Man cleared of capital murder charges in slayings of two

[txinvestigator]

I'm sure Jefferson county bought the best criminal lawyer money can buy for this guy.

Mr. Manuel Garcia lived in a house with his family (no indication whether he owned or rented). He wasn't indigent. Therefore he would not qualify for a public defender.

He's out big money.

- Jim

Living in a house does not disqualify one from obtaining a PD.

[txinvestigator]

I wonder if the man had a lawyer. If you kill 2 people you will be arrested, charged, and go before the Grand Jury.

What happens in between has more to do with the Judge and your lawyer than with the prosecuter, and has very little to do with the cops.

It's seems to me that most self defense shootings I've read about here and in the paper there is no arrest. Doesn't the prosecuter recommend bail to the judge?

A $200,000 bond is not that high for a Capital Murder charge. Most courts have $ ranges for the various crimes. The prosecutors job is to insure that the defendant appears for trial. It is my experience they ask for the highest amount they can to insure that.

I'm sure Jefferson county bought the best criminal lawyer money can buy for this guy.

Are you referring to prosecution? Prosecutors work for the county, and unless there are unusual circumstances I don't believe a county can "hire" a special prosecutor.

Charles?

[seamusTX]

Living in a house does not disqualify one from obtaining a PD.

What's the standard? I really have no idea.

- Jim

[KBCraig]

Living in a house does not disqualify one from obtaining a PD.

What's the standard? I really have no idea.

That you "cannot afford" an attorney. Meaning, if you cut out your discretionary spending and still don't have enough to hire a competent attorney, you qualify for a PD. You don't have to be indigent to get a PD, and you don't have to lose everything you own before qualifying.

One of my colleagues is currently under indictment for allegedly making a false statement to an investigator (he didn't, and if they could prove he was lying, they could prove the much more serious original allegation against him, but they can't (because he didn't do that, either!), so this is out of spite).

Anyway... with an income of around $60k, he's using a PD. And that was before the agency suspended him without pay (illegally, since no job discipline has been proposed against him, and he's been convicted of nothing).

I honestly don't know how he's getting by. Who among us could lose two months' pay and still afford an attorney? I know I couldn't!

BTW, former Texas Attorney General Dan Morales used a public defender.

Both those cases are in federal court. I can't say how state court works.

Kevin

[Trope]

I can't help but wonder what the guy told the officers who arrived on the scene, and to what degree that affected him going through this.

[Liberty]

If the system worked like you suggest, every time a person was found not guilty or charges were dropped, "the police , prosecutors and courts" would be punished?
.

Why not? Maybe it would drive out the criminal element.

If the police prosecuters and courts expect us to be accountable for our actions, I don't believe its unreasonable to expect the same from them. We are seeing more and more every year crooked and rogue cops and prosecuters. It looks to me many belong out of the business. Some belong in jail. Some belong in bankrupcy court.

We have Attorney Generals of Harris county, bragging about how he will ignore the law. Travis County Attny. prosecuting according to his political goals. Nifong and this incident. I doesn't sound unreasonable at all to hold these guys accountable to bad judgement calls. Anyone else can be held resposible. Doctors carpenters and mechanics. What makes cops, judges and prosecuters immune when they wrongly screw up peoples life.

[seamusTX]

Who among us could lose two months' pay and still afford an attorney? I know I couldn't!

BTW, former Texas Attorney General Dan Morales used a public defender.

Most of us would be in trouble, and I suspect if you had several months' income in the bank, you wouldn't qualify for a public defender.

What about retirement investments, which you can withdraw early only by paying a stiff tax?

I thought the Morales thing was nuts at the time. I don't understand it.

- Jim

[HankB]

If the system worked like you suggest, every time a person was found not guilty or charges were dropped, "the police , prosecutors and courts" would be punished?

IANAL, but it seems that the person should at least be "made whole" by the system with reimbursement for reasonable legal fees, lost wages while cooling one's heels in a cell for a crime one didn't commit, etc. Presumed innocent, he shouldn't have to pay for the mistakes of a government employee, or that government employee's inability to make a case.

Honest mistakes do happen, but in the case of "bad faith" prosecutions or charges filed with willful and callous disregard for the truth, there ought to be means of pursuing remedies against the involved agents of the state as indivduals that offer a realistic chance of success.

[txinvestigator]

If the system worked like you suggest, every time a person was found not guilty or charges were dropped, "the police , prosecutors and courts" would be punished?
.

Why not? Maybe it would drive out the criminal element.

Why not? Are you serious? As a cop I arrested a DWI that were found not guilty even though they blew over .10 on the intox, and the driving was atrocious. I should have been punished?

I was once conducting a bar check of a place known for underage drinkers and drug use. I saw, with my own eyes, a guy shove a woman against the wall, then when she tried to move he shoved her again and grabbed her throat.

I arrested him for assault, and the judge found him not guilty because the victim (his girlfriend) said it didn't happen the way I described.

You do understand that a not guilty verdict often has NOTHING to do with the innocence of the victim? There are also numerous reason why a prosecutor might drop charges besides the person being innocent.

You start punishing the police and courts and prosecutors when a guilty verdict is not had, and criminals will have free reign, no one would dare arrest or prosecute another.

That is why the system is set up where reasonable doubt gains a not guilty. The jury is supposed to believe the suspect is innocent the moment the trial begins. Unless the prosecutor proves every element of the crime beyond any reasonable doubt, the jury must acquit.

Or do you think OJ was really innocent?

If a civil rights violation occurred or a person was maliciously prosecuted without probable cause then there shold be accountability. But not simply because a person "got off".

[KRM45]

I had an unfair generlization on here that I should correct...

We don't make the laws, we just have to live with them, and to that end I suggest...

If you carry a gun and intend to use it for defense of yourself or a third person, I suggest you study the Penal Code. There are several applicable sections. One of the big things to understand though is that any time you unholster that pistol in a public place you are most likely committing a crime. You need to know those sections that provide you a "Defense to Prosecution" and that it is just that.

[Thane]

I see where txinvestigator is coming from. It's not that this guy did or didn't commit a crime (I don't think he did, but I wasn't on the grand jury, so that's beside the point), but whether any set of rules for reimbursement/restitution are practical in application. Punishing a police officer because someone he arrested, regardless of actual guilt, was found "not guilty" is sheer nonsense; the jury could have left their brains at home, post-arrest investigations could have been screwed up, witnesses can change stories, or the guy could have just hired an incredibly slick lawyer. None of these are the arresting officer's fault, and barring incompetance/lawbreaking on the investigation's part, they're not the fault of the prosecution either. Punishing the officer or prosecutor summarily is simply wrong.

Now, what I CAN see is this: if a person believes they were demonstrably charged wrongfully, they should have the OPTION of suing their accusers for defamation/lost wages, etc. This is an option, not an automatic suit, and allows for the possibility of the plaintiff losing the suit and eating even more legal fees. OJ Simpson would therefore not want to take this option, despite being found "not guilty," as regardless of actual guilt, there was plenty of evidence to justify his arrest/charges/trial. Someone who defended his wife from a rapist or who killed two gang members to save his son would have a greater chance of winning, and therfore be more likely to do this.
If the defamation/lost wages/wrongful charges suit is lost, the plaintiff should be held fully responsible for all legal and court fees resulting from that loss, in addition to whatever fees came from his criminal trial. Let a jury or judge decide on a case-by-case basis, because you just ain't gonna get a set of rules that will "take care of" every situation, and the cost of failing such a lawsuit should be enough to prevent spurious and frivolous claims (one would hope ). I don't know how practical in application such a "restitution lawsuit" would be, though.



Back to the topic at hand, I would suspect the reason this guy was charged in the first place was the ages of the dead gang members - 16 and 13. Someone in the prosecutor's office might have figured it was an easy "guilty" verdict, and pushed too hard. Or there could have been a politician putting the thumbscrews to the prosecutor to go ahead with the case, behind the scenes. The defendant himself may have made adrenalin-fueled conflicting statements, prompting an investigation. One of the dead punks' family members might have "known someone important." We simply don't know.

This situation, all legal bantering aside, should serve as a reminder to all of us that we do not lightly carry the means of our defense. Using our weapons in the defense of self and family will carry consequences, no matter the situation, and we should always be mindful of the worst that could happen. Things were bad for this gentleman; they could have been far worse. Yes, our lives and our loved ones' lives are worth that sort of trial (figuratively and literally), but we should never forget that the worst could happen to any of us. All it takes is an ambitious prosecutor and a capricious jury.

LawDog has a pretty good post on the subject here.

[WheySmart]

These gang members are stupid homies anyway...you can tell easily, if you planned on entering into something in which you had to run from the police wouldn't you wear pants that fit instead of ones that are prone to falling off? These people are like children... big, stupid children. You should see them get in trouble at school, they are "ordered" to go pick up some junk they threw on the ground and they s-l-o-w-l-y-y-y wottle on over and pick it up and miss the trash so they mope around some more, it makes me sick just to look at those people. They will never amount to anything, they will either live on welfare and sponge off my taxes or they will go to prison and sponge off my taxes.

They should just add on a mandatory 20 year extra sentence if you are convicted of a crime and there is evidence it was gang related...they are a disease that is infecting this country, we need to get rid of this type of people... they fight all the time, they are animals...want to know how I can tell they are animals? They howl like animals, you should hear them jiitter out their ebonics...not a word of it makes sence to me. Every so often one of them tries to talk..."herahrehdehhre" I reply "I am sorry I cannot understand a word you are saying", they jitter at me in their primitive form of communication a little more and I look at them funny and leave ( it isn't that I am trying to be mean, I honestly cannot understand them)....wow, i composed quite an essay.

[casselthief]

ah, racism can be entertaining.
try learning more about their culture first, then you can throw educated stones.
not spout off stereotypical jibber-jabber that makes you look as equally bad.

[Rex B]

It's possible he was safer in jail than out.
But he would not have been able to continue to defend his family.

And if he's having to move on acount of death threats, that would make it difficult to file a civil suit against the families of the gang members he rid the world of.

That's problematic. You get jumped by gangsters and take care of the problem, then you have to worry for years that the gang is going to track you down at home.

[seamusTX]

It's possible he was safer in jail than out.

Only if no members of the gang were in there with him.

Fortunately, death threats are issued much more often than they are carried out.

- Jim