IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS,

AND

THE NINTH DISTRICT COURT, MONTGOMERY COUNTY, TEXAS

EXPARTE

LARRY RAY SWEARINGEN,

APPLICANT

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

WR-----

(Trial Cause#. 99-11-6435-CR)

Execution date of August 21, 2019 is set.

MOTION FOR STAY OF AUGUST 21, 2019, EXECUTION

TO THE HONORABLE JUDGES:

Larry Ray Swearingen ("Swearingen") was convicted and sentenced to death

for the capital murder of Melissa Aline Trotter ("Trotter"). On August 8, 2019,

Swearingen filed, in the Ninth District Court of Montgomery County, Texas, a

Successor Application under Articles 11.073 and 11.071 § 5 of the Texas Code of

Criminal Procedure. On Friday, August 9, 2019, the Texas Department of Safety

("Texas DPS") issued a letter retracting and correcting false and misleading

testimony provided by Texas DPS serologist, Cassie Carradine ("Carradine").

1

Received and E-Filed for Record8/12/2019 1:19 PM

Melisa Miller, District ClerkMontgomery County, Texas

Deputy Clerk, Melissa Morris

(Exhibit 1). On August 12, 2019, Swearingen filed a Supplemental Application for

a Writ of Habeas Corpus. Texas DPS's recent actions necessitate additional

proceedings, for which a stay of execution is necessary.

1. STAY IS NECESSARY BECAUSE THE CRIME LAB, ON AUGUST 9, 2019, REVERSED ITS SEROLOGIST'S TESTIMONY THAT FOREIGN MALE DNA PROFILE, WHICH EXCULPATED, SWEARINGEN, WAS THE RESULT OF CONTAMINATION.

Texas DPS's Crime Lab ("Crime Lab") collected flakes of blood from

clippings of Trotter's fingernail. DNA testing of those flakes revealed a single-

source, male DNA profile excluded Swearingen. However; Carradine definitively

told the jury that blood collected from Trotter's fingernail resulted from

contamination, either at the Crime Lab or at Autopsy, negating the exculpatory DNA

evidence.

In October 2018, Swearingen asked Texas DPS Crime Lab Director, Brady

Mills, to evaluate Carradine's trial testimony regarding evidence contamination.

Nine months later, on July 25, 2019, Texas DPS responded, defending Carradine's

trial testimony. (Exhibit. 2). However, on August 8, 2019, Texas DPS issued a

second letter reversing Carradine's false testimony with the following remarkable

criticisms:

• Carradine issued an opinion about contamination outside the Crime Lab "when she had no direct knowledge about how the evidence was collected and stored prior to its submission to DPS."

2

• Carradine "could not speak to the possibility of contamination of the samples when they were outside the control of the DPS laboratory."

• Carradine had an "insufficient basis upon which to develop an opinion regarding contamination of the samples."

• Carradine erroneously "expressed an opinion that the profile from a particular sample was the product of contamination based on the color of the samples and lack of degradation of the DNA profile."

(Exhibit 1 ).

Texas DPS's reversal and retraction of Carradine's testimony was not

available until thirteen days from Swearingen's execution date. The reversal and

retraction constitute changed scientific opinion for purposes of Article 11.073 of the

Texas Code of Criminal Procedure and constitute new evidence of false and

misleading trial testimony under Ex parte Chabot, 300 S.W.3d 768 (Tex. Crim.

App. 2009) and Article 11.0171 § 5.1 A stay is essential to evaluate the impact of

the reversal in conjunction with Swearingen's additional evidence of misleading

scientific testimony and of his actual innocence, as shown below.

Texas DPS's reversal and retraction of Carradine's testimony is material on

its face. Furthermore, as explained in Swearingen's August 10, 2019, Supplemental

1 The last-minute nature of this new scientific evidence cannot be attributed to a lack of diligence on Swearingen's behalf. The State has stood by its experts' conclusions for years. And undersigned counsel specifically brought the issue to Crime Lab Director Brady Mills' attention in October 2018. The matter was delayed for months until July 25, 2019, when the Crime Lab wrote a letter refusing to comment on the matter because, "The issues raised in your letter have been litigated in this case." (Exhibit 2)

3

Writ, foreign DNA under a person's fingernails is strongly correlated with recent

intimate contact or a physical struggle. See Supplemental Writ, citing Malsom et al.

The State's theory of the offense is that Ms. Trotter's murder occurred in the course

of a violent attack and sexual assault. Despite testing before trial and after

conviction, Swearingen's DNA was not found in fingernail scrapings, or on Trotter's

body, clothing or possessions. However, DPS criminologists "were able to create a

full DNA profile based on DNA from blood flakes found in the fingernail scrapings"

of a male individual who is not Swearingen. Swearingen v. State, 303 S.W.3d 728,

735 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010). This is powerful evidence that some other man, rather

than Swearingen, was the last person in contact with Trotter, killed her and left her

body in Sam Houston National Forest. But Carradine's explanation that the blood

resulted from postmortem contamination eviscerated Swearingen's most powerful

evidence of innocence at trial - namely, that Trotter, after her disappearance, had

been involved in a physical struggle with an unknown male.

The materiality of Carradine's false and misleading testimony is reflected by

its influence on the Court's decisions. In 2009, the Court noted the convicting

court's findings that Carradine provided "credible testimony ... that the small, red

blood flakes discovered during the second examination of the fingernail scrapings

were both visibly and structurally too well-preserved to have been exposed to the

elements for more than a couple of hours or days at most, and appeared consistent

4

with a recent contamination." Ex parte Swearingen, No. WR-53,613-09, 2009 WL

249778, at *5 (Tex. Crim. App. Jan. 27, 2009). In 2014, the Court denied DNA

testing on additional fingernail scrapings because "[t]he jury chose to believe that

the foreign DNA either was contamination or that it came from outside the context

of the crime. If the jury already knew of exculpatory results obtained from under the

victim's nails and disregarded them, we have no reason to believe that it would be

any different with regards to the remainder of the fingernail scrapings." State v.

Swearingen, 424 S.W.3d 32, 39 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014).

Under Article 43.141 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, the Court,

"may modify or withdraw the order of the court setting a date for execution in a

death penalty case ifthe court determines that additional proceedings are necessary."

DPS' s reversal and revision of Carradine' s testimony clearly justifies additional

proceedings.

Furthermore, the State combined Carradine' s false testimony with misleading

testimony from the medical examiner, Dr. Joye M. Carter ("Carter"), and lead

detective, Thomas Duroy ("Duroy"), to persuade the jury in closing argument:

6 We asked Cassie Carradine the same thing. 7 Yesl I would say it's been contaminated. Nothing is a perfect. Mistakes are made all the time. But this 9 blood, this is fresh blood contaminated somewhere 10 along the line. And that's the end of that little 11 trail, folks. It's not indicative of another killer. 12 It just wouldn't be fresh, bright red blood. And the 13 interesting thing Mr. Crow didn't tell you, was that

5

14 Dr. Carter told you that she didn't take the 15 fingernail scrapings, an assistant did that and that 16 assistant that did that was a male.

34 RR 86 (State's closing argument at guilt-innocence)

From detective Duroy, the State elicited testimony that "he could have been

bleeding" at the crime scene, 28RR124, as well as testimony from an officer present

at the crime scene that he may have cut himself while shaving earlier that day. 28

RR 113:14-22. The State also presented another highly implausible theory through

Dr. Carter that a small drop of blood circulating through the morgue's air

conditioning system somehow exited a vent and landed in the scrapings from Ms.

Trotter's fingernails. 29 RR 114:23-115:23. But at the 2012 evidentiary hearing,

Carter admitted that trace evidence and the fingernail shaving were taken in a clean

room before the autopsy, and those in attendance wore masks and gloves to prevent

contamination. Transc., 2012 Hearing, vol. 7 at 192. A stay is necessary so that

Court's can evaluate fully the reversal ofCarridine's trial testimony, the implications

that reversal has for Swearingen's actual innocence and due process rights, and to

investigate the evident orchestration of false forensic testimony regarding

contamination.

6

2. STAY IS NECESSARY SO COURTS MAY EVALUATE THE CRIME LAB'S REVISION OF FIBER TRANSFERENCE AND TEAR MARK MATCHING USED TO INCRIMINATE SWEARINGEN.

As set forth in Swearingen's 2019 Successor Application and Exhibit 1 to that

Application, Texas DPS Criminologist, Sandy Musialowski, ("Musialowski")

provided a confident forensic opinion at trial that the ligature uniquely matched a

pair of pantyhose found in Swearingen's trailer "to the exclusion of all other

pantyhose." 30 RR 60. The State characterized the match as a "smoking gun" that

Swearingen could not explain. 34 RR 82-83 ("The smoking gun, folks. The

defendant, himself, cannot give you an explanation for the pantyhose.").

In a July 19, 2019, letter DPS recognized that Musialowski's conclusion that

there was a unique physical match expressed "the highest level of association we

make." (Exhibit 3). The letter confirmed, however, that DPS criminologists would

not utilize such a term today, and specifically would not use the statement "to the

exclusion of all others" in connection with tear mark testimony. Id. DPS still

attempts to minimize the extent to which Musialowski overstated her conclusion on

the ground that "unique physical match" was common language throughout the

forensic community at the time she testified. Id. However, this only heightens the

need for a stay so Courts can fully comprehend Texas DPS's revision. Improper

testimony cannot be excused because it was commonly sponsored at the time of trial.

7

Texas DPS's July 19, 2019, letter acknowledges, furthermore, that similar testimony

was common in the discipline of "footwear/tire comparisons when accidental

characteristics were located," (Exhibit 3) but such testimony has been discredited

because of pretensions to precision that the techniques and data do not permit.

The Successor Application also documents, through Musialowski's bench

notes, that she initially determined there was "no physical match," yet created what

she erroneously testified was a "unique physical match" after manipulating both

pieces of hosiery over the course of three days. Successor Application, at Exh. 3

(Bench Notes). When juxtaposed, rather than separated by the space that

Musialowski left, the two pieces of pantyhose do not form a physical match, despite

Musialowski's intensive manipulation of the fabric. Id. at 30-31. As detailed in the

report of Professor Deborah Young,2 the manipulation of the fabric and the manner

in which Musialowski displayed the ligature and pantyhose, created an appearance

of a match, when the two pieces do not match. (Exhibit 4, Affidavit of Prof. D.

Young).

A stay is, therefore, necessary so that the Court can consider the consequences

of Texas DPS's revision of Musialowski's testimony that ligature and pantyhose

were a "unique physical match." A stay is also necessary so that the Court can

2 Professor Young also provided a report, which is attached to the Successor Application as Exhibit 26.

8

evaluate evidence that Musialowski manufactured the most incriminating evidence

against Swearingen by manipulating the ligature and pantyhose, and by displaying

the results in a manner that created a false appearance of a physical match in

violation of Ex parte Chabot.

3. STAY SHOULD ISSUE SO COURTS MAY EVALUATE THE PATHOLOGY REPORT OF DR. VICTOR WEEDN, WHICH EXONERATES SWEARINGEN.

In support of actual innocence, Swearingen submits, with is 2019 Successor

Application, the report . of forensic pathologist Victor Weedn, MD ("Weedn").

Weedn is a pre-eminent pathologist and forensic scientist. Dr. Weedn was the Senior

Forensic Advisor to the Deputy Attorney General Office of the Deputy Attorney

General, and has worked closely with law enforcement,

[t]o help develop new policies and guidance across DOJ's investigative agencies, research offices, and litigating components. Dr. Weedn, who serves as the chairman of the department of forensic science at George Washington University and recently completed a term as the president of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences, has spearheaded a number of important initiatives during his time at Main Justice.

Forensic Science and Forensic Evidence I, Journal of Forensic Science, Vol. 65, No.

1, p. 1.

9

Dr. Weedn used quantitative analysis of the decomposition seen in this case

in coming to the conclusion that the post mortem interval presented to the jury by

Dr. Carter was incorrect. Successor Application, at Exh. '11 '. Specifically, Dr.

Carter had testified at trial that the post mortem interval was 25 days such that Mr.

Swearingen could have killed Ms. Trotter prior to having been incarcerated. 29 Tr.

45:6-12. The tables and quantitative measures Dr. Weedn relies upon were first

published in 2005, five years after trial, in a paper co-authored by Neal Haskell, PhD,

on whom the State has heavily relied in this case. Id. at 6. Using this method, Dr.

Weedn arrived at a postmortem interval that extends back no more than 14 day

before recovery of Ms. Trotter's body. However, Mr. Swearingen was incarcerated

one week earlier than that time period. Because Mr. Swearingen was already in

prison when Ms. Trotter was killed, he could not have been the killer. Dr. Weedn's

expert report thus constitutes clear evidence of actual innocence. A stay should,

therefore, issue so that courts can fully evaluate his quantitative analysis, and the

continuing convergence of the opinions of pathologists on a post mortem interval

that exonerates Mr. Swearingen under Ex parte Elizondo, 947 S.W.2d 202 (Tex

Crim. App. 1996) and satisfies 11.071 § 5(a)(2).

Additionally, under 11.071 § 5(a)(l), Weedn's report is new evidence. Trial

counsel retained a pathologist Raul Lede, MD, ("Lede") and reasonably relied on

Lede. Lede challenged Carter's estimation of the post mortem interval and her

10

diagnosis of vaginal bruising. 32 RR 39 et passim. Lede's deficiencies (he did not

estimate the PMI himself or address the gross anatomy or histology) cannot be

attributed to trial counsel, Jerald Crow and Mary Anne Turner. The inquiry is

whether counsel knew, or would have learned after reasonable investigation, that the

expert not properly suited for the requirements of the case. See Strickland v.

Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 691 (1984); and see, Manning v. Rogers, 183 F. App'x

521, 526 (6th Cir. 2006); Johnston v. State, 70 So. 3d 472, 479 (Fla. 2011) (counsel

will not be rendered ineffective for relying on a mental health expert's opinion ...

even if in hindsight the testimony is "somehow incomplete or deficient in the opinion

of others."). Post conviction counsel cannot be faulted for not including Dr.

Weedn's report with his 2011 Application. In support of the writ and the evidentiary

hearing this Court ordered, undersigned counsel diligently presented the testimony

of several pathologists, a forensic anthropologist, and an entomologist.

4. STAY IS NECESSARY BECAUSE SWEARINGEN'S EVIDENCE OF INNOCENCE HAS STRENGTHENED WHILE THE FORENSIC EVIDENCE INCULPATING HIM HAS UNRAVELED.

In dismissing Swearingen's previous applications, Courts have accepted, as

factual, the theory of postmortem contamination that Texas DPS now recognizes

was advanced in error at trial by its crime lab specialists. Courts have also credited

fiber transfer testimony and tear mark matching testimony that Texas DPS now

acknowledges could not be provided today with the same pretension to precision ..

11

Finally, testimony of Swearingen's forensic pathologists and forensic

anthropologist has been dismissed because, upon plenary review of their reports and

testimony, the Court found an insufficient consensus on the postmortem interval.

However, Dr. Weedn afforded the record the same plenary review and subjected the

evidence to quantitative analysis, yet arrives at a postmortem interval that clearly

exonerates Swearingen.

CONCLUSION

As demonstrated in Swearingen's Successor and Supplemental Applications,

the reversal and revision of scientific testimony in this case undermines the integrity

and validity of his conviction for murder, and for the underlying felonies used to

charge the murder as a capital offense. The new evidence casts Swearingen's entire,

and still strengthening case, for actual innocence in a new light that requires re­

assessment by the Court.

The risk is far too high that the State will execute an innocent person, with

important statutory and constitutional claims, in the face of an exonerating report

from an expert of the utmost integrity and credentials, and on the basis of false and

misleading testimony that Texas DPS has now rejected and revised. A stay is

therefore necessary to consider all the Claims for Relief contained in Swearingen's

Successor and Supplemental Applications in view of the dramatically changed

equation in which the forensic evidence for and against Swearingen now stands.

12

E;mail : james@hilderlaw.com HILDER & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 819 Lovett Boulevard Houston, TX 77006 Telephone No.: (713) 655-9111 Facsimile No.: (713) 655-9112

BRYCE BENJET Texas State Bar No. 24006829 Email: bbenjet@innocenceproject.org THE INNOCENCE PROJECT 40 Worth Street, Ste. 701 New York, NY 10013 Telephone No.: (212) 364-5980 Facsimile No.: (212) 364-5341

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

On August 12, 2019, a true and correct copy of the foregoing Motion to Stay Execution was served on the Montgomery County District Attorney's Office by ECF, or email or U.S. Mail, or by hand-delivery.

Brett W. Ligon District Attorney Bill Delmore bill.delmore@mctx.org Assistant District Attorney Lee G. Alworth Building 207 W. Phillips, 2nd Floor Conroe, Texas 77301

13

1

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS. IN AUSTIN TEXAS

AND

IN THE NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

OF MONTGOMERY COUNTY, TEXAS _________________________________________ ) ) EX PARTE ) ) LARRY RAY SWEARINGEN, ) ) CAUSE NO. 99-11-06435-CR )

) (Trial Cause No.) ) APPLICANT ) ______________________________________ )

EXHIBITS TO MOTION FOR STAY OF AUGUST 21, 2019 EXECUTION

1. August 9, 2019 Letter from Texas DPS serologist, Cassie Carradine.

2. July 25, 2019 Letter from Texas DPS

3. July 19, 2019 Letter from Texas DPS

4. Affidavit of Prof. D. Young

jfaber

E-Sticker

jfaber

E-Sticker

jfaber

E-Sticker

AFFIDAVIT OF DEBORAH YOUNG In the matter of The State of Texas vs. Larry Ray Swearingen

TRIAL COURT CAUSE NO. 99-11-06435 CR

I, Deborah Young of Whittier, California, hereby state as follows:

1. I received an M. F. A. degree in Fiber in 2001, from the

California State University at Long Beach. I also received a B. F. A in

Textile Design from California State University at Long Beach in 1996. A

copy of my CV is attached.

2. Since 1996, I have been teaching in the field of textile science at

California State University at Long Beach, Otis College of Art and Design,

the Fashion Institute of Design and Merchandising in Los Angeles, and

California Polytechnic University, Pomona.

3. I have been an instructor of Textile Science at the Fashion

Institute of Design and Merchandising in Los Angeles since 1998, and

California State University, Pomona since 2014.

4. I teach courses in textile science covering all aspects of textile

production, identification, application and verification, covering fiber

through finishing. I also teach textile testing lab classes.

5. I authored two textile textbooks, the first is entitled “Swatch

Reference Guide for Fashion Fabrics” initially published in 2010, now in

its 4th edition, by Bloomsbury Publications of New York and London. In

2017, I authored Swatch Reference Guide for Interior Textiles,

distributed by the same publisher. Additionally, I wrote the testing lab

manual used in FIDM’s labs for textiles and color management.

6. I hold membership in the Textile Society of America (TSA), and

the American Association of Textile Chemists and Colorists (AATCC). I

attend numerous seminars and textile shows, review current

publications, and keep abreast of the industry at large.

7. In the matter of The State of Texas vs. Larry Ray

Swearingen, trial No. 99-11-06435 CR, I was asked by Defendant’s

Counsel, James Rytting, of Hilder & Associates, PC., to review the

Reporter’s record, Volume 30, of the above entitled action, and render

an independent assessment in regards to the panty hose analysis.

8. In my opinion, there are serious flaws in the conclusions

drawn by the Department of Public Safety criminalist, Sandy

Musialowski, when she states, on page 60 of the document,

“My opinion is that the ligature from the victim’s neck physically fits

to the partial pantyhose from the suspect’s residence, making it a

unique physical match, meaning that the ligature came from that

pair of pantyhose to the exclusion of all other pantyhose.”

9. Exhibit A below, is the Prosecution’s Exhibit of the

pantyhose fragments. These are laid next to each other, suggesting that

they fit together with precision.

Exhibit A – Plaintiff’s Exhibit of two Pantyhose fragments

10. At first glance, the two pieces appear to connect, but once

the deliberate space between them is removed, it becomes quite clear

that they do not match. In fact there are several significant points of

dissimilarity. In Exhibit B below, most of the space between has been

removed, and it becomes apparent that the pieces do not fit together. As

the gap is closed, the areas in the red circles will not only not meet, but

will result in an overlap.

Exhibit B – Plaintiff’s Exhibit with space removed.

11. In Exhibit C, on the next page, the gap between the two

disparate pieces is enlarged. The red circles are still present to illustrate

the overlapping areas, but there are also areas marked with a green

circle. These denote areas that will not align; these are areas that would

Exhibit C – Detail of Gaps and Overlaps

provide gaps in the connection. My opinion is that while both panty

hose were cut in the same basic silhouette, they were not cut from the

same piece. These are not a match, and certainly not to “the exclusion of

all other panty hose.”

12. In terms of verifying that the pantyhose pieces came from

the same set (pair) of pantyhose, Ms. Musialowski asserted that she

verified it by checking that the “stitching of the toes” was similar. Many

manufacturers make panty hose, and they all use the same jersey stitch

in their construction. I would submit that anything made by the same

manufacturer would also have the same “toe stitching”. In my opinion,

the observation of similar “toe stitching” does not support the

overreaching conclusion that these pieces came from the same pair of

pantyhose.

13. Ms. Musialowski was also careful to note that she “used a

scale to stretch each piece in equal directions.” She stated that the

pieces “fit together like a jigsaw puzzle to create a unique physical

match…” Although a well intentioned effort, I would submit that there is

a distinct possibility that the pieces were inadvertently, and

inappropriately, stretched and shaped to fit the desired narrative. Jersey

is the fabric structure, which does not stretch equally in both directions.

A stretch assessment test would have been advised to assure that the

parts were not inappropriately stretched and reshaped.

14. Furthermore, the gauge of the knit (number of stitches per

inch) would have been supportive in determining the quality of the two

pieces, along with their stretch potential and whether or not they were

appropriately or over-stretched. The precise fiber content, size and

manufacturer were also not identified. These are simple points of

comparison. Unfortunately, none of these tests appear to have been

performed, which leaves the conclusion ultimately weak and ineffective.

15. In the final analysis, it is my considered opinion that while

there are some points of comparison between these two pieces, there

are more differences that cannot be ignored. I believe that the jury was

not given enough information to provide a reasoned verdict. Ultimately,

this piece of evidence is too weighty not to have been further evaluated.

I declare, under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Dated: 8-7-19 __________________________

Deborah E. Young

Deborah Young 5701 Pickering Ave. Whittier, CA 90601

Dyoung@fidm.edu

(562) 696 4972

Education

Testing Lab Certification, AATCC testing labs, North Carolina, 2012

Color Lab Certification X-Rite, 2011

Master of Fine Arts in Fiber, California State University, Long Beach. 2001.

Bachelor of Fine Arts in Textile Design, California State University, Long Beach,

1996.

Textiles Legal Consultant

Consultant for many textile design and copyright infringement issues.

Research of prior art, preparation of opinion reports, declarations,

depositions, trial graphics and testimony. 2003-present.

At least 90 cases including high profile clients such as: Aeropostale,

Burlington Coat Factory, Charlotte Russe, JCPenneys, Nordstrom,

Macy’s, Ross, Target, Walmart, and many more manufacturers.

Qualitative analysis, & evaluation of fabrics for specific purposes

Product Failure

Damage claims

American veterans v. Veterans Administration. 2015, 2017

Tariff ratings cases. 2011, 2017

Academic Experience

Instructor, Textile Science, Fashion Institute of Design and Merchandising, Los

Angeles, Ca. 1998 – present

Faculty Council Member FIDM – 2014- present

Faculty Council President FIDM – 2015- 2018

Fashion Institute of Design & Merchandising:

Curriculum Development Specialist, Los Angeles, Ca., 2019 -

present

Assistant Chair, Textile Science, Los Angeles, Ca. 2009 – 2012

Co-ordinator, Textile Science, Los Angeles, Ca. 2008-2009

Lead Textile Instructor, Ca. 1999–2012

Lecturer, California State Polytechnic University, Pomona. California 2014 -

present

Lecturer, Otis College of Art & Design, Los Angeles, Ca., 2001 - 2005.

Teaching Associate, California State University, Long Beach, Ca., 1996 - 1999.

Courses taught

Textile Science Fabric Identification

Textile Testing for Quality Assurance Textile Application & Color Management

Textile Science for Interior Design Textile Science for Fashion Design

Historic Textiles Web Textile Science

Color & Design Theory Art History

Icons of Culture Weaving

Fabric Structures: Weaving, Knitting & Felting

Fibers Sourcing Textiles

Fabric Management Technical and Performance Textiles

Textiles for Menswear

Publications

“Swatch Reference Guide for Interior Fabrics” Deborah Young, Fairchild

Publications, Bloomsbury. 2017

"Swatch Reference Guide for Fashion Fabrics" Deborah Young, Fairchild

Publications, 2010, Fourth Edition 2017

"Textile Science Lab Manual", published for Fashion Institute for Design &

Merchandising 2011

"Heavenly Fashion," Los Angeles Times, March 2008

Awards

Instructor of the Year Award. Fashion Institute of Design and Merchandising,

Los Angeles, California, 2000, 2002, 2005, 2006.

Retired from competition 2006. All-star faculty

Instructor of the Year Award. California State University, Pomona. Pomona.

California. 2017

Professional Associations

AATCC - American Association of Textile Chemists & Colorists

ITAA - International Textile & Apparel Association

TSA – Textile Society of America