Based on its finding that the Travis Co. District Attorney’s Office suppressed “exculpatory and impeaching” evidence, on July 26 the Texas 3rd Court of Appeals reversed the April 2001 conviction of former APD officer Samuel Ramirez on official oppression charges. “Under the circumstances, we conclude that the judgment of the jury could have been reasonably affected by the State’s use of false testimony and its failure to correct the same,” the court wrote in a 20-page, harshly worded opinion. Ramirez was convicted on a March 1999 charge of forcing a Southeast Austin woman to perform oral sex on him while he was on duty and in uniform.
Ramirez never denied having sex with the woman (whose name remains confidential), who saved some of his semen in a plastic bag as evidence of the encounter. Ramirez has maintained, however, that the sex was consensual. His trial ultimately hinged on the woman’s testimony and credibility, the 3rd Court determined. “The instant case has been a difficult one for both the State and defense,” stated the ruling, “not only because a police officer was involved, but because the case turned, in large measure, on the credibility of the complainant who had a criminal record and a less than desirable background.” According to the Court of Appeals decision, the woman was a cocaine addict with a fairly lengthy criminal history.
The woman testified she was “not worrying about no money or anything,” and had no ulterior motive for pressing charges. She wasn’t aware that any civil suit had been filed against the city of Austin on her behalf, she added, reiterating that, even though she had contacted civil attorney Gary Bledsoe, “I just want justice out of the whole case.” But when it came to light that a civil case seeking monetary damages had been filed on March 13, 2001 — just before the start of the criminal trial — Ramirez’s attorney, Steve Edwards, moved for a mistrial.
During a hearing on Edwards’ motion, Bledsoe testified that in June 1999 the woman had signed a contract authorizing him to file a civil suit against Ramirez. Although Bledsoe said he had not alerted her when he finally did file the suit — just before the statute of limitations was set to expire — he did tell Travis Co. district attorneys Judy Shipway and Bryan Case, who were prosecuting the criminal case against Ramirez.
District Judge Jon Wisser ultimately denied Edwards’ motion, but a three-member panel of the 3rd Court of Appeals has now overturned this decision. “[T]he State on direct examination clearly permitted [the woman] to testify without correction that she was not looking for money but seeking justice,” the court wrote. “Second, the State … directly elicited from [the woman] that she had contacted a named lawyer, but permitted her to expressly deny that she did so ‘to get money,’ and to declare again that her interest was only in justice.” As a result, the Third Court found that the woman’s testimony was “false and misleading.” The jury should have had the opportunity to determine the witnesses’ credibility with full knowledge of the false testimony, the court ruled.
While Edwards says the court’s opinion “speaks for itself” and declined to elaborate, Attorney Case from the DA’s Office expressed disappointment. “We disagree with the court’s holding,” he said, “and object to the tone of the court’s opinion because it belittles the victim and blames her for the officer’s misconduct.”
The 3rd Court has sent the case back to Wisser’s District Court. The DA’s office can ask the entire 3rd Court to review the case, petition the Court of Criminal Appeals for discretionary review, or simply retry the case.
This article appears in August 2 • 2002.