Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 10

1

State Bar of Texas


1414 Colorado St.
Austin, TX 78701

We wish to file this formal complaint to the Texas Bar Association against Orange County
Prosecutor John D. Kimbrough, and ask that the Association take immediate and severe
disciplinary action and call for an investigatory hearing and/or trials. A similar complaint is
being filed with the State Commission on Judicial Conduct against Judge Patrick Clark (128th
District Court, Orange, Texas) The actions of both prosecutor and judge suggest a strong
implication of a conspiracy to this date between the two and possibly others who were involved
with the 1998 murder trial of Daniel Paul Meehan. Both men strove to hide evidence of another
possible and probable suspect with obvious motives.

In the Petition of Habeas Corpus filed in the 128th District Court, Orange County, on or about
July 21, 2008 in the case of Daniel Paul Meehan No. A-970268BR, evidence was presented that
Prosecutor John D. Kimbrough engaged in conduct using his office for personal gain involving
dishonesty, fraud, bribery, deceit or misrepresentation, and engaged in conduct constituting
obstruction of justice. Lack of attention to and disposition of Daniel Meehan’s Petition of Habeas
Corpus by both Judge Clark and Prosecutor Kimbrough suggest a cover-up.

Kimbrough, with the help of Investigator Mark Ellis, has tampered with evidence, withheld
evidence, fabricated testimony and instructed his star and bribed witness, jailhouse informer
Gary Wayne Harris, what to say in testimony against Daniel Meehan. Kimbrough then rewarded
Gary Wayne Harris his freedom from facing a third felony conviction, in exchange for lying for
the state in the case of Daniel Paul Meehan.

Kimbrough’s motive for these actions as he told Harris was “that he needed a conviction bad.”
Kimbrough elaborated, according to Harris, “He was new in his career as district attorney and
this would make him look good in everyone’s eyes…This was his first murder case and he
wanted a conviction.” He told Harris, “Well, we’re in a position where we can do something for
you if you do something for us.”

This important new evidence was presented in Daniel Meehan’s July 21, 2008 Petition and
enhanced and embraced evidence presented in a former denied Appeal, as were the contents of
Donald Meehan’s 55 page Affidavit with 72 Exhibits filed with Daniel Meehan’s
aforementioned Petition. Kimbrough chose to ignore the Petition, which also contained the
recant of Harris’ testimony as well as his Affidavit to that effect.

Donald Meehan’s entire Affidavit with 72 Exhibits is in the Daniel Meehan file and can also be
viewed online at www.scribd.com/don%20meehan along with the entire recant of Gary Wayne
Harris and the subsequent Order of Judge Patrick Clark (EXHIBIT 1) dismissing Meehan’s
Petition, and ignoring the evidence of Harris’ recant.

On July 19, 2008 the family of Daniel Meehan sent an open letter to Prosecutor John Kimbrough
outlining the faults in the Meehan case and asking him “to undo what has unjustly been done.”
2

The letter states, “And frankly, since there is a question of just how much Judge Clark knew or
didn’t know about Mark Pieruccini’s misconduct at that time, and wife, Selma Pieruccini’s
Restraining Orders on her husband and her Divorce proceedings, perhaps you should persuade
Judge Clark that he may be in a conflict of interest should he continue to hear Daniel Meehan’s
case.”

Unfortunately, Kimbrough ignored the letter as he did the Petition. Lack of attention to and
disposition of Daniel Meehan’s Petition of Habeas Corpus by both Judge Clark and Prosecutor
Kimbrough suggest a cover-up. It is apparent that both men strove to hide evidence of another
possible and probable suspect with obvious motives.

This dual misconduct merits an intense investigation into this case and also into past
prosecutions and convictions by this pair of prosecutor and judge, which may have been
conducted in the same conspiratorial manner. There is also need to investigate cases where Gary
Wayne Harris claims he was used in the same manner.

A fair examination of the contents of the aforementioned Petition, including the Affidavit of
Donald Meehan and the 72 Exhibits of 154 pages, and the Affidavit of Gary Wayne Harris
should have brought an evidentiary hearing with no more evidence being suppressed, and shed
needed light on who may be the real suspect, the husband of the victim, one Mark Pieruccini,
and/or an accomplice.

At the very beginning of the trial on page two and three of the trial proceedings, John Kimbrough
moved to suppress any evidence of the motives and actions of the husband of the victim, Mark
Pieruccini, and Judge Clark allowed this motion. (EXHIBIT 2AB with Donald Meehan’s June
25, 2008 Affidavit) It is inconceivable how and why Judge Clark would utter, “Who is this
person?” in reference to Mark Pieruccini. Reasons for questioning this response is explained
below. It is inconceivable that Judge Clark would sit there and innocently ask, “Who is this
person?” when he knew him so well from proceedings in his own court during previous months.

This first and immediate act of the Judge and Prosecution, in concert, certainly gives reason to
suspect a perfect setup for eliminating any suspect other than Daniel Meehan, and places total
doubt and suspicion on the integrity and lack of justice served in the trial of Daniel Meehan.

This immediate motion by Kimbrough confirms that both judge and prosecutor knew very well
of Mark Pieruccini’s actions, and that if the jury heard about them there would be more than
reasonable doubt cast upon Meehan’s guilt.

Judge Clark should have recused himself at the beginning of Meehan’s trial in 1998, since he
was definitely in a conflict of interest continuing hearing the case with his knowledge and court
actions in the matters of Selma Pieruccini, the victim, and Mark Pierucini, her husband. These
matters included marital, divorce, custody, the husband’s kidnapping, his Protective Orders,
alimony, and child support at the time of the killing, which was clearly outlined in Donald
Meehan’s Affidavit with Exhibits.
3

But all of this evidence was suppressed at Daniel Meehan’s trial, and Judge Clark led all to
believe he knew not of who Mark Pieruccini was. However, close examination of both of their
actions to this day in regard to Meehan’s case suggest a strong conspiracy to enhance John D.
Kimbrough’s career at Meehan’s expense.

Clark and Kimbrough both apparently knew that if he called for an evidentiary hearing at the
time of Meehan’s July, 2008 Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus, the actions of all involved
would come before the public and the press to be explained. And so, in an attempt to avoid
embarrassment, both chose to bury it and ignore it, and in effect, hide it.

Judge Clark wrote by hand into his August 5, 2008 Order (EXHIBIT 1): “My examination of
my notes reflect that the jury had sufficient evidence to reach a verdict, even without the
testimony of Harris.” This callous handwritten statement by Clark speaks as though there is not
one word in the Petition regarding Gary Harris’ recanting of his lying testimony, and evidence of
misconduct by the Prosecutor and his investigator. Therefore, the public is supposed to accept
that handwritten note by Clark as final, and that this man’s sentence of 99 years is just alright
and justified just because Clark’s “notes” say that the jury had “sufficient evidence to reach a
verdict” make it so. Therefore, it is alright in Judge Clark’s mind that the jury did not have all the
evidence, including Kimbrough’s lies, or that an evidentiary hearing might, indeed, bring forth
the truth. And so, Clark does not even address, acknowledge or allow Harris’ sworn statement
about the “deal” made with Kimbrough and Mark Ellis to lie for them on the stand, and to be told
by them what to say. He simply denies Daniel Meehan’s Petition.

We submit that this act by Judge Clark to totally ignore the sworn statements and Affidavit of
Gary Wayne Harris was a gross error that adds to the charge of a conspiracy and cover-up.
Harris’ entire sworn recant is with Donald Meehan’s Affidavit in Daniel Paul Meehan No. A-
970268BR file, and that, as well as the trial transcript, can also be viewed online at
www.scribd.com/don%20meehan.

Gary Wayne Harris has confirmed the statements and/or affidavits from six (6) other witnesses
(Witness list is attached hereto) that he lied on the witness stand, and now he has admitted that
he was told what to say and how to say it in several meetings with Investigator Mark Ellis and
John Kimbrough.

There is also an Affidavit from Mr. Harris in his own words with Daniel Meehan’s dismissed
filing of a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus signed in July, 2008, containing important details
of how Kimbrough and Detective Mark Ellis made their deal with Harris.

Not known or presented to the jury was the evidence that the wife victim had applied for and
received a severe protective Order in August, 1996 against her husband. The Order had been
processed by Assistant DA Gary Bonneaux, assistant prosecutor in Meehan’s trial, served by
Texas Ranger, L.C Wilson, who was a Prosecution witness and signed by Judge Clark.
(EXHIBITS 30ABCD and EXHIBITS 31ABC with Donald Meehan’s June 25, 2008 Affidavit)
Each of these three failed to inform the jury of husband Mark Pieruccini’s violent behavior
toward his wife. When the Order was mysteriously dismissed or withdrawn right after the
August date, the husband immediately kidnapped the children and took them to Pennsylvania
4

without the wife’s permission. Court papers filed as Exhibits with the aforementioned Petition
indicate that Clark was aware that the husband had kidnapped the couple’s children and had
taken them to Pennsylvania. (EXHIBIT 34ABCDE with Donald Meehan’s June 25, 2008
Affidavit) There is no evidence to indicate that any of the parties in Orange County, who knew
of this kidnapping, followed the rule of the National Child Search Assistance Act, 42 USC
5779-80 of 1990, requiring each federal, state, and local law-enforcement agency to enter
information about missing children younger than the age of 18 into the Federal Bureau of
Investigation's (FBI) National Crime Information Center (NCIC) database.

Also withheld from the jury at the time leading up to and at the time of the killing, Clark was
even in the middle of hearing a stormy divorce case of Selma and Mark Pieruccini and his signed
Orders in that case indicates that he would have been totally aware of the couple’s Custody case
in Cumberland County, PA. This is a public file and it is readily available. Clark and Kimbrough,
certainly having knowledge of that file, had business to inform the jury of its contents.

Judge Clark had personal knowledge of the victim in the shooting and her jealous and violent
husband, regarding Restraining Orders he had signed, and ongoing divorce hearings. Events and
EXHIBITS of the Orange County Divorce case and the Pennsylvania Custody case are all in and
with the Affidavit of Donald Meehan, which Clark had in his hands at the time of Daniel
Meehan’s July 19, 2008 Petition.

Kimbrough also must have known that Clark had issued another restraining Order on the
husband, and for sworn inventory and appraisement, (EXHIBIT 35ABCDE with Donald
Meehan’s June 25, 2008 Affidavit) and ten days before her death (May 5, 1997) issued
‘TEMPORARY ORDERS” with another severe Temporary Injunction of two pages restraining
the violent husband, and ordering a temporary weekly spousal support of $115.38, until a final
decree would be signed (EXHIBIT 40ABCB with Donald Meehan’s June 25, 2008 Affidavit).
And so, the divorce was proceeding in Clark’s court at the time of her death.

We submit a brief background here from Donald Meehan’s 2008 Affidavit of events involving
Judge Clark in the lives of Mark and Selma Pieruccini.

Selma Pieruccini had filed an application for a Protective Order on husband Mark
Pieruccini in Orange County, Texas and a TEMPORARY EX PARTE PROTECTIVE
ORDER AND SHOW CAUSE ORDER (EXHIBIT 30A-B-C-D) was issued on August
12, 1996 signed by Judge Pat Clark. This Order and the Divorce proceedings begun by
Selma Pieruccini later in 1997, were all held in the court of Judge Pat Clark, the same
judge who presided in Meehan’s case. Judge Pat Clark found that there “is a clear and
present danger of family violence unless Mark Pieruccini is ordered to do or refrain from
certain acts,” which amounted to 2 (two) pages. A hearing was set for August 26, 1996
in Judge Pat Clark’s Orange, Texas court, and Mark Pieruccini was ordered to appear A
harsh WARNING (EXHIBIT 30D) regarding contempt of court and fines and jail time
for violation of the order, was issued with these papers. These documents, which had
been filed in Orange County, Texas, were obtained from the Cumberland County, PA.
Custody Case file started by Mark Pieruccini a few days after kidnapping the children
5

from Orange, Texas in September, 1996. Selma Pieruccini’s Texas complaint papers and
APPLICATION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER from Judge Pat Clark’s court had also
been filed in the Cumberland County, PA. Custody case and were retrieved from that file.
(EXHIBIT 31A-B-C-D) from that file claimed that “Respondent (husband, Mark) has
engaged in conduct that constitutes family-violence as follows: Respondent pushed
Applicant into a dryer and threw Applicant onto the dryer. Respondent also grabbed
Applicant by the neck and threw her to the floor. Applicant has bruises and soreness as a
result of Respondent’s actions. Respondent stated to Applicant that he intends to remove
the children from the state and never return them. Along with the application in the Order
of Protection, Mark Pieruccini was ordered by Orange County, Texas Judge Clark,
among a long list of other things, not to take the four children away from the jurisdiction
of Orange County. Mark then charmed and sweet talked Selma into dropping the charges
and Order of Protection and on August 29, 1996, Asst. DA Gary Bonneaux filed a motion
to dismiss the Protective Order (EXHIBIT 32) stating, “Applicant no longer wishes to
pursue protective order.” On the same document, EXHIBIT 32, there is an Order dated
September 3, 1996 signed by Judge Pat Clark dismissing the cause and lifting the
Protective Order. Two love notes written in Orange, Texas, and submitted in evidence by
Sela Pieruccini, were found in the Cumberland County, Pennsylvania Custody file
(EXHIBITS 33A-B), whereas the husband wrote apologies and said, “We are going on a
trip – be back in a few days.” - The following day, September 4, 1997, set free from the
Order, Mark fled the jurisdiction and left for Pennsylvania with the children the very next
day on Sept. 4,- and arrived in Shippensburg, Pennsylvania on Sept. 6, 1996. He
immediately filed for Custody in Cumberland County Court and listed all of his
accusations about Selma and apparent lies and reasons why the children should be with
him and not with her. A conciliation meeting was ordered and scheduled on Dec. 11,
1996 in Pennsylvania and Selma could not attend, but was represented by her legal
services attorney. On December 4, 1996 Selma Pieruccini filed a “ PETITION
REQUESTING THAT THIS COURT DECLINE JURISDICTION” in the Court of
Common Pleas of Cumberland County, PA (EXHIBIT 34 A-B-C-D-E-F) wherein she
claimed, “i --The father wrongfully took the children from their home in Texas and
brought them to Pennsylvania without the consent of the mother and over her objections.
ii—The father intended to benefit his position in custody by convincing the mother to
withdraw the Protection from Abuse action she had filed against him in Texas and by
removing the children from the custody of their mother when the Texas court vacated the
Temporary Protection Order which gave the mother custody. Furthermore, after the
father fled to Pennsylvania, he deprived the mother of housing by having her utilities
disconnected, blocking her access to insurance cards which she needed to register her car,
and threatening her safety at the marital residence. Additionally, the father harassed the
mother at her place of employment causing her to lose her job.” After conferences broke
down, Judge Hess, on February 13, 1997, issued an Order for a hearing on April 23, 1997
in Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. Selma filed for Divorce in Orange County, Texas
on April 16, `1997, one month before the killing, and the new TEMPORARY
RESTRAINING ORDER AND ORDER SETTING HEARING FOR TEMPORARY
ORDERS SIGNED BY Judge Pat Clark set a hearing date for April 28, 1997 and re-
issued the same heavy restraining order on husband Mark with the original 2 (two) pages
of restrictions (EXHIBIT 35A-B-C-D-E). So, before any Order had come down from the
6

Pennsylvania court regarding custody, Judge Pat Clark included in his Order of April 16,
1997 above, on EXHIBIT 35C, “Petitioner (Selma) should be appointed temporary
managing conservator,” until the April 28, hearing, whereas Judge Clark would decide
permanent managing conservator or custody in Texas. With this Order, Selma now
actually had custody in Texas from April 16, 1997 to approximately May 10, 1997 when
the May 5 (Texas) Order was served on Mark. Receiving this May 5 Order from Judge
Pat Clark obviously infuriated Mark Pieruccini and (may have) stirred thoughts of having
his wife eliminated. Selma obviously believed and told friends she had a strong case for
custody, and awaited the May 15, 1997 (Pennsylvania) Order anxiously with high hopes,
but Mark had strong arguments in Pennsylvania and had already set at least one child
against her mother with a letter from a social worker that the daughter did not want to
live with her mother at this time (EXHIBIT 36).

Kimbrough must have been well aware of the Pennsylvania custody proceedings brought by the
husband, which finally gave the couple joint custody, and ordered that the children would be in
the wife’s custody for the summers. Mark Pieruccini, having received these severe Orders from
both courts was probably afraid of coming to Orange and bringing the children for the Summer,
and where he had defaulted in Clark’s Court where there was a Restraining Order on him, and
obviously feared that once the children were back in Orange, that he might lose custody in
Clark’s court, gave him plenty of motive to eliminate his wife.

In a letter dated May 30, 2008 to Pieruccini’s Probate Attorney, with copies to other certain
individuals including Orange County officials, newspaper, KPRC TV (EXHIBIT 66AB with
Donald Meehan’s June 25, 2008 Affidavit), Donald Meehan made them aware that the Will of
Selma Pieruccini (EXHIBIT 67ABCD with Donald Meehan’s June 25, 2008 Affidavit) filed in
Orange County Probate Court by the husband was forged (EXHIBIT 68 with Donald Meehan’s
June 25, 2008 Affidavit) The husband also cashed in on a life insurance policy of $100,000
according to Daniel Meehan, who saw the policy in his home before it was removed by police.

Kimbrough also must have known that Clark had issued another restraining Order on the
husband, and for sworn inventory and appraisement, (EXHIBIT 35ABCDE with Donald
Meehan’s June 25, 2008 Affidavit) and ten days before her death (May 5, 1997) issued
‘TEMPORARY ORDERS” with a severe Temporary Injunction of two pages restraining the
husband, and ordering a temporary weekly spousal support of $115.38, until a final decree would
be signed (EXHIBIT 40ABCB with Donald Meehan’s June 25, 2008 Affidavit). And so, the
divorce was proceeding in Clark’s court at the time of her death.

Kimbrough must have been well aware of the Pennsylvania custody proceedings brought by the
husband, which gave the couple joint custody, and ordered that the children would be in the
wife’s custody for the summers. Mark Pieruccini, having received these severe Orders from both
courts and fear of coming to Orange and bringing the children for the Summer, and where he had
defaulted in Clark’s Court where there was a Restraining Order on him, and obviously feared
that once the children were back in Orange, that he might lose custody in Clark’s court, gave him
plenty of motive to eliminate his wife.
7

It is inconceivable that Kimbrough knew nothing of the couple’s marital and custodial conflicts.
Events and EXHIBITS of the Orange County Divorce case, the Pennsylvania Custody case are
all in and with the Affidavit of Donald Meehan, which Kimbrough had in his possession at the
time of Daniel Meehan’s July 19 Petition. We stress that Kimbrough must have known that Clark
was and still remains in a severe conflict of interest in these matters, since it was withheld from
the jury about his heavy involvement in Selma and Mark Pieruccini’s lives.

Two important Affidavits were filed with the aforementioned Petition, containing EXHIBITS
affirming the recanted testimony of the paid jailhouse informer, Gary Wayne Harris, and other
documents, and evidence showing that the husband of the victim in the case, Mark Pieruccini,
had motive to kill or have his wife killed and to frame Daniel Meehan. Knowing of Meehan’s
alcoholic blackout tendencies, Pieruccini or a hired hit man could have performed the murder
right under Meehan’s nose, while Meehan was in a deep alcoholic blackout.

Since all of this evidence regarding Pieruccini was suppressed at Meehan’s trial, Kimbrough had
business to urge Judge Clark to call for an evidentiary hearing in the matter to hear the testimony
of three (3) new witnesses, plus Harris’ recanting of his 1998 testimony, and Harris’ charges that
Kimbrough and his investigator, Mark Ellis, coached him and told him what to say to convict
Meehan.

It is clear from his actions that John Kimbrough can no longer be expected to try murder cases
with the requisite fair, bias-free and even-handed disposition so critical to such serious matters
concerning guilt or innocence. Justice was not served in the Meehan case and Kimbrough has
ignored and attempted to bury the evidence. He is unfit to be a prosecutor and should be removed
from office.

We stress that most importantly, the actions of judge and prosecutor in this matter regarding
Kimbrough’s jailhouse informer, Gary Wayne Harris recanting and telling of Kimbrough’s and
Ellis’ illegal and criminal activities regarding their tampering with witness, Harris, constitutes a
flagrant violation of human rights.

To further emphasize the conspiratorial nature of the trial, I submit that records show that
Prosecution witness, Ranger L.C. Wilson, served the aforementioned Clark signed Restraining
Order on Mark Pieruccini in August, 1996, and when Attorney Rogers tried to get that into the
trial record, Mr. Kimbrough objected and Judge Clark sustained it Volume 2, page 250 of the
trial record. Just one more attempt to suppress any evidence of another suspect.

All documents spoken of here, continuing divorce hearings, alimony, temporary orders, are all
signed by Judge Pat Clark, but the record does not indicate that Ms. Rogers was able to make
that fact known for the jury, the record and the public. Judge Clark states in the record that he
“probably would rule that they wouldn’t have been admissible.” And I refer here to Daniel
Meehan’s Punishment phase of his trial on February 5, 1998, page 40, 41, 42, 43, 44 (EXHIBIT
3A,B,C,D,E with Donald Meehan’s June 25, 2008 Affidavit). Outside of the presence of the
jury, Attorney Rogers states: “Your Honor, I requested to get into some information about the
marriage and pending divorce of Selma and Mark Pieruccini, as well as the evidence that she
(Selma) was well aware of how to remedy a situation if there was family violence or if there was
8

a problem. And I have subpoenaed the records of the Orange County Sheriff’s office, which
shows calls made by her husband Mark, as well as her. I have a certified copy of the protective
order filed against Mark Pieruccini and the original petition for divorce and temporary orders
that were in that divorce case, and I ask that they be added. Had I been allowed to talk about that
evidence, this is what I would have presented.” And this is where he said he “probably would
rule that they wouldn’t have been admissible.” He also states: “The evidence that the Court
remembers that you had asked to go into was a protective order.” Yes, a protective order signed
by him. It was also withheld from the jury, and must have been known by Kimbrough that
according to Gary Harris’ sworn account, Ms. Rogers had represented Prosecution witness, Gary
Harris in months prior on a criminal case; another conflict of interest not disclosed. After all,
how could she honestly and ethically cross-examine her own former client?
Because career criminal and jailhouse snitch, Gary Wayne Harris came forward and admitted
that he gave perjured statements to detectives and perjured court testimony against Daniel
Meehan, Orange County District Attorney John Kimbrough, his assistant, Gary Bonneaux and
anyone else who may have played a part in obtaining the guilty verdict against Daniel Meehan,
stopped short in their investigation and obtained a wrong verdict in the case.

There is now a desperate need for new investigations to be conducted to reopen the case of the
death of Selma Pieruccini. There evidence to indicate that the victim’s husband, Mark Pieruccini,
angry at the outcomes and orders of two courts had a clear and decisive motive to kill his wife,
Selma Pieruccini, or have her killed with Daniel Meehan’s gun and to frame Meehan while he
was in an alcoholic blackout, and near death with a blood alcohol level of at least between .250
and .290 after 18 to 20 beers.

There is also need to investigate the cases of those whom Gary Wayne Harris has admitted that
he planted drugs for Detective Lynn Arceneaux and Sheriff Jefferson to falsely set up and arrest
and try, which Harris swore that this was part of his “deal” with Kimbrough..

An Affidavit dated October 24, 2000, sworn to by juror Robert Williams in the Daniel Meehan
case, was discovered in Daniel Meehan’s file (EXHIBIT 55 with Donald Meehan’s June 25,
2008 Affidavit), whereas Mr. Williams states: “Under the instructions given to us by Judge Pat
Clark we sentenced Mr. Meehan to 99 years in prison. However, had a lesser sentence been
available, I would have considered it because I felt that 99 years may have been too harsh a
sentence in this particular case.” It is now obvious that the jurors may not have seen the
“Charge” document or saw a different document than what was filed with the clerk. A 99 year
verdict was filed and recorded one hour and forty minutes later at 3:40 P.M. Here lie more
discrepancies.

And so, according to at least this one juror, the members of the jury may never have seen the
“Charge” document that gave the jury an option to sentence Meehan to not less than five years.
However, with juror Robert Williams’ aforementioned Affidavit, the question is raised whether
the jury even saw this document, and/or for whatever reason that they understood the only
verdict possible was 99 years. This action or inaction adds to the conspiratorial nature of this
case. And all the other jurors should be questioned about this option.
9

Volume 4 Page 151 of the trial record (EXHIBIT 57AB with Donald Meehan’s June 25, 2008
Affidavit) has the instruction by Judge Clark that the first thing to do in the jury room is to elect
a foreman, who will read the charge aloud. And now, considering all other acts of a
conspiratorial nature that have been brought to light, that according to at least one juror, the
members of the jury never saw the “Charge” document that gave the jury an option to sentence
Meehan to not less than five years. However, the juror, Robert Williams, swears under oath that
there was no other choice than a 99 year sentence, and just because the Judge Clark "Charge"
document is in the Clerk’s file doesn’t mean that the jurors actually saw it. However, with juror
Robert Williams’ aforementioned Affidavit, the question is raised whether the jury saw this
document, and/or for whatever reason that they understood the only verdict possible was 99
years. This action or inaction adds to the conspiratorial nature of this case. And all the other
jurors should be questioned about this.

CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS IMPLICATED


Texas Constitution, Article I Section 13:
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel or
unusual punishment inflicted. All courts shall be open, and every person for an
injury done him, in his lands, goods, person or reputation, shall have remedy by
due course of law.
U.S. Constitution, Amendment XIV, Section 1:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the
jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they
reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges
or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any
person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any
person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

We submit that Prosecutor John D Kimbrough has knowingly and willingly violated the Texas
Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct, specifically numbers 1, 2, 3, 4 and 6.

TEXAS DISCIPLINARY RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT


Rule 8.04 Misconduct
(a) A lawyer shall not:
(1) violate these rules, knowingly assist or induce another to do so, or do so through the
acts of another, whether or not such violation occurred in the course of a client-lawyer
relationship;
(2) commit a serious crime or commit any other criminal act that reflects adversely on
the lawyers honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other respects;
(3) engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation;
(4) engage in conduct constituting obstruction of justice;
(5) state or imply an ability to influence improperly a government agency or official;
(6) knowingly assist a judge or judicial officer in conduct that is a violation of applicable
rules of judicial conduct or other law;
(9) engage in conduct that constitutes barratry as defined by the law of this state;
(12) violate any other laws of this state relating to the professional conduct of lawyers
and to the practice of law.
10

(b) As used in subsection (a)(2) of this Rule, serious crime means barratry; any felony involving
moral turpitude; any misdemeanor involving theft, embezzlement, or fraudulent or reckless
misappropriation of money or other property; or any attempt, conspiracy, or solicitation of
another to commit any of the foregoing crimes

Lawyers holding public office assume legal responsibilities going beyond those of other citizens.
A lawyer's abuse of public office can suggest an inability to fulfill the professional role of
attorney.

Lastly, we wish to add that on information and belief, Gary Wayne Harris is now in Gist Jail for
two years on a Beaumont matter, and now also faces a third felony charge for forgery in
Chambers County and a felony charge in Orange County for auto theft. He has already escaped
the third felony conviction twice, which in Texas can bring life imprisonment. It is now believed
that once his two year SOL is up on his 2008 Affidavit (another year) that John Kimbrough will
approach him, if he hasn’t already, with another “deal” to retract his retraction and receive
another get out of jail ticket, thus having Gary Harris walk free once more at the expense of
Daniel Meehan.

We ask that the Texas State Bar Association determine the underlying facts and, if they are
similar to the facts described above, and in an investigation and news account of KPRC Houston
Television report on Sept, 4, 2008, we ask that you take appropriate disciplinary action. Removal
of Prosecutor John D. Kimbrough seems appropriate.

Thank you for your attention to this matter. We look forward to hearing back from you.

Sincerely,

__________________________ _________ ______________________ ________


Daniel Paul Meehan Date Donald E. Meehan Date

And the undersigned


(list of signers will be attached)