DA’s office fires back

Objections filed over judge’s ruling in Katy murder case

Three months after a judge ruled that a Katy man convicted of murdering his wife did not get a fair trial and excoriated the prosecutor who handled the case, saying she withheld evidence, the Harris County District Attorney’s Office filed objections to the decision, tackling it point-by-point, and defended its attorney.

In an 80-page court filing released Wednesday, prosecutors objected to findings made by state District Judge Larry Gist, who in June issued a longawaited ruling in the case involving the 2007 murder trial of David Temple.

In his decision, Gist recommended that Temple be granted a new trial and outlined 36 different instances of prosecutorial misconduct by Kelly Siegler, the legendary former prosecutor who is now star of the nationally televised show “Cold Justice.” Temple’s case is in front of the state’s highest criminal court, which will decide if he gets a new trial.

Belinda Lucas Temple — who was eight months pregnant — was killed executionstyle by a shotgun blast in 1999. Her husband was convicted of

murder in a lengthy and hotly contested trial eight years later.

Since the guilty verdict, lawyers on both sides continue to fight about the jury’s decision. Last December, that fight continued when Gist began a hearing that lasted one month during which he heard about the behindthe-scenes machinations of the trial.

In his ruling, the judge agreed with defense lawyers who said Siegler violated a central tenet of modern criminal law, in which prosecutors have to hand over information that could help the defendant. Gist said evidence that could have helped Temple was either withheld completely or delayed so much that it was not helpful.

Point-by-point rebuttal

The U.S. Supreme Court ruling that codified the law, Brady vs. Maryland, stands for the principle that suspects are entitled to exculpatory information.

In the district attorney’s objections to Gist’s ruling, prosecutors offer a point-by-point rebuttal.

“(Gist’s) findings concerning alleged exculpatory evidence are either directly contradicted by the record, not supported by the record, or refer to information that is not exculpatory and/or material so that Brady is neither implicated nor violated …,” according to prosecutors. The objections note that four of Gist’s findings address issues that happened after the trial, so they did not affect whether he got a fair trial.

Siegler has denied any wrongdoing in the case. In a response to the ruling, she said she disagreed with Gist and looked forward to a detailed and documented response from the District Attorney’s Office.

That response arrived Wednesday with hundreds of points of contention arguing that the evidence was handed over with enough time for Temple’s defense attorney Dick Deguerin to make use of it.

In some instances, they wrote, the evidence was handed over in the years before trial. In other cases, the evidence came out at trial and the jury took a break, giving the defense team time to read through statements.

Delayed information

The District Attorney’s Office response also addressed one of the biggest legal issues in this case — that prosecutors were able to delay the release of information while still following their office procedures.

Before 2008, Harris County prosecutors would not let defense lawyers use a machine to copy documents, like offense reports, that were found in the files. In some cases, like Temple’s, that meant lawyers had to hand copy hundreds of pages of documents, with the prosecutor showing them only what was deemed to be Brady information.

That has changed, and in 2014, the wrongful prosecution of Michael Morton led to new rules that generally force prosecutors to allow the defense to copy the entire file, a change noted in the most recent filing in the Temple trial.

“It should be noted that the applicant’s trial occurred in 2007, seven years prior to the Michael Morton Act and resulting changes in Texas discovery procedures; thus the applicant’s case should be considered in light of the law and discovery procedures in effect at the time of the trial,” according to the filing.

A spokesman for the District Attorney’s Office said the agency would not comment further on the filings until the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals makes a decision.

Lawyers for Temple called the objections “offensive” and “ridiculous.”

“You can take things out of context all you want, and that’s what they did,” said Stan Schneider, who represents Temple with Casie Gotro.

Added Gotro: “Siegler has always maintained that this evidence wasn’t exculpatory. It’s the excuse she needed to hide evidence, and its the same excuse this DA’s office will continue to use to protect her and the other prosecutors who helped her hide that evidence.

“It’s just offensive.”