in Re the State of Texas Ex Rel. Abelino Reyna, Relator v. Court of Appeals for the Tenth District
WR-83,719-01
| Tex. App. | Sep 14, 2015Background
- On May 17, 2015, 177 motorcyclists (including Matthew Clendennen) were arrested after a Twin Peaks shooting; arrests used near-identical "fill-in-the-name" complaints and generated extensive local, national media coverage.
- McLennan County prosecutors and police repeatedly provided press statements characterizing the groups as "outlaw biker gangs."
- Minutes before a hearing on a subpoena for Twin Peaks surveillance video, the DA’s office moved for a broad gag order; the district court signed a comprehensive, unlimited-duration gag order drafted by the DA.
- The gag order applied to Clendennen, his counsel, witnesses in his criminal case, and law enforcement statements about his case, but not to actors in the other 176 criminal matters or related civil suits; state actors continued to speak publicly after the order.
- The Tenth Court of Appeals conditionally granted mandamus relief directing the trial court to withdraw the gag order; the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals stayed that writ and ordered briefing on several issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Clendennen) | Defendant's Argument (State/Relator Reyna) | Held (Tenth Ct. of Appeals / Issues raised) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Texas' Davenport standard applies to gag orders in criminal cases | Davenport's "imminent and irreparable harm" + "least restrictive means" test should govern; Texas Constitution affords broader speech protection | State implicitly relied on criminal-case precedents supporting narrower federal standards | Tenth Ct. applied Davenport principles; issue preserved for higher review |
| Whether trial court made sufficiently specific factual findings to support the gag order | Findings were boilerplate/copied from unrelated cases and lacked case-specific evidence of imminent, irreparable harm or consideration of alternatives | State argued publicity threatened fair trial rights and gag order was necessary | Court found findings deficient/insufficiently specific to support a prior restraint |
| Whether the gag order was narrowly tailored / least restrictive means | District court failed to consider or articulate less-restrictive alternatives (venue change, postponement, voir dire, admonitions, sequestration); order was overbroad, indefinite, vague, and unworkable (didn’t bind other related defendants or civil litigants) | State maintained gag order was necessary to protect fair trial rights given intense publicity | Court concluded the order was not the least restrictive means and was overbroad/vague/unworkable |
| Whether the district court had jurisdiction to enter the gag order | District court’s habeas/bond-review jurisdiction did not grant plenary authority over a pending justice-court criminal complaint; no indictment had yet been returned | State asserted authority to protect trial rights in pending proceedings | Clendennen argues (and court raised) that district court lacked jurisdiction to impose broad gag unrelated to bond/habeas relief |
Key Cases Cited
- Davenport v. Garcia, 837 S.W.2d 73 (Tex. 1992) (establishes Texas test for prior restraints: imminent and irreparable harm plus least-restrictive-means)
- United States v. Ford, 830 F.2d 596 (6th Cir. 1987) (broad pretrial gag orders are seldom justified; courts should consider less-restrictive remedies)
- United States v. Wilson, 925 F. Supp. 2d 410 (E.D.N.Y. 2013) (court must determine whether other remedies can mitigate prejudicial publicity before imposing gag orders)
- In re Benton, 238 S.W.3d 587 (Tex. App. — Houston [14th Dist.] 2007) (vacating gag order where findings failed to show narrow tailoring or substantial likelihood of prejudice)
- In re Graves, 217 S.W.3d 744 (Tex. App. — Waco 2007) (gag order vacated for lack of specific findings about how publicity would affect jury impartiality)
- In re Houston Chronicle Pub. Co., 64 S.W.3d 103 (Tex. App. — Houston [14th Dist.] 2001) (one of the few state-court decisions upholding a gag-style restriction where the record showed specific prejudicial publicity and the defendant had been indicted)