IAPE Evidence Blog

San Anto­nio Express-News
BYLINE: Zeke Mac­Cor­mack, STAFF

Ban­dera, TX

FREDERICKSBURG — Ban­dera Police Chief James Eigner was acquit­ted of per­jury and evi­dence tam­per­ing charges Thurs­day at a trial where other law offi­cers also had their cred­i­bil­ity questioned.

Defense attor­ney Ben Sifuentes Jr. called it “the proper ver­dict” and described Eigner, who couldn’t be reached for com­ment, as “very, very relieved and grateful.” 

The charges stemmed from the intox­i­ca­tion manslaugh­ter trial in Fred­er­icks­burg last fall of Jon Heinen over a crash in Ban­dera County that killed Heinen’s brother, Joe Heinen.

Eigner arrived at the Heinen trial a day late and tes­ti­fied he hadn’t known he’d been sub­poe­naed by the defense — which became the basis of the per­jury charge.

He also said evi­dence from Heinen’s crash may have been dis­carded when a police stor­age room was cleaned in sum­mer 2007.

Heinen was cleared, in part, due to the miss­ing evi­dence that Eigner’s offi­cers had helped gather, log and store while assist­ing then-Department of Pub­lic Safety Trooper Michele Kosmalski.

Heinen had gone to trial only after Eigner pub­licly blasted as too lenient an agree­ment under which he was to plead guilty to a DWI charge and get pro­ba­tion and counseling.

State Dis­trict Judge Steve Ables had approved the deal, then scrapped it a week later after Eigner spoke out.

Eigner’s back­ers saw the sub­se­quent per­jury and evi­dence tam­per­ing indict­ments as pay­back for his criticisms.

“The only thing the chief is guilty of is offend­ing the court by com­plain­ing about the plea bar­gain,” Ban­dera Patrol­man Jim Brant­ley said dur­ing the four-hour delib­er­a­tions by Eigner’s jury Thurs­day after a three-day trial before state Dis­trict Judge Keith Williams.

In clos­ing argu­ments, pros­e­cu­tor Guy James Gray cited tes­ti­mony by Ban­dera Patrol­man Allen Kel­ley, who quoted Eigner as say­ing he didn’t plan to appear at Heinen’s trial because the sub­poena left on his desk hadn’t been prop­erly served.

Sifuentes cast Kel­ley as a chief-wannabe whose account was unre­li­able and motives were suspect.

As to Eigner’s motives for the alleged crimes, Gray said the chief was angry over the Heinen plea deal, and that the miss­ing evi­dence “was an embar­rass­ment to everybody.”

Sifuentes said the state fell short of prov­ing Eigner made false state­ments under oath with an intent to deceive, or that he con­cealed or caused to be destroyed evi­dence to make it unavailable.

He told jurors they couldn’t rely on Kosmalski’s tes­ti­mony that the miss­ing evi­dence was in the stor­age room after it was cleaned, not­ing other wit­nesses ques­tioned her honesty.

Sifuentes said Eigner didn’t ini­tially come to Heinen’s trial due to an ear­lier fax — entered as evi­dence — in which pros­e­cu­tors told him he wasn’t needed as a witness.

- — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — -
Inter­na­tional Asso­ci­a­tion for Prop­erty and Evi­dence
“Law Enforce­ment Serv­ing the Needs of Law Enforce­ment”
www.IAPE.org