AFTER DA'S TRIAL; MORE CREDIBILITY FOR MAZZ'S JOE LOPEZ

By Juan Montoya
Even as the appellate attorneys for former Mazz frontman Joe Lopez press forward to elicit the DNA evidence presented at his trial by indicted Cameron County Attorney Armando Villalobos, testimony from his just concluded trial indicate a cavalier attitude in his cases toward scientific evidence.
It also shows that Villalobos had what can only be described as a "cozy" relationship between Michael Trejo, one of Lopez's defense attorneys that linked both to an alleged scheme to kick back referral fees to the indicted former district attorney in a personal injury case involving Villalobos' sister-in-law.
The Lopez family and his Houston appeals attorney Timothy A. Hootman sued the Cameron County DA's office to turn over the DNA and other evidence and say that the revelations coming out at Villalobos' trial reinforce their belief that Villalobos may have concealed evidence or manipulated it to acquire Lopez's October 2006 conviction for the sexual assault and molestation of a 13-year-old girl.
Hootman charged that Villalobos' failed to provide Lopez with evidence used in his conviction even after he 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.
At the heart of the case is DNA evidence Villalobos said was acquired from the back of a pair of shorts that the victim wore. However, during the trial it was revealed that the garment had been mixed in with the rest of the family's dirty laundry in a plastic trash bag for more than three months.
And a local investigator who Lopez hired to look into the legitimacy of the DNA proof said he is not at liberty to divulge his findings pending a release by Lopez and a final payment for his services but hinted that they would contradict the conclusions reached at the trial.
"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.

In May, 2010, the appeal for a new trial for the 61-year-old musician who is serving a 20-year prison was turned down – but not dismissed – by the Texas 13th Court of Appeals. Lopez is eligible to apply for parole in 2016.
During the Villalobos racketeering trial, former Texas Ranger Lt. Rolando Castañeda, who played a key role in the Amit Livingston investigation, said from the witness stand that Livingston's defense attorneys received a letter from Asst. DA Karina Bazarra informing them that their office failed to find any semen on the jeans of the victim.
Later, under cross examination by Asst. U.S. Attorney Michael J. Wynne, Castañeda said the evidence was "made up."
In fact, the DNA evidence on the victim's pants was  never tested. Villalobos did not know if she was wearing the jeans the day of murder. The report indicated there was semen on the pants, but that there was no testing. In fact, they were never turned over to the defense until one week before the trial. By that time, the  DNA could have degraded and. Theoretically, if handed over to them in time, it could have provided the defense with exculpatory evidence if the DNA proved to be that of a third party.
To Lopez supporters, this amounts to prosecutorial misconduct they said may have occurred in the case of the singer.
"The shorts they say they found Joe's DNA were mingled with the clothes of the rest of the family and kept in a plastic trash bag for more than three months," said a relative. "Now that we know that Trejo was in cahoots with Villalobos on the death case, it makes us even more determined to get the evidence we are hoping will exonerate Joe."
In a supplement to the Villalobos indictment, "the government alleged that Villalobos referred a 2005 civil case involving his sister-in-law’s death to the law firm of Michael Cowen and  Conrad Bodden. The case was settled for a substantial amount in April 2006. According to prosecutors, Villalobos received a referral fee in two checks, one for $60,000 and the other for $96,000.
The $60,000 check was made payable to attorney Michael Trejo, who was not involved with the case, but funneled the money to Villalobos, the court record states."
Could Trejo and Villalobos  have also been in collusion not just in that case, but also in the one that resulted in the conviction of Lopez, too?
During the (Lopez) trial, neither Trejo nor Young (Michael Young, the other defense attorney) objected to the DNA expert brought in by Villalobos," said his brother Raul Lopez. "It just so happened that my brother's case happened three months after Trejo delivered Villalobos the money from the other attorneys. Think about it. Villalobos was Joe's prosecutor and Trejo was his defense attorney. If Trejo was the in-between in the wrongful death case, could he have been in cahoots with Villalobos in Joe's case, too?"