When The District Attorney No Longer Seeks Justice/A Case Study on Esparza

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!