Posted on 08/12/2015 11:32:13 AM PDT by don-o
McLennan County District Attorney Abel Reyna has asked the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals to overturn a ruling by Waco’s intermediate appellate court that lifted a gag order in the case of a Hewitt man arrested in the Twin Peaks shootout.
Reyna filed a petition for writ of mandamus and a motion for stay of writ of mandamus with the state’s highest criminal court Tuesday. Reyna is asking the court to rule that the 10th Court of Appeals was wrong last week when it ordered 54th State District Judge Matt Johnson to vacate a gag order he imposed in the case of Matthew Alan Clendennen.
The 10th Court’s order, issued Friday, gave Johnson seven days to lift the gag order. Johnson had not done so by Tuesday evening.
Clendennen was one of 177 bikers arrested May 17 after nine bikers were killed and 20 others were wounded in the Twin Peaks melee.
Reyna did not return messages left for him Tuesday.
In an emergency petition for writ of mandamus, Clendennen’s attorney, Dallas lawyer Clint Broden, argued that the judge had no jurisdiction to impose a gag order because his client has not been indicted. The gag order bars Broden, prosecutors, witnesses and police officials from publicly discussing Clendennen’s case.
The attorney alleged the gag order violates Clendennen’s right to free speech, and the judge’s findings to adopt the gag order are “insufficient to establish that any unidentified pretrial publicity in this case has risen to the level that it poses an imminent and severe harm to a fair and impartial trial,” Broden’s petition said.
A number of media outlets and the Texas Criminal Defense Lawyers Association filed briefs with the 10th Court in support of Broden’s motion seeking an order for Johnson to lift the gag order.
Jeopardy to fair trials
In arguing that the gag order be continued, Reyna says the defendants’ rights to fair trials are in jeopardy because of “a danger of prejudice from pretrial publicity.”
“The enormity of the event at Twin Peaks may be unique in the number of victims, the number of co-defendants, the level of violence and its effect on a local community,” Reyna’s petition says. “In determining the propriety of the gag order, it would behoove this court to compare the underlying facts of this case with those of the cases cited in the parties’ brief presented to the 10th Court.
“The scale of the Twin Peaks incident dwarfs those of the cited cases. The trial court was justified in imposing all of the restrictions contained in the gag order.”
In appealing the gag order to the 10th Court, Broden said that given the unique nature of the case, “which has 176 identical companion cases,” a gag order is likely to be ineffectual and is not the least restrictive means to prevent harm.
“Whether real or perceived, there is a noxious odor surrounding the investigation by the Waco police and the McLennan County District Attorney’s office with regard to the Twin Peaks shooting and the wholesale arrest of 177 motorcyclists based on identical, fill-in-the-name criminal complaints,” Broden alleged in his petition.
ping and another tip of the hat
Do we really want EVERYONE knowing the state's lies and BS?
Because: Gorebal Warning
>>> In arguing that the gag order be continued, Reyna says the defendants’ rights to fair trials are in jeopardy because of “a danger of prejudice from pretrial publicity.” <<<
Look! Squirrel!
The filed documents are linked. The state is not requesting oral argument.
One of these days, real soon now, the state AG's office ought to be responding to the request for opinion from the city of Waco, as it asserts an open records exception. 45 business days from the date the request of opinion was filed, which was roughly mid-June, if I recall correctly. 45 business days is about 9 weeks.
Isn’t it usually the defendant’s counsel who wants a gag order to prevent pretrial publicity from prejudicing the jury?
considering they were arrested for wearing fill in the blank generic biker costumes warrants of that ilk sound feasable.
“Can someone explain that to me? “
The DA knows he’s knee-deep in the excrement he’s produced, so he’s just trying to save his own a$$ and those of the Whacko PD. This is not going to end well for the whole “judicial system” in McLennan County. It stinks!
OR2015-15225 of July 27, responsive to Waco LGL-15-181, relates to the twin Peaks incident. However, this is not the same Waco request that was mailed to the AG on June 3. The Waco ID's for that letter are LGL-15-173, LGL-15-174, LGL-15-175, LGL-15-176, LGL-15-177, LGL-15-178, and LGL-15-179.
I think the AG response to Waco's June 3 letter is somewhere in list of open records responses, and that it says Waco may withhold the information due to pending prosecution.
This case has been making it difficult for the local badge polishers from day one.
This is Chinese arithmetic to me. But I thank you for posting.
It’s whichever side is frantic to keep the evidence suppressed.
Just a bunch of reference numbers assigned by the city of Waco and the state AG's office. Still looking through the opinions, seeking the AG opinion that refers to that collection of Waco ID numbers, looking for support for the contention that the sought documents are excluded from disclosure under open records law.
In general, the accused have more right to the info than the public does, so lifting the gag order is the more likely avenue to the info getting to the public.
The trick I was taught in law school was to dismiss the charges so the preliminary hearing wouldn’t be held, and then take it to the GJ for an indictment and round the guy up on a bench warrant then. Because no prosecutor wants to show his hand until trial.
DA is stalling until the tame GJ can get its rubber stamp going.
You are right though, if the state wants to keep the evidence "buried until later," delaying arrest and accusation delays the mandatory discovery. In this case, for most of the accused, the process is the punishment, and having so many accused opens up that many avenues for state's evidence to leak out.
No charges have been filed, so I presume you meant, instead of "drop the charges," to "drop the arrest/accusation."
You are right though, if the state wants to keep the evidence "buried until later," delaying arrest and accusation delays the mandatory discovery. In this case, for most of the accused, the process is the punishment, and having so many accused opens up that many avenues for state's evidence to leak out.
No charges have been filed, so I presume you meant, instead of "drop the charges," to "drop the arrest/accusation."
Bush’s fault. Or a Republican dirty trick.
Texas AG OR2015-16352, dated August 7, 2015.
It generally opines that the city of Waco may withhold the information, except what it already published on its website.
Worth at least skimming, as it touches on various types of information and the rules for making the information public.
Preliminary hearings are RARE in Texas, except Dallas, for reasons I haven't reasearched. In McClennan county, "rare" is at a rate of about 1 examining trial per decade. This, even though all accused felons have a right to one.
Typically, when an accused requests the examining trial, the DA moves straight to indictment, which terminates the right to examining trial. Indictment creates irrefutable probable cause, under Texas law.
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.