The Bunker Mentality

As you may or may not be aware by now, the mandatory ethics training hosted by the Harris County District Attorney's Office on January 31st has recently come under attack by political pundit and die-hard Pat Lykos fan, David "Big Jolly" Jennings.   Big Jolly says:

"Immediately after the conclusion of newly elected Harris County District Attorney Mike Anderson's first training session for Assistant District Attorneys several [emphasis added] people that were appalled by the "training" asked me to look into it."

Gee, I wonder who those "several" people were.

Now (after I get this image of "Super Jolly to the rescue!" out of my head) let me point out a couple of things that I think are relevant before we break down his interpretation.

First off, David Jennings isn't a lawyer.  I'm not saying that makes him less intelligent -- Dave is very intelligent -- however, he often misses finer points of law.  At the early part of last year, I spent an hour trying to explain to him what the legal problem was with the DIVERT program, and the information just wasn't taking.  His allegiance to his particular candidate caused him to shrug off the law I was trying to explain to him.

Second, from the Missing the Forest for the Trees Department, did we forget the point that the new administration, in the first month of their regime, held a mandatory training session on Ethics?  If I recall correctly, the first mandatory training hosted by the previous administration was given by a paid speaker who talked about how the primary job of an Assistant District Attorney was to make their boss "look good."

Don't even say it, Rage.  I'll move along.

Big Jolly posted his article last Wednesday, and felt so strongly about it that he felt the need to do a follow up post on Friday where he cherry picked his favorite snippets of dialog from the lecture.  To be fair, he acknowledges his own bias in both posts.  In the meantime, the article picked up some traction and has been addressed by Scott Henson's Grits for Breakfast and Paul Kennedy's The Defense Rests (where in typical non-inflammatory Kennedy style, he refers to the D.A.'s Office as "a cult.")

I haven't posted on it before today because I thought I would actually take the time to watch the entirety of the video before commenting.  I know Big Jolly watched it all.  At the time of writing his article, Grits acknowledges that he had not watched it all.  Paul doesn't say whether or not he watched it all.  It is lengthy -- about 1 hour and 40 minutes.

My take on it is kind of tepid.  It certainly isn't the most awesome Continuing Legal Education seminar that I've ever watched.  I think that it could have used a lot more specific examples of what is Brady (exculpatory evidence, for you non-lawyers) material and a stronger emphasis on the fact that the duty to disclose Brady material extends to collecting it from police officers.

However, I don't think it resonates with the "cult-like" "bunker mentality" that Big Jolly is hoping it is portrayed to be.  I'm not going to go into as much depth on the class as Big Jolly does in his pieces, but I encourage you to watch the video yourself if you've got the time to kill.

In the end, I think the biggest problem with the seminar was that the wind up lasted about ten times longer than the pitch did.  Rob Kepple, Mike Anderson, and Johnny Holmes spent more time talking about how the "day and age" had changed more so than they did explaining how to adapt to it.

Anderson introduces the program, and points out the fact that the Innocence Project thinks of prosecutors as something "less than pond scum."  I suppose that is inflammatory, although I didn't think it was designed to rile up the audience of prosecutors against the Innocence Project.  I thought it was more a word of caution that prosecutors (and how they handle their cases) are under the microscope.  The message was very clear:  if a prosecutor thinks they are going to get away with fudging on facts because they operate under the delusion that everyone considers them the guys in the "White Hats," that belief is mistaken.

I can understand the interpretation that it may cause an "us vs. them" mentality, but hasn't the Defense Bar always wanted the prosecution to know that they are being watched when it comes to their ethics?

Mr. Holmes' appearance at the class was clearly an effort to get prosecutors fired up about doing their jobs, again.  He was the cheerleading opening act to Kepple's speech.  If some would take offense to the idea of getting the ADAs excited about prosecuting, there isn't much I could say to rebut their feelings.  He tells a story about trying a case against defense attorney Mike Ramsey, where Ramsey acknowledged that he was arguing some flimsy material.  His point is that prosecutors don't get to argue flimsy evidence when defense attorneys can.

The keynote speaker of the engagement was TDCAA's Rob Kepple.  I know Rob, but I've only met him on a couple of occasions.  Did I think his speech could have been better?  Yes.  Do I think it was as evil and conspiratorial as others have made it out to be?  Um, no.  Not even close.

Kepple begins by saying that times have changed and that the public doesn't have that blind love of prosecutors and law enforcement that they did back in the 1980s.  Is he lamenting?  I don't know.  Probably.  Who cares?  He then cites reasons that there may have been a change in attitudes from then to now.

He talks about how prisons were built and people got locked up.  People began to feel safer.  Fighting crime was no longer a priority in their minds.  He does cite the fact that formerly supportive business groups now regard the District Attorneys' Offices across the State as just another part of "big government" and aren't as supportive as they used to be.  Again, is he "lamenting"?  Who cares?

He cites the Pedro Oregon case, but he isn't applauding anyone.  He is simply pointing out that prosecutors have to make decisions that are often wildly unpopular in the public.

But after this is where Kepple's speech gets really misconstrued by Big Jolly.  Kepple readily acknowledges that prosecutors have not helped their own public perception by the way they've reacted to change.  He cites Mike Nifong and "Nifong Charlie" Sebesta for their over-aggressive and unethical prosecutions.  He talks about the Michael Morton case and Ken Anderson and John Bradley.  He acknowledges that John Bradley was his friend, but points out that Bradley's antics cost him his job in the primary in an extremely pro-prosecution county.

Does he call Michael Morton "lucky" because he got retesting done which ultimately freed him?  Yes, he absolutely does, but he doesn't do it with sarcasm.  He points out that many prosecutors have been opposing retesting of DNA and that fortunately Morton got his done and was exonerated.  He wasn't belittling that by any stretch of the imagination.  He stated that his hope is that Mr. Morton will come speak to TDCAA in the future about what happens when exculpatory material is withheld.

He does talk about how in sports, incidents of cheating are often forgiving, but his point is to show that this type of mentality does not work in prosecutions.  Prosecutors have a higher standard.  There should be no fudging.  There should be no cheating.  The example he gives of Billy Jack is of the prosecutor who wins their case with the material they are given and don't have to do anything sneaky to succeed.

Maybe I missed it, but I didn't see Kepple telling any of the prosecutors anything other than to do their jobs fairly and to be proud of the work they did.  He told them people are watching the job they are doing so they better do it right and they had better do it ethically.

Isn't that kind of what the Defense Bar has been wanting them to do since, I don't know, the beginning of the Legal System?

As for the "Bunker Mentality" and thinking that other people are out to get them, one of the comments on Grits' post may have provided some insight into why prosecutors feel that way.  An anonymous poster wrote the following information, referencing the murder of Kaufman County prosecutor, Mark Hasse:

That was over 48 hours ago, and (as of this writing) there hasn't been one single comment even arguing with that poster's logic.

To me, that's a hell of a lot more offensive than anything said during the Ethics Training Seminar.

Big Jolly's Take on the Oliver Ballot Debacle [UPDATED}

UPDATE:  I have heard that Lloyd Oliver's suit has been sent back to State Court.

While Big Jolly and I are still in post-Primary counseling after the D.A. election, he has written a very interesting (and alarming) take on what is going on with the battle between would-be HCDA Democratic Candidate Lloyd Oliver and the Democratic Party.  He also talks about the possible ramifications of what could happen in November.

Check it out by clicking here.

The District Attorney Debate this Thursday

It seems that whenever I am completely swamped in my actual (as opposed to blogging) life that it suddenly begins raining topics that I want to blog about.

As most of you know, my favorite New York Editor got promoted to Wife over the weekend and I'll be away from the CJC this week.  There are several interesting things going on around the CJC and in the political world (with early voting a mere two weeks away).  I may or may not have time to write about those stories, but I do want to make sure that I bring one to your attention before I go off honeymoonin'.

On Thursday, May 3rd from 7:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m., there will be a District Attorney Candidates Forum between Pat Lykos and Mike Anderson, sponsored by my on-again-off-again friend Big Jolly (NOTE:  I'm just kidding.  Although he frustrates me to the point that I want to beat my head into the wall, I like Dave.) and the King Street Patriots.  The event is being held at 7232 Wynnwood Lane, Houston, TX 77008.

The moderators are Paul Bettencourt and Scott Braddock, who Big Jolly swears will "reign these two candidates in and not let them get away with obfuscating and dodging tough questions."  If that is truly the case, Lykos may be in for the longest hour of her life.  Since neither Bettencourt nor Braddock practice criminal law (to my knowledge), I hope there will be a good turnout of prosecutors and defense attorneys who will know the truth from the sound bytes.

Dave has billed it as "60 minutes of Straight Talk" and I hope he is correct about that.

My understanding is that those who arrive before 6:45 are allowed to submit questions for the candidates which makes your turnout very important.  It looks like an outstanding venue to let substance shine over style.

I'm sorry that I won't be able to make it, but I hope you will.  Like I said earlier, Early Voting starts in two weeks.

It is time to go into overdrive on making a difference.

The Big Jolly Conspiracy

As some of you may have noticed, I de-linked from Big Jolly's blog yesterday.  It wasn't an easy choice to do so, but one that I ultimately believed had to be done.  I have no problem printing contrary opinions to my own and I link to several websites that I have a different outlook on Criminal Justice than the author does.

But Big Jolly jumped the shark the past couple of days, and I just don't feel right about linking to him anymore.  I like Dave Jennings as a person, but he has become so grossly misinformed about what is going on around the CJC that I just can't put a link up there that might imply I find his information even intellectually honest.

Back in November, when Rachel Palmer was whooping and hollering about pleading the 5th and recusing Judge Brown, the District Attorney's Office took time out of its busy (and budget-strapped) schedule to hire David Benzion as a media spokesperson.  It was a savvy political move by Pat Lykos.  After all, Benzion had been the editor of Lone Star Times, an influential Republican website in Harris County politics.  By hiring Benzion with our taxpayer dollars, Lykos could claim that it was a needed position in the Office and hopefully scoop up all of Lone Star Times' followers as well.

I don't know if Lykos was able to scoop up all of Benzion's followers, but she damn sure seems to have scooped up Big Jolly.  You see, Big Jolly used to work with Benzion at Lone Star Times.  As a matter of fact, when Benzion shut down the Lone Star Times website, he encouraged his readers to get their Republican Reading needs fulfilled by going and checking out Big Jolly's blog.  These guys are friends and there is nothing wrong about that.

At least there is nothing wrong about that until Big Jolly ends up becoming a shill for Pat Lykos via David Benzion and doesn't think we are smart enough to notice it.

Benzion's first day at the Harris County District Attorney's Office was on Monday, December 19th, 2011 -- right when Rachel's Motion to Recuse hearing was going on.  Keep in mind that during this period of time, Lykos was hiding from the media.  The normally attention-hungry District Attorney simply could not be found.  She was dodging every media outlet that she possibly could.  Those who even have the faintest familiarity with Lykos know that her dodging the media is a gross deviation in her character.

Can't say that I blame her.  The media wanted to know the answer to the pesky question of "How exactly do you keep employing a prosecutor who just invoked the 5th Amendment in front of the Grand Jury?"  Lykos had no answer to that quiz, so she didn't show up anywhere that she would have to answer it.

Thank goodness, she had the newly-hired David Benzion, though!  He could utilize his Republican ties and find some sort of "journalist" that could get some positive spin out there for his boss, right?  And on December 27th, 2011, Dave Jennings AKA Big Jolly cranked out this piece of fluff.  After two weeks of hiding from the media, the District Attorney appears for an obscure local blogger who would write an article entitled:

Pat Lykos:  Vigorously prosecuting the guilty while seeking justice

Seriously.  That was the title of it.

I guess the title of "Pat Lykos:  Super Awesomest District Attorney in the History of District Attorneys is Eradicating Villainy and Providing All Harris County with Safety and Looking Very Lovely While Doing It" would have been a little too over the top.

And then Dave jumped in with his conspiracy theories and political motivations for the 185th.  I tried to talk to him, and we had polite conversations.  But he just kept on coming with it. A self-serving District Attorney who allows a 5th Amendment-taking-prosecutor to remain on the job is just fine and dandy, but suddenly a volunteer citizen who serves as a Grand Jury foreperson is treated like the Anti-Christ?

Do you have any idea how much crap was made from allegations and innuendo about Patricia Pollard because of the mere fact that she was serving as the foreperson of a Grand Jury?!  That poor lady signed up to serve on a Grand Jury along with 11 other citizens back in August and the next thing you know, our elected District Attorney is portraying her to be the second coming of Lee Harvey Oswald.  Mrs. Pollard hadn't even said a thing and the Grand Jury hadn't issued a single finding; yet the Gang Who Couldn't Shoot Straight was going after her like she was John Gotti.

And there was Dave Jennings calling it like Lykos saw it.

The conspiracy theories surrounding the 185th Grand Jury became so ridiculous that I don't even know where to begin.  I honestly don't know what the Grand Jurors could have done to appease the conspiracy-minded Dave Jennings short of setting themselves aflame in front of the CJC.  Even when they issued no indictments, they still got blasted and insulted for issuing a First-Amendment-protected-letter saying they felt the D.A.'s Office had attempted to intimidate them.

In his dramatically entitled post "Harris County DA Lykos stands up to Runaway Grand Jury," Big Jolly called Mrs. Pollard a "Wyatt Earp wannabe" and then cleverly refers to her as "Mrs. Earp" through the remainder of the post.  Dave ridiculed a respected volunteer serving as Grand Jury foreperson for doing the job she was entrusted to do because she had the audacity to question Lykos' intimidation tactics.

It just gets worse from there.   The thing that just kills me about the way Big Jolly writes these stories for Lykos is that he isn't just excusing Lykos' behavior, he's commending it.

Today, he even implicated Bert Graham!  Seriously, Dave.  Have you ever even met Bert?

It troubles me greatly that Big Jolly believes the joining of people who believe that Pat Lykos is a terrible (if not criminal) District Attorney must be a huge political conspiracy based on speculation.  Since when did having common sense become participation in a conspiracy?

The reason I unlinked from David Jennings' (AKA Big Jolly) blog is that I found it to no longer be credible or trustworthy.  A blog that condones the malicious attacks on ADAs by half-wits like Don Hooper while praising the Mafia-esque tactics of Pat Lykos is just not one that I care to affiliate my blog with anymore.  The slamming of good people's names because they dared to investigate Lykos didn't really do much for me either.

But what really and truly bothers me is that Big Jolly's affiliation with Lone Star Times and David Benzion, coupled with his sudden unprecedented access to Lykos (for the purposes of writing fawning articles) sure makes it look like Big Jolly has become a shill.

Remember, I don't sell advertising on this blog.

Perhaps I'm wrong.  Maybe Dave really does think that Pat Lykos is the "most awesomest" District Attorney ever and none of this really was a conspiracy on behalf of her Administration to use taxpayer money to write campaign pieces for her.

You know how crazy people can get with their conspiracy theories.

Then again, I did just receive a copy of this in my e-mail:

Big Jolly and Me

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!