Tuesday, December 17, 2013

 
RAUL SALAZAR SENTENCING
HEARING ON WEDNESDAY

I will update after the hearing -

The only thing official on the docket is the sentencing hearing.  I do not know if any post conviction motions have been filed.  But I do know the county ordered the transcript for a reason.  We may learn that reason in the morning.

My following post needs to be put into perspective.  Armando Villalobos was allowed to carry his $50,000 unsecured bond pending sentencing after conviction on 7 felony charges..  Justice Hinojosa upped Raul Salazar's to a total of $150,000 secured after three misdemeanor convictions/  Why the big difference?  Well two different judges for one - but I am certain Justice Hinojosa was infuriated over the claims of retaliation against the HR personnel.

He will be equally upset to learn he was mislead.  What he will do, I do not know.  If he grants a new trial it will be because he believes Gus Garza intentionally inflamed the jury with a lie, thereby making it impossible for anyone to know how much the lie impacted the jury.


FIRST AND FOREMOST, I AM RELYING ON A DRAFT COPY OF THE TRIAL TRANSCRIPT. THE TESTIMONY IS NOT FROM A CERTIFIED COPY

What I am using may actually be certified, the email says vols 3 and 4 are certified. I am only using parts 3 and 4.  I am not 100% sure either way.

I learned that Commissioner Court authorized the purchase of a copy of the trial transcript so I did an open records request on it and received the draft copy late Tuesday afternoon. It is my understanding the court reporter will have an official certified copy ready for the hearing.

Pete Sepulveda’s testimony was actually after David Garcia’s. I tell you this so you can know the true sequence of the testimony. But I am starting with Pete Sepulveda’s testimony because his testimony about the time frame of the reorganization of HR is clearly incorrect.

Earlier David Garcia in his testimony got the time frame correct, but as the document I will show shows, during his testimony he allowed the jury to believe Commissioner Hernandez was the bad guy when in fact he knew it was commission counsel Juan Gonzalez who put the matter of HR reorganization on the agenda. The email indicates David Garcia got the email of the agenda at 1:46 p.m., on the 14th. This had to have been before he took the stand. He was the second witness after lunch on the 14th


 
Click to enlarge

What is most interesting about this email is, Pete Sepulveda is clearly trying to deflect from himself his less than accurate testimony and to put the all of the blame on David Garcia.

Pete Sepulveda's Testimony- Remember this is out of sequence.  Pete testified after David Garcia

"Q. But I want to know and what I want this jury to know clearly is that that action took place a day or two days after they were served with a subpoena to testify in this case?

A. Yes.

Q. They had no prior notice, correct?

A. Correct.

Vol. 3. Pp. 223-224

The documents from the county indicates that Pete Sepulveda and others were notified as early as October 15, 2013, of AR Flores' intent to reorganize HR. This was a month before the start of the Raul Salazar trial. Pete Sepulveda’s testimony is not accurate, and the documents prove it.

Click for HR Documents

David Garcia’s testimony is more of a totality of his testimony rather than one statement. Beginning at page 174. At p. 176 Gus Garza, ADA, to David Garcia

"Q. So you, yourself, have suffered a $70,000 cut in pay. You, yourself, have had your name, your position in the County Court -- Commissioners' Court agenda to be discussed for evaluation by Commissioner Hernandez. Was this before you made your statement or after you made your statement?

A. After.’

David Garcia was mad that The Regional Mobility Authority cut his job of $70,000 a year. Event though Commissioner Hernandez had nothing to do with it or any authority over the RMA David Garcia blamed Commissioner Hernandez.

At p. 177

"Q. In this case, was that brought upon you by Commissioner Hernandez?

A. I believe so, yes.

Q. And was this man, the Defendant, Raul Garza Salazar his hatchet man?"

So you have this testimony painting a picture of Commissioner Hernandez retaliating when the following happens.

Q. Do you know, sir, and only answer if you know, whether or not several of the HR employees three or four weeks ago were demoted from their position?

A.. They -- I'm not sure if they've been demoted, but they have been placed on notice.

Q. So there was an effort to impact their jobs?

A. As far as I have heard, yes."

David Garcia has the time frame correct, unlike Pete Sepulveda, but the document clearly shows no one was being demoted or would lose pay. David Garcia clearly believed he had a score to settle over the lose of his job at RMA .

GUS GARZA OVER DOES IT

If a new trial is granted, which I have no idea that it will be, it is because Gus Garza in his closing pushed the lies about reorganization in HR. Gus Garza cannot tell Justice Hinojosa it is no big deal because Gus Garza made a huge deal of the false testimony to the state's advantage.

From Gus Garza in closing to the jury

"Ladies and gentlemen, we've brought you a case, no doubt, no doubt what happened. It's happening today, right now as we sit here right now. Are you going to stand for it, or are you going to send a message? I really hope you do. ‘ Vol 4. P. 63

From page 62 - and note - the evidence shows there was no demotion on the table - it was all one big lie. Gus Garza cannot now tell the court that his argument had no impact on the jury. He made the center point of his closing a lie.

"Think about it. Pete Sepulveda came and told you. The main man for Cameron County, for all the employees that are not under elected officials, the administrator that's supposed to protect all the employees, that did protect them and went to Arnold Flores, his subservient, the person under him and told him, "No, sir, you can't demote these people, there's no justification, there's no notice, there's no due process." Does the Constitution apply to them? Do they get protections? Does the law protect them? Do they get less protection than any Defendant in this country? Well, according to this Defendant and Ernie Hernandez they don't because as we sit here today there's an item on the agenda to have them demoted. Are you going to stand for that? Is that what America is found?"

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

The DAs office doesn't care about justice. It's a scorecard. Wins versus losses at all costs. No DNA evidence in a child molestation case, warrant less charges against political rivals, trying to trick the county into excluding certain parts of texas law 2153, verbal threatening of political rivals. Villalobos MUST be soooo proud!