Defense attorneys in the high-profile murder case of Salomon Campos, Jr. have filed a motion for a Franks hearing, alleging a Texas Ranger and other law enforcement officers committed perjury and included false statements in affidavits. The hearing could significantly impact the prosecution’s case.
Defense Alleges Texas Ranger Perjury, Requests Franks Hearing
In a significant event, defense attorneys in a high-profile murder case involving Salomon Campos, Jr. have filed a motion for a Franks hearing, alleging that a Texas Ranger, along with other law enforcement officers, committed perjury and included false statements in affidavits supporting search warrants. This development arises from the contentious legal battle surrounding Campos, who stands accused of serious criminal activities.
The motion, filed on April 30, 2024, by Ernesto Gamez Jr. and Erin Elizabeth Gamez, in the case of State v. Campos (2023-DCR-02319), aims to challenge the veracity of statements made by law enforcement officers, particularly those by Harlingen Police Department Investigator Scott Vega and Texas Ranger Raul Garza. The defense argues that multiple statements in the affidavits used to secure search warrants were either knowingly false or made with reckless disregard for the truth.
The Case Against Campos
Campos’ legal troubles began with an investigation led by Texas Ranger Raul Garza and officers from the Harlingen Police Department. The defense’s motion also references recent reports where Garza admitted to receiving instructions from Cameron County ADA Adela Garza to seek out specific evidence, which the defense argues further casts doubt on the credibility of the investigative process.
In support of their motion, the defense has cited numerous inconsistencies and alleged fabrications within the affidavits and testimony provided by law enforcement officers. This includes a critical incident where a Texas Ranger admitted under cross-examination to not recalling filling out certain forms related to the investigation, raising questions about the integrity of the documentation process .
What is a Franks Hearing?
A Franks hearing, named after the 1978 U.S. Supreme Court case Franks v. Delaware, allows a defendant to challenge the veracity of a law enforcement officer’s affidavit used to obtain a search warrant. The purpose of a Franks hearing is to ensure that search warrants are based on truthful and accurate information. If the defense can prove that false statements were included intentionally or with reckless disregard for the truth, and that these statements were necessary to the finding of probable cause, any evidence obtained from the resulting search may be suppressed. This legal mechanism serves as a check on the integrity of law enforcement practices.
Some Key Allegations in the Motion
The motion highlights multiple instances where the defense claims that Ranger Garza and other officers, including Harlingen Police Department (HPD) officers, provided false information or omitted critical details in their affidavits:
- Incorrect Search Location: The defense argues that the affidavits contained incorrect addresses for searches conducted on March 27 and 28, 2018. Officer Scott Vega allegedly prepared these affidavits with knowledge of their inaccuracies, intending to mislead the court.
- Failure to List Previous Searches: A significant claim involves the omission of details regarding how previous searches were conducted to obtain subsequent search warrants. Specifically, the motion states that Officer Vega and ADA Edward Sandoval did not inform the court about the negative results of the initial search on March 27, 2018, when applying for a second search warrant the following day.
- False Evidence from a Cadaver Dog Search: The affidavits claimed that a cadaver dog search was compromised due to the presence of newly born farm animals. The defense contends this statement is false, supported by photographs and reports showing no such interference occurred during the search.
- Misleading Information on Affidavit: The defense also points to inconsistencies in Ranger Garza’s statements about GPS data from the FBI. Garza claimed to have reviewed data that was not produced until a month later, casting doubt on his affidavit’s credibility.
Impact on the Case
If the court grants a Franks hearing and the defense successfully demonstrates that the affidavits contained false information, it could lead to the suppression of critical evidence obtained from the searches. This development would significantly impact the prosecution’s case, potentially undermining the charges against the defendant.
The case has garnered considerable public interest, given the serious nature of the allegations and the involvement of multiple law enforcement agencies. The defense’s aggressive strategy underscores the high stakes in this trial, with the credibility of key law enforcement officers now under intense scrutiny.
Hearing Rescheduled
The court initially had a hearing scheduled to consider the motion on May 29, 2024; however, the matter was rescheduled for June 26, 2024. Per the journal entry of the court, the defense and state were present. All witnesses were sworn in, and the court invoked a rule that no party could discuss anything having to do with the case or anything on the pending motions.
Conclusion
The request for a Franks hearing represents a pivotal moment in the case against Campos. As the court reviews the motion, the integrity of the investigation and the validity of the evidence collected hang in the balance. The outcome of this hearing could not only affect the immediate case but also set a precedent for how alleged misconduct by law enforcement officers is addressed in future proceedings.
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