Page 26 - TPA Journal January February 2024

Joe C. Tooley, Legal Digest Editor
Joe C. Tooley, Attorneys & Counselors, Rockwall, Texas
www.TooleyLaw.com 972-722-1058

TEXAS POLICE ASSOCIATION

LEGAL DIGEST

January - February 2024

AUTHOR’S NOTE: It is the goal of this submission to extract those portions of relevant appellate
opinions or the syllabus of the legal reporter which bear directly upon law enforcement methods
and provide guidance for officers on an operational level. Much of the information pertaining to
these cases is lifted verbatim from the court opinion or syllabus with independent analysis inserted
as appropriate. Due to clarity for training purposes, the distinction between quotes from the
opinions and inserted analysis is not always identified and legal citations within the opinion are
often omitted. Emphasis is placed upon reported decisions from the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals
and the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals.

EVIDENCE – Officer misconduct. cases involving the Mallet brothers in 2008. After we
had remanded this case, we decided Ex parte Jeffery.
We previously filed and set this case to address In that case, it was determined that Officer Goines
whether the requirements for the inference of falsity “conducted fictional drug buys, provided false infor-
that this Court adopted in Ex parte Coty should apply mation in the affidavit for the search warrant, and tes-
in cases involving a police officer with a demonstrated tified falsely at Applicant’s trial that Applicant had
pattern of misconduct in drug-related cases. We con- admitted ownership of a cell phone found in close
cluded that it should, and we remanded the case for the proximity to the drugs in this case.” Officer Goines’s
habeas court to determine whether evidence substanti- misconduct in that case occurred in 2018. On the basis
ates Applicant’s (ed.: This is a Habeus Corpus case) of the Mallet and Jeffery cases, the habeas court now
Coty claim. In particular, we were concerned about concludes that Goines engaged in multiple instances of
whether there was evidence that Officer Goines com- misconduct and that his conduct in Applicant’s case,
mitted repeated acts of misconduct in pursuit of illicit- occurring in 2013, occurred within roughly the same
drug investigations. This was relevant to the second period of time as the other misconduct. The habeas
Coty prong: whether the state actor “committed multi- court found that all the Coty prongs were met in
ple instances of intentional misconduct in another case Applicant’s case and that a presumption of falsity
or cases.” And depending on when a second instance applied. The habeas court also determined that
of misconduct occurred, it might also be relevant to the Goines’s misconduct was material because, apart from
fifth Coty prong, whether the actor’s conduct in an his offense report, “the State possesses no evidence to
applicant’s case occurred “within roughly the same support the applicant’s guilt.” The habeas court also
period of time as the other misconduct.” credited the portion of Applicant’s unsworn declaration
The only evidence of misconduct before us at the time that stated that he would not have pled guilty but would
was Officer Goines’s false testimony and evidence in have insisted on a trial if he had known about Goines’s

22 www.texaspoliceassociation.com • (512) 458-3140 Texas Police Journal