What happened to the tooth fairy option?

Greg, my bet is your old friend Mark Evans could help you with that question.

There is now a tooth fairy option as requested.

and you'll get the tooth fairy. What's your point? If he gets deported, he is never supposed to return unless he gets permission to -- talk about the Easter bunny and the tooth fairy! He may come back illegally to live in the free world, but not to serve a prison sentence.

You forgot the option where our Jails for women are probably better than 70% of the living arrangements in Mexico, AND, air conditioned, and she'll probably come back

Care to make a steak dinner bet on whether she will return if deported, Beck?

"He may come back illegally to live in the free world, but not to serve a prison sentence." Truer words have never been spoken. I guess that, Mr. or Ms. Hernandez, would be the point of the post. I'm sorry my sarcasm was not clear enough. Next time maybe I'll put a sarcasm disclaimer on a post such as this...

Judge stands by release of convicted child abuser

Dallas: Prosecutors fear woman will be deported, won't serve time

Saturday, October 15, 2005
By ROBERT THARP / The Dallas Morning News

Prosecutors clashed with a district judge Friday over whether a Mexican citizen should be freed from state custody on bail and deported while her child-abuse conviction and prison sentence are under appeal.

The case was aired out in a heated hearing in which prosecutors accused District Judge Manny Alvarez of being biased, and the judge chastised the district attorney's office and suggested that prosecutors did not understand the Constitution.

In the end, Judge Alvarez said he would stand by his ruling to grant an appeal bond to Maria Hurtado while her conviction is under appeal.

"If this defendant were not a Mexican national, we would not be having this discussion," Judge Alvarez said. "I'm not going to treat her any differently. The ruling stands."

Prosecutor Patricia Hogue said the judge's action ensures that Ms. Hurtado will be deported, and she will not return to serve her prison time if her appeal is rejected.

Ms. Hurtado was immediately placed in federal immigration custody after she was freed on bail. A hearing in the coming weeks will determine whether she will be deported.

Judge Alvarez said he is bound by law to set reasonable bail for those convicted of nonaggravated crimes and sentenced to less than 10 years in prison. Since Ms. Hurtado is indigent, a personal recognizance bond that requires no monetary commitment was the right choice, he said.

Although judges can consider a person's risk of flight and ties to the community when setting bail, the district judges' staff legal advisers agreed with Judge Alvarez's ruling. Considering Ms. Hurtado's nationality in the ruling would have violated right to equal protection under the law, the staff concluded.

Ms. Hogue asked the judge to impose monetary bail for Ms. Hurtado that would either keep her in jail or create more of an incentive to ensure that she returns to serve her prison time if her conviction is upheld.

"By giving the defendant a p.r. bond knowing that she would be deported assures that she's not going to come back," Ms. Hogue said after the hearing.

The judge and Ms. Hurtado's attorneys noted that by obtaining the personal recognizance bond, she promised to return. Judge Alvarez said prosecutors can also have her extradited if necessary.

"The state is asking to manipulate the law to keep her in," he said.

Some of the jurors who sentenced Ms. Hurtado to eight years in prison for causing a serious head injury to a 6-month-old baby in her care also criticized the judge. Three jurors said that Judge Alvarez told them immediately after the trial that he disagreed with their ruling. One of the jurors said the judge pledged to "fix it" by allowing Ms. Hurtado to be deported.

The three jurors, who asked not to be identified, said they didn't appreciate being second-guessed.

Judge Alvarez denied the jurors' allegations. He said some jurors were upset after the trial and indicated they might have reached a different verdict had other evidence been presented in the trial.

The judge said he told the jurors that an appellate court would "fix it" if there had been a problem in the trial.

[This message was edited by Greg Gilleland on 10-17-05 at .]

Implicit in Judge Alvarez' comment is that a PR bond is generally sufficient where someone has been convicted of a serious felony, has no ties to the community, and is indigent. I do not get it. Is that the general practice in Dallas County? My judge has never not required a surety to sign an appeal bond and the lowest penal amount was $10,000. I guess he has been setting unreasonable bail by Dallas standards. Besides, there is no constitutional right to an appeal bond and thus no right to equal protection (treatment). The only requirement is art. 44.04 "not be arbitrarily or unreasonably administered." Ex parte Williams, 630 S.W.2d at 804. Also, it looks to me as though the State had a rational basis for believing the appellant would or could not comply with the condition of release on the same basis as someone legally in this country.

If that bond helped to assure that Hurtado would re-appear, then I am going to start looking under my pillow for evidence of the tooth fairy.

[This message was edited by Martin Peterson on 10-17-05 at .]

Likewise Martin, in my experience of 14 years in Fort Bend County, I never saw a appeal bond for less than $10k when pen time was the verdict. Likewise, I have seen numerous felons bond out pre-trial and then be deported before trial. Amazingly!, none ever voluntarily surrendered themselves to authorities to pay for their crimes if they made illegal reentry.

I find it awfully hard to beleive a free person would voluntarily submit to prison confinement for "air conditioning, that great prison food, etc" if reentry into the US, most likely under an aka, was an option. In fact, I can't believe it has ever happened.

[This message was edited by Greg Gilleland on 10-19-05 at .]

Did y'all read the article regarding Judge Alvarez recusing from the case? He fully admitted telling the jury that they were wrong and that he would 'fix it'.

In an interview, Judge Alvarez acknowledged two of the prosecutors' central claims: that he told jurors they had wrongly convicted Ms. Hurtado and that he was going to "fix it" by freeing the illegal immigrant while she appeals.

"I told them, 'You made the wrong decision because you didn't get all the evidence,' " Judge Alvarez told The Dallas Morning News. He blamed prosecutor Lara Peirce and defense attorney John Read equally for the outcome.

That just blows my mind. After going on TV and saying the Prosecutors were lying, the jurors were lying, he ends up saying the story was true all along.

Just.... wow.

Isn't this the same Judge that threw back a juvi murder certification because under Apprendi a jury should decide whether to certify or not ?!?

Greg -- I can understand why you are upset, as I am. I don't like ANYONE who hurts children & then is allowed out on a PR appeal bond with the likely outcome that they will avoid a prison sentence altogether, but don't make it about her immigration status. It's about the judge's decision.

The recusal came a bit late. Granting a PR bond no doubt accomplished more for "justice" in the judge's eyes than granting a new trial would have. Somebody must be wrong when the prosecutor, the defense attorney, jurors, and the judge are all upset.

[This message was edited by Martin Peterson on 10-19-05 at .]

E, the defendant could have been from any country in the world and my opinion would have been the same, i.e., that a deported defendant with a pen time case on appeal is not likely at all to return to serve pen time if the sentence is affirmed. That is what I would argue in any similar case. I see the issue as the judge's decision in light of the defendant's immigration status. If the defendant were not being deported, then I still disagree with a PR bond but the fact is that the defendant's immigration status is at the heart of the post-trial issues.

More updates on this story from the Dallas Morning News...


Exclusive: Judge defends attorney-like actions

Alvarez did research, vowed to help abuser
11:22 PM CDT on Wednesday, October 19, 2005
By BROOKS EGERTON / The Dallas Morning News


A defiant judge said Wednesday that he did nothing wrong by performing defense attorney-like research during a recent trial and, after a jury convicted the defendant of child abuse, pledging to help her avoid prison.

"I did the work that I would have expected the defense attorney to do," state District Judge Manny Alvarez told The Dallas Morning News. "I did more research [than the lawyer] ... I don't apologize for that."

The Texas Commission on Judicial Conduct could discipline him because, among other things, he didn't tell prosecutors about the research. It included Internet reading and a call to a former college roommate who's a Florida pediatrician � and who told The News that the judge didn't give him important information about the victim's injuries.

The judicial commission's executive director, Seana Willing, said she wasn't familiar with Judge Alvarez's actions but generally advises jurists to avoid the "inherent evil" of private communications about a case.

The goal, she said, is "to prevent a judge from making a decision" unless both sides in litigation know its basis and have had a chance to be heard. Potential punishments range from a private admonition to a public trial and removal from office.

Judge Alvarez said he came to believe that baby sitter Maria Hurtado might be innocent after reading online about a medical diagnosis cited in the case and consulting ex-roommate Dr. Alex Perez.

After jurors in his court convicted Ms. Hurtado two weeks ago and sentenced her to eight years in prison, he told them they had made a mistake because the prosecution and defense failed to present necessary testimony. He added that he would "fix it" by freeing the defendant without cash bail until he could arrange for a new trial and said the illegal immigrant might return to her native Mexico.

Prosecutors later learned from jurors what Judge Alvarez had said and protested in court, leading him to remove himself from the case Tuesday.

Dr. Perez said Judge Alvarez didn't tell him that Dallas doctors had diagnosed that 6-month-old Heaven Preciado had suffered from shaken baby syndrome, based in part on heavy bleeding in both eyes.

"That's shaken baby," the physician said. "That's key. He didn't mention that to me."

Judge Alvarez initially gave this version of his conversation with Dr. Perez: "I said, 'What would you expect to see if ... [Ms. Hurtado] shook her in the manner that they said?' He said, 'I would expect to see broken ribs, bruises on the chest and arms.' "

In a subsequent interview, the judge said he got this information from the pediatrician's wife, who is a lawyer and a nurse. He said his consultations with Dr. Perez occurred earlier in the trial, when he didn't know about the possible significance of bloody eyes.

Dr. Perez, who is assistant pediatric medical director at St. Joseph's Hospital in Tampa, told The News what experts at Children's Medical Center Dallas told jurors: that broken bones and bruises don't always occur when infants suffer abusive shaking.

Indeed, Heaven did not have those injuries; she suffered closed-head trauma that left her blind and dependent on a feeding tube.

A Dallas police report says Ms. Hurtado, 26, initially admitted shaking the baby when she wouldn't stop crying. She later maintained that she shook Heaven only in trying desperately to revive her after the girl, for no apparent reason, suffered a seizure, her eyes rolling back in her head and her lips turning blue.

Judge Alvarez said he consulted Dr. Perez because he didn't understand the medical terminology used in court testimony and in online material.

"I make no apologies for that," he said. "I'd be foolish to sit there and listen and not understand."

When The News asked to review his research, the judge said he hadn't taken notes or made printouts.

"I just pulled them off the Internet. The first four pages [of a Google search] will tell you there are defenses to shaken baby. It took me three minutes to get it."

What he read, he said, led him to believe that the defendant's ultimate explanation was "very feasible," especially because the baby had an extremely high fever a few weeks before suffering the brain damage.

Judge Alvarez said he misspoke when talking to the jury.

"It was a poor choice of words, to use 'fix' instead of 'remedy,' " he said. "If I'm guilty of poor choice of words, fine. But my intent has never changed."

That intent, he said, is a fair trial for Ms. Hurtado. And to that end, "I didn't want to get off this case."

But he said his lawyer gave him this advice: "You are involved. You're passionately involved. I don't think you've done anything wrong, but maybe it's gotten to the point now that it looks bad."

Judge Alvarez added: "I don't want to give the impression that now I'm the voice of the defense. I'm really still in the middle."

But given that "I've told everyone what I needed to say," he said, he has decided to "let the facts stand for themselves. Let another judge come in and decide."

Judge Alvarez, a former defense attorney, said he had represented people accused of child abuse.

"I wasn't God's gift to the defense bar," he said. But "I know how I would have tried" the Hurtado case.

John Read, who was Ms. Hurtado's attorney, has said that he and prosecutors did excellent work on the case. The judge, he said, "is so full of [expletive]."

Asked whether he wished he could have taken Mr. Read's place, Judge Alvarez responded: "Every trial that I hear, I kind of wish I was back. I miss it. That's what I did forever" � a reference, he explained, to his defense work and a prior stint in the Dallas County district attorney's office.

He also said: "I love what I do now. I wouldn't do anything else."

In removing himself from the Hurtado case on Tuesday, Judge Alvarez accused prosecutors of violating various rules for lawyers and "attempting to manufacture an appearance of impropriety" by him.

District Attorney Bill Hill, the judge said Wednesday, "is questioning my integrity. That's a joke. In light of all that's gone on [with the fake-drug scandal], he's questioning me?

"That's what [expletive] me off, when they questioned my integrity, that I've got some reason to fix this case. I don't know these people," he said, referring to Ms. Hurtado and her supporters.

Mr. Hill's spokeswoman, Rachel Horton, said her office has done nothing wrong.

"We are not questioning the judge's integrity," she said. "We have simply filed motions based on what we know the facts and the law to be."

Judge Alvarez added: "I don't want to give the impression that now I'm the voice of the defense. I'm really still in the middle."

Again, the two main choices regarding believeability of this posture also require a strong belief in the easter bunny and the tooth fairy.

Based on the knowledge I have of the quality of child abuse prosecutions by the Dallas County D.A.'s office, I find it hard to believe that they did not present more than adequate evidence about the significance of heavy bleeding in the eyes/retina as it regards shaken baby syndrome.

"I did the work that I would have expected the defense attorney to do," state District Judge Manny Alvarez told The Dallas Morning News. "I did more research [than the lawyer] ... I don't apologize for that."

I don't have a dog in this fight, and I swear like a sailor normally. However, when I am speaking to the media, I am very conscious of not saying any word worse than 'hell' because the media will use it, but beep it out or use [explitive deleted]. Why is it that when the DA and Defense Attorney speak about this case, they are quoted as [ex. deleted]. It reflects poorly on all lawyers who make their living by turning words.

I'm not against swearing, I would just like our word craftsmen to be elegant when speaking in public.

I think they are swearing because they are so angered and possibly shocked by the content of the remarks made about their fairness, competence and the general chain of events. Sometimes, swearing conveys emotion not otherwise captured in print media, although I agree it is to be avoided under most circumstances.

"@$#%" interesting and upsetting case. I wonder what happens to the judge now - removal; criminal or civil sanctions; or we'll forget about it if you promise not to do it again?

Normally I keep my feelings to myself and never let on as to my inherent posture on issues, expletive deleted, but I must weigh in on this one.

Since I don't have to practice in front of this judge, I feel like I can be honest about his track record: I testified before him in a child abuse-type case in a bench punishment hearing, wherein the State was asking for pen time for the abuser, and the defense was asking for half-way house/non jail time. The judge was of the opinion that "...all child abusers/molesters in the prison are killed -- or worse. If I send this man to the penitentiary, I'm sentencing him to death....". (Paraphrased for effect)

The prosecutor put me on to testify about just what happens to child molesters in the Texas penitentiary, and whether they can do their time without being killed or worse. I came with facts, provable, verifiable facts about Texas prison murder victims' profiles, and amazingly, there are fewer than 10, and I believe fewer than 5 (my notes are not with me today) of the 138 prison murder victims since 1984 who were convicted child molesters. The few who were killed were targets of hits because of their actions inside the prison, NOT their previous convictions. And, I have facts about the victim profiles of non-murder victims inside the prison, and just as amazingly, child molesters ARE NOT singled-out for attack as some would believe. Now, they are not looked up to by other inmates as being hard-line, tough-guy felons, but there are so many child molesters in Texas prisons, that they could probably start their own gang and exact protection money from weaker convicts like their "hard-core" counterparts do now. Kind of a Pervert Posse or Molester Mafia, I guess. In other words, there was no horrible reason for not giving prison time to the convicted child abuser in the case, and I thought I was articulating that sufficiently, with real facts, to the judge. The prosecutor, whom I will not name, for obvious reasons, can weigh in on whether or not I'm being truthful and recalling the case accurately.

But, as I stepped from the stand, I was told by that judge that basically, I didn't know what I was talking about, that he KNEW there were many murders in prison involving child molesters as victims, that he had been a prosecutor once and he KNEW what happened to child molesters, and all kinds of expletive deleteds...and he promptly gave easy time in a Dallas halfway house to a guy who probably should have gone to prison. I recognized the defense-bent right away and knew that no amount of factual information would have changed his preconceived notions. And I then made a personal vow to hope to never have to testify in front of him again - I know, that's quite a vow, but it was the best I could do at the time.

Now it looks like maybe the times have caught up with him.