Anyone know if the judge ruled on this yet?

Any News On this Gabe?

Wonder if there will be breaking news today?

Sailor,

Thanks for the response. Sometimes the only way to clarify points is to open a dialogue. Thanks to you and Ernie I feel I now have a clearer understanding of the matter.

It was an enlightening day in court on Wednesday. I was present at the hearing and it quickly became very clear that while its one thing for Tyler to convince the “average citizen” member of the Grand Jury to indict someone when the defendants aren’t allowed rebut the charges and quite another when the D.A. has to go face-to-face with competent attorneys in a courtroom.

I’m afraid that Judge Cheshire may quash the indictments. I truly hope not, since I really want to see a jury trail where ALL the facts will come out. If the Judge doesn’t quash, it will be most interesting to see just how well the D.A. will do when he doesn’t have an open and shut case to prosecute.

Thanks, Gabe!

E

Oh, and I hope you meant "insight." I'd take that as a compliment.

But I'm not trying to "incite" anything but discussion. There's enough fighting going on already.

Ernie

My pleasure, Onslow. Sorry about my misinterpretation of your reference to "indictment." Your observations regarding the Bill itself are correct and, if I'm not mistaken, pretty much verbatim from the statutes.

Can't argue with that. :-)

Ernie

Ernie: Sorry for the late response. If copies of the indictments are missing from our original story(I haven't checked just yet), I'll make sure they're attached.
Thanks,
Gabe

Ernie, thanks for your response. You make some excellent counterpoints.

I also understand that you may not be able to get into some issues due to existing legal matters. I appreciate your input and incite.

Luminary: Best example that comes to mind is Clarence Darrow represent the schoolteacher in the Scopes Monkey Trial.

Re-reading my previous comment, please strike the first paragraph under #3 and all text under #4. These are getting too specific about this particular case. I don't want to do that. Got carried away. Sorry.

#7. Your generalities are correct to the best of my knowledge and I'd agree that some requests for discovery may be denied based on the grounds you state. That does not mean those grounds exist or are legally appropriate in this particular case. Again, that's for Judge Cheshire to decide.

Ernie

Luminary, I would assert that it occurs all the time.

Who hasn't seen a high profile attorney (F. Lee Bailey or Alan Dershowitz, etc.) represent a defendant for free simply because the issue is high profile or politically charged.

Ernie, while you're recharging let me clarify a point in my post.

When I stated that an indictment does not provide real evidence I was referring to the specific document entitled "Indictment."

An "Indictment" must contain the following requisites:

1. It shall commence, "In the name and by the authority of The State of Texas".
2. It must appear that the same was presented in the district court of the county where the GJ is in session.
3. It must appear to be the act of a GJ of the proper county.
4. It must contain the name of the accused, or state that his name is unknown and give a reasonably accurate description of him.
5. It must show that the place where the offense was committed is within the jurisdiction of the court in which the indictment is presented.
6. The time mentioned must be some date anterior to the presentment of the indictment, and not so remote that the prosecution of the offense is barred by limitation.
7. The offense must be set forth in plain and intelligible words.
8. The indictment must conclude, "Against the peace and dignity of the State".
9. It shall be signed officially by the foreman of the GJ.

As you can see, there is no requirement of detailed facts. Requirement 7 simply requires that you state the offense (elements of the crime) with particularity.

Certainly, to obtain an indictment from the GJ you must present enough evidence to the GJ to convince them of the likelihood that a crime has been committed by the individual accused.

LOL. Sorry about the reference to "real" evidence as opposed to made up evidence. I usually choose my words more accurately than that.

With that clarification, please continue...

Ok Onslow.... but it's not going to be as exciting as Sailor's. :-)
1. See my previous post to MensSana. I'm not gonna touch tihs one beyond my remarks there.
2. I'll have to assume your "real evidence" relates to degree or to the amount of evidence presented to the Grand Jury. (I'd hate to think that you believe the Grand Jury hears only made up evidence.)
I have to disagree. One simply cannot go to the GJ with a statement saying Mr. X is guilty of Armed Robbery and expect the GJ to issue an indictment. The presenter (ostensibly a DA) must state *at least* that he intends to prove the allegation by showing that Mr. X held up the 7-11 with a weapon and took money or merchandise that did not belong to him. All those elements being constituents of the crime of Armed Robbery as defined by law.
In addition he must state certain alleged "facts" (because they aren't *really* facts until a petit jury makes that distinction in court) and his basis (evidence?) for believing those facts are true. If the Grand Jury then believes he has sufficient quantitiy of reliable evidence to proceed to trial they issue a Bill of Indictment.
That's my understanding of how the GJ system works. The DA isn't required to produce his evidence to the GJ but he must state what evidence he does have to prove the allegations. It's up to the petit jury in court to view that evidence, hear the testimony and make a decision if it constitutes a sufficient "preponderance" to warrant a conviction.
3. [snip]
While GJ testimony is generally considered secret the various courts, including the US Supreme Court, have determined many instances when that "veil of secrecy may be pierced." Sorry I don't have the case law to support that at this point but if you're as familiar with the law as you seem to be, you know that to be the case.
Again without case law handy to support the contention, it seems only logical to me that if one of the allegations is based upon statements made to a Grand Jury, those transcripts simply must be made available to the defendant in order to secure his 6th amendment right to view the evidence against him. If that's not already case law (and according to at least one of the attorneys yesterday, it is) it should be.
4. This could get complicated and I'm sure Judge Cheshire is much more qualified to sort it out than I.  [snip]
5. Your logic seems sensible on its face but there's more to it. I know you're going to not like this but, the "more to it" part is something for the judge to sort out, not for me to attempt to explain. This just gets too specific for me to comment on here.
6. This is an apparent contradiction to your #2 above. First you contend the GJ doesn't hear "real evidence" then contend that they heard enough to hand down the indictment.
(Sorry... keyboard batteries are low. I have to replace them and don't want to lose all this. Be back in a bit.)
Ernie

Sailor? No response?

Ernie? I'd be interested in your opinion/response to my post.

I'm looking for a dialogue not a fight.

You got that right!

MensSana (is it?):"Play nice now :) "

Ok. I'll try....

First of all, I know what the TML is. I looked it up. Also looked at their "Affiliates" list on their website. The TMPA is not listed as an affiliate. I do know that Mr. Cagle is a TMPA attorney and it is my understanding that his services are a result of Mr. Ure's association with that organization. Who's actually paying Mr. Cagle's bills isn't something that's come up in my communications with him.

I didn't ask that you "get educated." I did say that if you were going to poke fun of other posters that you should get your facts straight first. If my taking your comment as derogatory toward Romanok and TxMom was erroneous, I apologize.

As for how our petition drive is going, I'm afraid I'll respond simply, "No comment." and let you make of that what you will. If you're hinting for my opinion on yesterday's hearing you'll just have to keep fishing. As far as the facts of the hearing, Sailor got the "he said/she said" part about right as near as I can tell. Not having met Tyler nor even having seen him except in the paper and TV until yesterday I don't know his personal proclivities so won't hazard a guess as to how he was taking the event. Besides, I've never been particularly adept at reading body language.

I simply don't understand your "smear campaign" remark. If presenting cogent motions to the court in the defense of their respective clients amounts to a smear campaign I guess every attorney who's ever presented a case in court is guilty. Otherwise, I just don't get your point. Perhaps you'd care to elucidate.

It appears to me, to use your analogy, our DA hasn't even gotten a base hit yet. If it's your perception he's knocking out home runs I'd be interested in how you came to that conclusion.

Seems to me the box score would be about "No runs, no hits, and a whole truckload of errors."

But I suppose we each call 'em like we see 'em. I'm in the game. Or as we like to say in Texas, I have a dog in this hunt. You're.... a fan in the bleachers?

Either way and in both our cases we're just going to have to see what the umpire has to say.

Ernie

Sailor, I will attempt to respond to your points of argument.

1. Tyler's demeanor: I cannot comment on your description of Tyler since I was not at the hearing. I will take your word for it, however, I will point out that just because Tyler got flustered does not prove that his argument was without merit.

2. Indictment provides no real evidence. This is typical of any indictment. An indictment commonly alleges a crime by naming the defendant and then using language which tracks the individual elements of the crime alleged. It is at trial that the prosecutor then presents evidence to the jury which establishes each of the delineated elements.

3. Tyler refused to turn over GJ records. "This is unprecedented and totally unheard of in the courts." Really? Please direct me to the data which supports your statement. This appears to be a self-serving and unsubstantiated opinion written as a statement of fact, however, I will be happy to review your proof.

4. Tyler won't turn over records to the District Clerk. "An active, sitting GJ's records are kept by the DA's office. Upon closing of THAT GJ, the records are kept by the District Clerk's office." I believe Tyler had to reindict the officials due to some technical error. The reindictments were issued by a newly convened GJ which is still in session. If this is correct then Tyler still has charge of the records and does not turn them over to the Clerk until this GJ's term expires.

5. "If Ure and Buentello released anything to Gabe (first name basis?), it would have been from THEIR investigation, not the DPS investigation." The Advocate reported that David Smith said he and Ure approached the Advocate out of fear that the investigation had stalled. Did they fear that their own investigation had stalled? Of course not. They were discussing the DPS investigation.

6. Concerning discovery: "So, Mr. Tyler, you indict first without evidence then seek the evidence later?" Obviously the GJ had enough evidence to hand down an indictment. That does not mean that all the evidence has been gathered. That is the very purpose of discovery.

7. "The defense is entitled by law to copies of all evidence the prosecution has against the accused." Strictly speaking, that's not entirely true. Some documents may be protected from discovery by privilege or legal precedent. Also, a party is not required to produce documents outside their control or equally obtainable by both parties (such as documents held by a third person). Finally, a discovery request must be specific in nature. You can't just say "give me whatever you've got." You must identify each document with enough particularity to alert the opposing party of what specific document you are seeking.

I will not address those statements that are pure conjecture or opinion on your part, although I will point out that such statements comprise the majority of your post.

Your response reads as a vitriolic attack of Tyler based more on your own biased opinion of Tyler than on real facts.

I realize you have strong opinions on this matter and about this DA. If, and when your opinions are supported by FACTS I will give them due deference. Until then, it seems hypocritical to assassinate Tyler's character and then seek asylum under the protection of the Advocate.

I have done my best to respond to your post without any personal attacks. I have stated my responses concisely and logically and I welcome your rebuttal. I will respond to same in a clear and professional manner.

Romonak and Ernie...my good friends :)

TML is the Texas Municipal League. It has many different "associations". I thought the PD Assc was with them but maybe it is just for the police chief? That may be different too I geuss. When I get finished with my job today I will try to get educated :P

Wow very elitist from both of you-shame shame lol. Get educated? Grand Jury indictment means nothing?

Ernie since the DA is so stupid it makes me wonder how the Victoria 6 thing is going ;)

Please share!

Back to my original post-a smear campaign by the lawyers representing the 4 peeps under scrutiny will only hurt them in the long run. If they are resulting to these antics instead of throwing out hard-hitting facts, I geuss another "uneducated" judge or jury will side with the DA.

How is it the DA keeps banging out home runs and the ppl on the other side of the fence keep saying he is loosing or he is stupid? Is it the case Ernie that if a judge sided with you you would be singing a different toon?

If anyone were keeping score against Tyler and all of you peeps who are smarter than him (and everyone else lol) it would still be a shut-out. 10-0 sound about right?

Play nice now :)

Mr. Sailor:
I have but 2 questions.

"I have about 12 years total Security experiance and have many family members that are active in the law enforcement community. I consider myself a conservative but not a member of the Republican Party. I hate and detest extreme left liberals (extreme right for that matter too) and conspiracy nutcase idiots."

What exactly do you mean by "conspiracy nutcase idiots"?

Question 2: Do you watch a lot of "The Simpsons"?

t-storm....Never fear, Sailor will find a personal attack in your post somewhere, report it as such, and the Advocate will delete it.

Regarding the Bias exhibited by the Advocate -
Don't blame the reporter, blame the editor. Reporters don't choose story titles, Editors do. It is very common practice. They do it to generate interest and to influence perception. In this case they are satisfying both.
They have generated interest as most will read the story thinking the indictments are moments away from dismissal.What is disgusting is that the list of people who desire this case to be dismissed includes the Editors and Owners of the Victoria Advocate.
There is alot of dirty laundry to be aired in this case regarding over a decade of city politics. And nearly every piece of dirty laundry involves the Advocate leaking information on behalf of the city leaders in similar fashion as is the issue in this case. Many, many times. The trial will give all the evidence in the world needed to Victoria Citizens to distrust the Advocate's reporting style and their agenda.
The old saying is "You can indict a Ham Sandwich" in our judicial system because their is no defense. What will make the citizens of Victoria squirm is that in this case, and in many cases over the past decade, you can amend the statement to, "With the help of a local newspaper you can indict a Ham Sandwich."

Because regardless of how simple it is or isn't for a DA to get an indictment from a Grand Jury, it's still a step required by TX law before law enforcement can get a suspect in front of the judicial system.

Ernie

Guys, I'm not on one side or the other, but I would like to raise a point. If a GJ indictment means nothing, then why does Crime Stoppers pay cash rewards for "information leading to the arrest and grand jury indictment" of suspects?

Mensaa, you need to pay more attention. TMPA isn't TML. Not quite sure how you got the two confused. Romanok seemed relatively clear on it to me.

TX Municipal Police Ass'n is sort of like a union for Tx peace officers.

It just amazes me how some folks are blinded by.... well, blindness. If you're going to try to poke fun you might want to get it right.

Try t' keep up, huh?

Ernie

MensSana...not sure what you are referring to when you speak of "TML"...however, I can assure you, it is not the same thing at TMPA...Texas Municipal Police Association, is only open to law enforcement and Texas Peace Officers...it IS voluntary, as not all officers are members. You have to pay a monthly membership if you want to be a member.

Again...please educate youself
www.tmpa.org

lol at romonak, jd, and texasmom...in a lighthearted way :)

When did TML become a voluntary contribution? Anyone who works for the City is required to contribute to the TML. How do you think they fund their pension? And it is not just the PD involved with the TML, it is every employee regardless of position. :)

Did the PD suddenly become a private industry? How do they get the money for their paychecks so that they can contribute to TML anyway? I would be very happy to not pay City taxes if that is what happened!

As a casual observer, the DA is the only competant person in this whole fiasco so far. That is simply a fact. 2, count'em 2 grand juries handed out indictments. And these lawyers are trying to do a smear campaign. Come on folks.

It cracks me up how some folks are so blinded by emotion that they automatically assume the DA is wrong on everything. Obviously the two different grand juries that handed out similiar indictments need an "education" too. When you can come back with logic and facts lets have a dialogue! It will be fun :)

Thank you for answering my question. I just didn't read into the headline what you did.

Also, I think sometimes it is a "damned if you do; damned if you don't" thing with what is printed and what is not. I've seen people complain about too much information and some complain about too little information. As for me, give me all the information you can.

Honestly, I would not have printed the piece at all. It is not news. It is one side's opinion about the indictment, which we already know...duh. The fact that the attorneys are asking for dismissal is a given. Of course they are going to ask for a dismissal, it is their job. If I was forced to print it, "Indicted Four Ask for Dismissal".

Gabe, I can't seem to find the article in the archives that had the Grand Jury indictments attached to it.

Do those still exist? Could you perhaps attach them to this story as well?

Thanks,

Ernie

Southtexas:
I don't know Mr. Tyler. I don't know any of the men indicted. I don't know any of the lawyers for the men indicted. All I know is what I read in the newspaper (Victoria Advocate). Because of what I have read and am reading in the newspaper, I find myself forming opinions about the Ratcliff case and this case. In my opinion, these 4 men have been indicted by a Grand Jury over which the DA has NO influence. To me the Advocate is fair in its reporting.

"Again we get the wonderful and obvious bias of the Advocate, "Could Charges be Dismissed?" .......a headline written like dismissal was close to a given."

I would be very interested in how you would have titled this piece. No, I'm not being a smart aleck. I'd just like to know and by the way, I know no one on the Advocate staff.

I concur with the comments made by Southtexas below

If the men are as innocent as they (as well as their tax-payer financed lawyers and the Advocate editorial board) proclaim, why are they quibbling over legal terminology? Why not just tell Tyler to bring it on? Let's have the trial, let a jury decide, and bring an end to this one way or the other.

Besides, if the current indictments are tossed out, the only thing that will happen is that the information will be presented to a new grand jury and the men will be indicted again.

So, what's to be gained by tossing these indictments? Except more billable hours for the lawyers and more headlines for the Advocate?

Right you are Southtexas....

Couldn't get a direct quote from Tyler for this story??? He was so angry smoke was seen coming from his nostrils... he was left red faced and breathless. Of course I realize my observation... "Is of no import" to the story. tee hee ha ha ha ha ha

DELUSIONS OF GRANDEUR - Scarface and Watergate analogies in one week?

Mr. Tyler, please offer these guys the Ratcliff deal, hope they take, get this over with and out of the media. And please include a lot of periods, “FOR VICTORIA’S SAKE”. You will not be the first DA to punk Cagle in court and I sure you will if this goes to trial.

Never thought I would wish for the good ole days of the Obama and Hillary slugfest news.

JD:
"Poorly worded documents by Tyler".....that is the opinion of Cagle, the accused's lawyer. Please, let's let the judge decide if they are poorly worded.

Of course the attorneys are going to take advantage of every ounce of bad press Tyler has received since birth and they would not be doing their job if they didn't.

Again we get the wonderful and obvious bias of the Advocate, "Could Charges be Dismissed?" .......a headline written like dismissal was close to a given.  In almost every case the Attorney of the accused tries to get charges dismissed.. from rape on down to jaywalking......It's how the system works. 

The opinions and observations stated all come from the indicted's attorneys....come on!  Then we get that little bit about Tyler's papers being arranged compulsively on his desk.....tacky, tacky, tacky!

If it wasn't so serious it would be funny!!!

MensSana you can thank your DA!
MensSana romonak  is correct educate yourself on that site!

Mensana, I think you missed the point. The issue is not the competence of Mr. Cagle, but instead the poorly worded document prepared by D.A. Tyler.

MensSana...just FYI, Greg Cagle was not hired by the city or by "your" funds. Cagle is a lawyer employed by TMPA (Texas Municipal Police Association) which is funded through the voluntary contributions that it's members (mainly law enforcement) make. Educate yourself www.tmpa.org

-“I have yet to determine exactly what we’re charged with,” said Greg Cagle, lawyer for Police Chief Bruce Ure.

Well, at least we are getting the $200,000 worth when we hired these out of town lawyers :

But then again, what did we expect from the City govt...Lots of taxpayer money thrown at a problem with no intention or direction on getting results?