Wow.
Kelly Siegler
The state’s highest criminal court on Wednesday granted a new trial to David Temple, a former Katy football coach accused of killing his pregnant wife in 1999.
In an opinion posted online Wednesday morning, the court of criminal appeals sided with Temple’s lawyers, who argued in state district court in 2015 that Harris County prosecutors had illegally withheld crucial information during the 2007 trial.
“First things first: We get David out of jail,” said attorney Stan Schneider Wednesday in his downtown office.
Schneider said Temple will be eligible to bond out of jail in a few weeks, barring appeals from the state. If Temple’s case gets a new trial, Schneider will lead the defense, though he couldn’t say if the evidence withheld in the 2007 trial seemed likely to change the outcome.
It will be up to the incoming Harris County District Attorney, Kim Ogg, whether to appeal the court’s latest ruling or agree to go forward with a new trial.
The court filing Wednesday said several hundred pages of police reports had been withheld from the defense until sometime during the trail, in violation of legal precedent.
“The prosecutor believed, as evidenced by her testimony at the writ hearing, that she was not required to turn over favorable evidence if she did not believe it to be relevant, inconsistent or credible,” the filing said.
See here for previous blogging. The CCA isn’t exactly known for second-guessing prosecutors, so this is a big deal. Kelly Siegler has vigorously defended her actions since the allegations about her withholding evidence came out during the district court hearing last year, but as yet I have not seen a statement from her. It will be interesting to see what Kim Ogg decides to do with this – she could decline to go forward, try to work a plea deal, or ask the court to reconsider its decision. Whatever she decides to do, I’m guessing she’ll take her time making that decision.
Meanwhile, the CCA issued another big decision on what was clearly a big day before Thanksgiving for them.
Four San Antonio women who were imprisoned for sexually assaulting two girls more than 20 years ago are innocent and exonerated, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals ruled Wednesday.
In the summer of 1994, the two girls – ages 7 and 9 – stayed at the home of their aunt, Elizabeth Ramirez, while their mother was away in Colorado, according to court records. Ramirez’s one-time girlfriend, Kristie Mayhugh, lived with her, and another couple – Anna Vasquez and Cassandra Rivera – would visit the apartment frequently. When the girls returned home, their grandmother reportedly notice a change in the girls’ behavior.
“[T]hey were subdued, scared, and refused to make eye contact. In mid-September, [their grandmother] noticed the girls playing with their dolls in a sexual manner,” according to court papers. “When she asked the girls why they were doing this, [one of the girls said] she and her sister had been sexually assaulted at their aunt’s apartment by the four women.”
In 1997, Ramirez, considered the ringleader, was sentenced to nearly 40 years in prison. The following year, the other women each were handed down 15-year sentences. In 2012, one of the victims announced she was coerced into making a false accusation. That same year, Vasquez was released from prison on parole, and in 2013, the other women were released as the case received another look.
The women are collectively known as the San Antonio Four, and getting a ruling of actual innocence, which qualifies them to receive recompense from the state, is not an easy thing to do; in fact, the visiting judge that originally freed them from prison didn’t think they met the standard for actual innocence. This Texas Monthly story about a documentary that was released last year, is a good overview of the case, so go give it a read. Happy Thanksgiving to you, Elizabeth Ramirez and Kristie Mayhugh and Anna Vasquez and Cassandra Rivera. Grits and the Current, which also has some good background and links to further reading, have more.
UPDATE: More from Texas Monthly.
I’m not a lawyer and I’m not familiar with all the details of this case. That said, I’m gobsmacked by Siegler’s assertion that she doesn’t have to disclose evidence if she doesn’t think it’s relevant. Isn’t that what the whole process of a trial is for? To put all the evidence out there and let a jury decide?
I remember reading about “the San Antonio 4.” It’s scary how easily someone’s life can be ruined by false allegations. If David Temple is actually innocent, then even if he is released, his life has been ruined. I’m sure he would leave prison penniless, unemployable, and a social pariah. I’m interested in what Kim Ogg will do with this. I’m pretty sure she ran on NOT withholding and hiding exculpatory evidence. If the allegation that Siegler did that, then Siegler should be charged, especially if Temple is actually innocent.
Agree with Flypusher’s comment here.
*if the allegation that Siegler did that is true
No Charles kuffner I seriously doubt “Kim ogg will take her time with the decision” because he’s now entitled to a speedy trial.Advance notice: ogg will not file a reconsideration appeal,shell put all the cards on the table and she will retry the case.Defendant is entitled to a reasonable bond.