"Bexar County District Attorney Nicholas “Nico” LaHood strongly hinted Wednesday that he plans to seek dismissal of the cases against four San Antonio women who say they were wrongfully convicted of sexually assaulting two girls in the late 1990s. “I have some serious reservations about this case, and I don’t believe pursuing these cases would be in the interest of justice,” LaHood said. LaHood was responding to a recommendation Tuesday by Senior District Judge Judge Pat Priest, who said the four women, who were released from prison in recent years as the courts mulled new evidence, had not sufficiently proven their innocence and should receive new trials. The girls changed key details of their stories every time they described what happened to investigators and over the course of two trials. The expert testimony used by prosecutors has been discredited. One of the accusers, the younger of the nieces, Stephanie Limon Martinez, has recanted her accusation. While acknowledging prosecutors would have difficulty getting new convictions, the women’s “assertion of proof of actual innocence falls short of the mark,” Priest wrote. Attorneys for Elizabeth Ramirez, 41, Anna Vasquez, 40, Kristie Mayhugh, 43, and Cassandra Rivera, 41, said it was Priest’s ruling that fell short of the mark. “Obviously, when you're falsely accused and convicted, you want a total vindication,” said Mike Ware, director of the Innocence Project of Texas and a former Dallas County prosecutor. “And that is what these women deserve. They are innocent and should be found innocent. “We will file objections (to Priest’s ruling) and take our arguments to the Court of Criminal Appeals,” Ware added..........All four women remain free; three are out on bond and one is on parole. Attempts to reach them for comment Wednesday were not successful. Ramirez was tried first and sentenced to 37½ years in 1997. Three years later, the other women were tried together and each received a 15-year sentence. The case was dissected in a major story in the Express-News late in 2010. In November 2012, Rivera was released on parole. The state eventually deemed as “junk science” the forensic evidence used to convict the women — alleged signs of abuse on the hymens of the girls. That led to the release of the other three women on bail in November 2013 pending Priest’s decision. “Since (the older niece) has not recanted her testimony; presumably that testimony would be available to the state in the event of a retrial,” Priest’s recommendation stated. LaHood said he will wait for the state’s highest criminal appeals court to decide if Priest was right before announcing whether he will retry the cases. If the higher court adopts Priest’s recommendation, the convictions will be set aside but the cases will “come back to us for a new trial,” LaHood said. “We have the option to try all four of those cases again, but at this point, I do not foresee that,” LaHood said. The four women were convicted of aggravated sexual assault and indecency with a child stemming from allegations made by two of Ramirez’s nieces, who were 7 and 9 at the time, that during a weeklong stay with their aunt all four women had bound them, raped them and threatened them at gunpoint if they told anyone about the abuse. All four women remain free; three are out on bond and one is on parole. Attempts to reach them for comment Wednesday were not successful. Ramirez was tried first and sentenced to 37½ years in 1997. Three years later, the other women were tried together and each received a 15-year sentence. The case was dissected in a major story in the Express-News late in 2010. In November 2012, Rivera was released on parole. The state eventually deemed as “junk science” the forensic evidence used to convict the women — alleged signs of abuse on the hymens of the girls. That led to the release of the other three women on bail in November 2013 pending Priest’s decision. “Since (the older niece) has not recanted her testimony; presumably that testimony would be available to the state in the event of a retrial,” Priest’s recommendation stated. “Though the newly discovered evidence severely ‘muddies the water’ ... the evidence does not unquestionably establish innocence as required by” earlier case law, Priest’s ruling stated. “Therefore, applicants should have a new trial, but their claim of having sufficiently established their actual innocence should be denied.” The older niece, who has not recanted, last year told the district attorney’s office that she did not want to testify at a new trial if one were granted. Former District Attorney Susan Reed had cited that as a reason she would not seek a new trial against the women if the convictions were vacated by the appeals court."
http://www.expressnews.com/news/local/article/Judge-DA-agree-San-Antonio-Four-case-is-weak-6852604.php
