Last November, questions were raised over a decision of prosecutors to drop all charges against 13th Court Justice of Appeals Nora Longoria for alleged drunk driving. There were concerns of special treatment but prosecutors insisted that they simply lacked sufficient evidence. Now it appears that there was a dash cam video that clearly shows Longoria unable to complete sobriety tests. It would seems a fairly easy case for prosecution.
Longoria is shown struggling to walk a straight line and stumbling. Police say that another video includes audio recording where Longoria pleads with the officer to “Please let me go home. I live a couple of miles away” and “You are going to ruin my life.”
She refused to give a blood sample.
Everyone is now insisting that it is a complete mystery how the video of this judge was not sent to prosecutors. As for Longoria, she does not appear to feel the need to respond to the evidence on the video.
Frankly, I am less concerned over the DUI as I am over the possible special treatment afforded to a judge.
Longoria ran on a campaign of “Nora for Justice” and emphasized the need for impartial treatment of accused persons. She insisted “I am committed to the legal profession and to the integrity and sanctity of the judicial system. My promise is to always apply the law fairly and without bias in all cases.”
She graduated from the University of Texas A&M in 1986 with a major in political science and a minor in history. She then graduated from the University of Texas School of Law in 1990.
It’s still focused on Texas at least! 🙂 hahahaha
LOL!
Msjettexas
Try to stay on topic. The topic is about a Judge, not a C&W song.
Here’s my favorite guy, singing your phrase. hahaha
http://youtu.be/lMNw_-yUm_0
@BarkinDog . . . lol. 🙂
All my ex es live in Texas.
@Personanongrata – 😉
@Personanongrata ~ How about you come to Texas say that to my face.
It would appear that even in the great state of Texas all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others”.
http://gutenberg.net.au/ebooks01/0100011h.html
Not good.
The law applies the same no matter if you are a judge or a policeman.
Can they still file charges?
The entire system needs an audit and clean up job.
If the special interest groups that profit – monetarily and otherwise (arrest quotas?) from laws that criminalize conduct in which no harm has been done, no longer could profit from said laws, they would and should, likely be overturned.
Most relatives of LEOs have a card attached to their DL which says: “In case of emergency, contact officer so and so”) – to alert other LEOs who might otherwise cause problems for the cardholder.
@ModernMiner . . . refusal to take a breathalyzer test is automatic 6 months suspension of a person’s license in Texas. Most jails have a breathalyzer but, they have to have a cop certified to use it. If they refuse a breathalyzer, most cops would ask the county judge for a warrant for a blood test and take the defendant to the hospital for it. I don’t know if that was done, but if not, that’s just plain unprofessional. Which makes one wonder why it was vacated for supposed lack of evidence, when there are certain criteria to follow after an arrest, but that’s not how it worked in this case.
They call it professional courtesy to let them go. Note the Word COURTesy. I have seen drunk cops get a day off with pay. A judge will not issue a warrant against another judge. But if it was you then you may see a judge not within 72 hours, but maybe 3 months. They claim unable to docket the case based on timely matter and they get away with it.
Audio would have been priceless here to hear “Her Honor” slurring her speech in asynchrony with her movements.
One would think a judge would be smart enough to know NOT to take any roadside tests and just supply the license and registration, ask to be taken straight to the breathalyzer, and contact an attorney forthwith. There’s no sense in helping law enforcement collect additional evidence against one’s self.
Both the Judge and the prosecuting attorney should be looking for new jobs. Why wasn’t she put in a chokehold? Would a grand jury believe this video??
Special treatment for the rich and powerful in this country?….come on, really?
Refusal to take a breathalyzer test causes automatic suspension of driver’s license in California
@ Gary
Well, YES. I do agree with you about having children with you when you are going to be drinking or otherwise using substances that impair your abilities. Actually, when you have children, the responsibility and sacrifice you must make to be a good parent, is to moderate your lifestyle and take care of the children. Set good examples for them. If they see you drunk or smoking pot, fighting, yelling…..whatever…..they will consider those activities something that they should be able to do as well.
I was thinking more on the lines of a single adult, childless couples…..old farts like me and my husband.
Drinking in public, when you are a public figure like a judge or government lawyer, should also be done in great moderation. When I was actively in business as a financial advisor and went to various functions or just out to dinner, I was always very careful to not have more than a couple of drinks. Who wants to see the person handling your portfolio, your finances acting foolishly or getting tipsy? Not very confidence inspiring is it. It was just part of my public persona and was to protect my business reputation. Moderation and restraint. Even today, with my husband’s business, we are both circumspect about how we act in public. At home…..woooo hoooo all bets are off…..just kidding 🙂 we are too old to party down.
These public officials have no accountability so they don’t seem to care. If there are no consequences, such as your clients taking their portfolios and financial business elsewhere…..or being prosecuted, or losing their jobs, why shouldn’t they just keep doing what they want? Right?
Dust Bunny Queen:
” People have a right to get as drunk as they like…..in their own home.”
You know I would have thought that too, but not according to Child Protective Services.
Forget getting drunk in your own home. Obviously if you have a child, you should not be getting drunk in front of them or while in control of them.
But, they have taken that standard and, get this, apply it even if you get drunk elsewhere, even if you first responsibly put your children into the care of another responsible person. They would consider that chargeable neglect.
On another note related to this article, I was up before a Family Court judge named Gerard Maney, who had been similarly arrested for drunk driving. There he was in judgment of me, when he had done far worse than anything I was there for, essentially trying to get custody of my child.
Everyone in the courtroom knew it, but no one dared to even intimate that they knew.
http://www.noethics.net/News/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1400:is-judge-gerard-maney-of-albany-ny-an-il-duce-wannabee-arrogant-and-a-certified-lush&catid=34:judicial-misfits&Itemid=55
I have seen first hand how the law is dispensed unfairly. As a pro se litigant in a medical malpractice case, as only one example, the judge tossed a case where there was no question that there were facts presented that were for the jury to decide. Judges in my limited experience can get away with egregious behavior, and too often attorneys also get away with behavior that the rest of us could not. Sadly this situation in the post does not surprise. Even sadder had the video been presented and she been prosecuted, that would have surprised me, maybe even more.
(And I think it goes to the complaints against McCulloughs presentation to the grand jury in the Michael Brown case, that he presented what would exonerate and not allow for a fair investigation. And Garner too and way too many where police are involved and despite evidence get free rein to do it again.).