Appeals Court Leaves Twin Peaks Gag Order In Place (WACO)

KWTX 10 ^ | September 23, 2015 | Paul J. Gatley

[Cboldt]

It is as I suspected from the article. The only motion in the case is the one from Broden claiming the case should be decided based on unclean hands.

In this order, that motion (and only that motion) is denied. The procedural position is that the state has petitioned this court to decide the issue on the merits, this court has been briefed on the case, and the case is "set" for a decision.

Per curiam. M EYERS, J., dissents. R ICHARDSON, J., not participating.

ORDER

In the underlying cause, the trial judge entered a gag order at the request of the State.¹ In an application for a writ of mandamus, the real party in interest then asked the Tenth Court of Appeals to lift the gag order. That court conditionally granted relief, whereupon the State filed an application for a writ of mandamus requesting that this Court prohibit the court of appeals from lifting the trial court's gag order. This Court issued a stay as to the order of the Tenth Court of Appeals that conditionally granted relief and filed and set for submission the mandamus application filed by the

---

¹ This is one of 177 cases arising from a disturbance at a Waco restaurant.

1

State. The real party in interest now moves this Court to lift its stay and allow the court of appeals's order to take effect because the State has repeatedly violated the gag order.

The motion is denied. The issues raised in the State's application for a writ of mandamus have been filed and set in this Court, and the Court has received briefs from the real party in interest, the State, and two amici curiae. In this procedural position, we decline to act; based on the complaint raised by the real party in interest, the trial court is the proper venue for review of alleged violations of its gag order.

[don-o]

Muddled crap.

True to form with what we have come to expect in the reporting for just about all the media. Coherence is a foreign concept.

Again, thanks for your good efforts to decipher.

[USNBandit]

Now I am confused

[Cboldt]

This is concise and accurate ...

Clint Broden Says:
September 24, 2015 at 2:15 pm

The order yesterday was NOT a final ruling on the gag order. There is a lot of confusion. All the parties and two amici filed briefs on the gag order on the legality of the gag order on September 14, 2015. On September 212, 2015, I, on behalf of my client, filed an emergency motion to immediately violate the gag order based on the "unclean hands" argument that the DA was continuing to violate the gag order.

Yesterday, the Court of Criminal Appeals simply denied the emergency motion and wrote that it was denying the motion to vacate the stay on equitable grounds given that the briefs on the merits were already filed.

The merits briefs will actually be submitted to the judges on October 7, 2015. They will issue an ruling on the actual validity of the gag order sometime after that. While the Court of Criminal Appeals will likely act expeditiously there is no deadline for it to rule.

[USNBandit]