In a story on CNN today, Pat Lykos announced that she will be asking a court to declare George Rodriguez factually innocent of sexual assault charges that he was previously convicted for.
The move comes seven years after Rodriguez was freed from prison by a Court of Appeals and one day after she was called into question for the Office's possible fault in allowing Jessica Tata to flee the country to escape responsibility for the deaths of four children.
28 comments:
Murray,
This vintage Pat Lykos diversionary move reminds me of Bill Clinton's four (4) day bombing of Iraq which coincidentally ended the day he was impeaced.
Four (4) seems to be the operative word; and as one of my commenters posted, "Four (4) years and no more of Lykos".
Probably is, but it was still the right thing to do.
By the way, how many exonerations did Holmes or Rosenthal assist in securing?
I won't be holding my breath while Black Ink doesn't try to find out.
Rage
You are exactly right Murray and Lykos thinks we're all so stupid to be diverted by her attempted distraction. Read the chronicle commenters. She might have forgotten that it has taken her TWO YEARS AND THREE MONTHS to admit George Rodriguez is innocent but we haven't.
Former prosecutor PRE-Lykos
Holy trolly who are you kidding?
We ain't buying Patsy's diddling!
Four babies are dead,
Pat's sleeping in bed.
Little Jimmy's just a twittling.
Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dummer,
More injustice waits for summer.
The DA's office is totally lost,
Will the media notice the cost?
Special Crimes is in the crapper.
The end does not justify the means,
Unless of course Rage intervenes.
The right thing to do is okay,
Provided Mr. Rage gives his say.
Lykos logic is contageous so it seems.
How pathetic it took such a tragedy,
To show us all we need a remedy.
Justice shouldn't be for sale,
Our DA shouldn't be so stale.
Crooks prevail if we're not ready.
The platitudes of Rage and Pat,
Remind me of a plague ridden rat.
It's time for ADAs to take a stand,
Nothing less justice would demand.
ADAs can fight or cower on the mat.
Just 'cause you say so don't make it right.
Just more evidence of what a politician whe is and what a prosecutor she is NOT
I haven't seen anything that tells me whether this was something already in the works or if it was a spur of the moment thing. Until then, I'll reserve judgment.
The article which I read indicated that the charges were previously dismissed against Rodriguez. Does the District Attorney propose on refiling those charges so that Judge Hill would reaquire jurisdiction so that the District Attorney can move to dismiss them again, but this time indicate for actual innocence? Just wondering.
Dear Rager,
Actually the story goes that when a lawyer presented then District Attorney Holmes with DNA evidence tending to exonerate, he stated that if the prosecution relies on it(DNA) for convictions then we have to believe in it(DNA) when it is exculpatory.
This pitiful group now in power at the District Attorney's office is so pathetice, it is not funny.
Rage,
Under the Holmes and subsequently Rosenthal Administrations, I know of at least two exonerations that the Office made happen and subsequently assisted in the pardons: Kevin Byrd & Anthony Robinson.
Thanks to a friend for providing me with the names.
It looks like the HFD Chief is backing off his accusations and the case was rejected by a magistrate this weekend because of insufficient PC. And the attorney the Chief alleged failed to produce Tata never represented her. I think I see where the screw-ups happened here.
There were at least 4 exonerations under the Holmes and Rosenthal administrations: Kevin Byrd, Anthony Robinson, Ronald Taylor, and Josiah Sutton.
In the 25 years or so that I worked with Johnny Holmes, it was apparent that Johhny was guided by several basis principles:
1. Do what is right:
2. Do not prosecute a case that will cause a damn fool result;
3. If the legislature has enacted a law, enforce it;
4. If one relies on evidence to convict, that same evidence can be used to exonerate;
5. Do not worry about political consequences;
6. Do not prostitute oneself to the press.
Those were the principles of his office as well, and the competent defense attorneys at that time respected him for those principles.
Although it would indeed be tempting to level ad hominem attacks on those (I do have to say though -gutless) individuals choosing to hide behind pseudonyms when attacking Holmes and his office, nothing would be gainsaid to do so since the limited acumen of these individuals speaks for itself. It is ashamed, however, that Lykos and her henchpersons are apparently not guided by those same foregoing principles.
Calvin A. Hartmann
Mr Hartman:
Not only is Mrs. Lykos not guided by the principles you listed, she has not a clue what they mean.
Further, she isn't interested nor capable of learning them. Her motivations involve deep seated narcissism and a need to blame someone for her failings. Like Mubarak and Gadaffi she fails to recognize how she has destroyed what was entrusted to her.
So, they had two exonerations. Yet nost of the exonerations latelyt come from their era.
I'd say they're still behind in that calculation.
Holmes and rosenthal can give lip service to doing what is right all they want. I'm sure Sebesta still feels like he did justice in the case where Siegler exposed him. Or the DA who prosecuted Willingham thought the same while he relied on knowingly false snitch testimony. Saying you're doing justice and actually doing it are two entirely different things.
Rage
TZ,
FYI,your rat analogy is more on point than you might have realized. The rat plays a very significant role at VMI-the junior military bridge school Rage attended.
Rage's bitterness and desperation for recognition is classic for a narcissist. Charley Sheen is Rage's mentor. Any attention, regardless how insignificant and rat-like, feeds his emptyness.
USMA '87
To suggest that Pat Lykos stands for justice and that the venerable era of John B. Holmes was mere lip service to doing what was just and right demonstrates a total lack of ethical and judicial comprehension.
How else can you explain the fact that the exonerations of today come from his era of "doing justice?"
Sorry folks, looks like he didn't walk on water, and he's not that different from Lykos. But at least Lykos is correcting his mistakes.
8:54, get a life.
Rage
It is obvious that 8:54 has a good, succesful, and emotionally well balanced life since it went to a first class institution that has high academics and admission standards and is respected throughout this country and the world. On the other hand, for contrast, it seems that Rage went to a third world institution popoulated by a bunch of miscreant cowards and from which it acquired its infelicitious state of mind. We should feel sorry for such a miseable creature, a real life, modern day Gollum, who seeks to assert a degree of dignity and recognition through this blog, graciously provided by the Harris County Lawyer, as it cries out in vain for some recognition of its perverted humanity. Quite possibly the genesis of its malady is an infection at that institution still existing from Pickett's debacle.
Who prosecuted the George Rodriguez case? Can we have an answer?
The case against George Rodriguez was dismissed yesterday (3/4/11) by Judge Belinda Hill. It had previously been dismissed, however, according to the Chronicle article. The article did not indicate by what procedure that Judge Hill secured jurisdiction over a previously dismissed case in order to dismiss it again. Although the dismissal was justified according to the facts, has this become another case where the Comptroller will refuse payment? A nunc pro tunc of the earlier dismissal appears inapplicable under TRAP 23. I'm sure there are smart folks out there who can explain this or has Lykos' office again made up the rules just as it apparently did when seeking injunctions in civil proceedings in the apartment cases where statutorily it seems it had no authority to do so?
Calvin A. Hartmann
Sounds like this was a Calvin Hartmann case.
Rage
No Rage. Bill Hawkins prosecuted it and he did so with the evidence that he had at the time. My understanding is that the Complainant was (and possibly still is) absolutely certain that Rodriguez was the person who attacked her.
I know it is much easier for those not involved to second-guess what happened on an exoneration, but don't forget that we are talking about a horrific crime. The prosecutors believed that they had the right person accused and they proceeded.
That's what they were supposed to do. It is tragic for everyone involved all around, but you would have to be an absolute moron to think that Bill would have intentionally charged after somebody he thought didn't do it, or that he was careless about how he prosecuted Rodriguez.
I've said it time and again, but D.A.s aren't scientists and they have to rely on the evidence that they have.
My record as a criminal defense attorney for seven years and as a prosecutor for twenty-five years speaks for itself. My question still has not been, however, answered by the smart guns.
Calvin A. Hartmann
Murray, as a general rule, I agree with you. I've met Hawkins several times and would agree that he's not the type. But you would also have to agree that there are those out there who would intentionally fabricate evidence. That's really the point I'm trying to make, that it happens. A lot of people here act like no prosecutor would ever do it. You show them it has happened, and they say no Harris County prosecutor would do it. You show them that, and they have more excuses. I'm just using lykos as the "fixer" to get under their skin a little, but the point is the same.
Most exonerations occur when DNA evidence refutes eyewitness testimony. That's one of the many reasons identification procedures need to be changed. Today, you cannot say that Harris County defendants are prosecuted with the best evidence, because the procedures are flawed and we know, as we sit here today, that there are better ways to do things. Until our government makes a serious effort at improving criminal prosecutions using the best available procedures and science, we will all still be much more likely to have our liberties taken from us by the local cops and DA than we ever will some external enemy that politicians want us to fear. Things have to change.
Hartmann, I hate to tell you buddy, but you will pass from this world and like the vast majority of us, outside a few people, the world will not miss or remember you. You can put down that cross now.
Rage
Rage,
I don't disagree with the fact that prosecutions often happen without the best evidence, but they proceed with the best evidence on hand. I'm all for double-blind procedures on line ups and photo spreads, but I don't think that a case shouldn't proceed without a fingerprint, DNA and a confession.
The problem you run into is people like Mike Nifong and Charlie Sebesta, who get a vision in their head and then proceed along with tunnel vision to achieve an end that they dictated, rather than the evidence. The second they start disregarding evidence to the contrary or not turning it over, they have become criminals, not prosecutors, in my opinion.
As for Calvin, I don't see a need to be rude to him, Rage. He was a distinguished member of both the Defense Bar and the Prosecution. He's been gone for about ten years now from professional practice, and I can sure you those who worked alongside him remember and respect him and his work. If the only distinguishing mark that makes a human worthwhile is to be universally remembered, then I suppose we are all no more than food for worms.
I don't know how someone (Rage) who by his own admission has tried fewer criminal cases than Pat Lykos, has suddenly become an expert in all things criminal. Unlike the majority of people who post on this blog, Calvin has the balls to post his name instead of hiding behind a pseudonym. If we want to talk about the "era of corruption" under Holmes and Rosenthal, we must also call out those defense attorneys who put a premium on the number of cases they were appointed to instead of the quality of their work. Chief among them would be Jim Leitner and Roger Bridgewater. In fact, in the case of a recently exonerated inmate, a special prosecutor was named because Jim Leitner was the Defendant's defense attorney at trial. I have worked around the criminal courthouse for over 30 years, and I know Bill, Calvin, Johnny and all the other prosecutors that Rage thrives on trashing on a routine basis. They are all men of integrity. You, on the other hand, seem to have some deep-seeded issues of jealousy and envy, and you manifest your lack of self-worth by attacking others, and then becoming even more hostile when they defend themselves. Take your ball and go home.
Murray, there is a huge, and I mean vast, world of middle ground between "we need to improve the way the system works" and "not every can can have DNA, fingerprints, and a signed confession." You know that.
As for Hartmann, sure. I'm sure you'll also admonish him the next time he does the same to me.
There will be no regrets when the worms come;
And they shall surely come.
--Third Eye Blind
Rage
Rage,
You and I frequently disagree, but you more often than not can articulate good points (regardless of whether or not I agree with them).
But you have to admit that there is a difference between insulting someone who signs there name versus insulting a pseudonym that nobody knows who it belongs to.
As for our worms debate, I can only hope that I helped make some positive moments in some people's lives and that helped some. I'm not going to change the world, but I will do all I can.
Post a Comment