in Re the State of Texas Ex Rel. Abelino Reyna, Relator v. Court of Appeals for the Tenth District ( 2015 )


Menu:
  •                                                                                WR-83, 719-01
    COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
    AUSTIN, TEXAS
    Transmitted 11/11/2015 10:43:07 AM
    Accepted 11/12/2015 8:32:51 AM
    ABEL ACOSTA
    CLERK
    TEXAS COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
    FILED IN
    CASE NO                       COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
    November 12, 2015
    WR-83,719-01
    ABEL ACOSTA, CLERK
    IN RE STATE OF TEXAS EX REL. ABELINO REYNA
    Relator
    Trial Cause No. 2015-1955-2
    h*fi
    In the54 th nicti-ipt Pmii-t IVfpT
    District Court,        Pnnan County
    McLennan
    Honorable Matt Johnson, Presiding
    r,«iinfv
    l*°I1
    // Wa/P
    //
    Appellate Cause No. 10-14-00235-CR
    10th Court of Appeals
    Waco, Texas
    SECOND EMERGENT MOTION BY REAL-PARTY-IN-INTEREST
    MATTHEW ALAN CLENDENNEN TO VACATE STAY BASED ON
    RELATOR'S UNCLEAN HANDS
    F. CLINTON BRODEN
    TX Bar No. 24001495
    Broden, Mickelsen, Helms & Snipes, LLP
    2600 State Street
    Dallas, Texas 75204
    (214) 720-9552
    (214) 720-9594(facsimile)
    Attorney for Matthew Alan Clendennen
    ELECTRONIC
    RECORD
    With due respect to the Court and simply put, the Relator is skillfully
    playing this Court.
    I
    As this Court now knows, immediately following the "Twin Peaks incident"
    on May 17, 2015, Relator and other state actors engaged in an unrelenting
    campaign using world wide media outlets which was designed to scare the public
    with pictures of roving "biker gangs." Once Relator accomplished that task and on
    June 30, 2015, it was Relator who sought and obtained the gag order in question
    and did so by presenting it ten minutes prior to an unrelated hearing.
    On August 7, 2015, the Tenth Court of Appeals entered its unanimous
    opinion conditionally granting a Writ of Mandamus in this case in the event the
    District Court did not withdraw its unconstitutional gag order by August 14, 2015.
    It is now almost five months since the gag order was entered upon Relator's
    request.
    II
    On September 18, 2015, Relator, Abelino Reyna, violated the very gag order
    he is asking this Court to uphold in a written statement to KWTX News in Waco,
    Texas reported:
    McLennan County District Attorney Abel Reyna, in a brief statement,
    said "someone violated their ethical and legal obligations" in making
    the material available to AP.
    "Our focus in the Twin Peaks matter will remain on the facts and the
    law and not it," he said.
    Attachment A to Emergent Motion by Real-Party-In-Interest Matthew Alan
    Clendennen to Vacate Stay Based on Relator's Unclean Hands.1
    Subsequent to the release of that written statement and on September 21,
    2015, Mr. Clendennen filed his Motion to Vacate Stay Based on Relator's Unclean
    Hands. Nevertheless, this Court ultimately "declined to act" and suggested that
    Mr. Clendennen's remedy was to file for an Order to Show Cause with the District
    Court based upon the alleged violation of the gag order.                  Unfortunately, that
    creates a perverse situation because Mr. Clendennen believes that the gag order
    sought by Relator is unconstitutional and so he is hardly in a position to turn
    around and arguefor its enforcement against Relator in the District Court.
    Ill
    'This was not the first time Relator Reyna has violated the gag order. On or about July 8,
    2015, Mr. Reyna gave a press interview discussing the selection of the grand jury foreperson for
    the grand jury that could possibly consider Mr. Clendennen's case. See Appendix 1 to Mr.
    Clendennen's September 14, 2015 brief. During that interview, Mr. Reyna told the media:
    "That's the system. He was chosen totally at random, like the law says."
    Perhaps emboldened by the Court "declining to act" in the past, Relator has
    now moved on to giving press conferences about the case.                        Following the
    indictment of Mr. Clendennen and others, Relator held a press conference to
    announce     the   indictments.      Relator announced that the            indictment of Mr.
    Clendennen and others was the result of his team's "dedication]" to "seeing that
    justice is done in all those cases." See Attachments A and B. In other words,
    Relator expressed his belief that the indictments in this case actually represent
    justice.   Relator also denounced those that have criticized the case against Mr.
    Clendennen and others by implying that such criticism was unwarranted because
    Relator was only "worried about the facts, the law and the evidence." 
    Id. The gag
    order in this case, drafted by Relator, was based on the trial court's
    finding that a gag order was necessary because of "counsels' willingness to give
    interviews to the media" and it ordered that the parties "shall not discuss the case
    with the media." So what does Relator do, he holds a press conference to equate
    the indictment of Mr. Clendennen with "justice?"2
    IV
    2Could Mr. Clendennen then thumb his nose at the gag order and hold a press conference
    announcing that his indictment is, in fact, a travesty ofjustice and questioning how any fair and
    impartial grand jury could possible consider 106 motorcyclist cases in one day (on average only
    approximately five minutes per case)? Clearly that would violate the gag order.
    As Mr. Clendennen noted in his previous motion,"[mjandamus is an
    extraordinary remedy, not issued as a matter of right, but at the discretion of the
    court.    Although mandamus is not an equitable remedy, its issuance is largely
    controlled by equitable principles." Riverfront Associates v. Rivera, 
    858 S.W.2d 366
    , 367 (Tex. 1993). Indeed, this Court has noted that "equitable principles are
    necessarily involved when we consider whether mandamus should issue." Smith v.
    Flack, 
    728 S.W.2d 784
    , 792 (Tex. Cr. App. 1987).
    Of course, it is also well settled that "a party seeking an equitable remedy
    must do equity and come to court with clean hands." City of Fredericksburg v.
    Bopp, 
    126 S.W.3d 218
    , 220 (Tex. App. - San Antonio 2003). In fact, the law
    recognizes that "the doctrine of unclean hands applies to a litigant whose own
    conduct      in   connection    with    the   same    matter    or   transaction    has   been
    unconscientious, unjust, marked by a want of good faith or violates the principles
    of equity and righteous dealing." 
    Id. at 221.3
    In sum, "Texas courts have held that, because mandamus is governed to
    some extent by equitable principles, a party that comes before the court with
    unclean hands is not entitled to issuance of a writ of mandamus." In re Simon
    3See also Olmsteadv. United States, 
    277 U.S. 438
    , 483-484 (1928) (Brandeis, J.
    dissenting) (Regarding unclean hands: "The court's aid is denied only when he who seeks it has
    violated the law in connection with the very transaction as to which he seeks legal redress").
    Property (Delaware), Inc. 
    985 S.W.2d 212
    , 215 (Tex. App .- Corpus Christi 1999)
    (emphasis added), citing, Axelson, Inc. v. Mcllhany, 
    798 S.W.2d 550
    , 552 n. 2
    (Tex. 1990).
    V
    Mr. Clendennen has now been denied his free speech rights for almost five
    months while Relator goes right on making statements to the media and holding
    press conferences.    This Court should not continue to consider Relator's
    mandamus request, based upon equitable principles, while Relator continues to
    ignore the very gag order he sought. Indeed, to do so simply plays into Relator's
    hand and allows this Court to be used as Relator's pawn.
    For that reason alone, Mr. Clendennen submits that the stay issued by this
    Court was improvidently granted and requests the Court to dissolve the stay as
    soon as practical.
    Respectfully submitted,
    /s/F. Clinton Broden
    F. CLINTON BRODEN
    TX Bar No. 24001495
    Broden, Mickelsen, Helms & Snipes, LLP
    2600 State Street
    Dallas, Texas 75204
    (214) 720-9552 (214) 720-9594(facsimile)
    Attorney for Matthew Alan Clendennen
    CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
    I, F. Clinton Broden, do hereby certify that, on this 11th day of November,
    2015, I caused a copy of the foregoing document to be served by electronic means
    and one courtesy paper copy on:
    McLennan County District Attorney
    219 N 6th St
    Waco, Texas 76701
    Tenth Court of Appeals
    501 Washington Ave.
    Waco, Texas 76701
    Is/ F. Clinton Broden
    F. Clinton Broden
    ATTACHMENT A
    I, F. Clinton Broden, do hereby certify that Attachment A is a true, correct
    and exact copy of an article downloaded from:
    http://www.wacotrib.com/news/courts_and_trials/grand-jury-indicts-b
    ikers-in-connection-with-twin-peaks-shootout/article_b6c55ddc-873b-
    522d-8378-d446bb652361 .html
    /s/F. Clinton Broden
    F. CLINTON BRODEN
    ATTACHMENT B
    Attachment B is an electronic copy of Relator's Press Conference and, as
    such, will be submitted by hard copy. It can be found at:
    http://www.kcentv.com/category/300187/shooting-at-twin-peaks
    /s/F. Clinton Broden
    F. CLINTON BRODEN