Texas Death-Row Prisoner Seeks New Trial Citing Hidden Evidence that Prosecutor was Paid to Work for Trial Judge in Same Case

Texas death-row pris­on­er Clinton Young (pic­tured), who came with­in days of exe­cu­tion in October 2017 while pros­e­cu­tors hid evi­dence of his inno­cence, has filed a claim for a new tri­al based upon pre­vi­ous­ly undis­closed evi­dence that an assis­tant dis­trict attor­ney who pros­e­cut­ed him was simul­ta­ne­ous­ly employed by the tri­al judge to pro­vide legal advice in his case. 

In an Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus Seeking Relief from a Judgment of Death, filed August 13, 2020 in Midland County District Court and the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, Young’s lawyers detailed a 17-year his­to­ry in which Assistant District Attorney Ralph Petty served simul­ta­ne­ous­ly as a full-time pros­e­cu­tor and as a part-time law clerk to Midland County judges. The plead­ing doc­u­ments that Petty’s undis­closed activ­i­ties includ­ed serv­ing as a paid judi­cial clerk on cas­es in which he also was act­ing as pros­e­cu­tor, includ­ing in Young’s case — an arrange­ment the legal blog Law & Crime described as a ​“patent­ly unethical dual-role.” 

The appli­ca­tion alleges that dur­ing that time, Petty was part of the pros­e­cu­tion team that obtained Young’s con­vic­tion and death sen­tence, rep­re­sent­ed the state in oppos­ing Young’s state post-con­vic­tion appeals, and obtained a death war­rant for Young’s exe­cu­tion, all the while act­ing as a legal advi­sor to two judges who presided over Young’s tri­al and post-conviction appeals. 

Young’s request for a new tri­al, his lawyers write, ​“is premised on an irrefutable fact: The tri­al judge over­see­ing Petitioner Clinton Young’s con­vic­tion and death sen­tence employed a Midland County pros­e­cu­tor to be a judi­cial clerk while that pros­e­cu­tor was rep­re­sent­ing the State at Young’s tri­al.” They argue that this and oth­er facts estab­lish a series of state and fed­er­al con­sti­tu­tion­al vio­la­tions — includ­ing improp­er ex parte com­mu­ni­ca­tions, judi­cial bias, and pros­e­cu­to­r­i­al mis­con­duct — that void Young’s con­vic­tion and death sen­tence and enti­tle him to a new trial. 

Special coun­sel rep­re­sent­ing the state of Texas in the mat­ter con­ced­ed on August 25 that Young’s con­flict-of-inter­est alle­ga­tion ​“presents an issue of sub­stan­tial mer­it [that] could pos­si­bly be out­come deter­mi­na­tive,” and that he should be grant­ed an evi­den­tiary hear­ing to resolve the issue. 

The Evidence of Prosecutorial Misconduct and Judicial Bias

Young was con­vict­ed and sen­tenced to death for kid­nap­ping and dou­ble mur­der in a 2003 tri­al before Judge John G. Hyde. He has long main­tained his innocence. 

Young’s lawyers first became aware of Petty’s dual role in August 2019, when a new pros­e­cu­tor assigned to the case report­ed a ​“star­tling rev­e­la­tion” that Petty had been ​“paid by Midland District Court judges as a ​‘de fac­to law clerk’ on cas­es in which he also had appeared as the pros­e­cu­tor, includ­ing on Young’s case.” Defense coun­sel sub­se­quent­ly obtained doc­u­ments from pub­lic records requests and from the Midland DA’s office detail­ing Petty’s and the court’s con­flict of inter­est. These includ­ed invoic­es Petty sub­mit­ted to the Midland County Courts and records from an IRS audit of the Midland County DA’s office relat­ed to Petty’s dual employ­ment, as well as infor­ma­tion from the record of Young’s case itself.

Young’s appli­ca­tion doc­u­men­t’s that Petty had been paid $7,200 for legal work he per­formed for Judge Hyde on approx­i­mate­ly 20 cas­es dur­ing the course of Young’s 2003 tri­al, while Petty was on the pros­e­cu­tion team seek­ing Young’s con­vic­tion and death sen­tence. He also pre­sent­ed evi­dence that Hyde paid Petty $1,500 in 2006 for legal work on Young’s case, while Young’s first appli­ca­tion for a state writ of habeas cor­pus was pend­ing before Hyde. During that same time, the record of Young’s case showed that ​“Petty authored the State’s plead­ings oppos­ing Young’s appli­ca­tion and appeared, in-per­son, as the pros­e­cu­tor at the 2006 evi­den­tiary hear­ing.” Young alleges that some of the $1,500 may have been deferred pay­ment for work Petty per­formed dur­ing the trial.

Four years lat­er, after the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals had autho­rized Young to pur­sue a sec­ond habeas peti­tion, Petty again served both as pros­e­cu­tor and law clerk in Young’s case. This time, Petty’s case was before Judge Robert Moore, who held evi­den­tiary hear­ings in January and July 2010. While Petty rep­re­sent­ed the state in those hear­ings, Judge Moore was pay­ing him for his work as a judi­cial clerk. In his role as pros­e­cu­tor, Petty sub­mit­ted a ​“sug­gest­ed order” that sought to dis­miss the claims the appeals court had autho­rized Young to pur­sue. Judge Moore adopt­ed that order verbatim.

After the fed­er­al courts denied Young’s fed­er­al habeas cor­pus peti­tion, Petty filed a motion before Judge Moore seek­ing a death war­rant for Young’s exe­cu­tion. Judge Moore issued the war­rant and set an exe­cu­tion date of October 26, 2017. Young moved to with­draw the war­rant based upon alle­ga­tions that pros­e­cu­tors had obtained his con­vic­tion and death sen­tence with false or per­jured tes­ti­mo­ny. He argued that gun­shot residue on the gloves of David Page, the key pros­e­cu­tion wit­ness, and affi­davits from four pris­on­ers that Page had bragged about com­mit­ting the killing and fram­ing Young would show that Page was the actual killer.

Judge Moore set a hear­ing date on the alle­ga­tions, but, Young alleges, Petty then filed motions with Moore, with­out noti­fy­ing the defense, to grant use-immu­ni­ty to Page and to appoint Petty to rep­re­sent Page at the hear­ing. Young was able to halt the hear­ing, but not before Midland pros­e­cu­tors had obtained a bench war­rant and moved Page to the coun­ty jail. Documents filed with the court show that Midland District Attorney Laura Nodolf then secret­ly inter­viewed Page, who, Young’s appli­ca­tion alleges, ​“admit­ted that (1) he, not Young, kid­napped [the vic­tim] Samuel Petrey at gun­point, (2) Young nev­er sug­gest­ed to slit Petrey’s throat, (3) he tes­ti­fied false­ly at tri­al when deny­ing he bought a pair of gloves hours before Petrey was shot.” While Petty argued in court against lift­ing the death war­rant, Midland pros­e­cu­tors with­held that exculpatory evidence.

Young received a stay of exe­cu­tion from the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals on October 18, 2017, which direct­ed the tri­al court to con­duct an evi­den­tiary hear­ing on his false or per­jured tes­ti­mo­ny claim. A new pros­e­cu­tor was assigned to the case, and in August 2019, Young’s attor­ney received the phone call from the Midland District Attorney’s office alert­ing the defense for the first time to Petty’s dual role in the case and the judi­cial con­flicts of inter­est. The Midland DA’s office then moved to with­draw from the case, call­ing the court’s arrange­ment with Petty a ​“direct vio­la­tion” of eth­i­cal rules. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals grant­ed the motion and appoint­ed new coun­sel to rep­re­sent the state. 

Young’s lawyers now argue that he was tried and con­vict­ed in pro­ceed­ings before ​“a biased tri­bunal that shat­tered any sem­blance of due process or an impar­tial pro­ceed­ing.” As a result, they assert, Young’s con­vic­tion and sen­tence are ​“void and a nullity.” 

Young’s lawyers are ask­ing the court to vacate his con­vic­tion ​“so that he can be tried before an impar­tial tri­bunal in accor­dance with Due Process and the Federal and Texas constitution.”