so this is an admission there was no probable cause for the others???A melee killed people? Is that some kind of Fed Govt AI storm trooper?
Just a point of information - the venue here happens to be a court of appeals, but the action was not an appeal. Examining trials are “preliminary hearings,” and decisions rendered in these proceedings are not appealable.
Does anyone honestly think if the bikers were the killers, we would still be waiting for the evidence to be released? Maybe the bikers did it, but it just smells like a coverup to me.
so this is an admission there was no probable cause for the others???The opinion is available from the tenth court of appeals website Case 10-15-00218-CR. One of the three judges dissented from the opinion (Chief Justice Gray), but no written dissent was or will be prepared.
The nub of the decision is contained in the following paragraphs from the opinion (225kb PDF):
Plainly, the affidavit does not allege that Pilkington or Weathers committed one of the underlying offenses of capital murder, murder, or aggravated assault, one of the two means of committing the second main element. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. 71.02(a)(1) ("the person commits or conspires to commit one or more of the following"). Thus, we turn to each appellant's specific complaint that the affidavit does not allege an agreement; i.e., that he conspired to commit one of the underlying offenses--that he agreed "with one or more persons that they or one or more of them engage in conduct that would constitute the offense ... ." Id. 71.01(b). The statute specifically states that the "agreement constituting conspiring to commit may be inferred from the acts of the parties." Id. And in reviewing the affidavit, the magistrate was permitted to draw reasonable inferences from the facts in the affidavit. We conclude that the magistrate could have reasonably inferred from the profusion of weapons at the scene and the subsequent violence that Pilkington and Weathers, as members of a criminal street gang, each agreed "with one or more persons that they or one or more of them engage in conduct that would constitute the offense" of capital murder, murder, or aggravated assault.Lastly, we address each appellant's specific complaint that the affidavit does not allege that each of them performed "an overt act in pursuance of the agreement." Id. At the hearings, the State argued that, on the day in question, Pilkington and Weathers committed overt acts by showing up at the restaurant--by being present and wearing their distinctive signs or symbols identifying each of them as a member of a criminal street gang, along with other members of a criminal street gang. As noted above, the overt act need not be criminal in itself. See Barrera, 321 S.W.3d at 154. The magistrate could have reasonably inferred that their presence and wearing their distinctive signs or symbols identifying each of them as a member of a criminal street gang was an overt act. The magistrate also could have reasonably inferred from their presence, from their wearing their distinctive signs or symbols, and from the profusion of weapons at the scene and the subsequent violence that each of them performed an overt act by either encouraging, soliciting, directing, aiding, or attempting to aid the commission of the underlying offenses of capital murder, murder, or aggravated assault. See id.
In conclusion, by applying the highly deferential standard in reviewing the magistrate's decision to issue the arrest warrant based on the four corners of the affidavit, we find that the magistrate had a substantial basis for concluding that probable cause existed to believe that Pilkington and Weathers committed the offense of engaging in organized criminal activity.