Precinct 4 Kleberg County Commissioner Romeo Lomas was found guilty of abuse of official capacity after a threeday trial that ended Wednesday and could face removal from office if his appeal is denied.

The riveting trial, which included more than 10 witnesses, numerous state exhibits and four attorneys, was held in the District 105th Court in Kingsville.

Lomas will be on probation one year and was assessed a fine, and restitution costs. Lomas said he would appeal the guilty verdict immediately.

Lomas was indicted by a Kleberg County Grand Jury in September of 2009 on the misdemeanor charge of “knowingly misusing government property, services, or personnel on or around March 2, 2009.”

The incident involved the use of a Pct. 4 vehicles and employees after the demolition of his barbershop and removal of debris from his property, located at 414 E. Yoakum.

Lomas was sentenced to 180 days in jail but probated for one year, and was assessed a $1,776.54 fine and restitution of $52.52.

The fine was estimated by the state if a private company had been hired to do work for Lomas.

The Texas Attorney General’s Office prosecuted the case. Shane Attaway and Will Tatum, both assistant attorneys general, served as prosecutors.

The punishment also included the “immediate removal of office” based on the conviction of a misdemeanor B crime. Attaway read the law that stated: “The conviction of a county officer by a petit jury for any felony or misdemeanor involving official misconduct operates on an immediate removal from office of that officer. The court rendering judgment in such a case shall include an order removing the officer of that judgment.”

Rose Reyna, the presiding judge at the trial, chose not to remove Lomas from office during the appeal process. Probation for Lomas will not begin during the appeal process, either.

Lomas, 72, has been a Pct. 4 county commissioner for 32 years and was elected to another four-year term in March this year.

He will begin the next four-year term Jan. 1, 2011.

“The jury’s verdict speaks volumes from the citizens of Kleberg County because they do not want Kleberg County tax money to be used for a public servants’ personal benefit,” Attaway said.

The six-member jury, composed of all women, spent less than 30 minutes in deliberation, before agreeing on a guilty verdict.

Lomas showed no emotion after the verdict was announced; however, numerous of his supporters present in the courtroom seemed surprised at the decision.

Throughout the trial, the jurors and the male alternate juror remained attentive and demonstrated patience while viewing the evidence and listening to the lengthy testimonies. Rene Rodriguez of Corpus Christi and Kingsville attorney Frank Alvarez represented Lomas.

Throughout the trial the focus was on whether Lomas had indeed used Pct. 4 trucks and employees to haul debris from his property. However, he stated the county trucks carried concrete that he donated from his property, and it was used at a culvert in a ditch on Sage Road in Pct. 2. He said the donated concrete would be a benefit to the county.

“I am very disappointed with the jury because I have not done anything wrong,” Lomas said.

“The jury did not understand the daily operations of the county.”

He explained he donated the concrete to build a bulkhead in a Precinct 2 ditch and that helped the county.

“The state came on a witch hunt, and the jury agreed with them,” he said.

“This has been an injustice for me, and I am going to appeal it to the 13th Court of Appeals and will find justice there,” Lomas said.

During Wednesday afternoon while waiting for final paperwork from the trial, Lomas shook hands with his supporters and thanked them for being there for moral support. His wife, Doris, and daughter, Crystal, who stayed throughout the trial, hugged him afterwards.

Testimony began Monday morning with the witnesses who were each questioned from 30 minutes to two hours.

Kingsville Mayor Sam Fugate was the first state witness. Rodriguez asked Fugate why he was going down East Yoakum Street that morning on March 2, 2009.

Fugate responded he was on his way to check on his mother who lives on W. Alice because his sister had not heard from her and was concerned.

While driving by Lomas’ property, he noticed a Pct. 4 truck with a maroon cab facing the street and a bulldozer behind the truck. He did not see anyone sitting in the truck; nor did he see Lomas, but did see some men there.

Rodriguez questioned the Kingsville Mayor if he “ was not out to get Lomas.”

“I saw what I saw,” Fugate said. “Mr. Lomas has been my friend for 30 years, and it is very difficult to be here. He has been on my re-election committee.”

He asked why he had not stopped and talked to Lomas. Fugate replied he was on his way to his mother’s house and stopped about one minute. The defense attorney continued to cross examine Fugate as to why he had not stopped since he had known Lomas since he was a kid.

“What I saw, I was disappointed at him and did not want to talk to him,” Fugate said.

He also said he did not see any concrete in the one scoop of debris. Rodriguez read a statute that stated a commissioner could receive a gift or donation.

“This is wrong and illegal, Rene, I disagree,” Fugate said.

Fugate also said he had called Pete De La Garza, Kleberg County Judge, later after he witnessed the situation.

“Do you know what happened to that debris? Rodriguez asked.

“I do not know what happened to it,” Fugate replied.

The next witness was Judge De La Garza, who testified he received a call from Fugate, who told him that he had seen a Pct. 4 truck and people on Lomas’ property. The judge went to get a camera from the courthouse and took photos of a backhoe on Lomas’ property around 12:30-12:45 p m. De La Garza saw a glimpse of Lomas but did not see anyone else.

“How long have you known the defendant?” Rodriguez asked De La Garza.

“Since I was a kid; he used to cut my hair,” De La Garza responded.

De La Garza said it was difficult to testify because he had known Lomas all of his life.

“We have political differences, but personally we get along,” De La Garza said. “I know his wife and daughter.”

“We do not agree,” De La Garza said. “He is used to getting his way; when I came in office, I think he resented it because he always wants to get his way and visibly gets upset. I do not like his demeanor.”

“I do not want to be here but want to tell the truth,” De La Garza said.

He also explained his main role was working with the county budget. Lomas has four employees and also helps Norma Alvarez, Pct. 2 county commissioner.

“He has too many employees, in my opinion, because he has four or five miles of road and bridges and helping her is part of the county duty and that is fair,” De La Garza said.

Attaway cross examined De La Garza and asked him what happened after he took the pictures at Lomas’ place. The county judge replied Lomas came over and confronted him in an excited loud voice. Lomas asked De La Garza if “ he thought he was stupid because he would not do something like that.” De La Garza told him he had taken a photo of a backhoe from his vehicle because he had gotten a call that his men and vehicle were there helping him.

De La Garza testified Lomas told him: “I do that for everybody and walked off.”

Attaway asked him if Lomas mentioned taking the concrete to a ditch, and he replied that he had not, but read about the concrete in the newspaper. Lomas did not mention donating the concrete.

As a rule the county cannot go on private property and do work on private property — and do not do that, according to De La Garza.

Attaway reiterated that county officials cannot use county equipment and personnel, and can not go on private property. “Taxpayers’ money is being used, and deriving a benefit can be very illegal,” Attaway said.

Rodriguez cross examined De La Garza, and asked if he had asked Fugate how many employees, concrete, or wood he saw.

“He told me he had seen county employees and vehicles there,” De La Garza said.

The defense attorney asked De La Garza why he had not stopped to talk to Lomas and the county judge replied, “Why should I ask him?”

“You took pictures of nothing,” Rodriguez said.

De La Garza admitted he had taken three pictures. The photos had been of a back hoe owned by Eloy Saldana, a businessman, and not a county employee.

Then, Rodriguez asked De La Garza if he had been the complainant in this case. De La Garza said he was there as a witness and not as the complainant. He did not remember calling the Attorney General’s office.

“Did you ever ask the Attorney General to see what they had against Mr. Lomas?” Rodriguez asked De La Garza.

“They had my pictures and testimony from Sam Fugate,” De La Garza replied.

He said he was visited three times by the AG staff investigating the case and spent 15 to 20 minutes talking to them.

Norma Alvarez, Pct. 2 Kleberg County Commissioner, testified next. She was asked if she and Lomas had a conversation concerning erosion of a ditch located in her precinct. The location is at Tranquitas Creek that joins into a ditch on west Sage Road. She recalled she had a conversation with Lomas on the erosion problem there and did recall a conversation about Lomas donating the concrete. She said she could not remember when the concrete was placed in the culvert.

The state called the next witness, who was Eloy Saldana, owner of a backhoe and dirt service. Attaway asked Saldana the status of his health, and he replied he was diabetic and had colon cancer.

Saldana testified he had a conversation with Lomas in February 2009 and told him he could not demolish the barbershop because he was undergoing chemotherapy. He had known Lomas about 30 years.

Attaway asked Saldana if the original agreement between him and Lomas was that he was going to demolish the barbershop for free because he referred other work to him. Saldana’s sole income comes from his backhoe and dirt service.

“I do not remember,” Saldana, a thin, older man, replied in a barely audible voice.

“I realize this is very uncomfortable for you, and you are not excited about testifying against Commissioner Lomas, because you have known him for 30 years,” Attaway said.

Saldana recalled demolishing the barbershop the last week in February.

He did not remember working on March 2, 2009, but then he thought maybe he had been there at lunch. He did not remember loading debris in Gus’s truck that afternoon. (Gus De Leon is a Pct. 4 county employee). He could have loaded Antonio Garcia’s truck (Pct. 4 truck) that afternoon but was not sure. However, he loaded one half of the debris from the barbershop that evening. He did not remember seeing any concrete in the debris.

Rodriguez accused Attaway of intimidating the witness because he wanted him to testify what he wanted to hear.

At some point Saldana said Rogelio De La Paz, who is not a county employee, loaded up some of the debris.

Saldana could not remember when he received a check from Lomas for the job. He reached inside his pocket and pulled out a card and said he was paid a $500 check on March 3, 2009.

“Is it unusual to get paid ahead of time?” Attaway asked him. Saldana said it was.

Then, Attaway read some of the testimony Saldana provided the grand jury on Sept. 24, 2009. Saldana said he did not remember talking to the defendant after that but was not sure.

Attaway read his previous testimony.

Saldana hesitated, but then he testified he just loaded the small truck with two scoops of debris and the other one with eight or nine pieces.

“When you received the subpoena, (he) Lomas came by my house; was this incident talked out-just tell them you loaded my trucks with concrete,” Attaway read this statement to Saldana.

“Mr. Saldana, it’s true that Lomas has sent people, sent the constable, been to your house, and took a car ride,” Attaway said. Saldana’s reply was not audible.

Gustavo De Leon, a Pct 4 employee and foreman, was called to testify. He recalled being there about 11 a.m. on March 2, 2009, and Saldana loaded up the truck and took the debris to the Pct. 4 yard where materials are dumped. The second load had red concrete that came from the barbershop sidewalk, according to De Leon.

Attaway asked De Leon if he performed any work on Sage Road off or on between March 2, 2009 to December 2009. He replied he did not remember the exact dates. He had surgery and did not return back to work until the second week in May (2009).

He recalled going twice after that and placed concrete in the culvert on West Sage Road.

Attaway then showed De Leon’s time sheet on the overhead projector for the week of April 23 - March 6, 2009 to verify his signature. Attaway then read the bottom of the time sheet that stated: “Under penalty of perjury, I certify that the actual physical hours worked as reported by me for the sole benefit of Kleberg County and not for the benefit of any person, private business, corporation or other. I further understand that falsifying this document regarding the number of hours I declare as having worked is a crime under the Texas penal code section 37.10, punishable by imprisonment of not less than 2 years nor more than 20 years and a fine up to $10,000.

After this was read, Judge Reyna stopped the trial and asked for a court appointed attorney for De Leon and read him his rights. Hector Del Toro was appointed and De Leon continued with his testimony.

De Leon was asked who told him to pick up the concrete, and he said Lomas had, and it had been taken to the Pct. 4 yard. Attaway asked De Leon if he had told Robin Wilson, the Attorney General’s investigator, he had hauled anything else.

“No, I do not remember,” De Leon said. He recalled talking to Wilson with the other three precinct workers, and he did most of the talking.

De Leon described the Pct. 4 yard where piles of clean dirt, caliche, concrete with dirt and clean concrete are placed on about half an acre of land and used for future county projects.

Attaway told De Leon his story had changed because during the two times he had testified about taking the load to the Pct. 4 yard, De Leon did not know when the concrete had been placed in the culvert.

Antonio Garcia, another Pct. 4 employee, testified next and was also afforded legal counsel if needed. An employee for 17 years, his duties included working on roads, cutting grass, and picking up trash.

Attaway asked him to explain what his duties were on March 2, 2009, and he said he could not remember at first.

“Were you hauling anything from Lomas’ barbershop?” Attaway questioned.

“Yes, he (Lomas) told me to take the truck because Mr. Saldana was going to be there,” Garcia replied. He drove the trash truck there and, “yes,” he drove to a private residence. He did not recall what time he took the Pct. 4 trash truck there.

Attaway read the testimony he provided the grand jury in September of 2009. Garcia recalled he loaded wooden debris pretty high up into the back of the trash truck. Garcia said the debris was loaded with Saldana’s backhoe.

He said he did not see any concrete in the debris but was not sure. He recalled taking the debris to the landfill site and had a receipt for it. He later remembered he had been trimming trees early that day.

Garcia did not remember if any work had been done on the culvert on Sage Road, but recalled they went to put sand on the concrete sometime in December of 2009.

The next witness called to testify was Robin Wilson, the AG investigator for the case, who spent two hours on the witness stand. She played a tape of the interviews she conducted with Lomas and the other men.

Lomas’ voice was heard explaining he paid everything by check and that he was not going to lose his job for a measly $1800. “I paid the city; I’m a taxpayer too. I do it for the people; I pick up trash for the handicapped people; I’ve been at this a long time.”

Wilson testified during the Lomas interview that he indicated he hired everybody. Attaway showed checks written to the landfill for $746, $530 for De La Paz for hauling debris and $500 for Saldana for demolishing the barbershop.

Then Tatum, the other AG assistant attorney, showed the demolition permit Lomas obtained from the City of Kingsville on Jan. 30, 2009 and cited it was filed way before hand. He also showed two different checks with two different handwritings and different amounts of money.

Next, Rodriguez cross examined Wilson. He told her, “Initially, your goal was to be fair and honest; in all your years, you were a cop, in your decisions, you can destroy a life.”

Rodriguez continued, “In conducting investigations you write a report on what you did and what you discover and in your report you contain no false information.”

She replied the narrative report was given to her supervisor to sign and approve on July 1, 2009.

Rodriguez continued grilling her that in “conducting an investigation she did not violate civil rights. In your interest of justice, you can lie to people, depending on witnesses,” he asked her.

“Not as a general rule,” she said.

He referred to her as a high dollar investigator and asked her how many times she had been to Kingsville and she replied four or five times but most of the time returned back to Austin. She talked to people and also took photos of the different locations in this case.

Rodriguez also criticized her for putting an “S” by Lomas’ name as a suspect because he had not committed a crime. He also criticized her for tape recording the witnesses secretly, but she said that it was legal and she had the recorder in her notebook. She tapes interviews when she is alone with a person. Wilson testified the men she interviewed showed no aggression and everyone was calm.

She met with Fugate and De La Garza once, and “no,” she did not tape their interviews. Rodriguez continued making statements and repeatedly asking her questions, but Robins remained calm and polite replying with “yes sir” and “no sir.”

Then, Rodriguez asked her opinion if she thought Lomas abused his position.

“During this process, he got caught using employees and vehicles for his personal use; he actually used county trucks and employees to remove debris from his place,” she stated.

She added the Attorney General’s office presented the evidence to the grand jury and there was enough to indict Lomas on Sept. 30, 2009.

(The indictment read in reference to Lomas: “did and there with intent to obtain a benefit, intentionally or knowingly misuse government property, services, or personnel to wit: Kleberg County Texas vehicles and employees which had come into the defendant’s custody or possession by virtue of the defendant’s office as a public servant, namely a county commissioner of Kleberg County, Texas, vehicles and employees to assist in hauling debris away from the defendant’s personal property, services or personnel was $20 or more but less than $500. Against the peace and dignity of the state of Texas).

The next state witness was Alejandro Soliz, a former county employee, who had worked in Pct. 4 for about 17 years and retired in April 2008. He had worked as an equipment operator and operated a backhoe, dump truck, and flat bed truck and had also been a welder.

Attaway asked him if he had ever used the county equipment and county trucks on county time, other than county business.

Soliz replied he had sometime in 2004 or 2005 Soliz recalled that dirt and caliche from the county had been hauled to County Road 1118 to a roping arena on private property that belonged to Sergio Bustamente, a former co-worker.

Soliz recalled that Lomas told him to use the dump truck to haul about nine to 10 loads of dirt and caliche in a two-day period to the rodeo arena.

Soliz also performed his county duties during those days. He also said they changed a drain pipe from steel to concrete on another occasion.

The prosecuting attorneys presented pictures of Bustamente’s property that revealed a county truck going out of a fence and one headed into property.

“I am walking out of the premises and Mr. Bustamente is driving the truck,” Soliz testified.

He added that he also hauled dirt to De Leon’s property located on East Ave. F.

Soliz recalled he hauled 18 to 20 loads of dirt to De Leon’s property and De Leon also used the county backhoe.

Construction for the Love store and truck stop had been ongoing and the county had been given the dirt. “On the day

you were to get fired, you retired and what is your relation of Pete De La Garza? Rodriguez asked Soliz during cross examination. He replied he quit and was De La Garza’s first cousin.

Rodriguez asked him if Mr. Lomas had told them to work on a culvert and that was related to county work.

“Did Mr. Lomas ever ask you to deliver dirt to a private property? Rodriguez asked.

“Yes,” Soliz answered.

Then, Attaway reviewed some of the previous testimony the jurors had heard. Fugate saw county trucks on Lomas property. De Leon loaded debris and made two trips. Garcia did not see the concrete in the debris. Norma Alvarez did not hear anything about donating the concrete. De Leon is a relative through marriage to Lomas.

Late Tuesday afternoon, in what appeared a surprise move from the defense, John Hubert, Kleberg Kenedy county district attorney was one of their witnesses. According to his testimony, Hubert said in early March De La Garza told him he believed Lomas used county property trucks to remove debris without authorization and enough detail had the basis to go further. The county judge told him he had taken pictures. Hubert spoke to Fugate who told him what he had seen. De La Garza said he had gotten there too late to see what Fugate had seen.

“If what he did see was correct, it was a violation, and I called the Attorney General’s Office; I did not want the office involved in because it might turn into a political issue.” Hubert said. “For reasons it is important to view our office with objectivity.”

“Whenever, a public official is accused of a misdeed, my job is to have it investigated and prosecuted by a competent office,” he said.

Hubert later said De La Garza did not go to his office to report the incident, and he was not the complainant.

“My memory is that Pete and I were talking in the hallway in the courthouse when he told me what he saw, and then I called Sam who confirmed the allegations. I called the AG’s office and formally requested an investigation of this case to see if a crime had been committed,” he said.

“The process went before a Kleberg County Grand Jury and was true billed because the case had enough evidence against Romeo Lomas,” Attaway said.

After the indictment, Hubert recused himself from the case and let the AG office take the evidence to the Grand Jury. Also, J. Manuel Banales, District 105 judge, recused himself from the case and Reyna of Hidalgo county was appointed as presiding judge.

The last witness on Tuesday was Lomas who told the court he served as a full time commissioner and been in office for 32 years. He said he served his country in the Army during the Korean War. He had never been arrested or convicted for anything.

He served in an administrative capacity, had a budget and could hire and fire people. The barbershop belonged to his uncle Armando Lopez for 65 years. Lopez and Lomas both worked as barbers for several years. He had no use for the barbershop and wanted it demolished and went to City Hall to get a permit.

Lomas went to see Eloy Saldana to see if he could demolish it, but he was too busy. He felt sorry for him because he had cancer. Sometimes in late February Saldana went to look at the barbershop over and was given instructions to get an 18-wheeler.

According to Lomas, Saldana came before the truck arrived. He said De La Paz, who was in the business of hauling, arrived at 7:30 a.m.

Lomas explained Saldana started demolishing the barbershop around 9 a m. and part of the agreement was that he would take the concrete.

“Prior to March 2, 2009, did you have a discussion about donating the concrete? Attaway asked him. Lomas replied he did the maintenance work for precincts 2 and 4. He explained that Pct. 4 yard has 13 acres that were donated to the county and that it has a garage where they work on trucks and house 27 vans. Outside the enclosed area caliche, dirt field dirt, especially those donated from cemeteries are kept as are concrete with dirt and clean concrete.

He decided he was going to contribute the concrete to build a bulkhead to prevent flooding in the W. Sage neighborhood. He wanted to donate all the concrete to Pct. 2 and said other county commissioners accept donations. Lomas wanted the concrete to go to Alvarez’s precinct because that was her precinct and she was hard to contact because she had a full time job with the school district.

During his testimony, Lomas said he and his wife were eating lunch at home when he saw De La Garza taking pictures. He got his keys to his car and followed him.

“That was very unprofessional for him to take pictures like a crook; that is not right; I was not raised like that,” Lomas said.

De La Garza stated Lomas said he did it for other people.

“I really do pick up trash for handicapped and elderly,” Lomas said.

“The city does not care about us anymore; the city does not clean up alleys, but send you a letter that you will be fined,” Lomas said.

The city manager and he has a working relationship that when he takes trash for the elderly and handicapped they are not charged a fee at the landfill.

During the testimony, Lomas told Attaway that Wilson had a gun and a badge and he did not recall her telling him he was being investigated. He thought she wanted to talk to the employees that he asked them to meet with her after lunch. Lomas said he did not have anything to hide and by donating the concrete that would benefit the county.

“We give taxpayers culverts and we do not charge them,” he said.

Attaway asked Lomas why he had not told Wilson about donating the concrete. He replied she had not asked him about it.

He then questioned two check copies presented as exhibits

“Explain the different handwriting and the different amounts,” Attaway asked. “You gave these copies to the investigator Wilson; you went to your wife to write these checks.” Lomas said his wife writes all the checks.

“You were present when Alejandro Soliz said you ordered him to take caliche and dirt to Bustamente,” Attaway addressed Lomas. He said he did not do it and everybody got an order to install a culvert and he did not know dirt was being spread on the Bustamente’s land.

The assistant attorney said the sheriff’s office investigated the situation when they got a call work was being done on private property and the sheriff stated nothing illegal was going on. (This incident occurred sometime in 2004 or 2005).

“Alejandro Soliz said you ordered dirt to Gus’s property,” Attaway said and Lomas replied he said “no” he had not done so. He said that was the first time he had seen Soliz in two years. He had reprimanded him and when Soliz told him he was going to quit, Lomas said ‘ vamonos.”

During cross examination Attaway asked Lomas several questions concerning the testimony from the witnesses. Lomas did agree with the facts from their testimonies and replied Fugate, De La Garza, Saldana, Soliz, and some others were not telling the truth.

Attaway also asked him if he used Pct. 4 county trucks and employees to take concrete and debris and Lomas replied that he never said debris.

The questioning continued for several more minutes and Attaway stated that De Leon had made two trips on county time per Lomas instruction while on duty to pick up concrete from Lomas. The concrete had been placed on the city easement.

He reminded him that Garcia had not seen any concrete in the debris he had picked up.

“I did not see my workers that day,” Lomas said.

Lomas said the county benefited from the donation of his concrete.

“It is your testimony to the jury, you did not receive any benefit,” Attaway asked.

“I am a taxpayer and can donate anything to the county,” Lomas replied.

Wednesday morning De Leon was recalled to the witness stand and had legal counsel again if needed. He was shown photos of his property and based on Soliz testimony, he was asked if county dirt had been taken to his property. He also said Soliz was about to get fired when he decided to retire.

“It is your testimony no one ever dumped dirt on your property?

“That’s right,” De Leon said.

“You have not been receptive when the AG investigator has tried to contact you and have not answered your cell phone,” he said to De Leon who replied that he did not remember.

The last witness was Sergio Bustamente who was appointed Del Toro as his court appointed attorney because of concerns with legal consequences. Bustamente identified himself as a self-employed welder. He had been a Pct. 4 employee but left in 2003.

He recalled they were going to set culverts on county property. He did recall taking the dump truck and backhoe inside his property because the ditch was too steep.

Rodriguez asked him how many loads it would take to fill up the roping arena and he replied about 130 loads of dirt. He also asked him if he knew Wilson was recording him and he said he did not. Attaway asked the witness if he knew he was being recorded would have changed their testimony. Bustamente said it would not change his testimony. Attaway had previously asked the other men if their testimony would have changed if they knew they were being recorded and they all said “no.”

Bustamente was shown photos of his property that showed the vehicles inside his land. The backhoe was all the way past the trailer. He had told Wilson that he had paid for the culvert. He decided to widen the entrance leading to his property.

“The county helped you out and you used county personnel and did it all on taxpayers money?

“Yes Sir,” Bustamente told Attaway.” “Is that a misuse of county property? “Yes,” he replied.

Rodriguez said that everyone gets culverts done.

After intense closing arguments from Tatum, Attaway and Rodriguez, the trial ended around 11 a.m. Wednesday.

In closing arguments Attaway related to the jurors that on and about March 2, 2009, Lomas obtained a benefit because he had three loads of debris hauled away by county employees and he did pay for it. The whole notion of donating concrete never came up. He intentionally and knowingly took county trucks to his residence so Saldana could fill them up.

“He got caught and came up with the three checks with two different handwritings and amounts,” Tatum, the other assistant attorney said.

Tatum explained there was no clean concrete in the culvert because it had rebar. (A rebar is metal interlaced in concrete).

“Why, had he not told Pete De La Garza about the concrete,” Tatum said.

In closing arguments Rodriguez said this had been a “hypocrisy”. He said they had been digging back 10 years in Lomas life. Rodriguez criticized Fugate and Garza for not stopping and talking to Lomas on that day.

He criticized Wilson because she said she could lie to witnesses and tape record them secretly.

“How could someone commit a crime a block away from God and cowards?” Rodriguez told the jurors.

Earlier, Rodriguez referred to Fugate and De La Garza as Coward No. 1 and Coward No. 2 because they did not stop and ask Lomas what was happening on the day of the incident, March 2, 2009. He called the Lomas case on of “cowards and politics.