The law of the land, unless it does not work for the prosecutors

The vise tightened for the six former EPISD employees that were indicted earlier this year.

The judge in the case ruled that it is “complex” and that our speedy trial provisions do not apply.

The prosecution claims that the laws are complex and that they need time to prepare for trial.

The sixth amendment to our constitution states:  “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial…”.  It does not finish with “unless some judge thinks that he is more important than this amendment”.

No legislature and certainly no judge has the right to nullify the word “all”.

Unfair indictment

Getting indicted is devastating.  Those people can lose their jobs, incur immense legal bills, suffer shame at the hands of fellow citizens that think that if the government indicts you then you must be guilty, and a host of other debilitating problems.

A fair person would think that they cannot indict you unless they are ready to prove their case, ready to go to trial.

Instead the game being played is designed to drain the indictees and force them into pleading guilty before trial begins.

According to the Times article none of the defense lawyers objected to the government’s request that the case be classified as complex.

Shame on them.  They want the delay too.


Going to trial takes work.  All to often we see attorneys in these cases represent their clients in such a manner that they know the client will run out of money and be forced to plead guilty.  “Bleed them and plead them” is an unfortunate term that is often used.

If their client pleads guilty before trial the attorney gains both the benefit of fees and is relieved of the work necessary to bring a case to trial.

Every one of these indictees should file motions to separate themselves from the other five and thus have a separate trial.  That would make the case less “complex”.  Of course the motions will be denied, but they should be filed anyway.

According to the Times, the government wrote “The requirements vary from state to state as NCLB [no child left behind] allows each state’s education agency to determine how measures for at-risk students will be addressed.  Texas has its own peculiar way of determining AYP [average yearly progress] which is extremely complex in an of itself”.

For crying out loud

Peculiar?  Extremely complex?  The rules are so cloudy that a team of lawyers needs time after bringing an indictment to see how and if the rules were violated?

How on earth could six educators untrained in the law know what was and was not allowable?

The end game

The move to override a constitutional right for the convenience of unprepared government lawyers is really designed to defeat the defendants individually and put them into a position where they have to testify against their fellow indictees in order to receive lighter punishment.

Stand back and watch them fall.

We should not have to fear our government.

We deserve better


9 Responses to The law of the land, unless it does not work for the prosecutors

  1. Wow! Just wow. I worked as an investigator for a Texas State Agency for some ten years, and had some cases in common with federal investigators and prosecutors, and what I recall is that they never brought charges until they had all their ducks lined up, and were ready for a slam dunk. This is indeed confusing. I could see a defense counsel requesting time to prepare, but it makes no sense for the prosecution to do so. I smell a rat, and I totally agree. The denial of that right to a speedy trial could well be grounds for appeals. And, guess what? Prosecutors don’t much like appeals.


    • Dan Wever says:

      All you bleeding hearts don’t seem to remember the people that were caught up in the alleged scam that lost their jobs because they would not comply with illegal directives. Their lives were put on hold and they suffered because they were honest and remember this stuff went on for over 5 years. Employees lived in fear but many were kept quite by large pay raises during this period. Isn’t it funny that nobody blew the whistle except for one Jefferson principal but the real story will probably never be told. If these people are guilt I sure will not feel sorry for them.


      • Enough Already says:

        Look in the mirror, Dan. You make it sound as though we’re also supposed to feel sorry for the people didn’t stand up and do the right thing and for those who took the hush money raises and kept quiet? You make it sound like it’s okay for educators to turn a blind eye just so they can keep their jobs. How is that any different from the jobless person who starts selling drugs or committing other crimes to feed his family?

        You say only one person blew the whistle. Really? Out of all those people you portray as victims, only one spoke up? Even after they were forced out?

        As a great person once said, “there comes a time when silence is betrayal.” Or to quote someone else, “the only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men should do nothing.”


        • Dan Wever says:

          Enough Already, “also supposed to feel sorry for the people didn’t stand up and do the right thing and for those who took the hush money raises and dept quiet” Does this mean that you feel sorry for the people indited? Read the Weaver report on the EPISD web page before you feel sorry for these alleged crooks. Remember that everyone said to wait and let the law run its course and that is what is happening. I am sure if any laws have been broken in the handling of the case it will be brought out and will be taken care of by the courts which is how our court system works.


          • Sad El Pasoan says:

            I tried to blow the whistle on another school district and I never got anywhere. Instead I was force to quit my job and I was unemployed for four months. TEA did not even get involved.


  2. Anonymous says:

    Let us ponder… So judge (Democrat?) rules the right to a speedy trial doesn’t apply because the prosecution (Democrats) ‘needs more time’. After ‘more time’, the trial commences. The defense attorney stands up and calls for dismissal because the defendents were denied their right to a speedy trial. Case dismissed. Hefty “contributions” and fees are received by the attorneys. The judge continues to march ans everybody is happy as a pig in shlt.


  3. abandon hope says:

    Totally agree. An indictment is guilt in the eyes of most people. Even the mere mention of one’s name without an indictment in a federal case can make one persona non grata. For example, Jim Tolbert’s slander of Romero over the appointment (later withdrawn) of Carlos Aguilar. Aguilar was never even indicted. He was only mentioned in a federal case but that was enough for Tolbert. It shows how Tolbert’s mind works. And he’s not the only one. When a person’s life can be ruined by the mere filing of a federal case that may not even be proved — well that’s pretty close to tyranny.


  4. michael mott says:

    I believe they want to prolong so that they end up with a plea agreement; for some BS charge like mail fraud. Then they all can claim victory and we will never know the extent of any wrongdoing or cover up. Its all big show.


  5. Y Que! says:

    From the legal dictionary section of

    Longer delays will be permitted to accommodate the schedules of important witnesses, and to allow the prosecution to prepare for a complex case. Longer delays will also be tolerated when a defendant is dilatory in asserting the right to a speedy trial. In general, defendants must assert their Sixth Amendment right in a timely motion before the trial court. If the defendant fails to assert the right in this manner or acquiesces in the face of protracted pretrial delays, she or he may not raise the issue for the first time on appeal, unless the defendant’s failure to raise the issue earlier was due to her or his attorney’s Negligence. Defendants who delay prosecution by inundating the trial court with frivolous pretrial motions are also treated as having forfeited their rights to a speedy trial. The law does not allow defendants to profit from their own wrong under these circumstances


Leave a Reply -- you do not have to enter your email address

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: