Jaime Esparza, Amy Lujan, Don Flores and Medical Examiner Dr. Paul Shrode

I will continue to tell you what happened to my client Rachel Quintana but first I have to divert for a day to tell you about some more unpleasant things that you need to know about our fair city and the escapades in my opponent’s office. While everyone is out trying and convicting my client in the press they might not notice what Esparza and the medical examiner are up to. While the press and the lynch mob are doing 360 degree head spins and vomiting up green bile over a class A misdemeanor, they have no idea about the lives of people on the chopping block that hinge on the truthfulness of Jaime Esparza who we know to be a liar, and his expert witness medical examiner who invents degrees on his resume.

In El Paso we have a medical examiner (ME) named Dr. Paul Shrode. He was hired by Commissioner’s Court (not the current one). Commissioner’s court is advised by County attorney Jose Rodriguez. Some of the ME's duties are to perform autopsies and testify in court. He looks for manner, means and time of death. He will testify in court in many different cases including, among others, CPS cases (if there is a death of a child involved) and murder cases. A medical examiner’s testimony carries great weight in a courtroom because juries tend to believe a doctor. They tend to think, “Well he is a man of science and is neutral.” The testimony of a medical examiner can change a lot of lives. It can send someone to the death chamber. It can lead to the termination of someone’s parental rights. Few witnesses carry on their face greater authority. Juries rely on the ME’s expertise. They rely on his honesty. An ME’s testimony can hold the greatest sway.

So let me tell you about what happened here in El Paso with our ME, Dr. Shrode. This past August I had Dr. Paul Shrode for the first time as a witness on a case. I noticed an unusual item on his resume. He claimed to have a graduate law degree from a Texas school. After my many questions and his many evasions, he finally admitted that he had no diploma, no certificate, no document, no evidence whatsoever that he had a law degree. Of course this would have been impossible. You see, there is no law school at the school he claimed to have studied law.

This exchange occurred in open court. Dr. Shrode’s answers regarding his credentials (or rather absence thereof) were nothing short of breathtaking. The County Attorney’s office was present. They were the party that called Dr. Shrode to the stand. Did they have a problem with his apparently fabricated resume? You can guess the answer to that one.

Last Thursday, November 8, 2007, Stephanie Valle at KVIA did an outstanding piece of investigative journalism on Dr. Shrode. Among other things, Ms. Valle telephoned the institution from which Dr. Shrode claimed to have received a graduate law degree. They confirmed that they have never offered a graduate law degree. All right. So the Dr. lied about his legal credentials. The county attorney’s office didn’t seem to mind. So far, so good. After all, what’s a little fib about one’s professional background matter when the unimpeachable integrity of your testimony can determine the fate of your fellow citizens? At least the Dr. retained the qualifications for his primary expertise, right?

Not so fast. Ms. Valle also discovered that the county job description for medical examiner specifies a “standard” that the medical examiner should have Graduate Medical Education certified training in anatomic and forensic pathology. Dr. Shrode does not, repeat NOT meet this requirement. Commissioner Haggerty told Ms. Valle that ”’Shrode actually applied for the deputy medical examiner’s position in 2005-which doesn’t list certification as a job requirement, but commissioners chose Shrode over his then partner who did have the certification…commissioners felt Shrode was more personable and could better serve as an expert witness in court.’” Personable? Evidently, we need to choose personality over qualifications. Now there’s a plan. And in fact part of Shrode’s testimony was struck down last week in a murder trial handled by Esparza’s office because Shrode’s expertise was questioned.

I am sure Esparza is upset that the public is now learning that he uses expert witnesses whose expert testimony is being struck down. In fact, Jaime Esparza uses Dr. Shrode as a witness all of the time. Did Esparza not notice that Shrode listed a bogus law degree on his resume? And if not, why not? How many cases will have to be reopened because Esparza doesn’t mind using a witness with false credentials on his resume? Or because his expert witness does not meet the basic standard of training in forensic pathology? How many people are sitting in jail on wrongful convictions? How many real criminals are still at large?

Instead of being appalled at Shrode’s lack of truthfulness, Esparza’s comment on the news last night was, “It certainly helps to be well qualified. If we want someone to go give Cadillac service, then we have to pay for a Cadillac. Everyone deserves due process.”

WHAT AN INSULT TO THIS COMMUNITY! Is he saying that because we bought a $210,000 plus Studebaker we send people to prison on tainted testimony?

Compare Esparza’s pitiful answer to that of Harris County where Shrode also did work: “The county attorney’s office there said it has started looking into any possible violations there.”

Now that is an appropriate response.

So Esparza has no problem with a medical examiner who imagines that he has a law degree. Never mind this is a fantasy. Esparza’s response is that the $210,000 we pay Dr. Shrode isn’t enough to expect him to tell the truth about his credentials let alone already have credentials that meet minimal professional standards. Keep in mind that Esparza makes sure that his secretary Amy Lujan gets paid “Cadillac” wages by giving her $45,000 on top of her county salary of our taxpayer dollars. Now there is Cadillac service.

Does anyone else but me think this is an outrage?

Also note the deafening silence from Dionicio Flores at the El Paso Times. Why so quiet? Where are the editorials and more editorials about the medical examiner. How about just a news story? Just one? Is Flores flying cover for Esparza by remaining silent and failing to inform his readers about this remarkable story? Readers who may be called to be jurors on a murder case? And while you’re pondering the curious silence of our hopelessly biased local newspaper, note that TWO stations in Houston picked up and ran the KVIA story last week because Dr. Shrode had practiced in Houston and therefore the story, though Shrode is long gone, remains important to them. Their own cases may now be in jeopardy. And El Paso? Here and now where the ME is currently practicing? Nothing. Why the silence from old Don Flores at the Times? Someone might want to call and ask.

Esparza’s office is now retrying the Renteria case at our expense. Why? Because the original conviction was reversed as to the sentence and remanded to the trial court. Why? Because Esparza himself pulled a sloppy, dirty trick in his closing argument at the first trial and got caught with his pants down. So now we have to do it all over again. At what expense, financial and emotional? This very well could be what will happen with Shrode’s cases because we have a District Attorney who sees nothing wrong with the ME claiming he has degrees he does not.

The stench from Esparza’s office grows stronger and stronger every day.

I will not use expert witnesses who have lied about their credentials. I will not seek convictions that are wrong. This community deserves much better. Vote for Theresa Caballero.