Sunday, May 9, 2010

A Programming Note -- UPDATED!

This upcoming week is shaping up to be a busy one for me, but I wanted to make sure that you all are aware of a Channel 11 Programming Note.

Based on some teaser advertising, it looks like they are broadcasting an interview with everybody's favorite Public Defender, Pat Lykos, on Monday, May 10th on the 10 o'clock news, where she apparently gets angry and storms out of the interview.

Or, as I like to call it, she "pulls a Leitner".

Make sure not to miss it.

UPDATE -- Okay, I just watched the news story. I'm not sure that the statistics of the increase in No Bills is all that alarming, but the murder case profiled does seem to be worthy of a little more looking into.

But all of that takes a back seat to what an ass that Lykos made of herself.


It was almost as if she knocked back a few Jack and Cokes before the interview.

Was she trying to be cute by making Greenblatt state his name, or is that how she handles everybody who questions what she is doing?

Is "Greenblatt Math" really all that confusing for her? It seemed pretty damn straight-forward to me.

And a "urinating contest"? Really Pat? Are you afraid to say "pissing"? You are the one who once called Judge Bacon a f*ck face, after all.

Wow. You really made a fool out of yourself on that one.

Good job.

You can link to the article by click here.


Anonymous said...

Do you feel like you are abt to walk into a huge bear trap, you should?

Jason said...

Ohhhh I didn't hear about that! Maybe she was trying to emulate John Lydon (in his Sex Pistols days) when he walked out of that interview!

I guess our esteemed District Attorney doesn't handle tough questions when she isn't the one in control of the interview.

Anonymous said...

People spent time on that murder before presenting it. That you can be sure of. And despite the effort, the grand jury didn't feel that it was enough. All of that is confidential. It is what it is. I can't believe Channel 11 used the defendant's name and basically insinuated that he was a murderer that walked free.

Anonymous said...

Who picks the grand juries? Judges. Look at the new blood on the bench. There has been quite a change in grand juries over the past year or so. Whether you thinkit's good or bad, there's definitely change.

Anonymous said...

What I'm most impressed with is that this Defendant got his case No Billed in the 230th Grand Jury (appointed by one of the most conservative Judges on the bench), with a court-appointed attorney, using a court-appointed investigator, for a total cost to taxpayes of $1,500.00. Report on that KHOU. That's not good news for the Public Defender's Office proposal.

Aggie Pct Chair said...

I am alarmed by the increasing rate of no bills. This is a reflection of how bad Lykos is. I believe this was the first time somebody actually confronted Lykos and she was embarassing. I am concerned she is going to destroy the momentum the republican party has because of our biggest supporter the "O"man. We as republicans need denounce this lady and prepare for 2012 NOW. This is a warning. This is serious. The media is going to feed on this and realize that all you have to do is sit her down and ask her tough questions.

I hereby denounce Pat Lykos as DA. She is not a republican. She is soft on crime. What are the stats on her use of the death penalty? I used to love telling my yankee friends that Harris County is the death penalty capitol of the world. Either the Chronicle isn't publishing the cases or they aren't happening.

Please do not ignore this. DENOUNCE PAT LYKOS AS DA.

Anonymous said...

How does the number of No Bills reflect poorly on Lykos, Aggie Pct Chair? Because a majority of 12 citizens feel there is not even probable cause for a case to go forward? That's Lykos' fault? You scare me.

Mark W. Stephens said...

Well, I can tell you a little about the murder case. I was hired by the family after the complainant was missing for several months. They filed a Missing Persons report with HCSO, but a case was never opened.

I found the witnesses, put together a list of possible suspects, and eventually found the complainant's decomposed body out in the woods in Crosby. I turned everything over to the Sheriff's Department.

When they checked on the primary suspect, they found he was already in jail for pistol whipping his girlfriend. Of course, the pistol he used in that case was my murder weapon. It was already in the property room. I told them the complainant's car was still missing and when they checked...sure enough this same suspect had been in possession of the complainant's car...which had been stolen at the time of the murder. The suspect had given the car to his sister, which is where it was recovered.

Once they had the car, it was determined the complainant was killed while sitting in the drivers seat of his car. Ballistic evidence was recovered from the car and the from complainant's body.

So...the suspect was in possession of the murder weapon AND the complainant's car...which turned out to be the crime scene.

The suspect confessed to having the murder weapon and the complainants car, but did not confess to the murder. There was at least one witness that put the complainant and the suspect together shortly before the murder...but no eyewitness to the actual murder itself.

The compl was buying drugs. The susp has a habit of robbing people looking to buy drugs. (+ 20 some odd previous convictions)

We were told prosectuors asked for a No Bill because 1) He didn't confess to the murder; and 2) There was no eyewitness to the murder.

Why they asked for a No a mystery to me.

Pat Lykos surley didn't win any friends with that interview. It was pretty shocking...

Anonymous said...

She looked like a BIG ass; it sure made me feel sorry for those of you who have had to work for the old bag. She wants it HER WAY -including the "official record", the "math" and even "Greenblatt's story". When she started losing control she could not deal with it. Great job Greenblatt.

Anonymous said...

Maybe the increase of no bills could be that officers aren’t much discretion and poor screening at DA Intake.

Anonymous said...

There is no statisical significance. It was creative math. No Bills went up 1% over comparing 2 years. It went up from 3% of no bills for ALL cases presented to the GJ to 4%. That DOES NOT signify a trend. Much ado about nothing (stats-wise).

Thomas Hobbes said...

Anon0654 - Don't leap to conclusions about significance. The devil really is in the details. I'd like to know more about the changes within charge categories. I'm also a bit troubled by Mark's comments and his interview. Why would the prosecutors take to a GJ a case for which they didn't believe they had enough evidence? Why not slide it to a back burner and let it simmer for a bit to see if more evidence developed?

AHCL - I watched Lykos' interview again this morning and I'm astounded by the arrogance on display. She could have done herself a bit of good by listening and agreeing to look into what the numbers seemed to show. She wouldn't have had to admit anything more than the existence of the numbers and could have changed the tone of the story. But not Patsy . . .

Anonymous said...

I'm not all that worried about a 330 case variation in the number of indictments in the grand scheme of things, what concerns me is how she handled it publically. Did she think she was being cute? Clever? Funny? She was none of those things. She was someone who clearly ignores PR advice (if she's ever asked for any) on how to handle confrontation, who clearly wasn't ready for the interview (are fluctuations like this the normal--look back the last ten years and see before you sit down with a reporters--be armed for the attack, geez). And I felt physical pain for Mark Brown forced to sit there with her while she misbehaved.

Just Sayin' said...

Mark W. Stephens,
"...We were told prosecutors asked for a No Bill because 1) He didn't confess to the murder; and 2) There was no eyewitness to the murder.

Why they asked for a No a mystery to me."

1.Pat Lykos has no idea how to handle the simplest of criminal cases.
2.Most of the prosecutors are scared to death to try a tough case because if Lykos perceives a trial loss to taint her image the last memory of that prosecutor's carreer will be the bus muffler.
Just sayin'

Anonymous said...

Boy!!!! talk about arrogance...
Hey, Murray, you should add the Laday case to the Ezike case.... You know, where the DA's Office gave bond to a defendant who was caught at the Mexico border.... fleeing from prosecution.... Or, did he think now was a good time for spring break in Mexico?

Anonymous said...

Mark Stephens,
I'm so sorry for your client. Your case was easily solid enough for a True Bill. And now the shooter's gun has been destroyed. It is unbelievable.
I guess Harris County will soon only prosecute dumb crooks that confess and are caught in the commission on video.
BTW, I hope you don't represent any cold case clients because they're history my friend.

BLACK INK said...

Thomas Hobbes you nailed it.

Anonymous said...

A polygraph with only two questions asked has no semblance of reliability. Were there other shortcuts taken in the investigation of that case?

Anonymous said...

I hereby denounce Pat Lykos as DA.

I'm canceling out your vote.


Anonymous said...

I am concerned she is going to destroy the momentum the republican party has because of our biggest supporter the "O"man.

Couldn't leave this gem either.

If you think a DA has enough pull or a bad enough reputation on her own to swing an entire general election, you don't understand politics at all. You aren't even qualified to be a lowly precinct chair.

Things like the Arizona law and Sarah Palin running her yap will be what continues to cause the Republican Party to lose. In other words, it's your own damn fault.

Republicans are now in the position that Democrats were in for years. It's not necessarily their election to win, it's their election to lose. In other words, you would most likely win if you didn't keep screwing things up for yourself.

But hey, I want to treat my major contributors to strip club dinners as well, so I can understand. But I don't run on the holier-than-thou morality party platform, so it doesn't look as stupid when I do it.


Anonymous said...

DA's frequently go to grand juries and ask for a no-bill, they do it all the time for instances where cops are accused or where someone knows someone in charge and they want to say "we took it to a grand jury, but they no-billed it," thereby absolving themselves of any responsibility. These are the same types of prosecutors who will take a BS case and prosecute it despite recanting "victims" and disappearing witnesses and say "sorry, the grand jury indicted them so I have to prosecute," which is also a lie.

Why they did it in this case is a mystery. But I doubt it's because they didn't want to prosecute this case. The evidence is a lock, without a confession.

If the facts are as represented by Mark Stephens, anyway.

Anonymous said...

It appeared that Lykos had MULTIPLE Jack and Cokes prior to the interview. The moonshine was fuming from the bung holes big mouth. Besides, no one could be that dumb sober. The only thing that could have made it better would have been a panorama view of her new wood floors.

Anonymous said...

Pat made a fool of herself in that interview. I was almost embarrassed for her.
In the beginning, was she trying to prove that she could question a witness, "state your name..."?
Wow, she sounded worse than I expected, and I am no fan.

The number are not that startling. You have a lot of experience that left the office, so you have a lot of junior prosectors in charge of serious cases. There could be any number of reasons why the numbers went up a bit. But just to make jokes, and insult the reporter, was juvenile.

The Republican Party needs to find a candidate to run against her. If they back Pat again, they lose all credibility.

Anonymous said...

Putting the other issues to the side, I can't figure out why this case was filed in the first place. The news focused on polygraph evidence, which is clearly inadmissible. There is no way this case should have gone to trial. The State would have been instructed out. I know plenty of aggressive prosecutors, and they wouldn't have tried this case. My suggestion is to focus on real issues and don't make this case a poster child.

Anonymous said...

The public finally got a look at the arrogance and demeaning personality that is Pat Lykos. You think Marc Brown was embarrassed, everybody who works for her is embarrassed and hopeful she's a one-term D.A.

jigmeister said...

Sorry you had to sit there, Marc. Hopefully she doesn't blame you for how arrogant she looked. Afraid that is wistful hope though. Why the hell did someone let the Sheriff destroy the weapon or was it just a screw up?

Anonymous said...

LOL. Big Jolly Politics is blaming Pat Lykos' bad performance on "bad lighting." He claims to have talked to someone who was there at the interview and tries to make it look like KHOU's fault for putting her in such a "bad light" (pun intended.)

Perhaps he should go back and ask his confidential inside source about the lighting. Because it seems Pat Lykos is such a control freak - she made the cameraman take down the lighting and re-adjust it THREE times before she would even let the interview begin!

She got exactly the lighting she requested.

Oh, and Anonymous @ May 11, 2010 9:11 PM: Did you even watch the same story?? There was a brief mention of the polygraph...but to say the story or the case "focused" on the polygraph???? Come on. Really?

It didn't seem to me like it was a big part of the story or case at all, just kind of thrown in the mix to prove what the facts already revealed. Everyone knows polygraph evidence isn't admissible AND everyone knows its used as an investigative tool in these cases.

Sounds like the facts were there to make a strong case. But there was definitely some bumbling by both the DA's office and the Sheriff's office.

And don't forget the most important part. The case was never closed. A killer walks free.

David Jennings said...

Anon 12:52,

Uh, no. I didn't say that her performance was caused by bad lighting. In relation to her performance, I said that her comedy didn't work and that she should view clips of Gov. Perry handling hostile media.

I said the lighting made her look bad, as in her appearance. I called the person I mentioned and that person does not recall your version of three set-ups. This person did say they remembered her saying something about the light blinding her and it was moved, so if that is what you are talking about, then I guess you are correct. "Fire the person that allowed that lighting" was just a joke.

Anonymous said...

Looks like the high Sheriff fired a shot across their bow. Investigators over there don't give on camera interviews without being told to.

Anonymous said...


The weapon was seized in a drug case for another defendant well before the murder charge was ever filed. That case was disposed of and eventually a destruction order was signed. Down the road, the link was made to this gun. That gun was not the known murder weapon at the time the other persons case was disposed of.. When the destruction order was granted, no one knew or had reason to know. My understanding is also that this gun evidence was not even known at the time the case went to the grand jury, but I'd have to verify that.

Mark W. Stephens said...

Anonymous May 12, 2010 10:07 PM

The gun was tested for ballistics evidence in the murder case. It was known.

Anonymous said...

If all the evidence the state had was listed by mark s then the case shouldve been dismissed rather than blaming the grand jury. No way a jury convicts on those facts.

Mark W. Stephens said...

Its obviously my opinion that the murder case on Laday should have continued. If prosecutors thought the case was weak...I would have volunteered more of my time to help shore it up. As I stated earlier...why they asked for a No Bill is a mystery to me.

But here is the other mystery... Why didn't they file on Laday for Felon in Possession of a Firearm and keep him in jail, instead of letting him walk free???

I'm fairly confident that the next move will be for them to claim they can't file this charge now because the pistol has been destroyed. If they can bet its because they're in full CYA mode and it will be a way to point the finger away from themselves.

Nevermind the fact that it should have been filed BEFORE the pistol was destroyed. AND nevermind the fact they don't need the pistol to file the charge now.

Meanwhile...a killer walks free...

Anonymous said...

Does anybody find it curious that all television stations are posting stories on the destruction of the DA's office while the Chronicle remains silent?

Mark W. Stephens said...

Well, I told them it was just a matter of time. Clarence Laday, the suspect in this case, was arrested Monday and charged with PCS (cocaine) and UUMV. I'm told he stole another car during a dope deal. Sound familar? That's exactly what happened with Marty Koci...except Koci ended up dead.

At least this time, no one was killed.

With his record...they should keep him for a while. Let's hope anyway...