COULD UNSEEN EVIDENCE IN JOE LOPEZ CASE FREE HIM?

By Juan Montoya
The recent writ of mandamus to have the Cameron County District Attorney's Office release the DNA evidence used to convict Mazz frontman Joe Lopez has triggered a shower of claims that other evidence that will exonerate the singer and  not presented to the jury by prosecutors or heard subsequent courts of appeals will surface.
At least two investigations – one into the DNA evidence presented by then-DA Armando Villalobos and the other raising the possibility of prosecutorial misconduct –  were made by two local investigators hired by Lopez in the course of his appeals.
Yet, the findings of neither was ever presented in court.
Coming on the heels of the demand by Houston appeals attorney Timothy A. Hootman for the DA to turn over the evidence, these new revelations lead many to believe that Villalobos may have concealed some evidence or manipulated it to acquire Lopez's
Hootman charged that Villalobos failed to provide the defendant with all the DNA and other case evidence used in his conviction even after Lopez filed the Open Records Request back in Nov. 26, 2012. Twelve business days after the request, on Dec. 12, 2012, Villalobos asked for a Texas Attorney General's Opinion asking if he could withhold the evidence that put Lopez in prison.
His attorney says that "essentially, (Villalobos) is claiming that a person who has been convicted based on DNA evidence should not be allowed access to the DNA evidence pursuant to an open records request, even though that evidence would show innocence of the offense for which the wrongfully convicted defendant is being held in prison."
Villalobos faxed Hutton a copy of his request for an AG's opinion on Dec. 14 opposing the release of the information.
Lopez's attorney charges that because Villalobos' failure to comply with the statutory deadlines (no later than 10 business days) to notify the AG and Lopez of his desire not to produce the requested information, he waived the right to assert those objections via the doctrine of procedural default under Texas Government Code, Section 552.301.
Now, a local investigator who Lopez hired to look into the legitimacy of the DNA "proof" that Villalobos used in the trial – hinting that his findings would contradict the conclusions Villalobos reached and delivered to the jury – says he is not at liberty to divulge them pending a release by Lopez and a final payment for his services.
"There is a matter of a fee involved and the confidentiality of my client," he said. "If those matters are taken care of, I would be happy to release them."
Likewise, the other investigator who looked into the possibility that there might have been prosecutorial misconduct in the way Villalobos had handled the case and jury selection in the trial, was reluctant to release the information for public consumption.
"My responsibility is to my client," he said. "That is Joe Lopez. If I got a signed document from Joe telling me I could release it to the media, I would be happy to do it. But, I am responsible only to Joe."
From what Lopez family members have been able to ascertain, they feel sure that there was a degree of jury tampering during the trial and that Villalobos had allowed some members of the jury to sit and hear testimony even after he knew they might have been compromised by their relationships or their consumption of media reports even as they sat hearing testimony.
However, absent the signed release from Lopez, he continues to serve his 32-year sentence in prison without the benfit of their findings.
The Tejano star, whose real name is Jose Manuel Lopez, had been fighting for a new trial since his October 2006 conviction.
In May, 2010, the appeal for as new trial for the 61-year-old musician serving the sentence for sexually assaulting and molesting a 13-year-old girl was turned down by the Texas 13th Court of Appeals.
Lopez is eligible to apply for parole in 2016.
Meanwhile, Villalobos, who personally took charge of the case, has been himself indicted by a federal grand jury. He has pleaded innocent of the charges.
On May 7, 2012, the U.S. Attorney's Office named him on a 12-count indictment charging him with one count of violating the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act and one count of conspiracy to violate the RICO Act. In addition, Villalobos was also charged with seven counts of extortion and three counts of honest services fraud. Just lately, he was charged with failure to report. A new indictment issued January 7 accuses him of lying on his 2006 income tax return.
Federal prosecutors allege he failed to report more than $155,000 dollars of gross income from his wife.
Authorities allege that under-reporting the income cost the government more than $45,000 dollars in taxes.
Further, Villalobos had a contract dispute with Lopez dating back to his campaign in 2003 when he gave the singer a $2,000 advance on a $6,000 contract to perform at one of his campaign functions. The singer said he wasn't required to return the sum citing a clause in the contract of timely notice of cancellation. More than once, Villalobos asked for the money and then followed with a written demand. In an unusual move, Villalobos handled the case personally. He later made the conviction a part of his campaign literature in 2008.
When and if the DNA and other evidence used by Villalobos to convict Lopez in this case is released, his family is confident that an examination by impartial experts – no DNA experts were called by Lopez's attorneys in the trial to counter the state's DNA witnesses – will exonerate the singer.
"We're hoping that when it's released Joe will finally get to prove his innocence," said Raul, one of his brothers.