Some quotes from the article, and thoughts ..
" ... based on the complaint raised by the real party in interest (the defense), the trial court is the proper venue for review of alleged violations of its gag order."
The case was brought to this court, Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, by the state, not by Broden. The only complaint Broden introduced to this court was the Emergent Motion re: unclean hands.
The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals granted "conditional relief" to the state and ordered both sides to submit briefs on the issue.
This is part true and part false. It was the 10th Court of Appeals that granted a conditional order, and that order was to lift the gag order in 7 days. The 7 days was enough time for the state to appeal its second loss (the state lost at the 54th District Court first, appealed that to the 10th Court of Appeals, lost that, and appealed to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals).
At any rate, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals stayed the conditional order from the 10th Court of Appeals, and order briefs. None of that was conditional, and none of that is "relief," it just holds status quo while deciding the case. I think the case is not decided yet.
Then twice in subsequent days, Broden filed motions with the higher court asking the original gag order be lifted because the 54th District Court had no jurisdiction to issue the gag order in the first place and because, he said, the state had violated the gag order several times by continuing to talk about issues in the case.In denying the motions by Broden, the Court of Appeals did not address those issues but said if there are questions about the validity of the original gag order, the place to raise those questions and make accusations of violations is in the original court, not at the appeals level.
Muddled crap. Broden filed a BRIEF on the 14th. A brief is not a motion. Broden filed ONE motion with the Texas Court of criminal Appeals, that is the "unclean hands" motion filed on the 21st, past the deadline for submitting briefs.
If the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals did not address the jurisdiction question, then what it issued today is not a decision on the merits.
The only reason the gag order remains in place is that the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals stay remains in place. That stay will remain in place until the Texas Court of Criminal appeals issues an opinion and order.
I think you are right, Cboldt.
Your explanation makes it much more clear.
Thank you.
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.