OFF THE WIRE
Waco – A
lawyer filed court papers alleging the McLennan County DA’s Office and
Waco Police are denying his client a speedy trial, an examining hearing
to determine probable cause that he was in fact engaged in organized
criminal activity during a shooting melee that left 9 men dead, 18
wounded, and withholding his cell phone without proof it is the subject
of a search warrant – all in violation of the Texas Constitution and
Texas Code of Criminal Procedure.
Dallas attorney F. Clinton Broden alleged his client Matthew Clendennen should be given a speedy trial under the terms of the Texas Constitution, Art. 1 § 10 and under the authority of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, Articles 1/03(3) and 1.05.
He furthermore alleged that through ex parte communication between the DA’s office and 54th Criminal District Court Judge Matt Johnson his client is scheduled for an examining trial at the late date of August 10, thus rendering the entire purpose of such a procedure moot.
It stands to reason that the District Attorney’s Office would like to postpone as long as possible a true determination as to whether there is sufficient probable cause to believe that Matthew Alan Clendennen, as opposed to any other person or group of persons, engaged in organized criminal activity on May 17, 2015. Nevertheless, by delaying the examining trial until August 10th, Request to Reset Set Examining Trial So That Is Prompt the very purpose of the examining trial is being thwarted as Mr. Clendennen is required to live under the stigma of baseless criminal charges along with bond conditions restricting his ability to travel and placing him under other restrictions.
Broden was able to cause the Waco police to restore Clendennen’s possession of his motorcycle, which was seized and impounded at the time of his arrest on May 17. However, he has been unable to obtain the release of his cell phone, he says, in violation of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, Art. 18.13.
Undersigned counsel secured the return of Mr. Clendennen’s motorcycle from the Waco Police Department, however, the Waco Police Department refuses to return the phone. The Police Department claims they were reviewing Mr. Clendennen’s phone pursuant to a search warrant, but could not or would not identify the legal officer who signed such a warrant.
Dallas attorney F. Clinton Broden alleged his client Matthew Clendennen should be given a speedy trial under the terms of the Texas Constitution, Art. 1 § 10 and under the authority of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, Articles 1/03(3) and 1.05.
He furthermore alleged that through ex parte communication between the DA’s office and 54th Criminal District Court Judge Matt Johnson his client is scheduled for an examining trial at the late date of August 10, thus rendering the entire purpose of such a procedure moot.
It stands to reason that the District Attorney’s Office would like to postpone as long as possible a true determination as to whether there is sufficient probable cause to believe that Matthew Alan Clendennen, as opposed to any other person or group of persons, engaged in organized criminal activity on May 17, 2015. Nevertheless, by delaying the examining trial until August 10th, Request to Reset Set Examining Trial So That Is Prompt the very purpose of the examining trial is being thwarted as Mr. Clendennen is required to live under the stigma of baseless criminal charges along with bond conditions restricting his ability to travel and placing him under other restrictions.
Broden was able to cause the Waco police to restore Clendennen’s possession of his motorcycle, which was seized and impounded at the time of his arrest on May 17. However, he has been unable to obtain the release of his cell phone, he says, in violation of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, Art. 18.13.
Undersigned counsel secured the return of Mr. Clendennen’s motorcycle from the Waco Police Department, however, the Waco Police Department refuses to return the phone. The Police Department claims they were reviewing Mr. Clendennen’s phone pursuant to a search warrant, but could not or would not identify the legal officer who signed such a warrant.
