Roy Oliver murder conviction submitted to Court of Criminal Appeals

Roy Oliver murder conviction submitted to Court of Criminal Appeals
Roy Oliver murder conviction submitted to Court of Criminal Appeals Photo credit GettyImages

The murder conviction of former Balch Springs cop Roy Oliver is now under advisement by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. The case was submitted in written form without oral arguments.

Roy Oliver is serving a 15 year prison term for the April 29, 2017 murder of Mesquite high school sudent Jordan Edwards, 15, who was an unarmed passenger in a car that was leaving a loud party in Balch Springs.

During his 2018 trial, Oliver testified he had been sent to the party after receiving reports of loud teenagers and possible underage drinking.  Edwards was a passenger in a car that was leaving the party.  He was not armed and had not consumer alcohol.  Oliver said he fired shots into the car after fearing it was about to strike other officers who were at the scene.  The other officers testified the car had passed beyond them and was driving away when Oliver opened fire.

In appeal papers, Oliver's attorneys claim prosecutors improperly used statements that the officer gave to Lt. Mark Maret who led a separate internal affairs probe.  They claim it’s a violation of the Garrity rule which is designed to protect an office’s constitutional rights while coopering with department investigators

“After exchanging pleasantries, Maret gave Appellant the initial complaint letter, his constitutional protection warning (the Garrity warning), and the investigation warning.” Oliver’s pleading says.   “Appellant signed the constitutional protection warning. Appellant then, accompanied by his police-union-provided attorney, went into the Balch Springs Department headquarters to watch body cam videos of the incident. After that, Appellant’s attorney handed Lt. Maret a written statement from 5 Appellant. That statement was placed in an internal affairs file.”

Oliver’s lawyers want the conviction set aside.

Prosecutors say they did not use those statements as part of their case.

“The court of appeals correctly held that Appellant had a burden of laying a firm foundation, resting on more than suspicion, that the State’s evidence was tainted by exposure to his Garrity statements.” the State’s reply says.

The Court of Criminal Appeals typically takes several months to decide cases.

LISTEN on the Audacy App

Sign Up and Follow NewsRadio 1080 KRLD

Facebook | Twitter

Featured Image Photo Credit: GettyImags