Tony Buzbee feels “deceived” by the issue of frequent communication between critics and Deshaun Watson’s lawyer
Tuesday’s article from Jenny Vrentas New York Times is also looking at how Deshaun Watson’s Browns quarterback’s lawyer, Rusty Hardin, spoke to Harris County, Texas judges about the investigation and the major criminal charges against Watson. Based on many of the findings from the public petitions, Vrentas records that Hardin began “frequent discussions” with state attorney Johna Stallings in early 2022.
According to Vrentas, Stallings “
Hardin called it a “known practice” for defense lawyers to work with opponents. The Harris County district attorney’s office did not respond to specific inquiries from Vrentas regarding communications.
Hardin, according to Vrentas, “created an art exhibition against Watson’s innocence and presented it to Stallings along with other documents he deemed necessary.” Watson did not testify before the jury.
“We will allow what we have given to you on behalf of our client to serve as our story to the Grand Jury,” Hardin told Stallings via email.
Attorney Tony Buzbee, representing 24 women who sued Watson in court – eight of whom filed criminal charges – wrote a statement Tuesday night criticizing Hardin and the prosecutor.
“So that there would be no disturbance,” Buzbee said on Instagram, “I contacted the DA office in Harris County at some point on behalf of the victims to be available to his clients with any evidence I found. My team also did. He never spoke to us! The district attorney regularly wrote to Deshaun Watson’s lawyer via email and text; [Rusty] Hardin office to discuss cases; Little did I know that Watson’s lawyer provided a PowerPoint that should be used before a major jury. I did not know, but now I know after the investigator’s oath, that the police investigation team confirmed that Watson had committed more than a dozen crimes, or that the ADA’s statement prevented the investigators from speaking to women who had escaped but did not lodge their grievances. And what I do know is that, of the several terrorist protesters in Houston, only one was asked by the ADA to appear before a higher court, though some victims stood up to do so. As a taxpayer, and more importantly as a representative of these women, I feel ‘homeless’ in my hometown, and deceived. I think people and all interested parties were deceived. It makes you wonder. . . . Thank God for human justice. ”
Hardin strongly supported the decision of the two officials not to criticize Watson. The truth may have been that Stallings realized that Hardin’s interest in the Supreme Court was merely a reflection of what he had to do with Watson’s prosecution – and that Stallings had to prove beyond any reasonable doubt the charges against him in a series of cases between two witnesses.
Common sense indicates that he did not want to fight a battle that he believed would win. With Watson able to pay for Hardin and his team of lawyers, who fiercely defended Watson in any case and squandered the wealth and tested the skills of Stallings and his staff, Stallings probably thought it was inappropriate to spin the wheels and eventually meet them. acquittal on the basis of the fact that a reasonable doubt is more likely to justify the lesser evidence of a single witness after cross-examination which will no doubt be met by a competent judge like Hardin.
And so, instead of using his ingenuity, as the proverb puts it, to criticize the ham sandwich, Hardin apparently made a measurable and organized sermon that sought to drive judges out of biting more than they wanted or could chew.
The result? No charges. All things considered, it is not surprising.