Saturday, March 25, 2017


First a lot of people asked me why I did not cover the failed Affordable Healthcare vote yesterday. The answer is simple, if you were on the internet trying to find blog coverage of the story, your home page would have had a ton of links to national news organizations on the story and zero on this one. Yea I think most people got the story by simply clicking on a link on their home page.  Plus this story was too important to be mixed in with the failed politics of Washington.


I know it is almost unheard of for a DA to appeal a verdict in a criminal case.  I reviewed the Texas Code of Criminal procedure and it appears Saenz's only option may be a Mandamus, which is what I said he should have done before the question went to the jury.  Saenz intentionally did not do his job.

It appears based on a review of appealable issues by the DA a mandamus remains the only viable option.

The case law is 100% on Saenz's side.  He will not use it because he is part of this corrupt deal.



"Any federal constitutional duty to preserve evidence is limited to evidence that might be expected to play a significant role in the suspect's defense. California v. Trombetta, 467 U.S. 479, 488 (1984). "To meet this standard of constitutional materiality, [citation omitted], evidence must both possess an exculpatory value that was apparent before the evidence was destroyed, and be of such a nature that the defendant would be unable to obtain comparable evidence by other reasonably available means." Id. at 489. "[U]nless a criminal defendant can show bad faith on the part of the police, failure to preserve potentially useful evidence does not constitute a denial of due process of law." Arizona v. Youngblood, 488 U.S. 51, 58 (1988)."

Given the fact it is a crime in Texas to leave the scene of an accident, was it apparent to Det. Clipper that the evidence was exculpatory when at most the evidence on the tape showed the Hernandez family came back after the accident to search for the dead skunk.  As a matter of law such as Judge De Coss found based on the sworn testimony of the son, Marisa Hernandez did not immediately stop and render aid.  This is an established fact independent of what was on the tape.

Second the son was allowed to testify as to what exactly the tape could have shown.  Given this established fact how could Judge Bañales have found the was no other reasonable means to obtain the same evidence?  The son testified they went and searched the area, which is what the tape would have shown.

No my dear friends, this case was corrupted from day one.  The Washington FBI needs to bring Bañales in and then charge him with obstruction of justice in addition to violating the civil rights of both Mary and Ralph Tipton.

The ruling was clearly bad, and Saenz had his team sit there and do nothing because he was in on it.

Washington needs to put it to Saenz that he immediately files the Mandamus to get a new trial, or face a presumption he was in on the corruption.

I will admit I am not in an area of the law I am comfortable with, and by area I mean how a DA gets around corrupt and bad rulings by judges.  It is a complex area.  But it can be done. Justice belongs to both sides, not just the defendant.

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

Mr. Bobby, could you please write a separate entry in your blog and post this link to the petition by Ralph Tipton so the public can sign and bring awareness to our corrupt county. Please. Right now Mary's case is on everyone's mind, this is the time to post the petition again, get more signatures, cause the state and federal governments to look into it. Idk how many signatures are needed, but I think the people want to do "something" to help and giving them the petition to sign and share is a good "something". Please and thank you. Ask Jim and Jerry and the other bloggers to do so as well. Please.