An investigation into the 1979 strangulation of a teenage newlywed that Austin police detectives thought they had solved two years ago now appears to be flimsy — and the attorney of the man accused of killing her is taking a gamble to close the book on the case for good.
Michael Galvan, charged with capital murder in the death of his then coworker Debra Reiding, was set to go to trial in state District Judge Brad Urrutia’s courtroom in early April, but the date was postponed after Travis County canceled all criminal trials through at least May 8 over concerns about the spread of the new coronavirus.
Now, the earliest Galvan’s case will be tried is June 22, but it might not happen then either after prosecutors dropped a bombshell in Urrutia’s court on Thursday: They have concerns about the strength of their evidence and want to dismiss the case.
Stripped of context, this looked like a huge win for Galvan, 64, who is facing an automatic life sentence if a jury concludes he killed Reiding.
But Galvan’s lawyer, Amber Vazquez, followed the state’s surrender with an even bigger twist: She refused to accept the win. Confident she will secure an acquittal for Galvan at trial, Vazquez asked the judge to keep the trial date and force the state to present its case.
Her fear is the request to dismiss the case pending further investigation would leave the door open for prosecutors to refile charges at any time. Vazquez wants to shut it down for good.
“In light of the evidence, I’m completely indignant,” Vazquez said Friday. “I think Michael Galvan deserves to be exonerated. He deserves to have his day in court.”
Urrutia did not agree to the dismissal and instead scheduled a hearing for March 23 to hear arguments from both sides. The Texas code of criminal procedure gives him discretion to deny the dismissal.
Travis County District Attorney Margaret Moore said her office is preparing briefings ahead of the hearing but would not discuss the dismissal request. The postponement of trials in response to the coronavirus could end up benefiting prosecutors if it gives them time to salvage their case.
Law enforcement officials in May 2018 were so confident they had found Reiding’s killer that they called a news conference to announce a grand jury had indicted Galvan, a small business owner who lived in South Austin and cut hair for a living since Reiding’s death 39 years ago.
Vazquez said Galvan was innocent. The state’s evidence, she stressed, was limited to DNA on Reiding’s bathrobe that came back to her client. The two had an affair, Vazquez said, and no other evidence tested by the state or the defense linked Galvan to the killing.
Galvan worked with Reiding in 1979 at the Montana Mining Company restaurant in South Austin. He had long been on the radar of Austin police and was one of 56 people who were considered persons of interest, court records show.
Cracks in the case first showed in September when prosecutors announced they were waiting for DNA test results and would not be ready for trial. Urrutia, saying he had no legal alternatives but to acknowledge Galvan’s right to a speedy trial, granted a personal bond that authorized Galvan’s release from jail that month.
Six months later, prosecutors are still not ready to present their case.
Vazquez contesting the dismissal motion is an extraordinary move for a defense attorney, according to courthouse insiders, as they almost always advise their clients to accept the win. It’s even more uncommon for a judge to agree to deny the dismissal motion.
“I’ve seen one judge do that,” said former district court judge Charlie Baird. “And that was me.”
Baird, who presided over felony cases in Travis County from 2007 to 2010, said he once forced prosecutors to take a case to trial over their objection to dismiss the case pending further investigation. Baird presented two options: dismiss the case in such a way that they could not refile charges, or take it to trial. The state proceeded to trial and won, Baird said, securing a conviction against a defendant who had committed a sexual act against a child.
Retired Judge Bob Perkins said he cannot recall a time when a defense lawyer contested a motion to dismiss, but he agreed with Urrutia’s call to hear from both sides on whether to do so.
“Judge Urrutia’s doing exactly the right thing — let’s go ahead and set it for a hearing and see what the deal is,” Perkins said.
Credit: Source link
