Temple Trial Takeaways

As you doubtlessly know by now, the punishment phase of The State of Texas vs. David Temple ended in a mistrial on Friday after jurors failed to reach an agreement on an appropriate punishment for the man they easily convicted of murder.

I've heard from multiple credible sources that the split between the jurors was 10-2, with ten of the jurors demanding Life in prison for the man they convicted of killing his 8-month-pregnant wife, Belinda, by placing a shotgun to the back of her head and pulling the trigger.  The remaining two jurors were holding out for something far less and neither side seemed willing to budge from their position despite almost two days of deliberations.

A jury that convicts but then deadlocks over punishment is not unheard of, but it is fairly uncommon.  Since Temple was convicted of a 1999 murder, the law of 1999 applies to the case.  Back then a person could receive probation for murder, so Temple could technically receive it, as well.  Due to this, there is apparently an argument to be made that Temple could be placed on bond while awaiting his punishment.

If 178th District Court Judge Kelli Johnson elects to give Temple a bond, she will doubtlessly consider the brutality of the case, how many jurors wanted Life for Temple, and the fact that when released from jail in 2016, Temple vowed "for the people that lied and cheated who put me there to be held accountable."  Texas Attorney General Prosecutors Lisa Tanner and Bill Turner will likely point out that these combined factors make Temple a high flight risk with a revenge agenda who has nothing to lose.

Although the hung jury on punishment prevented bringing the 20-year saga of David Temple to a complete close, the fact that he was convicted again will more than suffice for the time being.

It has been a long and winding road that gave David Temple a second chance at getting away with murder, one that most murderers don't get.

Temple was originally convicted and sentenced to Life in 2007 in a trial that pitted Harris County Assistant District Attorney Kelly Siegler against prominent defense attorney Dick DeGuerin.  Despite the fact that the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the case, DeGuerin lobbied the District Attorney's Office under then-D.A. (and Siegler's political rival) Pat Lykos to perform an off-the-books investigation into an alternate suspect.

In July of 2012, Pat Lykos was a "lame duck" D.A., having lost her bid for re-election to Mike Anderson in the Republican Primary.  DeGuerin asked then-1st Assistant Jim Leitner to "review" the Temple case before the Lykos Circus left town at the end of December.  Inexplicably, Leitner complied, as I detailed in this post.

Leitner had been informed that newly-minted defense attorney and former Harris County Homicide Lieutenant John Denholm had been sucking up to working for DeGuerin on developing an "alternate suspect" to the murder of Belinda Temple.  Despite the fact that the Court of Criminal Appeals had recently affirmed Temple's conviction, Leitner was more than happy to do DeGuerin's bidding and assigned Denholm's buddy (and current HCDA investigator) Steve Clappart to work on the case.

By September 2012, the dream team of Clappart and Denholm had drafted a Capital Murder warrant for the arrest of a "suspect" named Cody Ray Ellis based on evidence so absurd that I won't even address it in this post.  You can check out the legal document that these two nimwits tried to get signed by clicking here.   (NOTE:  Don't forget to scroll down to the transcript where Leitner testified that he would have signed that warrant.)

Here's a fun fact, in case you didn't pick up on it already:  During the retrial, Stan Schneider didn't even advance Ellis as his "alternate suspect," instead focusing on another teenager from the neighborhood, Riley Joe Sanders.  The juries in both the 2007 and 2019 trials quickly rejected all alternate suspects in favor of Temple.

In the meantime, DeGuerin (now joined by Stanley Schneider) filed an "Out of Time Motion for New Trial or Alternative Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus Based on Actual Innocence, Newly Discovered Evidence, and the Willful Suppression of Exculpatory Evidence." (Stanley apparently gets paid by the word.)  It is worth noting that during all of this, the Lykos Administration never bothered communicating what was going on to the family of Belinda Lucas Temple, which is something I noted here.


Wanting to avoid the appearance of impropriety, Lykos appointed local defense attorney Brad Beers to be a "special prosecutor" on the Temple matter.  There was a small conflict of interest on that, however, seeing as how Beers had previously represented Clappart twice (once in a lawsuit and once on a disciplinary infraction within the Office).

All of this ultimately led to a hearing in 2015 that David Temple wasn't entitled to and that very few others have been the beneficiary of.  During that hearing, Stan Schnieder and then-licensed attorney Casie Gotro got to revisit the entirety of the Temple case.  That rendition of Team Temple rejected at least five judges to hear the extra-judicial hearing before settling on Judge Larry Gist.

As we all know, the multi-week hearing ultimately resulted in findings from Gist that Kelly Siegler had been untimely in turning over evidence to Dick DeGuerin during the 2007 trial, and recommended that Temple receive a new trial.  My opinion then and my opinion now is that Judge Gist wasn't paying attention to much of the evidence that he was hearing.  He certainly wasn't paying attention when he signed off on an order where Gotro and Schneider had slipped in an extra finding.

I know that I'm biased, because Kelly Siegler is one of my best friends, but I will go to my grave feeling that the District Attorney's response to Gist's finding, coupled with Houston Press journalist Craig Malisow's article Unreasonable Doubt: Did Kelly Siegler Really Railroad an Innocent Man Eight Years Ago held far more accurate accounts of the Temple hearing than Gist's findings.

Regardless of how I feel, or how Kelly Siegler's detractors feel, David Temple ultimately got his case reversed.  Due to Kelly's fame as one of the best prosecutors in the State of Texas, the Houston Chronicle writers were ecstatic.  Lisa Falkenberg wrote a really touching article on how Clappart and Denholm were heroic and brave for taking a stand in pursuing the "real killer," despite losing friends.

SPOILER ALERT:  Denholm and Clappart lost friends because everyone knew that they (and their warrant) were full of shit, Lisa.  They were full of shit then and they are full of shit now.  Just FYI.

Brother Denholm even had the audacity to file a grievance against me with the State Bar (with attached affidavits from Gotro and Schneider) for daring to blog about Temple (and try to ruin Temple's fight for freedom).  It got rejected summarily.  I'm still a practicing lawyer, and that's all I'll say about that topic.

And then came the Reign of Ogg.

Kim Ogg took Office on January 1, 2017, and in her inauguration speech, she thanked Dick DeGuerin profusely for all he had done for her and her career.  Within a week, she vowed to be the One Woman Review Team who decided whether or not the District Attorney's Office would retry David Temple.  She appointed Steve Clappart to be her CHIEF investigator, and hired John Denholm to a Division Chief position.  Despite these clear conflicts of interest with Team Temple, Ogg steadfastly refused to recuse herself from the case.

Again, the Houston Chronicle was giddy with the prospect of the Temple Case being dismissed, because, you know, Kelly Siegler cheated!

While in the midst of Ogg's One Woman Review of Temple, DeGuerin even threw her a fundraiser! It was co-hosted by Paul Looney, who had also been a member of Team Temple at one point.

Coincidentally, Team Temple attorney Stan Schneider said that he was "completely comfortable" in whatever Ogg decided.  Gee, I wonder why.  

Ultimately, Kim Ogg relented under public pressure and recused the Harris County District Attorney's Office from The State of Texas vs. David Temple.

And the result? Justice. He was convicted again of Murder last week.

The circus that surrounded his case merely resulted in him getting a two and a half year break from prison that he clearly did not deserve.  Somewhere in the midst of all of this, the prosecutorial team of Lisa Tanner and Bill Turner were able to turn the focus back to the evidence of the case and back to Belinda Lucas Temple and her unborn daughter, Erin.

The postponement of the punishment phase to March will hopefully serve as merely an extremely lengthy epilogue for David Temple.  The real story concluded with the guilty verdict and Temple going back into custody.

Justice prevailed last week.  

Lisa Falkenberg's Alfred Brown Double Down

Lisa Falkenberg and I have always had a bit of an up and down friendship.

To be fair, I may have been a little bit antagonistic during the heated 2008 D.A. Election when I referred to her as Pippi Longstocking.  To her credit, when I actually met Lisa a year or so later, she was very gracious despite some of the potshots I took at her on the blog.  Although we didn't agree on many issues, we shared the common interest of the Harris County Criminal Courthouse.  Despite the opposing views, I like her and consider her a friend.

When she first began writing about the Alfred Dewayne Brown case, she asked me a couple of questions here and there about the Grand Jury process for background information.  I was more than happy to share my thoughts, and I thought she was on the right track.  I was happy for her when she won the Pulitzer.  Even though I didn't know enough about Brown's case back then to form an opinion on his guilt or innocence, I agreed with Lisa that the Grand Jury system had been abused and that needed to be brought to light.

I've never had a problem being friends with somebody that I disagreed with -- something that irks some of my friends in prosecution/law enforcement from time to time -- and I disagreed with Lisa on several issues over the years.  Unfortunately, we had a falling out over her coverage of the David Temple case.  She wrote an article singing the praises of John Denholm and Steve Clappart, and I responded with this post, pointing out that I felt they were dishonest morons.

Lisa sent me a tersely worded e-mail, blasting me for my response and telling me I had my facts wrong on Clappart and Denholm.  I disagreed.  I was (and am) pretty comfortable in my assessment of those two.  That exchange was pretty much the last time we spoke.

The reason I write all of that backstory is that I want to make it clear that I don't feel any animosity towards Lisa for what she writes.  Whether I think her point is correct or incorrect, I think she usually writes from a place of intellectual honesty.

But I think that she's gotten too close to the Alfred Dewayne Brown case and it is drastically coloring her perspective on it.

Just to clarify, I write from a completely biased perspective every time I write something for the blog.  I try to justify what I'm thinking with logic and I also acknowledge counter-views, but I'm biased as hell.  It would be silly to argue otherwise.

But I'm a blogger with small to medium readership --not a Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist for a newspaper in a major metropolitan area.

Earlier this month,  Lisa wrote a column demanding that Harris County hurry up and pay Brown for all the years he "wrongfully" spent on Death Row.   The column itself didn't surprise me.  It is natural for Lisa to feel tied to the Brown case -- it won her the Pulitzer, after all.  I thought it was a little strange that an investigative journalist was criticizing the idea of John Raley looking further into the case.  What really surprised me, however, was a pretty gross misstatement of the law and facts that Lisa made in that article.  She strongly insinuated that Brown had been found practically innocent by the Court of Criminal Appeals, which couldn't be further from the truth.  I called out the misstatement in this post.

Last week, the news broke that the Harris County Attorney's Office was in strong disagreement over Brown's innocence. Their argument was that a phone call that could have potentially exonerated Brown, actually proved his guilt.

Given Lisa's closeness to the case, I was curious as to what she would have to say about Mr. Brown now.  This morning, she answered that question quite clearly by doubling down on her belief in Brown's innocence.

In a column entitled "It's Harris County Attorneys, not Alfred Dewayne Brown, bluffing in federal court," Lisa assails the County Attorney's allegation of Brown being guilty as a "ridiculous claim."

If the records didn't help Brown's defense, then the county attorneys reason that they weren't exculpatory, and so Brown's prosecutors didn't violate his rights by withholding them.  Thus, they conclude Brown's conviction shouldn't have been reversed, and he lacks a civil rights claim as well.

See, I told you they got creative. 

Not exactly.  As one of my commenters in the last post noted:

Brown's lawsuit is demanding compensation because he was factually innocent.  The County Attorney's response is counter to that.  A person can be factually guilty and still have his rights violated.  If that happens, he deserves a new trial.  A new trial doesn't make one factually innocent and thus entitled to millions of dollars.  

And Lisa knows that.  

Lisa's article is attempting to equate the fact that Brown deserved a new trial to his factual innocence.  She's vilifying the County for not wanting to pay cash money to Brown and saying that they are arguing he should have never gotten his case reversed, either.  I haven't seen the entirety of the County Attorney's pleadings, so I don't know if they are arguing that exact point.  If they are arguing that he didn't deserve a new trial, they are wrong.  

There is no dispute in my mind (or the minds of prosecutors or defense attorneys) that Brown deserved the remedy of a reversal of his case due to the exculpatory evidence being hidden.  The dispute arises over whether he should receive a nice lump sum payment in addition to the reversal . . . or another trip back to Death Row.

Lisa concludes this morning's column with this:

A prosecutor has a duty not to convict, but to do justice.  The moment Rizzo realized he had evidence that had even the potential to help Brown, he was bound by law to turn it over.  He didn't.  He sat on it, and then claimed years later the phone record was lost inadvertently.

That's a violation of Brown's rights.  That comes across loud and clear.  The rest is just static. 

Now, who's being creative?

In essence, this is what has happened:

HARRIS COUNTY:  Mr. Brown did not receive a fair trial so his case should be reversed.
LISA:  Pay him millions, too.
HARRIS COUNTY:  Slow down, Lisa.  We are going to see if we have enough evidence to retry him.
LISA:  Pay him his millions.
HARRIS COUNTY:  Doesn't look like we are going to be able to try his case again, so . . .
LISA:  So, you're going to pay him his millions?
HARRIS COUNTY:  No.  For him to get his millions, we have to believe that he actually didn't commit this crime.
LISA:  That's ridiculous.  Pay him his millions.
HARRIS COUNTY: We don't think he deserves his millions.
LISA:  You're all idiots.  You violated his rights.  Pay him his millions.
HARRIS COUNTY:  After looking at these phone records, we actually think we may be able to prove he's guilty.  We may even take him back to trial.
LISA:  You're just being difficult.  That's impossible.  Pay him his millions.

The first blog post that I wrote about Lisa's coverage of the Alfred Dewayne Brown case was entitled "Tunnel Vision & The Falkenberg Articles."  In that post, I criticized people who have tunnel vision to the degree that they aren't willing to examine any other possibility than the theory they believe in.  In that post, I was talking about Rizzo's tunnel vision, but I could borrow that same title for this post.

Lisa's articles on Brown reflect an absolute inability to consider the possibility that he may actually have been responsible for murdering Houston Police Officer Charles Clark.  In the picture accompanying today's column, she is literally seen hugging Brown as he is released from custody.  This case is the one that won her the Pulitzer.

Maybe Lisa is the one suffering from a little bit of tunnel vision now.

Top 10 Signs Your Chief Investigator Might Be Working for the Temple Defense Team

10.  Abruptly ends phone calls with elected District Attorney because "Dick is on the other line."

9.  Currently growing out his beard so that he can look more like Stan Schneider.

8.  Keeps bragging about his how his "buddy in Katy" is cooler than all of his old policeman friends.

7.  Received a prestigious award from a prominent Defense Attorney Organization for his work on the Temple Case.

6.  Keeps claiming that the Katy High School Football Team of 1987 was the greatest high school football team in Texas History.

5.  No longer cries in interview with 48 Hours about his old police friends no longer speaking to him.

4.  Currently investigating a group of people known as "the Katy Boys" on their ties to Russia.

3.  Denholm complains that all Temple ever talks about is "Steve.  Steve.  Steve." these days.

2.  Hanging out in felony dockets, looking for witnesses that can help him pin a murder on somebody else.

1.  Wears David Temple's high school letter jacket to work.

Freudian Slip

I received an e-mail today from one of David Temple's attorneys, Romy Kaplan, containing a copy of a motion filed by the Harris County District Attorney's Office today.  The motion, entitled Harris County District Attorney's Amended Motion to Recuse and for Appointment of District Attorney Pro Tem, contained the following pertinent sections:

Now, it is somewhat funny seeing that the Harris County is amending a Motion to Recuse themselves after the original Motion was already granted and new prosecutors appointed.  It's a little bit of "water under the bridge" at this point and I'm not even sure that this Motion has any actual legal bearing.  It would kind of be like me asking to go back and time and claiming that Lykos didn't fire me, because I quit.  

It's a small point.  Obviously the Office was trying to correct the impression that Chief D.A. Investigator Steve Clappart had ever been actually employed by David Temple's defense team.  

Another thing that would have helped them from this impression was, I don't know, NOT STATING IN A LEGAL DOCUMENT THAT STEVE CLAPPART HAD BEEN RETAINED BY TEAM TEMPLE.

But, bygones.  

The Amended Motion goes on to say that an earlier draft of the Motion had inadvertently stated that Clappart was a Temple employee, and that the earlier draft had accidentally been filed by mistake.

Um, okay.  So, at some point early on, the author of the original Motion had been under the belief that Clappart was a Temple employee, but some time later on figured out that he wasn't?  Was there some uncertainty about this somewhere?  I mean, he and his slow-witted friend, John Denholm did accept some Awards on behalf of their work on Temple's defense, and attended the Temple press conference together.

It would seem that in the five months that Kim Ogg had spent "reviewing the Temple case," she might have at least determined whether or not her Chief Investigator was employed by the Defendant.  Seems like kind of a major detail to me, but who am I to judge?

Perhaps it was just a really really humongous Freudian Slip.

NOTE:  Nowhere in the Amended Motion did it mention that Clappart was still actively investigating the Temple case, nor did the District Attorney's Office issue any denials of his ongoing investigation. 

Steve Clappart and The Meaning of Recusal

One of the more interesting revelations from the Harris County District Attorney's Office's Motion to Recuse on the David Temple trial on May 5th was that now-Chief Investigator of the D.A.'s Office, Steve Clappart was actually retained by the Temple defense team.

From the Motion:

Prior to this subtle, yet important, revelation, I think it is fair to say that most of us did not realize Clappart had actually been an employee of David Temple's.  We just thought he was looking into some information on behalf of his buddy, John Denholm.  The fact that the lead investigator for the D.A.'s Office actually used to work for David Temple really begs the question "why did it take Kim Ogg so long to realize the tremendous conflict of interest the Office had?"

Regardless of how insanely long it took Ogg to recuse the Office, she ultimately did do so and the Harris County District Attorney's Office is no longer involved in the Temple case at all.

Right?

Well, maybe not.

I received word from multiple sources this morning that former-Temple-investigator-turned-Chief-Investigator-for-the-D.A.'s-Office Steve Clappart may not have gotten the memo on that.

Apparently, one of the named "witnesses" in Clappart and Denholm's silly alternative suspect warrant picked up a Felony D.W.I. warrant this week in a Harris County District Court.  Despite the Office's self-recusal on the Temple case, those sources told me this morning that Clappart went to the court to inform prosecutors not to allow the case to plead without his approval.  He apparently wants to use the witness's precarious legal position as an opportunity to get some real "truth about Temple" out of the guy.

This presents a couple of interesting questions:

1.  Why is the Chief Investigator of all the Investigators in Harris County, Texas so interested in a Felony DWI case?

2.  Does Clappart think he should be approaching a Defendant charged with a felony and interviewing him?

3.  If the D.A.'s Office is no longer handling the prosecution of David Temple, does that mean they can handle his defense?  That seems to be the angle Clappart is working.

4.  Are taxpayers now paying Clappart to work on the Temple defense?

5.  How did Clappart even know this guy got charged with a DWI?  Hundreds of people get charged with a crime in Harris County each day.  How did he know about this one?  The Office can put a "tickler" on the computer for notifications if a certain person picks up new charges.  Did Clappart or (more likely) John Denholm put a "tickler" for this particular witness?

6.  If Denholm or Clappart did put a tickler out for parties they believed to be involved in the Temple case, are they flagrantly violating Kim Ogg's Motion to Recuse?

I don't know the answer to these questions, but it does appear that the Office has not completely relinquished control of the David Temple case quite yet. It seems like this is something that Kim Ogg should probably clarify to the public.

Or, at least, clarify it to Clappart.

David Temple's New Prosecutors

The Houston Chronicle's Brian Rogers reported today that 178th District Court Judge Kelli Johnson has appointed prosecutors Lisa Tanner and Bill Turner from the Texas Attorney General's Office to prosecute the State of Texas vs. Temple.

To say that Judge Johnson's choice is a good one would be a massive understatement.

Lisa has been with the Attorney General's Office for over twenty years and has been their heavy hitter on tough cases across the State.  She most recently handled the retrial of Bernie Tiede, who was the subject of the movie Bernie.  Mr. Tiede is currently serving 99 years thanks to her efforts.  She was also responsible for trying the actual killer for the murder of Michael Morton's wife.  In short, she is a bad ass.

Bill is the former elected District Attorney of Brazos County where he served before retiring in 2012.  I spent two and a half years working as an intern for him when I was at Texas A&M, and I consider him to be a mentor and one of the best trial prosecutors I've ever seen.  I watched him try three death capitals in the course of one summer and he was amazing in them all.

Although Bill and Lisa are well known for their trial skills, they are even more known for their ethical reputations and integrity.  Neither is afraid to try a tough case, nor are they afraid to dismiss it if it proves to be the right thing to do.  Popularity and public opinion won't be a factor when it comes to how they will handle the Temple case.

When Bill was the D.A. of Brazos County, he prosecuted the Chairman of the Board of Regents for Texas A&M, as well as The University's vice-president.  That wasn't exactly a popular move in Aggieland, especially for an elected Democrat in a heavily Republican county, but Bill forged ahead without concern to public opinion or any external matters.  He did what the law dictated.

And he won.

I've always considered him to be the Atticus Finch of prosecution.  In addition to taking on the upper echelon of A&M, Bill also went toe-to-toe with a corrupt sheriff where his own safety was threatened, and he didn't back away from that either.  He's a man that I admire greatly.

Regardless of what happens on the Temple case after today, the rationale for it will be based on evidence and only evidence.  As I mentioned on Twitter, Bill and Lisa are the gold standard when it comes to prosecution and the case could not be in better hands.

Their appointment is an outstanding choice by Judge Johnson.

Kim Ogg (Finally) Does the Right Thing

Despite my predictions in my previous post about what I believed was going to happen today during David Temple's court appearance in the 178th District Court, the Harris County District Attorney's Office finally recused itself from the high publicity murder case.

Regardless of the strengths or weaknesses of the facts of the case against Temple, it was unquestionably the right thing to do.  Although Kim Ogg took entirely too long arriving at (what many felt was) the obvious conclusion, the important thing is that she ultimately got there.  Whatever decisions are made about David Temple from here on out will be made without the improper influence of the members of Temple's defense team who now work within Ogg's Administration.

It is human nature to still feel frustration about how long Ogg took to recuse herself from the case and how little she communicated with Belinda Temple's family during the ordeal.  Her explanation that she needed more time to "review the case" rang hollow, and I heard from a couple of sources that the Temple file never actually left the hallways of the Appellate Division.  More likely, she needed some time to work up the courage to tell DeGuerin that she couldn't dismiss his case for him.

Whatever went on behind the scenes, Kim Ogg can now focus on being a progressive District Attorney in a major metropolitan area without having the looming specter of David Temple hanging over her head.  Although she may not realize it at the moment, she did herself a huge favor by finally letting go of the case.  Her reputation can recover from the appearance of impropriety that she brought upon herself for the first four months of her tenure.

More importantly, the family of Belinda Temple can know that the person or agency handling their case from now on doesn't owe David Temple's attorney any huge favors, or employ people like Steve Clappart or John Denholm, who would be willing to file capital murder charges on someone just to cast doubt on David Temple's guilt.

What happens after today will be up to somebody else, but the State of Texas versus David Temple can hopefully finally escape all of the sideshow that has been going on around it and return to the facts of the case.

If that happens, then today was a good day.

Foreshadowing

Last week, the Houston Chronicle ran this article about the Harris County District Attorney's Office dropping charges against Dr. Robert Yetman.  As noted in the article, Dr. Yetman had been granted a mistrial after trial Judge Stacey Bond found that prosecutors had intentionally caused a mistrial by making inflammatory remarks during closing arguments.

The District Attorney's Office under Devon Anderson had appealed Judge Bond's ruling, but the 14th Court of Appeals affirmed.  Last week, District Attorney Kim Ogg announced that the Office would not be appealing the case any further, and formally dismissed charges against Dr. Yetman.  The move was not surprising under the circumstances, and it was the right thing to do.

I did find the press release from Ogg to be noteworthy:

"We do not tolerate professional misconduct, lapses in discipline or excessive zeal to win a case," Ogg said in a press release.  "A prosecutor's special responsibility is to see that justice is done, not simply to win, and never do so illegally."

While the sentiment expressed by Ogg is admirable, it oversimplifies things a bit.  Not tolerating professional misconduct is a noble goal, and in this incident, both prosecutors involved in Yetman's trial were let go from the Office when Ogg took over.  Their termination was certainly an example of Ogg sending a clear message that there are ramifications for prosecutors who push the envelope too far.

However, Ogg could have just as easily stated something along the lines of respecting the ruling of the trial court and 14th Court of Appeals, and dismissed the case.  Her statement was far more broad than that.

My guess is that she made her statement because she is getting close to finally dismissing the case against David Temple, who is on the docket in the 178th District Court on Friday, May 5th.  Despite finding multiple excuses to recuse the District Attorney's Office on multiple other cases for much less significant reasons, Ogg has still steadfastly refused to recuse herself from Temple, despite having at least two people in her upper echelon who directly worked on the case.

I predict that Ogg is going to harken back to her press release on the Yetman case and place her reasoning for the dismissal on Kelly Siegler's doorstep.

The problem with doing this is that it punishes the victim and the victim's family for acts attributed to a prosecutor.  The scenario in Temple is completely different from the one in Yetman.  In Yetman, Judge Bond found that the prosecutors believed themselves to be losing the case, so they deliberately caused a mistrial by making an inappropriate argument.  In Temple, the Court of Appeals decided (in a split decision) that Temple deserved a new trial because Brady evidence was turned over in an untimely manner.

Temple was found guilty in trial and sentenced to Life in prison.  No argument can be made that the prosecution deliberately violated the law to cause a mistrial because they believed they were losing.  That would be the equivalent of arguing that James Harden should have been called for traveling in Monday's 122-76 blowout, and therefore, the Spurs were the actual winners of the game.

If Ogg is going to dismiss a case every time a prosecutor is found to have done something wrong in a reversal, she's going to be firing a lot of prosecutors and dismissing a lot of cases over the next four years.  I don't foresee that really happening, because Ogg is smart enough to know that cases sometimes get reversed as part of the evolution of case law.

But I do predict that Ogg is going to be regurgitating her statement on Yetman in the near future.  She wasn't talking about his case so much as she was providing foreshadowing of what she is about to do on Temple.

Why the Appearance of Impropriety Matters

Back in 2009, when I was first starting my career as a defense attorney after nine years as a prosecutor, one of the first courts I received an appointment in was the 338th District Court.  At the time the chief prosecutor in the 338th was Craig Still (who now works at the Public Defenders Office).  After I had read over the new case that I had just been appointed on, I went to discuss it with Craig.

When I started to hand him the case for him to review, he stopped me and politely pointed out that he was going to let his Two handle the case and he would not be involved.  He wasn't being rude.
The reason he didn't want to involve himself in any case I was handling was because Craig was (and is) one of my best friends.

Not that Craig would have ever done anything inappropriate regarding a case based on our friendship.  Nobody who knows him or his reputation in the courthouse would have ever accused him of such a thing.  However, Craig was savvy enough to realize that there was no need to create even an appearance of impropriety.

And that was just on a crack pipe case.

I've thought about that moment in the 338th many times over the past few months as I've watched Kim Ogg steadfastly refuse to remove herself and the Harris County District Attorney's Office from the handling of the David Temple Murder case.  Maybe Ogg's motives are pure.  Maybe they aren't.  Whatever her reasoning is, our new District Attorney certainly has not helped herself in avoiding an obvious appearance of impropriety.

The purpose of this particular post isn't to address whether or not David Temple is guilty of murder.  Volumes have been written about the facts of the case itself.  I would suggest reading Kathryn Casey's Shattered if you want to familiarize yourself with the details, or some of Craig Malisow's articles about the case in the Houston Press.  I will freely admit that there are many who are much more knowledgeable about the details of the murder than I am.

Additionally, the purpose of this post isn't to address what Kelly Siegler did or didn't do during the trial that resulted in Temple's murder conviction in 2007.  The Court of Criminal Appeals has ruled that Temple deserved a new trial and no matter what happens from here on out, Kelly Siegler won't have any involvement in the case.  For all intents and purposes, the case is at Square One from a legal standpoint.  Although advocates for David Temple like to drop Kelly's name in hopes of inciting some level of outrage on David's behalf, the reality is that she is no longer relevant to the future of the case.

The ball is completely in Kim Ogg's court.  Unfortunately, she seems to be making every effort to demonstrate that the one person in Harris County who shouldn't be handling the case is Kim Ogg.

As Kim Ogg took office on January 1st, the Temple case was a very hot topic.  The Court of Criminal Appeals had just reversed the case in late November and Ogg had already raised eyebrows with her earlier announcement that Temple Defense Team members, John Denholm and Steve Clappart, would be joining her administration.  That's the two of them here with Casie Gotro and Stan Schneider, receiving an award for their work on Temple's defense team from the Harris County Criminal Lawyer's Association.

On January 1st, Ogg gave her inauguration speech, where she added fuel to the impropriety fire by thanking Temple's trial counsel, Dick DeGuerin, for the influence he had been in her own legal career.  DeGuerin had been calling for Temple's case to be dismissed from the moment he learned it had been reversed.

Ogg was also not done any favors with Temple attorney Stanley Schneider talking to the press and explaining how Ogg would be proceeding with the case.  Schneider expressing how "comfortable" he was with whatever her decision would be sounded as if he already had a strong indication of what that decision would be.

Additionally, Ogg issued an edict about a month ago that the Office would recuse itself from all first degree felony cases previously defended by anyone in her upper echelon (which would presumably include John Denholm).  Oddly, the Temple case was mysteriously left out of that recusal.  Ogg had initially told the Houston Chronicle that she would have a team looking at the case, but later retracted that statement, saying she and only she would review the case.  That's a pretty daunting task considering she would presumably be reading an enormous offense report, a full trial transcript, listen to multiple witness statements, not to mention re-interview those witnesses, read a writ hearing transcript and review all the corresponding documents associated with the case.  And further, it would be expected that she would also talk to the detectives involved in the case and (gasp!) probably even the original prosecutors.

The most blatant appearance of impropriety came last week when it was revealed that DeGuerin was headlining a fundraiser for Ogg on the eve of Temple's next court date -- a date when Ogg was scheduled to announce her decision about retrial.  In addition to DeGuerin, former Temple attorney Paul Looney was also on the host committee.  This was so egregious that even Brian Rogers was forced to write a mildly negative article about Ogg in the Chronicle.  Of course, in typical Brian Rogers style, he buried the mention of the controversial fundraiser somewhere around the tenth paragraph of his article.

The encouraging news in Brian's article was that Ogg was still open to the idea of recusing the Office from the case.  She should.  I've heard from former prosecutors, judges, defense attorneys, and prosecutors and judges in other counties, who are astounded that she hasn't done so.  I've even heard from members of Ogg's own upper Admin who have expressed their belief that the Office should recuse itself.  And by the way, I'm talking about upper Admin that she brought in with her on January 1st.

I'm hopeful that Ogg is finally starting to realize what message she is sending to the public about her definition of Justice:

It is a message that there will be no checks and balances when it comes to what Kim Ogg wants to do with her administration.

It is a message that Kim Ogg has no interest in the advice of the legal community around her.

It is a message that the her concerns for the family members of victims of violent crimes are not very high on her priority list.

It is a message that the wealthy client who can afford a lawyer like Dick DeGuerin can get special treatment.

It is a message that the right connections can make even a murder case go away.

Some defense attorneys are rallying behind the idea of Ogg biting the bullet and just dismissing the case, because, you know, "Kelly Siegler."  Others are pointing out that the Disciplinary Rules which govern attorneys in the State of Texas do not require Ogg to recuse herself.  Many have correctly pointed out that donations from criminal defense attorneys are commonplace for judges and elected District Attorneys.

But the David Temple Murder case isn't just any case.  And Dick DeGuerin isn't just any defense attorney.

I started this blog post a couple of days ago, but I didn't have time to sit down and finish it until tonight, 6:45 p.m. on Thursday, March 2, 2017.  As I wrap up this post, the family of Belinda and Erin Temple sit at home, wondering whether or not the man who was once convicted of murdering their loved one will even face trial again.

And the District Attorney who will make that decision is at a party in her honor, hosted by that same man's defense attorney.

Is there really any question as to what kind of message that sends?

Not "If" but "When:" A Lesson in Impropriety

As the Harris County District Attorney's Office begins to settle in under the new Administration of Kim Ogg, the biggest question still left open is how Ogg will dispose of the murder case against David Temple.  Temple was granted a new trial in November of last year, following his 2007 conviction for the murder of his pregnant wife, Belinda.

Since Ogg has taken office, I have written several posts arguing that the Ogg Administration should recuse Harris County from further involvement in the case due to multiple conflicts of interests.   One of the more notable conflicts that Ogg has is that she hired a former member of Temple's defense team, John Denholm, as part of her upper Administration.  In addition to Denholm, she also hired former private investigator, Steve Clappart, as her Chief Investigator and he also did defense work on Temple's case.

This picture shows the two of them at a press conference with the rest of Temple's defense team. For those of you who might not know Denholm and Clappart, they are the two on the far right in the picture below.

However, despite my arguments (as well as Mark Bennett's and Kathryn Casey's) to the contrary, Ogg has steadfastly refused to recuse the Office from the case.

The refusal to recuse defies logic.

Several weeks ago, Ogg recused the Office from all other first degree felonies handled by anyone in her Administration.  The last I looked, Murder was still a first degree felony and John Denholm was still in her upper Administration.   Surely, if the case is as weak as Ogg's mentor Dick DeGuerin claims it is, any other prosecutorial agency would have no problem arriving at a just conclusion, right?

So why, exactly, is D.A. Ogg so damn attached to the Temple case?  Why on earth does she not simply ask another prosecutorial agency (or an attorney pro tem) to handle the investigation?  Why is she so unconcerned about the massive appearance of impropriety that she is creating for herself by not letting go of the case?

The seemingly obvious answer to the skeptics amongst us is that D.A. Kim Ogg promised DeGuerin and the rest of Team Temple that she would make the Temple case go away.  The only way she can guarantee the case's demise is if she maintains solitary control over it.  Farming it out to any other agency or pro tem prosecutor would jeopardize that.

Those skeptics amongst us also believe that all of this "review" by Kim Ogg is nothing more than her attempt to wait an appropriate amount of time before dismissing the case and then subsequently claiming that she spent that time reading transcripts, offense reports, lab reports, and talking to witnesses.

For those skeptics amongst us, the question isn't if Kim Ogg dismisses the Temple case.  It is simply a matter of when.

There are some new indicators that the answer to when Ogg dismisses the Temple case is "Very soon."

The law firm of Musick and Musick shrunk significantly on January 1st, when attorneys JoAnne Musick and John Denholm, as well as private investigator Steve Clappart, left the firm to join the D.A.'s Office.  Former police officer and former Assistant District Attorney Earl Musick seems to be the only member of the firm still practicing defense.

In Earl's spare time, he does a little writing for the City of Houston Police Officer's Union website, and it looks like an article that Earl wrote in advance for their March newsletter has already hit the internet.

In the article, Earl extolls the virtues of his former associate, John Denholm, and investigator, Steve Clappart, while pointing out how clearly innocent David Temple must be.  He regurgitates the information from Clappart and Denholm's ridiculous warrant and levels capital murder accusations at a then-teenage boy.

Obviously, Earl is free to write whatever he wants about the case, but the timing of the article sure does seem to coincide with Temple's next court date on March 3rd.  At that court date, the Ogg Administration is going to have to make some kind of announcement about what they are going to do with the case.  Given Earl's close ties to Ogg's upper Administration, a logical mind does have to wonder if he is privy to something that the rest of us only assume to be true.  Given the target audience for Earl's article (former and active Houston Police Officers), he sure does seem to be explaining why dismissing the case will be a great idea.  Generally, police officers don't like to hear about murder cases getting dismissed.

I can't help but wonder if the article got released a little prematurely.

Perhaps Earl's article doesn't really bug the reader as much as it bugs me.  Well, then, how about this little item that a friend sent to me today?

Temple's trial attorney, Dick DeGuerin, is co-hosting a very high dollar fundraising reception for the sole person in charge of his most high profile case ever, the night before that same client has court?  Oh, and by the way, before DeGuerin was Temple's lawyer, Temple was represented by co-host Paul C. Looney.

Seriously?  I mean, if we are going to be this shamelessly blatant, why don't we just put David Temple himself on the host committee?

Although Kim Ogg doesn't seem to be too concerned about the appearance of impropriety, surely the people in her Administration are.  Is there really someone on her support staff advising Ogg that keeping that case is proper?   

I've tried to remain supportive of the Ogg Administration.  I like many of her hires.  I like a great many of her policies.  But if she dismisses the case against David Temple without letting another single soul look at it, all of her progressive moves will be overshadowed by what, by all appearances, is a shamelessly dirty decision.

It would be one that her reputation would never recover from.

Kathryn Casey's Letter to Kim Ogg

In case you missed it, on Friday, the Houston Chronicle ran an open letter from True Crime writer, Kathryn Casey, to Harris County District Attorney, Kim Ogg.  Casey, author of the book Shattered which profiled the Temple Case, reached out expressing her concerns with the D.A.'s Office refusal to recuse itself from the case.

The article is worth a read for a couple of reasons.  First, it contains the entirety of Casey's letter, in which she logically rebuts the allusions that Team Temple has been making about having "proof" that the time frame involved with the case exonerates Temple.  Second, it clearly articulates why there is such a tremendous appearance of impropriety if Ogg doesn't recuse the Office.

Casey, who attended the trial, has a much better grasp of the details of the case than I do and she also can't be accused of having any personal stake in the outcome.  She is writing based on logic.

Unfortunately, it doesn't appear that Ogg is listening to anyone other than Team Temple when it comes to how to handle the case.

Kim Ogg and the David Temple Decision

David Temple returns to court tomorrow morning (January 4th) in the 178th District Court to check on the status of charges against him for murdering his 8-month pregnant wife, Belinda, in 1999.

The courtroom will doubtlessly be packed with media looking for their first glimpse of who will be handling the case on behalf of the Harris County District Attorney's Office under the brand new Kim Ogg Administration.  They will also be looking to see if the tone of tomorrow's setting gives any clue to what the Ogg Administration plans to do with the case.

In the wake of the original Findings of Fact handed down by visiting Judge Larry Gist, Temple's attorneys, Casie Gotro and Stanley Schneider, immediately began lobbying then-District Attorney Devon Anderson to recuse the Harris County D.A.'s Office from handling the case.  Things have changed substantially since Gotro and Schneider made that request.  The incoming Ogg Administration elected not to renew the employment contracts of every single prosecutor who handled anything involving the David Temple case -- with the exception of prosecutor Andrew Smith.

As almost all of the prosecutors who worked on David Temple's case were swept out of the Office, the Ogg Administration simultaneously ushered in three key figures who were central to Temple's defense:  Jim Leitner, Steve Clappart, and John Denholm.  In doing so, the Ogg Administration seemed to be very open to the idea of not retrying David Temple for shooting his pregnant wife in the head with a shotgun, killing her and their unborn child.

However, the fact that the Ogg Administration brought John Denholm on board is the exact reason why now the Harris County District Attorney's Office should recuse itself from the David Temple case and let another prosecutorial agency handle it.  The reasoning is quite simple: although Leitner and Clappart had involvement in the Temple defense, they weren't acting as agents of Temple's defense team -- at least, not on paper.  Although Clappart certainly didn't mind standing next to his friend Denholm at the Temple Defense Team press conference, he was technically acting as an investigator for the D.A.'s Office under the Lykos Administration.

Denholm, however, is a different matter.  Denholm actually acted as an agent for Dick DeGuerin in defense of David Temple.  How do we know that?  Because Steve Clappart was nice enough to include that information in his highly questionable Capital Murder warrant for Cody Ray Ellis.  

Hell, Denholm is such a member of Team Temple that he filed a grievance with the State Bar against me for blogging about the case.  The grievance was rejected.

Since Denholm was a party to the Temple Defense Team, his new employer, the Harris County District Attorney's Office, should be recused from handling any further matters regarding the Temple prosecution.  There is a per se conflict of interest.  By way of example, when Jim Leitner left his defense practice in 2009 to join the Lykos Administration, the Office voluntarily recused itself from the cases he had handled due to that same type of conflict of interest.

In this instance, however, don't look for Schneider, Gotro or DeGuerin to be pressing for the Office to recuse itself under Kim Ogg.  They couldn't be more pleased to have her in the driver's seat.  What could be more favorable to Team Temple than hiring three people into the upper Administration who were on record as believing Temple was wrongfully accused?  Even more encouraging, Ogg even gave a shout out to DeGuerin in her inauguration speech.  

So far, Kim Ogg has expressed much more interest in prosecuting former prosecutors who angered her than prosecuting a man charged with murdering his pregnant wife.   

I anticipate that Team Temple will argue with all its might that there is nothing wrong with the D.A.'s Office continuing on with the Temple case.  They will do everything they can to invoke the image of Kelly Siegler and an unfair trial as they lobby for a dismissal.  Unfortunately for Temple, a reversal is not the same thing as a dismissal.  Cases get reversed and sent back for retrial on a fairly routine basis.  They don't simply go away because an appellate court reversed them.

The irony is that now David Temple must proceed without the specter of Kelly Siegler.  She is no longer a factor in the Temple Trial.  The case was reversed in a narrowly split decision, and now Team Temple has to argue the case itself on its own merits.  Their efforts to paint Kelly as the true villain in the case are no longer relevant.  

Nowhere in their decision (or the Gist Findings of Fact) did the Court of Criminal Appeals indicate that Temple was wrongfully convicted.   Nowhere in that decision (or the Gist Findings) did anyone indicate that the ludicrous Capital Murder warrant that Clappart and Denholm wrote was credible.  Nowhere in that decision did it say anything other than David Temple was entitled to a new trial.

The State of Texas vs. David Temple is back to Square One.   

No Kelly Siegler.  Just the facts.  

All the evidence is still there and part of the record -- even those witnesses that DeGuerin would later regret calling to the stand on behalf of the defense (including David Temple, himself).  All of that is available to the prosecution for retrial.  The first time the jury heard that evidence, they had no issue in quickly convicting Temple and sentencing him to Life in Prison.  The chance that another jury would do the exact same thing is substantial -- with or without Kelly Siegler.

There is a reason that Team Temple is begging that the case just be dismissed.  What's a free murder amongst friends?  

Dismissing the case against David Temple would be an absolute dereliction of duty on the part of the new Administration.  Jim Leitner, Steve Clappart and John Denholm's roles in the upper hierarchy would scream of impropriety.  It would send a message of Justice truly being for sale.  

All of this could be avoided by simply recusing the D.A.'s Office and asking the Attorney General's Office to handle the case instead.

The Ogg Administration should recuse itself from the David Temple case, not out of a duty to David Temple, but out of a duty to the citizens of Harris County.  The history of her Administration began being written on January 1st, and how she responds to this case will cast a long shadow.  As she stated in her inauguration speech, she owes many people many things for her success.

But she owes the citizens so much more. 

And that includes Belinda and Erin Temple.

Finding 37 and the David Temple Rebuttal

Yesterday afternoon, the Harris County District Attorney's Office filed a response to Judge Larry Gist's Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law on the David Temple case.  The document, entitled Respondent's/State's Objections to the Habeas Court's Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, is 80 pages long.

The lengthy response painstakingly addresses each and every one of Gist's findings and rebuts his findings that prosecutor Kelly Siegler withheld exculpatory Brady information during Temple's 2007 trial.  Unlike Gist's findings from the Habeas hearing, the response actually cites the record (both from the original trial and the hearing) in dismantling the findings.

Additionally, the response brings to light a disturbing irregularity that casts even more doubt on Gist's findings -- more on that in a moment.

As those following the Temple case know, Judge Gist's findings listed 36 findings (remember that number, it will become important shortly) in recommending relief for David Temple.  Some of those findings dealt with allegations of Brady violations and the Response addresses them all.

Here are some of the highlights.  I highly encourage anyone interested in the case to read the Response for themselves.

Finding # 9-  that Kelly Siegler never turned over an FBI report to Dick DeGuerin during the trial.
   Apparently, the animosity between DeGuerin and Siegler was so intense that Dick taped all phone calls between him and Kelly and then had transcripts made.  That would prove to be his undoing when (despite his claims) one of these transcripts had Siegler informing DeGuerin (two years prior to the Temple trial) of the report and telling him he could review it whenever he liked.
   This was all produced during the habeas hearing and why Judge Gist would make this finding inexplicably contradicts the record. [p. 4-5]

Finding # 31 - that Kelly Siegler failed to turn over a Harris County bulletin that stated that the murder of Belinda Temple occurred between 4:15 p.m. to 5:30 p.m.
   The transcripts of the trial are very clear that the exact time of Belinda Temple's murder was never firmly established and that the time estimate on said bulletin was just a preliminary guess. [p. 8-10]

Findings # 3 & 10 - that Kelly Siegler withheld the statements of alternative suspect Riley Joe Sanders.
   This particular response is long and detailed.  Again, I would encourage the reader to look at the response itself.  The bottom line is that the record is very clear that DeGuerin was made aware of Riley Joe Sanders and the Defense team tried very hard to portray him as the true murderer of Belinda Temple.   DeGuerin acknowledged that he was aware of Sanders two years prior to the trial.
   Sanders gave five oral statements and two written statements.  On pages 11 & 12, the response has a chart, illustrating the discrepancies (if any) between the seven statements.  The response acknowledges that the Defense was not made aware of the contents of two of those statements, but notes that there was nothing exculpatory in them, nor anything inconsistent with the other five statements.

Findings # 8 &17 - that Kelly Siegler failed to turn over the written statements of several witnesses related to the alternate suspect, Riley Joe Sanders.
  This particular portion of the findings argues that none of these statements were exculpatory -- to the contrary, they actually corroborated the written statements of Riley Joe Sanders.  [p. 24]

Finding # 21 - that Kelly Siegler misrepresented the name of [witness] Carlos Corro as "Carlos Gutierrez."
  This is perhaps one of the most amusingly erroneous findings by Judge Gist.  As noted on p. 40-41, it was actually Dick DeGuerin who bungled the name here.  During a hearing outside the presence of the jury, he was the one who began referring to Corro as Gutierrez.

NOTE:  At this point, one starts to wonder whether or not Gist was paying attention to the evidence being presented to him.

Finding # 27 -  that Kelly Siegler did not reveal that the Temple family dog, Shaka, had access to the garage of the home from the back yard.
  This is my favorite finding.  This finding basically says that Siegler withheld the layout of David Temple's garage from David Temple.   There's more to it than that, obviously, but it is a silly assertion.  Yet again, I encourage you to read the findings for yourself.

Findings # 1, 4, 6, 11, 12 & 13 -- that Kelly Siegler failed to properly disclose information regarding numerous shotguns that could have potentially been used as the murder weapon.
  This is a very key point in the Repsonse [p. 48] as it deals with multiple weapons that could potentially be linked to Riley Joe Sanders and any other "alternate suspect."  In pages 50 - 54, each firearm is addressed, along with a citation that illustrates that defense counsel was made aware of each weapon either before or during the trial.

As I said earlier, this is not a comprehensive list by any means, but it does show some of the highlights and citations.  A more thorough reading of the response will show more examples of Judge Gist making strange findings in light of the evidence.  Why Judge Gist would make these findings is hard to understand.  However, an event that occurred after the close of evidence and after Judge Gist released his findings may shed some light on the topic.

Beginning on page 69 of the Repsonse:

"On August 20, 2015, habeas counsel Stan Schneider and Casey Gotrow [sic] sent an email to Judge Gist -- the habeas court for the purpose of the writ proceedings -- and asked him to consider entering amended findings and conclusions of law.

"On August 21, 2015, the habeas court replied to the email stating, 'I will review the submittal and advise all parties whether or not I will grant the defendant's request over the State's objection.  However, I will not add additional fact findings.

"On September 2, 2015, the habeas court filed amended Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and the habeas court's cover letter stated, 'This is identical to the original filed in the Court with the addition of citations to the record regarding each finding.'

"However, a review of the amended Findings of Fact show the addition of a new finding - no. 37.   On September 4, 2015, the State emailed both habeas counsel and the habeas court asking about the addition of finding no. 37 in light of habeas court's statement that the court would not add additional findings and that the habeas court was filing amended findings that were identical to those formerly filed -- findings that were numbered 1 through 36 and did not include finding no. 37.

"On September 8, 2015, the habeas court sent a letter to the Court of Criminal Appeals stating that the habeas court, i.e. Judge Gist, 'never made finding No. 37 and do not make such a finding now.'  The habeas court further requested that the Court of Criminal Appeals 'please delete finding No. 37 from the document recently sent to you.'"

So, what does that mean exactly?

It means that Stan Schneider and Casie Gotro told Judge Gist that they would like an additional finding put in his Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law.  Judge Gist told them "no."  Yet, somehow, an additional finding was added anyway.  When brought to Gist's attention, he stated that he didn't author that finding and he demanded it be removed.

So who authored it?  Well, that would obviously be Team Temple -- Schneider and Gotro.  Despite Judge Gist saying he would entertain no additional findings, they wrote it anyway and submitted it on his behalf, apparently.

That's a pretty damn brazen move to make.

More importantly, it calls into question how much attention was Judge Gist paying to the testimony he was hearing during the habeas hearing.  His first set of findings had no citations to the record.  Most (if not all) of his findings are directly contradicted by the record of the trial and/or the habeas hearing.  Clearly, he paid no attention to the citations provided by Schneider and Gotro in the amended findings, or he surely would have noticed that they had added the unauthorized Finding #37.

The mere fact that an additional finding was surreptitiously added without Judge Gist's knowledge calls into question the integrity of the entire hearing.

Of course, that only matters if you are interested in things like . . . the truth.

In typical fashion, Brian Rogers wrote a piece for the Chronicle which glossed over the D.A.'s Office's responses, linked to previous articles which blasted Kelly Siegler, and quoted Temple attorney, Casie Gotro, extensively.  Rogers made no effort to contact Siegler for a comment and apparently avoided asking Gotro any hard hitting questions such as "Did you actually add a judicial finding and slide it past the judge?"

Finding # 37 is not mentioned once in his article.

Gotro and Schneider have spent the past several months questioning Kelly Siegler's integrity and accusing her of not playing fair during the Temple trial.  The Chronicle has been more than happy to oblige them and post every last allegation.  They have gleefully called Siegler a cheater while touting John Denholm and Steve Clappart as heroes for attempting to arrest two innocent kids for capital murder.

As it turns out, it doesn't look like Kelly Siegler was the one breaking the rules.

Clappart's Warrant: Judge for Yourself

While much has been said, about Steve Clappart's warrant for the arrest of Cody Ray Ellis as an alternate suspect in the murder of Belinda Temple, it appears that David Temple's defense team has been reluctant to publish the warrant itself.  Additionally, many of the local media outlets, specifically the Houston Chronicle have decided not to delve into the details of it.

Let's take it page by page --

So, to be clear, in this document, Steve Clappart is attempting to have Capital Murder charges filed against Cody Ray Ellis.  For those of you outside of the legal field, Capital Murder can be punished only by Life in Prison or the Death Penalty.  By signing off on this warrant, Clappart is verifying that he is completely comfortable with this.

Clappart then goes on to explain how experienced he is as a police officer.  He also goes on and on about how experienced John Denholm was as a police officer.  This isn't necessarily abnormal, but it is pretty excessive for a standard warrant.  Clappart is basically just illustrating that he is writing the warrant at Denholm's behest, but it should make no difference, because they are both just amazingly experienced.

Clappart then goes on to state that Denholm got all of his information after being contacted by David Temple's lawyer, Dick DeGuerin.  This was what I criticized Lisa Falkenberg for being so ambiguous about in her article praising Clappart and Denholm.

On to Page Two . . .

Okay, so let's start with the fact that when John Denholm brings this case to Steve Clappart, all the research that he has done into this new "star witness" Daniel Glasscock is watch a video deposition of Glasscock that is conducted by David Temple's attorney, Dick DeGuerin.  As noted, based on solely having watched the video where Glasscock is questioned by a defense attorney, John Denholm has decided that the testimony is credible and David Temple is wrongfully convicted.

Um, okay.  

So, Clappart decided to watch the video deposition, too.  He also decides it is credible, and puts the details into the Probable Cause statement.

Let's breakdown what comes out of that deposition, shall we?  Basically, Glasscock is saying that he went over to Riley Joe Sanders house with a guy named Carlos Corro.  Corro tells them "things were fucked up in a robbery."  While at Sanders house, Glasscock joins a conversation between Corro, Sanders and Cody Ray Ellis, where he hears Sanders tell Corro "that the dog attacked him when he went up the stairs, he shot the dog, heard Belinda [Temple], put the dog in the closet and they panicked and ran."

Let's assume that Glasscock was telling the truth (which is a big assumption to make) and that he actually heard these words uttered by Sanders.  These words are still a far cry away from being a confession to Capital Murder.  This is an admission to shooting a dog, and then fleeing when they hear a person [alleged to have been Belinda Temple].  

Let's also look at the plausibility of this conversation taking place.  Glasscock states that he just wandered out of the bathroom as the three boys were standing around talking about committing a home burglary/animal abuse/capital murder.  Rather than stop the conversation, they keep on talking about it as if they were talking about an Astros game?  At some point, they throw in the name of Belinda Temple, presumably so Glasscock won't feel left out of the conversation?

Clappart notes that Belinda Temple's dog was not in her house at the time of her murder, rather it was closed in the garage.  Many investigators would have found this fact as evidence that Glasscock was not a reliable witness.  Inexplicably, the dynamic duo of Clappart and Denholm find that it somehow strengthens his credibility.

Page Three . . .

Although it isn't clear whether or not law enforcement or Dick DeGuerin had Daniel Glasscock polygraph tested, Clappart notes that Glasscock has shown No Deception to "all pertinent questions asked."  He doesn't list what those "pertinent" questions were, but okay.  He is clearly doing everything he can to portray how amazingly credible Glasscock is.

At this point, Clappart starts looking into the background of Corro, Ellis and Sanders and notes that Corro and Ellis (along with a third party) had been arrested two months after Belinda Temple's murder for criminal mischief.  He notes that Corro had been driving a white car during the criminal mischief and then points out that a witness had seen two white males "in an off-white or creme or light beige colored vehicle speed away from the area of the murder around 4:30 p.m. on the date of the murder."

So, I guess there are so few white cars in the world that this is somehow incriminating?  Not to mention, the witness seems clear that it wasn't a white car, but an "off-white or creme or light beige" vehicle.  To Clappart, this appears to be immensely damning.

Clappart also notes that Corro and Ellis had committed a burglary along with Casey Goosby, eight days before the murder.  He notes that the target of this burglary was Goosby's mother's boyfriend and was done in retaliation for him cheating on her.  He also notes that shotguns and jewelry had been taken in the burglary.  

I can actually see where Clappart could find this significant.  Burglaries in the area are certainly relevant.  Burglaries are also frequent, and the typical things taken in burglaries are guns, jewelry, electronics and cash.  Clappart then points out that Sanders (who was NOT part of the Goosby burglary) had a grudge against Belinda Temple.  

This seems to be a case of two plus two equalling five, in my opinion.  So, one of the Clappart/ Denholm suspects committed a burglary shortly before the Temple murder and a different one of them had a grudge against Belinda Temple.  If we combine the two, does that point to Capital Murder?

On to Page Four . . .

 Clappart then moves in a strange direction with the warrant, by interviewing Riley Joe Sanders' ex-girlfriend, Niki Biondi Lundes.  Clappart finds some level of significance in the fact that in 1999, Lundes was reluctant to admit that Sanders was her boyfriend.  I'm not sure what that has to do with anything.  Lundes tells him that Ellis, Corro, and Sanders were associates and that they had committed crimes together before.  I don't know that this was really in question.  More significantly, Lundes tells Clappart that Belinda Temple had been a tutor to Sanders on difficult subjects, and that Sanders called her the night of the murder, crying because he had heard Belinda Temple was dead.

Clappart then returns to shoring up his "star witness", Daniel Glasscock.  He interviews Glasscock's father, who states that Daniel had told him about the information he had overheard Corro, Ellis and Sanders talking about.  Mr. Glasscock said that his son had been threatened about not talking, but he encouraged his son to talk to the police, anyway.  Mr. Glasscock said that Daniel ultimately talked to his minister, Jeff Adams, who had also told Daniel to tell the police.

I'm not really sure of the significance of this either?  So, Mr. Glasscock can offer some hearsay evidence about something his son told him he heard?  Maybe Clappart is going for some bolstering here, but I don't understand why it is in the warrant. 

Page 5 (we're almost done here) . . .

Clappart states that he personally interviewed Glasscock on July 16, 2012, and points out that (just in case anyone forgot), he, Clappart has been a police investigator for 44 years.  He points out his experience before deeming Glasscock to be "very credible."   I've read hundred of warrants in my career, but I've never seen this level of Credibility Gymnastics ever put into a warrant.  The reason Clappart is working so hard to make Glasscock seem credible is pretty apparent once Glasscock starts talking.

Glasscock tells Clappart of his own life of crime, but how now he is reformed and teaches gymnastics for children.  He confirms the information from the deposition he gave to Dick DeGuerin.  He recalls coming out of the bathroom at Sanders' house and finding Corro, Sanders and Ellis smoking on the back patio, talking about "shit was fucked up."  Glasscock tells Clappart "'they had broke in the next door neighbor's house' and later in the interview said that Sanders was very panicky and told Corro that they had shot the dog and put it in the closet."

Here's where things get even more ridiculous.

"Your affiant said that Daniel Glasscock then told your affiant that 5 or 6 months ago, Glasscock had learned that the dog had not died and that it was Belinda Temple's body that was found in the closet . . ."

Wait, what?

Clappart is interviewing Glasscock in July of 2012.  The murder happened in 1999.  Glasscock stated that he just learned of the murder in January of 2012?

Hang on, Glasscock has an explanation:

"Glasscock told your affiant that one night in May 2012 he could not sleep and woke up and turned on the television and was flipping through the channels when he saw a television program on the Temple murder and then recalled what he knew and what he had heard and began to think about what it would be like if Glasscock's father was in prison for a crime that he did not commit."

Well, I guess if you put it that way, it makes perfect sense, right?

Finally, Page 6 . . .

So, to summarize, Glasscock, an ex-criminal (per the warrant) didn't know about the murder for twelve years, sees a TV show, remembers an obscure conversation from twelve years earlier, and contacts a convicted murderer's lawyer with some new information about shooting a dog.

Yep, that's what Capital Murder warrants are made of, according to John Denholm and Steve Clappart.

Upon reading the entirety of the warrant, it should become obvious why Temple's team didn't want it published.  It should also become obvious why no judge in the courthouse would sign it.  

It should also be noted that no prosecutor in the District Attorney's Office, other than Jim Leitner thought it was should be signed.

But, then again, Leitner was having the Office recuse itself in favor of Brad Beers -- who had been Steve Clappart's attorney.  That makes it more fair, right?

If you're a prosecutor reading this, would you have taken Capital Murder charges based on that information?

If you're a judge, would you have signed the warrant?

And if you're a defense attorney, what would your reaction be if your client got arrested on a warrant like that?