Ford v. Texas (original by judge newell)
Annotate this CaseAppellant Jon Ford, and the murder victim in this case, Dana Edwards, started dating in 2007. The couple did not live together, but both lived in Alamo Heights. By mid-summer 2008 they were drifting apart. Dana ended the relationship in September of 2008. Nevertheless, because appellant and Dana ran in the same Alamo Heights circles, they wanted to remain friends, and their paths continued to cross. Appellant and Dana had both attended a mutual friend's New Year's Eve party. Something a friend had said irritated appellant, and he left the party early. Dana left the party approximately an hour later. Needing to return something appellant left at the party, the friend and his fiancée drove to appellant's home, but appellant's car was not outside. On New Year's Day, Dana's parents expected her to visit, but they were never able to reach her. The parents drove to Dana's home and found her dead. Police found visible lacerations and indications of blunt force trauma to the head. The medical examiner later determined that Dana Clair had died from asphyxiation due to ligature strangulation. Appellant volunteered a statement to police, stating he went home and was asleep before midnight the night of the party. Police would obtain evidence that would suggest otherwise: video surveillance footage from the bank across the street from Dana's condo complex captured a car resembling appellant's on the condo grounds shortly after he left the party. No one could definitively say that the white SUV in the bank video footage belonged to appellant, or that appellant was the figure seen walking in the surveillance video. The San Antonio District Attorney’s Office filed an application for four days' worth of historical 4 cell-site-location information (CSLI) for appellant’s cell phone. Other evidence suggested that appellant was in Dana's condo the night she died: appellant’s Y chromosome profile was found on two cuttings from the bloody towel that had been draped over Dana's face when she was found. Ultimately, the jury found appellant guilty of murder and sentenced him to forty years' confinement. Among the issues raised and rejected on direct appeal was a Fourth Amendment argument that focused on admission of the historical cell-site-location information obtained from AT&T and used by the State to suggest appellant’s proximity to Dana Clair’s residence at the time of her murder. The Court of Criminal Appeals concluded that the State's warrantless acquisition of the historical cell-site location information recorded by appellant's cell-phone service provider did not violate his Fourth Amendment rights, and affirmed the court of appeals' rejection of appellant's claims.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.