District Attorney Audrey Gossett Louis[url=https://www.ksat.com/news/ksat-investigates/2023/07/31/lawsuit-south-texas-da-twice-used-expunged-records-to-block-officer-from-landing-law-enforcement-jobs/][/url]

Quote:

---

Lawsuit: South Texas DA twice used expunged records to block officer from landing law enforcement jobs

A veteran law enforcement officer has filed a lawsuit in federal court in San Antonio accusing the district attorney of the 81st judicial district and one of her investigators of using unlawfully obtained records to block his hiring by two agencies.

Jasper McDonald said expunged records were forwarded by District Attorney Audrey Gossett Louis to officials with the Wilson County Sheriff's Office and the Texas and Southwestern Cattle Rangers Association, causing both agencies to separately rescind employment offers.
---------------------------
Gossett Louis had forwarded Stewart records obtained by DA Investigator Roland Trevino from a deadly conduct case against McDonald, even though those records were part of a previous court expungement order, the suit states.

---

Why did she do him dirty that way?

Quote:

---

"The 2008 Order of Expungement required all parties with case records in their possession, including the 81st Judicial District Attorney's Office, to return, delete or destroy such records," according to the lawsuit.

Gossett Louis also informed Stewart that McDonald was on the Brady list, a list compiled by prosecutors that contains law enforcement officers with past incidents of untruthfulness, criminal convictions or other credibility issues.
-----------------------
The suit states McDonald was acquitted of the deadly conduct charge in 2008. Link

McDonald has worked as a law enforcement officer since 1998, TCOLE records show.

---

This might be a fun case to watch.
He was never convicted and ended up on the Brady List anyway.

Quote:

---

What's a Brady list?
Link
Sometimes, to avoid the mess that could come with calling an unreliable cop to the stand, district attorneys' offices keep their own list of officers that have known credibility or misconduct issues. It's not always guaranteed that a district attorney will keep a "Brady list" or a "Giglio list" or that they'll provide the same when requested. Attempts to standardize these records are regularly fought off by police unions and representatives. Most offices are not required to keep them.

---

See also Mark Furman?


This case will be interesting.

She has a big grudge.

The best was when Bexar County DA Susan Reed's office prosecuted Dr. Calvin Day MD.
Day said he and Reed had an affair.
Grudges....

Just because you aren't convicted of something doesn't mean you can't still have credibility issues. That just means a jury didn't find that you committed a specific crime. If you lied about parts of it or lied in separate instances, a good defense attorney can still bring that up and destroy your credibility to a jury, conviction or not.

Quote:

---

Just because you aren't convicted of something doesn't mean you can't still have credibility issues.

---

You are correct. As noted above Mark Furman had credibility issues.
He pled no contest to perjury when it was revealed he could drop the n bomb on tape after testifying that he did not use that term. That was small potatoes compared to his taped confessions about planting evidence to set people up. No charges ever filed, but that tanked his creditably and lead to "If da glove don't fit, den you must acquit."

Quote:

---

That just means a jury didn't find that you committed a specific crime. If you lied about parts of it or lied in separate instances, a good defense attorney can still bring that up and destroy your credibility to a jury, conviction or not.

---

In the era of Soros DA's if you think they are all ethical, fair and honest, then I have a bridge to sell you cheap.
If you think the "no fly" list is ok, because all government is ethical, fair and honest, then a Brady list should be up your ally.
That is the thing about the conviction standard, there was a process.

Given DA & prosecutorial abuse we've seen, I'd like to see a mechanism for an acquitting jury to trigger punitive blowback against state actors. It'd be nice to see sketchy folks more easily swept out of government roles.

What influence did the Barbie movie have on this??? Down with the patriarchy!!!

Not saying the records being sent is ethical or fair, but she can still have him on the Brady list for potentially other reasons. Just addressing the, "He was never convicted and ended up on the Brady List anyway," part. I don't know why she has such a grudge, but I'd love details on exactly what this case was about

Get Off My Lawn said:

---

Given DA & prosecutorial abuse we've seen, I'd like to see a mechanism for an acquitting jury to trigger punitive blowback against state actors. It'd be nice to see sketchy folks more easily swept out of government roles.

---

I'm reserving judgment on this whole thing because I don't know exactly what it is he did or did not do to warrant her behavior. Is she just crazy, or is he a wandering officer who probably shouldn't have a badge and she's trying to keep him out of law enforcement? If it's the former, then yeah she should have the book thrown at her. If it's the latter, I have a hard time feeling bad for him. Without some more detail, it's really hard to make a case one way or another.

I dont' think any records of LEO's should be allowed to be expunged, especially if they are applying for employment as a LEO with another agency.

Like it or not, they should be held to a higher standard because of the authority conveyed upon them through the position and the badge. Even if a LEO isn't convicted of a crime, if it's discovered that they have a sketch record and have been accused of things - the new agency should have an obligation to know about that case and do their due diligence in reviewing it to determine if that person should be hired or not.

Say a LEO has been accused of brutality multiple times, but each time the lawyer was able to find some technicality or what not to avoid a conviction. That doesn't mean that the LEO is innocent, it only means they weren't able to be convicted. And I would hope a chief of police would see a pattern and decide to pass on hiring that guy because of past history and the liability that comes with him.

schmellba99 said:

---

I dont' think any records of LEO's should be allowed to be expunged, especially if they are applying for employment as a LEO with another agency.

Like it or not, they should be held to a higher standard because of the authority conveyed upon them through the position and the badge. Even if a LEO isn't convicted of a crime, if it's discovered that they have a sketch record and have been accused of things - the new agency should have an obligation to know about that case and do their due diligence in reviewing it to determine if that person should be hired or not.

Say a LEO has been accused of brutality multiple times, but each time the lawyer was able to find some technicality or what not to avoid a conviction. That doesn't mean that the LEO is innocent, it only means they weren't able to be convicted. And I would hope a chief of police would see a pattern and decide to pass on hiring that guy because of past history and the liability that comes with him.

---

Last I checked - innocent until proven guilty. If acquitted or even if dismissed (ie not even enough evidence to bring case to trial) then that should not be held against anyone for any reason. If there is evidence of actual wrong doing then charge accordingly and get a plea or guilty verdict.

ABATTBQ11 said:

---

Get Off My Lawn said:

---

Given DA & prosecutorial abuse we've seen, I'd like to see a mechanism for an acquitting jury to trigger punitive blowback against state actors. It'd be nice to see sketchy folks more easily swept out of government roles.

---

I'm reserving judgment on this whole thing because I don't know exactly what it is he did or did not do to warrant her behavior. Is she just crazy, or is he a wandering officer who probably shouldn't have a badge and she's trying to keep him out of law enforcement? If it's the former, then yeah she should have the book thrown at her. If it's the latter, I have a hard time feeling bad for him. Without some more detail, it's really hard to make a case one way or another.

---

Looks like Wilson County (Floresville) sheriff. Accused of excessive force in subduing a suspect by striking him in the head multiple times with his firearm. Texas Rangers investigated and found sufficient evidence to recommend charges. Guess he was acquitted by a jury. 7 year veteran.

Gigem_94 said:

---

schmellba99 said:

---

I dont' think any records of LEO's should be allowed to be expunged, especially if they are applying for employment as a LEO with another agency.

Like it or not, they should be held to a higher standard because of the authority conveyed upon them through the position and the badge. Even if a LEO isn't convicted of a crime, if it's discovered that they have a sketch record and have been accused of things - the new agency should have an obligation to know about that case and do their due diligence in reviewing it to determine if that person should be hired or not.

Say a LEO has been accused of brutality multiple times, but each time the lawyer was able to find some technicality or what not to avoid a conviction. That doesn't mean that the LEO is innocent, it only means they weren't able to be convicted. And I would hope a chief of police would see a pattern and decide to pass on hiring that guy because of past history and the liability that comes with him.

---

Last I checked - innocent until proven guilty. If acquitted or even if dismissed (ie not even enough evidence to bring case to trial) then that should not be held against anyone for any reason. If there is evidence of actual wrong doing then charge accordingly and get a plea or guilty verdict.

---

I agree.

But when we as a society convey certain authority and powers in a person and office, I want to know that the people in that office aren't suspect. And somebody consistently accused of abusing power is absolutely suspect, even if there is no guilty verdict.

That's how the real world works.

Audrey Gossett Louis is a Republican......... Disappointing.

schmellba99 said:

---

Gigem_94 said:

---

schmellba99 said:

---

I dont' think any records of LEO's should be allowed to be expunged, especially if they are applying for employment as a LEO with another agency.

Like it or not, they should be held to a higher standard because of the authority conveyed upon them through the position and the badge. Even if a LEO isn't convicted of a crime, if it's discovered that they have a sketch record and have been accused of things - the new agency should have an obligation to know about that case and do their due diligence in reviewing it to determine if that person should be hired or not.

Say a LEO has been accused of brutality multiple times, but each time the lawyer was able to find some technicality or what not to avoid a conviction. That doesn't mean that the LEO is innocent, it only means they weren't able to be convicted. And I would hope a chief of police would see a pattern and decide to pass on hiring that guy because of past history and the liability that comes with him.

---

Last I checked - innocent until proven guilty. If acquitted or even if dismissed (ie not even enough evidence to bring case to trial) then that should not be held against anyone for any reason. If there is evidence of actual wrong doing then charge accordingly and get a plea or guilty verdict.

---

I agree.

But when we as a society convey certain authority and powers in a person and office, I want to know that the people in that office aren't suspect. And somebody consistently accused of abusing power is absolutely suspect, even if there is no guilty verdict.

That's how the real world works.

---

I disagree. Exoneration is Exoneration. Our legal system was setup specifically so that wrongly accused and innocent people could resume their normal lives after being cleared.

ABATTBQ11 said:

---

I don't know why she has such a grudge, but I'd love details on exactly what this case was about

---

Oh yeah!
There is a line up for people wanting to listen to that story.

Quote:

---

I dont' think any records of LEO's should be allowed to be expunged, especially if they are applying for employment as a LEO with another agency.

---

Let's follow your thought here.

(sort of a hypothetical) Liberal Soros stooge DA Jose Garza in Travis County charges police officers with assault during the St. George Floyd riots. These officers are acquitted in court. You say "For the rest of their days they will have to have assault charges follow them to any and all jobs that require a Texas peace officer's license."

I say that gives too much credence to an accusation that acts the same as a conviction.
In this era of "defund the police" and Soros DAs their agendas muddle what should be an honest inquest.

In Texas it used to be hard to get charges on police. Back in the day, many grand juries were not having it.
See Jerry Waller shooting some years back compared to the Atatiana Jefferson shooting recently.

Gigem_94 said:

---

schmellba99 said:

---

I dont' think any records of LEO's should be allowed to be expunged, especially if they are applying for employment as a LEO with another agency.

Like it or not, they should be held to a higher standard because of the authority conveyed upon them through the position and the badge. Even if a LEO isn't convicted of a crime, if it's discovered that they have a sketch record and have been accused of things - the new agency should have an obligation to know about that case and do their due diligence in reviewing it to determine if that person should be hired or not.

Say a LEO has been accused of brutality multiple times, but each time the lawyer was able to find some technicality or what not to avoid a conviction. That doesn't mean that the LEO is innocent, it only means they weren't able to be convicted. And I would hope a chief of police would see a pattern and decide to pass on hiring that guy because of past history and the liability that comes with him.

---

Last I checked - innocent until proven guilty. If acquitted or even if dismissed (ie not even enough evidence to bring case to trial) then that should not be held against anyone for any reason. If there is evidence of actual wrong doing then charge accordingly and get a plea or guilty verdict.

---

I disagree. A potential employer, especially a law enforcement agency, should be entitled to all of the same evidence the jury had to inform their employment decision because those are two difference decisions made by two different groups with two different standards. The evidence presented may not have been enough for a criminal conviction, but it may be enough for the employer to not feel comfortable employing that individual under the circumstances.

I think you're also conflating presumed innocence in the eyes of the law with actual innocence or proof of innocence. There may not be enough evidence to support a criminal conviction, in which case a person is presumed innocent in the eyes of the law, but that is not the same as proving innocence and being innocent in the eyes of others. Look at Trayvon Martin. He was at one point found with burglary tools and a bag of women's jewelry. He wasn't convicted of a crime, but would you look at him differently after being given that information? If you were looking to hire him, would you want to know that kind of information and would you let that influence your decision even if there was no conviction?

TheEternalPessimist said:

---

Audrey Gossett Louis is a Republican......... Disappointing.

---

So is Dade Phelan.

An officer may be charged with a criminal offense for an act that indicates poor decision making skills and a lack of aptitude for the job based on the established facts of the case, but their ineptitude may not ultimately rise to the level of a criminal conviction. That lack of criminal conviction does not change the underlying facts though, and an employer should be entitled to those facts for their own independent decision making process.


Philip Brailsford is a perfect example. He was acquitted of the murder of Daniel Shaver, but his actions certainly showed a man who lacked the awareness and decision making ability required of a police officer. Should an LE agency looking at him as a potential candidate not be entitled to the body camera footage to decide for themselves if his actions either do or do not qualify him for a job in their eyes, or should the lack of conviction preclude them from using those established facts in their decision making process?

Quote:

---

An officer may be charged with a criminal offense for an act that indicates poor decision making skills and a lack of aptitude for the job based on the established facts of the case, but their ineptitude may not ultimately rise to the level of a criminal conviction. That lack of criminal conviction does not change the underlying facts though, and an employer should be entitled to those facts for their own independent decision making process.

---

Do you believe that jurisdictions with Soros' paid for DA's are biased against police officers?
A) Yes
B) No
Soros' paid for Travis County DA Jose Garza. DA Garza is going after police officers for actions during the George Floyd riots. Do you believe these officers fit your criteria above in bold?
A) Yes
B) No

You are smart, you picked A then B.
Travis County's district attorney vowed to hold law enforcement accountable. Now he's in a showdown with Austin police.

Your positions listed above were 100% on the mark in 1989.

Quote:

---

Philip Brailsford is a perfect example. He was acquitted of the murder of Daniel Shaver, but his actions certainly showed a man who lacked the awareness and decision making ability required of a police officer. Should an LE agency looking at him as a potential candidate not be entitled to the body camera footage to decide for themselves if his actions either do or do not qualify him for a job in their eyes, or should the lack of conviction preclude them from using those established facts in their decision making process?

---

Odd example.
Did you read how it ended?
HE WAS SECRETLY REINSTATED TO THE POLICE FORCE who knew is background.

Quote:

---

In August 2018, Brailsford was reinstated by the Mesa Police Department, staying for a further 42 days in what the department described as a "budget position". The department agreed to reimburse Brailsford for medical expenses related to his post-traumatic stress disorder -- the result of his shooting of Shaver and the resultant criminal trial. The reinstatement allowed Brailsford to apply for "accidental disability" experienced during the course of work. As a result, Brailsford was unanimously approved to be retired on medical grounds. Brailsford was also given a pension of $2,500 per month. The fact that Brailsford was ultimately medically retired instead of remaining fired was only revealed to the public in July 2019.[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Daniel_Shaver#cite_note-pension-36][[/url]Link

---

Again, your positions listed above were 100% on the mark in 1989.
Eliminate Soros DA funding and things can return back to that by 2029.

schmellba99 said:

---

I dont' think any records of LEO's should be allowed to be expunged, especially if they are applying for employment as a LEO with another agency.

Like it or not, they should be held to a higher standard because of the authority conveyed upon them through the position and the badge. Even if a LEO isn't convicted of a crime, if it's discovered that they have a sketch record and have been accused of things - the new agency should have an obligation to know about that case and do their due diligence in reviewing it to determine if that person should be hired or not.

Say a LEO has been accused of brutality multiple times, but each time the lawyer was able to find some technicality or what not to avoid a conviction. That doesn't mean that the LEO is innocent, it only means they weren't able to be convicted. And I would hope a chief of police would see a pattern and decide to pass on hiring that guy because of past history and the liability that comes with him.

---

IANAL but IMHO what you are advocating is in direct opposition to the rule of law.

"Soros DA's" have nothing to do with it. If a "Soros DA" charges a cop and they're acquitted or the charges are ultimately dropped, I'm sure an LE agency looking to hire that cop is capable of making the distinction. They should at least be given all the information. Or do you think they're too stupid?


Read what you posted. He was temporarily reinstated to get a pension and be medically retired. He was not rehired to be an active officer. They fired him for his actions, even if legal. This is not a case of them looking at his actions, deciding they were fine, and rehiring him, as you seem to suggest

Try again.

Quote:

---

"Soros DA's" have nothing to do with it.

---

Quote:

---

If a "Soros DA" charges a cop and they're acquitted or the charges are ultimately dropped, I'm sure an LE agency looking to hire that cop is capable of making the distinction. They should at least be given all the information. Or do you think they're too stupid?

---

Show me where a background check denotes that the DA was a cop hating, hard left Soros funded DA.
Post an example.

Quote:

---

Read what you posted. He was temporarily reinstated to get a pension and be medically retired. He was not rehired to be an active officer.

---

Nice try.
You are employed or not.
They secretly hired him back.
"Temporarily reinstated" is a post facto determination.