FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Contact –Brit Schulte

Email – britschulte@my.unt.edu

Telephone- 254-681-5973

Contact- Eleonora Poggio

Email- eleonora.poggio@gmail.com

Website – Freerobwill.org

WILL NEW WITNESS STOP TEXAS EXECUTING AN INNOCENT MAN?

Harris County, Texas - October 2nd, 2010. Robert Gene Will was wrongfully convicted of the

murder of a Harris County Deputy in January 2002 and sentenced to death. Robert has always

maintained his innocence. Since his conviction a total of 4 new witnesses have come forward and

provided sworn affidavits that state Robert Will is not the killer and have named the real murderer,

his co-defendant Alan Michael Rosario. The latest witness statement provides new hope for Robert

and is vital in his and his supporters fight for justice.

On May 25th, 2010 yet another of Robert's appeals was denied, he is now nearing the end of the

appeals process. He hopes this new witness's affidavit will enable him to have a re-hearing and

ultimately a new trial, so the truth will finally be heard and justice served. Robert's case has been

plagued with problems as a result of the incompetent court-appointed attorneys Mr. Anthony Osso

and Mr. David Cunningham, as well as the injustice of the Texas judicial system.

His trial attorneys failed to investigate his case, went to trial unprepared and refused Robert the

chance to actively participate in his own defense. His first State Habeas appeals attorney Mr.

Leslie Ribnik was removed from the list of state approved appeals attorneys after he filed identical

appeals for Robert Will and the "Railroad Serial Killer", Angel Maturino Resendiz. Neither appeal

mentioned the defendants or their cases and both included incorrect conviction dates. They have all

failed to present the available evidence of Robert's innocence and his latest court-appointed

attorney, Mr. Kenneth Williams, continues to do so.

Robert desperately needs legal assistance from a new attorney who will represent him pro-bono and

finally present the overwhelming evidence of his innocence to the courts, before it is too

late to save his life.

For more information and full details of Robert's case please visit:

www.freerobwill.org

WILL TEXAS EXECUTE AN INNOCENT MAN?

In December 2000, at the age of 22, Robert Gene Will, II was arrested and charged with capital

murder. He was accused of the December 4th murder of Mr. Barrett Hill, a Deputy with Harris

County Sheriff's Department, Texas.

On January 23rd, 2002 following a two and a half week trial the jury found Robert Will guilty of

the offense of capital murder and ultimately sentenced him to death.

Robert Will has proclaimed his innocence throughout and continues to do so from his cell on Death

Row. He has always maintained that his co-defendant, Alan Michael Rosario, was the shooter, the

physical evidence and witness testimony support this claim.

As Judge Keith Ellison stated:

“Will did not confess to the murder of Deputy Hill. The subsequent investigation

did not turn up any eyewitness, forensic evidence, or other indisputable proof

that Will was the killer”

So why is Robert Will still awaiting execution on Texas Death Row?

There are two main reasons:

1) Ineffective counsel during his trial

2) Incompetent Appeals Attorneys

Robert's case highlights the inadequacies and prejudices of the U.S justice system and in particular

the injustice that the poorer members of American society receive.

Robert's legal representation at trial was appalling and he would not be on Death Row now if he

had the funds to hire his own attorneys and thus provide him with an adequate, competent

defense counsel.

Death Row lawyer and Reprieve UK founder Clive Stafford Smith says of U.S.A. Capital Cases:

“That's why they call it capital punishment: those without the capital get the

punishment."

Robert has now almost exhausted all of his appeals and is facing imminent execution.

Will you sit back and allow this travesty of justice to occur?

Will you allow Texas to MURDER an innocent man?

ROBERT WILL'S CASE BACKGROUND

On December 4th 2000, Robert along with Alan Michael Rosario and three other individuals were

at the rear of an apartment complex on Dunson Glen, North Houston. They were all participating in

the stripping down of two stolen motor vehicles for parts.

A police cruiser arrived at the scene (following a 911 report from a resident of suspicious activity at

the rear of the apartments.) This prompted all members of the group to immediately run from the

scene. Robert is unable to state with any certainty in which direction the others ran.

Robert ran towards a small wooded area to the front of the apartment complex. He was pursued and

caught by Deputy Hill, he surrendered immediately and was promptly handcuffed (Robert reports

he was cuffed with his hands behind his back) and searched for weapons without incident. Deputy

Hill then radioed in:- “4119, I've got one in custody”

Robert then heard gunshots and saw Alan Michael Rosario approaching from Deputy Hill's left

hand side. Rosario shot Hill numerous times after which he removed Robert's handcuffs. Rosario

always carried handcuff keys with him; he obtained these, as well as many other police issue items,

from his father who was a decorated police officer. As Deputy Hill lay on the ground, Rosario shot

Hill several more times. One of these second rounds of shots grazed Robert's knuckles and caused a

significant injury to his left hand. Rosario then handed Robert the gun that he had just used to shoot

Hill and went to take the Deputy's gun. At which point a flashlight (presumed at the time to be that

of a police officer) was seen in the vicinity and both men immediately ran from the scene of the

shooting.

Robert ran to the parking lot of the apartment complex where he found a vehicle with its engine

running. Robert approached the vehicle and informed the female occupant that he needed her

vehicle, initially the woman thought that Robert was joking and ignored his requests, she stated at

trial: “... the first thing that came to mind was why was this white man playing

with me and he don’t know me”. The woman did then exit the vehicle and told Robert that he

could take the vehicle (as corroborated in the aforementioned woman’s later statements to police.)

Robert proceeded to take the vehicle and eventually drove to Brenham, some distance from

Houston.

Rosario first ran to the apartment of a friend of his, but the friend's room-mate refused to open the

door to Rosario. The roommate described Rosario as “crying and sweating at the door”. Unable to

gain access to his friend's apartment Rosario ran instead to Robert's apartment. When there, he

confessed to Robert's girlfriend and the other occupants of the apartment that he'd just shot a police

officer and accidentally shot Robert. He proceeded to take off his bloody clothes and pour bleach

over them to destroy any DNA evidence. He re-dressed with clothes from Robert's closet. He took

the holster of the murder weapon, spare bullets and placed them in the outside utility closet with a

note that read “Rob, here’s my stuff”. Rosario signed it with the name of a mutual friend of both his

and Robert's. Several people witnessed Rosario at the apartment covered in blood and perform all

of the above stated actions that day. All have now provided sworn affidavits.

Mr. Donald Wass, a Washington County Sheriff’s Deputy, later approached Robert in

Brenham, just outside Houston. Robert initially went to drive away as he didn't realize Wass was a

police officer but then exited the vehicle and surrendered. He was taken into custody without

incident. Robert's gloves were placed in individual evidence bags and his right hand was bagged

immediately by officers to preserve evidence. EMS Technicians arrived and treated the wound to

Robert's left hand, caused previously by Rosario accidentally shooting him at the crime scene.

PROSECUTOR'S VERSION OF THE EVENTS AND PROSECUTORS OWN EVIDENCE

The prosecution, that amongst others unusually consisted of the District Attorney himself

Charles A. “Chuck” Rosenthal Jr., claimed that on December 4th 2000, only Robert Will and

Alan Michael Rosario were present at the Dunn Glen Apartment Complex.

Trial testimony from the 911 operator contradicts this. She testified that: “... information was received by dispatchers of about 4 or 5 individuals

involved with automobiles at the end of Dunson Glen.”

As part of the transcript of the 911 call made to report the suspicious activity at the rear of the

apartments, the caller informed the operator that “they” were in the back of her apartment building,

the transcript reads as follows :-

“Operator: They! How many, ma’am? Caller: Uh, Darn. Okay let me look and see. It looks to be like five of them

now.” The two attending officers discovered and chased two suspects, Deputy Hill pursued Robert,

Deputy Kelly allegedly pursued and subsequently lost Rosario. However, the prosecution claims

Rosario would not have had time to reach Deputy Hill as there was only 8 seconds between Kelly

losing sight of Rosario, some 470 feet from the scene of the shooting, and the first shot being

fired.

At trial Deputy Kelly agreed that he never made a positive id of Rosario and therefore was not sure

who he was in actual fact chasing. Kelly could have been chasing any 1 of 4 individuals.

But if indeed Kelly was chasing Rosario the radio transcript and Kelly's own testimony at trial show

that Rosario would have had, at the very least, 26 seconds, and not the 8 seconds prosecutors claim,

to reach and shoot Deputy Hill.

Excerpts from Radio Transcript:

• At 6:37:02 Kelly states:

“He’s running along the bayou”

• 43 seconds later at 6:37:45 Hill says: “4119, I’ve got one in custody.”

-Robert is apprehended.

• 18 seconds later at 6:38:03 Kelly asks:

“19, I got any units in route to me?”

• 26 seconds later at 6:38:29 first shot fired (as heard over the open radio)

Kelly testified at trial that:

“I didn’t catch the second man, lost sight of him, but he was on the east side,

I saw him disappear around a tree. I asked [the] dispatcher if any other units

were en route and were [sic] I had lost sight of him.”

Kelly states he had lost whomever he was chasing before he radioed in and enquired about

additional units en route to him. If it was Rosario that Kelly was pursuing, Rosario would have had

from at least 6:38:03 (when Kelly radioed in) until 6:38:29 (when the first shot was fired) to reach

Hill, a total of 26 seconds.

Although it would not be unrealistic to assume that Kelly didn't lose sight of the suspect at the exact

second he radioed and therefore Rosario would potentially have had more than 26 seconds to reach

Deputy Hill. Prosecutors claim Kelly lost sight of Rosario 470 feet from the scene of the crime (by

the bayou, near the bridge), a young fit man, as Rosario was, could easily run 470 feet in 26

seconds.

However this distance is merely speculation on the Prosecution's behalf, no solid evidence exists to

prove or disprove its accuracy. Kelly does state that when he lost the suspect he “disappeared

around a tree”, therefore the suspect must have been near the wooded area and not on the bayou or

near the bridge by Darbydale, as trial testimony and crime scene photos show, this is a flat area

completely devoid of trees and bushes, there were no trees for a suspect to disappear behind.

Kelly also stated at trial that he:

“made it to the bayou, looked toward the bridge at the end of the street to the

east then started making my way back to where I lost sight of the suspect.”

Which confirms that he did not lose the suspect on the bayou or near the bridge, but closer to the

actual crime scene, where there were trees.

Taking all these facts into consideration, Rosario would've in fact had to run less than 470 feet (as

he was not last seen on the bayou) and had more than 26 seconds to reach Deputy Hill. Meaning

Rosario could have easily been the shooter.

The two witness statements Deputy Kelly gave directly after the crime differed from his trial

testimony and when Mr. Kelly took the stand to testify he offered several different and inconsistent

versions of the events of that day.

Hill radioed in that he had one in custody but the prosecution claim, Hill had not yet handcuffed

or searched Robert. Robert is said to have then produced a gun and shot Hill whilst Robert was

lying on the ground, the first shot they claim is the one that grazed Robert's left hand/knuckles

also hitting Hill under his right arm just above his bulletproof vest. Robert, they claim, then

stood up and over the fallen officer and shot him repeatedly.

There is no evidence to prove whether Robert was or wasn't handcuffed at that time,

although it is standard procedure for an officer to handcuff, search and secure a suspect before

radioing to confirm that they have someone in custody, to ensure the officers' safety. Several

Deputies were questioned at trial about the term “having one in custody”, they described this as

meaning “definitely not free to move” and “immobilized”.

The first shot fired, according to the prosecution's expert witness, was fired from a distance of less

than 8 inches. If the first shot took off Robert's knuckles as they claim and it was shot from less

than 8 inches there should have been Robert's blood/DNA at the site of the wound and on Deputy

Hill's clothing, this was not the case, thus the prosecution’s hypothesis is severely flawed.

Further testimony stated that a trail of Robert's blood was found leading from the crime scene,

confirming that Robert was bleeding profusely. If he had shot his own left hand less than 8 inches

away from Hill and then stood over him as he lay on the ground and shot repeatedly, a significant

quantity of Robert's blood should have been found on Hill's clothing. Only one small drop of

Robert's blood was found on the tip of Deputy Hill's boot, no other blood was present. Also, at

close range,

Robert would have been unable to avoid getting blood splatter from Deputy Hill on himself

and all over his own clothing

Hill's and Robert's clothes were tested, senior forensic expert, Mr. Bill Watson testified at trial that:

“The officers clothing, his uniform shirt, his shirt and pants they came back

having the officer’s blood on them.” and

“The clothes Mr. Will was wearing, the jacket he had on... Purple pants

that he had on, his shoes all came back as having his blood on them, except his

socks, I didn’t test them... all came back with blood being consistent with him,

his own blood on his own clothing...it was his blood and no one else’s, not

the Deputy’s.”

Forensic Pathologist Dr. Jesse Adams’s testimony does not support the Prosecution's theory, that

Robert shot Hill from the ground and then fired additional shots when Hill was on the ground. At

trial he stated the following in regards to one of the Deputy Hill's gunshot wounds:

“This would be consistent, with the shooter being to the side of the Deputy or

the Deputy’s head being turned away from the shooter. It would be consistent

with both those scenarios. It would be consistent if they were approximately the

same size and in the standing position.” and

“...it would be possible that if the defendant and victim were standing face to

face being handcuffed someone could approach from the left and shoot. That would

be consistent with the entry and exit wounds. Someone could have been hiding in

the bush and approached from the left side.” This testimony supports Robert’s version of events and throws into doubt the prosecutors’ version

that states the first shots were fired while Robert was on the ground and the remainder of the shots

were fired as Mr. Hill lay on the ground.

Robert ran to the complex vehicle park, and stole a resident‟s vehicle. The prosecution then

claims Robert informed the resident that he had just “shot a police officer” and then proceeded

to flee the scene in the stolen vehicle.

Robert did flee the crime scene and stole a resident's vehicle, these facts are not

disputed. He did not however inform the occupant of the vehicle that he had shot a police officer.

The occupant of the vehicle was interviewed extensively regarding the crime and supplied

numerous statements to the police. In none of these statements did she state that Robert had said

that he had shot a police officer. It wasn't until 13 months later, at trial, that the vehicle occupant

first stated or “remembered” that Robert had said this to her.

At trial she conceded that when she met with the lieutenant:

“8th encounter with police that day [and she] didn’t say anything about [the]

guy said he just shot a police officer”

This statement confirms she had never told detectives/officers that Robert had stated he had shot an

officer and that at trial was the first time she had ever made this claim. This revealing statement

makes this witness's testimony somewhat dubious and questionable.

Prosecutors claim: “Will also apparently doused himself with bleach while driving away, which would only make sense as an attempt to clean himself (of blood, gunshot residue or some

other trace of the murder).”

A “Clorox” bleach bottle was removed from the vehicle that Robert was driving. Deputy Gary

Clayton who processed the arrest scene stated:

“We did remove a Clorox bottle that had what appeared to be gasoline inside.

Deputy Kuhlman took that out and brought a canister, a gas canister, and emptied

gas into it......We kept the Clorox bottle.”

The bleach bottle was in fact filled with gasoline not bleach. The gasoline was emptied into a gas

canister by a Deputy, not Robert, and after they had emptied the bottle the officers retained the

bottle. Therefore Robert did not and could not have “doused himself in bleach,” as the prosecutors

claim “as an attempt to clean himself (of blood, gunshot residue or some other trace of the

murder)”, as there was no bleach residue found.

Robert's gloves were tested and analyzed. There was no evidence of gasoline or bleach on them

making it unlikely that Robert handled the bottle. Forensic experts also testified that the gloves had

not been cleaned, subsequently removing any such evidence.

Prosecutors claim that “Will did not shoot the officer who actually arrested him hours later, but

he did drive away from the initial traffic stop and position his vehicle in a secluded place before

jumping out and charging the officer. Only the precaution of keeping Will face down on the

ground at gunpoint, instead of the probationary officer to approach him without backup, may

have prevented the second murder.” Robert never made any attempt to murder the Washington County Sheriff.

At trial the arresting officer Mr. Donald Wass testified that:

“He [Robert Will] didn’t try to shoot at me. He didn’t make any gestures

consistent with shooting at me.”

Robert was parked as Wass approached and he did initially drive off about 100 feet, this is because

he did not realize the person approaching his vehicle was an officer. Once he realized it was a

police officer he then stopped the vehicle and got out, this was not a secluded area. Mr. Wass

explains what happened next:

“He did not then try to discharge his weapon at me... He never went for the gun

in his waistband. He put his hands in the air. He dropped to the ground. He

spread his hands from his body.”

The prosecutors' claims are unfounded and completely contradictory to Wass's, the

arresting officer’s, testimony.

Prosecutors claim “The gunshot residue may have been cleaned from Will‟s hand by the

emergency medical technician who „sterilized‟ it while treating his grazed knuckles.” Hence why

no GSR (Gunshot Residue) was found on Robert's hands.

EMS technicians did attend to the wound on Robert's left hand caused by the gunshot. Robert's

right hand had been bagged by Deputy Wass to preserve evidence before EMS tended to the wound

on his left hand. Both of Robert's gloves were also bagged for evidence prior to the arrival of EMS.

Robert is right handed, if he had fired a gun, GSR would have and should have been found on his

right hand.

EMS did not touch Robert's right hand, as Deputy Art Senteno testified:

“I watched EMS people treat the injury to defendant’s left hand. I was close

enough to see what they were doing......the injuries were to the left hand. I

observed EMS treat that hand.”

He also testified that:

“My agency allows EMS to treat the injury, I would not say sterilize”

Robert's wounds were treated, but his whole left hand was not sterilized, if GSR was present before

the treatment, traces would also have still been there after and his right hand was never touched by

EMS Technicians.

FORENSIC EVIDENCE

Fingerprints

Fingerprints were taken from items at the crime scene, including the shell casings. To explain the

items found in Robert's utility closet, Robert and witnesses stated Rosario left them there. These

items included the murder weapon's holster, additional bullets, a loaded .38 caliber Smith and

Wesson revolver, two shotguns, a bulletproof vest, dagger and ammunition. A photograph of

Rosario wearing the bulletproof vest and holding one of the firearms was admitted into evidence as

proof of Rosario's ownership of these items.

Robert's fingerprints were not found on any items at the crime scene, in the utility closet or on any

items associated with the murder of Deputy Hill. Rosario's fingerprints were never

submitted for comparison.

Footprint Castings

13 footprint casts were taken from the area of the shooting crime scene. Robert was wearing Nike

Air Max running shoes that night, which have a very distinctive, patterned sole. There were

castings that did not match either Robert's or Hill's shoe prints. No other shoes, including Rosario's,

were ever submitted for comparison.

DNA Evidence

All of Robert's clothes were tested. On which only Robert's DNA was found to be present, except

on one of his gloves. This glove had Robert's DNA and an “unknown” donor that didn’t match

either Robert or Hill.

No other DNA specimens, once again including Rosario's, were ever submitted for comparison.

Similarly all of Deputy Hill's clothing were tested and apart from one small drop of Robert's blood

on the tip of his boot none of Robert's DNA was found to be present.

Alan Michael Rosario's pants were tested after his father handed them in to police. The pants were

stained but Forensic Services were unable to extract any DNA as the pants had been bleached,

destroying all DNA/blood evidence; a fact previously confirmed by witnesses at Robert's

apartment.

The DNA evidence does not support the Prosecution's assertions that Robert shot himself and

Deputy Hill at close range and then stood over the victim repeatedly shooting him.

Also, as previously stated, the gunshot wound trajectories were not consistent with the Prosecutors'

version of events. Forensic scientists also testified that Robert's clothes had not been cleaned or

bleached, thereby removing DNA evidence prior to testing.

Gunshot Residue (GSR)

GSR tests were performed on both of Robert's hands, gloves and the evidence bags that were

placed over his hands following his arrest.

This specific lab never issues negative findings, even if there is no GSR found. Results are

either presented as “Positive” or “Inconclusive”.

Harris County Medical Examiner senior forensic chemist, Mr. Robert C. Reynolds testified that:

“We do not issue negative findings. Even if gunshot residue or the supporting

particles are not found on an item that you test, you will never say the results

are negative. At best inconclusive.” Robert is right handed. Both Robert's right hand and glove tested “inconclusive” for GSR.

Negative.

Both evidence bags from Robert's hands were also tested.

Mr. Robert C. Reynolds states the results were:

“...SEM testing on those bags showed a positive in one bag and an inconclusive

in the other.”

“...we know he [Robert] was shot in the left hand. You would expect the results

if he was shot in the hand at close range. It is possible that the bag that came

up positive was the left hand because of being shot in the left hand.” Mr. Reynolds was unable to state which bag had been on which hand because:

“the bags weren’t collected properly”

“There were two bags from his [Robert's] hands; normally, a right bag and a left

bag. And the normal condition is that you label what the bags are and to which

hand it goes to. These bags were not labeled.”

But as Robert's right hand and glove were negative for GSR, it would be logical to assume that the

bag with the positive GSR test result was from his left hand. Robert's left hand would have GSR on

it as a result of him being shot.

The GSR evidence proves that Robert had not fired a gun even once, let alone multiple times, that

night and therefore could not have murdered Deputy Hill.

The Forensic Laboratory Director testified in regards to the gloves that:

“It [left glove] had not been washed. As for the right glove...we could

conclude it had not been washed.”

Proof that Robert had not cleaned or removed GSR evidence before testing.

CONFIDENTIAL INFORMANTS

Four inmates came forward and stated that when they were housed together with Rosario at County

Jail, he confessed to them that he had murdered Deputy Hill. He also provided details about the

crime that was not publicly known or available. They also stated that Robert had always

maintained that he was innocent. Three of these four inmates were intimidated into not testifying at

trial on Robert's behalf.

One Inmate stated that:

“...I was brought to Court to testify, I was put in the Court’s holding cell

area, only a few cells away from Alan Rosario. Alan Rosario threatened me and

said I’d better not testify about what he told me. I told him I wasn’t going

to.” It should be noted that Rosario had no reason to be at the Courts holding cell area that day; he

was not due to testify at any trial and therefore should not have been at the Courts.

Another inmate refused to testify, as the trial record indicates, because when he was bench-

warranted back from the Texas Department of Corrections, Deputies severely beat him and told him

not to testify. He claimed that he:

“…told them [Robert's Lawyers] that police officers or Deputies broke his arm

in classification because [he] was coming to Court to testify.”

Testimony before the Court shows his arm was broken and a fresh cast was present.

Another inmate informant explained that the night after he had initially spoken to detectives, an

inmate known to be dangerous was moved into the cell next to him and attempted to intimidate him

as had Rosario previously:

Inmate: “I think it was Wednesday when I came to talk to ya’ll man. And they moved him up there. And he was asking me about it, hey man, so, what? You’re

gonna snitch on this and tell about this case and shit, you’re a fucking

snitch.” Detectives: “You realize that there is always the possibility that you might have to testify in Court with regards to these statements.”

Inmate: “I told [Will’s lawyer] that I didn’t really want to... I mean, cause if I go to prison or something and you know, say Rosario gets charged with it, he

goes to prison. I mean he’s got a lot of friends; you know he says he’s Puerto-

Rican. So, he’s got a lot of friends, you know what I’m saying, and I’m trying

to come home alive, man... And he done told me, my dad’s a cop and I can have

you tooken care of and I have pull and I have this and why do you think I am

getting charged with a lesser crime?”

The fourth inmate informant was also a victim of intimidation but testified regardless of this. An

individual who witnessed the intimidation of this inmate informed Robert's lawyers that he was

handcuffed to a bench in the back of the courtroom, by himself, on the witness bench. An

inmate that was not wearing handcuffs, who he did not know, came up to him and began assaulting

him and screaming, “You fucking snitch, you better not testify!”

JURY IMPARTIALITY

Robert expressed concerns, on several occasions, regarding the amount of uniformed police officers

that was present at his trial on a daily basis. At one point the judge ordered the doors of the Court

to be locked because of the overwhelming number of police officers present.

This presence in Court is known by police officers as “the wall of blue”, a tactic often used to

influence and/or intimidate the juries of defendants accused of murdering a police officer.

The front page of the December 2001 Houston Star, a news sheet for Harris County Law

Enforcement employees, urged uniformed officers to attend Robert's trial, it stated:-

“The trial of Robert Gene Will II, who was charged with Capital Murder of a

Police Officer after the murder of one of our brothers, Deputy “Barry” Hill,

begins January 7, 2002, in the 185th District. This is a reminder for as many

uniformed deputies, that can be there, attend.”

When these facts were presented to the Court of Criminal Appeals (C.C.A) they noted that they...

“...found no evidence that jurors’ sympathies were susceptible to being swayed

by the police presence, such as it would, for instance, if the jurors had close

ties to law enforcement.”

Meaning, if the jurors had “close ties to law enforcement” they would have in fact been

“susceptible to being swayed by the police presence” in the Court on a daily basis.

The Voire Dire Transcript provided the following information:

One juror had friends who were police officers and a brother who was a state trooper.

Another juror had a friend who was a police officer, and had actually been involved with this very

case. This juror also spoke to this officer, who was testifying during the trial, outside of the

courtroom.

Yet another juror stated a good friend of her husband's was with the Houston Police Department.

Three jurors did indeed have “close ties to law enforcement”.

This would have made them already biased in favor of the police even without the addition of a

large police presence in the courtroom, which surely could have only added to that bias.

Therefore the C.C.A.'s assertion that there was no evidence to support Robert's claims that the jury

was influenced by the police officers are incorrect and Robert's appeals attorney have failed to

provide this evidence to the Courts.

INEFFECTIVE AND INCOMPETENT COUNSEL AT TRIAL AND SUBSEQUENT APPEALS Robert was represented at trial by two court-appointed attorneys: Mr. Anthony Osso and Mr. David

Cunningham. It is worth mentioning that Cunningham was married to an Assistant District

Attorney working for that Prosecutors' Office and D.A. Charles A. “Chuck” Rosenthal Jr, who

personally prosecuted Robert, was his wife's boss.

Both attorneys failed to provide Robert with adequate counsel. They did not speak to key witnesses.

The investigator they employed was apparently unable to locate and interview most witnesses and

therefore was unable to present these witnesses at trial in Robert's defense, even though said

witnesses were still living at the addresses in which they had resided at the time of the crime or

were being held at the County Jail.

Osso and Cunningham did not call most of the inmate witnesses to testify to the fact that they had

heard Rosario confessing to the crime, for several reasons. They stated that, according to the

records subpoenaed from the Harris County Sheriff's Office (H.C.S.O.), one particular witness had

never been housed next to, near, or with Rosario. Therefore his testimony regarding Rosario's

confession to murdering Deputy Hill and admissions of guilt had to be false. Information has since

been subpoenaed from the H.C.S.O. which clearly states this particular inmate and Rosario were, in

fact, housed in the same cell area for a total of 11 days.

The witnesses that had been intimidated by Rosario, fellow inmates, deputies and other staff

members were allegedly not called to testify because it was claimed that Robert had been offering

them cigarettes and other favors in exchange for their favorable testimony. There was no evidence

to support these claims. When incarcerated at the jail Robert was kept in segregation, when

removed from his cell he was handcuffed, shackled and always accompanied by two prison

officers, making it impossible for him to communicate privately with other inmates at any time to

request their testimony or offer bribes.

In their affidavits, none of the informants stated that Robert had attempted to bribe them. Nor did

Osso and Cunningham present any evidence to refute the claims that Robert was interfering with

witnesses, as there was none. The Prosecutors' claims were false and ensured that the Court did not

hear multiple testimonies regarding Rosario's detailed confessions to the murder of Deputy Hill.

Neither attorney was prepared to let Robert take an active role in his defense, dismissing any

suggestions Robert had regarding evidence, witnesses or his case in general. They did not carry

out their own independent investigations into the case, they allowed many inconsistencies and false

accusations presented to the Court by the prosecution to go unchallenged and Robert disclosed that

they were both very antagonistic and aggressive towards him and rarely discussed his case with

him. At trial Osso and Cunningham presented their “version” of events with which Robert did not

agree and they refused to allow him to testify in his own defense, which was his legal right. They

went to trial completely unprepared to effectively represent Robert.

Following the trial and guilty verdict, Janet Murrow was appointed as Robert's Direct Appeal

Attorney and Mr. Leslie Ribnik appointed his State Habeas Appeals Attorney, by the Court

which had condemned him to death. Ribnik was a known death penalty supporter, who had

previously stated that, “evil people must die”, obviously, this was a perilous match for an innocent

man facing capital punishment. In regards to Robert's case Ribnik admitted that he had hired no

outside investigators or experts to review Robert's case, but denied that it indicated a lack of effort

on his part. He stated that following his review of Robert's case he found no legitimate issues to

pursue, even though he informed Robert that he intended to file 20+ issues.

The habeas writ provides the defendant with an opportunity to raise any new issues or evidence,

such as DNA, witness tampering or evidence withheld by the prosecution and to set out any

mitigating issues such as mental illness or childhood abuse that they wish to be considered. It is

also a defendant's chance to offer claims of innocence and supporting evidence.

The state writs of habeas corpus filed by Ribnik on Robert's behalf did not include any additional

information or claims of innocence. It centered mainly on just one single technical challenge to

Texas law and made no direct mention of Robert. In fact Robert's writ was a word for word

identical copy of the writ Ribnik had submitted for Angel Maturino Resendiz, the train hopping

"Railroad Serial Killer". Both writs failed to mention Resendiz or Will by name or refer to their

trials and listed incorrect conviction dates for both men, as well as sharing a capitalization error on

page 17.

When asked, Californian lawyer, Richard Ellis, was said to be troubled by Ribnik's duplicate

appeals and the apparent lack of substance in Robert's state habeas writ. Mr. Ellis said:

"It seems a little thin. I average filing around 400 to 450 pages on habeas

writs, not including exhibits, which can be another 1,000 pages," Robert's habeas writ was just 28 pages in length. In response, Ribnik dismissed length as a measure

of a habeas writ's quality and said that his writ contained every worthy issue. In fact, Ribnik's writ

contained no worthy issues related to Robert's case and failed to assert Robert's claims of

innocence. Ribnik has since been removed from the state approved list of habeas attorneys because

of what one legal scholar called Ribnik's “abdication of duty, worse than no

representation at all” and he no longer represents Robert.

Mr. Kenneth Williams has replaced Ribnik as Robert's appeals attorney. He too has failed to

provide Robert with adequate representation. He has repeatedly failed to bring to the Courts’

attention countless non-factual statements submitted by the state, allowing them to be submitted as

unchallenged and subsequently presumed factual by the judges of the appeals Courts.

Some of the many examples of non factual statements that Williams has left unchallenged:

• There was gunshot residue in both evidence bags taken from Robert's hands. • Gunshot residue was removed from Robert's hands by EMS technicians. • Robert doused himself with bleach to destroy evidence. • Rosario was too far away to be able to commit the crime.

He also failed to point out to the Court that three jury members had close ties with law enforcement.

He hasn't brought to the Courts’ attention any of Mr. Ribnik's previous and countless failures. Mr.

Williams rarely speaks to Robert and fails to answer many of his letters. He does not act upon his

requests stating “he doesn't get paid enough to do that”. He has misinformed Robert stating his

case was all in order, he would be receiving an evidentiary hearing and all of his [Robert's]

concerns with counsel’s lack of performance would be addressed. None of these statements were

accurate.

Robert has failed to receive adequate council from Mr. Osso, Mr. Cunningham, Mr. Ribnik and

now Mr. Williams. These failures have resulted in Robert not receiving a fair trial and he therefore

has been denied State and Federal Habeas proceedings as guaranteed by the Constitution of the

United States, which may now ultimately lead to his death.

TEXAS AND HARRIS COUNTY DEATH ROW FACTS, FIGURES AND STATISTICS

Since the re-instatement of the death penalty in 1976, Texas has executed 463 people.

Of these 463, 16 have been executed, in Texas, this year alone (as of Aug 2010).

8 were executed even though they did not physically commit the murder.

6 have been executed who are believed to have been innocent. They are:

Carlos DeLuna Ruben Cantu David Spence Gary Graham

Cameron Todd Willingham and Odell Barnes

11 Texas Death Row prisoners have been released after they were finally able to prove their

innocence. They are:

Vernon McManus Randall Dale Adams Clarence Brandley John C. Skelton

Federico M. Macias Muneer Deeb Ricardo Aldape Guerra Ernest Ray Willis

Michael Blair Michael Toney & Robert Springsteen

Factors primarily leading to wrongful convictions include: • Inadequate legal representation • Police and Prosecutor misconduct • Perjured testimony and mistaken eyewitness testimony • Junk science • Suppression and/or misinterpretation of mitigating evidence • Community/political pressure to solve a case

Texas executes more people than any other state in the union. Since 1976 a total of 1226 people

have been executed in the U.S.A. Texas was responsible for 463 of those executions. Texas makes

up 7% of the U.S. population but it is responsible for 38% its of death sentences.

Texas has a total of 254 counties. Harris County, where Robert's case was prosecuted, has

sentenced 282 people to death since 1976, the 253 remaining Counties have issued a total of the

181 death sentences between them.

Texas has an approximate population of 25 million, Harris County makes up just 4 million or 16%

of the total population and yet has been responsible for 64% of all the death sentences in Texas.

Harris County is responsible for a grossly disproportionate amount of Texas and U.S. Death

Sentences.

Harris County has also had more than its fair share of scandal. Chuck Rosenthal, the Harris County

District Attorney who personally prosecuted Robert Will, was forced to resign on February 15th,

2008 following the discovery of racist, sexist, pornographic and political material and emails on his

County office computer.

He initially refused to resign, proclaiming "stupidity" was not grounds for quitting.

In an attempt to defend himself regarding the contents of the emails, Rosenthal claimed his

judgement had been impaired. He stated:

“Although I have enjoyed excellent medical and pharmacological treatment, I have

come to learn that the particular combination of drugs prescribed for me in the

past has caused some impairment in my judgement.”

It is worth noting that the actual length of time that Rosenthal's judgment was “impaired” by

prescription drugs have never been ascertained.

The Federal Courts subpoenaed a further 2500 emails which Rosenthal deleted claiming he thought

they were backed up elsewhere. He has since been found guilty of Contempt of Court and Perjury

in regards to this matter.

Further scandals related to Chuck Rosenthal:

He convinced a Judge to dismiss a grand jury's indictment for arson and criminal

mischief charges against his friends Francisca Medina, and her husband, Texas Supreme Court

Justice, David Medina. It was claimed that they had set fire to their home for financial gain. The

Medinas have always denied these charges.

Rosenthal detonated firecrackers in the office stairwells just after the Oklahoma Bombing, for this

he was suspended for only one week. Rosenthal claimed “it was just a prank”.

He was allegedly complicit in a scheme, which involved police officers pretending to be lawyers to

extract information from a jailed suspect, which is not only unethical but also illegal.

Following the scandal surrounding the Houston Crime Labs in 2002, Rosenthal refused to allow

Independent Investigators to scrutinize the Department's work, even after 22 district judges

requested that he do so. Rosenthal eventually relented after a second prisoner convicted with faulty,

unreliable crime lab evidence was exonerated.

The subsequent investigation revealed that evidence from the Houston Crime Labs had been

changed to bolster police testimony in criminal cases, DNA technicians misinterpreted data, were

poorly trained and kept shoddy records. In many cases, the technicians used up all available

evidence, making it impossible for the defense to refute or verify the labs results and the laboratory

had a leaky roof, which contaminated countless pieces of evidence.

Some may wonder how Chuck Rosenthal managed to acquire and retain the position of District

Attorney. One of Rosenthal's previous supervisors, Bill Taylor, perhaps hit the nail on the head

when he said:

"I don't think he was one of our brighter stars, but he was well-connected."

CONCLUSION

Robert Will is not guilty of the murder of Deputy Barrett Hill. Because Robert's court-appointed

attorneys failed to represent him adequately and effectively, the jury wrongly found him guilty and

sentenced him to death.

There is overwhelming evidence to prove Robert's innocence and to support the theory of Rosario's

guilt. In spite of this, Rosario was never considered a suspect, he was never investigated, his

fingerprints, DNA, footprints etc. were never compared to the evidence collected and he was only

charged with vehicle theft in regards to this case. Robert's incompetent, judgment impaired trial and

appeals attorneys have failed and continually fail to supply any of this vital evidence to the

appropriate courts for review.

Soon it will be too late to right this terrible wrong and Texas will execute an innocent man and

quite possibly not for the first time...

BIOGRAPHY Robert Gene Will, II was born in Harris County, Houston, Texas on June 29th, 1978. Robert has

lived his entire life in Texas and has a son, who was just a baby when he was incarcerated.

Tragically Robert's own father was murdered when he was just a small child, which had a profound

and devastating affect upon him.

Since being incarcerated Robert has strived to become a better person, to improve himself and

help others. He was one of the founding members of D.R.I.V.E. the Death Row Inner-communalist

Vanguard Engagement, a movement formed to improve the conditions for Death Row prisoners and

work on broader prison reforms and social issues by working hand in hand with outside Human

Rights and Civil Rights groups and by engaging in non-violent protest inside the prison walls.

Robert has become a Certified Yoga Instructor whilst on Death Row and teaches fellow inmates the

physical and psychological benefits of both Yoga and meditation. He has organized poetry reading

and review sessions and taught illiterate inmates to read and write. All Death Row prisoners at the

Polunsky Unit is locked, alone, in their cells for 23 hours a day. Robert has achieved all the

previously stated accomplishments through his locked cell door, which was no easy task and shows

his determination and desire to help others and improve the lives of his fellow prisoners.

More recently Robert has been studying for a University Degree via a Louisiana State University

correspondence program. He is only the second person who has ever attempted to study for a

Degree whilst on Texas Death Row. He continues to strive to expand his knowledge in a wide area

of subject matters and is an accomplished artist.

A MESSAGE FROM ROBERT

“My last real appeal was denied on May 25, 2010. I didn’t even find out until 23 days later because

my court-appointed attorney didn’t tell me until then. Things are bad, very bad. I am essentially

dying and we must reverse this process. We need help, this truly is an emergency situation. Now

truly is the time to get involved. We need proactive people to take the initiative to make things

happen!”