Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Don Carlos seeks to block release of shootout surveillance video
Waco Tribune ^ | July 6, 2015 | TOMMY WITHERSPOON

Posted on 07/06/2015 11:08:21 AM PDT by don-o

Attorneys for Don Carlos Mexican Restaurant in Waco are seeking to block a subpoena that would require restaurant officials to turn over security camera videos from the May 17 shootout in advance of a biker’s examining trial.

Attorney Clint Broden, who represents Hewitt biker Matthew Clendennen, subpoenaed the video from Don Carlos, whose business is adjacent to the former Twin Peaks restaurant, where nine bikers were killed and 20 others were wounded.

Bret Griffin, a Houston attorney who represents Don Carlos, said in a motion to quash the subpoena that Broden is on a “fishing expedition for non-party’s surveillance footage and is threatening the non-party with orders of contempt and arrest. Such conduct is improper and must be stopped.”

Justice of the Peace W.H. “Pete” Peterson has scheduled an examining trial in Clendennen’s case for Aug. 10. Those seeking examining trials hope to prove there is insufficient evidence to indict them.

Peterson has not set other hearings in the case, including one to consider the motion to quash the subpoena.

Griffin alleges in the motion to quash that the subpoena will unduly burden Don Carlos’ officials, whom he said would have to review hundreds of hours of surveillance footage from 16 different positions in order to comply.

Also, he alleges, the manager of the Waco Don Carlos is no longer in possession of the hard drives containing the surveillance because Waco police officials took them as part of their ongoing investigation.

The motion suggests Broden ask prosecutors to turn over the video.

“Finally, this surveillance footage is evidence in an ongoing criminal investigation and in an unrelated civil proceeding to which a gag order has been placed,” the motion to quash says. “To require a non-party to disseminate this information would be unfair and prejudicial and potentially be in conflict with the gag order.”

If the subpoena is not quashed, Don Carlos officials ask the video to be placed under a protective order, barring its public release.

In a response to the motion to quash, Broden called Don Carlos’ arguments “gobbledygook.”

He notes that 54th State District Judge Matt Johnson last week ordered Twin Peaks to comply with an almost identical subpoena on a Twin Peaks franchisee. The judge placed the video under a protective order, preventing Broden from releasing it publicly.

“Twin Peaks has offered transparency to the citizens of McLennan County while, at the same time, recognizing the importance of due process rights of those charged with criminal offenses by agreeing to produce its surveillance videos pursuant to a subpoena,” Broden’s response says.

“On the other hand, Don Carlos seeks to keep McLennan County citizens in the dark and to deny citizens an opportunity to fully prepare their defense. Thus, it should hardly surprise Don Carlos that McLennan County citizens might choose not to patronize a restaurant that acts with such disdain toward public transparency and basic constitutional rights.”

Don Carlos is suing Twin Peaks in Dallas for loss of business as a result of the May 17 shootout.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; News/Current Events; US: Texas
KEYWORDS: plantinfestation; texasgatortroll; waco
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140141-146 last
To: Cboldt

“Wearing of colors and being at the scene is not even a sufficient accusation.”

Yet that isn’t the extent of the accusation. The officers witnessed the accused engaging in crimes, and that is part of the accusation as well.

“I’m haven’t been talking about individuals who perpetrated violence at the scene. The deficiency I have been addressing is whether or not the state 1) states and 2) has probable cause of conspiracy.”

Yet that is part of the affidavit, so it doesn’t seem sensible to ignore that fact when evaluating whether the arrest was improper.

“But, if you abandon your previously held position that it is legal to arrest a bunch of people, without evidence, and “wait for them to turn against each other” to provide the evidence the state needs, then I’ll conceded the point. “

Again, you are misinterpreting my previous comment. For all we know, the state may already have that evidence, and may have had it before the events that day. I never said anything about “waiting for them to turn against each other”, so I don’t know why you put that in quotes.

“As I said before, the people who are viewed perpetrating violence can be arrested.”

As can any accomplices who were caught at the scene of the crime, whether they engaged in the violence directly or not.

“Many, I think most of the accused stand accused of ONLY conspiracy.”

That’s not really possible if they are all charged on a “cookie cutter” affidavit, as people have pointed out repeatedly. If it’s a “fill in the blank” form, then they must all face the same charges.

“Is it your contention that being on the scene and wearing colors establishes conspiracy?”

No, but I’ve already explained in a previous comment how it serves to establish a lot of the underlying facts needed to establish a conspiracy.


141 posted on 07/07/2015 6:53:09 AM PDT by Boogieman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 137 | View Replies]

To: Boogieman
This is what you said then ...

They've laid out the beginnings of that case, at least against the Bandidos members, showing that they rescheduled the COC meeting to Waco and called up members from all over the state who wouldn't normally attend that district's meeting. All they really need now is a witness to flip and connect the dots by saying that was done specifically to prepare for violence against the Cossacks.

and this is what you say now ...

I never said anything about "waiting for them to turn against each other", so I don't know why you put that in quotes.
The quotes are "scare quotes," but I'll use direct quotes all the time with you.

We have a disagreement that won't be resolved via rational discussion. I believe I understand your point of view, and it amounts to "the face of the complaint contains a sufficient allegation of conspiracy against each named individual." My contention is opposite that.

As can any accomplices who were caught at the scene of the crime, whether they engaged in the violence directly or not.
There is no allegation of "accomplice." The allegation is "conspiracy." It appears to me that you are asserting that the state has made a sufficient allegation of conspiracy.

I would also point out that the complaint does not make a sufficient allegation to make commission, either.

Tata.

142 posted on 07/07/2015 7:16:08 AM PDT by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 141 | View Replies]

To: Boogieman; All

So in your fevered little imagination you think that motorcyclists from all over Texas traveled to Waco to fight over who got to eat at Twin Peaks restaurant.

It doesn’t surprise me, as it’s in keeping with your dime novel view of motorcyclists and motorcycles.

You are loopy, however.


143 posted on 07/07/2015 8:57:34 AM PDT by MrEdd (Heck? Geewhiz Cripes, thats the place where people who don't believe in Gosh think they aint going.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 140 | View Replies]

To: MrEdd

“So in your fevered little imagination you think that motorcyclists from all over Texas traveled to Waco to fight over who got to eat at Twin Peaks restaurant.”

No, that apparently comes from your imagination, because I never said the turf they were fighting over was the “Twin Peaks restaurant”.

Keep making stuff up though, it just makes you look crazier.


144 posted on 07/07/2015 9:33:44 AM PDT by Boogieman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 143 | View Replies]

To: Boogieman; All

The dictionary quote you gave indicates that Twin Peaks was it.

You have never offered anything else.

Turf in your dictionary quote is exclusive occupation of geography.

That is the context, so you were pegged correctly.

Are you now going to try to imagine some other reason for your fabricated rivalry?


145 posted on 07/07/2015 9:55:32 AM PDT by MrEdd (Heck? Geewhiz Cripes, thats the place where people who don't believe in Gosh think they aint going.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 144 | View Replies]

To: MrEdd

“The dictionary quote you gave indicates that Twin Peaks was it.”

No, the dictionary gives a definition of the word, it doesn’t say anything about Twin Peaks. You’re just pulling stuff out of your rear end, as usual.


146 posted on 07/07/2015 10:26:07 AM PDT by Boogieman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 145 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140141-146 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson