Full opinion text
CONTENTS of MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS Page I.INTRODUCTION ⅞0 05 II.AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING IS NOT REQUIRED 05 1496 III. COURSE OF PROCEEDINGS AND DISPOSITIONS IN STATE COURT AND IN PRIOR FEDERAL COURT ACTIONS INSTITUTED BY HO-GUE 1500 IV. THE EVIDENCE ESTABLISHING HOGUE’S GUILT 1500 A. Witness Crawford 1503 B. Witness Renick 1505 C. Witness Nix (Jonathan) 1505 D. Witness Mr. Gamble 1506 E. Witness Mrs. Gamble Page 1507 F. Witness Brammall 1507 G. Witness Shetler 1507 H. Witness Cowsert 1507 I. Witness Kraus 1507 J. Witness Liggett 1508 K. Witness Gibson 1508 L. Witness Beaty 1508 M. Witness Megason 1508 N. Witness Johnson 1508 O. Witness Watkins 1508 P. Hogue’s Defensive Theory 1509 V. EVIDENCE RECEIVED AT THE PUNISHMENT PHASE OF HOGUE’S TRIAL 1509 A. Witness White 1509 B. Witness Diezei 1509 C. Witness Samson 1509 D. Witness Hightower 1510 E. Witness Grigson 1510 F. Witness Becky Hogue 1510 G. Witness Dickerson 1511 H. Witness Ebel 1511 VI. THE GROUNDS OF THE PETITION 1511 A. Preliminary Statement 1512 B. Respondent has Waived Exhaustion C. The “Abuse-of-the-Writ” Determination Bars Hogue from Asserting Grounds 14-33 t—i LO r-t 1. Other Potentially Pertinent Procedural Events T—I lO t—1 2. Analysis Related to the “Abuse-of-the-Writ” Issue 1—i LTD rH 1515 D. Hogue’s Grounds Related to his 1974 Colorado Conviction are Without Merit (Pertaining to the 16th and 17th grounds of the petition, which read: 16. THE STATE KNOWINGLY PRESENTED A FALSE PICTURE OF MR. HOGUE’S GUILTY PLEA TO RAPE IN COLORADO. 17. THE ADMISSION OF MR. HOGUE’S VOID PRIOR CONVICTION AT THE SENTENCING PHASE VIOLATED RIGHTS GUARANTEED BY THE U.S. CONSTITUTION.) 1516 1. The roles Hogue’s Colorado conviction played in his state court trial proceedings 1519 2. The role Hogue’s Colorado conviction played in his state court direct appeal 1520 3. The role Hogue’s Colorado conviction has played in his post-conviction, petitions and applications 1521 4. The mentions to the jury at Hogue’s trial of the Colorado conviction were not a significant factor in Hogue’s conviction or sentence—if there was error, it was harmless 1522 5. The grounds based on mentions at Hogue’s trial of the Colorado conviction are barred by the state court’s abuse-of-the writ determination 1522 6. Hogue’s failure to object to evidence of the Colorado conviction for the reasons he now asserts creates another procedural bar 1523 7. The record does not support the assertion that the state knowingly presented a false picture of Hogue’s Colorado conviction 1523 E. The State Presented Sufficient Evidence to Sustain a Verdict of Capital Murder (Pertaining to the 7th ground of the petition, which reads: 7. THE STATE FAILED TO PRESENT EVIDENCE SUFFICIENT TO SUSTAIN A VERDICT OF CAPITAL MURDER.) 1523 F. Hogue’s Grounds Related to Evidentiary Matters are Unmeritorious Page (Pertaining to the 8th, 9th, 11th, and 31st grounds of the petition, which read: 8. THE TRIAL COURT DENIED MR. HOGUE HIS RIGHT TO CONFRONTATION WHEN IT PERMITTED A POLICE OFFICER TO TESTIFY BY RECITING A LENGTHY, UNRECORDED STATEMENT MADE BY STEVE RENICK AT THE SCENE OF THE OFFENSE. 9. GRISLY COLOR PHOTOGRAPHS WERE ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE DURING THE GUILT/INNOCENCE PHASE OF TRIAL SOLELY TO INFLAME THE MINDS OF THE JURORS. 11. THE ADMISSION OF EVIDENCE OF UNADJUDI-CATED EXTRANEOUS OFFENSES AT THE PENALTY PHASE OF MR. HOGUE’S TRIAL DEPRIVED HIM OF PROTECTIONS GUARANTEED BY THE CONSTITUTION. 31. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN REFUSING TO GRANT DEFENSE COUNSEL A BRIEF CONTINUANCE IN ORDER TO MEET THE STATE’S EVIDENCE OF UNADJUDICATED EXTRANEOUS OFFENSES.) G. Hogue’s Ground 29 Relative to Pretrial Motions is Without Merit 1525 (Pertaining to the 29th ground of the petition, which reads: 29. PRETRIAL MOTIONS HAVE NOT BEEN INCLUDED IN THE RECORD DESPITE TIMELY ORAL AND WRITTEN DESIGNATION.) H. There was No Constitutional Error in the Denial of Hogue’s Motion for a Change of Venue 1525 (Pertaining to the 30th ground of the petition, which reads: 30. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DENYING MR. HO-GUE’S MOTION FOR A CHANGE OF VENUE.) I. Hogue’s Grounds Related to a Mental Health Expert are Without Merit 1526 (Pertaining to the 24th and 25th grounds of the petition, which read: 24. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DENYING MR. HO-GUE THE SERVICES OF A MENTAL HEALTH EXPERT TO ASSIST IN PREPARING AND PRESENTING HIS DEFENSE. 25. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN GRANTING MORE MONEY TO THE PROSECUTION TO USE IN EMPLOYING A PSYCHIATRIC EXPERT THAN IT GRANTED TO THE DEFENSE FOR THE SAME PURPOSE.) J. Hogue Does Not Demonstrate any Brady v. Maryland Violations 1526 (Pertaining to the 15th ground of the petition, which reads: 15. DESPITE SPECIFIC REQUESTS, THE STATE FAILED TO PRODUCE EXCULPATORY EVIDENCE RELATED BOTH TO GUILT/INNOCENCE AND PUNISHMENT.) K. None of Hogue’s Grounds Related to Jury Selection is Meritorious 1528 (Pertaining to the 5th, 12th, 20th, 21st, 22nd, and 23rd grounds of the petition, which read: 5. THE TRIAL COURT GAVE “UNOFFICIAL STRIKES” TO THE STATE DURING VOIR DIRE. 12. THE TRIAL COURT WRONGLY EXCUSED VENIRE-PERSON MARY PORTER FOR CAUSE. 20. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN REFUSING TO PERMIT DEFENSE COUNSEL TO QUESTION VENI-REPERSON JOHN WESLEY STRICKLAND CONCERNING HIS ABILITY TO CONSIDER THE MINIMUM PUNISHMENT FOR NON-CAPITAL MURDER. Page 21. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN REFUSING TO EXCUSE VENIREPERSON JOHN WESLEY STRICKLAND FOR CAUSE. 22. BECAUSE JUROR PAMELA SUE HOLLEY WAS CONVICTED OF FELONY BURGLARY PRIOR TO JURY SERVICE AND WAS THEREFORE ABSOLUTELY DISQUALIFIED FROM SERVING ON THE JURY, MR. HOGUE’S JUDGMENT IS VOID AND HIS CONVICTION SHOULD BE REVERSED. ■23. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN LIMITING DEFENSE COUNSEL’S VOIR DIRE.) L. Nothing Prevented Hogue’s Counsel from Developing and Presenting Mitigation Evidence 1528 (Pertaining to the 4th and 32nd grounds of the petition, which read: 4. THE STATE PREVENTED COUNSEL FROM INVESTIGATING, DEVELOPING, AND PRESENTING RELEVANT MITIGATING EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF A LIFE SENTENCE FOR MR. HOGUE. 32. THE TEXAS CAPITAL SENTENCING STATUTE IMPROPERLY PRECLUDED THE JURY FROM CONSIDERING EVIDENCE IN MITIGATION OF MR. HOGUE’S SENTENCE.) M. There was No Constitutional Error in the Court’s Charges to the Jury 1530 (Pertaining to the 10th, 27th and 33rd grounds of the petition, which read: 10. THE JURY CHARGE AT THE GUILT PHASE RELIEVED THE PROSECUTION OF ITS OBLIGATION TO PROVE EVERY ELEMENT OF THE CRIME BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT. 27. THE LACK OF DEFINITIONS FOR THE KEY TERMS IN THE SPECIAL ISSUES RESULTS IN THE ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS IMPOSITION OF THE DEATH PENALTY. - 33. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FAILING TO DEFINE “REASONABLE DOUBT” IN ITS INSTRUCTIONS TO THE JURY AT BOTH PHASES OF TRIAL.) N. The Conduct of the Prosecutors Did Not Violate Hogue’s Constitutional Rights 1532 (Pertaining to the 13th, 18th, 19th, 26th and 35th grounds of the petition, which read: 13. THE PROSECUTORS’ CLOSING ARGUMENT AT THE GUILT PHASE URGED THE JURY TO CONVICT MR. HOGUE BASED ON FEARS OF WHAT HE MIGHT DO IN THE FUTURE. 18. BY INJECTING HIS PERSONAL OPINIONS DURING CLOSING ARGUMENT, THE PROSECUTOR IRREPARABLY TAINTED THE JURY’S DELIBERATIONS ON MR. HOGUE’S GUILT. 19. THE PROSECUTOR’S ARGUMENT CONCERNING THE CHARACTER OF THE DECEASED WAS IM-PERMISSIBLY INFLAMMATORY AND PREJUDICIAL. 26. THE STATE PRESENTED PERJURED TESTIMONY FROM “DR. DEATH,” JAMES P. GRIGSON. 35. THE PROSECUTORS’ MISCONDUCT THROUGHOUT MR. HOGUE’S TRIAL RENDERED HIS CONVICTION AND SENTENCE FUNDAMENTALLY UNFAIR.) Page 1534 O. There Was No Constitutional Error Related to Juror Smith’s Conduct (Pertaining to the 1st, 2nd, 14th, and 34th grounds of the petition,' which read: 1. THE TRIAL COURT VIOLATED MR. HOGUE’S RIGHTS BY CONDUCTING AN EX PARTE EXAMINATION OF JUROR SMITH, BY DENYING DEFENSE COUNSEL THE OPPORTUNITY TO REEXAMINE JUROR SMITH AND BY REFUSING TO PERMIT COUNSEL TO EXERCISE A PEREMPTORY CHALLENGE AGAINST JUROR SMITH. 2. COUNSEL FAILED TO PROVIDE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE BY NOT RAISING A KNOWN CLAIM OF JUROR MISCONDUCT IN A MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL. 14. ATTORNEY BURNS DENIED MR. HOGUE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL BY FAILING TO FILE A MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL ONCE HE LEARNED THAT, PRIOR TO TRIAL, ONE OF THE JURORS WAS BIASED AGAINST HIS CLIENT. 34. BECAUSE JUROR SMITH WAS BIASED AND PREJUDICED AGAINST MR. HOGUE PRIOR TO HEARING THE EVIDENCE IN THE CASE, MR. HOGUE WAS DENIED A TRIAL BY A FAIR AND IMPARTIAL JURY.) 1539 P. The General Ineffective-Assistanee-of-Counsel Ground has No Merit (Pertaining to the 3rd ground of the petition, which reads: 3. TRIAL COUNSEL FAILED TO PROVIDE MR. HO-GUE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE THROUGHOUT THE COURSE OF HIS TRIAL.) 1540 1. Hogue’s complaints relative to voir dire examination 1540 2. Hogue’s complaint that trial counsel did not further investigate Hogue’s Colorado conviction 1540 3. The complaints that trial counsel failed to object often enough 1541 4. Hogue’s complaints relative to cross-examination of witnesses Crawford and Renick 1541 5. Hogue’s complaint that trial counsel did not make proper use of potential evidence pertaining to his conduct while in the reformatory and in jail 1541 6. Hogue’s complaint that trial counsel failed to rebut Hightower’s testimony 1542 7. The complaint that trial counsel should have developed additional mitigating evidence 1542 8. Hogue’s contentions that the trial counsel misperformed in failing to seek post-trial relief relative to juror Smith and juror Holley 1543 Q. Hogue’s Conviction and Sentence Were Not Imposed Arbitrarily or Capriciously (Pertaining to the 6th ground of the petition, which reads: 6. MR. HOGUE’S CONVICTION AND DEATH SENTENCE WERE IMPOSED ARBITRARILY AND CAPRICIOUSLY.) 1544 R. There Was No Violation of the Ex Post Facto Clause (Pertaining to the 28th ground of the petition, which reads: 28. MR. HOGUE’S CONVICTION AND DEATH SENTENCE VIOLATE THE EX POST FACTO CLAUSE OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION.) 1544 VII. THE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT VTII. HOGUE’S REQUEST FOR DISCOVERY AND HIS RELATED MOTION PURSUANT TO RULE 56(f) ARE DENIED lO rH IX. ORDER LQ t—1 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER MeBRYDE, District Judge. Before the court for determination is a petition for writ of habeas corpus (“petition”) filed by an inmate, Jerry Lee Hogue, (“Ho-gue”) of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division, who is under sentence of death. The court has determined that the petition should be denied for the reasons set forth in this memorandum opinion and order. I. INTRODUCTION This action is the ninth habeas corpus proceeding Hogue has instituted since his conviction by a jury in March 1980 for a murder he committed in January 1979. It is the fourth post-conviction action Hogue has filed in this court and the third application for writ of habeas corpus proceeding he has instituted in this court. After this action was instituted by the filing of Hogue’s petition in May 1992, it was referred to Magistrate Judge Alex H. McGlinehey for findings and recommendation. On March 14, 1994, Magistrate Judge McGlinehey filed his findings and recommendation and made orders (1) returning the case to the docket of the district court and (2) providing that each party had until April 13, 1994, within which to serve and file with the court written objections to the magistrate judge’s proposed findings, conclusions, and recommendation. The magistrate judge recommended that Hogue’s petition for writ of habeas corpus be denied. On March 13, 1994, Hogue filed his objections to the findings and recommendation of the magistrate judge. For all practical purposes, Hogue objected to each and every finding as well as to the ultimate recommendation. Therefore, the court is according Hogue full de novo review. II. AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING IS NOT REQUIRED Hogue has the burden to demonstrate to the court that he is entitled to a further evidentiary hearing on one or more of his grounds for relief. See Jernigan v. Collins, 980 F.2d 292, 296 (5th Cir.1992), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 113 S.Ct. 2977, 125 L.Ed.2d 675 (1993). The court is not persuaded that any of the additional evidence Hogue indicates he might offer in support of any of his grounds for relief would assist the court in making a proper disposition of Ho-gue’s petition. Hogue had the benefit of evidentiary hearings in the state court, and he submitted declarations and affidavits in the state court, as he has in this action, in support of his grounds for relief. The court has given appropriate consideration to the records of all state court hearings and other proceedings and to all declarations and affidavits filed by the parties. Where, as here, “the record is complete and the evidence in the record is sufficient to provide full review of the petitioner’s claim,” no evidentiary hearing is required. Wilcher v. Hargett, 978 F.2d 872, 877 (5th Cir.1992), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 114 S.Ct. 96, 126 L.Ed.2d 63 (1993). Therefore, the requests of Hogue for a further evidentiary hearing are denied. III. COURSE OF PROCEEDINGS AND DISPOSITIONS IN STATE COURT AND IN PRIOR FEDERAL COURT ACTIONS INSTITUTED BY HOGUE By indictment filed in March 1979, Hogue was charged by a grand jury of Tarrant County, Texas, with the following offense: JERRY LEE HOGUE hereinafter called Defendant, in the County of Tarrant and State aforesaid, on or about the 13th day of JANUARY 1979 did THEN AND THERE INTENTIONALLY AND KNOWINGLY CAUSE THE DEATH OF AN INDIVIDUAL, JAYNE LYNN MARKHAM, BY SETTING FIRE TO THE HOUSE OCCUPIED BY THE SAID JAYNE LYNN MARKHAM, AND AS A RESULT OF THE SAID FIRE, THE DEATH OF THE SAID JAYNE LYNN MARKHAM WAS CAUSED BY ASPHYXIATION DUE TO SMOKE AND CARBON MONOXIDE AND CAUSED BY CONFLAGRATION TO THE BODY OF THE SAID JAYNE LYNN MARKHAM, AND THE DEATH OF THE SAID JAYNE LYNN MARKHAM WAS INTENTIONALLY COMMITTED IN THE COURSE OF COMMITTING AND ATTEMPTING TO COMMIT THE OFFENSE OF ARSON. Tr. at 2. The charged offense is a capital offense under Texas law. Tex.Penal Code Ann. § 19.03(a)(2) and (b) (Vernon 1994). In late 1979 Hogue’s case was tried to a jury in Criminal District Court No. 3, Tar-rant County, Texas, but the jury was unable to reach a verdict, and a mistrial was declared. His ease was again tried to a jury in March 1980 in the same court. On March 29, 1980, the jury returned a verdict at the guilVinnocence phase of the trial, finding Ho-gue guilty of capital murder. Tr. at 70. The jury then heard evidence pertinent to punishment; and, on March 31, 1980, the jury returned a verdict at the punishment phase of the trial, finding that (1) the conduct of Hogue that caused the death of Markham was committed deliberately and with the reasonable expectation that her death, or the death of another, would result and (2) there was a probability that Hogue would commit criminal acts of violence that would constitute a continuing threat to society. Tr. at 74-75. Those findings mandated a sentence of death under Texas law as it existed at the time. Tex.Code Crim.Proc.Ann. art. 37.071 (as enacted effective June 14, 1973) (Vernon 1981). By judgment signed March 31, 1980, the state trial court adjudged Hogue guilty of capital murder and ordered that he be punished by having the death penalty assessed against him. Tr. 79. By opinion of March 19, 1986, the Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the state trial court’s judgment. Hogue v. State, 711 S.W.2d 9 (Tex.Crim.App.) (en banc), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 922, 107 5.Ct. 329, 93 L.Ed.2d 301 (1986). Associate Justice White of the United States Supreme Court signed an order July 8, 1986, that stayed execution of Hogue’s sentence pending the filing and disposition of a petition for writ of certiorari, which was filed in August 1986 and denied October 20, 1986, 479 U.S. 922, 107 S.Ct. 329, 93 L.Ed.2d 301 (1986). On January 15, 1987, Hogue, acting through attorney Richard Alley (“Alley”), filed in state court the first application for writ of habeas corpus he filed after the affir-mance of the state trial court’s judgment. 1st State Habeas Tr. at 6. He asserted sixteen constitutional grounds for granting the application, most of which were restatements of points that had been raised on his direct appeal. Id. at 11-16. By amended application filed February 18, 1987, Hogue raised a seventeenth constitutional ground for granting the writ. Id. at 95-96. The state trial judge signed an order on February 24, 1987, adopting findings proposed by the State, which were all adverse to Hogue, and transmitted the findings to the Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas. Id. at 109. On March 18, 1987, the Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas entered a per curiam order in its case No. 16,907-01, denying all relief requested by Hogue’s application for writ of habeas corpus and Hogue’s motion for stay of execution, which, at that time, was scheduled to be carried out March 24, 1987. Hogue’s second application for writ of ha-beas corpus was filed by Hogue, acting through Alley, in state court on March 20, 1987. 2nd State Habeas Tr. at 2. It asserted seven constitutional grounds for grant of a writ, id. at 6-9, and incorporated by reference the application for writ of habeas corpus he had filed on January 15, 1987, id. at 3. By memorandum order signed March 20, 1987, the state trial court recommended denial of the application and denied a request for evidentiary hearing, finding as a matter of fact, and concluding as a matter of law, “that there are no controverting, previously unresolved facts material to the legality of [Ho-gue’s] confinement presented in said application requiring hearing.” Id. at 12. The Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas denied the application, and Hogue’s motion for stay of execution, by per curiam opinion of March 23, 1987 in its case No. 16,907-02. Hogue’s third application for writ of habe-as corpus was filed by Hogue, acting through Alley, in this court, and docketed as Civil Action No. 4-87-193-K, on March 23, 1987. The application presented twelve constitutional grounds. On March 23, 1987, this court, acting through the Honorable David O. Belew, Jr., signed an order granting Hogue’s application for stay of execution. On May 7, 1987, Hogue, acting pro se, filed a motion to dismiss Alley as his counsel, alleging that Alley acted beyond his authority in filing the petition for writ of habeas corpus. On May 27, 1987, Hogue, acting pro se, moved for leave to amend and supplement his petition for writ of habeas corpus, urging forty-nine additional grounds. By order signed July 9, 1987, this court, acting through Judge Belew, dismissed the petition for writ of habeas corpus without prejudice “as an action filed without permission or authorization of Petitioner”; and, the court vacated its March 23, 1987, order staying execution. Hogue, acting pro se, filed his fourth application for writ of habeas corpus (his third in state court) on August 11, 1987. 3rd State Habeas Tr. at 2. It asserts as constitutional bases for grant of a writ that Hogue was denied effective assistance of counsel during an evidentiary hearing, on appeal, and in connection with preparation of a writ of ha-beas corpus. Id. at 5-6. Another application for writ of habeas corpus was filed in state court on August 19, 1987, by attorney Danny Burns (“Burns”) on behalf of Hogue. Id. at 17. Its sole point of error related to the action of the trial court in allowing the word “knowingly” to be removed from the indictment. Id. at 17-18. The August 11 and August 19,1987, applications were treated as having been consolidated. Id. at 22. By order signed September 14, 1987, the state trial court recommended denial of the application as consolidated. Id. at 87. The Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas denied, by per curiam order in ease No. 16,907-03 dated September 25, 1987, the consolidated applications for writ of habeas corpus and Hogue’s application for stay of execution, which was then scheduled for September 29, 1987, id. at 15. On September 25, 1987, Hogue, acting through attorneys Edgar Mason (“Mason”) and Melvyn Bruder (“Bruder”), filed in this court an emergency application, which was docketed as Civil Action No. 4-87-669-K, for stay of execution to permit the filing of a petition for writ of habeas corpus. By order filed September 25, 1987, this court, acting through Judge Belew, granted the application for stay of execution, pending further order of the court. By order signed October 16, 1987, the court, acting through Judge Belew, noted that, at Hogue’s request, Burns and Alley were withdrawn as counsel for Hogue and that Mason and Bruder were appointed to represent Hogue. The order directed that Hogue file an application for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 or file a post-conviction application pursuant to Tex.Code Crim.Proc.Ann. art. 11.07 on or before January 8, 1988; that in his application Hogue present each and every claim known to him or his counsel on pain of waiver; and, that, if Hogue were to fail to file an application by January 8,1988, the stay of execution granted on September 24, 1987, would vacate automatically. On January 8, 1988, Hogue filed in No. 4-87-669-K an application for extension of stay of execution and of time for filing of a writ of habeas corpus; and, by order signed January 8, 1988, this court, acting through Judge Belew, extended the January 8, 1988, deadline fixed by the October 16,1987, order to January 22, 1988. Based on information the court had received that Hogue was pursuing a state court application for writ of habeas corpus, Judge Belew signed an order on March 29, 1988, dismissing No. 4-87-669-K without prejudice to refiling, and vacated the stay of execution. Hogue’s fifth application for writ of habeas corpus, his fourth in state court, was filed by Mason and Bruder on January 22,1988. 4th State Habeas Tr. at 2. It urged nine grounds for relief. Id. at 3-5. By order signed November 2, 1988, the state trial court ordered that all relief requested by the application be denied. Id. at 8. The Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, by per curiam, order of January 6, 1989, in its case No. 16,907-04 denied all relief sought by Hogue in his application. On April 13, 1989, Hogue filed his third post-affirmance action in this court, this time a petition for writ of habeas corpus filed for Hogue by Mason and Bruder. It was docketed as Civil Action No. 4-89-300-K. Hogue urged five grounds for relief, all pertaining to juror Donnie Ray Smith. On April 18, 1989, this court, acting through Judge Belew, signed an order staying Hogue’s execution, which was scheduled for April 20, 1989. On March 16, 1990, Hogue, acting through Mason, filed a motion to stay, or dismiss, the proceeding on the ground that Hogue wished to return to the state court and raise through the state court process issues that were suggested by the holding of the United States Supreme Court in Penry v. Lynaugh, 492 U.S. 302, 109 S.Ct. 2934, 106 L.Ed.2d 256 (1989). In July 1990 Mason and Bruder filed motions asking for permission to withdraw from representation of Hogue, giving as the ground of the motions that Hogue had complained that the attorneys had rendered ineffective assistance of counsel to Hogue, with the consequence that they had become a part of the litigation process in Hogue’s post-conviction appeals and were therefore hopelessly compromised. That same month Ho-gue, acting pro se, filed his “Supplemental Motion to Stay and/or Dismiss the Proceedings Without Prejudice,” in which he asserted that certain constitutional claims had not been investigated due to his counsel’s pro bono status. His supplemental motion listed nine constitutional claims he alleged had not been investigated by his counsel. By a memorandum Hogue, acting pro se, filed in late July 1990, he opposed the motions of Mason and Bruder to withdraw, By order signed August 22, 1990, this court, acting through Judge Belew, appointed Harry Hickman to serve as an investigator in the case and appointed Mason and Bruder to represent Hogue under the Criminal Justice Act rather than to continue to provide pro bono services. The order directed Hogue, through his attorneys, to file on or before October 19, 1990, a supplemental pleading asserting each issue Hogue sought to raise. On November 16, 1990, Hogue, acting pro se, filed a “Motion to Dismiss Counsel and to Stay and/or Dismiss the Proceedings Without Prejudice” by which Hogue complained of the sufficiency of Mason and Bruder as attorneys. By order signed March 7, 1991, this court, acting through Judge Belew, dismissed the action without prejudice, noting the request made by Hogue in the motion he filed November 16, 1990, that the court dismiss the cause without prejudice so that Hogue might have his claims fully reviewed in the state courts. By order signed April 10, 1991, the court, acting through Judge Belew, permitted Bru-der and Mason to withdraw as counsel for Hogue. On March 22, 1991, Hogue, acting pro se, filed his seventh application for writ of habe-as corpus, his fifth in the state court. 5th State Habeas Tr. at 2. He raised five grounds in that application. Id. at 11,15, 20, 33, 37. On August 5, 1991, the state trial court signed an order adopting findings and conclusions proposed by the state in reference to Hogue’s pro se application, and directed that the findings be filed and transmitted along with a transcript to the Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas. Id. at 158. By per curiam order dated September 18, 1991, in case No. 16,907-05, the Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas ruled that the grounds of Hogue’s application were without merit and that Hogue had waived and abandoned his grounds by his abuse of the writ of habeas corpus. IV. THE EVIDENCE ESTABLISHING HOGUE’S GUILT The evidence overwhelmingly establishes Hogue’s guilt of the capital offense of which he was convicted. There were discrepancies in the observations and recollections of the witnesses called by the prosecution; however, the court does not consider that they raised a genuine doubt as to the overall credibility of the case against Hogue. Any reasonable mind would conclude, after having considered all the evidence, that Hogue committed the crime of conviction. An overview of his criminal conduct is that during January 12, 1979, he terrorized Mary Beth Crutcher Crawford (“Crawford”), Jayne Lynn Markham (“Markham”), Steve Wayne Reniek (“Reniek”), and Jonathan David Nix (“Jonathan”) at their place of residence at 2412 Southcrest, Arlington, Texas, and early the morning of January 13 he poured gasoline through the house and set it afire after he had inflicted a serious stab wound to Crawford’s abdomen and put her in a bedroom at the house and had bound the hands and feet of Reniek and Markham and left them thus bound in another bedroom, and while Jonathan, Markham’s child, was asleep in the third bedroom. Markham, while still bound, was killed by the fire. Crawford and Reniek, who were seriously injured, managed to escape from the burning house. Reniek rescued Jonathan through a window of the room where the child was asleep. Set forth below is a summary of the evidence from which the jury found that Hogue committed the capital offense of which he was accused: A. Witness Crawford: Crawford and Markham became friends in Wichita Falls, Texas, in the summer of 1978; and, Crawford became acquainted with Ren-ick in Wichita Falls, Texas, through introduction to him by her sister, about one year before she met Markham. In late 1978 Crawford and Markham, accompanied by Markham’s son, Jonathan, came to Fort Worth, Texas, with the intent to find jobs in the Fort Worth area and share a place of residence temporarily. They rented the house at 2412 Southcrest; and, they invited Reniek to share the house with them in exchange for his assistance in payment of rent. At approximately 5:00 p.m., Wednesday, January 10,1979, when Crawford returned to the house, after having been away for the day, she was introduced by Markham to a man who she had never seen before. Markham told her the man’s name was “Jerry” and that he was a former tenant in the house who had returned to pick up an item he left hanging on the wall. At trial, Crawford identified Hogue as the man Markham introduced to her as “Jerry.” Hogue was still at the house later that evening when Crawford and Renick went to play pool. The next evening, Thursday, January 11, Hogue was again at the house. The realtor who had arranged for the rental of the house to Crawford and Markham came by that evening to discuss the lease. When the realtor drove up, Hogue saw him through the window, and went into another room so the realtor would not know of his presence. Throughout the time the realtor was there, Hogue remained out of sight. Hogue was still at the residence when Crawford went to bed Thursday night. The morning of Friday, January 12, Crawford heard Hogue tell Renick that it was time for Renick to go to work; and, she heard Renick leave through the garage door. Shortly thereafter she went from her bedroom to the master bedroom, where Markham and Jonathan stayed. She saw Markham and Jonathan in the room and Hogue standing at the doorway. At the request of Markham, Crawford took Jonathan to school that morning. When she returned, she saw that Markham was upset. As Crawford was cooking breakfast after her return, Hogue told Crawford and Markham that he was a policeman and that they were under arrest for possession of marijuana. Crawford asked for identification. Hogue responded that he did not have an I.D. because he was an undercover agent. He explained that he was in the house because Renick was supposed to be a heroin dealer and supposedly had dealt heroin to a 14-year-old girl who had died; and, he said he was there to get Renick. Also, he told them that Renick had caused his marriage to break up, that he had been after Renick for a long time, and that Renick had cost him a lot of time and money and his marriage. He told them that he would not bring charges against them, and that they could go free, after he arrested Renick; and, he said that nothing would happen to them so long as they cooperated and that, until Ren-ick returned home, they were not to leave his sight or to speak to each other. Hogue directed Crawford and Markham to move from place to place in the house during the day, and blindfolded and handcuffed them from time to time. At one point Crawford heard a noise coming from another room, and when she went to Renick’s bedroom she saw Hogue on his knees in front of Reniek’s footlocker and saw his hand coming out of the footlocker with a gun, which she had not seen before. Shortly thereafter, he pointed the gun at Crawford and Markham in a threatening manner. At that time he explained to them that he had a pair of handcuffs and that one of them had to be handcuffed so that when the other police officers arrived he would be in compliance with regulations relative to handcuffing. He told them not to try to get away because he knew how to use the gun and would kill them. Hogue handcuffed Markham’s hands in front of her and left her in a bedroom. After that, he directed Crawford to go into a closet, saying that if there was any gunfire he did not want either of them to be hurt. Shortly after Crawford went into the closet, Hogue opened the closet door. When he did, he had the gun in his hand and was naked from his waist down. He stepped into the closet, put the gun under Crawford’s chin, and told her to take her clothes off. She declined to do so, telling him she had a venereal disease. He left the closet and shut the door. A short while later he again opened the closet door and told her to follow him. They went to the dining room, where she saw Markham lying face down on the floor, blindfolded, completely nude, and with her hands cuffed behind her. Hogue told Crawford to undress except her underwear and to lie down by Markham. She complied. Shortly thereafter, he told Crawford to get on her knees, and he forced her at gunpoint to perform oral sodomy on him. When that was done, he told her again to he down by Markham. Then, he told her to help move Markham into a bedroom. Hogue followed behind them with the gun, and he put Crawford back in the closet. From there she heard Markham saying “no” and “please no.” When he let Crawford out of the closet, he told her that he had not raped Markham. Markham was on her side on the bed, under the covers. Hogue directed Crawford to lie down on the bed, and he blindfolded her. He told them not to talk. After awhile, Hogue removed the blindfolds and handcuffs, and allowed Markham and Crawford to sit up, dress, and walk around. However, he did not allow either of them out of his sight for more than a short period of time. Once when Hogue was out of their presence, Crawford asked Markham if he had raped her, and she said that he had. Apparently because Hogue heard them talking, he came to where they were and took Markham into another room and handcuffed her to a bed. Because Hogue told Crawford and Markham that when Renick returned he would free them if they did not cause trouble, they tried to cooperate with him. During the day Crawford saw Hogue put Markham’s blue suitcase on the dresser in Markham’s bedroom and put blue jeans in it. She does not know what happened to the suitcase after that. Jonathan came home at around 3:00 p.m. with a school friend. The friend left when Jonathan was told that he could not go out to play. Hogue stayed with Markham, Jonathan, and Crawford in Markham’s bedroom. Hogue told Crawford and Markham that someone was coming to help him. Between 5:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m. they heard Renick drive up in his pickup. Hogue became very nervous. After he told the others to be quiet and not to move, he went to the front door. Crawford heard the door open and close and heard Renick’s voice say, “okay, yeah, okay, all right.” S.F. Vol. 12, at 2448. Renick and Hogue came to the room where the others were located. Hogue followed behind Renick with the gun at his back. Renick’s hands were cuffed. Hogue took Renick’s wallet. He told Renick that Rennick was in a lot of trouble; and, he tried to tell Renick “his rights,” but he did not seem to know them. Id. at 2450. Hogue took Renick to another bedroom, and then came back and told Crawford that he wanted her to go to the bedroom where Renick was located to help Renick smoke a cigarette. She did so. Renick’s hands were above his head, handcuffed to the headboard of a bed. While she was telling Renick what had happened during the day, Hogue came to the door with the gun. He told her to go with him to the living room, where he instructed her to look through the window. He pointed to a truck on the street and told her that those were the people who were going to help him and that they would be there soon. She recognized the truck as one belonging to a neighbor, but she did not say anything because she did not want to upset Hogue. Hogue directed her to sit on the couch by him, and questioned her about the conversation she had been having with Ren-ick. Then, Hogue left and came back with something in his hand. He stuck something against her stomach and told her that he wanted her to go back to Renick’s room and get all the information she could get. When she agreed to do as he asked, but said that she did not know what information he wanted, something hit her real hard in the stomach. She believes it was a knife. She started kicking and tried to scream, and Hogue put his hand over her mouth, jerked her off the couch, and pulled her into the hallway, where he pushed her against the wall and put a large butcher knife under her neck and said “you know, I’m going to kill you.” Id. at 2458. She saw blood on her side, and started becoming shaky and sick. Hogue took her into the bathroom near the end of the hall, where she vomited. Markham came to her and assisted her into the. living room and onto the couch. While they were there, Ho-gue told them that he was a hit man, something he had not said before, and that there was a contract out on each of them. Crawford continued to vomit, and Hogue took her back to the bathroom, and then assisted her to the back bedroom on the north side of the house, shoved her onto the bed, and then left. She was in pain, and was having convulsions on her left side, could not control her arm or leg, and was screaming and crying. Hogue came back several times and told her to quit screaming. Once he came in with speaker wire in his hand, and told her that if she would shut up and not say anything he would not tie her up. She seemed to be passing out. Crawford noticed Hogue walking up and down the hall, and heard Renick begging Hogue to let them live and saying that he would be sure that she did not say anything if Hogue let them live. The discussion she heard came from the bedroom on the north side of the house adjacent to the one she was in. She started smelling the odor of gasoline, and smelled it for a long time. Then she saw Hogue backing down the hallway with something in his hand. He was pouring something over the hallway, going in the direction of the garage. A minute or so later she heard something ignite. The hall caught on fire, and the entire house seemed to explode. She managed to escape through a window. The flames were just behind her when she exited. She went next door to the neighbors’ house, where she banged on the door and rang the doorbell. While there, she turned around and saw the lights on Hogue’s car come on. The car was parked on the street that dead-ended into Southcrest. Because of a concern that he would see her, she ran from the neighbors’ porch back to the area where she had exited through the window. Renick was outside the burning house, throwing his arms in the window of the room where Renick and Markham had been when the fire started. She heard Markham screaming. Crawford collapsed, she thinks. The next thing she remembers is when she was inside the neighbors’ house, talking to the neighbors. She was in tremendous pain, and thought she was going to die. Renick came to where she was and told her that Jonathan was in the pickup. She kept asking about Markham, who she referred to as “Jaynie”; but Renick did not respond. She was removed from the scene by ambulance. B. Witness Renick: Renick confirmed Crawford’s testimony that he moved in the house at 2412 South-crest to help Crawford and Markham with the rental payments. At approximately 1:00 a.m. on Wednesday, January 10, he and Markham were in the living room of the house when the doorbell rang. Hogue was at the door, and he introduced himself and said that he had lived in the house before and had left a calendar on the wall. A zodiac calendar had, in fact, been left on the living room wall. Renick gave the calendar to Hogue, who later left. When Renick returned from work the evening of January 10, he saw a Lincoln automobile, which he learned was Hogue’s, parked in the driveway of the house. When he entered the house, Hogue was visiting with Crawford, Markham, and Jonathan. They were discussing furniture Hogue said he wanted to sell. Apparently Hogue had already brought over items that Markham had purchased from him, including a couch. Ho-gue discussed with Crawford and Markham that he could find employment for them at the office where he worked. When Renick went to bed the evening of January 10, after he and Crawford had been out playing pool for two or three hours, Markham, Hogue, and Jonathan were in the house, putting furniture together and talking. Thursday, January 11, when Renick returned home from work at around 5:30 or 6:00 p.m., he saw Hogue’s car parked near the house. Hogue, Crawford, Markham, and Jonathan were in the living room. Renick confirmed the testimony of Crawford concerning events that occurred when the realtor came to the house that evening. After the realtor had left and all of the residents of the house but Renick had gone to bed, Ho-gue continued to stay at the house, and Ren-ick and Hogue visited. Hogue asked Renick if he knew where Hogue could get a gun. Renick responded by saying that he had one; and, he obtained it from his truck and showed it to Hogue. Renick cleaned his gun, a .22 automatic pistol, in Hogue’s presence, and then put it in the footlocker in his bedroom, which he locked as Hogue watched. Shortly after that Renick went to bed. He does not know whether Hogue remained in the house that night. The next morning, Friday, January 12, Hogue came into Renick’s room, awakened him, and told him that it was time for him to go to work. When Renick returned home from work that evening he saw Hogue’s vehicle parked near the house. He found the front door to the house locked. As he was searching for his key, the door came open. Hogue was in the doorway with both hands on Renick’s gun, pointing the gun at him. Hogue handcuffed Renick and took him to the bedroom where the others in the house were situated. Renick’s testimony basically confirmed Crawford’s statements about events that occurred at that time and shortly thereafter. Renick confirmed that Hogue moved people from place to place in the house. At one point Hogue came to the place where Renick was located and pointed the gun at Renick and told him that he was going to blow Renick’s brains out. Apparently Hogue was moving from one room to another at all times, checking on those in the house. At one point in the evening, Jonathan came into the room where Renick was handcuffed and read from a book. Whenever Hogue heard someone in the house talking, he immediately would go to the location of the conversation. Hogue finally put Markham in the room with Renick. At first, she was not tied up. Renick was concerned that if they did not cooperate with Hogue he would kill them. Sometime during the evening he heard a muffled scream in another room and, then, someone vomiting. Hogue came into the room where Renick was and said that he had stabbed Crawford and that she was not going to make it. Markham went to try to help Crawford, and then came back into the room. After that Hogue tied Markham’s hands behind her back, tied her feet, and then tied her feet to her hands. During this time Renick could hear Crawford in the adjoining room, moaning and crying, off and on. When Renick pleaded with Hogue to let them go, he promised Hogue that, if he did, they would not say anything. About that time Hogue changed his story. Instead of saying he was a policeman, he now said that he was a hit man and that he was fulfilling a contract for someone in Wichita Falls who wanted them dead. After Hogue had stabbed Crawford, Ren-ick started smelling the odor of gasoline. He heard clunking sounds from the direction of the garage and heard Hogue cough and sputter. Later Hogue came into the room and said that the had decided to go ahead and kill them. Hogue had with him a Prestone antifreeze can and a rolled-up newspaper. He then walked toward Markham’s bedroom. Renick then heard him walking back from there and heard liquid being poured as Ho-gue went backwards past the door from the hall to the room Renick was in. When that was occurring, Reniek’s hands and feet were bound with speaker wire. There was an intense odor of gasoline in the house at that time. A minute later, the hallway burst into flames. Renick pulled himself loose from his bindings. Markham was beside him at the time, in a crouched position because of the way she was tied. As soon as he untied himself, he broke the glass in the window with his hands and exited through the window. When outside, he saw Crawford outside the house with her hand over her abdomen, staggering. He went back to the window to try to get Markham out. She was screaming. He could not enter through the window because of the heat, but he stayed at the window until the screaming stopped. Then he went around to the other side of the house, to the window of the room where Jonathan was sleeping. He broke that window with his hands, yelled for Jonathan to come to him, and pulled Jonathan through the window when Jonathan responded. He took Jonathan to his pickup truck, and then ran to the next door neighbors’ house, where he saw Crawford on the floor, right inside the doorway, with the neighbors standing over her. He wanted to go back into the burning house, and he requested a blanket from the neighbor. The neighbor went with him, with a blanket, into the garage of the burning house, but Reniek did not go in because he did not have any shoes on and there was hot sheetrock on the floor. The neighbor took the blanket and ran in but did not get very far before he came back. The fire was still roaring at that time. When the firemen arrived, Reniek told them that there was a woman in the house and that the fire was not an accident. He told a policeman who came to the burning house that Hogue had set the fire. Reniek was taken by ambulance to a clinic, where his wounds were stitched. He received twenty-seven stitches. C. Witness Nix (Jonathan): Jonathan, who was ten years of age when he testified in March 1980, is the son of Markham. He related his recollection of the events that occurred after he returned home from school the afternoon of January 12 until he was rescued from the burning house by Reniek the early morning of January 13. He had met Hogue earlier that week when Ho-gue had come several times to the house where he and his mother were living. When he, in the company of a friend, arrived home from school shortly after 3:00 p.m. on Friday, January 12, he asked his mother if he could go out and play with his friend. His mother did not respond, but Hogue spoke up and said that he could not do so. Jonathan’s recollection is that Hogue explained to him that he was planning to arrest Reniek for selling marijuana and that he did not want Jonathan to come home right in the middle of the arrest and run the risk of being shot if Hogue had to fire a shot. Jonathan told his friend to leave, and the friend left. At that time, Hogue, Markham, and Crawford were in the master bedroom. He saw a pistol in Hogue’s hand while they were there. When Jonathan heard Renick’s truck at about 6:00 p.m., Hogue went to the front door with the gun. He heard Hogue tell Reniek to get on the floor and “I am arresting you for selling marijuana.” S.F. Vol. 14, at 2882. Hogue brought Reniek, who was handcuffed, back to the master bedroom. From there Hogue, who still had the gun, and Reniek went to Crawford’s bedroom. Sometime after that Jonathan went to Crawford’s bedroom, where Reniek was handcuffed to the headboard of the bed, and read Reniek stories and helped him with his cigarettes. Every once in a while Hogue would stick his head in the door. After that, Jonathan went back to the master bedroom, watched TV for about an hour, turned the TV off, and called for his mother. In response to Jonathan’s call, Hogue came to the room and told him that if he did not quit calling his mother Hogue was going to whip him. Jonathan then went to sleep. The next thing Jonathan recalls is of being awakened by breaking glass and Reniek removing him from the room where he had been sleeping. D. Witness Mr. Gamble: On January 13, 1979, Mr. Gamble resided at 2410 Southcrest, which is next door to 2412 Southcrest. He had met Hogue when Hogue lived next door to him in the latter part of 1978. Before January 13 he had not met the people who had moved into the house after Hogue moved out. The early morning of January 13 he was awakened in his bedroom, the outside wall of which was about twelve feet away from the outside wall of a bedroom at 2412 Southcrest, when he heard frantic ringing at the doorbell, glass breaking and shattering, and a voice “yelling and screaming for Jamie.” S.F. Vol. 10, at 2122. He saw that there was a fire outside his bedroom, and when he opened his curtains he saw fire pouring out the windows of the bedrooms at 2412 Southcrest nearest his bedroom window. His wife, who was in bed with him, made a phone call to the fire department as Mr. Gamble put on his robe and ran to the front door. When he arrived at the front door no one was there, so he went outside, and around the corner of his house, where he saw Crawford on her side on the ground, gasping, crying, and yelling. She was concerned about the people in the house and was saying words to the effect “Steve, where is the boy” and “where is Jamie”; and, she was screaming and yelling “Jamie.” Id. at 2127. He picked her up and carried her into the front foyer of his house. While on the floor in the foyer, she said: “I don’t know why he stabbed me. I don’t know why he did it. I don’t know him.” Id. at 2129. She repeated several times “I don’t know him.” Id. Because Crawford obviously had been wounded, Mr. Gamble’s wife called an ambulance. Crawford was gasping for breath and looked like she was going to die. Shortly after the ambulance was called, Renick came into the house. His “arms were cut up” and he “was bleeding from the arms.” Id. at 2123. Renick was given a towel to wrap around his arms. He was “very keyed up, very upset and he knew that ‘Jamie’ was still inside the house and he wanted inside that house.” Id. at 2031. Renick asked for a blanket; and, when Mr. Gamble returned from obtaining a blanket, Renick had left the house. Mr. Gamble followed Renick, and found him inside the garage of the burning house; and, Mr. Gamble could tell that Renick wanted to go into the house. Renick was yelling for “Jamie,” and he asked Mr. Gamble to give him the blanket and Mr. Gamble’s shoes. Rather than to do that, Mr. Gamble threw the blanket over himself and ran about six to eight feet into the burning house, going in through the garage entrance, when he realized the heat was too intense to go further. When he came out of the house, Renick was still excited and wanted to go into the house to get “Jamie.” Mr. Gamble restrained Renick, and he concluded that he was going to have to knock Renick out to keep him from going into the house. They went to the front of the house while the fire was still raging. Apparently Renick realized that it was hopeless for him to go into the house, and he seemed to release his frustrations by putting his fist through a front window of the burning house. Shortly thereafter the fire trucks arrived. Mr. Gamble told the firemen that there was a woman in the house. Then he went back to where Crawford was lying on the floor of his house. Renick joined them. Mr. Gamble remembers that shortly after the police arrived he heard Renick say to Crawford, “What should we tell the police? What should we tell people?” Id. at 2137. And, he heard Crawford respond, “We’ll tell the truth. We will tell what happened.” Id. About that time a police officer came to the front door. That was the last time Mr. Gamble saw Renick. He and his wife remained with Crawford until the ambulance arrived. When Crawford left she was conscious, but was gasping for air, wanted water, and was very upset. E. Witness Mrs. Gamble: Mrs. Gamble had seen the Hogues when they lived at 2412 Southcrest. She knew in January 1979 that the Hogues had moved out and that four people had moved in, Renick, Markham, Crawford, and Jonathan. She was awakened the early morning of January 13 by the breaking of glass and screaming. There was a fire next door. By use of a phone by her bed, she called the fire department. About that time their doorbell sounded, and her husband went to the door. By the time she went to the front of the house, Crawford was on the floor in their house, in shock, in a lot of pain, and hysterical. Mrs. Gamble called an ambulance, and then returned to Crawford. Crawford expressed concern about her friend, and she “kept asking where they were at.” Id. at 2169. Crawford asked Mrs. Gamble to look at her stab wound and said, “I don’t understand why he did this to me. I don’t even know him.” She was having difficulty speaking or breathing, but she was mentioning the names “Jamie” and “Jonathan.” Mrs. Gamble and Crawford prayed the Lord’s Prayer while waiting for the ambulance to arrive. Before the ambulance arrived, Renick came into the house, and asked Crawford, “What do we tell them?”, to which Crawford replied, “The truth, of course.” Id. at 2171. F. Witness Brammall: Brammall was a captain with the Fire Department of the City of Arlington in charge of the station that responded to the fire at 2412 Southcrest the early morning of January 13. The fire alarm came in at approximately 1:14 a.m. He and his fire crew arrived at the fire five or six minutes later. By the time he arrived, the house appeared to be fully involved. After forcing the locked front door open, he went down the hall ten or fifteen feet, but the heat was too intense to go further. He then entered the back of the house through a sliding glass door, which was wide open. Because of conversation he had with a person outside the house, he was looking for a body when he went into the house as other firemen were fighting the fire with high pressure hoses. In order to move through the burning house, he had to crawl beneath the smoke and use a flashlight. By that means he found a body, which “looked like a piece of burned meat.” Id. at 2194. G. Witness Shetler: On January 13,1979, at approximately 1:00 a.m., Shetler, a police officer for the City of Arlington, received a radio dispatch that caused him to go to the burning house at 2412 Southcrest. When he arrived, two fire units were at the scene fighting the fire. He was the first law enforcement officer at the scene. Based on a conversation he had with one of the firemen, he went to the residence of Mr. and Mrs. Gamble, where he saw Crawford lying on the floor and Renick standing over her. Reniek’s hair, eyebrows and beard were singed, and he was bleeding from cuts on both arms. Shetler and Renick stepped out onto the front porch, where Ren-iek told him that a white female was left tied up in the house and that a man by the name Jerry Hogue had set the house on fire. Ren-ick described Hogue, and told Shetler that Hogue had departed in a light colored Lincoln Continental. After putting out a general broadcast on his radio for other officers to be on the lookout for the vehicle and Hogue, Shetler had further discussion with Renick, who told him of events that had occurred at the burning house from the time Renick had arrived home from work through the point in time when he rescued Jonathan. The things Renick told Shetler are consistent with the testimony Renick gave at the trial. Crawford and Renick were removed from the scene of the fire in separate ambulances. Neither Renick nor Crawford was arrested because neither of them was considered to be a suspect, and each of them was considered to be a victim. H. Witness Cowsert: Cowsert, a police officer employed by the City of Arlington, conducted a search of the burned house after the fire was extinguished. He described locations of fire damage and said that Markham’s body was found in the middle room on the north side of the house, near the north wall. He was the first to find in the burned house a Prestone anti-freeze container, which he found in a laundry room. The container had the odor of gasoline. Also, he found two sections of garden hose inside the garage of the burned house. The cut end of the hose had the odor of gasoline. I. Witness Kraus: Kraus, who in January 1979 was employed as a pathologist by the Tarrant County Medical Examiner’s Office, participated in the performance of the autopsy on Markham’s body. The hands of the body were bound behind the back of the body and the feet were bound. Insulated wire was used for the bindings. Death was caused by asphyxiation due to inhalation of smoke and carbon monoxide. J. Witness Liggett: Witness Liggett saw Crawford in the emergency room when she was brought to the hospital the morning of January 13. She had a penetration wound to her abdomen, which had penetrated into her bowel and colon. If she had not received medical attention, she could have died from the wound. K. Witness Gibson: On January 18 Gibson was a fireman employed by the City of Arlington. He identified a Prestone anti-freeze container that was found in the utility room of the burned house when the house was searched after the fire was extinguished. The interior of the Pres-tone container had the odor of gasoline. Gibson also identified a section of hose that was found in the garage of the burned house. The hose had the odor of gasoline. During the daylight hours of January 13 he used a combustible gas detector at the burned house and studied the pattern of burning. The detector indicates whether a flammable liquid was used to accelerate a fire. In his opinion, the fire was a petroleum-type fire, ie., a fire caused by a petroleum product. The fire, in his opinion, was deliberate arson. He expressed the opinion that the general area of the origin of the fire was the hallway in the house. In his opinion, gasoline had been present from just inside the garage door all the way up the hall to the master bedroom. L. Witness Beaty: Beaty is the real estate broker who had handled the rental of the house at 2412 Southcrest to Hogue and his wife in early November 1978. In early December 1978 he learned that Hogue had abandoned the premises; and, on December 24 he rented the premises to Crawford and Markham. On January 11, 1979, he went to the house for the purpose of attending to details of the lease transaction Crawford and Markham were entering into. When he arrived, the persons present in the house were Crawford, Markham, Renick, and Jonathan. He was at the house at approximately 5:30 or 6:00 p.m. While there, he did not see Hogue. M. Witness Megason: Megason, a police officer employed by the City of Arlington, participated in the arrest of Hogue at about 1:10 a.m. on January 14 in an upstairs apartment in a two-story apartment building in Arlington, Texas. All the lights were out in the apartment when the officers entered. As they entered, they announced that they were police officers and that they were entering to look for “Jerry Lee Hogue.” They received no answer. The apartment was a small apartment, and anyone in the apartment could have heard his voice when he went through the front door and said that he was looking for Hogue. There was no one in the living room area or the bedroom. When he turned the light on in the bathroom, he noticed movement behind the bathroom sliding partition. He slid the partition back, and Hogue was there. They did not find a gun or handcuffs when they searched Hogue, who was fully clothed at the time. N. Witness Johnson: After January 13, apparently on January 14, Johnson, a police officer with the City of Arlington, with the consent of Hogue, who had been arrested by then, searched Hogue’s Lincoln automobile. It was parked behind a bar located in a building off the North-South Freeway in Fort Worth. He found in the trunk a blue suitcase, which contained, among other things, a box of .22 shells, a shaving kit with a shaving razor in it, and three pair of blue jeans. O. Witness Watkins: Watkins manages a pawn shop in Arlington, Texas. He identified a record of his pawn shop that showed the purchase of a pair of Smith & Wesson handcuffs on January 2, 1979. He had a personal recollection of the transaction. The purchaser was Ho-gue, whom he identified in the courtroom. P. Hogue’s Defensive Theory: Capitalizing on evidence that illegal drugs were possessed and used by some of the residents of the house at 2412 Southcrest, Hogue related to a version of events that, when weighed against the other evidence in the case, is so lacking in credibility that no reasonable trier of facts would accept it. Hogue testified that after he met Markham when he went by the house to retrieve the zodiac calendar, and during visits he had with her prior to January 12, 1979, he learned