Hill, Albert G.
PD-0019-15
| Tex. App. | Sep 9, 2015Background
- Albert G. Hill III and his wife were indicted in Dallas County for mortgage-fraud-related offenses after complaints and an investigation; charges against the wife were later dismissed.
- Hill had earlier been involved in a federal family-trust dispute; his former trial lawyers (including Lisa Blue) sued Hill for fees and obtained a $20M judgment.
- Hill alleged the Dallas DA Craig Watkins conspired with Blue (via campaign contributions, calls, texts, and meetings) to secure indictments to benefit Blue in the fee dispute. He attached many unauthenticated documents to support that claim.
- A federal court reviewing the same allegations found they amounted to "supposition and speculation" and that in-camera review of texts showed no substantive discussion of the indictments.
- The state trial court nevertheless granted Hill an evidentiary hearing, compelled testimony from Watkins (who asserted privilege), found Watkins’ refusal deprived Hill of a meaningful hearing, and dismissed the indictments with prejudice.
- The Dallas Court of Appeals reversed and reinstated the indictments, holding Hill had not presented facts sufficient to entitle him to an evidentiary hearing; the State now seeks review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Hill) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held (Court of Appeals / State position) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Entitlement to an evidentiary hearing into prosecutorial motive | Hill argued the attachments and alleged communications/campaign support created a colorable basis to probe DA motive (selective/vindictive prosecution) | State argued Hill offered no admissible evidence, failed to identify similarly situated unprosecuted persons, and could not overcome presumption of prosecutorial good faith | Court of Appeals: Hill failed to allege facts establishing constitutional violation; evidentiary hearing was not warranted |
| Selective-prosecution claim | Hill claimed he was singled out to aid Blue and avoid payment of fees | State argued Hill did not identify any similarly situated person not prosecuted (an "absolute requirement" per Armstrong) | Held: No prima facie showing of selective prosecution; hearing improper |
| Vindictive-prosecution claim | Hill claimed prosecution was retaliatory tied to civil litigation/the fee dispute | State argued presumption of vindictiveness doesn't apply pretrial and Hill offered no direct evidence of actual vindictiveness | Held: No direct evidence; presumption inapplicable pretrial; claim unsupported |
| Remedy — dismissal with prejudice | Hill justified permanent dismissal because his right to a meaningful hearing was denied by Watkins’ invocation of privilege | State argued dismissal with prejudice was excessive; remedy should be dismissal without prejudice or re- indictment by an untainted prosecutor | Held (Court of Appeals / State): Trial court abused discretion in dismissing with prejudice; at most dismissal without prejudice would neutralize any taint |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Armstrong, 517 U.S. 456 (1996) (defendant must present some evidence, including similarly situated unprosecuted persons, before probing prosecutorial motive)
- United States v. Goodwin, 457 U.S. 368 (1982) (presumption of vindictiveness generally does not apply to pretrial prosecutorial charging decisions)
- Bordenkircher v. Hayes, 434 U.S. 357 (1978) (broad prosecutorial charging discretion so long as probable cause exists)
- Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978) (requirements for mandating an evidentiary hearing on challenges to official affidavits; proffers must be more than conclusory)
- Wayte v. United States, 470 U.S. 598 (1985) (courts should avoid subjecting prosecutorial motives to routine inquiry; separation-of-powers concerns)
- Neal v. State, 150 S.W.3d 169 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004) (Texas discussion of selective/vindictive prosecution standards and burden to make prima facie showing)