Replies

What is the deal here? I must be missing something. It looks like the prosecutor is sabotaging his own case . . .

This is not really such a big deal. The court told the prosecution what they had to do. They failed to do it. It is not simply a matter of a killer going free. It is a matter of the arrogance of a prosecutor not doing what he was told he had to do. If society has a beef, tell it to the prosecutor who is solely responsible for this fiasco. You HAVE to play by the rules - both sides. Very very sad. It certainly reminds me of the OJ case wherein the police tried to cook the evidence and, as a result, a jury essentially threw out the case.

Here is the local newspaper story, from last Saturday . . .

http://www.southeasttexaslive.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=7305701&BRD=2287&PAG=461&dept_id=481650&rfi=6

Judge tosses out DNA evidence in murder case

VANESSA EVERETT , The Beaumont Enterprise

03/08/2003

BEAUMONT — A state judge Friday threw out key evidence from a 13-year-old capital murder case, saying the prosecution did not turn over the evidence to the defense in a timely manner.

Scientific evidence, such as DNA test results, will be excluded from Joe Edward LaRue’s trial unless the state can get the evidence back in on appeal.

LaRue, 39, formerly of Port Neches, faces the capital murder charge in connection with the death of his co-worker Donna Pentecost.

The 33-year-old Port Neches woman was found dead in her yard Oct. 15, 1989. She had been sexually assaulted and her head crushed with a concrete block.

Judge Layne Walker of the 252nd Criminal District Court initially decided to postpone the trial and give the defense ample time to prepare its case. He was also planning to dismiss the jury, which was selected earlier this week after a three-week process.

However, when District Attorney Tom Maness objected to the delay, Judge Walker said, "If that is your position, we will go forward with the trial on March 17 and I’m excluding all DNA evidence."

Maness said he would appeal the ruling.

Prosecutors were tight-lipped after the ruling, declining to answer questions from reporters. In past interviews, however, they said the DNA evidence was an important part of the case.

In fact, advances in DNA technology were credited in November 2001 with LaRue’s re-indictment. The original case against LaRue was dismissed in 1994 because prosecutors did not believe they could get a conviction based on the evidence they had.

Doug Barlow, defense lawyer for LaRue, said the state did not give him the evidence until this January, a year after the court ruling to hand over evidence.

Maness, however, contended that Barlow did not set up a time and place to collect the evidence, as is customary in Jefferson County.

Walker found that the District Attorney’s Office was "extremely negligent" in waiting so long to turn over the evidence.

The late action forced LaRue to decide between his Constitutional right to a speedy trial and his right to an adequate defense, Barlow said.

The state must appeal Walker’s decision by the scheduled trial date of March 17.

Reach this reporter at:

833-3311 ext. 427

veverett@beaumontenterprise.com

As they say, "discovery" is a two-way street. If the prosecution failed to turn over evidence as they were obliged to do, the judge is well within his/her rights to exclude it from trial.

The prosecution screwed up.

If there is no statute of limitations on murder then what is to stop the state from simply dismissing the case and refiling the charges?

I don't believe the judge can do anything to stop it.