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.
That's a piss poor opening. You are attributing motives, confusing the issues, and asserting facts not in evidence. Why I should even bother to reply to such insulting nonsense?
I had asked you specifically if you were ok with the process up to a particular point. You utterly failed to provide anything approaching direct answer. Which leads me to think that you are ok with the way this had played out ---up to that point (and all along in the process afterwards also).
Here I have to guess at what you are referring to. The one officer I mentioned was representing Waco PD, in court. It's not like he was just some random bozo with a badge...
That does matter, or at the least it should have, at that point. Otherwise -- if assuming "some other officer DID" that would be assuming facts not testified to -- at THAT point in the proceedings. Doing so is not "justice". Which is part of why I told you about ham sandwiches...
As for argument the way you used mention of grand jury indictments -- it was worthless. It should not have even gone to a grand jury under the conditions that it did. A judge kicked the can down the road, allowed the process to go forward under that taint. As Paul Looney remarked a bit later --- [here paraphrased] "the DA has a novel theory".
None more specifically were stipulated, and that is the problem. While so far (and more specifically -- at the particular point of the proceeding I had hoped to attract attention to) there had been no evidence and no real reason to think there would in the future be evidence that each of the 178 individuals indicted went to Waco on May 17, 2015 intent on committing murder. If not intent upon that --- what were they intent upon? What crime were they conspiring to commit? ANswer the fooking question! It is the relevant question
I've read the laws. There still needs to be some evidence of conspiracy on part of each individual thus charged also, or; Renya was lying to the court, hoping he could prove it later, or else skate on past that aspect and win convictions of "conspiracy" through use of innuendo and impugning guilt of "conspiracy" on basis of guilt by association alone.
Obviously what Renya did was a pressure tactic. Million dollar bail amounts for one and all. You were OK with THAT too? It matters not at all that those amount were later reduced. At the point of time those bails were set, that was violation of Constitutional provisions prohibiting defendants being held under excessive bail conditions.
No crimes were specifically stipulated in the indictments (once those finally came down, and is another issue, considerations for not included in the question I initially posed to you) other than charges of murder -- which included consideration for death of individuals who were most likely killed by LEO's. This introduces yet more problems. The indictments were cookie-cutter identical for each of the accused. Which could lead to another question that I shouldn't even bother to ask. You were ok with cookie cutter indictments, obviously enough. Many others are not ok with how those came about. Their objections having nothing to do with hate for government and LEOs, but instead was hate for abuses of law by those very same.
This is getting tedious already. I had cited to you the section of law identifying it by section and (a). I suggest you shut up with the kind of noise you just handed me. "I suggest" you say. I could suggest many things for to go and do.
And all you've got is slander for basis of reply (from your opening sentence) in the midst of yourself obviously not understanding what I was more specifically talking about.