Image provided by: Texas A&M University
About The Battalion. (College Station, Tex.) 1893-current | View Entire Issue (June 27, 1996)
The Battalion THURSDAY June 27, 1996 OPINION Page 5 i Right to speedy trial not granted to victims T he blood soaked into their starched button-down shirts as they sat there stunned. They didn’t even know they had been stabbed until it was all over. I had seen the whole thing. Three years ago I was a valet at a country-western club in Dal las when a customer named Michael Stovall became irate over a baseball cap he was not allowed to wear inside. Words were exchanged among Stovall, a bouncer named Darrell and one of the regular customers, Darren. The scuffle spilled out onto the street, when Darren and Darrell reached their wit’s end. They went after Stovall, and he went after them. When the fight appeared to be over, Stovall seemed to be beat. He was bleeding from his nose and mouth, and he was pinned on his face by Darren and Dar rell with one arm behind his back. But it was far from over. I noticed the blood and looked in side a hole in Darrell’s shirt; what I saw was not pretty. A se curity guard and I pulled Stoval l’s right hand out of his pocket. The security guard stepped on his wrist and out popped a bloody pocket knife. Stovall had stabbed both of them in the ribs. I ran and got a towel and applied pressure to Darrell’s wounds un til the EMTs arrived. Darren and Darrell were tak en to the hospital, and each re ceived over 70 stitches before be ing released the next day. I was left standing there shaking with blood all over my hands and ‘wrists. I didn’t sleep much that night. I was brad. I couldn’t wait to testify and put this meathead behind bars. That was the summer of ’93, and three years later the case of State vs. Michael Stovall still has not gone to trial. My freshman year, I was subpoenaed to testify. I drove three hours to Dallas and immediately called the assistant district attorney. I was told to wait for a call — but it never came. The same thing happened both my sophomore and junior years, and after three useless trips, I am fed up. A man charged with assault with a deadly weapon has been walking free for three years. The loopholes in our justice system are incredibly abundant. I personally have had over 15 tickets kept off my driving record in the past five years using legal means, but I didn’t stab anyone. It has to stop somewhere. At the other extreme, a Texan named Charles Speck was on death row for 10 years for killing eight nurses in a Chicago apartment. He died of natural causes, hav ing never been punished for the brutal crimes he committed. The Dallas County assistant district attorney says that Sto vall’s case has not gone to trial because witnesses, who saw only small parts of the incident, are having scheduling prob lems. Why do the courts feel the need to wait for years until everyone involved can fit the trial into their schedules? Last time I checked, a subpoena was a legally binding court order, which supposedly means that if subpoenaed, you must appear in court or face criminal charges yourself. I drove to Dal las three times for this reason. But it seems the Dallas County justice system would rather let a criminal go free for three years than inconvenience a wit ness whose testimony isn’t even vital to the prosecution. The Texas justice system obvi ously doesn’t need to be scrapped, but some serious time flaws need to be corrected. Sto vall probably doesn’t care if his right to a speedy trial is not granted. Right now he’s a free man. But what about the rest of us — especially Darren and Dar rell — who would like to put this behind us and take comfort in knowing that a criminal has been put to justice? Don’t assume criminals who committed serious crimes years ago are or have been be hind bars. The man wearing a baseball cap next to you in line at a club might have a knife in his pocket. David Boldt is a Class of ’97 marketing major DAVID BOLDT Columnist Free beer costs San Marcos recycler B ad things happen to good people when good beer goes bad. The Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission (TABC) is an agency that performs a necessary func tion by controlling the sale and taxation of alcohol. But a recent trumped- up arrest suggests that TABC is no stranger to entrapment and no friend of the environment. Kyle Hahn operates the Green Guy Recy cling Center in San Marcos. In March, Shiner of Texas came to Hahn with an interesting problem many people would envy. Shiner had 5,000 cases of slightly out-of- date premium and imported beer it could not sell. So the brew distributor asked Hahn to figure out a way to dispose of the beer and re claim the recyclable materials. Hahn devised an ingenious plan in which hundreds of San Marcos residents — in cluding an assistant district attorney and a deputy sheriff — would pour the old beer into large drums that farmers could use to green their fields. Hahn explained that beer has lots of carbo hydrates and other nutrients that encourage tbe growth of beneficial fungi and microbes in the soil and compost. Under this plan. Green Guy would get the recyclables, Shiner would get a tax refund from TABC and some hard-working earth worms would get a well-deserved buzz. “But some turkey at TABC said that he didn’t want to trust that many people around that much beer,” Hahn said. He suspects that laziness was also a fac tor. In order for Shiner to receive its re fund, a TABC agent would have to supfer- vise the weekend event and certify that none of the beer was actually consumed. “I think that TABC failed to realize that they are public servants,” Hahn said. “Someone didn’t want spend five hours on a Saturday to watch us pour [beer] and de cided that it would be better if we’d just take the beer to a landfill.” Shiner managed to destroy all of the canned beer at a scrap yard in New Braunfels. Green Guy Recycling, however, was still stuck with all the bottled beer. In a heroic act of generosity. Shiner decided to cut its losses and forfeit the tax refund on the bottled beer. It instructed Hahn to dispose of it however he could. Yes, I know. It is a beautiful thing. So Hahn could do anything with the beer, except sell it. He put out the word that he was giving away all the beer, absolutely free, as long as people brought back the empty bottles for recycling. The citizens of San Marcos were happy to cooperate, although some wondered if there was something wrong with the beer. Eventually beer can spoil so badly that it is unsafe to drink. But according to Hahn, the freebies were unfit for legal reasons only, and were tasty, even if they were slightly more alcoholic than when they were fresh from the vat. The deal went sour when Hahn refused to accept money from an undercover officer. Af ter failing to coax Hahn into breaking the law, the officer finally picked up two cases of Ja maican Dragon Stout and left $6 dollars in a conspicuous location. On the following day, a Saturday, the same TABC that wouldn’t send an agent to super vise the big beer pourout on a weekend sent five agents to arrest Hahn for selling alcohol without a license and possession of alcohol with intent to sell. When the undercover officer issued a statement to the San Antonio Express- News, he referred to Halpi as a “typical bootlegger.” According to Hahn, the agent also told the Express-News that he could understand why the beer was so cheap, since it tasted like “rot gut.” The agent then expressed an affinity for Miller Lite and Shiner Bock. It’s enough to make one wonder, how did the agent know the Dragon Stout tasted like “rot gut” if he hadn’t sampled some of the con fiscated beer? Perhaps he tried the exotic Ja maican brew previously, or maybe he just wanted to teach a lesson to a 25-year-old recy cling kid who dared to give away highfalutin’ premium beer. The matter will probably be decided by the courts. When news of his imprison ment traveled across the state, three lawyers offered to represent the Green Guy pro bono. Lawyer Nancy Hebert has taken up the case. The whole arrest seems suspicious. How many bootleggers get their contraband from willing licensed distributors? It is hard to be lieve that a recycling center could be a viable front for a bootlegging operation. Fortunately, many of the citizens of San Marcos are jumping to Hahn’s defense. He’s received words of encouragement from a chil dren’s librarian and an anonymous sick guy who promised to fight for Hahn if he ever gets out of the hospital. When asked if he would ever consider com ing to College Station to distribute some free beer, Hahn said that would depend on the out come of the court case, but it sounded like a good idea. If Hahn ever gets to Aggieland, he can count on me not leaving him a dime. Fight the power, Kyle. Jeremy Valdez is a Class of ’96 chemical engineering major JEREMY VALDEZ Columnist Rape victim may be telling the truth Michael Heinroth should ac quaint himself with laws against libel, and while he’s at it Maybe a little review concerning the difference between fact and supposition. As I read his col- Mnn in Wednesday’s Batt, I kept waiting for the part where Mail Call accusations against Father Melancon were proven false, or where the accuser, Kevin Porter, admitted making false accusa tions. It wasn’t there. Heinroth also states that “money seems to be the source of Kevin’s inconsistencies” — but he does not clearly explain how he concludes this. Hein roth discredits Porter because he “showed no emotion at all on the stand.” I have a master’s degree in counseling, and I am a survivor of sexual abuse at the hands of Catholic priests. Porter’s lack of emotion does not seem remark able at all, especially after the long ordeal of both a civil and a criminal trial. The discrepancies Heinroth is so concerned about may have many alternative ex planations besides “Porter’s a liar.” I’m upset with Heinroth’s column and not with Melancon’s appeal. There do seem to be dis crepancies and they may be suf ficient to free Melancon. I just don’t understand where Hein roth sees fit to appoint himself judge and jury of Kevin Porter. Daniel Bontempo Research Assistant Politics blinds Court justices | } epubli- cans JL wmust be nervous about their chances in November. Or maybe they just want a complete con gressional takeover. But whatever the real reason for it, the Supreme Court’s recent deci sion in a Republican-sponsored lawsuit smacks of election-year political scheming. The ruling in question calls for the abolition of three mostly minority congressional dis tricts, two in Houston and one in the Dallas area. According to the six GOP plaintiffs in the case, drawing congressional-district bound aries by race is unconstitution al. They want the new districts to be based strictly upon county lines, and they want them to be in place and ready to go for the November elections. The Supreme Court agreed and ordered the districts to be redrawn, leaving race out of the picture. But if this hap pens, there will undoubtedly be a large increase in the number of Republican representatives in Congress — leaving the mo tives of the plaintiffs very questionable. The districts cannot be re drawn unless Gov. George W. Bush calls a special session of the state Legislature. If this oc curs, as Texas Attorney Gener al Dan Morales thinks it proba bly will, one of three things will occur. New primaries could be con ducted to pick nominees from the new districts, which would cost S3 million for Harris and Dallas Counties alone. Special elections could be held in No vember, leaving the seat open to candidates of either party. Or the parties could privately pick their nominees before the November election. None of the options seem like good ideas — and none would be necessary if the Supreme Court hadn’t sided with the politically motivated plaintiffs. What the Supreme Court failed to recognize is that the districts had already been prop erly drawn in lieu of the 1990 census figures. Before the cen sus and the subsequent redis tricting, Texas had 27 represen tatives in the House. Of these, four were Hispanic and one was African-American. The census recorded Texas’ population as 16,986,510, giv ing Texas three new congres sional seats. The population was 22.5 percent Hispanic and 11.6 percent black. In addition, growth in minority population was responsible for the majori ty of the increase. So, many districts were re drawn to create largely minori ty congressional districts — of ten in weird shapes based on neighborhoods and streets rather than counties or larger political units. Before this was done, the districts didn’t look quite so bizarre, but they often left mi nority voters out of the political process. In Harris County, a Hispanic community had been divided among several mostly white districts. Similarly, in South Dallas a black communi ty had been divided between two mostly white districts. The 1990 redistricting eliminated this by grouping minority neighborhoods together in the same district. If the districts are redrawn to comply with the Supreme Court decision, they will be similar to the pre-1990 districts — and minority voters will be outnumbered in the new dis tricts by white voters. Why does this matter? As a rule, minorities in the city tend to vote Democratic, and white voters tend to vote Re publican. Creating districts that split minority neighbor hoods can only increase Repub lican holdings and hurt minor ity representation. And the issue is even more political than racial. Gene Green, a white Democrat, was elected to represent the largely Hispanic 29th district. The Supreme Court, by placing so much emphasis on the racial el ement of the gerrymandered districts, seems to have neglect ed the political side entirely. The plaintiffs in the case have said that congressional districts ought to be made to strictly follow county lines to improve the relationship be tween county governments and the national government. But representatives have the job of representing their communi ties. Congressional districts cannot be drawn along political boundaries (such as counties) because political boundaries mean nothing. People live in small, often-homogeneous clumps, independent of city and county lines. In this case, it seems that Republicans have succeeded in getting racial gerrymandering declared unconstitutional for purely political aims, despite the fact that the Supreme Court has permitted these dis tricts in past decisions. These districts are not un constitutional; they merely work to make Congress more racially balanced. An abolition of racial gerrymandering will only serve to increase Republi can representatives in Con gress. Surely the plaintiffs who brought the suit to Congress realized this. And the Supreme Court should’ve realized it as well. Shannon Halbrook is a Class of ’98 English major SHANNON HALBROOK Columnist i j i f c • I : i 1 i t 1 \ \