The focus of yesterday's incident shifted slightly in the afternoon when the Houston Chronicle published an article by Keri Blakinger about the incident. Although the PD's Office and Danny had not given a statement for the article, the president of the Harris County Deputies Organization Union, David Cuevas, was apparently more than happy to talk.
In response to learning that the Harris County District Attorney's Office had filed felony charges of Assault on a Public Servant against Olivarez, Cuevas "questioned whether prosecutors would have filed similar charges in the case had a jailer or deputy been the target."
"Our union will be monitoring the district attorney's office as to whether or not they'll be accepting charges when this happens to other public servants that are not public defenders," said union president David Cuevas. "We want to make sure that there is not a double standard."Cuevas's statement was laughable for a host of reasons.
First off, I'd like to know exactly what "monitoring the district attorney's office" means to him. Was he planning on setting up shop at D.A. Intake to monitor all incoming calls?
Second, the very idea that the D.A.'s Office under Kim Ogg (or any of her predecessors, for that matter) is reluctant to file Assault on a Public Servant charges on behalf of police officers is absurd. Those cases are filed every single day at a very high frequency.
Cuevas might as well have questioned whether or not the Ogg Administration was still accepting charges on murder cases.
Police officers and jailers have dangerous jobs that lead them into dangerous interactions with suspects. Nobody has ever disputed that. When a suspect reacts violently and attacks a police officer or jailer, those charges get filed. Period.
I've seen charges of Assault on a Public Servant filed against people for punching an officer in the bulletproof vest. I've seen mentally ill suspects who were flailing their arms get charged if they made skin to skin contact with a police officer. Trust me when I tell you that in almost 19 years of practicing in the CJC, I've seen the word "assault" stretched to some pretty great lengths when it comes to public servants. In my time, I've seen hundreds, if not thousands of Assault on a Public Servant charges filed against people who have attacked police officers and jailers.
This is only the second incident I remember charges being filed where a defense attorney got attacked.
Cuevas's statement implying that somehow the D.A.'s Office prioritizes the safety of defense attorneys over the safety of police officers and jailers was just silly.
And kind of offensive.
16 comments:
Not just KIND OF offensive. It is offensive. And misleading.
Actually... charges are regularly declined by the DAs office for assaults on HCSO staff. No not all the time but enough that people in the actual know see it. The usual reason is because the defendant is already charged with a felony so they will "use it for punishment". Which hardly ever happens because most cases are pleaded out and no actual arguments for punishment happen.
I know you guys stay in your echo chamber over there and probably don't get a whole lot of perspective from the rank and file cops, but this isn't about this particular case. It is systemic of the overall feelings and perspectives of all police agencies in the area when it comes to Ogg and her relations with law enforcement.
"Second, the very idea that the D.A.'s Office under Kim Ogg (or any of her predecessors, for that matter) is reluctant to file Assault on a Public Servant charges on behalf of police officers is absurd. Those cases are filed every single day at a very high frequency."
Murray, if you paid closer attention to what has taken place since Ms. Ogg took office, you would find that her people are increasingly reluctant to accept felony charges when an officer is assaulted. Don't take my word for it though, contact any of the large police unions locally where they can provide you with case by case examples where perfectly good cases such as these were shot down, the hack in charge of intake all but demanding SBI (serious bodily injury) and then telling the officer or sergeant words to the effect of "getting a little scuffed up is part of the job".
My god this is upsetting. I love the backwards logic by guy that because the HCDAO took one charge of assault on a defense attorney, it means they don’t care about officers. One charge means they will “monitor” that? Good lord. Insert the biggest eye roll of all time.
I think the comment about "how many times have you seen a resisting filed as an assault" is laughabe since, for years (even pre-kim), we've always said you have to be assaulted to get a resisting case.
And in regards to the "punched in the bullet proof vest" comment, I guess I don't get it. How does the fact that I'm wearing a 1/4" thick piece of fabric make a difference in being assaulted?
"It is systemic of the overall feelings and perspectives of all police agencies in the area when it comes to Ogg and her relations with law enforcement."
Oh, well, if your overall feelings are hurt, we have to act! I'd say maybe take a knee during the pledge or something, but they're protesting being shot and killed while the shooters are almost never charged, so, I'd say you got the better end of this deal if the worst you get is your feelings hurt.
The rarity is when an officer can actually back up their assault claim with footage from their bodycam. Somehow it's rarely activated when the actual assault takes place. I've had a dozen defendants who have told me that they didn't resist until the officer twisted a finger or thumb when handcuffing them and that it was a purely instinctive reaction to pain. Now I realize we hear all sorts of excuses from our clients but when you have a dozen or so defendants with no priors say the same thing you have to wonder who is truthful. I don't know but it's possible that intake is using common sense when they refuse an APS charge.
Can’t we all just get along? Everyone in the system is essential, whether all parties admit or appreciate it or not. I have been struck by a car (recklessly), choked by a consumer, and been exiting a vehicle that was rammed (intentionally) by an assault suspect. The results were: no case accepted, 6 years probation due to mental health concerns (in adjacent county, same defendant got 18 months state jail for theft of copper), and 5 TDC, after an argument outside of court that became heated over the original offer of 10 deferred. The logic ranged from “you weren’t seriously injured” to “that’s what you are paid for” to “he was shot 6 times and none of you were seriously injured he has suffered enough”.
My belief is that an attack on any member of the system is an attack on the system as a whole. The person of judge, attorney, officer/deputy, jailer, etc., should be inviolable....period. Clearly, if the individual is willing to attack any member of the system, we need to throw the “rehabilitative” theory of CJ that so many believe works out the door, and focus on retributive Justice.
From my seat in the arena, however...I’m actually a little more concerned about the individual that will attack their only “friend” and advocate. Peace officers, and those operating on behalf of the state should expect to be the targets of anger of those who are going to be deprived of their freedoms but when something like this happens....what can truly be done for the indivual who attacks his own lawyer?
I agree that the comment was dumb. There is no shortage of assault on a police officer cases now or in the past. On another note, because filings are down 50% under Ogg, I am curious to know wh8ch kind of charges have been cut. Does anybody know what the marching orders are at intake?
It is painfully obvious and essential that we allocate appropriate resources to staff our schools and law enforcement agencies with our best and brightest. Sorry to all who currently serve in those capacities, but as a whole, you are disappointing And woefully ineffective. And when will we make identification, diagnosis and treatment of mental illness a top priority? As a defense attorney, I have been attacked three times by profoundly mentally ill clients, most recently in a jail dungeon courtroom last week. A few years ago another defendant in custody brought a shank to court for me, only to find that I had already withdrawn. Family members and I have been victimized by violent acts perpetrated by people with untreated, serious mental health issues. Some years ago, a colleague who was a bail bondsman was shot dead in his office by a schizophrenic man who was notorious for preaching on the corner of Main and Texas in downtown Texas. But I am firm, unwavering and righteous in my position that there is no room in our communities for police, or anyone else serving the criminal justice system in any capacity, who believe that the solution, or even a consideration,for dealing with our brothers and sisters who are ill is to exact retribution. GTFOOH. AND, if I had a dollar for every overcharged assault-public servant and another dollar for every LEO not charged, or even investigated for excessive use of force, especially against mentally ill, drug addicted, poor or POC...
“Use it for punishment” doesn’t just mean there is a punishment phase of trial. It also means “taken in to consideration” in the plea bargain.
"I've seen charges of Assault on a Public Servant filed against people for punching an officer in the bulletproof vest." I'll take an even more dumb comment for $500, Alex. This comment is flat out laughable. Let me know if you are willing to put on a vest and get punched. It is very easy to write these comments from the comforts of a law office having in all likely hood never actually been in a fight.
Anon 3:37 p.m.,
We can engage in a pissing contest over who takes more punches all you want here, but at the end of the day, this all started with the President of the Deputies' Union claiming he was going to monitor the D.A.'s Office to see if they were taking charges for Assault on a Public Servant if a peace officer was involved. That was (and is) a dumb ass comment. The insinuation is that the D.A.'s Office values the safety of Public Defenders more so than that of Police Officers. That's ridiculous.
The police officers who have taken offense at my criticism of this very, very stupid statement are acting as if I am advocating the legalization of assaulting police officers. If you equate those two things as being the same thing, that's ridiculous as well.
I think you are misinterpreting the point President's comment. What he is implying is that it will be interesting to see what type of plea deal is offered by the DA's office and compare that to the deals that have been offered to suspects that have assaulted deputies. For obvious reasons defense attorneys only hear about cases where the assault on a public servant has been accepted. I believe it would shock you to see how many valid assault cases have been rejected at intake under the excuse, "Its just part of your job."
If your pee pee is hurt because you want more charges for assaults in detention officers, talk to your HCSO brass. There is a review that is done at the Captain level and they call for the charges if they believe they are warranted. Also, tell your detention officers to stop beating the crap out of inmates. We HAVE been monitoring that and will accept the charges.
Wish I had a dollar for every ADA who said, "You should expect to be assaulted, that's just part of your job." IF you really want to talk about "idiots"...
Post a Comment