Saturday, May 10, 2014

MATTINGLY REMEMBERS WHEN AMIT WAS ALLOWED TO WALK

(Ed.'s Note: We owe ace reporter Emma Perez-Treviño a debt of gratitude for her coverage of the judiciary scandal in Cameron County. However, even with her voluminous and acerbic coverage, there was so much material there that it was not humanly possible even for Emma to publish everything. We have begun a series  based on court transcripts highlighting little-known details of the trial of former Cameron County District Attorney Armando Villalobos. Villalobos is currently serving a 13-year sentence for his convictions on seven counts of racketeering and extortion. This segment deals with the testimony of Chuck Mattingly, formerly Chief First Assistant under the former DA. In it, he is questioned about how Livingston was allowed to walk out of the courtroom by Judge Abel Limas after he had pleaded guilty to murder and was sentenced to 23 years in prison.
The Actors:

MATTINGLY (Witness)
AUSA Gregory J.SUROVIC (the government)
AUSA Michael J. WYNNE (the government)
Norton A. COLVIN (Defense)
COURT: Federal Judge Andrew Hanen

WYNNE: Alright, going into February 12 of 2007, that evening 12th of February 2007, what was happening?
MATTINGLY: February 12th, as I recall, was a Monday. And we had been called. And whan I say "we," the trial team and the defense team had been called into nthen Judge Limas' chambers. Judge Limas called us to see if there was any way of pleading the case without having to go to trial. Along with myself, Ms. Barraza, and Mr. Rabb, Mr. Mallet was there, Mr. Gladden, excuse me, was there, and Mr. Villalobos.
WYNNE: The same Mr. Villalobos as in the courtroom here today?
MATTINGLY: Yes, sir.
WYNNE: Now that evening – well, the end of the business day, where did things stand?
MATTINGLY: There were questions that were asked in chambers by the judge. It was evident that we were not able to work things out. When I left the meeting on February 12, it was my understanding that we had no plea agreement., none had been reached, and I was preparing to go to trial. I left the judge's chambers, headed over to our offices where Mr. Rabb and Ms. Barraza and myself started immediately prepping for the next day, getting witnesses – witness' lists together, getting investigators to contact witnesses to get them ready to come min and testify, started looking at the physical evidence again. We were – we were going to trial in my opinion. I thought we were.
-----------------------------------------------------
(Here Mattingly discusses the plea agreement signed the next day, February 13, 2007)
MATTINGLY: Mr. Livingston was charged with first-degree murder. Murder in the first degree. 
WYNNE: And the defendant, is that his signature?
MATTINGLY: Well, it was notarized by a deputy of the clerk; so, yes, that was Amit Livingston's signature.
WYNNE: All right. And agreed and approved by whom?
MATTINGLY: These papers, once they are put together, they have to be signed not only by the defendant, because like I said, as plea bargain is an agreement reached between the prosecutors, the defense counsels, and the defendant's attorney. The people that signed off on this were Amit Livingston, Gregory Gladden and that – I believe that is Korina Barraza's signature.
WYNNE: Is that you?
MATTINGLY: That's not my signature, no, sir.
WYNNE: Now, the date here is what?
MATTINGLY: 13th of February, 2007.
WYNNE: And that is Tuesday morning, right?
MATTINGLY: Yes, that's the following Tuesday from the meeting in the chambers.
-----------------------------------------------------
WYNNE: All right. When you – what – where did you go when you got into Brownsville that day?
MATTINGLY: Of the 13th?
WYNNE: Right.
MATTINGLY: I went straight to the court,. As soon as I – 
WYNNE: Whose court?
MATTINGLY: I went to the 404th, which is Judge Limas at the time.
WYNNE: Now, we talked about negotiations being at 45 years and then 25. And what was the ultimate sentence here?
MATTINGLY: The defendant pled to 23 years.
WYNNE: How did the negotiations get from 25 – from 45 to 25 to 23?
MATTINGLY: There were discussions that went on. Like I said, Mr. Gladden and I were having difficulties communicating, much less trying to work it out. We were basically diametrically opposed to one another.
WYNNE: So –
MATTINGLY: There was some discussion about potential weaknesses in the case and pitfalls of the case.
WYNNE: What weaknesses – well, let me ask you this. If it wasn't you, who negotiated with – for the District Attorney's office? 
MATTINGLY: Like I said, I had been negotiating. Because of the strife between Mr. Gladden and myself, Mr. Villalobos as some point got involved in the actual negotiations. 
WYNNE: Now, to authorize this, who had to authorize it? Who authorized the agreement?
MATTINGLY: The only person who could have authorized the 23 years would have been Mr. Villaobos.
WYNNE: Now, when you got into court that morning, was the plea already going on?
MATTINGLY: Yes. Again, I was at the the scene (Mattingly came up-on an accident scene on the expressway on the way to the courthouse). I left as soon as I could. By the time I arrived at court that morning, they were already undergoing the plea.
-----------------------------------------------------
MATTINGLY: When I walked in, I walked in – walked up to where Mr. Rabb and Ms. Barraza were because they had already started handling the plea. And I walked around the gallery area up to where the counsel table was.
WYNNE: Did Mr. Villalobos join you at some point?
MATTINGLY: Mr. Villalobos did arrive and did come in and was there at the plea.
WYNNE: All right. But the plea was already going on, right?
MATTINGLY: Yes, sir.
WYNNE: Now, of course, if you don't – if you're in a room and you don't say anything, does your voice show up on the record?
MATTINGLY: No.
WYNNE: So di Mr. Villalobos say anything about the case and the plea to you at that time while it's going on?
MATTINGLY: As I recall that morning when I arrived, I arrived late. Mr. Villalobos either walked in with me or came in just a minute or two after I did. The first thing I did was inform him of the status of the hearing was, where it looked like it was going, and what was going on.
WYNNE: What did he say to you?
MATTINGLY: He asked – I had already informed him that it looked like the judge was going to give him the 60 days; that he had made up his mind. And to that response, Mr. Villalobos told me: Well, we need to sentence him today then.
WYNNE: What was that?
MATTINGLY: That we need to sentence him today then.
WYNNE: Sentence who?
MATTINGLY: Mr. Livingston, the defendant.
WYNNE: Those were the words that came out of Mr. Villalobos' mouth?
MATTINGLY: As I recall speaking with him, yes, that's what he told me.
WYNNE: Was that the first time you'd heard about about sentencing occurring that day?
MATTINGLY: I did not know the the sentencing was going to occur that morning. No, I did not.
WYNNE: Were you surprised by that?
MATTINGLY: I was surprised by many things at the very end of this case. It all started to – almost like a snowball going downhill. It developed very quickly at the very end.
-----------------------------------------------------
WYNNE: The 60 days you referred to, what was that?
MATTINGLY: In the meeting in chambers on the 12th, Mr. Gladden and Mr. Mallet brought up that they were wanting to plea their client, but that they wanted to give their client 60 days to get his affairs in order before he went to prison. And during that 60 days, that the defendant would participate in some sort of program sponsored by Huntsville so that the defendant could get a taste of what prison life was going to be like so he could be assimilated more easily as a convict.
WYNNE: In connection with the potential 60 days, was there any discussion about the sentencing taking place at the same time as the plea?
MATTINGLY: No, none that I recall.
WYNNE: What implications, if any, did the sentencing taking place at the same time as the plea on the 60 days? What did that mean?
MATTINGLY: Can you repeat that? I'm sorry.
WYNE: Let me put it this way. If a defendant is sentenced to greater than ten years, are there any applicable, to the best of your knowledge, Texas rules concerning their eligibility for bond?
MATTINGLY: Yes, sir, there is.
WYNNE: What's that?
MATTINGLY: In the State of Texas, if a defendant is found guilty and sentenced to more than 10 years, he is ineligible or she is ineligible for what we call an appeal bond so that they can be out pending an appeal. They have to be taken into custody, and they cannot be released from custody, no matter what the bond is that they already have on them.
WYNNE: So in this agreement, did Mr. Livingston waive his right to appeal?
MATTINGLY: He did, sir.
 -----------------------------------------------------
WYNNE: And my question was, were you bypassed?
MATTINGLY: That's the point. Yes, at some –
WYNNE: I guess if you're bypassed, then the line assistant district attorney is bypassed as well in a way, right?
MATTINGLY: Well, what happens is this. Originally it was set up so that Mr. Villalobos did not have to be hampered or bogged down talking with attorneys on a day-to-day basis trying ton resolve cases that should be resolved by his prosecutors. When they did not like what they heard from me, they eventually started or stopped coming to me and just asking to see Mr. Villalobos.
WYNNE: When "they, they." Anyone in particular in terms of attorneys who would do that?
MATTINGLY: Not many defense attorneys like talking to me and dealing with me. Okay. For instance, Oscar De La Fuente, Noe Garza, John Blaylock constantly would not talk to me. He  – John Blaylock wanted to be able to see Mr. Villalobos. I mean it was not uncommon. Rick Canales, Mike Trejo. And, like I said, part of it was because I didn't budge much. I didn't give much.
WYNNE:  All right. Let's – I put five down here. Okay. Is it fair to say those are the top five?
MATTINGLY: Ernesto Gamez would be another one.  
 

8 comments:

Anonymous said...

Now, the question is: when will all these Fed attorneys be sent up the River too. They present themselves as a sanctimonious body. El diablo no se vé la cola.

Anonymous said...

It's amazing realizing the Feds don't know (ó se hacen Pendejos) as to what's going on in the political subdivisions . School boards, sheriff's depts. county judicial branches, etc. or do they just cherry pick what the political flavor of the day will be?

Anonymous said...

Granted, the Feds pick and chose their battles. But its not the Feds, its the US Attorney's Office. They want the cases that can win in court and or knowing that a plea will be made. Just like in the CCDA, the ADA's are pressured to move cases and make judgment calls but not without the authority of the DA himself. I guess if the Feds and the USA's office went after all, there'd be no court system in Cameron or other counties?
I just hope the State Bar will take the maximum penalties and disbar a lot of those who were involved in some way or another. Lawyers like those mentioned like to charge a lot of money to represent but didn't want to work for it. That's why they would go to that convicted felon in Armando Villalobos for good deals.

Anonymous said...

Ah . . . well . . . it took some time but from reading the comments it finally looks like some people caught on that the Villalobos / Limas / Rosenthal case was simply a matter of politics only on a higher level.

Anonymous said...

Chuck is a lying fuck.Car crash ,my ass.He probably paid somebody to cause an accident.Page right out of Rosenthal's book .How convenient that he and Mr.V were both late to court on the day of Amit's release.This was that Fat ass's case.He got off easy.Norton did a shitty job.

Anonymous said...

The NSA just confirmed that Mattingly is indeed related to Porky Pigg. DNA specimen furnished by the CIA just confirmed this fact.

Anonymous said...

Amit for D.A. !!!!!!

Anonymous said...

What is wrong with you guys???

rita