Posted on 07/03/2015 4:42:00 AM PDT by don-o
A hearing Thursday for a disabled Gatesville Army veteran who rides with the Cossacks Motorcycle Club included a strong challenge to the probable cause used to arrest 177 bikers in the wake of the May 17 Twin Peaks shootout.
Ronald Atterbury’s attorney, John H. Jackson, who also is a former state district judge from Corsicana, attacked the probable cause reported in Atterbury’s arrest warrant affidavit, which is identical to the others used to detain bikers en masse after the melee that left nine dead and 20 injured.
Officials used identical documents, labeled “cookie-cutter” by defense attorneys, changing only the names, to apply the same conduct to all those jailed.
Jackson was not successful in getting the charges dismissed, but convinced 54th State District Judge Matt Johnson to reduce Atterbury’s bond from $1 million to $40,000.
Jackson called Waco police Detective Manuel Chavez as a witness to describe how the affidavits were drafted. To obtain the arrest warrants, Chavez swore before a judge as to their content. He testified Thursday that the document was written by prosecutors in the McLennan County District Attorney’s Office on the day of the shootout.
Chavez admitted he didn’t know if Atterbury, 45, committed any of the offenses alleged in the affidavit and acknowledged that the affidavit does not accuse Atterbury specifically of any wrongdoing besides being a member of the Cossacks.
“Is membership in one of those organizations a crime?” Jackson asked. Chavez answered, “No.”
“You did not furnish any information to Judge (Pete) Peterson that my client committed any crime, did you?” Jackson asked.
Chavez said, “No, sir.”
Peterson, a justice of the peace, issued the arrest warrants and set $1 million bonds for each biker.
Under cross-examination from prosecutor Brandon Luce, Chavez said he spoke with other officers and witnesses who were present during the shootout.
“He committed the offense of engaging in organized criminal activity by associating with a criminal street gang and showing up with other members of an organized street gang where a melee ensued, involving another organized street gang. Is that right?” Luce asked.
“That is correct,” the detective replied.
Jackson again questioned Chavez.
“You did not set out specific allegations in those affidavits for any of these 177 people that would lead a judge to believe that any of them committed any offense at all, did you?” Jackson asked. “Does it bother you that a lot of people were locked up because of your affidavit that doesn’t allege any criminal act by any of these 177 people?”
His question drew an objection from Luce, and Jackson withdrew it.
Johnson ruled that probable cause was sufficient to support Atterbury’s arrest.
The judge lowered his bond to $40,000, but placed Atterbury under the same restrictions, including wearing a GPS ankle monitor, that most of the other bikers have.
Jackson said Atterbury’s family should be able to come up with the $4,000 — or 10 percent of the total bond — to get him released in a couple of days.
Prosecutors have filed a petition to seize and forfeit Atterbury’s 2003 Harley-Davidson motorcycle to the county.
Family members testified Atterbury has no prior criminal record and is needed at home to help support his wife, Diana, who suffered a debilitating leg injury in a motorcycle accident and came to court in a wheelchair.
She testified that her husband is 100 percent disabled after his Army service in the Gulf War.
Everything I hear about this case suggests that the way the establishment is handling it is disgraceful.
Here, the affidavit of probable cause was deficient, and this guy should have been released. But he wasn’t, because if the judge ruled it was deficient, it would have exposed the county to liability for damages. So the judge made this wholly unjustified ruling.
If the actual definitions of these words “organized street gang”, etc. is to be used it DOES seem to include the police as they are guilty of every crime this person is accused of and yet only the civilian stands before the bar.
The police are guilty of responding to shots fired at a public place? What are they supposed to do?
That is the aspect of this matter that first attracted my interest. I figured that within a couple of days, it would get sorted out. Those who committed crimes would be charged with crimes.
But Reyna is sticking with the game plan he formulated on 5/17. At first, I think he was hoping to sweat the prisoners for testimony (which makes one wonder about the quality of the physical evidence.) Perhaps that worked - we can't know that.
Speaking of probable cause, these thing can take a LONG time to get resolved.
Judge Sullivan: Some Arrests at 2004 RNC Lacked Probable Cause
Help save America! Support organized crime! Get a neck tattoo!
You ride with the cossacks or the banditos you have joined a new world. All these calls to.release evidence to the public are simply to undermine the case against these secret organizations. The gangs want to know who is testifying against them so they can shut them up. I’ve read that these gangs are working closely with the cartels. As long as the cops stay within the letter of,the law they can do what they want. If they don’t the case will collapse.
Decent points. Though carried to its logical conclusion it means the members of any large enough crowd/gang/mob will be immune to arrest and prosecution.
"You did not furnish any information to Judge (Pete) Peterson that my client committed any crime, did you?" Jackson asked.Well, that's sure enough to justify the judge's decision to support the arrest and detention, subject to posting bond.Chavez said, "No, sir."
No allegation of crime. NONE.
"You did not furnish any information to Judge (Pete) Peterson that my client committed any crime, did you?" Jackson asked.Well, that's sure enough to justify the judge's decision to support the arrest and detention, subject to posting bond.Chavez said, "No, sir."
No allegation of crime. NONE.
Oops, read on, as they say, although I have to wonder why the detective didn't answer truthfully under direct examination.
"He committed the offense of engaging in organized criminal activity by associating with a criminal street gang and showing up with other members of an organized street gang where a melee ensued, involving another organized street gang. Is that right?" Luce asked."That is correct," the detective replied.
The proesecution's question does NOT recite the elements of the crime, but at least it makes a naked (that means unsupported) allegation that there was probable cause that the crime was committed.
That gruel is so thin, it resembles stone soup, before the ingredients are added.
Here's a statute, some people violate it, this defendant associates with a group, some of whome conspire illegaly under the statute, therefore he probably conspired.
Promotions and glory for the government and the judge.
How in the world do you derive that? This is about individualized probable cause. The organized crime law Reyna is using has been used as an additional charge to other actual crimes that a perp actually committed.
Reyna is obviously seeing if the can make it the ONLY crime he charges.
The right to bear arms and the right to self defense do not disappear in restaurant parking lots.
Not even when the people in question wear funny clothes.
If they can't tell who is who, DON'T SHOOT!
Why do you have to ask someone else to explain this to you?
When I was a kid, everybody knew this.
In any large enough crowd or mob, it is usually impossible to determine which individuals committed which specific illegal act.
Part of the ancient law of conspiracy and accessory is that if you’re part of a group involved in illegal activities, you share some of the guilt for actions committed by any of the members.
Here’s, I think, the relevant section of TX criminal code.
http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/PE/htm/PE.71.htm
Three’s the key … but you’ll need more
Please read it carefully and thoughtfully. Does not common sense recoil at the very idea that 177 people could have violated this law on 5/17/15?
My link in Post 5 deals with that very matter.
The conspiracy statute can be the only crime. As long as there is evidence of intent and conspiracy to commit one of numerous offenses. The intent element is necessary, and association, without more, does not establish intent.
The intent element is fairly lengthy in its own right, but reads to me like an intention to "share or personally profit" via commission of one of the enumerated crimes (gambling, prostitution, gun sales, murder, and probably 100 other offenses), with the intent also necessarily being part of a group effort. If a person conspires for himself, the conspiracy doesn't meet the intent element in this statute.
For what it's worth, judges almost always uphold unsupported allegations. "The law in principle" bears only resemblance in form, to the way substantive law is practiced by the government capos and goons. Thousands of cases and decisions bear this out in black and white.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.