For Mayor Pat Ahumada, Week's End Brought Resurgence...

By PATRICK ALCATRAZ

Editor-In-Chief

BROWNSVILLE, TX - They say the bells of every aging church in Matamoros chimed as if in unison, soft-clanging musical notes that spoke of big news, of a humbling event that both shocked and warmed. Reactions to high-publicity court trials rarely unnerve a town, unless it's the acquittal of a cannibal Jeffrey Dahmer or a murderer Charles Manson or a terrorist Carlos Ilitch Ramirez, the so-called Jackal. No, these bells were dancing the news of Brownsville Mayor Pat Ahumada unchaining himself from a trial fraught with both emotion and disdain.

"We are blessed to live in a country where trial-by-jury is part of the trip," said one stand-up priest. "The mayor's plight was tragic, but the trial itself riveted the entire community. That trial re-affirmed everybody's belief in God. Of that, we are sure this morning."

Ahumada stood accused of rifling a $26,000 check issued by the City of Brownsville for a vendor. As if part of a comical Elmore Leonard "Get Shorty" novel, the check then found itself in the mayor's bank account, with the script at that point seeming to thrust this line out in the open: "I stole that check?" Uttered in a thoroughly questioning tone, as if repeating an investigator's last sentence. The mayor begged-off on the theft charge early-on, noting that he, indeed, had deposited the check, but adding that it had been a royal mistake. Like brave weeds rising to battle a lawnmower, a blood-thirsty segment of the local citizenry quickly convicted and executed the mayor. Too soon, the sentient facts hit the moon.

The check had not been stolen, someone at City Hall threw-in. It had been handed to the mayor amongst a stack of other documents, mail, materials. So went the line. Left for the prosecution was the task of proving the mayor's guilt. It failed miserably, the verdict to acquit coming in less time than it takes to wine and dine a frisky woman. The trial will go down as one of the city's most bizarre digestions. It still begs for explanation from the District Attorney's office. Why go to trial if the facts are so convoluted and the evidence is so weak that you risk a loss in court. The D.A.'s office should never lose a case it seeks to prosecute. It has the time and resources to get shit done right. In this case, it was handed its well-whipped ass on a crispy taco platter. The jury believed the mayor.

Ahumada left the court riding a state of grace. Today, the aromatic chicken joints, traditional darlings of the snack crowd, opened as they do on most fine, fine mornings...

- 30 -