Texas Law Requires the Removal of Judge Garcia and District Attorney Saenz from Melissa Lucio’s Case

Texas Law Requires the Removal of Judge Garcia and District Attorney Saenz from Melissa Lucio’s Case

Two vital associates of Ms. Lucio’ s authentic defense staff are now doing the job for the Judge overseeing her situation and the District Legal professional trying to find to have her executed

(Brownsville, Texas) Lawyers for Melissa Lucio these days submitted two separate motions to remove Judge Gabriela Garcia, who is assigned to Ms. Lucio’s case, and District Legal professional Luis Saenz simply because two crucial users of Ms. Lucio’s authentic defense group now work for them. Assistant District Legal professional Peter Gilman and Decide Garcia’s courtroom administrator, Irma Gilman, beforehand represented Ms. Lucio at her 2008 demo. 

As her prior protection group, Mr. Gilman and Mrs. Gilman owe Ms. Lucio a continuing responsibility to cooperate with her present counsel, in accordance to today’s filings in the 138th Judicial District Court docket of Cameron County. (Decide Motion at pp. 1-2. )(D.A. Movement at pp. 11-13.) Ms. Lucio, who is  scheduled for execution on April 27, 2022, was wrongfully convicted and sentenced to demise for the accidental death of her two-year-old daughter, Mariah. 

“Judge Garcia’s and D.A. Saenz’s roles in this case have the influence of obstructing Melissa Lucio’s obtain to evidence. As Ms. Lucio’s defense crew at trial, Peter Gilman and Irma Gilman have a duty to cooperate with Ms. Lucio’s existing counsel. But as extensive as D.A. Saenz is on the case, Peter Gilman’s conflict of fascination stops him from cooperating with Ms. Lucio’s recent lawyers. And as extended as Choose Garcia is on the circumstance, Irma Gilman just can’t cooperate with Ms. Lucio’s counsel because it would be a prohibited ex parte conversation,” explained Tivon Schardl, Chief of the Funds Habeas Device of the Federal Defender for the Western District of Texas, and Melissa Lucio’s attorney.

“Texas law routinely disqualifies Choose Garcia and D.A. Saenz. And equally instances represent due method violations below the 14th Amendment,” Schardl included.

Melissa Lucio’s Motion to Disqualify or Recuse Decide Gabriela Garcia can be considered below.

Melissa Lucio’s Motion to Disqualify the Cameron County District Lawyer can be seen here: here.

Ms. Lucio’s Motion to Disqualify or Recuse Choose Garcia states that Choose Garcia’s court administrator, Irma Gilman, labored on Ms. Lucio’s protection when she was a paralegal for Ms. Lucio’s direct demo counsel, Peter Gilman, her husband. (Judge Movement at p. 1.) The motion states that Mrs. Gilman always uncovered confidential data even though functioning as Mr. Gilman’s paralegal and that details, under Texas law, is imputed to Choose Garcia. (Choose Movement at p. 1.)

“Judge Garcia’s and D.A. Saenz’s roles in this circumstance have the impact of obstructing Melissa Lucio’s access to evidence.”

Among other troubles, the movement states, “Mrs. Gilman’s function on Ms. Lucio’s protection built her common with the information of defense counsel in Ms. Lucio’s demo. That understanding tends to make Mrs. Gilman an significant witness for Ms. Lucio as she investigates and presents grounds” for even more litigation. (Judge Movement at p. 2.) If Ms. Lucio’s Movement to Disqualify or Recuse the Decide is granted, the choose will void the warrant for Ms. Lucio’s execution. (Decide Movement at pp. 7-8.)

In a independent motion, Ms. Lucio moves to disqualify District Attorney Saenz on the ground that Peter Gilman, who was Ms. Lucio’s direct protection lawyer at her trial, now works for the District Attorney and has because 2009. Mr. Gilman’s dual role as an assistant district legal professional and predecessor counsel for Ms. Lucio disqualifies the Cameron County District Attorney’s Office environment. (D.A. Movement at p. 4.)

The Motion to Disqualify the Cameron County District Legal professional offers the Texas Court of Felony Appeals, “’If a prosecuting attorney has formerly represented the defendant in the ‘same’ felony make any difference as that currently being prosecuted, he is statutorily disqualified.’ This has been called the ‘hard and rapid rule of disqualification’ for the reason that when [an attorney] switches sides ‘in the similar criminal scenario [there] is an precise conflict of desire [that] constitutes a because of-procedure violation, even devoid of a particular demonstrating of prejudice.’” (D.A. Motion at p. 4.)(citations omitted.)

’If a prosecuting lawyer has previously represented the defendant in the ‘same’ prison issue as that at the moment staying prosecuted, he is statutorily disqualified.’

The policies of lawful ethics also impose on Mr. Gilman a obligation to cooperate with Ms. Lucio’s new counsel, which features reviewing Mr. Gilman’s files to decide no matter if the D.A.’s place of work violated Ms. Lucio’s appropriate to a honest trial by suppressing proof of her innocence. Mr. Gilman has a conflict of desire since his existing boss, D.A. Saenz, has pursued a plan of non-cooperation with Ms. Lucio’s present counsel. (D.A. Motion at pp. 11-13.)

On February 8, 2022, Ms. Lucio submitted a movement, which is nevertheless pending, to withdraw her execution day simply because she is harmless, between other grounds. Ms. Lucio, a Mexican-American from the Rio Grande Valley, is on loss of life row despite forensic and eyewitness evidence that her daughter died from a head damage soon after a tumble. Mariah’s loss of life was a tragic accident, not a murder.

At the time of her arrest, Ms. Lucio had no record of violence. Countless numbers of webpages of protective services documents and recorded interviews with her young children show that Ms. Lucio was not abusive.

Several hours following her daughter died, and although pregnant with twins, Ms. Lucio was subjected to a 5-hour, late-night, diligently orchestrated, and intense interrogation until, physically and emotionally exhausted, she agreed to say, “I guess I did it.”

Missing any sound bodily evidence or eyewitnesses, the prior District Attorney, Armando Villalobos, characterised Ms. Lucio’s acquiescence as a “confession” and prosecuted her for capital murder. D.A. Villalobos, who originally hired Peter Gilman, was corrupt: he is now serving a 13-12 months federal jail sentence for bribery and extortion, according to the U.S. Department of Justice.

Ms. Lucio experienced a life span of sexual abuse, starting off at just six yrs old, and domestic violence, which created her specifically vulnerable to the daunting, coercive, and psychological interrogation methods that resulted in a false confession. Of the 67 ladies mentioned on the National Registry of Exonerations who were exonerated right after a murder conviction, in excess of 1 quarter (17/67) associated untrue confessions and just about just one 3rd (20/67) associated little one victims.

Ferne Dekker

Learn More →