Wednesday, February 4, 2015

 
BOMB SHELL DURING ORAL ARGUMENT IN VILLALOBOS TRIAL


VILLALOBOS APPELLATE ATTORNEY STATES THE GOVERNMENT HAS AGREED TO CONDITIONAL SUPERVISED RELEASE

Listen to seconds 42 to tell me if I am misunderstanding what his counsel is saying.  I will make the correction if I made a mistake.  This is too important so I want a second opinion.

Two people who have listened to the tape agree she says it - but she appears to have a hesitancy in her statement so we are not sure.

FROM A READER AND I THINK HE/SHE IS CORRECT - THE STATEMENT IF VERY CONFUSING

"There was apparently an issue regarding "a condition of supervised release"

She is not suggesting that there is an agreement that he be released, but rather that there was an appellate issue concerning one of the conditions of the "supervised release" portion of his sentence.

"supervised release" is a period of time, after incarceration, where federal prisoners are kept under the jurisdiction of the Court. It is much like parole, but it is not parole. She appears to be saying that the government agrees with her appellate point concerning one of the conditions of supervised release.

She is not stating that there is an agreement for a "conditional supervised release".

THE CONFUSION:

There is a motion for release pending appeal. The appellate brief is sealed so I have no way of knowing what her issue was in the brief.

TO VILLALOBOS MOTHER OR BROTHER - contract me I just got a bombshell on the juror.

Click for Oral Argument it is the bottom one, but sometime tomorrow it will move to page 2.  If anyone knows how to upload an mp3 to the internet so I can post it, please do it for me.  google allows for it, but 35 minutes is too long.

BIG THANK YOU TO THE READER WHO TIPPED ME OFF THIS WAS ON LINE

It has been disclosed that not until after the verdict the defense counsel was informed a juror put on his jury excuse form he is pro law enforcement and that he believes if law enforcement arrests someone "they ARE guilty."  Emphasis in caps belongs to juror.  He also went on FB when he got his juror summons and complained he had to serve on his birthday.  In an exchange with a friend the friend told him to just say he is pro government, and the juror said I am pro government.  Note I am not using quotes because I am not typing as I listen - but the substance of what I am saying is correct.

Be patient guys I am listening to the oral argument.  Plus there may be another bomb shell in the pleadings before the court.  One step at a time.  Second Bomb Shell is about the release

I will note on the issue of this juror being on FB, the appellate judge raised the question as to why Hanen barred referenced to the jurors name.  His name is Raul Villarreal.

It is not disputed that before the trial the juror's excuse form was sent to Judge Hanen's chambers.  But there is no evidence he actually ever saw it.  This was a bad and cowardly practice by Villalobos trial lawyers.  When this was being handled in the post trial hearings his counsel should have forced the issue for Hanen to create a record of what he knew and when, or that he recuse himself so another judge could take Hanen's testimony.  The court of appeals is making an issue about the lack of proof Judge Hanen knew about this.

The standard of review is abuse of discretion.  Villalobos must prove the juror was not honest and that had he been honest he would have been struck.

The court of appeals agrees Villalobos lawyer laid out a clear record that Judge Hanen was very liberal in striking anyone who might be remotely pro government.

The records shows that although Raul Villarreal state he as was government and  that he believes if law enforcement arrests someone "they ARE guilty,"  during jury selection at no time did he raise his hand when asked anyone having a hard time presuming Villalobos is innocent until proven guilty, or with a strong bias towards the government.

Villalobos lawyer agrees this is a difficult issue to win on, but notes that the 11th Circuit has found that the court is to weigh spontaneous statements made before trial more than those made after the juror is allegedly caught misrepresenting his feelings..  At this point in the oral argument this is a sticking point.  I am close to when the government responds.

Just be patient

Villalobos counsel is suggesting Raul Villarreal upon learning the case was against Villalobos may have taken a greater interest in the case and now wanted to serve.

Court concerned that the trial court did not allow trial counsel to participate in the in camera investigation so they have no idea if Judge Hanen asked about the "ARE guilty" statement.

Raul Villarreal admitted to the statement.  Court is asking did not the trial lawyers have the opportunity to check on the jurors daily.  Villalobos counsel notes at the time the ABA considered such conduct as unethical.

GOVERNMENT RESPONDS

Government admits this is their first Facebook case.  The government is opening with the idea that during questioning of the jurors there is follow-up if a juror raises their hand.

The court agrees "ARE guilty" is a basis for striking from the jury pool.

Government going over the juror FB exchange with his friend - see above.

Government says Judge Hanen did know and chose to bring him in anyway because he believed Raul Villarreal was lying to get out of jury duty.

Government is pushing the argument that Raul Villarreal was just lying in his pre-jury form to just get out of jury duty.

Me Question:  If he lied about that how can you trust him about anything?

Court asking about whether or not if Judge Hanen ordered the attorneys to not contact the jurors post trial.  Government does not know.

WAS THERE A CONCEALMENT OF AN OBJECTABLE MATERIAL FACT?

Government claims the Fifth Circuit previously held must be a concealment of a material fact.  Government is trying to get the issue of material fact.

Evidence is clear Raul Villarreal did not befriend any reporter on FB during the trial.  It was after the trial.  But at the end of the trial that he did make a comment he had to get something done.  During the investigation he said it related to work.

Government arguing the spontaneous comments are to be weighed by the court with deference to the court's findings.

The government argues that this is a ruling which belongs to the trial judge.

Legal note - the court has always taken as more credible spontaneous comments than later comments.  This is why a dying declaration is not hearsay.  So if I am dying and say to a medic at the scene so and so shot me, the medic can testify to that because it was a spontaneous statement while I was dying as opposed to something I may have told the medic hours later.

VILLALOBOS' APPELLATE ATTORNEY

She is arguing appellate cases where in the appellate courts have found a new trial should be granted if there is evidence of lying or any evidence of bias. 

She is summarizing jurors abuses. 

Ends with request for new trial

Done

EDITOR'S NOTE:

If Villalobos' counsel about conditional supervised release is correct, then something has happened in the case.  I do not think it has to do with anticipation of oral argument.  I cannot tell you what was said in the Motion filed with the Court of Appeals because it is sealed.

But something has happened - we all just need to wait and see.

But if Villalobos gets a new trial, the DOJ will indict Saenz pretty fast.  Saenz will no longer have a hold on the DOJ..  I am as certain as the day is long the DOJ ordered Saenz to not prosecute Oscar de la Fuente.  Given the fact the DOJ made a big deal before the jury that they had made no agreement with Oscar de la Fuente to protect him from the state or the State Bar, such a revelation would mean a new trial.  Note the State Bar has not taken action either.  Why?

7 comments:

Anonymous said...

FREE VILLALOBOS NOW!!!

So he can run for mayor...

BobbyWC said...

the sad part is he would be a step up from the three choices we have now

This is taxing - I needed the break

Bobby WC

Anonymous said...

There was apparently an issue regarding "a condition of supervised release"

She is not suggesting that there is an agreement that he be released, but rather that there was an appellate issue concerning one of the conditions of the "supervised release" portion of his sentence.

"supervised release" is a period of time, after incarceration, where federal prisoners are kept under the jurisdiction of the Court. It is much like parole, but it is not parole. She appears to be saying that the government agrees with her appellate point concerning one of the conditions of supervised release.

She is not stating that there is an agreement for a "conditional supervised release".

Anonymous said...

The readers assessment about the issue in regard to supervised release is correct.

She is not suggesting that there is an agreement that he be released, but rather that there was an appellate issue concerning one of the conditions of the "supervised release" portion of his sentence.

BobbyWC said...

Like I said I agree - I did not take down my original suggestion because I do not work that way - plus I asked for a second opinion.

The confusion is in the fact there is a motion for release pending appeal.

Like I said in my post she was unclear in her statement.

Did you listen to the oral argument and if so what did you think - does he have a chance?

The panel may be the most three false conservatives on the court who do not have a reputation of being pro criminal defendant

Bobby WC

Bobby WC

Anonymous said...

The appellate cases that closely fit the issues in this case, are the Perkins Case and the Nellen Case. The Nellen Case creates a two prong test, this case clearly meets both elements. In both cases the defendant was granted a new trial. Both cases are fairly recent.

BobbyWC said...

you can email me first and ID yourself and then I can give you my number

Bobby wc
Bobbywc58@yahoo.com