Was Tyler right in denying Ure's rights?
Constitutional law expert says, 'yes and no'
Print- •
-
Share
- Share this item
-
Grab the link
Copy and paste the link:
- Blog about it
- Close
- •
-
22 Comments
- •
Favorite- •
-
Report error
-
Thank you for your submission.Error report or correction
- Close
-
- •
T. Gerald Treece
Fifth and Sixth Amendments
The Fifth Amendment protects witnesses from being forced to incriminate themselves. To "plead the Fifth'' is to refuse to answer a question because the response could provide self-incriminating evidence of an illegal conduct.
The Sixth Amendment, ...
- SHOW ALL »
Fifth and Sixth Amendments
The Fifth Amendment protects witnesses from being forced to incriminate themselves. To "plead the Fifth'' is to refuse to answer a question because the response could provide self-incriminating evidence of an illegal conduct.
The Sixth Amendment, in part, says a defendant has the right to be represented by the attorney of his choice.
Professor Gerald Treece
Gerald Treece has been a professor of law and associate dean at South Texas College of Law for 24 years.
He has been a consultant for numerous law firms in Texas on tort law and constitutional law. He also has written and argued in excess of 100 appellate cases in tort and constitutional law.
For the past 11 years, he has been the host of "Professor Treece's Weekly Legal Journal" on KHOU-TV Channel 11. He continues to serve as the on-air legal expert for CBS and CNN.
He is also a decorated Vietnam War vetaran.
Treece, also a member of the O'Quinn law firm in Houston, was admitted to practice before the State Bar of Texas in 1972. He is also admitted to practice before the U.S. Supreme Court, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth, Tenth, Eleventh and Federal Circuits and the U.S. District Court for the Southern and Western Districts of Texas.
A hearing is set for Thursday in the Police Chief Bruce Ure case. The judge is expected to hear a motion to quash District Attorney Steve Tyler's subpoena issued by the defense; and to make a final ruling on the city's motion for protection and other objections concerning attorney-client privilege.
It will give the defense and state a chance to have new motions heard before the case goes to trial April 20. As of Friday, no new motions had been filed.
Victoria County District Attorney Stephen Tyler was within the law when he told Police Chief Bruce Ure he could not speak with his attorney during his grand jury testimony, but denying the police chief his Fifth Amendment rights was questionable behavior, an expert in constitutional law said.
T. Gerald Treece, a professor on constitutional law and associate dean at the South Texas College of Law in Houston, reviewed the defense motion to dismiss and the state's response to that motion before commenting on the case.
"You do not have the right for an attorney to go with you during grand jury testimony," Treece said. "But usually, people are allowed to go outside the jury room and consult with their attorney. His being denied that bothers me."
Ure's defense attorney Greg Cagle filed a motion to dismiss the aggravated perjury charge against the police chief based in part on Tyler's prosecutorial misconduct, including denial of the chief's requests to speak with his attorney, at least three times and refusing his Fifth Amendment rights.
"You have an absolute right to take the Fifth Amendment," Treece continued. "The state's contention that the police chief was not a target is questionable. I feel certain he was at least a quasi-target, and they set him up in a perjury trap which they have the right to do. I can't believe he was told he didn't have any Fifth Amendment rights. That's simply not true. The state's position is not one I fully understand."
District Judge Robert Cheshire denied the defense motion.
Ure was called to testify before the grand jury in connection with interference in the investigation and leaks to the Victoria Advocate in the case of the DA's then-chief of staff Michael Ratcliff. His indictment is based in part on his testimony before the grand jury in which he stated he had talked only to his superiors and legal counsel about the Ratcliff case.
During the hearing on the motion to dismiss Ure's indictment, Tyler said the police chief was not a suspect when he was being questioned before the grand jury, but that the district attorney was only gathering facts. Tyler said inconsistencies in the chief's testimony later made him suspicious.
In the motion to dismiss, Cagle asserted that, "Tyler's claim that Chief Ure was not a suspect was subterfuge used to secure the Chief's testimony . It was apparent that the grand jury was being improperly used by Tyler to discover what information Ure possessed . despite the representation made by Mr. Tyler that Ure was not a suspect or target, a five-count indictment was issued shortly after the testimony of Ure."
Tyler, in the state's response to the defense motion to dismiss, states that Ure was "a fact witness, not a putative defendant, by virtue of the lead investigator in the Ratcliff case having had shared details of the investigation" with him.
During the hearing on the motion to dismiss, Tyler testified that at one point during his grand jury testimony, Ure "took flight," leaving the room "hurridly."
"I've never had a witness run from the room before," Tyler said.
Cagle's motion cites what could have promoted Ure's actions.
"Reviewing the grand jury transcript as a whole, Mr. Tyler was abusive to Chief Ure .continuously interrupted the witness, physically stood over and yelled at Chief Ure . Mr. Tyler even went so far as to advise Chief Ure that he would be 'attached' if he left the room to confer with counsel."
The grand jury foreman, who also testified during the motion to dismiss hearing, said that Ure was not pursued when he left the grand jury room. Ure eventually came back and resumed testifying.
Treece added that the general public should exercise caution if called before a grand jury.
"The grand jury is not the friend of the citizen," Treece said. "Generally, it is an arm for the prosecution to make a case. It is very seldom a good thing."
-
Print
- •
-
Share
- Share this item
-
Grab the link
Copy and paste the link:
- Blog about it
- Close
- •
-
22 Comments
- •
- Favorite
- •
-
Report error
-
Thank you for your submission.Error report or correction
- Close
-
- •
Comments
I posted this to the wrong story yesterday so here it is again.
Well it sure seems to me that most of you are missing the most simple point of all!! Set aside all of the legal mumbo jumbo for a minute, as it is irrelevant. The fact is staring you all right in the face. As a Police Chief, Ure took an oath to protect and to serve, and to uphold the law, etc.... Why would a sworn public servant need to plead the 5th in the first place???? If they are doing their job, especially the "upholding the law" part, then why in the world would they have anything to hide?? There are loopholes for every law, and people get off track by the "dog and pony" show put on by the lawyers, the end result is that the facts become irrelevant to the outcome of the case.
It is this simple folks, DID BRUCE URE, THE SWORN POLICE CHIEF OF VICTORIA, TX, BREAK THE LAW BY LYING TO A GRAND JURY UNDER OATH???? In the end it makes no difference if the lie affected the outcome of the case, furthermore who cares if he gets convicted or not, the simple fact that the person that the public should be able to trust more than anyone clearly cannot be trusted says it all. The law is written in black and white and should be followed as such!!!! You don't steal a truck and after you get caught say, "Well yea I stole it because my feet were tired of walking, but heck I didn't tear it up or hurt anybody so I'm not guilty".
Don't get caught up in all the legal jargon! Either the Chief lied, or he did not, it's that simple, and if he did it doesn't matter why he did, he must go!!
April 12, 2009 at 11:11 p.m.Yume, the expert wasn't in court, his views where in the advocate.
April 12, 2009 at 6:56 p.m.Would the editor that removed my post please explain why? I followed all posting rules. Reply either in this comment section or my email address, which is on file.
April 12, 2009 at 6:03 p.m.It'd been nice, given that the Advocate is having you believe an "expert" was consulted on the ruling a local judge has made, if Mr. Long would have least consulted an attorney or professor whose expertise is consistent with the legal issues being posed: criminal law and procedure. Treece practices and teaches civil law.
None of this really matters, anyway. Judge Cheshire's ruling is final until after the trial. If there's a conviction, there could be an appeal, but then the issue would be decided based upon full briefs, a complete court record, and possible oral arguments. That is a far cry from cutting a few soundbites based on the reading of a couple of pretrial motions.
April 11, 2009 at 6:37 p.m.Yume, do itashimashte. Something or someone is striking everything I say, so I guess we can't discuss the matter. Gomen nasai.
April 11, 2009 at 5:45 p.m."Yume" (it's fun, calling a pretty girl "dream"), none of the countries you name are "communist" countries. While it has become fashionable to lump communism and socialism together, the fact is that communism is an extreme form of socialism (and neither, by the same token, do we have anything remotely resembling the classic (Jeffersonian) version of a republic).
I might also remind you that we are now "owned" - indebted more than we can hope to repay - by China, a socialist - formerly communist - country.
I tend to agree with your remarks concerning what appears (between the journalist cup and lip there is many a slip) to be the "DA's grasp of prosecutorial protocols"
His purported statement concerning the Fifth Amendment, for instance.
One thing for sure, I have yet another reason for wanting to stay out of Victoria.
April 11, 2009 at 1:54 p.m.One of the "chapbooks" I am being asked to reprise, part of a series I wrote in 1986 called "Citizens Power to Control Goverment," was a historical review of the Grand Jury, including that fact of its having been totally subverted by the state. It is the diametrically opposed antithesis of what was - and is - intended to be, a tool used against the state against the citizen.
It almost invariably used by the prosecution to obtain indictment of someone against whom they otherwise can get no evidence or evidence insufficient obtain an arrest warrant.
The gentleman is not only right, he certainly didn't go far enough with his remarks. Further explanation would have been more honest; and the absence of such proves my earlier contentions concerning the way we are deliberately kept ignorant of the law under which we must live.
Ask yourself why, of all the things our children can learn in their first twelve years of education, they can learn almost nothing of the law.
April 11, 2009 at 1:42 p.m.Yes Fatboy, that was most entertaining. I agree with Legion. There is something radically wrong downtown and it aint in Tylers office. I used to have mixed emotions about Ure, but after seeing some actions done by the boys in blue and then speaking to a commander in the PD and hearing that what was dont was a directive from URE..................PUH. Victoria needs a new school board, police dept and sheriff dept..............but then, at least now all the crooks are in the corral where we can watch them.
April 11, 2009 at 1:18 p.m.Official Misconduct. A public servant is guilty of official misconduct when, with purpose to obtain a benefit for himself or another or to injure or to deprive another of a benefit:
Official misconduct comes in a variety of flavors: Police routinely give false testimony to the GJ and on the stand to convict someone simply because they may honestly believe a person to be guilty. Elected officials routinely vote on agenda items when their is a serious conflict of interest. DA's occasionally prosecute people due to political pressure. These things and worse, happen not solely elsewhere, but here in Victoria as well.
April 11, 2009 at 1:07 p.m.With the high likelihood for judicial review and the distinct possibility case law may be made, these cases are going to get a really good look by many judicial scholars, not only Mr. Treece.
April 11, 2009 at 10:21 a.m.I have a problem believing that Mr. Treece is an expert on constitutional law. He is quoted as saying "The grand jury is not the friend of the citizen". From my experience as a former grand juror, I recall our instructions from the judge to be contrary to Mr. Treece's statement.
April 11, 2009 at 7:47 a.m.I felt my job as a grand juror was to protect citizens from over zealous law enforcement, including the district attorney. In my experience, the District Attorney was overly gracious in an attempt to win the trust of the grand jury. I can understand how some grand jurors could be misled by the district attorney in this process. However, this does not change the duties of the grand juror as instructed by the judge.
i need a laugh...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=slCNTz...
April 10, 2009 at 9:46 p.m.It seems likely that if Ure is convicted, there will be an appeal. It also seems likely that Tyler's failure to allow Ure to plead the 5th might just cause him to lose this case. Is it just me or does it seem that Mr. Tyler's grasp of prosecutorial protocols might be a tad lacking.
April 10, 2009 at 9:23 p.m.This is getting nastier week by week!
April 10, 2009 at 8:54 p.m.Sounds like EVERYONE needs some Continuing Education on Law!
Maybe it would have better if Ure would have invoked his 5th amendment rights, which is saying that if he answers the question he incriminates himself. Tantamount to a confession.
April 10, 2009 at 6:57 p.m.