Dr. Matthews raises concerns over Del Rio prosecution involving self-represented defendant

TEXAS – Dr. Matthews issued a public statement questioning the handling of a felony case prosecuted by District Attorney Daniel Esquivel, citing concerns over due process and prosecutorial conduct and has filed a bar complaint.

The statement references the case of State of Texas vs. Benjamin G. Lopez Jr., outlining that the defendant proceeded through trial without legal representation after what was described as being pushed into self-representation. It further cites a documented claim that the defendant was “forced to self-representation.”

Dr. Matthews’ statement also points to competency concerns raised in court, including testimony referencing possible post-traumatic stress disorder, while noting the prosecution continued forward despite those issues.

“When a man is forced to stand trial alone, without counsel, with competency concerns on record, this is no longer justice, this is a constitutional crisis. Prosecutors are sworn to seek justice, not exploit vulnerability. If the record shows otherwise, then accountability is not optional, it’s necessary. This case raises a chilling question, if constitutional rights can be ignored in open court, then who is truly protected by the system? You cannot call it justice when the system proceeds against an unrepresented defendant with known concerns and unanswered evidence issues, that’s a breakdown of duty at every level. When the system fails to protect rights, the people will expose it, and that exposure is already underway. This isn’t just one case, this is a warning sign of what happens when oversight fails and power goes unchecked.”

The statement highlights legal standards under Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Article 2.01, which requires prosecutors to seek justice rather than convictions, and Texas Disciplinary Rule 3.09, which outlines obligations regarding fair prosecution and treatment of unrepresented defendants.

The statement questions how the case proceeded given the reported lack of counsel, competency concerns, and alleged inconsistencies in evidence, and raises broader concerns about constitutional protections and accountability within the justice system.