FILED

2/16/2018 12:18 PM
Donna Kay McKinney
Bexar County District Clerk
Accepted By: Jessica Alvarez 2014CR5591-W1
 GROUND ONE:
Defense Counsel were constitutionally ineffective due to their failure to call Dr. Paul Reed
as a witness who would have offered testimony to refute the opinion of Bexar County Medical
Examiner Jennifer Rulon ("ME" or"the ME") regarding the cause of the death of the
complainant.

FACTS SUPPORTING GROUND ONE:

This case centered on a three vehicle incident that resulted in a collision between the side of the
vehicle Frances Hall was operating and the motorcycle the complainant/decedent Bill Hall was
operating. The exact cause of this incident is still very much in doubt so the first defense theory
was that Frances Hall was not responsible for any collision. What is known is that the complainant/
decedent, Bill Hall, was riding a motorcycle, Frances Hall was driving a 2007 Cadillac ESV, and
the Aggravated Assault complainant, Bonnie Contreras, was driving a 2013 Super Charged Range
Rover. The ME offered her opinion that died as the result of a homicide that occurred as the result
of"multiple blunt force injuries." The ME based her opinion on nothing but a police report that she
herself described as"confusing." The ME did concede the fact that a trauma surgeon would have
more insight into any other potential causes of the complainant's death such as the treatment
provided to Bill Hall, his pre-existing conditions, and the fact that the Bi]] Ha]] was airlifted from
the scene without first having chest tubes inserted to help drain air, blood and any floods from the
area around the lungs. Specifically, when asked about the insertion of chest tubes prior to airlift the
ME testified as follows: "You need to ask a trauma surgeon that question, whether they would
prefer EMS putting chest tubes in in the field or waiting till they get to the ER so trauma surgeons
can do it. That's not a question for someone who does autopsies. That's a good question for a
trauma surgeon."
Dr. Paul Reed is an Emergency Room Physician who was retained by Frances Hall to
render an opinion regarding the cause of death of Bill Hall. Dr. Reed prepared a very detailed
chronology of the post-accident treatment of Bill Hall from the time of the vehicular accident to
his death. Dr. Reed concluded that Bill Hall's cause of death was respiratory and not the result of
any hemorrhagic cause. Specifically, Dr. Reed referred to the care Bill Hall received as"Pretty
shoddy," and stated as follows: "On reviewing the medical records provided by the coroner, UH
and AirLIFE it appears that Mr. Hall was alert and oriented though in respiratory distress and
shock at the time of injury and up until he decompensated and was intubated shortly after dust off
with AirLIFE. His VS and injuries combined with the fact that he was taken to altitude with
oneumothoraces su22:est that his vitals first decompensated due to a tension pneumothorax
... He [Bill Hall]would have required a great deal of care and time to recover from his injuries.
However no catastrophic injuries were identified on the coroner's report of the autopsv .
.. . however the VS recorded and the amount of blood product administered do not correlate. His
labs. historv. and presentation all pointed to a respiratorv rather than hemorrhagic cause
for his shock and eventual arrest." ( emphasis added). In sum, Dr. Reed's opinion would have
refuted the opinion of the ME and been of tremendous benefit to Frances Hall. The full
chronology and the conclusions of Dr. Reed are attached to the Memorandum of Law filed in
support of this Application and incorporated as if fully set forth herein.
Based on the testimony of the ME and the dispute over how the accident even occurred, the
testimony of Dr. Paul Reed would have made a tremendous difference in the outcome of the trial.
At a minimum, the testimony of Bill Hall would have allowed Frances Hall to receive a jury
instruction regarding concurrent causation. The decision to refuse to call Dr. Paul Reed as a
witness was made by Jean Brown over the objection of the petitioner, and Mrs. Brown's decision
6
 GROUND TWO:
Defense Counsel was constitutionally ineffective due to her failure to elicit key exculpatory
evidence from witness James Gonzalez regarding prior damage to the vehicle driven by the
Aggravated Assault complainant Bonnie Contreras.

FACTS SUPPORTING GROUND TWO:

As stated herein above in support of Ground One, this case centered on a vehicular accident
the exact cause of which is still very much in doubt. What is known is that the
complainant/decedent, Bill Hall, was riding a motorcycle, Frances Hall was driving a 2007
Cadillac ESV, and the Aggravated Assault complainant, Bonnie Contreras, was driving a 2013
Super Charged Range Rover. A pivotal point of contention in the trial was whether or not Frances
Hall's Escalade ever made contact with the Range Rover that was owned by Frances Hall but
being driven by the Aggravated Assault complainant Bonnie Contreras. Contreras testified that
Frances Hall made contact with the Range Rover she was driving on numerous times while
Frances Hall maintained that there was no contact.
I made the opening statement on behalf of Frances Hall and in so doing I made it a point to
use the pictures of the Range Rover to show that there was little or no damage to the rear of that
vehicle where Bonnie Contreras had claimed she had been struck numerous times by the much
larger Cadillac Escalade ESV being driven by Frances Hall. James Gonzalez was a close friend of
the complainant/decedent Bill Hall and he was prepared to testify that any visible damage to the
rear of the Range Rover was pre-existing and had occurred when Bill Hall backed into a pole
while driving the Range Rover. Whether or not Frances Hall made contact with the Range Rover
driven by Bonnie Contreras was the key issue in the trial. Indeed, Paragraph IX of the Charge of
the Court in this case reads as follows:" ... Frances Hall did intentionally or knowingly threaten
imminent bodily injury to Bonnie Contreras, by striking a motor vehicle driven by Bonnie
Contreras with said deadly weapon, then you will find the defendant guilty of aggravated
assault... If you do not so find from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt or if you have a
reasonable doubt thereof, you will find the defendant not guilty in Count II of the indictment."
Furthermore, Frances Hall could only be guilty of the Felony Murder of Bill Hall if she was guilty
of the offense of the aggravated assault of Bonnie Contreras as reflected in Paragraph V of the
Charge of the Court that is attached to the Memorandum of Law filed in Support of this
Application and incorporated by reference as if fully set forth herein.
Based on the law and the facts of this case, the testimony of James Gonzalez regarding the
damage to the rear of the Range Rover was much more important to the defense of Frances Hall
then the medical testimony that is the subject of Ground One of this Application. Had James
Gonzales been asked about the prior damage his testimony would have very much supported the
defense theory that Frances Hall did not strike the vehicle driven by Bonnie Contreras as alleged
in the indictment. His testimony would have exculpated Frances Hall for the aggravated assault
and consequently exculpated her for the Felony Murder. Unfortunately, this very important
exculpatory testimony was never presented to the jury.
For reasons I am completely unaware, Jean Brown decided that she should direct James
Gonzalez even though she had not previously participated in the presentation of any evidence. In
anticipation of directing Gonzalez, Jean Brown prepared a list of questions from which she read
as she directed Gonzalez. This list of questions from which she read did include a question
regarding what, if any, damage James Gonzalez had observed to the Range Rover when he arrived
at the scene of the accident but this list strangely did not include a question about the prior
damage to the rear of the Range Rover.
While Jean Brown was in the midst of questioning James Gonzalez, it became apparent to
8
 me that the most important question was not one of her scripted questions. For that reason, I orally
reminded her to ask Gonzalez about prior damage to the rear of the Range Rover. Again, the
primary purpose of calling James Gonzalez to the witness stand was to elicit that very testimony
so that the jury could know that any observable damage to the rear of the vehicle was pre-existing
damage and not caused by Frances Hall on the night of the accident. Leigh Cutter actually took
matters a step further and wrote down the question so that Jean Brown could simply read the
question about prior damage as she had done all the other questions she asked James Gonzalez.
For whatever reason, Jean Brown did not ask about the prior damage to the Range Rover.
As was the case with the exculpatory medical evidence regarding the Felony Murder count
one of the Frances Hall indictment, Jean Brown was ineffective because her performance fell
below an objective standard of reasonableness, and there was much more than a reasonable
probability that the result of this trial would have been different but for her failure and/or refusal
to ask a four word question, "What about prior damage?"
In fact, the petitioner is absolutely certain that the answer to that simple question would
have made a difference in the outcome of France Hall's trial because after the conclusion of the
trial, I spoke to members of the jury. Two jury members informed me and Leigh Cutter that they
were influenced to convict Frances Hall because they could see some damage to the rear of the
Range Rover in the high resolution pictures that were offered into evidence by the State. This
damage led them to believe that Frances Hall had made contact with the vehicle driven by the
complainant Bonnie Contrera s. Therefore, it cannot be disputed that the outcome of Frances
Hall's trial would have been different if James Gonzalez had been asked about the prior damage
to the rear of the Range Rover because that pre-existing damage is the very reason why Frances
Hall was convicted by the jury.
Either of these grounds would independently justify the reversal of Frances Hall's
convictions. Taken together the facts of this application present a compelling case for the reversal
of Frances Hall's convictions and a remand to the trial court for a new trial.

9
GROUND FOUR:
Defense Counsel Alan Brown was constitutionally ineffective because he was found
sleeping at least twice during the course of the trial.

FACTS SUPPORTING GROUND FOUR:

As stated herein above, Alan Brown was retained by Frances Hall to be the lead counsel in
her defense. Indeed, his name is on the Frances Hall judgments. Alan Brown has been an attorney
since 1969 and is Board Certified in Criminal Law. However, during the trial Esther Martinez, the
sister of Bill Hall who attended the entire trial, watched Alan Brown sleep on two occasions
during the course of the guilt-innocence stage of trial. Therefore, not only did Alan Brown allow
Jean Brown to dictate all trial decisions during the guilt-innocence stage to the detriment of his
client, he also slept while those horrifically bad decisions were being carried out during trial. It is
also important to note that Alan Brown opted to leave court and not be present for the jury verdict
at the guilt-innocence stage of trial in favor of tending to his dog over his client. When viewed in
light of the other errors these actions constitute ineffective assistance of counsel and require the
reversal of Frances Hall's convictions.

12