Posted on 12/16/2015 6:23:55 PM PST by Elderberry
The prosecution in the case of the Waco Twin Peaks Massacre may have suffered a little defeat yesterday in Abilene, 185 miles from the scene of last Spring's crimes.
The possible defeat occurred during the trial of Bandido Motorcycle Club member Curtis Jack Lewis. At the least, McLennan County Criminal District Attorney Abelino "Abel" Reyna showed his hand.
Law Of Parties
Many observers of the case, including some of the defense lawyers, have appeared to be genuinely baffled by the arrests and indictments of so many obviously innocent people for murder and assault during the aftermath of the most deadly biker brawl in history. Men and women who ran away from the confrontation between members of the Cossacks, Bandidos and other motorcycle clubs were charged with "engaging in organized criminal activity with the underlying offense being aggravated assault and murder."
The charges have seemed far-fetched to most of the world but they weren't far-fetched to Reyna who has intended all along to convict everybody under Texas' so called "law of parties." Waco has always been a conspiracy case.
The law of parties, which is contained in Section 7.02 of the Texas Penal Code, declares that: "A person is criminally responsible for an offense committed by the conduct of another acting with intent to promote or assist the commission of the offense, he solicits, encourages, directs, aids, or attempts to aid the other person to commit the offense; or having a legal duty to prevent commission of the offense and acting with intent to promote or assist its commission, he fails to make a reasonable effort to prevent commission of the offense. If, in the attempt to carry out a conspiracy to commit one felony, another felony is committed by one of the conspirators, all conspirators are guilty of the felony actually committed, though having no intent to commit it, if the offense was committed in furtherance of the unlawful purpose and was one that should have been anticipated as a result of the carrying out of the conspiracy."
Yes, the law is a mouthful. Its broadness and opacity make it virtually headline proof. But it is the law in Texas. About 80 people are now on death row in the Lone Star State because they were convicted of murder under the law of parties. Given the progress of the Twin Peaks case so far, it seems very plausible that some defendants may be convicted of murder because they were carrying deadly weapons in anticipation of a deadly conflict. Or, if they were unarmed, they might be convicted because they should have known that weapons carried by their companions were likely to lead to a deadly conflict. Or they might be convicted because they knew that a potentially murderous conflict was simmering between the Cossacks and the Bandidos and they still chose to ride with the Scimitars or they wore a shirt that declared their intention to "support the Fat Mexican."
In Abilene
In Abilene, Lewis is on trial for aggravated assault charges stemming from a brawl between Bandidos and Cossacks in the parking lot of the Logan's Roadhouse restaurant there on November 2, 2013. Lewis faced two counts of aggravated assault, In Count One, he was charged with actually stabbing a Cossack named Timothy Shane Satterwhite. Satterwhite testified against Lewis Monday. Lewis was also charged with a second count, under the law of parties, of stabbing Cossack Edward Corley.
Satterwhite was arrested at the Twin Peaks last May 17. According to official documents, Edward Corley's "black 2007 Dodge Ram was also found in the parking lot of the Twin Peaks Restaurant in Waco on May 17, 2015. A witness to the stabbing at the Logan's Roadhouse Restaurant, Michael Don Baxley was also identified as a Cossack and arrested for Engaging In Organized Criminal Activity at the Twin Peaks Restaurant in Waco on May 17, 2015."
Two McLennan County Assistant Criminal District Attorneys have been attending the Lewis trial in Abilene to confer and cooperate with prosecutors there.
Directed Verdict
Yesterday, Taylor County Assistant District Attorney James Hicks presented the state's case that Lewis was guilty of stabbing Corley under the law of parties. According to a usually informed source, "The state's theory on count two was that because Lewis was president and everyone followed his order to leave, that it could be reasonably inferred that he ordered the stabbing." The source believes this is "similar to the state's theory in the Twin Peaks case."
At the end of the day, defense attorney Jon Hanna asked Judge John Weeks to order a directed verdict of not guilty. Hanna argued "that the state had failed to present any evidence of Lewis actually directing or encouraging the stabbing." The judge agreed with the defense and Lewis has now been acquitted of stabbing Corley.
What lessons the visiting prosecutors from McLennan County have now learned and the ramifications of those lessons for the Twin Peaks defendants remains to be seen.
Today the prosecution began presenting its case that Lewis actually stabbed Satterwhite.
“You are an idiot.
Sec. 7.02. CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY FOR CONDUCT OF ANOTHER. (a) A person is criminally responsible for an of fense committed by the conduct of another if: ...
(2) acting with intent to promote or assist the commission of the offense, he solicits, encourages, directs, aids, or attempts to aid the other person to commit the offense ...
That’s mightly close to my statement that “in order to obtain a guilty verdict under law of the parties, the state will have to produce evidence that an accused directed or encouraged violence.”
But nevermind. They are not being prosecuted under 7.02 so it doesn’t apply.
Supporting indictment?
As contrasted with baseless accusations?
Meaningless twaddle.
Omitted "solicited" too. Blame Lewis's lawyer for that. Plus, in this case, the only people physically in position to aid or attempt to aid the commission of murder or aggravated assault are those few people who were close to the violence. The majority of people charged were not in that physical position.
-- But nevermind. They are not being prosecuted under 7.02 so it doesn't apply. --
"Law of the parties" is never stated as the basis for a charge, it is not an offense. It is a way to find people guilty of an offense even though they didn't perpetrate the offense. In this case the charged offense is "murder" and/or "aggravated assault." At trial, the prosecutor would invoke law of the parties to hook players who didn't directly perpetrate murder or aggravated assault.
As for the "nevermind," I specifically cited law of the parties in my initial remark, and you, being an idiot, claimed, "That is not what the Texas [law of the parties] statute says." Either that, or your claim was a total non sequitur, a fairly common error for an idiot.
““You are an idiot.
Sec. 7.02. CRIMINAL ......... “
I REPEAT. They are NOT being prosecuted under Section 7.02.
You can repeat all you want, but 1) the facts of the case demand application of law of the parties to sweep in most of the persons charged, and 2) your repetition reinforces the conclusion that you are an idiot.
“There is no such thing as “being prosecuted under Section 7.02,” so your statement, while true, is always true.”
LOL!
You better inform the Texas AG that he has no authority to prosecute under sections of the Penal Code!
At any rate, 7.02 is not an offense. It is a principle for assigning criminal responsibility.
7.01 does not describe not an offense either. It states the principle that a person who commits a crime, or is an accomplice, is criminally responsible.
With conspiracy off the table, most of the accused have to be swept in by application of 7.02. But 7.02 on its own does absolutely nothing. It requires an underlying offense.
I post this for others, because you are too stupid to understand, plus you argue in bad faith.
The people at the hospital beat and stabbed themselves
I repeat, you better inform the AG that his prosecutions are not valid ....
"On September 13, 2004, the State brought appellant to trial before a petit jury.   At that trial, the State sought to prove appellant's guilt, under both counts in the indictment, as a party under Texas Penal Code §§ 7.02(a)(2) and 7.02(b)
.1   - See more at: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/tx-court-of-criminal-appeals/1427947.html#sthash.oCNbxrB9.dpuf"
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/tx-court-of-criminal-appeals/1427947.html
On January 20, 2003, an Hidalgo County grand jury returned an indictment charging appellant with one count of capital murder and one count of aggravated robbery. See Tex. Pen.Code S:S: 19.03(a)(2) & 29.03(a)(1).
Followed by the sentence you quoted, "the State sought to prove appellant's guilt, under both counts in the indictment ..." Neither of those two counts is an offense under 7.02, because there is not such thing as an offense under 7.02. However, as Vega didn't actually commit murder or aggravated robbery, the state had to invoke 7.02 in order to establish criminal responsibility for the charged offenses.
There was no count of "responsible for the criminal conduct of another," the indictment counts were murder and aggravated robbery.
Again, remarks for others, because you are too dense to understand, and unworthy of a civil or reasoned response.
“There was no count of “responsible for the criminal conduct of another,” the indictment counts were murder and aggravated robbery.”
True. BUT he was prosecuted under 7.02 also. If they didn’t prosecute under 7.02 they would have no case.
“Again, remarks for others, because you are too dense to understand, and unworthy of a civil or reasoned response. “
LOL!
For the other, even with direct quotes from state papers saying they are prosecuting under 7.02 C says you can’t prosecute under 7.02!
I already addressed your appeal to sophistry, making your return to criticism of the phrase "prosecute under 7.02" just further evidence of your stupidity.
“I already addressed your appeal to sophistry, making your return to criticism of the phrase “prosecute under 7.02” just further evidence of your stupidity. “
I have given you several court documents stating that they are prosecuting under 7.02!
It's obvious that my remarks are going over your pinhead.
You are the one that, in our little fuss, first used the phrase "prosecuted under 7.02." You said "But nevermind. They are not being prosecuted under 7.02 so it doesn't apply."
My first reply to that was "'Law of the parties' is never stated as the basis for a charge, it is not an offense."
You keep reverting to the sophist's point, that I once wrote "There is no such thing as 'being prosecuted under Section 7.02'" instead of my more accurate first response, 7.02 is not an offense.
You keep reverting to that point, even after I acknowledged it, as though your repetition somehow rebuts my points that 7.02 is inevitably involved in the Twin Peaks cases (even though you say it isn't), and that 7.02 is not an offense.
Idiot troll, can't even troll worth spit.
Ponder that for a moment, and attempt to apply it to the Twin Peaks cases.
Do you actually believe Reyna is going to get 177 convictions?
That's really what is at stake here, guilt by association charges have broad implications in future scenarios.
“You keep reverting to that point, even after I acknowledged it, “
I apologize. If I kept on repeating after you acknowledged your mistake, I missed it.
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.