Would the State of Texas cause a fundamental miscarriage of justice violating the United States Fourteenth Amendment by refusing to overturn the criminal sentence due to the evidence produced at a subsequent civil trial of actually innocent of the criminal act because he lacked mental capacity?

Questions Presented For Review In the State of Texas there are two supreme courts one criminal the other civil. The Texas Supreme Court has concluded that those committed were insane or could not be found to have a culpable mindset during the criminal episode due to an emotional or volitional capacity disorder. It is common practice in Texas to wait until after a criminal conviction to come forward with capacity evidence to : establish a disorder, characterizing the individual insane or lacking the necessary mens rea as determined by a state defined and created mental illness. Civil commitment follows a trial that was based upon the crimes, as evidence to prove the lack of capacity under the beyond reasonable doubt standard. But the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals after reviewing the commitment by writ of habeas . corpus, presented to the lower criminal courts, would determine that mens rea and sanity was indeed A present during the same crime and uphold the conviction, refusing to accept the commitment as proof : of a capacity disorder during the commission of the crime. Therefore, based upon the same facts within the criminal episode Welsh is to be considered both blameworthy and blameless. The questions presented are as follows: 1.Would the State of Texas cause a fundamental miscarriage of justice violating the United States Fourteenth Amendment by refusing to overturn the criminal sentence due to the evidence produced at a subsequent civil trial of actually innocent of the criminal act because he lacked mental capacity? 2.Does the State of Texas commit fraud by maintaining two definitions of insanity, criminal and civil where both are relevant to the crime but not germane to each other, being inapposite in their respected conclusions, one is forbidden in the criminal proceedings though it later uses the crime to prove a lack | of freewill making the natural colloquy suggest that the conviction of the crime could not have been proved beyond a reasonable doubt in contravention to the United States Fourteenth Amendment? 3. To work effectively, it is important that society's criminal process "satisfy the appearance of justice," does the State of Texas violate this principle infringing upon the United States Fourteenth Amendment? i