Friday, October 9, 2015



ED CYGANIEWICZ AS ATTORNEY PRO TEM GIVES DA SAENZ'S NEPHEW BY MARRIAGE YET ANOTHER BREAK



MAJOR UPDATE:

Judge Laura Betancourt changes mind and sets Motion to Adjudicate for October 30, 2015.  When the parties left this morning' hearing it was decided everything would be done in February.  This basically allowed Victor Garcia to avoid jail after an adjudication of guilt on the original charge.  This afternoon the following entry is found in the case.

10/30/2015  Motion to Adjudicate  (9:00 AM) (Judicial Officer Betancourt, Laura L.)

Let's see if Ed Cyganiewicz gets a round to issuing the subpoena on the DPS officer or will he forget like he did the first time?

ORIGINAL POST

But first how the courts work - I am posting this because it angers me to listen to all of these defendants bad mouthing the court because they are not treated as royalty.

The defendants are ordered to court at 9 a.m. so that their attorneys can complete any paperwork which needs to be done before the judge takes the bench.  Judge Betancourt like clockwork most of the time takes the bench at 10 a.m.  But, by this time, some defendants have been released from probation and sent on their way, plea papers have been completed and ready for the judge, resettings have been negotiated and made ready for the judge - and on and on.  Judge Betancourt's staff and the probation officer with the attorneys actually process quite a few people out of the courtroom before the judge even takes the bench.  It would not be possible for the judge to conduct business while all of this is happening.

Then comes 10 a.m. It is the same process.  She tells the attorneys she will hear anyone with announcements first.  Why?  It goes fast and gets defendants on their way.  Then in the order the papers were completed she will hear plea bargains or other matters which require her ruling.  She moves fast because all of the paperwork has been done by her staff, the DA and the attorneys first.  Her court appears very efficient.

WHAT HAPPENED TODAY?

Today for the third time the court was to hear the Motion to Adjudicate on the original charge which was originally a felony, but reduced to a misdemeanor by Ed Cyganiewicz.  Ed Cyganiewicz and Noe Garza approached the bench saying they had an announcement so they went first.  Ed Cyganiewicz immediately told Judge Betancourt that he released the DPS officer from testifying today on the Motion to Adjudicate so that the court could just do the new DWI and Motion to Adjudicate at the same time. 

On the Motion to Adjudicate the evidence is preponderance of the evidence, whereas the DWI is beyond a reasonable doubt.  It was for Judge Betancourt to decide if she wanted to do the matters together or separately.  But she was denied that option because Ed Cyganiewicz sent the DPS officer away before he could testify.

What we learned was there was in fact an accident on the Causeway, and that Victor Garcia's blood alcohol level was .3.  The legal limit is .08.  There is no way Judge Betancourt would not have found Victor Garcia guilty today on the Motion to Adjudicate, but Ed Cyganiewicz made sure that did not happen by sending the DPS officer away so he had no witness for his Motion to Adjudicate.

I will say Judge Betancourt was not happy.  She also was not one bit happy with how Alfredo Padilla handled the original bond.  She was very surprised that with an alcohol level of .3 that Padilla did not order an ignition interlock device with camera.  This is standard - well unless you are the DA's nephew by marriage. 

The device was ordered installed today.  Judge Betancourt was very clear that on October 30, 2015, if the paperwork does not show the device was installed today she will put Victor Garcia in jail.  She also barred him from driving - period - until the device is installed.  I considered waiting in the parking lot to see if he drove away on his own, which would have been a basis for his immediate arrest, but decided that videotaping such a possible violation would make me part of the case, thereby costing me the right to report on the case as a reporter.

The trial is set for February 22, 2016.  I would say this is too close to the primary, and a continuance will be sought.  We shall see if the court plays along.  I will say Judge Betancourt was not happy with how any of this has been handled.

Ed Cyagniewicz blamed the clerk for the DWI being entered as a Class B when it is a Class A.  I spoke with the clerk's supervisor and was told the clerks have nothing to do with entering this information.  The supervisor was clear this information is entered by the prosecuting attorney.  So who is lying the supervisor in the clerk's office, or Ed Cyganiewicz?.

I am staying on the story.  I am certain before February a lot more will come about.

6 comments:

Anonymous said...

" . . .that videotaping such a possible violation would make me part of the case, thereby costing me the right to report on the case as a reporter."

Please explain your statement. How would your rights to write on the blog be taken away from you?

BobbyWC said...

If the DWI were to go to trial I could be designated a witness and under what is known as the Rule be barred from the courtroom as a witness.

Also it is best to never make yourself part of the story - however I will submit at some level every reporter is part of the story. But to intentionally make yourself part of the story clearly taints the coverage.

For now I have reported 100% verifiable facts - nothing more nothing less

Bobby WC

Anonymous said...

So, you decided not to be part of the story in order not to be a possible witness. Is it better to be a blog reporter than to serve justice? What if being a witness would prevent such a character of being involved in a future fatal accident where innocent people die or seriously injured; would it be better to be a reporter than a witness? Seriously Bobby, is it worth it?

BobbyWC said...

he had no alcohol on his breath in court. He was ordered to go directly to have the device installed. I had no reason to believe he was driving away drunk based on the evidence. I can assure you when I had the chance to notice his breath had he been drinking I would have informed the bailiff to inform the judge. But he was not.

Now how about you appearing in court and show your interest and demand this guy go to jail - yea we all know that will not happen.

But I am on it. There is an interesting development - but I have to wait until Tuesday to check on it.

Bobby WC

Bobby WC

Anonymous said...

"She also barred him from driving - period - until the device is installed. I considered waiting in the parking lot to see if he drove away on his own, which would have been a basis for his immediate arrest"

Your above statement does not mention anything about him being drunk in order for him to be arrested. Therefore, your agreement about being a witness is difficult to understand. Justice over the right to be a reporter is second to none.

BobbyWC said...

nice try but no cigar - I was saying I had no reason to believe he was going to drive drunk and thereby hurting someone as the poster alleged - I was responding to the bogus claim

You trolls will never stop - get a life

Bobby WC