CAUSE NO. STATE OF TEXAS IN THE DIS V. OF STARR COUNTY, SEBASTIAN TORRES 229TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT MOTION TO PROHIBIT TRIAL PARTICIPANTS FROM COMMENTING ON OR RELEASING INFORMATION TO THE MEDIA TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT: .. Comes now SEBASTIAN TORRES, the Defendant, by and through his attorney of record, Texas RioGrande Legal Aid, Inc, in the above entitled and numbered cause, and respectfully moves this Court for an order prohibiting all attorneys, parties W1tnesses law enforcement personnel and court personnel who are connected to the prosecution or investigation of this case from making and participating in making any extrajudicial statements that a reasonable person would expect to be disseminated by means of public communication and that relate to: A The character, credibility or reputation of any w1tness or person reasonably B. expected to be a witness in these causes The investigation which led to the indictments 1n the above entitled and numbered causes including the investigation by of the evidence to the grand jury which handed in these causes; . The identity or anticipated testimony of prospective witnesses; . Evidence or argument in thevcas?es,Whether or not it is anticipated that such evidence or argument will be used'at trial, The identity or nature of physical evidence expected to be presented or the absence of such physical ev1dence The weight of any evidence collected or expected to be presented in these causes; G. The strength or weakness of the case of either party; other 1nformat10n which the person making the statement knows or i-reasonably should know 18 likely to be inadmissible as evidence and would create Lila-substantial risk of prejudice if disclosed; This document was retrieved from the web site. In support of this motion, Mr. Torres submits the following: I. On January 12, 2018 the State indicted Mr. Torres on two counts. Defendant was released on bond on August 10, 2018. On February 9, 2018 the Defendant ?led a motion to transfer the proceedings due to widespread publicity that this case have received, much of which has been inaccurate, false, speculative, and in?ammatory. On April 10, 2019, Defendant was taken into custody for the offenses of Count I. ?On or about the 30th day of July, 2017, and before the presentment of this indictment, inStarr County, Texas, did then and there intentionally and knowingly causethegrdeath of an individual, namely C. 0., by shooting O. with a handgun, for remuneration or the?promise of remuneration from Jose Luis Garcia, Jr. Namely by accepting 000. 00? and of Count 11 ?on or about the 30th day of July, 2017, and before the presentment of this indictment, 1n Starr County, Texas did then and there, knowing that an offense had been committed namely, murder, intentionally and knowingly, concealed physical evidence with intent to impair its availability as evidence 1n any subsequent investigation or of?cial proceeding-related to the offense. This document was retrieved from the web site. The State has made statements through the media to the public including but not limited to the following: A. 223th Judiciai District Attorney If 2i A a For immediate Reiease: On March 293 2019, the 22% 0A. Omar Escobar?s office received-new evidence from the Texas Department of Peptic Safety Crime Lab This new evidence required that a grand ion, reconsider the charges brought against Jose Luis Garcia Jr (008 7- 26 2000) Phiilip Setv??ra(DOB 12- 18.2000) and Sebastian Torres(008 7 -.23-2001) Oh Wednesrtav April 19 2019 a Starr County grand iury considered this homicide along with the new evidence and returned indictments charging Jose Lois Garcia Jr Phiilip Selvera and Sebastian Torres with Capitai Murder Jose Luis Garcia Jr Phillip Selvera and SebaStiah tones have been ordered to be held without bond -- Because the aiieged murders happenedbefore-theftumed 17 (twenties) Phillip Seivera and Sebastian *rorres will be ordered to appear before County Court at Lanudge Oriando Rodriguez tor mandatory transfer proceedings to District Court for further proceedings as adults ?This is why it?s important to wait for scienti?c tests to be completed by DPS Crime Lab DPS has explained that their have a tong wait list for scienti?c testing However we appreciate that the DPS Crime Lab has compieted these immediate tests so that we can proceed with appropriate charges expiained 229th District Attorney Omar Escobar. No date has been set for transfer proceedings from the Starr County Court at Law persons are presumed to be innocent unless and until proven gurlty in 2 murt Qf law . This document was retrieved from the web site. All persons are presumed to be innocent untess and until proven guilty in a court Of law. . 73 ?3'8 Comments 38 Shares: W77 d3) Like 0 Comment 51> Share 9 Oldest . 7 t7 Luis Barrera Hope at teas: one of them gets the injection A 7 Lee Repty 29?: 63 1 1 Ana Alvarez Let's hopelp ay alt 3 get it Like Rep}; 4w Write a {9 {2 Shame! Guerra La Justicia Dies .Es MW Justa 3? 932 ea . ketrcie LA Justice for CHAYSE 1 ire 99:13:: any: 03 6 II. The Const1tut10n guaratntees the right to a fair trial by impartial jurors, and an outcome affected by extrajudicial statements would violate that ?mdamental right. See Gentile v. State Bar of Nevada US. 1030,1075 (1991). Intense publicity surrounding a criminal proceeding, This document was retrieved from the web site. what has been referred to as ?trial by newspaper?, poses signi?cant dangers to a fair trial. See Pennekamp v. Florida, 328 US. 331, (Frankfurter, J., concurring) is indispensable that in a particular controversy pending before a court and awaiting judgment, human beings, however strong, should not be torn from their moorings of impartiality by the undertow of extraneous in?uence?) A gag order has been found to be appropriate when (1) there is a substantial likelihood- that extrajudicial comments will undermine a fair trial, (2) the gag order is narrowly tailored, and (3) the gag order 15 the least restrictive means available for preserving a fair trial. See States Brown, 218 F. 3d 415, 428 (5th Cir. 2000). Importantly, Brown applied the substantial if I, likelihood of prejudice test to attorneys and parties in the context of a gag order?appliedjn/ a criminal matter. Here, as in Brown, the State has continuously made statements to the public through media (and social media) coverage, affecting this Court's jury pool, in order to gain favorable attention. See Brown, 218 F.3d at 429 (5th Cir. 2000). Extrajudiciial comments on, or discussion of, evidence which might never be admitted at tnaland ex parte statements by counsel or parties giving their version of the facts threatens to underminethe outcome? of a trial and the requirement that it must be decided by impartial jurors. See Brown 218 F. 3d 415,429 (5th Cir. 2000) (quoting Gentile State Bar of Nevada 501 US At 1070 (1991)) ?The vigilance of trial courts against the prejudicial effects of pretrial publicity also protects the interest of the public and the state in the fair administration of criminal justice: Bron/11,218 F. 3d 415,424 (5th Cir. 2000). The Supreme Court has held /?that the atmosphere essential to the preservation of a fair trial-the most ?lnamental of all freedoms-must be maintained at all costs.? Estes v. Texas, 381 US. 532, 543 (1965). This/trial courts-has aiconstitutional duty to minimize the effects of prejudicial pretrial publicity. See Marceaux, 731 F. 3d at 493 (quoting Brown, 218 F. 3d at 423), see also Sheppard Maxwell, 384 U. S. 333 363 (1966) (?The courts must take such steps by rule and regulation that will protect their processes from prejudicial outside interferences. see also Chandler v. Florida, 449 U. S. 560, 574 (1981) (?Trial courts must be especially vigilant to guard agamst any impairment of the defendant' right to a verdict based solely upon the evidence This document was retrieved from the web site. and the relevant ?The theory of our system is that the conclusions to be reached in a case will be induced only by evidence and argument in open court, and not by any outside in?uence, whether of private talk or public print.? Patterson v. Colorado, 205 US. 454, 462 (1907) (Hohnes, see also Bridges v. California, 314 US. 252, 271 (1941) (?Legal trials are not like elections, to be won through the use of the meeting-hall, the radio, and the newspaper?). Modern? technology, such as the intemet and social media, has given Bridges greater importance due to how easy it is for prejudicial outside interferences to have far reaching effects on the fairness ?of a trial. Additionally, Article 2.03(b) should be considered in conjunction with the Texas/Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct. Speci?cally, rule 3. 07(a) of the Texas Disc1plmary Rules of Professional Conduct provides. In the course of representing a client, a lawyer shall not make anxi?extrajudicial statement that a reasonable person would expect to bejjdisseminated by means of public communication if the lawyer knows or reasonably, should know?i?that it will have a substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing an adjudicatory proceeding. A lawyer shall not counsel or assist another person to make Such a Statement. Moreover, rule 3.09(e) of the Texas Disciplinary RulesTofPro?fes/sional Conduct states that the prosecutor has the following special responsibilities: The prosecutor in a criminal case shall: exercise reasonable care to prevent persons employed or controlled by the prosecutor in a criminal case from making an extrajudicial statement that the prosecutor would be prohibited from making under Rule 3.07. The oeurts and the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct, place importance upon a fair trial and cautions that a defendant?s rights should not be impaired by trial publicity. Based on the above information, the State has engaged in conduct that is prejudicial to the This document was retrieved from the web site. Defendant and infringes on the right for the Defendant to have a fair trial. A substantial likelihood exists that continued extrajudicial comments of the type previously made by the State and witnesses will taint the jury pool in this case and this Court should enter a narrowly tailored order restricting extrajudicial statements by participants in this/V? case. As noted above, employees of the District Attorney?s office have released prejudicial information about the case. Failure to impose restrictions on statements by the participantsin'this? A trial will increase the volume of pretrial publicity and set community opinion about S?bastian Torres?s guilt. The public?s compelling interest in the integrity of the judicial as? the Defendants right to a fair trial are jeopardized by extrajudicial statements madeipublicly/by persons involved in these causes. There exists an ongoing serious and imminent {threat to the integrity of the administration of justice as a result of such extrajudibial statements and a reasonable likelihood that such extrajudicial statements will be made throughout the pendency of the causes and will adversely affect the trial of these causes. The requested order is the least restrictive measure available to ensure a fair trial in this case. Other measures would be inappropriate orinsuf?cicntto adequately address the effects of the pretrial publicity. This Court must act to ensure that Sebastian Torres? 5 rights to due process and a fair trial, guaranteed by the Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution and Texas Constitution are not compromised by further prejudicial publicity. For these reasons, Defendant moves this Court to enter an order prohibiting all attorneys, parties, witnesses, law enforcement personnel, and court personnel who are connected to the prosecution or investlgation of this case from releasing information in any form to any agent or employee of any news med1a concerning any aspect of these proceedings This document was retrieved from the web site. WHEREF ORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, the Defendant respectfully prays that this Court issue an order restraining the attorneys, law enforcement personnel, court personnel, and all prospective witnesses in these causes ?om making extrajudicial statements as outlined above. Respectfully Submitted, By. WM Heriberto Silva Starr County Regional Public Defender? 7 Texas RioGrande Legal Aid, Inc. 310 E. Mirasoles Street, i 1? Rio Grande City, Texas 78582- 4406 Tel (956) 271 0712 Fax: (956) 263-1339 This document was retrieved from the web site. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE from Commenting on or Releasing Information to the Media was delivered/Lon Al?ri I ?92, go}? to the following: 2 229?h Judicial District Attomey?s Of?ce 401 N. Britton Ave, Rio Grande City, TX 78582 Tel: (956) 716-4800 Fax: (956) 487-8692 This document was retrieved from the web site. This is to certify that a true and correct copy of the above Motion to Prohibit Trial Participants??~r i i