Phone call tapes stun Quintero's attorneys
Judge denies bid for a mistrial in penalty phase for officer's killer
By BRIAN ROGERS
Copyright 2008 Houston Chronicle

Juan Leonardo Quintero's defense attorneys were shocked Wednesday by jailhouse telephone recordings and asked for a mistrial during the punishment phase of the three-week death penalty trial.

Defense attorney Danalynn Recer accused prosecutors of withholding evidence necessary to defend Quintero, who was convicted last week of shooting HPD officer Rodney Johnson.

He had pleaded not guilty by reason of insanity.

State District Judge Joan Campbell denied the request for a mistrial.

Prosecutors are seeking the death penalty for the 34-year-old illegal immigrant.

The audiotapes in question include a jailhouse conversation in which Quintero called Emmett Falconer. The tapes came to light after Falconer, a witness for the defense, testified that Quintero was a trusted friend and good family man.

During cross-examination, Falconer was confronted with his own words captured on the audiotape. He told Quintero to put him on the jury and he would "get Quintero off."

In open court he testified that he also told Quintero, during the taped conversation, that he would tie a rope around the jailhouse bars and pull the wall off, "like on TV."


Details.

Article says:

quote:

---

"Defense attorney Danalynn Recer accused prosecutors of withholding evidence necessary to defend Quintero ...."

---

Article should have said:

"Defense attorney Danalynn Recer accused prosecutors of withholding evidence necessary to coach a defense witness, which would have been unnecessary if she had asked her own witness about conversations he had with her own client, or vice versa."

quote:

---

Originally posted by Shannon Edmonds:
Article should have said:

"Defense attorney Danalynn Recer accused prosecutors of withholding evidence necessary to coach a defense witness, which would have been unnecessary if she had asked her own witness about conversations he had with her own client, or vice versa."

---

That'll end up in Recer's soon-to-be-forthcoming ineffective assistance affidavit.

[This message was edited by R.J. MacReady on 05-15-08 at .]

From the context of the article, it appears that these conversations were not requested via discovery. If not requested, there is no Brady duty to disclose if not exculpatory.

The Harris County ADA said:

"Jordan said he wasn't required to produce the recordings because they weren't statements to law enforcement officials and weren't under any discovery order."

I don't know Mr. Jordan but I will certainly take him at his word. If the request for production and discovery was for any of the defendant's recorded statements to law enforcement, then these conversations are clearly outside of that request.

I'll agree with Shannon on this one.

I'm amazed at the vitriol in the comments to that story. (We're linked there, by the way.) The judge had the discovery order right in front of him, he could certainly evaluate whether the evidence violated it better than a bunch of armchair quarterbacks with some bare bones facts in a newspaper article. And it's not remotely Brady, since it isn't exculpatory. Sheesh. I agree with Shannon too.

quote:

---

Originally posted by R.J. MacReady:
That'll end up in Recer's soon-to-be-forthcoming ineffective assistance affidavit.

[This message was edited by R.J. MacReady on 05-15-08 at .]

---

Interestingly, there is no attorney named MacReady licensed to practice law in Texas, as per The State Bar of Texas website.

They took the name "MacReady" from the previous mac-n-cheese threads (ReadyMac?)

Hey, I agree with Shannon, too. Sorry if I offended anyone.

I sure didn't take it in any offensive way. I thought you were 100% right, RJ!

Wshew!

Same here. Not offended. Sorry I questioned your alter ego identity. Super Crime Fighters must remain secret.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gretchen:
They took the name "MacReady" from the previous mac-n-cheese threads (ReadyMac?)

---

That's good, I hadn't thought of that.

Travis County Inmates Now Receiving Email
5/16/2008

Newsroom

The Travis County Jail has a new program that will enable people to communicate with inmates by e-mail. The new program is being offered by Securus Technologies, who also provide the inmate telephone system.


Details.

What a horrendously bad idea.