In the Harbor case, they are accused of having played a role in the death of the baby. In this situation, Horbour had a child at home, the family never received adequate medical care, and at one point someone gave the baby heroin.
The defense indicated that District Attorney Allison Palmer was the prosecutor’s office in both cases. In this case, the Hispanic couple faces the death penalty, while the white family only inflicts a crime on one child, not murder.
The document further indicated that Moreno should not be charged with murder at all. On February 25, 2020, during a bond reduction hearing, a San Angelo Police Department detective was the main witness called to the booth. The detective gave eight reasons why Moreno’s bond shouldn’t be reduced. The following are these points:
- The deceased had several injuries over a long period of time.
- The deceased had unexplained health problems for a long time.
- “… in no way did she, as a mother, not notice that something was going on.”
- The detective believed Moreno must have seen bruises because Moreno had not kept doctor’s appointments.
- The alleged victim has died.
- Moreno was an “unemployed mother”
- Moreno “stayed at home”
- “That’s all I have”
During this hearing, the bond reduction was rejected.
The defender claims that some of the points did not affect how Nathaniel was injured. She rejected item five, which she claimed had no information on the cause of death, item six because the mother was unemployed was a “nonsensical condemnation of motherhood combined with a condemnation of the economically disadvantaged”, and item seven, because the term “stayed at home” might as well be viewed as positive rather than negative.
The attorney accused the detective of basing the case on the idea that Moreno did not personally cause the baby’s blunt trauma.
With the motion, the defense tries to dismiss the indictment. This is the 68th motion in court since the case was added to the file in February 2019. This is the second oldest murder on record in the 391st District Court.
The court will meet again on June 1 to rule on the motion.