Life at the Harris County Criminal Justice Center

News Stories in my Absence

2012-01-25T21:33:00.000-06:00

Sorry I've been quiet the past week. I was out of town over the weekend and came back just in time to start up trial.

There have been a couple of interesting stories that are good topics for conversation, though. I just don't have the time to write about them at length right now.

First, we have Ted Oberg's attempt to once again get Pat Lykos to answer some questions, which she avoids (again).

And this story from the Chronicle about Lykos giving nearly a half-million dollars in asset forfeiture funds to HPD for breath testing equipment. That would be the same HPD lab that she said she had no faith in this past Fall.

Talk amongst yourselves.

The CNN Test

2012-01-20T16:19:00.000-06:00

Just saw this poll on CNN and thought my friends at the D.A.'s Office might like to take it.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/01/19/business/psychopath-boss/index.html?hpt=hp_c2

Tonight's Red, White and Blue (1/20/12)

2012-01-20T12:14:00.001-06:00

Tune in tonight for David Jones and Gary Polland's Red, White, and Blue at 7:30 p.m. on Houston PBS's Channel 8 tonight.

The guests are Pat Lykos and Mike Anderson.

Should be worth watching.

Lykos Testifies

2012-01-17T16:22:00.000-06:00

Per the Houston Chronicle's Brian Rogers, Pat Lykos did, in fact, testify before the Grand Jury today.

Probably a good move on her part.

My reports do indicate that she came to the Grand Jury down the back stairwell, rather than walk in the front door like other witnesses must do. I wonder if she realizes that skulking around like that makes her look more suspicious than a registered sex offender hanging around a playground with a bucket of candy.

Tune In Tomorrow

2012-01-16T19:04:00.002-06:00

According to all the information that I've heard, Pat Lykos has been subpoenaed to testify before the 185th District Court Grand Jury tomorrow as part of their investigation. The word on the street is that Lykos is intending to file a Motion to Quash her subpoena tomorrow in an attempt to avoid testifying. I don't know whether or not that particular rumor is true, but given the way she and the Gang Who Couldn't Shoot Straight have handled this entire debacle, it wouldn't surprise me in the slightest.

Now, keep in mind that Lykos got subpoenaed at the end of last year to testify in a DWI case and showed her distaste for testifying by filing a Motion to Quash and then heading to Hawaii. It would appear that the woman (who prior to the 185th Grand Jury always had a sound-byte for every occasion) suddenly gets a little shy when that talking is under oath. She's seen the bashing that Rachel Palmer has taken for invoking her 5th Amendment Right in front of the same Grand Jury and knows she doesn't want to follow in those footsteps.

So, what's an Elected District Attorney with an honesty problem to do?

Here are a few thoughts:

1. If, in fact, Lykos does file a Motion to Quash her subpoena tomorrow, you can bet your bottom dollar that she is going to do so under the theory that the 185th Grand Jury has been improperly held over. The person who will decide that issue on its face will be none other than Judge Susan Brown. Look for a Motion to Recuse to follow.

2. Lykos got her subpoena the week before last. If she does actually file the Motion to Quash, it really will beg the question: why did she wait until the last minute? I mean, I think we could all pretty much assume that the Motion wouldn't take over a week to prepare.

3. The answer to the above point would be that it is a very obvious attempt to "run out the clock" on the 185th Grand Jury. The 185th's term has been extended to the end of January. Since they meet on Tuesdays and Thursdays, that would make January 31st their last day to appear. If the Lykos-Defense Team files a Motion to Quash, they will mostly likely try to stretch it out for over two weeks, making the issue moot.

4. If Lykos files the Motion to Quash and it goes to a Motion to Recuse Judge Brown, look for it to potentially eat up about a week of time as it goes to another court for hearing.

5. If the Motion to Quash is based on the idea that the 185th Grand Jury was held over improperly, look for every defense attorney in Harris County to file a Motion to Quash the indictment on every single case indicted during the new year. How on Earth could the Lykos Administration make an intellectually honest argument that the Grand Jury conducting an investigation into her isn't valid, yet the ones indicting the regular citizens of Harris County are just fine?

6. The biggest question for me is what is Pat Lykos scared of? To some degree, I could understand Rachel Palmer taking the 5th. She had testified previously to the 185th Grand Jury, and then they heard from additional witnesses. If those witnesses contradicted her, I could see Palmer being concerned that she might be walking into a "perjury trap" by making a second appearance with them. Lykos, on the other hand, hasn't testified to them and has no such concerns about perjury from previous testimony. Unless there are some actions that she has committed that she is scared to testify to, I don't see why she doesn't hold a press conference, announcing that she will gladly answer all of the Grand Jury's questions, because she knows she hasn't done anything wrong. I honestly don't get why she doesn't do that.

It will be interesting to see what happens tomorrow. Maybe Lykos will go in and clear her name and the name of the Office that she has dragged through the mud. Maybe she will file her Motion to Quash and pretty much make things look worse than they already do. I will be waiting eagerly to hear.

But one thing that Lykos should know that perhaps she doesn't realize, having never tried a case herself:

The Grand Jury doesn't have to hear from you to indict you.

Tonight's Reasonable Doubt (1/12/12)

2012-01-12T08:39:00.001-06:00

Please join me and host Todd Dupont for tonight's Reasonable Doubt with special guest, Staci Biggar. We've been working on getting Staci on as a guest for several months now to talk about Mental Health and how it is dealt with in Criminal Law. It's going to be a great show and we look forward to taking your questions. As always, you can watch it live streaming at 8:00 p.m. by clicking here.

Pat Lykos subpoenaed

2012-01-06T09:02:00.000-06:00

Last night on the ten o'clock news, Channel 11 KHOU reported that Pat Lykos has been subpoenaed to testify before the 185th Grand Jury, which will resume meeting next week.

I don't see a web article on their website, but it was reported on air. They additionally aired comments from Lykos that the Grand Jury was politically motivated.

Well, that's just brilliant. Insult them before you even walk in the door.

Perhaps she should read a prepared statement before giving testimony: "I'm Pat Lykos, your elected District Attorney. You all are a bunch of A-Holes. That is all."

I actually thought that Lykos had previously testified to the Grand Jury, so I'm not stunned by this development. I expected they would call her eventually. Obviously, I have no idea what is happening in the Grand Jury room, but if I had to guess, the fact that they are calling her means the Grand Jury may be getting close to a resolution of its proceedings.

A New Grand Jury Scandal

2012-01-05T17:36:00.001-06:00

As I mentioned in some of my earlier posts regarding the 185th Grand Jury investigation, one of the sneakier things that Pat Lykos and Crew were hoping to have happen was for the Grand Jury's term to expire at the end of the calendar year. If it had done so, Lykos, Leitner, Bridgwater and Palmer could have all breathed sighs of relief as the twelve men and women who were looking into criminal wrongdoing suddenly had to disband as a matter of law.

The reason Lykos and Crew believed this a possibility was due to some changes in the last legislative session which changed the terms of Grand Juries, thus ending all active Grand Juries on December 31st, 2011 . . .

. . . unless that Grand Jury got an extension from the Court . . .

. . . which the 185th Grand Jury did.

Unfortunately, while the Lykos Administration was hoping against hope that their Grand Jury problem was going to go away by January 1st, they were forgetting to do something else: work on establishing new Grand Juries for January 2012.

Selecting a Grand Jury is not something that can be done overnight. You have to find people willing to serve and the ability to serve for what is now (under the law change) a six month term. Details have to be ironed out about how exactly they are going to do that. Are 11 of the 22 District Courts going to have active Grand Juries the first half of the year and the other 11 the second half? Are Grand Juries going to meet just once a week, instead of two? There are a lot of things to consider.

And Lykos and Crew considered NONE of them. They were way too busy holding their breath and waiting to see if the 185th was about to go away.

Which explains this e-mail from First Assistant Jim Leitner to the rest of the Office today:

-----Original Message------
From: Leitner, Jim
To: All DA Employees
Subject: Grand Juries for the November Term 2011
Sent: Jan 5, 2012 9:43 AM

I have just been notified that the Judges have terminated all Grand Juries that were empanelled for the November Term 2011. That termination, from what I understand, has been backdated to December 31st. Therefore, do not take any cases in to any Grand Jury until the Judges have created and sworn in Grand Juries for the January Term 2012. Also, don’t issue any Grand Jury subpoenas until we have new Grand Juries empanelled. I am meeting with Judge Hill today to make sure that we have the right information on this, but until you hear otherwise proceed as if there are no Grand Juries available until the new term Grand Juries are sworn in. This does not affect the 185th or 232nd Grand Jury which have been extended for pending investigations.
Jim

This is the legal version of getting caught with your pants down. In Harris County, Texas, there are two Grand Juries meeting every day of the week to manage the enormous caseload that comes through the courthouse. It will take the District Attorney's Office and the courts at least a week (and most likely longer than that) to get them up and running again.

Obviously, having no Grand Juries running is going to create an enormous backlog.

It can also create a danger to the public. Here's why.

When a person is arrested and incarcerated prior to trial, the District Attorney's Office has 90 days to get that case indicted. Otherwise, the person accused is entitled to a bond they can make.

That applies to all felony charges -- from Aggravated Sexual Assault to Aggravated Robbery to Murder. If the deadline goes past the 90 days, the end result is those folks will be getting back out on the street.

It recently happened in Fort Bend with one case.

The rank and file prosecutors had absolutely ZERO notice this was coming. Nobody from the Upper Administration sent them anything letting them know, "Hey, if you have a case getting close to 90 days old, you need to get it to the Grand Jury before December 31st."

And most of the more serious cases take the full 90 days to get ready for Grand Jury. As a prosecutor, I routinely took murder cases and sexual assault cases to the Grand Jury on the 85th to 89th day. The trial prosecutors are about to find out that if they were banking on going to the Grand Jury this week or next, that they are not going to be able to do so.

And some really bad people are potentially about to be back on the streets.

If Lykos had been watching the Public's back, rather than her own, perhaps she would have caught this.

I cannot emphasize enough what a colossal screw up this is.

Tonight's Reasonable Doubt (1/5/12)

2012-01-05T08:05:00.000-06:00

Join us tonight as we return from the Christmas break with a new episode of Reasonable Doubt. Our guest tonight will be the Reverend John Craig Still of the Harris County Public Defender's Office. As always, you can tune in at 8:00 p.m. and catch it live streaming by clicking here.

Prosecutors Campaigning in a Lykos World

2012-01-04T12:14:00.006-06:00

"I would be hard pressed to punish anyone because they exercised their constitutional rights." - Jim Leitner

As we all know by now, Pat Lykos, Jim Leitner and the rest of the Gang Who Couldn't Shoot Straight are really really big fans of the 5th Amendment. The big question as we enter campaign season, however, is, "How are they feeling about the 1st Amendment these days?"

Those around the Harris County Criminal Justice Center know that the vast majority of the prosecutors at the District Attorney's Office are miserable under the Lykos Administration. They don't have the discretion to deal with their cases the way they know how. They are worried about being "on the radar" which could possibly land them on the Upper Administration's Enemies List. They are worried that the slightest infraction, whether real or perceived, could end up with them being gainfully unemployed.

Judge Mike Anderson's candidacy and the possibility that 2012 will spell the end of the Lykos Regime have installed something in those prosecutors that has been missing for the past three years --

Hope.

I can't begin to tell you how many prosecutors have expressed to me their delight at the idea of Judge Anderson being the District Attorney.

But every time they tell me that, they tell me in private, and begin it with the traditional caution that I hear so often: "Don't put this on the blog, but . . . "

Their concern is a reasonable one. Higher ups from the D.A.'s Office have let the word go forth that Assistant District Attorney's and all other Office personnel had better "watch themselves" (i.e. not get caught openly supporting anyone other than Lykos.) The chilling phrase coupled with those warnings has been, "Pat won't be as forgiving as she was in 2008."

Ah yes, Good Old Forgiving Pat. As someone who didn't quite make it onto the beneficiary list of Pat's forgiveness, I can attest to what it means when she isn't feeling so forgiving. Now, to be clear, I wasn't really expecting nor wanting Pat's forgiveness, either. I knew very well that my tenure as an ADA was ending when Lykos won the primary run-off election. I compared her to a Bud Lite Lizard, for crying out loud.

But for every one of us who did oppose Lykos and subsequently lost our jobs, there are plenty more who kept them. I point this out to give you some reassurance that they can't fire all of you and there is a big difference from what I did during the 2008 campaign and simply expressing your 1st Amendment-protected-political-beliefs in a more, um, "toned down" manner.

Here are some helpful hints if you would like to exercise your 1st Amendment rights as freely and enthusiastically as Rachel Palmer enjoyed her 5th in front of the Grand Jury:

1. Order a copy of your personnel file right now. Seriously. Go do it. I'll sit here and wait for you to get back.
At the end of 2011, Pat Lykos abruptly ordered that all evaluations done on office personnel would be pushed back until after the election. Why exactly she did that is anyone's guess, but it certainly leaves the door open for her waiting until after election time to grade everyone on how they behaved, doesn't it? If she, or the Upper Admin, don't like the way an ADA acts this Spring, they can add an evaluation with bad things and say "Well, we like totally would have put that in the evaluation at the end of 2011, but we didn't do them then," and "This has nothing to do with the prosecutor's 1st Amendment political choices."
Knowing how much Pat Lykos loved me and would probably love going through my personnel file once she became D.A., I ordered a copy of it long before my last day. Pat and Company can curse my name until the cows come home and Don Hooper can call me every name in the book on the Chronicle blogs. But nobody can say I was a bad prosecutor. I've got my personnel file to prove otherwise.
Get yours now before the election. All you have to do is let Scott Durfee know. If John Barnhill asks you why you want it, tell him it's for a scrapbooking project, or better yet, "None of your damn business." Knowledge is Power, people.

2. Your Facebook profile is your own business, too. If you are like me, you are pretty much Facebook friends with everyone you've shared an elevator with at the CJC. Secretaries, Prosecutors, Clerks, Bailiffs, Investigators, Process Servers, Coordinators, Defense Attorneys and even Judges comprise many of our friend lists. With that many people, anything you post on the World's Greatest Social Media Website can easily be learned about by the 6th Floor.
There have been a few instances that I'm aware of that somebody from the Office got in trouble because Jim Leitner got wind of what they had posted on their Facebook account.
Again, remember that discretion can be a big determining factor here. There is a big difference between you "Liking" the Mike Anderson for District Attorney page and you taking a picture of yourself, mooning the camera, with a caption that reads "Pat Lykos can kiss my . . ."
But, if you so choose to support Mike Anderson, do it as an individual. That doesn't mean that you have to take down the Harris County District Attorney's Office as your place of employment before posting anything. Just don't say "As a Harris County Assistant District Attorney, I support anyone other than Pat Lykos."
If Jim Leitner or anyone from Upper Admin even thinks about asking or criticizing you for your 1st Amendment right to vote for whoever the hell you want to, refer them to your lawyer. Or better yet, just plead the 5th. They are totally cool with that.

3. Even if you are concerned about supporting publicly, you can still help privately. As an earlier commenter pointed out, you can still spread the word through your own private e-mails and phone calls to people. Just make sure to be doing it on your own time. Your address book on your home computer or Blackberry or iPhone is filled with plenty of Houston voters that you can send an e-mail blast to. Or just start telling people by word of mouth.

4. Remember that bullies rely on the fact that you won't fight back -- the very definition of a bully is a coward who picks on those they believe to be weaker than them. Those from the Upper Admin who are going around talking about Lykos "not being so forgiving" are banking heavily on the idea that this will scare you into submission. When you come armed with your good personnel file, you can say, "If I get fired for exercising my 1st Amendment rights, I can guarantee you that I'm not going to be forgiving either."

5. VOTE.
6. VOTE.
7. VOTE.
8. VOTE.

9. Remember the passion you have for your job and translate it into election action. As I've pointed out time and time again, if you add up all the votes received by Kelly Siegler and compare them to those gained by Pat Lykos, Kelly crushed Lykos by thousands of votes. The reason was that during that first primary vote, there was so much passion involved in getting out there, spreading the word, and voting. Unfortunately, when it came time for the run-off, too many people took it for granted that Kelly would crush her again.
Pat Lykos didn't win that run-off, Apathy did. Don't let it happen again, folks.
In the 2010 elections, the passionate work of people working hard for good candidates helped Judges Don Smyth and Marc Brown defeat two very unqualified candidates, despite those candidates having a lot of Republican support.
You've got the Power. Now use it.

10. Keep your eye on the light at the end of the tunnel. You've made it through three years of Lykos and this next one is going to go by quickly. Of course there is no guarantee that Judge Anderson is going to win the election, but I think he will.
Think about what life would be like for you with an actual prosecutor at the head of the Office.
Wouldn't it be nice to have a leader who has been through everything you're going through when he was at the Office? How about one who understands that sometimes there are cases that you just can't make? One who won't have policies that defy justice solely because they please the public? One who won't make you feel like the KGB is watching you at every turn?

If you are ready to get fired up about your job as a prosecutor again, the time to do something about it is now.

Here's a little motivational music for you as we wait for the Primary.

In Re: Donald Hooper [UPDATED]

2012-01-03T15:01:00.002-06:00

UPDATE NOTE: Several posters have put up different things about Don Hooper's financial and court dealings in the comments section since I put this article up yesterday. I have allowed those that I have posted because I think they illustrate to potential voters who meet Hooper that he is not who he holds himself out to be. In my opinion, given the trash that Hooper seems to feel so free about spewing out regarding others, this will allow those who meet him to consider the source.

Yesterday, Brian Rogers ran a story in the Houston Chronicle regarding the District Attorney's race "heating up." In the early morning hours, this relatively benign story suddenly got a flood of comments on it from a "group" of Chronicle commenters who mostly seemed to have generated their profiles the day before. The names such as "Dinkit", "KevinPadrick", "Tort_king", "LibelLuci", "Mike420" and (my personal favorite) "BaldUglyDefenseAttorney"all preached a very similar message to those spewed out over on Big Jolly's Blog under the name of "JJones", "Snapped", "Ted's Conscience", oh, and the name Don Hooper.

Don Hooper, as you all know, is Rachel Palmer's husband, and he has had a very "interesting" storyline ever since he and Rachel first got together several years ago. Per his recent testimony in Rachel's Motion to Recuse hearing against Judge Susan Brown, Don is a 50-year-old "energy trader" who is politically active along with his friend, Gary Polland, in the Republican Party. As a matter of fact, he and Gary have been working very hard to find opponents to run against Judges Marc or Susan Brown. (NOTE: Gary, if it isn't really your policy to be rounding up opponents to run against incumbent Republicans, you might want to have a chat with Mr. Hooper. He is throwing your name around. Just FYI.)

Many people who work at or around the CJC are of the opinion that all of these different "identities" on the Chronicle blog, as well as those on Big Jolly's, all belong to the same poster -- Don Hooper. The comments usually have the same trademarks that lead us to believe that. They are usually crude and nasty, attacking those he perceives to be against Pat Lykos (and thus, by extension, Rachel Palmer). The attacks are usually childish to the degree that he is openly accusing people of everything from alcoholism to adultery (which in the big scheme of things is kind of ironic). The comments come in the mornings on the Chronicle blog and are usually deleted as soon soon as someone from the Chronicle reads them and sees how libelous they are. His commenting identity is usually banned, and a new one or two springs up immediately thereafter.

All in all, it is a foolish and frustrating endeavor by the person doing it.

It is frustrating because there is probably no one more susceptible to some negative publicity than Don Hooper. I know that he and Rachel think that I have attacked them both on a personal level, but I think if one were to go back and read what I have written about them, the themes have been based on things that are relevant to the jobs done. Rachel's treatment of her subordinates and her lack of honesty and knowledge of the law are relevant in the job she does. Don getting special treatment by the Pat Lykos Administration when he harasses his neighbors with Rachel's badge is very telling when one tries to figure out the abuses of power going on at the District Attorney's Office under this administration.

But, Don and Rachel (believe it or not) should be VERY thankful for those things that I don't put on this blog.

Trust me on this one. I have been contacted by people who have known Don Hooper for a very long time. I know things about him that would make Kitty Kelly blush. Hell, I even had one person send me a copy of a booking photo. My "Rejected Comments" box on the blog has many many things about both of them that I would never publish because they are truly personal and have nothing to do with the work at the CJC. I guess that is just my own definition of the Rules of Engagement when it comes to this blog and what I will or will not publish.

Sadly, Mr. Hooper seems to have no such rules. The comments that were spewed on the Chronicle article yesterday were beyond vile and will not be repeated on this blog. Suffice it to say that if you go to the Chronicle article and see where a comment has been removed or a commenter has been blocked, that was one of the many many things taken down by the staff at the Chronicle. They were bad things with accusations of people who aren't even running for office but ones that Don and Rachel might perceive to be their enemies.

The author of those comments clearly had no Rules of Engagement, and in my opinion, no honor.

I give safe-harbor to commenters here who want to post their names anonymously, but I police the content of what is written. It is true that sometimes the comments get more vulgar and more childish than I would prefer, but what happens in people's homes is off-limits. Some may argue with my Rules, but I at least have some.

Hooper's methodology in campaigning either for or against someone is devoid of morals, ethics, and any semblance of integrity, in my opinion. Not to mention the fact that this 50-year-old "man" seems to be doing so much damage to the causes he purports to support.

Do you really think that you are helping Pat Lykos' campaign with your multiple personalities on the Chronicle? You insulted numerous Republican Party leaders and supporters? Your very actions are disgraceful to the minimal presumptions of dignity that come along with a democratic election.

With your wife under such scrutiny for taking the 5th Amendment to the 185th Grand Jury, is it really to her benefit that you write posts as if you were the foreperson of the Grand Jury? Do you really lack such a mental capacity that you think that your behavior is in anyway prudent?

My hope would be that Pat Lykos or Jim Leitner or somebody would sit down with Hooper and Palmer and tell them that this juvenile behavior needs to stop. It does nothing more than fuel the fires against an Office whose reputation is already in the toilet. If the fake identity attacks don't stop, then the Office should terminate all contact with the Hooper-Palmer family immediately.

The Republican Party, especially its leader, Jared Woodfill, should disavow everything done in such a juvenile and hateful manner. Otherwise, you are condoning politics by intimidation, blackmail, and extortion.

The voters who vote in the Republican Primary should know what is being done by one of their own, and do everything in their power to stop him -- starting with voting against every candidate he supports.

We all feel passionately about those issues that affect us at the CJC. We can disagree and even dislike each other, if need be. What is happening on the Chronicle blogs takes things to a level that humiliates us all. Sadly, it becomes the perfect example of that old saying about never wrestling with a pig. You both get covered in mud.

The only difference is that the pig likes it.

Lykos 2011: A Year in Review

2011-12-30T23:45:00.001-06:00

JANUARY

January 12^th – An Amber Alert for Clint Greenwood is cancelled after he is found safely in his office on the 6^th floor. The alert had been issued on January 2^nd when he left for work and then was not heard from. Greenwood explained that it always takes him 10 days to get to work.

FEBRUARY

February 10^th- An infuriated Pat Lykos denounces the release of a video of HPD officers beating a handcuffed and surrendering teenager, Chad Holley, to local media. Although having campaigned on the platform of “transparency,” she declares that there are some things that the public should never get to see – kind of like they should never get to see her ever actually going to trial, having integrity, etc.

February 16^th – An attempted morale boosting exercise on the part of Misdemeanor Chief John Jordan goes horribly awry when local media learn of a reward system for guilty verdicts secured from misdemeanor prosecutors. The reward of an afternoon of bowling meets with little complaint from the rank and file; however, the punishment of “Seven Minutes of Heaven” in a closet with Lykos for losing prosecutors causes an uproar.

MARCH

March 1^st – Daycare worker Jessica Tata flees the country to Nigeria before the District Attorney’s Office will agree to file charges on her for the deaths of four children in her care during a house fire. D.A. Lykos angrily denounces HFD’s Fire Marshal for not filing charges earlier once she realizes that Tata’s frequent flier miles are not transferable to her in an asset forfeiture.

March 19^th – Pat Lykos amends the District Attorney’s Operations Manual to include a guideline on how ADAs must conduct themselves if participating in any campaigns during the 2012 elections. Rule Number One is that no candidate may speak of any affiliation with Pat Lykos and the District Attorney’s Office. Yeah. Seriously. Apparently the First Rule of Pat Lykos is that there IS no Pat Lykos.

March 21^st – Jessica Tata is apprehended in Nigeria. She insists that she had not fled the country to avoid prosecution; rather, she had just “carpooled in” with Clint Greenwood, and it always takes him ten days to get from his house to the courthouse.

March 25^th – In response to mandatory budget cuts, the Lykos Administration tightens its belt on fiscal matters. Several prosecutors and Administrative Assistants are terminated, and the solid gold statue of Lykos for the front lobby is trimmed down from 10 feet tall to a life-sized statue of 5’1.

March 29^th – County Court at Law # 4 Judge John Clinton finds himself in hot water for ordering conditions of probation that involve going to church, thus violating the separation between Church and State. A supportive Pat Lykos rallies to Judge Clinton’s defense, pointing out that all of her upper-Administration are required to worship her or be burned at the stake, as dictated in the Bible.

APRIL

April 10^th – Another Amber Alert for Clint Greenwood is cancelled when he is found safely in his office. Greenwood had last been seen on April 1^st when he left the office to go to lunch. Greenwood explains that it always takes him 10 days to get back to the office after lunch.

April 23^rd – After years of telling the Harris County Criminal Justice System how to do its job, Houston Chronicle columnist Rick Casey finally does a little background research and goes to jury duty. He points out that all jurors that are struck for cause are “conscientious objectors against the war on drugs.” Furthermore, based on the body language he is reading from the judge and the prosecutor, he can tell they oppose the drug war, too. Then he remembers that he may have eaten one of his “special brownies” for breakfast. This is further evidenced by the fact that the case he was observing was a traffic ticket appeal.

MAY

May 27^th – Pat Lykos hires Heather Ramsey Cook as Office’s new “Community Liason” officer, in lieu of hiring actual prosecutors to work at the Office. Heather, who had initially come to the Office as part of the hastily assembled search party for Clint Greenwood, announces that she will be doing nothing political in her job. Rather, she was only there to help citizens of the community communicate with Her Holiness Patricia R. Lykos, Patron Saint of Harris County.

JUNE

June 1^st – A Court of Appeals reverses the Criminally Negligent Homicide conviction of Jeri Montgomery, who had been convicted of causing a fatality accident while talking on her cellular telephone. Pat Lykos, who had previously called Montgomery “selfish and narcissistic” in the newspapers, dispatches community liaison Heather Ramsey Cook to meet with Montgomery. Heather explains that what Lykos had meant to call her was “awesome and pretty” but got misquoted. Furthermore, Pat hopes she can still count on Montgomery’s vote in March 2012!

June 10^th – Longtime prosecutor Kevin Petroff resigns from Harris County to go to work for the Galveston County District Attorney’s Office. Petroff explains the departure by saying that since he recently turned 16, he can now drive to Galveston on his own, without an adult passenger to supervise him on his learner’s permit.

JULY

July 17^th – Yet another Amber Alert for Clint Greenwood is cancelled when he is again found safely in his Office. Greenwood had been missing since July 7^th when he was last seen going to use the restroom. Greenwood explained that it always takes him 10 days to get back to his office after using the restroom.

AUGUST

August 1^st – Allegations that HPD’s mobile “B.A.T. vans” are unreliable begin to pick up steam as possible Brady material in DWI cases. The District Attorney’s Office remains unconcerned about the allegations, telling younger prosecutors, “It isn’t ‘Brady’ if nobody knows about it, now is it?”

August 3^rd – Defense attorney and proud veteran Pat McCann has his head shaved in the 228^th District Court, honoring a bet with participants in Veterans’ Court. McCann had not shaved nor had a haircut in the 10 months preceding. Local blogger Murray Newman is seen sweeping up the hair on the floor and heading back to his office with the hair and a bottle of super glue.

August 19^th – A video from Jersey Village high school days hits the internet, with a then-17-year-old Todd Dupont performing in a music video to the tune of Madonna’s Vogue. A visibly rattled Dupont says, “Oh thank God, it was just that video. I was scared a different one was going to be released.”

SEPTEMBER

September 6^th – Longtime columnist for the Houston Chronicle, Rick Casey, leaves the newspaper. Apparently writing columns with little to no research had become too exhausting.

September 7^th – Legendary icon of the Harris County Criminal Justice System, Rayford Carter passes away after a lengthy illness. His passing officially makes Pat Lykos the oldest and most cantankerous defense attorney in the building.

September 28^th – Local defense attorney and Botox aficionado Brian Wice writes a controversial editorial in the Houston Chronicle criticizing prosecutors’ reactions to a Not Guilty verdict in the Michael Brown trial. Wice’s original editorial, entitled “Hey! I Was One of the Defense Attorneys On That Case Too!” was scrapped after fact checkers for the Chronicle could not confirm that it was Wice’s bald spot that appeared next to lead counsel Dick DeGeurin in all of the media coverage.

OCTOBER

October 4^th – The Harris County District Attorney’s Office lobbies to have Lone Star College’s contract with the county (for testing Intoxilyzers) cancelled after learning that former-HPD chemist Amanda Culbertson now works for them. Lykos denies that the cancelling of the contract was retaliation for Culbertson whistle-blowing on the HPD “B.A.T." vans. She also denies that cancelling her cable subscription was motivated because “Comcast still has that damn Channel 13 with that jackass Oberg” as part of their line-up.

October 21^st – The 185^th Grand Jury kicks Harris County prosecutors out of the room as they hear from witnesses regarding the B.A.T. van scandal. Lykos and Crew angrily insist that there is a conspiracy of people out to get her because “they don’t like her.” She then identifies the people involved in the conspiracy as Judge Mike Anderson, Judges Marc and Susan Brown, the defense bar, and 99.9% of the Harris County District Attorney’s Office.

October 24^th – Pat Lykos is caught trying to mislead ABC 13’s Ted Oberg in an interview, stating that she had never heard of any BAT van problems “from HPD’s crime lab.” When called out on her deception, Lykos tries the old “Sharon Stone in Basic Instinct” maneuver, which fails miserably. (NOTE: Seriously, go back and watch the video of the interview. It’s disturbing.)

October 26^th – Numerous prosecutors from the Harris County District Attorney’s Office are subpoenaed to appear before the 185^th Grand Jury. District Attorney Pat Lykos refuses to go unless allowed to bring a “comfort item” while testifying. That comfort item? A carton of Camel filterless cigarettes.

NOVEMBER

November 2^nd – Pat Lykos testifies to the Grand Jury that she never sought to have Amanda Culbertson fired from Lone Star College for retaliatory reasons. She also denies that the reason she attempted to have Ted Oberg fired from Channel 13 and Murray Newman fired from the Law Offices of Murray Newman was retaliatory, either.

November 7^th – Prosecutors Carl Hobbs and Steve Morris are brought before the 185^th District Court on a Show Cause hearing to explain why they were in possession of highly confidential Grand Jury transcripts from a proceeding that the District Attorney’s Office had been recused from. Pat Lykos denies having anything to do with the unfortunate event and quickly cancels her idea to add G. Gordon Liddy and E. Howard Hunt to the D.A. Office payroll.

November 29^th – Numerous police unions including HPD’s and the HCSO’s hold a press conference to announce that they have “No confidence” in District Attorney Pat Lykos. An angry Pat Lykos denounces the Unions as being part of the ever-growing “conspiracy” of people out to get her, which now includes Judge Mike Anderson, Judges Marc and Susan Brown, the Defense Bar, 99.9% of the Harris County District Attorney’s Office, Girl Scout Troops 3-17, her 3^rd cousin, Barney Lykos, and Rick, the guy who gives out M&Ms in front of the courthouse.

November 30^th – Judge Mike Anderson announces his candidacy for Harris County District Attorney. An office memo from the Gang Who Couldn’t Shoot Straight is issued to the rest of the office, stating: “You better not let us catch any of you bastards smiling about this.”

In a related story, local blogger Murray Newman ponders the future of his blog if the D.A.’s Office is no longer run by a mean, ignorant, power-mad politician who gives him so much material to write about on a daily basis.

DECEMBER

December 13^th – A second Grand Jury asks for a Special Prosecutor to assist in investigating allegations of wrong-doing by Pat Lykos’ Harris County District Attorney’s Office. An angry Lykos adds 232^nd Judge Mary Lou Keel to her list of people out to get her, along with the Police Unions, Judge Mike Anderson, Judges Marc and Susan Brown, the Defense Bar, 99.9% of the Harris County District Attorney’s Office, Girl Scout Troops 3-17, her 3^rd cousin, Barney Lykos, Rick, the guy who gives out M&Ms in front of the courthouse, Nick Lykos, the Reverend Billy Graham, and an actual partridge in a pear tree.

December 19^th – In an effort to keep from having to testify to the 185^th Grand Jury, Assistant District Attorney Rachel Palmer invokes her 5^th Amendment and subsequently files a Motion to Recuse Judge Susan Brown. Palmer’s attorney, Clay Rawlings asks to continue the hearing for ten days to provide ADA Clint Greenwood his customary ten days needed to arrive at the courthouse so that he can testify.

December 21^st – Fresh off of being told by Judge Susan Brown that she did not have to talk to the 185^th Grand Jury, Rachel Palmer heads down to Channel 11 to talk to them. In the interview, Palmer explains that the reason she invoked her 5^th Amendment rights in front of the Grand Jury had nothing to do with retaliating against Amanda Culbertson. In actuality, Palmer states she just didn’t want to explain why she declared “sick time” on her time sheet when she was really in Dallas for a Hello Kitty Fan Club convention.

December 25^th – After a lackluster Christmas, Pat Lykos adds Santa Claus to the list of conspirators out to get her because they don’t like her. As evidence of this conspiracy, Lykos provides photographs of Santa meeting with several members of Girl Scout Troops 3-17.

December 27^th – In an interview with local Republican blogger David Jennings, Pat Lykos insists that she has hired somewhere between 20 and 25 new prosecutors over the past several months. Unfortunately, all of her three media relations people (Donna Hawkins, Heather Ramsey Cook and David Benzion) had been too busy doing “other things” to announce a move by the Office that actually had something to with the administration of Criminal Justice.

December 30^th – In a private ceremony held in Pat Lykos’ office on the 6^th floor of the CJC, Rachel Palmer is named Employee of the Year, given the Harris County District Attorney’s Medal of Valor, and then quietly shipped off to Appellate where she can spend the day doing nothing, along with other Lykos political beneficiary Lana Shadwick.

December 31^st – After learning that the 185^th Grand Jury will not be meeting again until the beginning of 2012, Pat Lykos declares that the official slogan for her re-election campaign will be: “Indictment Free Through Years One, Two and Three!”

Rachel Palmer moved to Appellate

2011-12-30T16:54:00.001-06:00

So, after spending her first three years in the Lykos Administration at the reward position of Deputy Dawg of the Misdemeanor Division, Rachel Palmer has finally been unseated from her throne. I guess the Lykos Administration finally decided to "punish" her for making the Office look bad by pleading the 5th.

Today, according to the Office's moves memo, Rachel is being moved to the Appellate Division.

She won't have to pull a docket or try a case. She can have relatively flexible hours. I wonder if they will be more flexible for Rachel than they were for Shirley Cornelius.

Perhaps she can do some legal research on when the 5th Amendment applies and when it doesn't and the admissibility of polygraph evidence.

Oh, and I've got $5 that says they use her move to Appellate as justification to give her Chief's salary in the weeks to come.

Want to see something funny?

2011-12-30T11:38:00.002-06:00

When a person comments in on this blog, Life at the Harris County Criminal Justice Center, they can be as anonymous as they want to be. I don't require an e-mail address or a verified identity before you can say what you want to say. On the Chronicle Blog, however, I don't have a say in what information must be left by commenters. When they leave a comment, they must attach an e-mail address. It also will show their IP address to me.

As you all know, I will publish comments that I don't agree with and even those that are criticizing me. I think that is only fair. And, often, funny.

But I was pretty amused when I got this comment on the Chronicle blog yesterday.

Obviously, I don't agree with it and the spelling and grammar are atrocious, but I published old TJ's comment, anyway. Note, the e-mail address, IP address, and the time.

So, I thought it was even funnier when I got this next post (which I didn't publish).

Again, note the e-mail address and IP address. Looks like old TJ is having a bit of an identity crisis. But, I suppose it is good that his two personalities agree, at least. As a matter of fact, he agrees with himself so much that he came back a third time.

What cracks me up the most is that if he had posted his comments on this blog, I wouldn't have been able to tell the difference. Whoever this mental midget is went to the one place where I could tell he was double posting under two different names.

See what I have to deal with here, people?!?!

New Post on the Chronicle Blog

2011-12-29T16:03:00.000-06:00

Yes, I do still write on the Chronicle blog occasionally. Here is my latest post.

Thoughts from a Guest Poster

2011-12-29T08:49:00.001-06:00

I got the following comments from a previous poster who goes by the street name of "Spunk." The points in the comment are excellent, so I decided to make it a post on its own rather than put it in the comments section. This is the comment in its entirety:

Before we get too far away from that matter of Rachel Palmer taking the 5th, I would like to address Rachel directly regarding her commentary, behavior and specifically her appearance with her attorneys on Channel 11 after having taken the 5th. Let us review and reflect upon the following:

1. Rachel Palmer, this is not "about" you! In your testimony and selective interview with channel 11 you continually reference yourself, how long you have endured attacks from people on the blogs and Murray Newman himself and how tired you are of it, and blah blah blah-- it's all about you, you, you. Do not flatter yourself, Rachel, the only reason anyone pays attention to you is because you have continued to inject yourself in controversy in your ongoing attempt to ingratiate yourself to Pat Lykos and to cover up your criminal conduct contributing to the official oppression of Amanda Culbertson, and because your husband seems hellbent on showing his backside every time he gets a chance.

2. Dear Media, please stop calling Rachel Palmer a "top prosecutor." That's like calling a substitute kindergarten teacher among a bunch of college professors a 'top educator.' In the last 3 years since Lykos took over the office Rachel has not tried a single felony, and the few she did try before then did not go very well. She is a marginal trial lawyer at best. She has now found a comfortable place making more money than she is worth and all she does is supervise MISDEMEANORS. She probably wouldn't have a job at all at the office if Lykos had lost. As a victim of a violent crime, trust me, you wouldn't want Rachel Palmer advocating on your behalf.

3. Rachel testified that she was "scared" of Judge Susan Brown because of the way she treats her, and her only specific example was because of the way Judge Brown says "Hi, Rachel." Are you kidding me?? It has been a well known fact for a long time that from the standpoint of the prosecutor, Judge S. Brown's court is one of the best assignments in the trial bureau. She is fair, she knows the law, she is pleasant, and she is willing to go to trial on any type of case. Clearly Rachel Palmer was not around to try cases in front of notorious hard-assed judges such as Jimmy James, Joe Keagans, and ironically, PAT LYKOS who couldn't keep a consistent staff in her court from the district clerk's office because she was so damned mean. If all it takes to scare Rachel Palmer is the tone of one's voice when saying hello to her, she wouldn't have lasted 10 minutes in Judge Pat Lykos' court. I am embarrassed to have ever been in the same occupational class with someone so soft and weak as Rachel Palmer.

4. What is Rachel Palmer (or anyone else) really saying when she asserts the 5th Amendment? Rachel is saying this: I am refusing to answer the questions because if I do, either I will have to admit I that have already committed a crime, OR the truthful answer I am required to give will itself contitute a crime (Aggravated Perjury). Whether there is a vast conspiracy or not to unseat Pat Lykos, the fact remains that Rachel Palmer is telling the world that either she has committed a crime for which she may yet be indicted or she has already committed or will commit perjury if she answers the questions. DOESN'T THAT BOTHER ANYONE IN THE LYKOS ADMINISTRATION AND WHAT DOES IT SAY ABOUT THEM IF IT DOESN'T? What has Rachel said or done that constitutes a crime, and who is she covering for besides herself? I hope the media and the public understands this about Rachel and Lykos.

5. What's in those emails, Rachel? I hope everyone noticed that during the interview with channel 11, Rachel's attorney Clay Rawlins had a stack of some "2000" emails of Rachel's subpoenaed by the grand jury, and he said something to the effect that with so many emails it is understandable that she might have made a mistake in them. WHAT MISTAKE?? Why didn't you read it to us? And Clay, maybe you ought to ask Chuck Rosenthal how well the 'mistake' defense works when emails are subpoenaed and used against you.

6. Under ANY other previous administration, Rachel, a prosecutor like you taking the 5th amendment would have been swiftly and unceremoniously FIRED. It was a policy of Mr. Holmes that, even if you are factually 'innocent'/or not guilty or not culpable or whatever, you as an employee of the Harris County District Attorney's Office could expect to be fired for failing to cooperate in any way with a law enforcement investigation of any kind, constitutional rights be damned! Before Lykos, prosecutors were very aware, up front, that they are not mere citizens who possess those basic constitutional rights like everyone else. We were held to a higher standard of conduct. For example, if an Asst. DA got stopped for suspicion of DWI but was in fact not intoxicated, that Asst. DA would still be fired if the investigating officer asked him/her to take a breath test and he/she refused, despite the fact that any other ordinary citizen has a right to refuse a breath test. Why? Because prosecutors are an arm of law enforcement and as such, seekers of the truth, not hiders of it. Surely the public does not want a DA's Office with prosecutors who strutinize ordinary citizens everyday who are hiding facts which will incriminate them while simultaneously those same prosecutors are taking the 5th amendment any time they themselves want to avoid answering incriminating questions.

7. More to the point, Rachel, if you have nothing to hide, then why can't you answer the questions? Jim Leitner said to the media that he would be "hard pressed" to discipline an employee for exercising a constitutional right. Despite whatever experience he may have, it is clear that Mr. Leitner is first and foremost still a criminal defense attorney at heart and in practice. Rachel Palmer does have a right to take the 5th, but she doesn't have a constitutional right to do so and remain employed at the DA's Office. She remains employed at the will and pleasure of Pat Lykos. Keeping her so employed has rendered the Harris County DA's Office the Harris County Hypocritical DA's Office. Rachel, why don't you and your constitutional rights take a hike?

The level of hypocrisy is ridiculous. Wasn't Jim Leitner one of the same set of prosecutors who decided to get a copy of the transcript of witness testimony in grand jury despite his knowledge that Judge Brown and a court of appeals had ruled that grand jury may proceed without a member of the District Attorney's Office present, and despite his knowledge and understanding that Judge Brown did not grant him permission to get that transcript and in fact had told him not to do so? Yet a couple weeks later, apparently with Jim Leitner and the DA's Offices blessings, when Rachel Palmer gets herself cornered by incriminating questions, she refuses to answer media's questions and attempts to school Ted Oberg by stating, "You know that's not an appropriate question...grand jury proceedings are secret." Nauseating.

There is no vast conspiracy to unseat Pat Lykos (she brought this all on herself) but boy there ought to be because she has no respect for the law or anyone besides herself. There was a rumor that on the day Rachel spoke to Channel 11 with her attorneys and Leitner spoke to Ted Oberg that Pat Lykos told certain staff members that there was 'going to be a press conference,' and she was 'going to make everything right.' When are you going to speak to the media yourself, Pat? You can't hide forever. And putting Rachel and Leitner out there sure didn't make anything 'right.'

-Spunk

Big Jolly and Me

2011-12-28T19:16:00.002-06:00

Before I get into explaining how very wrong my friend, Dave Jennings AKA Big Jolly, is about some of the things he has posted over on his blog, I want to make something very clear.

David Jennings is a good man who is doing more than 99.999% of the population when it comes to educating himself on who he votes for and whom he recommends that others vote for. I may not always agree with his decisions [see below], but I respect him and the rules that he plays by. In a comment on my last post, he pointed out that he hated personal attacks on candidates and he had done more than the readers know to stop Terry Lowry's personal attacks on Kelly Siegler. That is the truth, folks.

And just because I disagree with him doesn't change that.

Now, let me tell you [and him] how wrong he is.

1. To start out with, Dave, you need to work a little bit on not being so sensitive. When I posted this article about the Other 95%, I was trying to point out the simple fact that those of us who worked around the CJC have a better working knowledge of Pat Lykos than those who meet her at political functions. In response, you seem to think I called you an "ignoramus" according to this post and that you were suffering my "wrath" for disagreeing with me. Give me a break.

Would you select a heart surgeon for yourself or your loved one because you met a doctor at a cocktail party and thought they had good social graces? Of course not. You would want to talk to people that knew the job required of a heart surgeon and had actual experience with dealing with them. Let's say that you narrowed the choice down to two potential surgeons. One of them was reviled as being a terrible surgeon by all the medical personnel who knew her. The other was highly respected by all the medical personnel. Who would you pick? That was all that I was trying to point out in that article.

2. You call Don Hooper a "friend"? Really? Well, I gotta give you credit for making a public announcement on something really unpopular.

Ever since Hooper latched onto Rachel Palmer, he has done nothing but court controversy with his juvenile (and occasionally borderline criminal) antics. Did you ever go back to the comments section of this post from the 2010 election? That's your "friend" Hooper typing under my name. I suppose if I had his life, I would want to adopt other identities as well.

He still does it on the Chronicle comments section and on your blog, as well. It is one thing to post anonymously, but something else to claim to be another person. Nobody was complaining that he revealed the name of the Grand Jury foreperson on the Chronicle site. What was in bad taste was making posts as if he were her.

I share your distaste for Terry Lowry and his methods of campaigning, but Hooper makes him look like an Amish Buddhist Monk that has taken a vow of silence by comparison. Talk to Edward Porter about Hooper confronting him at a polling location and then telling people that Porter had a gun (he didn't).

Couple that with the "badging" scandal that arose when he borrowed his then-fiancee's badge to go harass some neighbors. Pat Lykos never looked into the possibility that he might have committed a criminal offense like Impersonating a Public Servant. Rather, she vigorously hunted down any Assistant District Attorney who might have run the HPD offense report to learn what happened.

I guess everybody needs a friend, Dave, but damn.

3. Let's get back on pace and talk about your "puff piece" on Lykos. Yes, you have a valid point when you say that you wrote a similarly easy-going article on Mike Anderson with this article, but dude, after accusing him of being a liar and a conspirator in the 185th Grand Jury, you kind of owed the man. Seriously.

My issue with the piece you did on Lykos was that it seemed to be devoid of the critical thinking that you normally possess when you write. I don't know whether it was a favor to your former colleague from Lone Star Times, David Benzion, or what, but didn't you think that it was just the slightest bit suspicious that Lykos had been hiding from mainstream media all month, yet comes out of her spider hole to do an interview with a blogger? I'm stunned that she didn't call me!

How did that phone call go exactly? Something like this?

BENZION: Hey Dave! Long time, no see! Did you see that I gave you a shout out on www.lonestartimes.com when I shut it down?
BIG JOLLY: I sure did. Thanks for that! Where are you working now?
BENZION: Well, I just started this week doing PR for the Pat Lykos Administration.
BIG JOLLY: Ouch.
BENZION: Ouch is right. All these damn reporter types like that asshole Ted Oberg are trying to act like she and her upper Administration are a bunch of crooks.
BIG JOLLY: Yikes. What do they want you to do about it?
BENZION: I'm trying to find a news agency that will give her a positive story.
BIG JOLLY: Did you try the Chronicle? They love her over there.
BENZION: Yeah, but even Lisa Falkenberg took a chunk out of our ass with her column on Palmer.
BIG JOLLY: That's rough, man.
BENZION: Yeah, and I can't find anyone else between here and Sioux City, Iowa that will do something positive on Lykos. Even the Greensheets wouldn't let me ghostwrite a story!
BIG JOLLY: That's terrible.
BENZION: Any way that I could talk you into doing a nice piece on her?
BIG JOLLY: Well, I don't know . . .
BENZION: Dave, I hate to call in favors, but she has a gun to my head right now and she's threatening to use it if I don't come through for her.
BIG JOLLY: Ha ha.
BENZION: I'm not kidding.
PAT LYKOS (IN BACKGROUND): Do I sound like I'm f*cking kidding around here, Mr. Jennings?
BIG JOLLY: Okay! Okay! I'll do the piece! Just don't kill him, Pat!

4. As to the contents of the piece itself, where do I begin? First of all, let's start with Roger Bridgwater's assertion that Pat Lykos has never screamed or cursed at anyone. Um, yeah. First of all, this is Roger Bridgwater asserting that. The guy who lost his cool so badly with Donna Goode in a staff meeting that he had to run her out of the Office. That he would throw down the gauntlet for people to step up and name an incident is silly.

Do you really think that the people under her are going to stand up and talk to you and then lose their jobs? Come on, Dave. The Lykos Administration has been nothing if not retaliatory. Want some examples of her publicly gutting somebody? Ask Rifi Newaz and Mark Donnelly. I know of another prosecutor that she told he was "abjectly incompetent," but it isn't my place to tell his story. Nobody, generally, really likes to piss off the elected District Attorney.

Regarding her "accomplishments," I've addressed them all time and again. I've given her credit when I thought credit was due, but so often she just renamed a Division and called it her own. When you questioned her on that, she pretty much said "nuh uh" and you let it go at that. I told you already about the fugitive squad suggested by Bill Exley in this post.

Cleaning up Haverstock Hills is a lovely accomplishment until you realize that a person gets prosecuted disproportionately if they commit a crime there than anywhere else in the County. They have this neat little thing in the Constitution called "Equal Protection" and it sure as hell seems to me that she is violating it when a person is treated more harshly than another person under the law by virtue of where they were when arrested.

I do like what she's done with the Juvenile Diversion system and I like that she's been working with a mental health court. I don't think there was anything particularly novel about her doing that, but I will still applaud her for doing it.

Let's see, what else did you talk about? That she drove herself to your meeting? Joe Strange wasn't escorting her in an Escalade? And this is something we should applaud her for? She took a break from acting like the Queen of England to go meet with somebody who would be friendly to her? That's just her not being an absolute idiot. Or perhaps Joe Strange was busy doing something else.

Either way, Dave, I couldn't disagree with you more on this issue of Lykos. She is terrible. She has always been terrible. Just because she is on the outs with Lowry doesn't make her less terrible. I tried to call you last week and talk to you about this before I wrote the Other 95% post, but your voicemail was full. I texted you too, but never heard back from you. I've got somebody I would like for you to meet.

Anyway, I'm sorry if you thought I was calling you an ignoramus in the earlier post. It wasn't my intent.

This blog has documented with facts her Reign of Terror within that Office over the past three years, and will continue to do so. I'm sorry to see you let yourself get snowed by her.

I still respect you and consider you a friend.

Even if you are being an ignoramus.

Happy New Year!

Merry Christmas

2011-12-25T09:52:00.000-06:00

I want to take a day off from politics and Grand Juries and wish everyone in my little CJC family a very Merry Christmas!

It's That Time Again!

2011-12-23T11:25:00.000-06:00

You know what to do . . .

On the First Day of Lykos, Snookems gave to me . . .

Anthony Graves and Nicole Casarez on Reasonable Doubt

2011-12-23T11:00:00.000-06:00

Several people have asked me to post the Reasonable Doubt video with Anthony Graves and Nicole Casarez on the blog. Special thanks to Kelly Siegler for putting us in touch with Anthony and Nicole. Additional special thanks to Franklin Bynum for putting the show on the Net.

Reasonable Doubt, December 15, 2011, Anthony Graves and Nicole Casarez from HCCLA on Vimeo.

A New Voir Dire Question

2011-12-23T09:56:00.000-06:00

One of the things that we should be thankful to Rachel Palmer for (as well as the Lykos Administration for not firing or demoting her) is the gift of a very strong and effective way to voir dire potential jurors on the issue of the 5th Amendment.

For instance, you could pose the questions as follows:

DEFENSE ATTORNEY: There could be a lot of reasons that my client does not take the stand during this Aggravated Sexual Assault of a Child case. What are some of the reasons?

JUROR # 1: His attorney told him not to?

DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Yes, or perhaps he works for Pat Lykos' Harris County District Attorney's Office.

JUROR # 2: He's a bad speaker?

DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Yes, or perhaps he works for Pat Lykos' Harris County District Attorney's Office.

JUROR # 3: He would really screw up on the stand if faced with cross-examination?

DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Yes, or perhaps he works for Pat Lykos' Harris County District Attorney's Office.

JUROR #4: He has a lot of prior convictions and doesn't want to talk about them?

DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Yes, or perhaps he works for Pat Lykos' Harris County District Attorney's Office.

JUROR # 5: He's guilty as hell?

DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Yes, or perhaps he works for Pat Lykos' Harris County District Attorney's Office.

JUROR #6: Wait a second, if your client didn't do anything wrong and has nothing to hide, why wouldn't he WANT to take the stand and clear all of this up for us?

DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Why don't you ask Pat Lykos' Harris County District Attorney's Office.

The Other 95% and the Origins of a "Conspiracy"

2011-12-22T11:16:00.000-06:00

APOLOGIES IN ADVANCE - This one is long and rambling. There should be a point in there somewhere:

When it comes to politics in Harris County (and perhaps any county), I've always considered the races affecting the Criminal Justice Center to be somewhat of an oddity. Let's face it, as a wise Homicide Investigator once told me, we deal with probably less than 5% of the population (if that much). The President, the Governor, or the Legislature can enact laws that affect us all, yet most citizens' involvement with the criminal justice system comes from jury duty.

For those of us regularly involved in the System, whether it be as a lawyer, a judge or a police officer, it can easily become 95% of our lives (if that little). We know each other. We work with each other. We socialize with each other. Sometimes, we even marry each other. Whether we like it or not, we know the way the cogs and wheels within the Harris County Criminal Justice turn and how the System works. Prosecutors know what defense attorneys are good and bad. Defense attorneys know what prosecutors are reasonable and which aren't. How a judge will react to certain sets of facts usually doesn't involve much guesswork.

And every election year, the path and direction of the Criminal Justice System can potentially get turned on its ear by the, well, the Other 95%. Well-meaning voters who diligently flock to the polls (as they should) are deciding something that they know so very little about. They vote for a candidate that perhaps they've met at a function or whose name sounds familiar to them, or maybe even just the person whose name comes first on the ballot. Even very politically active voters who work hard to inform themselves, such as my friend Dave Jennings (AKA Big Jolly) can end up getting mislead on some of the real issues involving the criminal justice system.

Those of us who are within the System try to do the best we can to inform our friends, neighbors, and family members about what we know and who we think are deserving of votes. Often, that's not enough.

I came to the Harris County District Attorney's Office in 1999 and had been there all of three months before longtime elected District Attorney Johnny Holmes announced he wasn't going to run for re-election. On the same day of his announcement, Chuck Rosenthal announced his candidacy. He was a controversial Division Chief from within the Office who was regarded by most of his co-workers as rather aloof and somewhat odd. But Chuck was politically active within the Republican Party and when he made his announcement, nobody else from the D.A.'s Office was going to run against him. Mr. Holmes wasn't particularly thrilled about Chuck's candidacy, but said he was staying out of it.

Mr. Holmes had to change his position when Judge Pat Lykos announced she too would be seeking the District Attorney's position in 2000. Lykos had been off the bench in Harris County for quite some time, but her memory lived on -- and not in a good way. She was known by the older lawyers as mean, crude, vindictive and dishonest. Almost any attorney who was practicing in the 1980s to 1990s has a Lykos horror story. Although Johnny Holmes was far from being a fan of Chuck Rosenthal's, he felt that was the better choice than Lykos.

Ironically, my group of friends at the Office at the time were all Baby Prosecutors. We had heard a lot of bad things about Chuck and all we really knew about Lykos at the time was that she had presided over the Karla Fay Tucker trial. We thought that was pretty cool and some of us (yes, I said "us") thought we should vote for Lykos. I had met her before and even smoked cigarettes with her when she was a visiting judge. I kind of thought she was cool. (NOTE: this is the blog equivalent of me doing a walk of shame).

But after hearing what other attorneys (both prosecutors and defense attorneys) had to say, Chuck became the choice as the Lesser of Two Evils. He won in 2000 and again in 2004. There wasn't much change or disruption at the Office. Chuck was kind of like a groundhog who would appear at infrequent occasions. He didn't get involved in how we tried out cases. He was kind of like a weird uncle that you keep in the basement. He would come out every once in awhile, do something dumb, and then go back to his Office.

Those of us who say we loved working for the Office loved the Elected-District Attorney's absence from our day-to-day dealings. Those of us in the trenches were supervised by others in the trenches and decisions that were made were made by people in the trenches. We fought hard. We played hard. We respected each other. Every once in awhile, that weird uncle would escape from the basement and do something that embarrassed the rest of the family, but up until 2007, it was usually not too terribly devastating.

In 2007, obviously, that changed with the e-mail scandals. The ADAs wanted to keep doing their jobs as best they could under the media circus that surrounded Rosenthal. We were all worried about what would happen. We were all grateful when our best and most famous prosecutor in the Office, Kelly Siegler, tried to salvage the ship. Unfortunately, we lost that battle, and ultimately we got Lykos on the bench.

I digress.

Obviously, many ADAs stayed on under the Lykos Administration. Some got promoted and have done well for themselves and for the Office. There are plenty of outstanding prosecutors still there to this very day. Others, however, who had gotten promoted abused that power. Which brings us to Rachel Palmer.

I had known Rachel in passing when I was at the D.A.'s Office. I didn't know her well enough to like her or dislike her, although I had heard about the cat fights that she was getting into with other prosecutors almost from the day she stepped in the door. She was controversial. She had a circle of friends that really liked her, but a larger contingency of those who didn't. The bottom line was that, much like Pat Lykos, she was just kind of mean. When Lykos promoted her to Deputy Division Chief, I didn't think it was a good idea, because she just doesn't get along with people. But, given all the other massive screw ups Lykos was committing at the time, the Palmer to Deputy Dawg one seemed minor in comparison.

Soon, the inevitable happened. Rachel took her new position of power and it went straight to her head. Her catty comments and criticisms of the baby prosecutors that she supervised were becoming widespread knowledge. Her troops hated her. I know that Rachel thinks that she was my "favorite topic on the blog", but if you go back and look at the old posts, you will see the origins of Rachel-bashing occurred in the comments section. I'm not passing the buck here, but the gripes about her came from within the D.A.'s Office. (And by the way, Rachel, if you think the comments that end up on the blog about you are bad, you should see the ones I refuse to publish).

When Rachel announced that she was running for Judge, well, that sounded to me to be about the worst damn idea in America. She was mean, petty, and vindictive, much like Pat Lykos. She treated her people like crap and God only knows what she would be like if she actually were to assume the bench. But Rachel, like Lykos, knew how to play to the Other 95%. She was buddies with Carolyn Farb, the Houston Socialite who grew up on the mean streets of River Oaks. Farb became one of Rachel's benefactors without knowing the first thing about criminal law.

And then came Don Hooper. Rachel's fiancee was an absolute loose cannon at play in Houston. His penchant for posting on blogs as other people, his rage issues at polling sites, and his liberal use of Rachel's badge were definitely not age appropriate actions for a 50-year-old. Yet, there seemed to be no consequence for him coming from the Lykos Administration, and that is frightening. A guy is out there doing all that Hooper was doing and yet because he was a Republican benefactor to Lykos, nothing was done to even get him to simply shut up? I hope that Big Jolly can see that those of us who didn't want Rachel being a judge had some pretty damn good reasons for that.

Don Hooper was incensed when Rachel lost to Don Smyth. The rest of us were just relieved. Then came the Danny Dexter/Marc Brown race for the 180th District Court. If Rachel Palmer and Don Hooper think that Judges Marc and Susan Brown have "bad blood" with them, I can assure you that it was not initiated (nor continued) by the Browns. Hooper did everything he could for Danny, including harassing Marc Brown supporters at polling locations (if you don't believe me, ask Edward Porter).

Danny was a former prosecutor who I had worked with when I was there. He was a really really nice guy. But he was a terrible prosecutor. I really didn't want to write anything bad against him as a person, but he had absolutely no business being on the bench. But, like Rachel and Lykos, he also played well to the Other 95%. He was wealthy and charming and had a lot of support.

Big Jolly mentions in his latest post that he thought it was below the belt when Danny's evaluations from his time at the D.A.'s Office hit the media. Really? How on Earth is that below the belt?

Unlike whether or not a Criminal Court Judge is Pro-Life or Pro-Choice, an evaluation of one's performance within the criminal arena is RELEVANT. Very relevant, actually. If pictures of Danny taking out the trash in his boxer shorts or rumors of a love child with Lady GaGa had been leaked to the media, that would have been below the belt. But evaluations based on his job performance, work ethic, and knowledge of the law are probably those things that the Other 95% should be aware of.

I like Dave Jennings a lot, and I appreciate the fact that he works very hard to learn about the candidates, but he is just flat out wrong on that issue.

The whole reason I wrote this insanely lengthy post is because all of this talk of a "Conspiracy" to get the Lykos Administration and/or Rachel Palmer is something designed by Lykos supporters to play to the Other 95% -- Those who have met Pat and Rachel at a tea party and can sympathetically nod their heads with them when they speak of their persecution woes. There are people who do not like Pat Lykos and Rachel Palmer and Don Hooper to be sure, but they are disliked with reason. We aren't talking about Crips and Bloods and other silly partisan games here. We are talking about real tangible reasons that people feel they are doing a terrible job and will oppose them.

The 5% of us (or less) that continue to deal with the Criminal Justice System on a daily basis do tend to know what we are talking about. We know the good defense attorneys from the bad -- the reasonable prosecutors from the unreasonable -- the fair judges from the unfair. We really don't care if a Republican or a Democrat holds a bench or even the D.A.'s spot, as long as they are doing a good job.

We all wish that those races were non-partisan, actually.

Then maybe the Other 95% might not fall for those conspiracy theories so much.

Rachel Palmer talks . . . to the Media

2011-12-21T07:38:00.000-06:00

Fresh on the heels of being told that she can invoke her Fifth Amendment Right not to testify in front of the Grand Jury, Rachel Palmer and her defense team wasted no time in getting themselves in front of a camera to do some of that thinking smart, looking good and winning that she goes on and on about. In an interview with Channel 11, Rachel noted that there was "nothing wrong" with her as a person or a prosecutor.

To me, the fact that she did so pretty much crystalizes what the Harris County District Attorney's Office is now all about.

After days of trying to stall out a Grand Jury investigation and refusing to talk to Grand Jurors, all the Gang Who Couldn't Shoot Straight seems to care about is their image. We ignore those folks provided for under the Rule of Law and prefer to just go do a little on-air campaigning for the boss.

One of the things I failed to mention from Monday's hearing was a new face in the D.A.'s Roster -- David Benzion, formerly of the Lone Star Times. For those of you who don't remember, Lone Star Times used to be a very politically active Republican website and news outlet. I've known David for several years and he's a nice guy.

Monday was his first day on the job working for Pat Lykos.

His job? Work on media relations. His first assignment? Go hang out in the Rachel Palmer hearing on the Motion to Recuse.

I find it interesting that in the middle of the whole Grand Jury debacle that Pat Lykos won't make a public appearance, but did apparently take time out of her hiding place to hire someone designed to improve HER public image.

At taxpayer expense, of course.

Perhaps if Lykos spent so much time actually doing the right thing, rather than spending Office money to make it appear as if she were doing so, none of this would be happening.

A Tale of Two Hearings

2011-12-20T12:37:00.001-06:00

As you should all know by now, Judge Al Bennett overruled Rachel Palmer's Motion to Recuse Judge Susan Brown from a hearing on a Motion to Compel Testimony before the 185th District Court Grand Jury this morning. The lawyers then all proceeded back to the 185th District Court where Judge Brown ultimately overruled the Special Prosecutors' Motion to Compel. Judge Brown (in my opinion, wisely) stated that the questions proffered by the Special Prosecutors could have answers that "went either way" as to whether or not they were incriminating. She made the safe call.

She also pretty much showed that the entire hearing on the Motion to Recuse was silly. (NOTE: For more on that, read Lisa Falkenberg's excellent column here.) Stephen St. Martin and Jim Mount now have the option of offering Rachel Palmer immunity and compel her testimony that way.

But let's go back and talk about the hearing from yesterday and the things we learned from it.

The hearing was in front of 61st Civil District Court Judge Al Bennett. He was very impressive in hearing all sides of the argument, maintaining Courtroom and Grand Jury integrity, and giving the issue of a Motion to Recuse very serious consideration. Rachel Palmer's defense team called five witnesses -- including Palmer, her husband Don Hooper, Stephen St. Martin, and two of the Grand Jurors -- in their attempt to show that Judge Brown was biased against Palmer.

From the start, Palmer's attorney, Clay Rawlings, made it pretty apparent that the goal of the exercise was delay. Despite the fact that he had been the one who filed the Motion to Recuse, he started the proceedings by asking for a 10 day continuance. Now, for those of you keeping score at home, those 10 days would have been VERY significant. There is debate right now going on over whether or not the authority of all currently serving Grand Juries ends as of December 31st, 2011. Although I have heard counter-opinions, the majority seems to think that the 185th Grand Jury may run out of time on that day.

Should Rawlings' Motion for Continuance have been granted, the hearing would have commenced on Thursday, December 29th -- the last day the 185th Grand Jury meets this year. What became so very telling that the Motion was for purposes of delay was when Rawlings explained that he needed the Continuance for a witness who was 70 miles and would not appear without a subpoena.

That witness? Clint Greenwood.

For those of you who don't know, Clint Greenwood is a Division Chief of the Harris County District Attorney's Office in the Public Integrity Division. His office is one floor above Rachel Palmer's. One phone call would have had him there within the hour. It certainly would not have taken 10 freaking days.

When the Motion for Continuance was denied, they proceeded with testimony, calling one of the Grand Jurors first. The first Grand Juror testified that she had been one of the Grand Jurors who approached Judge Brown after Thursday's hearing and complained of Don Hooper taking photographs. The testimony then moved to a conversation that the Grand Juror had allegedly had with Clint Greenwood.

Per the actual Motion to Recuse and from Rawlings' opening statements, he believed that this particular Grand Juror had made the statement to Greenwood that "Roger [Bridgwater] and Jim [Leitner] had better not 'fall on the sword' for Pat Lykos." The Grand Juror, in her testimony, adamantly (and I believe, credibly) denied ever having made such a statement. She did point out, however, that she did, in fact, speak to Clint Greenwood on the day in question and Clint had told her, "If it was me, I would tell Leitner, Bridgwater and all the ADAs to plead the 5th."

That's a pretty sad statement coming from a Division Chief. Especially one in charge of Public Integrity. Having known Clint for a long time, I've always thought he had a tendency to, um, embellish stories. I can easily see him spouting off something to Rachel Palmer's attorneys and then not wanting to come back and say it under oath. Ultimately, Palmer's defense team rested without ever calling him.

Next up was Don Hooper, who came to deny ever having taken any photographs of Grand Jurors in the courtroom. The people he was taking photos of were myself and Luci Davidson. At this point, Don got to have the cathartic moment of setting the stage of a vast political conspiracy orchestrated by me, Machiavelli Newman. He gleefully pointed out that I had been fired by Pat Lykos and he wasn't sure if I had a job any more. (NOTE TO DON: Yes, I have always maintained steady employment since I graduated law school. How about you?) Hooper wasn't happy about seeing me and Luci entering the courtroom from the back hallway so was taking pictures.

Here's a tidbit for you, Don: all attorneys have access to those back hallways and stairwells. We come up through them quite frequently. Yes, the Judge's chambers are along those back hallways, but that isn't a direct door into the courtroom from chambers. All this effort at playing Geography Detective was kind of stupid and created a big hoopla for nothing.

Hooper also talked about how I had written horrible things about his wife on the blog and all of this was a big political conspiracy. Disappointingly, St. Martin did not cross-examine him and ask him about all of the identities he uses on the Chronicle website.

Next up I believe was St. Martin himself. He was questioned about giving money to Kelly Siegler when she ran for DA in 2008. He had no problem acknowledging that he had. Clay Rawlings then submitted St. Martin to a reading test by having him read the order appointing him as Attorney Pro Tem. Stephen passed the reading test once he got his glasses.

After that was another Grand Juror, who was grilled over her political affiliations. The questioning of her backfired when she stated on the stand that she had supported Jim Leitner for DA in 2008. When Jim lost, she supported Pat Lykos. That kind of took the wind out of the Conspiracy Sails.

And the last witness was none other than Rachel Palmer.

This was absolutely a sight to behold, as we glimpsed the framework of the vast Right-wing conspiracy designed to destroy her, according to Rachel. In very shrill, and often loud testimony, Rachel called out members of the audience (myself included) for being out to get her. The summary of the conspiracy according to Rachel is as follows:

In 2009, a dedicated and hard-working and highly admired young prosecutor named Rachel Palmer was asked to run for Judge of County Court # 13 in Harris County, Texas. The vile Murray Newman was outraged over this possibility because Rachel worked for Pat Lykos. He quickly recruited then-Assistant District Attorney Denise Bradley to run against poor Rachel. When Judge Mike Anderson decided not to run for the 262nd District Court Bench again so that he could focus on running for District Attorney and help initiate politically motivated Grand Juries, Denise Bradley ran for the 262nd.

A furious Murray Newman panicked that Rachel might now be running unopposed for the bench and quickly recruited Assistant District Attorney Don Smyth to run against Rachel. At Republican functions, Rachel would sometimes run into Judge Susan Brown and her husband, then ADA-Marc Brown. It was during these functions that our hero, Rachel, began to suspect that Judge Brown and her husband were possibly Sith Lords, since Judge Brown would say "Hi Rachel" in an offensive tone.

Once Don Smyth had defeated Rachel in the primary, she and her husband Don valiantly fought to ward off the possibility of Sith Lord Marc Brown taking the bench and campaigned heavily for his opponent -- family friend Danny Dexter. Some of Hooper's antics at polling locations infuriated Judge Susan Brown, who made a request for Rachel to come talk to her in court. Rachel, sensing a trap that could lead to her imminent death, declined Judge Brown's invitation to come speak with her.

Ultimately, Marc Brown defeated Danny Dexter in the runoff and became Judge of the 180th District Court. All the while, the 2010 election season had just been a diversion for the real plot that would come to light in 2011 . . .

Judge Mike Anderson, apparently using the Force, had foreseen that the Harris County District Attorney's Office would get themselves in trouble with the BAT Van scandal after he announced he wasn't going to run again. Furthermore, the Force had told him that there were people he and his wife, former Judge Devon Anderson, knew who would be serving on Grand Juries in 2011. Using the Dark Side of the Force, he willed it that the Grand Jury would begin investigating Pat Lykos, and subsequently Rachel Palmer.

Ultimately, it had been revealed that Judge Mike Anderson was actually Darth Sidious. Since this by implication made Judge Susan Brown out to be Darth Vader and clearly Judge Marc Brown as Darth Maul, there was no way on Earth that Rachel could get a fair hearing from Judge Brown.

Obviously, I'm joking with some of the analogies, but that was pretty much the gist of what Rachel outlined as the conspiracy out to get her.

This morning, St. Martin and Mount called Judge Marc Brown to testify that there was no personal animosity between him and the Palmer/Hooper clan, but Judge Bennett said it wasn't necessary to hear from him. He denied the Motion to Recuse.

We all came back over for the Motion to Compel, which, as noted above, Judge ~~Vader~~ Brown denied after meeting with Palmer's defense attorneys. The next step is to see if Rachel is offered immunity. The Grand Jury will meet today, Thursday, and next Tuesday and Thursday.

I'm betting that things are going to be resolved by the end of the year.

A "Must Read" from Mark Bennett

2011-12-19T08:14:00.002-06:00

Anyone with even a passing interest in the hearing on the Motion to Compel Rachel Palmer's testimony today in the 185th really needs to read Bennett's post today. Go there by clicking here.

This means you media types, too.

Thoughts from Thursday's Events

2011-12-17T16:26:00.003-06:00

Although the actual hearing for the Motion to Compel filed by Special Prosecutors Jim Mount and Stephen St. Martin was reset until Monday morning, December 19th, there were some interesting and noteworthy events that happened on Thursday. Here are a couple of the highlights:

1. Although Rachel Palmer was escorted from the Grand Jury room up to the 185th for the Motion to Compel, she wasn't in custody. I heard that rumors were running rampant through the CJC that Rachel had been placed in handcuffs and brought to the 185th. That was absolutely NOT the case. At some point, her attorney Clay Rawlings, who was angry with Mount and St. Martin about the Motion to Compel, announced to the court that his client was being mistreated and brought up "in custody." Rachel appeared mortified at her attorney's assertion and both Mount and St. Martin made a point of letting the court know that wasn't the case.

2. Over the lunch hour, David Mitcham was apparently added to the Defense Team. In the time between the original morning meeting on Thursday and when the Court reconvened at 1:00 p.m., I heard from several sources that Rachel was trying to hire new counsel (or at least additional counsel). Sure enough, Mitcham showed up with everyone at 1:00. Smart move by Rachel. David is a great lawyer.

3. Immunity is not on the table. The basis for which St. Martin and Mount are asking the Court to compel Rachel to testify is that their questions are not incriminating. The questions are sealed and nobody but the parties know what they are at the moment. Under the Special Prosecutors' position, there is no need for immunity to be offered if the questions wouldn't require anything for there to be immunity from. At some point during the hearing, Judge Brown made mention of the possibility of Immunity being offered to Rachel, and both Mount and St. Martin were seen shaking their heads in unison.

4. If Immunity had actually been offered, would it be worthless, anyway? This turns into an interesting legal question that Mark Bennett has touched on over at his blog with this post (specifically in the comments section). Commenters Mike Trent, Mike Paar and Bennett aptly point out that Immunity covers everything EXCEPT perjury. So, let's say in a hypothetical-theoretical situation that when Rachel testified before the Grand Jury last month she stated a set of facts that have now been contradicted by testimony from the other witnesses who were called after her (i.e., Ed Emmett, Steve Raddack, El Franco Lee). Now the Grand Jury has called her, Leitner, and Bridgwater back to explain themselves for their earlier answers and they want to invoke their 5th Amendment rather than risk getting caught in a lie from their previous testimony. Even if given Immunity, would it cover possible perjury from their previous testimony? Mark seems to think it would. Mike Trent points out that it isn't specifically spelled out.

5. Will it all be pointless in 2012? No, I'm not talking about the Mayan Calendar predicting that the world will end next year and that we will all be progressing into the next Astral Plane (known to some as a land called "Ho Ha.") Recent legislation has indicated that the power of all existing Grand Juries across the State will cease at the end of the year and all new ones must be empaneled at the beginning of the New Year. Word on the street is that Lykos and Crew are eagerly anticipating all this Grand Jury work to be for nothing, but there is disagreement amongst the legal scholars over whether or not a previously authorized hold-over Grand Jury can continue. Either way, I think it is totally awesome of the Upper Admin to be relying on a technicality to bail their asses out of hot water.

6. Bridgwater and Leitner did not testify in Grand Jury on Thursday. Although the 1st Assistant and Bureau Chief did receive subpoenas to come back to the 185th Grand Jury, they weren't actually called in on Thursday, most likely because they were having to deal with Rachel pleading the 5th. I'm curious as to whether or not they will be pleading the 5th, as well.

7. Bridgwater has Campaign Implications. Unlike Leitner and Palmer, Roger Bridgwater is running for Judge in 2012. Currently, he is unopposed in the Republican Primary. If he pleads the 5th and creates the debacle that Rachel has, or if any of these folks end up indicted, is the Republican Party going to be running a candidate who is under indictment? Or would they ask him to withdraw and just cede the race? If Jared Woodfill was smart (don't worry, Roger, he isn't), he would be getting a back-up candidate in that race by the end of Monday's filing deadline.

8. Jim Leitner is starting to fall apart at the seams. We had a preview of how the 1st Assistant reacts when he doesn't know the answer to the tough questions back in 2009. On Thursday, in the hallway immediately after the hearing, Leitner really lost his composure when pressed by Ted Oberg as to whether or not he found it "offensive" that an Assistant District Attorney had taken her 5th Amendment right. Instead of doing the smart thing and saying, "This is an on-going Grand Jury investigation and our Office has no comment," he ended up shrieking at the crowd of cameras that what he found offensive was being backed up against the wall and forced to answer questions. However, his response was probably more understandable than Rachel's dismissive "God is good" statements to the media.

9. Don Hooper is out of control.
Hooper has been very busy during this Grand Jury investigation. There have been a variety of posts on the Chronicle comments section that he has been accused of authoring under pseudonyms. Those comments typically attack Mike and Devon Anderson for their positions on the DIVERT program. Although my favorite pseudonym used was "Fake Murray Newman" (which I actually thought was pretty funny), another comment bore the name of the 185th Grand Jury's foreperson. That one isn't quite as amusing.
Last week, Hooper signed his name to a blog comment on David Jenning's Big Jolly blog, a comment that oozed the exact same bilge that these pseudonym commenters have been using on the Chron blog.

Can I prove that Hooper is posting as Fake Murray Newman and as the foreperson of the Grand Jury? Nope. Would I be willing to bet my lunch money that he is? In a heartbeat.

I don't know why this knucklehead thinks that he is helping out his wife with this type of behavior. I further don't understand why members of the Republican Party seem to think he has some sort of influence with them.

10. Where in the World is Patricia Lykos? With all of this going down, there has been no sign of the elected D.A. There are complaints of personnel moves and promotions being put on hold because Lykos won't sign off on them. She sure as hell hasn't stood with her people in court. Even her proposed move to make Rachel Palmer the public spokesperson for the Office hasn't been approved. I can't imagine why.

Also notably absent from the 185th courtroom on Thursday were any other prosecutors outside of the Upper Administration. No rank and file prosecutor in their right mind would have showed up to watch the fireworks. If they were perceived as coming to gawk at Palmer in the hugely embarrassing situation, they would have been labeled as enemies of Lykos on the spot. Not to mention Hooper would have been snapping photographs of them, as well.

So, that's why I started doing the live tweeting from the hearing.

And I'll be back doing it again on Monday.

Motion to Compel

2011-12-15T11:57:00.002-06:00

Interesting developments today from the 185th District Court Grand Jury as Assistant District Attorney and Deputy Division Chief of Misdemeanor Rachel Palmer was escorted from the Grand Jury to the 185th District Court in response to a Motion to Compel Testimony.

Special Prosecutors Jim Mount and Stephen St. Martin approached the bench with Palmer's defense attorney Clay Rawlins for a hearing on the record where Mount and St. Martin filed a Motion to Compel Testimony from Palmer. Per the conversation at the bench, Palmer invoked her Fifth Amendment right against Self-Incrimination in front of the Grand Jury. The Special Prosecutors' position was that she did not have a right to invoke the 5th, since she was not the target of the investigation and no questions would be asked that would incriminate her.

Rawlins had apparently contacted the Special Prosecutors yesterday after Palmer was subpoenaed to testify this morning. Rawlins informed them that Palmer would be taking a "blanket Fifth," meaning she would state her name for the record and then invoke the Fifth on all following questions. In response to Rawlins' representation to them, the prosecutors drafted a Motion to Compel.

All parties were ordered to return for a hearing on the Motion to Compel at 1:00 pm this afternoon.

Keeping in mind that a Harris County Assistant District Attorney invoking her Fifth Amendment right just looks terrible, it begs the question: who is the target of the investigation that she is trying to protect?

I will keep you posted as events develop.

Another Day, Another Grand Jury

2011-12-13T20:36:00.000-06:00

Major kudos today for the Pat Lykos Administration for finding itself the subject of not one, but two Grand Jury investigations.

Today, Special Prosecutor Chris Downey was appointed to investigate yet another allegation of wrong-doing by the Harris County District Attorney's Office in the 232nd District Court's Grand Jury. I'm not 100% certain of this, but I believe that this Grand Jury will be investigating allegations surrounding the departure of former Assistant District Attorney Shirley Cornelius that were outlined awhile back on this blog in this post.

For those ~~die-hard Pat Lykos supporters~~ conspiracy theorists who have been grumbling about the 185th Grand Jury's investigation being politically motivated, I think it is worth pointing out that the 232nd Grand Jury is selected by Judge Mary Lou Keel, who selects her Grand Jurors from an actual jury pool that is called to service at random.

Say what you want to about prior District Attorneys and their failings. I can't remember a time when one was ever being investigated by a Grand Jury.

Certainly not two Grand Juries.

This Week's Reasonable Doubt's Special Guests (12/15/11)

2011-12-12T21:18:00.000-06:00

Normally I don't write about Thursday's episode of Reasonable Doubt until the morning of the show. That's because we don't know who our guest is going to be until a day or two before.

This week is different, because Todd Dupont and I are bringing you two very special guests that we have been trying to get on the show for quite some time.

With the help of Kelly Siegler, we are proud to announce that this week's Reasonable Doubt guests will be Anthony Graves and Nicole Casarez. Mr. Graves, as you probably know, served 19 years on Death Row for a crime he did not commit. Ms. Casarez is an attorney and professor at the University of St. Thomas who was instrumental in proving Mr. Graves' innocence.

It is going to be a great show, and as always, we will be taking your calls and questions. You can watch it live on Thursday, December 15 at 8:00 p.m. on television or on the web by clicking here.

I'm Back

2011-12-12T21:06:00.000-06:00

For those of you who actually enjoy reading this blog, sorry for the absence over the past week. I've been in New York visiting my favorite editor and wife-to-be, and appearing on Tru TV's In Session.

There are a lot of different things that I've been wanting to write about, and I will try to catch up as fast as possible. Things are very interesting around the CJC right now.

In the meantime, feel free to start a new comments chain here.

The Legality of D.I.V.E.R.T.

2011-12-03T11:51:00.000-06:00

There was an interesting ruling out of the 14th Court of Appeals this week that points out what many of us have been saying for awhile -- that Pat Lykos' DIVERT program is not a legal form of punishment for Driving While Intoxicated.

In State vs. Rhodes, the Defendant was charged with Driving While Intoxicated and his case landed in County Court at Law # 2 under Judge Bill Harmon. Followers of the DIVERT controversy know that Judge Harmon has always maintained the position that DIVERT is illegal and he won't do it in his court. The Defendant wanted to participate in DIVERT, but that wasn't going to happen on Judge Harmon's watch.

Rhodes' attorney then filed a Motion to Recuse Judge Harmon in the attempt to get a new judge that would allow him to have DIVERT. A hearing occurred on the Motion to Recuse and the Administrative Judge chose NOT to remove Judge Harmon from the bench. The defendant was ultimately found guilty and received 3 days and a $500 fine.

He then appealed his case, citing as error the Administrative Judge's ruling to NOT remove Judge Harmon as the error.

Now, before we go into the ruling, I'm kind of wondering what it was like for the D.A.'s Office to be arguing against the Defendant's appeal. They were kind of in a Catch-22, weren't they? On the one hand, they want the conviction to stand, but on the other they have to protect the validity of Lykos' pet project. I haven't seen the State's response, but I'm curious how they argued it and kept it intellectually honest.

Additionally, how did they handle the Motion to Recuse? Did they agree with the Defendant that Judge Harmon should be removed from the case? I'm asking out of genuine curiosity.

Ultimately, the Defendant and the DIVERT program both lost their arguments.

The 14th Court of Appeals ruled that the Defendant was not entitled to a different judge than Judge Harmon, because Judge Harmon was correctly following the law when he refused to participate in DIVERT's pre-trial diversion program. They pointed out that Judge Harmon was, in fact, following the law and considering the full range of punishment because pre-trial diversion is not a legal form of punishment.

I wonder what will become of DIVERT in light of this ruling. My guess is Lykos will keep on giving it out. I guess she kind of backtracked off that whole "Rule of Law" thing she touted so highly in the 2008 election.

Johnny Holmes Endorses Mike Anderson

2011-12-01T15:25:00.000-06:00

The campaign for Judge Mike Anderson has gotten underway in a big way today with the immediate endorsement of Judge Anderson from former Harris County District Attorney Johnny Holmes.

“Mike Anderson has the qualities it will take to restore the leadership and integrity of the District Attorney’s Office. I’m proud to support Mike," said Mr. Holmes, according to a press release.

For more information about Judge Anderson's campaign, check out www.andersonda.com

Merry Christmas

2011-11-30T12:41:00.003-06:00

http://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/article/Former-judge-runs-against-Lykos-for-GOP-nomination-2330180.php

What's so "Republican" About Pat Lykos, Anyway?

2011-11-30T10:31:00.006-06:00

I've been running this blog for about three and a half years now. According to my Stat Counter, this will be my 788th post. I've received 10,482 comments. I've gotten 1,143,398 "hits." Other than a brief dalliance with something called "Ad Sense" in my second year, I've never taken a dime for what I write.

I've gotten used to the trends and the writings of commenters. I know what posts will have prosecutors bashing me. I know which ones will have the defense bashing me. I know that I can write a post on liking puppies and Rage will find a way to get into a fight with someone over it. I can usually make a pretty good guess on who the anonymous authors of substantive comments are.

I know my blog and I understand it for better or for worse.

But the one thing that I have never understood is the fascination the Republican Party has with Pat Lykos, and why they seem to consider her such a Republican Juggernaut for the 2012 election.

In the 2008 Republican Election, Kelly Siegler received 58,208 votes (41.31%) versus Lykos' 44,014 (31.24%). As we all know, that election went to a run-off where Kelly Siegler received 18,962 votes (47.32%) and Lykos won the election with 21,106 votes (52.68%). Yes, all is fair in love and run-offs, but I have never quite gotten why Lykos so many people think that the general voting Republican loves Lykos so much. If you add the numbers of both elections, Kelly still received 77,170 votes compared to Lykos' 65,120. That's a difference of 12,050 votes.

Lykos had her "ringers" in the 2008 election with Leitner and that odd Doug Perry guy that forced a run-off, and that, my Republican friends, is the only reason she won. So, I suppose if the Republican Party Leaders thinks that their best example is the one who best manipulated the election system, that's a pretty sad statement.

Some die-hard Pat Fans will point out that she was one of only a handful of Republican survivors in the 2008 Democrat Sweep, and therefore, she must be the Chosen One. Lykos did not win the 2008 election; rather, she simply failed to lose it. In a race against a disgraced former police chief who had some of the City's worst scandals permanently tied to him (DNA lab, K-Mart raids, etc.), she won by a stunning margin of 4,784 votes (.42% of all votes cast). She certainly didn't carry the rest of the ticket, did she?

In running against someone as bad as C.O. Bradford, that margin should have been higher, regardless of whether or not Obama Fever was sweeping Harris County. Amusingly, if you were to add up Siegler's numbers with Bradford's, they still got more votes than Lykos ever did.

I understand that there are some diehard Pat Fans that have known her since 1982 and would vote for her even if she was running against Ronald Reagan.

But to the rest of the Republicans who have a mind of their own, I'm kind of wondering what you think is so Republican about Pat Lykos in the first place?

I'm sure she can give a fantastic speech about being Pro-Life and a long-time Republican. That's super.

But the position she has run for and won is that of Harris County District Attorney. Her abortion beliefs have about as much relevance to the job as whether or not she drinks Bud Lite because it tastes great or because it is less filling.

She's supposed to enforce the laws set forth by the Texas Legislature and administer Justice -- nothing more, and certainly nothing less. Her administration of the job she was elected to do has flown in the face of the principles the Republican Party is typically known for.

Traditionally, the Republican Party has been known for its Pro-Death Penalty Stance. Pat Lykos has dodged those types of cases religiously. Her decision to plead Randy Sylvester to life in prison for the murder of his two children was nothing short of cowardice. If anyone ever deserved the death penalty, it was Sylvester. Lykos is now so celebrated for her anti-Death Penalty stance that she was even invited over to England on behalf of the Innocence Project.

Republicans are known for shunning ideas of "political correctness" and forging ahead with what they believe is right. Pat Lykos attempted to destroy the careers of two highly respected prosecutors by bashing them in the press when she thought they had done something politically incorrect. She didn't even bother to get the facts straight before talking.

Republicans are known for the unwavering support for police officers. Pat Lykos pled a cop killer to 40 years in prison. He wasn't even convicted of Capital Murder. It is no wonder the police unions spoke out against her. (NOTE: For those Lykos supporters who want to grumble that Republicans are anti-Union, please remember you are talking about a group of POLICE unions -- not the Teamster's).

Republicans (at least, theoretically) are supposed to be the Party of Lincoln. Yet, Lykos' early personnel moves showed retaliation and racism.

Republicans are generally thought of as the "tough on crime" Party, yet Lykos created the DIVERT program which gives all DWI first offenders a free pass on their DWIs, and has now made it possible for a person to have three DWI cases against them before it is considered a felony. Additionally, her decision not to file crack pipe residue cases has not made the police very happy, seeing as how the Penal Code kind of allows for it.

Most importantly, Lykos has lacked integrity since the day she set foot in that Office. Actually, she lacked it waaaay before then, but I only have so much time to write. She has promoted political cronies (like Roger Bridgwater, Jim Leitner, Hannah Chow and Lana Shadwick) to soft positions where their lack of intellect won't be blatantly revealed, while running off experienced prosecutors with excellent reputations in droves. Those experienced prosecutors who still remain at the Office have had their discretion and authority taken away from them to the degree that courts have become gridlocked with otherwise resolvable cases.

In short, Pat Lykos has virtually destroyed the Harris County District Attorney's Office.

So Republican activists, when Jared Woodfill or your Precinct Chair comes to you and tells you that a vote for Pat Lykos is good for the Party and she is a shining example of your Conservative Values, you may want to ask them for some examples. I'd like to hear the answers.

I know that I'm going to get bashed by several sections of blog readers for this post. That's okay. I expect it and I understand it.

But, I'll be damned if I can understand why the Republican Leadership seems to think that Pat Lykos is a candidate that adheres to their values.

No Confidence in Pat Lykos

2011-11-29T12:18:00.001-06:00

Channel 13 is reporting today that five police unions have held a press conference denouncing Harris County District Attorney Pat Lykos. Although the article does not specify all of the police unions, it is clear that the City of Houston Police Department's union and the Harris County Deputies Organization are two of them.

The article points out that five Unions denouncing the elected-District Attorney is unprecedented and serves as a testament to just how bad things have become under Lykos' brief tenure. Although their aggravation with Lykos' policy of not filing crack pipe cases will certainly be up for debate, the fact that they describe the relationship between Lykos and law enforcement as "antagonistic" is huge.

As the District Attorney, it is absolutely critical that there be a good working relationship between the D.A.'s Office and the law enforcement agencies that file cases in the Harris County Jurisdiction. This press conference has tremendous implications for a Republican candidate who doubtlessly will want to portray herself as pro-law enforcement to her Republican constituents.

It appears that Lykos' game plan of making the entire office's central job to be enhancing the glory of Pat Lykos is starting to cause some problems for her.

There have been rumblings that the Unions were going to make this announcement for several months now, so today's news wasn't a big surprise to those of us around the CJC.

What is very interesting, however, is the fact that the Unions are stating that they are not endorsing "anyone else at this time."

Although I have absolutely no inside knowledge of any candidates making any announcements any time soon, I do know that there are a lot of prosecutors and police officers right now who are dreaming of a Mike [Anderson] Christmas.

Lykos on Immigration

2011-11-21T11:09:00.000-06:00

I had to swing by D.A. Intake briefly this morning and found this sign in the front window.

Man, nobody is going to accuse Pat Lykos of not taking immigration seriously if she doesn't even let the non-citizens sit down.

New Reasonable Doubt Commercial

2011-11-18T12:29:00.000-06:00

Regular viewers of Reasonable Doubt may have noticed that over the past few weeks, our host, Todd Dupont has been letting his beard grow.

And grow. And grow.

Based on his new appearance, we decided to shoot a new promotional commercial for the show that you can catch here.

Reasonable Doubt (11/17/11)

2011-11-16T22:00:00.000-06:00

Join me and Todd Dupont for Reasonable Doubt tomorrow night (Thursday, November 17th) at 8 p.m.

Our guest will be defense attorney and Grand Juror (no, not a 185th Grand Juror) Carmen Roe, who will talk to us about the basic mechanics of how Grand Juries work and what it is like to serve.

As always, you can tune in and watch it live streaming by clicking here.

Feast Of Fashion

2011-11-13T22:19:00.000-06:00

This Friday, November 18th from 12:00 p.m. - 3:00 p.m., attorney Julie Jones and friends are once again hosting the annual Feast of Fashion, which raises money to send children with cancer to summer camp.

For every $500 raised for this wonderful cause, a child gets sent to camp. It is an event that is made all the more entertaining by the participation of judges, prosecutors, and defense attorneys.

The luncheon is held at the Magnolia Hotel in Downtown Houston and tickets are $50 a piece, or $500 for a table of ten. Even if you can't make it, please consider donating. The contact numbers for where to get tickets are on the link above.

Thank you to Julie and all who donate so much time and money to such a wonderful event.

Tru TV's In Session

2011-11-11T07:30:00.000-06:00

Not to go all Womble on everyone, but I did want to post that I'm very excited to be appearing on Tru TV's In Session today and on Monday to talk about the Susan Wright re-trial.

On Friday, I'm scheduled to be on between 11 a.m. - 1 p.m. (CST) and on Monday, I think the schedule is 8 a.m. - 10:00 a.m.

Today's topic: Why couldn't the Harris County District Attorney's Office have found someone better looking than John Jordan to replace me as second chair in the re-trial?

Tonight's Reasonable Doubt (11/10/11)

2011-11-10T08:46:00.000-06:00

Although tonight's Reasonable Doubt will not be nearly as good as it usually is because Franklin Bynum is subbing in for me while I'm out of town, I highly recommend you tune to catch Todd Dupoint, Franklin, and guest Dane Johnson. I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that they might talk about the B.A.T. Van controversy.

As usual, you can tune in to watch it live streaming by clicking here.

And, I'm just kidding about it not being as good because Franklin is co-hosting.

Kind of.

A Significant Ruling

2011-11-09T23:36:00.000-06:00

Ted Oberg at Channel 13 did a report tonight on County Court at Law # 1 Judge Paula Goodhart granting a Writ filed Defense Attorney Brent Mayr in a B.A.T. Van case.

The long story short is that Brent took a case to trial earlier this year where his client was charged with D.W.I. and the results of an intoxilyzer from a B.A.T. Van were used in the trial. The client was convicted and Brent filed this Writ on the grounds that the Harris County District Attorney's Office failed to turn over exculpatory evidence to him regarding the reliability of the vans. In essence, the allegations of the Writ were Prosecutorial Misconduct that resulted in his client not receiving a fair trial.

Judge Goodhart granting the Writ is tremendously significant, because that means that she felt the facts of the case supported what Brent said in his Writ -- the Harris County District Attorney's Office withheld exculpatory evidence. Regardless of what happens with the 185th Grand Jury, we now have an official ruling from a court that Pat Lykos' gang is definitely not shooting straight when it comes to the Rules of Evidence.

As I was thinking about the significance of this Writ being granted, it jogged my memory to an incident that had occurred earlier on in the Lykos Administration. Apparently, allegations of withholding evidence favorable to a client isn't something exclusive to B.A.T. vans.

If you will recall, back in October of 2009, a hearing was conducted in a Child Abuse case where a Judge found that the District Attorney's Office had withheld Brady (exculpatory) material in trial. At that point, although the Judge made the ruling, it was found to be "harmless" error because the trial was still proceeding. Little ever became of the issue after the trial.

But another one of the similarities that I recalled from the 2009 trial was the role of a Whistleblower.

In the Child Abuse case, a Harris County D.A. paralegal named Kim Flores confirmed that exculpatory evidence had been withheld. Ms. Flores suffered the same fate that Amanda Culbertson is currently going through.

Rather than be rewarded for bringing to light the D.A.'s Office's errors, she got fired (after she had turned in her resignation letter).

She wrote about it on the blog back in 2009.

At some point, I'm hoping that the folks around this county are going to take notice of the Lykosian method of dealing with Brady violations. It is worth noting that thus far, there has been no statement from Lykos or her Council of Geniuses that condemn the hiding of exculpatory evidence.

At a minimum, I suppose that Kim Flores and Amanda Culbertson can at least start a support group for each other.

Mark Bennett & The Time Lines

2011-11-09T07:27:00.000-06:00

If you aren't a regular reader of Mark Bennett's Defending People because it isn't quite as wildly entertaining as mine is, you should be. Both he and Paul Kennedy have been doing an excellent job of trying to keep up with the debacle with the 185th Grand Jury.

Yesterday, apparently, Pat Lykos posted on her website her own time line about the B.A.T. van scandal, and in typical Lykosian fashion, left out the parts detrimental to her and, according to Mark, flat out lied in other places.

You definitely should check it out by clicking here.

A Hypothetical Situation for the Conspiracy Theorists

2011-11-08T16:55:00.003-06:00

As the investigation into the Harris County District Attorney's Office continues to heat up, Lykos supporters are starting to grumble about the timing of the "Runaway Grand Jury" and they are trying to connect the dots between the Grand Jury and rumors of Republican challengers for D.A. To catch a summary of what they are saying, you can check out Mark Bennett's blog post here or listen to what Gary Polland is saying in the hallways.

Let me give you a real-quick hypothetical, here:

Let's say you are a high-profile defense attorney well known for your aggressive representation of your clients.

Let's say that the District Attorney's Office has been making some very loud noise about indicting a client who has retained you in advance. She's heard the rumblings and (like any other law abiding citizen) would really prefer not to get indicted.

Along the way, as a high-profile and intelligent defense attorney, you have heard that the District Attorney's Office doesn't have "clean hands" exactly in regards to how they handled evidence that they didn't want to hear regarding some super-high-tech equipment utilized by the Houston Police Department.

Being the high-profile, aggressive defense attorney that you are, you elect to take the tack that the "best defense is a good offense" and you send a letter to one of the five Grand Juries in session asking that they look into how the District Attorney's Office is handling their investigation into your client.

They agree to do so.

The timing of the investigation corresponds to the time that members of the District Attorney's Office were going on the offense against your client. The fact that they chose to do it right before the filing deadline for the Republican Primary was their call, not yours.

Whoever is sitting on the Grand Jury and who has ties to who is absolutely none of your concern.

Whatever special prosecutors are appointed to investigate the D.A.'s Office doesn't particularly interest you.

The news media is thoroughly fascinated with the idea of a bullying D.A.'s Office. The elected D.A. is really miffed and calling it all a political conspiracy. They continue to just make matters worse for themselves as they panic that they might get indicted.

You don't really care. Nor should you.

Go home and have a beer.

Know that you just did a really damn good job for your client.

Next Prediction

2011-11-07T20:20:00.000-06:00

Okay, so for my last prediction, I guessed that the contempt hearings for two prosecutors and two court reporters would be delayed with a Motion to Recuse.

I was right about that.

I also predicted that this morning's proceedings would be interesting.

I was kind of wrong about that. They were actually pretty dull and filled with bench conferences that most of the audience could not hear.

So, here is what I was able to gather from the morning events. It was a very packed courtroom with members of the media, the defense bar, and the prosecution occupying every available seat. Jim Leitner and John Barnhill were there. Pat Lykos was not. Special Prosecutors Jim Mount and Stephen St. Martin were present, but not directly involved in the bench conferences.

Randy and Josh Shaffer were there on behalf of Steve Morris. Bill Hawkins was there for Carl Hobbs. Brad Beers was there for both court reporters. Hawkins, Beers, and the Shaffers conferenced with Judge Brown for lengthy periods of time. My understanding is that Brad initially filed a Motion to Recuse Judge Brown, but then withdrew it.

At some point during the hearing, it was pointed out that on the day that Hobbs, Morris and Shaffer were kicked out of the Grand Jury, Judge Brown told one of the court reporters to just make a record of any testimony taken that day.

Nothing wrong with that. She was just saying "keep a record and we'll figure out what needs to be done with it later."

But, in doing so, she made herself a fact witness. That doesn't mean she did anything wrong. She did the right thing by instructing that a record be kept. However, it does probably mean that she shouldn't be presiding over the Show Cause hearing, because she is, potentially, a fact witness.

So, Judge Brown did the prudent thing and recused herself from hearing it. It will now go to another Judge to hear. I don't know who and I don't know when.

But I have a prediction.

My guess is that there is some ambiguity surrounding the circumstances of when the record of testimony was made and when the District Attorney's Office came into possession of it. If there is ambiguity, that probably means that nobody is going to be held in contempt.

So, I would guess that once this case lands in front of a new judge that the new judge will not find anyone in contempt and this entire situation will blow over. As far as the contempt charges go, this whole episode will fade away.

But the 185th Grand Jury will keep marching on.

Now Trying Live Tweeting

2011-11-07T10:59:00.000-06:00

Just an experiment in the sidebar. Going to keep my live tweets updating. We shall see how it goes.

My Prediction for Monday: Delay of Game

2011-11-04T11:40:00.000-05:00

Mark Bennett e-mailed me yesterday asking me if the reason I hadn't written anything in a couple of days about the 185th Grand Jury was because I was representing somebody involved.

I told him that I wasn't (and I won't because that would preclude me from writing any more about it), but that there wasn't any news to publish that I was aware of. The 185th Grand Jury (I believe) meets on Mondays and Thursdays. There were rumors afloat yesterday that many of Pat Lykos' "leadership team" had been subpoenaed, but I have no confirmation of that.

Right now, I'm pretty much just waiting to see what happens on Monday in the 185th District Court with the Show Cause hearings. My prediction on what is going to happen is nothing.

Although I've never been held in contempt (believe it or not) and I've never represented a fellow lawyer who was, I spoke with Todd Dupont who has handled contempt matters.
NOTE: Todd was NOT held in contempt (believe it or not).

After talking to Todd, my guess would be that the District Attorney's Office is going to file a Motion to Recuse Judge Susan Brown from hearing the contempt hearing. According to Todd, that's something that any officer of the court (i.e., a lawyer) is entitled to. It's nothing against Judge Brown, and I don't think it will affect the ultimate results of the hearing.

But it will possibly delay them.

And it will absolutely make the District Attorney's Office look like they are hiding something, in my opinion.

The question that will be interesting is are the two court reporters involved in the Show Cause hearing also going to be entitled a different judge. If they aren't, Lykos is going to have a tough decision to make. If the two lawyers accused get a new judge, do they really want to be dealing with two different hearings. I don't know the answer to that question, but I will be interested to see how it shakes out.

Additionally, the rules regarding conflict of interest are coming into play very much at this point. I don't know what the circumstances are behind the District Attorney's Office being in possession of Grand Jury witness testimony, but there is a huge probability that the interests of the court reporters may very much conflict with those of the prosecutors.

Think of the mantra from A Few Good Men: "Who ordered the Code Red?"

If there is a conflict of interest (and I tend to believe there will be), who represents everyone? It would seem to me that if General Counsel John Barnhill (presuming he isn't a witness) is representing them, that his duty would be to protect the Office. The interests of Pat Lykos' offices most definitely could conflict with those of the court reporters.

Having Scott Durfee (also with the General Counsel's Office) doesn't really solve that problem, either -- any more than having two partners in a law firm representing two sides of a lawsuit would be permissible either.

Either way, I just keep coming back to the same conclusion:

Monday is going to be an interesting day.

Off Topic: New Lunch Spot in Downtown

2011-11-03T16:02:00.000-05:00

Just a quick lunch recommendation for those of you tired of eating at the same five places around the Courthouse, there is a new place to eat Downtown.

It is called the Capitol and it is part of the St. Germain, located in the same building as Flying Saucer. The food is good, with a lot of different sandwiches and burgers on the lunch menu. It is slightly higher in price than some of the regular places. Probably around the same price as Mia Bella.

I highly recommend it.

Reasonable Doubt Returns

2011-11-03T08:06:00.001-05:00

New episodes of Reasonable Doubt return tonight after a several-week hiatus (due to City Council debates).

So join me and Todd Dupont and our guest, former prosecutor and future Assistant Public Defender Scott Pope, as we talk about the current state of affairs at the Harris County Criminal Justice Center.

Trust me. We've got A LOT to talk about.

You can tune in to watch it live streaming at 8 p.m. by clicking here.

An Eye for the Arts

2011-11-02T09:03:00.000-05:00

A reader forwarded me this link to an artist who apparently painted a portrait of District Attorney Pat Lykos.

I was very impressed with the artist and decided to have him paint my portrait too.

An Interesting Docket Entry

2011-11-01T10:37:00.001-05:00

Anyone who wants to take a look at the 185th District Court's docket for Monday morning, November 7th might be surprised to see some familiar names on the list. Most notably, The State of Texas vs. Carl Hobbs and The State of Texas vs. Steve Morris for Ex Parte Proceedings known as "Show Cause" Hearings. Additionally, there are two Grand Jury court reporters also on the docket for the same reason.

What "Show Cause" hearings typically deal with are people (lawyers or otherwise) who have been or are possibly about to be held in Contempt of Court.

If you will remember, Steve Morris (the Harris County District Attorney's Office Bureau Chief for the Governmental Integrity Bureau), and Carl Hobbs (the DA's Office Division Chief over Grand Jury) were two of the three prosecutors who were kicked out of the 185th's Grand Jury two weeks ago under threat of arrest.

What exactly they are being called to the 185th on Monday for is something that I'm not sure about. I've heard rumors from multiple people, but I'm not in a position to confirm or deny anything at the moment.

But I think that if you have two of the three prosecutors involved in the original 185th Grand Jury incident coupled with two Grand Jury court reporters, one might be able to read between the lines that the District Attorney's Office has clashed, yet again, with the Grand Jury.

Keep your eyes on this one, folks.

I think Monday is going to be an interesting day.

Caught in the Middle

2011-11-01T08:29:00.001-05:00

Out of the entire debacle going on over at the Harris County District Attorney's Office with the Grand Jury, the people that most folks are concerned for are the Baby Prosecutors who were having to handle B.A.T. van cases. Relatively brand new to their jobs, they were put in positions to try cases where they, themselves, might not have even been informed about the swirling controversy surrounding the vans.

Yet, in the District Attorney's Office, the youngest of the prosecutors are the ones who would be trying the vast majority of those cases. The vast majority of them have probably been out of law school for under two years.

Their direct supervisors run from Deputy Division Chief Rachel Palmer to Misdemeanor Division Chief John Jordan to Professional Development, Community Protection & Ethics Bureau Chief Roger Bridgwater to First Assistant Jim Leitner to Pat Lykos. They've been doing this a lot longer than the Baby Prosecutors, and they have the D.A.'s Office's General Counsel John Barnhill looking after their best interest.

Want to know whose interest John Barnhill is NOT looking out for? The Baby Prosecutors.

The Lykos Administration would probably spend asset forfeiture funds on a bus for the sole purpose of throwing the younger prosecutors under it if they thought it would help them with the 185th Grand Jury. Any young prosecutor, who at this point, still believes that the upper Administration is looking after his or her best interest is not thinking this through.

There are several defense attorneys out in CJC community who will be more than willing to advise and (if need be) represent the young ones if they need it. If you are involved in this whole mess and need some advice, you should give them a call.

Additionally, if you want to talk to Special Prosecutors Jim Mount or Stephen St. Martin, they are also easily accessible.

Jim can be reached at 713-650-8700 and Stephen can be reached at 713-222-1133.

I have no idea what is going on with the 185th's Grand Jury investigation at the moment. Quite frankly, I tend to agree with what Rage and some others have said about it most likely leading to no indictments. However, every matter involving a Grand Jury needs to be taken with the utmost seriousness.

None of the Baby Prosecutors need to get caught in the middle.

Banned In the U.S.A., um, CJC

2011-10-30T19:58:00.001-05:00

Several folks have written in asking if I knew of any reason why the comments section of the blog is no longer accessible within the CJC at Harris County computers. I've heard varying accounts from people not being able to post comments to people not being able to read them. Some asked me if I had done anything to the comments by changing something on my blog settings, but I had not.

Most surmised that Lykos and the Gang Who Couldn't Shoot Straight had something to do with it.

Well, surprise surprise, if you guessed Lykos and Crew as the culprit, you solved the mystery before I did.

Apparently Lykos ordered her tech guys to have ITC disable the comments section on all county computers. I presume that applies to everyone in the courthouse, since I don't see if they could do it only for the District Attorney's Office computers.

I wonder whether or not Lykos ran that by Alex Bunin at the P.D.'s Office or any of the 37 judges who might actually enjoy reading how things are going at the D.A.'s Office.

Somehow, I doubt it.

Well, I have to admit that I'm flattered to be joining the ranks of the banned, along with Mark Twain, J.D. Salinger, William Faulkner, Joseph Heller and Luther Campbell.

Just kidding. I have nowhere near the writing talents of Luther Campbell.

Actually, I'm more bemused than anything at Lykos' absolutely idiotic plot to keep people within her office from knowing what is going on there. I've never accused Lykos or her group of being particularly bright, so let me spell out a couple of things for her:

1. They have these thingies called "Smart Phones" now. Whether it be a Blackberry or an iPhone or a Droid, they can ALL browse the Internet. All of them.

2. While browsing the Internet, they can also leave comments about how their technologically-stunted boss is a terrible District Attorney who is now being investigated by a Grand Jury.

3. Every last one of your employees knows that you are a paranoid megalomaniac and none of them are stupid enough to type something bad about you from an Office computer. They will wait until they get home before they do that on their home computers. You can't track them and monitor their thoughts there.

4. Most of the comments are coming from your own people anyway. You shouldn't be worried about what they are reading. You should be worried about what they are thinking and writing.

5. It isn't the folks inside your office that you need to worry about finding out what a group of morons you and Leitner and crew are. Trust me, they've known that for years. I'm willing to bet that if the 2012 election was held just by your own employees, you'd lose in a landslide. It is the folks on the outside of the Office that you should be afraid of learning about your antics. They, for some reason, seem to embrace your dishonesty and bullying.

Sadly, once again, the depths of Lykos' stupidity never cease to amaze me.

Black Ink's Open Letter to Kelly Siegler

2011-10-28T14:56:00.000-05:00

Black Ink has a new post on his blog worth reading. It is as sobering as it is accurate.

I have no idea whether or not Kelly will run again, but if she does, Black Ink has a pretty clear picture of what she'll have to go through. That's Pat Lykos Politics and it is very disheartening to read.

If Kelly does run, she'll have my whole-hearted support. If she doesn't . . . hell, who could blame her?

The Official Investigation Has Begun

2011-10-27T08:48:00.003-05:00

As most of you all know by now, yesterday it was officially announced that Judge Susan Brown appointed Stephen St. Martin and Jim Mount as Special Prosecutors for the 185th Grand Jury. In light of the events of the past week, it isn't too surprising of a development.

I know Stephen very well because he was my former Chief when I was in the 174th. If you read this blog, you know that I think extremely highly of him. He was highly respected when he was at the District Attorney's Office before leaving in May of 2009. He worked on high profile cases and was a Special Crimes prosecutor. He has the highest integrity and I think the General Public can rely on both him and Jim Mount to uncover any illegal acts done by the District Attorney's Office without going on a witch hunt to drum up something if there isn't anything actually there.

I don't know Jim Mount nearly as well. He was long gone from the District Attorney's Office when I started there in 1999. I know that he was well-liked and respected as a prosecutor. I dealt with him some when I was a new prosecutor and he was a defense attorney, and he was always very kind to me. I'm sure that he will do a great job as well.

The developments surrounding this investigation are still difficult to comprehend. Regardless of what the Public thought of Chuck Rosenthal for his inexcusable e-mails, we never saw a headline that read quite like today's:

The accusations against Lykos are extremely serious because they involve the widespread prosecution of members of our community for DWI with faulty evidence that the prosecutors knew was faulty. Furthermore, they retaliated against the person who tried to bring it to light, and then tried to bully their way into the Grand Jury to make sure the investigation was going their way.

Folks, this stuff is serious.

As the Grand Jury investigation begins today with its new Special Prosecutors, Life is going on at the Harris County Criminal Justice Center. Despite the fact that the elected District Attorney herself said she has no faith in HPD (before hopping on a plane to Hawaii where she'll learn how to prosecute drug cases in the event she ever decides to try a case), a DWI case with B.A.T. van involvement is going to trial in Court Four.

And yes, the filing deadline for District Attorney is rapidly approaching.

Things haven't been quite this crazy around the CJC since, oh, December of 2007.

Feeling Historic on the Chronicle Blog

2011-10-25T20:40:00.000-05:00

I finally found a use for my History major in a new article on the Chronicle blog. You can check it out by clicking here.

Breaking News: Grand Jury Subpoenas Go Out

2011-10-25T10:40:00.001-05:00

Looks like the 185th Grand Jury is not letting go of their investigation any time soon. Today, multiple subpoenas went out to both current and former-Harris County Assistant District Attorneys, ordering their appearance before the Grand Jury.

Yes, I do have the names of who got subpoenaed, but I'm not publishing them. If you name them in the comments, I'm not publishing them, either.

It is worth pointing out that just because they were subpoenaed in no way means that they are targets of the investigation. But the information they may or may not have could prove to be very interesting.

I do hope that those ADAs who are getting subpoenaed know better than to rely on HCDA General Counsel to represent them. Lykos and her Gang don't exactly have the best track record of standing by their people if it conflicts with their own interests.

Ted Oberg follows up with Pat Lykos

2011-10-24T18:12:00.002-05:00

More from the BAT van/Grand Jury scandal.

Click here for the story.

New Post on the Chronicle Blog

2011-10-23T12:01:00.000-05:00

Just a couple of thoughts on the mechanics of an investigative Grand Jury. You can get there by clicking here.

Pat Lykos' Star Chamber Rebels

2011-10-21T10:52:00.001-05:00

On Wednesday, October 19th, the 14th Court of Appeals denied a Motion that Harris County District Attorney Pat Lykos hopes to God that you don't pay attention to. However, if you simply must look at it, I suppose you can get to the decision by clicking here.

The case is styled "In Re the State of Texas, Ex Rel. Patricia R. Lykos v. Hon. Susan Brown, Presiding Judge, 185th District Court of Texas" and is filed as "Request for Emergency Stay of Grand Jury Proceedings."

Sound interesting? Well, it is. Very interesting.

By reading the District Attorney's Office "request" and the supporting memorandums of HCDA General Counsel John Barnhill and Grand Jury Division Chief Carl Hobbs, a very clear picture of Lykos' attempt to extract vengeance against Amanda Culbertson emerges.

First, a little background. As I talked about in this post earlier this month, the District Attorney's Office is very very upset with former-HPD technical supervisor, Amanda Culbertson. Ms. Culbertson used to be in charge of making sure that the Intoxilyzers over at HPD were all in credible, working order.

We don't want an Intoxilyzer showing your breath test results as a .14 when really you were a .07, do we?

Ms. Culbertson had some issues with the HPD Mobile "B.A.T." vans that had portable Intoxilyzers in them. She thought the conditions the B.A.T. van Intoxilyzers were being stored in could affect their reliability. She told her supervisors. Her supervisors didn't care. She quit HPD and went to work for Lone Star College, doing the same technical supervising, but now for County Law Enforcement Agencies. Culbertson let people know that she left HPD because of her issues with the B.A.T. vans, and that put all of the District Attorney's DWI cases that involved those vans in serious jeopardy.

That made Pat Lykos angry. She got the Commissioners Court to cancel the contract with Lone Star College so that the District Attorney's Office would never ever ever have to deal with that damn Amanda Culbertson again.

Did that satisfy Pat Lykos? Nope. She wants Amanda Culbertson indicted, too. Amanda seems to have pissed off Lykos in a way that even I have failed to do in my three and a half years of blogging!

Which brings us to the 14th Court of Appeals filing.

Lykos is having her prosecutors present a case to the Grand Jury involving the B.A.T. vans and Amanda Culbertson. That Grand Jury was created by the 185th District Court, Judge Susan Brown presiding. Grand Jury proceedings are secret, so we don't know what exactly has been presented to the Grand Jury so far.

But on October 18th, the Harris County District Attorney's Office vendetta against Amanda Culbertson blew up in their face.

On that day, prosecutors Carl Hobbs, Steve Morris (from Governmental Integrity), and John Barnhill all marched down to the 185th Grand Jury with the intent of calling defense attorney (and former-prosecutor) Brent Mayr as a witness before the grand jurors. Brent Mayr, if you will recall from my earlier post, is the attorney who filed a Writ against the D.A.'s Office for withholding evidence of B.A.T. van reliability issues.

Upon arrival at the Grand Jury, however, Hobbs, Morris, and Barnhill were suddenly informed by the Grand Jury bailiffs that the Grand Jurors wanted them (the prosecutors) excluded from the room while Mayr was testifying.

In legal terms, the proper response to this is "Holy Catfish, Batman."

Prosecutors are always in the room with Grand Jurors when they are interviewing witnesses. The only part they are excluded from in a Grand Jury is when the grand jurors deliberate. The Grand Jurors excluding the prosecutors from the testimony is kind of the equivalent of the President being booted out of a Cabinet meeting. It just doesn't happen. I mean, ever.

Hobbs, Morris and Barnhill were incensed, obviously. Hobbs and Barnhill quickly gathered up 1st Assistant Jim Leitner and stormed up to Judge Susan Brown's court to demand that she order the Grand Jury to let them back into the room while Mayr testified.

Judge Brown politely declined to order the Grand Jury to do anything. Thus, the Motion (or Request) to the 14th Court of Appeals that would make the Court of Appeals order Judge Brown to order the Grand Jurors to let the prosecutors in the room.

To realize that significance of this, you have to read between the lines (but just a little bit).

The 185th Grand Jury has quite apparently decided that the Harris County District Attorney's Office's involvement into the ~~crucifixion of Amanda Culbertson~~ B.A.T. Van investigation is suspect, if not entirely improper. They don't want them in the room while hearing from witnesses.

And that has got Hobbs, Barnhill, Leitner, and Pat Lykos scared. Really scared. So scared that they are scrambling very quickly to Judge Brown or the 14th Court of Appeals to demand that they get to jump in and stop whatever is going on. Seriously. Go read Barnhill and Hobbs' memorandums to the 14th Court of Appeals.

From Barnhill's:

Just prior to being escorted out of the grand jury room by the bailiff, I observed the bailiff in her office and overheard the bailiff speaking in a telephone conversation. The bailiff said to the person on the phone, "They told me to arrest the DAs." From that, I assumed that the grand jury had instructed the bailiffs to arrest Mr. Hobbs, Mr. Morris and me if we remained in the grand jury room while the grand jury was attempting to question the witness.

The implication being that the 185th Grand Jury may have started their own investigation, and it ain't into Amanda Culbertson.

It may just be into Pat Lykos and the Harris County District Attorney's Office.

Remember back in that last post when I said this may just be the tip of the iceberg?

I hate to say "I told you so," but . . . Wait, no I don't. I told you so.

Watch for this story to get a lot bigger in the days to come.

UPDATE: Ted Oberg did a great piece on the Grand Jury Scandal. Check it out by clicking here.

Recycling

2011-10-12T09:04:00.003-05:00

When Pat Lykos took over as D.A. of Harris County on January 1, 2009, she spent a lot of time garnering praise for herself by taking previously existing D.A. divisions, renaming them, and then claiming to have invented them. One of the few things that she did actually create on her own was a Division (consisting of one person -- Russell Turbeville) that would be dealing with Cold Cases.

Don't get too fired up. The Division wasn't as exciting as it sounds. What they were really doing was looking up previously filed cases where an arrest had not been made (although the crime had been solved enough to have charges brought). This Division basically just sees if they can get some movement from the involved police agencies to actually go arrest the accused folks on already existing warrants. Although Lykos may take credit it for it, she ain't gonna be solving the Kennedy Assassination any time soon through this Division.

But this was an idea that Lykos got from Bill Exley's suggestion back when she first took office on 1/1/09. It looks like she is stalling out in her campaign for attention, because apparently she decided to call in the news media to announce that she was creating it again.

It was a bold move by Lykos, who had not "created" this Division in over two and a half years since she last created it. A bonus to her was that the article announces that she is going to "solve" crimes and it gives her the opportunity to talk about how awesome she is.

Speaking of solving crimes, how is the Gang that Couldn't Shoot Straight doing on that whole "bullying investigation" that they were working on? Solved it yet?

Didn't think so.

Scott Pope's New Blog

2011-10-10T08:39:00.002-05:00

Recent Harris County District Attorney's Office graduate and future-Public Defender's Office attorney Scott Pope has recently started a new blog worth checking out.

You can read it by clicking here.

Lisa Falkenberg's Column on Transparency and Retaliation

2011-10-04T08:40:00.001-05:00

There's a good article from Lisa Falkenberg in today's print edition of the Chronicle regarding the ongoing dispute between the Harris County District Attorney's Office and Amanda Culbertson, formerly of the HPD Crime Lab. I will link to it when it comes online.

The long-story-short is that Harris County has apparently had a contract for twenty years with Lone Star College for the testing and maintenance of the instruments used to test breath test results. Earlier this year, Amanda Culbertson told officials that the Mobile "B.A.T. vans" that have intoxilyzers in them were not reliable, thus jeopardizing numerous DWI cases where they were used. Her findings were documented in e-mails within HPD, and defense counsel Brent Mayr had filed a Writ in March of this year alleging Brady violations for withholding that information.

Fast forward to July, when defense attorneys Dane Johnson and Jordan Lewis find themselves in trial on another B.A.T. van case, where a trial case had to be continued mid-trial when prosecutors claim that this is the first time they've heard of these allegations. As noted in the article by the Chronicle's Brian Rogers and Anita Hassan, Amanda Culbertson stated she left the HPD Crime Lab over her reports of the B.A.T. van problems and moved to Lone Star College, where she continued in her duties for a different agency. Rather than being the chemist for HPD, she is now doing it for Lone Star, which does the supervising of those intoxilyzers used by the Harris County Sheriff's Office and other county agencies.

Apparently incensed that Culbertson had called into question the H.P.D. cases, the County is now trying to suddenly cancel that contract with Lone Star. You can draw your own conclusions as to whether or not that move was in response to their new employee -- Amanda Culbertson.

As Lisa points out in the article, Lykos and Crew over at the D.A.'s Office are attempting to play the "who me?" card on what has inspired the termination of the contract, acting as if this was a move made by County Commissioners without the Office's involvement. However, this seems to fly in the face of logic under the circumstances. At the last Commissioners' Court meeting on the subject, ADA Rachel Palmer, who is the Deputy Chief of the Misdemeanor Division (which handles the vast majority of DWI cases for the Office) was in attendance when the matter was addressed.

To top things off, there have been rumblings and threats from the D.A.'s Office about looking into whether or not they could indict Culbertson for perjury.

Lisa's column is a great one, but I think we are just hitting the tip of the iceberg when it comes to this story.

Sound a little retaliatory yet?

My friend and fellow blogger, Paul Kennedy, pointed out yesterday in his blog that he was somewhat perturbed at the rush to defend Amanda Culbertson and other members of Lone Star College by the defense bar, arguing that it gave them credibility on future cases in advance. I understand his position, but I think at some point there may need to be a weighing of the evils involved here.

Defense attorneys standing up for a whistleblower witness that is risking her livelihood to testify about faulty evidence that affects hundreds of cases is the right thing to do, even if it means having to begrudgingly admit that you find her credible down the road.

The dangers of a District Attorney's Office that will literally go after that same whistleblowing witness like John Gotti after Sammy "the Bull" Gravano is a much more alarming proposition, in my opinion.

New Post on the Chronicle Blog

2011-09-30T11:14:00.000-05:00

I did a new post on the Chronicle blog about my thoughts on what should and shouldn't be said to a jury in the aftermath of a verdict.

You can read it by clicking here.

The Brian Wice Editorial

2011-09-28T09:13:00.001-05:00

In any jury trial, after the jury has returned its verdict, the jurors are told that they can speak with the attorneys on the case if they so choose. My personal policy has always been that I will stay and talk to any jury that wants to talk to me, regardless of whether or not they ruled in my favor. I believe that if the jurors devoted their time to listening to me talk for hours, days or weeks, the least I can do is listen to them for a bit.

Some jurors want to know what will happen to the defendant after the trial is over. Some will be looking for affirmation that they arrived at the right decision. Some will want to know what "the rest of the story" was. I always try to answer their questions to the best of my ability. Jurors get emotionally and intellectually invested in the trials they sit on, and I think they deserve to have their questions answered.

As most of you know, last week local hand surgeon Michael Brown was acquitted of Felony Assault against his wife, Rachel Brown. Yesterday, Brian Wice, who defended Dr. Brown along with Dick DeGuerin, Catherine Baen and Carmen Roe, wrote an editorial criticizing the prosecution team of Jane Waters and Nathan Hennigan for comments they made to the jury and media after the trial was over.

In his editorial, Wice describes prosecutor Nathan Hennigan's comments as "a backhanded slap at Judge Wallace", "cross[ing] the line on both a personal and professional level", and "classless".

Okay, let's look at this for a moment.

Shortly after the acquittal, Dick DeGuerin made a big production of cutting off Dr. Brown's ankle monitor in front of the media before doing a press conference doing a character assassination on Rachel Brown (who, last I looked, wasn't charged with a crime). This type of circus-like production isn't exactly what I would equate with "class" in the first place, so Wice attacking Nathan for talking to the jurors about "the real Michael Brown" rings a tad bit hypocritical.

Brian's description of the prosecutor's comments as "a backhanded slap at Judge Wallace" is ludicrous. Judge Wallace made rulings that affected the integrity of the trial he presided over. Nathan and Jane followed those rules throughout the trial. None of Nathan's comments were along the lines of "We would have won the case if that big old mean judge just hadn't made a dumb ruling." He discussed an extraneous aggravated assault that Michael Brown had been on deferred adjudication for after the trial. Brian claiming that Nathan was giving a "backhanded slap" was designed solely to make Judge Wallace angry with the prosecutor and portray him as disrespectful to the court.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

And finally, Wice alleges that Hennigan's statements as violating Rule 3.06 of the State Bar Disciplinary Rules, because his "post-verdict comments" could harass, embarrass or influence actions in future jury service. He calls it a "thinly veiled attempt to make the jury feel bad about its verdict".

Um, Brian, are you forgetting that your part-time job of being a legal analyst for Channel 2? Don't you regularly make "post-verdict comments" about what you thought was good or bad about a trial? Don't you do analysis of evidence that may or may not ultimately get in front of jury? Aren't you the same guy who appeared in about 5 episodes of 48 Hours criticizing Kelly Siegler and calling her every name in the book as you criticized the verdict in the Susan Wright case?

Are you really suggesting that only us members of the Defense Bar can give our opinions of cases in the aftermath, but the prosecution can't?

Wice wraps up his editorial by encouraging District Attorney Pat Lykos to counsel with her "minions" about their post-verdict statements. If Pat Lykos is any type of leader, she will politely tell Brian where he can put his editorial advice.

I don't know near as many sports analogies as Brian Wice. The lessons I learned from my father and coaches were short and to the point: Play with class and be as gracious in victory as you are in defeat.

Brian Wice took the time out to publicize what he perceived to be a lack of class by the prosecutors in defeat.

Perhaps he should more closely examine how gracious he was in victory.

David Hilburn runs for Brazos County District Attorney

2011-09-16T12:00:00.000-05:00

Last week, longtime Brazos County District Attorney (and a guy I think the absolute world of) Bill Turner announced that he wasn't going to be seeking re-election in 2012. (NOTE: I'll do another piece on Bill as we get closer to his retirement.)

This becomes relevant to Harris County prosecutors as former-Harris County Prosecutor, former-Brazos County Prosecutor, defense attorney, and all-around good-guy, David Hilburn has announced that he is running for the position.

For those of you who are too young with the Office to remember, Dave was an immensely popular and highly regarded prosecutor while in both Harris County and Brazos County. Dave still has a lot of friends in Harris County, so I'll keep you posted as the election season progresses.

He would make a great District Attorney.

Guess the Feet

2011-09-14T12:05:00.000-05:00

Okay, we haven't had a poll on the blog in awhile, so I decided to run a contest.

Look at the photo below and ask yourself which attorney (defense or prosecutor) was sporting some serious holy socks to court today.

The Perils of Blogging

2011-09-08T21:23:00.000-05:00

Tonight was Felony Chief Prosecutor Jon Stephenson's going away party. Although Jon wasn't a headline-grabbing prosecutor, he was highly respected amongst his peers and the defense bar as a fair, honorable and reasonable man who truly embodied the meaning of a Public Servant.

The reason I entitled this blog "The Perils of Blogging" is that there were so many former prosecutors who turned out for Jon's party that had left the D.A.'s Office in recent months and I failed to write something on this blog commemorating and commending the work they did on behalf of Harris County. Faces in the crowd that I saw were Kate Skagerburg, Leah Shapiro, and Brad Loper, to name a few. Scott Pope and Bill Hawkins were unable to attend, but I remembered that I failed to give them a salute on their departure as well.

Quite frankly, the reason I was remiss in doing an "office obituary" for those former prosecutors (and I'm sure several others that I'm forgetting to name at the moment) is for two reasons. The first and foremost being that y'all are leaving the Office so fast that I can't keep up. The other one being that I've just been busy. On top of my workload, my Little Man started kindergarten three weeks ago (he's only gotten two notes home from the teacher thus far) and I got engaged to My Favorite Editor from New York. So, my social calendar has been slightly pre-occupied over the past couple of months.

To those of you who took the job as an Assistant District Attorney and have left recently, please accept my profuse apologies for not giving you the credit you deserve with an individual write up.

As a prosecutor, I was honored to work alongside you.

As a defense attorney, I was greatly appreciative of the reasonable, intelligent, and well-intentioned way in which you handled the cases I had against you.

I've been trying to tone down my rants against the Pat Lykos Administration over time. At some point, I realized that my railing against her may ultimately make Ted Kazcynski seem even-handed.

But I cannot ignore the fact that some really damn good people have left the Office this year that probably wouldn't have under other circumstances.

Lykos and Crew have gotten some great publicity over the past year for some big cases -- Michael Anthony Green being the most prominent of them. She's flown to England to be honored for her non-death-seeking-stance, and she has basked in the glory. The public has applauded her for it.

But what the public doesn't realize is the value of the damage she has done by causing the mass exodus that she has. They will never appreciate -- and the media will never write a story about -- those prosecutors that made the correct, reasonable, and often merciful decision on those day-to-day cases that can truly make a difference in a person's life.

A rank and file prosecutor will never ever ever be recognized for:

-- offering a misdemeanor deferred on a young person accused of a felony;

-- going to bat for a kid who deserves a pre-trial diversion;

-- simply acknowledging that a case cannot legally be made and dismissing it, despite the angry rantings of a Complainant or an arresting officer;

-- pushing forward on a case that needs to be tried, even if the defendant is buddies with someone in the upper administration; OR

-- fading the heat for someone you supervise if they made a rookie mistake.

But the good prosecutors do (or did) that all. They did it thanklessly. They did it despite a fear of retribution from an Office where public appearance was everything, and there was a threat of retribution for something that would falter in the court of public opinion.

Yes, there will always be big name cases where the spotlight shines brightly and adoringly on the D.A.'s Office . . .

But the real test of character is what one does when the spotlight isn't on them.

For all of you that I mentioned earlier (and the ones I forgot), you deserve a standing ovation for the things you had the courage and character to do during your time at the Office when the spotlight wasn't on you. I'm sorry I got behind in my blogging duties.

For those of us in the trenches every day -- either on the defense side or the prosecution side -- you had (and continue to have) the ultimate respect of your peers.

You did your job and changed many lives for the better based on the simple mantra of "just do the right thing".

Although the general public may not realize it, the Harris County District Attorney's Office is much worse off after your departure.

HCCLA Memorial Service

2011-09-08T07:45:00.000-05:00

Please join members of the Harris County Criminal Lawyers Association today as we honor the memories of some of Harris County's defense bar. As readers of this blog know, many of our defense brethren have passed away this year, and they will be honored with their names on plaques in the 7th Floor Attorney Meeting Room of the CJC today at 11:00 a.m.

Come and pay your respects and share your war stories as we pay tribute to the men and women who have given Harris County such a colorful and impressive legal history.

Rayford Carter

2011-09-07T12:26:00.001-05:00

I was very sad to hear this morning that legendary defense attorney Rayford Carter passed away. He had been very ill for quite some time.

When I describe Rayford as "legendary," I think that very few people around the Harris County Criminal Justice Center would disagree with me. Almost every prosecutor, defense attorney or judge in the building has at least one "Rayford story" that they can tell. Hell, I can think of at least ten of them off the top of my head. It is worth pointing out that whenever one tells a Rayford story, it is pretty much mandatory that the storyteller do his or her best to mimic Rayford's gravelly voice.

To be clear, Rayford stories are not ones told at Rayford's expense. They usually involve something incredibly funny or crude that he had the guts to say out loud. One of the cleaner ones I posted here a while back.

At a height of at least six foot six and with a full head of white hair, Rayford was one of those people that you just couldn't help but notice based on his appearance alone. He was always sharply dressed and liked to point out to young prosecutors that he could afford those suits because he made more money than they would in their entire careers. With his deadpan delivery fused with impatience and feigned hostility, somehow Rayford was one of the more endearing characters I ever met since practicing criminal law. The man could berate a prosecutor for disagreeing with him and leave that prosecutor laughing hysterically.

Rayford loved bantering back and forth with prosecutors. Trading insults and potshots with him was almost a rite of passage for any young prosecutor. I always enjoyed the verbal sparring with him. As a matter of fact, I used to enjoy arguing with Rayford so much that when I was a Two in Judge Davies court, she would have her coordinator make me go in the back when Rayford came in the courtroom. Apparently our insult swapping became a distraction to court business.

I can remember on at least one occasion towards the end of a docket where half of the audience left in the courtroom was listening intently as he and I went back and forth. All of them were laughing hysterically.

By the way, I never won an argument with Rayford.

The only way to even call a draw in an argument with him was to make him laugh, but that was not an easy thing to do. To my recollection, I was only able to do it once.

Although his name was known by every prosecutor, judge and defense attorney in the building, he rarely bothered to learn anyone else's name. Once in Judge Poe's court, he wanted a deferred adjudication on a burglary of a building case. I told him that if he could tell me the names of five prosecutors that I would give it to him. He could only name Chuck Rosenthal and Ira Jones.

Sometime after that, I saw him in the hallways and he called me by name. I nearly collapsed from shock. When I told him how flattered I was that he remembered my name, he told me I was stupid for getting such a big head and that I wasn't really important enough for him to learn my name. He never called me by it again.

His method of negotiation with prosecutors was the mentally exhaust them until they ultimately just surrendered and gave him what he was seeking. He was remarkably successful with that line of attack, too. Rayford also wasn't afraid of going to trial, either, and the one time I saw him do a closing argument, I was amazed by his courtroom ability.

Over the past few years, his health took a turn for the worse and he developed lung problems that were ultimately so severe that he had to be in a motorized wheelchair. All of this just added to his legend, as he cruised through the hallways and courtrooms, barking at people that were in his way. He never let his illness keep him from working.

Rayford Carter was a true icon and legend of the criminal defense world. He was controversial, gruff, and a curmudgeon of epic proportions, but I don't know of a soul in the courthouse who wasn't deeply saddened to hear of his passing.

I know that I will miss seeing him very much.

And Don't Let the Door . . . Nevermind

2011-09-07T09:03:00.000-05:00

Today marks the final column from the Houston Chronicle's Rick Casey. I haven't been so saddened since alleged journalist Alan Bernstein jumped ship for the Sheriff's Office.

Oddly enough, I remember reading Casey's first column many years ago, where he introduced himself to the community. Long before there was the Rosenthal scandal and the election battle of 2008, I remember thinking that the new-to-town columnist seemed to think very highly of his own wisdom and intellect.

Don't get me wrong, he wrote many columns over the years that I did like. On occasion, I would even send an e-mail in complimenting the articles. There has even been a time or two on this blog that I've agreed with him publicly.

But Casey has also had his bumps and blunders over the years, as he has spoken with such authority about facts that he didn't have a complete grasp on. My favorite question remains how a 24-year veteran of a Metro beat apparently went to almost the end of his career without ever going to jury duty. Along the way, Casey also managed to libel Sam Siegler, write a bizarre "fantasy" piece about Kelly Siegler, and apparently do a little borderline plagiarism on the side.

But, thank goodness, he always let us know that he knew what was best for Houston --

No matter how ill-informed he was about so many issues.

Another Random Question

2011-09-03T13:57:00.000-05:00

Okay, I've really enjoyed reading what you guys have read the most times over, so I'm following it up with another question.

What are you reading now?

I've got a couple of books I'm in the middle of including Daniel Silva, Tom Clancy and (fine, I'll admit it) Charlaine Harris, but mainly I'm focusing on George R.R. Martin's A Clash of Kings, which is the follow up to Game of Thrones.

Don't worry, I'll get back to criminal law and CJC stuff as soon as I can think of something worth writing about.

Tonight's Reasonable Doubt (9/1/11)

2011-09-01T12:17:00.000-05:00

Regular viewers will be devastated to know that I will not be co-hosting tonight's Reasonable Doubt with Todd Dupont, as I will be replaced by t~~he Usurper~~ Franklin Bynum for the evening. I suppose, if you really and truly STILL want to watch the show, it will be on with a great guest -- Bob Wicoff.

As always, you can tune in by clicking here for live streaming video at 8 p.m. tonight.

Random Question

2011-08-30T21:27:00.000-05:00

Every once in a while, a random thought crosses my mind that I decide I would like to share with the unsuspecting masses. The easy way to ask the question would be to ask, "What is your favorite book?"

My question is what book have you read the most times over?

Mine is probably Lonesome Dove, which I guess I've read cover to cover about four or five times, closely followed by The Cop Who Wouldn't Quit, which I've read three or four times.

Yes, I know it has nothing to do with criminal law or the CJC, and I'm sure that somebody will find something rude to say about me going off topic, but I'm genuinely curious.

Seeing as how this isn't exactly a controversial question, if you'd like to sign your name to the answer, I'd like to know that, too.

Reasonable Doubt Archives

2011-08-30T16:23:00.001-05:00

For those of you who have asked about catching archived Reasonable Doubt episodes on the web (Really, I swear, there have been people who have asked. I'm not just making that up), there is now a website where HCCLA is starting to put old episodes.

You can find the website by clicking here.

Special thanks to Assistant Public Defender, technological whiz kid, and President of the Lee Greenwood Fan Club, Franklin Bynum for organizing the website.

New Chronicle Blog Post

2011-08-25T08:28:00.000-05:00

I did a new blog post on Judge Guerrero's ruling on the change of venue in the Chad Holley beating case. You can check it out by clicking here.

Tonight's Reasonable Doubt (8/25/11)

2011-08-25T06:50:00.000-05:00

Plean join me and Todd Dupont for tonight's Reasonable Doubt, where our guest will be the mildly opinionated former Assistant District Attorney Sean Teare. Look for an entertaining show, which will doubtlessly feature call ins from Hollywood entertainment attorney Dodge Rosen.

As always, you can tune in tonight at 8:00 p.m. to catch it live by clicking here.

In Case of Emergency

2011-08-24T13:22:00.000-05:00

Based on some recent events that have occurred around the CJC over the past few weeks, Mark Bennett and I came up with an idea that we wanted to share with our friends and family members of the courthouse. Two weeks ago, a member of the defense bar passed away from natural causes at her home. Court coordinators knew that she had missed her cases on the docket that day, but had no one to contact to check on her welfare. The efforts to check on her welfare and notify a relative were made difficult because there was no central location that had that information.

Unlike prosecutors who have the benefit of co-workers and supervisors that will notice almost immediately if they don't come to work without explanation, many members of the defense bar are solo practitioners. Some don't even have a receptionist or office aide that can be contacted in case of emergency.

In an effort to respond in a "worst case scenario," Mark has created a data base that all courthouse personnel are welcome to utilize if they want. The list will be completely confidential and at this point, only Mark and I will have access to it. If you want to sign up for it, you can rest assured that it is not going to be added to an e-mail list for marketing purposes. It will also not be something that is created so that a coordinator can call and find out why you haven't shown up for docket by 10:30.

The list will be maintained solely for the purposes of having a safety net in place for people in case of emergency. If you have any questions about it, feel free to ask them. If you have any suggestions, we'd love to hear them as well.

Thanks to Mark's work, the database is now up and running. If you would like to put your information in it, you can do it whenever you want.

The link to get there is here.

I Love My Hometown News

2011-08-20T23:10:00.000-05:00

As I've mentioned frequently on this blog, I love being from Bryan, Texas. I loved growing up there. I love the people there. I love to go back there when I can.

I also love watching the news there. Every local commercial features either a) somebody I know or b) somebody I grew up watching on commercials.

The weatherman and the sports guy have been the same since I was in junior high school, and to this day, when you see one of them at the grocery store, you kind of feel like you just saw a celebrity.

And then there are the news stories themselves . . .

Like tonight's headline.

I love that a minor accident made the TV news when it wasn't even a hit and run and nobody was seriously injured.

I also enjoy that instead of giving the location with a cross-street, the description of the location read:

It happened around 9 o'clock Friday night on East 29th Street in Bryan near the Dairy Queen.

Sometimes, it is just nice to know that there are still some small towns where a minor accident is the worst thing that happens on a Friday night.

Before They Were Stars

2011-08-19T10:53:00.002-05:00

Okay, we all are aware of the tragic E! True Hollywood Story of child star Will Womble, but I was recently made aware that we have another aspiring star in our midst.

Check out this video and see if you can spot who it is. (NOTE: This video usually won't play on a portable device, so you'll have to check it out on your desktop or laptop).

Special thanks to the anonymous prosecutor who forwarded this gem.

Tonight's Reasonable Doubt (8/18/11)

2011-08-18T08:34:00.000-05:00

Tune into tonight's Reasonable Doubt with me and Todd Dupont at 8:00 p.m. Our guest will be our friend and fellow criminal defense attorney, Fox Curl. We'll be talking about domestic violence.

You can watch it live streaming at 8:00 p.m. by clicking here.

More Humor from the Holdover

2011-08-17T11:29:00.000-05:00

An exchange between me and a shoplifting client in the holdover:

ME: Good morning, Ms. _________.

HER: Are you my new attorney?

ME: Um, no. I've always been your attorney.

HER: You're the same guy from last time?

ME: Yes.

HER: I just remember you being a lot younger last time.

ME: That was only three weeks ago!

HER: Maybe you had more hair back then.

ME: Trust me, I didn't.

The People We Know

2011-08-13T09:35:00.001-05:00

It has been a brutally rough two weeks for the Defense Bar in Harris County.

The weekend before last, we lost John Denninger to cancer.

Days later, we learned of the deaths of Phil Jenkins and Rosemary Garza.

Last night, we learned that Marguerite Hudig passed away.

It seems lately that we've been losing a lot of fine people long before their time on this Earth should have been up.

Last week, I was up in Brazos County, talking to my friend, David Hilburn, and we talked about how it seemed that the frequency of hearing tragic news seemed to be increasing as we got older.

When we were all children, losing a friend or a family member was a much more rare, yet tragic occasion.

Now, it seems that every month or so, we learn that someone we know (at least, someone we know in passing) has died.

Maybe it's just the harsh reality of growing older that brings this to light. To me, that's the sad way to observe this phenomena.

The other way to look at it is that as we've grown older, we've expanded our boundaries and have gotten to know so many more people than we did when we were children. If you look at the circle of friends and acquaintances that we all had when we were smaller, it vastly pales in comparison to the number of people we get to know as adults.

We grew from children and met more people. The more people we meet, the more people we ultimately have to say goodbye to. The more goodbyes we say, the sadder we become.

The loss of a friend, a family member, a co-worker, or even just a familiar face that you were accustomed to seeing in the hallways of the courthouse is always sad.

But the reason for the feeling of sadness is the loss of that familiarity that we once had.

For some reason, learning of Marguerite's passing has made me particularly sad.

I can't articulate why. I didn't know her well at all. I had a few cases against her as a prosecutor, but none that ever went to trial.

But, I suppose I was used to her. She was a regular face around the CJC. Just like John Denninger, Phil Jenkins, and Rosemary Garza -- not to mention all of those other attorneys that I've had the honor to know and subsequently say goodbye to over the years.

I'm sorry that I won't be seeing those faces around the CJC again. They will be missed.

But I'm glad that I had the opportunity to meet them. Glad to have gotten to know them -- some better than others.

I'm happy to have expanded my circle of friends and co-workers as I've gotten older, because the people that we get to know along the way are the ones that make all of our lives so much richer and so much more interesting for having known them.

Even if it is so sad to ultimately have to say goodbye to them.

. . . And Now You Don't

2011-08-03T20:28:00.001-05:00

The turnout for the Veterans Court graduation today was outstanding, as a packed courtroom filled the 228th. Here are a couple of photos from the big event.

Judge Carter hosted the ceremony.

Deputy Walker keeps his pants up like the Good Lord intended . . .

Connie Williams gave a very moving speech.

Craig Still and I spend our last moments with Greg Allman.

Halfway through Pat McCann honoring his deal.

Brothers in baldness.

Like I said in my last post . . .

With all the fun of Pat McCann honoring his bet, it is easy to lose sight of the fact that today's ceremony was a very important and moving moment in the CJC. A big congratulations goes out to Judge Carter, Pat, Shannon Davis, Staci Biggar, and (most importantly) the graduates of Veterans Court for a great day today.

Now You See It . . .

2011-08-03T08:51:00.000-05:00

There will be a ceremony in the 228th District Court today at 2:00 p.m. as Judge Marc Carter and the dedicated attorneys who have donated their time to the Veterans' Court celebrate the successful completion of pre-trial diversions by fifteen members of its starting class. As part of the Veteran's Court, defense attorney Pat "Sumo Jesus" McCann challenged the Veterans by swearing he would allow his head to be shaved should they successfully complete their pre-trial diversions.

And they did.

So, a big congratulations to the Veterans who helped make this project a big success, as well as to Judge Carter, Pat, Shannon Davis of the D.A.'s Office and all the other attorneys who have made this project possible.

And on a sad note, we bid a fond farewell to the flowing locks of hair that belong to Mr. McCann for only a few hours more. As a veteran of hair loss, I will be there to support you in the days to come, my friend.

I, for one, will remember you like this:

Even though, when this is all over, I'm pretty sure you will more closely resemble this.

John Denninger

2011-08-01T11:06:00.000-05:00

I was very saddened to learn yesterday that my friend and longtime Defense Attorney John Denninger passed away after a battle with lung cancer.

I first met John when I became a Felony Two in Judge Michael McSpadden's court around 2006. He, along with Ken Goode and Chuck Hinton, were the contract attorneys in the court. I had known Chuck and Ken when I had been an academic intern in the 209th back in 1998, but John wasn't in the court back then.

John took me awhile to figure out, because he had such a deadpan sense of humor. Where Chuck and Ken were more prone to laughing out loud and telling jokes, John was often quiet and stone-faced by comparison. It wasn't until I got to know him better that I realized the quiet demeanor actually masked a very very dry wit.

He was a good lawyer who was very dedicated to his clients, and we tried serious cases against each other during the time I spent in Judge McSpadden's court. His clients were appointed to him, and he fought vigorously for them. He didn't lose his cool on the high stress cases and he tried them with integrity and the highest level of ethics.

After I left the 209th, I didn't see much of John anymore, except in the hallways of the CJC. Every time I saw him, he would always smile brightly and ask how I was doing. He was a very nice man.

The last time I saw him was earlier this year. He was having dinner with his daughter, and he introduced me to her. It was very apparent that he was enjoying father/daughter time and he couldn't have been prouder to be there with her.

I didn't even know that John was sick until a few weeks ago.

As a member of HCCLA, I can't talk about those things that are posted on the listserve, but I will say that John is being very fondly remembered today by his peers from the Defense Bar. He was highly respected as an attorney, a family man, and a friend.

We are all very sad to lose our friend, John Denninger.

Of Raining, Pouring and Writer's Block

2011-08-01T10:50:00.001-05:00

I've gotten a ~~bunch of~~ complaints lately that I haven't posted on anything in a while, either on this blog or the Chronicle blog.

Either there just hadn't been much happening of interest lately or I've just been experiencing a bout of writer's block. Also, I've been very busy with my Little Man's summer activities and my Favorite Editor from New York being in town for an extended visit.

And then last week, several different things happened that were all worthy of writing a blog post (or two or three) on . . .

. . . and I'm at a place for the weekend that has no Internet connection.

Ah the irony.

One of the major things that happened last week was the stunning revelation by former Houston Police Department technical advisor Amanda Culbertson that HPD's mobile "BATmobiles" (used for the on-site testing of a DWI suspect's breath) had some major glitches in their reliability. It was covered at length by Paul Kennedy with his post here. (NOTE: If you aren't reading Kennedy's blog, you should be. Yes, you'll probably disagree with a lot of it, and he does wear that bola instead of a tie, but he is worth reading.)

Paul focuses in on the ramifications for HPD, but what I find interesting is the ramifications for the D.A.'s Office. There are a ton of cases that Culbertson's testimony effects and it will be very interesting to see what the Office does with them.

I'm also quite skeptical of the idea that the D.A.'s Office was unaware of Ms. Culbertson's claims that the BATmobiles were faulty. Why exactly did the prosecutors ask for a continuance on the case rather than dismiss it? Look for there to be A LOT more to come from this revelation and the key question you'll need to be asking is "Who knew what? And when?"

In addition to the BATmobile revelations, last week long-term prosecutor Bill Hawkins turned in his letter of resignation to the Lykos Administration. I say that he turned his resignation into the Lykos Administration, because Bill Hawkins would have never resigned from a District Attorney's Office. There is a distinction between the two.

Bill was the lead prosecutor on the upcoming retrial of cop killer Carl Buntion, which was set for trial in the next month or so. His resignation is surprising in its timing, but there were early warnings that Bill was not going to mesh well with the Lykos Administration.

Integrity often causes conflict with those who have none.

Because Bill has integrity, he is not talking about his departure at the moment, but if I had to guess, I would bet it had something to do with the idiotic idea to have him supervised by a prosecutor junior to him as I detailed in this post. Especially if that junior prosecutor is a darling of the Lykos Administration when Bill certainly was not.

I will be writing a much better post regarding my friend and mentor, Bill Hawkins when he has finished his last day at the Office.

In other news, I did finally get off my butt and write a new blog on the Chronicle. You can check it out by clicking here.

And finally, on a sad note, my friend and former trial adversary, John Denninger, passed away yesterday after a battle with cancer.

But, I will be writing a separate post on him momentarily.

The Ever Changing Election Field

2011-07-27T12:45:00.000-05:00

As I mentioned with this post back in February, the 2012 Election Season has begun preposterously early this time around, with most of the activity focusing on which Republicans are going to be vying to retake the criminal court benches lost to Democrats in 2008. Here we are five months later and the field has already changed significantly from back in February.

I thought you all might like an up-to-date guide on how things look right now:

The 174th District Court
This race has become contested since we last checked in. Felony District Court Chief Joe Vinas has moved from the race for the 338th District Court (see below for more details on that) to face off against former-prosecutor and local attorney Robert Summerlin. The winner will face off against Ruben Guerrero on the Democratic side.

The 176th District Court
Last we looked here, no one had thrown their name in to be the Republican challenger to Incumbent Judge Shawna Reagin. Since then, former prosecutor and criminal defense attorney Stacey Webb Bond has announced that she will be running as a Republican.

The 177th District Court
There have been no official changes to this race thus far, as Republican Ryan Patrick will be running for the spot against Incumbent Judge Kevin Fine. There have been some rumors that Judge Fine may draw an opponent in his own primary. I'll keep you posted on this one.

The 178th District Court
I'm not sure if Roger Bridgwater has made it official that he will be attempting to retake his bench from Incumbent Judge David Mendoza. The word on the street is that Patricia R. Lykos is not too happy about the idea of Roger running because it conveys the idea that people are "jumping ship" from the Office. Um, yeah, Pat, half your damn Trial Bureau leaves and you don't bat an eye, but when the guy who sits in his office and does nothing all day wants to be a judge, then you get worried?

The 179th District Court
This is still facially the same race, as Republican Kristin Guiney is the only listed challenger right now against Incumbent Judge Randy Roll. However, there are rumors that Lana Shadwick is going to run as a Republican. Shadwick is apparently hoping her ex-husband's name will bring her a judgeship, and her flaky history and resume of bouncing from job to job and position to position within the D.A.'s Office has fellow-blogger Mark Bennett declaring this to be "Christmas in July".

The 337th District Court
This one has been a change, as it doesn't appear that prosecutor Alexis Gilbert is running for the position any longer. However, long-time prosecutor and Chief Renee Magee is now officially running against Democratic candidate and Incumbent Judge Herb Ritchie.

The 338th District Court
A change here as well as former-prosecutor, former-judge, and current defense attorney Brock Thomas has announced he will be running against Hazel Jones to retake his bench after the 2008 elections. Joe Vinas had been slated to run for this bench against Judge Jones, but deferred to Brock and switched to the 174th race. I'm glad to see Brock running again.

The 339th District Court
This race remains unchanged, as well. Special Crimes Chief Brad Hart is still the only candidate currently listed to be running against Incumbent Judge Maria Jackson.

The 351st District Court
As I mentioned in the last post, I can't imagine Incumbent Judge Mark Ellis drawing a Republican challenger in the primary, and I haven't heard of any Democratic candidates signing up to run against him either.

I'll keep you posted as things develop . . .

Tonight's Reasonable Doubt (7/21/11)

2011-07-21T08:37:00.000-05:00

Join me and Todd Dupont for tonight's Reasonable Doubt at 8:00 p.m. Our guest will be defense attorney, legal commentator, and HCCLA President-Elect Chris Tritico.

As always, you can tune in to watch it live streaming by clicking here.

Deceptive Trade Practices Downtown?

2011-07-18T11:52:00.001-05:00

So, you're running late for court and desperately looking for a parking place, and you come across this sign in front of a parking lot (which looks like it has been carpet bombed);

Your interpretation of the sign leads you to believe that:

A. You can park at this lot for a flat fee of $5.
B. You can buy the whole crappy lot for $5.
C. You can park there for ten minutes for $5, but if you stay over an hour, it will be $15.

Well, if you guessed "C", you would be correct. Sadly, I was running late and shelled out the additional $10 more than I expected rather than go look for another spot.

The non-apologetic parking lot attendant pointed out to me that the letters "MIN" are written above the dollar sign, so I should have known better.

As a side note, you may not want to park at the lot framed by Fannin, Preston, Prairie, and Main. It's a rip off.

Life at the Galveston County Criminal Justice Center

2011-07-15T10:41:00.000-05:00

Yesterday, I headed down to Galveston for their morning docket.

I had a pleasant drive down, going against the flow of traffic.

I was running a little late for docket, and my client called me on the drive down to say that he was running even later than I was -- a mortal sin in Harris County.

I pulled into the parking lot of the Galveston Courthouse, where there was ample (and completely free) parking within fifty yards of the front door of the building.

There were no lines to get in the building and going through the metal detectors and security probably took less than a minute. The security screeners were polite and friendly.

There were no lines at the elevator, which was open and waiting the second I cleared security.

I went up to court and learned that they had already called docket. I explained to the court coordinator that my client was running late. She didn't even ask why. She just told me to let me know when my client got there and it wouldn't be any problem.

I talked to the prosecutor and told her my client was running late. No problem. She made me an offer and handed me his file to review. She just wanted me to let her know when he got there.

The court was hearing a civil jury trial, so we got shuffled out of the courtroom and to the back hallway, outside of chambers to finish the morning business. A few minutes later, the coordinator let me know my client had shown up and was kind enough to escort him back to where I was so we could discuss the case with the prosecutor.

The prosecutor was very nice and listened to my version of events and told me she agreed that we needed to listen to a 911 tape before deciding what an appropriate punishment recommendation might be. She even pointed out some potential weaknesses in the case that she saw, before I brought them to her attention. My client explained a side fact of the case to her, and she was polite and friendly to him as she listened.

We agreed that the case needed to be reset, so I talked to the coordinator again. She suggested a day and asked if it worked for me. I told her it did and she said "Okay, see you then."

"Do I need to sign a reset?" I asked.

"Nope," she smiled. "We're all grown ups around here. We figure you can remember."

My client and I walked out the front door, no more than thirty minutes after my arrival.

All I can say is "Wow". I love Galveston.

I loved it even more when I came back to the Harris County CJC elevator bank and was greeted with this:

New Ways to Ask Questions on Reasonable Doubt

2011-07-14T16:31:00.000-05:00

Per a suggestion of one of our loyal viewers, Reasonable Doubt has added a way to ask questions of the hosts and guests on the show on Thursdays.

If you have a question, please e-mail it to us at HCReasonableDoubt@gmail.com or contact us on Twitter at @ReasDoubt.

We look forward to taking your questions.

NOTE: Let us know if you DON'T want us to use your name on the air.

Tonight's Reasonable Doubt (7/14/11)

2011-07-14T14:22:00.000-05:00

Tune in tonight for Reasonable Doubt at 8:00 p.m. with me and Todd Dupont. Our guest will be Carmen Roe, and we'll be talking about juries, the Casey Anthony verdict, and anything else you want to talk about.

As always, you can (allegedly) watch it live streaming by clicking here.

New Post on Chronicle Blog

2011-07-05T22:36:00.000-05:00

My prosecutor friends are probably going to yell at me for this Chronicle post on the Casey Anthony verdict, but I think it was a gutsy call by the jury, no matter how much I disagree with their verdict.

Scott Greenfield's post on Casey Anthony

2011-07-05T10:50:00.000-05:00

As most of you realize by now, the Casey Anthony jury is out deliberating her fate in Florida at the time of this writing. I haven't commented on it for a variety of reasons -- the two primary ones being that it has nothing to do with Harris County and I haven't been following it in the slightest. I didn't even realize until about two weeks ago that the pathologist on the case, Dr. Jan Garavaglia (AKA Dr. G) was someone I knew back when she worked for the Bexar County Medical Examiner's Office back in the 1990s.

But, I also don't like talking about big media cases that I have no personal knowledge about. Something about it just doesn't sit right with me.

My friend (and absolutely-excellent-writer-you-really-should-be-reading-his-stuff-every-day), Scott Greenfield just published a post on his thoughts about the Casey Anthony case, and I couldn't agree with his position more. I highly recommend you check it out by clicking here.

The Declaration of Independence

2011-07-01T08:01:00.000-05:00

HCCLA members and all others who are interested (and encouraged) to attend will be joining in front the Harris County Criminal Justice System this morning, Friday, July 1st, at 11 a.m. to read the Declaration of Independence. This was an event that began last year with HCCLA and is the start of a wonderful and noble tradition.

In fact, the tradition is spreading across numerous counties in Texas this year and will hopefully grow as the years go by.

I know that it is easy to get cynical in the old CJC, but I think it is important to take a moment and realize the principles our Nation is founded upon and how much the legal system and criminal justice system play an every day role in maintaining that.

Special thanks to Robb Fickman, HCCLA President Earl Musick and all the other dedicated members of HCCLA for putting on this event.

Tonight's Reasonable Doubt (6/30/11)

2011-06-30T08:54:00.000-05:00

Please join me and Todd Dupont for tonight's Reasonable Doubt at 8:00 p.m..

Our guest will be CrimeStoppers Director (and my favorite ever former-Chief [sorry, Warren]) Katherine Cabaniss.

As always, you can (allegedly) watch it live streaming by clicking here.

Sights of Downtown

2011-06-29T21:38:00.000-05:00

Isn't parking in a crosswalk illegal? Just wondering.

Mr. Grant

2011-06-28T20:11:00.001-05:00

From the day I first walked into 201 Fannin as an academic intern for the Harris County District Attorney's Office, back in the summer of 1998, there was an iconic gentleman at the front door to greet me and all other visitors to the Office. He was an older, distinguished man with a gravelly voice and a friendly smile that we all knew as "Mr. Grant."

Without knowing a thing about him, he generated the impression that he had been at the District Attorney's Office long before I had even considered law school and he would be there long after I was gone. Despite his tenure being vastly more significant than mine would ever be, he was kind and conversational with me and anyone else who might wander in the door. During the day, if I went out for a smoke break, he was usually outside having one, too. He was a master at light conversation, whether it be talking about sports, the weather, traffic, etc. He seemed to be in a perpetual good mood.

In fact, his kind-hearted light spirit often served as a very stark contrast to the subject matter that was dealt with inside the rest of the building.

When we moved from 201 Fannin to the CJC, it was mentioned more than once that it wouldn't be the same experience of arriving at work in the morning without being greeted by Mr. Grant. Fortunately, he did come to work at the new building -- usually working in the back sallyport, where those of us nasty smokers would still get to see and visit with him.

He had his health problems over the years, and Terrance Windham (who referred to Mr. Grant as "the General") would keep us updated via e-mail on his condition. Mr. Grant, although not being an Assistant D.A., investigator or support staff, was unquestionably part of the D.A. Office family.

A quite significant member of the family, actually. Everyone loved Mr. Grant.

Elbert L. Grant, Jr. passed away on Tuesday, June 21st at the age of 80. He was a former Merchant Marine and a U.S. Army veteran who served in Korea. He lived a long and distinguished life.

My memory of him will always be that he was the first person I saw when I walked in the door of 201 Fannin for the first time on a hot summer day in 1998.

Life changed a lot after that.

But Mr. Grant never did.

He was a good, sweet man whose memory will be a part of the history of that Office as much as (if not more than) any other person who walked through the door he manned for so long.

Ken Magidson

2011-06-27T20:40:00.002-05:00

At 8:30 a.m. on Christmas Eve of the worst year of my life, Ken Magidson fired me from a job that I had held and deeply loved for a little over nine years.

Today, I learned that President Obama has nominated him to be the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Texas.

My thoughts?

President Obama could not have made a better selection.

Ken Magidson came to the Harris County District Attorney's Office in a time when the Office was experiencing discord and turmoil unequalled in its history. Hell, it was probably experiencing more discord and turmoil than any District Attorney's Office had ever experienced in its history.

And like the Captain of a ship at sea in the middle of a hurricane, Ken Magidson calmed the passengers and rode out the storm with a leadership that was desperately needed at the time. He told us to all sit down, shut up, do the right thing, and this too would pass.

And he was right.

As the scandal of Chuck Rosenthal was impugned upon every last Assistant District Attorney's integrity, he was the calm in the Storm. He assumed the leadership of an Office in crisis and led it back to stability. He was a stranger and an outsider to those of us who were too young to have known him when he had worked at the Office, but his leadership skills calmed and reassured us all. He made us all stop focusing on the scandal that didn't affect our day-to-day job and go back to doing what we had sworn an oath to do.

Seek Justice.

With his offbeat manner and strange habit of snapping two fingers and then clapping his hands as he spoke, he got all of us re-focused in a time that was very difficult to focus. He became a leader of people that did not know him, and he did it seamlessly.

He was a prosecutor's prosecutor that had us all refocused on doing the task at hand. Despite our personal differences (and argument over the definition of the First Amendment), I loved the guy. The Harris County District Attorney's Office would be in a much better place than it is now if only Magidson had remained in charge of it.

On a personal level, the way I feel about Ken Magidson will always trouble me. I liked him. I respected him. I was sad that my relationship with him ended on a bad note.

On a professional level, he is a leader that I would follow into battle at a moment's notice.

I wish him the best in his new position, and think that any politician who would question his ability to do his job is a fool.

He is a good man who will make any institution he leads better through his leadership.