Posted on 11/10/2015 6:51:16 PM PST by don-o
A Texas grand jury returned indictments Tuesday against 106 of the 177 people who were arrested after a shootout between cops and members of two motorcycle clubs left nine people dead at a Waco restaurant in May.
The McLennan County grand jury returned true bills accusing the 106 suspects of engaging in organized criminal activity, with the underlying offenses being murder and aggravated assault, District Attorney Abel Reyna said Tuesday night in Waco.
Charges against the 71 other suspects weren't presented Tuesday but will be "at a later time," Reyna said.
(Excerpt) Read more at nbcnews.com ...
Thanks for all the great stuff you bring on these threads.
{^)
Dont know what to make of that in a free country.
Brought down a lot of bad characters, but at what cost?
i dont know. i’m not smart enough
He's in CYA and save face mode. In for a penny, in for a pound. He's using the legal process to reduce the probability a defendant will sue for civil rights violations. He's also continuing his pattern of punishment by process, a device whereby the only legal foundation for inconveniencing a person is the legal presumption in favor of the state.
Reyna has said that the GJ has more work to do, so the other 71 remain under the cloud of accusation (but not indicted) until either the GJ indicts, or the accusation clock runs out. Depending on how bond was posted, the accused are either out the money paid to the bondsman, or the bond paid to the court is returned. Once indicted, they are back under whatever bond and bond conditions the court imposes. That condition remains until the indictment-trial process plays out.
Here’s AP story. I see no need for a separate thread
Yet John Wayne Gacy looked so scary. Go ahead, judge your books by their cover.
The latter might make situations involving seizures and further disposition of seized property a mite uncomfortable.
A Defendant's Right to a Speedy Trial -- Texas Law -- May-June 2010
Because the sole form of relief for violation of a defendant's right to a speedy trial is full dismissal of the charges, courts are understandably reluctant to find that the right has been violated. The burden on the defendant is therefore an especially high one, and courts often deny relief where the defendant has failed to show all four [Baker] factors weigh in his or her favor. ...It is safe to say that if eight to twelve months have passed since the defendant's arrest, most judges will find that sufficient time has passed to trigger an inquiry into whether the defendant's right to a speedy trial was violated. ...
Some of the cases found that a speedy trial was granted, even when astonishingly long intervals passed between arrest and trial -- including almost four and one- half years for a DWI and over eight years for speeding.
A defendant who files motions basically tolls (holds) the speedy trial clock, so the time taken to litigate a motion to dismiss for failure to allege facts that make a crime aren't part of the speedy trial clock.
Also, the complexity of a case and the size of the court docket, even when the complexity and court docket are generated by the state, cuts in the state's favor. The bigger the screw up, the more likely to get away with it, when the entity screwing up is the state. "Too big to fail." Little losses are allowed and then used to show that the system is fair.
Well, if that was the case, I can think of over 500 racketeering indictments that could be handed down in an afternoon...
Texas law has an in-between condition of "accused but not indicted." That condition has a time certain of 180 days, where the state has to either drop the accusation or indict. Failure to indict results in dropping the accusation (on motion of the accused), but does not preclude indictment. Said another way, an indictment can issue against a person who doesn't stand in the "accused but not indicted" condition. The state could move forward against a person accused, then unaccused because 180 days elapsed since the accusation was filed.
One way to view the legal technicalities is that when a person is "accused but not indicted," the question of probable cause is open, and the accused has a right to an examining trial. Once an indictment issues, the question of probable cause is settled. Texas law doesn't have a defined mechanism to remedy an indictment that proceeds from a set of facts that do not constitute a crime.
So were the waitresses, if you call "hanging around" diving for cover.
As to whether law enforcement from roof tops shot some or all, forensic analysis of bullet trajectories should answer that.
I would trust that data more if the parties generating and interpreting it were not the agencies involved in the incident (who have a definite pecuniary motive in being found blameless).
While Autopsy reports have been released, ballistics data has not. Without knowing the position and posture of the individuals shot, interpretation of the autopsy data is out.
Video showing who was where and doing what has not been released.
How many teenagers can afford a Harley-Davidson?
Pardon my cynicism, but they might just be the ones who had the most stuff seized.
Phooey. Any Black Friday mob could be hauled in on RICO charges then: They are all acting in unison, to achieve the same objective (get stuff cheap).
If there is no conspiracy, no collusion to commit an act as a group, then the synchronous acts of individuals do not a racketeering charge make.
Don't forget the lost door.
Swanton's unit received a commendation for helping the Feds in the aftermath of the first Waco Massacre.
106 Indictments Handed Down in Waco Twin Peaks Biker Shootout - The New York Times - DAVE MONTGOMERY - NOV. 11, 2015
Mr. Looney said he was meeting with other lawyers in the case on Wednesday to discuss legal strategy and planned to press for a speedy trial on the charges.Mr. Looney also complained that he received no official notification of the indictments after they were returned Tuesday and said he learned of the charge against his client after someone saw it on the Internet.
Thanks!
97 of the 106 were named. The others weren't accused and arrested on or about May 17. They aren't named because they haven't been arrested yet, and the state doesn't want to give them notice of indictment until after they have been arrested.
My impression of the priority order given is that those indicted this past Tuesday were members of certain clubs (or gangs, if you are on the state's side of this dispute), and those not (yet) indicted are members of different motorcycle clubs (or gangs). That is the difference in evidence.
The state's legal theory amounts to conspiracy by association. Prior agreement to perpetrate assault is inferred or bootstrapped from the fact that assault occurred.
Thank you! :^)
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.