Brief Summary and Plead for Help

2007-08-04T09:32:00.009-04:00

PRESTON HUGHES III SUPPORT GROUP

(PHIIISG)

Ladies and Gentlemen: Citizens of the World,

Preston Hughes III (PHIII) is a poor innocent man currently on Texas Death Row wrongly sentenced to die behind murders he didn't commit and he's in dire need of your help. PHIII hopes to gather interest and gain support to enable him to defend himself and prove he's an innocent man. PHIII would like you to take the time to read the information herein, ask questions and wonder how this could happen to a man that had a life and loved ones who, still to this day, stand by him. Look and listen to the facts presented in this matter. PHIII doesn't have time. Not time as you know it. He has what is called state time, which means his life is ticking away and his chances of fighting his wrongful conviction are getting smaller and smaller with each tick of that clock. After you've read PHIII's plea ask yourself what you can do to help a fellow human being who is pleading for your helping hand. You'll see that giving PHIII that helping hand will be easy because of this...

CASE SUMMARY

In late February or early March of 1988 a "RABBIT" was stabbed a number of times with the "HUNTING KNIFE" depicted in the picture above. The hunting knife was wiped down and returned to its sheath and placed on a shelf in a closet and not thought of again.
During the evening hours of September 26, 1988 two children (a female and male cousin) were attacked. The girl was a friend of PHIII and according to the police "called the name Preston before she died.” PHIII was arrested, on September 27, 1988, because he "knew the female victim and a friend of hers named Evelyn.” While PHIII was not the only person named "Preston" who knew the victim it's believed by those who were close to PHIII and the victim that if she "called the name Preston before she died" she called the name for help, not to name PHIII as her murderer. She and PHIII were very good friends and he loved and treated her like a sister. The police illegally searched PHIII's apartment and found the hunting knife, pictured above, and declared it to be the murder weapon. They also claimed to have found a pair of non-prescription eyeglasses that belonged to the female victim in the cushions of PHIII's couch.

FACTS &FINDINGS

The following are facts that have arisen in the case and can be proven. These facts not only show the state lied and abused their power but they wrongly sentenced an innocent man to die behind murders he didn’t commit.

The police will like people to believe PHIII allegedly committed and confessed to committing the murders of the two children, however PHIII didn't commit the murders and he certainly didn't confess to committing the murders either. In February of 1989, nearly three months prior to trial, PHIII mailed a letter to the trial court judge explaining everything that took place from the moment he came in contact with HPD Detective Sgt. Dennis J. Gafford (the arresting officer) and during the period of time he was in custody of the HPD. Among other things
PHIII mentioned that he didn't commit and didn't confess to committing the murders that he was wrongly charged with allegedly committing. In the report of the arresting officer he made it sound as though PHIII confessed to committing the murders and told the police the method by which the victims were killed. (See page 2.011 hereinafter of Sgt. Gafford's police report). In PHIII’s letter to the trial court judge he wrote that the arresting officer struck him twice while accusing him of stabbing the victims. Though the partner of the arresting officer didn't mention anything in his report concerning his partner's striking PHIII he did in fact corroborate the fact the arresting officer told PHIII the method by which the victims were killed. (See page 2.014 hereinafter of Sgt. Bloyd's police report).

While PHIII was in the custody of the HPD he was put in fear for his life due to the use of Police Brutality and Threats made on his life, and forced to involuntarily sign two alleged confessions created and typed by the police. Why was PHIII forced to involuntarily sign two alleged confessions? PHIII was forced to involuntarily sign two alleged confessions because the first one, typed by the arresting officer, mentioned only one victim being stabbed and they needed to have one that mentioned two victims being stabbed.

According to Texas law, in effect at the time PHIII was wrongly arrested, the signing of an alleged confession must be witnessed by someone other than the officer that typed it. PHIII's involuntary signing of the alleged confession typed by the arresting officer was NOT witnessed by the two detectives that signed as false witnesses claiming to have seen PHIII place his signature on the lines marked "signature of person making statement.” PHIII made the trial court judge aware of this in his letter to the trial judge. The arresting officer and the two detectives that signed as false witnesses all lied concerning the witnessing of PHIII's signing of the alleged confession when they testified during pre-trial suppression hearings, so the judge could deny the defense's motion to suppress the alleged confession and admit it to the trial for the jury's consideration.

When the arresting officer testified during the pre-trial hearings he testified that he called in two detectives to witness the signing of the statement and that they "asked him [PHIII] to sign the statement if it was his.” During the trial when the arresting officer was asked 'Whether PHIII signed the statement in the presence of the two detectives the arresting officer admitted the statement was signed prior to the detectives entering the interrogation room. The arresting officer even admits in his police report that each page of the statement was signed prior to the two detectives entering the interrogation room. (See page 275 of arresting officer's testimony on direct examination during the pre-trial hearings and pages 118 & 119 of the arresting officer's testimony on direct examination during the trial and page 2.015 of his police report hereinafter).

Sgt. Ross, one of the detectives that signed as a false witness claiming to have seen PHIII involuntarily sign the alleged confession typed by the arresting officer, was asked during direct examination of the pre-trial hearings whether she personally observed PHIII sign the alleged confession and she testified "yes, I did." And that she witnessed PHIII sign the statement "where there's a line for the person that makes the statement to sign." When Sgt. Ross testified during the trial on direct examination she admitted that she lied about witnessing PHIII involuntarily sign the statement on the line designated for the person making a statement to sign when she was asked Whether it was at the end of the text portion of the statement that she had PHIII to sign and she answered "yes." In the police report of Sgt. Ross, she also lied about seeing PHIII involuntarily sign the alleged confession. (See page 331 of Sgt. Ross' testimony on direct examination during the pre-trial hearings and page 211 & 212 of Sgt. Ross' testimony on direct examination during the trial and page 2.027 of her police report) .[NOTE: the alleged confessions DON’T lead to a murder weapon.]

The hunting knife, pictured above, was tested during the trial, on May 2, 1989, by a Forensic Expert. The results of his chemical analysis, given out of the presence of the jury, is/was that the knife tested "NEGATIVE FOR HUMAN BLOOD, POSITIVE FOR ANIMAL BLOOD." Still the knife was introduced to the jury, by the prosecutor, and admitted into evidence, by the judge, as the murder weapon, without making the jury aware of the fact it was disproved to be the murder weapon prior to their deliberating in the innocent/guilt phase of the trial. Instead of telling the jurors the test disproved the knife to be the murder weapon as alleged, the prosecutor told them "It's inconclusive, I agree" during his final arguments. (See page 44 of the prosecutors’ final arguments hereinafter) .[NOTE: the court reporter was persuaded to alter the testimony of the Forensic Expert, other state witnesses, a defense witness and the final arguments of the lead defense attorney. ]

The eyeglasses were planted, by the police, in the cushions of PHIII's white couch and pictures were taken to make it appear as though they were found there. The police apparently did this to make it appear as though the victims had been in PHIII’s apartment prior to their deaths. However there's a problem with this because there was a picture taken of the glasses at the crime scene where the victims were found, before they were planted in PHIII's apartment. The arresting officer made PHIII aware of the fact he planted the eyeglasses in his apartment when he made statements to PHIII, during the interrogation, concerning the fact he searched his apartment. The first attorney, Randolph A. McDonald, appointed to handle PHIII's Habeas Corpus appeal acknowledged the fact he knew the police planted the glasses in PHIII's apartment. And in a phone conversation he had with PHIII he acknowledged the existence of a picture that depicts the glasses on the ground at the crime scene where the bodies of the victims were found. The attorney ended up withdrawing himself from the case because he wasn't being paid enough to represent PHIII. However since learning of the existence of the picture that depicts the eyeglasses at the crime scene PHIII has been diligently trying to obtain this evidence. His family managed to scrape up enough funds to purchase a copy of the police report(s) and a copy of the pictures taken by the crime scene officer. Unfortunately the Houston Police Department purposely withheld a number of the pictures taken by the crime scene officer. Although the attorney has been off of PHIII’s appeal for some years PHIII wrote him in June of 2006 seeking his help with obtaining a copy of the picture(s) that could help prove his innocence and that he was framed. PHIII was very clear in his letter concerning what he was seeking to obtain. The attorney responded to PHIII's letter by stating where he believed PHIII would be able to obtain the evidence he's seeking. Unfortunately, the individual PHIII was told to contact was the ineffective attorney that mishandled PHIII's state Habeas Corpus appeal after Mr. McDonald withdrew from the case. The response from Mr. McDonald to PHIII's letter, although very short, is the only proof PHIII has at this time to prove the police planted the eyeglasses in his apartment. (See PHIII's letter to Mr. McDonald dated June 22, 2006 and Mr. McDonald’s response to PHIII’s letter dated June 29, 2006). [NOTE: PHIII did write to Mr. McDonald again, after receiving his response, but he never heard from him again. It's very possible his response may have been intercepted by the mail room personnel as PHIII has been having problems receiving his incoming mail from certain people or places for several months. It's very possible the picture(s) may have been purposely destroyed. PHIII has evidence to prove the police purposely withheld and purposely destroyed other evidence.]

The prosecutor was seen walking back and forth from one courtroom to another while carrying the eyeglasses in a clear plastic bag. The glasses were observed to have no substance whatsoever on them.The next time the glasses appeared in the courtroom during the trial the lenses had dark spots placed on them. The leading defense attorney presented the glasses to the jury and made a statement to the effect that the spots on the lenses were blood. The prosecutor apparently got some makeup from one of the female court employees and placed spots on the lenses to give the impression that the glasses had blood on them. A close observation of the pictures taken of the glasses while planted in the cushions of PHIII's white couch will show that the lenses were crystal clear.

Judging from the fact the arresting officer purposely neglected to follow police procedures and the testimony he gave during the pre-trial hearings he was determined to make a case against PHIII no matter what. The arresting officer was asked on direct examination, during the pre-trial motion hearings, why he didn't take PHIII to a magistrate after arresting him and he stated "Because we're normally not required to do that. We read him his warning on our own and provide him with every opportunity to not speak to us and that's the reason." However when the arresting officer testified on cross examination a short time later he made it very clear he had no intentions of following the law and that PHIII was not going anywhere until he got evidence needed to make a case against PHIII. (See page 291 of Sgt. Gafford's testimony on direct examination during the pre-trial hearings and pages 298-300 of Sgt. Gaffords testimony on cross examination during the pre-trial hearings).

Probable Cause didn't exist for the arresting officer to make the warrantless arrest of PHIII and therefore it didn't exist for the arresting officer to secure a search warrant to search the apartment of PHIII. The arresting officer was very aware of this fact and he needed something to justify the illegal searches of PHIII's apartment. He asked PHIII to sign a Voluntary Consent for search and Seizure. PHIII refused to sign a consent for search and seizure because the police had searched his apartment without his permission when they woke him up during the early morning hours of September 27, 1988 and they searched it again while he was being taken downtown for questioning. The arresting officer let PHIII know they had entered his apartment illegally throughout the interrogation of PHIII. The arresting officer fabricated a false consent for search and seizure to make it appear to have been allegedly signed by PHIII and witnessed by the two detectives that signed as false witnesses. He fabricated the false consent for search and seizure by (1) placing the TEXT of a Voluntary Consent for Search and Seizure over a document baring the signature of PHIII and (2) placing both the TEXT and document baring the signature of PHIII over a sheet of paper with lines provided for two people to sign as false witnesses and (3) placing all three in a Xerox machine and making a xerox copy. The xerox copy received is what the police are claiming to be an alleged original, signed and witnessed, voluntary consent for search and seizure.

The arresting officer asked PHIII to sign a Voluntary Consent for taking of Samples of Blood, Urine or Hair that was about 61/2 inches in length and didn't have any place for anyone to sign as witnesses. PHIII signed the consent because he figured he could prove he didn't commit the crime by comparing his samples to whatever samples taken from the girl. Samples were never taken from PHIII. At that time PHIII was not aware of the arresting officer's true reasons for getting him to sign the consent for taking of samples. Since the arresting officer fabricated a false consent for search and seizure to make it appear to have been allegedly signed and witnessed he fabricated the signed consent for taking of samples to make it appear to have been witnessed as well. He did so by (1) placing the consent for taking of samples that PHIII signed over a sheet of paper with lines provided for two people to sign as false witnesses and (2) placing them in a xerox machine and making a xerox copy. The xerox copy received is what the police are claiming to be an alleged signed and witnessed Voluntary Consent for taking of Samples of Blood, Urine or Hair. Yet, when the arresting officer testified during the pre-trial hearings he admitted the alleged witnessed consent was in fact a copy. The record doesn't reflect an original, signed and witnessed, voluntary consent for taking of samples of blood, urine or hair ever being submitted to the trial court. (See pages 280-282 of the arresting officer's testimony on direct examination during the pre-trial hearings). [NOTE: Sgt. Ross, one of the detectives that signed as a false witness on the alleged confession, created and typed by the arresting officer, also signed as a false witness on both of the fabricated consents. When she testified during the trial on direct examination she was asked "how did you first come in contact with the defendant, Preston Hughes III, on that morning?" To which she responded "Sergeant Gafford asked me to come into the room and witness his statement." Sgt. Ross signed the alleged confession as a false witness at 7:15am. There's no way whatsoever she could have witnessed PHIII allegedly signing a consent for search and seizure at 5:30am when she first came in contact with PHIII at 7:15am, (See page 208 of Sgt. Ross' testimony on direct examination during the trial and fabricated consents hereinafter. The prosecutor had a hand in fabricating the false consents).]

PHIII wanted to pursue proving his innocence through DNA testing and he wondered why the arresting officer never had any samples taken from him. PHIII found out the reason during the trial when he was allowed to view one of a few of the crime scene pictures. When PHIII viewed one of the pictures of the bed he had slept in prior to his arrest he noticed the bed sheet was missing. PHIII had masturbated shortly before falling asleep and his semen had gotten onto the sheet. The police had taken the sheet, without logging it as evidence, to get PHIII’s DNA from it. This way should PHIII choose to pursue DNA testing as a means of proving his innocence the police would have a definite match. PHIII reviewed the copy of the police report and learned that a swab admitted into evidence that was submitted to the HPD Crime Lab for testing was submitted to the lab by the arresting officer, an individual who was NOT a neutral party in the investigation. (See page 2.034 of Sgt. Gafford's police report hereinafter).

The Texas Justice system is geared to convict, not to find the truth. It's a fact PHIII didn't receive a fair trial. PHIII's rights to a fair trial under due process of law were severely violated with a series of illegal maneuvers such as: the use of fabricated and falsified documents and perjured testimony by and from authority figures at large. PHIII was appointed attorneys that helped the prosecutor gain the wrongful conviction. PHIII was wrongly convicted on May 3, 1989 and wrongly sentenced to death on May 4, 1989. He was sent to death row on May 17, 1989 at the age of 23.

PHIII is living this nightmare right now and has been since he was wrongly arrested in 1988 at the age of 22 with his whole life ahead of him. Now PHIII sits on death row watching his life slip away with each tick of the state clock. PHIII hasn't given up hope and refuses to be wrongly killed without a fight for the life that has been taken from him. PHIII needs your help to fight for that life...his life...and put an end to the nightmare he has been living. PHIII is in imminent danger of receiving an execution date and being wrongly killed. PHIII is in urgent need of contributions to enable him to finance the assistance of an attorney and an investigator to secure and present evidence that establishes his innocence. PHIII is appealing to you, for your most urgently needed support in the struggle to prove his innocence and regain his freedom. Whatever you can spare with a clear conscience and know that you've helped an innocent man to prove his innocence, by arming him with the weapon needed to fight for his life - funds, will be gratefully appreciated. In return you'll have PHIII's undying gratitude. Please help Preston Hughes III before it's too late.

We, the PHIIISG, will like to thank you in advance for your time, patience and efforts on behalf of PHIII. We are grateful for your time. And we know how fleeting it is and for you to give just a little is a very precious gift. Thank you.

Please send your contributions to the following address: With International Postal Money Order or International Money Order to:

AMI.CA. (Associazione.AMI dei CARCERATI)
c.p.84
31015 Conegliano (TV)
(ITALY)

Account No.: 10881316, "For Preston Hughes III"

To contact PHIII write to:

Mr. Preston Hughes III
Polunsky Unit #000939
3872 FM 350 South
Livingston, Texas 77351
USA

EMAIL: ph111sg@gmail.com
Website: http://www.prestonhughes.blogspot.com/

EMAIL: ph111sg@bellsouth.net

Please request copies of the following documents - via email with a fax number.

Sorry for the inconvenience, I could not post the original copies on the website.

Voluntary Consent for Search and Seizure

Voluntary Consent for Taking of Samples of Blood, Urine, or Hair.

Police Reports and Police Testimonies

POLICE REPORTS

(Portion of Sgt. Gafford's :police report page 2.011 verbatim)

TO THE MURDER SCENE, AND THE FACT THAT PRESTON HUGHES DOES KNOW BOTH THE COMPLS AND EVELYN, SGT. GAFFORD NOW ARRESTED PRESTON HUGHES AS A SUSPECT IN THIS CASE.

SGT. GAFFORD IMMEDIATELY READ HUGHES HIS LEGAL WARNINGS FROM THE BLUE CARD PROVIDED BY THE DISTRICT ATTORNEYS OFFICE , AND AFTER EACH INDIVIDUAL WARNING SGT. GAFFORD ASKED HUGHES IF HE UNDER STOOD THEM. HUGHES STATED, "YES, SIR" EACH TIME HE WAS ASKED ABOUT UNDERSTANDING THE WARNINGS, AND HE FURTHER STATED THAT HE WOULD WAIVE HIS RIGHTS AND TALK TO SGT BECAUSE HE DIDNT DO ANYTHING, AND HAD NOTHING TO HIDE. SGT. GAFFORD LEFT THE ROOM AND CONFERRED WITH SGT. BLOYD ABOUT ANY NEW INFO PRIOR TO BEGINNING ANY FURTHER QUESTIONING. THERE WAS NOTHING TO ADD AT THAT POINT AND SGT. GAFFORD REENTERED THE ROOM AT APPROXIMATELY 0450 HOURS, AFTER HAVING MADE THE ARREST AT 0430 HOURS. DURING THIS INTERVAL HUGHES HAD REQUESTED A ClGARETTE AND SGT PROVIDED ONE.

(FOR COMPLETE DETAILS OF THE INTERROGATION OF HUGHES SEE THE INTERROGATION OF SUSPECT PORTION OF REPORT, THIS WILL BE ADDRESSED ONLY BRIEFLY AT THIS POINT)

FOR SOME TIME HUGHES CONTINUED TO DENY ANY INVOLVEMENT IN THIS INCIDENT, AND HE INSISTED THAT HE HAD NOT SEEN SHAWN IN APPROXIMATELY 2 MONTHS. AFTER HEARING HUGHES' DENIALS FOR A PERIOD OF TIME SGT. GAFFORD PRESENTED HIM WITH A "VOLUNTARY CONSENT FOR SEARCH AND SEIZURE" FORM. SGT HAD FILLED IN HUGHES' NAME AND ADDRESS, PRESTON HUGHES III, 2310 CRESCENT PK #138A, EXPLAINING THAT HE WAS IN NO WAY REQUIRED TO SIGN THE FORM ALLOWING INVESTIGATORS INTO THE APT. HE WAS FURTHER ADMONISHED THAT HE HAD AN ABSOLUTE RIGHT NOT TO CONSENT TO SUCH A SEARCH, YET HUGHES STILL SIGNED THE FORM ALLOWING ENTRY TO THE APT, STATING "I TOLD YOU THAT I DONT HAVE NOTHING TO HIDE". HUGHES SIGNED THE FORM WITNESSES AFFIXED THEIR SIGNATURES AT APPROXIMATELY 0530 HOURS.

SGT. GAFFORD THE CONTINUED THE INTERROGATION, AND AFTER A TIME CONTINUING TO DENY INVOLVEMENT IN THE CASE, HUGHES BROKE DOWN, STATING THAT HE WAS AFRAID TO GO TO JAIL, AND THAT HE DID NOT WANT TO GO TO JAIL. HE ADMITTED AT THIS TIME TO COMMITTING THE OFFENSE, AND STATED THAT HE HAD KILLED THE #1 COMPL, HOWEVER WOULD NOT MAKE DIRECT MENTION OF KILLING THE THREE YEAR OLD, EXCEPT TO SAY THAT HE JUST KEPT STABBING DIDNT KNOW WHAT HE WAS HITTING. SGT. GAFFORD WAS IN THE PROCESS OF TYPING THE SUSPECTS WRITTEN STATEMENT WHEN HE STATED, WHILE POINTING TO THE VOLUNTARY CONSENT FOR SEARCH AND SEIZURE FORM, "I GUESS YOU'RE LOOKING FOR THE KNIFE". PRIOR TO THE SUSPECTS SAYING THAT HE JUST "KEPT STICKING" THE PERSON WITH A KNIFE, AND HIS STATEMENT ABOUT SGTS LOOKING FOR THE KNIFE, SGTS HADNT MENTIONED TO THE SUSPECT THE METHOD BY WHICH THE COMPLS WERE KILLED. AS THIS WAS DURING THE VERY EARLY MORNING HOURS, THERE HAD BEEN NO NEWS REPORTS OR ARTICLES BY THE WHICH THE SUSPECT COULD HAVE LEARNED THAT THE INCIDENT WAS A STABBING, AND THEREFORE IT WAS CLEAR THAT THE SUSPECT HAD DIRECT KNOWLEDGE OF THE INCIDENT. THE SUSPECT GAVE A DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE LOCATION OF THE MURDER WEAPON, AS WELL AS THE CLOTHING HE WAS WEARING AT THE TIME, AND SGTS GAFFORD PASSED THIS INFORMATION ALONG TO SGTS D. FERGUSON AND E.T. YANCHAK, OF THE DAY SHIFT HOMICIDE DIVISION, AND THEY SUBSEQUENTLY DROVE TO THE SUSPECTS APT AND RECOVERED THESE AND OTHER ITEMS OF EVIDENCE.

AFTER COMPLETION OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT SGT. GAFFORD PRESENTED PRESTON HUGHES WITH A"VOLUNTARY CONSENT FOR TAKING OF SAMPLES OF BLOOD, URINE, OR HAIR. SGT. GAFFORD EXPLAINED THIS FORM TO THE SUSPECT IN THE SAME MANNER AS HAD BEEN DONE WITH THE VOLUNTARY CONSENT FOR SEARCH AND SEIZURE FORM, AND HE STATED THAT HE "MIGHT AS WELL NOT HOLD ANYTHING BACK NOW", AND HE SIGNED THE FORM, KNOWING THAT HE HAD A RIGHT NOT TO SIGN THE FORM. THIS FORM WAS RETAINED WITH THE CASE FILE
AFTER BEING WITNESSED AT APPROXIMATELY 0745 HOURS BY SGTS. BLOYD

(Portion of Sgt. Bloyd's Police Report page 2.014 verbatim)

CORRECT PRESTON THAT HAD REFERRED TO BY THE COMPL BEFORE HER DEATH, SGT. GAFFORD ARRESTED THE SUSPECT (IN THE HOMICIDE OFFICE AT 0430 HOURS) AND READ HIM HIS LEGAL WARNINGS FROM THE BLUE CARD SUPPLIED BY THE DISTRICT ATTORNEYS OFFICE. SGT. GAFFORD READ EACH WARNING INDIVIDUALLY, AND AFTER EACH ONE SGT WOULD STOP AND ASK THE SUSPECT IF HE UNDERSTOOD THE WARNINGS. THE SUSPECT STATED "YES, SIR" EACH TIME HE ASKED ABOUT HIS UNDERSTANDING OF THE WARNINGS, AND HE THEN STATED THAT HE WOULD TALK TO SGT ABOUT THE CASE. THE SUSPECT APPEARED INTELLIGENT, AND GAVE EVERY INDICATION OF BEING LITERATE AND CAPABLE OF UNDERSTANDING WHAT WAS BEING SAID, AND IT SGTS BELIEF THAT THE SUSPECT FULLY UNDERSTOOD THE WARNINGS.

THE SUSPECT REQUESTED A CIGARETTE, AND SGT. GAFFORD OBTAINED ONE FOR HIM FROM LT. NEELY OF THE HOMICIDE DIVISION. THE SUSPECT SMOKED THE CIGARETTE WHILE SGT GAFFORD CONFERRED BRIEFLY WITH SGT. BLOYD, AND SGT. GAFFORD RETURNED TO THE INTERVIEW ROOM AT 0450 HOURS. SGT WENT OVER THE SEQUENCE OF EVENTS OF THE SUSPECTS DAY, AND LEARNED THAT THE SUSPECT WENT TO WORK AND GOT OFF AT APPROX 6:30 PM. HE WAITED FOR A FRIEND AND THEN HE AND SEVERAL BUDDIES WENT TO A LIQUOR STORE ON
THE CORNER NEAR FRANKLIN AND AUSTIN STREETS DOWNTOWN. THEY DRANK ON THE PARKING LOT UNTIL ABOUT 10 MINUTES AFTER 8PM, AND AT THAT TIME TWO OF THE FRIENDS DROPPED HIM OFF AT FANNIN AND WALKER TO CATCH THE BUS. SKIPPING SEVERAL OF THE STATEMENTS DETAILS, HUGHES RODE FELL ASLEEP ON THE BUS AND ENDED UP AT END OF THE ROUTE AT HWY 6 AND WESTHEIMER. HUGHES CALLED A CAB AND WAS TAKEN HOME TO THE LAKEHURST APTS. HE STATED THAT HE WENT INTO THE APT AND CHECKED THE FOOTBALL GAME SCORE AND AFTER THAT HE WENT TO BED.

SGT. GAFFORD SPOKE WITH THE SUSPECT ABOUT THESE DETAILS FOR ABOUT 20 MINUTES AND HE WOULD STILL NOT WAIVER FROM HIS STATEMENT. WHEN TALKING ABOUT HIS PAST RECORD THE SUSPECT MENTIONED THAT THE FEMALES HE HAD HAD PROBLEMS WITH IN THE PAST WERE LIGHT SKINNED BLACK FEMALES, AND HE STATED THAT THE "YELLOW" GIRLS ARE NO GOOD, AND THAT THEY ARE "ALL STUCK UP AND SHIT" AND THEY WERE ALWAYS MESING WITH HIM. SGT NOTED A GREAT DEAL OF TENSION WHEN THE SUSPECT WAS TALKING ABOUT THIS, AND FURTHER CONNECTED THIS WITH AN EARLIER STATEMENT HE HAD MADE WHEN DESCRIBING THE "SHAWN" HE KNEW AS BEING A "YELLOW" SKINNED 15 YEAR OLD FEMALE. HE STATED THAT HE HAD LAST SEEN THE COMPL APPROX 2 MOS AGO, AND THAT SHE WORE HER HAIR IN BRAIDS.

IT WAS APPROXIMATELY 0520 HOURS WHEN SGT. GAFFORD PRESENTED HUGHES WITH THE VOLUNTARY CONSENT FOR SEARCH AND SEIZURE FORM. AS REPORTED EARLIER IN THIS SUPPLEMENT THE SUSPECT SIGNED THE FORM AFTER BEING PROPERLY INSTRUCTED ON HIS RIGHTS AND THE USE OF THE FORM. THE FORM WAS WITNESSED BY SGTS. BLOYD AND ROSS AT APPROXIMATELY 0530 HOURS.

THE SUSPECT REQUESTED ANOTHER CIGARETTE AND SGT. GAFFORD AGAIN OBTAINED ONE FOR HIM AS SGT AGAIN STARTED QUESTIONING HIM ABOUT THE INCIDENT. SGT. GAFFORD LISTENED TO THE SUSPECT CONTINUE TO DENY INVOLVEMENT IN THE DEATHS OF THE COMPLS UNTIL APPROXIMATELY 0540 HOURS WHEN SGT CONFRONTED THE SUSPECT WITH THE FACT THAT THE COMPL WAS GIVEN HIS NAME AS THE ONE WHO HAD STABBED SHE AND THE #2 COMPL. THE SUSPECT WAS VISIBLY UPSET BY THIS FACT AND SGT CONTINUED THAT IT WAS SGTS FIRM BELIEF THAT HE WAS IN FACT THE ONE THAT HAD STABBED THEM. THE SUSPECT HAD NOT BEEN TOLD THE CONDITION OF THE #1 COMPL, BUT WAS AWARE OF THE #2 COMPLS DEATH, ALTHOUGH HE HAD PREVIOUSLY DENIED KNOWING WHO SGT WAS TALKING ABOUT IN REFERENCE TO MARCELL TAYLOR.

THE SUSPECT BEGIN TO TREMBLE AND STATED, "I JUST DONT WANT TO GO TO JAIL". SGT WAITED AS THE SUSPECT CONTINUED TO THINK TO HIMSELF. SGT THEN ASKED THE SUSPECT IF HE WANTED TO TALK ABOUT WHAT HAD HAPPENED. THE SUSPECT SAID THAT HE DIDNT MEAN TO HURT ANYONE. THE WENT INTO A NARRATIVE ABOUT WHAT SEEMED TO BE AN

POLICE TESTIMONIES

(Sgt. Gafford - direct pre-trial testimony page 275 verbatim)

not true?

A No.

Q Did he ever tell you that you had misstated his comments to you and left things out or

added things in there?

A No, sir, he said it was just like he wanted it.

Q After he was given the opportunity to read it and make changes in the statement, what
did you do?
A After everything was done, I called in some other detectives and they looked over the

statement, asked him questions about it, about the circumstances of the statement and again,

he stated that it was his statement, that everything was correct, and they asked him about the

warnings and asked him then to sign the statement if it was his.

Q That would have been Sergeant Smith and Ross that witnessed the statement?

A That's correct.

Q Now, during the period of time that you let him read the statement, did you go over again
with him the rights which are presented at the top of the statement of person in custody form?

(Sgt. Gafford - direct Trial testimony page 118 verbatim)

Q Did he seem to be in a state of mind that you felt was necessary to let him get himself back

together or was this a short-lived thing or what?

A It was very short. He broke down for just a second there and was just saying that he didn't

want to go to jail and he was silent there for just a few seconds, probably, maybe 30 seconds

after that and then again we began talking and he was fine after that.

Q Again, did you promise him anything to get him to start talking to you?

A No, sir.

Q Did you do anything that would indicate to him that if he talked to you or if he gave a

confession, things would go easier on him?

A No, sir.

Q Did anyone else, while you were present with the defendant, make any threats to him, hit

him, promise him anything or have any contact with him?

A No, sir.

Q After the defendant agreed to sign the statement, looked over the

statement, did you ask anyone to come in to be a witness?

(Sgt. Gafford- direct Trial testimony page 119 verbatim)

A Yes, sir, I did.
Q Who did you ask to come in to be a witness?

A Sergeants smith and Ross.

Q Did you stay in the room while Sergeants Smith and Ross witnessed his execution of the

statement?

A I was there for just the first few minutes after the

introduction. Then I believe I stepped to the door. I don't think I ever just went completely

away, but I was in the general area there.

Q Did he then sign the statement in their presence, or how did that happen?

A Actually, after each page that we typed, I would give it to him and allow him

to read over that particular page. when that page was completed and he agreed
with the way it was, then he would sign that page; and then we would do the same

thing with each subsequent page. Once they came into the room, they went over

the statement, asked him if it was his signature and then asked him to do a few

other things on the paper.

Q Okay. On the bottom of the first page, his signature appears both over the line where

(Portion of Sgt. Gafford's police report page 2.015 verbatim)

UNRELATED INCIDENT, BUT THE SUSPECT LATER TIED THAT INCIDENT TOGETHER WITH THE KILLING OF THE COMPLS. JUST A FEW MINUTES PRIOR TO THE SUSPECT BREAKING DOWN, THE SUSPECT REQUESTED THAT SGT GET HIM A COKE AND A PACK OF CIGARETTES, WHICH SGT DID. DURING THE TIME THAT THE SUSPECT WAS GIVING THE STATEMENT HE WAS DRINKING THE COKE AND SMOKING THE CIGARETTES, AND HE WAS SEATED IN A PADDED CHAIR IN A COMFORTABLE POSITION. HE WAS NOT HANDCUFFED, AND HAD NOT BEEN AT ANYTIME PRIOR SINCE HE WAS NOT ARRESTED UNTIL AFTER HIS ARRIVAL IN THE HOMICIDE OFFICE.

IN SHORT, THE SUSPECT STATED THAT ABOUT TWO WEEKS AGO HE WAS ACCUSED OF SEXUALLY ASSAULTING A GIRL BY THE NAME OF LINDA. HE STATED THAT HE WAS NOT GUILTY OF THAT INCIDENT AND PROVED IT SO HE WAS NEVER ARRESTED, ONLY QUESTIONED. HE STATES THAT LINDA'S BROTHERS AND HUSBAND, HOWEVER, BELIEVE HE DID ASSAULT HER, AND THEY HAVE MADE THREATS AGAINST HIS LIFE. DUE TO THIS FEELING THAT THEY ARE AFTER HIM, THE SUSPECT BEGAN TWO WEEKS AGO CARRYING A KNIFE. THE KNIFE WAS DESCRIBED AS AN ARMY KNIFE WITH A 5" OR 6" FIXED BLADE WHICH HE WORE IN A SHEATH ON HIS BELT.

PRESTON HUGHES STATED THAT TONIGHT HE WAS WALKING ON THE TRAIL BETWEEN THE THE APT COMPLEX AND THE FUDDRUCKERS AND SOMEONE

WALKED UP BEHIND HIM AND TOUCHED HIM ON THE SHOULDER. HE STATED THAT
HE THOUGHT IT WAS ONE OF THE BROTHERS TRYING TO KILL HIM, AND THEREFORE HE JUST TURNED AND THREW A BLOCK WITH HIS LEFT ARM, AND STARTED STABBING WITH THE KNIFE IN HIS RIGHT HAND. HE EXPLAINED THAT HE WAS STABBING BOTH HIGH AND LOW, AND THAT AFTER THE FIRST COUPLE OF STABBING MOTIONS HE REALIZED THAT IT WAS SHAWN. HE SAID THAT HE COULDNT BELIEVE IT AND THEN GOT SCARED AND CRAZY, AND JUST KEPT
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

DURING THE TIME THAT THE STATEMENT WAS BEING TAKEN, PRESTON HUGHES DID NOT APPEAR EMOTIONAL ABOUT THE FACT THAT HE HAD KILLED ANYONE. THE ONLY CONCERN THAT HE VOICED THAT IF HE DIDNT GET TO WORK TOMORROW HE WOULD LOOSE HIS JOB. SGT GAFFORD HAD THE SUSPECT SIGN EACH PAGE INDIVIDUALLY AS IT WAS COMPLETED, AND SGT WOULD THEN GO TO THE NEXT PAGE. THE STATEMENT CONSISTED OF THREE TYPED PAGES, WITH THE FIRST BEGINNING AT 0555 HOURS, THE SECOND BEGINNING AT 0613 HOURS, AND THE THIRD BEGINNING AT 0633 HOURS. PRIOR TO SIGNING EACH PAGE OF THE STATEMENT THE SUSPECT READ THE PAGE, AND ONCE THE ENTIRE STATEMENT WAS COMPLETE THE SUSPECT RE-READ THE ENTIRE STATEMENT. THE SUSPECT TOLD SGT THAT THIS WAS THE WAY THAT THE INCIDENT HAD HAPPENED.

SGT. GAFFORD CALLED SGTS. T.M. ROSS AND L.B. SMITH INTO THE ROOM, AND THESE SGTS SPOKE WITH THE SUSPECT ABOUT THE CIRCUMSTANCES SURROUNDING THE GIVING OF THE STATEMENT. SGT. GAFFORD REMAINED IN THE ROOM FOR A FEW MOMENTS AND THEN LEFT THE ROOM SO THAT ROSS AND SMITH COULD QUESTION THE SUSPECT TO INSURE THAT THE STATEMENT HAS BEEN VOLUNTARY. AFTER COMPLETING THIS PROCESS, SGTS SMITH AND ROSS AFFIXED THEIR SIGNATURES TO THE STATMENT AS WITNESSES AT APPROXIMATELY 0715 HOURS.

(Sgt. Ross - direct pre-trial testimony page 331 verbatim)

coercion or threats?
A Not to me, he didn't.
Q Did you personally observe the defendant, Preston Hughes, III, sign

these documents, all three pages of this document?

A Yes, I did.

Q Did he sign it more than one place on each page?

A Yes, he did.

Q Where did he sign it?

A He signed it where there's a line for the person that makes the statement to sign and also at the very end of each -- the last sentence of each page.

Q Did he make any changes, alterations or deletions from the statement at the time that

he signed it, that you recall?

A Well, there was a markout area on the first page and I had him initial it so that he would

know it had been changed at the time it was signed. I don’t know when it was marked out.

Q If you would look at that exhibit there before you where I think the eleventh and twelfth

lines of the first page of the statement are underlined and then looking around outside is

(Sgt. Ross - direct Trial testimony page 211 verbatim)

Q Okay. Did he initial them while you were watching him there?

A Yes.
Q Did he initial each of his rights that are listed on each of those pages?
A On the first page only.

Q Did he do anything else to indicate that he wanted to make any changes in that statement or

add anything to it or take anything out of it?

A A change was made, and I had him initial that change.

Q Did he indicate, after he made that change, that he wished to change anything else?

A No.

Q Did he wish to take anything out of the statement, or did he tell you that he wished to add

anything to the statement?

A Not that I recall, no, sir.

Q Okay. After the defendant initialed his rights and made the changes

that you've indicated, what happened?
A Well, I had him sign it.
Q Okay. Did you have him sign each page of the statement?
A Yes, I did.

(Sgt. Ross - direct Trial testimony page 212 verbatim)

Q At the end of the text portion, I guess?
A Yes.
Q Were you satisfied in your mind that the defendant signed the statement voluntarily?
A Yes, I was.
Q All right. Did the defendant say anything in your presence which would indicate that

someone had threatened him in any way to get him to sign the statement?

A He did not say anything to me.

Q Did he indicate that anyone had made him some promises, perhaps, that things would go
easier for him if he made a statement?
A No.
Q Did he say anything to indicate to you that threats or coercion of any kind had been used to

obtain his signature on his statement?

A No.

Q Have you ever witnessed a statement before?

A Yes, I have.

Q On many, many occasions?

A Several occasions, yes, sir.

Q After the defendant signed this statement, which is marked State's Exhibit 3,

(Portion of Sgt. Ross' police report page 2.027 verbatim)

WOOD "HAD BEEN CROSSED OUT.

AFTER HUGHES HAD INITIALLED EACH OF HIS RIGHTS AT THE TOP OF ALL THREE PAGES AND SIGNED HIS NAME AT THE LINE PROVIDED AT THE BOTTOM OF EACH PAGE, SGTS. SMITH AND ROSS THEN SIGNED AS WITNESSES ON THE APPROPRIATE LINES ON ALL THREE PAGES. SGT. ROSS THEN REQUESTED THAT HUGHES SIGN HIS NAME AGAIN AT THE END OF THE LINE AT THE BOTTOM OF EACH PAGE TO SHOW WHERE THE STATEMENT ENDED ON EACH PAGE AND HUGHES THEN SIGNED HIS NAME AT THE END OF THE LAST LINE ABOVE THE SIGNATURE LINE.

HUGHES ASKED IF HE COULD USE THE PHONE SO HE COULD CALL HIS BOSS AND TRY TO SAVE HIS JOB. HE WAS TOLD HE COULD USE THE PHONE IF HE WANTED TO AND IT WAS NOTED BY SGT. ROSS THAT HE WAS DRINKING A COKE. WHEN SGT. ROSS WENT BACK TO THE ROOM BECAUSE HE WAVED TO HER TO COME, HE STATED THAT HE HAD TALKED WITH HIS BOSS AND HIS BOSS HAD TOLD HIM THAT IF HE MISSED MORE THAN THREE DAY, THAT HE WOULD BE FIRED. HE WAS ASKED IF SHE THOUGHT HE COULD GET OUT ON A PI BOND AND SHE TOLD HIM THAT IT WAS NOT UP TO HER, THAT THE PEOPLE IN PRE-TRIAL RELEASE AND/OR THE COURT WOULD HAVE TO MAKE THAT DECISION BASED ON SEVERAL FACTORS. HE STATED THAT HE WORKED AT A STEADY JOB. SHE TOLD HIM THEY WOULD TAKE THAT INTO CONSIDERATION BUT THERE WERE OTHER THINGS, SUCH AS IF HE WAS ON PROBATION OR PAROLE OR ON BOND. HE THEN SAID THAT HE WAS ON PROBATION AND ASKED IF HE COULD CALL HIS PROBATION OFFICER. SGT. ROSS TOLD HIM TO GO AHEAD AND CALL AND THEN SHE LEFT THE ROOM AT 7:25A.M. WHEN HE FINISHED TALKING ON THE PHONE, HE AGAIN WAVED FOR SGT. ROSS TO COME TO THE ROOM AND ASKED HER WHAT HE WOULD BE CHARGED WITH--THAT HIS PROBATION OFFICER WANTED TO KNOW. SGT. ROSS ADVISED HIM THAT IF AND WHEN HE WAS FILED ON, IT WOULD BE FOR MURDER. HE THEN REQUESTED SGT. ROSS GET HIS ADDRESS BOOK FROM SGT. BLOYD SO THAT HE COULD CALL HIS AUNTIE. THE BLUE ADDRESS BOOK WAS RETRIEVED FROM SGT. BLOYD AND HE AGAIN USED THE PHONE.

AT 7:42AM, SGTS. ROSS AND BLOYD WITNESSED PRESTON HUGHES SIGN A "VOLUNTARY CONSENT FOR TAKING OF SAMPLES OF BLOOD, URINE, OR HAIR." AFTERWARDS, HUGHES AGAIN USED THE PHONE AND SGT. ROSS LEFT THE
ROOM FOR THE LAST TIME.

SUPPLEMENT ENTERED BY = 36217

REPORT VIEWED BY-GA EMPLOYEE NUMBER-080660
DATE CLEARED- 09/27/88

(Prosecutor - Final Arguments Trial Innocent/Guilt page 44 verbatim)

time and I don't think she's clear about exactly what time. It was late. Sometime around 9: 00,

something in that time, late in the evening. And where did she leave her? Virtually underneath

the window of Preston Hughes' apartment. He could have looked out the window and spit on

them. That's the last time she saw Shandra Charles alive, in the parking lot behind his

apartment.

What else do you have? And yes, we've been the line -- my God, we did scientific testing. Shame on me. We asked the chemist to test these things. They drug their feet around but they finally got it done. If they hadn't done it, you would be hearing lawyers up here saying, "Where's the scientific evidence? Where is it at?" We did the best we could. It's inconclusive, I agree.

MR. McCULLOUGH: It's outside the record, contrary to the record, "They did the best they

could."

THE COURT: overruled.

MR. NOLL: Mr. Bolding testified to you he checked the clothing found in the defendant's

apartment and he found on the shirt and on the jeans evidence of blood. Not enough to determine it was human blood, not enough to type it. If he

(PHIII 's LETTER TO ATTY RANDOLPH A. MCDONALD VERBATIM)

June 22, 2006

Mr. Preston Hughes III
#000939
3872 PM 350 South
Livingston, Texas 77351

Randolph A. McDonald, P.C.
Attorney at Law
3000 smith St.
Houston, Texas 77006

Dear Mr. McDonald:

I am writing to you today concerning a phone conversation you and I had
several years ago, during the time you were appointed to represent me on
appeal, concerning a certain piece of evidence that was used in the
wrongful capital conviction against me. In that conversation you told me
of a picture that depicts the pair of eyeglasses, that were admitted into
evidence, at the crime scene where the victims in the case were found. I
have not been able to obtain a copy of that picture because it, and other
evidence that can prove my innocence and save my life, is being purposely
witheld from me.

I am now in the very late stages of my appeals and I can really use your
assistance in helping me to save my life. I will gratefully appreciate
your letting me know what it will cost me to have you provide me with a
clear copy of the picture depicting the eyeglasses at the crime scene
where the victims in the case were found. I will like to have a hardprint
or hardcopy, NOT a xerox or photocopy.

I will like to thank you in advance for your time and cooperation in the
above matter. Your assistance is gratefully appreciated. I look forward to
receiving a letter of response or visit from you to further discuss the
above matter. Please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you.

Sincerely,

Preston Hughes III

(ATTY R. A. MCDONALD'S RESPONSE TO PHIII'S LETTER OF 6/22/06 VERBATIM)

Randy McDonald, P.C.
Attorney at law
3000 Smith Street
Houston, Texas 77006

Board Certified Criminal Law 713-521-2585

Texas Board of Legal Specialization Fax: 713-521-3324

June 29, 2006

Preston Hughes III
TDCJ No. 000939
3872 FM 350 South
Livingston, TX 77351

Dear Mr. Hughes:

I received your correspondence of June 22, 2006. I do not have the
requested information that you asked for. I believe you might be able to
obtain them from attorney Dick Wheelan.

Please do not hesitate to contact me should you need further
assistance. Good luck!

Yours truly,

Randy McDonald

RAM/1t

(Sgt. Gafford - direct pre-trial testimony page 291 verbatim)

admonishments or warnings?

A No, sir.
Q Instead did you read him his rights from your little statutory card?
A Yes.
Q And you know, of course, that there is no requirement

that he go before a magistrate, that you need --

MR. McCULLOUGH: Objection to that, Your Honor.

THE COURT: That will be sustained.

BY MR. NOLL:

Q Why didn't you take him to a magistrate?
A Because we're normally not required to do that. We read him his warning on our own and provide him with every opportunity

to not speak to us and that's the reason.
Q Do you know someone in the homicide division by the name of Garrison?
A No, sir.
Q Have you ever heard of any other sergeants in the homicide division using the name of Garrison?
A No, sir.
Q Did anyone representing themselves to be

(Sgt. Gafford - cross pre-trial testimony page 298 verbatim)

Q Did you tell him he was free to go anytime he wanted to?
A Yes, sir, he was there voluntarily.
Q Did he know that?
A Yes.
Q And that was the last piece of information you received before 4:30 that persuaded you that you had probable cause to arrest him?
A I don't know what the last piece was. He detailed each of

those -each of the things I detailed previously regarding his knowledge of the complainant in this case, the fact that he lived directly behind the location of their death and the fact that she named him, named Preston as the person that had stabbed them was combined to formulate that opinion in our minds.
Q Incidentally, I understand that the using of the word "Preston" was relayed to you from some other officer. You didn't hear that, yourself?
A No, I didn't.
Q Would that have been Officer Hamilton?
A Sergeant Hamilton.
Q Now, at 4:30 in the morning there is

(Sgt. Gafford - cross pre-trial testimony page 299 verbatim)

some magistrate available to give magistrate's warnings, is there not?

A I'm not sure. Normally there's not.
Q Isn't there a list of municipal court judges who are available, for instance, to give

magistrate's warnings around the clock?
A I'm not sure of that.
Q Well, there for sure is by, say, 8:00 o'clock in the morning, is there not?
A Probably so.
Q There was no urgency in taking the statement from Mr. Hughes that could not

have been delayed until he could have been given a magistrate's warning at 8:00

o'clock, is there?
A I felt there was.
Q Did you feel he wouldn't give a statement if you delayed until 8: 00 o'clock?
A No. I was interested in talking to him as quickly as possible. The longer an

investigation is prolonged and the later we wait, the less _chance of everything

coming together in a row. It's proven time after time that the longer an

investigation drags out, the less chance there is of clearing a case.
Q Actually, if you were afraid Mr. Hughes

(Sgt. Gafford - cross pre-trial testimony page 300 verbatim)

had time to think over what he was about to do, that he would not have made a statement if he

had had a couple of hours to think about it?
A No, sir, that was not a consideration.
Q Well, you didn't have any other suspects, did you?

A Not at that time.

Q But there was nothing physically or otherwise to prevent you from having

delayed taking the further statement from Mr. Hughes or conducting further

interviews with him until after he could have been warned by a judge of his legal

rights?
A I read him his warnings and I felt that was all that was necessary.

Q But you're not a magistrate?
A No, sir.
Q And your position in this investigation was not neutral? You were an investigating officer?
A I would say it is neutral. I have nothing against Mr. Hughes, have no reason to want to put

him in jail.
Q What did you tell Mr. Hughes when he told you he didn't want to go to jail? You say,

(Sgt. Gafford - direct pre-trial testimony page 280 verbatim)

A No, sir.
Q Did he ask you any questions at all about what his rights would be in relationship to signing

or not signing the form?
A No.
Q Did he seem to understand or did you explain to him that the purpose of that form was to

find evidence to use against him?
A Yes, sir.
Q Was this form signed after you had advised him of his statutory warnings that you

administered?
A Yes, it was.
Q Did he sign that form voluntarily in your presence?

A Yes.
Q Did you ask other officers to witness his signature on this form?
A Yes, I did.
Q Were those officers' names on that form?

A Yes, they are.
Q That's Sergeants Bloyd and Ross is that correct?
A That's correct.
Q Did you also ask him to sign any other?

(Sgt. Gafford - direct pre-trial testimony page 281 verbatim)

consent forms that day?

A Yes, sir, I did.
Q What was that form?
A That was consent for samples of body fluid, hair, urine samples.

Q That's a separate form altogether?
A That's correct.
Q Did he also sign that form?

A Yes, he did.
Q Did Sergeants Bloyd and Ross also witness that form?

A I believe they did. I believe they ' re the ones.
Q Did you bring that form with you, by any chance, in your copy of the offense

report?
A I believe there is a copy in there.

MR. NOLL: Your Honor, could we ask -

BY MR. NOLL:

Q Your report is --

A It's on the file cabinet in the hall.

MR. NOLL: Could I step right out, Your Honor?

THE COURT: You may.

Q MR. NOLL: May I approach the witness, Your Honor?

(Sgt. Gafford - direct pre-trial testimony page 282 verbatim)

Judge, I would like to ask the witness remove a portion from his report, if it's all

right.

THE COURT: Very well.

(State's Exhibit No. 2 was marked for identification.)

BY MR. NOLL:

Q Sergeant Gafford, let me show you what's been marked as State's Exhibit No. 2 for

identification. Do you recognize this document?
A Yes, I do.
Q Is this the document you just removed from your report?
A Yes, it is.
Q What is this document?
A Voluntary consent for takinq of samples of blood, urine or hair.

Q Is there a signature on this document?
A Yes, sir, there is.
Q Whose signature is it?

A Preston Hughes, III.
Q Is it the same defendant you previously identified in this courtroom?

A Yes, it is.
Q Again witnessed by Sergeants Bloyd and

(Sgt. Ross - direct trial testimony page 208 verbatim)

homicide division on September 27th of 1988, a Monday?

A Yes, I was.
Q And that Monday morning, did you have have occasion to witness a statement given by the

defendant, Preston Hughes, III?
A Yes, I did.
Q And do you see that man, Preston Hughes, III, in the courtroom this morning?
A Yes, I do.
Q Would you point to him and describe him, please?
A He's sitting there in the blue blazer and gray slacks and kind of a maroon tie.
MR. NOLL: Your Honor, may the record reflect the witness has identified the defendant?

THE COURT: Record will so reflect.

BY MR. NOLL:

Q How did you first come in contact with the defendant, Preston Hughes, III, on

that morning?
A Sergeant Gafford asked me to come into the room and witness his statement.
Q And was there anyone else present in the room at the time you witnessed his statement?

Please request Consent Forms Search and Seizure and Taking Blood, Urine or Hair.

(Portion of Sgt. Gafford's police report page 2.034 verbatim)

SUPPLEMENT ENTERED BY = 88141
REPORT REVIEWED BY-EG EMPLOYEE NUMBER-025810
DATE CLEARED- 09/27/88

NO-0012

OFFENSE- CAPITAL MURDER

STREET LOCATION INFORMATION
NUMBER- 2400 NAME-KIRKWOOD TYPE- SUFFIX-S
APT NO NAME-02400 TYPE- SUFFIX

DATE OF OFFENSE-09/26/88 DATE OF SUPPLEMENT-04/24/89
COMPL(S) LAST-CHARLES FIRST-SHANDA MIDDLE

LAST

RECOVERED STOLEN VEHICLES INFORMATION
STORED- BY- PH#- (000) 000-0000
OFFICER1-D.J.GAFFORD EMP#-064486 SHIFT-3 DIV/STATION-HOMICIDE

SUPPLEMENT NARAATIVE

ON SATURDAY, APRIL 22, 1989, SGT.GAFFORD MAET WITH ASST DA CHUCK NOLL, THE PROSECUTOR OF THIS INCIDENT AND REVIEWED THE EVIDENCE WHICH HAD BEEN SUBMITTED TO THE PROPERTY ROOM. THE TRIAL IS SCHEDULED TO BEGIN ON MONDAY, MAY 2, 1989. AFTER REVIEWING THE EVIDENCE, NOLL ASKED SGT TO HAVE THE CRIME LAB EXAMINE ALL OF THE EVIDENCE FOR THE PRESENCE OF BLOOD.

ON MONDAY, APRIL 24, 1989, SGT RECEIVED A TELEPHONE CALL FROM ADA NOLL, AND SGT WAS ADVISED THAT THE VAGINAL SWAB OBTAINED DURING THE AUTOPSY WAS BEING HELD AT THE MEDICAL EXAMINERS OFFICE, AND NOLL REQUESTED THAT THIS EVIDENCE ALSO BE SUBMITTED TO THE CRIME LAB. SGT. GAFFORD DROVE TO THE HARRIS COUNTY MORGUE AND TOOK CUSTODY OF THE EVIDENCE AND SIGNED FOR ITS RELEASE. SGT THEN TOOK THE EVIDENCE TO THE CRIME LAB WITH A SUBMISSION FORM REQUESTING EXAMINATION. SGT GAFFORD DELIVERED THE SWAB TO JIM BOLDING OF THE CRIME LAB.

CRIME LAB : ATTN. JIM BOLDING

PLEASE EXAMINE THE VAGINAL SWAB SUBMITTED 4/24/89 AS REQUESTED, AND EXAMINE ALL OTHER EVIDENCE PREVIOUSLY SUBMITTED TO THE HPD PROPERTY ROOM UNDER THIS INCIDENT NUMBER FOR THE PRESENCE OF BLOOD. THIS EVIDENCE IS NEEDED FOR A CAPITAL MURDER TRIAL WHICH WILL BEGIN ON MAY 1, 1989.

SUPPLEMENT ENTERED BY = 64486
DATE CLEARED- 09/27/88

END OF PAGE TWO

Preston Hughes III

ALLEGED WEAPON TESTED (RESULTS:ANIMAL BLOOD)

Brief Summary and Plead for Help