Anthony Robinson

● Defendant had chicken pox bumps, scars on his arm, and a large gap in his teeth that were not mentioned in the victim’s description. ● Perpetrator mentioned that he had spent time in jail but defendant did not have a criminal record. ● Victim claimed that attacker smelled of smoke but defendant did not smoke.

“A: He said why did I do it. I said, ‘I told you before I didn’t do anything.’ And I said, you know, ‘I didn’t do anything.’ And he said, ‘Well, you know, that is going to be for you to prove.’) . . . Q: Have you ever seen that lady in your life before this trial? A: No, sir.”

• Eyewitness
• Forensic Evidence

• Serology

• Invalid

Both victim and defendant were A secretors; “the sub type found in the semen was the same as the sub type found in the blood of the victim and the suspect.” However, analyst provided statistic that 40% are type A. See Part II.A.1 for a description of the problem of masking and non-quantification and discussion of similar cases.

• Cross Racial Identification
• Victim

• Lineup
• Showup

No ● Show-up – properly conducted shortly after the incident

No ● Discrepancy in description – victim did not describe scars, pock marks

“Q: Well, okay. Were there any marks on his body? A: I didn’t notice any marks. Q: Any scars on his body? A: Not that I noticed. Q: Any chickenpox bumps all over his body? A: Not that I noticed. “A. I didn’t notice any marks. Q. Any scars on his body? A. Not that I noticed.” In statement to police, told them that she did not get a good look at the attacker.

• Brady
• Fourth Amendment
• Ineffective Assistance of Counsel
• Jury Instructions
• Jury Selection
• Prosecutorial Misconduct
• State Law Evidence Claim
• Suggestive Eyewitness Identification
• Wade Counsel at Lineup Claim

• G
• HE
• NP
• OG

Robinson v. State, 1989 WL 102335 (Tex. App‐Hous. (14 Dist.), 1989)
Robinson v. Scott, 50 F.3d 1033 (5th Cir. 1995)