Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.
Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw
Ex Aparte Jesus Alfredo Garcia Castillo
Date: 07-24-2025
Case Number:
Judge: Susan D. Reed
Court: District Court, Kinney County, Texas
Plaintiff's Attorney: Inney County, Texas, District Attorney's Office
Defendant's Attorney:
Click Here For The Best Brackettville Criminal Defense Law Lawyer Directory
Description:
Brackettsville, Texas criminal defense lawyer repreented the Defendant charged with arrested and charged with misdemeanor criminal trespass.
To establish a prima facie case of "selective prosecution or selective enforcement, the claimant must prove with 'exceptionally clear evidence' that: 1. The prosecutorial policy had a discriminatory effect; and 2. it was motivated by a discriminatory purpose." Aparicio, 707 S.W.3d at 204 (citations omitted). The second prong requires the claimant "definitively show that an otherwise facially neutral law is being administered in bad faith-that it was 'directed so exclusively against a particular class of persons . . . with a mind so unequal and oppressive' that equal protection of the law was denied." Id. at 208 (emphasis in original) (quoting U.S. v. Armstrong, 517 U.S. 456, 464-65 (1996)). In other words, the claimant must show by "'exceptionally clear evidence' that the OLS mindset administering the facially neutral criminal trespass law was 'so unequal and oppressive' against him because he is male." Id. at 210 (emphasis in original) (citations omitted).
Legal issue Is a claim of selective prosecution based on gender cognizable in a pretrial habeas proceeding?
Headnote
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE. SELECTIVE PROSECUTION. The case examines an appeal against the denial of a pretrial application for a writ of habeas corpus, claiming selective prosecution in violation of the Equal Protection clauses due to gender-based disparities in prosecution under a criminal trespass charge.
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW. EQUAL PROTECTION. The court addressed the evidentiary burden required to establish a prima facie case of selective prosecution, emphasizing the need for "exceptionally clear evidence" of discriminatory effect and purpose in the application of facially neutral laws.
Key Phrases Selective prosecution. Habeas corpus relief. Criminal trespass. Discriminatory effect. Equal protection.
To establish a prima facie case of "selective prosecution or selective enforcement, the claimant must prove with 'exceptionally clear evidence' that: 1. The prosecutorial policy had a discriminatory effect; and 2. it was motivated by a discriminatory purpose." Aparicio, 707 S.W.3d at 204 (citations omitted). The second prong requires the claimant "definitively show that an otherwise facially neutral law is being administered in bad faith-that it was 'directed so exclusively against a particular class of persons . . . with a mind so unequal and oppressive' that equal protection of the law was denied." Id. at 208 (emphasis in original) (quoting U.S. v. Armstrong, 517 U.S. 456, 464-65 (1996)). In other words, the claimant must show by "'exceptionally clear evidence' that the OLS mindset administering the facially neutral criminal trespass law was 'so unequal and oppressive' against him because he is male." Id. at 210 (emphasis in original) (citations omitted).
Legal issue Is a claim of selective prosecution based on gender cognizable in a pretrial habeas proceeding?
Headnote
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE. SELECTIVE PROSECUTION. The case examines an appeal against the denial of a pretrial application for a writ of habeas corpus, claiming selective prosecution in violation of the Equal Protection clauses due to gender-based disparities in prosecution under a criminal trespass charge.
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW. EQUAL PROTECTION. The court addressed the evidentiary burden required to establish a prima facie case of selective prosecution, emphasizing the need for "exceptionally clear evidence" of discriminatory effect and purpose in the application of facially neutral laws.
Key Phrases Selective prosecution. Habeas corpus relief. Criminal trespass. Discriminatory effect. Equal protection.
Outcome:
Affirmed
Plaintiff's Experts:
Defendant's Experts:
Comments:
About This Case
What was the outcome of Ex Aparte Jesus Alfredo Garcia Castillo?
The outcome was: Affirmed
Which court heard Ex Aparte Jesus Alfredo Garcia Castillo?
This case was heard in District Court, Kinney County, Texas, TX. The presiding judge was Susan D. Reed.
Who were the attorneys in Ex Aparte Jesus Alfredo Garcia Castillo?
Plaintiff's attorney: Inney County, Texas, District Attorney's Office. Defendant's attorney: Click Here For The Best Brackettville Criminal Defense Law Lawyer Directory.
When was Ex Aparte Jesus Alfredo Garcia Castillo decided?
This case was decided on July 24, 2025.