Can You Prosecute the Informant Who Had You Charged With a Crime

My question involves criminal law for the state of: Texas

I was arrested for Indecent Exposure at a park. The police planted a confidential informant, a thief making a secret deal with the D.A., to help them make an arrest on a day when they couldn't find a legit one. Then the D.A. covered for them, giving me a fake name and identity to try to figure out. I was never aware of her real name or criminal record. That information was deliberately hidden. 14 months and 11 court dates, my lawyer convinced me to take deferred, as a victory of sorts. But this is fraud, failure to disclose, witness tampering, misconduct, and more. I want to file charges. In California it would be conspiracy. No one here knows what to do. I want my name cleared, and I want this secret illegal activity exposed. This is the same D.A. still going after Tom Delay.

No it wouldn't be a conspiracy in CA. Stop watching Law & Order. CI's are ALWAYS criminals and they're used in every state of the union and you don't have to be told. That's why they're CONFIDENTIAL.

No such thing as failure to disclose? Really? She also had another arrest for family violence. She imagined something sexual and attacked her partner. Her family called the police. CI's are not always technically criminals; sometimes they get paid, or are just doing what they consider it a public duty. If this was on the up and up, they wouldn't still be trying to keep everything a secret.

The bottom line is you either brought junior out at the park or you didn't. You accepted a plea bargain confessing you did so. Sorry if you didn't get to tap the CI like you had planned on.

You can "expose" your alleged conspiracy to anyone who might want to listen. But, as was mentioned, you either unleashed your johnson in public, or you didn't. If you did not, you could have gone to trial and IF the CI was the only witness against you, you could have gone to trial and fought to have him actually appear. You chose not to. Sorry for you.

There was another witness who refused to take part in the fraud. Filing a police report was OK since he was getting paid. Lying under oath was not.

Then you should have gone to trial. The minute you plead, you acquiesed to actually BEING a criminal.

The plausibility of this conspiracy theory sounds a little flaccid to me.

Quote:

---

Quoting wacojames

---

There was another witness who refused to take part in the fraud. Filing a police report was OK since he was getting paid. Lying under oath was not.

---

You had your chance to confront the witnesses against you. YOU chose not to make the state prove its case.

Quote:

---

Quoting wacojames

---

My question involves criminal law for the state of: Texas

I was arrested for Indecent Exposure at a park. The police planted a confidential informant, a thief making a secret deal with the D.A., to help them make an arrest on a day when they couldn't find a legit one. Then the D.A. covered for them, giving me a fake name and identity to try to figure out. I was never aware of her real name or criminal record. That information was deliberately hidden. 14 months and 11 court dates, my lawyer convinced me to take deferred, as a victory of sorts. But this is fraud, failure to disclose, witness tampering, misconduct, and more. I want to file charges. In California it would be conspiracy. No one here knows what to do. I want my name cleared, and I want this secret illegal activity exposed. This is the same D.A. still going after Tom Delay.

---

I think the others are making light of prosecutorial misconduct. With almost unfettered discretion and little checks or balance to prosecutors who go rogue, it is a real problem in this country that is getting worse and worse. What other constitutional rights must be thrown asunder in the vital search for willie waggers?

However, note the part about little checks or balance. If the OP properly appealed, the options available would be:
1. He loses the appeal.
2. He wins the appeal, but the appellate court finds that for some reason (perhaps his allocution), the violation is minor and not serious enough to overturn the plea.
3. He wins the appeal and the appellate court has him tried again with the withheld evidence provided to the suspect.

So, the best the OP could legally hope for is to be tried with the knowledge the witness against him had a criminal record. I can guarantee that is not going to make things go away. The plea deal is probably the best the OP could hope for.

As to exposing the criminal conspiracy, nobody cares. You may google prosecutorial misconduct if you would like, but there are many stories far worse than here and nothing changes.

Quote:

---

Quoting Welfarelvr

---

I think the others are making light of prosecutorial misconduct. With almost unfettered discretion and little checks or balance to prosecutors who go rogue, it is a real problem in this country that is getting worse and worse. What other constitutional rights must be thrown asunder in the vital search for willie waggers?

---

First, there is a considerable lack of detail in the OP's statement.

Second, he pled guilty! THIS will be an almost insurmountable barrier for him to overcome in an appeal!

Third, I get the distinct impression this occurred some time ago so the time to even think of an appeal MAY have passed.

Fourth, I suspect there is much more to this story and that catching a weenie wagger was not the goal here, though it may have been the only charge they could leverage in the situation. No one regularly employs CIs to try and catch guys flashing in the park. It doesn't happen. CIs are most often used in drug cases. So, I suspect true circumstances are much different than the OP has made them out to be.

Quote:

---

Quoting Welfarelvr

---

I think the others are making light of prosecutorial misconduct. With almost unfettered discretion and little checks or balance to prosecutors who go rogue, it is a real problem in this country that is getting worse and worse.

---

Without questioning the existence of abuse of confidential informants, both by putting them in danger and in obtaining probable cause to obtain warrants, the OP has not shared with us any facts that would suggest that the police or confidential informant did anything wrong in his situation. He seems to be alleging that, had the informant not been confidential, he might have been able to attack the person's credibility, but unless the charge can be sustained without the confidential informant's testimony there would be nothing confidential about the person's identity. Witnesses get identified to the defense.

Quote:

---

Quoting Welfarelvr

---

What other constitutional rights must be thrown asunder in the vital search for willie waggers?

---

What constitutional rights were "thrown asunder" in this case?

Quote:

---

Quoting Welfarelvr

---

However, note the part about little checks or balance. If the OP properly appealed, the options available would be....

---

In Texas, plea bargains usually include the defendant's agreeing to waive any appeal. If that occurred with the defendant's plea, he will have to get the trial court to certify that he has a right to appeal, and that's going to be tough if his grounds for appeal will be, "I regret confessing to the crime on the record, because I now think I could have successfully challenged the credibility of the police informant." Even if there is no impediment to an appeal, and the time frame for appeal has not expired, it's difficult to see how that argument would get him the time of day from an appellate court.

Quote:

---

Quoting Welfarelvr

---

So, the best the OP could legally hope for is to be tried with the knowledge the witness against him had a criminal record.

---

Except a confidential informant is not a witness. A huge percentage of C.I.'s have criminal records, yet they may still be reliable in the information they share with the police.

All of that said, it doesn't sound like this case involved confidential informants at all. It sounds like we're talking about a witness who used an alias, with the defendant claiming that had he been aware of the witness's real name he would have been able to try to impeach her with her criminal history at trial instead of choosing to plead guilty.

Quote:

---

Quoting Mr. Knowitall

---

What constitutional rights were "thrown asunder" in this case?

---

6th amendment rights under the confrontation clause. I believe due process demands witnesses against a person need to be identified before trial so the defendant can be prepared. While the OP is using the term confidential informant, it seems clear the guy was a witness and the DA did not turn over the identity. While I could be wrong, I think it is unlikely the police used a CI to gather information regarding the OP taking selfies while willie wagging and where he stored those selfies. I suspect the CI went into the bathroom, saw some wagging, exited and gave the sign to officers who moved in to arrest.

OP, is that what happened? Or, was the CI used to get a warrant that gathered evidence against you?

Quote:

---

In Texas, plea bargains usually include the defendant's agreeing to waive any appeal. If that occurred with the defendant's plea, he will have to get the trial court to certify that he has a right to appeal, and that's going to be tough if his grounds for appeal will be, "I regret confessing to the crime on the record, because I now think I could have successfully challenged the credibility of the police informant." Even if there is no impediment to an appeal, and the time frame for appeal has not expired, it's difficult to see how that argument would get him the time of day from an appellate court.

---

I agree the system does not deal with the problem of prosecutorial misconduct for a number of reasons.

Quote:

---

Except a confidential informant is not a witness. A huge percentage of C.I.'s have criminal records, yet they may still be reliable in the information they share with the police.

All of that said, it doesn't sound like this case involved confidential informants at all. It sounds like we're talking about a witness who used an alias, with the defendant claiming that had he been aware of the witness's real name he would have been able to try to impeach her with her criminal history at trial instead of choosing to plead guilty.

---

I agree. I do not think it would have worked, but, he has the right to consider the issue and have the information turned over to him. (If a danger, perhaps turned over to his attorney.) Especially when it is likely it was the ONLY witness against him.

Editing of above--My thoughts on the sixth might not be decided as yet and may not apply as jurisprudence seems to save that for hearsay. I adjust my answer above to focus more on Due Process:

PENNSYLVANIA v. RITCHIE, 480 U.S. 39 (1987)

Quote:

---

This Court has never squarely held that the Compulsory Process Clause guarantees the right to discover the identity of witnesses, or to require the government to produce exculpatory evidence. But cf. United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683, 709 , 711 (1974) (suggesting that the Clause may require the production of evidence). Instead, the Court traditionally has evaluated claims such as those raised by Ritchie under the broader protections of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. See United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667 (1985); Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963). See also Wardius v. Oregon, 412 U.S. 470 (1973). Because the applicability of the Sixth Amendment to this type of case is unsettled, and because our Fourteenth Amendment precedents addressing the fundamental fairness of trials establish a clear framework for review, we adopt a due process analysis for purposes of this case. Although we conclude that compulsory process provides no greater protections in this area than those afforded by due process, we need not decide today whether and how the guarantees of the Compulsory Process Clause differ from those of the Fourteenth Amendment. It is enough to conclude that on these facts, Ritchie's claims more properly are considered by reference to due process. [480 U.S. 39, 57]
It is well settled that the government has the obligation to turn over evidence in its possession that is both favorable to the accused and material to guilt or punishment. United States v. Agurs, 427 U.S. 97 (1976); Brady v. Maryland, supra, at 87. Although courts have used different terminologies to define "materiality," a majority of this Court has agreed, "[e]vidence is material only if there is a reasonable probability that, had the evidence been disclosed to the defense, the result of the proceeding would have been different. A `reasonable probability' is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome." United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S., at 682 (opinion of BLACKMUN, J.); see id., at 685 (opinion of WHITE, J.).

---

Quote:

---

I suspect the CI went into the bathroom, saw some wagging, exited and gave the sign to officers who moved in to arrest.

---

How do you get from "in a park" to "in the bathroom"?

Dude, stop. Seriously.

welfarelvr - best answer so far....First, what I want most is for the truth to come out. Then let the chips fall where they may, and I'll move on. I suspect that if the public knew that police target random people, manufacturing pretend crime scenarios, using criminals pretending to be victims, so as to sweep in like heroes and meet arrest quotas, that would be unacceptable. This is like a fireman starting a fire, so as to have something to put out. By the time the TV cameras get there, all they see are heroes putting out a fire. If it's too late to change anything with my care, so be it. It's public knowledge of the truth that I seek. I have one lawyer attempting to reopen the case, with all the evidence on the table. In Dallas, a woman recently won $1.2 million for a false arrest where she spent nine days in jail. I did 35. I actually did over 60 percent of the maximum sentence. That is likely one reason that the powers that be here do not want the truth to come to light. Michael Morton did 25 years for something he didn't do. When the public became aware of the suppressed evidence, he was freed and a judge was disbarred. Remember the Duke Lacrosse players? At first they were vilified, suspended, disbanded, and jailed. Eventually, when the truth came out, a D.A. was disbarred. For the record, I plead no contest, after 14 months I was worn out. So much for a speedy and public trail as guaranteed by the constitution. Also, they had drug dogs with them, and a child. At one point the D.A. threatened me with felony indecency with a child. Having a child in a drug sting would also be a no-no they wouldn't want anyone to know about. It was probably a drug sting, with IE as a back up plan. On the day of my arrest, the alleged victim had an open theft case in the very same county court room no. 3, in front of the very same judge. At her second court appearance after my arrest, she got deferred. They knew who she was and that she was not credible. They hid that. And you gotta know, it isn't the first time. If the truth comes out, I will be satisfied.

Quote:

---

Quoting LawResearcherMissy

---

How do you get from "in a park" to "in the bathroom"?

Dude, stop. Seriously.

---

Chick, stop. Seriously. This is a legal discussion. We need to have some facts. What do you think happened? Do you think the DA used a CI or a witness to get evidence against the OP?

If they have video, police observance or something else of the act, the credibility of the CI/witness is irrelevant. In the bathroom, behind the tree, under the bleacher, on the hill or wherever the act occurred is not important. I know of some stings where bathrooms (in the park or on the beach) become known places where mens do, things, for other mens and the police send in someone that appears to not be opposed to such things to see if anyone will solicit them so I used that as an example. I am sorry such speculation so offends.

- - - Updated - - -

Quote:

---

Quoting wacojames

---

welfarelvr - best answer so far....First, what I want most is for the truth to come out. Then let the chips fall where they may, and I'll move on.

---

What "truth"? That the police do stings?

Quote:

---

I suspect that if the public knew that police target random people, manufacturing pretend crime scenarios, using criminals pretending to be victims, so as to sweep in like heroes and meet arrest quotas, that would be unacceptable. This is like a fireman starting a fire, so as to have something to put out. By the time the TV cameras get there, all they see are heroes putting out a fire.

---

No it is not. That would be called entrapment and your attorney would have been all over that. You were predisposed to do whatever you did. They could do most anything, any trick they liked and I would not expose my naughty bits to a stranger. I personally do not think the police did anything wrong from your description. It is the prosecutor I think crossed the line.

Quote:

---

If it's too late to change anything with my care, so be it. It's public knowledge of the truth that I seek. I have one lawyer attempting to reopen the case, with all the evidence on the table. In Dallas, a woman recently won $1.2 million for a false arrest where she spent nine days in jail. I did 35. I actually did over 60 percent of the maximum sentence.

---

You were not falsely arrested. The police had probable cause to arrest you with the statement of the witness.

Quote:

---

That is likely one reason that the powers that be here do not want the truth to come to light. Michael Morton did 25 years for something he didn't do.

---

As I said, no one will care. You did not do 25 years.

Quote:

---

When the public became aware of the suppressed evidence, he was freed and a judge was disbarred. Remember the Duke Lacrosse players? At first they were vilified, suspended, disbanded, and jailed. Eventually, when the truth came out, a D.A. was disbarred.

---

Or, Senator Stevens. There, there was active concealment of relationships and exculpatory evidence that caused a popular senator to lose an election as he was convicted just before election day. Do you see that a lot in the news? None of that happened here.

Quote:

---

For the record, I plead no contest, after 14 months I was worn out. So much for a speedy and public trail as guaranteed by the constitution.

---

Spare me. I suspect it was you who did not seek a speedy and public trial. What was the delay?

Quote:

---

Also, they had drug dogs with them, and a child. At one point the D.A. threatened me with felony indecency with a child. Having a child in a drug sting would also be a no-no they wouldn't want anyone to know about. It was probably a drug sting, with IE as a back up plan.

---

That is an interesting plan. How those two get together is interesting. More likely they suspected drug users were more likely to fall for the sting situation.

Quote:

---

On the day of my arrest, the alleged victim had an open theft case in the very same county court room no. 3, in front of the very same judge. At her second court appearance after my arrest, she got deferred. They knew who she was and that she was not credible. They hid that. And you gotta know, it isn't the first time. If the truth comes out, I will be satisfied.

---

The truth is out. I believe you that the guy was not credible. I also believe what he said to the police was true. It is just I think everyone deserves certain rights and that some of yours were violated. That does not mean you are not guilty, it just means I think the other side must be beyond reproach or our trust in the law disappears.

Quote:

---

Quoting Welfarelvr

---

6th amendment rights under the confrontation clause. I believe due process demands witnesses against a person need to be identified before trial so the defendant can be prepared.

---

Again, a confidential informant is not a witness. A confidential informatn provides information to the police that may be useful in a police investigation or to obtain a warrant, but they don't testify. If somebody is on the witness list, they're not a confidential informant in that case, even if we assume that they have worked as a confidential informant on a different case.

Quote:

---

Quoting Welfarelvr

---

While the OP is using the term confidential informant, it seems clear the guy was a witness and the DA did not turn over the identity.

---

While I disagree as to what seems "obvious" given how little information the OP has shared, you are now accepting my inference from the end of my last post.

Quote:

---

Quoting Welfarelvr

---

I agree. I do not think it would have worked, but, he has the right to consider the issue and have the information turned over to him. (If a danger, perhaps turned over to his attorney.) Especially when it is likely it was the ONLY witness against him.

---

There apparently were two witnesses, one of whom supposedly was not going to testify. The OP has shared absolutely nothing that would support his thesis that the two witnesses did anything other than happen to be present in his vicinity, then later report to the police the actions they saw him take on the date in question. He has not provided any evidence that they were working with the police at or prior to that time, that his prosecution had anything to do with a conspiracy, or that the reason the witness's alias was used in the police report was because that was the name she used when she reported his alleged actions to the police.

Quote:

---

Quoting Welfarelvr

---

Editing of above--My thoughts on the sixth might not be decided as yet and may not apply as jurisprudence seems to save that for hearsay. I adjust my answer above to focus more on Due Process:

---

The Sixth Amendment issue becomes moot when you choose not to go to trial, choose to raise your right hand and be sworn in, then choose to confess to a crime on the record as part of a plea bargain.

The OP has not indicated how he figured out who the witness actually was, or that it was difficult to do so. It may be that her alias is the name she uses in her everyday life.

The OP appears to be male, while the witnesses appear to be female, so if they were in the men's room they would have more 'splainin' do do than the OP.

Quote:

---

Quoting wacojames

---

I suspect that if the public knew that police target random people, manufacturing pretend crime scenarios, using criminals pretending to be victims, so as to sweep in like heroes and meet arrest quotas, that would be unacceptable.

---

So you have managed to find hundreds of these people who describe exactly the same scenario? Dozens? Or is it just you against the world?

Quote:

---

Quoting wacojames

---

I have one lawyer attempting to reopen the case, with all the evidence on the table.

---

Good luck.

Quote:

---

Quoting wacojames

---

In Dallas, a woman recently won $1.2 million for a false arrest where she spent nine days in jail. I did 35. I actually did over 60 percent of the maximum sentence.

---

And then you confessed. See the difference?

Quote:

---

Quoting wacojames

---

Having a child in a drug sting would also be a no-no they wouldn't want anyone to know about. It was probably a drug sting, with IE as a back up plan.

---

No, it was probably two women in a park with their child who saw or thought they saw, for whatever reason, something they didn't want to see.

Quote:

---

Quoting wacojames

---

On the day of my arrest, the alleged victim had an open theft case in the very same county court room no. 3, in front of the very same judge. At her second court appearance after my arrest, she got deferred.

---

Then (a) you knew who she was, and (b) given that you got a deferral as well, maybe you set her up? Seriously, is that all you have? She got a deferral, just like you?

I am trying to explain things as best I can. I understand it's hard for many to get their minds around the concept that the police can be dirty, or that they might plant evidence, or lie. You are not alone. My main goal now is exposing the corruption, the misconduct, the tort or crime that was committed in a false arrest. But, where to start... the police never did an investigation, In the report, it shows they only talked to the two alleged adult victims. There were about 40 people in the general vicinity, at an outdoor swimming hole. I was waste deep in spring fed water that stays 68 degrees year round. The two said I was masterbating. The water is very very cold. Try this at home. Anyway, one of the other persons present was a friend. He didn't know of my arrest until 35 days later when I finally managed to bond out. The judge refused to pay for him to return from Colorado to testify on my behalf, or even set a firm court date....I have to run...TBC.

Quote:

---

Quoting cdwjava

---

First, there is a considerable lack of detail in the OP's statement.

---

And I, for one, am appreciative of this fact!

Quote:

---

Quoting cdwjava

---

Fourth, I suspect there is much more to this story...

---

Probably not so much as you may imagine...

Quote:

---

Quoting wacojames

---

I am trying to explain things as best I can. I understand it's hard for many to get their minds around the concept that the police can be dirty, or that they might plant evidence, or lie.

---

Bad stuff happens. It's just that you have presented no facts to suggest that any such thing happened to you.

Quote:

---

Quoting wacojames

---

...the police never did an investigation, In the report, it shows they only talked to the two alleged adult victims.

---

That's an investigation.

Quote:

---

Quoting wacojames

---

There were about 40 people in the general vicinity, at an outdoor swimming hole.

---

Then you and your lawyer would have been in a good position to go to trial, with thirty-eight witnesses asserting that you were innocent.

Quote:

---

Quoting wacojames

---

The judge refused to pay for him to return from Colorado to testify on my behalf, or even set a firm court date....

---

Is that the entire basis of your theory of a conspiracy -- that the judge wouldn't pay your witness's plane fare?

OK...so, on the day of my arrest, the woman complainant had an unresolved case pending in the very same court I would go to. She had shop lifted $335 worth of merchandise from Kohl's department store. Security confronted her in the parking lot. She threw it down and sped off, but they had her plate number. At her second court appearance after my arrest, she got a deferred deal. Obviously, she had met some requirement, as in go to a park and find someone who meets a certain profile, like some dude who appears to be alone. Creepy, huh? She pretended to be a victim. She was perfect for the role, as she had a vivid imagination about sex, and a penchant for drama. She also had a previous arrest for family violence, when she flipped out about something she imagined sexual. Her own family called the police on her. I never knew any of this. If I had known of either of these arrests, I would never have been persuaded to plead to anything. I had lost my job, my place, my things, money, relationships with friends and family....you know because once the accusation is out there, the damage is done. They finally offered deferred, and my lawyer wanted me to take it. The judge told us if I were convicted, he would give me the maximum. That ment I would go back to jail, lose my job and all my stuff...again. It was not an easy decision. I can live with it, if the truth can come out.

- - - Updated - - -

On the day of my arrest, I was visiting Austin with a plan to start a business. My daughter had just started college in Austin and I wanted to be closer to her. I was still being paid for submissions I was making to the Florida newspaper I was working for. I was also a division one high school basketball official fifteen years experience. I had no history of miss behavior like these people described. None of my credibility counted for anything. Just the lies of a sexual nut job thief. Railroaded. Kangaroo court.

Quote:

---

Quoting wacojames

---

OK...so, on the day of my arrest, the woman complainant had an unresolved case pending in the very same court I would go to. She had shop lifted $335 worth of merchandise from Kohl's department store. Security confronted her in the parking lot. She threw it down and sped off, but they had her plate number.

---

So on the date in question, the police didn't know anything about this shoplifting suspect other than her driver's license number. She was later identified and charged.

Quote:

---

Quoting wacojames

---

At her second court appearance after my arrest, she got a deferred deal.

---

As did you.

Quote:

---

Quoting wacojames

---

Obviously, she had met some requirement, as in go to a park and find someone who meets a certain profile, like some dude who appears to be alone. Creepy, huh?

---

No, it's not obvious. You have not made any sort of connection. If your entire "case" for a conspiracy is that your accuser was spotted shoplifting by a private LP officer on the same day, you have no evidence of a conspiracy.

So are you saying that she completely fabricated what she told the police that got you arrested?

Regardless of what you learned afterward, you had the option to fight it in court and chose not to.

Just for giggles, I Googled:
austin arrest indecent exposure park

Apparently, many parks there have such a problem and the police seem to take enforcement seriously. Stings, undercover officers and strict enforcement are all detailed in the 360K results that come up.

Mr. Knowitall, please don't respond further. Your posts are unenlightening and argumentative. If you want to be useful, tell us how trolls actually make money. I've always been curious about that.

Welfarelvr, as one lawyer told me, everyone knows "stuff" happens at Zilker park. The police probably felt pressure to make this kind of arrest. And I was in the wrong place at the wrong time. But who knew all you needed was a victim, or someone willing to pretend they were a victim, with a sex charge. I sure wouldn't. Seems that if someone said they SAW someone committing forgery, you'd want evidence of a bank transaction. If someone said they SAW someone committing murder, a body or a missing person would be in order. Theft? Drugs? Finding someone in possession of said goods would be important. But apparently with a sex charge, all you need is a victim. Who would know that? Police, and lawyers, that's who. I might just as well been a Salem witch.

What I'm looking for is a plan on how to proceed. My thought so far are: file every possible grievance with every possible agency, department, advocate organization, the Innocence project, the police monitor. I did contact the FBI. They were interested at first, but then nothing. Then again, their main job these days is framing terrorists. Maybe the Republicans, since everyone involved with framing me is a democrat: the D.A., the judge, my lawyer. The judge is up for re-election. I've thought about papering her neighborhood with her picture (she's on Facebook) and the words "police informant." That should make the nut job go ballistic, and set something in motion. I keep wondering when that Karma thing will kick in. Coincidentally, the D.A. was caught drunk driving three times the legal BAC by the sheriffs, and was arrested two years to the day from when I was. She didn't even lose her job. She apparently is a powerful woman politically. I'm probably going to have to find a lawyer from another city, or even another state for help. I do want to file a federal lawsuit. I need to know what other dots I need to connect. At this point, I know they withheld information that would have been useful to me, and it affected my decision. I'm sure there is some kind of paper trail documenting precisely what the terms of her "community service" was. We did file a motion to discover any and all public records of her past. The judge quashed it, giving the lame excuse of a juvenile record would be inadmissible. Good grief, he to be staring at her current record. Even the judge was in on it.

Consider, if the police did this to you or a loved one, what would you do? Don't think it couldn't happen to you. If it could happen to me, it could happen to anyone. Make no mistake, they are caught, and they know that I know what really happened. Making as much noise as possible might be the only thing to keep a bullet from being put in the back of my head.

Quote:

---

Quoting wacojames

---

Making as much noise as possible might be the only thing to keep a bullet from being put in the back of my head.

---

Ahh...the thread has now jumped the shark.

Drinks anyone?

I'll pour.

So, has anyone checked the stock prices for Reynolds Aluminium lately?

Quote:

---

Quoting wacojames

---

welfarelvr - best answer so far....First, what I want most is for the truth to come out.

---

Write a book, start a blog, talk to the media. But, be careful when you start naming names because you could find yourself sued for libel.

Quote:

---

I suspect that if the public knew that police target random people, manufacturing pretend crime scenarios, using criminals pretending to be victims, so as to sweep in like heroes and meet arrest quotas, that would be unacceptable.

---

But ... uh ... you pled no contest! And you still haven't mentioned what it was that this witness observed and how they came to observe it. If this so-called "CI" was the sole witness against you, then you should have insisted on a trial because a confidential informant could not be used to convict you for flippin' out your willie.

Oh, and do you have proof of any kind of an arrest quota? I suspect not, so I would recommend you avoid making such accusations in public (see my above comment on libel).

Quote:

---

I have one lawyer attempting to reopen the case, with all the evidence on the table.

---

Good luck.

Quote:

---

In Dallas, a woman recently won $1.2 million for a false arrest where she spent nine days in jail. I did 35.

---

Did that woman plead out? Is the DA in your case the same as in Dallas? No? Hmmm ... then it's not really relevant.

Quote:

---

At one point the D.A. threatened me with felony indecency with a child.

---

Did a child witness your exposure?

Quote:

---

Having a child in a drug sting would also be a no-no they wouldn't want anyone to know about. It was probably a drug sting, with IE as a back up plan.

---

Then how did YOU get involved? Were you supposed to be involved in a drug deal but ended up whipping it out?

Quote:

---

Quoting wacojames

---

Mr. Knowitall, please don't respond further. Your posts are unenlightening and argumentative.

---

What you actually mean is that you don't like to hear the hard facts. You were the one who came in here spouting off about a conspiracy, and it's not my fault that as it turns out you have absolutely no evidence of a conspiracy.

Quote:

---

Quoting wacojames

---

If you want to be useful, tell us how trolls actually make money. I've always been curious about that.

---

You told us that you have a job, so I figure that's how you make your money.

Quote:

---

Quoting wacojames

---

The police probably felt pressure to make this kind of arrest. And I was in the wrong place at the wrong time. But who knew all you needed was a victim, or someone willing to pretend they were a victim, with a sex charge.

---

And you're back in fantasyland.

Quote:

---

Quoting wacojames

---

What I'm looking for is a plan on how to proceed. My thought so far are: file every possible grievance with every possible agency, department, advocate organization, the Innocence project, the police monitor.

---

...and you end up looking like a crank.

Quote:

---

Quoting wacojames

---

I did contact the FBI. They were interested at first, but then nothing.

---

Because either they took note that you had no evidence, or they investigated and found that your speculation was unsupported by any verifiable fact.

Quote:

---

Quoting wacojames

---

Then again, their main job these days is framing terrorists.

---

I guess you don't think it's a big deal that people recognize you as a crank....

Quote:

---

Quoting wacojames

---

Maybe the Republicans, since everyone involved with framing me is a democrat: the D.A., the judge, my lawyer. The judge is up for re-election.

---

And maybe you need to be fitted for a tin foil hat.

Quote:

---

Quoting wacojames

---

I've thought about papering her neighborhood with her picture (she's on Facebook) and the words "police informant." That should make the nut job go ballistic, and set something in motion.

---

Yeah, like headlines about a perv who was caught masturbating in the park harassing the woman who reported him to the police, and maybe a new criminal charge.

Quote:

---

Quoting wacojames

---

Coincidentally, the D.A. was caught drunk driving three times the legal BAC by the sheriffs, and was arrested two years to the day from when I was. She didn't even lose her job. She apparently is a powerful woman politically.

---

So powerful that she got a deferral, maybe? You have to be involved in a conspiracy to get one of those, right? (Unless you're you.)

Quote:

---

Quoting wacojames

---

I'm probably going to have to find a lawyer from another city, or even another state for help.

---

So you don't have a lawyer working on your case?

What you would need to do if you want to get any relief from your voluntary plea to the charge would be evidence that any of your speculation is premised in fact. Unfortunately for you, the foundation you've presented here proves absolutely nothing.

Quote:

---

Quoting wacojames

---

I do want to file a federal lawsuit.

---

Over the imaginary conspiracy?

Quote:

---

Quoting wacojames

---

I need to know what other dots I need to connect.

---

Actually, you need to start by finding at least one dot.

Quote:

---

Quoting wacojames

---

At this point, I know they withheld information that would have been useful to me, and it affected my decision.

---

Except it sounds like they gave you the witness's name, but that she used an alias when she made the report. Or perhaps all of the time.

Quote:

---

Quoting wacojames

---

I'm sure there is some kind of paper trail documenting precisely what the terms of her "community service" was.

---

It doesn't take a genius to figure out what "community service" is.

Quote:

---

Quoting wacojames

---

We did file a motion to discover any and all public records of her past. The judge quashed it, giving the lame excuse of a juvenile record would be inadmissible.

---

So you were not telling the truth earlier when you said you didn't know who she was and thus couldn't get her record. You did know who she was, but the record you hoped to introduce was ruled inadmissible.

Quote:

---

Quoting wacojames

---

Good grief, he to be staring at her current record. Even the judge was in on it.

---

Now the judge is "in on it"? You live in a world of make-believe.

Quote:

---

Quoting Irby v. State, 327 S.W.3d 138, 144-145 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010)

---

On appeal, appellant complained that the trial judge denied him his constitutional right to confrontation and cross-examination by not permitting defense counsel to cross-examine W.P. about his juvenile deferred-adjudication probation. The court of appeals upheld the trial judge's ruling. It first noted that "evidence of a juvenile adjudication, outside the realm of a juvenile proceeding, is not admissible for impeachment unless required by the Texas or United States Constitutions." It then acknowledged that the confrontation clause may require the admission of such evidence "if the cross-examination is reasonably calculated to expose a motive, bias, or interest for the witness to testify." But the mere fact that a juvenile had been placed on probation or had some other "vulnerable relationship" with the State is not enough to establish bias or prejudice; the cross-examiner must show some "causal connection" between the witness's "vulnerable relationship" and the witness's testimony....

In Texas, as in most jurisdictions, juvenile criminal records and adjudications are not admissible to impeach the general credibility of a testifying witness, even though the juvenile may be on probation and is technically in a "vulnerable relationship" with the State throughout that probationary period. [Except as required by the Constitution] Rule 609(d) of the Texas Rules of Evidence explicitly prohibits their use for attacking the general credibility of the witness....

---

Lame excuse?

Quote:

---

Quoting wacojames

---

Consider, if the police did this to you or a loved one, what would you do?

---

First, I wouldn't act like a raving lunatic, posting idiotic conspiracy theories all over the Internet. Second, if the allegations weren't true, I would very likely go to trial.

Quote:

---

Quoting wacojames

---

Don't think it couldn't happen to you. If it could happen to me, it could happen to anyone.

---

What could have happened to you is that two women saw you doing something in the water, were mistaken about what it was, but reported it to the police resulting in your being prosecuted over a misunderstanding. What did not happen to you is the conspiracy that you imagine to have been behind the prosecution, a conspiracy for which you have an ever-expanding cast of characters but absolutely no evidence.

Quote:

---

Quoting wacojames

---

Make no mistake, they are caught, and they know that I know what really happened.

---

Fantasyland.

Quote:

---

Quoting wacojames

---

Making as much noise as possible might be the only thing to keep a bullet from being put in the back of my head.

---

Fantasyland.

Whatever happened on that day, you need to get a grip. Seek some counseling.

Apparently. OP needs to stop hanging out in such parks.:wallbang:

Quote:

---

Quoting Welfarelvr

---

Just for giggles, I Googled:
austin arrest indecent exposure park

Apparently, many parks there have such a problem and the police seem to take enforcement seriously. Stings, undercover officers and strict enforcement are all detailed in the 360K results that come up.

---

Here is another poor son-of-a-gun with almost the exact same story. Close enough one might think he is the same guy:
http://forums.twobillsdrive.com/topi...e/page__st__60
http://wacojames.wix.com/fundin-for-defence

Quote:

---

Quoting cdwjava

---

Write a book, start a blog, talk to the media. But, be careful when you start naming names because you could find yourself sued for libel.

Not bad, maybe a novel so I can change the outcome.


But ... uh ... you pled no contest! And you still haven't mentioned what it was that this witness observed and how they came to observe it. If this so-called "CI" was the sole witness against you, then you should have insisted on a trial because a confidential informant could not be used to convict you for flippin' out your willie.

She claimed I was masterbating. She didn't see anything. That's part of the problem; everyone want to think I must have been doing something. I was just there, that's all. Did I mention she lied.

Oh, and do you have proof of any kind of an arrest quota? I suspect not, so I would recommend you avoid making such accusations in public (see my above comment on libel).

If APD is not making arrests, they are not doing there jobs, according to the chief. There are quotas.







Did a child witness your exposure?

Sigh....THERE WAS NO EXPOSURE!!!!!!!


Then how did YOU get involved? Were you supposed to be involved in a drug deal but ended up whipping it out?

---

@#$%&

- - - Updated - - -

Quote:

---

Quoting free9man

---

So are you saying that she completely fabricated what she told the police that got you arrested?

She was doing as instructed. The police were behind it; she was just a pawn wanting out of a theft charge. But I didn't know that until just recently.

Regardless of what you learned afterward, you had the option to fight it in court and chose not to.

---

Fought it for 14 months. They never came to court prepared to go to trial, just kept escalating the threats of more serious punishment. I couldn't see an end in sight. They had never offered deferred before. My lawyer wanted me to take it.

- - - Updated - - -

All I want is for the truth to come out. If the posters to this forum are the typical jury pool, this is why you don't want to go in front of a jury. People trying to fill in the gaps in their mind about probably went in a bathroom, or waved a willy. Bottom line it was fraud, premeditated fraud by the police. Then, failure to disclose, failure to receive a speedy trial, false arrest, false imprisonment, and witness tampering. Not a single idea about how to expose it. Thanks anyway, law experts not.

It seems, then, that this alleged CI was not a CI but a witness. Had you gone to trial, and they only had the witness's testimony against you, you should have been permitted to cross examine her. Unfortunately for you, you pled no contest and thus lost out on your ability to confront your accuser.

Quote:

---

Quoting wacojames

---

All I want is for the truth to come out. If the posters to this forum are the typical jury pool, this is why you don't want to go in front of a jury.

---

No one wants to go in front of a jury.

Quote:

---

People trying to fill in the gaps in their mind about probably went in a bathroom, or waved a willy.

---

You were arrested for indecent exposure on the complaint of two people. You choose to not give the details of what they said. We know the police would not have arrested you if they said you were doing cannonballs in the water. Without you giving their claim, we must imagine what was said that would case you to be arrested.

Quote:

---

Bottom line it was fraud, premeditated fraud by the police.

---

You have produced or even alleged anything resembling this here. When you make silly and outrageous claims, the rest of your story goes into a worse category than a minor shoplifter.

Quote:

---

Then, failure to disclose,

---

I believe this is your only valid issue. I told you the potential results of this issue being proven true in my first post.

Quote:

---

failure to receive a speedy trial,

---

Al laws were complied with and at least one continuance was requested by your attorney. Were you in negotiations or no?

Quote:

---

false arrest,

---

There was clearly probable cause based on the report of two witnesses. There is absolutely NO possibility of false arrest by the police. None. Not only would that possibility be foreclosed by the outcome your chose, but also be foreclosed by the small amount of facts required to reach the probable cause requirement for immunity.

Quote:

---

the false imprisonment,

---

Same as before. Also, the time you were imprisoned was because of your inability to make bail and not for imprisonment.

Quote:

---

and witness tampering.

---

While you have alleged this, it is a naked allegation with no facts. Even if it were true the DA gave a deferral on her testimony, something that may very well not be true, that does not reach the concept of witness tampering.

Quote:

---

Not a single idea about how to expose it.

---

Since there is little here to expose, no one thinks it important. You tried a lawyer, you tried letters, you've tried blogs and advice forums, you had some access to news organizations, you've tried to bring in federal authorities and EVERYONE, including your own attorney, thinks you are wasting your time and that no one cares.

Quote:

---

Thanks anyway, law experts not.

---

Even though you have been living this and thinking about this for a long time, you still do not have a clue of the actual legal issues involved. You complain about the burdens of the state, but do not seem to realize that many crimes have no physical evidence. You focus on the terrible character of the other person who was willing to testify (although a subpoena might have convinced the second), but think about how hypocritical that is. A person ACCUSED of a crime cannot be a victim?

- - - Updated - - -

Quote:

---

Quoting cdwjava

---

It seems, then, that this alleged CI was not a CI but a witness. Had you gone to trial, and they only had the witness's testimony against you, you should have been permitted to cross examine her. Unfortunately for you, you pled no contest and thus lost out on your ability to confront your accuser.

---

Part of that right includes the right to know who they are so the cross examination can be better planned. I posted the supreme court case showing this. My error in that post was that before I looked it up I though the right came from the 6th amendment. The court noted they have not made the specific holding the right to identity of the witnesses was through the 6th but held that since the same right comes from due process (14th amendment) they did not need to reach the question in Pennsylvania v. Ritchie.

Quote:

---

Quoting wacojames

---

If the posters to this forum are the typical jury pool, this is why you don't want to go in front of a jury.

---

What you want to present to a jury is a valid defense. If you are on trial and your theory depends upon a lunatic theory of a conspiracy that includes your own defense lawyer, the judge, the prosecutor's office, the police department, all of the witnesses... who did I leave out... oh yes, the local Democratic Party... does that about cover it? All that does is send the message that you don't actually have a defense.

If you planned to take the stand and go off on your wild-eyed conspiracy theories, it's perfectly understandable why your lawyer urged you to take the deferral.
[QUOTE=wacojames]People trying to fill in the gaps in their mind about probably went in a bathroom, or waved a willy.[quote]
Only because you were playing "hide the ball" with the facts. No pun intended. When you choose not to tell people what happened, you force them to guess.

Quote:

---

Quoting wacojames

---

Bottom line it was fraud, premeditated fraud by the police.

---

You have no evidence of that.

Quote:

---

Quoting wacojames

---

Then, failure to disclose...

---

You admitted that claim was false when you disclosed that you were able to obtain the witness's juvenile record and attempted to get the court to authorize you to use it in court.

Quote:

---

Quoting wacojames

---

...failure to receive a speedy trial...

---

That's a new one. You chose not to take the case to trial, you've not indicated that you tried to exercise your speedy trial rights, and you've shared no reason why your case was adjourned. I expect that if there actually was a speedy trial violation your lawyer would have filed a motion on that basis, but... maybe we're being introduced to yet another element of your conspiracy theory.

Quote:

---

Quoting wacojames

---

...false arrest...

---

When witnesses report you publicly masturbating in the presence of children, it's not unreasonable for the police to accept that eyewitness testimony as probable cause for arrest. Even if the witnesses are wrong.

Quote:

---

Quoting wacojames

---

...false imprisonment...

---

No, there was no false imprisonment. You were charged based on probable cause, and bond was set.

Quote:

---

Quoting wacojames

---

...and witness tampering.

---

You have no evidence of witness tampering.

Quote:

---

Quoting wacojames

---

Not a single idea about how to expose it.

---

You can't "expose" things that exist only in your imagination.

Quote:

---

Quoting cdwjava

---

It seems, then, that this alleged CI was not a CI but a witness. Had you gone to trial, and they only had the witness's testimony against you, you should have been permitted to cross examine her. Unfortunately for you, you pled no contest and thus lost out on your ability to confront your accuser.

---

Had he gone to trial, he would have been able to cross-examine his accuser, and to try to make the case that she was mistaken.

Quote:

---

We need to have some facts.

---

Right. So, where did he say anything about going into a bathroom? Hint: He didn't.

Quote:

---

What do you think happened?

---

Exactly what he said happened: he got arrested for indecent exposure. Then, as he said, he pled out. Now he's mad that he got punished. Who pleads out to something the absolutely didn't do?

Quote:

---

Mr. Knowitall, please don't respond further.

---

Oh, sweetie, no. You don't get a say in who responds, nor in what fashion. I'm mildly amused that you're moaning in the Admin box that this attorney who offered advice is a troll, but not amused enough to let you stay.

Off you go now.

I can't see why OP took the plea if his web site story is true. Apparently the testimony was he splashed himself with water.

Quote:

---

Quoting LawResearcherMissy

---

Who pleads out to something the absolutely didn't do?

---

Sometimes a deferral is simply too good to pass up. But if you are contending that the case against you is paper thin, it would be odd.