Thursday, March 25, 2010



Well, he earned his name yesterday. I was not at the trial so I have no factual basis to draw from to form an opinion if the jury did their job. It is very well possible the DA did not put on the key evidence which showed intent. For example - did Brown testify that Ahumada told him to wait at his house before taking Ahumada to the airport, while Ahumda went to the bank to deposit the check? This would have shown intent to conceal his actions. Did the DA put on the testimony of the reporters who were repeatedly told by Ahumada he did not do it? This would have allowed the DA to impeach the credibility of his testimony. I can go on and on - but since I was not there I cannot say for sure what could have gone wrong. I can say that unless limitations has run, which I doubt it has, the US Attorney’s office can now seek a separate indictment under federal law.


His emergency request for relief remains pending under case number 13-10-00144. I find an interesting twist to this, this morning. This morning’s orders from the court of appeals or lack of orders are interesting.

His mandamus brief only made his case stronger not weaker. The court was already drafting an opinion in the appeal when they received the request for a mandamus. The fact they did not immediately deny the request for emergency relief tells me two things [1] they see an issue which favors Rubio; and [2] the court had already decided against him in the appeal, but is now reconsidering their original decision based on the mandamus. How do I know this - had they already ruled for him, yesterday they would have issued the emergency relief he requested - they did not - which means the mandamus has reopened the analysis in his favor. For now they are double checking the case law to see if they can find a basis to stay with their original ruling, which I now believe was against him.

I guess it can also be argued they are trying to expedite issuance of the original opinion and are sitting on the mandamus. This would not be a smart move. The Texas Supreme Court is usually the first step in a ballot access mandamus, but in this case the court of appeals was a necessary step because they already had the appeal before them. If they do not rule by today, I would hope Rubio’s lawyers would opt for going directly to the Texas Supreme Court. We shall see.

No comments: