Saturday, February 21, 2015

Letting Go

"I believe your client, but you are still going to need to present something to the Grand Jury on it."
"I'll give you a probation on a lesser charge, but your guy is going to need to plead on all three cases.  I've been told that my court has too many dismissals."
"I don't know why the Grand Jury indicted your client, but I can't dismiss it unless the co-defendant pleads to something."
"I would never dismiss that case.  It's a First Degree!"
What do the above four phrases have in common?

They have all been said to me by a prosecutor as justification for not dismissing a case in the past year.

Now, before I go too much further down the road of angering every prosecutor who reads this blog, let me be clear:  Prosecutors and Defense Attorney disagree every freaking day over whether or not a case should be dismissed.  As Defense Attorneys, we are obligated to seek out the best resolution for our clients and we wouldn't be doing our jobs if we did not (at least) see if we can talk the prosecutor into a dismissal.

As you can imagine, the strength of a Defense Attorney's argument for dismissal can vary drastically from case to case.  Many of these "dismissal discussions" are very brief and the vast majority of them obviously don't end in dismissal.

The issue that I have here is absolutely NOT with the prosecutor who doesn't agree with my interpretation of the evidence.  My argument is NOT with the prosecutor who finds their witness' statements to be more credible than I do or the evidence more compelling than I see it.  I get that.  I don't always agree with it, but I get that.

My issue is with the prosecutor who will actually state to me that the reason they won't let go of a case is because of something that has absolutely nothing to do with the facts of that case.

Statistics should never be a consideration in whether or not a prosecutor dismisses a case.   I firmly believe that nothing adversely affects the Criminal Justice System more than statistics -- i.e. the police get recognized for how many felony arrests they make, so why not go hunt down jaywalkers who might be carrying crack pipes with residue?  The same applies to prosecutors when they start being judged on how many dismissals they may or may not have signed off on.

Statistics are for politicians.  Not prosecutors.

The standard of whether or not a prosecutor should dismiss a case is simple:  if you don't believe it can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, or (God forbid) you believe the person is (gasp!) factually innocent, you shouldn't be freaking prosecuting it.  Period.  Take all the time you need to thoroughly investigate the facts of the case, but if you can't prove it beyond a Reasonable Doubt, you need to be signing a dismissal.

When I was chief of the 339th District Court, I was observing Brent Mayr try an Aggravated Robbery case (which is a First Degree charge).  For those of you who don't know Brent, he's a fantastic trial lawyer and he's also very competitive.  In the middle of his trial, a witness testified to something that caused Brent to have hesitation over whether or not the Defendant was guilty.  I was his supervisor, so he came to me because he wanted to dismiss it in the middle of trial.

"I think he probably did it," Brent told me, "but I don't believe that beyond a Reasonable Doubt anymore."

So, we dismissed it immediately.  Nobody ever questioned either my judgment or Brent's.  A dismissal in the middle of a trial isn't exactly a positive statistic for a prosecutor's record, but that didn't dissuade him from doing the right thing.  I was proud of Brent.

Dismissals on First Degree cases do still happen, obviously.  I am still very appreciative of when Lance Long and Greg Houlton dismissed this murder case after carefully reviewing the evidence.

My point here is that a dismissal should ALWAYS happen based on the evidence and not ulterior concerns.  When I was a prosecutor, nothing offended me more than hearing a defense attorney say something like "all prosecutors care about is getting their conviction."  I didn't believe that then and I don't believe that now.

But statements like the four that begin this post should give you some insight into why defense attorneys sometimes feel that way.

If you believe my client's version of events when she explains that she isn't guilty, then dismiss the case.  Don't make her and her family have to experience the overwhelming stress of being charged with a felony if you don't think she did it.  We shouldn't have to wait for the Grand Jury to No Bill the case because you don't want to be the one who signs your name to a dismissal.

If you think that my client is worthy of being on probation on a lesser charge, then why make him technically be on three probations for statistics' sake?  It literally changes nothing about what his punishment will be like.

If you think that a Grand Jury shouldn't have indicted a case and that your links to my client aren't strong enough for trial, don't make her wait until the co-defendant pleads on something before you are willing to dismiss it.  The facts are either there or they are not.

And, finally, the inspiration for this entire post --

Just because the case is a serious, First Degree case, that doesn't mean that it can't be dismissed if the facts aren't there.  A First Degree felony case can sometimes be as weak as a questionable speeding ticket.  The same standard of proof applies regardless of degree.

If a prosecutor wants to tell me that, in their opinion, the case is strong enough to convince a jury Beyond a Reasonable Doubt, then that's fine.  I respect that.  But when even your own lead investigator states on the record that they aren't even sure a crime was committed at all, that might be a sign that you are wrong in your opinion.  That's when words like "I wouldn't dismiss that case.  It's a First Degree!" start becoming really really offensive.

When a juror flags me down in the lobby of the CJC (after an acquittal) and asks me to extend her apology to my client and his family for having to go through the trial, you might want to start evaluating your judgment on that policy.

Many moons ago, when I was working in another county, I heard a prosecutor on a DWI case say "I know we aren't going to win, but this kid needs a good trial."  I found the statement to be strange then.  Now I find it to be mortifying.

Unlike the private sector where one has to worry about economic trends and supply and demand, the Criminal Justice System will never run out of cases to try and people to prosecute.  It is a continuous growth industry.  There are plenty of cases where a prosecutor has more than ample evidence to prosecute and convict without hesitation.

But when the evidence isn't there, the case needs to be let go.

51 comments:

Anonymous said...

You are for the most part preaching to the choir. It is a top down problem. If an ADA did not feel that they lose credit for each dismissal they would dump bad cases that juries apologize to you for. An ADA should get just as much credit for a righteous dismissal as for a guilty plea and should lose extensive points for a conviction that is later determined to be wrongful. Have you noticed that most of the ADAs who have dismissed mid trial because they come to doubt their witness are no longer ADAs? In your example did Brent tell the defense what the reason was that he was dismissing and did it involve doubts about an LEO? BTW congrats on that NG.

Anonymous said...

Just as bad, "I know we have problems and know we likely cannot win at trial, but I believe D is guilty. We are just going to have to try it to lose." Have heard those exact and very similar words three times in the last few weeks. Just because a prosecutor " believes" someone is guilty means very little if they don't think they can prove it at trial. Prosecutors ought not fear repercussions for dismissing a case they do not think they can prove at trial. Unfortunately, it is happening more now than I have seen in the last 30 years.

Anonymous said...

It is a serious problem in the Misdemeanor Division right now, too. The number of trials has become so important so a prosecutor can secure his/her spot in Felony and move up quicker. What they dont see is that it is at the expense of the greater cause - seeing justice is done.

However, when you see new hires that dont have to work their way up through the office and get to slide into highly sought after spots, it pisses you off. To make matters worse, the explanation is "they have a significant number of trials behind them", it stands to reason that they want to impress as much as they can. Its the culture. "Dont ever dismiss when you can try the case". Win or lose, its the number if trials that will impress the bosses.

Seeking a dismissal is seen as a sign of weakness to a new prosecutor and his/her peers. Its a shame, but it is a reality I see in Misdemeanor courts every day.

Chuck Rosenthal said...

Years ago I had an aggravated robbery trial in the 209th. About half way through the trial, I realized that the defendant was not guilty of the charges.

With permission of the court and defense attorney I asked the witnesses a few specific questions and confirmed my suspicions.

I was probably the 4th or 5th prosecutor to handle that case. Defense counsel had done nothing beside signing re-set forms and collecting a fee. The dismissal was at least a year late.

Just Sayin' said...

Murray my dear friend.......prosecutors don't win elections in Harris County anymore, politicians do and statistics play better for team Anderson than justice.

We have come full circle at the HCDAO.........winning at all costs used to be the grossly misleading pejorative term to describe Rock Star ADAs who, when they truly believed in their heart that D is guilty, chased every lead and turned over every rock looking for that missing piece of evidence. They never cowered.
Now the "evil" Rock Star ADAs are all gone and winning at all costs has nothing to do with Justice and everything to do with winning.

Justice, after all is based on truth and elections have very little time for that.

Just Sayin'

Chuck Rosenthal said...

Several years ago, when I wa a 2 man in the 209th, I inherited an aggravated robbery that had been set for trial for years.
During trial, I became convinced that the defendant was not guilty even though I was winning.
With the judge and counsel's permission, I spoke to the witnesses together.
After that I dismissed the case.
It was clear that defense counsel had not done one thing, for several years, to investigate his client's claims.
Granted, my predecessors should have done what I did. But, when they had 50 cases set for trial, I understand why they did not investigate something they knew was probably not going to trial.
That one case changed my perspective for the rest of my career.
Chuck Rosenthal

Anonymous said...

Whoa!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

How much Scotch could a woodchuck chug if a woodchuck could chug Scotch?

TZ

Anonymous said...

Along the lines of winning at all costs, Did you happen to catch the article in last Sunday's Chronicle whereas a 30 year+ veteran LEO signed a sworn affidavit stating that "rockstar" ADA Connie Spence had threatened him with cross-examining him on what she knew was a fabrication if he did not testify as she wanted and went along with the State's theory ??? It was on a Death Capital. see:
http://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/houston-texas/houston/article/DEA-agent-former-eyewitness-allege-prosecutorial-6080417.php?cmpid=gsa-chron-result#/0

Anonymous said...

I agree with so much of this I just have a question on one part. Isn't a prosecutors job to do justice? If the prosecutor believes the defendant is guilty shouldn't the prosecutor do all he or she can to investigate/re interview witnesses, etc to see why he or she can't prove reasonable doubt yet? And not dismiss the case yet? There are many complicated cases where a prosecutor can be sure the defendant is guilty but a jury might not agree. Cases in domestic violence for example are extremely difficult to prove. Juries sometimes cant understand the complexities that go into these kind of cases and it might be a fine line as to whether the prosecutor has enough evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. The only evidence might be the victim and a jury might not believe the victim but if a prosecutor believes her shouldn't the prosecutor at least try? The victim deserves to feel safe and protected if the defendant is guilty. If prosecutors dismissed all the cases they're not sure they'll win they're not doing justice in my opinion. While having innocent people go to jail is horrible, having guilty people go free can be bad as well.

Anonymous said...

How come nobody gripes about those courts where the nothing gets done because the judge does not push for things to get done? Oh say the 209th? There are 1500 pending cases in that court. McSpadden is never there and when he is there he NEVER goes to trial. How many cases do you think need dismissing on that docket? What incentive does an ADA have to scrutinize a case when he knows it will not be tried in his lifetime. How much time could that ADA invest in a case with so many pending? If we are calling people out lets include lazy jurists.

Lee said...

On the wrongful convictions blog I had an interesting exchange with Phil Locke regarding the influence of elections on criminal justice. We discussed removing the control of the voters on prosecutors and judges (because it was like the appeasing the crown at the Roman Coliseum) and have some other mechanism to manage the offices of prosecutor and judge.
What you have described is the self interest of the prosecutor in that job number 1 is not justice but rather keeping your job. This is true for any politician and will remain such until people are no longer selfish. Few attorneys will give up their paycheck or future promotion or raise (that they and their families need to live) for the sake of some innocent and or indigent defendant.

This is a good post about how factors unrelated to the guilt of the defendant poison the courtroom.

Jason Truitt said...

Man, I forgot how many cases Rosenthal used to dismiss all by his graceful self. That's probably what he's best known for, right after sleeping with his assistant, giving her free gas and salaries well above her pay grade, doing drugs, sending racist e-mails, and destroying DNA evidence. I'm surprised he didn't become a defense attorney, he was so dismissal-prone.

Anonymous said...

Hey Jason, since Murray gives you more liberty than others what do you think about how Connie Spence and her boy Craig Goodhart handled the Death Capital where LEO and DEA are suggesting very serious prosecutorial misconduct?

A Harris County Lawyer said...

Anon 8:12 p.m.,

I give Jason more leeway because he has the balls to sign his own name at the end of his criticism. If you are so eager to call out a prosecutor by name, then you should sign your name to it, as well.

Eunuch by default said...

Point well made Murray. Notwithstanding, I don't recall Jason ever trying a criminal case at the CJC let alone working at the DA's office. So Jason might have a tiny little scab in the game but no significant skin.

Perhaps a better litmus test might be evaluating the veracity of the comment rather than the signatory. Just a thought--I respect that it is your blog and therefore your rules AND I respect the Hell out of you and love your blog!

Anonymous said...

Some of these comments regarding "winning at all costs" sound an awful lot like "whining at no cost". That is, you got no skin in the game. Wah wah you big babies.

Anonymous said...

Many of the current prosecutors have a huge lack of experience which corresponds to an unreasonable iron grip on their cases. Too much power with too few trials. Get your ass kicked a few more times in trial and you will learn the true value of a case. I sure did.

Anonymous said...

Anon 10:06 AM
The Court of Appeals will decide if Spence and /or Goodhart coerced or intimidated witnessses in pursuit of justice, including a LEO. If, big if, it did occurr, you and every citizen in Harris County has significant "skin in the game".

Anonymous said...

Anon 6:47,

If your "big if" turns out to be meritorious and the CCA rules that Spence/Goodhart engaged in a conspiracy to deliberately and with malice wrongfully prosecute an individual for Capital Murder; what ought to be the consequences for these 2 bullies?

BTW, if the allegations by LEO are proved up it was not the pursuit of justice that these 2 prosecutors pursued.

Anonymous said...

I just can't believe Chuck had the nerve to say anything. Really? Go away already. You are the reason we had to suffer through Lykos. And life wasn't so great under you and John Ray. In case you think prosecutors value you for some reason, we don't. Chuck, you are a disgrace to the profession! You have made all of our lives more difficult. We are honorable. We don't make racist jokes, have affairs with our secretaries, abuse pain killers, or get lit in our office. Again, just go away.

Anonymous said...

Really, 9:44p? Chuck fell hard from grace. No need to kick him while he's down. We're almost seven years post-Chuck. At a certain point he's no longer to blame. I'd say we passed that point a long time ago.

Jason Truitt said...

I gotta' tell you, 8:12/7:51, I keep trying to try cases, but they keep getting dismissed or no-billed (not necessarily in Harris County), or the client takes a plea to get back to their life. It's true that criminal work is a small part of what I do, but I've tried to educate myself as best I can and take cases I believe in.

However, there are some things I have learned that I was supposed to be conditioned against, according to more "experienced" lawyers. First, is that I'm more than happy to wait until all the evidence is out before making a call. Even when it's a prosecutor. We know what happened to Rosenthal, assuming that's even really him posting above, but the jury's still out on the prosecutors you mention. And of course, if Rosenthal wants to call and complain that I'm a nobody and have no idea what I'm doing, I'm easy enough to look up.

Second, I can get along just fine with a prosecutor or judge and still do OK in my cases. Maybe even better. In fact, one day as I sat in the holdover for a couple of hours to babysit a client who was late to court and was told his bond was being revoked, which happened in three other cases that morning, mine was the only one who got to go home. The three others went to jail and had bonds doubled, while their more experienced lawyers (like you?) went home because they were appointed cases and they weren't going to get paid. The judge said the only reason he let my guy go was because I sat there with him--I guess that's just my inexperienced nature. That same day I saw another experienced lawyer (like you?) refuse to take a plea because his client hadn't paid him. So his client continued to sit in jail--over Christmas--and the ADA pulled the offer, which I thought was reasonable, and in any event lettiing his client sit because of payment is immoral, unethical, and incompetent. Again, that's my naivete speaking, I guess.

Third, the average prosecutor (and some on both ends of average) is just trying to get through their day. Man, I've been there. I'm not saying none will ever try to pull something, but I'm doing my job as best I can and that will have to be good enough. If someone cheats, it's very difficult to stop them. But I will push for the things that will help minimize their incentive to do so--assuming they would have in the first place, which I don't assume. I do my job because I'm not supposed to take anyone's word at the risk of a client's liberty, not because I look at every prosecutor and think they're cheaters.

Anyway, whoever you are, good luck with your life. I'm sure with all that experience you claim to have I could learn a great deal from you.

If only I knew who you were.

Jason

Greg Enos said...

This is Greg Enos, publisher of The Mongoose newsletter which focuses on family law. E-mail me at greg@enoslaw.com and I will share with you a spreadsheet showing totals paid attorneys for court appointments for 2010-2014 - just got it from the County Auditor.

Greg Enos 281-333-3030

Anonymous said...

Hey Murray, any thoughts on the admins's crackdown on ADAs commenting on your stuff?

A Harris County Lawyer said...

Anon 7:53 p.m.,

I think the Administration's policy reminds me of something Pat Lykos would do and violates the 1st Amendment.

Highly disappointing.

Anonymous said...

Thanks, and I agree. If I had something worthwhile to say, I'd put my name on it and sue them if they took an adverse action. But I don't. So I'll stay silently on the other side of the iron curtain for now. I like my job, even if my bosses sometimes forget that I'm on their side. 7:53.

Anonymously said...

Jason @9:02,

Perhaps NOW you might have a scintilla of appreciation as to why ADAs MUST remain anonymous if we are to keep our jobs and dare speak the unpleasant truth about Czar Devon and her girls' club?

Also, turns out there was some merit to go with the Spence/Goodhart "allegations". Who knew?

Keeping it real, Bubba.

Anonymous said...

Well, the Death Row defendant is getting a hearing for a new trial, somebody must have believed the affiant's allegations. The DA's Office credibility takes a huge hit. Devon, what are you going to do now ???? Front page, Houston Chronicle today.
Can you say "embarrassment" ? Throwing $$$$ asset forfeiture funds around and a media blitz with your photo and a sound byte in every news article may not work this time.

Anonymous said...

As a former DA for a pretty long time, I absolutely know prosecutors will sit around and talk about how a case should be dismissed but everyone is too scared to do it because their higher ups will look at them as "trial dodgers". I know every one of the higher ups who read this blog would deny it but it's absolutely true (and some of those higher ups who did it are now defense attorneys). And just because a DA (whether they be a division chief or a #3 in misdemeanor court) can name two or three cases that they dismissed for lack of evidence, it doesn't take away from all the other cases they have allowed to go forward. It's a terrible problem and until the leadership at the office acknowledges it and ACTUALLY DOES SOMETHING ABOUT IT, it will never change. When I was at the office, I can't point to one training we had on Brady that was worth a hoot and DA's STILL make mistakes about Brady today. I know I did when I was a DA. The higher ups need to stop talking the talk and start walking the walk. If Devon and the division chiefs would do some true sole searching and self-evaluation, they would have to come to the conclusion there are serious problems in the DA's office and work to fix them. Stop patting yourselves on the back and look at your problems. It's no surprise citizens, esp minority communities, have no confidence in the DA's office. Unfortunately, it's fairly well deserved.

Anonymous said...

Anon 6:42 are you saying Devon and company should search for shoes or fish or perhaps some singular thing?

Anonymous said...

Your client was guilty on most of those cases. He isn't the victim

A Harris County Lawyer said...

Anon 12:17 p.m.,

Foolish views like that are what led to Anthony Graves and Michael Morton's wrongful convictions. As noted in the blog post, one of those cases has already resulted in an acquittal from the jury. Another one resulted in a No Bill from the Grand Jury (as demanded).

Most police officers will acknowledge that they don't always get it right. Hopefully some day you will understand. In the meantime, I hope you express your views clearly if you are ever on a jury panel.

Anonymous said...

Dear "Keeping it real, Bubba", Have you tried therapy? I'm pretty sure you are on you way to becoming Richard Gere in Looking For Mr. Goodbar.

Jason Truitt said...

Anon @7:57:

I can see why you would feel that way, but I cannot see at all why you would want to stay in a job that was like that. So in the end, I don't think that excuses your anonymity. Say what you want to say, and work in a place where that is appreciated. That's the best advice I can give you. You'll live longer and be happier for it.

And I never said there was nothing to the allegations against the prosecutors--the affidavit was fairly strong and where there's smoke there's usually fire. Just that I wasn't going to say something until the whole thing was vetted--which it still hasn't been. We'll see (maybe?) what was or wasn't done, and hopefully the right thing comes of it.

Jason

Anon 7:57 said...

My boy Jason,

If only life was as simple, pure and righteous as you suggest………..but then someone with the character of our very own Murray Newman would be the DA and we wouldn't have, nor would we need, this blog.

As for Craig Goodhart, Leitner tried to teach him what a bitch Karma can be; maybe it will take this time…………no worries for Spence--she'll be protected by the Girls' Club, wildfire notwithstanding.


Anonymous said...

Hey Jason, I understand what you say, but I think you're underappreciating how much many of us like our jobs. There's really nothing else like it, and it is worth many minor sacrifices.

Opinions, like the body part to which they're often compared, are generally best shared with a limited number of people. If there's something that is genuinely worth sharing with the outside world, it'll get said.

Anonymous said...

Anon. 7:57 with the Leitner remark you have outed yourself. As I suspected you are one of the malcontents who was promoted above your capabilities under team Lykos and brought crashing back to earth when Elvis left the building. At least you can retire soon and hang out with your buddies at the SO.

Jason Truitt said...

7:57, unlike the last poster, I have no idea who you are (or whether he's right or not), but I imagine to have the perspective you do you must be a life-long bureaucrat. You may be a great person, I don't know, but your perspective of having to keep your head down is one of a person who at some point became more afraid of losing their retirement than of doing the job. I'm well aware of how complicated life can be, but don't for a second believe I would be in a job that I felt was as restrictive or unfair as you evidently believe yours to be. And I guess I can say that because I've stormed out of a job or two. You'd be amazed at how simple life can be if you let it.

10:34--Maybe I'm underappreciating it because you keep complaining about it. If this wasn't a sounding board for anonymous complaints, maybe people wouldn't get the impression that life in the DAO is horrible. As far as sharing my opinions, I'm just responding to those shared by others. I'm not the one on here airing out my body parts, I mean, dirty laundry.

Anyway, it's not my intention to bicker back and forth all day. If you love your job, maybe you should focus on that.

Anonymous said...

Anon 7:39,

This "malcontent" survived the meltdown of Rosenthal, the chaos of Lykos and I now endure Devon's Girls' Club……….hmm, guess that explains the harsh environment surrounding a job I love.
However, I never sold out to Leitner like your boy Goodhart (which was the point of my earlier post)……….so your capabilities are at issue as well, Missy.

Jason,
I'm too old to learn civil law, don't have the stomach for criminal defense and can't afford to retire without my pension. So you have me there.

When I started working at the DA's office under Holmes there was some political posturing like one would expect in any large law firm. But primarily there was a camaraderie and expectation of excellence in serving justice throughout the Holmes era. It was a true honor to serve under Johnny Holmes.
While the transition to Rosenthal wasn't seamless, the office essentially ran itself and for the most part Chuck didn't interfere with the day to day running of the office……..it was still a righteous place to work.
Suffice it to say that time passes very quickly and choices are not as plentiful as they once were.

7:57

Anonymous said...

Hey 7:57 I am sure that Montgomery, Fort Bend, Galveston, or Brazoria would love to have an experienced ADA such as you on staff. None of those offices are run by mean girls (unless you are afraid of Jeri Yenne too). Don't let the door hit you on your way out!

Anonymous said...

Patsy Lykos v. Devon Anderson:

1. Both were appointed District Judge and lost re-election. Judge Pat actually served on the bench longer: 1 point Judge Pat
2. Neither had a successful private practice so each ran for DA and won. Judge Pat won without having been appointed first: 1 point Judge Pat
3. Both administrations personified total managerial chaos: 0 points awarded.
4. Devon Anderson actually tried a case and won the slam dunk; Patsy never tried a case: 1 point Devon Anderson
5. Pat Lykos started DIVERT and stuck to her guns. Devon Anderson waffled on the issue: 1 point Pat Lykos.
6. Pat Lykos opted not to prosecute trace cases. Devon Anderson vowed to prosecute trace cases and waffled: 1 point Pat Lykos.
7. Pat Lykos promised to get rid of veteran prosecutors and did. Devon Anderson vowed to re-hire many of those veteran prosecutors and didn't: 1 point for honesty, albeit poor judgment by both.
8. Pat Lykos hired cronies for her top lieutenants. Ditto for Devon Anderson: 0 points awarded.
9. Pat Lykos preferred her personal driver to tote her around town rather than showing up to work. Ditto for Devon Anderson. 0 points awarded.
10. Pat Lykos vowed to be transparent, end corruption and restore integrity. She personified the antithesis. Ditto for Devon Anderson. 0 points awarded.

Conclusion: As horrific a DA as Judge Patsy Lykos was, the troll outperformed Devon Anderson by a margin of 5:1.
Who knew?

Anonymous said...

Who knew the ADA office was being run as poorly as the probation department? Bunch of disgruntled staff in both departments due to loss of respect for the folks in charge. Teresa ran from Dallas county right before Grits for Breakfast story broke and asst director brian is so arrogant he can't admit he doesn't know what he's doing What a joke those 2 are!

Anonymous said...

Hey Dumb-Ass aka anon 10:17 at least get your facts straight.

Devon was not appointed to the bench. She ran when Carol Davies did not seek reelection. She won a primary and a general election in 2004. After being defeated in 2008 she opened a law practice with Brock Thomas that was very successful.

Lykos did not lose her bench. She chose not to seek re-election to run for Texas AG. She lost in the primary. She never was in private practice after leaving the bench. She sat as a visiting judge and then worked for Eckels then Emmett in the County Judge's Office. She ran unsuccessfully for DA in 2000.

Devon tried cases as an ADA prior to becoming a Judge.

Lykos NEVER tried a case in her life.

Mike, not Devon talked of rehires and did rehire some folks. Many were not interested.

Your uninformed ranting further diminishes whatever minimal credibility you were trying to project.

Anonymous said...

Anon 9:16,
Whoa, someone hit a nerve. Now take a big breath and exhale slowly a couple of times.

The FACTS are a little gray on both posts so let's fact check each of YOUR points.

Valid corrections you submitted:
1. Devon Anderson won one judicial election and lost her 1st bid for re-election, she was not appointed.
2. Pat Lykos was never appointed to public office, (unlike Devon Anderson). Also, she never lost a re-election bid for a District Court bench (unlike Devon Anderson).

Factual contradictions to your assertions:
1. Devon Anderson campaigned touting her intent to fulfill ALL, not a select few, of the campaign promises of her late husband.
2. Devon Anderson's private practice was not a successful venture if measured by financial or personal fulfillment/enjoyment parameters.

Of note, you failed to address the other allegations:
1. Devon Anderson's managerial style is chaotic.
2. Devon Anderson waffled on the issues of DIVERT and trace case prosecutions.
3. Devon Anderson hired her cronies to fill top lieutenant positions also known commonly in the community as the Girls Club/Mean Girls/Vagocrisy etc.
4. Devon Anderson prefers her chauffeured county ride to conducting county business
5. Devon Anderson did nothing to end corruption or restore integrity and transparency to the Office of District Attorney.

Maybe more name calling will give you self validation.

Just another "Dumb Ass"

Anonymous said...

Lykos was appointed to CCL 10 and the 180th.

Anonymous said...

It is a political position. That said, an ethical politician doesn't allow hardline conservative supporters to control whether a prosecutor does the right thing. Really, it is as simple as doing the right thing. The statistics fall where they may if one does the right thing. I'm really sorry for the people that still work under Patsy #2.

Anonymous said...

Anon @ 1:47.

Actually, the DA is a security target and should be driven by an armed officer. Regardless of advice, Lykos drove herself on many occasions. She could be seen coming and going in the Caddy, after a cigarette of course. I have no personal knowledge of Devon's transportation arrangements but Lykos was advised by those around her to not attend events alone, though she often did. Thus, if Devon uses a county driver there is a good reason for it. The DA's office makes a lot of criminals very unhappy.

Anonymous said...

Anon @3:16,

ROTFLMFAO!!! When was the last (or should I say the 1st) time a sitting DA of Harris County was assaulted?
By extrapolation, are you suggesting that the County also provide a home security detail? How about security details for after hour jaunts like taking the kiddos to piano lessons or soccer games?

Is that the only point of contention you have with Anon 1:47 (besides of course that Patsy #1, unlike Patsy #2 was appointed to the bench)?

Anonymous said...

As the office burns to the ground, Devon just fiddles away………..

Anonymous said...

Anon 8:04. Perhaps you should MARSHALL the troops and stage a revolution.

Please shut up and spare us the histrionics.

(You do know what that word means right?)

Anonymous said...

What's worse ? A case where the victim claims there isn't a victim and the ADA dismissed the case OR scaring anyone and everyone into submission of guilt when in fact, not only are lots of these people innocent but may in fact be the actual victim instead . yet the ADA hasn't a clue in a lot of cases bc it isn't clear but that's ok, let's just tear families to pieces, dismiss claims from and not work with the alleged "victim" and destroy someone's future...... Bc "what if"