The Hawk’s Eye – Consulting & News, your source for engaging and informative Texas news. Our publication focuses on delivering accurate and impactful stories that matter to you, with a primary emphasis on Central and South Texas. Stay informed about pressing issues and gain a deeper understanding of your government. With a commitment to transparency and accountability, trust us to provide reliable information that holds those in power accountable.
Michelle Barrientes Vela filed an appeal in the 8th Court of Appeals for her indictment on two counts of Tampering with Evidence. Her legal counsel argues errors in the trial. The State of Texas will respond soon.
Former Bexar County Constable Michelle Barrientes Vela Submits Appeal
On April 1, 2024, Michelle Barrientes Vela filed an appeal in the 8th Court of Appeals regarding her indictment on May 17, 2021 in Cause Number 2021-CR-4408. The indictment consisted of two counts of Tampering with or Fabricating Evidence, allegedly occurring on or about June 26, 2019. The indictment was later amended to delete Paragraph A of Count II.
Barrientes Vela pleaded not guilty to both counts before the Honorable Velia J. Meza, presiding judge, on August 23, 2022. However, on September 1, 2022, the jury found her guilty of both counts, despite her pleas.
On January 4, 2023, the trial judge sentenced Barrientes Vela on both counts concurrently to imprisonment for six years probated for five years with ninety days in the Bexar County jail as a condition of probation and a $2,500.00 fine.
A motion for a new trial was subsequently filed on February 2, 2023, and after a hearing, it was denied on March 8, 2023.
Notice of appeal was timely filed on March 15, 2023, and the case is now set to be reviewed by the 8th Court of Appeals.
Facts Presented by Barrientes Vela’s Legal Counsel
During the tenure as an elected constable for precinct 2, Michelle Barrientes Vela held the responsibility of providing security for reserved parties at Rodriguez Park in San Antonio, Texas, under specific conditions related to the number of attendees and the provision of alcohol. Those reserving the park paid the constable’s office in cash for this security, a transaction that was duly recorded in the constable’s office cash logs.
Subsequently, an alleged inconsistency in the cash logs prompted a grand jury investigation, resulting in charges against Barrientes Vela for tampering with or fabricating the cash logs, as well as alleged aggravated perjury and official oppression. However, Barrientes Vela faced trial solely for the tampering with cash logs allegation, with the state filing a notice of intent to introduce evidence related to the other charges. Despite the trial judge’s order to exclude such evidence, a Texas Ranger, serving as the state’s case agent, made reference to the additional charges during testimony, leading to objections and a fervent exchange between the prosecutor and the judge.
The impact of the ranger’s improper testimony on the jury was observed by individuals present in the courtroom, who noted a negative shift in the jurors’ perceptions. The trial judge, during the subsequent contempt hearing for the ranger, highlighted the prejudicial effect of mentioning the official oppression charge and condemned the disregard for the motion in limine order. Furthermore, another judge expressed disapproval of the state’s apparent dissatisfaction with the trial court’s rulings and the prosecutor’s actions during the trial, suggesting potential ulterior motives and impropriety.
In summary, Barrientes Vela’s legal counsel emphasizes the improper introduction of extraneous evidence during the trial, the resulting impact on the jury, and the concerning behavior of the state’s representatives, indicating a departure from the fair administration of justice.
Barrientes Vela‘s Counsel Argues First Error
Barrientes Vela’s legal counsel argues that reversible error occurred when the trial judge denied the motion for mistrial, despite the severity of the misconduct and its prejudicial effect. The trial judge acknowledged the extreme prejudice resulting from the ranger’s improper testimony regarding official oppression, stating that the jury’s obvious reaction to this mention was highly prejudicial to Barrientes Vela. The judge expressed concern that the transcript did not fully capture the emotional and prejudicial impact of the ranger’s testimony, emphasizing the inability of curative measures to rectify this misconduct. The judge’s remarks indicate a clear recognition of the irreparable harm caused by the improper testimony.
Additionally, the trial judge’s findings about the collusion between the prosecution and the ranger further underscore the severity of the misconduct. The judge highlighted the prosecutor’s unfair questioning and the ranger’s willful and flagrant disregard of the court’s order, emphasizing that this conduct could not be undone. It is evident that the ranger’s testimony regarding official oppression had a significant impact on the trial and was instrumental in creating an atmosphere of prejudice.
The argument also stresses that without the ranger’s violation of the court order and testimony about official oppression, a conviction was not certain. The details provided regarding the charges against Barrientes Vela, the possession of the records, and the actions of Susan Tristan, the records custodian, support the assertion that the misconduct significantly influenced the case’s outcome.
Considering these factors, including the collusion between the prosecutor and the ranger, Barrientes Vela’s legal counsel contends that the trial judge’s denial of the motion for a new trial was reversible error. It is emphasized that the court should reverse the judgment and sentence and remand the case for a new trial, given the evidence and the prejudicial impact of the misconduct.
Barrientes Vela‘s Counsel Argues Second Error
Barrientes Vela’s legal counsel asserts that the trial judge abused her discretion in denying the motion for a new trial, emphasizing the severe misconduct and extreme prejudice resulting from the ranger’s improper testimony. The counselor presents the trial judge’s own acknowledgment of the severity of the ranger’s misconduct, highlighting the inability of the transcript to fully capture the emotional and prejudicial impact experienced during the trial. The trial judge expressed concern about the rapid and highly emotional nature of the prejudicial incident, noting the jury’s evident reaction and the inability of curative measures to rectify the situation.
Furthermore, the legal counsel emphasizes the trial judge’s findings regarding the collusion between the prosecution and the ranger to introduce evidence of official oppression. The judge’s remarks shed light on the unfair questioning by the prosecutor and the ranger’s willful and flagrant disregard of the court’s order. This conduct was deemed irreversible by the trial judge, indicating the significant impact on the trial’s atmosphere and outcome.
The counselor underscores the critical role of this improper testimony in the trial’s outcome, asserting that without it, a conviction was not certain. The presented evidence demonstrates the inconsistency in the possession of records and the actions of Susan Tristan, the records custodian, further strengthening the argument for the prejudicial impact of the misconduct.
In addition, the counselor outlines significant discrepancies related to Susan Tristan’s testimony, including her unsuccessful attempt to obtain incriminating statements from Barrientes Vela and her contradictory statements. These factors, combined with the collusion between the prosecutor and the ranger, lead the legal counsel to conclude that the trial judge’s denial of the motion for a new trial was reversible error.
Given the evidence and the prejudicial impact of the misconduct, Barrientes Vela’s legal counsel urges the court to reverse the judgment and sentence and to remand the case for a new trial, underscoring the necessity for fair administration of justice.
Barrientes Vela‘s Counsel Argues Third Error
Barrientes Vela’s legal counsel presents an argument regarding the grand jury’s lack of involvement in requesting the cash logs, highlighting the crucial role of Susan Tristan, the records custodian at the constable’s office, in the handling and possession of these records. It is emphasized that Michelle Barrientes Vela, was never in possession of the original cash logs and, therefore, could not have engaged in any actions pertaining to their concealment or destruction.
The counsel underscores the Barrientes Vela‘s proactive approach, as she instructed Susan Tristan to make copies of the records for the grand jury, clearly indicating a cooperative and transparent stance in facilitating the investigation. Furthermore, it is pointed out that Susan Tristan, not Barrientes Vela, was responsible for the shredding of documents, and it is noted that Barrientes Vela reprimanded Susan for this action, further illustrating the Barrientes Vela’s commitment to ensuring the preservation and availability of the pertinent records.
The argument asserts that the evidence presented failed to establish Barrientes Vela’s involvement in any deliberate alteration, destruction, or concealment of the cash logs with the intent to impair their availability as evidence in the investigation or official proceeding. It is emphasized that Barrientes Vela’s lack of possession of the original cash logs, coupled with her proactive directive to create copies for the grand jury, contradicts any insinuation of nefarious intent or misconduct on Barrientes Vela‘s part.
In summary, Barrientes Vela’s legal counsel contends that the evidence failed to substantiate the allegations against her, further underscoring the absence of incriminating actions or intent. This argument serves to reinforce the Barrientes Vela’s assertion of innocence and the absence of any wrongdoing with regard to the cash logs, ultimately challenging the foundation of the charges brought against Michelle Barrientes Vela.
Barrientes Vela‘s Counsel Argues Fourth Error
Barrientes Vela’s legal counsel challenges the charge brought against her concerning the making, presenting, or using of the Rodriguez Park receipt logs with knowledge of their falsity and intent to affect the course or outcome of the grand jury investigation. It is asserted that Barrientes Vela was never in possession of the receipts and, therefore, could not have engaged in any activities related to their concealment or destruction.
The counsel underscores the proactive and cooperative behavior demonstrated by Barrientes Vela, as she explicitly instructed Susan to create copies of the records for the grand jury. This portrays Barrientes Vela’s transparent and efforts to facilitate the investigation, contrary to any insinuation of misconduct.
Furthermore, it is explicitly stated that Susan, not Barrientes Vela, was directly responsible for the shredding of documents. In fact, Barrientes Vela reprimanded Susan for this action, signifying Barrientes Vela’s unwavering commitment to preserving and ensuring the availability of the relevant records.
The legal counsel argues that in the absence of possession of the original cash logs, coupled with the proactive directive to create copies for the grand jury, any implication of intentional deception or misconduct on the part of Barrientes Vela is inherently flawed and unsupported by evidence.
In summary, Barrientes Vela’s legal counsel contends that the evidence fails to substantiate the accusations against her, thereby fundamentally challenging the very foundation of the charges brought against Michelle Barrientes Vela.
Reply From State is Pending
The State of Texas will have an opportunity to respond to the brief filed by Barrientes Vela’s legal counsel. After that time, the Court of Appeals will work its process to come to a decision between the two sides arguments.
Disclaimer
The content provided in this publication is for educational and informational purposes only. The Hawk’s Eye – Consulting & News strives to deliver accurate and impactful stories. However, readers are advised to seek professional legal counsel and guidance for their specific legal inquiries and concerns. The publication does not assume any responsibility for actions taken by individuals based on the information presented.
Additionally, while every effort is made to ensure the reliability of the information, the publication does not warrant the completeness, accuracy, or timeliness of the content. Readers are encouraged to verify any legal information with official sources and to use their discretion when interpreting and applying the information provided.
A Couple of Our Other Reads
You may be interested in our publishing on two State Board of Pharmacy officers resigning to avoid termination.
Or you may find our publishing about a TABC officer resigning to avoid termination, of interest.
Follow Us on Social Media
If you are interested in staying updated on matters about your government in Texas and other important stories, trust The Hawk’s Eye – Consulting & News to provide reliable information that matters to you. You can follow us on social media platforms such as Facebook, Instagram, X, Reddit, YouTube, Tumblr, and LinkedIn to stay connected and informed.
FACEBOOK: TheHawksEyeNews
INSTAGRAM: Hawk_s_Eye_C_and_N
X: TheHawksEyeNews
REDDIT: TheHawksEyeCN
YOUTUBE: The Hawk’s Eye – Consulting & News
TUMBLR: The Hawk’s Eye – Consulting & News
LINKEDIN: The Hawk’s Eye – Consulting & News