Brian Franklin - Innocent Man in a Texas Prison

Brian has always maintained his innocence. He has not only claimed his innocence, but he has also proven it in court. In habeas corpus proceedings, the trial court TWICE determined that Brian is actually innocent. [See trial court's two orders of Feb. 3, 2000 and Nov. 5, 2001]. Brian has presented exculpatory evidence to the trial court that proves his innocence in several different forms. Brian has a two-pronged alibi, and has shown that the sole actual perpetrator was a man named "removed name". At the habeas hearing, Brian was also able to prove that the state's case from trial was based on lies and false information. In addition, Rose Anna Salinas, the lead prosecutor from the trial who is now in private practice, testified in the habeas hearing regarding Brian's case. At the hearing, Ms. Salinas testified, "the bottom line is the jury verdict cannot be trusted because of the false information." the perjury "adversely affected...the integrity of the jury's verdict," and "My opinion is that I don't believe [Brian] got a fair trial." [See Salinas's affidavits] Those are pretty strong words coming from the DA who prosecuted Brian, and yet, Brian still remains wrongfully imprisoned in Texas. Is this an example of Texas justice? What has happened to Brian can happen to anyone, and if you don't think it can, you are sadly mistaken. All that is necessary is a false accusation and a prosecution that ignores the red warning flags that expose problems with the case in its overzealousness for a conviction instead of seeking justice! There was a similar situation awhile ago involving three Duke University lacrosse players, but for them a tragedy was averted when the media and the public became outraged at the prosecution's actions. Brian was not so lucky. What compounds the horror of Brian's wrongful conviction is the fact that after Brian has proven his actual innocence in court, he still remains incarcerated. Brian is a victim of a double injustice that keeps him wrongfully imprisoned.

Brian was falsely accused of raping Brandi Rachall, a then 13-year-old biological daughter of a friend of his named Matt Rachall, Sr. The alleged assault was first claimed to have occurred at a children's birthday party on Sunday, March 6, 1994, that Brian did attend with his two kids. Brandi told investigator Haenes of Lakeside P.D. that she was sure it happened that weekend. She claimed that it happened on the ground in the backyard of Matt's house after sunset, which would have been after 6:00 p.m. BEFORE Brandi talked to the police, CPS, her father, or even her own mother she FIRST talked ALONE with "name removed" who Brandi later claimed has sexually assaulted her from when she was age 6 to age 17, which is 11 years!! Brian and everyone else did not find out about Brandi and "name removed" relationship until three years after Brian's conviction. What started as "transference" that pulled Brian into a situation that he had nothing to do with, developed into a Stockholm Syndrome type of relationship between "name removed" and Brandi. Brian was just a convenient scapegoat.

Even before trial, Brian proved that Brandi was lying and had falsely accused him. Brian established that he did not match the description of the alleged perpetrator because of pictures taken at the birthday party. Everyone left the party by 5:30 p.m. to return the kids from weekend visitation, and so no one was at Matt's house at 6:00 p.m. The prosecution was forced to admit that no assault by Brian against Brandi did or could have possibly happened at the party on March 6. Instead of the prosecution seeking justice and dismissing the case against Brian in light of Brandi's obvious lies or giving a polygraph exam as the defense suggested, the prosecution reindicted Brian and changed the date of the alleged assualt to the next week, from March 6, to March 12, 1994. The prosecution did not decide on the March 12-13, weekend as the time of the alleged assault because any person or evidence pointed to any specific date as the time of the alleged assault, but because no person or evidence pointed to any date as the time of the alleged assault, and the prosecution ignored all evidence and logic in its blind eagerness for a conviction. Significantly, there was an insurmountable problem with the prosecution's new date for the alleged assault. Brian was NOT at Matt's house on the March 12-13, weekend, NOT during the springbreak period of March 11-20, and NOT for the rest of the month of March 1994, until April 16. Matt and his live-in girlfriend both told that to CPS caseworker Michelle Ransom on April 20, while their memories were still fresh, that Brian had not been back to their house since the March 6, party, and no assault did or could have occurred at the party for several reasons. On top of all of this, Brian took and passed a polygraph exam administered by Eric Holden of Dallas. Brian's attorneys provided the prosecution with a copy of the polygraph results. The prosecution went and met with Mr. Holden to try to discredit the results but could not. This presented the prosecution with another obstacle to sidestep.

In May 1998, the discovery of new evidence that Brandi had accused "name removed", of sexually abusing her for eleven years opened the door for Brian to prove his innocence, or so he thought. In August 2004, he pled guilty of a count stemming from the five count and nine charge Aggravated Sexual Assault indictment against him with Brandi as the complainant.

In May 1999, Brian filed his state writ of habeas corpus. The trial court TWICE determined that Brian was innocent. On April 10, 2002, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals denied Brian's habeas even though they usually go along with the trial court's recommendation 99% of the time. After the denial, former lead prosecutor Salinas was quoted in the April 11, 2002, Fort Worth Star-Telegram, "The fact that I'm involved in a case where an innocent person may die in prison, I have to carry that forever with me." [see newspaper article in the Documents section on this site]

The difference between the trial court's decision that Brian was innocent and the Court of Criminal Appeals' decision that he wasn't came down to the evidence that each court fairly considered in its innocence inquiry. The trial court considered ALL of Brian's "new evidence," including his two-pronged alibi, but the CCA did not consider that exculpatory alibi because it was not "newly discovered" but only "newly presented." The trial court followed U.S. Supreme Court precedent, but the CCA limited their consideration to only ONE ITEM of new evidence "standing alone." The CCA's per se exclusion of new evidence violated Supreme Court federal law and is unconstitutional. Brian's alibi was critical because it proved that Brian wasn't at Matt's house because Matt was at his own house and testified that Brian wasn't there, and it proved that Brian was shopping at stores with his two kids on the other side of Fort Worth from Matt's house. Brian had the date and time store sales receipts to prove it. Brian and Matt also lived 45 minutes apart, and worked different shifts and different jobs, and so they rarely saw each other. Brian also had his employment time records showing that he worked from 6:00 p.m. to midnight every weekday evening in March 1994. Logically, Brian proved he did NOT commit any assault because he was NOT even there.

Another vital component of Brandi's false accusation is her claim that the alleged assault occurred outside in the backyard of Matt's house after sunset. The ground in Matt's backyard was totally grassless, just dirt. This is because the yard has several large trees that shade the ground so grass can't grow, but in March these trees do not have leaves. Evidence showed that it rained on both days of the March 12-13, weekend. It may not have rained a lot, but enough to turn a dirt yard into wet, muddy ground that would have certainly gotten onto Brandi's and Brian's clothes and skin if they would have been on the ground as Brandi described. However, Brandi NEVER even mentioned rain or mud to anyone! WHY? Because no assault by Brian occurred! Plus, Brian wasn't even there! Brandi did say that she "brushed off leaves" which indicates dry conditions, not the wet muddy conditions that certainly would have been present. Brandi certainly would have remembered the rain and mud details since she claimed to have remembered details such as the perpetrator had a mustache and wore a belt, and yet pictures taken at the March 6, party showed that Brian was clean shaven and did not wear a belt.

While in prison, Brian has taken and passed a second polygraph exam administered by former Department of Justice polygraph examiner John S. Swartz of Houston [see Swartz's affadavit in the Documents section on this site].

The proof of Brian's actual innocence is overwhelming! When Brian's alibi evidence proves to the trial court's satisfaction that he was not at the alleged assault location at any date or time around the date and time of the alleged assault, proves where he actually was, proves through two polygraph exam results that he was telling the truth when he testified that he did not sexually assault Brandi at any time, proves that accusor Brandi is an admitted purjurer without credibility, proves that the actual perpetrator is "name removed", and proves that because Brian did not commit the alleged assault at ANY date or time that he is in fact actually innocent; and yet he remains in prison, there is something seriously wrong with the justice system and the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals!!