DA Sherri Tibbe defends handling of Prakashanand Saraswati's evidence

The body of this article about Swami Prakashanand Saraswati was originally published on December 16, 2010 in Austin American Statesman as "Hays County DA defends evidence handling"

(Hays County District Attorney Sherri Tibbe lost
or destroyed Prakashanand Saraswati's evidence)

My story in today’s paper detailed how attorneys for Prakashanand Saraswati argued in a pre-trial hearing Tuesday that the statement of one of the young women accusing the guru of groping her should be tossed out because the recordings of her interview with a Hays County sheriff’s investigator are either worthless or missing. According to testimony from county prosecutors and sheriff’s department employees, copies of the original DVD don’t work, and the original disk disappeared from the sheriff’s department’s records room. State District Court Judge Charles Ramsay denied the motion, permitting the trial to proceed.

My story contained no comment from Hays County District Attorney Sherri Tibbe, who was unavailable last night. Today, she e-mailed me a statement. Here it is:

“There are cases everywhere in which evidence is lost, not just our county. This does not happen often, but it does occur. In each instance where there is lost evidence, the issue will be addressed on a case by case basis. Some evidence that is lost will lead to the dismissal of the case. In other circumstances, the case may not be dismissed but it is an issue the jury and court would be made aware of during the trial. It is the State’s duty to try in every way possible to locate missing evidence and to make the defense aware when we learn that evidence is missing.”

Sherri Tibbe has had fairly recent experience in this regard. Two years ago, she was forced to ask a judge to dismiss a case in which a couple had been charged with seriously bodily injury to a child in connection with the death of their infant daughter in 2006 because important forensic evidence turned up missing.

“In my experience as a prosecutor, this is one of the most difficult decisions that I have had to make,” she was quoted as saying in a Statesman story from June 2008 describing the dismissal of charges against Esther and Cipriano Gonzales. “However, the rule of law and my ethical obligations require that we not proceed with this case at this time.”

According to one attorney involved in that case, however, it’s not clear who was responsible for the missing evidence, which appears to have been tissue samples that offered important clues as to whether or not the baby died of natural causes or was intentionally hurt.

Several medical examiners had offered conflicting reports, recalled Kenneth Houp, who represented Esther Gonzales. But, he added, he was never clear which agency was in custody of the tissues when they disappeared. Still, Houp stressed that it did not seem to be the fault of Hays County.

In the Prakashanand Saraswati case, Sherri Tibbe added in her statement, prosecutors successfully argued that having the actual recording was not essential because the guru’s lawyers would be allowed to question his accuser at trial:

“The State’s position at the hearing was that the witness will be testifying in court and the defense will be able confront and cross examine this witness to the fullest extent of the law, and the Defendant’s rights will be and are protected. Our office will always honor and protect a Defendant’s right to a fair trial, as well as advocating for the State’s right to a fair trial.”

Prakashanand’s trial is scheduled to begin February 22.