Endorsements

As early voting is only a week away, I realized that some of my readers (if not the entire world) was probably waiting breathlessly for my endorsements in the criminal courthouse races.

This will be a shock to most of you loyal readers, but I strongly recommend Kelly Siegler for D.A. I think a lot of Jim Leitner, but frankly, I think he does the community more of a service as a defense attorney, zealously and skillfully advocating for those accused of crimes. Kelly has taken a lot of lumps in the six weeks that she's been a candidate here. She knows the problems the Office has gone through. She knows what needs to be changed, and she will change it. I think that those people both prosecution and defense who know her personally know that she is the best candidate for the job. Even if the Chronicle is afraid that she'll be just too damn good at the job.

Now, once you've picked yourselves up off the floor after that shocker, let me move on.

In the 174th Judicial Race between John Jocher, Bill Moore, Kevin Keating, Terrance Windham . . . I'm not picking.
These four guys have got so much honor and class amongst them that I wouldn't dare insult three of them by saying that one was better. This primary between the four candidates is what all political races should be. They are all extremely qualified and any one of them would make this community proud. I wish they had "fanned out" a little bit into some other races, rather than running against each other. This is truly a case of "may the best man win". Good luck to all of you.
(NOTE: I do find it wildly amusing that the Chronicle will have no choice but to recommend an Assistant D.A. in this primary race. I'm sure that the editorial staff is beside themselves.)

In the 176th Judical Race, there is no issue in picking who I recommend.

The race is between Michele Saterelli Oncken and incumbent Brian Rains.

Judge Rains has been on the bench ever since I've been a lawyer. And ever since I've been a lawyer he has had the reputation of being one of the rudest and most unkind judges on the bench since . . . well, Pat Lykos.

He claims that Michele Oncken is running against him "because I made her husband mad."

If only it was that simple, Judge Rains. The fact is that you've upset everybody.

The rudeness from this bench has gone well beyond the boundaries of being a "tough judge", and into the range of just absurd vindictiveness. The fact that a person is a jerk to both sides of the bar doesn't make that person any less of a jerk.

Throughout the years, Rains has steadfastly refused to put people on probation. When probations were agreed to, he would passive-aggressively agree to the probation, but throw in 180 days in the Harris County Jail as a condition (thus nullifying the point of giving probation). He has sworn he considers the full range of punishment on any PSI hearing, but all attorneys know that it just isn't true.

Rains' refusal to consider the full range of punishment has led to more recusal hearings than any other judge that I'm personally aware of. One hearing even had the unlikely alliance of the District Attorney's Office and Dick DeGuerin.

His questionable bond decisions have led to at least two tragic murders committed by people out on bond in his court. His impatience with the pace of a trial has led to at least one capital murder conviction being reversed.

Michele Oncken was the Chief in his court for a year or two. Normally, the Chief/Judge relationship is one of some sort of fondness (or at least mutual respect). The fact that she is running against a Judge where she was previously a chief says a lot, in and of itself. She's been a Chief prosecutor for at least five years now, including stints in Capital Writs, District Court, and now in Juvenile. She certainly has the background for the job.

Sorry, Judge Rains, but its definitely time for you to go. Nobody deserves to be treated the way that you treat people.

Copy That

Ron in Houston asked me this morning (as he did Mark Bennett) my opinion of Lisa Falkenberg's article today about Kelly Siegler and her idea about the copying program. That's a two part question. Mark Bennett made fun of me a couple of weeks ago for using "faint praise", so I guess my thoughts on Falkenberg's article is something akin to that.

At this point, I guess that I'm just surprised that the Chronicle isn't posting a daily column entitled "Guess What Those Sh*theads Did Now!" about the D.A.'s office. So, in the big scheme of things, I think its okay.

The idea that Kelly has come up with about allowing Defense Attorneys to copy offense reports is actually one that is extremely signfigant, even if it has been a long time coming. The amount of time that it will save for both the defense and the prosecution is potentially limitless. Diligent and hard-working members of the defense bar will no longer have to spend hours on end at the D.A.'s office taking notes. Trials won't be delayed as while the defense has to quickly review a copy of the report. Cases will even get to trial faster because such a major portion of the prep work will now be taken care of, literally, at the push of a button.

And for the record, I never really got the whole prohibition against taking down things "word for word", but I've been admonished about not doing that, myself, so I know it's true. That's just silly.

So, my position on the policy? I think it's fantastic.

I think there will need to be some kinks to be ironed out if the policy is put in place, and the Dick DeGuerin quotes illustrates one of those points.

Technically, the offense report is work product, under the Rules. The State isn't required to allow the defense to see it. Where Dick got his nose out-of-joint about this issue was over the Temple trial. Dick and Kelly go together like oil and water. He grieved her. She was upset. She didn't trust him. She closed the file to him.

So my first question that would need to be ironed out is: Will it remain within the prosecutor's discretion if he wants to close a file to a defense attorney (even if that includes not allowing the copying)?

My second question would be: Who is responsible for making sure the defense attorney is up-to-date on having the latest supplements? Right now, all of the courts are running well over 700 cases. If prosecutors are responsible for keeping tabs on the latest supplements and then notifying the defense attorney that they need to get a copy of the latest supplement, the situation will quickly become unmanageable.

I think the answers to these questions are all solved with some thinking, and should in no way diminish the Great Idea that it is. I do think there are going to be some details to iron out.

Any other issues you guys can think of that might pop up, and ways to solve them? I'm sure I'm missing plenty.

It's Day 13, Alan Bernstein

IN THE SPIRIT OF VALENTINE'S DAY:

Tomorrow is a big day for you and me, Alan.

Tomorrow will be the two-week anniversary of the date that I first asked you when you were going to run the Yarmulke story on Pat Lykos.

Still no story. And not a word out of you about where you've been or why you haven't run it!

Have you been blogging with somebody else?!?! Is it Pat Lykos?!?!?

You know, if this relationship is going to work out, we're both going to have to work on it.

I just don't feel like you are giving 100% of yourself.

Sincerely yours,
AHCL

Calling B.S. on KHOU.com

KHOU.com ran a story on it's website today that ran under the title "Is Local DA Courting Trouble?" It's a preview for a story that is going to run on Channel 11 tonight. (NOTE: After the story runs, that link may not show the same thing that it currently shows).

If you read the preamble of the story, it addresses a "local DA's office" that is using asset forfeiture funds to host parties where booze is served.

Nowhere in the story does it indicate which county they are talking about. Given the current climate, I would gather that probably 99.9% of the viewers just assumed it was the Harris County District Attorney's Office.

However, there's a problem with that, because it isn't the Harris County D.A.'s Office. Those of us who have spent time at the CJC recognize that the brief snippets of the D.A.'s Office in focus can clearly recognize that it isn't Harris County.

Shame on Jeremy Rogalski for deliberately promulgating this assumption. Would it have really ruined the surprise of the story to just name the county that they were investigating?

Doesn't Harris County already have enough problems?

Northside Lykos Meltdown

I think I was pretty clear the other day when I said I was having to moderate comments based on some National Enquirer-esque postings, and that I wasn't happy about that. The reason I wasn't happy about it is that it causes problems with my ability to check the comments and clear them for posting. That's especially true if the posting is extremely lengthy.

Also, the Moderation element of the blog sometimes is erratic about letting me know when a new post comes through. I had some problems clearing posts today from JAGJO with a helpful link to the Ethics Website. One of Michael's posts didn't pop up until just now, although the comment indicates it was sent around mid-afternoon.

In addition, I also received a very lengthy post from a poster named "Northside". Northside had posted his/her own version of the Parable that I did last weekend. To say it was lengthy would be an understatement. Frankly, it made War and Peace seem like a light read. It was very pro-Lykos, stating in part:

In the end, the newspaper recommended Pat as the CEO. Her maturity, and lack of ties to the ruling eschelon of the airline meant she could make some profound changes. This recommendation was made in spite of the fact that some airline pilots claimed that any pilot with more than five years experience would quit if Pat became CEO.There is a tremendous amount of support for Pat among the shareholders and the customers, because they think the airline needs a disciplinarian and not a pilot to correct many problems, both actual and perceived.

Well, apparently, I wasn't fast enough on the draw in posting Northside's "Parable".

By the end of the day, I received this posting from the Lykos Devotee:

Life is really going to suck for you when Judge Lykos becomes DA.
Will you quit too, because the fever with which you run this unpaid political ad will no doubt do a blowback.
Thanks for using my parable. A far more realistic parable than the one you used.
Help Help, the sky is falling.

Wow.

Hmm. A short temper and a thirst for revenge against people that displease her.

Looks like Northside picked the right candidate to support!

"Counting Scalps"

In today's political climate, isn't the term "counting scalps" offensive to Native Americans? That's the term that Pat Lykos used in her meeting with the Chronicle's editorial board meeting, but I guess it falls under the a safe-haven of non-offensive language in their eyes. Of course, there's not much that Lykos can do wrong in the Chronicle's eyes.

Don't worry, I'm not doing the politically correct dance here. I just wanted to address what Lykos was attacking when she made the statement:

"We need a change in the leadership there. It shouldn't be about counting scalps [number of convictions]. It has to be about the rule of law and quality of justice."

Damn, the more I read about what Lykos says, the more I see what an empty suit is. What the hell does that sentence mean? Quality of Justice? Rule of Law? Huh?

I guess these are convenient "throw down" terms when you don't know what in the hell you are talking about, right Judge? Are you seriously advocating not enforcing the laws that you would be elected to enforce if this county is foolish enough to listen to the Chronicle?

Here's the bottom line.

If a prosecutor is going to take a case to trial, they better damn well believe that the Defendant they are trying is guilty. And they better believe that because the evidence shows them that. There are too many cases out there to be going to trial on cases where the State doesn't think the guy or gal did what's alleged.

That being said, once a prosecutor believes in their hearts that a Defendant is guilty of something and that the evidence will show that, then there is nothing wrong with the prosecutor doing his or her best within the Rules of Evidence, Criminal Procedure, and Ethics to prove that case to a jury. That even includes dragging a king-size bed into a courtroom, folks.

Call me crazy, but I still believe in the jury system (and I've dealt with some wild ones in my time). If the defense and the community disagrees with the prosecutors point of view, then I still have faith that a jury is going to do the right thing.

My point is, I don't think we should fault prosecutors for trying hard on cases that we disagree with them on. I mean, argue with them all you want over the facts of the case, but calling them, um, "scalp hunters" for believing in their cases and trying hard on them is "hating both the player and the game".

Can prosecutors get over-zealous on their cases? Absolutely. I can remember from my own experience when I was a baby prosecutor who ended up in the Justice of the Peace Division. I was bound and determined to make those no-seatbelt-wearing-bastards pay!! (NOTE: Please read into that statement that I'm making of fun of my own over-zealousness as a baby prosecutor and not as a serious statement about non-seatbelt-wearers).

If prosecutors are making recommendations on cases that are too high, then call them out on it for being too hard-core. But don't fault them for trying a case that the law mandates is a crime.

And certainly don't demean their jobs, their duties, and their integrity by calling them "scalp hunters", Judge Lykos. That's just crappy politicking.

And that's just one of the many reasons that nobody who knows you within the CJC wants you as the elected District Attorney.

That was shocking. Yawn.

After consistently burying the Yarmulke story on Pat Lykos, it should be of little to no surprise that Alan Bernstein and his crew at the Chronicle would endorse the career politician in today's editorial section.

Now, I'm not stupid enough to have thought that Kelly Siegler was ever going to get the endorsement from this wildly liberal editorial board (remember that the Editor is married to ferocious anti-death penalty advocate Katherine Kase), but Lykos over Leitner?!?!?

I just don't get the love affair that Bernstein and Crew are having with Lykos at the moment.

Back in 2000, when Chuck Rosenthal was running against Mike Stafford, Pat Lykos, and Jim Leitner, the Chronicle endorsed Leitner. Fast forward 8 years, and again you have Leitner and Lykos in the same race.

What's happened in the past 8 years, Chronicle that made you change your mind?

I think that Jim has continued trying cases out the wazoo (thus, gaining even more trial experience and knowledge of how things work in the CJC).

Lykos, on the other hand, has been sitting over in Ed Emmett's Office gathering bureaucratic dust. True, she goes and sits as a visiting judge one day of the month in other counties (NOTE: No sitting criminal District or County Court Judge in Harris County will have her sit for them anymore).

But other than that, where did Lykos "make up the ground" that Leitner had on her in 2008? It certainly wasn't through additional experience within the Criminal Justice System.

The only skill that she's polished in the past eight years is political pandering.

I Have a Question.

I'm not being sarcastic. I really do have a question.

I was looking at the campaign contributions that ran as a separate column in this article about Chuck Rosenthal, and I was confused.

Now, I'm not a math enthusiast by any stretch of the imagination, but I added up the information provided about Kelly's finances:

$50,000.00 - loan from Sam Siegler
$34,575.00 - in contributions
- $23,686.00 - in expenses
$60,889.00 - remaining (the Chronicle listed 60,888, but maybe they aren't good at math either).

That all adds up.

But looking at Pat Lykos' stats, I'm confused. Please understand me, I am NOT trying to stir up anything or accuse anybody of anything. I'm just confused and would like for somebody to explain something to me.

$25,000.00 - donation from the Robert Eckels Committee (more on that in a minute).
$49,225.00 - in contributions.
$16,916.00 - in expenses
$57,309.00 remaining.

Now, here's where I'm confused. The Chronicle lists her as having $39,420 remaining.

I mean, I'm bad at math, but am I that bad at math?

So, I went back and thought maybe the $25 grand from the Eckels committee was factored in as part of the contributions. That got me a little bit closer, but now I was under what she had listed as a remainder. I came up with $32,309.00

What am I missing here?

And while I'm on the topic, what does it mean that she received a $25,000 donation from the "Robert Eckels Committee"?

Does that mean she got it from a group of people who wanted to give her money, led by Robert Eckels?

Or does it mean that a group of people donated money to Robert Eckels' campaign, and he turned around and gave it to Lykos?

If it is the former and not the latter, obviously there's nothing wrong with that.

But if it's the latter, what are the rules on that? I'm sure it's legal, but it seems that would rather suck on principle. If I were to work hard and donate my money to Robert Eckels for his campaign and he turned around and gave it to Pat Lykos, I'd be pretty pissed.

Especially if I was somebody who didn't support Lykos.

Surely I'm missing something here.

(NOTE: I'm really being sincere in trying to make it clear that I'm not making any type of allegations here. I literally have no idea how election law works. I would just like to know. If somebody can explain it to me [like Alan Bernstein, for example], I'll print a post explaining it.)

The Nominess Are In

The nominees are in for the Hector Heathcoat Award for Prosecutors. Just like for the Defense Bar poll (has anyone told Skip that he won yet?), we are doing the bracket system.

Voting within the bracket system ends Friday at 8:00 p.m.

A Parable

A pilot named Chuck was 7 hours into a Trans-Atlantic flight, piloting a 747. The ride had been incredibly bumpy with lots of turbulence, and many of the passengers on the 747 had lost faith in Chuck's ability to pilot.

Suddenly, after an extremely rough patch of turbulence, Chuck was incapacited.

Panic-stricken, the flight attendant, Jared, asked if any of the passengers knew how to fly a plane. Three passengers raised their hands (a fourth one named Doug, was in the restroom for the purposes of this story).

The first passenger, Kelly, said "I've been flying planes for 22 years, and I'm considered to be the best pilot in the country." The passengers mumbled about themselves. A reporter in First Class told everyone he had heard that she had referred to the people on Aisle Three as "screwballs and nuts", and also noted that when she went through flight school she had used the word "Jew" as a verb. Someone also pointed out that she must be a close friend of Pilot Chuck.

The second passenger, Jim, said "I've been flying planes for a long time, too, although it's been quite some time since I've flown a 747. I think most people would consider me a good pilot. And to prove what a good pilot I am, I will fly blindfolded for at least 3 hours." The passengers again mumble about themselves, and wonder why on earth a good pilot would think that flying blindfolded for 3 hours would somehow help them.

The third passenger, Pat Lykos, stands up and flashes her smile. "Friends," she says. "I have never flown a plane in my life, but I've watched them take off and land hundreds of times! As a matter of fact, I think that we need to change things! And even though I've never flown a plane, and I have no idea how to do so, I think that all of you have a right to a plane that will land the way you want it to. You don't have to return your seats to the upright position! You don't have to put up your trays! You don't even have to fasten your seatbelts!" The plane erupts with wild applause.

And Pilot Pat Lykos promptly crashes the plane into the ocean.