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.
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 19, 2007, 12:04 pm
Reply to this comment