Reported the Austin Statesman yesterday:
The DWI case against former Williamson County
Sheriff’s spokesman John Foster should be dismissed because a trooper
lied during pretrial testimony, according to a press release issued
today by Eve Alcantar, one of the former spokesman’s attorneys.
Alcantar
said she has presented perjury evidence to Williamson County Attorney
Dee Hobbs, but Hobbs has not responded to her request to dismiss the
case. Hobbs said this morning he was preparing a reply to Alcantar’s
press release, which he plans to comment on today.
The case is set
for another pretrial hearing Friday in front of a different judge
because county court-at-law judge Tim Wright recused himself after a
previous pretrial hearing Jan. 17. Wright did not give a reason for the
recusal in official court documents.
Department of Public Safety
trooper Joseph Stuart committed perjury because he said during the
previous pretrial hearing Jan. 17 that he didn’t consult with another
trooper before he arrested John Foster on June 29, 2013, Alcantar said
in the press release. ...
Foster was placed on paid administrative leave after he was initially arrested but is now on unpaid leave.
Williamson County Attorney Dee Hobbs responded with a statement declaring he was "disappointed by defense counsel’s decision to release evidence related
to a pending criminal matter outside the courtroom.” Moreover, “We are also disappointed by defense
counsel’s decision to publicly attack a witness to an ongoing criminal
matter outside of the courtroom.” Doesn't exactly sound like a denial on the "perjury" allegation.
.jpg)
6 comments:
Sounds simple for an honest court to handle: Just hold everyone to the same standard of perjury requirements and let the chips fall as they may. If they did that- and actually sanctioned perjury by ANY witness, I bet they would have a lot less of it. In an honest court, of course.
Harris county is of course declining to prosecute a West U Cop for perjury in one of my cases for claiming that he arrested my client after observing him walk halfway to the back of the vehicle with an unsteady gait and support himself with the vehicle. The video shows on exiting the vehicle the officer told him to leave his keys in the vehicle, client turned put keys in vehicle without unsteadiness or supporting himself on the vehicle, he took one step toward the officer, stopped and declined to take the requested field sobriety tests. NTSHA training tells them to look for signs like unsteady gait, and leaning on or touching the vehicle for balance, but here it did not happen and he swore it did in the offense report and the affidavit for warrant. He clearly lied and if the DA would charge him they could not avoid code of crim procedure 38.23 which excludes evidence obtained in violation of the law namely the blood test. They refuse to submit the statements and video to a grand jury. I think they are protecting a perjurer to save their dwi, no accident case. The officer claims that my client stopped abruptly also but he signaled and took ten seconds to turn and stop on the first side street. The cop was clearly piling on with false staements because my client looked good on video.
unknown attorney, It would be nice if others knew the name of the bad apple once this case is disposed. He very well could be a serial lying piece of work and the public deserves to know.
Oh, it's Harris County. Scratch that, the majority are perjurers and trained to do so. It'd be easier to know the names of the honest ones. H.C. Juries are so full of toxins and cheap beer they believe anything they say (until one of them is being lied on).
I simply cannot conceive of why, when presented with clear evidence of perjury by a witness, a prosecutor would proceed with a case - especially if the witness is necessary for a conviction in the case. Masochistic much? The beating at trial is going to hurt like hell.
What did he say when you crossed him under oath?
@ 08:47.....At the ALR he backed off from "supported himself with the vehicle" to "touched the vehicle with the back of his left hand" and from "walked with an unsteady gait" to "was unsteady on his feet" but said he could not remember any specific thing to support his observation of unsteadiness. The video shows him between my client (already arrested and cuffed) and the vehicle as they walk (normally) to the back of the vehicle where my client stands steadily while patted down before being placed in squad car. To support his statement that my client walked halfway to the rear of the vehicle he explained that it was an extended cab P/U (about an 18 inch door). Client literal stepped one step forward and informed him that he was refusing SFSTs. Officer asks why and if he is sure and then arrests him on the spot never having seen him walk halfway to the rear or support himself with the vehicle; just made it up. I have more of a problem with an officer making up incriminating facts than I do an officer falsely denying that he consulted with another officer prior to an arrest. In either case though it calls everything into question that depends on the officer's credibility. That is why I believe Franks v Delaware is bad law. Under Franks they strike the proven false statement in an affidavit and if you can't prove rest of the facts supporting pc are false then there is no suppression. Under CCP 38.23 however, perjury in an affidavit to obtain evidence would exclude that evidence so obtained in violation of the law. If their is. Rat turd on your dinner plate you would throw out the whole dinner...right? Hope some appeals gurus get Franks revisited for that very valid reason. At a minimum upon showing of perjury in a statement, the burden should then shift to the proponent of the statement to show that the remaining testimony is true by clear and convincing evidence and not just the word of a perjurer.
Post a Comment