Among the instances of prosecutorial misconduct that we've monitored, the continuing saga of Williamson County Prosecutor Ken Anderson (later Judge Kenneth Anderson) is one of the most shocking. So much so that an official Court of Inquiry has been ordered by the Texas Supreme Court upon recommendation of State District Judge Sid Harle.
For details on that recommendation, read our earlier post. Suffice to say, Judge Harle found probable cause that District Attorney Ken Anderson illegally withheld evidence in the murder trial of Michael Morton.
For all the details, check out the Report to Court filed by Gerry Goldstein of San Antonio, John Wesley Raley of Houston and Barry Scheck of New York City on behalf of the Innocence Project. It's around 150 pages and provides the details that went into the Texas Supreme Court's decision to move forward with a Court of Inquiry.
What Happened to Michael Morton - The Withheld Evidence
As you'll recall, Mr. Morton was unjustly convicted of killing his wife, Christine, and as an innocent man spent 25 years of his life in a Texas prison. Most agree that Michael Morton is a free man today because of the continued efforts of the Innocence Project, and now Mr. Morton is dedicating his efforts to help others who have been victims of prosecutorial misconduct.
What happened to Mr. Morton? You can read the full opinion of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals here, where they overturned his 1987 conviction. DNA evidence convinced the CCA that another person, not Michael Morton, was responsible for the death of his young wife.
The key to the pending Ken Anderson proceeding is the allegation that Morton would not have been convicted in the first place if the evidence held by the District Attorney's Office had been revealed. This included (1) the Mortons' young son eyewitness account that the man who killed his mother was not his dad; (2) the bandanna found at the scene with DNA evidence (this proved to be someone else's DNA, not Mr. Morton's DNA; (3) the victim's credit card found at a store in San Antonio; and (4) a forged endorsement on a check payable to the victim that was cashed almost two weeks after Mrs. Morton died.
State Bar of Texas Files Disciplinary Action Against Anderson - Fight For His Bar License
The State Bar of Texas investigated the allegations of prosecutorial misconduct against Ken Anderson and after 10 months, a formal grievance was filed against him. This is another lawsuit.
You can read the Disciplinary Petition filed against Ken Anderson here. This was filed in September 2012. The Texas Supreme Court has appointed State District Judge Kelly G. Moore (of Yoakum and Terry Counties) to preside over the trial, which will be a public proceeding at the Williamson County Courthouse.
On Monday, Judge Ken Anderson filed affirmative defenses in that case, arguing the statute of limitations has run in this case against him by the Bar. That's right: he's arguing that the State Bar filed its case too late, under the State Bar of Texas' own Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct.
Court of Inquiry Into Morton Prosecutor Ken Anderson Begins December 10, 2012 - Fight Over Evidence Tampering Charges / Contempt
Meanwhile, Tarrant County Judge Louis Sturns is presiding over the Court of Inquiry where the issues involve whether or not Ken Anderson should face evidence tampering charges and contempt of court charges for withhold evidence that led to the conviction of an innocent man and his incarceration for over two decades.
Discovery fights are ongoing in that matter, with the expected "shield and sword" arguments being used by Anderson's attorneys to try and get past Michael Morton's lawyers' claims of attorney-client priviledge, among other things. Rusty Hardin is acting as Special Prosecutor in this case.
Showing posts with label DA Watch. Show all posts
Showing posts with label DA Watch. Show all posts
Wednesday, November 07, 2012
Wednesday, May 02, 2012
Hank Skinner Goes Before Texas High Court for DNA Testing Request the Same Week that Two More Men Exonerated in Dallas Based on DNA Testing of Trial Evidence After Serving 30 Years on Wrongful Conviction
Innocent men and women set convicted in Texas jails and prisons: it's a harsh reality that serves to fuel the passions of criminal defense attorneys everywhere, since defense lawyers know better than most how unfair and frustrating the criminal justice system can be.
Today, for example, Hank Skinner will be arguing his case before the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. Oral arguments, in fact, may be happening as this post is being typed but it will be months from now before the High Court issues its opinion. (You can follow Hank Skinner's case via its online docket here, as Cause No. AP-76,675 styled Henry W. Skinner v. State of Texas.)
Will a Hank Skinner DNA Test Prove His Innocence?
Hank Skinner sets on Texas Death Row, a man who has consistently claimed his innocence. During his criminal trial, it is admitted that his criminal defense lawyers made the strategy decision to NOT ask for Mr. Skinner's DNA to be compared to all the evidence. Why the prosecutors didn't bother to check this out long ago, well that's a different story.
Since then, it's been found that there were several pieces of evidence that did indeed have DNA from an unknown source -- NOT Mr. Skinner (for details, read here.). Who was this unknown person at the crime scene? Good question.
Understandably, Hank Skinner has been fighting hard for that DNA testing and we've been monitoring his fight. For details, check out our earlier posts including:
Within days of the Hank Skinner oral argument before the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, here in Dallas there was a victory for which Mr. Skinner and his supporters can perhaps take some comfort and hope: Judge Susan Hawk found both Raymond Jackson and James Williams innocent of crimes for which they had been wrongfully convicted almost 30 years ago, having been found guilty and imprisoned for rape and kidnapping back in 1983.
On April 30, 2012, Raymond Jackson and James Williams appeared before Judge Hawk at their exoneration hearing and were officially declared innocent on the public record.
What happened here? DNA testing revealed not only that Mr. Jackson and Mr. Williams were innocent of this crime, but that two other men were involved - and these two men have now been arrested and all these years later, are facing charges of attempted murder.
Today, for example, Hank Skinner will be arguing his case before the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. Oral arguments, in fact, may be happening as this post is being typed but it will be months from now before the High Court issues its opinion. (You can follow Hank Skinner's case via its online docket here, as Cause No. AP-76,675 styled Henry W. Skinner v. State of Texas.)
Will a Hank Skinner DNA Test Prove His Innocence?
Hank Skinner sets on Texas Death Row, a man who has consistently claimed his innocence. During his criminal trial, it is admitted that his criminal defense lawyers made the strategy decision to NOT ask for Mr. Skinner's DNA to be compared to all the evidence. Why the prosecutors didn't bother to check this out long ago, well that's a different story.
Since then, it's been found that there were several pieces of evidence that did indeed have DNA from an unknown source -- NOT Mr. Skinner (for details, read here.). Who was this unknown person at the crime scene? Good question.
Understandably, Hank Skinner has been fighting hard for that DNA testing and we've been monitoring his fight. For details, check out our earlier posts including:
- Hank Skinner Execution Still Set 4 Today – France Is Asking for Delay. That’s Right. France.
- Hank Skinner Wins Again: US Supreme Court Grants Cert in His Quest for Post-Conviction DNA Testing
- Texas Prosecutors Come Under Increased Scrutiny in Texas: Hank Skinner Stay Within Weeks of Michael Morton Release
Within days of the Hank Skinner oral argument before the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, here in Dallas there was a victory for which Mr. Skinner and his supporters can perhaps take some comfort and hope: Judge Susan Hawk found both Raymond Jackson and James Williams innocent of crimes for which they had been wrongfully convicted almost 30 years ago, having been found guilty and imprisoned for rape and kidnapping back in 1983.
On April 30, 2012, Raymond Jackson and James Williams appeared before Judge Hawk at their exoneration hearing and were officially declared innocent on the public record.
What happened here? DNA testing revealed not only that Mr. Jackson and Mr. Williams were innocent of this crime, but that two other men were involved - and these two men have now been arrested and all these years later, are facing charges of attempted murder.
Tuesday, March 06, 2012
Former Texas Death Row Inmate Kerry Max Cook's Case Continues to Expose Texas Prosecutors Gone Wild (In a Bad, Bad Way)
The story of an innocent man who spent over 20 years on Texas Death Row is far from over, even though Kerry Max Cook has not only been released, he has become a well-respected author and activist for ending capital punishment worldwide.
Back in 2008, Kerry Max Cook wrote a book, Chasing Justice: My Story of Freeing Myself After Two Decades on Death Row for a Crime I Didn't Commit, that detailed what happened to him in the criminal justice system and how he was wrongfully convicted and sentenced to death for the rape and killing of Linda Jo Edwards back in 1977.
A big part of that book: all the misconduct by the prosecution in his case. Surprise, surprise.
The book, published by HarperCollins, got excellent reviews and got some very big names giving it praise, including Sister Helen Prejean, former FBI director William Sessions, and actor Richard Dreyfuss. This seems like a lot of exposure on how prosecutorial misconduct works in Texas.
But the Kerry Max Cook story isn't over yet.
Now, one of the journalists that covered his story long ago - former Dallas Morning News reporter David Hanners - is stirring things up. And Hanners may know a lot more about the extent of the evildoing that took place during the Smith County criminal trial and subsequent appellate process of Kerry Max Cook's case than Mr. Cook ever did.
Here's what is happening: Kerry Max Cook is in the process of seeking a full legal exoneration via DNA testing. This isn't being done without static from the prosecution, and the conflict is hitting the media. In particular, Cook's story made it to Texas Monthly and in response to that coverage (in a blog post, notice blogs at work for justice again) the old Dallas reporter David Hanners wrote a long comment that gave some very, very interesting tidbits.
You can read the full text of what Mr. Hanners wrote online here, and here are some of the shockers that you'll find there:
Back in 2008, Kerry Max Cook wrote a book, Chasing Justice: My Story of Freeing Myself After Two Decades on Death Row for a Crime I Didn't Commit, that detailed what happened to him in the criminal justice system and how he was wrongfully convicted and sentenced to death for the rape and killing of Linda Jo Edwards back in 1977.
A big part of that book: all the misconduct by the prosecution in his case. Surprise, surprise.
The book, published by HarperCollins, got excellent reviews and got some very big names giving it praise, including Sister Helen Prejean, former FBI director William Sessions, and actor Richard Dreyfuss. This seems like a lot of exposure on how prosecutorial misconduct works in Texas.
But the Kerry Max Cook story isn't over yet.
Now, one of the journalists that covered his story long ago - former Dallas Morning News reporter David Hanners - is stirring things up. And Hanners may know a lot more about the extent of the evildoing that took place during the Smith County criminal trial and subsequent appellate process of Kerry Max Cook's case than Mr. Cook ever did.
Here's what is happening: Kerry Max Cook is in the process of seeking a full legal exoneration via DNA testing. This isn't being done without static from the prosecution, and the conflict is hitting the media. In particular, Cook's story made it to Texas Monthly and in response to that coverage (in a blog post, notice blogs at work for justice again) the old Dallas reporter David Hanners wrote a long comment that gave some very, very interesting tidbits.
You can read the full text of what Mr. Hanners wrote online here, and here are some of the shockers that you'll find there:
- It took the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals nearly eight years to rule in his case because his file was "basically lost."
- After reading the entire trial documentation (transcripts and exhibits), and without going into the story with any clue or care whether or not the man was guilty or not, the reporter determined that not only had there not been a fair trial - he determined that this man had not killed the victim. In fact, he believes it reveals who the real killers are and it's not Mr. Cook.
- There was no basic - much less competent - police investigation, and he gives examples. With details.
- In charging Mr. Cook and get this homicide to a capital murder charge, the police department created "theft" from a fantasy sock (yes, sock) and then alleged that body parts had been removed from the crime scene by Cook in this sock. Nevermind that the body wasn't disturbed: there were no body parts removed here. The body had not been cut up. How was this ignored? But it was ....
- The prosecution planned on doing DNA testing; semen was found at the scene. It was tested, and lo and behold: it was not that of Mr. Cook. So instead of investigating further, the prosecution changed their case to keep Cook in their crosshairs. This, even though they knew the identity of the semen source. Amazingly blind, isn't it?
This case may end up being the example used in future classrooms of how ruthless and evil it can be when prosecutorial misconduct exists in our criminal justice system. Expect to hear more about this travesty of justice: not only from David Hanners (by the way, a Pulitzer Prize winner) but from Mr. Cook.
If Mr. Cook can win his latest efforts to obtain full exoneration through DNA testing, then he will be eligible to receive $80,000 from the State of Texas for each year he sat behind bars as an innocent man.
Here's the bigger question: what happens to the prosecutors and the police officers who were committing those injustices back in the mid-1970s? Where's the justice there?
Is the lesson for bad apple prosecutors that if they do bad things, by the time the system gets around to pointing the finger at them, decades and decades of time will have passed?
Wednesday, February 01, 2012
Texas Juries Issue Warnings to District Attorney, County Jail Officials But Don't Hold Anyone Criminally Liable.
Juries usually have a single, solid voice that answers "guilty" or "innocent," simple as that -- but that's not what is happening in the State of Texas today when it's public officials like the Harris County District Attorney's Office or those responsible for running the Travis County Jail that have been called on the carpet.
Austin Jury
This week, a federal jury down in Austin spent lots of time hearing testimony and reviewing evidence about the case of Rachel Jackson, a 21 year old woman who died while she was being held in the Del Valle Jail (part of Travis County) under a “psych lockdown.”
The Jackson family argued that Travis County and its jail psychiatrist, Dr. John S. Ford, were responsible for the young woman's tragic death in a jail cell because Dr. Ford prescribed thioridazine to inmate Jackson but he failed (among other things) to follow the warnings on the drug packaging to check her potassium levels as well as her heart's electrical activity before giving her the antipsychotic drug. If he had bothered to do so, the family argued, then he would have known that thioridazine can cause sudden death by causing the heart to beat out of its normal rhythm.
You can read the warning for yourself online: seems pretty serious and pretty long for someone - especially a doctor - to just disregard.
Here's the thing: most always, all we would know from the jury was their verdict. Period. However, in this case the federal trial judge, the Honorable Sam Sparks, approved the jury's request that a written statement they had compiled there in the jury room be read into the record.
So, the jury foreman stood up there in the courtroom, just as forepersons do whenever they announced they have reached a decision, and read a statement that the jury couldn't find that Travis County was the proximate cause of Rachel Jackson's death, they "...do see significant opportunity for improvement in the processes, documentation and communication within the Travis County Correctional Center."
Houston Jury
We've been monitoring the Grand Jury investigation of the Houston BAT Van Controversy (read all the details here) and now, the Grand Jury has spoken: the Harris County District Attorney's Office will not face any indictments for criminal wrongdoing.
Once again, however, there's the unusual twist to the story: the jury isn't speaking in the usual way, in the decision it has handed down. No. This jury has also sat together and drafted a joint statement, which has been released to the public.
A one-page statement from the jury was read by Grand Jury foreman Trisha Pollard, which criticized the Harris County District Attorney's Office for its "unexpected resistance" to the investigatory process and singled out Harris County prosecutor Rachel Palmer for invoking her Fifth Amendment right not to testify in order to avoid self-incrimination. The grand jury's statement also accused the District Attorney's office of investigating the grand jurors themselves as well as the special prosecutors assigned to oversee the case.
All that being revealed, the Grand Jury still found that "there was no evidence of a crime" on the part of the Harris County District Attorney's Office and so no indictments would be issued.
Jury Statements Are Worth What, Exactly?
These jury statements may make the jurors feel better, but legally they do squat. Verdicts are what count with juries. And in both of these instances, the public officials have been found innocent of a death and of tampering with the judicial process of fair trials, etc.
When juries have this much doubt and concern, one has to remember that where there is smoke there is fire and that something smells bad in Texas today.
Austin Jury
This week, a federal jury down in Austin spent lots of time hearing testimony and reviewing evidence about the case of Rachel Jackson, a 21 year old woman who died while she was being held in the Del Valle Jail (part of Travis County) under a “psych lockdown.”
The Jackson family argued that Travis County and its jail psychiatrist, Dr. John S. Ford, were responsible for the young woman's tragic death in a jail cell because Dr. Ford prescribed thioridazine to inmate Jackson but he failed (among other things) to follow the warnings on the drug packaging to check her potassium levels as well as her heart's electrical activity before giving her the antipsychotic drug. If he had bothered to do so, the family argued, then he would have known that thioridazine can cause sudden death by causing the heart to beat out of its normal rhythm.
You can read the warning for yourself online: seems pretty serious and pretty long for someone - especially a doctor - to just disregard.
There was also evidence presented at trial that the inmate told her Travis County jailers that her heart was racing, to which the jailer did not get her medically checked out; and that days later, she told a Travis County jail nurse that she was having chest pains, and that the jail nurse did not record in her file any of her vital signs at the time.
Here's the thing: most always, all we would know from the jury was their verdict. Period. However, in this case the federal trial judge, the Honorable Sam Sparks, approved the jury's request that a written statement they had compiled there in the jury room be read into the record.
So, the jury foreman stood up there in the courtroom, just as forepersons do whenever they announced they have reached a decision, and read a statement that the jury couldn't find that Travis County was the proximate cause of Rachel Jackson's death, they "...do see significant opportunity for improvement in the processes, documentation and communication within the Travis County Correctional Center."
Houston Jury
We've been monitoring the Grand Jury investigation of the Houston BAT Van Controversy (read all the details here) and now, the Grand Jury has spoken: the Harris County District Attorney's Office will not face any indictments for criminal wrongdoing.
Once again, however, there's the unusual twist to the story: the jury isn't speaking in the usual way, in the decision it has handed down. No. This jury has also sat together and drafted a joint statement, which has been released to the public.
A one-page statement from the jury was read by Grand Jury foreman Trisha Pollard, which criticized the Harris County District Attorney's Office for its "unexpected resistance" to the investigatory process and singled out Harris County prosecutor Rachel Palmer for invoking her Fifth Amendment right not to testify in order to avoid self-incrimination. The grand jury's statement also accused the District Attorney's office of investigating the grand jurors themselves as well as the special prosecutors assigned to oversee the case.
All that being revealed, the Grand Jury still found that "there was no evidence of a crime" on the part of the Harris County District Attorney's Office and so no indictments would be issued.
Jury Statements Are Worth What, Exactly?
These jury statements may make the jurors feel better, but legally they do squat. Verdicts are what count with juries. And in both of these instances, the public officials have been found innocent of a death and of tampering with the judicial process of fair trials, etc.
When juries have this much doubt and concern, one has to remember that where there is smoke there is fire and that something smells bad in Texas today.
Wednesday, July 06, 2011
Liberty County Prosecutor Arrested This Week But Kept On the Job as DA in Cleveland Gang Rape Case of 11 Year Old Girl by 19 Defendants
Liberty County is in the national spotlight this summer as the place where 19 defendants (ranging in age from midteens to almost 30 years) have been charged with the gang rape of an 11 year old girl in Cleveland, Texas, mobile home - some of which was caught on video.It's a case that is dividing the Cleveland community as well as the child's family, as the girl has been removed from her parents' care and placed in Texas foster care for the time being.
Prosecutor in Cleveland Gang Rape Case Is Arrested
Needless to say, this Cleveland Gang Rape case is important from many different perspectives and its prosecution - you would think - would be the cream of the crop putting on the best case that the State of Texas can assert. Right?
Think again. This week, one of the prosecutors on that Cleveland Gang Rape case was arrested and is facing charges as a defendant of (1) Tampering With a Witness, (2) Terroristic Threats and (3) Deadly Conduct.
That's right: the state's attorney has been accused of three pretty serious crimes while he's assigned to the big Gang Rape case. (That's his mugshot at the top.)
Liberty County Assistant District Attorney Joe Warren surrendered to the Liberty County Sheriff's Office last week, and was quickly released on a personal recognizance bond by the local judge. The Sheriff's Office is refusing to comment on the case so far, and little is known for sure about the events that led to the ADA's arrest.
It is known that the Sheriff's Office is the authority handling the investigation -- not a grand jury, not the Texas Rangers or the FBI -- and that Liberty County District Attorney Mike Little has told the media this is strange -- the ADA's case is getting special treatment (it's legal for the Sheriff's Office to run the ball in the investigation, this usually doesn't happen, though).
Joe Warren is still on the job, too: despite being a state district attorney who has been arrested on allegations of committing these crimes he has not been removed from his position and presumably is at work today (as this post is being typed), working on the Cleveland Gang Rape case.
Reports are ADA Threatened to Shoot Pit Bulls that Entered His Backyard and Killed His Pet
So what happened? There are some media reports out there and they are reporting that ADA Warren had a pet dog (a boxer-mix) who were killed by his neighbor's pit bulls after the pit bulls dug a hole under the fence to gain access into Warren's back yard so they could attack his pets.
Warren responded, according to these reports, by threatening his neighbor that he would shoot the pit bulls in order to protect his pets. Apparently, the neighbor called the cops and filed a complaint.
Monday, August 03, 2009
DA Watch: El Paso District Attorney Investigates Potential Jurors Including Expunged Records
Over in El Paso, the district attorney's office is using its government databases to investigate ordinary citizens who show up for jury duty -- including going through past records that the citizens may believe to be secret or expunged.
And they're not telling the defense attorneys about this, at least they haven't been until they were caught doing this recently. Of course the defense bar is calling foul here.
What is an expunged record?
When someone pays to have their record "expunged," then they are taking action to have their record cleared of something -- an arrest, etc. -- and they believe that the expungement removes all trace of that particular event.
And it does. Public records do not provide any reference to something that has been expunged.
However, in the government databases, the expungement can remain these days -- all because of modern technology. The expungement is stored on the governmental records, archived in a database somewhere instead of the old school method of physically removing a file from the filing cabinet, stamping it "expunged," and either destroying it or sealing it in a box for storage offsite.
Where's the unfairness? First, it's unfair to the citizen whose record was expunged.
The first unfairness is to the citizen whose record has been expunged. An expunged record should mean that there has been a destruction of the event. For example, someone who is innocent was arrested for a crime. Three days later, the true evildoer was found.
It is blatantly unfair for that erroneous arrest to follow the innocent person into his or her future, tainting their personal and professional reputations. The mere reference to an arrest might cost them a job, for example. So, an expungement occurs.
The citizen believes that the horror of that event is gone and forgotten. But not with the El Paso District Attorney's office, apparently. They'll use the governmental databases and they'll look up that faulty arrest. All because the citizen has done his civic duty and shown up for jury duty.
That's not right. That's unfair.
It's also unfair to the valid and full defense of the current criminal defendant.
Remember now: the El Paso district attorney's office can access a national crime database -- just like any government prosecutor in this country -- and here, there's an unabridged listing of arrests and convictions that have been expunged from the public records.
Meanwhile, the defense attorney can only have access to the public records, not the SuperSecret national crime database.
So, the defense attorney is hampered in choosing a jury because the prosecutor is privy to information that the defense attorney is not. This is not the way that the jury selection process is supposed to occur.
What if the defendant going to trial is arguing that he was wrongfully arrested? We all know that the district attorney is going to strike the man or woman from the jury pool who they know from their SuperSecret database has an expunged record of a wrongful arrest. The prosecutor won't want that citizen on the jury, he (or she) may side with the defendant.
Which is exactly why the defense WILL argue for that citizen to be on the jury. And why this prosecutorial tactic is blatantly wrong.
Is this happening in places other than El Paso?
Sure it is. That governmental database is national in scope, and it would be absurd to think that only the El Paso district attorney's office is sniffing around its archieved expungements.
And they're not telling the defense attorneys about this, at least they haven't been until they were caught doing this recently. Of course the defense bar is calling foul here.
What is an expunged record?
When someone pays to have their record "expunged," then they are taking action to have their record cleared of something -- an arrest, etc. -- and they believe that the expungement removes all trace of that particular event.
And it does. Public records do not provide any reference to something that has been expunged.
However, in the government databases, the expungement can remain these days -- all because of modern technology. The expungement is stored on the governmental records, archived in a database somewhere instead of the old school method of physically removing a file from the filing cabinet, stamping it "expunged," and either destroying it or sealing it in a box for storage offsite.
Where's the unfairness? First, it's unfair to the citizen whose record was expunged.
The first unfairness is to the citizen whose record has been expunged. An expunged record should mean that there has been a destruction of the event. For example, someone who is innocent was arrested for a crime. Three days later, the true evildoer was found.
It is blatantly unfair for that erroneous arrest to follow the innocent person into his or her future, tainting their personal and professional reputations. The mere reference to an arrest might cost them a job, for example. So, an expungement occurs.
The citizen believes that the horror of that event is gone and forgotten. But not with the El Paso District Attorney's office, apparently. They'll use the governmental databases and they'll look up that faulty arrest. All because the citizen has done his civic duty and shown up for jury duty.
That's not right. That's unfair.
It's also unfair to the valid and full defense of the current criminal defendant.
Remember now: the El Paso district attorney's office can access a national crime database -- just like any government prosecutor in this country -- and here, there's an unabridged listing of arrests and convictions that have been expunged from the public records.
Meanwhile, the defense attorney can only have access to the public records, not the SuperSecret national crime database.
So, the defense attorney is hampered in choosing a jury because the prosecutor is privy to information that the defense attorney is not. This is not the way that the jury selection process is supposed to occur.
What if the defendant going to trial is arguing that he was wrongfully arrested? We all know that the district attorney is going to strike the man or woman from the jury pool who they know from their SuperSecret database has an expunged record of a wrongful arrest. The prosecutor won't want that citizen on the jury, he (or she) may side with the defendant.
Which is exactly why the defense WILL argue for that citizen to be on the jury. And why this prosecutorial tactic is blatantly wrong.
Is this happening in places other than El Paso?
Sure it is. That governmental database is national in scope, and it would be absurd to think that only the El Paso district attorney's office is sniffing around its archieved expungements.
Monday, June 01, 2009
DA Watch: Former Jim Wells County DA Joe Frank Garza Spent Millions in Drug Money on Vegas Trips and 3 Secretaries
Down in Alice, Texas, where US Highway 281 runs through on its way from the US -Mexico border through the heart of Texas up to Dallas and beyond, there's lots of drug busts. Law enforcement in Jim Wells County stops all sorts of vehicles on its patch of US 281, confiscating all kinds of drugs -- as well as cash.
Apparently, lots and lots of cash. We're talking millions.
Over Four Million Dollars in Drug Forfeiture Money Was Spent by Former DA Garza on Trips to Vegas and Other Interesting Stuff
Joe Frank Garza was the District Attorney for Jim Wells County for a number of years, until his opponent campaigned in Alic, and elsewhere on issues regarding Garza's spending habits, and beat him in the last election.
Now, new DA Armando Barrera is beginning to report his findings on what was happening with the drug forfeiture money. First, Barrera is reporting that there was no checks and balances here: Garza spent the cash without anyone double-checking what he was doing with it.
And what was Joe Frank Garza doing with all that cash?
Barrera's reporting that Garza spent lots of money on travel to Vegas.
Barrera's reporting that Garza spent lots of money on three particular secretaries.
The Numbers So Far
The media is reporting these tallies (the audit/investigation is ongoing, this information comes from data provided by Garza to the Attorney General's office) from 2000 - 2007 (excluding 2002) where Garza spent $4.2 million:
Garza is adamant that he has done nothing wrong. It was totally within his power to spend this drug money as he saw fit. Right now, state and county laws are being reviewed to see if this is true, or if Garza has violated either civil or criminal laws by his actions.
Stay tuned.
Sources:
Corpus Christi Caller Times
http://www.caller.com/news/2009/may/27/jim_wells_forfeiture/
Apparently, lots and lots of cash. We're talking millions.
Over Four Million Dollars in Drug Forfeiture Money Was Spent by Former DA Garza on Trips to Vegas and Other Interesting Stuff
Joe Frank Garza was the District Attorney for Jim Wells County for a number of years, until his opponent campaigned in Alic, and elsewhere on issues regarding Garza's spending habits, and beat him in the last election.
Now, new DA Armando Barrera is beginning to report his findings on what was happening with the drug forfeiture money. First, Barrera is reporting that there was no checks and balances here: Garza spent the cash without anyone double-checking what he was doing with it.
And what was Joe Frank Garza doing with all that cash?
Barrera's reporting that Garza spent lots of money on travel to Vegas.
Garza's response is that there were lots of seminars in Vegas. He and
his employees went on lots of seminars ... legal seminars, to educate
themselves.
Barrera's reporting that Garza spent lots of money on three particular secretaries.
Garza's response is that the cash was for extra pay to lots of folk within his jurisdiction.
The Numbers So Far
The media is reporting these tallies (the audit/investigation is ongoing, this information comes from data provided by Garza to the Attorney General's office) from 2000 - 2007 (excluding 2002) where Garza spent $4.2 million:
- $2.1 million was spent on "salary supplements", and while Garza had a staff of 15 who did get bonus pay, Barrera (and the county commissioner heading up the investigation) are reporting that most of this total went to just three people, three secretaries who worked for Garza.
- $267,449 on travel.
- $581,000 in operating expenses.
- $19,987 on equipment.
- $154,213 on supplies.
Garza is adamant that he has done nothing wrong. It was totally within his power to spend this drug money as he saw fit. Right now, state and county laws are being reviewed to see if this is true, or if Garza has violated either civil or criminal laws by his actions.
Stay tuned.
Sources:
Corpus Christi Caller Times
http://www.caller.com/news/2009/may/27/jim_wells_forfeiture/
Wednesday, December 17, 2008
DA Watch: In Odessa, Ethnicity is a Threat to Society and It's a Law and Order Love Match
Quick! Someone call the Coen Brothers! I've got a pitch for them. And, it's based on FACT.
Okay, first: the Ector County District Attorney just transfered a case over to the Big Kahuna -- the Attorney General of the State of Texas -- so the Attorney General can represent the government in the penalty phase of a case that's already been tried twice.
That's just not done every day. (Feel the interest build ....)
Then, add to that the reason why: seems that the defendant, Mike Gonzales, was sentenced to death in a case where one of the government's expert witnesses actually testified to the jury (yep, it's on the record) that the guy's ethnicity was an indicator that he was a threat to society.
Ethnicity. You know, like he's ... hispanic. (Okay, we've got a villian.)
That's just not said out loud every day - and particularly, by an expert witness in sworn testimony. Oh - and this expert, Walter Quijano, isn't some zany hired gun they found in the classifieds somewhere. Oh, no no no.
Seems Walter Quijano used to be the chief psychologist for the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. That's right.
(Ironic twist: guy with surname of Quijano is swearing that ethnicity is a threat to society and apparently, offering himself of as proof of same. WHEN are the Coen Brothers calling me?????!!!)
The guy testifying that ethnicity means a danger to society (think about that) was the Big Kahuna over at the Department of Criminal Justice's psych dept. Yes, he was the Big Cheese over there. The Man with a Plan. The Chief. The Boss. The Top Dog.
And this crazzzeee guy has apparently given this same sworn testimony in around 6 other cases where men's lives were at stake (a jury has to determine that someone already convicted of murder is also a future threat to society before they can impose the death sentence).
I don't know about you, but I'm already pondering who would play this guy in the movie.
But hey! The story's not over.
Seems that over in Ector County, the first assistant D.A. (Jack McCoy's job in the original Law & Order series) is married to the lead investor (Lennie Briscoe's job, ditto) in Mr. Gonzales' case.
(Here comes the romantic sub-plot!)
So, the Ector County District Attorney, Bobby Bland (great name, let's keep it in the screenplay), asked the Attorney General's advice on Mr. Gonzales' case because he was concerned there might be some talk, since there's all this hoopla over in Collin County about a judge and a district attorney having a long term affair, all the while trying death penalty cases together. (Check out the earlier post on the Collin County Love Connection.)
According to the Houston Chronicle, the Ector County DA told them, "[t]he (attorney general) recommended that my office recuse itself from that case so there wouldn't be an affect on the case if it were to be appealed," Bland said.
Yeah, you think? (Who's gonna play this guy?)
Oh, and what's the latest on Mike Gonzales? Jury selection has been scheduled for April, and the Attorney General's office will be setting at the prosecution table.
Whew. I'm tellin ya -- I see Oscars here.
Source:
Houston Chronicle
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/tx/6166357.html
Okay, first: the Ector County District Attorney just transfered a case over to the Big Kahuna -- the Attorney General of the State of Texas -- so the Attorney General can represent the government in the penalty phase of a case that's already been tried twice.
That's just not done every day. (Feel the interest build ....)
Then, add to that the reason why: seems that the defendant, Mike Gonzales, was sentenced to death in a case where one of the government's expert witnesses actually testified to the jury (yep, it's on the record) that the guy's ethnicity was an indicator that he was a threat to society.
Ethnicity. You know, like he's ... hispanic. (Okay, we've got a villian.)
That's just not said out loud every day - and particularly, by an expert witness in sworn testimony. Oh - and this expert, Walter Quijano, isn't some zany hired gun they found in the classifieds somewhere. Oh, no no no.
Seems Walter Quijano used to be the chief psychologist for the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. That's right.
(Ironic twist: guy with surname of Quijano is swearing that ethnicity is a threat to society and apparently, offering himself of as proof of same. WHEN are the Coen Brothers calling me?????!!!)
The guy testifying that ethnicity means a danger to society (think about that) was the Big Kahuna over at the Department of Criminal Justice's psych dept. Yes, he was the Big Cheese over there. The Man with a Plan. The Chief. The Boss. The Top Dog.
And this crazzzeee guy has apparently given this same sworn testimony in around 6 other cases where men's lives were at stake (a jury has to determine that someone already convicted of murder is also a future threat to society before they can impose the death sentence).
I don't know about you, but I'm already pondering who would play this guy in the movie.
But hey! The story's not over.
Seems that over in Ector County, the first assistant D.A. (Jack McCoy's job in the original Law & Order series) is married to the lead investor (Lennie Briscoe's job, ditto) in Mr. Gonzales' case.
(Here comes the romantic sub-plot!)
So, the Ector County District Attorney, Bobby Bland (great name, let's keep it in the screenplay), asked the Attorney General's advice on Mr. Gonzales' case because he was concerned there might be some talk, since there's all this hoopla over in Collin County about a judge and a district attorney having a long term affair, all the while trying death penalty cases together. (Check out the earlier post on the Collin County Love Connection.)
According to the Houston Chronicle, the Ector County DA told them, "[t]he (attorney general) recommended that my office recuse itself from that case so there wouldn't be an affect on the case if it were to be appealed," Bland said.
Yeah, you think? (Who's gonna play this guy?)
Oh, and what's the latest on Mike Gonzales? Jury selection has been scheduled for April, and the Attorney General's office will be setting at the prosecution table.
Whew. I'm tellin ya -- I see Oscars here.
Source:
Houston Chronicle
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/tx/6166357.html
Monday, December 08, 2008
DA Watch: Investigation Into Former Houston District Attorney Rosenthal Is Finished Without Criminal Prosecution
Another Texas District Attorney has escaped prosecution.
Over in Houston, Harris County District Attorney Chuck Rosenthal resigned last February because of allegations that he had done bad things - read that, Rosenthal allegedly committed crimes while in office as the top prosecutor for the county.
Serious stuff.
However, after 8 months of snooping around, any possible indictment of Rosenthal was nixed by his successor in office (who acts as D.A. until January, when newly-elected Pat Lycos will take over as the first female district attorney in Houston's history). The scandal itself has been going on in the media for a year now, so it's a nice gift for Rosenthal here on the holidays.
What was Rosenthal alleged to have done?
He sent lots of e-mails from his official work e-mail address, and lots of people read them after they got subpoenaed in a federal civil rights case. Sure, he tried to delete them -- in fact, Rosenthal is known to have deleted 1000s of e-mails ... and that was part of the problem.
Seems the deleted e-mails were covered by that federal subpoena. It's a big no-no to delete or destroy documentation that is subject to a subpoena. Rosenthal knew that, right?
Additionally, some of these e-mails had bad, bad content. They had messages to staff members asking for help with his political campaign. Others had personal, romantic messages to Rosenthal's executive assistant. Still others were pornographic in content, and some e-mails are said to have had racist "jokes and pictures."
None of this stuff is appropriate for a county employee's work correspondence, much less that of the county district attorney. There are laws about this stuff.
Did anything happen to Rosenthal? Sure.
The federal judge found him in contempt of court for deleting e-mail messages, and he had to pay a fine of $18,000.00. And, he had to resign his office as part of a deal with the Texas Attorney General -- who agreed to drop the state's investigation if Rosenthal would just leave the building.
So, he lost his job and had to pay a fine.
Is it serious or a slap on the wrist? Slap, slap.
Rosenthal probably doesn't have any future in public office. He still has a law license and lots of experience, so he's got a future in private practice somewhere. That's good for him.
He doesn't have to face a trial or months of media play during the litigation process, it's a clean slate for him now. That's good for him, too.
Interesting, isn't it, that no grand jury was involved here when this case was dismissed for "insufficient evidence"?
That's right: the decision to close the book on the Rosenthal case was made by Ken Magidson, who's been setting at Rosenthal's old desk until Pat Lycos takes over. Just Magidson.
What did he tell the media? Here's what the Houston paper reported as a direct quote:
"After a careful and independent review of this matter, I have determined that there is insufficient evidence for prosecution," Interim District Attorney Ken Magidson said.
No grand jury. "Insufficient evidence for prosecution." You've got the e-mails. You got the evidence of the deletions. Insufficient evidence?
Hmmmm. Just something to ponder ....
Sources:
KTRK-TV
http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?section=news/local&id=6534841
Houston Chronicle
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/politics/6144078.html
Over in Houston, Harris County District Attorney Chuck Rosenthal resigned last February because of allegations that he had done bad things - read that, Rosenthal allegedly committed crimes while in office as the top prosecutor for the county.
Serious stuff.
However, after 8 months of snooping around, any possible indictment of Rosenthal was nixed by his successor in office (who acts as D.A. until January, when newly-elected Pat Lycos will take over as the first female district attorney in Houston's history). The scandal itself has been going on in the media for a year now, so it's a nice gift for Rosenthal here on the holidays.
What was Rosenthal alleged to have done?
He sent lots of e-mails from his official work e-mail address, and lots of people read them after they got subpoenaed in a federal civil rights case. Sure, he tried to delete them -- in fact, Rosenthal is known to have deleted 1000s of e-mails ... and that was part of the problem.
Seems the deleted e-mails were covered by that federal subpoena. It's a big no-no to delete or destroy documentation that is subject to a subpoena. Rosenthal knew that, right?
Additionally, some of these e-mails had bad, bad content. They had messages to staff members asking for help with his political campaign. Others had personal, romantic messages to Rosenthal's executive assistant. Still others were pornographic in content, and some e-mails are said to have had racist "jokes and pictures."
None of this stuff is appropriate for a county employee's work correspondence, much less that of the county district attorney. There are laws about this stuff.
Did anything happen to Rosenthal? Sure.
The federal judge found him in contempt of court for deleting e-mail messages, and he had to pay a fine of $18,000.00. And, he had to resign his office as part of a deal with the Texas Attorney General -- who agreed to drop the state's investigation if Rosenthal would just leave the building.
So, he lost his job and had to pay a fine.
Is it serious or a slap on the wrist? Slap, slap.
Rosenthal probably doesn't have any future in public office. He still has a law license and lots of experience, so he's got a future in private practice somewhere. That's good for him.
He doesn't have to face a trial or months of media play during the litigation process, it's a clean slate for him now. That's good for him, too.
Interesting, isn't it, that no grand jury was involved here when this case was dismissed for "insufficient evidence"?
That's right: the decision to close the book on the Rosenthal case was made by Ken Magidson, who's been setting at Rosenthal's old desk until Pat Lycos takes over. Just Magidson.
What did he tell the media? Here's what the Houston paper reported as a direct quote:
"After a careful and independent review of this matter, I have determined that there is insufficient evidence for prosecution," Interim District Attorney Ken Magidson said.
No grand jury. "Insufficient evidence for prosecution." You've got the e-mails. You got the evidence of the deletions. Insufficient evidence?
Hmmmm. Just something to ponder ....
Sources:
KTRK-TV
http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?section=news/local&id=6534841
Houston Chronicle
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/politics/6144078.html
Monday, November 24, 2008
DA Watch: Juan Angel Guerra, Take 2 - Cheney Indictment, Texas Supreme Court Joins the Party
Well, Juan Angel Guerra certainly isn't going quietly into that good night ....
In my last post, we all felt bad for ol' Juan Angel, because it sure seemed ... well, ... ahem ... suspicious that he was indicted on three felony charges, only to have them all dismissed as being totally without merit AFTER he'd lost the March primary - forcing him out of a DA position he'd held for 3 prior terms.
Juan Angel Guerra said it was fishy at the time the indictments were zapped. But what could he do? He was out of the ballgame, public office was now a part of his past like it or not.
Surprise, Surprise -- Juan Angel Guerra's Using His Last Few Weeks as Willacy County DA to Take On Some Big Kahunas - Like Vice President Dick Chaney and former U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales
Juan Angel's name had barely faded from the front page of the Brownsville Herald on the election - indictment scandal, when there he was again.
Juan Angel Guerra is now in the national media spotlight for having the guts (and you have to give him that, regardless) of taking on the Vice President of the United States, the former top Trial Lawyer for the country, and some other Pretty Big Players.
Yep, that D.A., from that little-known little county in south Texas, is getting lots of word count in papers like USA Today because he's gone from a local political skimish to a big, big national battle.
Why? Guerra believes these guys are responsible for abuses suffered by prisoners at private run-for-profit detention centers in his part of Texas -- where one prisoner has died from injuries he sustained. And he wants them held accountable.
Juan Angel Guerra is mad. And He's Getting Madder and Madder.
Apparently, this isn't Juan Angel Guerra's first rodeo. He has made a career out of going up against public corruption and he's been particularly zealous about investigating the privately run federal detention centers in his area.
Guerra already won a fight in 2005, when he got three guilty pleas to bribery charges from some corrupt county commissioners -- based upon contracts to build and run the prisons.
Guerra Called His Investigation "Operation Goliath" and He was Code-named "David"
After that, Guerra continued investigating but he kept things close to his vest. He called his investigation "Operation Goliath" (he was "David") and everything was handled on a need-to-know basis. Lots of evidence was kept locked up at his house, because he didn't trust the courthouse enough to keep it there.
Juan Angel Guerra obviously believes that there have been serious wrongs done at these for-profit prisons, that prisoners have suffered, and he's staked his professional reputation as well as his personal life on righting that wrong.
This guy knew before he filed a single piece of paper that his enemies were going to laugh at him, that some were going to question his sanity and others would impune his motives.
Doesn't look like Juan Angel Guerra cares much about that.
What Guerra Is Charging -- Prisoner Abuse, Prisoner Death, Cover Up
Guerra's investigation has culminated in the following indictments being issued by the grand jury (to read the full indictments, click HERE). Half of them involve charges against those who tried to stop Guerra's investigation, and the other half deal directly with alleged prisoner abuse at run-for-a-profit prisons in Willacy County:
2008-CR-0126-A
State Senator Eddie Lucio, Jr.
Acceptance of Honararium (illegally taking money related to prison consulting fees)
2008-CR-0127-A
GEO Group, Inc., Et al.
Murder and Manslaughter (murder of a prisoner at the detention center)
2008-CR-0128-A
Richard B. Cheney and Alberto Gonzales
Engaging in Organized Criminal Activity
2008-CR-0129-A (incomplete)
Migdalia Lopez
Abuse of Official Capacity
Official Oppression
2008-CR-0130-A
Janet Leal
Abuse of Official Capacity
Official Oppression
2008-CR-0131-A
Mervyn Mosbacker, Jr.
Abuse of Official Capacity
Official Oppression
2008-CR-0132-A
Gustavo Garza
Abuse of Official Capacity
Official Oppression
2008-CR-0133-A
Gilbert Lozano
Abuse of Official Capacity
Official Oppression
The Willacy Courthouse Drama of Last Week -- Judge Banales Tosses It to Austin
Last week, the big guns rode into town (in this case, Raymondville), and tried to toss their weight around and get the indictments dismissed. They're just silly, they said.
Juan Angel stood strong. He pitched a fit on Wednesday that they were trying to argue a motion at a time when their requests should not properly be heard. Guerra won.
The big guns came back on Friday. Again, they argued that the indictments should be dismissed. They're just silly, they said.
Juan Angel got really mad then. He started yelling and pounding his fist (go read the media accounts, this isn't exaggeration here) and looking to things like procedure, again. The required notice for such a hearing had not been met.
Judge Banales -- the same judge that tossed Guerra's indictment aside earlier this month -- sent the whole kit-and-kaboodle up to the Texas Supreme Court.
Fight Goes to the Texas Supreme Court
So, today, the fight has moved to Austin. Juan Angel Guerra's already on the battlefront, he's filed an affidavit with the high court - and you can read it if you want to do so.
Here's Juan Angel Guerra's affidavit to the Supreme Court:
http://www.valleycentral.com/files/GuerraSupremeCourt.pdf
Sure, there are some who will argue his affidavit has some procedural problems of its own -- but he may have a good point about that hearing notice requirement stuff. Heck, the calendar alone should help prove that point.
Is Juan Angel Guerra Crazy?
You know lots of people are going to call this guy crazy. Nuts. Lost it. Wacko.
Some are going to think he's crazy because he's not spending his time finalizing his lucrative private-sector gig for when he leaves office in less than six weeks.
Some are going to call him nuts because he is a small town DA in the backwaters of Texas, and he's trying to take on Dick Cheney for crimminey's sake. That's nuts!
Some are going to be all academic (like Dean Treece) and argue that Guerra's got no constitutional footing here: he's a state guy going after federal folk, and ones with immunity to boot. Zany.
And, some -- hopefully some -- will stop long enough to ponder what Guerra's arguing about.
Juan Angel Guerra is arguing about prisoners being hurt and sometimes killed in prisons that are being run by private companies for a profit.
Prisoners are being hurt and dying -- and maybe the craziest thing of all is that a Prosecutor, a District Attorney -- is risking all he's got to try and stop this.
It's a nice change to the DA Watch stories on this blog, by a long shot. Usually, they're lying about witnesses or hiding evidence or being so ready to convict that innocent men are spending their lives behind bars while guilty men go free.
If Willacy County District Attorney Juan Angel Guerra's crazy, then maybe it's the kinda crazy we need.
Sources:
USA Today
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2008-11-21-cheney-indictment_N.htm
Brownsville Herald
http://www.brownsvilleherald.com/news/high_92030___article.html/officials_profile.html
KGBT-TV 4 (Rio Grande Valley)
http://www.valleycentral.com/news/news_story.aspx?id=225769
In my last post, we all felt bad for ol' Juan Angel, because it sure seemed ... well, ... ahem ... suspicious that he was indicted on three felony charges, only to have them all dismissed as being totally without merit AFTER he'd lost the March primary - forcing him out of a DA position he'd held for 3 prior terms.
Juan Angel Guerra said it was fishy at the time the indictments were zapped. But what could he do? He was out of the ballgame, public office was now a part of his past like it or not.
Surprise, Surprise -- Juan Angel Guerra's Using His Last Few Weeks as Willacy County DA to Take On Some Big Kahunas - Like Vice President Dick Chaney and former U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales
Juan Angel's name had barely faded from the front page of the Brownsville Herald on the election - indictment scandal, when there he was again.
Juan Angel Guerra is now in the national media spotlight for having the guts (and you have to give him that, regardless) of taking on the Vice President of the United States, the former top Trial Lawyer for the country, and some other Pretty Big Players.
Yep, that D.A., from that little-known little county in south Texas, is getting lots of word count in papers like USA Today because he's gone from a local political skimish to a big, big national battle.
Why? Guerra believes these guys are responsible for abuses suffered by prisoners at private run-for-profit detention centers in his part of Texas -- where one prisoner has died from injuries he sustained. And he wants them held accountable.
Juan Angel Guerra is mad. And He's Getting Madder and Madder.
Apparently, this isn't Juan Angel Guerra's first rodeo. He has made a career out of going up against public corruption and he's been particularly zealous about investigating the privately run federal detention centers in his area.
Guerra already won a fight in 2005, when he got three guilty pleas to bribery charges from some corrupt county commissioners -- based upon contracts to build and run the prisons.
Guerra Called His Investigation "Operation Goliath" and He was Code-named "David"
After that, Guerra continued investigating but he kept things close to his vest. He called his investigation "Operation Goliath" (he was "David") and everything was handled on a need-to-know basis. Lots of evidence was kept locked up at his house, because he didn't trust the courthouse enough to keep it there.
Juan Angel Guerra obviously believes that there have been serious wrongs done at these for-profit prisons, that prisoners have suffered, and he's staked his professional reputation as well as his personal life on righting that wrong.
This guy knew before he filed a single piece of paper that his enemies were going to laugh at him, that some were going to question his sanity and others would impune his motives.
Doesn't look like Juan Angel Guerra cares much about that.
What Guerra Is Charging -- Prisoner Abuse, Prisoner Death, Cover Up
Guerra's investigation has culminated in the following indictments being issued by the grand jury (to read the full indictments, click HERE). Half of them involve charges against those who tried to stop Guerra's investigation, and the other half deal directly with alleged prisoner abuse at run-for-a-profit prisons in Willacy County:
2008-CR-0126-A
State Senator Eddie Lucio, Jr.
Acceptance of Honararium (illegally taking money related to prison consulting fees)
2008-CR-0127-A
GEO Group, Inc., Et al.
Murder and Manslaughter (murder of a prisoner at the detention center)
2008-CR-0128-A
Richard B. Cheney and Alberto Gonzales
Engaging in Organized Criminal Activity
2008-CR-0129-A (incomplete)
Migdalia Lopez
Abuse of Official Capacity
Official Oppression
2008-CR-0130-A
Janet Leal
Abuse of Official Capacity
Official Oppression
2008-CR-0131-A
Mervyn Mosbacker, Jr.
Abuse of Official Capacity
Official Oppression
2008-CR-0132-A
Gustavo Garza
Abuse of Official Capacity
Official Oppression
2008-CR-0133-A
Gilbert Lozano
Abuse of Official Capacity
Official Oppression
The Willacy Courthouse Drama of Last Week -- Judge Banales Tosses It to Austin
Last week, the big guns rode into town (in this case, Raymondville), and tried to toss their weight around and get the indictments dismissed. They're just silly, they said.
Juan Angel stood strong. He pitched a fit on Wednesday that they were trying to argue a motion at a time when their requests should not properly be heard. Guerra won.
The big guns came back on Friday. Again, they argued that the indictments should be dismissed. They're just silly, they said.
Juan Angel got really mad then. He started yelling and pounding his fist (go read the media accounts, this isn't exaggeration here) and looking to things like procedure, again. The required notice for such a hearing had not been met.
Judge Banales -- the same judge that tossed Guerra's indictment aside earlier this month -- sent the whole kit-and-kaboodle up to the Texas Supreme Court.
Fight Goes to the Texas Supreme Court
So, today, the fight has moved to Austin. Juan Angel Guerra's already on the battlefront, he's filed an affidavit with the high court - and you can read it if you want to do so.
Here's Juan Angel Guerra's affidavit to the Supreme Court:
http://www.valleycentral.com/files/GuerraSupremeCourt.pdf
Sure, there are some who will argue his affidavit has some procedural problems of its own -- but he may have a good point about that hearing notice requirement stuff. Heck, the calendar alone should help prove that point.
Is Juan Angel Guerra Crazy?
You know lots of people are going to call this guy crazy. Nuts. Lost it. Wacko.
Some are going to think he's crazy because he's not spending his time finalizing his lucrative private-sector gig for when he leaves office in less than six weeks.
Some are going to call him nuts because he is a small town DA in the backwaters of Texas, and he's trying to take on Dick Cheney for crimminey's sake. That's nuts!
Some are going to be all academic (like Dean Treece) and argue that Guerra's got no constitutional footing here: he's a state guy going after federal folk, and ones with immunity to boot. Zany.
And, some -- hopefully some -- will stop long enough to ponder what Guerra's arguing about.
Juan Angel Guerra is arguing about prisoners being hurt and sometimes killed in prisons that are being run by private companies for a profit.
Prisoners are being hurt and dying -- and maybe the craziest thing of all is that a Prosecutor, a District Attorney -- is risking all he's got to try and stop this.
It's a nice change to the DA Watch stories on this blog, by a long shot. Usually, they're lying about witnesses or hiding evidence or being so ready to convict that innocent men are spending their lives behind bars while guilty men go free.
If Willacy County District Attorney Juan Angel Guerra's crazy, then maybe it's the kinda crazy we need.
Sources:
USA Today
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2008-11-21-cheney-indictment_N.htm
Brownsville Herald
http://www.brownsvilleherald.com/news/high_92030___article.html/officials_profile.html
KGBT-TV 4 (Rio Grande Valley)
http://www.valleycentral.com/news/news_story.aspx?id=225769
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
DA Watch: In Dallas, You Can't Fall in Love While Out on Bail
Clay Chabot -- doesn't that name sound like something from a daytime soap opera, or a Harlequin romance novel?
Wasn't Clay Chabot one of Erica Kane's husbands on All My Children back in the 1980s?
Um, no.
Clay Chabot is a real man though his story is reading somewhat like a melodrama. It seems that the Dallas County District Attorney's office is seeking to revoke Clay's bond and send him back to jail because they argue he's violated the terms of his release. The revocation hearing was yesterday.
What did Clay Chabot do that was so very bad?
He fell in love with one of his live-in chaparones while living under house arrest in his Cedar Hill home. Who's the lucky lady? She's his sister-in-law's daughter. And, of course, Clay has a MySpace page where the happy couple published photos of their wedding ceremony.
Oh fine, so there's a question of no marriage license even though she's going by "Mrs. Chabot" these days. And, yes, she's 37 and he's 49.
But it's love - the stuff that dreams are made of.
Love as the Basis for Bond Revocation
Meanwhile, the prosecution is ticked off about this marriage. They are moving for bond revocation because, they argue, a sexual relationship may violate the terms of his release.
First Assistant District Attorney Terri Moore actually argued at the hearing yesterday that she "didn't believe that the court intended for Mr. Chabot to be permitted a live-in girlfriend, wife, or spouse while out on bond." (Quoting the Dallas Morning News, who reported events from Tuesday's revocation hearing.) According to Moore, "[w]e give him an inch, and he takes a mile."
Chabot Already Victim of False Testimony That Resulted in Murder Conviction
Now, here's where the story goes from silly to serious. Clay Chabot was out on bond because the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals is hearing his motion for a new trial -- because it's been discovered that Chabot was convicted of murder based upon the lies of his brother-in-law. Seems DNA testing has revealed that the brother-in-law actually raped the murder victim.
The District Attorney is claiming that they are going to retry Chabot when his motion is granted, because they still think he's guilty of the crime. Now they're arguing that Chabot and his lying brother-in-law are both guilty of the murder.
Chabot Did Stop at a CellPhone Store on the Way to the Doctor
Perhaps the only real argument they've got here is that Clay did stop at a cellphone store on the way to the V.A. for medical treatment (he's allow to leave his house for doctor visits). However, it wasn't off the beaten path: it was a store on the route from Cedar Hill to the V.A. Hospital -- and please: he wasn't stopping off to gamble, buy booze, or get porno -- he stopped with his sister-in-law at a phone store.
For this, Chabot should go back behind bars after he was wrongfully convicted of murder? Maybe the DA knew this wouldn't be a big enough argument - so she added on this horrible event: Chabot married the woman he loves.
The audacity of it all.
Love Shouldn't Be Penalized
In prisons everyday, there are couples who wed without even the hope of building a life together. It's the story of legend how many penpal relationships have evolved in marriages behind bars. Heck, About.Com has an how-to article online, "How to Marry a Prisoner."
Surely if Texas Cadet Murderer Diane Zamora and Night Stalker Richard Ramirez can marry while in prison for life, then Clay Chabot can get hitched while on house arrest while his wrongful conviction is being ironed out.
Perhaps Clay's sister sums it up best: "He may have fallen in love, but he didn't do anything wrong."
Source:
Dallas Morning News
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/localnews/crime/stories/111808dnmetchabot.1c592accf.html
Wasn't Clay Chabot one of Erica Kane's husbands on All My Children back in the 1980s?
Um, no.
Clay Chabot is a real man though his story is reading somewhat like a melodrama. It seems that the Dallas County District Attorney's office is seeking to revoke Clay's bond and send him back to jail because they argue he's violated the terms of his release. The revocation hearing was yesterday.
What did Clay Chabot do that was so very bad?
He fell in love with one of his live-in chaparones while living under house arrest in his Cedar Hill home. Who's the lucky lady? She's his sister-in-law's daughter. And, of course, Clay has a MySpace page where the happy couple published photos of their wedding ceremony.
Oh fine, so there's a question of no marriage license even though she's going by "Mrs. Chabot" these days. And, yes, she's 37 and he's 49.
But it's love - the stuff that dreams are made of.
Love as the Basis for Bond Revocation
Meanwhile, the prosecution is ticked off about this marriage. They are moving for bond revocation because, they argue, a sexual relationship may violate the terms of his release.
First Assistant District Attorney Terri Moore actually argued at the hearing yesterday that she "didn't believe that the court intended for Mr. Chabot to be permitted a live-in girlfriend, wife, or spouse while out on bond." (Quoting the Dallas Morning News, who reported events from Tuesday's revocation hearing.) According to Moore, "[w]e give him an inch, and he takes a mile."
Chabot Already Victim of False Testimony That Resulted in Murder Conviction
Now, here's where the story goes from silly to serious. Clay Chabot was out on bond because the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals is hearing his motion for a new trial -- because it's been discovered that Chabot was convicted of murder based upon the lies of his brother-in-law. Seems DNA testing has revealed that the brother-in-law actually raped the murder victim.
The District Attorney is claiming that they are going to retry Chabot when his motion is granted, because they still think he's guilty of the crime. Now they're arguing that Chabot and his lying brother-in-law are both guilty of the murder.
Chabot Did Stop at a CellPhone Store on the Way to the Doctor
Perhaps the only real argument they've got here is that Clay did stop at a cellphone store on the way to the V.A. for medical treatment (he's allow to leave his house for doctor visits). However, it wasn't off the beaten path: it was a store on the route from Cedar Hill to the V.A. Hospital -- and please: he wasn't stopping off to gamble, buy booze, or get porno -- he stopped with his sister-in-law at a phone store.
For this, Chabot should go back behind bars after he was wrongfully convicted of murder? Maybe the DA knew this wouldn't be a big enough argument - so she added on this horrible event: Chabot married the woman he loves.
The audacity of it all.
Love Shouldn't Be Penalized
In prisons everyday, there are couples who wed without even the hope of building a life together. It's the story of legend how many penpal relationships have evolved in marriages behind bars. Heck, About.Com has an how-to article online, "How to Marry a Prisoner."
Surely if Texas Cadet Murderer Diane Zamora and Night Stalker Richard Ramirez can marry while in prison for life, then Clay Chabot can get hitched while on house arrest while his wrongful conviction is being ironed out.
Perhaps Clay's sister sums it up best: "He may have fallen in love, but he didn't do anything wrong."
Source:
Dallas Morning News
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/localnews/crime/stories/111808dnmetchabot.1c592accf.html
Monday, November 17, 2008
DA WATCH: Dallas Prosecutor Hid Evidence in 1996 and Only Now are Defendant's Rights Being Respected
Today is a very big day for Antrone Lynelle Johnson -- because today, Mr. Johnson may regain his freedom after serving 12 years of what would have been a life sentence. Antrone Johnson is just 31 years old.
Today is also a very big day for Dallas County prosecutors because once again they are facing charges of prosecutorial misconduct. And this time, it's not about DNA evidence -- it's about withholding evidence that would have helped Mr. Johnson's case.
The District Attorney Hid Evidence That Would Help Johnson's Defense
That's right: a Dallas County district attorney had evidence that tended to exonerate Antrone Johnson back in 1996, and they didn't turn it over to the defense. That D.A. doesn't work for the Dallas County District Attorney's office anymore, and hasn't responded to media queries. (Fancy that.)
It's Been a Recognized Constitutional Violation Since 1963
When a prosecutor does this -- intentionally or accidentally withholds exculpatory evidence -- it's a violation of the defendant's constitutional rights, according to the U.S. Supreme Court. That defendant's conviction must be overturned.
Sadly, these errors have become such a commonplace event across this country that everyone just refers to the situation as a "Brady violation" (named after U.S. v. Brady, the 1963 case where the high court ruled this was a constitutional violation).
What Did the DA Hide, and What Were Johnson's Accused Crimes: the Backstory
Back in the 1990s, Mr. Johnson faced two cases of sexual assault before he turned 18 years old. Here's what the prosecutor didn't turn over to the defense:
1. In one case, the girl told the prosecutor that Mr. Johnson did not rape her.
2. In the other case, the girl gave conflicting statements about whether she had sex with him.
What about DNA testing?
No DNA testing was done (in either matter). That's right: zip DNA testing in two rape cases.
The Girls' Statements Were Kept From the Defense From 1996 to 2008
All this remained on the QT for what's going on 20 years, until earlier this year when Mr. Johnson and his defense attorneys were informed about these two statements of the girls.
Mr. Johnson's defense counsel promptly filed the proper motions for his convictions to be overturned as Brady violations. He should be free, they argue -- and based upon what the girls said, he should never have spent one night in prison for these crimes.
DA's Office Now Agrees With the Defense that Johnson Should Go Free
Now, the Dallas County District Attorney's office (throught Mike Ware, the head of its Conviction Integrity Unit), has filed a document with the court that states the DA's office agrees that Mr. Johnson's life sentence conviction should be overturned.
Meanwhile, Johnson's Already Finished One Sentence and He's Spent A Decade of His Young Life Behind Bars
Mr. Johnson went from being a high school student to being an incarcerated felon serving a life sentence, until hopefully today. And that's just on the first convction. As for the convition on the second sexual assault charge, Mr. Johnson has already served that five-year sentence.
What Happens to the Attorney Who Hid the Evidence? Is the State Bar Going to Do Anything?
The prosecutor who knew about this evidence that would clear him -- and she knew, it was no accident, her own handwritten notes show this -- has not had her identity revealed by the media or the Dallas County District Attorney's Office, and probably faces little if any consequences for her actions.
That's right - it's not very likely that the State Bar of Texas will seek to disbar her (though many are arguing that she should have her law license taken from her because of this bad act).
This, while the Bar has filed its own grievance against an Austin solo criminal defense attorney for his allegedly offensive conduct in a county court at law DUI proceeding.
Comparing The Bar's Disciplinary Actions: Adam Reposa vs. this case's Mystery Prosecutor -- If You Go Against Reposa, Surely You Go Against This DA
If the State Bar of Texas is going to sua sponte institute disciplinary action against this Austin solo, then surely they should have the chutzpah to file an action against Mr. Johnson's prosecutor, who blatantly let a young man go to jail for life when she knew better.
Even the Bar must see that when Austin solo Adam Reposa allegedly "...began whispering in Williams' ear and made a masturbatory gesture when the prosecutor said something about the continued whisperings .... " (quoting the Texas Lawyer) his purported actions are far less offensive to Texas courts and American justice than those of former Dallas prosecutor Madame X, who intentionally let an innocent teen go to jail for life.
Meanwhile, maybe Mr. Johnson's attorneys can think of a civil action to file ....
Sources:
Dallas Morning News
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/localnews/stories/DN-evidencewithheld_17met.ART.State.Edition2.4a2ecd3.html
Grits for Breakfast
http://gritsforbreakfast.blogspot.com/2008/11/brady-violation-may-lead-to-next-dallas.html
Law.Com/Texas Lawyer
http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202426058142&pos=ataglance
Today is also a very big day for Dallas County prosecutors because once again they are facing charges of prosecutorial misconduct. And this time, it's not about DNA evidence -- it's about withholding evidence that would have helped Mr. Johnson's case.
The District Attorney Hid Evidence That Would Help Johnson's Defense
That's right: a Dallas County district attorney had evidence that tended to exonerate Antrone Johnson back in 1996, and they didn't turn it over to the defense. That D.A. doesn't work for the Dallas County District Attorney's office anymore, and hasn't responded to media queries. (Fancy that.)
It's Been a Recognized Constitutional Violation Since 1963
When a prosecutor does this -- intentionally or accidentally withholds exculpatory evidence -- it's a violation of the defendant's constitutional rights, according to the U.S. Supreme Court. That defendant's conviction must be overturned.
Sadly, these errors have become such a commonplace event across this country that everyone just refers to the situation as a "Brady violation" (named after U.S. v. Brady, the 1963 case where the high court ruled this was a constitutional violation).
What Did the DA Hide, and What Were Johnson's Accused Crimes: the Backstory
Back in the 1990s, Mr. Johnson faced two cases of sexual assault before he turned 18 years old. Here's what the prosecutor didn't turn over to the defense:
1. In one case, the girl told the prosecutor that Mr. Johnson did not rape her.
2. In the other case, the girl gave conflicting statements about whether she had sex with him.
What about DNA testing?
No DNA testing was done (in either matter). That's right: zip DNA testing in two rape cases.
The Girls' Statements Were Kept From the Defense From 1996 to 2008
All this remained on the QT for what's going on 20 years, until earlier this year when Mr. Johnson and his defense attorneys were informed about these two statements of the girls.
Mr. Johnson's defense counsel promptly filed the proper motions for his convictions to be overturned as Brady violations. He should be free, they argue -- and based upon what the girls said, he should never have spent one night in prison for these crimes.
DA's Office Now Agrees With the Defense that Johnson Should Go Free
Now, the Dallas County District Attorney's office (throught Mike Ware, the head of its Conviction Integrity Unit), has filed a document with the court that states the DA's office agrees that Mr. Johnson's life sentence conviction should be overturned.
Meanwhile, Johnson's Already Finished One Sentence and He's Spent A Decade of His Young Life Behind Bars
Mr. Johnson went from being a high school student to being an incarcerated felon serving a life sentence, until hopefully today. And that's just on the first convction. As for the convition on the second sexual assault charge, Mr. Johnson has already served that five-year sentence.
What Happens to the Attorney Who Hid the Evidence? Is the State Bar Going to Do Anything?
The prosecutor who knew about this evidence that would clear him -- and she knew, it was no accident, her own handwritten notes show this -- has not had her identity revealed by the media or the Dallas County District Attorney's Office, and probably faces little if any consequences for her actions.
That's right - it's not very likely that the State Bar of Texas will seek to disbar her (though many are arguing that she should have her law license taken from her because of this bad act).
This, while the Bar has filed its own grievance against an Austin solo criminal defense attorney for his allegedly offensive conduct in a county court at law DUI proceeding.
Comparing The Bar's Disciplinary Actions: Adam Reposa vs. this case's Mystery Prosecutor -- If You Go Against Reposa, Surely You Go Against This DA
If the State Bar of Texas is going to sua sponte institute disciplinary action against this Austin solo, then surely they should have the chutzpah to file an action against Mr. Johnson's prosecutor, who blatantly let a young man go to jail for life when she knew better.
Even the Bar must see that when Austin solo Adam Reposa allegedly "...began whispering in Williams' ear and made a masturbatory gesture when the prosecutor said something about the continued whisperings .... " (quoting the Texas Lawyer) his purported actions are far less offensive to Texas courts and American justice than those of former Dallas prosecutor Madame X, who intentionally let an innocent teen go to jail for life.
Meanwhile, maybe Mr. Johnson's attorneys can think of a civil action to file ....
Sources:
Dallas Morning News
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/localnews/stories/DN-evidencewithheld_17met.ART.State.Edition2.4a2ecd3.html
Grits for Breakfast
http://gritsforbreakfast.blogspot.com/2008/11/brady-violation-may-lead-to-next-dallas.html
Law.Com/Texas Lawyer
http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202426058142&pos=ataglance
Monday, November 10, 2008
DA Watch: Judge Dismisses Felony Corruption Charges Against DA Juan Angel Guerra
You gotta wonder.
Once Upon A Time, Juan Angel Guerra Was Just Planning a Re-Election Campaign ...
Almost two years ago, Willacy County District Attorney Juan Angel Guerra was planning his re-election campaign, after serving his region in South Texas for three straight terms. Guerra was gearing up for a run to serve another term in office - he would be voted the top prosecutor of the area for the fourth straight election.
Next, DA Guerra was Indicted on Three Separate Felony Indictments ....
Then, about 18 months ago, Guerra was indicted for allegedly doing some very bad things. In fact, there were three separate indictments:
First, it was alleged that DA Guerra commited theft when he demanded that a bail bonds company fork over $10,000 or he'd put them out of business.
Second, the DA was indicted for allegedly tampering with government records, perjury, or abuse of office because Guerra purportedly lied under oath when he claimed the bail bonds company was over its limit.
Third, Guerra was indicted for allegedly stealing over $200,000 in public funds by using county equipment and personnel for his own personal use.
Then, The Special Prosecutor Is Held to Be Improperly Appointed ....
Gus Garza was the man appointed to be Special Prosecutor of the Guerra case. DA Guerra challenged Garza's appointment, and in May 2008, the 13th Court of Appeals agreed with Guerra -- Gus Garza was improperly appointed to serve in this role. Ron Barroso replaced Garza.
And, State District Judge Manuel Banales Dismisses All Three Indictments.
In October 2008, the new Special Prosecutor Ron Barroso files a motion that the indictments against DA Guerra be dismissed, and Judge Banales grants the motion.
Why? Ron Barroso found NO EVIDENCE to support the three felony corruption charges that had been leveled against DA Juan Angel Guerra.
That's right: NO EVIDENCE.
But This is Only After Guerra's Lost the March Primary and His Re-Election Bid.
So, DA Guerra should be very happy, right? Well, no.
Seems that DA Juan Angel Guerra was beaten in the March 2008 Primary, when all this felony indictment stuff was being thrown around in the media -- and after serving three terms in office, this experienced prosecutor was beaten even before the November election day.
His reputation will forever be tainted, too - because lots of people are just going to remember that he was accused of being a thief and misusing his office, and they'll assume where there is smoke there is fire ... regardless of the fact that he's been cleared of any wrongdoing here.
Did Politics Go So Far As To Indict An Incumbent to Drive Him Out of Office?
Some might wonder if there were some closed-door shenanigans here. And, they would include Juan Angel Guerra - who has been quoted by the media as stating he believes the indictments came down to keep him from being re-elected.
Well, Juan Angel -- it kinda looks that way, doesn't it?
Postscript
By the way, on those three charges: Juan Angel had explained that he was using the $200,000 in county equipment and personnel as part of his job to offer free legal services to those in need; and he had legitimately demanded $10,000 from the bail bonding company to pay lawsuit judgments filed against the company, because it couldn't cover its bonds after the criminal defendants failed to show.
Source:
Associated Press
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hq7wvItWMIO8lWA-2tQGEOUkHlYQD94ATK200
Once Upon A Time, Juan Angel Guerra Was Just Planning a Re-Election Campaign ...
Almost two years ago, Willacy County District Attorney Juan Angel Guerra was planning his re-election campaign, after serving his region in South Texas for three straight terms. Guerra was gearing up for a run to serve another term in office - he would be voted the top prosecutor of the area for the fourth straight election.
Next, DA Guerra was Indicted on Three Separate Felony Indictments ....
Then, about 18 months ago, Guerra was indicted for allegedly doing some very bad things. In fact, there were three separate indictments:
First, it was alleged that DA Guerra commited theft when he demanded that a bail bonds company fork over $10,000 or he'd put them out of business.
Second, the DA was indicted for allegedly tampering with government records, perjury, or abuse of office because Guerra purportedly lied under oath when he claimed the bail bonds company was over its limit.
Third, Guerra was indicted for allegedly stealing over $200,000 in public funds by using county equipment and personnel for his own personal use.
Then, The Special Prosecutor Is Held to Be Improperly Appointed ....
Gus Garza was the man appointed to be Special Prosecutor of the Guerra case. DA Guerra challenged Garza's appointment, and in May 2008, the 13th Court of Appeals agreed with Guerra -- Gus Garza was improperly appointed to serve in this role. Ron Barroso replaced Garza.
And, State District Judge Manuel Banales Dismisses All Three Indictments.
In October 2008, the new Special Prosecutor Ron Barroso files a motion that the indictments against DA Guerra be dismissed, and Judge Banales grants the motion.
Why? Ron Barroso found NO EVIDENCE to support the three felony corruption charges that had been leveled against DA Juan Angel Guerra.
That's right: NO EVIDENCE.
But This is Only After Guerra's Lost the March Primary and His Re-Election Bid.
So, DA Guerra should be very happy, right? Well, no.
Seems that DA Juan Angel Guerra was beaten in the March 2008 Primary, when all this felony indictment stuff was being thrown around in the media -- and after serving three terms in office, this experienced prosecutor was beaten even before the November election day.
His reputation will forever be tainted, too - because lots of people are just going to remember that he was accused of being a thief and misusing his office, and they'll assume where there is smoke there is fire ... regardless of the fact that he's been cleared of any wrongdoing here.
Did Politics Go So Far As To Indict An Incumbent to Drive Him Out of Office?
Some might wonder if there were some closed-door shenanigans here. And, they would include Juan Angel Guerra - who has been quoted by the media as stating he believes the indictments came down to keep him from being re-elected.
Well, Juan Angel -- it kinda looks that way, doesn't it?
Postscript
By the way, on those three charges: Juan Angel had explained that he was using the $200,000 in county equipment and personnel as part of his job to offer free legal services to those in need; and he had legitimately demanded $10,000 from the bail bonding company to pay lawsuit judgments filed against the company, because it couldn't cover its bonds after the criminal defendants failed to show.
Source:
Associated Press
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hq7wvItWMIO8lWA-2tQGEOUkHlYQD94ATK200
Monday, November 03, 2008
DA Watch: Legislator Promises Action to Fight Against DA's Wrongful Convictions
Well, it's good to know that someone's paying attention to the Dallas Morning News scoop on known wrongful convictions of innocent men and women by the DA here in Dallas besides a blogger or two (see this blog's October 13, 2008 post)....
State Senator Rodney Ellis Has A Plan for Laws to Fix the Eyewitness Identification Problem
State Senator Rodney Ellis (who represents District 13, covering parts of Harris and Fort Bend counties) actually wrote a column in the Dallas Morning News last month, where he promised to:
1. introduce legislation in 2009 to reduce the likelihood of an innocent person being convicted in the future with laws requiring that eyewitness identification procedures be based in science and implemented by trained law enforcement personnel;
2. introduce legislation in 2009 to pass a law that will require videotaping of custodial interrogations, arguing that this will not only stop false confessions but also false claims of police brutality as well as disclosing any deals made with informants for their testimony; and
3. introduce legislation to create an Integrity Commission within the Texas Legislature, if the Texas Criminal Justice Integrity Unit created within the Texas Judiciary (i.e., formed by Justice Barbara Hervey of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals) doesn't hit the ball out of the park in reform aimed at preventing the conviction of innocent people in this state.
What About Ellis' Proposals?
Rodney Ellis is known for advocating criminal justice reform, and he's been one of the first appointees to Justice Hervey's Integrity Unit. He's not new to the scene here, trying to grab a headline or two: this isn't Ellis's first rodeo.
And, writing a short column for the Dallas paper might not be the proper place for details on how Ellis intends to implement his ideas.
Nevertheless, an argument can be made that we already have trained law enforcement personnel that are supposed to use scientific techniques (proper lineups, not show-ups) and it's just not happening when zealots are anxious for a quick conviction.
Academics have shown that eyewitness testimony has historically resulted in more wrongful convictions than all other causes, combined (See source link, below). Good luck to Senator Ellis on finding the cure.
As for the videotaping of custodial interrogations? You don't have to watch many episodes of Law & Order to figure out that taping the formal interrogation isn't going to stop police brutality and false confessions. It's just going to move the bad stuff down the hall.
Sources:
"Rodney Ellis: Lowering odds that innocents end up in prison," Dallas Morning News, October 21, 2008
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/opinion/viewpoints/stories/DN-ellis_22edi.State.Edition1.26faf47.html
Eyewitness Identification Procedures: Recommendations for Lineups and Photospreads, Law & Human Behavior Vol. 22, No. 6 (1998)
http://www.psychology.iastate.edu/faculty/gwells/whitepaperpdf.pdf
For More Information:
DA Watch: Dallas County Prosecutors Routinely Convicted Innocent Men Using Eyewitness Testimony Known to Be Faulty
http://dallaslawyer.blogspot.com/2008/10/da-watch-dallas-county-prosecutors.html
State Senator Rodney Ellis Has A Plan for Laws to Fix the Eyewitness Identification Problem
State Senator Rodney Ellis (who represents District 13, covering parts of Harris and Fort Bend counties) actually wrote a column in the Dallas Morning News last month, where he promised to:
1. introduce legislation in 2009 to reduce the likelihood of an innocent person being convicted in the future with laws requiring that eyewitness identification procedures be based in science and implemented by trained law enforcement personnel;
2. introduce legislation in 2009 to pass a law that will require videotaping of custodial interrogations, arguing that this will not only stop false confessions but also false claims of police brutality as well as disclosing any deals made with informants for their testimony; and
3. introduce legislation to create an Integrity Commission within the Texas Legislature, if the Texas Criminal Justice Integrity Unit created within the Texas Judiciary (i.e., formed by Justice Barbara Hervey of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals) doesn't hit the ball out of the park in reform aimed at preventing the conviction of innocent people in this state.
What About Ellis' Proposals?
Rodney Ellis is known for advocating criminal justice reform, and he's been one of the first appointees to Justice Hervey's Integrity Unit. He's not new to the scene here, trying to grab a headline or two: this isn't Ellis's first rodeo.
And, writing a short column for the Dallas paper might not be the proper place for details on how Ellis intends to implement his ideas.
Nevertheless, an argument can be made that we already have trained law enforcement personnel that are supposed to use scientific techniques (proper lineups, not show-ups) and it's just not happening when zealots are anxious for a quick conviction.
Academics have shown that eyewitness testimony has historically resulted in more wrongful convictions than all other causes, combined (See source link, below). Good luck to Senator Ellis on finding the cure.
As for the videotaping of custodial interrogations? You don't have to watch many episodes of Law & Order to figure out that taping the formal interrogation isn't going to stop police brutality and false confessions. It's just going to move the bad stuff down the hall.
Sources:
"Rodney Ellis: Lowering odds that innocents end up in prison," Dallas Morning News, October 21, 2008
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/opinion/viewpoints/stories/DN-ellis_22edi.State.Edition1.26faf47.html
Eyewitness Identification Procedures: Recommendations for Lineups and Photospreads, Law & Human Behavior Vol. 22, No. 6 (1998)
http://www.psychology.iastate.edu/faculty/gwells/whitepaperpdf.pdf
For More Information:
DA Watch: Dallas County Prosecutors Routinely Convicted Innocent Men Using Eyewitness Testimony Known to Be Faulty
http://dallaslawyer.blogspot.com/2008/10/da-watch-dallas-county-prosecutors.html
Monday, October 13, 2008
DA Watch: Dallas County Prosecutors Routinely Convicted Innocent Men, Using Eyewitness Testimony Known to Be Faulty
Let's all stop for a minute and appreciate the efforts of the Dallas Morning News -- who released a report yesterday that summarized their 8 month investigation into 19 Dallas County convictions that were later overturned as being clearly WRONG because of DNA evidence.
These reporters asked the question -- why didn't the investigation or the prosecution reveal that an innocent man was being accused?
Journalists at the Dallas Morning News looked at the complete files of these 19 cases, all overturned because DNA has revealed that an innocent man was convicted of the crime. And these were serious crimes -- rape, murder.
What they found isn't pretty.
According to their own published report, in all but ONE of these wrongful convictions, the prosecutors chose to build their case on eyewitness testimony.
This, despite the longstanding and common knowledge among prosecutors and defense attorneys alike - as well as academics and researchers - that eyewitness accounts are simply unreliable.
You just can't trust eyewitness accounts of what happened. They're rarely accurate. Everyone knows this.
Which makes what they found all the more shocking ....
From the Dallas Morning News, in part:
1. Thirteen of the 19 wrongly convicted men were black. Eight of the 13 were misidentified by victims of another race. Police investigators and prosecutors in the cases were all white, as were many of the juries of the 1980s.
2. Police officers used suggestive lineup procedures, sometimes pressured victims to pick their suspect and then cleared the case once an identification was made.
3. Prosecutors frequently went to trial with single-witness identifications and flimsy corroboration. Some tried to preserve shaky identifications by withholding evidence that pointed to other potential suspects.
4. Judges, governed by case law that has not kept pace with developments in DNA testing or research on eyewitness testimony, routinely approved even tainted pretrial identifications as long as an eyewitness expressed certainty in court.
Here's the thing:
You just don't take a man's life, or his freedom, on a case that is dependent upon eyewitness testimony for a conviction. And, yet, the Dallas County Prosecutors thought this was a fine thing to do -- and did it for years, apparently.
(They're not alone. According to the Dallas County Morning News investigation, misidentifications have been cited as a key factor in an estimated 75 percent of the 220 wrongful convictions exposed by DNA testing nationwide since 1989. Looks like prosecutors across the country would rather get another win on their resumes than avoid trying a case that doesn't have much evidence except for eyewitness testimony.)
Thank you, Dallas Morning News. Specifically, thank you DMN reporters Steve McGonigle and Jennifer Emily. Thank you.
Sources:
Dallas Morning News
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/politics/local/stories/DN-DNAlineups_05pro.ART.State.Edition2.4a899db.html
Dallas Morning News
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/politics/local/stories/DN-DNAdetails_05pro.ART.State.Edition1.4a87484.html
Houston Chronicle
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/tx/6053228.html
New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/12/us/12dna.html?ref=us
These reporters asked the question -- why didn't the investigation or the prosecution reveal that an innocent man was being accused?
Journalists at the Dallas Morning News looked at the complete files of these 19 cases, all overturned because DNA has revealed that an innocent man was convicted of the crime. And these were serious crimes -- rape, murder.
What they found isn't pretty.
According to their own published report, in all but ONE of these wrongful convictions, the prosecutors chose to build their case on eyewitness testimony.
This, despite the longstanding and common knowledge among prosecutors and defense attorneys alike - as well as academics and researchers - that eyewitness accounts are simply unreliable.
You just can't trust eyewitness accounts of what happened. They're rarely accurate. Everyone knows this.
Which makes what they found all the more shocking ....
From the Dallas Morning News, in part:
1. Thirteen of the 19 wrongly convicted men were black. Eight of the 13 were misidentified by victims of another race. Police investigators and prosecutors in the cases were all white, as were many of the juries of the 1980s.
2. Police officers used suggestive lineup procedures, sometimes pressured victims to pick their suspect and then cleared the case once an identification was made.
3. Prosecutors frequently went to trial with single-witness identifications and flimsy corroboration. Some tried to preserve shaky identifications by withholding evidence that pointed to other potential suspects.
4. Judges, governed by case law that has not kept pace with developments in DNA testing or research on eyewitness testimony, routinely approved even tainted pretrial identifications as long as an eyewitness expressed certainty in court.
Here's the thing:
You just don't take a man's life, or his freedom, on a case that is dependent upon eyewitness testimony for a conviction. And, yet, the Dallas County Prosecutors thought this was a fine thing to do -- and did it for years, apparently.
(They're not alone. According to the Dallas County Morning News investigation, misidentifications have been cited as a key factor in an estimated 75 percent of the 220 wrongful convictions exposed by DNA testing nationwide since 1989. Looks like prosecutors across the country would rather get another win on their resumes than avoid trying a case that doesn't have much evidence except for eyewitness testimony.)
Thank you, Dallas Morning News. Specifically, thank you DMN reporters Steve McGonigle and Jennifer Emily. Thank you.
Sources:
Dallas Morning News
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/politics/local/stories/DN-DNAlineups_05pro.ART.State.Edition2.4a899db.html
Dallas Morning News
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/politics/local/stories/DN-DNAdetails_05pro.ART.State.Edition1.4a87484.html
Houston Chronicle
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/tx/6053228.html
New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/12/us/12dna.html?ref=us
Monday, October 06, 2008
DA Watch: Tarrant County DA's Office Held Back Favorable Evidence in Death Row Case for 23 Years
On Thanksgiving Day 1985, a bomb was left in a briefcase on the doorstep of a trailer in a mobile home park.
It exploded and killed three people (a 44-year-old man, his teenaged daughter, a teenaged relative) and severely wounded another (the victim's 13 year-old son).
On October 2, 2008, another bomb of sorts hit this case: the Tarrant County District Attorney's Office officially admitted that evidence favorable to the defense was intentionally held back -- and it was important stuff.
This evidence might have cleared Michael Toney -- who sat through a jury trial, was found guilty, was then sentenced to death, and who has sat on Death Row since 1999. That's 9 years on Death Row for a man who has consistently maintained his innocence of the crime.
The Evidence Against Toney
The bombing was an unsolved crime for 12 years. Then, an inmate came forward to say that Michael Toney was talking to him about this bombing -- when Toney was questioned, he said it was all a plan to help out the inmate get out of jail. He was helping his buddy, but he didn't make that bomb, or kill those people.
It's not disputed that there's no fact to connect Michael Toney to the victims. Didn't know 'em, didn't have a beef with 'em.
The only witness evidence against him was:
(1) an ex-wife (yeah, that's right) who said back then that she had seen Mike Toney with a briefcase near the mobile home park on the night of the bombing. Now, she's saying she can't remember anything because she's got memory loss from injuries sustained during her military service in the Gulf War; and
(2) his ex-best-friend, whose story has jumped more than popcorn on a hot skillet: he saw Toney at the mobile home park, no he didn't, yes, he did.... You get the idea.
I, for one, wonder about the relationship between the ex-wife and the ex-best friend -- but then, maybe I read too many Grisham novels. And that's before I even consider this mystery evidence, you'll see what I mean ....
What Was Held Back?
Back then, the Tarrant County DA saw fit to hide documents that showed inconsistencies in the stories of the ex-wife and the ex-best-friend. They just weren't provided to the defense.
There were 14 separate documents that were either exculpatory or impeaching evidence -- things that the defense attorney could have used to tear apart the stories of the ex-wife and the ex-best-friend.
What Happens Now?
Suppressing evidence violates civil rights protected by the U.S. Constitution. Mr. Toney has an argument that his federally protected civil rights involving due process have been violated.
Meanwhile, last Thursday, an "Agreed Proposed Findings of Fact," was filed before the same district court judge that presided over Torey's first trial. In this document (filed jointly by the DA's office and Torey's attorney), the Tarrant County District Attorney's Office admits its error, and a motion for a new trial has been set for hearing.
Torey could face a new trial. He could also have his conviction reversed by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, the highest court in the State of Texas dealing with criminal matters.
What About that 1985 DA who held back the evidence?
That DA, Mike Parrish, has since retired and he's not talking to the press.
What about that inmate-buddy who started this whole wagon train?
Dunno. I'm wondering how much he knew about this long ago Thanksgiving Day bombing ....
Source:
Dallas Morning News
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/localnews/stories/DN-toney_03met.ART0.State.Edition1.274a805.html
It exploded and killed three people (a 44-year-old man, his teenaged daughter, a teenaged relative) and severely wounded another (the victim's 13 year-old son).
On October 2, 2008, another bomb of sorts hit this case: the Tarrant County District Attorney's Office officially admitted that evidence favorable to the defense was intentionally held back -- and it was important stuff.
This evidence might have cleared Michael Toney -- who sat through a jury trial, was found guilty, was then sentenced to death, and who has sat on Death Row since 1999. That's 9 years on Death Row for a man who has consistently maintained his innocence of the crime.
The Evidence Against Toney
The bombing was an unsolved crime for 12 years. Then, an inmate came forward to say that Michael Toney was talking to him about this bombing -- when Toney was questioned, he said it was all a plan to help out the inmate get out of jail. He was helping his buddy, but he didn't make that bomb, or kill those people.
It's not disputed that there's no fact to connect Michael Toney to the victims. Didn't know 'em, didn't have a beef with 'em.
The only witness evidence against him was:
(1) an ex-wife (yeah, that's right) who said back then that she had seen Mike Toney with a briefcase near the mobile home park on the night of the bombing. Now, she's saying she can't remember anything because she's got memory loss from injuries sustained during her military service in the Gulf War; and
(2) his ex-best-friend, whose story has jumped more than popcorn on a hot skillet: he saw Toney at the mobile home park, no he didn't, yes, he did.... You get the idea.
I, for one, wonder about the relationship between the ex-wife and the ex-best friend -- but then, maybe I read too many Grisham novels. And that's before I even consider this mystery evidence, you'll see what I mean ....
What Was Held Back?
Back then, the Tarrant County DA saw fit to hide documents that showed inconsistencies in the stories of the ex-wife and the ex-best-friend. They just weren't provided to the defense.
There were 14 separate documents that were either exculpatory or impeaching evidence -- things that the defense attorney could have used to tear apart the stories of the ex-wife and the ex-best-friend.
What Happens Now?
Suppressing evidence violates civil rights protected by the U.S. Constitution. Mr. Toney has an argument that his federally protected civil rights involving due process have been violated.
Meanwhile, last Thursday, an "Agreed Proposed Findings of Fact," was filed before the same district court judge that presided over Torey's first trial. In this document (filed jointly by the DA's office and Torey's attorney), the Tarrant County District Attorney's Office admits its error, and a motion for a new trial has been set for hearing.
Torey could face a new trial. He could also have his conviction reversed by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, the highest court in the State of Texas dealing with criminal matters.
What About that 1985 DA who held back the evidence?
That DA, Mike Parrish, has since retired and he's not talking to the press.
What about that inmate-buddy who started this whole wagon train?
Dunno. I'm wondering how much he knew about this long ago Thanksgiving Day bombing ....
Source:
Dallas Morning News
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/localnews/stories/DN-toney_03met.ART0.State.Edition1.274a805.html
Monday, September 29, 2008
DA Watch: On Second Thought, Let's Drop All the Charges
This is a great story.
It all began last week, over in West Viriginia, when some poor guy got pulled over because he was driving with his headlights off.
After he was pulled over, the police suspected that this guy (let's call him "Jose" because that's his name - Jose Cruz) was driving drunk, so they had Jose do a few field sobriety tests.
Jose failed. Jose was arrested. The cops took him to jail.
At the jail, Jose was being fingerprinted (imagine how bad a day that Jose is having right about now) which is part of the standard booking process. He'd get photographed, too -- you've seen those mugshots over at TMZ.com, right? (Heather Locklear's is online today, for her DUI bust this weekend.)
Well, while Jose is getting his inky fingers smashed on the fingerprint boards, Jose let one go. You know what I mean. Jose passed gas. Jose let one rip. Jose cut the cheese. Jose broke wind.
Jose pooted or tooted, but there was absolutely no report that Jose asked the officer to pull his finger.
And then, yes folks, Jose was arrested for BATTERY because he passed gas while he was being booked. The cop that was standing there said that "the odor was very strong." You think?
I suppose that if Jose HAD asked the officer to pull his finger, then an assault charge would have been added ....
Of course, this story went all over the web that night. Drudge Report had it as one of their headlines, it was all over the blogs and forums -- you get the idea.
And, the next morning, one of the assistant prosecutors roamed into the magistrate's office and asked that the battery charge be dropped.
It was. Fancy that.
For more on this important topic:
FartsRFun
FartiFacts
FartSounds
It all began last week, over in West Viriginia, when some poor guy got pulled over because he was driving with his headlights off.
After he was pulled over, the police suspected that this guy (let's call him "Jose" because that's his name - Jose Cruz) was driving drunk, so they had Jose do a few field sobriety tests.
Jose failed. Jose was arrested. The cops took him to jail.
At the jail, Jose was being fingerprinted (imagine how bad a day that Jose is having right about now) which is part of the standard booking process. He'd get photographed, too -- you've seen those mugshots over at TMZ.com, right? (Heather Locklear's is online today, for her DUI bust this weekend.)
Well, while Jose is getting his inky fingers smashed on the fingerprint boards, Jose let one go. You know what I mean. Jose passed gas. Jose let one rip. Jose cut the cheese. Jose broke wind.
Jose pooted or tooted, but there was absolutely no report that Jose asked the officer to pull his finger.
And then, yes folks, Jose was arrested for BATTERY because he passed gas while he was being booked. The cop that was standing there said that "the odor was very strong." You think?
I suppose that if Jose HAD asked the officer to pull his finger, then an assault charge would have been added ....
Of course, this story went all over the web that night. Drudge Report had it as one of their headlines, it was all over the blogs and forums -- you get the idea.
And, the next morning, one of the assistant prosecutors roamed into the magistrate's office and asked that the battery charge be dropped.
It was. Fancy that.
For more on this important topic:
FartsRFun
FartiFacts
FartSounds
Monday, July 14, 2008
This One's On Me!!!
Here's some international coverage from the Economist concerning article 59 abuses across Texas. As many of you know, article 59 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure is the way our trusted District Attorneys go about seizing millions of dollars in "drug dealer" assets. You would think that this money then goes to help out children or crime prevention. Well sometimes it does and sometimes it can pay for a pretty awesome margarita machine. Montgomery County District Attorney Mike McDougal used article 59 seizure money to acquire a margarita machine for the county fair. Maybe the first toast at the party was to all of the defendants that could make the party possible. This one's on me!
Monday, April 10, 2006
PROSECUTOR COMMENTS ON DEFENDANT'S RIGHT TO REMAIN SILENT, RECKLESS OR INTENTIONAL??
In a captial murder trial the State prosecutor commented on the Defendant 5th Amendment rights. The Judge declared a mistrial. Federal Double Jeopardy law says no new trial for the State if it can be shown that the prosecutor's conduct was reckless or intentional. Tim Cole, the district attorney for Montague, Clay and Archer counties argued that the prosecutor's comments were due to inexperience and were not intentional or reckless. The Fort Worth Court of Appeals went with that explanation.
Does it make sense that a prosecutor trying a multiple count captial murder case isn't experienced enough to understand how the 5th Amendment works?
In a captial murder trial the State prosecutor commented on the Defendant 5th Amendment rights. The Judge declared a mistrial. Federal Double Jeopardy law says no new trial for the State if it can be shown that the prosecutor's conduct was reckless or intentional. Tim Cole, the district attorney for Montague, Clay and Archer counties argued that the prosecutor's comments were due to inexperience and were not intentional or reckless. The Fort Worth Court of Appeals went with that explanation.
Does it make sense that a prosecutor trying a multiple count captial murder case isn't experienced enough to understand how the 5th Amendment works?
Harris County District Attorney sees no pattern of prosecutor misconduct. What do you think?
Dallas Morning News News for Dallas, Texas Texas/Southwest
Dallas Morning News News for Dallas, Texas Texas/Southwest
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)