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.
Ping
Discovery is gonna be interesting..................
Good food?...................
I don’t think they fired first either.
I do think they fired on people with lawful weapons carried for self defense who were seeking cover and not shooting at anyone.
After the fact somebody realized that the whole “shoot ‘em all and let God sort it out” thing wasn’t going to go down well with the public. Thus they arrested everyone with a smartphone.
Cameras from businesses are more problematic. Well run businesses have off site monitoring so that thieves can’t steal the security footage.
“Hmmm...what’s Don Carlos hiding?”
“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.”
More like what is the fuzz trying to hide?
“what’s Don Carlos hiding?”
His fear of the LEO’s who are demanding he protect them.
Bret Griffin was with the Galveston county DA’s office for some time. He is known as a stand up guy. It looks like one problem here is that that Don Carlos cannot produce the video because they don’t have the hard drives. The police have them. Secondly, Don Carlos has a lawsuit against Twin Peaks and that may involve the videos. Brett may have a point that it seems a little much to threaten Don Carlos with contempt and arrest over something they don’t have.
Bret isn’t trying to protect anyone but his client.
Something is indeed odd with this whole situation. I cannot see how these people could have been held so long with such large bonds. It appears that due process clause has been thrown out the window. The amount of bail is crazy. The judge is crazy and the prosecutors are nuts IMO. Habeas Corpus? Hello!
I’m really sad and a bit pissed off to see this happen in Texas. Some of these “bikers” may be bad guys or not at all. That does not matter, what matters is that they have rights that apparently have been thrown out the window. Has this been brought to them by the same morons that didn’t have the good sense to simple pull David Koresh over while he was driving to town but instead decided to go to war? Is there something in the water there in Wacko Texas?
> no longer in possession of the hard drives containing the surveillance because Waco police officials took them
Are they scheduled to be accidentally erased yet?
That language isn't any threat, it is notice, common on subpoenas. Stylized legales, "You are commanded to produce .... blah blah blah .... failure to do so can result in contempt and imprisonment." See TEX. R. CIV. P. 176.1, and a few example forms at texas subpoena duces tucem form - Google Search
Would seem to be the only argument needed.
“We don’t have them anymore, the cops took them.”
The argument that providing the video would burden the restaurant’s managers is really stupid. They’re interested in basically at most a couple of hours, with the exact time well known.
Whether they really were or weren't sitting in their vehicles, the clear truth is that they were AMAZINGLY STUPID AND OBTUSE if out of 177 "criminals" they arrested and HARSHLY PUNISHED without due process, fewer than a third had ever before been accused, let alone convicted, of a crime.
On one point I disagree with don-o: I don't think they were "flat-footed" at all. I think they accomplished the mission they were there to perform with calculated deliberation.
Is that applicable during an active investigation? I don’t think so. Once they case is handed over for prosecution the prosecutor’s responsibility is to hand it over not the cops. They may think this attorney wants to interfere in the investigation which may be.
Quite possible. However, if person A and person B are exchanging gunfire, how do you know which person is the perp and which a person legally defending himself? This is often difficult to thrash out in a court of law.
Quite possibly the cops chose to just shoot everybody. But I am really interested in an answer to this question. People just seem to assume it's immediately obvious. Maybe sometimes it is. But I suspect often not.
BTW, in many if not all states you can have both sides guilty of assault with a deadly weapon and attempted murder. There isn't always a "victim" on hand. Sometimes they're all perps.
Not to say that was necessarily the case here.
You said a lot not to have said any thing.
Defendant has the power to subpoena evidence and witnesses too. No harm in asking Don Carlos for it. He may also subpoena witnesses to appear at the examining trial.
Really? Or is all you want is to have somebody else tell you what they think the truth was, and leave you to dispute it at will because "nobody knows what the truth was here"?
If you want the truth, you can GO OUT AND GET IT for yourself just by investing enough hours of reading and effort. I'll condense it for you: The TRUTH is that Civil Servants skipped due process and harshly and severely punished and permanently crippled financially and professionally, nearly 120 law-abiding Americans with ZERO prior criminal history. The TRUTH is that those Civil Servants will ONLY be held accountable and possibly punished many years from now, whereas their victims have ALREADY been punished very, very harshly and will FOREVER have an arrest record reflecting a very serious charge that will follow them and harm their reputations on every job application and background check.
That TRUTH is easily discoverable if YOU do a little due diligence.
If you really want the truth, you will invest the effort and time to get it.
Thank you. I try.
Acts 1965, 59th Leg., vol. 2, p. 317, ch. 722.
From link above to Examining trial. Cboldt, do you have a take on this?
“Right...those hard drives are really safe in the “state’s” hands. No risk whatsoever of any of the (inconvenient — from the state’s perspective) contents being compromised, corrupted, lost or deleted.”
A la Lois Lerner.
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.