836. However, this rule, cited by the State, is inapposite where, as here, we have no cause to question the lower court findings that Nichols could not have, through due diligence, located Ishman without her correct name and address in Louisiana. 8 . Ishman’s statements in 1992 and 1997 are hardly consistent on several points, e.g., whether Cindy Johnson could have witnessed the shooting; whether Johnson actually saw Shaffer with a gun in hand; at what point she ran to the back of the store; when she spoke to the police. Moreover, her use of multiple names and reluctance to aid the investigation because of her own troubles with the law would have rendered her testimony somewhat vulnerable. 9 . Tex. Pen.Code §§ 7.01, 7.02. 10 . See Davis v. State, 597 S.W.2d 358, 360 (Tex.Crim.App.1980)(<HOLDING>); Callins v. Collins, 998 F.2d 269, 278 (5th
holding that a robber has no right of selfdefense against his victim holding that an employee has no right of action against an employer for wrongful discharge where no clear mandate of public policy is violated thereby holding that no right of action is given to the estate of the victim of a tort but is granted only to his heirs  if there are no heirs no right of action vests in anybody holding that a defendant has a constitutional right to counsel as a matter of right on direct appeal holding that there is no right of recovery against individual defendants under the ada