Judge Watch | Dallas Criminal Defense Lawyer Blog

Archive for the ‘Judge Watch’ Category

December 26th, 2012

Two Dallas Police Officers Facing Criminal Investigations After Dallas Civil Trial Judge Rules Their Sworn Testimony in 2011 Criminal Case Is “Perjurious”

Judge Carl Ginsberg presides over the 193rd Judicial District Court of Dallas County, Texas, and has been a Texas trial court judge since January 2007, so he’s not new to the ball game, and when he issued his opinion regarding the Melvin Williams criminal case earlier this month, Judge Ginsberg must have been well aware of the ramifications of his ruling. Interestingly, there’s not that much media coverage of what Judge Ginsberg has done, just one story in the Dallas Morning News.

Good for the Dallas News, of course, but it’s something that Texas citizens (particularly those in the Dallas – Fort Worth Metroplex) should hear about, so we’re sharing Judge Ginsberg’s ruling here today.

What Has Texas Judge Ginsberg Done?

The case came before the 193rd District Court as a civil forfeiture case, where the State of Texas was seeking to keep cash that had been taken during a criminal arrest. After hearing the case, including evidence presented as exhibits and as testimony from witnesses, Judge Ginsberg has ruled from the bench that two law enforcement officers of the Dallas Police Department lied – and not just once – under oath in testimony they gave concerning a December 2011 arrest of criminal defendant Melvin Williams. Judge Ginsberg calls their testimony “largely perjurious.”

Largely perjurious? Perjury is a crime for giving false testimony under oath. If perjury is “aggravated,” then it’s a 3rd degree felony charge. Texas law (Texas Penal Code 37.03) defines “aggravated perjury” as: (1) made during or in connection with an official proceeding; and (2) is material.

What Did the Two Dallas Police Officers Do?

It’s too soon to report whether or not the two police officers are facing felony charges because the case is still in the investigatory stages; however, Judge Ginsberg has been pretty clear about his perception of things. He’s heard evidence and issued his opinion.

Judge Ginsberg found that Dallas Police Officers Jon Llewellyn and Randolph Dillon (1) first had no probable cause to detain the defendant Mr. Williams; (2) the two police officers lied about where they found some of the drugs made the basis of charges against Mr. Williams; and (3) they lied about where they found money used as the basis of charges against Mr. Williams. The Court ruled that this resulted in violation of Mr. Williams’ constitutional rights.

What Happens Now?

Surprising to no one, the ruling of Judge Ginsberg has gone up on appeal. What happens next to the Dallas Police Officers will be dealt with in the investigation of their statements and in cases brought based upon that investigation. It will not be immediate arrest of the two officers based upon Judge Ginsberg’s ruling. Also, since the Ginsberg opinion resulted from a civil matter, it does not impede or halt the criminal proceedings against Melvin Williams – but one can assume that Mr. Williams’ defense will take note of this civil judge’s review with its constitutional implications.

The full impact of Judge Ginsberg’s opinion has yet to be seen.

Posted by Michael Lowe at 12:26 pm

No Comments
Labels: Cop Watch, Corrupt Cops, Judge Watch

November 28th, 2012

Are Texas Judges the Last Protection of Privacy Rights? Southern District Denials of Federal Prosecutors’ Requests for Sneaky Cell Phone Data Gathering With Stingrays, Cell Tower Dumps

Down in Corpus Christi, there’s a federal judge who has been aware of technology’s threat to privacy rights for a long while now: he’s the Honorable Brian L. Owsley, U.S. Magistrate for the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas.

Back in 2007, for example, Judge Owsley made the national news when he denied a motion filed by the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) which requested court approval to grab information off of an alleged drug trafficker’s cell phone via the phone company’s tracking system. Owsley said no. Why? The DEA, in his opinion, didn’t have facts that this guy really was a drug trafficker – the motion presented to the federal judge connecting this man to drug trafficking had only “conclusions by the agency.”

2012 Denial of U.S. Attorney Requests for Court Orders Allowing Cell Phone Dumps and Stingrays by Magistrate Owsley

That was five years ago. This month, Judge Owsley is in the national spotlight again for once again refusing to rubber stamp requests by federal investigators to use technology as a means of spying on people. Spying, as it collecting information about that person without their awareness, knowledge, or consent. Seems that federal prosecutors once again came before the Magistrate and asked for court orders which would allow them to use gizmos to gather info that might end up as evidence in a criminal prosecution.

No to the Stingray

This time, instead of the basic GPS cell phone request of 2007, things were fancier: the U.S. Attorney was arguing for federal agency use of “stingrays” and “cell tower dumps.” Judge Owsley once again said nope. His reasoning? The DEA wanted to use a “stingray” device and the U.S. Attorney asked the judge to okay it; he ruled against it (read the opinion here) because he found that the stingray equipment is not covered by federal statutes that allow some kinds of electronic surveillance (e.g., the pen register statute).

The stingray (aka triggerfish, cell site simulator, or digital analyzer) is a gizmo that you can carry around with you and it will pick up everything that is going on with a particular cell phone. It will grab that phone’s cell number as well as its serial number and all the numbers that are called using that phone. (For more details on the device, check out this 2005 opinion from Magistrate Stephen Smith also of the Southern District but presiding over a Houston Division court.)

No to the Cell Tower Dumps

Regarding the cell tower dumps of data, he found that the lawyers couldn’t give him sufficient explanation about how this stuff worked and what all it could do; and, no one gave the judge details on exactly what they were wanting to get through the use of this stuff. They attached no affidavit, for example, to detail the situation and demonstrate probable cause as is required by Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.

Judge Owsley wrote regarding the cell phone tower dump of data (read the opinion here)(emphasis added):

Moreover, it is problematic that neither the assistant United States Attorney nor the special agent truly understood the technology involved in the requested applications. … Without such an understanding,they cannot appreciate the constitutional implications of their requests. They are essentially asking for a warrant in support of a very broad and invasive search affecting likely hundreds of individuals in violation of the Fourth Amendment. … There is nothing from the Government in its four applications to support the position that the “specific and articulable facts” standard and 2703(d) apply to cell tower dumps. Finally, there is no discussion about what the Government intends to do with all of the data related to innocent people who are not the target of the criminal investigation. …. This failure to address the privacy rights for the Fourth Amendment concerns of these innocent subscribers whose information will be compromised as a request of the cell tower dump is another factor warranting the denial of the application.

Why Are Federal Prosecutors Asking for Court Order Approval Instead of a Search Warrant?

Notice that in each of these situations, the federal prosecutors are going to federal magistrates and asking them for a court order okaying their antics instead of following what we all consider to be standard constitutional procedure of GETTING A SEARCH WARRANT. Why? Once they have the court order, then they’re good to go … and filing a motion doesn’t mandate that they do things like complete an affidavit filled with facts that are sworn to before a notary public as support for what they are doing (probable cause). As Judge Smith wrote in the above-linked opinion:

Denial of the government’s request for prospective cell site data in this instance should have no dire consequences for law enforcement. This type of surveillance is unquestionably available upon a traditional probable cause showing under Rule 41. On the other hand, permitting surreptitious conversion of a cell phone into a tracking device without probable cause raises serious Fourth Amendment concerns, especially when the phone is monitored in the home or other places where privacy is reasonably expected. Cf. United States Telecom Ass’n v. FCC, 227 F.3d 450, 464 (D.C.Cir.2000) (citing with approval an FCC finding that providing law enforcement with triangulation capability from cell site towers “poses difficulties that could undermine individual privacy”). Absent any sign that Congress has squarely addressed and resolved those concerns in favor of law enforcement, the far more prudent course is to avoid an interpretation which risks a constitutional collision.

It’s because of strong judges like Judge Owlrey and Judge Smith that the federal investigators didn’t get to run willy-nilly over lots of privacy rights. Here’s the next question: are all the federal judges just as steel-spined?

Here’s an interesting aside to all this: Grits for Breakfast reports that Judge Smith spoke on this problem in a speech he called “Standing Up for Mr. Nesbitt.” This refers to a classic skit by Monte Python (“How Not to be Seen”) which you can watch on YouTube — and it speaks volumes about what we’re really dealing with here.

Posted by Michael Lowe at 12:09 pm

No Comments
Labels: Court Opinions, DA Watch, Judge Watch, Orwellian Threats to Rights

June 20th, 2012

Will Dallas Municipal Judges Be Booted From the Bench Because They Don’t Bring in Enough Fine Money to the City Coffers? Maybe.

Dallas isn’t immune to the national economic slump and those in the City of Dallas staff offices seem to looking everywhere for more money. Which is good, as long as they’re finding ways to be more efficient and productive with city budget money – but here’s the thing: in a recent Dallas city council meeting, staffers criticized Dallas municipal court judges because revenue-wise, the municipal courts weren’t bringing in as much money as the City of Dallas staff folk thought the municipal courts should bring in.

If you are wondering why a court, any court, should be considered a profit-center, you are not alone.

City of Dallas Staff Numbers

Seems that the staffers pointed out that there wasn’t enough money collected in the latest “warrant roundup,” and this boiled down to only 893 people busted in the Dallas roundup and an “average revenue per case of only $41.49… ” for Dallas (places like Austin are getting $60.26) in Class C misdemeanors. The staffers complained to the Council that the Dallas municipal court judges were almost always (96%) letting folk off with “time served” instead of pushing fines on them.

According to the staffers, during the last Dallas warrant roundup it cost the city $71,000 to make the roundup arrests for approximately $538,000 outstanding Class C misdemeanors. The Dallas municipal court judges fined a total of $20,360 in the round-up and as of last week, only $2187 had been collected out of the fines that had been assessed. (Seems a lot of the judges were figuring that time spent in a Dallas jail for a Class C misdemeanor counted a lot toward adequate punishment, and that’s why there were not more fines being issued from the bench.)

Council Is Deciding on Who Sets on Municipal Court Benches Right Now – Will Money Talk?

Right now, the big thing about all this fine revenue business is that the Dallas City Council is currently in the process of deciding who presides in the 11 full time and 18 part time municipal judicial slots. Their deadline is August 30, 2012: if the Council doesn’t make changes by then, the current judges stay in their jobs for another two years.

So, the City staffers are pushing this money issue as a factor in who sets on the Dallas municipal court benches. And the independence of judges is at issue here.

Adminstrative Judge Responds – It’s About Justice Not Profits

Meanwhile, Administrative Judge Victor Lander isn’t setting back being silent here. He went to the media, and pointed out the following:

1. The judges were not invited to tell their side of the story to the Council.

2. Courts are not in place as profit-making centers: they exist to dispense justice.

3. Prosecutors are involved here, too — and the district attorney’s recommendation for time served usually forms the basis of the judge’s decision.

4. Making judges meet a financial quota or forcing a revenue incentive on a court is beneath us all and will only result in Kangaroo Courts.

5. There’s a bigger problem here regarding these warrants: police officers often fail to show up at municipal court to give needed testimony; another problem, all too often someone with outstanding warrants isn’t arrested when they are pulled over by the Dallas police.

For more of Judge Lander’s take on things, go here.

To learn more about warrants, and what happens when you have an outstanding warrant for your arrest, read about them on our Resources page.

Posted by Michael Lowe at 12:11 pm

No Comments
Labels: Crime News, Judge Watch, Orwellian Threats to Rights

May 30th, 2012

Texas Judges Making International News (Not in a Good Way) as Honor Student Tossed in Jail For Excessive Tardies – She’s Been Working 2 Jobs to Support Her Siblings and Has Straight A’s.

This week, national and in some instances international coverage is following the action of a Texas judge down near Houston and it’s not exactly the best of news for the State of Texas legal system. Controversial in some instances, the stories are doing little to boost the reputation of the Texas judiciary and the State of Texas system of justice as a whole – in fact, there’s growing outrage worldwide:

Texas Judge Throws Honor Student Working Two Jobs Into Jail For Truancy

Diane Tran, a 17 year old high school honor student at Willis High School near Houston, was sent to jail by Texas District Judge Lanny Moriarty because Tran had missed too many school days under the Texas Penal Code prohibitions against truancy. Texas law limits unexcused absences from school to 10 over a six month time period; Tran exceeded the 10 unexcused absence limit but it’s not clear by how much.

Judge Moriarty has admitted that Tran’s case was used as an “example” to other students. The New York Daily News reports that Tran doesn’t skip days, she’s just tardy sometimes because she’s exhausted. A straight-A student in honors classes, she will stay up all night getting homework done. Remember, she’s 17 years old here. Fox News points out that Tran spent her 24 hour stay in the Montgomery County Jail with the general population, this would include those charged with felonies like murder along with allegations of drug-related crimes, etc.

This story continues to spread: additional coverage can be found at the Huffington Post; Great Britain’s Telegraph; Australia’s Sidney Morning Herald; and more. Texas Judge Moriarty never looks good, and on more than one occasion the connection between his surname and the evildoer in the Sherlock Holmes series is noted.

ABC-News/Good Morning America covered the story, interviewing one of Diane Tran’s employers who explained that the girl works two jobs to support her siblings, one a full-time job and another part-time job on the weekends. Seems Tran keeps up honors’ level grades while working lots of hours and taking care of her brother and sister. Tran lives with her part-time employer; her parents are alive but separated. Some news reports have them divorced. Tran’s mother is out of state; her father works lots of hours, too, according to the employer, though other reports are confusing about how much either parent is providing for the kids.

Public Support for Diane Tran Growing

Lots of people are not only upset about what has happened to Diane Tran, they are taking steps to do something about it.

Money is being raised to help her. A website set up by the Louisiana Children’s Education Alliance reports it has already received over $89,000 from people in over 14 different countries and all but one of the 50 United States to help this young girl. If you want to know more about this, go here and visit the site, www.helpdianetran.com.

Change.org has a petition to sign set up online, go here to check it out. The petition asks that Tran’s sentence be revoked and her $100 fine returned to her. At the time of this post, the petition had 233,882 signatures.

What About the Parents?

Who would think to place into a county jail cell for excessive TARDIES a 17 year old honor student responsible enough to keep up a straight-A report card in college preparatory classes and work around 60 hours a week to provide for herself and her brother and sister? No wonder there is growing outrage at this Texas Judge. Here’s a question: did the court consider bringing in the father (and try to find the mother) of these kids to ask them what they’re doing or not doing here?

Posted by Michael Lowe at 12:24 pm

No Comments
Labels: Judge Watch

February 15th, 2012

Texas Judge Finds Probable Cause that Texas DA Illegally Withheld Evidence in Murder Trial of Michael Morton

We’ve been monitoring the case of Michael Morton – an innocent man who had been convicted of murder long ago in Williamson County. For all the details on what happened to Mr. Morton, check out our post from last month, which delves into the allegations of bad acts by the prosecutor at Morton’s criminal trial.

Now, the focus of Texas justice is not upon Mr. Morton and finding whomever did indeed murder his wife so long ago, but instead upon Ken Anderson, who was the Williamson County District Attorney over 24 years ago when Morton was tried for the crime. First, there was a shock wave through out the criminal justice community when Morton had the courage to request a Court of Inquiry into what the district attorney did and did not do, way back when.

Shocked or pleasantly surprised, it was nice to see this request not only being made, but actually getting some respect in its progress before District Judge Sid Harle, who had been designated to review the issue. Of course, lots of folk thought this is where it would end; as we pointed out last month, Grits for Breakfast had noted that this was the state where it was held to be okey dokey for a trial judge and a prosecutor to be having an illicit affair at the same time that there were involved in a criminal felony trial. It’s safe to say that with Texas’ record, no one was betting that Morton’s request for a Court of Inquiry really had legs.

Except it did.

Judge Sid Harle has determined that there should be a Court of Inquiry into former Williamson County District Attorney Ken Anderson’s actions during the Michael Morton trial. Which means that Harle had to find as a fact that there was probable cause that the district attorney performed an illegal act in the withholding of evidence from the defense team.

You can read Judge Harle’s Application for Court of Inquiry with Supporting Affidavit online here.

That’s big, big news. Which may explain why editorials are popping up in support of this decision in the Dallas Morning News and there’s continuing coverage of the event in the American Bar Journal.

Next? Supreme Court Chief Justice Wallace Jefferson has to decide whether to follow the recommendation of Judge Harle. If that happens, then we will all be watching some rare and wonderful in Texas: an actual court of inquiry seeking justice.

You can read the press release issued by the Innocence Project, whose investigation has been critical in Mr. Morton’s release, here.

Posted by Michael Lowe at 7:20 am

No Comments
Labels: DA Watch, Judge Watch

December 21st, 2011

Texas Judge Busted for Taking Bribes in Continuing FBI Sting: Ex El Paso Judge Tony Cobos Jailed

Tony Cobos, 44, full name Antonio Guillermo Cobos, only served one term on the state judicial bench over in El Paso, but that was time enough for Mr. Cobos to gut his legal career and maybe his freedom. As of yesterday morning, Cobos still sat in an El Paso jail cell, having some problems with getting bail since he was busted late last week.

Seems Mr. Cobos was arrested last Friday and charged with taking money in exchange for his approval of refinancing El Paso County debt (to the tune of $40,000,000), among other things.

Officially, Antonio Guillermo Cobos has been charged with 3 counts of conspiracy and fraud, each carrying 20 years imprisonment as their maximum punishment, in the case of U.S. v. Cobos, filed as case no. 11-3019 in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas (El Paso Division) (Available online through PACER).

Early Friday morning, the feds were busy — not only was Cobos picked up, but three other prominent El Paso businessmen were also arrested as part of the same FBI sting operation.

This was not a big surprise to those in the know.

Seems that Tony Cobos’ chief of staff while he was on the bench, Texas lawyer Travis Ketner, already pled out on charges awhile back, and there are purportedly around 20 names in what has become known as the “Ketner Information,” which allegedly describes Cobos’ administration as being very interested in moonlighting for side profits from the bench.

After Ketner, the former El Paso District Clerk Gilbert Sanchez was indicted and convicted, for example. Others are waiting for the other shoe to drop, like Tony Cabos was until last Friday.

Posted by Michael Lowe at 7:56 am

No Comments
Labels: Crime News, Judge Watch

November 30th, 2011

Texas Judge Suzanne Wooten Found Guilty of Bribery, Money Laundering – Plea Deal, No Jail Time

Texas Judge Suzanne Wooten has been found guilty of bribery (6 counts) as well as money laundering, record tampering, and engaging in organized criminal activity. That was after a full-blown jury trial.

Suzanne Wooten has also been sentenced to ten (10) years probation, a $10,000 fine, and must perform over 1000 hours of community service. That was the sentence after a deal was reached between the prosecutors and the defense – and approved by visiting judge Kerry Russell.

Seems that negotiations were hot and heavy over the Thanksgiving holiday and when the jury returned to the courtroom, expecting another 3-4 days or more of jury duty for the sentencing phase, the deal was announced. No need for the jury to worry about Judge Wooten anymore.

Was justice done?

It’s a subject of debate. Judge Wooten had political enemies that some argued had it out for the judge (see our earlier post here). The ABA Journal reports that in the family law cases upon which the bribery charges were based (i.e., where the judge allegedly took money in exchange for a favorable ruling), Judge Wooten not only testified that she was not aware of any improper campaign donations but that she recused herself from the case after hearing about the connection between a donor and a pending family matter. Other points: Wooten took a pay cut to take the bench.

Here’s an interesting take on things. Read the comments section of the Collin County Observer in its local coverage of the verdict: there are still those that think that justice was not served here and that former judge Suzanne Wooten got played.

Posted by Michael Lowe at 9:39 am

No Comments
Labels: Court Opinions, Judge Watch

September 21st, 2011

Texas Justice of the Peace Resigns As Texas Rangers Invited to Join Investigation Into JP’s Activities

Fred Nieto Jr. is still shown on the official Lavaca County website as Justice of the Peace for Precinct Two, but it’s questionable whether or not he is going to answer the phone whose number is shown there: Fred Nieto Jr. turned over his letter of resignation to Lavaca County Judge Tramer Woytek a few weeks ago.

Judge Woytek told the media at that time that he would be expecting Nieto to continue fulfilling his job requirements until the Powers That Be could find a replacement, because Woytek read the law as requiring this of Nieto, who is an elected official.

Let’s hope that doesn’t come back to bite anyone – because Fred Nieto didn’t give any reasons for why he up and quit the job of Justice of the Peace. We do have some ideas, though.

1. Lavaca County DA Investigation Into Fred Nieto, Jr. Joined by the Texas Rangers

For one thing, Heather McMinn, the Lavaca County District Attorney, started an official investigation into Fred Nieto’s activities on and off the bench. McMinn won’t say what that’s all about – just that the DA’s Office got several complaints about JP Nieto.

Oh, and McMinn phoned the Texas Rangers, asking them to join in the investigation. Hint, hint.

2. City of Moulton Puts Municipal Judge Fred Nieto, Jr. on Unpaid Admin Leave

Meanwhile, over in Moulton, Fred Nieto had another job: he presided over controversies there as a Moulton municipal judge. This month, the doors to the Moulton Municipal Court were closed for the month of September and Judge Nieto was placed on an unpaid administrative leave.

3. Fred Nieto Jr. Isn’t Still Selling Used Cars Any Longer, Either — DMV Shut Him Down

Under Texas law, a justice of the peace can make a living doing other things as well – and Fred Nieto, Jr. sold used cars for a living when he wasn’t being a Lavaca County Justice of the Peace or down at city hall, acting as a Municipal Court Judge.

That is, until last year. Seems that in August 2010 the Texas Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) found Nieto guilty of several violations of Texas law, and not only fined him but revoked his car sales license. Media investigations reveal that the DMV found that Nieto wasn’t keeping proper records over at the car lot, wasn’t paying sales tax, wasn’t transfering title on a timely basis, among other things.

A used car salesman who was serving as a Texas judge is now being investigated by the Texas Rangers. You know this story isn’t done.

Posted by Michael Lowe at 4:20 pm

No Comments
Labels: Judge Watch

August 31st, 2011

Texas Judge Suzanne Wooten Still Facing Felony Bribery Charges – But the FBI Investigation May Point Fingers at Her Prosecutors, Stay Tuned

Texas Judge Suzanne Wooten’s predicament — being indicted on 6 counts of bribery while presiding over a Collin County judicial bench — was something that we first discussed last October, when Judge Wooten’s attorneys were arguing this was all politically motivated hogwash while the prosecutor, then District Attorney John Roach, claimed his offices were merely seeking after justice. (For details, check out “Texas Judge Suzanne Wooten Indicted for Bribery, Suspended With Pay.”)

Judge Suzanne Wooten Is Still Officially Presiding Over Her District Court Bench While Suspended With Pay

Judge Wooten is still officially presiding over the 380th Judicial District Court of Collin County, Texas; however, she is still on suspension by the State Commission on Judicial Conduct so the Honorable Suzanne Wooten has had others covering her work on the bench while she remains at home with pay — and according to the homework done by John Pitchford of the Collin County Observer in checking public salary records, Judge Wooten has been getting $12,000 /month since October 2010 without taking the bench once.

That’s a pretty long paid vacation, right? Meanwhile, things are getting more and more interesting as her trial was moved and moved again, and now Judge Wooten may not see a trial until sometime next year.

Judge Suzanne Wooten Faces Two More Charges – and a newly released FBI Report

The felony trial of Suzanne Wooten was set to begin on August 20th in front of a visiting judge from the Tyler bench, Judge Kerry Russell; however, that trial date fizzled and it’s predicted there won’t be another solid trial date until after the new year. Why?

The indictment has been amended — it’s grown with 2 additional charges — and there’s new evidence to deal with: on the eve of this August trial, the special prosecutors (two Texas Assistant Attorneys General, the special prosecutors that John Roach had asked be appointed to the case, Harry White and Brian Chandler) have finally introduced a report by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI).

The FBI has prepared a preliminary 48-page report concerning Judge Wooten’s activities and it was conducted because Judge Wooten complained to the FBI about political shenanigans back in April 2010. (As described in our earlier post, Wooten is arguing witch hunt, pointing to John Roach’s four different grand jury proceedings against her since her record-breaking election as a Republican back in 2008.)

According to media reports, Judge Wooten’s attorney has charged that the FBI’s report refers to Wooten as ”the victim,” and names members of the Collin County District Attorney’s Office as FBI investigation targets, including the special prosecutors appointed on John Roach’s request, Assistant AGs Harry White and Brian Chandler. (No wonder some question why that report took so long to get turned over in discovery.)

District Attorney John Roach Has Been Replaced – And His Replacement Wants to Toss This Hot Potato To A NEW Prosecutor Pronto

Meanwhile, over at the District Attorney’s office, things have changed. John Roach isn’t the Top Dog anymore. Now, Greg Willis is the District Attorney for Collin County, Texas — and yesterday, this new District Attorney filed a motion that is making the news: he’s requesting the criminal court judge remove the special prosecutors that John Roach had asked be appointed to the case, Assistant Texas Attorneys General Harry White and Brian Chandler, and that Judge Wooten’s case be prosecuted by someone totally new.

A copy of District Attorney Greg Willis’ motion can be read in its entirety here. From his motion:

“The citizens of Collin County deserve to have an impartial and disinterested attorney appointed by this Court to assess and determine how this prosecution should move forward. To that end, the undersigned District Attorney, also requests permission to recuse himself and requests that this Court appoint an impartial and disinterested attorney pro tem. …

“This matter has been mired in politics, speculation, and allegations of conflicts of interest since its inception. Regardless of the existence of actual conflicts of interest, this prosecution is cloaked in the appearance of impropriety and should not continue on its present course.”

“A prosecutor should be independent, unbiased, without conflicts of interest, and not witnesses to any of the concerns presented to the grand jury.”

“In view of his decision to voluntarily recuse himself, the District Attorney further moves the court to appoint an impartial and disinterested attorney pro tem pursuant Texas Code of Criminal Procedure article 2.07. …

“The citizens of Collin County must trust in the integrity of countywide elections, and also in the integrity of those who investigate and prosecute allegations of public corruption in the same manner. The proximity of the Texas Attorney General ‘s Office and that of the former Collin County Criminal District Attorney to the allegations which are at the heart of the indictment, and to the related federal investigations into the same, have placed that trust in jeopardy.”

Last fall, we wrote this was a High Noon face-off between John Roach and Suzanne Wooten and that things would get a lot bigger before the end of it all. Key to our prediction, the fact that a big bunch of criminal defense attorneys gave Judge Wooten a standing ovation when she took the bench: again, criminal defense attorneys practicing daily in a local courthouse usually know what’s going down and that act of unity tells us all something.

It’s still going to get bigger. We’ll keep you posted.

Posted by Michael Lowe at 4:08 pm

2 Comments
Labels: DA Watch, Judge Watch

June 22nd, 2011

Federal Judge Sam A. Lindsay Sick and Tired of Bad Cops Getting Cushy Sentences: Orders Former Mesquite Narc Officer to 15 Months in Fed Pen for Taking $2000

Some Dallas locals may remember Sam Lindsay from his days serving as Dallas City Attorney (1992-1998); however, for many years now, he’s been Judge Sam A. Lindsay of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, presiding over a federal trial bench.

And last week, Judge Sam A. Lindsay got fed up with police officers getting preferential treatment in sentencing – and he officially said so, announcing his frustration from the bench and in the public record as he sentenced a defendant who had served 22 years on the Mesquite, Texas, police department to 1 year and 3 months in a federal pen.

FBI Sting Nabs Sticky Fingered Texas Cop

The backstory unfolds last December, when the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) got a tip that there was a veteran police officer on the Mesquite Police Department that was a thief: he was routinely taking money from cash taken during police searches. So, the FBI got their cameras and microphones and other fancy gizmos and started their investigation.

Now, the Mesquite cop has been caught, convicted, and sentenced by Judge Sam A. Lindsay. This came about last March, after John David McAllister got busted by the FBI after they put $100,000 into a bag, put it in a car, and then told Mr. McAllister to go get it for them, it was drug money that they wanted seized. Sure enough, video cameras were trained on the car as the Mesquite cop confiscated the bag o’cash and promptly swiped $2000 off the top, stuffing the marked bills into his pants.

It gets better. With that two grand hot in his pocket, the FBI cameras followed good old Mesquite cop John David McAllister as he roamed over to a local mall and got himself a nice watch (price tag, $480).

The Last Straw for the Federal Judge

Things quickly went from bad to worse for the caught cop. Appearing before Judge Sam A. Lindsay for sentencing, he was face to face with a federal judge who’s had enough. Despite crying onlookers, the fact that McAllister pled guilty, and an Internal Affairs review that found no evidence of wrongdoing on the part of Officer McAllister (who was head of their narcotics department), the bench found a 15 month sentence appropriate.

Of course, Judge Sam A. Lindsay had lots of leeway: the maximum sentence he could have legally imposed was ten years, and when you compare that with 15 months it looks like the judge was lenient. Many disagree, though. They argue that the absence of any criminal record, etc., means that McAllister should get a maximum sentence of 6 months under the federal sentencing guidelines.

That sentencing guideline argument sounds good, but it doesn’t fly. The federal bench is very powerful, and Judge Sam has the discretion to exceed that guideline if, in his opinion, circumstances warrant it.

And boy o boy, does Judge Sam A. Lindsay believe that circumstances warrant it. He’s tired of people who have sworn to uphold the law turn around and break it. He’s explained his decision here as being a deterrence — and he wants other Texas law enforcement officers to notice what has happened this week in his courtroom.

From the bench, the judge bolstered his decision by pointing to a few Dallas-area cases where police officers got caught doing bad things and ended up with probation: no jail time.

Hopefully, other Texas judges will have the courage and integrity of Judge Sam A. Lindsay to let law enforcement know that in the future, cops gone bad will go to jail in Texas. We can hope, right?

Posted by Michael Lowe at 5:21 pm

1 Comment
Labels: Corrupt Cops, Court Opinions, Judge Watch