A Harris County grand jury on Friday, October 30, indicted Immigration and Customs Enforcement officer Mario Alberto Morales on a charge of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon for driving an SUV into Miguel Parra-Hernandez during an October 10 chase in northwest Houston.
District Attorney Sean Teare and Sheriff Ed Gonzalez announced the indictment at a news conference, and the Harris County District Attorney's Office posted the 911 calls, video and a recording of the briefing. ABC13 reported that the charge was filed as a second degree felony. Morales has not entered a plea and is presumed innocent.
What the evidence shows so far
Parra-Hernandez, 48, has lived in Harris County for more than 30 years and has no criminal record, Teare said, according to Al Jazeera. Investigators say he was running from federal agents in a parking lot near Clay Road and Highway 6 when an unmarked black Jeep Cherokee struck him. He suffered multiple fractures to his right leg and an ankle injury that needed surgery. Reuters, in a report carried by The Spokesman-Review, said he remains in custody.
The released surveillance video shows a large SUV appearing to speed up behind a running man, who is then seen on the ground screaming. On a 911 call, a caller who identified himself as Officer Mario Morales "with Immigration" asked for an ambulance and said, "So we're following this guy, trying to pull him over. He jumps out of the vehicle." Teare told ABC13 days after the crash, "This was an intentional strike. This was not an accident in any way, shape, or form."
ICE tells it differently. The agency has said Parra-Hernandez ran in front of the vehicle and called the intentional strike allegation "reckless and false." It told KPRC the case was a "political stunt by Houston sanctuary politicians" and that only federal agencies can investigate federal officers. Morales's lawyer, Michael Wynne, called the case "political theater," said "no crime has been committed," and questioned the state's authority under the Supremacy Clause, KPRC reported. U.S. Attorney Aaron Reitz said his office was neither consulted nor notified before the indictment, ABC13 reported.
Our timeline: 20 days from crash to indictment
October 10: The Jeep strikes Parra-Hernandez. Teare later said ICE drove the vehicle away before local investigators could examine it.
October 13: Teare publicly calls it an intentional strike.
October 15: A judge signs a district attorney's search warrant for the vehicle, according to KPRC.
October 23: A warrant affidavit says DHS and ICE had been "unresponsive" and had not given access to the Jeep.
October 30: Prosecutors enter the grand jury room before 8 a.m. and leave by 8:40 a.m. The indictment follows the same day.
By our count, that is 20 days from the crash to a charge, with the key physical evidence still in federal hands for at least the first 13 of them.
What the statute actually says
Texas Penal Code Section 22.02 makes assault aggravated when the person "uses or exhibits a deadly weapon," and a vehicle can qualify. The base offense is a second degree felony, punishable by 2 to 20 years in prison and a fine of up to $10,000 under Section 12.33.
Here is the detail most coverage skipped. The same statute bumps the crime to a first degree felony when it is committed "by a public servant acting under color of the servant's office or employment." So why second degree? Our reading of the definitions in Section 1.07 offers an answer. A "public servant" is an officer or employee "of government," and Texas defines government as the state, its counties, cities and political subdivisions. A federal deportation officer does not appear to fit. Prosecutors have not explained the choice.
The fight that comes next
The bigger battle is likely to be over whether Texas can try him at all. Under 28 U.S.C. 1442, a federal officer sued or prosecuted in state court "for or relating to any act under color of such office" may move the case to federal court. Once there, the officer can claim Supremacy Clause immunity, a doctrine that traces to the Supreme Court's 1890 decision in In re Neagle. The Court held that a federal officer who was authorized by federal law and "did no more than what was necessary and proper for him to do" could not be guilty of a crime under state law.
That test turns on facts a jury has not yet heard. If the federal judge finds the strike was a reasonable part of an arrest, the case ends. If the judge finds it was not necessary and proper, the state prosecution can go forward, in federal court but under Texas law. Teare's office is also investigating the July 7 fatal shooting of Lorenzo Salgado Araujo by ICE officer Gregory Feathers, whom federal authorities say acted in self defense, so the same question may soon come up twice in one county.
For how a panel of citizens decides whether to charge, see What a Grand Jury Does, and Why It Meets Behind Closed Doors, and for a recent case where one refused, Grand Jury Declines to Indict Cassidy Hutchinson Over Her Jan. 6 Testimony.
Two Taps News stories summarize reporting and the analysis discussed on Two Taps and Friends. They are not legal advice. Read our standards.
