Judge appointed in court of inquiry for Reyna, Chavez

In the midst of the first Twin Peaks biker trial in Waco, a judge has been appointed to hear a court of inquiry to determine if McLennan County District Attorney Abel Reyna or Waco police Detective Manuel Chavez lied during a hearing last year in the Twin Peaks shootout cases.

First Administrative Regional Judge Mary Murphy, of Dallas, on Friday appointed David Peeples, judge of the Fourth Administrative Region, to preside over the court of inquiry.

According to court of inquiry procedure, Peeples will now appoint a special prosecutor to handle the matter. No hearing date had been set Friday for the court of inquiry.

Based on an affidavit from Dallas attorney Clint Broden, 203rd State District Judge Teresa Hawthorne found Monday that there is probable cause to believe an offense was committed and to request a regional administrative judge to convene a court of inquiry.

Peeples, of San Antonio, previously served as a justice on the Fourth Court of Appeals in San Antonio and judge of the 285th and 224th state district courts in Bexar County.

The court of inquiry will focus on an Aug. 8, 2016, hearing in which Reyna testified to what Broden calls "extensive discussions" he had with Chavez before Chavez signed the identical, "fill-in-the-name" Twin Peaks arrest warrant affidavits for 177 motorcyclists following the May 17, 2015, shootout at the Twin Peaks restaurant in Waco.

Chavez has declined comment on the court of inquiry, while Reyna did not return a phone message Monday or Friday.

The Combined Law Enforcement Associations of Texas has hired Waco attorney J.R. Vicha, a former prosecutor in Reyna's office, to represent Chavez in the court of inquiry. Vicha declined comment Friday.

"If it appears from the court of inquiry that Mr. Reyna or Mr. Chavez committed perjury, the judge presiding over the court of inquiry will issue a warrant for the arrest of the offender," Broden said in a statement Monday. "The Texas Court of Inquiry procedure is not used often. However, its use is particularly appropriate where there is probable cause to believe a crime may have been committed by a public official that might otherwise not be investigated."

Broden and other attorneys have attempted to have Reyna disqualified based on the conflicting testimony at the hearing involving the cases of Matthew Clendennen and Ray Nelson, two bikers accused of participating in the deadly shootout, which left nine dead and more than a dozen injured.

"In my almost 30 years of law practice, I have never had to even consider requesting a court of inquiry," Broden wrote in the statement. "Nevertheless, perjury strikes at the core of our system of justice and, therefore, apparent contradictory statements under oath by public officials must be investigated."

Broden said earlier this week he anticipates other courts of inquiry to be convened to review other aspects of how Reyna's office handled the Twin Peaks cases, including information outlined in a recent motion to disqualify Reyna's office from prosecuting the cases because prosecutors released videos from a biker's cellphone through the discovery process that show him and his wife in a sexual encounter.

To one and all, to show just what type of criminals (black robed thugs, suit & tie thugs etc.) are in the court rooms, before they bring in the supposed criminals (everyday people.)

Are you a Person of “GOOD MORAL CHARACTER” ?

Take The Washington State Bar Examination and see for your self, Just for your own personal information see below some of the people that the Washington State Bar and it’s Board of Governor’s found to have “GOOD MORAL CHARACTER”.

Mr. Clark Garen was denied (Admission) because he did not have good moral character because he did not pay property taxes on two pieces of property that he owned, and was found because of this not to process “GOOD MORAL CHARACTER.”

SANDERS, J. (dissenting)—
[most of this information, is provided/ found in pages 18, and 19 of the dissent. Total of 44 pages for the dissent and seven pages from “OPINION OF THE CHARACTER AND FITNESS COMMITTEE” for a total of 51 pages.]

In re Clark Garen, Bar Applicant
B.A. Number 61 Dissent by Sanders, J., Denial of Application to Practice Law

In the case of Mr. Wright, for example, the court concluded “second degree murder does not exhibit good moral character.” In re Wright, 102 Wn.2d at 859. By the same token, prior engagement in criminal enterprise may also point to bad moral character. Cf. In re Belsher , 102 Wn.2d. At 851-52. Even so, we have admitted or readmitted others to practice notwithstanding prior criminal conduct when rehabilitation is demonstrated. Let us weigh the claims of the Bar by the standard we have set for ourselves in prior proceedings.

We have reinstated attorneys who have committed serious illegal and/or immoral acts including: second-degree assault (In re McGrath, 112 Wn.2d 481, 482, 772 P.2d 502 (1989));

Footnote:1
Dennis Belsher, for example, blew up his parents’ car with a home-made bomb, although his parents miraculously escaped injury. Nevertheless, the Board of Governors found Mr. Belsher fit to practice law in this State, although ultimately this court turned aside the favorable recommendation, concluding it was not in the interest of the public or the Bar to admit Mr. Belsher to practice “at this time.”

misappropriation of client funds (In re Moynihan, 113 Wn.2d 219, 220, 778 P.2d 521 (1989); In re Rosellini, 108 Wn.2d 350, 355, 739 P.2d 658 (1987); In re Chantry, 84 Wn.2d 153, 154, 524 P.2d 909 (1974)); witness tampering (In re Stroh, 108 Wn.2d 410, 41, 739 P.2d 690 (1987); In re Shain, 24 Wn.2d 598, 166 P.2d 843 (1946)); lying to a client (In re Livesey, 94 Wn.2d 251,252, 615 P.2d 1294 (1980)); possession of bank robbery proceeds (In re Egger, 93 Wn.2d 706, 707, 611 P.2d 1260 (1980)); burglary (In re Krogh, 93 Wn.2d 504, 505, 610 P.2d 1319 (1980)); grand larceny (In re Johnson, 92 Wn.2d 349, 350, 597 P.2d 113 (1979)); assault with intent to commit rape (In re Simmons, 81 Wn.2d 43, 44, 499 P.2d 874 (1972)); fraud (In re Eddleman, 79 Wn.2d 725, 489 P.2d 174 (1971)); mail fraud (In re Lonergan, 23 Wn.2d 767, 767, 162 P.2d 289 (1945)); embezzlement (In re Lillions, 196 Wash. 272, 82 P.2d 571 (1938)); and having an affair with a juror in a cause in which the attorney was counsel (In re Bruener, 178 Wash. 165, 34 P.2d 437 (1934).

Moreover, regarding just the last seven initial applicants for admission considered by this court, we have granted admission to applicants who have: sold seven ounces each of cocaine and heroin (Bar Applicant No. 60); conspired to import and distribute marijuana and transported $250,000 to another country (Bar Applicant No. 59); engaged in vehicle tampering and shoplifting (Bar Applicant No. 58); sold over a pound of cocaine to undercover officers for $30,500 in addition to possessing over a half-a-pound of cocaine (Bar Applicant No.57); furnished alcohol to a minor, delivered a controlled substance to a minor, and committed third degree sodomy with a 14-year-old girl (Bar Applicant No.56); broke into a liquor store, burglarized a home, stole payroll checks, and drove under the influence (Bar Applicant No.55); and possessed marijuana and attempted to commit fraud (Bar Applicant No.54);

In re Clark Garen, Bar Applicant
B.A. Number 61 did make a motion to {Washington Supreme Court} have this decision to be a "published decision," they (the Wa. Sup. Ct.) denied the motion, hence, the above is from a "NON-Published Decision." Justice Sanders was the only yes vote to Publish.

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.