Petition filed with highest Texas court to reinstate Staley's capital murder conviction
James Irvin Staley, III, 42, of Wichita Falls was convicted of capital murder and sentenced to life in prison without parole nearly two years ago, on March 13, 2023. He's been serving that sentence in Amarillo's Bill Clemens Unit of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice.
EXPLAINER: Why James Staley's capital murder conviction was reversed
On March 6, 2025, almost a year after Staley's appeal was submitted, the Second Court of Appeals in Fort Worth reversed his conviction and remanded for a new trial.
John Gillespie, Wichita County District Attorney, said he disagreed with the Second Court of Appeals' decision and that he intended to fight it.
On May 5, 2025, prosecutors filed a petition with the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, the highest court in Texas, requesting a discretionary review of the appellate court's decision and asking for Staley's conviction to be reinstated.
According to Staley's appellate brief, filed by high-profile appellate attorney Keith Hampton, the case for an appeal of his conviction stemmed from a failure by the Wichita Falls Police Department to produce an adequate search warrant or affidavit to obtain such.
As a result of that affidavit, several devices were seized from Staley's home almost two weeks after Wilder's death, including Staley's cell phone and a Mac Mini computer.
PREVIOUS STORY: James Staley's capital murder conviction reversed on appeal
According to Hampton, who argued the appellate case on March 12, 2024, the video never should have been admitted into evidence because it violates the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
According to the Second Court of Appeal's memorandum opinion, the appellate justices agreed with Staley, adding that they couldn't determine beyond a reasonable doubt that the evidence admitted as a result of that warrant wasn't a factor in the deliberation of the Tarrant County jury.
According to the prosecution's petition for a discretionary review, case law has been 'overextended' by intermediate courts, and because of this, those courts have 'reached erratic decisions.'
Prosecutors argued that Staley's case 'presents another pressing need for clarification' regarding search warrants, and whether or not they should 'account for expanded fair probabilities for household homicides.'
'The court of appeals' disregard of these broadened probabilities, recognized by Massachusetts in a similar case, threatens law enforcement's ability to obtain this critical evidence,' the petition said. 'The frequency of relationship-based homicides makes this an important issue.'
READ MORE: James Staley's appeal submitted after oral arguments
The prosecution argued in its petition that probable cause 'depends on probabilities, not certainties,' and that a fair probability of finding such evidence on items, like electronic devices seized from Staley's home, amounts to probable cause.
According to the petition, this is due in part to the fact that Wilder McDaniel was found dead inside Staley's home, where he had been staying with his mother, Amber McDaniel, and that there was a 'pre-existing fraught relationship between the defendant and victim.'
In its petition for a discretionary review, the prosecution also alleged that the appellate court disregarded a precedent set by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals based on a previous decision in the case of Holder v. State.
The petition said that, according to the Holder decision, a trial court finding that evidence admitted during trial, even if the warrant lacked probable cause, would mean that the evidence is still admissible under federal law.
'The intermediate court's failure to follow Holder created conflict among the courts of appeals,' the petition said. ' This failure also led to the improper reversal of Appellant's capital murder conviction.'
According to the prosecution's petition, the Second Court of Appeals failed to consider any of the evidence admitted during Staley's trial that was legally obtained.
READ MORE: James Staley appeal calls key trial evidence unconstitutional
The prosecution claimed that the Second Court of Appeals reversed Staley's conviction due to the videos that were admitted into evidence, including a video of Staley slapping the child with full force, but didn't take into account the remaining evidence, or whether or not the 'Slap Video' was any more or less incriminating than the other evidence.
The petition claimed that 'the case described in the opinion' given by the Second Court of Appeals 'was unrecognizable from the multi-week capital murder case actually tried.'
The prosecution asserted that 'overwhelming evidence independent of the video showed that only [James Staley] could have killed Wilder,' calling the evidence admitted in the trial outside of the 'Slap Video' was 'not merely cumulative but overwhelming.'
The prosecution's petition ended with a plea for the highest criminal court in Texas to reverse the decision of the Second Court of Appeals, to 'conduct its own review, hold any error was harmless, and reinstate the conviction.'
According to courthouse officials, it may take anywhere between a month and six months before the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals decides whether or not to grant the petition.
If the petition is granted, both Staley's defense and prosecutors will then submit another brief to the highest court in Texas. Prosecutors have also requested that they be able to present oral arguments to the court.
WATCH: Wichita County District Attorney John Gillespie talks James Staley trial
Previously, Gillespie indicated that even if the petition is not granted, and Staley's conviction is not reinstated, he's not done fighting.
'If we cannot get the conviction reinstated, then we'll try the case again and get him a second time,' Gillespie said. 'I've only begun to fight.'
Staley will remain incarcerated at the Clemens Unit while the petition is pending, according to courthouse officials.Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indianapolis Star
13 hours ago
- Indianapolis Star
Indiana school's recording ban is an assault on parents' rights
It's back-to-school season, and parents and kids around the country are prepping for the inevitable transition from summer fun to the fall grind. For one Indiana mom, the stakes are higher than normal. Nicole Graves has sued her school district, Whitley County Consolidated Schools in Columbia City, Indiana, in federal court with help from the Arizona-based Goldwater Institute. She alleges that her First and 14th Amendment rights were violated in a series of interactions with school administrators. All four of Graves' children still attend district schools, and she's rightly concerned – given how she's been treated – about potential retaliation from the administration. Here's what happened: According to the Goldwater Institute, in April 2024, Graves' seventh-grade daughter 'filmed her school bus driver walking up and down the aisle, smacking his belt against his hand with his pants falling and his underwear visible.' After that incident on her daughter's school bus, Graves set up a meeting with the school principal. She recorded the meeting because she wanted an accurate record of what transpired. When Graves wasn't satisfied with what the principal said, she posted the recording on social media. That angered school administrators, who contacted her via letter and told her she broke school policy by recording the meeting without permission. Even though Graves had been unaware of the policy, she was banned from school grounds and restricted in her communication with staff, unless she got written permission from the superintendent's office. While that absurd punishment has expired, the lawsuit seeks to overturn the ban on recording, which remains in place. 'This is not fun for me,' Graves told IndyStar. 'This is not something I ever thought I would have to fight for. But I am more than happy to stand up and fight and talk to who I need to talk to to get things to change because I think it's important for all the families in this school district.' Opinion: School choice wars miss the point. Data can't dictate our values. The complaint argues that the school's recording policy and the no-trespass and communication orders violate the First Amendment, 'which protects the right to record government officials in the performance of their duties.' Adam Shelton, the Goldwater staff attorney working with Graves, says these kinds of recordings fall squarely under the First Amendment. 'The First Amendment protects more than just speech, it also protects conduct that is inherently expressive and conduct that cannot be divorced from the speech creation process, like recording,' Shelton observed on X. 'This is especially true in situations involving parents and school officials.' While Democrats and teachers unions may think they know what's best for children, that's simply false. Parents do. This lawsuit also alleges that the school district violated Graves' constitutional right to direct her children's education. 'The orders also violate the Fourteenth Amendment's due process clause, which protects the fundamental rights of parents to control and direct the education and upbringing of their children,' the complaint states. 'This right is the oldest right that the Supreme Court has recognized as one of the 'liberties' protected by the due process clause.' Hicks: Indiana's college crisis has nothing to do with woke campuses or high costs Graves' case reminded me of one I've written about before, regarding another Midwest mom who was shunned by her child's school district. Sandra Hernden of Michigan sued her school district in 2022 for violating her constitutional rights. She had complained to the school board about its COVID-19 policies in 2020, and board members responded by contacting her employer and then reporting her to the Biden administration's U.S. Department of Justice (remember how the DOJ went after parents as 'domestic terrorists'?). Hernden's case is ongoing. Steve Delie, an attorney with the Mackinac Center Legal Foundation that is representing Hernden, made oral arguments in June before the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. 'Even if we assume there was no monetarily compensable injury, you're still talking about government officials taking advantage of their elected positions of power to silence opposition,' Delie told the court. 'That can't be the way society functions.' No, it can't. Kudos to these moms for their bravery and for standing up for parental rights everywhere.
Indianapolis Star
2 days ago
- Indianapolis Star
IMPD denounces Nazi flag-waving group but maintains its right to free speech
When fewer than a dozen members of a hate group walked the streets of downtown Indianapolis over the weekend, Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department patrol cars drove alongside them. For many residents watching over social media, it was a jarring image. They questioned why the police buffered the march of a small group hoisting Nazi flags. In an Aug. 17 statement, IMPD Chief Chris Bailey pointed to the U.S. Constitution to understand why his department responded the way it did. "Safeguarding First Amendment rights, even for those whose views we find reprehensible, is a responsibility we take seriously," his statement reads. "But let me be clear: protecting those rights is not an endorsement of those beliefs: not now, not ever." He repeatedly condemned the group's message, but said his officers were there to ensure safety and the right to free speech, not to support its message. The demonstration Saturday is one of many instances of extremist groups gathering in Indianapolis over the years. Last year, white supremacist flyers proliferated around the metropolitan area. In 2021, about 100 Proud Boys and Trump supporters protested election results at the Indiana Statehouse. Earlier that year, the New Black Panthers, a group in no way affiliated with the original Black Panthers of the 1960s, marched in honor of a teenager killed during downtown riots. The Southern Poverty Law Center designates both as hate groups. The First Amendment enshrines the right of the public to speak, petition and assemble, regardless of their opinion. The Constitution protects a broad swath of speech, including much that the public finds objectionable. In 1929, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes described the First Amendment as "not free thought for those who agree with us but freedom for the thought that we hate.' As it stands, hate speech is generally considered to be legal, protected speech. However, not all demonstrations espousing hate speech are legal. Courts have found that threats and the incitement of lawlessness are outside the reach of First Amendment protection. If hate speech crosses into those areas, police may legally step in and disperse a demonstration. A question First Amendment lawyers, advocates and scholars have long debated is how the government can install limits on hate speech without infringing on other expression rights indirectly. Some have said answering that question is "impossible." Specifically, regarding Nazi symbolism, some have considered just the sight of such a flag to be an act inciting lawlessness or a threat. This debate was revived following the 2017 clash at a white supremacist rally in Charlottesville, Virginia. However, experts say that the argument doesn't hold up since it would require more immediacy of the threat and call to lawlessness, per U.S. Supreme Court decisions. The USA TODAY Network - Indiana's coverage of First Amendment issues is funded through a collaboration between the Freedom Forum and Journalism Funding Partners.
USA Today
3 days ago
- USA Today
Indiana school banned a mom for trying to protect her child. She's right to sue.
An Indiana mother's lawsuit against her children's school district raises important questions about parents' First and 14th Amendment rights. It's back-to-school season, and parents and kids around the country are prepping for the inevitable transition from summer fun to the fall grind. For one Indiana mom, the stakes are higher than normal. Nicole Graves has sued her school district, Whitley County Consolidated Schools in Columbia City, Indiana, in federal court with help from the Arizona-based Goldwater Institute. She alleges that her First and 14th Amendment rights were violated in a series of interactions with school administrators. All four of Graves' children still attend district schools, and she's rightly concerned – given how she's been treated – about potential retaliation from the administration. Here's what happened: According to the Goldwater Institute, in April 2024, Graves' seventh-grade daughter 'filmed her school bus driver walking up and down the aisle, smacking his belt against his hand with his pants falling and his underwear visible.' After that incident on her daughter's school bus, Graves set up a meeting with the school principal. She recorded the meeting because she wanted an accurate record of what transpired. When Graves wasn't satisfied with what the principal said, she posted the recording on social media. That angered school administrators, who contacted her via letter and told her she broke school policy by recording the meeting without permission. Even though Graves had been unaware of the policy, she was banned from school grounds and restricted in her communication with staff, unless she got written permission from the superintendent's office. Trump is right about homeless camps: Make them 'move out, IMMEDIATELY' | Opinion 1st Amendment protections go beyond speech alone, lawsuit says While that absurd punishment has expired, the lawsuit seeks to overturn the ban on recording, which remains in place. 'This is not fun for me,' Graves told the Indianapolis Star. 'This is not something I ever thought I would have to fight for. But I am more than happy to stand up and fight and talk to who I need to talk to to get things to change because I think it's important for all the families in this school district.' The complaint argues that the school's recording policy and the no-trespass and communication orders violate the First Amendment, 'which protects the right to record government officials in the performance of their duties.' Adam Shelton, the Goldwater staff attorney working with Graves, says these kinds of recordings fall squarely under the First Amendment. 'The First Amendment protects more than just speech, it also protects conduct that is inherently expressive and conduct that cannot be divorced from the speech creation process, like recording,' Shelton observed on X. 'This is especially true in situations involving parents and school officials.' Opinion: Sydney Sweeney's jeans ad triggers liberals. She looks good. They don't. Parental rights around the country are at stake While Democrats and teachers unions may think they know what's best for children, that's simply false. Parents do. This lawsuit also alleges that the school district violated Graves' constitutional right to direct her children's education. 'The orders also violate the Fourteenth Amendment's due process clause, which protects the fundamental rights of parents to control and direct the education and upbringing of their children,' the complaint states. 'This right is the oldest right that the Supreme Court has recognized as one of the 'liberties' protected by the due process clause.' Parents, not progressives, know their kids best. They should control education. | Opinion Graves' case reminded me of one I've written about before, regarding another Midwest mom who was shunned by her child's school district. Sandra Hernden of Michigan sued her school district in 2022 for violating her constitutional rights. She had complained to the school board about its COVID-19 policies in 2020, and board members responded by contacting her employer and then reporting her to the Biden administration's U.S. Department of Justice (remember how the DOJ went after parents as 'domestic terrorists'?). Hernden's case is ongoing. Steve Delie, an attorney with the Mackinac Center Legal Foundation that is representing Hernden, made oral arguments in June before the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. 'Even if we assume there was no monetarily compensable injury, you're still talking about government officials taking advantage of their elected positions of power to silence opposition,' Delie told the court. 'That can't be the way society functions.' No, it can't. Kudos to these moms for their bravery and for standing up for parental rights everywhere. Ingrid Jacques is a columnist at USA TODAY. Contact her at ijacques@ or on X: @Ingrid_Jacques
