MR. HOLMES, PLEASE EXPLAIN...

Harris County District Attorney Johnny Holmes and I have corresponded over
the past month regarding the district attorney's office's handling of the
cases of four Mexican nationals -- Jamie Santiago, Pedro Oregon Navarro,
Uvaldo Garcia Armendariz and Eulogio Perez Delgado -- killed by the Houston
Police Department.

Holmes has responded to my inquiries, but I continue to believe that there
are serious questions about the DA's office's treatment of each of these
cases. The community as a whole should make up its mind about these issues,
thus, I am writing this oped piece.

Let me be clear -- I am not prejudging the outcome of any of these cases. I
am simply asking for fair and full investigations of them. That way, the
families affected and the community can have faith in the outcome.
Respectfully, I do not believe that Holmes and his office have assured the
families and the community of such fair and full investigations.

Take, for instance, the case of Jaime Santiago. Shortly after midnight on
March 5, Santiago was shot dead by Houston police officer M.S. Reutzel.
Officer Reutzel claims that Santiago was reaching for a toy gun. However,
this account is disputed by Aurelio Hernandez, a witness who was standing
next to Santiago when the shooting occurred.

Hernandez said that Santiago made no move for a toy gun. Yet, the district
attorney's office failed to present Hernandez as a witness before the grand
jury that investigated the case. Other witnesses also were not called. The
grand jury eventually "no billed" Officer Reutzel.

I am deeply disturbed by this failure to make sure the grand jury heard
from Hernandez. In Holmes' letter to me, he wrote that the grand jury "is
not under the control of the prosecutor," writing further that the grand
jury is to blame for the decision not to hear from Hernandez.

Such an abdication of responsibility would come as a shock to any veteran
prosecutor. It is widely recognized that prosecutors have great influence
over grand juries. As the University of Houston Law Review has stated,
"grand juries are controlled entirely by the prosecutor." For Holmes to
blame the grand jury is not worthy of his reputation for candor.

I also respectfully disagree with Holmes' claim that Hernandez is not a
credible witness. The district attorney points to purported inconsistencies
in what Hernandez says now and what he said to the police when they
questioned him in the middle of the night, after the shooting. Such an
attack on Hernandez is that of a defense lawyer for Officer Reutzel, rather
than as an impartial advocate for justice.

Have Holmes and his office considered that Hernandez may have been afraid
to speak candidly to the fellow officers of the man who had just shot down
Santiago before his eyes? Or that Hernandez's comprehension may have been
impaired because he was in shock at seeing the killing, because he was
sleep-deprived and because his language skills are poor? Are the DA and his
staff aware that Hernandez was not afforded an opportunity to consult an
attorney or a consular official who could have addressed these concerns?
The grand jury should have had the opportunity to hear Hernandez and decide
these questions for itself.

My concern is deepened because this pattern is all too familiar. The
Hernandez case was the fourth time that a Mexican national has died at the
hands of the Houston police and the fourth time that questions have arisen
about DA's office investigation.

In the case of Pedro Oregon Navarro, six HPD officers entered Oregon's home
without a warrant and fired 33 rounds into his bedroom, killing him. The
DA's office secured an indictment of only one officer for the misdemeanor
offense of trespass.

In Holmes' correspondence with me, the DA again blamed the grand jury,
stating that it decided to charge but one man, and he [Holmes] was helpless
to do more. Holmes omits an important fact: After the grand jury issued its
charges, the Houston Police Department took the extraordinary step of
finding that all six officers had engaged in criminal conduct. The DA's
office subsequently was asked to convene a new grand jury -- a step it has
taken in other cases -- but in this case, it refused.

I also must take exception to the DA's claim that "the maximum offense that
the officers could have been charged with was a misdemeanor." The Police
Department determined that all six officers had lied. The DA could have
convened a new grand jury to seek aggravated perjury charges -- a felony --
but chose not to do so. Instead, the DA's office chose to pursue perjury
charges against Oregon's brother, Rogelio, himself a victim of the entry by
the six officers.

Many in the community perceive the DA's prosecution of Pedro's brother as
an attempt to interfere with the federal prosecution of the officers, which
is currently on appeal. I believe that, at the end of the day, the courts
will conclude that the Pedro Oregon case stands on its own merits with or
without the testimony of Rogelio Oregon.

Then there is Uvaldo Garcia Armendariz, a Mexican national who was shot to
death when he allegedly threatened a police officer with a folding chair.
On Aug. 7, District Attorney Holmes admitted to the Houston Chronicle that
he had questions about whether the officer used excessive force. In a
deposition, the officer had admitted that the angle of the gunshot wound is
inconsistent with his story and that he couldn't explain the inconsistency.
Holmes subsequently told the Chronicle that he was retracting his statement
because he had not sat through the testimony. Yet, Holmes discusses the
case in detail in his correspondence with me. I request that Holmes
personally review the troubling evidence in this case and consider whether
a new grand jury is appropriate.

Finally, there is the case of Eulogio Perez Delgado. Unanswered questions
remain regarding Perez's allegedly shooting at an officer. Perez was killed
when the officer returned fire. Holmes has vigorously argued that the grand
jury -- guided by his office -- came to the right conclusion in no-billing
the officer. The DA does not mention that Perez's hands were tested for the
residue -- which one would expect if he had fired his weapon. But the test
was unable to detect any residue. This evidence raises doubts that cannot
be lightly put aside, particularly when the community has questions about
so many other cases Holmes' office has handled.

I believe the best way to resolve the unanswered questions in all four of
these cases is by allowing an outside, independent authority to review the
situation. In fact, the U.S. Department of Justice has opened an
investigation into the Santiago case.

Like the larger community, I eagerly await the Justice Department's judgment.

Figueroa is consul general of Mexico in Houston.