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 25, 2015Background
- Amici are 33 defendants (and their counsel) arrested in the Twin Peaks incident who filed a brief supporting respondent Matthew Clendennen’s opposition to the State’s petition for writ of mandamus to enforce a gag order.
- McLennan County DA Abel Reyna made multiple public statements shortly after the arrests asserting collective guilt, describing the arrests as organized criminal activity, and criticizing those who remained silent.
- The State later sought to maintain a pretrial gag order restricting the accused’s extrajudicial statements; amici argue the State’s public comments preceded and undermined its claim that the gag order is needed to protect fair trial rights.
- Amici contend the accused need free-speech rights to counteract prejudicial publicity and that Clendennen’s disputed comments were narrowly tailored to his own culpability.
- Amici argue the DA has continued to speak to media despite seeking the gag order, demonstrating the State’s bad faith and rendering the prior restraint unjustified.
- The brief urges denial of the State’s mandamus petition, asserting voir dire can address jury prejudice and that Texas constitutional protections restrict prior restraints.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State/DA) | Defendant's Argument (Amici/Clendennen) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of pretrial gag order restraining accused’s speech | Gag order is necessary to protect the accused’s right to a fair trial from prejudicial extrajudicial statements | Gag order is a prior restraint; State’s own prejudicial statements created the problem and silencing accused is improper | Court asked to deny State’s mandamus and vacate gag order (amici’s position) |
| Whether voir dire can cure pretrial publicity | Publicity justifies prior restraint to prevent further tainting of jury pool | Voir dire is the proper tool to root out bias; gag order only justified if publicity irreparably tainted jury | Amici invoke Patton: voir dire is primary remedy; gag order must meet high standard |
| Whether State acted in good faith seeking gag order | State claims interest in fair trial protection | State acted in bad faith by publicly prejudging guilt and continuing media comments while seeking gag order | Amici argue State’s conduct undermines its request; court should consider State’s motivation |
| Constitutional standard under Texas law for prior restraints | Federal fair-trial concerns support restraint | Article I, §8 of Texas Constitution provides robust speech protection; prior restraint inappropriate absent particularized showing | Amici rely on Texas precedent holding strong protection against prior restraints |
Key Cases Cited
- Patton v. Yount, 467 U.S. 1025 (U.S. 1984) (voir dire is primary means to detect juror bias from pretrial publicity)
- Davenport v. Garcia, 834 S.W.2d 4 (Tex. 1992) (Texas Constitution affords robust protection for free speech)
- In re Benton, 238 S.W.3d 587 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2007) (prior restraint analysis under Texas law)
- In re Graves, 217 S.W.3d 744 (Tex. App.—Waco 2007) (prior restraint and extrajudicial-statement considerations)