Their view differs, to say the least.
Kelly Siegler
Three months after a judge ruled that a Katy man convicted of murdering his wife did not get a fair trial and excoriated the prosecutor who handled the case, saying she withheld evidence, the Harris County District Attorney’s Office filed objections to the decision, tackling it point-by-point, and defended its attorney.
In an 80-page court filing released Wednesday, prosecutors objected to findings made by state District Judge Larry Gist, who in June issued a long-awaited ruling in the case involving the 2007 murder trial of David Temple.
[…]
In the district attorney’s objections to Gist’s ruling, prosecutors offer a point-by-point rebuttal.
“(Gist’s) findings concerning alleged exculpatory evidence are either directly contradicted by the record, not supported by the record, or refer to information that is not exculpatory and/or material so that Brady is neither implicated nor violated …,” according to prosecutors. The objections note that four of Gist’s findings address issues that happened after the trial, so they did not affect whether he got a fair trial.
Siegler has denied any wrongdoing in the case. In a response to the ruling, she said she disagreed with Gist and looked forward to a detailed and documented response from the District Attorney’s Office.
That response arrived Wednesday with hundreds of points of contention arguing that the evidence was handed over with enough time for Temple’s defense attorney Dick Deguerin to make use of it.
See here and here for the background. I don’t have anything to add here, I’m just looking forward to what the Court of Criminal Appeals has to say. The Press, which is skeptical of Judge Gist’s findings, has more.