Archive for the ‘DA Watch’ Category

December 30th, 2009

DA Watch: Montgomery County Tweets DUI Arrests this New Year’s Eve

Over in Montgomery County, District Attorney Brett Ligon has announced that on New Year’s Eve 2009, law enforcement will post all drunk driving arrests on Twitter.  Actually, he’s been tweeting about drunk driving arrests – among others – for awhile now (since Christmas). 

This is getting lotsa attention for DA Ligon.

For example, plaintiff’s personal injury lawyers at Jim Adler & Associates — you’ve seen their ads if you watch any TV whatsoever — have already posted on this at their firm blog.  They call this a “sweet” idea, discuss how “shame” may be a great deterrent to the holiday car crashes caused by drunk driving, and then conclude their post (of course) with a reminder that if anyone wants to file a wrongful death or serious personal injury claim based on drunk driving, well … they DO do that kind of work. 

Techies and geeks interested in the tweeting aspects of DA Ligon’s brilliant idea are writing about this, too.  Gizmodo already follows the DA on Twitter (Ligon can be seen at twitter.com using the name “MontgomeryTXDAO”) — and they’re reporting they will be reading this “comedy goldmine in the making.”

It’s a story that is getting national media coverage.  MyFoxCharlotte is covering the story, quoting Montgomery County assistant district attorney Warren Diepraam as claiming he initially came up with the idea of tweeting all drunk driving arrests between Christmas Eve and New Year’s Day. 

Here’s some things that should be considered …like innocent victims suing for damages ….

1.  This isn’t being posted on a government site.  It’s been tweeted on a personal account set up at www.twitter.com.

2.  Anyone arrested for DUI is still innocent until proven guilty.  What happens to those who are later found innocent?  The “shame” of the tweet is already out there — and assuming arguendo that the tweet does cause harm and humiliation, then can the victim sue the twitterer individually for the harm done?  Remember, this isn’t a government account.  Can they sue the assistant district attorney, who so proudly claims the Shaming Tweet Strategy as his big idea?  Can they sue Twitter, too?

3.  What about expulsion of a drunk driving charge now the road?  Do expulsion orders need to include social media sites now?

December 21st, 2009

DA Watch: Yolanda Madden Freed by Judge After 4 Yrs – DA Failed to Turn Over Exculpatory Evidence

You may remember the case of Yolanda Madden because of the notorious YouTube video awhile back showing the Odessa cops being caught on video by Kopbusters.  (We wrote about the Kopbusters story last December and you can watch the video on that post). 

Well, after being in jail for four years — yep, 4 YEARS — Yolanda Madden is once again enjoying her freedom after Federal District Judge Rob Junell vacated her sentence. 

The Smoking Gun that was hidden from the defense

While the federal judge wouldn’t go so far as to accuse the prosecution of intentionally hiding the Smoking Gun documentary evidence, no one could argue its existence.  What was it? 

A log sheet.  A simple, routine log sheet of the Odessa Police Department.  The big deal about the log sheet is the absence of a key name on its roster.  Odessa Police Deparment Officer Greg Travland testified at Madden’s trial that she confessed to him — but the Smoking Gun log sheet reveals that Travland was NOT in the police station at the time. 

Of course, this story gets worse.

Yolanda Madden consistently claimed that drugs were planted on her.  She told this to anyone who would listen — loudly.  Her husband spent the family’s life savings in support of his wife, believing that she had been set-up. 

A drug informant ADMITTED that he was the one who planted the drugs (crystal meth) on Yolanda Madden.  Madden took a polygraph and passed.  So did the informant.  Madden took hair follicle and urine drug tests.  No evidence of drugs. 

Law enforcement didn’t care.  Madden was still tried and convicted. 

Madden’s Family Sought the Help of Barry Cooper’s Kopbusters

Frustrated and feeling powerless, Madden’s father asked Kopbusters to come to Odessa and help them fight the injustice.  Kopbusters did — and the result was their now-famous video of the Odessa cops entering a phony drug house set up by the Kopbusters.  For details on how the Odessa cops fell prey to the Kopbusters, check out our December 10, 2008, post where Kopbusters founder (and former cop) Barry Cooper gives all the details.

What Happens Now? Get this — another trial has been set.

Let’s recap:

1. Kopbusters demonstrate that the Odessa cops play fast and loose with the law in drug cases;

2.  an informant gives testimony in court that he planted drugs on Yolanda Madden;

3.  the informant passes a polygraph;

4.  Yolanda passes a polygraph;

5.  Yolanda tests clean in hair follicle testing;

6.  Yolanda tests clean in urine testing; and

7.  the cop who claims Yolanda confessed to him wasn’t even at the police station at the time of the purported “confession,” as revealed by a log sheet NOT PROVIDED TO THE DEFENSE during trial….

and the federal judge schedules a new trial for Yolanda Madden, set for March 1, 2010.  They’re going to try her AGAIN?

What’s Really Going On Here?

It’s already being reported that the real story behind all this is the cops mistook Yolanda Madden for a drug dealer they nicknamed “the Ice Queen,” and used the informant with a bag of meth (which he handed over to Yolanda) as a way to bust this notorious Poison Ivy of Odessa. 

Sure looks like they got the wrong girl and they’re finding it very, very hard to admit they’ve made a mistake. 

Someone — like the Attorney General, the Texas Rangers, or the FBI — should help them.

December 16th, 2009

DA Watch: Death Row’s Henry Skinner sues Fed Prosecutor Lynn Switzer for Withholding DNA Evidence He Says Clears Him

The United States Supreme Court is already considering Henry Skinner’s petition for certiorari (09-7784), which he filed after his 1999 petition for writ of habeas corpus with the Amarillo federal district court (Skinner v. Quartman) was denied, and after the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals initially granted him a certificate of appealability on two issues relating to his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel in the guilt phase of his trial.  The 5th Circuit thereafter changed its mind, affirming the lower court’s decision  – which promptly set Skinner’s execution date for Feb. 24, 2010. 

But Skinner isn’t stopping with an appellate fight that he didn’t have adequate defense counsel — this Death Row inmate, represented by lead counsel Robert Owen of the UT School of Law Capital Punishment Center, is also challenging the prosecutor’s work during trial.

That’s right: the Death Row inmate is suing the prosecutor who tried his capital murder case. 

Henry Skinner is alleging that federal prosecutor Lynn Switzer has — right now — DNA evidence that could prove his innocence, and is refusing to release it.  Refusing, even though he’s set to die within 90 days.

According to Skinner (from his federal complaint)

“On October 20,2009, without giving Plaintiff’s attorneys any notice or an opportunity to be heard, the 31st District Court entered an order directing that Plaintiff be executed by intravenous injection ‘at any time after the hour of 6:00 p.m. on the 24th day of February, 2010 …. Defendant’s refusal to release the biological evidence for testing violates Plaintiffs Fourteenth Amendment right to due process and his Eighth Amendment right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment. Plaintiff requests of this Court an order declaring that Defendant’s continued withholding of the evidence violates Plaintiffs constitutional rights and requiring that Defendant release the evidence to Plaintiff under a reasonable protocol regarding chain of custody and preservation of the evidence, in order that Plaintiff can have the evidence tested at his own expense.”

Henry Skinner is scheduled to die in a matter of weeks, and he has to have some comfort in the dogged efforts that his appellate lawyers are undertaking on his behalf.  Harvard Law graduate and UT Law Professor Bob Owen and his team at the UT’s Capital Punishment Clinic are working hard here — one can only hope their efforts will not be in vain.

October 21st, 2009

DA Watch: Students’ Hard Work Results in Exoneration of Two Men After 10 Years Into Their Life Sentences

Justice has been victorious all because of the hard work of students involved with both (1) UT-Austin’s Texas Center for Actual Innocence and (2) the Innocence Network at UT-Arlington.

Long after the criminal justice system placed Claude Alvin Simmons, Jr., 54, and Christopher Shun Scott, 39, into Texas prisons for life and threw away the key, these two student organizations originated the efforts that resulted in this week’s exoneration of the two men. What a wonderful thing.

The Killing of Alfonso Aguilar in 1997 & Six Minute Jury Deliberations

Back in 1997, Alfonso Aguilar was shot and killed during a home-invasion. Then, get this: the jury deliberated a mere 6 minutes before convicting Simmons. Scott was also convicted for the murder in a back-to-back trial with Simmons. For ten years, Simmons and Scott — innocent men — have been incarcerated for a murder they didn’t commit.

Students Take Their Concerns to the Dallas County DA

The UT-Austin and UT-Arlington students took their concerns about Scott and Simmons to the Dallas County District Attorney. Working with the Dallas Police Department, the DA’s office opened the cold case and reviewed not only the physical evidence from the crime scene but the confession by another man, Alonzo Hardy, who also passed a lie detector test where he admitted to the killing of Mr. Aguilar so long ago.

Alonzo Hardy Confesses that he and Don Michael Anderson Committed the Murder During a Robbery/Home Invasion

The truth will out, as Shakespeare wrote — and now we know that Alonzo Hardy and his pal, not Simmons and Scott, were the ones robbing the Aguilar home back in 1997 when a capital murder was committed.  Hardy’s pal Anderson has been arrested.  Simmons and Scott have been exonerated and are expected to be released from jail this week. 

Hats off to the UT students who started this ball rolling.  And, congratulations to Mr. Simmons, Mr. Scott, and their loved ones on this happy day.

September 28th, 2009

Cop Watch: Local Police Depts Have to Pay for Crime Lab Testing Now

Times are tight and getting tighter, so counties across the State of Texas are finding all sorts of ways to cut costs.  Here in Dallas, that means something to the criminal defense bar and prosecutors alike because who’s footing the bill for testing of DNA, firearms, blood, etc.  has changed.

The Dallas County District Attorney’s Office isn’t going to pay for everyone’s crime lab tests anymore.

Before now, if a prosecutor ordered a lab test, Dallas County paid for it.  However, the Commissioners for Dallas County — looking at a $60 million shortfall in the budget — instructed all departments in the county to cut their departmental budgets by 10 percent.  

This edict has trickled down to impact every criminal defendant in the county — because all the tests being done by the county crime lab, the Southwest Institute of Forensic Sciences, will have to be paid for by the police departments involved in the arrest or investigation.   

What Will This Mean for Local Police Departments?

Police department budgets are just as stretched as everyone else’s — and suddenly, they’ve got to take on costs that for years they’ve been relying upon Dallas County to cover.   Surprise, surprise.  Reportedly, law enforcement will not be required to pay in advance for lab tests but they will have to enter into an agreement to pay the fee.

The Reality Is That There’s Gonna Be Less Lab Tests Run

What does this mean to the accused?  Probably less testing.  Lab tests aren’t going to be done unless absolutely necessary because of these cost cuts. 

This is Going to Hurt People

And, innocent people will be wrongfully accused because lab tests haven’t been done to rule them out.   We all know this is going to happen. 

Of course, it’s not as if the lab tests that are done by the crime labs are really trusted, anyway.  For details on how inaccurate and biased the crime lab results can be, check out Grits for Breakfasts’ discussion of the Houston Crime Lab.

September 21st, 2009

Judge Watch: Court of Crim Appeals Says Not Unfair to Defendant Hood for Judge and DA to Have Affair During Trial

If you’re shaking your head in disbelief at this week’s ruling by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals — well, join the crowd.  

When the news first hit that a trial court judge and the district attorney who prosecuted cases in her courtroom had had a long-standing sexual relationship, lots of folk were stunned.  And lots expected something To.Be.Done.About.This.  (See earlier post by this blog.)

Especially Charles Hood and his appellate counsel.  Hood was tried, convicted, and sentenced to death in a trial before Judge Verna Sue Holland with D.A. Tom O’Connell putting on the state’s case.   Seems pretty easy to think that Hood deserves a fair trial, right? 

Charles Dean Hood Sits on Texas’ Death Row, Knowing that During The Trial that sent him to death, the Judge and the DA were playing footsy

It isn’t even up for debate at this juncture:  trial court judge Verna Sue Holland and prosecutor Tom O’Connell, Jr. were involved romantically (yes — having an affair, a sexual relationship) while the capital murder trial of Charlie Hood was taking place.  Let’s think about that … shouldn’t this be strongly and swiftly punished? NOT allowed? 

Apparently not in Charlie Hood’s case.  This week, the high court has decided that Hood doesn’t get a fair trial because — wait for it — Hood should have brought it up earlier.  In an earlier writ.  Not making this up, folks.

What the heck?  Read what the Court decided — here’s the opinion and the dissent.

The highest state court on the subject just denied Charles Hood’s request that he have a new trial.  Here’s the Majority Opinion. Per Curiam, Not to be Published.   Not everyone agreed. Here’s the Dissenting Statement by Justice Cochran, who is joined by Justices Price and Holcomb.   The dissent sure makes sense — kudos to Justices Cochran, Price, and Holcomb.

What about the undisputed facts that the Judge and the DA BOTH LIED REPEATEDLY about having this sexual relationship? 

Here, the litany of facts listed in this week’s Dissent:

  1. Judge Verla Sue Holland of the 296th Judicial District Court of Collin County, presided over Hood’s capital murder trial.
  2. The elected District Attorney of Collin County, Thomas S. O’Connell, Jr., participated in the prosecution of Hood for capital murder.
  3. Judge Holland and Mr. O’Connell were involved in an intimate sexual relationship prior to Hood’s capital murder trial.
  4. Prior to the capital murder trial-and during the appellate and post-conviction proceedings-Judge Holland never disclosed her relationship with Mr. O’Connell to Hood.
  5. During these proceedings, Mr. O’Connell never disclosed his relationship with Judge Holland to Hood.
  6. Judge Holland and Mr. O’Connell took deliberate measures to ensure that their affair would remain secret. . . . Mr. O’Connell could not recall telling anyone, except possibly his sisters, about his romantic relationship with Judge Holland. Judge Holland told no one.
  7. Based only on rumors of an affair, Hood’s former habeas counsel decided to look into the matter prior to filing the initial habeas application. In 1995-96, Hood’s investigator, Tena S. Francis, conducted extensive records research. She reviewed divorce records, records obtained from the Office of Elections Administration, and case files in the Collin County District Clerk’s Office. Ms. Francis interviewed members of Hood’s defense team, attorneys practicing in Collin County, and Judge Holland’s former husband, Earl Holland. She attempted to interview Judge Holland’s bailiff, but he refused to discuss the judge’s personal life with her. She contacted the State Commission on Judicial Conduct.
  8. Ms. Francis was unable to develop any concrete evidence of the affair.
  9. On June 27, 2005, shortly before Hood’s scheduled execution date, A. Richard Ellis, former counsel for Hood, contacted Judge Holland. She refused to comment on the allegations that she had a romantic affair with Mr. O’Connell. On the same day, Mr. Ellis contacted Mr. O’Connell. Mr. O’Connell denied that he had a romantic affair with Judge Holland.
  10. On June 3, 2008, Hood received the affidavit of Matthew Goeller, a former assistant district attorney in Collin County, Texas.
  11. Mr. Goeller’s affidavit marked the first time that a former employee of the District Attorney’s Office who had worked there during Mr. O’Connell’s tenure was willing to speak on the record and under oath about the relationship.
  12. Mr. Goeller stated that the romantic relationship between Judge Holland and Mr. O’Connell was ongoing when Mr. Goeller began working at the District Attorney’s Office in 1987. Mr. Goeller could only assert that the relationship was “common knowledge,” not that he personally knew of any romantic interactions. 
  13. In June 2008, counsel for Hood retained Toni Knox, a private investigator. She reviewed the work previously conducted by Ms. Francis and then interviewed approximately two dozen individuals in the Collin County area who seemed likely to have some knowledge of the Holland-O’Connell affair.
  14. The witnesses could only attest that they had heard rumors about the affair.

Hood’s Life is at Stake –  as is the Reputation of Our State’s Criminal Justice System

A man’s life is at stake here.  Charles Hood is sentenced to die as a result of the trial overseen by Judge Holland and based upon a case presented by her lover-prosecutor.  Surely a new trial is warranted here, and the idea that a writ should have been filed sooner and therefore, he should be executed based on that secretly sexy trial, is simply a dog that won’t hunt.   

And the nation knows it, and our courts are becoming a joke.  Just go read:

Salon Magazine this week:  “The Texas Justice System operates in a parallel universe ….”

CBS News:  Whitewash

USA Today this week:  read the comments….

By the way, Verna Sue Holland served on the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals as a justice during the years 1997 - 2001 and she worked dailiy with EIGHT of the current nine justices on the CCA. 

 

September 16th, 2009

DA Watch: Texas Death Row Inmate Toney Freed Last Night and May Not Face Re-Trial

Michael Toney walked out of jail a free man last week after being on Texas’ Death Row for a decade.  Maybe you remember the case of Michael Toney….

Michael Toney Was Convicted for the Bombing Murder of 3 People – Nine Years Later, the DA Admits to Hiding Exculpatory Evidence

Last October, we posted about how the Tarrant County District Attorney held back favorable evidence in the Toney case for twenty-three (23) years.  From that post:

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.

In January, we posted about how the Texas Attorney General was taking over the Toney matter, since the Fort Worth prosecutors had recused themselves from the Toney case.   From that post:

Fourteen (14) separate documents that threw mud all over the evidence provided at trial against Toney by his ex-wife and his ex-best-friend — and theirs was the only witness evidence against him.

What does this mean?

By recusing itself, Tarrant County is transfering prosecution of this matter to the Attorney General for the State of Texas. It’s now the AG’s office that will have to decide whether or not to spend taxpayer money on a new trial for Michael Toney.

Right now, it’s unclear whether or not they’ve got enough evidence to pursue a case against him. (There was no physical evidence, and it’s not disputed that Toney had absolutely no connection with the three victims of the 1985 Thanksgiving Day bomb.)

What Happened This Week?  The Attorney General Dropped the Case and Moved to Dismiss – Giving Michael Toney His Freedom

Having taken over the case from the Tarrant County District Attorney’s Office, the Texas Attorney General took over an ancient case from square one.  It was admittedly a burdensome task where the DA would be reviewing all the evidence — witnesses, testimony, documents, expert testing and opinion, etc. –  and then proceeding on behalf of the State of Texas in its efforts to punish Michael Toney.  (In December 2009, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals overturned his conviction based upon the Tarrant County DA’s withholding of evidence.)

Apparently, the AG didn’t have the time to complete the job, given the November 2009 trial date, because a Motion to Dismiss was filed where the prosecution asked that the cae be dropped — and the reason given the trial court was insufficient time to review all the evidence and/or conduct adequate forensic testing before that trial deadline.   (Of course, the AG reserved its right to refile the case.)

The Attorney General filed its motion the day before it was to tell District Judge Everett Young whether or not the State would once again be seeking the death penalty.  A hearing was set for Thursday before Judge Young; the motion to dismiss automatically guts that setting.

So, last Wednesday, Michael Toney walked out of jail, a free man. 

Through his lawyers, he issued the following presser the next day:  “I have said all along that I was innocent of these charges and I know that when the Attorney General reviews the evidence, it will show that I am indeed innocent,” he said.

The Attorney General’s office is waffling on whether or not they’re going to continue pursuing Toney for this crime.  They had lingo in the dismissal motion about needing more time to get to know the case, investigate it thoroughly, and interestingly, to take advantage of the latest scientific evidence in dealing with fires, bombs, and such.

Do We See The Shadow of Cameron Todd Willingham?

Which is a good lesson to learn, given the Cameron Todd Willingham case.  You remember Cameron Todd Willingham — he was the man executed in 2004 by the State of Texas, only later to be confirmed innocent by arson experts.  Seems not only did Willingham not commit murder-by-arson (of his own kids), no one else did either.  New scientific review of the evidence revealed that the fire wasn’t arson at all.

Which isn’t to say that Willingham’s case can be analogized to Toney’s circumstances so far as to wonder if there was a bomb that went off that day long ago.  Safe to say there probably was a bomb.  However, maybe Willingham’s destiny may be to insure that there is clear and strongly supported forensic evidence before the State decides to seek to take the life of one of its citizens in the future.

August 24th, 2009

Cop Watch: Will Anyone Ever Investigate Dallas County Constables for Precincts 1 and 5?

Boy, is the Dallas Morning News all over this story. 

Last Tuesday, the Morning News printed an editorial asking that County Judge Jim Foster go forward and investigate his suspicions regarding the towing polices of Dallas County.

Today, the Morning News has a new editorial, asking that District Attorney Craig Watkins investigate what’s going on with the Dallas County Constables in Precincts 1 and 5 — not only these towing policies, but other stuff, as well. 

Constables and The Towing Service Controversy

Seems Dallas County Judge Foster has discovered some curious things about the Dallas County Constables and what looks to be single, sole towing contract between Dallas County Constables Derick Evans and Jaime Cortes and Dowdy Ferry Auto Services.  (Dowdy Ferry does towing and salvage here in Dallas.)

So far, it’s known that these two County Constables (Precincts 1 and 5, in the southern part of Dallas) not only have a suspicious deal with a single towing service, the numbers reveal that these two precincts are towing more cars than some cities in the area (like Richardson, for example). 

The Paper Car Tags Issue

Another curious thing over in Precincts 1 and 5.  Lots of folk are driving cars with those temporary paper tags on them.  Lots of them, and for long periods of time.  Now, it’s not illegal to drive with a paper tag … you can renew them … but you gotta wonder why.  The Dallas Morning News has already pointed out that with a paper tag, you don’t have to pay any tolls because the paper tag numbers aren’t in the state database.

Who are These Constables?

Dallas County Constables serve a specific precinct in our area, and the two that are under suspicion right now are Precincts 1 and 5, where Derick Evans and Jaime Cortes have been elected to protect and serve those areas as constables.  County Constables do many things.  They serve warrants, they can arrest people, and they can ticket vehicles and tow them away if the driver can’t show valid proof of insurance and the like.

DA Watkins Has to Act Here

According to the Morning News, the County Commissioners have formally requested THREE times already that our famous Dallas County District Attorney Craig Watkins investigate both the towing business and the paper tags – as well as any other fishy business over in Precincts 1 and 5. 

Craig Watkins hasn’t said squat. 

And this would be fine — IF the ball weren’t setting smack dab in his court.  Under state law, NO law enforcement agency in the State of Texas — not even the Attorney General himself – can legally step in here unless and until our celebrity DA Craig Watkins officially invites them to the party. 

Watkins has to do something – one has to wonder if his silence, perhaps, is communicating something?  You’d think that the DA would respond to the THIRD request from the County Commissioners, even if he’d ignored the first two. 

Meanwhile, some investigation is going on … the Texas Department of Licensing and Regulation is looking into the Dowdy Ferry operations.

August 5th, 2009

DA Watch: DA Money in the News – and There’s a Lot of It

The District Attorney for Dallas — the one seen nationwide in the Dallas DNA television series this past year — is making the news again, and this time it’s not about crime.

It’s about money.

Seems that DA Craig Watkins asked the county for a 10% increase in his annual budget of $35.9 million. What came back to him was a request that he cut his current budget by 10% instead. Needless to say, DA Watkins is very, very unhappy with this response. (more…)

July 22nd, 2009

Crime News: Paris TX Protests and the Pending Death Penalty for Hate Crime Law

Perhaps you’ve seen some of the news reports from Paris, Texas, about simultaneous demonstrations planned by the New Black Panther Party and the Ku Klux Klan after murder charges were dropped by the authorities against the two white men accused of killing a black man by running him over by a truck and then dragging him. The Nation of Islam and the Concerned Citizens for Racial Equality were also rumored to be attending. (more…)