TEXAS COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

_________________________

CASE NO. WR-83,719-01

_________________________ IN RE STATE OF TEXAS EX REL. ABELINO REYNA Relator

________________________________ Trial Cause No. 2015-1955-2 In the 54 District Court, McLennan County

th Honorable Matt Johnson, Presiding Appellate Cause No. 10-14-00235-CR 10 Court of Appeals th Waco, Texas

________________________________ REPLY BY REAL-PART-IN-INTEREST MATTHEW ALAN

CLENDENNEN

________________________________

F. CLINTON BRODEN TX Bar No. 24001495 Broden, Mickelsen, Helms & Snipes, LLP 2600 State Street Dallas, Texas 75204 (214) 720-9552 (214) 720-9594(facsimile) Attorney for Matthew Alan Clendennen WR-83, 719-01 COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

AUSTIN, TEXAS Transmitted 10/12/2015 10:36:17 AM Accepted 10/13/2015 11:36:01 AM

ABEL ACOSTA CLERKTABLE OF CONTENT S Pag e

TABLE OF CONTEN TS........

....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ......2
TABLE OF AUT HORITIES..........

....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... .....3
REPLY........

....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ......4
CERTIFI CATE OF SERVICE.........

....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ...9
CERTIFI CATE OF COMPLIANCE...........

....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....10

2TABLE OF AUTHORI TI ES Pag e

Ci ty of Fred er ic ks bu rg

v. Bop p , 12 6 S .W .3d 21 8 (Te x. Ap p. – San Ant on io 20 03 )

....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... .. .5
In re S imo n Pr op er ty (Del aw ar e), In c. 98 5 S .W .2d 21 2 (Te x. Ap p .– Co rp us Ch ris ti 19 99 ) ........

....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ...5
Ken tu cky v . Kin g, 13 1 S .Ct. 1 84 9 (2 01 1)

....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ...7
Rive rf ro nt Ass oc ia te s v. Ri ver a , 85 8 S .W .2d 36 6 (Te x. 1 99 3)

....... ....... ....... ....... ....5
Smi th v. Fla ck , 72 8 S .W .2d 78 4 (Te x. Cr . App .19 87 ).........

....... ....... ....... ....... ....... .5
Uni te d S ta te s v. Wils on , 92 5 F .Su pp .2d 41 0 (E.D.N.Y. 20 13 ).........

....... ....... ....... ...7

3REPLY

On th e ev e o f su bm is si on , an a m ic us bri ef was fil ed pu rp or te dl y on be ha lf of

“ ni ne Tex as di st ric t at to rn ey s.” Nev ert he le ss , on ly ei gh t dis tr ic t at torn ey s are act ua ll y id en ti fie d in th e br ie f. W he th er ei gh t or ni ne , Mr. Cl en de nn en be li ev es a br ie f rep ly 1
is ne ces sa ry

in ord er t o a dd res s t he is su es rai se d b y am ic i.
W hi le no t rai se d by Rel at or , am ic i’s br ie f di sc us se s th e “ af f i r mat iv e

co ns ti tu ti on al du ty” of tri al co ur ts “ to m in im iz e th e effe ct s of p reju di ci al pr et ria l

pu bl ic it y .” Se e Am ic us Cu ria e B r i e f o f Nin e Tex as Dis tri ct Att or ne y s (“ Am ic us
Bri ef”) at 2- 3, 10

. Nev ert he le ss , am ic i do es no t ack no wled ge th at th is was no t a ga g

or de r en te red by th e tri al co ur t su a s po nt e. Ins te ad , it was a ga g o rd er re qu es te d b y Rel at or m in ut es be fo re an un rel at ed he ari ng wit h li tt le ti m e fo r co ns id erat io n by th e
tri al co ur t.
Nex t, whi le Rel at or ’s br ie f si m pl y co nt in ue d hi s can ard th at he so ug ht th e ga g

or de r in an al tru is ti c effo rt to pr es erv e th e rig ht s of Mr. Cl en de nn en an d o t he r de fen da nt s, am ic i no w cl ai m s it was act ua ll y so ug ht to pr es erv e th e “ St at e’s in te res t

2
in a fai r tr ia l.” Se e Am ic us Bri ef at 11 . W hi le am ic i’s ar gu m en t i s ad m it te dl y le ss

Seven ar e identified on the I dentity of Amicus Curiae pag e in addition to District 1 Attorney Rene Pena , the author of the brief

. Not surprising ly , despite the numer ous amicus brief s filed in this matter, not one of the 2 other 176 individuals char g ed in this matter has filed a n amicus brief

in support of the g ag order

. 4di si ng en uo us th an Rel at or ’s arg um en t, am ic i t ur ns a bl in d e y e to th e fact th at , pri or

to se ek in g th e ga g ord er, the St at e en ga ge d in an un rel en ti ng cam pa ig n us in g wor ld

w i d e m ed ia ou tl et s whi ch was de si gn ed to sc are th e pu bl ic wit h pi ct ur es of r o v i n g

“ bi ke r ga ng s” an d on ly so ug ht th e ga g or de r whe n it co nc lu de d th at it ha d su ffi ci en tl y

acco m pl is he d th at ta sk

. As prev io us ly po in te d o ut by Mr. Clen de nn en , “ [a]lt ho ug h

m an da m us is no t an eq ui ta bl e rem ed y , it s is su an ce is la rg el y co nt ro ll ed by eq ui ta bl e
pr in ci pl es .” Rive rf

ro nt Ass oc ia te s v. Rive ra , 85 8 S.W .2d 36 6, 36 7 (Tex

. 19 93 ); Smi th

v. Fla ck , 72 8 S.W .2d 78 4, 79 2 (Tex

. Cr. App .19 87 ). Mo reo ve r, “ a pa rty se ek in g an
eq ui ta bl e rem ed y m

us t do eq ui ty an d c o me t o c ou rt wit h cl ean ha nd s.” Ci ty of
Fred er ic ks bu rg v. Bop

p , 12 6 S.W .3d 21 8, 22 0 (Tex

. App

. – San Ant on io 20 03 ).
Co ns eq ue nt ly,“ Tex as co ur ts ha ve he ld th at , be cau se m an da m us is go ve rn ed to so m e

ex te nt by eq ui ta bl e pr in ci pl es , a pa rty th at co m es be fo re th e co ur t wit h un cl ean ha nd s
is n ot enti tle d to is su an ce of a w ri t of m an da m us .” In re Si mon Pro pe rt y (Del aw ar e), In c. 98 5 S.W .2d 21 2, 21 5 (Tex

. App .– Co rp us Ch ris ti 19 99 ) (em ph as is
ad de d) , ci ti ng , Axel

so n, In c. v. McIl ha ny , 79 8 S .W .2d 55 0, 5 52 n. 2 (Tex . 19 90 ).
Nex t, whi le th e ei gh t di st ric t at to r n e ys c l ai m th at “ on ly th e wil lfu ll y bl in d

can no t s e e w h y” l es se r res tri ct iv e m ean s do no t ex is t ot he r th an to im po se th e

co m pr eh en si ve ga g or de r on Mr. Cl en de nn en (Ami cu s Bri ef at 10 ), th ey po in t to

no th in g to in di cat e th at th e tri al co ur t ac t u a l l y co ns id ered th es e le ss er res tri ct iv e

5m ean s. Mo reo ve r, li ke Rel at or , am ic i who ll y fai l to ex pl ai n ho w a ga g or de r im po se d
in on e c r i mi n a l cas e- in a ci rcu m st an ces whe re th ere are (1 ) 17 6 si m il arl y si tu at ed
cri m in al cas es (m an y in ot he r co ur ts ), (2 ) rel at ed ci vi l cas es in st at e an d fed eral co ur t,

an d (3 ) jud ge s who m ak e th e i r o w n c o m m en ts to th e m ed ia reg ard in g th e cas e so effe ct iv el y

off ers an y of t he pro te ct io ns id en ti fie d b y am ic i. 3
The ei gh t or ni ne di st ric t at to rn ey s co nc lu de th ei r am ic i br ie f by accu si ng Mr.
Cl en de nn en an d th e am ic i who su bm it te d br ie fs on hi s be ha lf of no t pr op os in g a va li d
al te rn at iv e to a ga g or de r. Se e Am ic us Br. at 10 -1 1. The refo re, le t Mr. Clen de nn en be ve ry cle ar an d re st at e ex pl ic it ly wh at he ha s p rev io us ly stat ed at l eas t i m pl ic it ly.
Thi s cas e sh ou ld be ha nd le d li ke m an y ot he r hi gh pr of il e cas es
. Arti cl e I, Sect io n 8
of th e Tex as Co ns ti tu ti on an d th e Fi rs t Am en dm en t sh ou ld be fu ll y res pe ct ed an d th e
pa rti es sh ou ld be st ric tl y bo un d by th e Ru le s of Pro fes si o n a l Co nd uc t go ve rn in g
Pret ria l Pu bl ic it y
. Se e Tex

. R. Pro f. Co nd uc t 3.0 7. If an d whe n it ge ts cl os er to tri al (rec al l Mr. Cl en de nn en ha s no t ev en be en in di ct ed an d hi s tri al is li ke ly at le as t a y ear
away ev en as su m in g a gr an d jury was to in di ct hi m ), th e di st ric t co ur t co ul d rev is it

Amici points to t he “da

unting a nd costly task’ of se lecting 5,665 panelists for the 177 3 “potential trials.” See Amicus Br . at. 10. Fir st, Mr. Clendennen ha s much more f aith in the citizens of McL ennan County than does a mici. I t is highly likely that no fairly

constituted g rand jury of McL ennan County

citizens will indict many of the 177 since a lar g e majority wer e mer e witnesses. Second, a

mici, who write in support of Rela tor, fail to ask whe re Rela tor’s conc ern was a bout this “daunting a

nd costly task” whe n he g ave a

television interview only a fe w day s afte r the incide nt in which he announc ed all 177 we re a ppare ntly g uilty simply beca use they wer e not acting sufficie ntly

like victims in R elator’ s mind by cooper ating with police.
6th e n eces si ty of a na rr ow ga g o rd er af te r fi rs t fu ll y co ns id eri ng alt ern at iv es su ch as

“ a se arch in g vo ir di re; em ph at ic jury in st ru ct io ns ; em ph at ic warn in gs to th e pr es s an d

pa rti es ; an an on y

m ou s jury; an d s e q ue st rat io n of juro rs .” Uni te d St at es v. W il so n,
92 5 F .Su pp .2d 41 0, 4 12 (E.D.N.Y. 20 13 ).
On th e ot he r ha nd , wha t sh ou ld ne ve r be vi ewed as a vi ab le so lu ti on is to al lo w th is Co ur t to be pl ay ed as a pa wn in Rel at or ’s ga m e. Rel at or an d th e St at e sh ou ld no t
be al lo wed to en ga ge in th e who le sa le arre st of nu m ero us in no cen t in di vi du al s us in g
fil l-i n- th e-n am e cri m in al co m pl ai nt s; th en gi ve nu m ero us in te rv ie ws pr oc la im in g
th ei r gu il t whi le , at th e sa m e ti m e, sc ari ng th e pu bl ic wi t h i mag es of ro vi ng “ bi ke r
ga ng s; ” an d th en g o t o a co ur t m in ut es be fo re an un rel at ed he ari ng an d req ue st a

co m pr eh en si ve ga g or de r; th en se ek a type of rel ie f fro m th is Co ur t th at is co nt ro ll ed by e q u it ab le pr in ci pl es whi le al so br azen ly vi ol at in g th e ve ry ga g or de r Rel at or
req ue st ed

. To p e r mi t s uc h ga m es m an sh ip wil l crea te a ve ry da ng ero us pr eced en t.
In de ed , co ur ts reco gn iz e th at pa rt i es to th e cri m in al jus ti ce syste m sh ou ld no t be
al lo wed to m an uf

act ur e pa rti cu la r c i r cu m st an ces an d th en rel y up on th os e ci rcu m st an ces to req ue st rel ie f fro m th e co ur ts

. 4

Cf. Kentucky v . King, 131 S.Ct . 1849, 1858 (2011) 4
7Res pe ct fu ll y su bm it te d,

/s /F . Cli nt on Bro de n F. CLINTON BRODEN TX Bar No . 24 00 14 95 Bro de n, M ic ke ls en , Helm s & Sn ip es , LLP 26 00 Sta te Str eet Dall as , Texa s 7 52 04 (2 14 ) 72 0- 95 52 (2 14 ) 72 0- 95 94 (fac si m il e)
Att or ne y for Mat th ew Alan Cle nd en ne n

8CERTI FICATE OF SERVI CE

I, F. Cl in to n Bro de n, do he reb y cert ify th at , on th is 12 th da y of Octo be r, 20 15 , I cau se d a co py of th e fo reg oi ng do cu m en t t o b e se rv ed by elect ro ni c m ean s, o n:
McLen na n C ou nt y

Dis tri ct Att or ne y 21 9 N 6 th St W aco , Texa s 7 67 01
Ten th Co ur t o f App eal s 50 1 Wash in gt on Ave. W aco , Texa s 7 67 01

/s / F. Cl in to n B ro de n F. Cl in to n B ro de n

9CERTI FICATE OF COMPLI ANCE

Thi s br ie f co m

pl ie s wit h th e type-v o lu m e li m it at io n of Tex

. R. App

. P.9 .4
be cau se th is br ie f co nt ai ns 67 4 wor ds , ex cl ud in g th e pa rts of th e br ie f ex em pt ed by
th e ru le

.

/s / F. Cl in to n B ro de n F. Cl in to n B ro de n

1 0