13 thoughts on “Letter: Peach’s ‘groundless accusations’ point to poor judgment”

1. I love it. A peace officer misrepresents evidence to a District Judge, which is a no no by the way; is hailed as the best, and the prosecutor who objects that this misrepresenting evidence is a bad thing, gets attacked. No wonder the founding fathers built in checks and balances. Lynn Peach is pro police, and pro truth.

2. The problem with the kind of personal and character accusations made by Terry Nichols is that he doesn’t give the reader enough information to analyze the facts or look further into them so that a person without personal knowledge of the events can judge fairly what is true and what is not true, if that is even possible in this case. The letter by the special prosecutor is helpful, but provides more opinion than facts on which a person with no knowledge of the matter can draw a conclusion. I know nothing about this matter, but I am interested, and to my knowledge, I’ve never met Peach, but I do know Wes Mau.

   When someone wants you to make a decision based on how honest they are and present the reader with mostly a “take my word for it” appeal, I’m left wondering why the facts can’t be laid out.

   For instance, who is the local attorney who is a convicted criminal that Peach is supposed to have dated and how is that related to this case? Was he a convicted criminal before the dating took place? What sort of legal representation did Peach receive from the attorney who is a convicted criminal? What did the officers with the Task Force do that Peach thought was misconduct? Who were the local attorneys that led Peach down the path of irresponsible conduct in making unnecessary and false accusations? What does paying Peach’s electric bill have to do with the accusations made by Peach against the Task Force and the ADA? What exactly was the prosecutorial misconduct alleged by Peach against Chris Johnson?

   Before I will take anyone’s word that Peach is a terrible public servant who made an unforgivable mistake while serving as an assistant DA, I need more facts and less personal opinion about her conduct. Otherwise, I will just ignore this matter in making my Republican primary voting decision.

3. Terry, what on earth would make you think that anyone outside your family would care what you think about anything anymore? You lost your bid for city council, every candidate you endorse gets beat, and slandering a good woman like Ms. Peach for simply having the courage to stand up to a bunch of lying thugs with badges isn’t going to make you relevant. You’re not a player, you’re a nobody, and the sooner you realize it the sooner you can start enjoying your retirement. Run along now.
   If you want to know who is being truthful, look no further than what each side had to gain (or lose). Lynn had nothing to gain by doing what she did, and she wound up losing everything simply for performing her ethical duties as a prosecutor. The “convicted criminal” you refer to was convicted of DWI, not violating a RICO statute, which makes that part of the story quite a bit more accurate and less sensational, no? As far as this theory that politics was somehow the motive, how, pray tell, do those dots actually connect? Because if memory serves me, the only person who attempted to run against Tibbe in 2010 was none other than Paul Velte, who ran a hotly contested primary against Wes Mau in 2006. And when Mau lost to Tibbe in the general election, he wound up working for her after the fact before leaving for the AG’s office. Velte, on the other hand, wound up getting indicted for sexually assaulting his stepdaughter, a charge which was conveniently later dismissed after his campaign was sufficiently smothered.
   But back to the issue at hand, if you want law enforcement to slam pretty coeds to the pavement unprovoked, get in shootouts in residential neighborhoods in road rage incidents, bring in swat teams to throw smoke grenades into houses with small children in order to recover a bag of pot, or have a much higher rate of getting arrested for various offenses than the general population in this county, then Chairman Mau is your guy. He’ll gladly continue to let these real criminals run amok terrorizing the populace. But if you want someone to come in and bring back integrity to law enforcement in this county, Lynn Peach is the choice on March 4th.

4. I think the link to the special prosector sums it all up.

5. I just realized the people here are just like other politicians. They attack a person and not the independent assessment that was done several years ago.

   Just in case some are too lazy to click the link above.

   Shipman controversy based on ‘groundless accusations’

   GUEST COMMENTARY by MARK D. KIMBALL

   On Aug. 14, Shawn Nathan Shipman entered pleas of guilty to two cases of Engaging in Organized Criminal Activity and one case of Possession with Intent to Deliver a Dangerous Drug, all state jail felonies. Mr. Shipman received 498 days confinement in a state jail facility as punishment, with credit for time served. The defendant waived appeal, and acknowledged that his convictions (the punishments for which will run concurrently) were not subject to any collateral attack in any court. Quite simply, the matter has been put to rest. This plea ends what has been, in my opinion, a needlessly controversial subject matter of much debate among the citizens of Hays County and has extended across much of the State of Texas.

   Mr. Shipman’s guilt during this controversy was never in question. The investigation conducted by the Hays County Narcotics Task Force was thorough and professional, and established clear and serious violations of the law. Mr. Shipman had, in fact, already pled guilty before seeking a new trial, and was given the sentence agreed to both then and now.

   The controversy was based in what I believe to be groundless accusations of prosecutorial misconduct against Chris Johnson of the Hays County Criminal District Attorney’s Office, and groundless accusations against Investigator Laray Taylor of the Narcotics Task Force. These accusations arose, initially, from what appears to have been a faulty and incomplete factual and legal analysis by former Assistant District Attorney Lynn Peach.

   I am an attorney with well over 22 years of prosecution experience. I was appointed by the court to represent the State of Texas. I did not work for District Attorney Sherri Tibbe and had never met her or any of her staff before accepting the assignment. I had no ties with any Hays County law enforcement agencies, and did not know any of the officers involved. I had complete authority to dispose of the cases before me in any manner I saw fit. During the pendency of the disposition of these cases, no one made any attempt to influence my independent role in this prosecution.

   In my independent professional opinion, there was absolutely no misconduct on the part of either Mr. Johnson or Investigator Taylor, or on the part of any member of their respective organizations. Had I found even the hint of misconduct, I would not have hesitated to dismiss the cases against Mr. Shipman, and to refer the matter to appropriate agencies to further investigate the persons suspected of any misconduct. It is my fervent belief that any defendant is entitled to due process by honest officials before being denied their liberty. Such is the case here. Mr. Shipman was treated more than fairly, with the strictest adherence to professional standards.

   The court, in ruling on the writ of habeas corpus alleging misconduct, found against Mr. Shipman on all material issues, and denied any relief. Though it had been represented in court by Chevo Pastrano that the defense would brief salient issues in support of its position, no brief was ever submitted. Further, though it was represented that the denial of the writ would be appealed, no appeal was ever filed. I find such a lack of response on the part of the defense to be quite telling.

   Some have questioned the motivation of Ms. Peach and/or Mr. Pastrano behind the actions they took, but I refuse to speculate on such motivation, and render no opinion here. No matter what motivation — political, personal, legal or otherwise — one may have in the course of representing a client, whether the defendant or the state, such motives neither enhance nor diminish the quality and merit of legal and factual analysis. Simply put, one may do the right thing for the wrong reason, or the wrong thing for the right reason. Hopefully, a lawyer will do the right thing for the right reason. In Mr. Shipman’s case, no matter what the motive — good or bad — things could have gone very badly for the defendant, had he gone to trial. Mr. Shipman was, in fact, facing two to twenty years in the penitentiary on one case, because of his prior criminal record.

   Fortunately, David Watts, Mr. Shipman’s primary counsel, and I were able to resolve these cases amicably and fairly. I deeply appreciate Mr. Watts’s restraint from adding to the “battle of the press.” I hope those who wonder about the silence of the prosecution understand that any member of the prosecution is strictly prohibited from discussing the facts of a case in the press while litigation is pending. Mr. Watts represented his client zealously within the bounds of the law, as is required. He and I may have differing opinions on some of the issues involved in the case. Lawyers often differ and may argue their respective positions vigorously, but such argument need be neither personal nor acrimonious. Fortunately, because cooler heads prevailed, Mr. Shipman did not suffer because of the controversy.

   Ms. Tibbe and her staff have proven to me that they are consummate professionals, motivated only to “do justice”. Ms. Tibbe bent over backward to ensure that Mr. Shipman received every possible benefit of the doubt, by recusing her office from the case. The actions of Investigator Taylor and his team were, likewise, thoroughly professional. I was struck by the depth of the investigation, how every lead was followed, and how every bit of information received was thoroughly corroborated before Mr. Shipman’s arrest.

   Public officials receive varying levels of public scrutiny regarding their conduct, and this is perfectly acceptable. Public officials should be held accountable for every decision made in the public interest.

   An informed citizenry watching over the actions of public servants is essential to the proper administration of criminal justice. Public criticism, however, should be avoided without a thorough knowledge of the facts, as well as the law involved. To attack the credibility and reputation of a public servant without such information, or because of faulty information, is grossly unfair. I encourage the good people of Hays County to go to court — it’s always open to the public — to watch their public officials at work. I am sure all who do so will find the justice system quite different from Hollywood, and will come to appreciate more the hard work and dedication that goes into an often thankless job.

   MARK D KIMBALL is a former Bell County assistant district attorney who prosecuted Shipman after Hay County District Attorney Sherri Tibbe recused her office from the case.

6. So that I understand, Mr. Kimball was the prosecutor for the case against Shipman, when Sherri Tibbe recused herself.

   He was not tasked with investigating Lynn Peach’s claims or conduct. Was he?

   While he was likely not as biased on the topic as Lynn Peach, or anyone else directly involved in the beginning, he did have skin in the game, since he prosecuted the case.

7. Ted, Mr. Kimball had to investigate her claims as that was the entire question in the new trial. I think this quote from Mr. Kimball’s letter pretty much answers your question:
   “I had complete authority to dispose of the cases before me in any manner I saw fit. During the pendency of the disposition of these cases, no one made any attempt to influence my independent role in this prosecution.
   In my independent professional opinion, there was absolutely no misconduct on the part of either Mr. Johnson or Investigator Taylor, or on the part of any member of their respective organizations. Had I found even the hint of misconduct, I would not have hesitated to dismiss the cases against Mr. Shipman, and to refer the matter to appropriate agencies to further investigate the persons suspected of any misconduct. It is my fervent belief that any defendant is entitled to due process by honest officials before being denied their liberty. Such is the case here. Mr. Shipman was treated more than fairly, with the strictest adherence to professional standards.”

8. Right, but there was no further investigation.

   Was the evidence in question presented in court? Was any attempt made to quash it, or was the case resolved before it got to that point?

   Again, Mr. Kimball had a different charter – to see justice done in a case where the defendant’s guilt was “never in doubt.” He was not tasked with investigating her claims, as far as I can tell. Hence his peppering the letter with the word “opinion” and his indication that an investigation of the claims would have fallen on someone else.

   I question whether Mr. Watts would be so quick to say that the officer misrepresented evidence, if he did not think he could prove that, should a libel case materialize over the comment.

9. For one, I believe Lynn Peach. Sherri Tibbe’s track record of ignoring evidence in the Carter Morris case, says that she is an elected official that favors her supporters over justice.

10. I am 71 years old and have never written to a newspaper before but these letters regarding the Hays County District Attorney’s race sound to me like these special prosecutors and law enforcement are doing their best to try and make a silk purse out of a pig’s ear and someone needs to speak up and tell it for what it is. I read the special prosecutor’s comments as well as the one from Mr. Nichols and no where in all their rhetoric did they mention the fact (and this IS a fact) that law enforcement took an affidavit for a search warrant to Ms. Tibbe’s office in order to secure a search warrant from a judge but the affidavit misrepresented the facts (that’s a nice way to say they lied in the affidavit to get the search warrant) and Lynn Peach wouldn’t go along with it. Now that’s the truth. They can spin it however they choose but underneath the innuendo, lies and misleading statements, don’t let them fool you, the gussied up purse they are trying to sell us voters is still nothing but a pig’s ear.

11. Ted, I believe this quote from Mr. Kimball’s letter answers your question:
    “The court, in ruling on the writ of habeas corpus alleging misconduct, found against Mr. Shipman on all material issues, and denied any relief. Though it had been represented in court by Chevo Pastrano that the defense would brief salient issues in support of its position, no brief was ever submitted. Further, though it was represented that the denial of the writ would be appealed, no appeal was ever filed. I find such a lack of response on the part of the defense to be quite telling.”

    In other words, court hearings were held regarding the allegations Lynn made. Witnesses were called, they testified under oath, evidence was submitted, and all the facts were considered by an outside, independent District Court Judge. In the end, the judge determined nothing illegal, immoral, or unethical was done in this case. If something really was wrong, I feel very strongly that Mr. Watts and Mr. Pastrano would have appealed the District Court’s ruling and presented the evidence they have (other than an opinion) that they were right. This never happened. In fact they did not even submit briefs as described in Mr. Kimball’s letter.

    Sharon, to clarify this case, no search warrant was submitted to the District Attorney’s office for a judge to sign that Lynn refused to go along with. This case was at the disposition phase (plea/sentencing) when Lynn heard part of the investigation while sitting in on a conversation between the investigators and prosecutor. She was never involved in the search warrant or the pre-arrest phase of the investigation. She heard something, did not understand and have all of the facts, and jumped to erroneous conclusions about how the case occurred. No one lied, no one mislead. If they had, it would have come out in the new trial the defendant received. Also his attorneys (Mr. Watts and Mr. Pastrano) would have proved (or at least provided a shred of evidence other than Lynn’s allegations) that they lied during the new trial. This never offered any evidence what so ever to support their allegations.

    I hate to keep beating a dead horse on this case. This is really a simple case.
    1. A criminal case was made by narcotics officers
    2. A prosecutor (Lynn) made allegations of illegal conduct by the cops and prosecutor
    3. An outside prosecutor and an outside judge were brought in to hear the case involving the allegations
    4. A new trial was held and all of the evidence about the allegations was heard by the judge (no evidence was submitted other than an allegation about a conversation that was had)
    5. The judge considered all of the evidence and ruled that nothing illegal, immoral or unethical occurred during the investigation
    6. Lynn Peach’s allegations were proven to be untrue
    7. The defendant plead guilty again to the drug charges he had already plead guilty to.

12. I hate to keep beating a dead horse on this case. This is really a simple case.
    1. A criminal case was made by narcotics officers
    2. A prosecutor (Lynn) made allegations of illegal conduct by the cops and prosecutor
    3. An outside prosecutor and an outside judge were brought in to hear the case involving the allegations
    4. A new trial was held and all of the evidence about the allegations was heard by the judge (no evidence was submitted other than an allegation about a conversation that was had)
    5. The judge considered all of the evidence and ruled that nothing illegal, immoral or unethical occurred during the investigation
    6. Lynn Peach’s allegations were proven to be untrue
    7. The defendant plead guilty again to the drug charges he had already plead guilty to.

    The problem with this is that #5 & #6 are flat out lies. The Court Order in this case specifically crosses out the portion about finding that there had been no wrongdoing in this case by the DA’s office. The Judge explicitly refused to go that far, making both #5 & #6 not merely misleading, but flat out lies. For anyone who wants the truth, go to the District Clerk’s office and see for yourself. One thing I know is true is that the easiest way to tell if a police officer in this town is lying is simply to look at their mouth and see if it is moving. That friends, is truth.

13. Sounds like some compelling arguments. THJ – I wouldn’t put all of the police into one pot, but there is an assumption that the justice system is infallible. We have see here that the DA, Sherri Tibbe, dropped the ball on the case or had some personal reason to ignore the evidence. I say that justice shouldn’t be arbitrary or left up to special interests, especially when the evidence goes against the police or a P&Z official. The judiciary is supposed to be a separate part of the government and able to make objective unbiased decisions. We need someone that will do the job, even if it becomes difficult, in order to defend the public trust.