A Dallas County court will not pursue accusations that the McLennan County District Attorney and a Waco police detective lied during testimony at a disqualification hearing in August of 2016.
Clint Broden, the attorney for Matthew Clendennen, one of the defendants in the Twin Peaks shootout, said he filed a petition in the 203rd District Court of Dallas County asking for a Court of Inquiry in Oct. of 2017.
He said McLennan County District Attorney Abel Reyna and Waco Det. Manuel Chavez offered conflicting testimony about whether they had talked with each other the night Chavez signed an affidavit at the Waco Convention Center. That's where they said investigators held suspects and witnesses to interview about the shootout on May 27, 2015.
Broden said he thought one had committed perjury because of the opposing testimony.
While the court did look into that claim, the order to dismiss the court of inquiry provided two reasons for not appointing the Dallas County District Attorney's Office to investigate.
First, because Texas Code of Criminal Procedure says testimony in cases is often conflicting and that does not necessarily mean either witness intended to lie.
Second, because Broden went straight to a Dallas County court rather than a McLennan County Court.
Central Texas News Now reached out to Broden and Reyna.
They both sent statements:
Reyna said, “I believe the plain language of the Judge's order clearly points out that this was an allegation without any evidence and an abuse of the process by Mr. Broden. I encourage everyone to read the Judge's order.”
Broden released a statement:
“I believe I fulfilled my ethical responsibility by bringing this scientifically impossible contradiction in testimony to an impartial judge to determine if a Court of Inquiry should be initiated. I am disappointed that this process was not completed as contemplated by the Code of Criminal Procedure. Having fulfilled my ethical responsibility, I consider my role in this matter to be concluded. Of course, it will be up to any other attorneys aware of the scientifically impossible contradiction in the testimony at the August 8, 2017 to determine whether another Court of Inquiry should be requested so that a decision can be made after a judge takes testimony and evidence on the matter. Likewise, it will be up to the public to compare the testimony from the August 8, 2017 and come to their own conclusions. I understand that Mr. Reyna will have an opportunity to testify under oath at a hearing set for this Thursday afternoon and I look forward to hearing his explanations.”
Copyright 2018 KXXV. All rights reserved.