Hill, Albert G., PD-0021-15

Hill sought pretrial dismissal of four indictments for mortgage-fraud offenses, alleging prosecutorial misconduct (selective/vindictive prosecution and lack of disinterested prosecutor).
He proffered a 44-exhibit evidentiary packet to support a colorable constitutional claim; the State opposed and the trial judge granted an evidentiary hearing.
The trial judge conducted a hearing, heard testimony, and dismissed the indictments with prejudice after Watkins refused to testify.
The Court of Appeals vacated the order, remanding; the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals granted discretionary review to address the sufficiency of the “some evidence” standard and whether a hearing was properly required.
Hill’s proffer allegedly showed Watkins was improperly influenced by Lisa Blue and others in connection with campaign donations and fee disputes, leading to indictments deemed “unprecedented.”
The majority ultimately held that Hill did not establish the required prima facie showing of selective prosecution, and remanded to reinstate the indictments; a dissent argued the trial court did not err in holding the hearing and dismissing with prejudice.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Prima facie showing required for selective prosecution	Hill satisfied ‘some evidence’; exceptionally clear evidence showed selective prosecution	State contends Hill failed to prove a prima facie case	Hill did not meet the prima facie threshold; hearing improper; indictments reinstated on remand.
Adequacy and characterization of Hill's proffer	Proffers were admissible and showed a colorable claim	Exhibits were unauthenticated and insufficient to prove violation	Proffered evidence was admissible; but still insufficient for prima facie showing; hearing vacated.
Whether dismissal with prejudice was proper	Dismissal warranted to remedy constitutional violation	Dismissal with prejudice is drastic and not warranted absent proven violations	Court vacates dismissal order and remands to reinstate indictments.

United States v. Armstrong, 517 U.S. 456 (1996) (some evidence standard; presumption of regularity governs prosecution decisions)
Neal v. State, 150 S.W.3d 169 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004) (vindictiveness standard; proof required for hearing)
Green v. State, 934 S.W.2d 92 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996) (elements of selective prosecution; burden on defendant to show discrimination)
Garcia v. State, 172 S.W.3d 270 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2005) (exceptionally clear evidence required for prima facie claim)
Armstrong (United States v. Armstrong), 517 U.S. 456 (1996) (reiterates evidentiary threshold; colorable claim standard)
Gawlik v. State, 608 S.W.2d 671 (Tex. Crim. App. 1980) (prosecutorial misconduct and burdens of proof in selective cases)
Rodriguez v. State, 283 S.W.3d 465 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2009) (evidentiary hearing standards in prosecutorial misconduct)