Be sure and check out the September 7, 2007 edition of www.newspapertree.com. My campaign is mentioned at the top of the article as well as the fact that I have called into question some of Esparza's campaign expenditures, i.e. $350 lunches at the Sheraton in Mexico City. See my blog of last week on Esparza's campaign report. Also available on the Newspapertree's article are campaign reports if you are interested in seeing how much money Esparza and I have raised and how we have spent the money entrusted to us.

This morning I campaigned outside of Liberty Hall, (the jury duty building). In an hour and a half's time, from 7:30 a.m. to 9:00 a.m., I passed out almost three hundred cards. Despite the early hour and the fact that many of the potential jurors had not yet had their morning coffee, I am glad to report that the reception was very positive. Many were downright ecstatic that I was running. For the readers out there who are telling people at work, in line at the grocery store, etc. that I am running, please keep up the good work. The positive word of mouth helps me when I am actually out there stumping.

Also today I received a call from a parent who has four children at a local gradeschool where Alberto Ocegueda teaches. Alberto Ocegueda is the brother of Amy Lujan (Amelia Ocegueda). Amy Lujan is Esparza's private secretary who he gives $35,000 extra of your tax money to on top of her $40,000 salary. Esparza also sends Amy Lujan to Mexico City on business. This is also your money by the way. Alberto Ocegueda had been accused in November 2006 of sexually assaulting a child at a school where he was teaching. One week after Esparza found out that I knew about the case, it was magically dumped by a special prosecutor. The parent who called me had read my April 23, 2007 blog on the matter and was very upset about how Esparza had handled the case. He is now talking to other parents and I have a feeling that Esparza may have to answer for this one yet.

When this parent and others like him demand answers from their government, will the system correct itself and work. If not, it all gets swept under the proverbial rug.

For the last two days I have written blogs on the murder case Stuart Leeds and I forced Jaime Esparza to dismiss on Thursday, September 6, 2007. Esparza had to admit in his motion to dismiss as well as on the news on Friday that he was abandoning the murder case he charged because there was not enough evidence to prosecute. Esparza tried to convey the message that he was the good guy and of course he would dismiss a case where there wasn't enough evidence. What is disturbing about Esparza's public position is that it bears no relation to what actually happened in the case and what led up to the dismissal. Esparza, as ususal, had to be wrestled to the ground to do what he should have done all along.

Esparza indicted my client for murder without any evidence. We know that Esparza didn't have any evidence because the police had not turned over its investigation to Esparza when Esparza took the case to the grand jury. When it came to my attention that this is what happened, co-counsel, Stuart Leeds, and I embarked on a take-no-prisoners, go for the throat legal warfare on the DA's office. Hard hitting motions were filed daily on the DA's office for seven whole months. We had hearing after hearing where we legally, literally, kicked their teeth in to prove that they had wrongfully charged and incarcerated our client on a case where there was nothing but evidence to prove he did NOT do the crime. Also keep in mind that our client was ill and his incarceration was sapping the life out of him.

What we learned from paperwork we came by on our own is that Esparza, one whole month after he wrongfully indicted our client and after we started pounding him, got real nervous and started actually directing the police investigation to find evidence to support his erroneous charges. After he charged our client, he started looking for DNA evidence. On top of that, Esparza directed the police detective to go back with two of his asst. da's and re-interview witnesses at the jail who had previously exonerated our client (said he did not do the crime) to see if they wanted to give a new and different statement. What kind of new and different statement was Esparza seeking? The witnesses by the way, told the police and Esparza's lawyers they were changing nothing from their first statements. It was amazing to watch the legal shenanigans.

The DA's office was so frantic that their near hysteria is reflected in the Department of Public Safety (DPS) phone records and notes. DPS tested for DNA. In note after note, we see the DPS analyst document calls received from personnel at Esparza's office who were nervous about the case and the testing. This personnel also strangely conveyed to the analyst that I was the defense attorney. Who the defense attorney is, in a normal case with a normal DA's office that has done nothing wrong, should be of no import or interest whatsoever to the analyst who is simply there to conduct a scientific, objective analysis of the evidence.

On 2-22-07, almost one month after our client was indicted and jailed, after the very first call on this case between Esparza's office and DPS, the DPS analyst notes:"...There is a court order deadline to have all work completed by April 13, 2007. Defense attorney is Teresa Caballero."

On 2-23-07, the next day, the DPS analyst again writes after speaking to Esparza's Office, "Theresa Caballero (sp?) is the defense attorney for suspect..."

From 2-28-07 to 3-16-07 the DPS analyst is still asking for standards to be collected by the police detective in charge of the case. Why wasn't this all done before the indictment and incarceration of our client?

(Keep in mind that up to this point, we are dragging the DA into court demanding to see the evidence that they have and we are successfully getting the judge to issue court order after court order compelling Esparza's office, that is fighting us, to turn over what they have. The heat has been turned up.)

On 3-16-07 the DPS analyst writes again, " Denise (Esparza's employee)...She was very upset I wasn't running the stain from DS37-camouflage pants...She wants every single stain run-no question-from Ferguson [my client]. She wants every single stain run from everyone else. I told her we don't have enough time. That will require two batches-let me chose most probative in my opinion from other 2 suspects (White and Woodruff). If DNA turns out to be inconsistent w/victim, we can run additional later (as court order only applies to Ferguson-Caballero (sp?) is attorney and is the reason for the court order per prior discussion with Denise)."

One can see the scrambling and the frantic search by the DA's office for something, anything, to justify what they have ALREADY done and gotten caught with their pants down on by us. Why the scrambling? Because they knew they had done wrong by charging our client without evidence and they knew that I was the defense attorney and that I would bring this to light. I had also announced my canadidacy for DA on February 5, 2007.

In the end, they were so pressed for time and they couldn't find anything so they had to go into court and seek a postponement of the July 31, 2007 trial setting. The only way they could get the extra time was if they agreed to let our client out of jail on a PR (signature) bond. PR bonds are ONLY given to those people who are NOT A THREAT to the community. And they are usually never given to homeless people charged with murder who have no permanent address and who are not from El Paso. After seven months of pounding the DA and winning step by step, our client walked out of jail on a PR bond and went to live at a homeless shelter until the end of the case. Obviously the DA did not really think our client was a dangerous murderer or he would not have agreed to a PR bond. Or did he think our client was a menace but had so mishandled the case that he couldn't afford to care and thus endangered the community? After all, how would Esparza explain to the voting public that he agreed to let a "cold blooded murderer" out on the streets on a signature bond who is homeless?

Finally, after being destroyed in court for eight months, Esparza dumped the case. When he says on the news that he was going to dismiss anyway because of lack of evidence, the question becomes WHEN? And why did he indict in the first place without evidence? And when he says on the news that he doesn't take into consideration who the defense attorney is when evaluating a case, do you really believe that given the above DPS notes? The next trial date was 11-05-07, four months before the election where he is going to have to face me and answer to the voters. Esparza knew he would have to answer to me in court for what he did to our client and being the bully he is he stood down only when he was faced with equal or greater force.

Esparza once again, should have saved himself a lot of shame and the taxpayer a lot of money and done the right thing in the first place. But then again, he doesn't know what that is anymore. From this case alone, we see Esparza does not seek justice. How many other cases are like this one? Enough is enough! Vote Caballero!

Yesterday I reported to you that my opponent Jaime Esparza lost a murder case to Attorney Stuart Leeds and me. After eight months of very contested hearings, all hearings instigated at our behest, after weeks of our carpet bombing Esparza's office with defense motions and tens of thousands of dollars later on DNA experts and investigative fees and legal fees, Esparza was forced to admit publicly what he knew all along and dismiss the case against our client for Lack of Evidence. (Please see my blog from yesterday). One of my main complaints regarding Esparza's mishandeling of the charges against my client was the glaring fact that he had charged my client with murder, conceivably the worst crime to be charged with, before the police had finished their investigation and turned their file over to Esparza. The question I pose is, if the police had not turned their file over to Esparza (and they had not at the time of indictment) what evidence in the world did Esparza present to the grand jury to get them to charge my client? Reporter Ms. Alexsis Vance from Channel Four understood the import of this story and got on it. She interviewed both Esparza and me yesterday regarding Esparza's dismissal of this murder case and the implications it has on the race for District Attorney. These interviews aired on the five, six and ten editions of the news. At least at five and six it was the lead story.

Esparza actually admitted on the TV interview that he had formally charged my client with murder PRIOR to receiving the police report. He defended himself by saying that although he had not received the police report yet he had "the nuts and bolts of the case." What in the world are the "nuts and bolts" of a case if not the police report? My client was indicted on January 17, 2007. On January 22, 2007, five days later, we asked Esparza's office to see their file (as is the common practice) and amazingly we were told that the case had not come in yet from the police and when it did, they would let us know. And since the police department was conducting the investigation, what is it Mr. Esparza claims made up the "nuts and bolts of the case?" A file full of air? Because that is what he had at the time.

When asked to respond to what I had said in my portion of the news interview, Esparza told the reporter, "Ms. Caballero, as she has done in the past, is misinforming the public." This is Esparza's usual mantra along with the other mantra, " I'm proud of my office." What I would like Esparza to address is what did I misinform the public about? Did he not indict my client before the police had turned over the case to him? Did he not have to dismiss the case due to lack of evidence?

Esparza is the type of politician who believes that he can say whatever he wants whether it is true or not, whether it makes sense or not, because he is reckless enough and drunk enough with his own power to think that the public is too dumb to get it. Anyone watching last night's news after seeing my interview and then seeing Esparza explain how he charged my client before the police had given him the fruits of their investigation would know that that is not the way things should ever go.

What are the nuts and bolts of a case:
-witness statements;
-DNA evidence;
-Poice report;
-a statement from the Defendant;
-physical evidence (the murder weapon, a video tape)

What did Esparza have at the time he indicted my client from the above list. NOTHING. What did the police department have at the time Esparza indicted my client from the above list, two eye witness statements saying my client didn't do it and a video taped statement of my client saying he didn't do it. There was no DNA evidence until well into April and May, evidence our DNA expert, Dr. Paul Goldstein of Goldstein Consulting, made short shrift of.

One observer of the news piece commented that Esparza looked angry and he looked like someone who had been in office too long. The Observer said that "he now looks like someone desperately trying to hang on to his job."

I am happy to report that my client was elated at his newfound freedom and very grateful to Stuart Leeds and me. It is also encouraging that we have a news reporter, Ms. Vance, who covered this story and exposed to the public what harm Esparza inflicted on our client and on the legal system.

Part of my interview which was not aired was my challenging Esparza to a debate on this case and any other issue relevant to this race. For my readers who may be a part of a news outlet or civic organization that sponsors debates, please feel free to contact me for a debate. (241-8418) I will make myself available. Will Mr. Esparza?

Prosecutors, District Attorneys and their assistant District Attorneys are prosecutors, have tremendous power. A prosecutor can seek the arrest of an individual. He can take a person before the grand jury and have the person indicted (formally charged with a crime) and then subject that person to the court process. In the end, the prosecutor can ask for a person to lose his freedom. For example, a prosecutor can ask the judge or the jury for X amount of years and often time gets what he wants because he is the prosecutor. He represents the State. People like to have trust in their leaders. A prosecutor must be wise and measured in how he uses his power and only charge those individuals against whom he has evidence. Sounds elementary doesn't it? Well in fact, that is not what is going on in Esparza's office and the cost to this community cannot be tabulated.

Yesterday, Stuart Leeds and I won a murder case against Esparza's office. Cause No: 2007OD00117. We represented a man who was arrested on January 7, 2007 for murder and indicted just ten days later on January, 17, 2007. After eight months of hearings, motions to suppress, listening to DNA experts, bringing in witnesses from out of state, Esparza was forced to accept reality and dismiss the case. The reason stated for dismissal, "Evidence insufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt at this time." Esparza's biggest problem was that our client was actually innocent of the charges he had placed on him. In fact there were two witness statements taken by the police stating our client was innocent. How did this happen? Esparza's office presented our client's case to the grand jury for indictment BEFORE THE POLICE HAD TURNED THE CASE OVER TO HIM, BEFORE THE POLICE HAD INVESTIGATED THE CASE. By 1-22-07, five days after Esparza indicted our client, the police had not yet turned over the results of their investigation to the DA's office.

How in the world does a district attorney indict a man for murder without an investigation? What "evidence" did Esparza's office present to the grand jury to convince them to indict if the case had not yet been received from the police department? What did Esparza tell those grand jurors? We tried to find out but Esparza's office wasn't talking. Esparza's asst. da spent from February until yesterday directing an investigation that should have occured before the indictment. But even the DA led investigation could not find evidence on our client. Why is the DA indicting first and then investigating later? Why is the DA involved in the investigation at this level anyway?

What did Esparza's folly in this case cost the County?
-Our DNA expert witness/lab fee cost the county more than $42,275.00;
-Investigator fees, at least $2,500.00;
-Out of state attorney fees, $2,000.00;
-Officer in court testimony $????;
-Police overtime $????;
-DA staff attorneys' time $????;
-DPS lab time $????;
-Cost of housing our client in the jail for seven months $????;
-Our legal fees, $?????;
-Court staff time, the Judge, the court reporter, the bailiff, the clerk, $????

Our estimate is that it cost the taxpayers of El Paso well over $100,000 to prosecute an innocent man for murder and then in the end dismiss the case. All because Esparza has lost his way and does not know anymore how a prosecutor should conduct himself. This will never happen when I am in office.

Why did Esparza dismiss the case? He will tell you because there was not enough evidence? But then ask him if that is the case, why did he ever indict it in the first place? Not enough evidence or actual innocence has never barred Esparza from prosecuting someone before. The real reason for the dismissal is because Esparza could not lose a murder jury trial to his opponent in the middle of a contested race for his seat. Our client lucked out, but what was the cost to him and us for Esparza's sloth?

The Texas Ethics Commission requires that candidates for political races file campaign contribution reports and expenditure reports. Candidates for the office of District Attorney had to file their reports by July 15, 2007. One is allowed to spend campaign contributions on expenses related to one's campaign.

When I consider spending campaign funds I ask myself three questions:

1) Can my campaign afford this expense?
2) Will this expense benefit my campaign?
3) Is this the kind of expense that my contributors have given me their hard-earned money for?

If the answer is yes to all three questions, then I usually go ahead and spend the money. If you look at my campaign expense report, you will see that most of my expenses go to advertising, to getting my message directly out to the public. I do not spend money on meals or on other people's campaigns, or on golf tournaments or on out of country travel. Now while it is within the rules of ethics for one candidate to give money to another candidate out of campaign funds, I personally do not think that that is right. If Mr. John Doe gives me $100 to help me, Theresa Caballero candidate for DA, I hardly think he intended for me to turn around and give it to my candidate of choice for president. Your own sense of morality should tell you that this is wrong. Maybe Mr. John Doe doesn't like my choice for president.

I recently reviewed Jaime Esparza's campaign report on "Political Expenditures" and found some expenses that are questionable. Esparza spent some of his contributions in Mexico City and Juarez:

-Au Pie de Cuchon, in Mexico City, 6-26-07, $356.71;
-Marigarcos de Niza, Mexico City, 2-28-07, $98.50
-Parador Tomochi, Cd. Juarez, 1-18-07, $93.10
-Restaurante El Arroyo, Mexico City, 2-09-07, $166.80
-Restaurante Sheraton Maria Isabel, 6-25-07, $135.69

What could a candidate be doing on his campaign in a foreign country's capitol, 1000 miles away from home at fancy restaurants that could be a legitimate campaign expense? If you mention your campaign over lunch with your county paid personal secretary (the one you give a $35,000 "supplement" to on top of her county salary) whom you have taken with you to Mexico City, does that then make it a "campaign expense?" And if the rules of ethics actually allow these kinds of shenanigans, is that what your contributors had in mind when they sent you their hard earned cash?

You can look up my report and Esparza's report on the Texas Ethics website. Mr. Esparza has obviously been in office too long and has never had a challenger and therefore feels comfortable spending your money on these kinds of expenditures. Is this how he runs his office? I say it is time for a change.