On March 1st, 2016 Hank’s attorneys filed an unopposed motion to stay the current proceedings pending a report by Texas DPS regarding DNA test results. On March 9th, 2016, the Court of Criminal Appeals filed an opinion granting the motion.https://issuu.com/justice4hank/docs/dna20160301 https://issuu.com/justice4hank/docs/dna20160309
On November 12, 2014 the defense filed the appellant's opening brief. The State filed its brief of appellee on January 26, 2015 and the defense filed the appellant's reply brief on February 17, 2015. On April 15, 2015 the Court of Criminal Appeals heard oral arguments in the case.https://issuu.com/justice4hank/docs/pca20080724 https://issuu.com/justice4hank/docs/dna20150126 https://issuu.com/justice4hank/docs/dna20150217
On July 14, 2014, Judge Emmert filed an order adopting the state's proposed findings of facts.https://issuu.com/justice4hank/docs/dna20140714
On February 3 & 4, 2014, the hearing took place in Pampa. The defense and the state submitted their proposed findings to Judge Emmert on June 6, 2014.
At the end of August 2013, the entire DNA testing was done. On August 29, the defense filed an advisory with the 31st District Court of Gray County with the mitochondrial analysis as well as the report on the evidence. A hearing was subsequently scheduled for February 2014.https://issuu.com/justice4hank/docs/dna20130402
On April 1, 2013, the Attorney General's Office and the defense signed an agreement on mitochondrial DNA testing. These will be performed by a private laboratory and will be paid by Hank's defense fund.
Following the advisory filed in court by the Attorney General’s office and media articles, Hank's lawyers issued another press release:
"We are concerned that the Attorney General’s office has seen fit to publish partial results of DNA testing and to present its opinion to the court while DNA tests are … Continue Reading ››
On June 12, 2012, the State of Texas and attorneys for Hank Skinner filed a joint motion informing the Court of criminal appeals of their agreement to conduct DNA analysis on forty pieces of evidence. That court validated the request and returned the case to Judge Emmert, for signature to start the procedure.https://issuu.com/justice4hank/docs/dna20120612
On June 1, 2012, the Attorney General’s Office filed an advisory indicating that the state was no longer opposed to the DNA testing. Hank's attorneys then published a press release.https://issuu.com/justice4hank/docs/dna20120601