3 Such opinions also invite the jury to defer to the views of the victim’s family, thereby “minimiz[ing] the jury’s sense of responsibility for determining the appropriateness of death.” Caldwell v. Mississippi, 472 U.S. 320, 341 (1985); see also Wayne Logan, Opining on Death: Witness Sentence Recommendations in Capital Trials, 41 B.C.

Indeed, one juror from Storey’s trial even submitted an affidavit in the proceedings below in which he stated, “had I known that Jonas Cherry’s parents were opposed to Paul Storey receiving the death penalty, there is no doubt in my mind, I would never have voted for death.” Appendix G at 52.

Put differently, “[t]he public trust reposed in the law enforcement officers of the Government requires that they be quick to confess error when, in their opinion, a miscarriage of justice may result from their remaining silent.” Young v. United States, 315 U.S. 257, 258 (1942).

There is simply no way Storey’s initial habeas counsel … could have discovered that Ms. Jack had lied during her closing argument when no one had any reason to believe that was the case, when not a single note in the State’s trial file suggested that was the case.” Appendix E at 6.

In sum, the TCCA’s finding that the factual basis for Storey’s claims was ascertainable through the exercise of reasonable diligence on or before the date Storey filed his original application does not have fair or substantial support.

I, Julie Connor, being duly sworn according to law and being over the age of 18, upon my oath depose and say that:

That on the 20th day of November, 2024, I served the within Brief of National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers as Amicus Curiae in Support of Petition for Writ of Certiorari in the above-captioned matter upon: Keith S. Hampton [U.S. Mail] Attorney at Law P.O.

That on the same date as above, I sent to this Court forty copies of the within Brief for Amicus Curiae through the Overnight Federal Express, postage prepaid.

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.

Notary Public State of New York No. 01BR6004935 Qualified in Richmond County Commission Expires March 30, 2026

As required by Supreme Court Rule 33.1(h), I certify that the document contains 2,608 words, excluding the parts of the document that are exempted by Supreme Court Rule 33.1(d).

declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.

Executed on this 20th day of November, 2024.

Sworn to and subscribed before me on this 20th day of November, 2024.

Notary Public State of New York No. 01BR6004935 Qualified in Richmond County Commission Expires March 30, 2026

) I, Rina Danielson, being duly sworn according to law and being over the age of 18, upon my oath depose and say that:

That on the 20th day of November, 2024, I served the within Brief of Judith and Glenn Cherry as Amicus Curiae in Support of Petitioner in the above-captioned matter upon: Keith S. Hampton Attorney at Law Attorneys for Petitioner P.O.

That on the same date as above, I sent to this Court forty copies of the within Amicus Curiae Brief through the Overnight Next Day Federal Express, postage prepaid.

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.

Notary Public State of New York No. 01BR6004935 Qualified in Richmond County Commission Expires March 30, 2026 #334469

After Petitioner Paul David Storey’s execution date was set, following the exhaustion of initial state and federal habeas proceedings, his counsel discovered that the Tarrant County prosecutors in his capital trial the punishment phase.

The TCCA’s decisions in this case weaken prosecutorial independence, risk exposing family members of victims of violent crime to interrogation by the Texas criminal justice system.

Counsel and courts assume prosecutors have correctly discharged their duties, and “[c]ourts, litigants, and juries properly anticipate that [‘]obligations [to refrain from improper methods to secure a conviction] ... plainly rest[ing] upon the prosecuting attorney, will be faithfully observed.

Indeed, “[p]rosecutors’ dishonest conduct or unwarranted concealment should attract no judicial approbation.” Id., at 696; see also Kyles, 514 U.S. at 440 (“The prudence of the careful prosecutor should not therefore be discouraged.”) In this case, the TCCA excused the duty of disclosure and instead held that, in order to meet the diligence standard of Article 11.071 § 5 (a) (1), Mr. Storey’s initial post-conviction counsel should have approached the victim’s family and—despite having no reason to suspect prosecutors were withholding information—asked the victim’s family their views on the death penalty and whether the prosecution knew those views prior to the trial.

Requiring habeas counsel to question the statements of the prosecutor will also add needless and counterproductive grit into our system of criminal justice.” Ex parte Storey, 584 S.W.3d at 462 (Walker, J., dissenting).

Criminal District Attorney Tarrant County November 13, 2024 By Electronic Filing and Certified Mail Scott Harris, Clerk of the Court Supreme Court of the United States Office of the Clerk 1 First Street, N.E.

State of Texas, No. 24-5791 Dear Mr. Harris, A response in this death penalty case is due November 20, 2024.

The extension request is not sought for any improper purpose, harassment, or unnecessary delay.

In the that role, she has participated in pre-trial hearings, filed written responses to numerous motions, attended several days of trial, and is currently drafting findings of fact and conclusions of law regarding the trial court's denial of Defendant's motions to suppress (due November 19th).

The undersigned has conferred with Petitioner's counsel, Keith Hampton, who stated that he was not opposed to this requested extension.

Nonecontradictedit.

Noneofthe opinions, per 21 curiam or concurring, even attempt to justify the prosecution’s lie to the jury, the prosecutors’ concealment from counsel, or theirlies to the court.

There is none.