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. | Oct 6, 2015Background
- Amicus brief filed by McLennan County and other Texas district attorneys urging the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals to uphold a trial-court gag order entered in a high‑profile mass‑shooting prosecution (Twin Peaks incident; many defendants, extensive publicity).
- The trial court found extensive local and national media coverage, repeated media interviews by counsel and parties, and concluded such publicity threatened defendants’ rights to fair trials and venue preservation; it imposed restrictions on extrajudicial commentary by counsel.
- The Tenth Court of Appeals conditionally granted mandamus relief (stayed the gag order); the state sought relief to vacate that conditional writ.
- Core legal dispute centers on whether Davenport v. Garcia (a Texas civil‑gag precedent) controls criminal gag orders, whether the trial‑court findings were sufficiently specific, and whether the appellate conditional writ was properly issued.
- Amicus argues Davenport is ill‑suited to criminal cases because it analyzes only state free‑speech protections and ignores competing Sixth Amendment and federal precedents requiring balance and different standards for participants (lawyers, parties) in criminal litigation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Applicability of Davenport v. Garcia to criminal gag orders | Davenport should not control; it addresses only state free‑speech in civil context and ignores Sixth Amendment balancing; federal precedents govern criminal cases | Defense/real‑party contends Davenport and its strict standard limit prior restraints and require tight findings | Amicus position: Davenport is inapplicable to criminal gag orders; courts must apply federal balancing and recognize narrower standards for litigant speech |
| Sufficiency of trial‑court findings supporting gag order | Trial court made judicial‑notice findings of emotional nature, extensive publicity, counsel interviews, prejudice to fair trial, and lack of less‑restrictive alternatives — sufficient under a criminal balancing test | Defense argues findings lack the specific, imminent/irreparable‑harm language Davenport requires and therefore are insufficient | Amicus position: Findings are factually supported and sufficiently specific when criminal trial rights are weighed against speech rights |
| Use of mandamus by court of appeals to vacate/stay gag order | Appellate conditional writ was improper given trial court’s duty to limit prejudicial publicity and the record supporting potential prejudice | Defense contends immediate appellate intervention is warranted because Davenport’s strict prior‑restraint rules were violated | Amicus position: Tenth Court of Appeals’ conditional mandamus is not supported; trial court’s exercise of authority should be upheld or remanded to apply proper criminal‑context balancing |
| Least‑restrictive‑means and alternatives (venue change, voir dire, sequestration) | Amicus: In mass, instantaneous media environment and with 177 defendants, alternatives (change of venue, sequestration, extended voir dire) may be impracticable or insufficient to protect fair trials and venue options; limited gag order justified | Defense: Less‑restrictive measures are available and mandatory before prior restraint; allow public advocacy and do not gag counsel | Amicus position: Trial court reasonably found no adequate less‑restrictive alternative under the circumstances; limited gag order allowable to protect trial integrity |
Key Cases Cited
- Davenport v. Garcia, 834 S.W.2d 4 (Tex. 1992) (Texas decision establishing strict state‑speech prior‑restraint standards for gag orders in civil context)
- Gentile v. State Bar of Nevada, 501 U.S. 1030 (1991) (Supreme Court held lawyers’ speech may be regulated under a less demanding standard than press speech in order to protect trial fairness)
- Sheppard v. Maxwell, 384 U.S. 333 (1966) (trial courts must take affirmative steps to protect criminal trials from prejudicial outside interference)
- Nebraska Press Ass'n v. Stuart, 427 U.S. 539 (1976) (prior restraints in criminal cases require consideration of alternatives and least‑restrictive means)
- Gannett Co. v. DePasquale, 443 U.S. 368 (1979) (recognizes court’s duty to minimize prejudicial pretrial publicity to protect fairness)
- United States v. Brown, 218 F.3d 415 (5th Cir. 2000) (addressing protections for multiple defendants and effects of publicity on venue and trial fairness)