Frequently enough I see 11.07 applications which contain assertions of fact that I question, but I have not ever attempted to do anything about them. Now I have in hand an inmate's fourth application attacking his conviction. On the prescribed form he has checked the box indicating that he has not previously filed a request for relief as to this conviction and has marked through the succeeding questions on the form inquiring about why the issues were not raised in an earlier application.

I am confident the CCA will promptly dispatch with his application, which once again raises involuntariness of his guilty plea (alleging coercion by his jailer rather than his attorney this time), and adding that he was without counsel for a period of time, and that he was denied a speedy trial. But, should he be prosecuted for perjury? This seems to be a pretty clear false statement of material fact. Does the Special Prosection Unit ever consider this problem to fall within their jurisdiction? Where is the proper venue for the offense? Is the statement not "made" until the pleading has been filed with the clerk (or maybe presented to the court)? But see sec. 37.02(a)(2), P.C.

This guy is actually one of my favorite "pen pals" and I do not necessarily want to see him spend all of his middle age where he is. But, maybe a perjury conviction or two on the books for this type activity would help to cut down on other deceptive applications.

We have selected two writ writers for prosecution as liars. In both cases, the defendants are looking to get on the innocence bandwagon and have filed writs claiming innocence.

In one case, the defendant was convicted after a jury trial, during which a tape recorded conversation was admitted into evidence, containing his admission of guilt during a phone call from his ex-wife. Defendant testified at trial and tried to explain away the word "fondled". The jury convicted.

Now, years later, he decided the recording was altered and his claims of innocence were deleted from the recording. So, he filed a writ, swearing he was innocent. We indicted for aggravated perjury.

In the second case, the defendant pled guilty and gave a judicial confession. There also was a written confession. Now, years later, the defendant swears he was innocent. So, he filed a writ, swearing the same. We indicted for aggravated perjury.

In both cases, there is objective, unchallengeable evidence of guilt. In the second case, there are two inconsistent sworn statements.

Both cases are headed for trial in the next couple of months.

Venue is in our county because that's where the defendant filed the writ containing the sworn statement.

I think it is time for all of us to select such cases carefully and let the public know that claims of innocence aren't always truthful.

John Bradley
District Attorney
Williamson County, Texas

John Bradley:

Good for you! Let us know how they turn out.

In the case involving a recorded phone conversation, the defendant is saying the tape was altered. Although the claim is ludicrous (defendant failed to mention it during his trial), the FBI agreed to have their guys examine the recording. We got a clean bill of health and a great expert witness who will be able to come testify the recording is not altered.

John Bradley
District Attorney
Williamson County, Texas

Has anyone out there considered indicting the writ lawyers on some of this stuff? I'm amazed at how many attorney-represented applications have blatant misrepresentations in them. Doesn't TCCP 1.052 apply to writs?

Frankly, Sue, we considered indicting the lawyer in the case I describe above involving the defendant who was convicted on a recorded phone call. I was appalled that a lawyer would put her name on a pleading that made such an obviously false claim of innocence.

That same lawyer, once she lost the writ in state court, filed the same writ in federal court. It was at that point that I thought it had all gone far enough.

During our investigation, we subpoenaed the lawyer to grand jury and took a written statement. We needed the lawyer to prove the defendant swore to the writ. So, now it would be difficult to make her an accomplice.

Perhaps the feds would consider a perjury case against the lawyer.

John Bradley
District Attorney
Williamson County, Texas