San Marcos Mercury | Local News from San Marcos and Hays County, Texas
Email Email | Print Print --

June 12th, 2009
New filing in Shipman case

By SEAN WARDWELL
Managing Editor

Attorneys for Shawn Nathan Shipman presented an application for a Writ of Habeas Corpus on June 9 in the hope of sparing him a new trial on narcotics charges. A Writ of Habeas Corpus is a legal action by which detainees can seek relief from a court from unlawful imprisonment.

Shipman, who is currently incarcerated in the Hays County Jail, was granted a new trial after former Assistant District Attorney Lynn Peach informed his lawyer, David S. Watts, of possible prosecutorial misconduct.

The Hays County District Attorney’s office recused itself from Shipman’s case after Peach presented her allegations. Mark Kimball, a former prosecutor from Bell County, was brought in to handle the case instead.

Visiting District Judge James F. Clawson Jr. heard arguments from both sides during a sometimes contentious hearing that ran for more than four hours. Kimball faced off against Chevo Pastrano Jr., who was brought in to assist Watts with Shipman’s case.

Clawson will wait to make a ruling until he has had a chance to read cases cited by both sides. Both Kimball and Shipman’s attorneys have indicated they will appeal if they aren’t satisfied with the judge’s ruling.

Shipman’s new trial has been removed from the June docket. A new trial date, if needed, will be set after Clawson rules on the writ.

For more information on the Shipman case, read these previous stories.

Email Email | Print Print
--

Recommended for you

0 thoughts on “New filing in Shipman case”

  2. Yes – the Court denied the writ for Shipman, and found all facts in favor of the State.

    Interesting – no coverage of an almost 5 hour hearing where it was brought out how the defense tried to make an officer look bad, knowing he had been cleared of any wrongdoing. They could show no wrongdoing on the part of Chris Johnson. Lynn Peach (who may be romatically involved with one of the defense lawyers) looked on the stand like she didn’t have a clue on the facts, ethics or the legal issues involved.

    Seems the media likes the farcical one-sided view of the case, trying to make the prosecution look bad.

    The hearing made it clear this is a personal vendetta on the part of the defense lawyers against the DA and the PD.

  3. Courtwatcher, I spoke with the District Clerk’s office and there’s been no ruling yet on the Writ.

  4. Courtwatcher, I stand corrected. There was a ruling and we will have a complete story on this tomorrow.

  5. Hmmm, did they just make this ruling between 1:16 pm and 4:30 pm or did Sean just go by old information. Seems like before an Editor of a publication should rebuke a blogger’s message that is 4 days old, they would do a little research to make sure they were right. I think an apology to all of us readers for jumping the gun and not doing any digging is in order!

  6. COS, I did call the Hays County District Clerk with the case number for the Writ before posting the comment. I was told by them this afternoon that there was no ruling. Chief Williams contacted our office this afternoon to inform us of the ruling, and a story will be posted tomorrow.

  7. Well then, great job, Sean! You should have posted that in your reply so that those of use not in the know would not see it the way I saw it. I am truely glad you did your job and tried to valadate the comments. Too bad you were given wrong info but I guess that happens from time to time. Good job!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Not a MercuryPro client?

Get full access to the San Marcos Mercury, posthaste. Sign up here.

Weather

MERCURY MEDIA ON FACEBOOK

MERCURY MEDIA ON TWITTER

back-to-top
:)