Letter
to D.A. Villalobos
THE
BENNETT
LAW
FIRM,
P.C.
Attorneys and
Counselors at Law
Robert S. “Bob” Bennett
Board Certified in Consumer and Commercial Law
Texas Board Of Legal Specialization
Fellow–College of the State Bar of Texas
bbennett@bennettlawfirm.com
|
515 Louisiana, Suite 200
Houston, Texas 77002
Telephone (713) 225-6000
Facsimile (713) 225-6001
Website:
www.bennettlawfirm.com |
Steve D. Peterson, Of Counsel
Former General Counsel to the
State Bar of Texas
R. P. “Skip” Cornelius,
Of Counsel
Board Certified in Criminal Law
Texas Board of Legal Specialization
|
January 26, 2007
SENT VIA FAX AND CERTIFIED MAIL
Armando R. Villalobos
Cameron County District Attorney
974 East Harrison Street
Brownsville, TX 78520
(956) 544-0869 fax
Re: Complaint Against Investigator Dennis
Zamarron for Witness Intimidation, Witness Harassment, Attempt to
Suborn Perjury, and Unethical Behavior; State of Texas v. Arthur
Daniel Hayes; cause no.
2006-CR-2672-G & 2006-CR-2693-G
Dear District Attorney Villalobos,
I am writing on behalf of Ms. Mara Padilla in
regard to an incident involving Cameron County District Attorney’s
Office Investigator Dennis Zamarron (hereinafter “Zamarron”). On
January 9, 2007 at around 7:30 a.m., Investigator Zamarron showed up
at Mara Padilla’s home, 2001 North G. St., Harlingen, Texas 78550,
with two other men. Zamarron identified himself as an investigator
for the county and stated he wanted to question Ms. Padilla about
the Hayes investigation. Asserting her civil rights, Ms. Padilla
asked if the men had a search warrant or an arrest warrant. She was
informed that they had neither. Ms. Padilla then asked the three
men for identification. Zamarron handed her his business card and
attempted to question her about the Hayes case. See copy of
business card attached as “Exhibit 1.” When Ms. Padilla refused to
respond, the two unidentified men proceeded to intimidate and
frighten her.
The two men accompanying Zamarron were dressed in
street clothes and when asked for identification, they refused to
identify themselves, only saying that they were with immigration.
You later stated in court that they were with INS. See court
transcript attached as “Exhibit 2.” The first immigration agent
told Ms. Padilla that if she refused to answer Zamarron’s questions
she would have to answer his questions. He then told her that she
“did not have permission to be in the Untied States legally,” all
the while knowing this was untrue. Ms. Padilla told the men that
she had her papers in order and he demanded to see documentation of
her legal resident status. Ms. Padilla told the men that she would
get her papers and tried to close the door but the immigration agent
put his foot in her front doorway to keep her from closing it. She
felt as if she was being wrongfully detained in her own home. When
she explained that she wanted to close the door so that she could
change out of her night gown and in to more appropriate clothing,
the immigration agent kept his foot in the door and told her, “No.”
She finally was allowed to retrieve her
documentation, and she showed the immigration agents her legal
resident status papers. The second immigration agent wrote her
information down and told her that “her permission to be in the
United States had expired,” which was not true. Ms. Padilla is a
legal resident of the United States and has been for many years.
Anyone would find this kind of custodial interrogation highly
inappropriate. When Ms. Padilla told the men that she was going to
get a voice recorder to record any further conversation, the three
men quickly fled.
Your explanation at our meeting on January 18,
2007, is difficult to believe. You stated that the reason
Investigator Zamarron went to Mara Padilla’s home with two
immigration agents by his side was that U.S. Citizenship and
Immigration Services (hereinafter “USCIS”) contacted the District
Attorney’s Office, out of the blue, about a USCIS investigation of
Mara Padilla’s legal resident status. On January 19, 2007, at a
hearing in the 404th Cameron County Court, you stated
that immigration agents “tagged along” with Zamarron because Ms.
Padilla “has become quite popular.” See court transcript attached
as “Exhibit 2.” You stated that “she has been on television, she
has been in the newspaper, so they have checked her out.” These
explanations and excuses are false.
First, your statement in court regarding Ms.
Padilla appearing on television and in the newspaper was inaccurate,
false, and misleading. Ms. Padilla has never appeared on any
television broadcast and as we have previously discussed, was only
named in one December 31, 2006, San Benito News article in which she
was referred to as an employee of Pastor Hayes and a member of his
defense team. See news article attached as “Exhibit 3.” This is
hardly the volume or the subject matter that one would expect to
initiate an investigation by the USCIS office of the U.S. Department
of Homeland Security.
Second, it is suspiciously coincidental that USCIS was investigating
Ms. Padilla at the same time the District Attorney’s Office was
trying to question her about her involvement in a criminal
investigation, and all of these coincidences were a week after the
San Benito News stated that she was an employee of Pastor Hayes and
a member of his defense team. See news article attached as “Exhibit
3.” It is a real stretch of the imagination that USCIS felt the
need to contact the District Attorney’s Office about their
investigation of Ms. Padilla. I was not aware that USCIS regularly
requested the services of the District Attorney’s Office
Investigators in Cameron County or anywhere else along the United
States-Mexico Boarder. I was also unaware that USCIS and the
District Attorney’s Office routinely conduct joint investigations.
It is mind-boggling that all of these events aligned on January 9,
2007 at Mara Padilla’s front door.
I am also writing to inform the Cameron County
District Attorney’s Office that Mara Padilla sought legal
representation from The Bennett Law Firm. If Ms. Padilla faces any
civil or criminal exposure in the future, we will determine at that
time if she should seek other counsel. For purposes of contacting
Mara Padilla, all inquiries should go through my office.
You and your staff are aware of the ethical issues
involved with one represented by counsel. Rule 4.02 (a) of the
Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct states,
a lawyer shall not communicate or cause or
encourage another to communicate about the subject of the
representation with a person . . . the lawyer knows to be
represented
by another lawyer regarding that subject, unless the lawyer has the
consent of the other lawyer or is authorized by law to do so.
On that same note, Ms. Padilla
has been an employee of Pastor Hayes for several years and is
assisting in his defense. This was reported by the San Benito News
on December 31, 2006. See news article attached as “Exhibit 2.”
Whether Ms Padilla is or is not a licensed investigator is not
relevant. As you stated in court, you were aware that Ms. Padilla
was working for Pastor Hayes’ defense team because she was
contacting witnesses. See court transcript attached as “Exhibit
3.” You also stated that you were aware that she was employed by
Pastor Hayes and even knew that her employment for Pastor Hayes
predated this investigation by almost half a decade. As Rule 4.02
(b) of the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct states,
a lawyer shall not
communicate or cause another to communicate about the subject of
representation with a person or organization a lawyer knows to be
employed or retained for the purpose of conferring with or advising
another lawyer about the subject of the representation, unless the
lawyer has the consent of the other lawyer or is authorized by law
to do so.
Thus, no one from your office should attempt to
contact, intimidate, harass, or attempt to suborn perjury from Ms.
Padilla. Your first contact should have been defense counsel for
Ms. Padilla.
Investigator Zamarron and his unidentified
colleagues from INS blatant attempt to intimidate and frighten Ms.
Padilla with the suggestion of deportation is appalling. His
attempt to question a member of a defense team and defendant’s
employee is also unethical. This type of behavior by a county
investigator should not be tolerated by the District Attorney as it
is attributed to the entire Cameron County District Attorney’s
Office and reflects poorly on the entire Cameron County District
Attorney’s Office.
I hope that Investigator Zamarron’s conduct will be
investigated and appropriate actions will be taken to ensure that no
other Cameron County citizens are harassed in the same manner that
Ms. Padilla was. At the very least, this letter should be placed in
Investigator Dennis Zamarron’s personnel file with an admonition.
We are also asking for your cooperation as a public
servant and the county’s highest law enforcement officer to provide
the names of the two INS officers or investigators who went with
Zamarron on the morning of January 9, 2007 to verbally attack Ms.
Padilla. Their superiors should be notified and out of your respect
for appropriate and ethical law enforcement we welcome your
assistance in learning the identity of these rogue INS agents. We
look forward to your immediate reply and assisting you in the
investigation of the January 9th incident.
Should you have any questions or need additional
information, please do not hesitate to contact our office.
Sincerely,
Robert S. “Bob” Bennett
Cc. Ms. Mara Padilla
Cc. Pastor Arthur Daniel Hayes
|