Waco Update: Defense Lawyer Barred Access to Evidence

...unless he agrees to sign a release form that forbids him to discuss the evidence with the press.
Callahan’s motion states he has not been able to receive the information, after numerous requests, because he won’t sign a condition of release regarding talking to the media....

The motion states District Attorney Abel Reyna should not be allowed to limit the release of evidence based on an agreement regarding media after he gave an extensive TV interview explicitly designed to erode the defendants’ presumption of innocence.
So it's not that we don't want to taint the jury pool by having the matter discussed before the trial. It's that we want to make sure our tainting of the jury pool goes unchallenged.

9 comments:

Ymar Sakar said...

When I stated that America would need 100 WACOs to wake up, that was rather ironic, since I was talking about Waco 1 and Ft Hood 1. Years ago, that people didn't even think or imagine there would ever be a Waco 2 or a Ft Hood 2, to need the numbers to signify differences.

Any more than people wanted to imagine Civil War II would also have an additional number to it, vis a vis the US context.

raven said...

Is this the legal version of the "Streisand Effect"? Although nation notice has been minimal, it does seem to be slowly leaking out. Maybe we need a "Rabinowitz" effect- I still recall picking up the WSJ and reading , for the first time, her nationally read repudiation of the horrific mis-carriage of justice in the Wenatchee witch hunts. Till that point it was just a local shame, and the persecutors of the innocent strutted around like bully roosters.

It is clear the Waco authorities have dug themselves a deep hole and have no idea how to get out of it. When the light gets switched on, they are going to run like roaches.

E Hines said...

The motion states District Attorney Abel Reyna should not be allowed to limit the release of evidence based on an agreement regarding media after he gave an extensive TV interview explicitly designed to erode the defendants’ presumption of innocence.

Of course, we should take the "journalist's" characterization of the TV interview. He provided links to other aspects of his piece, but he carefully chose not to provide a link to the offending interview. Nor did this worthy provide a link to the motion itself so we could see whether the characterization was the defense attorney's and not the "journalist's".

Trust me. Sure.

Eric Hines

Grim said...

Ok, but let's say it was an extensive TV interview of any kind. If the DA is talking to the press about the evidence, why should the defense attorney be under a gag order?

I think I would use the DA's interview as grounds for a change of venue filing. I'm not sure how my client could get a fair trial in Waco, given the manifest abuses on display. Of course, he may think that he's got an easy appeal if he should lose there.

E Hines said...

I'm not suggesting the DA's interview should stand alone, even if he spoke entirely favorably of the defendants. There is a law that requires the DA's data to be given up to the defense. Full stop.

My argument is with the...disingenuousness...of the claim regarding the interview. There shouldn't be any let's say it was an extensive TV interview of any kind; he should--and he knows he should--provide the relevant links. The interview is irrelevant, except for the decision by the "journalist" that we readers trust his characterization of the interview or his description of the motion's characterization.

This person is a prime example of why newspaper articles--or TV "news" programming--cannot be taken any more seriously than the sports or funny pages.

As to gag orders, that's the judge's prerogative, not the DA's, regardless of any "journalist's" blathering.

Eric Hines

Grim said...

If there is a relevant link, I'd have to add. Local TV stations don't always archive their content online. Here's a written report on the interview that covers his remarks more extensively, but I couldn't find the actual interview. You can judge for yourself whether his use of their exercise of their 5th and 2nd Amendment rights to paint them as villains is fair ball for a DA.

E Hines said...

If there is a relevant link, I'd have to add.

Of course, and that applies to the motion; those aren't always easy to find. But if there were not, of course the "journalist" would have said so. Words are his stock in trade; he knew what he was writing and what he was choosing to omit.

And yet, here's a link. You spent, what--2 grueling minutes on Google?--to find it. Your find is a fine illustration of my point.

Eric Hines

Ymar Sakar said...

I think I would use the DA's interview as grounds for a change of venue filing. I'm not sure how my client could get a fair trial in Waco

He'll get just as fair a trial at D Koresh and the children got at Waco. Maybe even the same one, as fate perchances.



Ymar Sakar said...

Raven, Waco's been a base of the KKK, hanging people extra judicially, for some time now. Just because they are targeting whites instead of black Republicans or white Republicans, doesn't really change anything.

The evil have their own ways of surviving. One totalitarian regime is the same as another in a sense. Certainly to the Stasi.