NO. 2014CR5591-W1 EX PARTE § INTHE DISTRICT COURT § vs. § 186TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT § FRANCES ARACELIE HALL § BEXAR COUNTY, TEXAS AFFIDAVIT IN RESPONSE TO APPLICANT'S ALLEGATIONS OF INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE STATE OF TEXAS ) COUNTY OF BEXAR) On this day appeared before me, the undersigned authority, JEAN S. BROWN who being known by me, was swom and deposed and upon her oath stated as follows: “My name is JEAN S. BROWN. [am above the age of eighteen years, have personal knowledge of the facts and observations stated herein and am not disqualified under law for any reason. Below is my response to Applicant's Allegations of Ineffective Assistance pertaining to the above styled and numbered cause: (1) Counsel failed to call Dr. Paul Reed as a witness, who would have offered testimony to refute the opinion of Bexar County Medical Examiner, Jennifer Rulon, regarding the cause of death of the complainant. Response: DENY ‘The Defense, which includes Counsel throughout this response, thoroughly investigated all facts and theories for over three years in preparation for Frances A. Hall’s trial, Alan Brown and [ listened to other members of the defense team and determined that when considering the totality of the circumstances, Dr. Reed’s testimony did advance our theory of defense and our trial strategy. Alan Brown and I reviewed Dr. Reed’s report and chronology of events along with his admissions that he was not present at the incident and was not present during subsequent hospital care. Dr. Reed noted that trauma is chaotic and that mistakes are often made in trauma reports. I received Dr. Reed’s memo on September 6, 2016. I had discussed this theory with Ms. Cutter and Mr. Brown prior to that date. Had Dr. Reed’s actual notes called for a change in trial strategy, Alan Brown INEFFECTIVEand I would have made such a change. No testimony elicited at trial warranted a change in our defense strategy. We did not foresee a chance of getting a charge on a concurrent event based on Dr. Reed’s opinion. Alan Brown and I strategized that even if we did get such a charge, the concurring cause would not have occurred but for the continuing and co-operating original negligence and the original harm Hall, Jr. Thus, “concurring cause” would not have changed our theory of defense that Bill Hall, Jr's death was the result of an accident and would not have relieved Frances A. Hall of criminal respons Counsel adamantly denies discussing this issue with Dr. Reed once Adam Cortez advised us he was filing a writ on September 15, 2017. I was present when Ms. Cutter discussed Dr. Reed’s opinion with Frances A. Hall. Ms. Cutter copied the entire file for Attorney, Ed Lavin, We instructed Mr. Miller to get the file from Ed Laven. Counsel was not involved in that other than directing Ms. Cutter to give Frances A. Hall’s choice of attorney, Ed Lavin, the original file. (2) Counsel failed to elicit key exculpatory evidence from witness James Gonzalez regarding prior damage to the vehicle driven by the Aggravated Assault Complainant, Bonnie Contreras. Response: DENY The Defense elicited the testimony from James Gonzales that correlated with our theory of defense and our trial strategy. Mr. Gonzales testified that he saw no damage to the rear end of the Range Rover. Please see Page 2 of Exhibit 21 “Affidavit of James Gonzales” attached to Adam Corter’s Writ. That testimony supported our expert’s testimony and Frances Hall’s factual account of the accident. (3) Counsel’s overall deficient performance and failure to adequately prepare for the Frances Hall trial. Response: DENY Counsel’s performance was not deficient. Counsel prepared for three years for Frances Hall’s defense and had a firm understanding of the facts in the case. Frances Hall employed Alan Brown and his firm almost immediately after the accident. Frances Hall hired my firm, also. Both of our offices researched the facts surrounding the accident painstakingly. My office worked more on the civil side at first. The Defense conferred with the Defendant sufficiently to prepare a defense and conducted an independent investigation of the facts. We hired two experienced, ALLEGATIONS OF RANCES ARCELcredible experts, Charles Ruble and Ron Brandin, to work with us in sorting out the chain of events leading to the death of Bill Hall, Jr. We visited the scene with and without our experts countless times. We viewed the vehicles and the motorcyele involved multiple times with Frances Hall, Ron Brandin and Charles Ruble. We reviewed all discovery supplied by the State as well as our theories of defense with both experts. We interviewed and deposed two of the State’s witnesses: Edward Botello and Bonnie Contreras. We interviewed countless other potential witnesses, some of them more than once. We obtained copies of the indictment and all reports and methodically pieced together the most likely chain of events and defended Frances Hall. Adam Cortez, Applicant, was involved a very short time and to a minimal extent in the Frances Hall case compared to everyone else who worked on the case. He has no knowledge of what preparation went into the case prior to his ‘employment with Alan Brown in late June, 2016. It was a group decision of Alan Brown, Leigh Cutter and myself not to allow Mr. Cortez to take anymore witnesses after his offensive style of questioning the medical examiner. Ihave tried many cases including a substantial number of criminal eases. (4) Counsel Alan Brown slept during the course of the guilt-innocence stage of trial and allowed Jean Brown to dictate all trial decisions during the guilt-innocence stage, Response: DENY Alan Brown was actively involved during the preparation as well as the entire trial. He was involved in all theories of defense and every stage of preparation for the case, It is not the habit of Alan Brown’s office that anyone person act as “lead counsel”. Mr. Brown uses more of a group consciousness approach. Alan Brown never relinquished sole decision-making power to me or anyone else. Any decisions that did not involve the team were made by Alan Brown and me after we listened to all counsel and experts involved in the case. Each night after each day of trial, Alan Brown and I discussed the testimony of that day. Had any testimony resulted i change to our prior defense strategy, we would have adjusted our strategy accordingly. I did not make a single strategic decision without the counsel and guidance of Alan Brown. Further, affiant sayeth not.” APPL