NO.

ANTHONY GRAVES, § IN THE DISTRICT COURT

Plaintiff §
§
v. § OF TRAVIS COUNTY, TEXAS
§
GREG ABBOTT, in his official capacity as §
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS, §
Defendant § _____ JUDICIAL DISTRICT

PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL PETITION FOR A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT

Anthony Graves, Plaintiff, brings this action to clear his name and restore his

reputation. Relying upon his rights under Article 1, Section 13 of the Texas Constitution,

he asks the Court for a declaratory judgment that he is actually innocent of the crime of

capital murder and for other relief.

In support, he shows:

DISCOVERY

1. Plaintiff intends to conduct discovery under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure

Level 2.

PARTIES

2. Plaintiff Anthony Graves is a resident of Travis County.

3. Defendant is the Attorney General of the State of Texas, and is being sued in

his official capacity as the chief law enforcement officer of the state only. He may be

served at the Office of the Attorney General, 300 W. 15th St., Austin, TX 78701. Service

is requested.
 JURISDICTION AND VENUE

4. This Court has jurisdiction. TEX. GOV. CODE § 27.007-008.

5. Travis County is the proper venue for this suit. TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE

§ 15.002.

CONDITIONS PRECEDENT

6. All conditions precedent have been performed or have occurred.

FACTS

The Arrest and Trial of Anthony Graves

7. On August 18, 1992, a series of grisly murders happened in Somerville, Texas.

Somerville is located in Burleson County.

8. Officers arrested a man named Robert Carter a few days later. He was an

obvious suspect: he had the motive, means, and opportunity to commit the crime and

physical evidence directly connected him to it.

9. Carter confessed. In an apparent effort to get leniency, he falsely implicated

other people in the murders. One of those people was Anthony Graves.

10. Mr. Graves had no connection to the murders and barely knew Carter.

Nonetheless, he was arrested and charged with capital murder on August 23, 1992. He

maintained his innocence from the first day of his arrest.

11. Mr. Graves sat in jail awaiting trial for the next two years. He believed in our

justice system and that he would be acquitted.

12. His trial began on October 20, 1994. Despite his belief in the system and his
steadfast claim of innocence he was convicted and sentenced to death.

The Court of Criminal Appeals Affirms His Sentence, Even As the Case Against Him

Unravels

13. Mr. Graves continued to believe in the system. Still maintaining his absolute

innocence, he appealed his case to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals.

14. The Court rejected his appeal in 1997. Two years later, it denied his application

for a writ of habeas corpus.

15. That same year- 2000- the prosecutor in Mr. Graves’ case, Charles Sebesta,

appeared on a nationally televised program and admitted that Carter had told him that Mr.

Graves was innocent. This was the first time that this critical piece of exculpatory

evidence had ever been revealed by Sebesta.

16. In May of 2000- two weeks before he was to be executed- Carter gave a sworn

deposition that he had falsely implicated Mr. Graves.

17. Carter was executed on schedule. His dying words were “Anthony Graves had

nothing to do with it…I lied on him in court”.

18. Mr. Graves remained on death row, still fighting for his life and proclaiming

his innocence. He filed more applications for writs of habeas corpus to the Court of

Criminal Appeals. He still believed that this court would do justice.

19. He was mistaken. In 2002, the Court rejected his claims and affirmed his death

sentence.
 A Last-Ditch Effort and a Victory in the Federal Courts

20. Later that year, a lawyer named Nicole Casarez got involved with Mr. Graves’

case. She was teaching a journalism class at St. Thomas University in Houston. She and

her students began a diligent effort to unearth facts about the case. This work, which

would last years and was done completely for free, finally resulted in facts being

established which conclusively proved Mr. Graves’ innocence. Ms. Casarez is one of the

undersigned lawyers in this action.

21. As a result of this effort Mr. Graves was able to bring forth new facts in a

federal writ of habeas corpus. This writ was heard by the federal courts and eventually

resulted in a reversal of Mr. Grave’s conviction by the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for

the 5th Circuit on March 3, 2006.

Burleson County Refuses to Release Him

22. Mr. Graves was returned to state custody. Rather than release him, the

Burleson County authorities chose to try him again and kept him in the Burleson County

jail.

23. At this point, Ms. Casarez was joined in her efforts by Jeff Blackburn and

David Mullin, attorneys from Amarillo. All three of these lawyers, each of whom are

representing him in the current action, undertook Mr. Graves’ representation pro bono.

24. Later, Katherine Scardino and Jimmy Phillips were appointed to represent Mr.

Graves. Their excellent work and diligent effort went far beyond the norm of court

appointed criminal work, and they doggedly worked at proving him innocent.
 Kelly Siegler Takes Over the Prosecution

25. The case dragged on for four more years. In February 2010, Attorney Kelly

Siegler from Houston became special prosecutor. Ms. Siegler was a highly regarded

former prosecutor with a history of winning tough cases.

26. Ms. Siegler approached Mr. Graves’ case not only with fresh eyes but fresh

attitude: she gave priority to doing justice above all else.

27. She conducted her own investigation of Mr. Graves’ case. She and her staff

interviewed all of the relevant witnesses, analyzed the physical evidence, and carefully

examined all of the facts.

All Charges Are Dismissed

28. On October 27, 2010- more than eighteen years after Anthony Graves was

falsely convicted- Ms. Siegler, joined by the local District Attorney, dismissed all charges

against Mr. Graves. Rather than claim that “the evidence was stale”, or that “witnesses

could not be found”, or any of the hundred other prevarications that prosecutors

sometimes use, she said bluntly that Anthony Graves was innocent and that his case was

“a travesty”. Her courageous position was taken in the best tradition of prosecutors in

this state and put to rest any idea that Mr. Graves was somehow “getting off” under the

law.

29. The order dismissing the charges against Mr. Graves recited, in the common

language of the criminal courts, that there was “no credible evidence” against him. It did

not contain the exact words “actual innocence.”

 Mr. Graves’ Choice

30. Mr. Graves had several options at that point. He could have chosen to sue the

State of Texas officials and the local authorities of Burleson County in a civil rights

action in U.S. District Court or in the Texas courts. Instead, he chose to apply for simple

compensation under the state’s Timothy Cole Compensation Act. He did this because he

wanted to get his life underway and put the past behind him. He also chose this course of

action because he has family members who need his support and attention. He holds no

grudge against the State of Texas. He simply wants to start living a life that has been put

on hold for eighteen years.

The Comptroller’s Decision

31. Mr. Graves filed his claim with the Texas Comptroller shortly after being

released. His claim was denied in February of 2011 by the Texas Comptroller on the

ground that the order dismissing the charges against him did not contain the correct

wording.

32. The Comptroller made her decision based on an honest interpretation of the

law, which is relatively new and untested.

33. The Comptroller’s decision caused many people in Texas state government,

most notably Governor Rick Perry, to openly support Mr. Graves in his quest to correct

the injustice done to him. On February 16, 2011, Governor Perry called Mr. Graves’ case

“a great miscarriage of justice” and pledged his support for Mr. Graves’ efforts to win

compensation and clear his name. Many other legislators and state officials have echoed

this sentiment.
 MR. GRAVES’ RIGHTS UNDER THE TEXAS CONSTITUTION

34. Our state constitution guarantees to Mr. Graves and all people in Texas several

key rights- the right to a remedy at law, the right to equal protection, and the right to due

course of law. Mr. Graves brings this action pursuant to those rights.

Article 1, Section 13- The Right to a Remedy

35. Article 1, Section 13 of the Texas Constitution guarantees that “every person,

for an injury done him, in his lands, goods, person or reputation, shall have remedy by

due course of law.”

36. This provision of our constitution is powerful. It has been found in every

version of our organic law since the days of the Republic of Texas. It ensures that any

person whose reputation has been damaged has a right to redress in our courts- the only

legal body that can restore a person’s good name.

Article 1, Section 3- The Right to Equal Protection

37. Article 1, Section 3 of the Texas Constitution- the equal rights provision of our

Texas Bill of Rights- also protects Mr. Graves. It gives him an affirmative right to be

equally protected under the law.

38. Unless this Court grants relief, Mr. Graves will be denied his equal right to

recover compensation under our compensation law.

 Article 1, Section 19- The Right to Due Course of Law

39. Finally, Article 1, Section 19 of our state constitution guarantees that no person

shall be deprived of their rights except without due course of law.

40. Unless this Court grants relief, Mr. Graves will be deprived of his right to clear

his name and accept compensation without due course of law.

41. Although Mr. Graves has been released from prison, he has not been fully

cleared. Until and unless a court of this state proclaims his actual innocence, his name

will be clouded and his reputation will be questioned.

42. Mr. Graves relies upon our Constitution and the power of this Court to apply it

to give him a way to restore his good name and reputation.

WHY A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT?

43. Mr. Graves does not want to sue any official of this state for the damages done

to him. He does not seek an order compelling the Texas Comptroller to pay him

restitution, as he believes that she made an honest error in denying his claim and will

rectify it once she gets the appropriate order.

44. Instead, he asks this court only for an order proclaiming him to be actually

innocent of the charge that cost him eighteen years of his life and ruined his name and

reputation.

45. The Uniform Declaratory Judgment Act gives this Court the power to

adjudicate the legal status of any party before it and grant “relief from uncertainty and

insecurity with respect to rights, status, and other legal relations.” Tex. CIV. PRAC. &

REM. CODE § 37.002(b).

 RELIEF REQUESTED

46. Mr. Graves respectfully asks the Court to exercise the power given it by the

Texas Constitution and the Uniform Declaratory Judgment Act and declare his status to

be an innocent man, falsely accused and falsely convicted.

47. Mr. Graves also seeks his costs and reasonable and necessary attorneys fees as

are equitable and just, pursuant to Tex. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 37.009.

48. Mr. Graves also asks for any other relief, at law or in equity, to which he may

be justly entitled.

Dated: February 28, 2011

Respectfully submitted,

JEFF BLACKBURN
Texas Bar No. 02385400
718 S.W. 16th Ave.
Amarillo, Texas 79101
(806) 371-8333 [telephone]
(806) 350-7716 [fax]

LEAD COUNSEL FOR

PLAINTIFF

NICOLE CASAREZ
Texas Bar No. 02952100
3800 Montrose
Houston, Texas 77006
(713) 525-3578 [telephone]

CO-COUNSEL FOR
PLAINTIFF
 DAVID MULLIN
Texas Bar No. 14651600
Mullin Hoard & Brown, LLP
500 S. Taylor, Suite 800
Amarillo, Texas
79120 (806) 372-5050
[telephone]
(806) 372-5086 [fax]

CO-COUNSEL FOR
PLAINTIFF

JAMES C. HARRINGTON
Texas Bar No. 09048500
WAYNE KRAUSE
Texas Bar No. 24032644
SCOTT MEDLOCK
Texas Bar No. 24044783
BRIAN MCGIVERIN
Texas Bar No. 24067760

TEXAS CIVIL RIGHTS

PROJECT
1405 Montopolis Drive
Austin, TX 78741
(512) 474-5073 [phone]
(512) 474-0726 [fax]

LOCAL COUNSEL FOR

PLAINTIFF