Texas Legislation Calls for the Removal of Choose Garcia and District Lawyer Saenz from Melissa Lucio’s Case

Two critical users of Ms. Lucio’ s unique protection workforce are now doing work for the Judge overseeing her circumstance and the District Lawyer seeking to have her executed

(Brownsville, Texas) Attorneys for Melissa Lucio right now filed two different motions to remove Decide Gabriela Garcia, who is assigned to Ms. Lucio’s circumstance, and District Lawyer Luis Saenz due to the fact two critical associates of Ms. Lucio’s first protection staff now operate for them. Assistant District Lawyer Peter Gilman and Judge Garcia’s court administrator, Irma Gilman, earlier represented Ms. Lucio at her 2008 demo. 

As her prior defense staff, Mr. Gilman and Mrs. Gilman owe Ms. Lucio a continuing duty to cooperate with her recent counsel, in accordance to today’s filings in the 138th Judicial District Courtroom of Cameron County. (Choose Movement at pp. 1-2. )(D.A. Movement at pp. 11-13.) Ms. Lucio, who is  scheduled for execution on April 27, 2022, was wrongfully convicted and sentenced to death for the accidental death of her two-12 months-outdated daughter, Mariah. 

“Judge Garcia’s and D.A. Saenz’s roles in this situation have the impact of obstructing Melissa Lucio’s obtain to proof. As Ms. Lucio’s defense staff at trial, Peter Gilman and Irma Gilman have a responsibility to cooperate with Ms. Lucio’s present-day counsel. But as extensive as D.A. Saenz is on the scenario, Peter Gilman’s conflict of desire helps prevent him from cooperating with Ms. Lucio’s recent attorneys. And as very long as Judge Garcia is on the situation, Irma Gilman cannot cooperate with Ms. Lucio’s counsel for the reason that it would be a prohibited ex parte conversation,” reported Tivon Schardl, Main of the Money Habeas Unit of the Federal Defender for the Western District of Texas, and Melissa Lucio’s attorney.

“Texas legislation quickly disqualifies Decide Garcia and D.A. Saenz. And the two situations constitute because of approach violations beneath the 14th Modification,” Schardl added.

Melissa Lucio’s Movement to Disqualify or Recuse Judge Gabriela Garcia can be seen below.

Melissa Lucio’s Movement to Disqualify the Cameron County District Legal professional can be considered below: here.

Ms. Lucio’s Movement to Disqualify or Recuse Judge Garcia states that Decide Garcia’s courtroom administrator, Irma Gilman, worked on Ms. Lucio’s protection when she was a paralegal for Ms. Lucio’s lead demo counsel, Peter Gilman, her partner. (Choose Movement at p. 1.) The movement states that Mrs. Gilman essentially uncovered confidential information and facts while doing work as Mr. Gilman’s paralegal and that data, below Texas regulation, is imputed to Judge Garcia. (Judge Motion at p. 1.)

“Judge Garcia’s and D.A. Saenz’s roles in this situation have the effect of obstructing Melissa Lucio’s access to evidence.”

Among other challenges, the motion states, “Mrs. Gilman’s do the job on Ms. Lucio’s defense created her familiar with the files of protection counsel in Ms. Lucio’s demo. That knowledge can make Mrs. Gilman an critical witness for Ms. Lucio as she investigates and presents grounds” for additional litigation. (Choose Movement at p. 2.) If Ms. Lucio’s Motion to Disqualify or Recuse the Judge is granted, the choose will void the warrant for Ms. Lucio’s execution. (Choose Motion at pp. 7-8.)

In a individual motion, Ms. Lucio moves to disqualify District Attorney Saenz on the floor that Peter Gilman, who was Ms. Lucio’s lead protection attorney at her demo, now performs for the District Legal professional and has given that 2009. Mr. Gilman’s dual position as an assistant district legal professional and predecessor counsel for Ms. Lucio disqualifies the Cameron County District Attorney’s Business office. (D.A. Motion at p. 4.)

The Movement to Disqualify the Cameron County District Legal professional quotes the Texas Court of Felony Appeals, “’If a prosecuting legal professional has previously represented the defendant in the ‘same’ felony issue as that at this time getting prosecuted, he is statutorily disqualified.’ This has been called the ‘hard and rapid rule of disqualification’ due to the fact when [an attorney] switches sides ‘in the identical prison scenario [there] is an genuine conflict of fascination [that] constitutes a thanks-process violation, even with out a particular displaying of prejudice.’” (D.A. Movement at p. 4.)(citations omitted.)

’If a prosecuting legal professional has formerly represented the defendant in the ‘same’ prison matter as that now currently being prosecuted, he is statutorily disqualified.’

The regulations of legal ethics also impose on Mr. Gilman a duty to cooperate with Ms. Lucio’s new counsel, which incorporates examining Mr. Gilman’s files to establish whether or not the D.A.’s place of work violated Ms. Lucio’s proper to a fair trial by suppressing proof of her innocence. Mr. Gilman has a conflict of fascination due to the fact his recent manager, D.A. Saenz, has pursued a policy of non-cooperation with Ms. Lucio’s present counsel. (D.A. Movement at pp. 11-13.)

On February 8, 2022, Ms. Lucio filed a motion, which is even now pending, to withdraw her execution date for the reason that she is harmless, among the other grounds. Ms. Lucio, a Mexican-American from the Rio Grande Valley, is on dying row inspite of forensic and eyewitness evidence that her daughter died from a head damage after a tumble. Mariah’s demise was a tragic incident, not a murder.

At the time of her arrest, Ms. Lucio experienced no history of violence. Countless numbers of pages of protective support records and recorded interviews with her young children show that Ms. Lucio was not abusive.

Hours soon after her daughter died, and even though expecting with twins, Ms. Lucio was subjected to a five-hour, late-night, diligently orchestrated, and intense interrogation until, bodily and emotionally exhausted, she agreed to say, “I guess I did it.”

Missing any good physical proof or eyewitnesses, the prior District Attorney, Armando Villalobos, characterised Ms. Lucio’s acquiescence as a “confession” and prosecuted her for capital murder. D.A. Villalobos, who initially employed Peter Gilman, was corrupt: he is now serving a 13-yr federal jail sentence for bribery and extortion, according to the U.S. Section of Justice.

Ms. Lucio experienced a lifetime of sexual abuse, starting up at just 6 yrs old, and domestic violence, which designed her especially susceptible to the intimidating, coercive, and psychological interrogation ways that resulted in a bogus confession. Of the 67 women of all ages listed on the Countrywide Registry of Exonerations who were being exonerated after a murder conviction, in excess of 1 quarter (17/67) included phony confessions and practically just one third (20/67) involved youngster victims.