Monday, January 14, 2008

Dick versus Kelly -- again

It wouldn't shock me entirely to see Dick DeGuerin contributing a large amount of money to the Kelly Siegler campaign. Why do I say something so patently ridiculous? Because he's running out of time to win "the big one" against her, if she doesn't win the D.A.'s office (and presumably leaves the office after that).

I keep having this vision of Apollo Creed trying to talk Rocky Balboa out of retirement for a rematch.

Dick's latest attempt to defeat his diminutive arch-nemesis met with failure yet again today in the Motion for New Trial for David Temple. Dick really seemed to think he had Kelly this time, when he called her to the stand in a feeble attempt to get her to confess to some sort of prosecutorial misconduct. In his opening arguments, Dick argued that Kelly had the audacity to insinuate facts while asking questions that were inadmissible. And I mean, come on here, we know Dick would never try to do something like that on his own. However, watching Dick act indignant on television was pretty damn funny.

Chron.com is finally giving Kelly some good press, which just goes to show you that when you let the woman get down to the business of doing her job, she's pretty freaking good at it.

For the record, this makes the score: Dick -- Zero. Kelly -- oh, hell, I lost count.

7 comments:

Mark Bennett said...

Interesting, looking at Kelly's website, to see that three out of four of the cases she refers to were defended by Dick. (The fourth was defended by one of Dick's associates.)

Keep up the good work.

Anonymous said...

Isn't hiring Dick kind of like confessing?

He ain't Percy, he just bills more.

A Harris County Lawyer said...

I like to kid about Dick, because he's always so serious. Of course he is a very intelligent and very talented trial attorney.

Although, I have to admit that I was surprised by his trial strategy during the punishment phase of the David Temple trial: "The guy who killed Belinda Temple deserves life in prison. But you've convicted the wrong guy."

My experience has been that juries don't like being told that they screwed up. Especially not during the punishment phase.

Mark Bennett said...

Sometimes the jury suspects that it might have screwed up the culpability phase, and a residual doubt argument is the difference between prison and probation. Not that Temple was such a case, but sometimes that punishment strategy is all we've got.

Question: Will Kelly still be able to do the job she's best at if she's elected DA? Chuck hasn't spent a whole lot of time in the courtroom in the last seven years.

A Harris County Lawyer said...

I think that if Kelly is elected she would probably try those cases that would be appropriate for an elected D.A. to try. Those capitals where a police officer or fireman have been killed (which unfortunately seem to be too frequently). And those cases that kind of call for the elected D.A. to try the case, as Johnny Holmes did with Rafael Resendiz Ramirez (along with Lyn McClellan and now-Judge Devon Anderson).

Quite frankly, she hasn't seemed to have been in trial all that frequently since she became the Bureau Chief of Special Crimes. Being a supervisor is hell, I hear.

Anonymous said...

I watched the majority of the Temple trial. I thought that Deguerin's performance was lacking. His arugment in guilt/innocence was stream of consciousness and awful. In punishment, it was worse. He has either lost his will to win, or lost his touch. A very talented trial attorney once told me, that the most prepared attorney wins. Deguerin was not prepared. Kelly was, and from what I can see, always is!

A Harris County Lawyer said...

Anon,
I agree with your assessment of Dick's performance. I think that he firmly believed that the facts were so thin on the Temple case that he underestimated how difficult it would be against Kelly. When the gunshot residue got suppressed, I think he became even more confident. It was a mistake that no attorney should ever make, and it was surprising to see him make it.