UPDATE: Two examining trials set for Wednesday related to the Twin Peaks shootout have been canceled.
Retired State District Judge James Morgan and attorneys decided to cancel the examining trial for 3:15 p.m., for John Robert Wilson, of Waco.
Dallas attorney Trey Bunch, who is representing Daniel Pesina of San Antonio, subsequently withdrew his request for an examining trial around 11:30 a.m.
Several more examining trials for bikers are set for next week. Click here to view the original schedule.
The first examining trial, for William and Morgan English of Brenham, was held Monday. Morgan ruled that Waco police had sufficient probable cause to jail the pair on organized criminal activity charges.
In denying the motion, the judge Morgan ruled that there was sufficient evidence to bind them over to a grand jury for indictment and that authorities had sufficient probable cause to arrest them. Click here to read our report on the trial.
PREVIEW: Retired State District Judge James Morgan is hearing two examining trails Wednesday afternoon related to the deadly May 17 shootout at Twin Peaks.
Morgan over the next two weeks is scheduled to hear all of the cases involving bikers seeking examining trials to challenge whether there was sufficient probable cause for their arrest after the shootout that left nine dead and 20 wounded.
At 1 p.m. the examining trial is set for Daniel Pesina, a member of a Bandidos support group called Macheteros from San Antonio, and at 3 p.m. an examining trial is set for John Robert Wilson, of Waco, president of the McLennan County Cossacks chapter.
Wilson also owns Legends Cycles in Waco. Wilson has said he appointed his son, Jacob Wilson, of Hewitt, sergeant-at-arms of the six-member McLennan County Cossacks chapter.
If the judge rules there was not probable cause for the arrest, the defendant is freed from obligations surrounding his arrest, including conditions of bond. It does not preclude the district attorney’s office from indicting the defendant later if prosecutors think they have a case. The state’s burden of proof in examining trials is much less than in a criminal trial, in which a defendant’s guilt must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.