The legal Case

Legal Files.

Most legal files of the case of Charles has been gathered on the website Save Charles D. Raby under the tab Legal Files. More actual files are gathered under the tab Legal Actual.  

http://www.savecharlesdraby.com/legal-files

http://www.savecharlesdraby.com/actual/

Explanations by Charles.

Charles wrote explanations about what happened during the murder period,  his false confession and blood and DNA investigations, can be found under the tab Crucial themes. Also some explanations are added to some legal files. 

http://www.savecharlesdraby.com/crucial-themes/

Summary defense by attorneys.

For a clear overview of the defense of the current attorneys of Charles,  please read the Legal Introduction under the tab Introduction. The attorneys concluded 10 grounds to habeas relief:

(1) under Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Article 11.073, relevant DNA evidence was not yet available at the time of his trial and relevant blood typing evidence was not ascertainable through reasonable diligence at the time of trial, both of which would have been admissible and without which it is likelier than not that Mr. Raby would not have been convicted;

(2) Mr. Raby’s conviction violates his constitutional rights because the State failed to produce material exculpatory blood-type testing results;

(3) Mr. Raby’s conviction violates his constitutional rights because the State knowingly put on perjured material testimony to obtain his conviction;

(4) Mr. Raby’s conviction violates his constitutional rights because the State used false and misleading material testimony;

(5) Mr. Raby’s conviction violates his constitutional rights because the State destroyed material exculpatory evidence; (6) Mr. Raby’s conviction violates his constitutional rights because newly discovered evidence establishes his actual innocence;

(7) Mr. Raby’s conviction violates his constitutional rights because it is based on an involuntary confession;

(8) Mr. Raby’s conviction violates his constitutional rights because he received ineffective assistance of counsel at the guilt-innocence phase of trial;

(9) Mr. Raby’s death sentence violates his constitutional rights because he received ineffective assistance of counsel at the punishment phase of trial; and

(10) Mr. Raby’s conviction violates his constitutional rights because the State impermissibly commented on his silence at trial, which defense counsel and appellate counsel ineffectively failed to challenge by objection and on direct appeal, respectively.

http://www.savecharlesdraby.com/introduction-to-the-legal-case/