The Palacios story
COMMENTARY
A local daily newspaper with which The Advance has a professional relationship, The Monitor, may be in a legal bind, thanks to a story published Feb. 10, 2022, written by reporter Valerie Gonzalez, which carried the headline:
“Informant’s killing still haunts unsolved Starr County murder 19 years later.”
Like I mentioned in this same column last week, I first caught on to this story while speaking to a retired attorney. He said he was changing his vote for DA this election based on how, according to The Monitor story he had read, one of the candidates for office, Toribio “Terry” Palacios, had tipped off the name of an informant to Texas Syndicate gang members, which ultimately cost the informant his life.
The gangland hit in 2007 was supposedly linked to a cold-case double homicide in Starr County committed 19 years ago (April 2003).
I had missed that story, but obviously I was now intrigued about news copy that could sway votes, so I went online and found The Monitor’s Feb. 10th front page. What I was looking for was something new assigned to the cold case. Something new that would have warranted turning it into a front-page story in the midst of a heated election campaign between Terry Palacios and his opponent, Nereida Lopez-Singleterry.
For Terry Palacios, the last thing he would want is a story published, which indicated that he leaked sensitive information to the wrong people and it cost a confidential informant his life; but there it was, Feb. 10, page one, beneath the fold, just days prior to the start of early voting.
The timing couldn’t have been more perfect if you were rooting for Singleterry.
Really, the only way a cold-case homicide becomes current news is if something new has come to light. Take, for example, the disappearance of Kim Sue Leggett, the 21-year-old step-daughter of an old pilot friend of mine, the legendary Lefty Gardner.
Leggett disappeared in October 1984 from a Mercedes cotton gin where she was working alone at the time. She left behind her car with the keys in the ignition, her purse, college books. In the blink of an eye, gone. She was last reportedly seen in the company of two strange men.
Two ransom demands fell flat, and there has been no sign of her since.
Now, if something new about that case came to light, that would be news. Big News.
In the Starr case murders, though, there was nothing new to report, but it was getting reported nonetheless, full steam ahead.
The Palacios Story
In The Monitor story, though, the Feb. 10, 2022 file that reportedly ties Terry Palacios to a homicide, there was no new news to report. Just conjecture on the part of a guy named Robert Caples, who has his own checkered past, some might argue, as it relates to his twin convictions in an Hidalgo County courtroom (2005). He was found guilty in a jury trial for driving while intoxicated and hitting something on the side of the highway. To compound his problem, Caples then fled the scene (early 2004) before being caught a short time later while parked at a convenience store.
At the time of his arrest, Caples was a sergeant with the Hidalgo County Sheriff’s Department. The arrest cost him his job, per departmental policy. (Zero tolerance for a DWI arrest; not a conviction.)
Caples appealed the guilty jury verdict, claiming the woman with him was really the driver when his jeep crashed into a highway fixture. At the time of his arrest, however, the cops had him on video admitting that he was the driver.
Cop: “And you were driving?”
Caples: “Yep.” He also had blood, broken glass, and scratches on the left side of his head while the woman with him was clean of debris and scratches. Caples lost his appeal (2008).
After I finished reading The Monitor story, I thought, someone isn’t going to be happy. Not only did it mention Terry Palacios in a negative context, but it offered up this quote from Caples to the news reporter:
“The only thing I can tell you is that the actions taken by that law firm have had long-lasting consequences and it has even had an effect on that current case that you’re asking about (the double homicide in 2003).”
The law firm Caples mentions in The Monitor story, however, just happens to be one of the higher-profile firms in Hidalgo County with a reputation to protect — Law Office of Garcia, Quintanilla & Palacios.
Richard Garcia is the firm’s most senior partner with more than 40 years in front of the bench. He is also the former mayor of Edinburg.
Crispin “CJ” Quintanilla is a well-known, top criminal defense attorney who practices his trade in local federal court, and in other federal courts around the country. He is the attorney of record for more than a few high, high, high-profile criminal defendants.
The last name on the legal boiler plate, Palacios, of course belongs to Terry Palacios, the long-time Edinburg municipal judge (27 years) and criminal defense attorney with an impressive criminal-defense case load (state court mainly).
So basically, in one fell swoop, allowing Caples’ quote to be included in a story about a cold-case double murder (2003) allegedly tied to a gangland hit (2007) that allegedly involves Terry Palacios and the law firm he represents, is, no doubt, going to get the daily newspaper some form of response from the firm.
In fact, The Advance got a copy of a letter sent to The Monitor, dated Feb. 15, 2022, written by one of Palacios’s law partners, C.J. Quintanilla. The copy of the letter came courtesy of an outside source (not the law firm).
At the start of his letter, Quintanilla writes that a local TV station had contacted the Palacios campaign to say that his opponent’s camp (Singleterry) was trying to place an advertisement that alleged he was somehow involved in a murder, but the station was rejecting it because no mainstream media had yet picked up the story. After The Monitor published it, however, according to Quintanilla’s letter, the TV commercials began airing as did mass mail-outs.
(To get a better feel for this case, read The Advance News’ Observations column, page 1, Feb. 16, 2022).
The biggest crux of Quintanilla’s argument, as spelled out in his letter to The Monitor’s publisher, is that the story was basically a hit piece on Palacios, and the newspaper should investigate both the story’s reporter and editor to discover how it ever saw the light of day.
The letter ends with this request from C.J. Quintanilla:
“Does The Monitor not have any policies, news standards and practices? I am sure The Monitor has internal disciplinary procedures to investigate a reporter and editor who run a story that was obviously not minimally fact-checked and disparaged a good man. I am asking for such an internal investigation as (it) relates to this story and that disciplinary actions be taken if warranted.”
It’s obvious from Quintanilla’s letter that neither Palacios, or perhaps the firm in general, is going to let this story just slip by the wayside. He’s already asking The Monitor to investigate the story and apply discipline as needed. To think that a lawsuit for defamation isn’t waiting on the sidelines might be a mistake.
If it were me, I’d run a retraction/clarification to the Starr County/Palacios story. It won’t stop a paper from getting sued, but it will sure help if the case ever makes it to court. It shows good faith on the part of any newspaper or media outlet.
During a recent phone interview, Quintanilla said that based on his recollection of the case, the feds had obtained Title 3 wiretap warrants, which enabled investigators to learn about the plot to kill Rodriguez and the leaked information.
He was warned countless times to leave, according to two other law enforcement sources, but chose not to heed the message.
“The wiretaps allowed them (the feds) to know everything about this case,” said Quintanilla.”
What’s Missing
There were some glaring omissions from The Monitor story, according to the letter Quintanilla sent to the daily.
Namely, the reporter called the Starr County district attorney for comment. Turns out, he had represented one of the defendants in the case, so he knew it fairly well. The DA, Gocha Ramirez, according to Quintanilla, told The Monitor reporter that Robert Caples had mentioned the 2003 double homicide “in passing.”
Besides, Ramirez said, according to the Quintanilla letter, the unit that Caples commanded, the “Special Crimes Unit,” worked out of the elected office of the County Attorney and had no jurisdiction over felony cases, with absolutely no ties to the DA’s office.
As mentioned in last week’s Observations “commentary” column (Feb. 16), there are rumors on the street that Caples is gunning for an investigator’s job with the DA’s office. True, not true, who knows, but the fact that the rumors are out there would mean, if true, that he would be motivated to get a negative news story about Terry Palacios inserted in the daily newspaper’s news rotation.
The Prosecutor Speaks
Assistant U.S. Attorney Bob Wells isn’t that hard to reach by phone. Part of Quintanilla’s letter sent to The Monitor’s publisher makes that point.
Had the reporter tried to contact Wells, who was, after all, the lead prosecutor on the Texas Syndicate case, he would have told her that, basically, he couldn’t corroborate statements coming from criminals.
The basic point of The Monitor story is this: a Texas Syndicate Gang Member, Marcelino Rodriguez, was killed one day (two shots to the back of the head), not long after his fellow gang members learned he was a snitch.
Rodriguez’s work as a confidential informant was discovered courtesy of a guy, Joel “BJ” Carcaño, Jr., who worked for the Garcia, Quintanilla & Palacios Law Firm. He later pled guilty to “outing” Rodriguez and went to prison (52 months). The actual shooter got life.
Carcaño swore more than once (with threat of aggravated perjury if he’s lying) before Federal Judge Ricardo Hinojosa, who can make a defendant wet their pants if he so chooses, that he was the only one, the only one, guilty of leaking the informant’s name.
In The Monitor story, an ATF agent on the stand is asked who told the head of the gang that Rodriguez was a snitch.
“From my investigation, it was Terry Palacios.”
Assistant U.S. Attorney Bob Wells said this Monday by phone that there was never any proof that Palacios had leaked the name of the informant, Marcelino Rodriguez, or had anything to do with one his employees, BJ Carcaño Jr., leaking the name. In fact, Wells said, that accusation was coming from two Texas Syndicate members, but there was no way to corroborate their claims.
Wells, who grew up in the RGV, has been an assistant prosecutor in the McAllen office since 1997. He said that there are a few cases that stick out in his mind, and the Rodriguez case just happens to be one of them.
What bothered him the most, he said, was that no reporter had bothered to reach out to him before The Monitor story broke Feb. 10th.
Granted, with active cases, ongoing investigations, federal prosecutors aren’t going to say much, if anything, to any news reporter; but mention a case that’s already been adjudicated and which dates back more than 10 years, and they’ll likely open up about it if asked.
“At the time, we were having a lot of problems with gangs. Killings, kidnappings, so we decided to try and combat the gang problem,” Wells said.
For the seasoned prosecutor, the Texas Syndicate gang case that ended up including the murder of Marcelino Rodriguez took approximately nine years out of his life and has left an indelible mark.
“It turned into a RICO case,” Wells said. “And it took a lot out of me just to write up all of the (case) reports.”
RICO stands for Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. It came into being in 1970 and offered the feds a way to combat criminal organizations as a whole. Plus, the criminal and civil fines increased. For the mob guys in NY City who used to do 10 years for extortion, let’s say, RICO was suddenly bad news, because they were now facing life and a 25-count indictment, thanks to also being charged with racketeering and other associated crimes as part of an overall criminal conspiracy.
The made guys started dropping like flies, ratting out everyone along the way, looking for a reduced sentence/plea deal.
Wells and federal investigators used the same RICO statute to go after the Texas Syndicate and other gang-bangers who were helping escalate the local RGV crime rate.
According to Bob Wells, the Texas Syndicate case mentioned in The Monitor story lasted from 2003 until the last sentencing went down in 2011.
“So, yes, I know a lot about it,” he said.
When he first saw The Monitor story, he said, he felt offended.
“I saw a lot of facts (in that story) that were wrong. And it was a complicated case. The indictment was (approximately) 30 pages long.”
When it was over, Wells had successfully gained the convictions he and his staff were seeking.
Wells said he can’t quite remember the context in which the ATF agent mentioned Terry Palacios’s name in open court, as reported by The Monitor. “But there was never any evidence that he was involved (in leaking the informant’s name to the gang).”
According to the fed prosecutor, he’s never been the type of prosecutor to simply accept as gospel what someone is telling him.
“If I have a gang member telling me one thing, I’m going to want some corroboration from other sources. The last thing I want to do is harm an innocent person. In a case like this, we’re going to see a lot of false statements. Is it truthful? Is it not truthful?
“At the end of the day, we could only prove that one person turned over (Rodriguez’s name to the head of the Texas Syndicate). And that person was Carcaño, Jr. If there had been sufficient evidence showing that Mr. Palacios had done that (leaked the informant’s name), I would have indicted and prosecuted him.”
Today, Wells said that the gang cases he and his fellow prosecutors worked on actually did some good for the RGV.
“Turns out, not as many people today want to take a lead role in gang activity. Why? It’s because landing a leading role could mean a life sentence if convicted (in any similar RICO case).”
Note to The Monitor
This is a commentary column, not a straight news piece, so I can make mention of this one simple fact: I would call The Monitor’s publisher, Stephan Wingert, for comment about this story, but I know how this business works. He and I have a good working relationship, but I’ve stayed away from him with regard to this story.
The letter from C.J. Quintanilla has already, no doubt, been passed up The Monitor’s chain of command to corporate headquarters. From there, company attorneys are presumably already looking it over, pouring through the story written by Reporter Valerie Gonzalez, and they won’t like it if Wingert goes on the record with an unauthorized comment for this story.
In some ways, I always feel sorry for a newspaper publisher caught in this predicament. It’s not the publisher’s job to read every story published, nor is it his or her job to fact check news stories. That’s the job, first and foremost, of the actual reporter, and then, more importantly, it’s the job of an editor to sign off on its publication after vetting it for accuracy and fairness.
For any editor, this story should have stood out as a red flag. Number one, who is this Robert Caples guy and what’s his background? How deep rooted was his so-called task force with regard to the cold-case 2003 murders in Starr County?
Apparently, he had no jurisdiction over felonies such as murders, so why is he even getting involved in the double homicide? With whose authority?
Without the help and sanction of the local DA?
What proof, if any, does Caples have that if Marcelino Rodriguez hadn’t been killed in 2007 for being an informant, he could have shed light on the double-homicide in Starr County committed four years prior? That’s his claim, so where is the proof?
In fact, The Monitor story reads:
“The investigator (Robert Caples) who was working on the reopened 2003 double homicide believed the murdered gang member (Rodriguez) would have proven helpful to the ongoing investigation (the double homicide).”
Based on what evidence, and who gave him jurisdiction to work the case?
If I had been editor, those are the sorts of questions I would have asked my reporter.
If Marcelino Rodriguez hadn’t been whacked, who’s to say that he would have even talked to Caples or had any information about the double homicide (2003)?
Second, what made this story relevant to today besides the fact that a heated election is underway? It was a cold case and there was nothing new to it, so why publish it now?
Defamation is a relative hard case to prove, especially if the plaintiff has to prove that the story was published intentionally, with malice, to administer harm to someone.
One thing is for sure, even after the election, whatever the results, I don’t look for this story to go away any time soon. Even if Terry Palacios beats Nereida Lopez-Singleterry for Hidalgo County DA, the law firm of which he’s a partner, Garcia, Quintanilla & Palacios, still isn’t going to be happy that the quote from Robert Caples ever saw the light of day:
“The only thing I can tell you is that the actions taken by that law firm have had long-lasting consequences and it has even had an effect on that current case that you’re asking about (the double homicide).”
If you’re a local law firm comprised of three seasoned attorneys with more than 100 years of combined legal experience, your reputation has to stand for something. If someone writes something that besmirches that reputation, some form of legal recourse might be expected.
Stay tuned.
“The wiretaps allowed them (the feds) to know everything about this case.” - Crispin “CJ” Quintanilla, Defense attorney
“I saw a lot of facts (in that story) that were wrong. And it was a complicated case. The indictment was (approximately) 30 pages long.” -- Bob Wells, Assistant U.S. attorney