2 vehicles have been there since that time.
3 Q. Okay. Have at differen t times both prosecut ion and
4 Defense gone out to look at those vehicles ?
5 A. Yes. I believe part of it was a civil lawsuit that
6 they'd come out and then also the criminal side, as well.
7 Q. And so what -- do they always have to go through you to
8 see that?
9 A. I think it's easier for me to do, to make arrangem ents,
10 since I'm the lead detectiv e, so I can make the phone calls to
11 make it happen.
12 Q. All right. And so is that -- who does that lot belong
13 to?
14 A. I believe it's Mel Davis who owns that lot, but they
15 contract with Bexar County Sheriff' s Office to be a secured lot
16 for the Bexar County Sheriff' s Office. So we have our traffic
17 fatalitie s, anything to deal with homicide s, those vehicles are
18 stored there for long term because of these cases, they -- you
19 know, they go on for three or four years before we go to trial,
20 so they keep those for evidence purposes .
21 Q. Okay. Did you get some photogra phs from Hank Hall?
22 A. Yes, I did.
23 Q. How did that come about?
24 A. Hank had indicate d he wanted to show me a picture of
25 what the vehicle looked like.

29
1 Q. When you say ''vehicle," what are you talking about?
2 A. I'm sorry. The motorcycle . What the motorcycle looked
3 like before the actual incident. So he had sent me a few
4 photograph s of the vehicle -- the motorcycle .
5 Q. Now, all the -- the investigat ion that you filed with
6 the DA's office, how did you file it? What did you put this all
7 on?
8 A. This was filed as a murder case on Frances Hall.
9 Q. Okay. And so as far as putting all these different
10 documents and photos and all, what did you give us that had this
11 stuff stored on?
12 A. Sometimes -- Well, we would -- depends on the data
13 storage. I think some of the data that we got from Bonnie was a
14 large amount of data. I think it was 20 gigabytes of data, so we
15 put that on a flash drive. I believe there were other CDs and
16 discs that we presented also that had other data for the
17 prosecutio n guide. So it would include all witness statements ,
18 everything as far as reports, cell phone records, everything
19 would be included in the prosecutio n guide to give to you all.
20 Q. Okay.
21 MR. SIMPSON: May I approach the witness again,
22 Your Honor?
25 marked -- I believe it may be duplicitou s as some of the Defense

30
1 exhibits -- as State's Exhibits 88 and 89. Are these items you
2 submitte d to the DA's office as part of your reports?
3 A. They're aerial photogra phs. Looks like a satellit e view
4 and a map. I think I -- I provided other details on my report as
5 far as cell phone and where the location s were at the time and
6 stuff like that. But, I mean, it's overall view of the scene.
7 Q. Would this help the jury -- you to explain to the jury
8 where -- how everythi ng could have took place --
9 A. Sure.
10 Q. -- and what happened there?
11 A. Yes.
12 MR. SIMPSON: I'm going to offer State's Exhibit
13 Number 88 and 89 to Defense counsel and offer it into evidence .
14 (State's Exhibits Number 88 and 89 offered) .
15 MR. CORTEZ: No objectio n, Your Honor.
16 THE COURT: They are admitted .
17 (State's Exhibits Number 88, 89 admitted ).
18 Q. (BY MR. SIMPSON) Okay. State's Exhibit 88. Is there
19 in front of you -- Do you have your laser pointer?
20 A. Yes, I do.
21 Q. Okay. So how familiar are you with this area?
22 A. I've been in that area a few times. I mean, just
23 driving by, having some crime scenes in that area. So, yes,
24 familiar with it.
25 Q. Okay. Do you feel comforta ble that you know where the

31
1 crime scene is on this map?
2 A. I think it's somewhere around that area here.
3 Q. What is your landmark that you look at?
4 A. There should be a -- the Macdona-Laco ste Road that goes
5 right here, and I believe it was right after that, that area of
6 that street.
7 MR. SIMPSON: Okay. And can you zoom in?
8 THE WITNESS: There's actually another like a loop
9 road that is right here. That's a good landmark area from that
10 area right there.
11 Q. (BY MR. SIMPSON) Okay. All right. And so when you get
12 to the scene, you're dealing with just what -- what areas?
13 A. This is the kind of the west side of Bexar County.
14 Q. And what -- do you ever go to try to retrace the scene
15 of where the two vehicles went after Bill Hall was -- was knocked
16 off the side of the road?
17 A. We use the cell phone data to use GPS markings of where
18 they're at, to locate where they were traveling at that time
19 afterwards.
20 Q. Is that in your report there?
21 A. I believe it was in the GPS records from the cell phone.
22 Q. I want to talk about paint.
23 A. Sure.
24 MR. SIMPSON: Okay. And I guess I ought to
25 approach the witness. Can I approach the witness?

32
2 Q. (BY MR. SIMPSON) Showing you what's been marked as
3 State's Exhibit 86, which is a photogra ph you submitte d to us as
4 part of that flash drive. Do you know what -- without telling me
5 what it depicts, do you know what it depicts?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. You don't have to tell me.
8 A. Okay.
9 Q. Is that an accurate depictio n of somethin g that was
10 looked at in a vehicle?
11 A. Yes, it was.
12 MR. SIMPSON: Okay. I'm going the offer this into
13 evidence and I'm going to tender it to Defense counsel.
14 (State's Exhibit Number 86 offered) .
15 MR. CORTEZ: May I take the witness on voir dire,
16 Your Honor?
17 THE COURT: Before that, can I have the attorney s
18 approach , please.
19 (At the bench, out of the hearing of the jury).
20 THE COURT: We're at a bench conferen ce, out of the
21 hearing of the jury. Timing. We need to take a mid-morn ing
22 break.
23 MR. SIMPSON: This is a perfect time. One of the
24 things I have to tell you is that at the end of his direct, we
25 need to have a hearing outside the presence about the little -- I

33
1 have the redacted portion of her video that's cut off from before
2 she invokes her right to counsel and I was going to play, but
3 they -- they've gotten a ruling before that they're entitled to a
4 hearing before we do that.
5 THE COURT: Sure. Of course. Okay. Well, let's
6 take a break. 11:05, so let's do 20 minutes or so.
7 MR. SIMPSON: That's perfect, Judge. Thank you.
8 THE COURT: Bench conference is over. We've been
9 going pretty good this morning, so we're going to take a break.
10 As always, remember not to talk about the case
11 amongst each other. You're not to view any outside resources and
12 talk about, again, any media resources, or trying to look up
13 anything about some of the issues we've heard about, or looking
14 at anything on maps and such like that with your cell phones.
15 All right. So let's take a break for about 20
16 minutes. All rise for the jury, please.
17 (Jury exits).
18 THE COURT: Thank you. Please be seated. The jury
19 is no longer present.
20 I'm just going to admonish the witness that you can
21 take a break, as well, too, but I'm going to ask -- The Rule is
22 in effect, you can't talk to other witnesses about what you know,
23 what you testified to, questions posed to you, or other
24 occurrence s in court.
25 Normally, I say -- Hold on. We're still on the

34
1 record, people. Sit down. Everybod y sit down.
2 Normally , we have -- I say you can talk to
3 attorney s, but since you're still on the stand, I'm going to ask
4 you not to talk to the attorney s, unless there's somethin g
5 adminis trative such as where a restroom is or somethin g like
6 that. Thank you.
7 Court's in recess.
8 (Recess) .
9 (In the presence of the defendan t and Counsel) .
10 THE COURT: We're back on the record in the State
11 of Texas versus Frances Hall, Cause Number 2014-CR- 5591. All
12 parties present prior to the recess are again present, to include
13 Ms. Hall. The jury is not present. And the witness that we had
14 on the stand, Detectiv e Arevalos , is not present. I understa nd
15 the State wanted to have a hearing. I guess it's really a
16 Defense hearing.
17 MR. CORTEZ: That's correct, Your Honor. Just to
18 make sure that this is an edited version of a videotap e
19 statemen t. It's very brief. We just needed to confirm, you
20 know, how it was edited. We hadn't physica lly viewed the edited
21 one. We did during the break, Your Honor, so we're fine with it.
22 THE COURT: Oh, okay. Will there be anything else?
23 MR. SIMPSON: Judge, for the record, what I need to
24 do is say: So the unedited version is marked as 91-A, meaning
25 that will not go back to the jury.

35
1 THE COURT: Well, you know, that kind of confuse s
2 things a little bit.
3 MR. SIMPSON: However you want to do it. I can
4 change things.
5 THE COURT: And the reason is yesterd ay or earlier
6 today, we had Defense exhibit s as Defense Exhibi t 4, and that one
7 is not going to the jury. And then Defense Exhibi t 4-A is going
8 to the jury. So can we --
9 MR. SIMPSON: Yes.
10 THE COURT: mark the raw unedite d video as 91
11 and then the edited video as 91-A.
12 MR. SIMPSON: All right. Once I take it out -- I
13 can take it out.
14 THE COURT: Let's go off the record.
15 (Off-th e-recor d discuss ion).
16 THE COURT: We're back on the record and we had the
17 State mark the unedite d DVD video as 91 and then the edited DVD
18 video as 91-A. Are we offerin g 91 so that it's part of the
19 record then?
20 MR. SIMPSON: To be part of the record but not to
21 go to the jury.
22 THE COURT: All right. That's offered . It will
23 not go to the jury but be part of the record. And then I'm
24 assumin g that there's no objecti ons once 91-A comes in to be
25 admitte d. Is that right, Defense ?

36
1 (No respons e).
2 THE COURT: Did you hear what I said?
3 MR. CORTEZ: I'm sorry?
4 THE COURT: 91-A is already in the comput er, so
5 they can start that. Are there going to be any objecti ons to
6 that?
7 MR. CORTEZ: No, Your Honor, we wanted to make sure
8 that there's no commen t on the fact that she invoked her right,
9 Your Honor. There can't be any commen t on that.
10 THE COURT: My underst anding is 91-A took those
11 commen ts out.
12 MR. CORTEZ: Yes. Okay. That's all. That's my
13 underst anding , too. But what I'm talking about, in terms of
14 the -- any further testimo ny. Because that --
15 THE COURT: Oh, by the witness ?
16 MR. CORTEZ: Exactly . Exactly . Because that
17 would -- that would be a violati on, Your Honor. It's one thing
18 just to have the stateme nt, but it's another to have a commen t on
19 it. You know, that's all I wanted to clear up.
20 THE COURT: And the commen t is that she invoked at
21 some point, is that what it is?
22 MR. CORTEZ: Yes.
23 THE COURT: I'll prohib it the witness from
24 MR. CORTEZ: -- I mean (unint elligib le).
25 THE COURT: Okay. The witness is here. He's on

37
1 the stand.
2 Detective Arevalos, you're prohibited from
3 testifying that Ms. Hall invoked her rights to an attorney or the
4 right to remain silent. Do you understand that?
5 THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.
6 THE COURT: Okay. Is there anything else from
7 either side before we bring the jury in?
8 MR. SIMPSON: Nothing.
9 MS. PAULISSEN: Nothing from the State.
10 MR. CORTEZ: Nothing.
11 THE COURT: Bring in the jury.
12 THE BAILIFF: All rise for the jury.
13 (Jury enters).
14 THE COURT: Thank you. Please be seated. The jury
15 is now present.
16 Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.
17 THE JURY: (In unison) Good morning.
18 THE COURT: I hope you were able to enjoy your
19 break. It's 11:35. We're going to go ahead and finish with this
20 witness. And depending on timing, then we'll go to lunch after
21 this witness, it looks like. We may go past noon a little bit,
22 just to give you an idea how much longer we'll go before a lunch
23 break.
24 Okay. The State is still in its case-in-ch ief.
25 The State is still in its direct with this witness.

38
1 State, you may proceed.
2 MR. SIMPSON: Actually, when we took a break, the
3 Defense asked to take the witness on voir dire on this next
4 exhibit.
5 THE COURT: All right. Go ahead, Defense. Sorry
6 about that.
9 Q. Detective Arevalos, of course, we met once before,
10 correct?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. And you've been handed by Mr. Simpson State's Exhibit
13 Number 86. And you identified it as something relevant to the
14 case but there was no specific identificatio n.
15 A. That's correct.
16 Q. From this distance, can you tell me what State's Exhibit
17 Number 86 is purported to represent?
18 A. A paint chip, a blue paint chip. That we assumed it was
19 from the motorcycle.
20 Q. When you say you assumed, where was this located?
21 A. That was at the back cab of the Escalade.
22 Q. Okay. So it was in the back of the Escalade where the
23 window damage is?
24 A. No, right in the middle, kind of in the middle of the
25 Escalade. The back of the Escalade, right kind of in the middle

39
l of it.
2 Q. Okay. Now, are you saying inside of the vehicle?
3 A. Inside the vehicle, yes. Sorry.
4 Q. Now, this is how it appeared and you removed it and this
5 was taken where?
6 A. That was taken in the evidence bay at the Sheriff's
7 office.
8 Q. Okay. But in the car and in the evidence bay?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. Okay. So you didn't take it out?
11 A. It eventually it was taken out after that picture --
12 Q. Oh, after. I mean, after.
13 A. Right.
14 MR. CORTEZ: No -- no -- no objection. I'm
15 assuming he offered. I'm sorry, I forgot if he formerly offered
16 it.
17 MR. SIMPSON: Your Honor, we'll offer State's
18 Exhibit Number 86.
19 (State's Exhibit Number 86 offered).
20 THE COURT: There being no objection, it is
21 admitted.
22 (State's Exhibit Number 86 admitted).
23 DIRECT EXAMINATION (continued)
25 Q. And so, but now, it wasn't in the back area adjacent to

40
ke n?
1 wh ere the win dow wa s bro
the mi dd le, kin d of the
A. Ri gh t. It wa s kin d of lik e in
2
ba ck of the
If you thi nk ab ou t it, lik e the be d of the
3 be d.
are a.
e in the mi dd le ca rp et
4 Es ca lad e wa s kin d of lik
ha pp en ing to th is,
Al l rig ht . An d is -- wh at end ed up
5 Q.
6 if you kno w?
aw ay fo r
ev ide nc e, be ing sto red
7 A. Th at wa s co lle cte d as
te.
it lat er , at a la te r da
8 pu rpo ses of an aly zin g
hib it
to pu bli sh St at e's Ex
9
MR. SIMPSON: Pe rm iss ion
10 Nu mb er 86 to the jur y.
THE COURT: Ye s, sir .
11
ll -- Fi rst of
(BY MR. SIMPSON) Now, how did Fr an ce s Ha
12 Q.
tod ay ?
do you see Fra nc es Ha ll in the co urt roo m
13 al l,
14 A. Ye s, I do .
wh ere
sce ne th at yo u we nt to,
15 Q. An d sec on dly , the cri me
ne , is th at a
cri me ev ide nc e ph oto s we re tak en at the sce
16 the
17 pla ce in Be xa r Co un ty?
18 A. Ye s, it is.
n?
t to the po lic e sta tio
19 Q. How did Fra nc es Ha ll ge
r.
the ba ck of a pa tro l ca
20 A. Sh e wa s tra ns po rte d in
r an d
ov er he r rig ht s wi th he
21 Q. Ok ay. An d did you go
22 int erv iew he r?

at the sce ne , I spo ke to he r at
23 A. I di dn 't spe ak to he r
24 the Sh er iff 's Of fic e.

eo up in my of fic e
Q. Al l rig ht . I'v e sho wn you the vid
25
RTER
- OF FIC IAL COURT REPO
DEBRA A. DOOLITTLE, CSR SAN AN TO NIO , TEXAS
186 TH DIS TR ICT COURT,
41
1 this morning, State's Exhibit Number 91-A. Did you watch that
2 today?
3 A. Yes, I did.
4 Q. And is that a true and accurate depiction of the
5 conversation you had with Frances Hall?
6 A. Yes, it is.
7 Q. And is it made by an instrument that can record things?
8 A. Yes, it is.
9 Q. I know that sounds like a stupid question.
10 A. Yes, it's an audio.
11 Q. And has it been altered in any way?
12 A. No.
13 MR. SIMPSON: Your Honor, we'll offer State's 91-A
14 into evidence.
15 (State's Exhibit Number 91-A offered).
16 MR. CORTEZ: Subject to prior rulings, no
17 objection.
18 THE COURT: It's admitted.
19 (State's Exhibit Number 91-A admitted).
20 MR. SIMPSON: Permission to publish.
22 (Video played for the jury).
23 (Video ends).
24 Q. (BY MR. SIMPSON) All right. Is that the conclusion of
25 your interview with Frances?

42
1 A. Yes, it is.
ined some
2 Q. Now, you men tion ed befo re that you obta
3 phot ogra phs from his cous in Hank ?
4 A. Yes, I did.
5 MR. SIMPSON: May I appr oach the witn ess,
6 Your Hono r?
8 Q. (BY MR. SIMPSON) Show ing you wha t's been mark ed for
ibit Num ber 97 and 98. Are
9 iden tific atio n purp oses as Stat e's Exh
Hall ?
10 thos e the phot ogra phs you got from Hank
11 A. Yes, they are.

any way?
12 Q. Have they been alte red and dele ted in
13 A. No.
14 MR. SIMPSON: Offe r Stat e's 97 and 98 into evid ence
15 and tend er thos e to defe nse coun sel.

red) .
16 (Sta te's Exh ibits Num ber 97 and 98 offe
17 MR. CORTEZ: No obje ctio n, Your Hon or.
18 THE COURT: They are adm itted .

itted ).
19 (Sta te's Exh ibits Num ber 97 and 98 adm
20 Q. (BY MR. SIMPSON) Why is it imp orta nt -- why did you
21 need Stat e's Exh ibit Num ber 97?

, indi cate d that
22 A. We -- of cour se, afte r talk ing with Hank
se, show that the bike
23 he had some phot os, we wan ted to, of cour
actu al inci den t, if ther e
24 was in a cert ain cond ition prio r to the
Any dama ge that wou ld show
25 was any dama ge or anyt hing like that .
T REPORTER
DEBRA A. DOOLITTLE, CSR - OFFI CIAL COUR
186T H DIST RICT COURT, SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS
43
1 on the vehicles or on the motorcyc le.
2 Q. Okay. And then State's Exhibit 98?
3 A. Same thing as far as showing the conditio n of the bike,
4 the way it was before.
5 Q. After your the interview we saw with Frances Hall,
6 was she booked?
7 A. Yes, she was.
8 Q. Did you do that or did someone take her on transpor t?
9 A. Someone else did.
10 Q. Show you what's been marked for identifi cation purposes
11 as State's Exhibit Number 90. Is this a true and accurate
12 depictio n from the booking photo that night?
13 A. Yes, it is.
14 Q. And is that somethin g you provided to us?
15 A. Yes, it is.
16 MR. SIMPSON: I'm going to offer State's Exhibit
17 Number 90 into evidence , tender to Defense counsel.
18 (State's Exhibit Number 90 offered) .
19 MR. CORTEZ: Other than it's repetiti ve,
20 Your Honor. Objectio n, it's already a picture in evidence ,
21 Your Honor. I don't know what the relevanc e is for another
22 picture, Your Honor.
23 THE COURT: Overrule d, it's admitted .
24 (State's Exhibit Number 90 admitted ).
25 MR. SIMPSON: With that, Your Honor, I'll publish

44
1 State's Exhibit Number 90 to the jury and I'm going to pass this
2 witness for cross-ex aminatio n.
4 Go ahead, Defense.
5 CROSS-EXAMINATION
7 Q. Detectiv e Arevalos ?
8 A. Yes, sir.
9 Q. You've testifie d that you were called to the scene on
10 October 10th, 2013. And you testifie d that it was a -- a --
11 describe d or called in as a murder scene; is that correct?
12 A. It was a -- it was a -- it involved vehicles , that's why
13 the traffic unit was out there. There was a person that was --
14 Q. Sir?
15 A. I'm sorry.
16 Q. Yeah. It was -- was it -- were you going there to
17 investig ate an alleged murder or not?
18 A. Yes, I was.
19 Q. Because the decision had already been made it was an
20 alleged murder before you got called, obviousl y, correct?
21 A. Well
22 Q. Sir, is that correct or not?
23 A. Well, the victim was not pronounc ed until later at the
24 hospital , that's why we --
25 Q. It was an alleged crime scene already?

45
1 A. Yes, it was.
2 Q. And when -- when we mentioned briefly earlier in your
3 testimony about Sergeant Burchell, part of his criticism what
4 that there was this rush to judgment before and much of an
5 investigation , really any investigation had been done, correct?
7 Q. Okay. And he talked about all the misinformatio n and
8 indecision that occurred prior to your arrival, correct?
9 A. I don't know what he testified to.
10 Q. Okay. But you're aware that he believes that this was a
11 rush to judgment, correct?
12 A. If that's his opinion, that's his opinion.
13 Q. In other words, you implied on direct that you knew
14 that. Are you starting to forget it now?
15 A. No, no. I understand that there was an indication that
16 he had made some comments about it.
17 Q. Okay. Okay. And you talked about witness statements
18 and the purpose of making them, correct?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. Okay. And I guess the -- one of the first witness
21 statements you took was of Michelle Cisneros, correct?
23 Q. And that's the lady -- I guess it's a cousin of
24 Ms. Contreras, who she was speaking to while she was allegedly
25 being rammed multiple times, correct?

46
2 Q. Okay. And she was speaking to her and not to someone in
3 law enforcemen t like you do when you call 911, correct?
5 Q. And then she also called Hank Hall who -- again, he's
6 not in law enforcemen t, is he?
7 A. No, he's not.
8 Q. He's just a cousin of Bill Hall, correct?
10 Q. And who's in the trucking business, too?
12 Q. Okay. And she didn't call 911 then?
13 A. No.
14 Q. I just want to clarify. In your report, sir, that you
15 have before you, on Page -- well, it's Page Number 8 of 14. At
16 the bottom of the page there, sir, do you have that in front of
17 you?
18 A. Yes, I do.
19 Q. Okay. You mistakenly , obviously, indicate that Hank
20 called Bill's cell phone and Bonnie answered. That's not
21 correct?
22 A. I think I was meaning -- and if -- I'm trying to read
23 the report
24 Q. Well, it's not -- it's not correct, is it?
25 A. Well, I think that indicating that she had Bill's cell

47
1 phone. I think, you know --
2 Q. Well, that's what you meant to say?
4 Q. Because you understand, she was the one who called, even
5 though she never met him, correct?
6 A. I -- I -- I -- I believe so.
7 Q. Okay. You indicated that some of the exhibits that --
8 And we're going to take a look at them -- that they were -- that
9 you did some kind of reconstruction based on witness statements,
10 but there's only, what, one witness statement of what actually
11 occurred that you took, correct?
13 Q. Okay. And that would be Ms. Contreras?
14 A. That is correct.
15 Q. Who's suing Frances Hall?
16 A. I believe so.
17 Q. Well, you mentioned earlier that there is a civil
18 suit --
19 A. There is a civil suit --
20 Q. You're aware --
21 COURT REPORTER: One at a time, please. I can't
22 take two at the same time.
23 MR. CORTEZ: I apologize.
24 Q. (BY MR. CORTEZ) You understand -- I know it's natural
25 to talk over each other, but I'll -- I'll try to wait till you

48
1 finish your answe r befor e I ask.
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. Appro ach and go over some of these exhib its with you.
4 MR. CORTEZ: May I appro ach, Your Honor ?
6 Q. (BY MR. CORTEZ) Detec tive -- Do you mind if I use
7 "dete ctive "?
8 A. That' s all right .

And
9 Q. Detec tive Areva los, you took these vario us photo s.
10 can you hold that? That' s State 's Exhib it Numbe r 55, corre ct?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. And then 56 is the same thing , just from the diffe rent
13 side, corre ct?
14 A. That' s corre ct.
15 MR. SIMPSON: Mr. Corte z, if you want, you can use
16 the --
17 MR. CORTEZ: Okay. If you can do that, pleas e.
18 MR. SIMPSON: We can set that up.
19 Is that okay with the Court .
20 THE COURT: Of cours e.
21 MR. CORTEZ: Let's start with Exhib it 55.
22 (Pause in proce eding s).
23 MR. CORTEZ: This is not a job for two old men.
24 Q. (BY MR. CORTEZ) Detec tive, you indic ated that the
55 is based on
25 posit ion of the vehic les in State 's Exhib it Numbe r
DEBRA A. DOOLITTLE, CSR - OFFIC IAL COURT REPORTER

186TH DISTR ICT COURT, SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS
49
1 a witness statement. And when you said that, you were -- you
2 said witnesses, but it's really just Bonnie Contreras, correct?
3 A. Well, there was a 911 caller that I considered a
4 witness, as well.
5 Q. And that would be Mr. -- Deputy Martinez?
6 A. No, that's Edward Botello.
7 Q. Okay. Edward Botello.
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. Okay. But, sir, aren't you aware that according to
10 Ms. Contreras, she indicated that the impact or the alleged
11 impact was straight on, correct?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. Okay. And -- but you don't have the vehicles facing
14 straight on, do you?
15 A. No, I do not.
16 Q. Okay. And why not?
17 A. To show the -- of course, trying to get a human being in
18 between those cars would be difficult, so we kind of separated a
19 little bit to -- to show you know, to put the ruler in between
20 them all.
21 Q. Okay. Thank you. Detective, I'm going to show you
22 what's been marked Exhibit Number 73 here. Okay. Now, looking
23 at Exhibit Number 73, the reason that you put that -- the
24 motorcycle next to that vehicle is because of the damage
25 indicative of the motorcycle striking the side of the Escalade,

50
1 correc t?
2 A. That's correc t.
3 Q. And you unders tand, Detect ive Areva los, that the idea
4 that the motorc ycle struck the left -- left of the passen ger's
5 side of the Escala de is compl etely contra dictor y to what the
6 compl ainant says, correc t?
7 A. We just wanted to show the damage .
8 Q. Sir, it's either correc t or not.
9 A. I can't -- I can't --
10 Q. Okay.
11 A. -- answer that.
12 Q. Sir, are -- sir, you're not aware, sir, that your own
the
13 your compl aining witnes s in this case, sir, testif ied that
Aren't
14 Escala de struck Mr. Hall's motorc ycle from the rear, sir?
15 you famili ar with that?
I believ e she said that she struck the motor cycle. I

16 A.
17 don't know if she said rear or not. I'd have to look at the
18 statem ent.
19 Q. Well, Detect ive Areva los, isn't it kind of impor tant in

has
20 a murder trial for you to know what the compl aining witnes s
21 to say with respec t to how the incide nt allege dly happen ed?
22 A. Sure. Of course . But, I mean, we also look at the
23 perspe ctive of the indivi dual that what positi on she's in or
24 that person is in when she's drivin g, also.
25 Q. Well, sir, Ms. Contre ras sat in that chair and told this

51
1 jury that she
2 MR. SIMPSON: Objection, violates the Rule.
3 THE COURT: Sustained.
4 Q. (BY MR. CORTEZ) Mr. Contreras -- Mr. --
5 Detective Arevalos, are you not familiar with the fact that
6 Ms. Contreras' testimony is that she looked behind and saw the
7 motorcycle being struck by Ms. Hall?
8 MR. SIMPSON: Once again, Your Honor, I'm going to
9 object to him he's asked to reflect on any testimony he wasn't
10 here for and was not allowed to hear it.
11 THE COURT: Sustained.
12 Q. (BY MR. CORTEZ) Well, Detective Arevalos, you took
13 Ms. Contreras' statement. Wasn't her statement that she was in
14 front of the vehicle?
15 A. I would have to look at her statement and review it.
16 Q. Well, you have your report right in front of you, don't
17 you?
18 A. Yes, sir.
19 Q. Detective Arevalos, in connection with your training as
20 to become an investigator, you don't have any accident
21 reconstruction training, do you?
22 A. No, I do not.
23 Q. And so you're not here to opine on how this accident
24 happened, are you?
25 A. No, I'm not.

52
1 Q. So your mission, your respons ibility was to simply
2 collect statemen ts and take pictures of evidence ?
4 Q. And with respect to the exhibits that we've shown the
5 jury, you took certain pictures regardin g how the accident was
6 reconstr ucted, correct? Allegedl y.
7 A. Yeah. To show the damage to -- I guess get a layman's
8 point of view.
9 Q. All right. And you took one in particul ar of a side of
10 a picture of a rearview mirror, correct?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. And that was the picture that was supposed to show what
13 the where that particul ar motorcyc le was -- In fact, the
14 exhibit that we have before us, 73, the picture that you took of
15 that rearview mirror was supposed to depict what the view of the
16 driver was, correct?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. So Exhibit Number 81 is that picture that I was
19 referenc ing with respect to what the -- what allegedl y would be
20 seen by the driver, correct?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. But there's no real way you can know that because you
23 don't know what position the mirror was in on the date of this
24 incident , do you?
25 A. The vehicles were taken from the scene, so we assumed

53
1 that they were not altered in any way.
2 Q. But, sir, how could you know during the -- during the
3 inciden t where Ms. Hall had that mirror positio ned? You can't
4 know that. That's imposs ible, isn't it?
5 A. That's true.
6 Q. That's true?
7 A. Yeah, that's true. I mean, unless she moved it after
8 the inciden t. And, you know, but the way the vehicle s were at,
9 they were the same way, you know, since that time.
10 Q. Detecti ve, you weren't in the car with her, so there's
11 no way you could know how she had the mirror positio ned?
12 A. No, I do not.
13 Q. Correct ?
15 Q. Okay. And you also don't know how she had her seat
16 adjuste d, do you?
18 Q. Okay. Because , obviou sly, from whatev er angle this
19 picture was taken, it's not the same thing as where Frances Hall
20 would have been seated. You can't know that, correct ?
22 Q. And by the time this picture had been taken, this car
23 had been moved, correct ?
25 Q. Multip le times?

54
1 A. I think -- I think one time, because they -- they both
2 were in the back lot where they were at, we just moved them to
3 different locations as far as the Range Rover being in front of
4 the Escalade. But they were both in that back lot, so probably
5 got moved one time.
6 Q. Well, Detective Arevalos, they were moved from the
7 scene.
8 A. Well, exactly. Since that time, two times, I guess.
9 Q. At least twice?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. So Detective Arevalos, obviously, you have no prior
12 knowledge of any damage with respect to any of these vehicles,
13 correct?
14 A. Only what I can see.
15 Q. Okay. But prior damage?
16 A. No, I do not.
17 Q. And the two -- the Escalade is a 2007 model, correct?
18 A. I believe so, yes.
19 Q. And it has well over a hundred thousand miles on it?
20 A. Possibly, yes.
21 Q. You checked, though, correct?
22 A. I'm pretty sure it was documented .
23 Q. So even in 2013, you weren't dealing with a new -- a new
24 vehicle, correct?
25 A. No.

55
1 Q. So, obviously, a 2007 Escalade by October, 2013, is
2 going to have dings. I call them HEB dings. They're going to
3 have all kinds of damage to them, correct?
5 Q. And with respect to the Range Rover, that was a newer
6 vehicle, but you weren't aren't aware of any accidents or
7 anything that Bill Hall may have backed up into when he was
8 driving it, are you?
9 A. No, not aware.
10 Q. But certainly doesn't mean it's not possible, you're
11 just not aware of it?
12 A. I'm not aware of it.
13 Q. Sir, when Exhibit Number 81 was taken, how did you
14 determine how to adjust the seat or how was that done in order to
15 take that?
16 A. I think that we just sat in the driver's seat and we
17 just turned the camera and took the picture that way. So it
18 wasn't nothing scientific about it, we just kind of turned and
19 took a picture.
20 Q. Did you adjust it for a person who's five-foot-one? Did
21 you adjust it for a person who's -- who's Ms. Hall's size?
22 A. I don't believe so. Like I said, it wasn't scientific,
23 it wasn't -- it was just kind of putting the camera like this and
24 looking through it to take the picture.
25 Q. Okay. So it wasn't done scientifically, so we really

56
1 can't know what value this has, correct?
3 Q. Detective, I'm showing you what's been marked and
4 admitted into evidence as State's Exhibit Number 6. Do you see
5 that before you?
6 A. Yes, I do.
7 Q. It's a little bright but I -- you -- you can look and
8 see that that's the rear of the motorcycle that Bill Hall was
9 riding, correct?
10 A. Yes, I do.
11 Q. And there's no significan t damage to the rear of that
12 motorcycle , correct?
13 A. I just see some scrapes and things above the license
14 plate.
15 Q. Correct.
16 A. Yeah, that's it.
17 Q. But nothing at -- at its -- its most, the -- the point
18 that's most toward the end, there's no significan t damage,
19 correct?
20 A. I can't see any.
21 Q. Okay. Thank you.
22 Detective Arevalos, looking at State's Exhibit
23 Number 8. Now, you're not an accident reconstruc tion expert,
24 correct?
25 A. No.

57
1 Q. But the damage on the side of the Escalade is clearly
2 indicative of the motorcycle striking the side of the Escalade?
4 Q. And that's the whole reason why we took all these
5 pictures, correct?
6 A. Yes, exactly.
7 Q. And based on your understanding from taking the witness
8 statements, it's clear that Bill Hall was riding along the
9 shoulder of the roadway at the time that the -- that his
10 motorcycle struck the Escalade, correct?
11 A. To my understanding, he was on the passenger's side. I
12 don't know if he was on the shoulder or not, but he was on the
13 passenger's side.
14 Q. Well, sir, there's only one lane going each way. So if
15 he was beside the Escalade, he had to be on the shoulder.
16 A. Well, vehicles are mobile. They can move from side to
17 side anyway.
18 Q. Sir, are you saying you don't have any knowledge, you
19 haven't taken any statements or reviewed any evidence that
20 suggest that he was riding on the shoulder? Is that what you're
21 telling this jury?
22 A. Exactly. I don't know for sure. No one actually said
23 that he was actually driving on the shoulder.
24 Q. You mean no one you spoke to?
25 A. No one I spoke to.

58
1 Q. Are you familiar with Mr. Botello? You testified
2 earlier regarding Mr. Botello, but you didn't get a statement
3 from him?
4 A. No, did not.
5 Q. Okay. But you haven't -- but you have -- are you aware
6 of any -- you're aware of the civil suit, correct?
7 A. Yes, uh-huh.
8 Q. And are you aware his deposition was taken in that?
9 A. I believe so.
10 Q. Okay. Have you obtained a copy of it?
11 A. No, I have not.
12 Q. So no one from the State has shown you any of that?
13 A. No.
14 Q. Okay. So in preparation for your testimony, all you did
15 was review these exhibits and your report?
17 Q. But you agree that if Bill Hall is riding his motorcycle
18 along the shoulder of the road, that's actually illegal, correct?
19 A. Well, you're not supposed to, no.
20 Q. Well, you're not supposed to because it's against the
21 Transportatio n Code, correct?
23 Q. You have to drive within the marked lane, correct?
25 Q. And if he's on the shoulder, then he was violating the

59
1 law, correct ?
2 A. That's correc t. Unless you're having some difficu lty
3 with a vehicle , you pull off the side of the road.
4 Q. But that's not the case?
5 A. No.
6 Q. And he was traveli ng, at least underst andably , at a high
7 rate of speed, correct ?
8 A. I believe so.
9 Q. So he was traveli ng on the shoulde r of the road, which
10 is illegal , at a high rate of speed. Highly dangero us, isn't it?
11 A. Like I said, I don't know what -- about the shoulde r of
12 the road.
13 Q. That's -- that's highly dangero us to do so, correct ?
14 A. That is correct .
15 Q. And you could die doing that, correct ?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. And that's what happene d here, correct ?
18 A. Well, he did die, yes.
19 Q. Detecti ve, I'm going to show you a couple more picture s
20 here. Detecti ve, I'm going to show you what's been marked as
21 Defend ant's Exhibi t Number 18 and ask you if you can identif y
22 these picture s. You might identif y them. You might recogni ze
23 that right hand.
24 A. Yes. Those are the picture s that we took in the back
25 lot.

60
1 Q. Okay. They're just differen t ones?
2 A. Yeah, the ones you just saw.
3 Q. And obviousl y, these correctl y depict what you took on
4 that date, correct?
5 A. Yes, that's correct.
6 MR. CORTEZ: I move -- Defense moves to have
7 Defenda nt's Exhibit Number 18 offered into evidence and I'll
8 tender it to the State for objectio n.
9 (Defenda nt's Exhibit Number 18 offered) .
10 MR. SIMPSON: No objectio n.
11 THE COURT: It is admitted .
12 (Defenda nt's Exhibit Number 18 admitted ).
13 Q. (BY MR. CORTEZ) What's been marked as Defenda nt's
14 Exhibit Number 19, I want you to take a look and see if you can
15 identify that for me.
16 A. Yes, same pictures . Just more pictures taken there in
17 the back lot.
18 Q. On the same day?
19 A. Same day.
20 MR. CORTEZ: Move for the admissio n of Defenda nt's
21 19, subject to objectio n from the State.
22 (Defenda nt's Exhibit Number 19 offered) .
23 MR. SIMPSON: No objectio ns.
24 THE COURT: It is admitted .

61
1 Q. (BY MR. CORTEZ) Apologize for having these out of
2 order. Defendant's Exhibit Number 16, I'm going to show you that
3 and have you identify what Defendant's Exhibit Number 16 depicts.
4 A. Looks like the pieces of the motorcycle and the other
5 major part of the motorcycle.
6 Q. Where have these been taken?
7 A. This is at the crime scene.
8 Q. And it's a fair and accurate depiction of how it was
9 observed on that day?
10 A. Yes.
11 MR. CORTEZ: Defense moves for admission of
12 Defendant's Exhibit Number 16, tender to State for objection.
14 THE WITNESS: Those two bottom photos are not from
15 the crime scene, though.
16 MR. CORTEZ: You've identified them as --
17 THE WITNESS: Part of the -- part of the bike,
18 yeah.
19 MR. SIMPSON: Take the witness on voir dire,
20 briefly?
24 Q. So the two bottom photos of Defense Exhibit 16, do you
25 have any idea when or who took these photos?

62
1 A. To my knowledg e, it looks like when the vehicle was in
2 the at Mel Davis, that long-term storage, the lot area. That
3 looks like the vehicle or the pictures that were taken in that
4 lot, in that facility area that the bike was at, stored in.
5 Q. So these -- do you have an idea of who would have taken
6 those pictures ?
7 A. I don't know.
8 Q. Were you there when the Defense experts went there
9 every --
10 A. Yeah.
11 Q. Every time --
12 A. Yeah, every time. Yeah. Yeah.
13 Q. -- the Defense experts went, you were there?
14 A. Yes. We would -- I mean, as far as our evidence person,
15 I don't think we would take addition al photos, I mean ...
16 Q. Right.
17 A. I think it was Defense or someone taking their own
18 photogra phs.
19 MR. SIMPSON: Okay. I have no objectio n.
20 MR. CORTEZ: Apprecia te it.
21 THE COURT: Defense Exhibit 16 is admitted .
23 CROSS-EXAMINATION (continu ed)
25 Q. Finally, Detectiv e Arevalos , I'll show you what's been

63
1 marked as Defendant's Exhibit Number 17 and ask you if you can
2 identify the photos in this case. I think you can but here let
3 me
4 A. Yeah. The top one looks like the -- the one that was
5 pictured at the at the scene. The two middle ones were
6 pictures that were taken inside the -- our evidence bay. And the
7 last two down here were pictures of the vehicle at the long-term
8 storage lot.
9 Q. Thank you very much.
10 Now, looking at Defendant's Exhibit Number 17, can
11 you find where that little black piece that was referenced
12 earlier, can you find where that is in that picture?
13 MR. SIMPSON: I'm -- I'm sorry, I'm not sure. Has
14 17 been admitted?
15 MR. CORTEZ: I apologize. I'll tender to Defense
16 counsel for admission. I mean, State's counsel. Good grief, I
17 just called him Defense counsel.
19 MR. SIMPSON: Okay. No objection.
22 Q. (BY MR. CORTEZ) If you recall, the question was,
23 detective, if you can find the little black piece that happened
24 to be inside the grille?
25 A. Yeah, I can't see it from -- from here.

64
1 Q. Okay. We're looking at the to picture, for the record,
2 of Defense Exhibit Number 17, and that little black piece that
3 was referenc ed later at the -- in the Davis lot, correct? That's
4 not in there, is it?
5 A. No. And to my knowledg e, I don't know whether or not
6 the piece was if you would have taken a picture from this side
7 angle, it's -- I don't know. I can't see it from that.
8 Q. Okay. Correct. Then I'll show you Defenda nt's Exhibit
9 Number 14, which is a similar shot but more of a straight -on
10 shot.
11 A. Right.
12 Q. Anywhere , do you see that black piece that we found in
13 the grille that you talked about on -- with the State on direct?
14 A. I can't see from this photo.
15 Q. Can't see it because it's not there, is it?
16 A. (No response ).
17 Q. Correct?
18 A. Yeah, I can't see it.
19 Q. And it's obviousl y your job to keep these -- it's
20 importan t to keep these pieces of evidence protecte d?
22 Q. So obviousl y, sometime from the actual scene to when you
23 took those pictures at the Davis lot, somethin g got in that
24 grille, correct?
25 A. Correct.

65
1 Q. Because the grille is in pristine, correct? Condition,
2 correct?
3 A. Like I said, it was taken from the crime scene to our
4 back lot.
5 Q. Okay. And sometime within that time frame, that little
6 black piece got in there, correct?
7 A. Yeah. Like I said, when we took the photograph s of
8 the where the black piece was at, it was there. And I don't
9 see it on the grille when you showed me right here.
10 MR. CORTEZ: May I approach the witness?
12 Q. (BY MR. CORTEZ) Detective Arevalos, the little black
13 piece that we talked about, that's not the only -- the only thing
14 about the condition of the Escalade that changed from -- from the
15 scene to the Davis lot, correct?
16 A. (No audible response).
17 Q. Because, see, looking at Defendant 's Exhibit Number 17,
18 we seem to see some dust. You can't tell what that is on there,
19 correct?
20 A. That is correct.
21 Q. And none of that was ever analyzed, was it?
22 A. Not at the scene.
23 Q. Was it analyzed later and determined what it was?
24 A. Yeah. When we went back over here in the evidence bay
25 lot, that's when we were closely looking at that damage that's

66
1 there.
2 Q. Okay. But that that -- that damage was never
3 analyzed to determine if it was paint transfer from any other
4 vehicle, correct?
5 A. No. That's why we called the crime lab's Mike Martinez
6 to come assist us.
7 Q. But it was never analyzed to determine what -- what --
8 what it is, was it?
9 A. No. He said it was something as far as -- he had some
10 terminology he used as far as clear coat or something like that.
11 Q. Okay. But it wasn't any paint transfer from any other
12 vehicle, correct?
13 A. No, not that I was aware of.
14 Q. Okay. And then when we look at this picture, these
15 pictures were taken at the lot, correct?
17 Q. And then all of that is completely gone, correct?
18 A. Like I said, you know, when it's out in long-term
19 storage, as far as rain or something like that, going out, you
20 know, it can wash out some particles and stuff like that.
21 Q. So these particles were apparently washed off because
22 the cars are left out and exposed, correct?
23 A. Possibly, yes.
24 Q. Okay. Detective Arevalos, as part of your
25 investigation, did you review the crash report that was taken in

67
1 the case?
2 A. I think I briefly saw it in the very beginning of the
3 investigation . After that, I didn't review it.
4 Q. And are you aware that the crash report falsely depicts
5 the positions of the vehicles, correct?
6 A. Yes, yes, it does.
7 Q. And it falsely depicts the direction of the vehicles?
9 Q. It even misidentifies the vehicles in the report?
10 A. Yeah, yeah, it was all wrong.
11 Q. Okay. So that's part of the misinformatio n, indecision
12 that Sergeant Burchell was talking about?
13 A. I don't know what he testified to; he made comments
14 about stuff like that.
15 Q. But clearly it was wrong, correct?
16 A. Yeah, that's wrong.
17 Q. This Davis lot where the motorcycle and the Range Rover
18 and Escalade were kept, isn't that supposed to be a secure lot?
19 A. Yes, it is.
20 Q. But pieces of Mr. Hall's motorcycle were actually stolen
21 from the lot?
22 A. Not to my knowledge.
23 Q. Well, weren't there pieces missing from that?
24 A. No. I think we identified most of those items over
25 there. The saddlebags, the seat. I know there was debris that

68
high
1 we didn't possib ly collec t out in the field becaus e of the
2 grass, but no major items that I'm aware of.
3 MR. CORTEZ: May I approa ch?
5 (Pause in procee dings) .
6 Q. (BY MR. CORTEZ) While I'm thinki ng about it.
7 Detec tive Areva los, the crime scene indica ted that there were
8 some scrape s on the road; do you recall that?
9 A. Yes, I believ e so. Yes.
10 Q. And those were at least sugges ted the eviden ce
11 sugge sts that the left side of the motorc ycle scrape d the road?
12 A. We can assume that, yes.
13 Q. Well, it's not incon sisten t for that to have been the
14 case?
15 A. That's true.
16 Q. Okay. So -- and obviou sly, at some point the motorc ycle
17 strike s, clearl y, the left side of the Escala de, correc t?
19 Q. And then there' s some skid marks kind of as the
20 motorc ycle losses contro l, correc t?
21 A. It appear s that way, yes.
22 Q. But again, you're not saying you're an expert
23 recon struct ionist ?
24 A. Exactl y.
25 Q. Detec tive Areva los, you took some inform ation from

69
1 Bonnie Contreras' phone correct?
2 A. Yes, I did.
3 Q. And you also did the same from Bill Hall's phone,
4 correct?
5 A. Yes, I did.
6 Q. Okay. And can you tell -- apparently, you took
7 possession of the Ms. Contreras' phone well after the accident,
8 correct?
9 A. I believe it was -- I think I took the screen shots of
10 the phone, and then also later on we downloaded a full version of
11 her phone.
12 Q. In fact, it wasn't until November 15, 2013, when you
13 finally got the phone Ms. Contreras was using that night,
14 correct?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. Why such a delay?
17 A. I think we assumed that, of course, she used her own
18 phone for the most part. She said she had an old phone of his
19 and if we wanted it, and of course we were going to be collecting
20 anything that she exactly -- as far as if she wanted to show us
21 something, we're going to take a look at it and do our due
22 diligence and find out what's on it.
23 Q. Okay. But, obviously, allowing the complaining witness
24 to hang on to the phone, the phone can be altered and damaged,
25 correct?

70
1 A. That's correct. Well, that's why we have our computer
2 forensic people.
3 Q. Okay. But the whole idea is to avoid having to do that,
4 correct?
5 A. That's true. But we didn't know at that time that she
6 had his phone.
7 Q. And, Detective, why would you allow the complaining
8 witness to hang on to Bill Hall's phone for more than a month
9 after the incident?
10 MR. SIMPSON: Objection, asked and answered. He's
11 already said he didn't know they had the phone.
12 THE COURT: That's overruled. I'll let him answer
13 it. Go ahead.
14 THE WITNESS: I didn't know she had the phone until
15 that time.
16 Q. (BY MR. CORTEZ) Weren't you aware at that point that
17 she made those calls from the phone during the alleged incident?
18 A. We assumed that she used her own phone at that point.
19 Q. Okay. You assumed she used it and you never checked?
20 A. Like I said, we downloaded her phone and we collected
21 most of the information from her phone later on that day.
22 Q. Did you give the discs of the download of
23 Bonnie Contreras' phone to the DA's office?
24 A. I believe we had to put it on a flash drive, yes.
25 Q. When did you do that?

71
1 A. Probably months after the prosecution guide was
2 submitted, probably.
3 Q. So months after January of 2014?
4 A. Possibly. We might have obtained it before then.
5 Q. But you did give it to District Attorney's Office?
6 A. Yes, I did.
7 Q. So sometime in 2014?
8 A. I believe so. It had to be probably after the meeting,
9 mid-November, some time about a month and a half after the
10 incident.
11 MR. CORTEZ: At this time I don't think I have any
12 further questions. Pass the witness.
13 REDIRECT EXAMINATION
15 Q. Okay. The officer who did the crash report, who was
16 that?
17 A. Deputy Soto, I believe.
18 Q. Does it make sense if I told you it was Officer Rico?
19 A. Rico. There you go. He's no longer with us.
20 Q. And Rico worked what back then?
21 A. He was working traffic.
22 MR. CORTEZ: Objection, repetitive, Your Honor.
23 THE COURT: I'll overrule. Go ahead.
24 THE WITNESS: He was working traffic at that time.
25 Patrol, traffic.

72
1 Q. (BY MR. SIMPSON) Okay. Who is the person who was the
2 supervisor out there at the scene?
3 A. That was -- Sergeant Burchell was the initial
4 supervisor.
5 Q. Sergeant Burchell is the one in charge of the one who
6 made the
7 MR. CORTEZ: Objection leading?
8 MR. SIMPSON: -- report?
9 THE COURT: Overruled.
10 THE WITNESS: Yes, he's the one making those
11 decisions.
12 Q. (BY MR. SIMPSON) Okay. Now, as the lead investigator,
13 who gets to decide what kind of charges are filed with the DA's
14 office?
15 A. I think it's a collaborative effort --
16 MR. CORTEZ: Objection, Your Honor, it's relevance.
18 THE WITNESS: Ultimately my decision, whether or
19 not, what charges she'll get charged for.
20 Q. (BY MR. SIMPSON) So when Defense says to you it was
21 already decided when you went out there, who's the one who is
22 going to make that decision?
23 A. Me.
24 Q. And is that the decision you make?
25 A. Yes.

73
1 Q. And what pieces of informatio n or what are the factors
2 that caused you -- First of all, how did you file the case with
3 the DA's office?
4 A. I filed it as a murder charge, and an aggravated assault
5 against Bonnie, as well.
6 Q. Okay. And what are the factors that caused you to make
7 that decision?
8 A. The actual witness testimony, the evidence we had at the
9 scene, the actions that the defendant took after the actual
10 collision.
11 Q. What do you mean by that?
12 MR. CORTEZ: Objection, narrative.
13 MR. SIMPSON: What do you mean by
14 THE COURT: Overruled. Go ahead.
15 Q. (BY MR. SIMPSON) What do you mean by the actions the
16 defendant took after Mr. Hall was run off the road?
17 A. After the initial impact with Bill Hall's motorcycle ,
18 she continued to pursue Bonnie Contreras in her vehicle up and
19 down 1604 --
20 MR. CORTEZ: Objection, Your Honor, hearsay. He's
21 testifying regarding statements , Your Honor. This is complete
22 hearsay.
23 THE COURT: That's overruled, as well. Go ahead.
24 THE WITNESS: So those actions led me to come to
25 the conclusion .

74
1 Q. (BY MR. SIMPSON) And did you give Frances Hall the
2 opportunity to make a statement?
3 A. Yes, I did.
4 MR. CORTEZ: Objection, comment on
5 THE COURT: What's the objection?
6 MR. CORTEZ: May we approach?
7 THE COURT: I'm sorry, say again.
8 MR. CORTEZ: May we approach?
10 {At the bench, out of the hearing of the jury).
11 THE COURT: We are at a bench conference out of the
12 hearing of the jury.
13 Yes, Mr. Cortez.
14 MR. CORTEZ: Yes, Your Honor, the last question --
15 THE COURT: I can't hear you.
16 MR. CORTEZ: The last question was -- would be a
17 State comment on --
18 COURT REPORTER: I can't hear you, Mr. Cortez.
19 THE COURT: She can't hear you.
20 MR. BROWN: Okay. Well, he did
21 THE COURT: Just one. Just one. Go ahead.
22 MR. CORTEZ: Your Honor, I probably going to have
23 to be heard by the jury. I think we need -- Can I make the
24 objection outside the presence of the jury, Your Honor?
25 THE COURT: No. I mean, the last thing I have on

75
1 the question according to the --
2 MR. CORTEZ: You know where I'm going with this.
3 THE COURT: -- the transcript that I have, he --

4 MR. CORTEZ: (Unintelligible).
5 THE COURT: Hold on.
6 MR. CORTEZ: (Unintelligible).
7 THE COURT: Hold on. The last question that I have
8 on my computer screen has the court reporter's transcript.
9 The question is: Did you give Frances Hall the opportunity to
10 make a statement? Answer, Yes, I did. I don't see, especially
11 in light of State's Exhibit 91-A, why that's -- why there's any
12 objection to that. I'll overrule it. What's your concern?
13 MR. CORTEZ: There can be no further comment,
14 Your Honor, because that would be a comment on her
15 THE COURT: There is no further comment. I agree.
16 But he's asking whether she had an opportunity to make a
17 statement.
18 MR. CORTEZ: As long as they're not -- (inaudible).
19 MR. SIMPSON: No.
20 MR. CORTEZ: (Inaudible).
21 THE COURT: Did you get that?
22 COURT REPORTER: I couldn't hear the last thing
23 Adam said.
24 (In open court).
25 THE COURT: Bench conference is over.

76
1 Q. (BY MR. SIMPSON) And what information did you have,
2 from instance -- for instance, like, from witnesses Hall [sic]
3 about the relationship between Bill Hall and Frances Hall? How
4 was that going?
5 A. Well, it was going pretty bad.
6 Q. Is that another factor that was part of your conclusion?
7 A. Yes.
8 MR. SIMPSON: Pass the witness, Your Honor.
9 RECROSS-EXAMINATION
11 Q. And Detective Arevalos, part of that information that
12 you had, you said it didn't include Bonnie Contreras saying that
13 she was in front of the motorcycle and Ms. -- and Ms. Hall was in
14 back of the motorcycle; is that correct?
15 A. Well, at the time of the --
16 Q. It's either correct or it's not?
17 A. Well, repeat the question, please.
18 Q. Detective Arevalos, part of the information that you
19 just discussed, wasn't part of that information the fact that
20 Ms. Contreras said that she was in front of Bill Hall on when
21 he was on his motorcycle and Mrs. Hall was in back of the
22 motorcycle? Is that correct or not?
23 A. In back of the motorcycle?
24 Q. Yes.
25 A. Yes.

77
1 Q. That's -- that's the information that you had?
2 A. Yes, at the time.
3 Q. And is it also the information you had that she claims
4 that Ms. Hall struck the motorcycle from behind and his body went
5 flying and the motorcycle went flying? Isn't that correct or
6 not?
7 A. To my knowledge, this is going on Bonnie
8 Contreras' information --
9 Q. Your information that you just testified that you had,
10 right?
11 A. That she struck Bill Hall and he went flying. But as
12 far as details, as far as -- I would have to look at her
13 statement, like I said.
14 Q. Okay. Well, you just said that -- We're in a murder
15 trial. If you don't know how it happened, how can the jury?
16 A. Referring back to my report, Bonnie looks back to see
17 the Escalade strike Bill's motorcycle and sees Bill flying in the
18 air, period.
19 Q. Okay.
20 A. That's what I wrote.
21 Q. Exactly. So she says she struck him from behind.
22 A. I didn't say behind.
23 Q. I'm sorry?
24 A. I don't think I said behind in my report.
25 Q. So that -- so it's not part of your information that she

78
1 looked behind and saw the vehicle -- saw Mr. Hall being struck
2 from the rear?
3 A. She looked behind? Is that what you're saying?
4 Q. Yes. And saw the motorcycle being struck from the rear.
5 A. Like I said, I don't know about the details. You would
6 have to get that from Bonnie.
7 Q. Okay. So the details aren't important before you charge
8 someone with murder, sir?
9 A. Like I said, I had that information at that time.
10 MR. CORTEZ: Thank you. Nothing further.
11 REDIRECT EXAMINATION
13 Q. And are you making your decision based solely on what
14 Bonnie said?
15 A. No.
16 Q. As a matter of fact, you know what some -- what Bonnie
17 said doesn't make
18 MR. CORTEZ: Objection, that's clearly leading.
19 THE COURT: Overruled. Go ahead. Go ahead.
20 Overruled.
21 Q. (BY MR. SIMPSON) Do you know that some of what Bonnie
22 said doesn't make sense, based on what you've seen?
24 Q. Does that change your decision to charge Frances Hall
25 with murder?

79
1 MR. CORTEZ: Objection, Your Honor, that calls for
2 speculation.
4 THE WITNESS: No, did not change my decision.
5 MR. SIMPSON: No further questions for this
6 witness.
7 MR. CORTEZ: Nothing further.
8 THE COURT: All right. Sir, the Rule is in effect.
9 So that means you cannot talk to other witnesses about what you
10 know about this case, what you've testified to, what questions
11 were posed or other occurrences here in court. You can talk to
12 the attorneys. If you can take the exhibits that you have there
13 and make sure you give it to the court reporter on your way out,
14 you're excused, sir. Thank you, sir.
15 THE WITNESS: Thank you, Judge.
16 (Witness exits).
17 (End of requested transcription).
18
19 ********THIS IS A ROUGH DRAFT.
20 ***********CERT WILL BE ATTACHED TO FINAL DRAFT
21
22
23
24
25

Murder trial crash evidence seems to conflict with girlfriend’s account of motorcycle crash - San Antonio Express-News
EXHIBIT 19
https://www.mysanantonio.com/news/local/crime/article/Murder-trial-crash-evidence-conflicts-with-
9196441.php
Murder trial crash evidence seems to conflict with

girlfriend’s account of motorcycle crash
Defense questions detective in trial on truck boss’ death
By Elizabeth Zavala Updated 3:01 pm, Thursday, September 1, 2016
IMAGE 1 OF 35
Frances Hall, 53, left, is comforted by Ester Martinez, the aunt of her deceased husband, Bill Hall Jr., the
man she is accused of murdering, during the third day of Hall's murder trial in San Antonio, Texas on
Thursday, September 1, 2016. The District Attorney's office said she killed her husband of 32 years in a fit of
jealousy by running his motorcycle off the road on Oct. 10, 2013. The death was ruled a homicide. Lawyers
for Frances Hall, 53, said it was an accident.
Photographs shown Wednesday of the three vehicles involved in a series of

crashes, including the one that killed San Antonio trucking tycoon Bill Hall Jr. in
2013, appeared to conflict with the eyewitness testimony of Hall’s girlfriend at his wife’s
murder trial.
https://www.mysanantonio.com/news/local/crime/article/Murder-trial-crash-evidence-conflicts-with-9196441.php 1/4
2/8/2018 Murder trial crash evidence seems to conflict with girlfriend’s account of motorcycle crash - San Antonio Express-News
Frances Hall, 53, is accused of killing her husband of 32 years by running his custom
blue Harley-Davidson motorcycle off the road Oct. 10, 2013.
She also is charged with aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, accused of
ramming her Cadillac Escalade into the Range Rover driven by Bill Hall’s girlfriend,
Bonnie Contreras. Prosecutors said Frances Hall was at the breaking point because
of her husband’s long-running affair.
RELATED: Murder trial witness: Husband had cheated for 3 years when flung from
his Harley
Contreras testified Tuesday that she saw, in her rearview mirror, Frances Hall’s SUV hit
Bill Hall Jr. from behind. The defense contends it was an accident, that he lost control
and crashed while riding on the shoulder of South Loop 1604 alongside his wife’s
vehicle.
Local Channel
Deadly 4-alarm fire strikes Northwest Side shopping mall

San Antonio Fire Department Chief Charles Hood was grief…
  00:00 05:06   
Now Playing
Deadly 4-alarm fire Video shows Deputy stabbed in Listen: Recorded
strikes Northwest suspect who shot neck while breaking Uresti interview
Side shopping San Antonio up fight... played at federal
mall... AutoZone San Antonio Express- trial...
San Antonio Express- manager... News San Antonio Express-
News San Antonio Express- News
News
Pictures of the damage to the Escalade, presented by Bexar County Sheriff’s Office
homicide Detective Ruben Arevalos, showed a shattered rear window and gouges,
scrapes and streaks of what appeared to be blue paint on the SUV’s right side.
“A blue paint chip was found in the middle carpet bed area of the Escalade,” he said.
Defense attorney Adam Cortez hammered Arevalos on what he called a “rush to

judgment” to blame Frances Hall because he interviewed only one witness —
Contreras — and the photographs shown were “indicative of the motorcycle striking
the Escalade.”
Cortez also asked Arevalos why he didn’t pursue reports that a witness told 911
operators that Bill Hall Jr. was seen riding on the shoulder of the highway.
“I have no information about Bill Hall driving on the shoulder of the highway,” Arevalos
said.
On cross-examination by prosecutor Scott Simpson, the detective said he filed the

case as a murder because of witness testimony and evidence at the scene and
because after the impact with the motorcycle, Frances Hall continued down South
Loop 1604 in pursuit of Contreras.
Contreras testified that the Escalade hit the Range Rover repeatedly until she eluded it.
Also testifying Wednesday, a cousin of Bill Hall said Hall and his wife went to Corpus
Christi the weekend before he was killed to try to fix their broken marriage but fought
because Contreras kept texting and calling him.
The cousin, Hank Hall, said the couple returned home because Contreras would not
leave them alone. A couple of days later, Hank Hall said, the pair got into an argument
and Frances Hall “kicked his butt,” so Bill Hall left.
They had met when they were teenagers, were married by 18 and together built their
trucking business, Hank Hall said. “It’s Frances’ company, too,” he said.
Earlier, Hank Hall’s wife, Melissa Hall, testifying about the same fight, said Frances Hall
had told her she had “beaten him up.”
“She showed me her (finger) nail, where the nail polish came off,” Melissa Hall said.
Hank Hall said that “Frances was upset because they were supposed to be working
this out, and he was still texting her (Contreras).”
When defense attorney Leigh Cutter asked him if he thought Frances Hall killed his
cousin, Hank Hall replied, after a long pause, “No.”
ezavala@express-news.net
Twitter: @elizabeth2863
© 2018 Hearst Communications, Inc.
Defense expert: Bill Hall’s motorcycle hit wife’s SUV — not the other way around - San Antonio Express-News
EXHIBIT 20
https://www.mysanantonio.com/news/local/crime/article/Defense-expert-Bill-Hall-s-motorcyle-hit-
9206270.php
Defense expert: Bill Hall’s motorcycle hit wife’s SUV

— not the other way around
By Elizabeth Zavala Updated 7:10 pm, Tuesday, September 6, 2016
IMAGE 1 OF 20
Defense attorney Leigh Cutter asks Charles Ruble, an accident analyst, about a photograph of Bill Hall Jr.’s
wrecked motorcycle during the murder trial of his wife, Frances Hall.
An expert hired by Frances Hall's defense team testified at her murder trial
Tuesday there was “no way” she rammed her SUV into a Range Rover driven by
her husband's lover, and that Bill Hall Jr. hit Frances Hall’s Cadillac Escalade with his
motorcycle, not the other way around.
The collision caused Hall to crash as all three were involved in a highway chase,
authorities have said. Prosecution experts testified last week that the Escalade hit the
motorcyle from the side and struck the Range Rover at least twice from behind.
https://www.mysanantonio.com/news/local/crime/article/Defense-expert-Bill-Hall-s-motorcyle-hit-9206270.php 1/4
2/8/2018 Defense expert: Bill Hall’s motorcycle hit wife’s SUV — not the other way around - San Antonio Express-News
Frances Hall, 53, is accused of killing Bill Hall, 50, by running him off the road. He died
after he was flung from his motorcycle on South Loop 410 on Oct. 10, 2013.
She also is charged with aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, accused of chasing
and ramming the SUV driven by her husband’s girlfriend, Bonne Contreras, after the
motorcycle crash. The Range Rover belonged to the Halls.
Lawyers for Frances Hall said the motorcycle crash was an accident. Both prosecution
and defense experts have contradicted Contreras, who testified last week that that she
saw Frances Hall hit her husband's motorcycle from behind and that the Escalade
rammed the rear of the Range Rover anywhere from 10 to 16 times.
Local Channel
Deadly 4-alarm fire strikes Northwest Side shopping mall
San Antonio Fire Department Chief Charles Hood was grief…
  00:00 05:06   
Now Playing
Deadly 4-alarm fire Video shows Deputy stabbed in Listen: Recorded
strikes Northwest suspect who shot neck while breaking Uresti interview
Side shopping San Antonio up fight... played at federal
mall... AutoZone San Antonio Express- trial...
San Antonio Express- manager... News San Antonio Express-
News San Antonio Express- News
News
“There's no evidence of this contact that Bonnie (Contreras) referred to,” defense
witness Charles Ruble, an accident analyst, told the jury Tuesday.
He said there was no damage on the rear of the motorcycle, and no damage on the
front of the Escalade. Ruble said the Escalade is taller than the Range Rover and he
did not see any evidence of straight-on or angular impact between them.
Ruble used photographs, toy SUVs and a toy motorcycle to recreate the crash. He said
the motorcycle was behind the Escalade and if Bill Hall had not moved to the shoulder,
he would have rear-ended it.
Once alongside, “the motorcycle swerved (left) into the right side of the Escalade,
then swerved to the right,” Ruble said. “Faced with going off the road, he has to
react.”
When Hall leaned left again, he lost control, Ruble said.
Prosecutors attempted to discredit Ruble’s analysis because some of his findings

came from an eyewitness who has not appeared at the trial but gave a deposition in
the $2.5 million lawsuit Contreras filed against Frances Hall.
Asked how much the defense was paying him, Ruble said his rate is $175 per hour,
and his in-court rate is $190 per hour.
If convicted, Frances Hall faces up to life in prison.
ezavala@express-news.net
Twitter: @elizabeth2863
© 2018 Hearst Communications, Inc.
EXHIBIT 21
EXHIBIT 22

Writ of Habeas Corpus

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Writ of Habeas Corpus

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

FILED

FACTS SUPPORTING GROUND ONE:

FACTS SUPPORTING GROUND TWO:

FACTS SUPPORTING GROUND FOUR:

THE STATE OF TEXAS § IN THE COURT

MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF APPLICATIONS FOR A

TO THE HONORABLE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS:

Memorandum of Law in Support of her Applications for a Writ of Habeas Corpus

INTRODUCTION AND LEGAL STANDARD

1. This memorandum is intended to briefly address the legal aspects of the

(Said Judgments are attached hereto as Exhibit 1 and incorporated by reference

to the assistance of counsel is guaranteed by the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments

to the United States Constitution and Article 1, Section 10 of the Texas

include a “right to the effective assistance of counsel.” See, McMann v.

effective assistance of counsel a defendant is unable to assert all of the rights

criminal process is assured only if an accused is represented by an effective

California, 386 U.S. 738, 743 (1967).

(1984) established the standard for determining whether an attorney rendered

summarized as follows: 1) the defendant must show that counsel’s performance

ineffective assistance of counsel rests on the convicted defendant by a

FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND ARGUMENT AS TO GROUND ONE OF

failing to elicit exculpatory testimony by any standard of proof. As is delineated in

Assault of her husband’s mistress, Bonnie Contreras. Paragraph I of the Charge of

furtherance of the commission or attempt, or in immediate flight from the

known is that the complainant/decedent, Bill Hall, was on a motorcycle, Frances

Contreras, was in a 2013 Super Charged Range Rover.

(Page 43, lines 16-20 of Exhibit 3).

result of respiratory issues relating to being airlifted with pneumothorax, 1 and

decompensated due to a tension pneumothorax… I believe his wounds may

(Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome) ventilator settings. He would have

no catastrophic injuries were identified on the coroner’s report of the

autopsy… His labs, history, and presentation all pointed to a respiratory

Said email is incorporated by reference as if fully set forth herein)(Emphasis

6. The chronology and comments of Dr. Reed provide a fairly easy to

Rulon regarding the cause of death but it is a refutation of that opinion by a

and 17 that reveal Dr. Reed’s experience in emergency medical care).

extent, the objection of Leigh Cutter.

7. Specifically, on September 5, 2016 at 5:51 p.m., Jean Brown rejected the

case.” (Said text is attached as Exhibit 6 and incorporated by reference as if fully

8. On September 5, 2016, at 6:14 p.m., the undersigned counsel endeavored to

attached as Exhibit 7 and incorporated by reference as if fully set forth herein).

Two minutes later, on September 5, 2016 at 6:16 p.m., in response to the

have to disclose to Frances Hall what she strangely characterized as “ridiculous

of relieving Frances of criminal liability on that theory.” (Exhibit 9 attached hereto

September 5, 2016, the undersigned continued to implore Jean Brown to appreciate

favorable to her own client.

report prepared by Dr. Reed. What is clear is that it is inexplicable to reject

at the same time characterizing that favorable expert medical testimony as a

“ridiculous legal theory.” It is equally inexplicable to be defending a murder case

Dr. Reed. Furthermore, it is a violation of Rule 1.03 of the Texas Rules of

could participate intelligently in decisions concerning her case.2

the failure of defense counsel to present favorable expert testimony constitutes

Crim. App. 2014) (Ineffective assistance of counsel established by failure to

thoroughly investigate medical evidence before advising client to plead guilty to

(Attorney’s failure to present qualified medical testimony in support of defendant’s

in outcome of the trial and amounts to ineffective assistance). Ex Parte Overton

testimony of the State’s expert. Ex Parte Overton, 444 S.W.3d at 641.

defendants in Overton. Unfortunately, as is the case here, the testimony of Dr.

reasonable decision” by defense counsel. Overton, 444 S.W.3d at 640-641. The

trial. Overton, 444 S.W.3d at 641.

have opened the door to the admission of statements by the defendant/applicant’s

an irrational decision by Jean Brown allegedly in consultation with Alan Brown.

prong of Strickland because her irrational decision caused Frances Hall to be