Michael Nawee Blair

Case overview

Michael Nawee Blair was sentenced to death for the 1993 murder of 7-year old Ashley Estell.

Timeline

• October 18, 1994 — Michael Nawee Blair was sentenced to death.
• September 25, 1996 — The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed Blair’s conviction and sentence on direct appeal (Blair v. State, No. 72,009 (Tex. Crim. App. Sept. 25, 1996) (not designated for publication)).
• January 20, 1998 — Blair filed his initial post-conviction application for writ of habeas corpus in the convicting court.
• April 7, 1999 — The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals denied relief on Blair’s initial post-conviction habeas application (Ex parte Blair, No. WR-40,719-01 (Tex. Crim. App. Apr. 7, 1999) (not designated for publication)).
• September 13, 2000 — The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals dismissed Blair’s first subsequent application and remanded his second subsequent application (Ex parte Blair, Nos. WR-40,719-02 and -03 (Tex. Crim. App. Sept. 13, 2000 and May 30, 2001) (neither designated for publication)).
• May 30, 2001 — The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals remanded Blair’s second subsequent application to the trial court to consider five issues raised.
• December 13, 2006 — The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals remanded Blair’s third subsequent application to be considered with the second subsequent writ application (Ex parte Blair, No. WR-40,719-05 (Tex. Crim. App. Dec. 13, 2006)).
• April 9, 2008 — The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals remanded the second and third subsequent writ applications again to the trial court so it could consider additional evidence submitted after the findings on the subsequent writs were already made (Ex parte Blair, No. WR-40,719-05 (Tex. Crim. App. April 9, 2008)).
• June 25, 2008 — The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals granted relief, set aside the judgment of guilt and the sentence of death, and ordered Blair to answer the indictment (Ex Parte Michael Nawee Blair, Nos. AP-75,954 & AP-75,955, Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, June 25, 2008).
• August 2008 — All charges against Mr. Blair in this case were dismissed.
• September 17, 2008 — Associated Press publication quoted the Collin County prosecutor’s office actions (“Court Dismisses Ashley's Killer, cites DNA Test,” Associated Press, The Houston Chronicle, September 17, 2008; Ex Parte Michael Nawee Blair, Nos. AP-75,954 & AP-75,955, Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, June 25, 2008 at 3).

People

• Michael Nawee Blair — applicant; sentenced to death; later had his conviction and sentence set aside and was subject to dismissal of all charges in this case.
• Ashley Estell — victim; 7-year old; murder charge and capital murder conviction related to her death.
• John Roach — District Attorney; announced the conviction could no longer be upheld in light of advanced DNA testing and absence of other evidence linking Blair to the crime.
• Collin County prosecutor’s office — conducted a re-investigation and presented results of advanced DNA testing and additional evidence discovered in the State’s new investigation.
• Texas Court of Criminal Appeals — granted relief on Blair’s post-conviction habeas applications; adopted the trial court’s findings and conclusions as its own; set aside the judgment of guilt and sentence of death; ordered Blair to answer the indictment.
• Texas trial court — made findings and conclusions after remand, including conclusions about clear and convincing evidence of actual innocence.

The offence

Trial

In September 1994, a jury found applicant guilty of the offense of capital murder. The jury answered the special issues submitted pursuant to Texas Code of Criminal Procedure article 37.071 in favor of the State, and the trial court set applicant’s punishment at death.

Appeals

Direct appeal

The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed applicant’s conviction and sentence on direct appeal (Blair v. State, No. 72,009 (Tex. Crim. App. Sept.

Post-conviction habeas proceedings

These were post conviction applications for writs of habeas corpus filed pursuant to Texas Code of Criminal Procedure article 11.071.

Blair filed his initial post-conviction application for writ of habeas corpus in the convicting court on January 20, 1998. This Court denied applicant relief (Ex parte Blair, No. WR-40,719-01 (Tex. Crim. App. Apr.

This Court later dismissed applicant’s first subsequent application on September 13, 2000, and remanded his second subsequent application to the trial court on May 30, 2001, to consider five of the issues raised (Ex parte Blair, Nos. WR-40,719-02 and -03 (Tex. Crim. App. Sept.

While applicant’s second subsequent writ application was under consideration by the trial court, applicant filed a third subsequent application alleging one additional claim. This third subsequent application was remanded by this Court to the trial court to be considered with the second subsequent writ application (Ex parte Blair, No. WR-40,719-05 (Tex. Crim. App. Dec. 13, 2006)).

The trial court returned both subsequent applications to this Court, but both were remanded to the trial court a second time so that it could consider additional evidence submitted after the trial court’s findings on the subsequent writs were already made (see Ex parte Blair, No. WR-40,719-05 (Tex. Crim. App. April 9, 2008)).

Outcome

In May 2008, District Attorney John Roach announced that, in light of the results of advanced DNA testing and the absence of any other evidence linking him to the crime, Blair’s conviction could no longer be upheld.

The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals upheld the decision of the Collin County trial court that:

"The post conviction DNA results and the evidence discovered in the State's new investigation have substantially eroded the State's trial case against [applicant]. This new evidence in light of the remaining inculpatory evidence in the record, has established by clear and convincing evidence that no reasonable juror would have convicted [applicant] in light of newly discovered evidence."

The court recommended that a new trial be granted, but the prosecution chose not to pursue a retrial.

A dismissal motion filed in August 2008 stated that prosecutors determined:

"this case should be dismissed in the interest of justice so that the offense charged in the indictment can be further investigated."

All charges against Mr. Blair in this case were dismissed in August 2008.

Aftermath

Michael Nawee Blair remained in prison serving out life sentences for other crimes.

Court opinion details (verbatim where provided)

The trial court found:

“The State of Texas has conceded that, in light of the remaining inculpatory evidence in the record, [Applicant] has established by clear and convincing evidence that no reasonable juror would have convicted him in light of newly discovered evidence.”

The trial court ultimately concluded:

“The post-conviction DNA results and the evidence discovered in the State’s new investigation have substantially eroded the State’s trial case against [applicant]. This new evidence in light of the remaining inculpatory evidence in the record, has established by clear and convincing evidence that no reasonable juror would have convicted [applicant] in light of newly discovered evidence.”

The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals stated:

The trial court recommends to this Court that relief be granted. After our review of the record of the proceedings on remand, we determine that the trial court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law are supported by the record, and we adopt them as our own. The relief applicant seeks is therefore granted: The judgment of guilt and sentence of death are set aside, and applicant shall answer the indictment against him.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS THE 25 TH DAY OF JUNE, 2008.

Other details

The Court of Criminal Appeals decision referenced Ex parte Elizondo, 947 S.W.2d 202, 209 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997), including the holding that to gain relief on a bare actual innocence claim, the applicant must show by clear and convincing evidence that no reasonable juror would have convicted him in light of the new evidence. The decision also referenced Ex parte Thompson, 153 S.W.3d 416, 421 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Copies of the opinion were sent to the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, institutional and pardons and paroles divisions.