November 18, 2011
Ms. Stephanie Strolle
State Bar of Texas
San Antonio, TX
RE: Grievances against El Paso City Attorney Charlie McNabb, Assistant City Attorney Kenneth Krohn, El Paso District Attorney Jaime Esparza
Dear Ms. Strolle:
We are formally filing with you grievances against attorneys Charlie McNabb, Kenneth Krohn and Jaime Esparza for violating the Texas Code of Professional Conduct.
We have recently learned that the City of El Paso, by and through its Police Department, with the knowledge of the above named attorneys has been stopping, ticketing and arresting people on the streets of El Paso pursuant to a quota system. Quota systems or predetermined measures are illegal and specifically proscribed by Texas Transportation Code Sec. 720.002 which states in pertinent part:
“A political subdivision or an agency of this state may not establish or maintain formally or informally, a plan to evaluate, promote, compensate, or discipline …. a peace officer according to the officer’s issuance of a predetermined or specified number of any type or combination of types of traffic citations…”
We came by this information in the course of representing several former El Paso police officers who notified us of the practice. Not one of the above named prosecutors notified us of this illegal practice and policy.
We have an e-mail retired El Paso Police Sgt. Jack Matthews sent to officers under his supervision that says in short that those officers who do not comply with the requisite ticket requirements should not work the grant shifts. He is referring to the STEP grants that he supervised. Officers working those grants earn extra shift hours, and therefore extra money. Matthews e-mails states in pertinent part:
“October 7, 2011…In looking over the log sheets…, I am seeing officers working the full five hours AND WRITING ONLY 3 OR 4 SEATBELT VIOLATIONS…..The performance standard set forth in the grant is a minimum of 3 seat belt violations per work hour per officer. If you think you can not meet this goal… then DO NOT work the grant. This will allow for other officers to be scheduled that have no problem being able to do what is required…those that do not produce what is required will not be considered to work any traffic related grants in the future.”
We have reason to believe that there are many other similar e-mails and documentation which prove that a quota system has been in place for years at the Police Department regarding DWI arrests, speeding, seatbelt violations, etc. Hundreds, if not thousands, of people have been hunted down and arrested in the streets of El Paso based on this illegal system. City Attorney Charlie McNabb and Kenneth Krohn know about the e–mails and other documentation proving the illegal system and have not disclosed the documents and the scheme– a violation of Brady V. Maryland and not in compliance with their obligations pursuant to TX Code of Professional Responsibility 3.09 (d) which states in pertinent part that:
“Prosecutors shall make timely disclosure to the defense of all evidence and information known to the prosecutor that tends to negate the guilt of the accused or mitigates the offense.”
On Wednesday, November 16, 2011, in the State of Texas v. Daniel Torres, County Court at Law number seven, we subpoenaed Jack Matthews to trial. The State subpoenaed officers as well. Assistant City Attorney Kenneth Krohn filed and argued a motion to quash only our subpoena of Jack Matthews and not the district attorney’s subpoenas of other cops. When the judge denied Krohn’s motion, he threatened the judge with mandamus. In fact he told Matthews not to come to Court. Instead of giving information as Brady material, Krohn actually tried to suppress it. The DWI arrest in question in the Torres case was made under a STEP grant, under the supervision of Jack Matthews and pursuant to the requirement that the officer working the DWI grant make at least one DWI arrest per shift. Out client was the victim that day.
We filed a lawsuit against the City which is pending asking a court to stop this illegal practice. In our lawsuit seeking an injunction against the City, we provided excerpts from the contract and not the whole contract. We put in the pertinent parts. The City is free to put in the parts they want to highlight. The City is now alleging TO THE PRESS that because we only submitted the pertinent parts of the contract that we have done something wrong. McNabb and Krohn see nothing wrong with their illegal quota scheme, their efforts to cover it up and not disclose information beneficial to the defense to the defense and information to the court that the court needs to consider. We referred the Court to the voluminous contract in our lawsuit and submitted the portions we felt pertinent to our case. The City cannot win on the evidence because it is damning and its attorneys are therefore distorting information and spoon feeding it to dishonest reporters.
Today we received a call from El Paso Times reporter Marty Schladen who said the City Attorney’s Office, Kenneth Krohn, would be seeking disciplinary action with the State Bar of Texas against us for “omitting” a portion of the contract referred to in our lawsuit against them and what was our comment about that.
This action on the part of Charlie McNabb who is the City Attorney and who supervises all employs of that office, including Kenneth Krohn, violates Texas Code of Professional Conduct Rule 3.07 Trial Publicity. This rule states in pertinent part:
“In the course of representing a client, lawyer shall not make an extrajudicial statement that a reasonable person would expect to be disseminated by means of public communication if the lawyer knows or reasonably should know that it will have a substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing an adjudicatory proceeding. A lawyer shall not counsel or assist another person to make such a statement.”
Kenneth Krohn has been very worried about our injunction and has raised it in various court hearings, i.e. John Cook v. Tom Brown Ministries et.al. and State of Texas v. Daniel Torres.
Kenneth Krohn is also angry because we subpoenaed him yesterday to appear today in a pre-trial matter in the State of Texas v. Eric Barrajas.
Charlie McNabb and Kenneth Krohn and Jaime Esparza have a duty as prosecutors to disclose the quota scheme referred to in Matthew’s e-mail. They have a duty to see that Justice is done and not just be advocates for their client. The City Attorney’s office also prosecutes all PD traffic citations. They are not disclosing the scheme and e-mail to defendants in traffic court. Jaime Esparza is not doing it in the DWI Step grant cases he prosecutes.
We have several former PD officers you must interview in your investigation, starting with former Sgt. Luis Ortiz.
Sincerely,
Theresa Caballero
Stuart L. Leeds
November 19, 2011 at 11:18 am
Lots of bar activity for Theresa Caballero and Stuart L. Leeds. Keep the faith and keep at it. As long as questionable judges and opposing attorneys keep filing bar charges, it says you both are doing your jobs faithfully and well.
Matthews’ email not only clearly shows the EPPD had a quota scam going but makes you question the quality of leadership and training the cops are getting. I mean how could someone so senior be so unaware of the legal implications of such a damning document unless it was just “business as usual” for the EPPD.
Anyway, just an opinion.
November 19, 2011 at 1:14 pm
yes analyst.
Stuart and I have two options:
1) tell everyone we’re really sorry for exposing their corruption, promise not to do it anymore and then sell out our clients or:
2) Continue to represent our clients and expose those who try and harm them and continue on…
December 5, 2011 at 1:44 am
If there is proof there is a quota system being applied, then a look into the Red Light Camera system and how unconstitutionally it is being applied. This whole red light system of being sent a charge without the full knowledge of the one who may have or have not broken any law doesn’t follow current law and practice of constitutional rights. Even sending the charge within an not-well-known amount of time of the violation exhibits how unfair this system is. This system was originally not to add revenue to the city general fund, but in 2010, a letter was submitted that $500,000.00 in revenue was made, unspecified. Not only does the city make revenue, they have a database of “red-light” runners, evaluated by the city administrative hearing officer and Redflex, “Redflex will process and review all violations captured by the equipment. Redflex will then provide the El Paso Police Department all evidence of the violation. An El Paso Police Officer will review all evidence and ensure a violation has clearly been committed. Once verified by a sworn peace officer Redflex will be authorized to create and mail all Notices of Violation.”
Not only does the police department have supposed incriminating evidence, but a third party, Redflex, reviews the evidence and helps to decide on the fate of the red light “violator”. These people were not chosen in a Democratic/Constitutional manner to be involved in decision making of a public violation.
So, in essence, the city is involved in ways to deliver more money without the justification of law or the people engaged in its decision. Nonfeasance or even moreso, malfeasance, is a common practice by the city of El Paso, and the Red-LIght camera system is a good example.
December 13, 2011 at 11:00 am
Xnibblet,
My comment doesn’t have anything to do with the Red Light Camera System but the issue has troubled me for over a year. My daughter and her family own their home in East El Paso. In their neighborhood, even though their home is large, there is limited driveway length. I’m assuming it is built to a standard. They drive SUV’s….not big ones. One day my daughter called me and told me she received a ticket. In her own driveway! The ticket said she was blocking the sidewalk. Hardly. I accumulated photos of nearly four hundred houses where the vehicles were actually blocking the sidewalk. I contacted the chief of police by e-mail and regular mail. There was no response. We spoke to other police officers we knew who laughed and referred to the act as “cheap” and “quota.”
I both wrote and called our City Council Rep and was told, “Oh, we get a lot of complaints about that kind of thing.” WHAT? My daughter had just returned from a long day at work. Her car was parked for the night the way it always is at their own home. She had to pay a fine without ever being able to question anyone. I think it was over fifty dollars….at her own home!!!
My point is, I wonder what constitutes “quota.” Although citizens may think it’s traffic, maybe there is a whole area where the police are not even scrutinized in their issue of citations. If my daughter was in the wrong (that’s a mighty big if) it seems like a warning may have been called for instead lf a citation.
What did those police officers we talked to mean by “quota?”
PS: TC, if you read this…we love you guys. Hang in there. We pray for you to have strength.
December 20, 2011 at 6:15 pm
I wanted your comment to appear. Did it? I tried to push approve.
December 21, 2011 at 10:42 am
It appeared.
Merry Christmas.