DA Villalobos submits list

After twice being ordered by U.S. Magistrate Judge Ronald G. Morgan, Cameron County District Attorney Armando R. Villalobos on Tuesday turned over a list containing names of defense attorneys who say he developed a list blackballing them.

While defense attorneys Moises M. Salas, Nat C. Perez Jr., Angela P. Nix and Star Jones say the list was directly developed at Villalobos’ direction in a blacklist conspiracy, Villalobos says the list is “entirely innocuous.”

Defense attorneys say the DA and his office are retaliating against them to their detriment and that of their present and future clients for intervening in a state lawsuit Villalobos filed against the county and its Civil Division, seeking control of the Civil Division.

The defense attorneys claim Villalobos instructed assistant state prosecutors and staff that neither probation nor plea bargains are to be made available to the clients of these defense attorneys.

The list that Villalobos, through his and his office’s attorney Alfredo Padilla, filed in federal court also contains the names of attorneys Larry Warner, Ed Stapleton, Michael Young, Rogelio Ortiz, Santiago Galarza and Hector Garza.

On Wednesday afternoon, Salas said he and the other defense attorneys are waiting for Morgan’s decision. He declined to comment further.

Garza said he was no longer on the “blacklist” and that he had originally been named in the court document by mistake. He said he discussed the issue with the District Attorney’s Office and the attorneys filing the lawsuit.

“Both sides known I am not in it,” Garza said.

Attorneys Warner, Stapleton, Young, Ortiz, Galarza, Nix and Jones could not be reached for comment Wednesday afternoon. Perez declined comment stating the attorneys had a spokesman to speak on their behalf, but declined to name the appointed person.

In documents filed in federal court Tuesday, Villalobos objected to “any insinuation that a simple list of names is in the nature of a ‘black list’ or a list created to disparage or ensure that attorneys are ‘retaliated’ against.”

Villalobos says neither he nor his office has generated or maintained a “blacklist,” and instead maintains the list is necessary in the administration of “day-to-day” operations of a party to litigation, in order to preserve its privilege and privacy from adverse parties.

Morgan on Friday had ordered Villalobos and his office to submit a copy of the list no later than Tuesday and “in the form it existed” during the time it was developed.

“If the ‘list’ no longer exists, defendants (Villalobos and his office) shall explain the facts and circumstances surrounding the destruction or loss of the ‘list’,” Morgan said in an order he issued Friday.

The order says Villalobos’ attorney, Alfredo Padilla, conceded in federal court on March 3 that the list exists, “but, contrary to an earlier order of this court . . . (Padilla) failed to provide the ‘list’,” at the March 3 hearing.

Villalobos did list the names of the attorneys by Tuesday’s deadline.

In a written statement last month, he called the defense attorneys’ lawsuit in federal court “worthless.”

“We will not be intimidated by threats, exaggerations, or untruths. The ability to interact with our office in a non-adversarial setting, which is what occurs when defense attorneys are invited into our office for discussions, will be limited to those who are not parties to a lawsuit against us,” Villalobos further wrote.

Neither Villalobos nor defense attorneys have provided a statement on the recent developments.

Morgan’s order of Friday was issued after he learned that negotiations to reach an agreement and settle the issues between defense attorneys and Villalobos broke down and that the DA had said that he would not sign any agreement.

The agreement that defense attorneys propose includes the following provisions:

—Neither Villalobos nor his office will treat the defense attorneys differently from other defense attorneys.

—Villalobos and his office will not generate or maintain a black list or any list of attorneys for the purpose of disparate treatment. All copies of any list of defense attorneys made for any purpose will be retracted and maintained for evidentiary purposes.

—Villalobos and his office will give defense attorneys equal access to criminal files.

—Villalobos and his office will not treat the defense attorneys differently in evaluating any case for the offer of pretrial diversion, reduction in charges or plea-bargaining.

—Villalobos and his office will not prohibit any of his agents and employees from communicating with the defense attorneys in any manner different than any other defense attorney.

In a motion filed March 4, Padilla stated that Villalobos had decided to re-institute an ‘open file’ policy with respect to all attorneys and requested a hearing so that the court decides the issues.

Morgan responded that while the court concurs with the belief that the parties don’t have to reach an agreement, he nevertheless is of the opinion that in the interest of justice, Villalobos’ perspective on the terms of the proposed agreement should be obtained.

“Furthermore, to facilitate effective resolution of this issue, Defendant District Attorney Armando R. Villalobos is ORDERED to be present, if a further hearing is necessary . . .,” Morgan wrote.

In responding to the defense attorneys’ proposed agreement, Villalobos included the following notations:

—Villalobos noted that each defendant is entitled to a fair and impartial prosecution, and that he and his office evaluate all cases pursuant to their oaths to seek justice and uphold the Constitution and laws of the State of Texas and the United States of America.

—Villalobos pointed out that he would not agree to any order that would dictate the manner and method by which prosecutors are to fulfill the duties of their position.

—Villalobos said that neither he nor his office would treat any of the defense attorneys in any way that is prohibited by law.

—He said a compilation of the named defense attorneys will be maintained to advise his staff of who is an adverse party and must therefore be treated as such consistent with the Texas Rules of Professional Conduct and laws.

Morgan directed the defense attorneys to respond to Padilla’s motion for a hearing, identify the case law that would support their claim that they have or will suffer irreparable harm unless a temporary restraining order is issued against Villalobos, and the effect of Villalobos’ decision to re-institute the open file policy on the case.

The county also was named a defendant in the federal lawsuit and the Civil Division is representing the county only. “The court made it clear that the DA cannot treat this group of attorneys differently because they exercised their right to file litigation,” Civil Division Counsel Richard Burst said of the March 3 hearing.

eperez-trevino@brownsvilleherald.com