You must have been addressing that to the article itself.
If you can't see how this latest development could be further leveraged by Renya to seek yet more delays, perhaps you're not paying close attention. It seems painfully obvious to me that Renya is also hoping to induce defense attorneys to seek delays (you mentioned that) hoping to get away with doing that while attempting to indemnify himself and his prosecutorial office from charges of malfeasance (possibly also protect himself personally from charge of having denied 6th Amendment constitutional rights be afforded to defendants -- if he can get defense attorneys to take the bait!) and in hope of protecting any convictions he may eventually be able to win from potential grounds for appeal (this last, as you suggested, of course).
If you still can't see that Renya having just now pulled this at this late date is cynical manipulation of laws pertaining to discovery process, if you can't see this is more significant than the way you have presented apologia for that process, I suggest that could be due to how you having already --in your own mind-- convicted all ham sandwiches (all the indicted) of all being guilty of criminal conspiracy.
That is how they were charged, that and charged with murder (under charges of conspiracy)-- which could lead to life sentences for those convicted.
Where is the evidence establishing there was conspiracy?
In one of the preliminary hearings, a defense attorney, in court, asked a Waco PD officer if there was any evidence that individuals went to Waco that day having agreed upon committing crime. The answer was "no".
At that point, before it even got to the let's indict these ham sandwiches stage, if there was truly justice within our justice system -- the cases should have been thrown out until prosecution could come up with evidence for "conspiracy".
As alternative to pressing charges of conspiracy, McClennan County could have filed more specific charges along lines of "this guy criminally assaulted this other person" (or ANY "crime", for that matter) sans charges of criminal conspiracy, returning to refile charge of conspiracy at some later date against any individuals they may possibly have evidence for having engaged in that very thing.
What happened, instead? Along with those individuals who are likely to have been guilty of committing violent acts (some acts, such as self-protection potentially not unlawful) where persons quite possibly not directly involved in commission of unlawful acts at all, yet who were still jailed and held, held originally under million dollar bail amounts under charges of having engaged in criminal conspiracy - of which Law Enforcement admitted they had no evidence for (at that stage, anyway).
Were you OK with the process up to that point ---Yes, or No?
I raise the points that I have, and ask what I have in order to show the fatal flaw in your having turned towards arguing that grand jury indictments themselves provide justification for your own arguments, in face of challenges to those arguments. The initial indictments still have this initially ADMITTED TO lack of evidence aspect, looming over them.
I seriously doubt that if evidence can be found for some number ---actually went to Waco that day intent upon committing crime -- there was 'agreement' that would extend to all who were present. Being present there, on the day of the scheduled meeting, is not enough.
' Under the Texas criminal conspiracy codes ---- each person charged had to be aware there would was intent to commit some crime. See Texas Penal Code Sec. 15.02 (a).
The charges break down whenever turning to say "but crimes did occur" and "they are all guilty because they fit definition of being member of 'a gang' " in instances where there was no previously agreed upon plan (to commit crime at that particular time and place) or possibly even as furtherance of some prior pattern of "crime". It is that very last thing I mentioned (some prior pattern) --- being merely alluded towards by Renya that apparently is what he's betting most all his own marbles on.
Guilt by mere association alone -- IS NOT THE WAY the criminal code reads.
How in the hell could anyone defend themselves against the way Renya appears to be trying to apply the laws? He keeps stalling, too.
So-- answer the question. Were you all good with the process prior to it this being sent to grand jury proceedings? Another question could be; do you recall how it worked out, mathematically speaking, how much time was spent by the grand jury in their deliberations per defendant?
Your having said this;
rankles.
Just between ourselves here on this forum, let's get that out of the way. I'm not an attorney, but the other fellow you are talking to, I do believe just may be.
I see no problem with what he said in reply #19.
Pointing to grand jury indictment as defense against contemplating what CBolt had said there makes you look like a jackass.
Care to try again? Read what the man wrote. See if anything, as you go along -- is wrong with it. No more of the hand-waving b.s'ing like you just tried to get away with. Or maybe, just shut up. Mmm'kay?
No, it’s a very simple legal issue that in some FReeper’s hate for government and LEOs, they either refuse or do not see.
1: P is required to disclose to D any possible exculpatory information. They did. It’s that simple.
2: Because one police officer had no evidence, you assume no one did?
3: The crime for which the conspiracy existed did not have to be murder. As you say, SOME crime is sufficient. It was well known within these gangs that gang and individual incomes came from drug dealing. If the murders occurred during the commission of that or other felony, then all participants in the underlying crime can be charged with murder. Evidence obtained at the scene of the killings can be introduced to substantiate this.
At trial, the State will have it’s opportunity to try to prove the conspiracy existed. The Defense will have their opportunity to try to refute those charges,
4: Suggest you review Texas law dealing with identifications of “gangs” as being, by definition, involved in a criminal conspiracy.
Finally, one of the problems here is that some crimes occurred. People were shot. The State has the right and in fact, the obligation, to try to prove in court those charges it thinks it can prove. All the personal attacks on the DA are very illustrative that some have a hate of government and LEOs to the point they are willing to attack his motives, as opposed to considering that the people and laws of Waco do not tolerate such action as happened there that day.
By the way, “Tomorrow’s Headlines Today” The cases will be very simple to prove at trial, as some of those indicted will roll over and testify against others. That combined with the physical evidence, and 12 angry Texans, and one L and O judge, will send at least some of the perps to Huntsville for a very long time.
Old legal saw: If you can’t do the time, don’t do the crime. Shooting people is generally considered a crime.
Also, a recommendation; when making a legal argument, remove all the hyperbole adjectives and adverbs. They scream to any experienced reader, “I’m using them because that’s all I’ve got.
Regards.
“I see no problem with what he said in reply #19.”
You have no problem with this? Everyone has specified charges against them.
“and in most of these Waco Twin Peaks cases, the prosecutor has not specified the charge,”
As an example of how far the murder charges could apply....
A, B and C drive to a drug deal. D knows about it and lends them his car to drive to the deal.
A and B get out of the car and start to do the deal with X, Y and Z. C never gets within 50 yards, never handles drugs, money or a gun. He is just the driver.
The deal goes bad and B shoots X. X dies. A, B, C and D can all be charged with murder, although the case against D is harder to prove, because State must prove what he “knew” in addition to what he “did.”
The State’s case against some of the Waco Defs will be tough to prove, but if there was no prosecuteable case, many Def’s would have already been successful at the Appeal level in getting charges dismissed.
The bottom line is, separate Defs into 3 groups. 1: The “Deep Do0-Doo Defendants,” shooters, etc. 2: The ACTIVE conspirators and 3: those foolishly caught up because of the associations with a “gang” as defined under Texas law.
Lawyers for group 3 won’t have too much to deal with in order to roll over and testify. But group 2? They have some power. Trust me on this, their lawyers are already in a “race to the courthouse” to see who can get the first/best deal for their clients... and lawyers from group 1 know it. That is why they are conducting such a PR campaign against the DA, plus TV news time helps them get more clients for the next crime.