MySpacea place for friends

See, here’s what’s happening: I just learned that the federal judge overseeing my case has cut off my attorney’s funds to hire an investigator to help with the filing of my federal Writ of Habeas Corpus. The court has denied the motion and the funding (A copy of the motion & judges order denying the motion will is posted below.) I risk sounding melodramatic, but my life is riding on this appeal. If everything, every avenue isn’t looked into and investigated fully, the likelihood of my execution is increased considerably. Before the judge stopped the investigation (with his order to deny funding) exculpatory evidence was uncovered (for instance the confession of the actual murderer, which will also be posted shortly for your perusal) that supports my claims of innocence which I’ve been asserting since day one. There is more evidence out there, and if I had the funds to continue my investigation, it would be brought to light. (as my motion for appointment of investigation shows)

As you can see, I really need your help. Not much, just enough to cover the expenses for this investigator. This is neither a joke or a scam. I’m caught in a travesty of justice. I was used as a scapegoat for a con artist so he could avoid his own legal problems. It’s all in the documents, posted below, for you to see.

To further this investigation, I need $4500, which will cover the projected 60 hours of work the investigator I intend to hire will charge. ($75 per hour, see the motion, page 9) I’ll also need to reimburse his travel expenses.

ANYTHING, NO MATTER HOW LITTLE, you are able to donate goes a long way to save my life, and I can’t even begin to express my gratitude for your support. If you want to find out more about my life or my case, have any questions at all, you can contact me or my representative/advocate at:

Steven Woods #999427, Polunsky Unit, 3872 FM 350 South, Livingston TX 77351

email: save.steve.woods@gmail.com

or contact me or my friend and the admin of this site (D. Kendrick) by snail mail at:

Steve Woods, c/o D. Kendrick, PO Box 2184, Livingston TX 77351

In solidarity and with respect,

Steven Woods

DONATE TO STEVE'S DEFENSE FUND VIA PAYPAL HERE:

OR IF YOU PREFER, DONATIONS CAN BE SENT TO: Steve Woods c/o D. Kendrick, PO Box 2184, Livingston, TX 77351

HERE ARE THE COURT DOCUMENTS STEVE REFERS TO:

(The actual documents will be posted shortly - rather this cut and paste format. Thanks for your patience. DebK.)

Motion for Investigator Page 1 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS – TYLER DIVISION

Civil No. 6:06-CV - 344

STEVEN MICHAEL WOODS Petitioner, §§ v. § NATHANIEL QUARTERMAN, Director Texas Department of Criminal Justice - Institutional Division Respondent. §

MOTION FOR THE APPOINTMENT OF INVESTIGATOR TO THE HONORABLE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS:

COMES NOW, Petitioner, Steven Michael Woods, who, under the authority of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 3599(f) and McFarland v. Scott, 512 U.S. 849 (1994) seeks authorization to retain the services of an investigator to assist counsel in the investigation of facts necessary to develop the claims within his federal post-conviction writ of habeas corpus and to demonstrate facts necessary to defeat Respondent’s motion for summary judgment:

I. Specific Need for Investigator to Develop Evidence The appointment of investigators in federal habeas corpus actions under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2254 is now governed by 18 U.S.C. Sec. 3599(f). The integral nature of investigative assistance in the context of federal post-conviction representation is well-recognized for the factual development of claims. See, McFarland v. Scott, 512 U.S. 849, 854 - 857 (1994). A habeas petitioner is entitled to investigative assistance where such assistance is reasonably necessary. Fuller v. Johnson, 114

Motion for Investigator

F.3d 491, 502 (5th Cir. 1997). This is no empty procedure: established habeas corpus and death penalty precedent suggests that Congress intended to provide prisoners with "all resources needed to discover, plead, develop, and present evidence determinative of their ..colorable' constitutional claims." . . . . The determination of a habeas claim often depends on the full development of factual issues, and experts play an important role in the fact-finding process. . . . Patrick v. Johnson, 48 F. Supp.2d 645, 646 (N.D.Tex. 1999). Petitioner requires the assistance of an investigator for two specific reasons: first, an investigator is necessary to assist in the development of evidence to defeat Respondent’s motion for summary judgement by demonstrating to this Court that an issue of material fact exists with respect to the state habeas court’s resolution of Petitioner’s state habeas claim(s). Second, an investigator is necessary to develop facts necessary to demonstrate that due to deficiencies in the state court factfinding process he should be permitted to present additional facts in federal post-conviction proceedings. See, Michael Wayne Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 420, 442 - 443 (2000) (noting that interference by state courts which precludes full development of claim in state court may justify develop the facts in federal court proceedings). The claim(s) for which Petitioner requires an investigator has been fully exhausted in the state courts, and is not subject to procedural default. As reflected in the following section, Petitioner presented such factual and legal basis of the claim as could be discovered in state court proceedings. The need for investigative assistance in federal proceedings relates to one aspect of Petitioner’s anticipated post-conviction strategy based on the need to challenge the reasonableness of th state habeas court’s fact-findings and conclusions under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2254(e)(1) and (2), as distinct from Sec. 2254(d). Section 2254(e) permits the development and presentation of additional facts beyond those presented during state habeas proceedings upon a proper showing of diligence by Petitioner’s Eighth Ground for Relief alleges:

1. Applicant Has Been Denied His Right to Counsel under the 6 and 14th Amendment Through Utilizing Gary Don Franks as a State Agent to Elicit Information from Applicant in the Denton County Jail Pending Trial. petitioner. Taylor, 529 U.S. at 442 - 443. See also, Horton v. Mayle, 408 F.3d 570, 582 n.6 (9th Cir. 2005) (citing Taylor in support of permitting additional factual development of claim in federal court); and, Moss v. Hofbauer, 286 F.3d 851, 859 (6th Cir. 2002). Accordingly, even if the investigation should raise additional facts or claims which implicate the issue of procedural default and or exhaustion, the assistance of an investigator is necessary to develop evidence of cause and prejudice, see, Patterson v. Johnson, No. 3:99-CV-808-G (N.D. Tex., Aug. 31, 2000), and is recognized by clearly established Supreme Court authority in Taylor. a. Petitioner has a specific need for an investigator to resume investigation in the factual and legal basis of his claim for relief involving Gary Don Franks’ suspected agreement to act as a State agent in eliciting information from Petitioner in violation of the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments. In his Eighth claim for relief, Petitioner contended that he was denied his rights under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution as a result of State’s witness, Gary Don Franks, having acted as an agent of the State in eliciting statements from Petitioner regarding the offense. Franks was an inmate in the Denton County jail at the time of Petitioner’s 1 trial and testified that he and Petitioner had anywhere from “several” to “hundreds” of conversations. [State v. Woods, Vol. 21 Reporter’s Record (“RR”): 30, 31, 40, 41 - 42]. Franks stated that over the course of several conversations, Petitioner bragged about the commission of the offense and revealed specific and confirmatory details of the murders. [Vol. 21 RR: 33 - 39]. Franks also Case 6:06-cv-00344-LED Document 21 Filed 12/11/2007 Page 3 of 12

Motion for Investigator Page 4 4 contended that during “mock” trials conducted among inmates in the Denton County jail inmates, Petitioner discussed the fact that he intended to raise a false alibi as a defense. [Vol. 21 RR: 32; Vol. 22 RR: 152]. Although Franks admitted that he met with prosecutors from the Denton County District Attorney’s Office on two occasions, he denied any agreement with the State in exchange for his testimony or that he expected any reward for his testimony. [Vol. 21 RR: 40 - 41, 50]. The State did not correct any aspect of Franks’ testimony during trial, nor concede that Franks had operated as a State agent in eliciting or attempting to elicit information from Petitioner. The State did not disclose any agreement between the State and Franks in exchange for his testimony, or otherwise correct Frank’s statement that he had no expectation of reward in exchange for his cooperation. In state post-conviction proceedings, Petitioner submitted an affidavit in which he denied discussing the details of his case, but stated that Franks frequently approached him and attempted to elicit facts about the offense. According to Petitioner, Franks would advise him that he had also spoken with Petitioner’s co-defendant, who revealed details about the offense, and who implicated Petitioner. And on one occasion, Frank’s homosexual lover and benefactor, Paul Lynn Schlieve met Petitioner in the Denton County Jail and attempted to elicit information about the case from Petitioner. Paul Lynn Schlieve was also present throughout trial observing the court proceedings. It is believed that Schlieve and Franks had telephone conversations which were recorded by the Denton County Sheriff’s Department. Petitioner’s co-defendant, Marcus Rhodes, also provided an affidavit in which he stated that Franks would approach him in the Denton County jail and attempt to solicit information regarding Case 6:06-cv-00344-LED Document 21 Filed 12/11/2007 Page 4 of 12

Motion for Investigator Page 5 5 the case. During state post-conviction proceedings, investigator David Watson met with Franks on two separate occasions in order to discuss his cooperation with the State. During this time, Franks was in federal custody awaiting sentencing for his participation in a conspiracy for Possession of Methamphetamine with Intent to Deliver and Unlawful Transport of a Firearm, in U.S.A. v. Gary Don Franks, No. 4:03-CR-00085, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas (Sherman Division). Franks advised Watson that he did have information relating to the Woods case, but refused to discuss his cooperation until a future date. Franks (inmate # 10948-078 ) is currently serving a sentence in FCI Beaumont, in Beaumont, Texas. During state post-conviction proceedings, an investigator retained by Petitioner also met with Franks’ lover, Paul Schlieve, who was also in federal custody awaiting sentencing for the same charges as Franks, to discuss Franks’ – and possibly Schlieve’s – cooperation with the State in the prosecution. Schlieve refused to speak with Petitioner’s investigator. Schlieve (inmate #10948-078 ) is currently serving his sentence in FCI Sandstone, in Sandstone, Minnesota. Petitioner’s attempt to investigate Franks was thwarted by limitations imposed upon him during state post-conviction proceedings. Petitioner attempted to obtain prosecution files and parole records relating to Franks pursuant to the Texas Open Records Act, but the requested materials were held by the Texas Attorney General’s Office to be protected records and not subject to disclosure. Petitioner also requested discovery of the State’s records relating to Franks through separate motions for discovery, and for the production of favorable evidence, both of which were Case 6:06-cv-00344-LED Document 21 Filed 12/11/2007 Page 5 of 12

Petitioner requested that the records be produced and placed within a sealed bill of 2 exception for federal review if his motions were denied. The state habeas court denied this request. Motion for Investigator Page 6 6 denied by the state habeas court. Petitioner also sought a full evidentiary hearing on the claims 2 within his state post-conviction writ application in order to develop the factual bases of the claims, but was denied a live evidentiary hearing in state court. Following the state habeas court’s adoption of the State’s fact-findings, Petitioner sought inclusion of the denied prosecution records through a motion to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals to include the records in the state appellate record, but the Court took no action upon the motion. Petitioner has a good faith belief that evidence exists in support of his Sixth Amendment claim involving Franks, or to related due process claims involving Franks and Schlieve, which Petitioner was unable to develop in state court due to impediments to the development of the facts and associated claims imposed by the prosecution and state courts. See, Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. at 442 - 443 (2000) (noting that interference by state courts may preclude such development and serve as justification to develop the facts in federal court proceedings). Compare, Banks v. Dretke, 540 U.S. 668, 690 - 698 (2004) (concluding cause and prejudice established to support of petitioner’s development of claim in federal court existed due to prosecution’s suppression of evidence during trial and state habeas proceedings). Petitioner’s belief is based on several factors. First, Franks specifically advised investigator Watson that he possessed information about Petitioner’s case, but that he was not prepared to discuss the information at that point in time. Inso far as the state habeas court denied an opportunity for an evidentiary hearing, and granted the State’s proposed fact-findings soon after their filing, Petitioner Case 6:06-cv-00344-LED Document 21 Filed 12/11/2007 Page 6 of 12

This sentence is comparable to Schlieve’s 100 month sentence. The leniency is 3 evident, however, given the clear fact that despite his robbery and delivery of a controlled substance charges, Franks was not sentenced as a career offender. Motion for Investigator Page 7 7 did not have a meaningful opportunity to develop Franks’ suspected testimony, much less compel his testimony. In addition, background investigation of Franks criminal history suggests, at a minimum, that he may have received benefits for his cooperation with the State, and that he has acted as a cooperating witness for the prosecution when such cooperation is to his benefit. During the state post-conviction writ investigation, Franks was in federal custody for hiss participation in a conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine. A news article within the Denton Record Chronicle, reflected that Franks was cooperating with the Government by testifying against his former lover Paul Schlieve, who was lured into the same criminal enterprise by Franks. See, Donna Fielder, Too Smart to Get Caught: How a UNT Professor Tried to Help a Friend, Got Involved in Drugs and Ended Up in Jail, Denton Record – Chronicle, April 11, 2004. Petitioner has been unable to obtain federal court records to determine the extent to which Franks has been rewarded for his cooperation. Petitioner would note to this Court that Frank’s assessed sentence of 101 months at least suggests considerable benefit in light of his extensive criminal record, including: robbery, burglary of a habitation, delivery of a controlled substance, credit card abuse, unauthorized use of a motor vehicle. [Vol. 21 RR: 41-42]. Franks’ willingness to cooperate with the Government when it suits 3 his interest is established and supports a reasonable suspicion that he has done so before. At the time of Frank’s cooperation with the State in the prosecution against Petitioner, he had pending legal problems, one of which was a pending prosecution for Delivery of a Simulated Case 6:06-cv-00344-LED Document 21 Filed 12/11/2007 Page 7 of 12

Motion for Investigator Page 8 8 Controlled Substance, State of Texas v. Gary Don Franks, No. F-2002-0625-A (16 District Court th of Denton County, Texas). The case was re-set on several occasions pending Mr. Wood’s trial. Following his testimony against Mr. Woods, Franks’ case was dismissed by the prosecution. The State denied via affidavit in post-conviction proceedings any agreement with Franks on the dismissed case, but insofar as the claim has not been subject to discovery of the States’ files, or to meaningful inquiry through cross-examination of witnesses, and because Petitioner anticipates evidence of prosecutorial misconduct, the denial merely begs the question raised by the claim. Franks’ pending charges for delivery of drugs is not all. According to an article in the Denton Record Chronicle, during the time period in which Franks was cooperating with the State, he was a suspect in the murder / disappearance of his daughter’s boyfriend. See, Donna Fielder, Too Smart to Get Caught: How a UNT Professor Tried to Help a Friend, Got Involved in Drugs and Ended Up in Jail, Denton Record – Chronicle, April 11, 2004. In the absence of discovery of the prosecution files, the status of this investigation, or whether it would be prosecuted is unknown. Yet still there is more. The Denton Record Chronicle reported that in February 2002, the University of North Texas Police Department delivered to the Denton County District Attorney’s Office an 11 count fraud case against Mr. Franks for fraudulent billing submitted by Franks to the university. See, Donna Fielder, Too Smart to Get Caught: How a UNT Professor Tried to Help a Friend, Got Involved in Drugs and Ended Up in Jail, Denton Record – Chronicle, April 11, 2004. Again, in the absence of discovery of the prosecution files, the status of this investigation, or whether it would be prosecuted is unknown. In light of these unresolved factual issues relating to Franks (and even Schlieve’s) circumstances with the Denton County District Attorney’s Office, at a minimum it is necessary fo Case 6:06-cv-00344-LED Document 21 Filed 12/11/2007 Page 8 of 12

Motion for Investigator Page 9 9 a full and fair resolution of the claim for Petitioner attempt to interview both individuals and determine whether additional facts exist with respect to Petitioner’s Sixth Amendment claim, as well as any collateral claim which would have become apparent had the State and the state habeas court provided a full and fair opportunity to investigate and litigate the facts in state court proceedings. See, Williams, 529 U.S. at 442 - 443. In addition, interviews are necessary for the purpose of establishing facts necessary to help demonstrate that there is a genuine issue of material fact which disentitles Respondent to summary judgment. Goodwin v. Johnson, 132 F.3d 162, 169 (5 Cir. th 1998); and, Williams v. Scott, 36 F.3d 159, 161 (5 Cir. 1994). th b. Petitioner would request leave to retain private investigator David Watson Petitioner would seek leave to retain the services of licenced private investigator David Watson, of Austin, Texas. Watson’s curriculum vitae is included in this motion as Appendix “A.” Watson conducted part of the investigation of the case in state post-conviction proceedings and is familiar with the specific issue involving Franks; it was, in fact, Watson, who attempted to interview Franks. Watson charges a rate of $ 75.00 per hour, which is a fair and reasonable rate for private investigators in the State of Texas. Petitioner anticipates the need for investigation of up to 60 hours, which includes interviews and travel time to interview both Franks and Schlieve, and any collateral witnesses who may arise in the investigation of this claim. Petitioner anticipates that Watson will also incur additional and necessary travel expenses from Austin, Texas to Beaumont, Texas to interview Franks, and from Austin to Sandstrom, Minnesota, to interview Schlieve. Accordingly, Petitioner respectfully requests preauthorization of fees up to $ 4500, and for leave to request reimbursement for reasonable travel expenses. Case 6:06-cv-00344-LED Document 21 Filed 12/11/2007 Page 9 of 12

Motion for Investigator Page 10 10 Conclusion and Prayer WHEREFORE, Petitioner respectfully requests this Honorable Court grant leave for Petitioner to retain the services of David Watson to investigate this identified claim. Respectfully Submitted, Law Office of Alexander L. Calhoun 3301 Northland Dr., Ste. 215 Austin, TX 78731 Tele: 512/ 420-8850 Fax: 512/ 233-5946 Cell: 512/ 731-3159 Email: alcalhounlaw@sbcglobal.net alcalhoun@earthlink.net By: ___/s/_________________________ Alexander L. Calhoun State Bar No.: 00787187 Case 6:06-cv-00344-LED Document 21 Filed 12/11/2007 Page 10 of 12

Motion for Investigator Page 11 11 CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE I hereby certify that on the 11 day of December 2007, I conferred with opposing counsel, th Mr. Baxter Morgan, regarding the filing and substance of this motion and that Mr. Morgan has advised that he OPPOSES the relief requested in this motion. _____/s/__________________________ Alexander L. Calhoun CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on the 11 day of December 2007, a copy of this motion has been served th on opposing counsel, Mr. Baxter Morgan, through ECF filing. ____/s/___________________________ Alexander L. Calhoun Case 6:06-cv-00344-LED Document 21 Filed 12/11/2007 Page 11 of 12

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TYLER DIVISION STEVEN MICHAEL WOODS, § Petitioner, § § § v. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:06cv344 § NATHANIEL QUARTERMAN, Director, § Texas Department of Criminal Justice, § Correctional Institutions Division, § Respondent. § ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF AN INVESTIGATOR Came on this day to be considered Petitioner’s Motion for Appointment of an Investigator, and the Motion is hereby DENIED. It is so ORDERED. Case 6:06-cv-00344-LED Document 23-2 Filed 12/19/2007 Page 1 of 1