Opinion ID: 4043495
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: a stay of the proceedings in the district court

Text: IS NECESSARY IN ORDER TO ENSURE THAT AN ADEQUATE REMEDY IS AVAILABLE ......................................................................... 39 CONCLUSION........................................................................................................42 CERTIFICATION .................................................................................................... 43 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE................................................................................44 ·IV- INDEX OF AUTHORITIES FEDERAL CASES Arizona v. Fulminante, 499 U.S. 279 ( 1991) .................................................... 12, 19 Brown v. Lynaugh, 843 F.2d 849, 850 (5th Cir. 1988)............................................. 24 Caperton v. A. T. Massey Coal Co., 556 U.S. 868 (2009) ....................................... 12 Hoptv. Utah, 110 U.S. 574 (1884) ......................................................................... 19 Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540 ( 1994) ...................................................passim Presley v. Georgia, 558 U.S. 209 (2010) ............................................................... 20 Remmer v. United States, 347 U.S. 227 (1954) ...................................................... 17 Rose v. Mitchell, 443 U.S. 545 (1979) ..................................................................... 30 Rothgery v. Gillespie County, 554 U.S. 191 (2008) ............................................... 19 Rushen v. Spain, 464 U.S. 114 (1983) .................................................................... 19 Skilling v. United States, 56 I U.S. 358 (20 I 0) ........................................................ 19 Starr v. United States, 153 U.S. 614 ( 1894)............................................................ 17 Townsend v. Sain, 372 U.S. 293 (1963) ................................................................ .30 Tumey v. Ohio, 273 U.S. 510 (1927) ...................................................................... 12 United States v. United States Gypsum Co. eta/., 438 U.S. 422 ( 1978) ............... 17 Ward v. Hall, 592 F.3d I I44 (1 Itb Cir. 20IO) ......................................................... 20 Wellons v. Hall, 558 U.S. 220 (2010) ..................................................................... 30 -v- TEXAS CASES Abdygapparova v. State, 243 S. W .3d 191 (Tex. App. -San Antonio 2007) ........ 14, 27 Blue v. State, 41 S.W.3d 129 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000) ........................................... 18 Brown v. Lynaugh, 843 F .2d 849 (5th Cir. 1988) ..................................................... 24 Buntion v. Harmon, 827 S. W.2d 945 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992) .......................... passim Davis v. McCray Refrigerator Sales Corp., 136 Tex. 296, 150 S. W.2d 3 77 (Tex. 1941 ) ................................................................................... 35 Ex parte Byars, 176 S. W.3d 841 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) ..................................... 30 Ex parte Davila, 530 S. W.2d 543 (Tex. Crim. App. 1975) ................................ 29,31 Ex parte Ellis, 275 S.W.3d 109 (Tex. App.- Austin 2008, no pet.) ......................27 Ex parte Galvan, 770 S. W.2d 822 (Tex. Crim. App. 1989) ................................... 34 Ex parte Humberto Garza, No. WR-78,113-01 (Unpublished Order of April 7, 2014) .................................................................. .39 Ex parte Roundtree, No. WR-74,550-01, 201 1 Tex. Crim. App. Unpub. LEXIS 249 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) ..................... 33 Ex parte Van Alstyne, 239 S.W.3d 815 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) ........................... 34 Ex parte Simpson, 136 S.W.3d 660 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004) ................................. 38 ExparteSinegar, 324 S.W.3d 578 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010)........................... 13,33, 34 Gaal v. State, 332 S. W.3d 448 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011 ) ....................................... passim Garza v. State, No. AP-75,217 (Tex. Crim. App. April 30, 2008) ........................... ! -vi- Gentry v. State, No. 06-05-00237-CR, 2006 Tex. App. LEXIS 2923 (Tex. App.- Texarkana 2006, no pet.) ................................................................. 24, 26 Green v. State, 374 S.W.3d 434 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) ....................................... 35 Hensarlingv. State, 829 S.W.2d 168 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992)............................ 23, 25 Keene Corp. v. Rogers, 863 S.W.2d 168 (Tex. App.- Texarkana 1993, no writ) .. 21 Kemp v. State, 846 S. W.2d 289 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992) ....................................... 24 Kniatt v. State, 239 S. W.3d 910 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) ........................................ 15 Lagrone v. State, 84 Tex. Crim. 609, 209 S. W. 411 (Tex. Crim. App. 1919) ......... 18 Lueg v. Lueg, 976 S.W.2d 308 (Tex. App.- Corpus Christi 1998, pet. denied) .....21 Mattox v. United States, 146 U.S. 140 (1892) ........................................................20 McClenan v. State, 661 S.W.2d 108 (Tex. Crim. App. 1983)............................ .32, 35 McQuarrie v. State, 380 S.W.3d 145 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) ............................... 18 Neveu v. Culver, 105 S.W.3d 641 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003) ..................................... 12 North East Independent School Dist. v. Aldridge, 400 S. W.2d 893 (Tex. 1966).................................................................................... 35 0 'Quinn v. Hall, 77 S. W.3d 438 (Tex. App.- Corpus Christi 2002, no pet. )......22, 24 0 'Quinn v. Hall, 77 S. W.3d 452 (Tex. App. - Corpus Christi 2002) ..................... 22 Padilla v. McDaniel, 122 S.W.3d 805 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003) ............................. xiii Parker v. Gladden, 385 U.S. 363( 1966) .................................................................. 20 Perkins v. Court ofAppeals, 738 S. W.2d 276 (Tex. Crim. App. 1987) ................. 38 -vii- Simmons v. State, 55 Tex. Crim. 441, 117 S. W.2d 141 (Tex. Crim. App. 1909).... 18 Smith v. Flack, 728 S.W.2d 784 (Tex. Crim. App. 1987) ....................................... 36 Sommers v. Concepcion, 20 S.W.3d 27 (Tex. Crim. App.- Houston [141h Dist.] 2000, pet. denied) .................................... 31 State ex rei. Hill v. Fifth Court ofAppeals, .34 S. W.3d 924 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001) ...................................................................................... 12, 26 State ex rei. Millsap v. Lozano, 692 S.W.2d 470 (Tex. Crim. App. 1985) ........... .41 State ex ref. Rosenthal v. Poe, 98 S.W.3d 194 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003) ................. 12 State ex rei Wade v. Mays, 689 S.W.2d 893, 899 (Tex. Crim. App. 1985)............. 12 Stearnes v. Clinton, 780 S.W.2d 216 (Tex. Crim. App. 1989)........................... 36,37 Thi Van Lev. Perkins, 700 S.W.2d 768, 776) (Tex. App.- Austin 1985) ............. 38 Thomas v. Stevenson, 561 S.W.2d 845 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978) ............................... xiii Woodruffv. Wright, 51 S.W.3d 727 (Tex. App.- Texarkana 2001, pet. denied) ... 21 TEXAS CONSTITUTION TEX. CON ST. Art. V, § 5(c) ................................................................................... xiii TEXAS STATUTES TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. Art. 4.04 ....................................................................... xiii TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. Art. 11.07 ........................................................................29 TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. Art. 11.071 .............................................................. passim -vm- TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. Art. 30.01 .......................................................................... 13 TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. Art 36.22 ..................................................................... 20,31 TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. Art 36.23 .......................................................................... 20 TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. Art 36.24 ..........................................................................20 TEX. CODECRIM. PROC. Art. 36.27 ........................................................................ 19,31 TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. Art. 37.071 ........................................................................ 16 TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. Art. 38.05 .......................................................................... 19 TEX. CODE JUD. CONDUCT, Canon 3(B)(8) ............................................................. 19 TEXAS RULES TEX. R. APP. P. 52 ........................................................................................... passim TEX. R. APP. P. 72.1 ......•••••••••••••••••...•..••••••••••••••...•••••••••••••••...•••••••••••...•••••••.•••.••••• Xlll ... TEX. R. APP. P. 73.4 ................................................................................................ 34 TEX. R. CIV. P. 18a ...........................................................................................pass1m TEX. . R. CIV. P. 18b .. ..... ... ...... ..... .... ...... .... .... ...... .... .......... ..... .... ....... .... ...... .....pass1m TEX. R. EVID. 605 .............................................................................................. 23 ,25 TEX. R. EVID. 606(b) ............................................................................................... 16 -ix- OTHER AUTHORITIES 48B Robert P. Schuwerk & Lillian B. Hardwick, Texas Practice Series: Handbook ofTexas Lawyer and Judicial Ethics 40:26 (2010) ................................................ 15 Goode, Wellborn and Sharlot, Texas Rules ofEvidence: Civil and Criminal, 33 Texas Practice 605 .I ............................................................................................... 25 -x- CONTENTS OF THE APPENDIX An Appendix is filed herewith, pursuant to TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3(k). Necessary Contents: Exhibit A Order Denying Applicant's Motion to Recuse 370th District Court Judge Noe Gonzalez Exhibit B TEX. R. CIV. P. l8a Exhibit C TEX. R. CJV. P. 18b Exhibit D TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. Art. 11.071. Optional Contents: Exhibit E Applicant's Brief in Support of Applicant's Motion for Court to be Recused Exhibit F State's Memorandum in Response to Applicant's Motion to Recuse 370'h District Court Judge Noe Gonzalez Exhibit G Applicant's Motion for Court to Recuse Itself Exhibit H Transcript: Excerpt of Proceedings from Hearing on Applicant's Motion for Court to Recuse Itself, June 16, 2014 Exhibit I Affidavit of Rose Marie Palacios, May 19, 2014 Exhibit J Affidavit of Rose Marie Vera, July 14, 2007 Exhibit K Affidavit of Melissa Guerrero, July 14, 2007 Exhibit L July 7, 2014, Letter of Assistant District Attorney Theodore C. Hake to the Hon. Noe Gonzalez -xi- STATEMENT OF THE CASE This is a petition for writ of mandamus against the Respondent, Hon. J .R. Bobby Flores, of the 139th District Court of Hidalgo County, Texas, arising out of a motion to recuse the presidingjudge ofthe 370th District Court of Hidalgo County, Hon. Noe Gonzalez, in a capital habeas corpus proceeding filed pursuant to TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. Art.§ 11.071. The Relator seeks an order commanding the Respondent to vacate his Order Denying Applicant's Motion to Recuse 370th District Court Judge Noe Gonzalez, signed and entered on July 3rd, 2014, and to enter an Order recusing Judge Gonzalez. The Relator also seeks a temporary stay of the proceedings in the 370th District Court, in order to permit this Court to resolve the issues presented in this petition. -xii- STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION Jurisdiction of this Honorable Court is invoked pursuant to TEX. CON ST. Art. V, § S(c); TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. Art. 4.04, § 1; TEX. R. APP. P. 72.1; and TEX. R. APP. P. 52. Thomas v. Stevenson, 561 S.W.2d 845, 847 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978)(amendment of TEX. CONST. Art. V, § 5(c) provides this Court with power to grant extraordinary writs in cases regarding criminal matters). When a court of appeals and the Court of Criminal Appeals have concurrent, original jurisdiction over a petition for a writ of mandamus against the judge of a district or county court, the petition should be presented first to the court of appeals, unless there is a compelling reason not to do so. Padilla v. McDaniel, 122 S.W.3d 805, 808 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003). This petition is being presented to this Court in the first instance because this Court has sole jurisdiction over the appeal and review death penalty cases, of which this is one. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. Art. 4.04, § 2; TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. Art. 11.071. Moreover, the Court has previously ordered that the underlying case be expeditiously concluded. See Order of April7, 2014 in Ex parte Humberto Garza, No. WR78, 113-0 1. Were this petition to be filed in the Thirteenth Court of Appeals, there is the likelihood that the matter would still be brought to this Court in due course, consuming additional time. -xiii- ISSUE PRESENTED The Respondent judge denied a motion to recuse the judge presiding over an application for writ of habeas corpus, filed in a capital case pursuant to TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. Art. 11.071. The judge presiding over the application was the convicting court at trial. The habeas application contained allegations ofjury misconduct, including the exposure of the jury to outside influences. Further investigation of the case, conducted prior to a scheduled evidentiary hearing revealed that former jurors would testify that both Judge Gonzalez and his bailiff engaged in off-the-record communications with the jury during the trial, in the jury room, and outside the presence of counsel or the defendant. The subject matter of the communications included the concern ofjury members about their personal safety in this gang-related case in which the jury was required to answer the future dangerousness special issue, TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. Art. 37.071. The basis for the motion to recuse was that, in the circumstances of this case Judge Gonzalez's ability to adjudicate impartially a ground for relief concerning his own and his bailiffs conduct might reasonably be questioned, and that the judge has personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding, TEX. R. CIV. P. 18b (b)(l) and (3). Humberto Garza had a right to a trial where the jury only made its decisions -xiv- on the basis of evidence developed from the witness stand in a public courtroom, in his personal presence and with the full protection of his rights of confrontation, of cross-examination, and of counsel. Given the governing legal standards and the record as developed, Mr. Garza has a clear entitlement to relief from this Court, and would have no adequate remedy on appeal. The intervention of this Court is therefore necessary in this extraordinary situation in order to avert the continuation of a habeas proceeding that would inevitably have to be remanded later for renewed proceedings before a different judge. An immediate stay ofthe proceedings in the trial court is also sought in order to permit this Court to resolve the issues presented in this petition, and for Mr. Garza to be able to actually receive the reliefrequested, namely that the habeas proceedings should only continue before a different judge. -xv- STATEMENT OF FACTS Humberto Garza was convicted of capital murder in the 3 70th Judicial District Court of Hidalgo County, Texas, Judge Noe Gonzalez presiding, and sentenced to death on March 24, 2005. Both the conviction and sentence of death was affirmed on direct appeal. Garza v. State, No. AP-75,217 (Tex. Crim. App. April 30, 2008)(not designated for publication). A timely Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus was filed on July 19, 2007. On November 13, 2012, the Hidalgo County District Attorney's Office filed its Answer to the Writ Application. Claims Five and Six of the Application alleged that Mr. Garza's death sentence resulted from jury misconduct, including the exposure of the jury to outside influences. 2 An affidavit of juror Rose Marie Vera, submitted as Exhibit 26 to the Application, indicated that the trial judge had warned us that sometimes gang members come after the jury, and that the bailiff had told the jury that the judge always carried a gun. 3 2 Claims Five and Six are virtually identical and were not argued separately within the Application. 3 Applicant was alleged to be a leader of the Tri-City Bombers gang, and was charged with carrying out a six-victim robbery-homicide along with other gang members. -1- Ms. Vera's affidavit, which was obtained by volunteer law students, did not specify whether the comment made by the judge about gangs was made in open court (it does not appear on the record), when that comment was made and in what circumstances, what the bailiffs name was, what were the circumstances in which the bailiff was talking to the jury about the judge, when the bailiff told the jury that the judge carried a gun, or what the influence of the judge and bailiffs comments had been on Ms. Vera's sentencing decision. Mr. Garza's original habeas corpus counsel, John Wright, withdrew and undersigned counsel was appointed in his place on November 9, 2012. Undersigned counsel subsequently obtained funding to further investigate and develop the grounds for relief pleaded in Mr. Garza's habeas application. On April 7, 2014, this Court entered an order directing the trial court to rule on any outstanding motions in the case within 30 days and to resolve any outstanding issues within 90 days. On May 14, 2014, the trial court set a hearing date of June 9, 2014. In the meantime, investigation on behalfofMr. Garza continued. 4 4 As stated at the recusal hearing on June 16, 2014, it has only been possible to interview some, but not all, of the trial jurors in this case because of the difficulty that undersigned and former counsel experienced in obtaining necessary investigative funding. -2- Further information and clarification about the communications between the jury, Judge Gonzalez and his bailiffwas obtained during an interview of juror Rose Marie Vera, now known as Rose Marie Palacios. Ms. Palacios signed a new affidavit stating that both Judge Gonzalez and his bailiff had engaged in communications with the jury in the jury room, and outside the presence of counsel, during which the statements mentioned in her earlier affidavit were made. A motion asking Judge Gonzalez to recuse himself was therefore filed on May 27, 2014.5 Judge Gonzalez declined to recuse himself, and referred this matter to the Regional Presiding Judge, who assigned the case to the Hon J.R. Bobby Flores of the 139111 District Court ofHidalgo County. A hearing was conducted on June 16, 2014. 6 Three witnesses testified: former jurors Rose Marie Palacios and Melissa Guerrero were called on behalf of Mr. Garza; the trial bailiff, Alicia Licha Salinas, was called by the State. Judge Flores also took judicial notice of the contents of the court file pertaining to the case, which included affidavits from Rose Marie Palacios dated May 19, 2014 and, under her former name, Rose Marie Vera, dated July 14,2007, and from Melissa 5 Ms. Vera reverted to her maiden name ofPalacios after a divorce. 6 A transcript of the testimony from the hearing is attached as Exhibit H. -3- Guerrero, dated July 14, 2007. 7 Rose Marie Palacios (formerly Vera). Ms. Palacios testified that she had been a juror at Mr. Garza's 2005 trial. RHR at 4. 8 She had had concerns for her personal safety during the trial, which were caused by the other jurors, and by the judge saying that jurors could be in danger, as well as by the evidence itself. RHR. at 4-5. She had thought she might be followed or threatened. RHR. at 4. Her concerns were increased by an incident where someone took photographs of the jury in court during the trial. RHR at 5. The jurors had been asking if we were safe because of the gang activity. They were concerned about gang members' families being in the courtroom, and about the taking of the photograph. RHR at 8. Ms. Palacios acknowledged that the family members in the courtroom could have been family members of the victims in the case, which involved gangs on both sides. RHR at 18. The bailiff, who was a woman named Licha, told the jury members that they would be safe because the judge carried a gun, but that made Mrs. Palacios more nervous. RHR at 5, 9. Licha's comments were made in the jury room, not the 7 These exhibits are attached as Exhibits I-K. 8 Page references are to the transcript of the testimony prepared and provided to the parties on June 17,2014, which is attached as Exhibit H. It is referred to here as RHR (Recusal Hearing Record). -4- courtroom, and with all the jurors present. RHR at 5, 7. Some other jurors had told Licha they hoped she was carrying a gun: And she said no, she didn't, but not to worry because the judge did. RHR at 6. Licha said that she never carried a gun, RHR at 17. This conversation occurred during the trial, and before the jury arrived at a guilty verdict. RHR at 8. Licha also said that she would be surprised if [the judge] bought us lunch because he was a cheapskate[.] RHR at 9. The judge came into the jury room to talk to the jurors about their safety concerns. RHR at 10. Ms. Palacios believed that the judge came into the jury room in response to a note from another member of the jury. RHR at I 0. That visit by the Judge to the jury room was while the trial was still going on, and before the guilty verdict. RHR at I 0. All twelve members of the jury were there, but she could not remember if the bailiff was there also. RHR at II. The court reporter may also have been present, but not the defendant or his attorneys, RHR at II. 9 Ms. Palacios did not remember Mr. Garza or any of the attorneys ever being present in the jury room. RHR at 7-8. The judge had mentioned scheduling when he talked to the jurors. RHR at 15. Ms. Palacios testified that the judge said That he understood our fears, but 9 The Reporter's Record filed by the court reporter at trial, the late Francisco B. Moreno, does not include any transcript of proceedings conducted in the jury room. -5- ... he was going to provide us security and that we would be fine ... That the gangs, sometimes they threaten the jurors and sometimes they -they may follow you. RHR at II. The judge did not give any specific examples of gangs disrupting trials or threatening people. RHR at I6-I 7. The judge said that the person who had taken a photograph in court was legitimate. RHR at II. He said that it was a courthouse policy not to permit pictures ofjurors to be taken. RHR at I3-I4. Mrs. Palacios thought that the judge may also have come into the jury room another time, in response to a note. RHR at I2. Later in the trial, the jury had been permitted to park on the west side of the courthouse, closer to the courtroom, and the deputies had escorted the jurors. RHR at I4-15. Mrs. Palacios had been interviewed about the case seven years ago by people who said they were students from Austin, and she gave them an affidavit at the time. RHR at I5-I6. Mrs. Palacios was asked additional questions when she was interviewed a second time. RHR at I9. In her earlier affidavit, Mrs. Palacios said she thought she saw Mr. Garza's mother sitting in a car out in the parking lot, and the jury had been told by court staff that they'd take care of the situation. RHR at 16. Ms. Palacios had not named the bailiff in her first affidavit, but she may not have been asked for a name at that time. RHR at 20-21. -6- Melissa Guerrero Ms. Guerrero testified that she was a juror at Mr. Garza's 2005 trial. RHR at 22-23. She had had concerns for her personal safety because of the crime in question, which concerned gang violence, and was specifically concerned about being followed. RHR at 23. There was an incident during the trial when a reporter took a picture, which she herself did not see, but which worried other jurors. RHR at 23. She believed that jurors had expressed concern to court staff about the security situation. RHR at 24. The judge had approached the jury in the jury room behind the courtroom on the fifth or sixth day of trial. RHR at 24. He said that he had come to calm the jury down, and that they would be parking in a different area from that point. RHR at 25. She assumed that the change in parking arrangements was because of security concerns. RHR at 25. When the judge spoke to the jurors, there was nobody else in the room, other than the twelve of them. RHR at 25. The jurors were told that they would be allowed to leave for their parking area before others were released from court. RHR at 25-26. Ms. Guerrero did not know if it was a regular policy to let people park close by the courthouse after hours so that they did not have to walk across the street. RHR at 29. She had assumed the change in parking arrangements was because of -7- the security situation. RHR at 30. Ms. Guerrero could not remember any other remarks made by the judge, but the conversation that did occur concerned security matters. RHR at 26. The conversation was not about scheduling. RHR at 30. The judge also came to the jury room after the trial to thank the jury and to provide information about counseling. RHR at 31. Ms. Guerrero remembered that the bailiff in the case was a woman, but did not recall any conversation with her about security arrangements. RHR at 26-27. Mrs Guerrero had signed an affidavit in 2007 in which she said nothing about the judge going to the jury room. However, she had not been questioned about that at the time. RHR at 27-28. She had been visited in the past few days by defense counsel, together with another woman. RHR at 28. On cross-examination, Ms. Guerrero said that defense counsel had not suggested what Ms. Guerrero should say, other than telling her to be honest. RHR at 31. She had been interviewed by two people in 2007, one of whom may have been a lawyer, or they may have been law students. RHR at 32. The questions asked more recently were in greater depth than on the previous occasion. RHR at 32. She may not have given further information in 2007 about her security concerns because she was not asked at the time. RHR at 32. Also, time -8- constraints may have prevented having a fuller conversation. RHR at 33. Ms. Guerrero acknowledged that sentencing someone to death had been a tough decision for her. RHR at 33-34. Alicia Licba Salinas Ms. Salinas confirmed that her nickname is Licha. RHR at 35. She has worked in the 370th District Court of Hidalgo County for 12 years. Noe Gonzalez has been judge of that court throughout that time. RHR at 35. She is now the court coordinator, but was working as bailiff back in 2005. RHR at 35. Ms. Salinas stated that she sort of' remembered Mr. Garza's trial. RHR at 36. Ms. Salinas testified that one does not have to be a certified peace officer to be a bailiff. RHR at 36. She did not carry a gun when she was acting as a bailiff in 2005. RHR at 36. She did not remember telling anybody on the jury that Judge Gonzalez carried a gun, and does not think she would have said that. RHR. at 36. To her knowledge, Judge Gonzalez did not carry a gun back then. RHR at 36. As a bailiff, Ms. Salinas would escort the jury and give them notice that they were needed in the courtroom. RHR at 37. She might escort them to a restaurant if lunch was not being brought in for the jury. RHR at 3 7. Jurors in the 370'h district court would park in the big courthouse parking lot or, if they were working late, certain parking areas would be blocked off for them where there is -9- an entrance that goes right into the courtroom. RHR. at 37-38. Ms. Salinas did not specifically remember any jurors expressing security concerns during Mr. Garza's trial. RHR. at 38. If the jury had a note, they would hand it to her to give to the judge so that the judge and lawyers could discuss the response. RHR. at 38-39. Usually the judge would have a note handed back to the jury, rather than bringing them back into the courtroom. RHR at 39. While working at the 3 70th District Court, Ms. Salinas has performed the functions of bailiff, interpreter and court coordinator. RHR at 39. She had been approved for promotion to court coordinator, and has been in that position since about February 2011. RHR at 39-40. The judge is her boss and writes her performance reviews. RHR at 40. He would have some influence over whether she would get an increase in salary. RHR at 40. She has worked for him for twelve years. RHR. at 40. Her county job comes with benefits and a retirement plan, and is a valuable thing to have. RHR at 40. She is a valued member of the judge's staff and likes working where she does. RHR at 41. Ms. Salinas' office is right next to the judge's chamber, so she is physically very close to him - he can just call out and she is at his side in a minute. RHR at 41. Her name appears on court transcripts, together with that of the judge and the attorneys. RHR at 41. -10- Ms. Salinas is aware that there is a Code of Ethics governing judicial behavior, including rules about behaving with dignity and being impartial, and that the judge's staff should follow those same rules. RHR at 41-42. She knows that it would be undignified to gossip about cases. RHR at 42. She has had training at officially-run court bailiff workshops. RHR at 42. She has been taught what she should and should not do, with regard to not exposing the jury to anything that might cause them to be prejudiced for one side or the other, other than by the evidence. RHR at 42-43. She understands that she should not talk about a case with the jury except in the presence of the judge and with his permission, that there are rules about the judge not communicating with the jury except in writing, and that breaking some of these rules can result in a fine or confinement in jail, or in a case reversal or a mistrial. RHR at 43. She knows that if she broke those rules she could lose her job or be demoted. RHR at 44. She knows that the judge might lose his reputation if he allowed such breaches of the rules, and that such breaches could cause negative comment in the media, or reversal of a case which would also cause the judge a loss of reputation, RHRat44. -11- ARGUMENT AND AUTHORITIES