This one will have a little bit of irony to it, because the Chronicle actually published this story back in 1989 when Pat Lykos was on the bench. Now that she's running for District Attorney, I doubt that they will run it, given the new Lykos/Cohen/Bernstein love affair going on.
The story is a summary of the ridiculous inefficiency that Lykos ran her court during a child abuse case, stretching a two week trial into four weeks. Why? Because Lykos followed this daily routine:
Testimony from witnesses usually started between 10:45 a.m. and 11 a.m. - as much as an hour after jurors had reported for duty. Lunches typically lasted from 12:30 p.m. to 2 p.m. Court usually adjourned between 5 p.m. and 5:15 p.m. The time spent in testimony usually amounted to four or five hours a day.
Back then, when asked to comment on her extremely inconsiderate hours, Lykos had this to offer:
The judge declined to respond to any questions related to the trial, saying notices of appeal filed by Alexander and Charlotte Jimenez, who were convicted, mean their child-injury cases still are pending in 180th District Court.
Hmm. Lykos gets bad press and chooses not to respond, citing that the case is pending. Why does this sound vaguely familiar? When the New York Times questioned Lykos about the Yarmulke Incident, here was her response:
Judge Lykos, who had been out of town this week, declined to comment on her return on Friday. ''Since I now have indirect notice of a complaint, it would be extremely improper for me to comment on it,'' she said.
Seriously, folks, is the general public really buying into this lady's B.S? The woman has no rational explanation for her bad behavior so she says she can't comment due to a pending appeal or a pending complaint?
Give me a break!!! A pending case wouldn't stop her for asserting a legitimate reason like "I was sick." or "My car broke down". Lykos is just full of it, and is hiding from the media.
Thank goodness for her sake that today's Chronicle has such crappy writing that they'll ignore these stories. It would be incredibly awkward for her to have to explain them now.
But it does give me the funny visual of Lykos stating: "It would be highly improper for me to comment on this during a pending campaign."
Okay, so you think all of that is no big deal? How about the rest of the story on this case?
When [a] missing witness, Mrs. Jimenez's son, Craig Sigurdson, finally arrived hours late, Lykos sent him to Harris County Jail for a 28-hour stay.
The judge told her bailiffs Monday to arrest any newspaper or television photographer who took a picture of a passing juror.
She went further Tuesday and made photographers place their cameras on the floor when jurors were in the hallway outside the courtroom.
I understand protecting the jurors from being filmed, but a court order would have sufficed. The threat of incarceration is just another example of Pat Lykos and her power plays.
So, let's see, under a Lykos administration, you could be incarcerated for:
1. Taking a picture of a juror.
2. Being late to court (even though the judge was always late to court); and
3. Having a serial rapist know your name (SEE STORY BELOW).
However, you are still safe from incarceration if you shake your 2 month old baby so severely that it causes brain damage, as long as you get birth control.
Seriously, Chronicle, what is wrong with you? This is the person you endorse for elected District Attorney? This is the person you are burying stories for?