Posted on 08/09/2015 1:25:12 PM PDT by don-o
Waco – Court observers will see a rare occurrence on Monday, August 10, at 2 p.m. in Precinct One Justice Court, Place Two – the examining trial of one of the Twin Peaks defendants on the first degree felony offense of engaging in organized criminal activity, a capitol offense that led to the murder and/or aggravated assault of numerous victims.
According to a veteran prosecutor who oversees Grand Jury scheduling and criminal filings, the scheduling of trials and such, only two have been held in his past 27 years of experience serving in the McLennan County Criminal District Attorney’s Office.
Texas prosecutors and judges are reluctant to allow defendants and their lawyers the pre-trial discovery technique of the examining trial.
It is formally known as “The Commitment or Discharge of the Accused,” Section 16 of Title 1, Texas Code of Criminal Procedure.
As such, it’s a lot like the system of pre-trial hearing employed in many states in which an accused offender is bound over for trial based on an extensive hearing as to the state’s evidence – an examination of probable cause in open court in which an attorney is allowed to cross examine witnesses, rather than an inquisition that takes place withing the confines of a secret proceeding, the Grand Jury.
The chief difference is that in a Grand Jury session, the attorney of an accused must remain outside the room. If an offender is questioned by the prosecutor or members of the Grand Jury, he must leave the room in order to consult with his attorney, then return to answer the question.
In the Examining Trial, as outlined in Article 16.01 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, the accused may make a statement prior to the start of presentation of evidence and testimony, but may not make a statement following, either of assertion or rebuttal.
There is no way an accused person may be subjected to the kind of treatment involving embarassing questions such as, “Is it true you have since stopped beating your wife?,” then be required to leave the room to talk to his lawyer if he requires legal advice on how answer such a question, before returning to answer.
In fact, in the examining trial, an accused offender need not say a word, but should any word be uttered, it will be recorded verbatim by the Court Reporter, and may then be entered into evidence in the case in chief. As in a criminal trial, a defendant may not be compelled to testify against himself. Should he offer testimony, he may be cross examined by opposing counsel.
The rules of court and the rules of evidence apply, as in a criminal trial.
Furthermore, under this system, defense attorneys are able to engage in the time-honored practice of venue shopping, since the judge hearing the evidence is sitting as a magistrate. In Texas, a magistrate may be any judge – any judge at all, including anyone so charged by honor of their position, from the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Texas or Associate Justices; and member of the Court of Criminal Appeals; an apellate judge of the intermediate District Courts of Appeals; District Judge, either sitting or visiting; County Court-at-Law Judge; Justice of the Peace; or Municipal Judge.
If the Judge acting as Magistrate in the examining trial should find insufficient probable cause to hold a trial on the charges specified, and thus examined, he may immediately discharge the accused, or, should he enter no order within 48 hours, the charges are automatically dismissed, the defendant thereby discharged, and the evidence related to the offense will go untried.
The reason this almost never happens is that prosecutors and judges usually drag their feet until the Grand Jury docket revolves to the case of the defendant, an indictment is returned, and by that act of prosecution, the possibility of an examining trial is precluded by the Code.
The 177 defendants under prosecution for the identical charge of engaging in organized criminal activity, an offense which could net a defendant a sentence of from five years to life confinement, fall into two broad categories. Either they were involved in the violent melee, the shooting and fighting that took place in the parking lot, or they fled to the interior of the buidling to wait it out.
Matthe Clendennen is in the second category of defendants. His attorney has described his status as that of someone who is a “witness to something he did not see.”
The examining trial of Matthew Clendennen has been hard won by his Dallas attorney, F. Clinton Broden, through extensive pre-trial publicity, vigorous advocacy through motions and an unprecedented level of activity in what is in most cases a sluggish, rather lethargic pace of events. McLennan County Criminal District Attorney Abel Reyna is on record calling it “riding the docket” in press interviews. He says defendants use it to their advantage, opting to do a significant portion of their time in the air conditioned comfort of the McLennan County Jail, rather than insisting on a speedy trial and a quick transfer to the farms operated by the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice.
Broden’s client Matt Clendennen is a family man, the proprietor of a lawn maintenance service and a Baylor University graduate who in his enthusiasm for motorcycle riding, joined an associate motorcycle club of the national organization, the Cossacks Motorcycle Club.
He is on record saying in a press conference held at his mother and father’s residence that he attended a meeting of the Confederation of Clubs at Twin Peaks Restaurant on Sunday, May 17, arrived early and seated himself on the patio where he ordered a bottle of water and waited for the meeting.
He was not armed, had no idea what the exact agenda would be, and was actually just out for a lark with friends who had planned to ride on following the adjournment of the Confederation of Clubs meeting, a function in which the Cossacks and their associates had previously found themselves unwelcome.
One item on the meeting agenda was a discussion of the status of numerous proposed bills regarding open carry of handguns under consideration in the Texas Legislature. Asked if he was interested in that item, Clendennen told newsmen at the press conference that he was unaware that there was an agenda, or that handgun legislation was on it.
When he saw the first sign of trouble, heard the first gunshot ring out, he fled the area for the interior of the building, and remained there until police entered, ordered everyone to lay prone on the floor, and was arrested and transported to the Waco Civic Center, where he remained in zip tie handcuffs until the pre-dawn hours of Tuesday morning when he was transported to the McLennan County Jail, charged by Judge Pete Peterson, his bail set at $1 million dollars, and then transferred to the Jack Harwell Detention Center next door.
He was subsequently released two weeks later after his bail was reduced to $100,000.
His attorney, Broden, won the recusal of Judge Peterson, the magistrate who charged all 177 defendants with the identical capitol offense on fill-in-the-name affidavits of warrantless arrest through vigorous pre-trial litigation.
Those identical, non-specific affidavits allege only that the defendant was a member of a known “motorcycle gang,” was wearing a costume with the colors of a gang’s imprimatur, and were there looking for trouble, as alleged by Detective Manuel Chavez of the Waco Police Department.
So mote it be.
maybe we will finally get the truth.
All I want is the truth.
In before the wackos.
This would require either mind reading capabilities, or the Detective would have had to had prior first hand knowledge of such stated intent by the defendant.
Projection....
Judge Sullivan: Some Arrests at 2004 RNC Lacked Probable Cause
“In before the usual lizards, but how can a police detective allege that someone “... were there looking for trouble...”.”
Never trust websites when they don’t ‘quote’ and don’t source.
Sometimes you cannot even trust them when the do ‘quote’ and link. Several times on this subject I have gone to the link of sites to find out that they altered the facts for click-bait.
>>> In before the usual lizards, but how can a police detective allege that someone “... were there looking for trouble...”.
This would require either mind reading capabilities, or the Detective would have had to had prior first hand knowledge of such stated intent by the defendant. <<<
It has been alleged that a police ‘confidential informant’ (or two) was present in the Cossacks/Scimitars that was agitating for a violent situation.
I suspect that the police C.I. was a bit too successful in agitating, so it’s possible that the officer in question may have had prior knowledge of intended violence — planned by a police operative.
“It has been alleged that a police ‘confidential informant’ (or two) was present in the Cossacks/Scimitars that was agitating for a violent situation.”
“Such alleged ...”
http://www.crystalinks.com/abduction.html
Article: “Those identical, non-specific affidavits allege only “
Actually, the affidavits also allege that the bikers started shooting at each other first then fired upon the police when the police tried to break it up.
It is alleged that the police had multiple pole cameras set up and have it all on record.
“Actually, the affidavits also allege that the bikers started shooting at each other first then fired upon the police when the police tried to break it up.”
————————/
Hogwash. The police did NOT try to break it up. They went in guns blazing. Now whom of you with a valid concealed weapon and permit, would not instinctively go for their firearm to protect themselves from a massacre by the police or any other armed person out to do you harm?
With 27 people shot and 9 of them dead; how can anyone with an ounce of common sense not see that the police, IN THIS CASE, went in with the intent to kill; not break up a fight. Not all of the police there, obviously, but enough of the 20+ LEO’s on scene to shoot so many.
When will those criminals be arrested on a million dollar bond? When will the ones responsible for setting up this melee that maimed and killed so many be arrested on that same bond amount? When will we see justice for those wrongfully arrested and incarcerated.
I’m a law and order kinda guy. I also believe no one is above the law. In fact, if a LEO commits a crime, because they are held to a much higher standard because of the responsibility they have, the authority they have, and their position in the community; it makes the crime even more heinous than if some Joe Schmoe did it. LEO’s know this. At least they better know it. On top of the danger they might possibly face daily; this is why most LEO’s are quite well paid these days with excellent benefits.
Really? Then where is the video?
If it substantiated the police narrative, I suspect it would not have spent so long in post production editing and been shown, at least enough to substantiate the police narrative.
This is an odd exception to the usual Law Enforcement M.O. of justifying a potentially controversial shoot ASAP in the media.
And when videos are released, how will their integrity be verified?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3322320/posts?page=70#70
@D The ones set for this week have been postponed until next week.— Tommy Witherspoon (@TSpoonFeed) August 10, 2015
I had tweeted to Tommy Witherspoon asking if his paper was covering today's Exam Trial in real time and he just replied.
“Hogwash. The police did NOT try to break it up. They went in guns blazing.”
LOL
The gag order will be lifted before the trial, then. Not that I expect to hear much before the trial, rather, after, no matter which way it goes.
“It is alleged that the police had multiple pole cameras set up and have it all on record.”
Then release the videos.
Dallas - The attorney for Matthew Clendennen, a Twin Peaks defendant who was scheduled for an examining trail today, Monday, August 10, agreed to waive his client's right to the pre-trial procedure in exchange for sweeping changes to his conditions of bond.F. Clinton Broden filed an agreement in 54th Criminal District Court that would call for:
1) Any curfew restriction on Mr. Clendennen be removed in its entirety.
2) Any travel restriction on Mr. Clendennen be limited to travel outside the State of Texas.
3) The condition placed on Mr. Clendennen to "[t]otally avoid the consumption of any alcoholic beverages" be removed in its entirety.
4) Any restrictions limiting Mr. Clendennen's right to (be) associated with other "Members or Associates of any motorcycle clubs" be amended to allow him to meet with and converse with John Wilson or employees of Legend Cycles of Waco, Texas for the purpose of selling his motorcycle. When time for the examining trial came at 2 p.m. today, Monday, August 10, it was learned that
Judge James Morgan had reset all examining trials in the Twin Peaks biker shooting melee of May 17. A clerk in the Justice Court of Judge Pete Peterson said Judge Morgan is "unavailable this week." There is no information when the examining trials will be set. More details as they become available.
Reached for comment, First Assistant District Attorney Michael Jarret said, "As far as we're concerned, that gag order is still in effect." Judge Matt Johnson has seven days in which to vacate the order. "I can't get into specifics." An attorney defending an identical case said it is rumored the Clendennen examining trial will be re-set for a week from today, Monday, August 17. "No one really knows which judge will hear the cases," he said."
A reasonable move by Broden. It would have to be agreed to by the state and accepted by the judge.
Confusing. “Agreed to waive....”???
Agreed with whom? In what venue?
Also odd that they gave the case to a Judge who is “not available” for week.
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.