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 21, 2015Background
- This is an emergent motion by Matthew Alan Clendennen asking the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals to vacate a stay that continued a district-court gag order. The stay had been entered after the Tenth Court of Appeals conditionally granted mandamus to vacate the gag order.
- Clendennen contends Relator (McLennan County DA Abelino Reyna) sought and obtained the gag order while continuing to speak to media, thereby violating equitable principles and his own gag restrictions.
- The underlying matters involve the May 17, 2015 Twin Peaks shooting and related discovery; portions of incident reports were disclosed to the Associated Press, prompting media coverage and Reyna’s statement criticizing the disclosure.
- Clendennen argues the district court lacked jurisdiction to enter the gag order, there was no imminent or irreparable harm to justify it, no consideration of less-restrictive alternatives, and the order is unworkable given the number of defendants and related proceedings.
- The central equitable claim: because mandamus is governed in part by equitable principles, Reyna’s alleged post-petition statements (and earlier press comments) constitute "unclean hands," barring him from equitable relief (i.e., enforcement of the gag order by writ of mandamus or continuation of the stay).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether mandamus is subject to equitable defenses (unclean hands) | Clendennen: yes; unclean hands bars issuance because Reyna violated the gag order and acted unconscionably | Reyna (implied): seeks enforcement of gag/order via mandamus; stay was appropriate | Court recognizing mandamus is controlled by equitable principles; unclean hands can be considered (argument urged; motion requests dissolution of stay) |
| Whether Reyna’s media statements defeat his equitable claim | Clendennen: Reyna continued to speak to press after seeking relief, showing bad faith | Reyna: framed disclosure as an ethical/legal breach by someone else; focused on facts and law | Clendennen asserts such conduct demonstrates unclean hands and requests vacatur of stay (court not yet finally decided) |
| Whether the district court’s gag order was justified | Clendennen: no jurisdiction, no imminent/irreparable harm, no narrow/less-restrictive means, and unworkable given many defendants | Reyna sought order to protect fair trial; argued necessity | Clendennen argues the Court of Appeals’ conditional mandamus was correct; this motion presses equitable bar to continued stay |
| Whether the stay of the Court of Appeals’ writ should be dissolved | Clendennen: stay was improvidently granted given Reyna’s conduct and continued speech | Reyna: retention of stay to allow briefing on three questions (administrative posture) | Clendennen requests immediate dissolution; outcome left to Court of Criminal Appeals (motion pending) |
Key Cases Cited
- Riverfront Associates v. Rivera, 858 S.W.2d 366 (Tex. 1993) (mandamus is extraordinary and governed by equitable principles)
- Smith v. Flack, 728 S.W.2d 784 (Tex. Crim. App. 1987) (equitable principles are implicated when considering mandamus)
- City of Fredericksburg v. Bopp, 126 S.W.3d 218 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2003) (unclean hands doctrine applies where conduct is unconscientious or in bad faith)
- In re Simon Property (Delaware), Inc., 985 S.W.2d 212 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 1999) (party with unclean hands not entitled to mandamus)
- Axelson, Inc. v. McIlhany, 798 S.W.2d 550 (Tex. 1990) (noting equitable considerations in mandamus practice)
- Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438 (U.S. 1928) (Brandeis dissent cited regarding denial of equitable relief to those who violated the law in the same transaction)