I don't have a lot of time to write, but the Chronicle today cited in its' candidate interview that Jim Leitner said the following:
Leitner, saying he was trained as a prosecutor in the late 1970s to try to keep minorities off juries, offered a three-month experiment of no "peremptory challenges" by prosecutors during jury selection. In Texas, the prosecution and defense each can block 10 members of a jury panel for a variety of reasons, based on written and oral information each juror supplies to the court.
Um, Jim, I love ya, brother, but are you out of your mind?
Or did you get misquoted?
19 comments:
NICE Blog :)
He has a lot more faith in jurors than I do.
I'd say he was pandering! I especially love how he guaranteed
a top assistant DA who is a minority.
Anyone go to the Pachyderm club today?
It's usually populated with a number of lawyers, so I'm curious about what happened.
Ron,
My understanding was that the Pachyderm club was a non-event with horribly low attendance (like to the tune of maybe 5 people).
Frankly, I blame Mark. He's the one who told everyone that the candidates would be nude.
I was really liking this blog and wanted to comment on this post, but I'm really getting turned off. Is this the "Ron In Houston" blog now? I know you and Mark Bennett are friends but now it's getting obvious. Maybe you really are Mark Bennett, after all. And I think that allowing that c for coward comment through was a low blow. Some people happen to agree with that poster. So I won't be commenting again. Go Siegler.
Da-esque,
I'm sorry you are mad at me. I'm kind of in a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation. I really don't want to ban any of the comments if I don't have to, but unfortunately it seems that some of the comments that I allow end up as if I were the one who posted it.
Ideally, I wouldn't have to moderate them at all, but some EXTREME cases have forced it. If I start blocking the e-mails that I don't agree with, people aren't going to feel free to speak their minds here.
I think if you have read this post from the beginning, it's pretty damn clear that I whole-heartedly support Kelly Siegler. Anon C is a great poster, and clearly doesn't need me to fight a fight for him/her.
I genuinely hope you will reconsider boycotting posting on the website. All input is welcome and appreciated.
I really think that an alien has penetrated the harris county courthouse. He started by taking Chuck's mind (carry-on baggage weight) and has moved to taking Jim's mind. Be careful, very careful.
Assuming Siegler would be a good DA, is no one concerned with the crew she will make her right hand(s)?
Anon 9:32 PM,
Who are you concerned about, out of curiosity?
DA-esque (and everyone else),
Please don't think I'm pandering, but in looking through the comments, I just now caught what exactly DA-esque meant about me allowing the "coward" comment about Anon C. I have to admit to being asleep at the wheel. I didn't realize that the coward comment came in the name.
That's pretty pathetic. And sadly, I've got a pretty good idea of who wrote it. I have now deleted it. That's some silly crap there, and I would have thought that the level of intelligence on this blog was way above stupid name calling, and fake name postings.
Not one person. It's just that if Kelly is elected there will be no fresh blood in that office. Everyone close to Kelly, and those she'd promote to higher levels, tries to copy her. And when you make a copy of a copy of a copy . . . well, regardless of how good your original is, you lose a lot of clarity. That's all I's saying. I just thought this election might bring some sort of a change.
Maybe, just maybe, some of the people that respect Kelly, DON'T respect Chuck! I still believe that ridding the office of anyone that respects Kelly would wipe the place out. Anonymous, do you really think that intelligent people that respect Kelly don't have a mind of their own? How many people in this world work for a boss they don't like, but enjoy their work? How many ADAs keep their jobs b/c they want to see their victims through a trial? Anon, do you put up with the SH*t at your job for money or to help people?
Anon 9:43,
You raise a valid point, but let me pose a scenario to you:
An office composed of good people with a lot of good ideas and a lot of talent work under a boss that isn't really interested in hearing those ideas. That boss falls by the wayside, and one of those good people has the opportunity to lead it. The new person expresses right off that bat that she wants to hear from those people and implement good ideas.
I understand that there is a lot of public skepticism right now, but would you acknowledge at least the POSSIBILITY that things can change for the better from within if the Office is led by the right person?
Lest I be misunderstood, I know a lot of DA's. I know 99% of them do their job with integrity and honesty. And I acknowledge Kelly is excellent at her job, and I don't believe she is lock-step with Chuck. I also am not sure her recent comments -- specifically her recent comment regarding "lame" prosecutors -- won't sound to her followers like "if you're not cheating, you're not trying." And THAT's not the reputation the office needs -- or deserves.
Wait just a darned minute here - I DID NOT post that comment earlier - someone used by name...
Hey fake da-esque - think of you own cute name!
How about "DA-Ette" or "DA-Lite" or even "DA'est" Those are all cute - but leave DA-esque alone - I already used that one!
:-)
The problem I have is that most of the talented and experienced ADAs I know will NEVER work for Lykos or Bradford. Actually, after today I am not sure that they would stay for Leitner (not that he would ever win). I just think that the citizens of Harris County deserve the best. In the end, this contest is between Siegler, Lykos and Bradford (GOD FORBID). If Siegler is knocked out b/c she wants only the best for the average Jos Sixpack (yes, that was intended) then so be it. You have two choices. Vote for Siegler or lose the experience.
The repeated calls for "fresh blood" in the DA's office, typically by those completely unfamiliar with the Justice System, reminds me of how wildly different some see the role of the DA and ADA's from those of us more familiar with the way things work/way things should work.
There is no doubt that thanks to recent comments by various candidates, Ms. Siegler is the only one ready to handle the position in a responsible manner. Leitner's call for social experiments and pandering to the minority elements is especially strange given that they wouldn't vote for him as long as he's running with an "R" next to his name and the "D" candidate happens to be black (just going with the established voting demographics as proven in the past; compounded by the probability that his already selected right hand is Latino, hence the endorsement by the MABAH).
Mr. Perry isn't a viable candidate, and the comments made by Ms. Lykos alone would be enough to disqualify her even if her past was not such an albatross around her neck. Bradford has two strengths to speak of; his race and that "D" next to his name, everything else about him screams "bad choice".
There are reforms needed in the office but establishing hiring quotas should not be one of them (unless it is proven that particular applicants were discriminated against solely due to their race). My experience is that race isn't a huge factor in terms of ability but firing large quantities of ADA's in a political purge strikes me as a setback that no one wants in the long run.
Don't want to join this long and twisty convo. Just wanted to say Yes! He's definitely "outta his mind". For sure!
Post a Comment