THE LAW OFFICE OF CHAD BARUCH 

An Appellate Practice

3201 Main Street

Rowlett, Texas 75088

Telephone: (972) 412-7192

Facsimile: (972) 412-4028

BaruchEsq@aol.com

January 2, 2014

By E-Filing

Abel Acosta, Clerk

The Court of Criminal Appeals

Post Office Box 12308

Austin, Texas 78711

RE: In re Bernhardt Tiede II

 No. WR-81,532-01

Dear Mr. Acosta: 

Please circulate this letter to the justices. District Attorney Danny 

Buck Davidson recently admitted in writing to possessing evidence rebutting 

the very findings he agreed to in the trial court.

On December 23, 2014, counsel for Davidson sent the attached letter 

contesting an Open Records Act request for evidence associated with Mr. 

Tiede’s substantial theft and use of Marjorie Nugent’s money. According to 

District Attorney Davidson:

[Tiede’s] conduct may be relevant to explain why Tiede 

murdered her and hid her body in a freezer. The concealment 

of the body and deception in the withdrawals appears contrary 

to the “sudden passion/emotion” as stated on page 11 

paragraph 64 of the Findings of Fact of the Trial Court. The 

deceptive conduct and deliberate acts of Tiede for a period of 

nine (90 months after the murder is relevant to . . . rebut or 

counter the “new evidence” which arose in the Writ Hearing.

001

WR-81,532-01

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

AUSTIN, TEXAS

Transmitted 1/2/2015 7:19:51 AM

Accepted 1/2/2015 4:17:11 PM

ABEL ACOSTA

CLERK
Additionally the information withheld contains evidence . . . 

relevant to rebut the alleged “verbal abuse” Tiede was subject 

to by Marjorie Nugent which is cited in the Findings of Fact, 

Conclusions of Law, Recommendations and Order on Page 5 

paragraph #26 . . . and the reason Tiede could not end their 

relationship cited on page 8 paragraph #44. 

As the Court will recall, Davidson agreed to the very findings cited in 

this letter, testified that he would have sought a sentence based on the 

“sudden passion” provision of the Texas Penal Code, and—most disturbing 

of all—failed to mention any of this “rebuttal” evidence to the trial judge.

Even Davidson now admits possessing substantial evidence to support 

the Tiede’s sentence notwithstanding the “new evidence.” Davidson admits 

this evidence is contrary to factual findings he agreed to during the writ 

hearing.

The Family of Marjorie Nugent reiterates its suggestion, as an amicus 

curiae party, that this Court reconsider its decision in this case.

 

 /s/Charles “Chad” Baruch

copies: Jodi Cole

 Danny Buck Davidson

 The Honorable Diane DeVasto

 Clerk, 123rd Judicial District Court

002
r ... ,_, ~!(:'/r '/:t::s:r/ 

UNDERWOOD LAW OFFlCE 

324 West ~obi 

P.O. 5o• lll8 

C>rthog<, T= 75633 

Tolephooc (903) 693-2303 

Fu: (903) 693-:2356 

Via Cet1ified Mail No. 7012 0470 0001 5041 4114 

THE HONORABLE GREG ABBOTT 

TEXAS ATI'ORNEY GENERAL 

ATTN:OPENRECORDSDnn&ON 

POBOXU548 

AUSTIN TX 78711-2548 

December 23,2014 

Robert UDduw!:lod 

T~ Bourl ofl..cgBlSJ?~ 

Civil Triol aw & 

P~~TciolV.w 

R. Collin Undttwood 

Re: Request for Attorney General Decision and Submission I Two (2) December 12, 2014 Shanna 

Nugent requests to Panola County Criminal District Attorney 

Dear Attorney General Abbott: 

This letter selVes as submission to the Attorney General of Texas pursuant to Section 552.301 (e) 

of the Public InfOI!Illrtion Act (the "Act'~. The undersigned Attorney represents the Panola County 

Criminal District Attorney and Panola County Criminal District Attorney's Office in this matter. This 

letter seiVes as request for a decision by the Attorney General on the question that exceptions apply to 

withhold information which was requested by Shanna Nugent in the two (2) requests dated December 12, 

2014. 

Copies of the two (2) December 12, 2014 Shanna Nugent requests to Criminal District Attorney 

Danny Buck Davidson ofPanola County are attached. 

A signed statement by Criminal District Attorney Danny Buck Davidson is attached showing the 

Panola County Criminal District Attorney's Office received the "Request for Evidence and Waiver of 

Fees" and ·~uest for Public Documents and Waiver ofFees" :from Shanna Nugent on December 16, 

2014. 

Background: 

In November 1996 Bernie Tiede munlered Mmjorie Nugent by shooting her with a gun and 

placed her body in a freezer. Her body was discovered in August of 1997. Tiede was convicted of 

munler and sentenced to life. 

Tiede was also indicted for theft in a mclti-count indictment for appropriating money from the 

Nugents after he nturdered her. The theft case has !lOt been tried but is pending. The theft indictment 

and docket sheet is attached. · 

In2014 Tiede filed a writ ofhaheas CO!pUS in the murder case in 1he Texas Court of Criminal 

Appeals. The Trial Court's Order in 1he writ reco=ended a new punishment phase of the murder 

003
Dec. 23 2014 I 2:06PM No. 0075 P. 12 

• Page2 December 23, 2014 

conviction. The Findings ofF act, Conclusions of Law, Recommendation and Order is attached. In 

November of20 14 the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals ordered a new sentencing trial. The Mandate is 

attached. 

Reasollll for exceptions to apply: 

Government Code section 552.1 08( a )(1) protecfll information that pertains to specific pending criminal 

investigation or prosecution. The indictment number 1997 - C - 104 styled the State of Texas versus 

Bernhardt Tiede If, theft over $200,000 is pending in the 123rd Judicial Court. It is a ten (10) count 

indictment for unlawfully appropriating money from Dr. Rod Nugent or the heirs of Mrs. R.M Nugent, 

which is Marjorie Nugent, after Tiede murdered her. The pending indictment and docket sheet are 

attached. The Criminal District Attorney lUIS not dismissed the theft indictment. 

The term "infonnation" is used to include all items requested. 

The requested information contains evidence or information relevant to the specific investigation and 

prosecution of the pending fulony theft indictment. The relevant information would largely be the bank 

statements and cancelled checks which may be used to prove the illegal withdrawall! by Tiede from the 

Nugent accounts through a Power of Attorney after he murdered her. At this time none of the documents 

have been admitted into evidence. A representative sample of the infonnation is labeled and attached. 

Tbe information is also relevant to the specific investigation and prosecution in the new punishment trial 

in the murder case since Tiede acted in a knowing deceptive course of conduct over several months by 

withdrawing large sums of money and spending or giving it away. This conduct may be relevant to 

explain why Tiede murdered her and hid her body in a freezer. The concealment of the body and 

deception in the withdrawals appears contrary to the "sudden passion/emotion" as stated on page 11 

paragraph 64 of the Findings ofF act of the Trial Court. The deceptive conduct and deliberate acts of 

Tiede for a period of nine (9) months after the murder is relevant to prove the intentional murder and to 

rebut or counter the ''new evidence" which arose in the Writ Hearing. The information withheld contains 

clear evidence of this conduct after the murder. 

Additionally the information withheld contains evidence of the expenses and expenditures spent by Tiede 

and Marjorie Nugeot prior to the murder. This evidence is relevant to rebut the alleged "verbal abuse" 

Tiede was subject to by Marjorie Nugent which is cited in the Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, 

Recommendations and Order on page 5 paragraph #26, and the "deteriorated" relatiouship between them 

cited on page 7 paragraph #4 3, and the reason Tiede could not end their relationship cited on page 8 

paragraph #44. Evidence of the amount of money ])eing spent can explain some of the ''new evidence" 

arising from the writ 

In Requestor's "Request for Public Documents" includes correspondence from the deceased's 

family (#8), the opposing attorneys in the habeas corpus (#9), the mental experts in the murder trial and 

habeas corpus (#12). These items contain information which me involved in two active felony 

prosecutions and should not be disclosed with pending prosecution. The "decision making process" 

information requested in #13 is clearly exempt from disclosure. 

004
Dtc. 23.2014 '2:06?~ No. 0075 P. 13 

• Page3 December 23, 2014 

The Criminal District Attorney Danny Buck Davidson of the 123'• Judicial Criminal District 

objects to any disclosure of the requested items. Clearly the theft case is pending. The murder case is 

pending since the Cowt of Criminal Appeals ordered a new murder punishment stage. All of the 

infurmation items requested by the Requestor Nugent are potential exhibits to prove the motive, 

deception, fraud, and theft committed by Tiede in the murder and theft case. 

The copy of this letter sent to the requestDr Shanna Nugent is being redacted pursuant to 

Government Code section 552.30 1( e-1) so to not reveal the substance of the information. 

Therefore, based upon the foregoing exceptions the requested information should not be 

disclosed. 

The same issues, exclusions, arguments are similar, if not identical, to the issues in the attached 

Texas Attorney General Letter Ruling OR.2014-22528. The following items are identical in both 

requests: #4laptop computer, #5 videos, #6 answering machine tape, #!!notes and cards. 

If you should need additional information please contact me. 

Thank you. 

Cc: 

Shanna Nugent (Redacted copy) 

Attorney at Law 

l4285:MidwayRoadSuite 130 

Addison TX 75001 

Via Fax 

Criminal District Attorney Danny Buck Davidson 

Attachments: 

1. Two (2) Sbanna Nugent Requests 

2. Signed Statement by Criminal District Attorney regarding date 

3. Two(2)Responses 

1 

4. Findings ofF act, Conclusions of Law, Recommondation and Order and Mandate 

5. Two (2) Indictments 

6. Theft Dookct sheet 

7. DocumeJ:tt>; labeled sample ofNugentrecords Gov. Code 5S2.108(aXI) 

005