Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Kolby Reshaad Moore, Petitioner v. Louisiana

25-5647

No.

FILED

AUG 0 8 2025

__

OFFICE OF THE CLERK

SUPREME COURT I IS

IN THE

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

KOLBY RESHAAD MOORE

(#742708)

_____ — PETITIONER

(Your Name)

vs.

STATE OF LOUISIANA

— RESPONDENT(S)

ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO

SUPREME COURT FOR THE STATE OF LOUISIANA___________

(NAME OF COURT THAT LAST RULED ON MERITS OF YOUR CASE)

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

KOLBY RESHAAD MOORE (#742708)

(Your Name)

DAVID WADE CORRECTIONAL CENTER

670 BELL HILL RD. H2A

(Address)

HOMER, LOUISIANA

(City, State, Zip Code)

N/A

(Phone Number)

71040

LIST OF PARTIES

[

All parties appear in the caption of the case on the cover page.

[ ] All parties do not appear in the caption of the case on the cover page. A list of

all parties to the proceeding in the court whose judgment is the subject of this

petition is as follows:

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED

WHETHER THE SECOND CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE STATE

OF LOUISIANA AND THE LOUISIANA SUPREME COURT ERRED WHEN IT

DENIED PETITIONER'S CLAIM RAISED ON DIRECT APPEAL, THAT THE

EVIDENCE WAS INSUFFICIENT TO PROVE BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT

THAT PETITIONER, KOLBY R. MOORE COMMITTED THE MURDER OF MR.

MINNION D. JACKSON?

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CITED

BY PETITIONER'S COUNSEL ON DIRECT APPEAL

PAGE NUMBER

CASES

State v. Phillips. 2004-KA-0092, (La. App. 4th Cir. 12/8/04) 891 So. 2d 49;

12

State v. Wischer. 2004-0325 (La. App. 4th Cir. 9/22/04) 885 So. 2d 602;

12

State v, Spivery. 38243 (La. App. 2d Cir. 5/12/04) 874 So. 2d 352

12

State v. Johnson. 03-903 (La. App. 5th Cir. 12/9/03) 864 So. 2d 645,

12

State v. Mussall. 523 So. 2d 1305 (La. 1988)

12

State v. Stec.. 99-633 (La. App. 5th Cir. 11/30/99) 749 So. 2d 784, 787

......12

State v. Douglas. 37,781 (La. App. 2d Cir. 12/10/03) 863 So. 2d 390;

....... 13

State y. Bush, 31, 710 (La. App. 2d Cir. 2/24/99), 733 So. 2d 49, writ denied

1999-1010 (La. 9/3/99) 747 So. 2d 536, reconsideration denied 1999-1010

(La. 10/29/99) 748 So. 2d 1156, La. R.S. 15:438

13

State v. Mitchell 99-3342 p. 7 (La. 10/17/00) 772 So. 2d 78, 83

13

State v. Shapiro. 431 So. 2d 372 (La. 1982)

’............. 13

State v. Wright 445 So. 2d 1198 (La. 1984). .

State v. Jacobs. 504 So. 817 (La. 1987)

............................... .13

............................................... .,13

State v. Celestine, 2000-2713 (La. App. 4th Cir. 2/13/12) 811 So. 2d 44, writ denied,

2002-1309 (La. 4/25/03) 842 So. 2d 391

.......... 14

State exrel, C.D.. 2011-0121 (La. App. 4th Cir. 6/29/11) 69 So. 3d 1219,

14

State v. Robertson. 454 So. 2d 343 (La. App. 4th Cir. 1984) writ denied 458 So. 2d

126,

State v. Britton. 450 So. 2d 702 (La. App. 4th Cir. 1984)

14

State v. White, 28,095 (La. App. 2d Cir. 5/8/96) 674 So. 2d 1081, writ denied

96-1459

.........................................................

14

State v. MussalL 523 So. 2d 1305 (La. 1985)...................................................... „..14

State v. Smith. 43291 (La. App. 2d Cir. 3/13/08) 988 So. 2d 861;............................. 14

Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 99 S. Ct. 278, 61 L. Ed. 2d 560 (1979)........... :...14

State v. Schnyder, 06-KA-29 (La. App. 5th Cir. 6/28/06) 937 So. 2d 396................... 14

State v. Williams. 423 So. 2d 1048 (La. 423 So. 2d 1048 (La. 1982)..................

14

Jackson v. Virginia. 443 U.S. 307,99 S. Ct. 2781, 61 L. Ed. 2d 560 (1979).............. 15

Holland v. United States. 348 U.S. 121, 75 S. Ct. 127, 99 L. Ed. 150 (1954)............. 15

State v, Quinn. 2018-KA-0064 (La. App. 1st Cir. 3/27/19) 275 So. 3d 360................ 17

State v. Crawford, 218 So. 3d at 26 (citing State v. Davis, 1992-1623

(La. 5/23/94), 637 So. 2d.....................................

18

State v. MussalL 523 So. 2d at 1311........................................................................... 18

State v. Smith. 430 So. 2d 31,45 (1983).............................

19

State v. Robertson, 2014-0945 (la. 6/30/15) 172 So. 3d 616....................................... 19

Jackson v. Virginia. 443 U.S. 307,99 S. Ct. 2781, 61 L. Ed. 2d 560 (979).....

;.2O

State v, Calloway. 07-2306, p. 10 (La. 1/21/09), 1 So. 3d 417, 422..........................20

State v. Captville. 448 So. 2d 676, 680 (La. 1984).................................................... 20

State v. Mussah. 523 So. 2d 1305, 1311 (La. 1988)(quoting 2 C. Wright. Federal

Practice & Procedure Criminal 2d § 467 at 660-61 and n. 23 (2d ed."1982)...............20

State v. Jones, 49,830 (La. App. 2d Cir. 5/20/15) 166 So. 3d 406.............................. 21

State v. Hampton. 1998-0331 (La. 4/23/99) 750 So. 2d 867, cert, denied, 528

U.S. 1007, 120 S. Ct. 504, 145 L. Ed. 2d 390 (1999)......................................

21

State v. Schwander. 345 So. 2d 1173 (La. 1977)......................................................... 21

State v. Lewis, 46,513 (La. App. 2d Cir. 9/28/11) 74 So. 3d 254, writ denied

2011-2317 (La. 3/9/12) 84 So. 3d 551........................................................................ 21

State v. Smith, (La. App. 2d Cir. 1987) 513 So. 2d 438;............................................. 21

State v. Jones. (La. App. 2d Cir. 1984) 451 So. 2d 35;............................................... 21

State v. Kelly, (La. App. 2d Cir. 1991) 576 So. 2d 111, writ denied 580 So. 2d 667...21

State v.' Nguyen, 22-286 (La. App. 5 Cir. 2/27/23) 359 So. 3d 108..................

22

State v. Nelson, 14-252 (La. App. 5 Cir. 3/11/15) 169 So. 3d 493, writ denied

15-685 (La. 2/26/16) 187 So. 3d 768.......................................................................... 22

State v. Lloyd, 21-645 (La. App. 5 Cir. 8/24/22) 348 So. 3d 222, writ denied

2022-01354 (La. 11/22/22) 350 So. 3d 498;.............................................................. 22

State v. Wooten. 51,738 (La. App. 2d Cir. 2/13/18) 244 So. 3d 1216.......................... 22

State v. Caldwell, 32,377 (La. App. Cir. 9/22/99) 742 So. 2d 91................................. 22

State v. Robinson, 47,437 (La. App. 2d Cir. 11/14/12), 106 So. 3d 1028, writ

denied 2012-2656 (La. 5/17/13) 117 So. 2d 918......................................................... 22

Ah Ming Cheng v. United States. 300 F. 2d 202 at 204 (5th Cir. 1962)...................... 23

Kassin v. United States. 87 F. 2d 183 at 184 (5* Cir. 1937)..................................... 23

State v. Dora Mae Savoy, 418 So. 2d 547 (La. 1982)

......................................... 23

State v. Jones. 2016-1502 (La. 1/30/18) 318 So. 3d 678,......................................... ..24

State v. Corkem. 593 So. 2d 1259, 1260 (La. 1992) (per curiam)..............................25

State v. Bishop, 2001-2548, p. 4 (La. 1/14/03) 835 So. 2d 434, 437;.........................25

State v. Summers. 2010-0341, p. 7 (App. 4* Cir. 12/1/10) 52 So.3d 951, 956........... 25

State v. Cooks, 2011-0342, p. 10-11 (La. App. 4* Cir. 12/14/11) 81 So. 3d 932,939,

writ denied, 2012-0112 (La. 5/18/12) 89 So. 3d 1189........................................... .....25

State v. Mussall, 523 So. 2d 1305, 1311 (La. 1985)................................................... 26

Cockem, 593 So. 2d at 260 (La. 1992)................................

27

State v. Mussall. 523 So. 2d at 1310 (La. 1988).......................................................... 27

State v. Bright, 98-0398 (La. 4/11/00, 776 So. 2d 1134.............................................. 27

State v. Captville, 448 So. 2d 676 at 680 (La. 1984)................................................... 27

State v. Morgan, 2012-2060 (La. App. 1st Cir. 6/7/13) 119 So. 3d 817.................... 27

State v. Hampton. 52,403 (La. App. 2d Cir. 11/14/18) 261 So. 3d 993.....................28

State v, Mathews, 50,839 (La. App. 2d Cir. 8/10/16), 200 So. 3d 895, writ

denied 2016-1678 (La. 6/5/17) 220 So. 3d 752........................................................... 28

State v. Davillier, 46,625 (La. App. 2d Cir. 11/2/11) 83 So. 3d 22;............................. 28

State v. Moore. 46,252 (La. App. 2d Cir. 5/18/11) 69 So. 3d 523, writ denied

' 2011-1260 (La. 12/2/11) 76 So. 3d 1175..................................................................... 28

State v. Monds. 1991-0589 (La. App. 4th Cir. 1/14/94) 631 So. 2d 536, writ

denied 1994-0626 (La. 4/22/94) 637 So. 2d 164......................................................... 28

State v, Schwander. 346 So.2d 1173, 1175;................................

State v. Williams. 310 So. 2d 513, 515 (La. 1975)....;

29

........................................ 29

TABLE OF CONTENTS

OPINIONS BELOW....................................................................................................... 1

JURISDICTION................................................................................................................. 2

CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORYPROVISIONS INVOLVED.................... ........... 3

STATEMENT OF THE CASE.......................................................................................... 4

REASONS FOR GRANTING THE WRIT........................................................................ 11

CONCLUSION

12

INDEX TO APPENDICES

APPENDIX A - STATE OF LOUISIANA SECOND CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEAL

No. 56,106-KA, No. 56,107-KA, No. 56,108-KA

408 So.3d 1076 (February 26, 2025)

APPENDIX B - SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF LOUISIANA

No. 2025-K-00389

409 So.3d 218 (May 20, 2025).

APPENDIX C - PETITIONER'S APPELLATE BRIEF (Second Circuit)

DIRECT APPEAL

FILED BY COUNSEL KEVIN V. BOSHEA

APPENDIX D - STATE OF LOUISIANA APPELLEE BRIEF (Second Circuit)

FILED BY THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE

FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT - PARISH OF CADDO

STATE OF LOUISIANA

APPENDIX E

APPENDIX F

IN THE

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

Petitioner respectfully prays that a writ of certiorari issue to review the judgment below.

OPINIONS BELOW

[ ] For cases from federal courts:

The opinion of the United States court of appeals appears at Appendix

the petition and is

to

[ ] reported at

; or,

[ ] has been designated for publication but is not yet reported; or,

[ ] is unpublished.

The opinion of the United States district court appears at Appendix

the petition and is

[ ] reported at • or,

[ ] has been designated for publication but is not yet reported; or,

[ ] is unpublished.

[ ] For cases from state courts:

The opinion of the highest state court to review the merits appears at

Appendix B

to the petition and is

[ ] reported at 409 So.3d 218 (May 20, 2025). or?

[ ] has been designated for publication but is not yet reported; or,

[ ] is unpublished.

The opinion of the second circuit court of appeals

court

appears at Appendix A__ to the petition and is

[ ] reported at 408 So.3d 1O76'(February 26, 2025)

[ ] has been designated for publication but is not yet reported; or,

[ ] is unpublished.

1.

to

JURISDICTION

[ ] For cases from federal courts:

The date on which the United States Court of Appeals decided my case

was

[ ] No petition for rehearing was timely filed in my case.

[ ] A timely petition for rehearing was denied by the United States Court of

Appeals on the following date:

, and a copy of the

order denying rehearing appears at Appendix

[ ] An extension of time to file the petition for a writ of certiorari was granted

to and including(date) on(date)

in Application No.

A

The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked under 28 U. S. C. § 1254(1).

[ ] For cases from state courts:

The date on which the highest state court decided my case was Mav 20/2025

A copy of that decision appears at Appendix B

.

[ ] A timely petition for rehearing was thereafter denied on the following date:

--------------------------------- , and a copy of the order denying rehearing

appears at Appendix

[ ] An extension of time to file the petition for a writ of certiorari was granted

to and including(date) on(date) in

Application No.

A

The Date on which the Second Circuit Court of Appeal for

the State of Louisiana decided my case was February 26/2025.

A copy of that decision appears at Appendix A

The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked under 28 U. S. C. § 1257(a).

2.

CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY PROVISIONS INVOLVED

Petitioner avers that during the Direct Appeal Proceedings in the

State of Louisiana Courts he presented a claim of:

THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED AT TRIAL WAS INSUFFICIENT TO

PROVE BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT, THAT PETITIONER DID

COMMIT THE MURDER OF MR. MINNION D. JACKSON.

Therefore, Petitioner avers that his conviction was obtained in

violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States

Constitution .

Also, it is contrary to the provisions of Jackson v. Virginia,

443 U.S. 307, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979), which states

in part:

When the insufficiency of the evidence is raised

on appeal, the critical inquiry of the reviewing

Court is whether, after reviewing the evidence in

the light most favorable to the prosecution, any

rational trier of fact could have found the essential

elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable

doubt.

3

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Trial in this matter began on July 10,2023 before the Honorable Katherine C.

Dorroh, with the voir dire examination. Prior to this, an objection to the use of

Cellhawk (cellphone) expert testimony was lodged by defense counsel. (Tr.

7/10/23, p. 6-11). That objection was initially granted. Trial resumed on July 11,

2023.

The first witness called, was Mr. Justin Townsend via Zoom television. (Tr.

7/11/23, p. 31). Mr Townsend stated that, on August 26, 2020 he was traveling on

Interstate 220 in Shreveport at about 7pm. He observed a dark four door seidan

moving from lane to lane. A second SUV was on the scene, with a suspect holding

a gun outside the car window. (Tr. Id. p. 31). Mr. Townsend stopped his vehicle

and approached the SUV where he observed the decedent, Minnion Jackson

motionless behind the steering wheel. He provided a description of what he

‘believed’ to be a ‘Cadillac style SUV’ (Tr. Id. p. 33) to police. On cross

examination, the witness stated that he was not shown a photograph of anyone

associated with a black SUV. (Tr. Id. p. 36-37).

Mr. Gerald Thomas, is the custodian of records for the Shreveport Police

Department 911 Division. (Tr. Id. p. 39). He identified and authenticated the 911

transmission associated with this case. (Tr. Id. p. 41).

Mr. Minnion Miller is the father of the decedent, Minnion Jackson. (Tr. Id. p.

42). He provided background information on the decedent Minnion Jackson.

Mr. Rodney Jones, was traveling on 1-220 on August 26, 2020 when he came

upon the incident in question. (Tr. Id. p. 47). He testified that he noticed a ‘dark

colored Chevy late model SUV’, passing him at over 100 mph. (Tr. Id. p. 47-48).

The vehicle exited at the Benton Road exit heading southbound. Mr. Jones was

4.

unable to-identify the driver. (Tr. Id. p. 48). Mr. Jones never looked at any suspect

photos, specifically none of Kolby Moore. (Tr. Id. p. 52).

Mr. Kelvin Johnson was employed by the Shreveport Police Department on

August 26, 2020 and responded to the crime scene. (Tr. Id. p. 57). He told the juty

about his activities on the scene.

Mr. Jeremy Jordan, was also employed by the Shreveport Police Department

and assisted Detective Adam McEntree in this case. He testified that he retrieved a

micro SD card from a dash-cam in an 18 wheeler on the scene. Upon downloading

the SD card, he found no footage relevant to the case. (Tr. Id. p. 60).

Mr. Mathew Dixon, was assigned to Crime Scene Investigations for the

Shreveport Police Department on the date in question. Upon arrival, he took

multiple photographs of the crime scene (Tr. Id. p. 64-72) which were published to

the jury. He also located four spent 7.62 casings and two spent .40 caliber casings

from the crime scene. (Tr. Id. p. 73).

The witness also processed the black Nissan, where Mr. Jackson had been

located. (Tr. Id. p. 75-89). No weapons nor fingerprints were recovered from the

decedent’s vehicle. (Tr. Id. p. 90). A suspect vehicle was also photographed with

multiple DNA swabs taken. (Tr. Id. p. 91-92). Ballistic evidence was located in the

Chevy Equinox (Tr. Id. p. 96-99) in the form of projectiles and two spent .40

caliber casings. A DNA swab was also taken from the defendant, Kolby Moore.

Dr. James Traylor, was qualified as an expert in forensic pathology. (Tr. Id.

p. 116). Dr. Traylor, testified as to the cause of death of the decedent, Minnion

Jackson. (Tr. Id. p. 126-133).

Ms. Audra Williams, was qualified as an expert in forensic DNA analysis by

stipulation. (Tr. Id. p. 137). Ms. Williams in this case tested 28 DNA swabs, of

which six provided a sufficient DNA profile. (Tr. Id. p. 141). One swab from the

5.

driver dashoard provided three identified contributors (Tr. Id. p. 142-143) with

Kendrick Moore not Kolby Moore identified as a major contributor. The minor

contributors on this sample were not suitable for comparison. The dashboard

sample was single sample of which conclusions were reached. (Tr. Id. p. 146). On

cross examination, it was determined that guns were swabbed, but no shell casings

were swabbed. (Tr. Id. p. 151).

Testimony resumed on July 12, 2023 with Corporal Cody Walsworth of the

Shreveport Police Department. (Tr. 7/12/23, p. 5). He told the jury that he assisted

in proceeding the two vehicles associated with this case. A series of photographs

were identified and introduced into evidence. (Tr. Id. p. 7-17). The witness also

had occasion to process the Nissan Sentra associated with the decedent. (Tr. Id. p.

18-21). Twelve projectile fragments were taken as evidence from the Nissan

vehicle. (Tr. Id. p. 22).

A search warrant was executed at 4820 Shed Road, Building Three,

Apartment 29, in connection with this case, with photographs of that search

warrant execution offered into evidence. A second search warrant, was executed on

September 6, 2020 at 1004 Quail Creek Apartment S (Tr. Id. p. 24), with an

accompanying series of photographs offered into evidence. Two 7.62 caliber

magazines were seized from the Quail Creek location (Tr. Id. p. 27) containing 64

live rounds.

An objection was noted as to the introduction of three additional firearms

seized from the Quail Street address (Tr. Id. p. 29) which was sustained. While the

three weapons were identified by the witness, they were at that time not allowed to

be introduced into evidence. No fingerprints were seized from the weapons with

DNA Swabs being taken. On cross examination, it was determined that 61 of the

64 bullets recovered were hand loaded into the two magazines. (Tr. Id. p. 38). The

6.

three aforementioned firearms were processed for DNA. (Tr. Id. p. 39).

There was no evidence (Id card, credit card, debit card) associated with

Kolby Moore was found of the either searched locations. (Tr. Id. p. 39-40).

Mr. Philip Stout, was qualified as an expert in forensic firearms analysis and

identification. (Tr. Id. p. 44). Mr. Stout testified that the 7.62 casings seized were

fired from the same weapon. (Tr. Id. p. 50). The two .40 caliber casing seized were

also fired from the same weapon. Of significance, was that the three seized

weapons did not match the ballistic evidence seized in this case, according to the

expert. (Tr. Id. p. 55-56).

Antone Hollis, was identified as a friend of the defendant, Kolby Moore. (Tr.

Id. p. 67). Ms. Hollis told the jury that she rented a grey Chevrolet Equinox around

Monday, August 24, 2020. The witness stated that the last time she saw the vehicle

was Tuesday evening, August 25, 2020. Kolby Moore was observed at that time

being ‘dropped off by another individual who was driving. (Tr. Id. p. 71). On the

day of the shooting (August 26), Mr. Moore was observed by Ms. Hollis in the

Southport Apartments. (Tr. Id. p. 72).

On cross examination, it was testified that another person not Kolby Moore

was observed on August 25, 2020 by Ms. Hollis driving the Equinox. Ms. Hollis

stated that she does not own an apartment on Shed Road or on Quail Creek Road.

(Tr. Id. p. 79-80).

Captain Shannon Mack, was qualified as an expert in historical cellphone

record analysis and cellphone forensics (Tr. Id. p. 101) over defense objection.

Captain Mack began her testimony with the LPS (License Plate Reader) evidence a

located in this case. (Tr. Id. p. 103). From there, the witness discuss the cellphone

records and the Cellhawk analysis. An extensive objection was noted as to the

failure of the State to comply with pretrial discovery. Specifically, that the State

7.

had failed to provide the defense with a copy of their video presentation and the

expert’s report. (Tr. Id. p. 107-119). It was noted that the expert opinion was

tendered on July 10, 2023. (Tr. Id. p. 110). The Court recessed for the day. Trial

resumed on July 13, 2023 with Captain Mack. (Tr. 7/13/23, p. 14). The witness

proceeded to conducted an analysis of cellphone records and cell towers. (Tr. Id. p.

15-22). On cross examination it was noted:

“Q. And with the information they provide you, Cellhawk, once you

input that information, come up with the presentations or the

presentation that we just saw, right?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay. And during the course of the three years that this case has

been pending, the information that you just presented to the members of

the jury has never been verified by the phone company?

A. Has never been verified by what?

Q. Verizon.

A. Correct. Verizon doesn’t do that.

Q. And at any point did you or the lead detective reach out to Verizon

for verification of ya’ll’s assertions based on the Cellhawk presentation.

A. No. Verizon does not do that

Q. I hear you saying that Verizon does not do that. But you also agree

that you all did not reach out to them: right?

A. Correct.

Q. In terms of any confusion that may arise out of a presentation or

your analysis in this particular case, you didn’t reach out t them

because I’m assuming, according to you, there’s no confusion; right?

It’s pretty straightforward presentation?”

Tr. W. p. 28-29

Furthermore, that the Cellhawk analysis failed to provide the exact location

of a particular cellphone. (Tr. Id. p. 34). Nor could Captain Mack tell the jury what

J

the error rate of this Cellhawk technology was. (Tr. Id. p. 34). Nor did Cellhawk

8.

utilize procedures to insure the accuracy of their presentations or their results. (Tr.

Id. p. 35).'

Corporal Adam McEntee, is with the Violent Crimes Homicide Unit of the

Shreveport Police Department. On August 26, 2020, the Corporal responded to the

homicide scene at 1-220 and North Market Street in the city limits. (Tr. Id. p. 41).

He spoke to multiple witnesses and family members on the scene. A vehicle was

located at the Fox Cover Apartments, 8200 Pine Road. Upon locating the

defendant Kolby Moore, a black I-Phone was seized. (Tr. Id. p. 50). The defendant

subsequently provided a statement to Corporal McEntee, which was published to

the jury. (Tr. Id. p. 55). No video footage from 1-220 was able to be recovered. (Tr.

Id. p. 59).

Video footage from Tillman Drive in Bossier City was located and

published to the jury. (Tr. Id. p. 63). Various residential search warrants were

executed, as well as search warrant for Mr. Moore’s DNA. On cross examination

the following was asked:

“Q. Now, do you remember the part when you were speaking where

you said that the OnStar put the black Equinox or Equinox at the

location of the shooting?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Is that entirely true?

A. No.”

Tr. Id. p. 70

As to the interview with the defendant, Mr. Moore told police that his

nephew uses the cellphone as much as he does. (Tr. Id. p. 71). The Corporal did

know that Kendrick Moore was the name of the nephew being referred to. (Tr. Id.

p. 72). The witness also was aware of the DNA results from the Equinox showing

Kendrick Moore as a ‘major contributor’ of the DNA located. (Tr. Id. p. 73).

Finally, Corporal McEntee acknowledged that Kolby Moore’s DNA was not found

on any single piece of evidence. (Tr. Id. p. 76). In addition, there was no gunshot

residue (GSR) kit done in this case. (Tr. Id. p. 79).

With this testimony, the State made their offer of evidence and rested. (Tr.

Id. p. 82). The defense noted without calling any witnesses or offering any

evidence. (Tr. Id. p. 80). The defendant Kolby Moore was found guilty as charged

of Second Degree Murder.

10.

REASONS FOR GRANTING THE PETITION

Petitioner avers that his conviction was obtained in violation

of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and

its Due Process Clause.

Also, the Louisiana Courts made a ruling contrary to the

mandate as it was decided by this Honorable Court in the matter of

Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560

(1979), and related to the insufficiency of evidence when raised on

appeal, as in Petitioner’s case on Direct Appeal.

More important, the decision of the Louisiana Courts is in

conflict with the decisions of another appellate court, not only

on Petitioner's case, but also on other cases similarly situated

as Petitioner's case.

This Honorable Court in its Rule 10. Considerations Governing

Review on Certiorari, states in part:

(b):[a] state court of last resort has decided an

important federal question in a way that conflicts

with the decision of another state court of last

resort or of a United States Court of Appeals;

U.S. S.Ct. Rule 10 (b).

11

CONCLUSION

The petition for a writ of certiorari should be granted.

Respectfully submitted,

Date:

12.