I heard Pat Lykos' radio ad today for the first time.
She continues her strategy of offering nothing appealing about herself, but just taking potshots at the clearly more qualified Kelly Siegler.
Lykos has another voice doing the talking for the majority of the commercial, so I guess, technically, it isn't actually Lykos misleading the public this time.
The ad yammers on about the Rosenthal Administration, and refers to Kelly as Rosenthal's "Top Lieutenant".
Um, that's not true. Bert Graham, as First Assistant, would have been Chuck's "Top Lieutenant", but I think we've clearly established by now that Lykos isn't really all that big on acknowledging the facts.
For those of you interested in the truth, Kelly has been the Bureau Chief of Special Crimes for a couple of years now. She handles things like Cold Cases, Major Fraud, and the extremely violent offenders. It's the elite branch of trial lawyers within the Office, kind of like the legal equivalent of the Navy SEALS.
Lykos (through her spokesman) then states that Kelly admitted "tainted" evidence that got a murder case reversed.
That's about as disingenuous of a statement that a desperate candidate can make, because Lykos is relying on the general voting community being unfamiliar with legal procedure to make it sound as if Kelly engaged in some sort of misconduct, which she clearly didn't.
For those unfamiliar with criminal procedure, in almost every criminal case where a Defendant's statement (commonly referred to as a "confession") is intended to be admitted as evidence, there will be a hearing to determine the admissibility of that statement. The State of Texas (in this case, Kelly) has to put on evidence outside the presence of the jury to a judge, and show that procedure was followed. The defense will then argue that the statement is inadmissible.
Ultimately, it is the trial judge who decides whether or not that statement is admissible.
In the case that Lykos is attempting to mislead the public about, the trial court ruled that the statement was admissible. The jury heard it. The jury convicted.
Upon appellate review, the Higher Courts decided that the trial court had erred, and they reversed the case. That's not entirely unusual, because, as I've pointed out before, the Appellate Courts change their rulings and modify the shape of laws on a daily basis. It doesn't mean that anybody did anything wrong. Courts just overrule each other on occasion.
When the trial court admitted the Defendant's confession, the Judge did so based on her findings on the facts and the law.
The judge wasn't stupid.
Lykos is just hoping that the voters are.