Thursday, September 15, 2016


De Coss acting with the intent of preventing any reversible error in the criminal case of Marisa Hernandez makes a fool of himself, shows a lack of proper legal research while wrongfully trying to prevent Ralph Tipton from filing documents in the case.

I get that De Coss is just trying to keep the case real clean and to avoid an issue on appeal because Ralph Tipton is informing the court of the evidence DA Saenz is not collecting to use in the case.  It would be surreal at this point for anyone to believe De Coss does not know Saenz is intentionally trying to blow the case.  So it bothers me he wants to ignore well established practices to keep Ralph Tipton from creating a record of the evidence Saenz is ignoring for use by the FBI in a formal criminal investigation against Saenz.

It is common practice that all communication to the court are filed by the district clerk even if it is letter from a reporter for leave to blog or tweet or record the proceedings.  These documents are not pleadings seeking relief.  open records requests to the court from third parties are routinely filed by the District Clerk. They are put into the official file which is never, ever seen by the jury, to insure all sides know about all communication to the court.  This is a common practice I have seen and participated in for over 26 years.


Eric Garza is an A+ District Clerk and he really needs to seek competent counsel before he agrees to cooperate with De Coss in banning Ralph Tipton from filing anything in the case of Marisa Hernandez.

In the letter Judge De Coss asks that Ralph Tipton not be allowed to file matters in the case and Judge de Coss cites a mandamus known as In Re Amos out of Dallas.  He correctly quotes the case as stating parties to a criminal case are the state and the defendant and "no third party my intervene."

I know for a fact Judge De Coss never read the opinion, because the opinion says he as the judge cannot do exactly what he did.  The mandamus was against a Judge who filed a Motion for Reconsideration of his recusal in the case.  The Court of Appeals found his motion made him an intervener and that is not allowed.

The De Coss letter goes on to say "The Court can file a Motion to Strike the documents that were filed."  The In Re Amos opinion which I will post for your own consideration is just plain stupid. Their analysis should have ended concerning the rules of recusal.  But instead they got into a dangerous area about whether or not a judge who files a Motion in a criminal case becomes an impermissible party.  It is an incompetent stupid opinion.

Judges all over Texas have the right to take matters up on their own motion.  So In Re Amos is just wrong as to the judge not being allowed to file a motion because he is not a party.  They are correct as to the rules concerning recusals which is why they should have stopped at that point.


He cites a case wherein it is held in criminal cases third parties may not intervene.  Well Ralph Tipton is not intervening, he is not asking for any relief which is what an intervener asks for, he is simply creating a record of the evidence so Saenz cannot claim ignorance of same at the end of the trial.

The case he cites is against a judge for filing a motion in a criminal case, and then De Coss in his letter to District Clerk Eric Garza says he is going to so exactly what the court found he could not do. For the record the appellate court is dead wrong.  But that is not the point, De Coss relied on the opinion to wrongfully justify his actions.

In his letter he states "the Court [judge go back to your brief rules - you only capitalize court when referring to the Supreme Court] can file a motion to Strike the Documents that were filed."  My brain may be fading fast from atrophy, but I am still sharper than most attorneys and judges - why because when it comes to justice there is no room for mistakes.

The next problem is Judge De Coss actually issued an order by calling it a memorandum, without giving Ralph Tipton notice and opportunity to respond.  Judge de Coss should have had Ralph Tipton served with a Show Cause Order as to why his filings should not be stricken, with a date and time to appear.  Judge De Coss just outright denied Tipton's constitutional right to notice and opportunity to respond.

If Eric Garza goes along with de Coss he could find himself on the wrong end of a mandamus, which will damage an otherwise stellar performance as our District Clerk to date.

Again I get De Coss is trying to prevent a basis for Gamez to appeal.  But the jury never sees the file. Further all communications from the press or any third party are always filed with the case so as to avoid any claim of improper communication with the court.  This is a standard practice Judge De Coss seems to want to stop.

Now I am done, with this level of sloppy work by De Coss, I am pulling my endorsement.  The rules matter.  And when a judge goes to an opinion which says he cannot do what he is doing and uses it to deny a victim his constitutional rights, we have a major problem.  Cameron County can do better than Judge De Coss,  Again, there was no nefarious intent on his part - just shear incompetence without concern for constitutional rights which are basic.

Click for In Amos


Me said...

Judge De Coss did not intervene by sending a fax regarding improper filings by a nonparty. The filings by the nonparty made the nonparty an intervenor, see, Amos. It is not allowed.

BobbyWC said...

You did not even read Amos. Judge De Coss suggesting filing a motion to strike the filings is a direct violation of teh Amos ruling. It was against a Judge for filing a motion. Reporters file things in cases all of the time they are not interveners because they are not asking for relief. Tipton asked for no relief. Not only did not read Amos you have no idea what it legally means to be an intervener, Fuirther it is common practice for the victim to file a victims statement. You are running cover for De Coss.

At least I went out of my way to say the Amos decision on judges filing motions is dead wrong, and that Judge De Coss had no bad intent and is only trying to prevent reversible error. If he persues this he will lose and have victims pissed off at his royaly. I understand his good intent, but he did not read Amos, and did not think this out. the jury never sees the file so no one can claims it influenced the jury

Bobby WC

Anonymous said...

Of all the judges, he is the only one I find to be fair and honest. If this was his decision it was in the best interest of the victim.

BobbyWC said...

As I have made clear he is doing what he is doing to protect the verdict once it happens so as to deny Gamez an appealable issue. But it is for Gamez or the DA to ask that the judge strike pleadings.

De Coss is now showing very poor judgment and has lost control of the case through really bad judicial temperament. Our constitution provides for a process/ De Coss has decide to dictate how things will be done. I can guarantee you his really bad judicial temperament which he only made worse today is going to insure Marisa Hernandez walks.

Good intentions do not mean running roughshod over people's rights

Bobby WC

Anonymous said...

Very true Bobby.