In April of 2006 trial began and every single witness that the state brought forth either recanted or revised their initial statements that they made prior to detectives.

Calvin Joyce: in his initial interview with the police on the night of the crime said that all he could recall seeing is two males run pass him in the opposite direction but couldn’t give a detailed description. When prosecutors questioned him on the witness stand nearly 10 years later, he revised his statement to staying that he saw two African Americans, one being lighter in skin complexion than the other that ran past him.

Laticia Farrell: in her initial interview with detectives said she remembered giving a taxi ride to two black passengers, both males, one being lighter in skin complexion than the other. She admitted to having the best view of the light skin passenger with whom she was having a conservation with. When shown a photo spread with both Roderick and Doughboy’s pictures, she positively id-d Doughboy and never identified Roderick as the other passenger. Nearly 10 years later after being shown the same exact photo as years before, Farrell revised her statement and testified that the picture of Roderick “looked like” the light skinned passenger in her taxi that night.

Jimmie Patton: recanted his entire initial statements he made to detective in which he implemented Roderick in this case. He testified that everything that he said in his initial interview was false and that he only said those things because he was seeking help with the two aggravated robbery charges that he was facing. He also testified that two weeks prior to his trial, prosecutor Ms. Thomas came to visit him in prison. She promised him that if he came to trail and said what needed to be said in order to secure a conviction on Roderick, she would write a letter on his behalf to help with his parole hearing, it was coming soon. Patton testified that all the information he initially gave to the detectives, came from what he heard on the news and rumors around the neighborhood.

Oswald McGlorie: recanted his entire initial statement about Roderick being involved in the crime and testified that what he told was based off being scared at the time. With no lawyer or parent present and being a minor, the detective were using McGlorie said he was forced to make those statements.

Leslie Lewis: recanted his initial statements claiming that Roderick admitted to any involvement in this case. Under cross examination, Lewis admitted that he initially told detectives that he did not know anything about the incident. During his reenactment one of the prosecutor’s yelled “you are aware that we have you on tape, correct?” Lewis then said, “If you play the tape, you will see how the detective kept stopping and starting the tape every time, I didn’t say what they were trying to make me say.” He testified that detectives held him for so long and with no lawyer or parent present he just said what they wanted him to say so he could leave. *No tape recording was ever played in open court before a jury or admitted as evidence.

Alton Dickie: recanted his initial statements that he made to the detectives implementing Roderick’s involvement with any guns. He testified that at the time of him giving those statements to detectives he had been drinking beer and smoking weed all day and by him being on parole at the time he didn’t want the detectives to report him to his parole officer and have him sent back to prison. Dickie testified that he knew Roderick from the neighborhood, that at no point did he ever trade guns with him. 

Ralph Saldivar: testified that on the night of the crime no ballistics or forensics were performed due to heavy rain. Days later he admitted to lifting 7 fingerprints, 3 palm prints and 2 partial prints all in the same area of the vehicle. Mr. Saldivar stand all these prints except for the 2 partial prints were sufficient to find a match. The 2 partial prints were what he described as level 2 type prints, having a lot of twists and distortions, where many characteristics were out of place. He admitted that no other finger print examiner would test those type of prints because of the many distortions. Mr. Saldivar said this is when he matched a known print of Roderick to one of the 2 partials although these prints were not the best of quality. Later under cross examination Mr. Saldivar testified that the weather conditions such as rain would make it very hard to lift good prints from the vehicle, he stated that no other personnel was present with hm. He also testified that even with him matching one of the prints with a known print of Roderick’s “I can’t place Roderick on a crime scene.” Mr. Saldivar admitted that although all other prints were sufficient for a match, he never identified who the other prints belonged to.

Throughout the trial prosecutors were trying to paint a picture to the jury of Roderick being the “light skinned” suspect described in this crime by basing it on grounds of a faulty fingerprint procedure and hearsay statements. Prosecutors used suggestive in court identification procedures with witness Calvin Joyce and Laticia Farrell that seemingly complimented their revised statements making Roderick the person of interest. The state’s witnesses Patton, McGlorie, Lewis and Dickey all recanted their initial statements implementing Roderick in this crime. However, with inconsistent statements and inadequate evidence to prove Roderick guilty of ‘Capital Murder”, a jury found him guilty of a lesser charge of “Murder” and sentenced him to “Life” in prison. On Nov. 1, 2007 Roderick’s appeal was issued on April 23, 2008. In Feb of 2009, Roderick filed a Writ of Habeas Corpus (Article 11.07) with 10 grounds of merits for relief:

1. Ineffective Assistance of Council, Jury Selection Process (failure to strike a bias juror)
2. Counsel erred in not requesting the court to move for a new fingerprint analysis due to fingerprint examiner’s personal interest in case, which was a reflection of a conflict of interest.
3. Counsel failed to object to inadmissible fingerprint evidence as being circumstantial evidence.
4. Counsel performed incompetent trial strategy by not allowing applicant to take the stand to testify about the fingerprints, since the state was relying heavy on the fingerprints for the burden of proof to link applicant to a crime.
5. Counsel failed to object to the admission of gruesome autopsy pictures shown which may have substantial effect on jury’s guilt or innocence or punishment determination.
6. Counsel failed to investigate identification procedures used by law enforcement officials.
7. Counsel failed to preserve errors.
8. Ineffective Assistance of Appellate Counsel: Presented to the court of criminal appeals an issue different than what was objected to at trial.
9. Abuse of discretion on the lower court by not properly instructing the jury to apply the law to the facts of the case.
10. Abuse of discretion on the lower court by allowing hearsay testimony.

            In March 2009, the trial court ordered Mr. Alvin Nunnery, Roderick’s trial counsel to file an affidavit within 45 days responding to the allegations in Roderick’s writ. Mr. Nunnery never responded. 10 years after filing several motions, including an evidentiary hearing seeking a response to the writ he filed, Roderick eventually filed a writ of Mandamus only to be denied. In Feb. of 2019 the Texas court of criminal appeals issued an order for the trial court to make findings regarding the allegations in the case. After 10 years of being unlawfully held in prison due to a violation of due process that’s guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution the Texas court of criminal appeals replied with a simple “denied without a written order.” They gave no explanation for denying Roderick’s writ. As it stands now, Roderick’s Federal Writ (2254) is currently pending in the United States District Court, Southern District of Texas.