HARRIS COUNTY, Texas – An attorney for prominent Houston defense lawyer Dick DeGuerin is pushing back against allegations from the Harris County District Attorney’s Office that DeGuerin violated a gag order by talking to the media in the ongoing capital murder prosecution of Lee Gilley.
DA’s office general counsel Joshua Reiss filed a motion for a show cause hearing on Wednesday, alleging that DeGuerin’s comments flew in the face of a gag order entered in the case in May by Judge Peyton Peebles.
Recommended Videos
“DeGuerin’s disregard for the court’s order, and transparent efforts to influence the jury pool, will only get worse as trial approaches if the court does not hold a show cause hearing,” Reiss wrote in the filing, noting that his comments couldn’t be attributed to a “rookie mistake.”
DeGuerin made comments to the media earlier this month after an Italian court temporarily blocked Gilley’s extradition, citing concerns over possible death penalty punishment in Texas. The court has asked for clarification from the U.S. government, after Gilley cut off his ankle monitor and fled the country in May, weeks before trial was scheduled to begin in the capital murder case of his pregnant wife Christa Bauer.
In a response filed Thursday in Harris County’s 497th District Court, attorney Brian Wice, who’s now representing DeGuerin, argued the State’s motion is unsupported by controlling law and misconstrues both Texas’ rules for trial publicity and the court’s gag order.
“Viewed against this legal backdrop, the State’s motion is a master class in prosecutorial overreach,” Wice wrote, urging the court to deny the request.
The State has asked the court to hold a show cause hearing over whether DeGuerin violated the gag order by speaking publicly about the case. Wice’s filing contends the concerns could have been addressed informally, such as through a phone call, rather than through what he described as a “DEFCON 1” approach.
‘Safe harbor’ for limited public statements
The defense response leans heavily on Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct Rule 3.07 — which governs what lawyers can say publicly about pending cases — and on language in the gag order that permits certain limited statements.
Wice argued that none of the comments cited by prosecutors cross the line because they fit within provisions allowing attorneys to state, without elaboration, information such as:
- the general nature of criminal justice procedures,
- information contained in the public record, and
- the scheduling or result of steps in the proceedings.
The response also challenges the State’s motion for failing to cite Rule 3.07 at all — an omission Wice compared to “attempting to stage Hamlet without Hamlet.”
Citing key gag-order precedent
Wice cited In re Benton — a Texas appeals court case he described as central to gag-order disputes involving attorneys — and argued it “drives a stake through the heart” of the State’s request.
Reiss pointed out in the State’s motion that the gag order was agreed to by the parties involved; however, one paragraph of the order instructs anyone involved in the case to not discuss the case with the media, while another paragraph of the order “does not prohibit” anyone from talking about the general nature of the criminal justice process or procedures, information contained in the public record, or the scheduling or result of any step in the proceedings.
Among other points, the defense argued the case law recognizes reduced risk of prejudice from pretrial statements when significant time will pass before a jury is seated. Wice wrote that the Gilley matter remains “many, many months away” from a trial setting because of ongoing delays before Gilley is returned to Texas.
It’s unclear when Gilley could be returned from Italy. The Italian court has demanded more information about his possible punishments from the U.S. by the end of August, with a hearing set for early September.
The filing also contends the gag order’s broad prohibition on lawyers “discussing this case with the media” is an unconstitutional prior restraint — one the parties could not lawfully agree to and the court cannot enforce.
Hearing set Monday
Court records show the response was filed July 30. A hearing is scheduled for Monday morning at 9 a.m.