WACO, Texas (KWTX) A Dallas lawyer who represents a Hewitt man charged as a participant in the Twin Peaks shootings on Monday filed a motion asking the judge to dismiss the indictment in the case for a violation of the attorney/client privilege.
While sparks flew between lawyers in the next door 19th District Court over a Twin Peaks issue, F. Clinton Broden filed a motion in the 54th District Court seeking dismissal of his client’s indictment.
Broden actually filed two motions, one asking the judge to dismiss the charge against Matthew Clendennen and one asking the judge to dismiss the indictment against Clendennen or, at the least, recuse District Attorney Abel Reyna’s office from prosecuting the case based upon what Broden says is a violation of the attorney/client privilege.
The second is the motion asking for an evidentiary hearing before any extra security measures can be put in place in the McLennan County Courthouse during the Clendennen Twin Peaks trial.
On the issue of the indictment Broden wrote: “Matthew Clendennen respectfully requests this Court to dismiss the indictment in this case or disqualify the McLennan County District Attorney’s Office based upon the violation of the Attorney-Client privilege by the District Attorney’s Office.”
Broden goes on to explain that he “learned from the discovery produced in this case that the McLennan County District Attorney’s Office arranged to be given copies of a phone call between (Broden) and Mr. Clendennen.
“This phone call took place when Mr. Clendennen was detained in the McLennan County jail under a $1,000,000 bond set by the Justice of the Peace Walter Peterson.” Broden wrote.
In his motion Broden wrote his client: “requests this Court hold a hearing as to any out of the ordinary and visible security steps taken in connection with his trial.
Broden supported his request citing legal precedent which states: “Although the use of security precautions at a criminal trial is a matter which lies within the sound discretion of the trial judge, an evidentiary hearing should be held to determine whether the circumstances of a case justify greater than normal security precautions at trial.”
No hearing date on the new motions has been set but a check with the court’s office shows a hearing Friday on the Clendennen case on issues presented earlier.