Within the last five years an individual who was detained by El Paso police officers was subsequently hospitalized and operated on for injuries he sustained to his rectum. This individual reported that El Paso police officers had penetrated his rectum with a collapsible police baton. In fact, his trousers and underwear had holes bored right through them aligned with his rectal orifice. The individual received treatment at Thomason General Hospital and then sued the City of El Paso and three El Paso Police Officers for what had happened. After depositions had been taken and the evidence collected, the City quickly settled for the maximum allowed which was $250,000. This would be $250,000 of tax payer money in addition to the $70,000 or so dollars in medical bills that the tax payer also paid for, and rightfully so.

The most compelling evidence in the case, according to the attorney, the evidence that the City could not rebut, was the medical evidence. The rectal surgeon who treated the victim testified that although he tried to view the case giving the benefit of the doubt to the law enforcement, he simply in the end was led to the conclusion that the victim had been penetrated by a sphere 7-8 inches in length with a width consistent with a collapsible police baton. He also ruled out homosexual activity. The city knew they were sunk and they paid up.

What was even more remarkable to the attorneys who were involved, more than the shock of the above medical findings which alone are proof conclusive that some members of the El Paso Police department are savages, was the fact that El Paso District Attorney, Jaime Esparza, NEVER indicted the police officers involved. In fact, the attorneys were able to procure the material that they said assistant district attorney Marcos Lizarraga presented to the grand jury. According to one attorney, no where in the box the city gave him, did he find any of the doctor’s medical conclusions, the medical conclusions which inculpated the officers and which led to the City giving in. What did Mr. Lizarraga, Esparza’s right hand man, NOT show the grand jury? Is this another example of Esparza playing footsies with the grand jury to whitewash some bad cops and his participation in the whitewash? How convenient for Esparza and Lizarraga to be able to emerge from the bowels of the grand jury and say the grand jury found “no wrong doing” on the part of the police. And voila. -- How in the world did the grand jury not indict? Could the DIMS money coming in from the police department and going into the pockets of assistant da's be influencing anyone down there?

Keep in mind that Marcos Lizarraga is the same person who tried and convicted Brandon Moon and sent him to prison for 17 years for a rape he did not commit. Lizarraga is also the same person who has the distinction of getting 19 "non-guilty" verdicts in one trial in the only case he has tried in anyone's memory in years (the Betti Flores case).

There was the exact same fact pattern in New York a few years ago. Some NYC police sodomized a man in the bathroom of a precinct with a night stick. What happened to those cops? Well first of all the press was all over it which in turn led to the community rising up in arms. The cops were then prosecuted and at least one of them got life in prison. What happened here in El Paso? Not one of the police in question was prosecuted or even fired. This was so eventhough city council voted to give the maximum settlement because obviously they believed the allegations. In fact, one of the officers even a got promotion to police trainer.

In plain English, the cops in NYC got life and the cops here in El Paso got a pension bail-out and a promotion, all on our dime. How do you like them apples? Nice elected officials we have here.

The story here was buried. But it was covered by the Mexican press “Primer Impacto,” the 60 Minutes of the Spanish speaking community. Not one member of the press here ever asked Mr. Lizarraga or better yet, Jaime Esparza, why the cops were never indicted. What happened? What happened is that Esparza is the gatekeeper to what the grand jury hears and we have a lousy press that doesn't tell you about what is happening and therefore you don't know who to vote for or against. Ask Dionicio Flores, editor of the El Paso Times, why he hasn't informed you about this? Could the answer be that his newspaper receives millions of dollars in advertising revenues from the City and the County? See how this works?

Tell everyone this story. End abuse and corruption now and elect an honest District Attorney. Elect me, THERESA CABALLERO FOR DISTRICT ATTORNEY!

Jaime Esparza has washed his hands of two murder cases in two weeks. (See my blogs from last week). What are we paying Esparza for if not to properly handle murder cases? And why is it that both cases involved my representation? Is Esparza dumping murder cases for political reasons?

Two weeks ago, the El Paso Diario reported that my client, Francisco Arceo, had been stabbed to death by his girlfriend, Elizabeth Munoz. The police arrested and charged Ms. Munoz with Mr. Arceo's death. The police then presented the case to the District Attorney's Office for disposition. Keep in mind that one of the duties of a district attorney is to review a case and decide if the case should be prosecuted or not. So this means that even if the police have made an arrest and charged a person, the prosecutor is still obligated to review the case and decide if in fact he should indict the person, if there is enough evidence to indict, and if it is right to indict, etc. If the prosecutor decides that there was no crime or that there was a legitimate issue of self-defense, etc., then he "declines" to prosecute and the person is free. If the prosecutor believes that the individual has committed a crime, then in the case of a felony, like murder, he takes the case forward to the next step and he goes to the grand jury. The decision to indict or not to indict an individual can be difficult and sometimes controversial because doing the right thing is not always the popular thing to do or the thing that will get you re-elected.

Jaime Esparza, for unknown reasons, has dumped Elizabeth Munoz' case on the County Attorney's office for them to handle. The County Attorney, to my knowledge, has never handled a murder case involving an adult, not a juvenile who has been certified as an adult, but an adult. The District Attorney's office is supposed to be the office with the murder case expertise. We don't know why Esparza has dumped this case. Since it is a murder case, and therefore by its very nature a major case, one would think Esparza would have been careful and would have prepared a written document stating why he cannot do his mandated duties in this most important of cases. But when I went to the District Clerk's office seeking any paperwork explaining his self-disqualification, I found that mysteriously but not unexpectedly, there was none. There is no record that I could find stating the reasons for Esparza's extreme actions.

I suspect that if the press ever gets off its duff and presses Esparza for answers as to why he has time to go down to City Council and squeeze money out of the tax payers for his unconstitutional DIMS system but he can't do his mandated job and properly handle a murder case, Esparza might give the following spin. Would he say that Ms. Munoz had been a complainant in another case involving the deceased and that therefore he has a conflict of interest? If so, then the press should ask him to commit that reasoning to paper which he will be loathe to do since he hasn't taken that approach on thousands upon thousands of other cases similar or the same in nature. In fact, he regularly prosecutes cross-complainants and cross-defendants simultaneously, i.e. two guys get into a bar fight and they both press charges against each other and Esparza prosecutes both at the same time.

Or would Esparza claim that members of his staff were too invloved in the earlier case and therefore there was a conflict of interest? Ask him to write that down and sign his name to it. Well that reasoning fails as well when you consider that he took the EXACT opposite position in the Nancy Hollebeke case. Remember, in that case Ms. Hollebeke had accused two cops of raping her. One of them is named Alberto Machorro, Jr. His father, Alberto Machorro, Sr., works and worked for Esparza when ESPARZA had Ms. Hollebeke thrown in jail and when ESPARZA accused her of lying about his own employee's son. Esparza saw absolutely no conflict there, put his reasons why he thought he had no conflict it in writing and even testfied to those reasons under oath saying that what one employee of his was involved in could be blocked off from another employee who was not related to the case by prior involvement.

Since we know that he isn't too concerned with telling the truth, or with employing good ethics or with recognizing real conflicts of interest, could the real problem for Mr. Esparza be that the deceased was my client, and I am the first opponent he has ever had since taking office 15 years ago, and he knows I will be watching him like a hawk on how he handles this case? Could the real answer be that being the coward that he is, he bolted and threw the case like a hot potato to his next door neighbor the County Attorney for political expediency?

Esparza has time to run so many organizations out of his office, DIMS, Asset forfeiture (all the money making programs), but when it comes to performing his real job, which is to protect the community and prosecute murder cases in the 34th Judicial District of Texas, he skirts out of it and runs off to his next game at the golf course or his next fundraiser and thinks nobody is going to know and if they do find out, they won't care or understand. And why should anybody care since it is campaign season and it's only a murder case?

If you don't like the smell of any of this, if this seems wrong to you, then please remember me, Theresa Caballero, in March at the polls. I will change all of this. Please also get me five more votes.

On September 11, 2007 there was an eight O'clock rally organized by parents in front of the Jane Hambrick elementary school which is off of Joe Battle and Edgemere. The parents had asked me to attend the rally. There were about 30-40 upset parents protesting the school's employment of Alberto Ocegueda who is now a coach there. They were, amongst other things, angry at Jaime Esparza because of how he had handled Mr. Ocegueda's prior charges of molestation of a child, charges that had been lodged against him by the parents of a six year old student at another school. Please see April 23, 2007 blog and the blog before this one. They said that because Mr. Ocegueda is the brother of Jaime Esparza's much beloved personal secretary, Amy Lujan, and because the case was sent to a special prosecutor late in the day, the case was mishandled and now we will never know the truth behind the allegations. They pointed out that if they had been arrested for child molestation, the outcome would have been very different.

Channel 26 was on site and interviewed some people. The reporter was very enthusiastic about the story. For some reason, however, the story never made it to the evening news. I wonder what happened. Did Esparza call in some chits?

While Stuart Leeds and I were at the eastside rally, attorney Sam Snoddy was appearing before City Council to speak to them about their decision to fund DIMS another year to the tune of $200,000. Mr. Snoddy delivered a concise, precise accounting of what DIMS is about, how bad it is and how it results in corruption like the Alberto Ocegueda case and others. Mr. Snoddy also mentioned how Esparza has money to pay his beloved Amy Lujan a $40,000 bonus on top of her county salary with tax payer money. He discussed how Esparza had lied to council when he told them that there was an AG opinion and a court opinion ruling that DIMS is "constitutional" which is NOT the case. He also pointed out how universally respected Sheriff Leo Samaniego had also called Esparza a "liar" over misrepresentations Esparza had made of the same DIMS program. Mr. Snoddy's speech was powerful and hardhitting. In the end, Mayor John Cook disgraced himself and the city by telling Mr. Snoddy to "Shut up! Or I will have you removed. Officers, remove this man." (Representatives Melina Castro and Rachel Quintana saved the day and opened a vote to give Mr. Snoddy more time). Mayor Cook has never been El Paso's best example of class (remember when he came out and said that he borrows his suits from the Union Fashion) but he usually keeps his cool. Cook's low-class outburst against a citizen in good standing and his bullying tactic of using the police against Mr. Snoddy (who is over 70 years old) left many wondering what Cook owed Esparza and what he had to hide?

Yesterday I was out working the jury pool, shaking hands and passing out my card. Here are some of the comments people had to say about Esparza: One woman said she was getting her bachelor's in Criminal Justice and she had done a paper on Esparza about six months ago. Her comment was "I didn't like what I found out about about him. He makes up his own rules. He doesn't follow the law. He's been there too long." One man said, "He covers for bad cops all of the time. He does favors for his friends." There were many, many other comments but those two captured the essence of what I was hearing.

As much as Esparza has tried to hide the facts, it appears that the old cat is out of the bag. The People have indeed figured out that he makes up his own rules and that he doesn't follow the law. Therein lies the entire problem.

Be sure and check out the September 7, 2007 edition of www.newspapertree.com. My campaign is mentioned at the top of the article as well as the fact that I have called into question some of Esparza's campaign expenditures, i.e. $350 lunches at the Sheraton in Mexico City. See my blog of last week on Esparza's campaign report. Also available on the Newspapertree's article are campaign reports if you are interested in seeing how much money Esparza and I have raised and how we have spent the money entrusted to us.

This morning I campaigned outside of Liberty Hall, (the jury duty building). In an hour and a half's time, from 7:30 a.m. to 9:00 a.m., I passed out almost three hundred cards. Despite the early hour and the fact that many of the potential jurors had not yet had their morning coffee, I am glad to report that the reception was very positive. Many were downright ecstatic that I was running. For the readers out there who are telling people at work, in line at the grocery store, etc. that I am running, please keep up the good work. The positive word of mouth helps me when I am actually out there stumping.

Also today I received a call from a parent who has four children at a local gradeschool where Alberto Ocegueda teaches. Alberto Ocegueda is the brother of Amy Lujan (Amelia Ocegueda). Amy Lujan is Esparza's private secretary who he gives $35,000 extra of your tax money to on top of her $40,000 salary. Esparza also sends Amy Lujan to Mexico City on business. This is also your money by the way. Alberto Ocegueda had been accused in November 2006 of sexually assaulting a child at a school where he was teaching. One week after Esparza found out that I knew about the case, it was magically dumped by a special prosecutor. The parent who called me had read my April 23, 2007 blog on the matter and was very upset about how Esparza had handled the case. He is now talking to other parents and I have a feeling that Esparza may have to answer for this one yet.

When this parent and others like him demand answers from their government, will the system correct itself and work. If not, it all gets swept under the proverbial rug.

For the last two days I have written blogs on the murder case Stuart Leeds and I forced Jaime Esparza to dismiss on Thursday, September 6, 2007. Esparza had to admit in his motion to dismiss as well as on the news on Friday that he was abandoning the murder case he charged because there was not enough evidence to prosecute. Esparza tried to convey the message that he was the good guy and of course he would dismiss a case where there wasn't enough evidence. What is disturbing about Esparza's public position is that it bears no relation to what actually happened in the case and what led up to the dismissal. Esparza, as ususal, had to be wrestled to the ground to do what he should have done all along.

Esparza indicted my client for murder without any evidence. We know that Esparza didn't have any evidence because the police had not turned over its investigation to Esparza when Esparza took the case to the grand jury. When it came to my attention that this is what happened, co-counsel, Stuart Leeds, and I embarked on a take-no-prisoners, go for the throat legal warfare on the DA's office. Hard hitting motions were filed daily on the DA's office for seven whole months. We had hearing after hearing where we legally, literally, kicked their teeth in to prove that they had wrongfully charged and incarcerated our client on a case where there was nothing but evidence to prove he did NOT do the crime. Also keep in mind that our client was ill and his incarceration was sapping the life out of him.

What we learned from paperwork we came by on our own is that Esparza, one whole month after he wrongfully indicted our client and after we started pounding him, got real nervous and started actually directing the police investigation to find evidence to support his erroneous charges. After he charged our client, he started looking for DNA evidence. On top of that, Esparza directed the police detective to go back with two of his asst. da's and re-interview witnesses at the jail who had previously exonerated our client (said he did not do the crime) to see if they wanted to give a new and different statement. What kind of new and different statement was Esparza seeking? The witnesses by the way, told the police and Esparza's lawyers they were changing nothing from their first statements. It was amazing to watch the legal shenanigans.

The DA's office was so frantic that their near hysteria is reflected in the Department of Public Safety (DPS) phone records and notes. DPS tested for DNA. In note after note, we see the DPS analyst document calls received from personnel at Esparza's office who were nervous about the case and the testing. This personnel also strangely conveyed to the analyst that I was the defense attorney. Who the defense attorney is, in a normal case with a normal DA's office that has done nothing wrong, should be of no import or interest whatsoever to the analyst who is simply there to conduct a scientific, objective analysis of the evidence.

On 2-22-07, almost one month after our client was indicted and jailed, after the very first call on this case between Esparza's office and DPS, the DPS analyst notes:"...There is a court order deadline to have all work completed by April 13, 2007. Defense attorney is Teresa Caballero."

On 2-23-07, the next day, the DPS analyst again writes after speaking to Esparza's Office, "Theresa Caballero (sp?) is the defense attorney for suspect..."

From 2-28-07 to 3-16-07 the DPS analyst is still asking for standards to be collected by the police detective in charge of the case. Why wasn't this all done before the indictment and incarceration of our client?

(Keep in mind that up to this point, we are dragging the DA into court demanding to see the evidence that they have and we are successfully getting the judge to issue court order after court order compelling Esparza's office, that is fighting us, to turn over what they have. The heat has been turned up.)

On 3-16-07 the DPS analyst writes again, " Denise (Esparza's employee)...She was very upset I wasn't running the stain from DS37-camouflage pants...She wants every single stain run-no question-from Ferguson [my client]. She wants every single stain run from everyone else. I told her we don't have enough time. That will require two batches-let me chose most probative in my opinion from other 2 suspects (White and Woodruff). If DNA turns out to be inconsistent w/victim, we can run additional later (as court order only applies to Ferguson-Caballero (sp?) is attorney and is the reason for the court order per prior discussion with Denise)."

One can see the scrambling and the frantic search by the DA's office for something, anything, to justify what they have ALREADY done and gotten caught with their pants down on by us. Why the scrambling? Because they knew they had done wrong by charging our client without evidence and they knew that I was the defense attorney and that I would bring this to light. I had also announced my canadidacy for DA on February 5, 2007.

In the end, they were so pressed for time and they couldn't find anything so they had to go into court and seek a postponement of the July 31, 2007 trial setting. The only way they could get the extra time was if they agreed to let our client out of jail on a PR (signature) bond. PR bonds are ONLY given to those people who are NOT A THREAT to the community. And they are usually never given to homeless people charged with murder who have no permanent address and who are not from El Paso. After seven months of pounding the DA and winning step by step, our client walked out of jail on a PR bond and went to live at a homeless shelter until the end of the case. Obviously the DA did not really think our client was a dangerous murderer or he would not have agreed to a PR bond. Or did he think our client was a menace but had so mishandled the case that he couldn't afford to care and thus endangered the community? After all, how would Esparza explain to the voting public that he agreed to let a "cold blooded murderer" out on the streets on a signature bond who is homeless?

Finally, after being destroyed in court for eight months, Esparza dumped the case. When he says on the news that he was going to dismiss anyway because of lack of evidence, the question becomes WHEN? And why did he indict in the first place without evidence? And when he says on the news that he doesn't take into consideration who the defense attorney is when evaluating a case, do you really believe that given the above DPS notes? The next trial date was 11-05-07, four months before the election where he is going to have to face me and answer to the voters. Esparza knew he would have to answer to me in court for what he did to our client and being the bully he is he stood down only when he was faced with equal or greater force.

Esparza once again, should have saved himself a lot of shame and the taxpayer a lot of money and done the right thing in the first place. But then again, he doesn't know what that is anymore. From this case alone, we see Esparza does not seek justice. How many other cases are like this one? Enough is enough! Vote Caballero!