Every time about this year, family, friends and supporters of Jose Manuel Lopez, – known to conjunto fans as Joe Lopez of Mazz – say they are optimistic that he won't have to serve his entire 20-year prison sentence for his convictions.
Lopez was convicted on two counts of aggravated sexual assault of a child and one count of indecency with a child in October 2006. He was sentenced to 32 years in prison, but because he serves the sentences concurrently rather than consecutively, his punishment amounts to 20 years.
Now, nine years later, relatives say that revelations from the corruption trial of former Cameron County District Attorney Armando Villalobos will allow him to walk out of prison a free man.
"Joe was set up by Villalobos over a contract dispute and some of the DNA evidence that the prosecution used was fabricated," said his brother Raul, a local bail bondsman. "We are still hopeful that he will be allowed a new trial on appeal or have his sentence overturned."
The Lopez family recntely held a defense fundraiser that was well attended by the singer's many fans, friends and supporters. The fundraiser was held at the Lopez family home.
The family has taken heart because the federal Asst. U.S. Attorney in charge of the Villalobos case has told them that there is more evidence in some of the materials gathered during the course of that investigation that might be used to get a new trial or to exonerate him.Former Asst. U.S. Attorney Michael J. Wynne is now Lopez's defense attorney.
Some of that questions evidence includes DNA that was used by Villalobos – who tried the case himself – and compares it to the use of DNA evidence by his office used against convicted killer Amit Livingston. In that case, a Texas Ranger said the DNA evidence was made up.
Ranger Lt. Rolando Castañeda – under cross examination by U.S. prosecutors in the Armando Villalobos trial – was asked point blank why he questioned the DNA evidence submitted against Amit Livingston, the fugitive murderer who absconded after he was given a 60-day grace period by convicted 404th District Judge Abel Limas.
Castañeda, who played a key role in the 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.
However, during the Livingston trial, the DA's office submitted DNA evidence they say was found on the jeans of the murdered woman showing Livingston had been the culprit. How?
Under cross examination by 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. And 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.
This opens up new avenues for Lopez and his protests of innocence, since there are indications that recordings that were made in the course of the Villalobos investigations refer to the Lopez case. Adding credence to the Lopez defense is the fact that now his attorney of record is shown to be Wynne, the same federal prosecutor who tried Villalobos.
With the former DA's appeal to the Fifth Circuit Court denied, they are hoping that Villalobos will shed light on whether misconduct occurred in the Lopez case and tries to work out a deal for less time.
To the supporters of Joe Lopez, the Texas Ranger's revealing testimony only fuels their suspicions that the DNA evidence introduced by Villalobos in his case may also be suspect. They suggest that this would amount to prosecutorial misconduct they said may have occurred in the case of the singer.
They point out in their relative's defense that the shorts of the victim where the alleged DNA samples were collected were mixed in a trash bag of dirty laundry and that not one, but three samples of male DNA were found on them along with DNA evidence coming from the victim.
In fact, the sample that was attributed to Lopez was collected from the rear waistband of the garment.
"If the DA's office could use 'made up' DNA evidence in the Livingston case, what was to stop them from using it in other cases like Joe's?" they ask. "The fact that there were another two male samples apart from Joe's point to contamination in the trash bag. The samples were microscopic and could have been collected there by the simple contact of the dirty laundry of the rest of the family with the garment."
Another point of suspicion for Lopez supporter is the fact that on the same day he was going to go to trial, he fired his then attorneys Robert Lerma of Brownsville and Bennie E. Ray of Austin, because he was upset that a plea agreement between his attorneys and the DA's Office was released to the media. Realtives say he was counseled by a trusted friend that Trejo and Young were close to the rposecutor and could influence Villalobos to be lenient in his case.
He hired Young and Micheal Trejo a couple of days later.
Ranger Lt. Rolando Castañeda – under cross examination by U.S. prosecutors in the Armando Villalobos trial – was asked point blank why he questioned the DNA evidence submitted against Amit Livingston, the fugitive murderer who absconded after he was given a 60-day grace period by convicted 404th District Judge Abel Limas.
Castañeda, who played a key role in the 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.
However, during the Livingston trial, the DA's office submitted DNA evidence they say was found on the jeans of the murdered woman showing Livingston had been the culprit. How?
Under cross examination by 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. And 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.
This opens up new avenues for Lopez and his protests of innocence, since there are indications that recordings that were made in the course of the Villalobos investigations refer to the Lopez case. Adding credence to the Lopez defense is the fact that now his attorney of record is shown to be Wynne, the same federal prosecutor who tried Villalobos.
With the former DA's appeal to the Fifth Circuit Court denied, they are hoping that Villalobos will shed light on whether misconduct occurred in the Lopez case and tries to work out a deal for less time.
To the supporters of Joe Lopez, the Texas Ranger's revealing testimony only fuels their suspicions that the DNA evidence introduced by Villalobos in his case may also be suspect. They suggest that this would amount to prosecutorial misconduct they said may have occurred in the case of the singer.
They point out in their relative's defense that the shorts of the victim where the alleged DNA samples were collected were mixed in a trash bag of dirty laundry and that not one, but three samples of male DNA were found on them along with DNA evidence coming from the victim.
In fact, the sample that was attributed to Lopez was collected from the rear waistband of the garment.
"If the DA's office could use 'made up' DNA evidence in the Livingston case, what was to stop them from using it in other cases like Joe's?" they ask. "The fact that there were another two male samples apart from Joe's point to contamination in the trash bag. The samples were microscopic and could have been collected there by the simple contact of the dirty laundry of the rest of the family with the garment."
Another point of suspicion for Lopez supporter is the fact that on the same day he was going to go to trial, he fired his then attorneys Robert Lerma of Brownsville and Bennie E. Ray of Austin, because he was upset that a plea agreement between his attorneys and the DA's Office was released to the media. Realtives say he was counseled by a trusted friend that Trejo and Young were close to the rposecutor and could influence Villalobos to be lenient in his case.
He hired Young and Micheal Trejo a couple of days later.
It wasn't until the prosecutors in the Villalobos racketeering trial submitted evidence that Trejo and Villalobos had what can only be described as a "cozy" relationship that linked both to an alleged scheme to kick back referral fees in the personal injury case involving Villalobos' sister-in-law.
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."
Not more than three months later, Trejo was Villalobos' adversary in the Lopez case.
Lopez's relatives have long contended that Vallalobos may have manufactured the evidence in his case to get even for a contract dispute he had with the singer. They point to the evidence the DA had in hand that the girl – far from being chaste – was pregnant from her boyfriend at the time the alleged crime took place. In fact, during Lopez's trial, she was a few months from completion of her pregnancy.
Her boyfriend from Baytown told defense attorneys that he had been intimate with her since she was only 12. The man, now paying child support for two children from the girl, says he was never called to testify in the case by Lopez's defense attorneys but would be willing to submit himself to testify if the occasion should arise during the appeals process.
The victim, while under oath, told the jury that she didn't know who the father was, although she previously told doctors who examined her that it was her boyfriend's, an adult with whom she had lived with for the better part of a year.
Also missing from the jury's consideration was the medical report performed on the victim by Harris County that showed she told doctors there that she was pregnant and was "depressed because we moved away from Baytown, my family and boyfriend."
A medical examination for her claim against Lopez indicates that doctors there found her to be "a sexually active adolescent...Examination is normal...(and found) no swelling, excoriation, bruising, or lacerations, or scarring."
A psychiatric evaluation of the minor found her to have an "adjustment disorder with mixed disturbance of emotions and conduct, chronic cannabis abuse, sexual abuse of child (victim), and parent-child relational problems."
At the time the examination was performed, she was "on probation for assault against stepfather and runaway...history of self-mutilation and hospitalized in October 2004, previous drug overdose requiring hospitalization."
Relatives have also questioned the 32-year sentence assessed on Lopez in 2006 pointing out that defendants with the identical charges have received as little as 30 to 60 days. In one case, they say that a defendant charged with four counts of continuous sexual assault of a child under 14 years pleaded guilty to one and was given 8 years probation.
"Where is the the justice in Joe's case?" asked his brother Raul. "Did Villalobos have it in for Joe? And did his lawyers just roll over for the prosecution?"
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."
Not more than three months later, Trejo was Villalobos' adversary in the Lopez case.
Lopez's relatives have long contended that Vallalobos may have manufactured the evidence in his case to get even for a contract dispute he had with the singer. They point to the evidence the DA had in hand that the girl – far from being chaste – was pregnant from her boyfriend at the time the alleged crime took place. In fact, during Lopez's trial, she was a few months from completion of her pregnancy.
Her boyfriend from Baytown told defense attorneys that he had been intimate with her since she was only 12. The man, now paying child support for two children from the girl, says he was never called to testify in the case by Lopez's defense attorneys but would be willing to submit himself to testify if the occasion should arise during the appeals process.
The victim, while under oath, told the jury that she didn't know who the father was, although she previously told doctors who examined her that it was her boyfriend's, an adult with whom she had lived with for the better part of a year.
Also missing from the jury's consideration was the medical report performed on the victim by Harris County that showed she told doctors there that she was pregnant and was "depressed because we moved away from Baytown, my family and boyfriend."A medical examination for her claim against Lopez indicates that doctors there found her to be "a sexually active adolescent...Examination is normal...(and found) no swelling, excoriation, bruising, or lacerations, or scarring."
A psychiatric evaluation of the minor found her to have an "adjustment disorder with mixed disturbance of emotions and conduct, chronic cannabis abuse, sexual abuse of child (victim), and parent-child relational problems."
At the time the examination was performed, she was "on probation for assault against stepfather and runaway...history of self-mutilation and hospitalized in October 2004, previous drug overdose requiring hospitalization."
Relatives have also questioned the 32-year sentence assessed on Lopez in 2006 pointing out that defendants with the identical charges have received as little as 30 to 60 days. In one case, they say that a defendant charged with four counts of continuous sexual assault of a child under 14 years pleaded guilty to one and was given 8 years probation.
"Where is the the justice in Joe's case?" asked his brother Raul. "Did Villalobos have it in for Joe? And did his lawyers just roll over for the prosecution?"
5 comments:
Come on Juan....these people are holding on to false hope. Joe had sex with a minor dude. period...they are just going to fill an attorney's pocket that will try and represent Joe and at the end of the day he will remain there.
OUTTA SIGHT, OUTTA MIND. kEEP HIM IN JAIL!!!
Do I have this correct? Former ADA K Barraza knew that their was semen on the jeans, though allegedly untested, AND submitted a letter as evidence written and signed by her that there was none? And she is still practicing law?
All you idiots are dumb cuz they are releasing joe Lopez cuz Villalobos admitted to tampering his case as well so now he is going to sue the district court and his family for loss time losers all y'all deserve what's coming
No one knows what happened but Joe and the girl so why comment.instead you should focus on the sentance because there is evidence that it was totally unfair in comparing it with other similer trials and charges. Bottom line the justice system cannot treat Joe differently simply because he is a celebrity.
Post a Comment