|
"The Republicrat PLUS" (A Moderate
Viewpoint)
This is a series by 3
anonymous political insiders in Bexar County and one in Webb County.
The views of this section do not represent the views of South Texas
Republicans PAC.
READER Responds to 1/28/2008 Republicrat Story.
Original two paragraphs last week:
"Word is that Judge Mary Roman is in political hot water as she is
contested in the Democratic Primary because of her courtroom
decisions. "
"Her opponent, lawyer Anthony Zamora is making some really
outlandish statements about her and questioning her ability to rule
on cases. It would appear he has a vendetta against her for some
reason. Many in the Party are wondering why he is challenging her
rather than a Republican."
READER responds (This is the full commentary sent in. We encourage
Judge Roman to respond.)
I read your information on Judge Mary Roman on the South Texas
Republican page. You need to read the appeal that was handed down
where Roman was found to be an impartial judge. I will get you the
case number. I do not feel Zamora has a vendetta. I feel he is sick
of her crap just like every other defense attorney in town. She
plays favorites and treats some attorneys like crap. Even the
probation officers are for Zamora. She is a Democrat who is
anti-union but claims to support unions. She can distort her stories
all day long but bottom line is she thinks she is above every one
else and she has forgotten where she came from. She needs to go. She
is not about fairness and justice- it's all a big game to her and
who ever can offer her something gets the best deals. The probation
officers are the ones who have the real scoop on Roman.
Zamora is leaving a successful law practice to try and go after a
bench that a lot of us feel is in disarray. He is easy to approach,
down to earth and a clear thinker. He is not caddy or fake and
promises to be impartial. He cares about people and doing the right
thing for public safety and the individual who is in front of him.
You kind of feel like your voting for the guy next door who will
give you 110% of a whole hearted effort. He does not belittle or put
on airs. He could make the right decisions for all instead of the
decision that would only suit the needs of a pompous judge. I feel
he could never look down his nose at a victim or defendant, or
attorney.
Talk to him and you can tell he is doing this for all the right
reasons and
San
Antonio
should be proud he has stepped forward. He is not a slick spin
master and may not answer everything in the politically correct
manner but that's the charm he brings forward and is how all should
know he is the one who will not sleep at night if does not do right
by the voters.
As
I see it, he would be a breath of fresh air to the stuffy, cold
175Th bench. We need an upbeat person on the bench who does not
bring an attitude that infects the rest of the court personnel.
I
think most attorneys would be happy just not to have to deal with
Roman's mood swings. You hang around long enough you see her
favorites get the cases and the best deals. It is justice at its
worst. To work with her is like a walk on egg shells.
What
he is doing takes guts because the word around the court house is a
Hispanic female judge is near impossible to beat.
I
wish him all the luck.
On
12-20-2007 Judge Roman was deposed in the probation officers case
against their chief for retaliation. The officers have evidence
admitted in to the court on how Judge Roman took a petition and
threw it into the trash to intimidate the officers from forming an
Association. She also call a witness in and balled up a Union
/Association flyer in front of an officer who asked to be removed
from her court the next day. I feel like that is official
oppression??? She was worried because if the officers unite then
they are not her pawns and will not hide her weak decisions on the
bench.
Go to the
4Th court of appeals and look at her appeal decision -
4thcoa.court.state.tx.us
case is
Asel Abdygapparova- case 04-05-0321-cr
I copied
the important parts for you below- As a citizen all I needed to see
is the below and know that this Russian Woman who murdered gets a
new trial at my tax-payer expense because Judge Roman was so
incompetent
C.
Conclusion
The high
standard for recusal set forth by the Court of Criminal Appeals
gives a trial court broad discretion to express itself and its
opinions. Statements may well show the trial judge was critical,
disapproving and even hostile toward Abdygapparova and her counsel,
but "[e]xpressions of impatience, dissatisfaction, annoyance, and
even anger" in the ordinary conduct of courtroom administration do
not establish bias. See Liteky,
510 U.S. at 555.
At the
hearing on the recusal, Abdygapparova relied on a transcript of the
January 9, 2004 motion for continuance, the trial judge's alleged
dislike of Abdygapparova and her counsel and Abdygapparova's
testimony as evidence of the trial judge's bias. In separate issues
in her brief, Abdygapparova also provides examples of bias
throughout the trial
to support her impartiality argument; however, in determining
whether the presiding judge erred in denying the motion to recuse,
we are bound by the evidence before the presiding judge at the time
of the hearing on the motion. Accordingly, based on the evidence
before the presiding judge at the time of the hearing, we cannot say
he abused his discretion in failing to find a violation under Rule
18a of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Abdygapparova's first
issue on appeal is overruled.
Conclusion
"No
matter what the evidence was against [her], [Abdygapparova] had a
right to an impartial judge."
Id.
at 138. Because the absence of an impartial judge on the bench
infected the integrity of the trial process, the trial court's
judgment is reversed, and the cause is remanded for a new trial.
Rebecca
Simmons, Justice
Publish
1.
There was
some question raised whether Abdygapparova altered the last number
on the license number.
2.
The trial
court inquired, "[retained counsel], do you understand that a
scheduling order was filed, was
given
to the attorneys? There were deadlines that were met by these
attorneys. The deadline for the plea bargain agreement came and
went. There was no plea bargain agreement reached. . . . I can
assure, you [retained counsel], that there will be no plea bargain
agreement accepted by this Court. I can tell you that right now,
without reservation. That is not going to be an option in this
case."
3.
Because
our findings with regard to the ex parte communications are
dispositive of this appeal, we need
not
address Abdygapparova's issues three (ineffective assistance of
counsel), six (prosecutorial misconduct) and ten (cumulative error).
See Tex. R. App.
P. 47.1 (encouraging concise opinions addressing only those issues
"necessary to final disposition of the appeal").
4.
Some
examples of the comments included: "This Defendant is quite
intelligent. I suppose that it's no big
deal to
her to spend a year, another year in jail, but as far as Ms.
Rosado's family is concerned, they have been waiting a long time for
justice;" "Isn't it ironic, [Counsel], that the taxpayers of this
county had to pay for an outfit for this Defendant and yet you
received a retainer?" and " I think her actions speak louder than
words."
5.
"Black's
Law Dictionary describes . . .
.extrajudicial as . .
. something taking place 'outside court' or
'outside the functioning of the court system.' Thus, "[t]he plain
language meaning of extrajudicial suggests that a statement made
within a judicial proceeding, and repeated in a judicial proceeding,
cannot be from an extrajudicial source."
See Roman v. State,
145 S.W.3d 316, 321 (Tex. App.--Houston [14th Dist.] 2005, pet.
ref'd) (citing Black's Law Dictionary 606 (7th ed. 1999).
6.
Article
38.30 was amended in 2005 by Act of May 24, 2005, 79th Leg., R.S.,
ch. 956 § 1, 2005 Tex. Gen. Laws 3227. The amendment did not
materially effect subsection (a).
7.
The State
called the officer who took the original statement in April of 2001,
the individual charged with
overseeing the international program at UTSA, and an Assistant
Criminal District Attorney.
8.
Counsel
explained:
Although she does have a limited understanding of the English
language and a limited ability to communicate, I do not believe that
she is fully able to communicate. There are many words that are used
in the trial process, in the entire process, that she is not able to
understand fully and needs clarification on, and in light of the
fact that I need to be able to communicate with her, she needs to be
able to understand the Court, she needs to be able to understand the
District Attorney, that for me to be able to be effective with her,
I believe is absolutely necessary.
9.
Although
the State argues waiver under Rule 33.1(a), Abdygapparova's counsel
made at least three
formal
requests for an interpreter. The trial court made it very clear she
would not entertain additional argument from counsel, and that once
she made a ruling, there would be no further discussion. In light of
the multiple attempts by defense counsel to secure an interpreter,
we reject the State's contention that Abdygapparova waived this
issue
10.
Much of
this evidence was presented to the trial court by witnesses brought
by the State. We find it
difficult to understand the policy considerations against providing
Abdygapparova with an interpreter, particularly in a death penalty
case. Here, the State opposed providing an interpreter for
Abdygapparova because of the cost, while simultaneously incurring
the expense of an interpreter who arrived on February 16, 2005 and
remained on standby at a local hotel until February 23, 2005, when
he was used for the second to last defense witness.
11.
Sylvia
Mendez, with UTSA, testified Abdygapparova "passed" a test
demonstrating the minimum
standards required for students to take classes in English. Mendez
explained that any score between 500 and 599 allows a student to
take classes in English, but requires remedial English instruction.
Abdygapparova received a 503, which allowed her to attend classes in
English, but required she take a remedial English class.
12.
Because
our holding regarding ex parte communications, discussed in Section
V of this opinion, is dispositive of the appeal, we do not undertake
a harm analysis on this issue.
13.
Some
examples of these questions are as follows:
State:
When you told the jury last week that you had met with Sergeant
Kellogg and told him what happened, you told him everything, you
told him the truth, right?
Appellant: When I met both of them.
State:
And then you went on and you told the jury that you had told me this
exact same story, didn't you?
Appellant: Yes.
State:
Okay. But the fact is, you told me many other things that you have
not admitted to this jury didn't you?
Defense: And I would just object, Your Honor, that now the
prosecutor is making himself a witness in this case.
State: No. The Defendant has made me a witness, Your Honor.
Court: The Defendant, or rather the defense's objection is
overruled. You may proceed.
. .
.
State:
But you didn't tell the jury about the light from the TV. That was
something you told me and [the prosecutor], right?
Appellant: Right.
State:
Okay. So, you didn't tell the jury the truth about the lighting
conditions and you were able to see what was going on in that room
just fine, weren't you?
Appellant: No. The light was by the restroom area.
. . .
State:
Now, isn't true that after Santos raped Rosa, that he offered her to
you?
Appellant: No. That's not true.
State:
Do you remember telling [the other prosecutor] and myself that was
true?
Appellant: No.
State:
Back on May 21st of 2002.
Appellant: No.
State:
Do you deny it?
Appellant: I didn't say that.
State:
Well, yes, you did.
14.
Because
our holding regarding ex parte communications, discussed in Section
V of this opinion, is dispositive of this appeal, we do not
undertake a harm analysis on this issue.
15.
In this
case, voir dire was accomplished by questioning each juror, in a
room separate from the rest of the panel.
16.
The
following are examples of some of the notes:
State:
I have observed no problems in communications between Asel and
[trial counsel].
Court:
And she didn't purchase a Russian-English dictionary.
. . .
State:
Like she's really going to take him (the potential juror).
Court:
She's surprised me before.
. . .
Court:
Why didn't you do a PowerPoint presentation on these questions, and
17.02, with regard to the Death Penalty questions.
. . .
State:
I don't know how I will be able to change (with regard to the
presentation of his case), at least soon; but this has been a
learning experience for me to observe a juror being totally
confused, because none of the terms [defense counsel] is using make
sense. "Arms of scale," "jury charge, " etc.
. . .
Court:
This is entirely too long. 40 min. shd (sic) be sufficient.
. . . .
Court:
Do you want a time limit?
. . .
State:
Did [prosecutor] just call him old? . .
Court:
My doctor said, mature persons can't eat what they used to - he was
trying to be diplomatic.
. . .
State:
Do you think I'd look good with hair that color (referring to one of
the venire)?
Court:
Why don't you try it. I'm afraid you could try a soft brown with
highlights!
17.
See also
Black's
Law Dictionary, which defines an ex parte hearing as one "in which
the court or tribunal hears only one side of the controversy."
Black's Law Dictionary 517 (5th ed. 1979).
18.
See
48A Tex. Prac., Tex. Lawyer & Jud. Ethics § 27.1 (2006-2007 ed.),
Texas Practice Series TM,
Handbook Of Texas Lawyer And Judicial Ethics: Attorney Tort
Standards, Attorney Ethics Standards, Judicial Ethics Standards,
Recusal and Disqualification of Judges Current through the 2006-2007
Update, Robert P. Schuwerk and Lillian B. Hardwick.
19.
While we
recognize the sheer number of objections sustained or overruled by
the trial court are insufficient to establish bias, in this case
they provide some context for this trial. During the voir dire and
trial,
over
two hundred objections were lodged by the State and the defense.
While only one objection by the State
was
overruled, only four defense objections were sustained.
20.
Appellant:
I didn't say that.
State:
Well, yes, you did.
II.
Failure To Provide An Interpreter
That is the
moderate view, I AM the Republicrat. |
