Ex parte Chaney

Texas Court of Criminal Appeals · 2018 · Evidence

563 S.W.3d 239 (Tex. Crim. App. 2018)

Updated August 22, 2026

EvidenceArticle 11.073new scientific evidencebite-mark evidenceforensic odontologyfalse evidenceBradymateriality

Facts

Chaney was convicted of murdering John Sweek in a largely circumstantial case whose strongest proof was expert bite-mark testimony identifying Chaney as the biter and placing the bite at the time of the murder. Post-conviction proceedings produced evidence that the science underlying such bite-mark individualization had materially changed, that one expert's 'one to a million' statistic lacked scientific support even at trial, and that testimony placing the wound at the time of death was misleading. The State also disclosed previously undisclosed evidence that an earlier shoe examination found no blood, that a search of Chaney's property and vehicle found no blood, and that key witness Curtis Hilton had made numerous inconsistent statements. Additional post-conviction evidence, including DNA testing excluding Chaney from tested items, further undermined the conviction.

Issue

Whether Chaney was entitled to post-conviction relief because changed scientific knowledge discredited the bite-mark evidence used at trial, the State's case included materially false evidence, the State suppressed favorable evidence under Brady, and the newly discovered evidence established actual innocence.

Rule

Under Article 11.073, a habeas applicant is entitled to relief if currently available relevant scientific evidence was not ascertainable through reasonable diligence at trial, would be admissible under current evidentiary rules, and shows by a preponderance of the evidence that the applicant would not have been convicted had it been presented. Due process is violated when a conviction is obtained with false evidence, whether used knowingly or unknowingly, if the evidence was false or misleading in context and material to the conviction. Brady is violated when the State suppresses favorable exculpatory or impeachment evidence that is material, meaning there is a reasonable probability of a different result if disclosed. A freestanding actual-innocence claim requires newly discovered evidence and clear and convincing proof that no reasonable juror would have convicted in light of the new evidence.

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Houston, Leo Martin was convicted of arson after the State's expert testified that a burn pattern uniquely proved liquid accelerant had been poured in a hallway. Years later, peer-reviewed studies and the current standards of the relevant fire-investigation profession conclude that the pattern cannot support source-specific conclusions, and the remaining trial evidence was only a weak motive and disputed presence near the building earlier that day.

Leo seeks habeas relief under a statute allowing post-conviction relief based on currently available scientific evidence. Which is the strongest argument for relief?

Explanation. The majority held that Article 11.073 relief requires proof that relevant scientific evidence is currently available, was not available at trial because it was not ascertainable through reasonable diligence, would be admissible under current evidentiary rules, and shows by a preponderance of the evidence that the applicant would not have been convicted. Relief is not automatic merely because standards changed, and the clear-and-convincing/no-reasonable-juror standard belongs to freestanding actual innocence, not Article 11.073.