The Devil Came Knocking

New podcast on the case. A few minor factual errors but overall an excellent job..

Listen Now: Paradigm (Episode 1 - The Murders) Listen to this episode from True Crimecast on Spotify. In 1997, six young people were convicted for the murders of three members of the Lillelid family. Was this a satanic killing? Were the proper sentences given to each of the six youths? Join Jamie and John from True Crimecast as they dive deep in...

5 Star Review: "Well Done: If you remember the time frame, and remember thinking this was a cold-hearted group of teens who were all out to kill anyone and everyone, then you probably…" via

5 star review for The Devil Came Knocking Well Done: If you remember the time frame, and remember thinking this was a cold-hearted group of teens who were all out to kill anyone and everyone, then you probably also think that telling the nice policeman the truth will keep you safe. The reality, as you will learn by listening to this well-co...

Many of you have asked when or if I was going to release a new podcast. I’m happy to announce we will be releasing either a documentary or a new podcast in the coming months. This will take some time and I’ll announce updates when I know more about a release. This podcast/documentary will be called Inmate Number 00288306. It will be the life story of Crystal Sturgill. I hope you guys will enjoy it.

Judge Pearson has denied Crystal, Deans, and Karen’s appeal. Here is what he had to say.

No matter your thoughts on this case or the individuals involved you should find it interesting everyone has reached out for my help getting an appeal done except Jason Bryant speaks volumes in my opinion.

Hearing date was set for August 30 at 1pm in front of Pearson for Dean, Karen, and Crystal. Just to show you how well prepared the state was though. Judge Pearson attempted to appoint Mr.Bells law firm to be Deans attorney. It just shows how little thought the judges in this town put into the cases that come before them.

Anyone coming to the arraignment tomorrow I look forward to meeting you and will be there about an hour before court starts I would love to meet everyone please feel free to come up and talk. This has been a long process today has been the longest of them all

Playing with ouija board will get you life without parole in the state of Tennessee.

This time around do you think that there will be less problems with all the Satanic allegations and stuff about Marily Manson and Natural Born Killers or are you worried about that coming back up?

Karen: I’m not worried about that. People always will think what they’re gonna think, and I completely understand everyone has their own point of view. Some people do have an open mind and do want to stop and listen to the facts of the case. But I’m not so much worried about that.

What makes me happy is the first responder on the crime scene has actually came forth and said, “Hey, Berkeley Bell lied. The bodies were not in the shape of a cross.”

How dare Berkeley Bell say that? Yeah, take out vengeance on us if that’s what you wanna do, but it’s not fair for the victims. For you to put that in their heads and, like, make them think … (Karen’s voice starts breaking up at this point, crying) … that their loved ones were moved around. It’s unbelievable. I’m sure they had so many sleepless nights with just that one thought. God, it’s so unethical. Sorry. I still get really emotional about it.

Crystal and Karen speak

NEW: In their words - Hard Knox Wire Karen Howell and Crystal Sturgill have spent more than half their lives behind bars. They were once two of the most hated people in America, their faces familiar to anyone who watched TV or read the newspaper. Nowadays, however, they’re just two of the nearly 1,600 women who call Tennessee’s pri...

Wonder what dosing someone with Xanax for weeks then cutting them off cold turkey would do? Why would the state do this to multiple defendants in the case? What would the side affects be from doing this to someone? These are easy questions to answer for people who grew up in my generation

Thank you to JJ and Jenna Stambaugh for writing this article. I know the work they put in to get this article done. This is what true journalism looks like a fuse and balanced story that presents all sides. I encourage you all to subscribe to their news site I personally will be delivering everything about the case to them.

NEW: Lillelid killers want new evidence to set them free - Hard Knox Wire It’s been 25 years since a chance encounter at a rest area on Interstate 81 in Green County led to one of the most infamous crimes in East Tennessee history. On the evening of April 6, 1997, a pair of deputies from the Greene County Sheriff’s Office found a little girl dying, her younger brother...

Relief Sought For 3 Lillelid Defendants On Fingerprint Issue Three defendants in the 1997 Lillelid murder case have upcoming Greene County Criminal Court dates after filing petitions for relief from sentence or conviction.

A little update on our post conviction appeal. Judge Dugger has recused himself and the appeals will be heard by Judge Pearson. Greene county has also put the state AG on notice of our filings. Not sure what to make of that but notification of the attorney general is not standard practice that we are aware of please correct me if I’m wrong on that.

Karen and Crystal have an arraignment August 1st in Greene County Court in front of Judge Pearson. Dean will have his September 9th. Anyone in the community that can be here for these I beg you to come and show your support. We can win this fight.

Greene County Tennessee has accepted the pleas and put the state AG on notice of our filings. Crystal will appear in front of Judge Dugger. Not sure when the hearing will be I’ll be trying to meet with her attorneys Thursday. Not sure on Deans and Karen’s cases yet

Another one of Bells theories on the case this was written by a man the State proclaimed a drug dealer. How reliable would his testimony be? Why was this man listed as a FBI Tenncare recipient in the Tenncare internal system? Why was his pregnant girlfriend also listed the same way? She also made statements that are similar I’ll post later oh and her boyfriend the man who wrote this slept with Natasha and Crystal so she may have held a grudge that compelled her to do so. Of course along with the state incentives of Tenncare to a pregnant Kentucky resident

Frank Waddells account has never changed proof the bodies were not stacked in a cross says clearly they had to move down the ditch to check the fourth body same thing he has always told me

Just to prove DA Bell made a conscious decision not to fingerprint the weapons here are the latent fingerprint report from the TBI. It was vital to fingerprint a mt dew can, Pepsi can, and items from the glovebox but not the murder weapons.

As you will be able to tell Karens Appeal is much better put together but it was done by a team of lawyers. This will be the groups best shot ever at getting some relief for crimes they merely witnessed. I will update as soon as I know more on the appeals.

Petitioner, Karen R. Howell, respectfully petitions for a reexamination of the evidence
against her under Tenn. Code Ann. $40-30-401 et seq. (the "Post-Conviction Fingerprint Analysis
Act of 2021"), specifically Tenn. Code Ann. $ 40-30-403. Petitioner is currently serving three
consecutive terms of life in prison without the possibility of parole based on her status as an
accomplice in the homicides of three individuals in 1997 .
Petitioner received these life sentences despite the fact that there was no evidence that she
killed---or had any intent to kill-the victims. The record upon which her sentence was based
contained significant uncertainty as to the identity of the shooter, including whether there was
more than one. Despite this substantial uncertainty-and the readily available evidence-the State
declined to test the guns for fingerprints, and the District Attorney General pursued a "package"
plea deal requiring all defendants to plead guilty or else the State would pursue the death penalty
against those eligible regardless of relative culpability.
Petitioner has good cause to believe that if the guns had been tested, they would have
confirmed that the only shooter was Jason Bryant (a juvenile ineligible for the death penalty)-as
Ms. Howell, and all the other defendants except for Jason Bryant, testified at the time, and as
suggested by the limited evidence that was tested, namely the gunpowder residue analysis. This
information would have materially altered the position of the defendants by substantially lowering
the possibility that any of the adult defendants would receive the death penalty, and preventing the
State from being able to use the threat of the death penalty as leverage in the group plea bargain.
For these reasons, and for the reasons set forth more fully in the attached Memorandum, it
is probable that a proper analysis of the available evidence would have resulted in a more favorable
sentence. Petitioner thus respectfully requests that the Court order that the two handguns in this
case be subjected to fingerprint analysis.
2
Dated: June29,2022
William H. Milliken
TBPRNo.033442
STERNE KESSLER GOLDSTEIN
& FOX
1100 New York Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20005
(202) 37r-2600
[email protected]
By
1201 Demonbreun Street,
Nashville, TN 37203
(6rs) 244-t7t3
j thomas . com
nsanders@nealharwell. com
G. Thomas, TBPRNo. 007028
C. Sanders, TBPRNo. 033520
HARWELL
Attorneys for Petitioner Karen Howell
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certifu that a copy of this Petition has been served via Federal Express on the
following counsel of record, this the ofJune,2022:
Honorable Dan E. Armstrong
124 Austin St., Suite 3
Greeneville,TN 37745
Phone: (423)787-1450
Fax (423)787-1454
ailu^,
J
Case Nos. 01 CR 39,97 CR 411, 13 CR 283
IN THE CRIMINAL COURT OF GREENE COTINTY, TENNESSEE
AT GREENEVILLE
KAREN R. HOWELL,
Petitioner,
v
STATE OF TENNESSEE,
Respondent.
MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF KAREN HOWELL'S PETITION FOR FINGERPRINT
ANALYSTS r-TNDER TENN. CODE ANN. $40-30-401 ET SEQ.
William H. Milliken
TBPRNo.033442
STERNE KESSLER GOLDSTEIN &
FOX PLLC
1100 New York Ave NW
Suite 600
Washington, DC 20005
(202) 37t-2600
Dated: Jwte29,2022
James G. Thomas, TBPR No. 007028
Nathan C. Sanders, TBPRNo. 033520
NEAL & HARWELL, PLC
1201 Demonbreun Street
Suite 1000
Nashville, TN 37203
(6rs) 244-1713
Counsel for Petitioner
1
Petitioner, Karen R. Howell, respectfully petitions for a reexamination of the evidence
against her under Tenn. Code Ann. $ 40-30-40I et seq. (the "Post-Conviction Fingerprint Analysis
Act of 2021"). Petitioner is currently serving three consecutive terms of life in prison without the
possibility of parole based on her status as an accomplice in the homicides of three individuals in
1997.
Petitioner received these life sentences despite the fact that there was no evidence that she
killed-or had any intent to kill-the victims. The record upon which her sentence was based
contained significant uncertainty as to the identity of the shooter, including whether there was
more than one. Despite this substantial uncertainty-and the readily available evidence-the State
declined to test the guns for fingerprints, and the District Attorney pursued a'opackage" plea deal
requiring all defendants to plead guilty or else the State would pursue the death penalty against
those eligible regardless of relative culpability.
If the guns had been tested, they would have confirmed that the only shooter was Jason
Bryant (a juvenile ineligible for the death penalty)-as Ms. Howell, and all the other defendants
except for Jason Bryant, testified at the time. This information would have materially altered the
position of the defendants by substantially lowering the possibility that any of the adult defendants
would receive the death penalty, and preventing the State from being able to use the threat of the
death penalty as leverage in the group plea bargain.
For the foregoing reasons, it is probable that a proper analysis of the available evidence
would have resulted in a more favorable sentence, and the Court should therefore order that the
two handguns in this case be subjected to fingerprint analysis.
BACKGROUND
Petitioner was sentenced to three consecutive terms of life imprisonment without the
possibility of parole for her role in the murder of three individuals in 1997 . See State v. Howell,
2
34 S.W.3d 484,486-87 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2000) ("Howell|'). Howell, who was 17 years old at
the time, was traveling from Pikeville, Kentucky, to New Orleans, Louisiana, with five
companions-Natasha Cornett, Crystal Sturgill, Joseph Risner, Dean Mullins, and Jason Bryant.
Howell v. State,185 S.W.3d 319,325 (Tenn. 2006) ("Howell11'). The group encountered a family
of four, the Lillelids, at a rest stop in eastern Tennessee. Id. Risner threatened the Lillelids with a
gun and forced them to a secluded spot in the woods, where each member was shot multiple times,
allegedly by Jason Bryant. See Howell 1,34 S.W.3d 484, 487-88. Three were killed; one survived
with serious injuries. See id. at 489-90.
There is no evidence that Petitioner killed or intended to kill any of the victims. Howell v.
Hodge,710 F.3d 381,394 (6th Cir. 2013) ("Howell /Z') (Stranch, J., concurring). Five of the
defendants stated that Bryant was the shooter, while Bryant maintained that Risner and Mullins
were the shooters. Howell II,l85 S.W.3d at325. The entire group were apprehended two days
later while trying to cross the border from the United States into Mexico. 1d.
Initially, Howell's case was assigned to juvenile court due to her age at the time of the
offenses. However, she was eventually transferred to the Greene County Criminal Court and tried
as an adult. Id. at 326. This was despite Howell's mental disabilities, which would have made her
ineligible for such transfer under Tenn. Code Ann. $ 37-1-134(4XB) (1996).1
I The Tennessee Supreme Court would later find that Petitioner received ineffective
assistance of counsel regarding the transfer of her case to criminal court, due to her counsel's
failure to present existing evidence that Petitioner was committable to a mental institution. See
Howell 11,185 S.W.3d at328. But the court ultimately denied relief on the ground that Petitioner
had "failed to establish prejudice by clear and convincing evidence." Id. at 330. Petitioner
challenged that finding in a habeas corpus proceeding in federal court, but the Sixth Circuit
concluded that the Tennessee Supreme Court had not unreasonably applied federal law in finding
a lack of prejudice. See Howell IV,7l0 F.3d at 387.
J
Though the prosecution made some effort to collect evidence during this time, they did not
test either of the weapons the group had for fingerprints, despite their availability and the potential
utility the court would have from a clearer delineation of culpability. According to the then-District
Attorney General, the prosecution "[didn't] have any direct facts as to who did the shooting,"
omitting that this gap in evidence was a consequence of the prosecution's decision not to test the
weapons in their custody. Ken Little, Interview With Berkley Bell, Former 3'd Judicial District
Attorney General, Tup GnEeNEVILLE Stx (March 31, 2017) (attached as Exhibit 2). The
sentencing judge highlighted this very problem during the sentencing of Jason Bryant, stating, 'oI
don't know who all were the shooters. I think there was more than one." Exhibit I at pg. 1039.
The appeals court took this confusion further, incorrectly asserting that Ms. Howell "had gunshot
residue all over." Howell l, 34 S.W.3d at 506 (internal quotations omitted). In fact, the Tennessee
Bureau of Investigation's report showed that Karen Howell had no gunpowder residue on her
whatsoever-and further, only Jason Bryant had gunpowder residue on every article of clothing.
See Exhibit 3.
This lack of clarity is understandable in light of the prosecution's effort to paint all
defendants as equally culpable, regardless of their actual level of involvement. Following the
transfer, the State offered Petitioner and her co-defendants "a package plea offer whereby the State
would not seek the death penalty against all four adult co-defendants," but only if each and every
member of the group "agreed to enter guilty pleas to the offenses." Howell II,185 S.W.3d at325
(internal quotations omitted). Petitioner was ineligible for the death penalty as she was a juvenile
at the time of the offense; nevertheless, she was also required to plead guilty for the deal to be
accepted. She was given only two days to consider whether to accept the State's offer. See Howell
v. Hodge,2010 WL 1252201, at *8 n.3 (E.D. Tenn. Mar. 24,2010) ("Howell111'). She accepted
4
the plea offer-"the equivalent to having a revolver pointed at the heads of her co-defendants," id.
at *8--during a group plea hearing and pleaded guilty to kidnapping, theft, three counts of felony
murder, and one count of attempted first-degree murder. Howell II,l85 S.W.3d at325.
Tennessee law in effect at the time of Petitioner's guilty plea gave the sentencing court
discretion to impose a maximum sentence of life in prison without the possibility of parole for the
first-degree murder convictions. See Howell 1,34 S.W.3d at497. The sentencing court found that
several mitigating circumstances were applicable to Petitioner: (i) she had no prior record of
criminal activity; (ii) she had been a "relatively minor" participant in the crimes; (iii) she was
"abused and neglected as a child"; (iv) she had a "borderline re****ed IQ of 78"; (v) she
"subordinatefd] [her]self to the needs of others in a group"; and (vi) she had ooshown remorse."
Exhibit I pg. 1042. Despite this, the court imposed multiple consecutive sentences of life
imprisonment, without the possibility of parole.
ARGUMENT
In order to be eligible for an order of post-conviction fingerprint analysis under Tenn. Code
Ann. $ 40-30-405, a petitioner must show that:
1. A reasonable probability exists that analysis of the evidence will produce
fingerprint results that would have rendered the petitioner's verdict or sentence
more favorable if the results had been available at the proceeding leading to the
judgment of conviction;
2. The evidence is still in existence and in such a condition that fingerprint analysis
may be conducted;
3. The evidence was not previously subjected to fingerprint analysis, was not
subjected to the analysis that is now requested which could resolve an issue not
resolved by previous analysis, or was previously subjected to analysis and the
person making the motion under this part requests analysis that uses a new method
or technology that is substantially more probative than the prior analysis; and
4. The application for analysis is made for the purpose of demonstrating innocence
and not to unreasonably delay the ex*****on of sentence or administration ofjustice.
5
Here, a reasonable probability exists that analysis of the evidence will produce results that
would have rendered Petitioner's sentence more favorable. Despite the trial court's contention that
there were multiple shooters, each defendant save for Jason Bryant has consistently testified that
Bryant was the sole shooter. That testimony is supported by the fact that Bryant had gunshot
residue on him, and that he bragged about his crimes while in jail in Arizona. See Exhibit I pg.
1039. A fingerprint analysis of the fi****ms could confirm that Bryant, and Bryant alone, killed
the victims.
Such confirmation, had it been available prior to Petitioner's sentencing, would have
significantly impacted the likely sentence Petitioner would have received, for two reasons.
First, Ms. Howell's guilty plea was not entered to protect herself from the possibility of
the death penalty (a sentence for which she, a juvenile, was not eligible), but instead to protect her
adult co-defendants. A showing that those adult co-defendants were not the shooters would have
materially impacted the prosecution's case against them, materially reduced their likelihood of
receiving the death penalty, and thus materially reduced Ms. Howell's incentives to plead guilty
in order to spare them from the death penalty. Put differently, had it been clear that none of the
defendants actually eligible for the death penalty fired a gun, the prosecutor would not likely have
possessed the necessary leverage to coerce each defendant to agree to the package plea deal.
Second, if evidence had been available making it clear that Ms. Howell had not touched
the murder weapons, it is reasonably likely that she would have received a more favorable
sentence, given her lack of prior violent or criminal activity, the lack of evidence that she had
killed or intended to kill the victims, her reduced culpability due to substantial intellectual
disability, her showing of remorse, and other mitigating facts.
On information and belief, the evidence from Ms. Howell's case has been preserved and
6
could still be analyzed. Furthermore, this evidence was not analyzed during the initial
investigation.
Currently, Petitioner's sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole has
been executed and continues to be executed. There is thus, no risk ofunreasonable delay to the
ex*****on ofjustice or the administration of her sentence.
Finally, while Tennessee courts have held that "[i]t may also be proper to consider any
stipulations of fact by the petitioner or his counsel and the state" when considering post-conviction
relief, Tennessee courts have never held that the mere fact of a guilty plea is sufficient to bar a
petitioner from relief. See Powers v. State,343 S.W.3d 36,55 (Tenn. 20ll); see also Mitchell v.
State,2003 WL 1868649, at *4 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2003). Under Tennessee law, the specific "facts
of the offense are paramount," even in cases where the initial conviction was due to a guilty plea.
Greenleafv. State,2010 WL 2244099,at *3 (Tenn. Crim. App. June 4,2010).
Here, the guilty plea included no stipulation as to the identity of the shooter, nor as to the
possibility of there being multiple shooters. This gap in the evidentiary record, caused by the
prosecution's decision not to test readily available evidence, was a foundation of the theory of
common culpability which underlay both the package plea deal and the sentence imposed on
Petitioner. In this case, there remains a significant issue of contested fact that the requested
fingerprint analysis could answer.
PRAYER F'OR RELIEF
Thus Petitioner respectfully asks the court to provide relief in the form of an order for the
laboratory used in the initial investigation to perform an analysis of all weapons involved in the
original case in order to identify which of the defendants were responsible for the shooting.

I wish all of you had got the chance the last several months to get to know Deans family like I have. I was in Kentucky weekend before last to see Anna(Deans Mom) to get these petitions signed and i pray that these appeals will allow her the chance to see her son free again. Thank you again to everyone who helped and here is Deans appeal.

PETITION UNDER THE POST-CONVICTION FINGERPRINT ANALYSIS ACT
Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-30-401 et seq.

Petitioner, Edward Dean Mullins, respectfully petitions for a reexamination of the evidence against him under Tenn. Code Ann. $40-30-401 et seq. (the "Post-Conviction Fingerprint Analysis Act of 2021"), specifically Tenn. Code Ann. $ 40-30-403. Petitioner is currently serving three consecutive terms of life in prison without the possibility of parole based on her status as an accomplice in the homicides of three individuals in 1997.
Petitioner received these life sentences despite the fact that there was no evidence that he killed-or had any intent to kill-the victims. The record upon which his sentence was based contained significant uncertainty as to the identity of the shooter, including whether there was more than one. Despite this substantial uncertainty-and the readily available evidence-the State declined to test the guns for fingerprints, and the District Attorney General pursued a "package" plea deal requiring all defendants to plead guilty or else the State would pursue the death penalty against those eligible regardless of relative culpability.
Petitioner has good cause to believe that if the guns had been tested, they would have confirmed that the only shooter was Jason Bryant (a juvenile ineligible for the death penalty)-as Mr. Mullins, and all the other defendants except for Jason Bryant, testified at the time, and as suggested by the limited evidence that was tested, namely the gunpowder residue analysis. This information would have materially altered the position of the defendants by substantially lowering the possibility that any of the adult defendants would receive the death penalty, and preventing the State from being able to use the threat of the death penalty as leverage in the group plea bargain.
For these reasons, and for the reasons set forth more fully in the attached Memorandum, it is probable that a proper analysis of the available evidence would have resulted in a more favorable sentence. Petitioner thus respectfully requests that the Court order that the two handguns in this case be subjected to fingerprint analysis.

Murder Weapons
1. Smith & Wesson 9mm semi automatic pistol exhibit number 70016123
2.Q.F.I 25 auto model pistol model-SA 25 exhibit number 70016125

Procedural Background
Petitioner/defendant a pro se inmate was charged with three (3) counts of first-degree murder and (1) count of attempted murder. The petitioner/defendant plead guilty to these charges to avoid the death penalty and was given three consecutive life sentences for the first degree murder charges plus 25 years for the attempted murder charge.
During the sentencing hearing multiple lawyers representing the defendants referenced how fingerprints were never done on the weapons in the case and how if they were done it could answer a lot of questions in the case. The petitioner was cooperative in the investigation from the very start the petitioner entered a co-operation agreement through appointed counsel in Arizona, Ms. Yvonne Ayers under which the prosecution agreed not to seek the death penalty if three requirements were satisfied. The first requirement was to provide the location of the murder weapons. The second requirement was to not be a shooter. The third and final condition was to tell the truth.

Legal Authority
T.C.A. $ 40-30-402. A “any appropriate party” may file a petition requesting the performance of fingerprint analysis at any time if the person was convicted of First Degree Murder; A Class A Felony; A Class B Felony; Any lesser included offense of an offense in subdivisions (b)(3)(A)-(C); or Any other offense, at the discretion of the court T.C.A. 40-30-403 (a)(b)(1)(2)(3)(A)(B)(C)(D)(E). This Honorable Court shall order fingerprint analysis July 2021 legislation enacted the Post-Conviction Fingerprint Analysis Act of 2021 T.C.A. § 40-30-401 et seq. This definition pertains to the comparison of prints and searches in fingerprint data bases analysis if a reasonable probability exists the petitioner would not have been prosecuted or have been convicted if exculpatory results had been obtained through fingerprint analysis; the evidence is still in existence; the evidence was never subjected to testing, and the application is to prove innocence and not to delay the sentence or administration of justice. T.C.A. $ 40-30-404 This Honorable court may order fingerprint analysis if the reports will render the petitioner's verdict or sentence more favorable T.C.A. $ 40-30-405. The court may at any time appoint counsel for an indigent petitioner T.C.A. $ 40-30-407. Upon order of the court the evidence can be tested and any reports from the previous testing of the evidence shall be turned over T.C.A. § 40-30-408. All evidence shall be preserved upon order of the during the pendency of the proceedings' T.C.A. $ 40-30-409.

The State has an obligation to turn over any and all favorable reports in its custody and control United States v. Garrison, 839 Fed.Appx. 968 (6th Cir. 2020); Brooks v. Tennessee, 626 F.2d 878 890-92 (6h Cir. 2010; (citing Strickler, 527 U.S. at 282, 119 S.Ct. 1936); Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419, 437-38, 115 S.Ct. 1555, 131 L.Ed.2d 490 (1995); Brady v. Maryland, 83 S.Ct. 1194.

A fingerprint report may not be material to the out come of the trial, as would be required to establish a Brady violation, but its very important and material to preparing a defense. See... United States v. Agurs, 427 U.S. 97, 109-10, 96 S.Ct. 2392, 49 L.Ed.2d 342 (1976)

Tenn. R. Crim. P. 11(b). If a trial court fails to substantially comply with Rule 11(b)’s requirements, the defendants plea may be set aside See, e.g., Lane v. State, 316 S.W.3d 555,564 (Tenn. 2010)(recognizing that the trial courts must substantially comply with Rule 11’s requirements) ; Crowe, 168 S.W.3d at 751- 52 holding that defendant must be allowed to withdraw his guilty plea because he had not been informed about the nature of the offense to which he had plead guilty).The crucial requirements of a guilty plea are that the defendant enter the plea voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently. Ward v. State, 315 S.W.3d 461,465 (Tenn 201)(citing Alford, 400 U.S. at 31; Brady v United States, 397 U.S. 742, 747, 90 S. Ct. 1463 25 L. Ed 2d 747 (1970); Boykin, 395 U.S. at 242-44; Mackey, 553 S.W.2d at 340).”

Tennessee Supreme Court Justice Jeffrey S. Bivens (now Chief Justice) recognizes that the letter of the law supersedes stare decisis. In order for a plea to be accepted in a criminal preceding the court must determine a factual basis for the plea agreement. See Tenn. R. Crim. P. Rule 11(b)(3).


Argument
Fingerprint Analysis Will Confirm That The Petitioner Was Not The Gunman And Would Have Resulted In A Different Outcome
In order to be eligible for an order of post-conviction fingerprint analysis under Tenn. Code Ann. $ 40-30-405, a petitioner must show that:
1. A reasonable probability exists that analysis of the evidence will produce fingerprint results that would have rendered the petitioner's verdict or sentence more favorable if the results had been available at the proceeding leading to the judgment of conviction;
2. The evidence is still in existence and in such a condition that fingerprint analysis may be conducted;
3. The evidence was not previously subjected to fingerprint analysis, was not subjected to the analysis that is now requested which could resolve an issue not resolved by previous analysis, or was previously subjected to analysis and the person making the motion under this part requests analysis that uses a new method or technology that is substantially more probative than the prior analysis; and
4. The application for analysis is made for the purpose of demonstrating innocence and not to unreasonably delay the ex*****on of sentence or administration of justice.

Here, a reasonable probability exists that analysis of the evidence will produce results that would have rendered Petitioner's sentence more favorable. Despite the trial court's contention that there were multiple shooters, each defendant save for Jason Bryant has consistently testified that Bryant was the sole shooter. That testimony is supported by the fact that Bryant had gunshot residue on him, and that he bragged about his crimes while in jail in Arizona.
During the Investigation the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation seized multiple items as evidence including the murder weapons that are listed as follows:
1. Smith & Wesson 9mm semi automatic pistol Exhibit Number70016123
2. Q.F.I 25 auto model pistol mode- SA25 Exhibit Number 70016125
Many items were tested for latent fingerprints but the two guns were not. The petitioner provided the location of the murder weapons and he told the truth, however the prosecution refused to honor the cooperation agreement entered into in Arizona, supposedly because it was not clear whether the petitioner was a shooter. By not retrieving latent fingerprints form the murder weapons the prosecution took the petitioners ability to prove he was not the shooter. In doing so he also robbed the Petitioner his opportunity to go to trial knowing that life in prison was the worst sentence he was facing and not the death penalty.

The most recent Supreme Court decision that would serve as precedent is the matter of Santobello v. New York, 404 US 257, 30 L ED 2d 427, 92 SCT 495 (1971). Plea agreements are not Constitutional guarantees but they are invaluable in the disposition of criminal proceedings. In Santebello, the United States Supreme Court explains: “ the disposition of criminal charges by agreement between the prosecutor and the accused. Sometimes loosely called plea bargain is an essential component of the administration of justice. Properly administered it is to be encouraged . If every criminal charge were subjected to a full-scale trial, the States and Federal government would need to multiply by many time the number of judges and court facilities”. It is up to the prosecutor to to honor any type of agreement made with a criminal defendant because of Constitutional rights waived by the defendant. The Santebello court stated the following “when a plea deal rests in any significant degree on a promise or agreement of the prosecutor, so that it can be said to be part of the inducement or consideration, such a promise must be fulfilled.” Id at262
In State v. Howington, 907 S.W.2d 403, 404-05 (Tenn. 1995), our supreme court considered whether the defendant could enforce an informal immunity agreement whereby, in exchange for his truthful testimony at his preliminary hearing, the State would recommend that he be bound to the grand jury on second degree murder instead of first degree murder, with which he had been charged.
The district attorney general refused to honor an informal immunity agreement made with David Edward Howington, the defendant. The reason stated for this refusal was the prosecutor's perception that Howington had not fulfilled his part of the bargain; that is, he had not testified truthfully at his preliminary hearing. He was subsequently tried and convicted of first-degree (felony) murder; he received a life sentence.
In the case under submission, the agreement cannot be described as including a promise of "immunity" in the purest sense. The district attorney general promised merely to recommend to the magistrate who conducted the preliminary hearing that Howington be bound to the grand jury on second-degree murder instead of first-degree murder as the warrant charged. Perhaps the agreement is more accurately described as a cooperation-immunity agreement, or as a charge-bargain agreement. Thus, we use the three terms generically and interchangeably.
The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the conviction; we granted Howington's application for review under Rule 11. At issue is whether the agreement between Howington and the district attorney general is enforceable and, if so, to what extent and with what result.
For the reasons discussed below, we hold that informal agreements between a prosecutor and a defendant are judicially enforceable. In so holding, we expressly overrule Bruno v. State, 192 Tenn. 244, 240 S.W.2d 528 (1951), to the extent that it can be read as precluding judicial enforcement of immunity agreements under all circumstances. Accordingly, we reverse the conviction for first-degree murder.

District Attorney Bell depended on a package deal to obtain his convictions Had Mr. Bell obtained the latent fingerprints from the alleged murder weapons and determined the Petitioner not to be the shooter the death penalty would have been taken off the table per the co-operation agreement. The Petitioner would have then chosen a jury trial to determine his guilt of first degree murder or a lesser charge. If Bell had to honor his agreement all the cases would have to be severed and As Mr. Bell has stated several times this was the “pinnacle” of his career as a prosecutor would not have ended with multiple life sentences for all 6 of the co-defendants. The petitioner was never afforded the opportunity to prove he was not the shooter because no latent fingerprints tests were done on the alleged murder weapons. Not testing the alleged weapons was not an oversight but a tactical move. Mr. Bell never intended to do latent fingerprints on the alleged murder weapons because that would have created problems for him because his plan was to have all six defendants take a package plea deal agreement and he succeeded.
Finally, while Tennessee courts have held that "[i]t may also be proper to consider any stipulations of fact by the petitioner or his counsel and the state" when considering post-conviction relief, Tennessee courts have never held that the mere fact of a guilty plea is sufficient to bar a petitioner from relief. See Powers v. State,343 S.W.3d 36,55 (Tenn. 20ll); see also Mitchell v. State,2003 WL 1868649, at *4 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2003). Under Tennessee law, the specific "facts of the offense are paramount," even in cases where the initial conviction was due to a guilty plea. Greenleafv. State,2010 WL 2244099,at *3 (Tenn. Crim. App. June 4,2010).
Here, the guilty plea included no stipulation as to the identity of the shooter, nor as to the possibility of there being multiple shooters. This gap in the evidentiary record, caused by the prosecution's decision not to test readily available evidence, was a foundation of the theory of common culpability which underlay both the package plea deal and the sentence imposed on Petitioner. In this case, there remains a significant issue of contested fact that the requested fingerprint analysis could answer.

The State Did Not Honor Terms of Co-Operation Agreement
The reason that Santobello should be the controlling precedent in co-operation agreements between the State and the Defendant is because without a guarantee of immunity of prosecution the information divulged waves the right against self-incrimination. There are several cases other than Santobello that state the importance of promises made to defendants by the State in which any rights has to be explicitly waved. Santobello v. New York 404 US 257 262(1971) states, “a promise or agreement of the prosecutor, so that it can be said to be part of the inducement or consideration, such promise must be fulfilled”; Boykin v. Alabama 395 US 238, 242(1968),”...a plea of guilty is more than an admission of conduct; it is conviction “; State v. Mackey, 553 SW.2d 337, 340 (Tenn 1977), “ For this waiver to be valid under the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, it must be an intentional relinquishment or abandonment of a known right or privilege.”
Conclusion
Thus Petitioner respectfully asks the court to provide relief in the form of an order for the laboratory used in the initial investigation to perform an analysis of all weapons involved in the original case in order to identify which of the defendants were responsible for the shooting