Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Stakes seem to be pretty high in this one. DA claims he is concerned that defendant's right to a fair trial needs to be protected by a gag order. Can someone explain that to me?
1 posted on 08/12/2015 11:32:13 AM PDT by don-o
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


To: Cboldt

ping and another tip of the hat


2 posted on 08/12/2015 11:34:32 AM PDT by don-o (I am Kenneth Carlisle - Waco 5/17/15)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: don-o
Can someone explain that to me?

Do we really want EVERYONE knowing the state's lies and BS?

3 posted on 08/12/2015 11:44:11 AM PDT by dware (Yeah, so? What are we going to do about it?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: don-o

Because: Gorebal Warning


4 posted on 08/12/2015 11:45:23 AM PDT by Paladin2 (Ive given up on aphostrophys and spell chek on my current device...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: don-o

>>> In arguing that the gag order be continued, Reyna says the defendants’ rights to fair trials are in jeopardy because of “a danger of prejudice from pretrial publicity.” <<<

Look! Squirrel!


5 posted on 08/12/2015 11:52:03 AM PDT by JJ_Folderol (Cancelled due to lack of interest.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: don-o
Criminal Court of Appeals Case No. WR-83,719-01

The filed documents are linked. The state is not requesting oral argument.

One of these days, real soon now, the state AG's office ought to be responding to the request for opinion from the city of Waco, as it asserts an open records exception. 45 business days from the date the request of opinion was filed, which was roughly mid-June, if I recall correctly. 45 business days is about 9 weeks.

6 posted on 08/12/2015 11:55:11 AM PDT by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: don-o

Isn’t it usually the defendant’s counsel who wants a gag order to prevent pretrial publicity from prejudicing the jury?


7 posted on 08/12/2015 11:56:52 AM PDT by Nep Nep
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: don-o

considering they were arrested for wearing fill in the blank generic biker costumes warrants of that ilk sound feasable.


8 posted on 08/12/2015 12:03:48 PM PDT by ImJustAnotherOkie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: don-o

“Can someone explain that to me? “

The DA knows he’s knee-deep in the excrement he’s produced, so he’s just trying to save his own a$$ and those of the Whacko PD. This is not going to end well for the whole “judicial system” in McLennan County. It stinks!


9 posted on 08/12/2015 12:19:20 PM PDT by vette6387
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: don-o
Hunting through the state AG open records responses, a list that includes links to thousands of PDF files.

OR2015-15225 of July 27, responsive to Waco LGL-15-181, relates to the twin Peaks incident. However, this is not the same Waco request that was mailed to the AG on June 3. The Waco ID's for that letter are LGL-15-173, LGL-15-174, LGL-15-175, LGL-15-176, LGL-15-177, LGL-15-178, and LGL-15-179.

I think the AG response to Waco's June 3 letter is somewhere in list of open records responses, and that it says Waco may withhold the information due to pending prosecution.

10 posted on 08/12/2015 1:24:00 PM PDT by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: don-o

This case has been making it difficult for the local badge polishers from day one.


11 posted on 08/12/2015 1:43:32 PM PDT by Seruzawa (All those memories will be lost,in time, like tears in rain.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: don-o

The trick I was taught in law school was to dismiss the charges so the preliminary hearing wouldn’t be held, and then take it to the GJ for an indictment and round the guy up on a bench warrant then. Because no prosecutor wants to show his hand until trial.

DA is stalling until the tame GJ can get its rubber stamp going.


15 posted on 08/12/2015 4:58:32 PM PDT by PAR35
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: don-o

Bush’s fault. Or a Republican dirty trick.


18 posted on 08/12/2015 10:20:45 PM PDT by sport
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: don-o
Texas CCA granted a 30 day stay, meaning the gag order remains in effect. The CCA will hear the case. I'd guess gagged for another two months, if not indefinitely, e.g., until after the trials have concluded.

High court stays writ to lift gag order on attorneys - August 14, 2015 Radiolegendary.

             IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
                         OF TEXAS
                    NO. WR-83,719-01


  In Re STATE OF TEXAS EX REL. ABELINO REYNA, RELATOR1


  ON MOTION TO FILE APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS FROM
     CAUSE NO. 2015-1955-2 IN THE 54th DISTRICT COURT
                  FROM McLENNAN COUNTY

   Per curiam.

                          ORDER

       Relator's motion to stay is granted. We also have before 
  us a motion for leave to file an application for a writ of 
  mandamus and an application for a writ of mandamus.

       The matter underlying this proceeding involves an opinion 
  from the Tenth Court of Appeals conditionally granting mandamus 
  relief and ordering the trial court to vacate its gag order 
  issued on June 30, 2015. In re Clendennen, No. 10-15-00235-CR 
  (Tex. App.-Waco August 7, 2015) (not designated for publication). 
  The rationale behind the appellate court's memorandum opinion is 
  that

   FN 1
         The application filed with this Court listed Judge Matt 
  Johnson of the 54th Judicial District Court as the Relator. 
  However, the application was filed by McLennan County District 
  Attorney Abelino Reyna and he is the Relator in this matter.
                                                                                                     2
  --- Page 2 ---

  the trial court abused its discretion pursuant to the Tenth 
  Court's published opinion in In re Graves, 217 S.W.3d 744 (Tex. 
  App.-Waco 2007, orig. proceeding).

       This Court has determined that this case should be filed 
  and set and the parties should brief the following issues:

       1.  Is the Texas Supreme Court's holding in Davenport v. 
           Garcia, 834 S.W.2d 4 (Tex. 1992), applicable to gag 
           orders in criminal cases?

       2.  Are the findings supporting the gag order in this case 
           sufficiently specific?

       3.  Is Tenth Court of Appeals' conditional grant of 
           mandamus relief supported by the law and facts of this case?

  Briefs from relator, respondent, and the real party in interest 
  are due in this Court within 30 days of the date of this order. 
  No motions for extension of time to file will be entertained.

       IT IS SO ORDERED THIS THE 13th DAY OF AUGUST, 2015.

39 posted on 08/14/2015 6:19:16 AM PDT by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson