Judge weighs venue change in Rubio case
The “facts of the case.”
This could possibly be a key issue on whether visiting state District Judge Noe Gonzalez of Hidalgo County rules to move the capital murder trial of accused child killer John Allen Rubio out of Cameron County, a retired judge said.
Although many potential jurors might be familiar with Rubio’s name and the crime that he is alleged to have committed, they are not privy to what actually occurred, retired Judge Robert Garza said.
Rubio, 29, is accused of murdering the three children of his common-law wife Angela Camacho in Brownsville on March 11, 2003. The children were smothered, stabbed and mutilated, according to Brownsville police investigators. Their decapitated bodies were stuffed inside trash bags.
“I know it has been covered, but a lot of people don’t really know the facts of the case,” said Garza, who presided over Rubio’s first capital murder trial in October and November 2003. “A lot of the (recent) focus has been primarily on him and what he’s been doing.”
“I feel he (Gonzalez) can select a jury in Cameron County. I think you can find jurors that will be able to sit on this case, listen fairly and decide this case,” Garza said. “They were able to select a jury for the competency. Why would it be any different?”
Rubio was convicted in November 2003 on three counts of capital murder in the deaths of the children, Julissa Quesada, 3, John E. Rubio, 14 months, and Mary Jane Rubio, 2 months.
Rubio is the biological father of one of the children, Mary Jane.
He pleaded not guilty by reason of insanity during the trial and was sentenced to death.
However, Rubio’s conviction was reversed by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals in September 2007, thus granting him a new trial. The appellate court cited the prosecution’s use in Rubio’s trial of videotaped testimony from the common-law wife, Angela Camacho.
Camacho, who refused to testify in Rubio’s trial, did not have an attorney present when she gave the videotaped testimony to police. Also, Rubio’s defense attorneys claimed they were at a disadvantage because they were not able to challenge the videotaped testimony.
“I think you need to at least go through a (jury) panel here and go through the evidence and see if you can select a fair jury here and if not send it” elsewhere, Garza said.
Gonzalez on March 25 will hear a motion on a change of venue filed by Rubio’s defense attorney Nat C. Perez Jr. and Ed Stapleton requesting his upcoming capital murder trial be moved from the county because of extensive publicity.
A portion of the change of venue motion filed on March 10 – the third in this case - states that “he (Rubio) cannot get a fair and impartial trial, the extent of this prejudice was made clear both in the selection of a competency jury and in the publicity that accompanied the competency trial.”
The document further states ‘this has become Brownsville’s case of personal shame and the contacts with the case both actual and second hand are so great that the community virtually begs for retribution.”
A Cameron County state jury on March 5 found Rubio competent to stand trial for capital murder. Although his defense team claimed Rubio suffered from delusional disorders, they were unable convince the jury of such claims. State prosecutors said Rubio is competent to stand trial and does not suffer from any mental illnesses or disorders.
Rubio claimed the children were possessed by demons and that he needed to save the world from them. According to an Aug. 26, 2008 statement from inmate Walter Alexander Sorto, who was on death row with Rubio in 2005 in Polk County, Rubio admitted he killed his three children by cutting off their heads. Rubio also told Sorto the children were “looking at him like some type of demons.”
Sorto said Rubio told him the story 30 times and “appeared cold and would laugh when he would tell me how he killed his children.”
John Blaylock, a defense attorney and former state prosecutor, said the Cameron County District Attorney’s Office will have to push the fact that they were able to select a fair jury in Rubio’s competency trial if they hope to keep the capital murder trial here.
“The state’s argument is we did seat a fair jury. It might take a couple of extra weeks for individual voir dire (questioning prospective jurors) but it is possible. We’ve done it before and we can do it again,” Blaylock said.
However, Blaylock said his personal belief leans toward Gonzalez having the case tried elsewhere.
“He’s seen how many people are bias and just out of an abundance of caution because everybody keeps saying they don’t want to try this case three times,” Blaylock said.
Since Rubio’s conviction was overturned in September 2007, lawyers on both sides of the case have been making preparations for his trial.
Garza estimates that, since September 2007, the case has already cost Cameron County at least $800,000.
Although Garza does not remember how much Rubio’s original capital murder trial cost the county, he said it was not as costly as the current trial. However, Garza said that although taxpayers may be concerned on how much the trial will cost them, the main issue will be ensuring that Rubio receives a fair trial.
“The money is not important. The whole process is that we need to ensure he gets a fair trial whether it’s here or Nueces County or Bexar County. Anywhere that he goes he’s going to have to get a fair trial,” Garza said.
Last week, Cameron County District Attorney Armando Villalobos said the total costs for experts in Rubio’s competency trial alone have been upwards of $140,000. Right after Rubio’s conviction was overturned, Villalobos said the county would seek the death penalty regardless of the costs.
“It is definitely going to be very expensive trial for Cameron County to try this case in any other jurisdiction,” Blaylock said.
