The troubling nature of the Waco indictments

Austin Statesman ^ | November 14, 2015 | Jody Seaborn

[Parley Baer]

“Curiously, nine of the 106 people indicted last week were not among the 177 people arrested six months ago,”

I found that little sentence interesting.

[Finny]

Also strange - the AP gets thousand of pages of leaked data, and all we see are a few snip quotes, a few pictures and a tightly edited video.

Yes, that is odd.

[Finny]

Thank you for your contributions to these threads. You bring both good links to valuable info and sharp comments and analysis. (Some of which make me both sad and angry.)

BUMP

[USNBandit]

There were definitely people at the fight that managed to get away. One biker was interviewed by police, after the fact, because police heard he had a bullet in his arm. He died several months later in a motorcycle accident and prosecutors got a warrant to extract the bullet from his body.

[USNBandit]

After reading the statutes they were indicted on, I wonder if the assault charge would stand if there wasn’t evidence of directly assaulting a victim? The murder statute does have a specification for deaths that result from criminal activity, but I don’t see that in the assault statute.

[Cboldt]

It isn't clear to me what statute or statutes they were indicted on, although it can be inferred from the "as a member of a criminal street gang," that the prosecutor is charging under 71.02. Under that section, conspiracy is an offense, even if the accused doesn't directly assault a victim. A conspirator to assault (gang related or not) could be home in bed when the assault happened, and still be found guilty.

If there is no gang and/or no conspiracy, see Texas Penal Code Chapter 7, especially sections 7.01 through 7.03 for culpability being assigned to what is commonly referred to as "aider and abettor," or "accomplice." Those principle can attach to any crime, including the crime of assault.

[USNBandit]

I am not a lawyer, but if one was going to bring the assaults in as being part of a criminal gang I would think that statement would be part of the assault description. It is an interesting difference between the murder and assault statutes. I could easily see an assault law include being held accountable for the assaults committed by accomplices during another crime.

[Cboldt]

-- ... if one was going to bring the assaults in as being part of a criminal gang I would think that statement would be part of the assault description. --

It's part of the Organized Crime statute, which points to the assault statute. Assault is a crime either way, but the "gang" statute says commission of certain specified underlying crimes as part of a gang, enhances the penalty associated with the underlying crime.

The "aid / abet / accomplice" statute is similar to the organized crime statute in that the underlying conduct must first be a crime, in order to apply the "aid / abet" widget.

The legal fiction worked by the "aid / abet" statute is that a person who aids or abets, actually committed the crime. There is no distinction between doing the crime, and helping somebody else do it.