San Marcos Mercury | Local News from San Marcos and Hays County, Texas
728x90-robotics

Update

6:05 p.m. FRIDAY MARCH 4 | Hays County Court-at-Law Judge David Glickler has decided to waive a jury trial on his misdemeanor charge of driving while intoxicated, defense attorney Russ Sablatura said this afternoon in an email.

The trial had been scheduled to begin Monday, March 7.

“Based on the events that took place yesterday, my client and I have decided to file a jury trial waiver.  This waiver has been filed and the trial setting on Monday has been passed. … At this time there is not a setting,” Sablatura said.

Earlier

by BRAD ROLLINS

4:02 p.m. FRIDAY MARCH 4 | Hays County Court-at-Law Judge David Glickler’s driving while intoxicated trial can begin as scheduled on Monday even though the arresting officer is out of the country and will not testify, a visiting judge ruled on Thursday.

Glickler, 47, was charged with the Class B Misdemeanor after being stopped for speeding late May 26 on Interstate 35 in Kyle by Hays County Sheriff’s Office deputy Travis Teereo, who has since been deployed by the U.S. Army to South Korea.

During a pretrial hearing on March 3, former longtime Harris County Court-at-Law Judge Mark D. Adkinson rejected most of a defense motion to suppress evidence that would have effectively delayed prosecution until Teereo returns to the country.

Defense attorney Russ Sablatura argued that Teereo’s absence denies him the opportunity to cross examine the deputy about the investigation and undermines Glickler’s constitutional right to face his accuser in court. Special prosecutor Corby Holcomb argued that case law establishes a precedent for proceeding with a criminal trial when an arresting officer cannot testify.

Both Holcomb and Adkinson acknowledged never having encountered a case in which an arresting officer is unavailable because of a military deployment.

Teereo’s deployment “did come as a surprise to us [but] at this point, we’re just moving forward with the evidence that we have,” said Holcomb.

Portions of a probable cause affidavit — including Teereo assertion that he smelled alcohol on Glickler’s breath and that Glickler failed a field sobriety test — should be redacted, Teereo ruled. But the rest of the document and video of the traffic stop and Glickler’s arrest are admissible by prosecutors.

As of mid-afternoon today, Glickler’s trial is still scheduled to begin on Monday, Glickler told the San Marcos Mercury.

Adkinson, the Texas Center for the Judiciary chief executive officer who held his bench for nearly 24 years in Harris County, was appointed to hear Glickler’s case after presiding Hays County Court-at-Law Judge Robert Updegrove recused himself.

The Travis County Attorney David Escamilla’s office was appointed to prosecute Glickler after Hays County District Attorney Wesley H. Mau recused his office from participation.

CORRECTION 5:02 p.m. MARCH 4: The story originally said that Hays County District Attorney Wes Mau referred Glickler’s charge to the Travis County Attorney’s office for prosecution. The judge referred the case to the Travis County Attorney’s office for prosecution after Mau recused his office from participation.

Email Email | Print Print

--

8 thoughts on “Hays County court-at-law judge’s DWI trial on the docket next week

  1. Republican officials are closing ranks to shield Glickler from conviction on DWI charge–holding trial with arresting officer out of town!!! The officer’s personal testimony could provide key testimony of personal demeanor. Instead, court only has testing to consider–which is sometimes open to challenge. Sheer hypocrisy by the political party that wants to promote law and order except when one of their own breaks law while endangering public. Is this Glickler’s first time to be charged with this violation?

  2. The Democrat party hacks must lurk constantly on the message boards, waiting for a Republican to screw up so they can trumpet this fictional “moral superiority” over “the opposition”.
    +
    It’s pretty pathetic, all things considered. We’re all in this together, and the more you try to divide things up into “us” and “them”, the more you’re part of the problem.

  3. What a deal for Glicker. This particular set up is, if convicted at trial, Glicker wins on appeal because due process is being “denied” by the Judge disallowing the right to challenge an accuser at trial, by way of the Judge not delaying the original trial until the officer returns. All that must be proven on appeal is that one issue… was Glicker able to challenge testimony of this witness? No? Okay, let him go boys. He wins on appeal.

    His accuser is the officer who wrote him up. He is not available for cross examination challenge of his testimony, thus Glicker is being denied the ability to challenge the officer in the trial allows him to get off with NOTHING. Back to the Bench. Good move guys. Slicker than snot on a door knob. Average Joe won’t figure it out. So, let’s all head to the “Gentlemen’s Club” to celebrate! Who’s driving?

  4. Might I also point out that those claiming “Republican corruption” seem to have conveniently forgotten the name “Rosemary Lehmberg”.

Leave a Reply

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

:)