Since the 13th Court first found the evidence of Clayton's guilt constituted no more than a scintilla, it seems safe to assume he will be awarded a new trial upon reconsideration. See <A HREF="http://www.cca.courts.state.tx.us/OPINIONS/HTMLOPINIONINFO.ASP?OPINIONID=16031" TARGET=_blank>Clayton</A>. <BR>Or did <I>Watson</I> change the outcome?Watson will make no difference in Corpus ChristiIf the circumstances constitute some evidence, then the jury resolved the weight of Clayton's testimony and the State will winThe confusing testimony of the medical examiner outweighs anything Clayton could sayClayton was not shown to be connected to drugs, so he winsWatson would have made a difference if the case had not been transferred

I don't like the possible answers. If Corpus applies the correct standard, the State wins the factual sufficiency argument, too, because there is no objective basis in the record to intrude on the jury's decision to disbelieve Clayton and agree with the State's theory of a drug related murder. A blood fingerprint speaks for itself. This is not like Johnson, where the victim said it was the defendant but admitted she could not see his face, Reina, where the only evidence of Reina's complicity was unatributed second-hand hearsay spoken in his presence, or White, where all the State had was one affirmative link. The CCA has already stated that evidence is not factually insufficient just because it could be construed in two different ways and the jury chooses the State's way. It isn't overwhelming, but it also isn't factually insufficient.

John, doesn't option 2 fit your thought? Of course, you may be saying that is not the most likely outcome below the ivory tower.

Maybe I was just grumpy this morning when I read it. I picked option 2. I hate Clewis. I am a founding member of the "I hate Clewis" club.

[This message was edited by JohnR on 10-11-07 at .]