Christopher was convicted of Capital Murder on February 1st 2006 for the

Robbery/homicide of Hasmukhbhai "Hash" Patel. His conviction was based on

faulty insufficient evidence, hearsay testimony and Racial biasness. During Jury
selection, the prosecutor committed numerous acts of racial biasness against
jurors that fit the true description of "jury of my peers". The prosecutor struck
(dismissed) 3 Black women, for different reasons, and could not give a legitimate
race-neutral reason for doing so. The reasons the prosecutor gave were
contradictory, being that other Non-Black jurors interviewed had the same
issues, and were either struck by the defense or served on the jury.

The first juror that was subjected to racial biasness was Geneva Nealy Johnson.
When she was questioned by the State Prosecutor she was asked if she could be
fair and render a verdict based solely on the evidence presented. Her answer
was " The defendant appears to be the age of my son. I'm not sure I could render
a fair verdict, I believe in Capital punishment but I just cant make that decision
alone". The Prosecutor then asked if the evidence proved to merit the
punishment of death, could she be fair and hand the death penalty out. Ms
Johnson answered "Yes". The prosecutor then went on to strike Ms Johnson
stating she could not be fair or impartial. Two other potential jurors had similar
issues regarding the rendition of a fair and impartial verdict, and were not struck
by the prosecutor. The first was Jason Olivarr. When he was asked could he be
fair and impartial, he answered, "I get easily nervous and could easily be swayed
for either party if they pressured hard enough". Mr Olivarr went on to tell the
prosecutor that he suffered from depression and had suicidal thoughts. He said
he was currently seeing a psychiatrist and was taking an anti depressant. Like
Ms Johnson, he says he could not make a death decision himself nor be fair and
impartial. Unlike Ms Johnson, Mr Olivarr went on to serve on the jury. Another
parallel to Ms Johnson's situation was Mr Pena, Mr Pena indicated that he could
not be fair because he had business with the Patels and his son frequented the
convenience store that the incident occurred in. Being that Mr Pena says he
knew the victim, this would count as a blatant prejudice to the case, and
supposed to result in for automatic dismissal. Nonetheless the state went on to
accept Mr Pena on the jury. He did not serve because the defense struck him
due to his personal connections to the victim.

Like Ms Johnson both of these jurors said that they couldn't be fair and each gave
decent reasons. Unlike Ms Johnson, who was black, the state still accepted Mr
Olivarr and Mr Pena, although Mr Olivarr was mentally unstable and Mr Pena was
clearly prejudiced due to his personal connections to the case.

The Second Juror that was struck was M. Anderson Williams. Ms Williams said
that she was involved in an outreach ministry that went door to door in different
housing projects to get families closer to God. She was asked does her Ministry
participate in going into Jails to minister to inmates. She said yes, but she
doesn't do it personally. She also said that she has 2 children and one had a
criminal conviction, but she didn't know what for. The prosecutor struck her
because she was involved in a ministry that goes inside Jails and ministers to
prisoners, plus her daughter had a larceny conviction in N.Carolina.

Four of the Non-Black people who eventually served on the jury, either had close
relatives with criminal histories or had criminal histories themselves. In addition
5 Non-Black panellist, that was interviewed was accepted by the state, but
eventually struck by the defence had similar histories. That's 9 Non-Black
Panellist that contradicted the states reason for striking Ms Williams, the most
bizarre was Mr Rodrigo Rodriquez and Mr Ramon Fuentes, JR. Mr Rodriquez has a
brother who was convicted and sentenced to 10 years for aggravated sexual
assault. Mr Rodriquez went o to not only serve on the jury but also became the
jury's Forman which is the speaker/leader of the jury. Mr Fuentes also had a
brother who was charged in a shooting and rape of his landlord. The state went
on to accept him on the jury, but the defense struck him. Both of these cases
were in Texas and handled by the Bexar County Prosecutors office, which is the
same office that handled my case.
The third juror that was racially struck was Ms Paulette Childress-Bell. Ms Bell
stated she could assess the Death Penalty if the evidence proved the case. She
also said that her husband and son have been stopped by the police, and felt
that they were racially profiled, A common occurrence on the side of town we are
from. The state went on to strike Ms Bell, their reasons being "Her husband and
son as Black Men felt they were subjects of racial profiling. The state stated 3
more reasons after this one that were race neutral, but the damage was done
with the first. When the defense asked the judge to step in due to racial
prejudice on the basis that the first reason was purely racist, the judge's
response was "Yeah it was, but the others weren't" He agreed and did nothing
about it. All 3 of those instances was challenged legally under Batson V
Kentucky which is a challenge that weights if the prosecutors motives were race
based or not. Being that the reasons the prosecutor gave to strike these three
Black panellists, came up numerous times with other Non-Black panellist, there
was only one way to justify a Race-Neutral reason, to strike all jurors that have
the same issues, no matter Race or gender.

These 3 women are from the same side of town that I grew up on and know the
everyday occurrences of violence and racial profiling. These women also have
kids, nieces, and nephews that are subjected to these occurrences, so they
understand what type of life Ive been through. These women are the "Peers"
that's supposed to make up a Jury.

During the Guilt/innocence phase of trial, the state prosecutor presented the jury
with 2 eyewitnesses and a video tape of the murder. The first witness Mrs
Helton happened to be sitting in the parking lot, directly in front of the
entrance/exit of the convenience store, in her car scratching lotto tickets. In her
police report, taken 45 minutes after the murder, Mrs Helton says she heard one
shot and an alarm go off. She then seen a man walk out of the store and look
inside her car. She said she made eye contact with the man until he got into a
Red car and drove off. Police asked Mrs Helton if she can identify the man if she
seen him again, she said "yes" minutes later, I was brought in for a one man line
up to see if Mrs Helton could identify me as the man that came out of the store.
After several minutes of me turning left and right, and her looking me in the
face. Mrs Helton said I was not the man that came out of the store.

The second witness Mr Vasquez Jr. He was parked next to Mrs Helton during the
shooting, Mr Vasquez said in his police report, which was taken at the same time
as Ms Helton's, that he also got a good look at the suspect. He went through the
same process of identification. Mr Vasquez said I was not the same man.

During trial , 16 months later, both of these eyewitnesses got on stand and both
identified me in the courtroom. Obviously since each witness is prepped before
testimony, I was going to be identified. My attorneys never asked either witness
why 16 months after the crime I could be identified, but minutes after I couldn't.
When the video tape was played for the jury, the tape was of poor visual and
audio quality. According to the lead detective of the case, he testified that he
viewed the tape numerous times and couldn't decipher anything being said, he
described it as "unintelligible"

The tape showed a man walk into the store, pull a gun on the clerk, then the
clerk moving left and right behind the counter with his hands under the counter.
Then the suspect fired 2 shots. The first shot doesn't seem to hit the clerk since
hes still moving, left to right behind the counter. When the second shot was
fired the clerk shakes his hand and quickly grabs for his chest, seconds later he
falls and the man exits the store.

According to investigators nothing was missing from the store, so no Robbery

occurred. The cash register still had over $8,000 inside. Since the prosecutors
could not prove a robbery occurred, the next thing for them is to try to prove an
attempted Robbery. The only way to do that is to prove that I demanded money.
The only evidence they had to do such, was a faulty video tape that was
incoherent and according to the lead detective "unintelligible". No fingerprints of
mine were found anywhere around the store, the tape that showed the register
never showed the suspect was even near it or went near it, an attempt was
never proven.

In order to convict me of Capital Murder, the prosecutor has to prove that I was
in the course of committing or did commit a robbery in the process of killing Mr
Patel. If this can not be proven the court is supposed to instruct the jury that
they have a choice to convict me of Capital murder, Murder, Voluntary
manslaughter, or negligent homicide. The only choices the court gave the jury
was Capital murder or Acquittal. The video tape clearly showed a murder and
nothing more. If the jury believe that the defendant needed to be convicted and
not Acquitted, then the only option that was left was Capital Murder.

After 45 minutes of deliberation the jury found me guilty of Capital murder.

Injustice