Posted on 07/30/2015 8:13:38 AM PDT by don-o
Dallas – McLennan County’s criminal justice community is not trying to “scheme against” defendants in the Twin Peaks shooting, said a lawyer appointed to represent a judge recused in the case.
A supplemental pleading to the 10th District Court of Appeals cites those remarks as evidence a gag order is unconstitutional and unworkable, according to the lawyer who filed the court papers.
“Mr. (Matthew) Clendennen and his counsel are subject to the gag order entered by the Judge of the 54th District Court, Matt Johnson, and cannot publicly speak to this matter of grave public concern to our justice system. Nevertheless, the agent for Judge Peterson is permitted to give statements to the press at will,” wrote F. Clinton Broden, his attorney.
Waco attorney David Deaconson said in a news story about the search for Peterson’s replacement following his recusal in an examining trial to discover probable cause in Clendennen’s case that there is a belief that “the county is totally trying to scheme against these people” is unfounded and that “examining trials are not needed unless defendants are in jail and seeking another way out.”
On the contrary, Broden wrote, Clendennen is seeking an examining trial so that “an innocent person can be promptly cleared of criminal charges wholly lacking in individual probable cause.”
Judge Peterson charged the 177 defendants arrested on a “fill-in-the-blank” affidavit of warrantless arrest in which only the person’s name differered from any of the others. The only allegations of probable cause are that the person so charged is a member of a “motorcycle gang” and was wearing distinctive “colors” identified by the Department of Public Safety as those of an outlaw gang. Clendennen is a member of the Scimitars, a Cossacks support club that is not listed in the DPS manual published at Texas A&M University.
He declared that “this is yet another example of why the gag order in this case is unworkable and one that has arisen since the filing of the Original Petition” because “McLennan County judges (Judge Strother and Judge Peterson through his agent) are not bound by the gag order entered by Judge Johnson and continue to make statements to the media.”
Clendennen is “denied free speech rights to address why he is seeking an examining trial despite the fact that he is not ‘in jail and seeking another way out.’”
At the time when the first shot rang out at the Twin Peaks Restaurant on May 17, Clendennen ran from the patio area and hid inside the building during a bloody melee that left 9 dead, 20 wounded, and is one of 177 persons charged with the identical offense of engaging in organized criminal activity that led to capital murder and/or aggravated assault.
A first degree felony, the offense is punishable by a possible minimum of 5 years imprisonment or a maximum of a life term upon conviction.
“For the reasons set forth in the Petition and for the foregoing reasons, Mr. Clendennen submits that Judge Johnson’s gag order is unconstitutional and unworkable and that the Writ of Mandamus should be issued.”
ping
Maybe Broden figures this is "new material," and belongs in a supplemental to his appeal, rather than in any rebuttal to the state's response to the appeal.
The law is an adversarial process, all the players know this and most find that fact to be a feature, a net plus, etc. So, the fact that the state says things like "examining trials are not needed unless defendants are in jail and seeking another way out" is not remarkable at all. The state is Clendennen's adversary. The state has accused Clendennen of a felony. The state is not about to admit or accept without rebuttal that its accusation is wholly lacking in individual probable cause.
It is entirely typical for the state to issue a gag order on the premise that publicity compromises a fair trial, and for the state to then go out and justify arrest, which implies that there is probable cause the accused committed a crime. Sometimes the state offers the thin disclaimer of "not yet proven in court," but by golly, the state acts like it has the proof and is itching to show it, and claim another conviction. A fair trial, after all, includes that the trial be fair to the state, too!
Thanks. I had hoped that you would find and post what you linked to.
Article: On the contrary, Broden wrote, Clendennen is seeking an examining trial so that “an innocent person can be promptly cleared of criminal charges wholly lacking in individual probable cause.”
I assume but have not verified, that the state can still bring charges even if the defendant has been discharged in an examining trial.
The only thing an examining trial deals with is probable cause. The accusation comes and goes with the existence or absence of probable cause.
Unjustified or premature arrest and detention (that is, no probable cause "today") does not result in the state losing the right to prosecute the crime starting "tomorrow," when probable cause might be presented to the court.
You know what I find most telling about this?
Supposedly these two groups hated each other so much that when the Bandidos walked out of that restaurant, all of them, both side immediately pulled guns and began shooting each other. That’s basically what the cops give as the reason for firing into the crowd.
Isn’t it amazing that a Lawyer, who is a member of a Cossacks affiliated club would be helping Bandidos as well.
I guess, according to the cops, and some on this board, we should expect to find this lawyer with a bullet in his head any day now. As we all know “Outlaw Motorcycle Gangs” kill each other indiscriminately for any slight. /s
“Isn’t it amazing that a Lawyer, who is a member of a Cossacks affiliated club would be helping Bandidos as well.”
That is interesting. Do you have details?
It’s written in the article.
“Clendennen is a member of the Scimitars, a Cossacks support club”
Apologies to all, it was pointed out to me Clendenen is the client not the lawyer.
I just scanned the article.
Mea Culpa.
scan
/skan/
verb
verb: scan; 3rd person present: scans; past tense: scanned; past participle: scanned; gerund or present participle: scanning
1. look at all parts of (something) carefully in order to detect some feature
What, apologies aren’t enough for you?
Excuse me. Skimmed, sped read, call it what you like.
WTF is wrong with you?
“WTF is wrong with you?”
The tone of your #8 post.
Which was neither written to you or posted to you.
Paranoid much?
Again, I guess in your world apologies don’t count for anything. Not only that, I apologized to all, and singled you out with a ping.
Man you are a small narrow minded petty person.
Please, get a hobby, get some fresh air, have a beer, do something, cause your brain is starting to mold.
“Which was neither written to you or posted to you.”
If you are apologizing for the following, I accept.
“I guess, according to the cops, and some on this board,”
“Not only that, I apologized to all,”
You apologized for reading the article incorrectly. I don’t believe you apologized for the intent of your post.
.
Only the lies seem to pique the interest of the msm.
.
I guess, according to the cops, and some on this board,”
And you assume I was speaking about you. Wow what an ego.
I am also so impressed that from somewhere in FL, or TX, or where ever it is your from you can tell my intent.
If you aren’t the Amazing Kreske himself. Hallelujah, we have a genuine psychic on the board.
I think the last time we did this I promised to not ever post to you or use your handle, and I kindly asked that you repay the favor.
I have kept my end of the bargain. How about you be an adult and do the same.
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.