Dusty Thompson's Request for New Trial Flames Out

 

SAN ANGELO, TX — Convicted cattle rustler Dusty Thompson was back in the Tom Green County Courthouse requesting a new trial. His argument was twofold. First, he alleged the jurors read the daily dispatches on San Angelo LIVE! about the trial as it unfolded. Second, he alleged that jurors who had experience with ranching offered their opinions of Thompson’s offense during the deliberations against the jury instructions. Judge Carmen Dusek ordered the jury to only consider evidence presented during the trial. Both the reading of San Angelo LIVE! articles and discussing knowledge of ranching — what was characterized as techniques for the feeding of livestock in general — by jurors tainted their decision and conviction, Thompson’s attorney Gonzalo Rios argued.

Thompson was convicted Nov. 20, 2019 for cattle rustling. He was sentenced to five years in prison and fined $5,000. His prison sentence was suspended and today he is on probation. 

In the packed Courtroom B, Thompson’s 13 witnesses, including the 12 jurors and one private investigator who interviewed jurors, sat before Judge Dusek who dismissed the subpoenaed citizens to a secluded conference room before the hearing began. Each was to be brought in one at a time to testify under oath if they broke the rule and took a peek at media coverage, and specifically at San Angelo LIVE! articles, about Thompson during the trial. Each was admonished with what Dusek called “The Rule.” The Rule stated that none of the witnesses could discuss with anyone, and certainly not amongst themselves, what was said inside the courtroom this day as they were shuffled in and out.

Before Rios started his argument, prosecutor Brent Ratekin made a motion to dismiss the request for a new trial because Thompson’s primary argument broke longstanding Rule 606. The Rule in state and federal statutes protects the jury deliberations from snooping defense attorneys. The rule states that a juror may not testify about any statement made or incident that occurred during deliberations, the effect anything had on the juror’s vote, or any juror’s mental process concerning a verdict. The rule was very cut and dry and had been upheld in many court proceedings, Ratekin argued. Judge Dusek seemed to agree, but allowed Rios to open and present his arguments.

“I’m not ruling on the motion yet, so let’s get Mr. Rios’ witnesses recorded on the stand just in case,” Dusek said.

In a series of objections by the prosecution, Rios’ presentation was diminished into a moot, fruitless exercise. Rios wanted to ask each juror what influenced their decision in an attempt to have a juror testify that several on the panel were self-proclaimed ranching experts and those jurors injected information into the jury deliberations that was not presented in court testimony, and against the jury’s charge.

Dusek’s rulings basically denied Rios from asking those kinds of questions. So, the remainder of the hearing became a focus group discussion about the popularity of San Angelo LIVE! with Rios calling each juror to the stand one-by-one and asking each if they were tempted to read the news platform’s coverage of the trial while impaneled.

The first juror, a Wall resident, was called first. He apologized to Dusek for breaking her jury charge.

“I had a Jeep, doors and a camper shell I was selling on the ‘swap and sell,’” he said. “When I was doing that, I got a notice from San Angelo LIVE!” Facebook has a myriad of swap and sell groups where local residents sell and trade items as if it is an online garage sale.

Under cross-examination, the Wall guy said the headline he saw was about the ‘Big Bag of Crazy.’ “That’s that Strube girl, and I wondered what kind of trouble she was into now,” he said. The temptation was too much, and he clicked. “You don’t see that headline often,” he said.

The Wall guy admitted he accessed social media 4-5 times a day and saw San Angelo LIVE! headlines often when doing so.

“How were the headlines? Were they slanted against my client?” Rios asked.

“No, they were pretty level,” Wall guy said.

The next few witnesses denied any interaction with social media or even traditional media during the trial.

Then prosecutor Ratekin objected. “Your honor, we are on a fishing expedition,” he said. Ratekin made a motion to shut it down.

“No, I will allow it,” Dusek said. “Overruled.”

In all, eight jurors were called and only the Wall guy said he saw headlines about the Dusty Thompson trial. Rios seemed to admit defeat and didn’t call the four remaining jurors or his star witness, private investigator Kate Long who purportedly would shine the light to how San Angelo LIVE!’s journalism tainted the jury.

Judge Dusek promised a decision quickly on if she will order a new trial. Not even Rios appeared to be holding his breath.

Dusek declared the hearing over, then Thompson and his posse cleared the courtroom and stood outside glaring at the founder of San Angelo LIVE! who was covering the hearing.

By noon, in a ruling made from her office desk after much reflection over this morning's hearing, Judge Dusek denied a new trial.

Subscribe to the LIVE! Daily

The LIVE! Daily is the "newspaper to your email" for San Angelo. Each content-packed edition has weather, the popular Top of the Email opinion and rumor mill column, news around the state of Texas, news around west Texas, the latest news stories from San Angelo LIVE!, events, and the most recent obituaries. The bottom of the email contains the most recent rants and comments. The LIVE! daily is emailed 5 days per week. On Sundays, subscribers receive the West Texas Real Estate LIVE! email.

Required

Most Recent Videos

Comments

Now can we please move on to something else and let little Dusty fade back to where ever he came from...

"Wherever" is one word. You wouldn't want to look like an illiterate, halfwit, while calling out a "Mouth Breather". Amazing.

As Americans we all are entitled to the due process of law, it's that legal requirement that the state must respect all legal rights that are owed to a person. ... When a government harms a person without following the exact course of the law, this constitutes a due process violation, which offends the rule of law. When even ONE juror blatantly disregards the rules they are given by the court then they have denied the defendant of his or her right to a fair trial. This is clearly what took place! As evidenced by the "Wall Guys" testimony which stated that during the trial he accessed social media including Angelo Live Articles 4 to 5 times A DAY!!! This is the same guy who most likely swayed the jurors verdict by presenting his ranching opinion(s) during deliberation that were NOT part of the evidence presented. Assistant DA Ratekin knew that if that evidence was presented it would be sudden death and was quick to object and throw out Rule 606b (thank God for a knowledgeable assistant) as Mr. Ratekin seemed flustered and lost when Judge Dusek began to ask him questions about the rule. Ratekin objected, objected, objected! To make sure that biased, unlawful, information that was presented to the other jurors by "The Wall Guy" remained un-disclosed. And he was able to protect a GUILTY verdict handed down by jurors who themselves, couldn't follow the rules, or speak out when they saw other jurors violating the rules they knew existed, because they were printed out, read to them, and provided to them to reference. However, they had no problem sentencing a man to 5 years in prison for failing to comply with an Agricultural Law that he did not know existed, and that most Seasoned Law Enforcement Officers and Prosecutors don't even know exists. I'm not sure which courtroom Mr. Hyde was in but in Judge Duseks court today all 12 jurors were called to the stand and THREE admitted to accessing social media at least daily during the trial. The only person not called was investigator Long. Rule 606b Provides that a juror may not testify as to any matter that occurred during the jury’s deliberations that had an effect on the jury’s verdict, EXCEPT FOR IMPROPER EXTRANEOUS INFLUENCES. I think "The Wall Guy's" contribution to the deliberation discussion qualifies as such an influence. it's unfortunate that the defense counsel didn't accept that challenge to expose this gross mockery of our justice system. Jurors are given a specific set of rules to follow during a trial because someone's LIFE hangs in the balance and the integrity of our justice system relies on their understanding and strict, unwavering, adherence to those rules. However, if they're not going to be enforced? Why have them? I believe Trey Gowdy said " You be careful what you do with the law today. Because if you weaken it today you weaken it forever." So, take a minute to think about this... If this kind of injustice can happen to a "Mouth Breather", "Slug", "Cattle Rustler", "Thief", and whatever else he's been called, does everyone reading this really think they're immune from the same injustice? Better think again.

What a line of crap! Sounds like someone has a case of butt hurt when the big mean judge didn’t feel the case should be thrown out on a technicality. I find it ironic that the “Mouth Breather", "Slug", "Cattle Rustler", "Thief", etc. was unaware of cattle laws, when running for an elected law enforcement position. What a loser!!

Post a comment to this article here:

X Close