Updates on the Waco Twin Peaks Biker Shooting
After a crushing blow of a mistrial in Carrizal’s case thanks to his attorney Casie Gotro, then multiple affidavits being filed on everything from cocaine use allegations, to selective prosecution, to hanging out with bookies, District Attorney Abel Reyna received an early Christmas gift this week and will avoid a perjury charge for now.
Originally, Reyna was facing a Court of Inquiry due to attorney Clinton Broden discovering there was conflicting testimony between Reyna and Detective Manuel Chavez.
Without the benefit of a hearing, Judge David Peeples dismissed the inquiry involving perjury between Reyna’s office and Detective Chavez. Judge Peeples’ dismissal was based on insufficient evidence of perjury and procedural issues, focusing on the fact that a District Judge in Dallas County referred the matter and not a judge from McLennan County.
In reading Title 1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, Chapter 52 “Court of Inquiry,” the literal interpretation is clear that a judge of any district within the state of Texas could request the Court of Inquiry based on probable cause. Thus, it’s interesting to say the least what Peeple’s Order will read. But, you will have to wait until some point in January to read it. I’ll skip my opinion on why the delay as I’m sure you can figure it out yourself.
Art. 52.01. COURTS OF INQUIRY CONDUCTED BY DISTRICT JUDGES. (a) When a judge of any district court of this state, acting in his capacity as magistrate, has probable cause to believe that an offense has been committed against the laws of this state, he may request that the presiding judge of the administrative judicial district appoint a district judge to commence a Court of Inquiry. The judge, who shall be appointed in accordance with Subsection (b), may summon and examine any witness in relation to the offense in accordance with the rules hereinafter provided, which procedure is defined as a “Court of Inquiry”.
At issue was the fact that Reyna had testified previously at an August 8 hearing that he spoke with Detective Chavez the day of the shooting, while Chavez denied they did. Playing devil’s advocate, this may be an innocent mistake and not tantamount to perjury, but, it should at least be looked at, and the best way to separate fact from fiction and confusion is to have an actual hearing. Then again, that’s setting a precedent for every other biker and that is a slippery slope I’m sure no one wants to climb. If the issue is procedural, then that does open the door for other defendants.
Reyna Speaks Out
“I am very pleased that Judge Peeples has seen that the Court of Inquiry was baseless and just another attempt by the biker defense attorneys to personally attack me in an effort to distract attention from the truth of what occurred at Twin Peaks.”
Defense Attorney Clint Broden Speaks Out
“Of course, it will be up to any other attorneys aware of the scientifically impossible contradiction in the testimony at the August 8, 2017 to determine whether another Court of Inquiry should be requested so that a decision can be made after a judge takes testimony and evidence on the matter. Likewise, it will be up to the public to compare the testimony from the August 8, 2017 and come to their own conclusions.”