By Camilo Smith
By Craig Malisow
By Jeff Balke
By Angelica Leicht
By Jeff Balke
By Sean Pendergast
By Sean Pendergast
By Jeff Balke
Having chewed through three grand juries in their pursuit of sustainable indictments against Salinas on perjury allegations, prosecutors are now preparing to take their case to a fourth grand jury. District Attorney Johnny Holmes says he has the right to continue trying to obtain indictments against the state district judge "till hell freezes over." But two members of the last grand jury to consider the allegations say the only injustices they saw in the Salinas case were perpetrated by the D.A.'s office.
Lawyer Yolanda Villarreal Ryan, one of the grand jurors who mulled the Salinas case over the last month and no-billed (that is, cleared) the judge on one of the charges prosecutors have tried to pin on him, flatly questions the district attorney's motivation for continuing to target Salinas.
"Why would anyone want to subject someone like that to this if it weren't for political reasons?" she says. "With all of the criminals out there on the street, with the limited resources that are available to all public entities, including the D.A.'s office, why would they want to waste their resources and our time and energy to indict a man like that?"
"It was a political deal, no doubt about it," adds another grand juror, who requested anonymity for this story. "And there were a lot of other grand jurors who felt the same way. They're trying to crucify this poor guy in an issue involving a little over $200."
Salinas' problems started last year shortly after he was recommended to the Clinton administration for nomination to a federal judgeship ("Hanging the Judge," the Houston Press, December 8). Initially acting on information supplied by a disgruntled former court coordinator of Salinas' who had been told she wouldn't be accompanying him to the federal courthouse, assistant district attorney Don Stricklin has since conducted three separate probes of the judge focusing on minor discrepancies in his campaign reports. Some of Salinas' defenders have contended all along that prosecutors are pursuing a vendetta against the judge for a ruling he made against the D.A.'s office more than five years ago.
The first grand jury to scrutinize the case returned two misdemeanor perjury indictments against Salinas. A second grand jury no-billed the judge on felony perjury charges requested by Stricklin based on statements Salinas made to the first grand jury. But the indictments returned by the first grand jury were dismissed after it was determined that some members of that panel had been improperly chosen, and Stricklin presented the case to a third grand jury. In the meantime Salinas' name was withdrawn from consideration for the federal bench.
The third grand jury no-billed Salinas on one of the two original misdemeanor counts, one that involved the judge's claiming of a $400 reimbursement to him from his campaign account when the amount he was owed was actually less.
After it became apparent the grand jury also was likely to exonerate the judge on the remaining accusations, several members who favored an indictment of Salinas stopped coming to the panel's sessions, according to the grand jurors critical of the D.A.'s office.
As a result, even though there were more than the required nine members present at its sessions during the final two weeks of the grand jury's term, Stricklin stopped presenting his case -- in effect taking his ball and skipping home.
Yolanda Ryan says the grand jurors initially were given an itinerary specifying the charges they would hear and the evidence that would be presented. The understanding was that the issues would then be brought to a vote, she says.
"One day one grand juror didn't attend the session and asked that the vote be delayed until he returned. That day nothing was presented," says Ryan. "Then he returned on Monday and two other members were absent, but we weren't given an explanation as to why we weren't hearing the case." Ryan says the jurors still expected to vote on the cases.
"Then on the last day, the same juror was absent, and we were told that because all the grand jurors were not there, they would not present the case for a vote. It was ridiculous. We had heard so much already. We had been given enough evidence [to make a decision]."
Holmes says the grand jury only heard evidence related to the $400 reimbursement because the statute of limitations on that accusation was about to expire. "Don quit going to it after they had some recalcitrant grand jurors who weren't posting," he says. "They did not have a full complement, so they didn't get to hear it all."
The juror who requested anonymity takes issue with Holmes' account.
"We felt Stricklin had presented the case from A to Z. I'm sure he felt he was into a losing situation. I am almost 100 percent positive that Salinas would have been no-billed and Stricklin used [the absences] as an excuse that he could not finish presenting his case unless all 12 jurors were there."