Defending People

the tao of criminal-defense trial lawyering

DA’s Office Does Right">DA’s Office Does Right

From UH Law pro­fes­sor David Dow:

In Decem­ber 2008, Mar­i­ano Ros­ales obtained fed­eral habeas relief on a Bat­son claim.  The dis­trict court found that race had improp­erly influ­enced the prosecution’s deci­sion to strike at least three jurors.  The attor­ney gen­eral elected not to appeal.

Ros­ales was con­victed in con­nec­tion with a tragic shoot­ing in 1985.  Ros­ales’ wife Mary was hav­ing an affair with Hec­tor Bal­boa.  Ros­ales went to con­front them.  Upon enter­ing the house where the two were sleep­ing together, Ros­ales fatally shot Pete Rodriguez.  He then shot 14-year-old Rachel Bal­boa, the younger sis­ter of Hec­tor.  She also died.

Ros­ales next shot Patri­cia Bal­boa, another sis­ter of Hec­tor, and the girl­fried of Rodriguez.  She sur­vived.  Ros­ales finally shot Hec­tor Bal­boa three times.  He sur­vived.  Ros­ales’ wife hid through­out the ordeal and was not phys­i­cally injured.

Ros­ales was con­victed and sen­tenced to death for the shoot­ing of Rachel Bal­boa.  That con­vic­tion was vacated in the fed­eral habeas pro­ceed­ings.  He was not pros­e­cuted for any of the other three shoot­ings.  When he arrived on death row in Decem­ber 1985, Ros­ales was 46 years old.   Ros­ales will turn 70 this July.

Once the attor­ney general’s office elected not to appeal the grant of habeas relief, Rosales’s lawyers approached the Har­ris County Dis­trict Attorney’s office and offered to plead guilty to the sec­ond mur­der (the mur­der of Pete Rodriguez), and well as the attempts on Patri­cia Bal­boa and Hec­tor Bal­boa, and accept con­sec­u­tive life sen­tences, in exchange for the DA’s deci­sion not to seek death again, in the case of either of the two homi­cides.  The DA’s office agreed that it would be a waste of resources to seek another death sen­tence against an elderly man who would almost cer­tainly die of nat­ural causes before any death sen­tence could be car­ried out.

When the final plea was entered ear­lier this week, mem­bers of the Bal­boa fam­ily addressed Ros­ales.  They told him he had destroyed their fam­ily and extin­guished inno­cent lives, while ruin­ing oth­ers.  Ros­ales nod­ded in agree­ment.  He told them how truly sorry and remorse­ful he is.  The Bal­boas also told Ros­ales they knew he had griev­ously injured his own fam­ily, and Ros­ales nod­ded in agree­ment with that obser­va­tion as well.  Finally the Bal­boas told Ros­ales they did not want to see him die, and that they for­gave him.  Ros­ales him­self was vis­i­bly moved and started to cry.

It took flex­i­bil­ity, cre­ativ­ity, and sheer decency for the DA’s office to facil­i­tate this plea agree­ment.   Despite resis­tance from some career pros­e­cu­tors, the DA’s office under­stood that Ros­ales is an elderly and truly apolo­getic man who presents no dan­ger to any­one inside prison, and that it would be a waste of resources to seek another death sen­tence.  Pat Lykos and Jim Leit­ner deserve the credit for mak­ing this deal come about.

Share

About The Author

Mark Bennett got his letter of marque from the Supreme Court of Texas in May 1995. He is famous for having no sense of humor when it comes to totalitarianism.

Comments

8 Responses to “DA’s Office Does Right”

  1. T.Mann says:

    It is good to hear a story like that even though it was a tragic, decency from the pros­e­cu­tion seams to be a thing of the past in most places. Thanks for shar­ing it.

  2. Michael says:

    Even a blind ground­hog finds an acorn on occasion.

  3. Hiltrud Roudette says:

    It made sense not to pros­e­cute him at age 70. Why waste so much of Tax pay­ers money. Over time he real­ized his guild and sorry, so let him out­live his life in prison.

  4. Anon. says:

    Judg­ing by the posi­tions taken by for­mer HCDA’s, I do not envi­sion such an event hap­pen­ing back then, or, thank God, if the old atti­tutes were con­tin­ued under a “new” HCDA.

  5. AtticusFinchAnywhere? says:

    Off the subject.….but any legal reme­dies for dis­missed (har­rassed and intim­i­dated) juror who reports activ­i­ties to the judge, only to be the one dis­missed? Since when does rea­son­able doubt not mean rea­son­able doubt? Guess that’s one way to get rid of the lone dis­senter and the need to “con­tinue delib­er­a­tions.” No won­der so many inno­cent are sent to their deaths in these trav­es­ties of jus­tice. Scales of jus­tice? Please. What an eye-opener in the inner-workings and manip­u­la­tion of the Texas crim­i­nal jus­tice system.

    • Mark Bennett says:

      I don’t know of any legal reme­dies, but shin­ing some light on this might keep it from hap­pen­ing again. Can you give me some details, either here or via email?

  6. sctexas says:

    Actu­ally, decent things are done by pros­e­cu­tors all the time. This was sim­ply big­ger than most of them.

    • Mark Bennett says:

      SC is right: pros­e­cu­tors do decent things all the time. Maybe even most of the time.

      The prob­lem is that when a pros­e­cu­tor doesn’t do the decent thing, somebody’s life often gets ruined (and that some­body is not always the accused).

      Hous­ton has beau­ti­ful sunny days all the time. Then there are hurricanes.

Leave a non-anonymous Reply