Today is Day One for the ADAs in the post-Chuck Rosenthal D.A.'s Office. I know that it's been pointed out that under the Texas Constitution that Chuck still holds the title until a replacement is appointed, but I kind of doubt he will walk back onto the 6th floor today and yell "I was kidding!".
So, the focus of the gossip will now shift from "when will he resign" to "who is going to replace him as custodian and when?".
Good question, and I'd be lying if I told you I had even the slightest idea what is going to happen with that.
It's a political world and the Governor is head of Texas politics. He'll pick the successor. I think I would be pretty naive to think that the Governor will remain immune from politics in making his decision.
I'm sure that Ed Emmett will have a say in it, and he's expressed his willingness to give his advice. Gee, think he'd recommend Lykos? He'd probably like her out of his office.
If the Governor is playing above the political fray, he'll refrain from appointing somebody who has a dog in this political hunt. That means not appointing Leitner, Perry, Siegler, Bradford (ha!), or Pat Lykos. Especially not Pat Lykos.
The idea of Lykos coming in at this time sends a chill down the spine of every last ADA who supports someone other than Lykos (which by last count was, uh, all of them). Lykos has a reputation of being mean and vindictive, and those caught campaigning on off-work hours will still face her wrath. What if she decides to fire somebody that the new D.A. wouldn't want fired?
I think the Governor would be more prudent to leave Bert Graham in control of the Office. He has great managerial skills. He's non-controversial. He's devoted his entire life to the Office and has the respect of the people under him. It gives no political boost to any of the candidates.
And more importantly, leaving him there will give the ADAs a sense of stability that has been lacking for the past six weeks in the Office.
Trust me, Mr. Governor Sir, it's the right thing to do. And it's the right thing to do because it isn't political.
Monday, February 18, 2008
Sunday, February 17, 2008
To Defend or Not to Defend?
"How do you live with yourself?" "How do you sleep at night?" "You need to ask God for forgiveness."
It was about four or five years ago when I got all of these questions hurled at me by several people, along with the intimidating "death glares" that they were all giving me.
Now, what had I done that was so horrible?
I was a prosecutor, and I had just gotten a life sentence from a jury on a man who had systematically raped his daughter over a lengthy period of time (which had started about the week he had gotten out of prison for a similar charge, by the way). Although there were meds in the case, and the jury had no problem believing the Complainant, her family had stood by the Defendant.
The girl ended up in foster care.
It was a sad case, and I was feeling pretty damn good about the verdict, to tell you the truth.
And then I ran into the Defendant's family in the hallway. They all had their things to say.
I had a couple of choices available to me:
1. I could try to justify my actions to them, although they would never listen to me.
2. I could apologize to them, even though I knew that the son-of-a-bitch deserved every last minute of a life sentence.
3. I could completely ignore them, and walk with my head down to the elevator.
4. I could have screamed at them all for being lousy pieces-of-crap who had turned their back on a little girl while her own ex-convict father was raping her on a weekly basis.
OR
5. I could look them all in the eye as I confidently walked to the elevator, without responding to a damn word they said.
What do you think was the best course of action?
Since I had so much fun with my earlier Parable this month, consider this my "Analogy".
What's the best course of action for Kelly Siegler on the campaign trail? What should she do when people tell her she works too hard to get a conviction? What should she do when people say that the D.A.'s Office is full of racists? What should she do when she knows that her detractors aren't interested in a damn word she has to say (they just want to scream out their irritations with her)?
I would submit to you that in my situation, the choice of # 5 was a no-brainer.
In politics, the answer isn't quite so clear.
It was about four or five years ago when I got all of these questions hurled at me by several people, along with the intimidating "death glares" that they were all giving me.
Now, what had I done that was so horrible?
I was a prosecutor, and I had just gotten a life sentence from a jury on a man who had systematically raped his daughter over a lengthy period of time (which had started about the week he had gotten out of prison for a similar charge, by the way). Although there were meds in the case, and the jury had no problem believing the Complainant, her family had stood by the Defendant.
The girl ended up in foster care.
It was a sad case, and I was feeling pretty damn good about the verdict, to tell you the truth.
And then I ran into the Defendant's family in the hallway. They all had their things to say.
I had a couple of choices available to me:
1. I could try to justify my actions to them, although they would never listen to me.
2. I could apologize to them, even though I knew that the son-of-a-bitch deserved every last minute of a life sentence.
3. I could completely ignore them, and walk with my head down to the elevator.
4. I could have screamed at them all for being lousy pieces-of-crap who had turned their back on a little girl while her own ex-convict father was raping her on a weekly basis.
OR
5. I could look them all in the eye as I confidently walked to the elevator, without responding to a damn word they said.
What do you think was the best course of action?
Since I had so much fun with my earlier Parable this month, consider this my "Analogy".
What's the best course of action for Kelly Siegler on the campaign trail? What should she do when people tell her she works too hard to get a conviction? What should she do when people say that the D.A.'s Office is full of racists? What should she do when she knows that her detractors aren't interested in a damn word she has to say (they just want to scream out their irritations with her)?
I would submit to you that in my situation, the choice of # 5 was a no-brainer.
In politics, the answer isn't quite so clear.
Rick Casey's Column
I enjoyed Rick Casey's column in today's Chronicle. He's been taking a more even-handed approach in his writings during the Rosenthal-crisis than Lisa Falkenberg and Alan Bernstein, so his "intellectual honesty" is way up in my book, especially compared to Lisa and Alan.
There were some things that I think are worth pointing out.
1. Jolanda Jones will never miss an opportunity to call a press conference. Those of us who have worked with her around the courthouse know that she has never let a lack of knowledge about a subject slow her down from speaking like an authority.
Seriously, Jo, you are going to call a media conference in the middle of a Federal proceeding just so you can accuse Rosenthal of hiring Ron Lewis because Lewis is African-American? How racist is that? The guy went to Princeton and Harvard and was a member of Baker-Botts. I'm pretty sure that your own resume wouldn't hold a candle to Mr. Lewis'.
2. Casey is dubious over the possibility that Chuck truly has (or has ever had) a problem with prescription substance abuse.
I tend to agree with him, here. Chuck has always been a loose cannon throughout his career in some varying degrees. I don't think the drugs can really explain all of his erratic behavior. I think the article that came out a few weeks ago is the one that hit the nail on the head when it talked about Chuck's lack of judgment (or the "J word", as they cleverly called it). I don't think that was drug-induced.
3. I'm going to be bothered all day over the grammar of the article - "What drugs were he taking?" or should it have been "What drugs was he taking?".
Neither one sounds right. This is going to drive me crazy.
There were some things that I think are worth pointing out.
1. Jolanda Jones will never miss an opportunity to call a press conference. Those of us who have worked with her around the courthouse know that she has never let a lack of knowledge about a subject slow her down from speaking like an authority.
Seriously, Jo, you are going to call a media conference in the middle of a Federal proceeding just so you can accuse Rosenthal of hiring Ron Lewis because Lewis is African-American? How racist is that? The guy went to Princeton and Harvard and was a member of Baker-Botts. I'm pretty sure that your own resume wouldn't hold a candle to Mr. Lewis'.
2. Casey is dubious over the possibility that Chuck truly has (or has ever had) a problem with prescription substance abuse.
I tend to agree with him, here. Chuck has always been a loose cannon throughout his career in some varying degrees. I don't think the drugs can really explain all of his erratic behavior. I think the article that came out a few weeks ago is the one that hit the nail on the head when it talked about Chuck's lack of judgment (or the "J word", as they cleverly called it). I don't think that was drug-induced.
3. I'm going to be bothered all day over the grammar of the article - "What drugs were he taking?" or should it have been "What drugs was he taking?".
Neither one sounds right. This is going to drive me crazy.
Saturday, February 16, 2008
Houston Bar Association Qualifications Polls
The HBA released its results yesterday from the Judicial Candidate Qualification Poll. All of the results are interesting, as always, and I encourage you to read them all BEFORE voting.
Obviously, I'm most interested in the D.A.'s race, so here are those results. I've listed them in ascending order of the candidates who received the most well qualified votes.
5.Poor Doug Perry - didn't fare so well. 499 voters said he was not qualified. 67 voters said he was qualified. Only 18 voters said he was well qualified for the job of District Attorney.
4. Pat Lykos - yep, she got edged out by even Bradford on this. 527 voters said she was not qualified (damn, that's even more than Perry). 363 voters said she was qualified. 291 voters said she was well qualified for the job of District Attorney.
3. Clarence Bradford - the only Dem in the race had 537 voters who said he was not qualified (the most "not qualified" votes of any other candidate). 170 voters said he was qualified. 296 voters said he was "well qualified". (In a related story, local attorney Lloyd Kelley voted 295 times in this poll. Just kidding.)
2. Jim Leitner - the respect for Jim showed in this poll. Only 182 voters said that Jim was not qualified to be D.A. (which is the lowest amount of people who said that about any of the candidates). 342 voters said that he was qualified. And 380 voters said that Jim was well qualified for the job.
1. Kelly Siegler - Kelly had 525 voters that said she was not qualified (a high number, but not as high as either Lykos or Bradford). 284 voters who said she was qualified. And 475 voters who said she was well qualified. That's 95 votes higher than the next highest candidate.
Republican voters, are you starting to get an idea of what the legal community thinks of Pat Lykos yet?
Obviously, I'm most interested in the D.A.'s race, so here are those results. I've listed them in ascending order of the candidates who received the most well qualified votes.
5.Poor Doug Perry - didn't fare so well. 499 voters said he was not qualified. 67 voters said he was qualified. Only 18 voters said he was well qualified for the job of District Attorney.
4. Pat Lykos - yep, she got edged out by even Bradford on this. 527 voters said she was not qualified (damn, that's even more than Perry). 363 voters said she was qualified. 291 voters said she was well qualified for the job of District Attorney.
3. Clarence Bradford - the only Dem in the race had 537 voters who said he was not qualified (the most "not qualified" votes of any other candidate). 170 voters said he was qualified. 296 voters said he was "well qualified". (In a related story, local attorney Lloyd Kelley voted 295 times in this poll. Just kidding.)
2. Jim Leitner - the respect for Jim showed in this poll. Only 182 voters said that Jim was not qualified to be D.A. (which is the lowest amount of people who said that about any of the candidates). 342 voters said that he was qualified. And 380 voters said that Jim was well qualified for the job.
1. Kelly Siegler - Kelly had 525 voters that said she was not qualified (a high number, but not as high as either Lykos or Bradford). 284 voters who said she was qualified. And 475 voters who said she was well qualified. That's 95 votes higher than the next highest candidate.
Republican voters, are you starting to get an idea of what the legal community thinks of Pat Lykos yet?
So Now What?
A little over 24 hours have passed since Chuck Rosenthal's sudden resignation on Friday. I have to admit that last night, I was still trying to process the meaning of it all on the Big Picture of the State of the CJC.
This morning, I read the articles and the usual blather on the Chronicle blogs. I read all of the candidates reactions, and the reactions of County Officials.
And then I realized, that Rosenthal's resignation yesterday doesn't really change all that much.
So, for the record, the following 10 things remain unchanged by Chuck's departure:
1. Alan Bernstein still isn't running the yarmulke story in the Chronicle.
2. Lloyd Kelley is still a pompous jackass who is pretending to care about his clients when, in fact, he is just trying to usher Clarence Bradford into office. (NOTE: I really liked what attorney John O'Neill said in the Chronicle: "We believe Lloyd Kelley is simply trying to take over public offices that he and his party could never win in a free election." )
3. The usual batch of moronic posts on the Chronicle website will never stop.
4. Pat Lykos still thinks dropping meaningless phrases like "the rule of law" will somehow make her seem qualified to hold the job of DA.
5. Doug Perry is still wearing his trademark hat.
6. Clarence Bradford is still remaining quiet as the Republican candidates attack each other.
7. Jim Leitner still doesn't have the name familiarity that he needs to win the nomination.
8. Kelly Siegler's detractors will still try to link her to the mythical "inner-circle" of Chuck Rosenthal, even though his prescription pain killer revelation seems to indicate he was listening to no one.
This morning, I read the articles and the usual blather on the Chronicle blogs. I read all of the candidates reactions, and the reactions of County Officials.
And then I realized, that Rosenthal's resignation yesterday doesn't really change all that much.
So, for the record, the following 10 things remain unchanged by Chuck's departure:
1. Alan Bernstein still isn't running the yarmulke story in the Chronicle.
2. Lloyd Kelley is still a pompous jackass who is pretending to care about his clients when, in fact, he is just trying to usher Clarence Bradford into office. (NOTE: I really liked what attorney John O'Neill said in the Chronicle: "We believe Lloyd Kelley is simply trying to take over public offices that he and his party could never win in a free election." )
3. The usual batch of moronic posts on the Chronicle website will never stop.
4. Pat Lykos still thinks dropping meaningless phrases like "the rule of law" will somehow make her seem qualified to hold the job of DA.
5. Doug Perry is still wearing his trademark hat.
6. Clarence Bradford is still remaining quiet as the Republican candidates attack each other.
7. Jim Leitner still doesn't have the name familiarity that he needs to win the nomination.
8. Kelly Siegler's detractors will still try to link her to the mythical "inner-circle" of Chuck Rosenthal, even though his prescription pain killer revelation seems to indicate he was listening to no one.
9. Kelly Siegler still has the most skill and experience to run the Office (yeah yeah yeah, I'm biased).
10. Crimes are still being committed. Prosecutors are still prosecuting the Defendants. Defense attorneys still defend them. Life goes on.
Looks like the only real difference is that Chuck is now remaining silent on the issue from the comfort of his own home, rather than on the 6th Floor of the CJC.
And the Finalists Are
Congratulations to Terese Buese, Rob Freyer, Kevin Keating, Michele Saterelli Oncken, and Ted Wilson for making it into the finals on the Hector Heathcoat Awards for Prosecutors. Good luck to you all. Voting ends on Friday at 8 p.m.
Friday, February 15, 2008
The Good is Oft Interred with Their Bones
In case you missed it, Chuck Rosenthal resigned today.
Somewhere, Lloyd Kelley is dancing a spiteful and tasteless jig.
Mark Bennett is already having a mini-celebration on his blog, and given the events of the past two months, I can't say that I blame him or the general public for their feelings. Chuck's resignation was overdue, and every day he stayed in office after the revelations of December 27th was a day too long.
He had told his staff that the idea of him having a problem with pain killers was insane, and then he tells the world the contrary in his letter of resignation.
That being said, I take no joy in his resignation. To me, Chuck's resignation today is very much akin to every time I tried a case and heard a jury pronounce sentence. I would be satisfied and happy that justice had been done, but I took no pleasure in the ruin of a person's life.
Justice can leave you feeling ambivalent at time.
I don't believe in absolutes.
No person is completely good. No person is completely evil.
In the blogs and postings I've read over the past two months, I've read people in a frenzy over Chuck's actions. One poster on the Chronicle's website said something along the line of "the worst person Chuck ever prosecuted can't be as bad as him."
That's ludicrous.
Chuck did very bad things. He left an Office that he led for seven years in utter chaos and shambles. He left a distrust between the general public and the Criminal Justice System that will take years, if not decades, to repair.
But does that make him worse than a people who have killed children? I think not.
History won't be kind to Chuck Rosenthal.
But in his 30 years in public service, he wasn't all bad. He prosecuted some very bad and very dangerous people. In some ways, he made this community safer, albeit through one case at a time. The oft told legend of what Johnny Holmes once said about Chuck when asked why he didn't fire him was that Holmes stated: "He keeps doing the wrong thing, but for the right reasons."
I don't know if that story was true or not.
There is the tale of Chuck working with homicide detectives on a case where a suspect was in custody, but a possibility still existed that a kidnapped child was still alive. Chuck supposedly sent in Homicide Detectives to pose as the suspect's lawyers in an attempt to determine if the child could still be found alive -- an unquestionably illegal and unethical decision on his part.
And he knew that when he did it. He also knew the consequences for it would be most probable termination from the Office and disbarrment.
But he sent them in with the hopes of saving a life, anyway.
You can make your own call about whether or not that action was good or evil.
Don't get me wrong. Chuck's resignation today was a relief, and a hope that things can now begin to get back to normal (even though there is a long road ahead of us).
But, I can't help thinking of that one portion of Mark Antony's oration:
The evil that men do lives after them
The good is oft interred with their bones.
Somewhere, Lloyd Kelley is dancing a spiteful and tasteless jig.
Mark Bennett is already having a mini-celebration on his blog, and given the events of the past two months, I can't say that I blame him or the general public for their feelings. Chuck's resignation was overdue, and every day he stayed in office after the revelations of December 27th was a day too long.
He had told his staff that the idea of him having a problem with pain killers was insane, and then he tells the world the contrary in his letter of resignation.
That being said, I take no joy in his resignation. To me, Chuck's resignation today is very much akin to every time I tried a case and heard a jury pronounce sentence. I would be satisfied and happy that justice had been done, but I took no pleasure in the ruin of a person's life.
Justice can leave you feeling ambivalent at time.
I don't believe in absolutes.
No person is completely good. No person is completely evil.
In the blogs and postings I've read over the past two months, I've read people in a frenzy over Chuck's actions. One poster on the Chronicle's website said something along the line of "the worst person Chuck ever prosecuted can't be as bad as him."
That's ludicrous.
Chuck did very bad things. He left an Office that he led for seven years in utter chaos and shambles. He left a distrust between the general public and the Criminal Justice System that will take years, if not decades, to repair.
But does that make him worse than a people who have killed children? I think not.
History won't be kind to Chuck Rosenthal.
But in his 30 years in public service, he wasn't all bad. He prosecuted some very bad and very dangerous people. In some ways, he made this community safer, albeit through one case at a time. The oft told legend of what Johnny Holmes once said about Chuck when asked why he didn't fire him was that Holmes stated: "He keeps doing the wrong thing, but for the right reasons."
I don't know if that story was true or not.
There is the tale of Chuck working with homicide detectives on a case where a suspect was in custody, but a possibility still existed that a kidnapped child was still alive. Chuck supposedly sent in Homicide Detectives to pose as the suspect's lawyers in an attempt to determine if the child could still be found alive -- an unquestionably illegal and unethical decision on his part.
And he knew that when he did it. He also knew the consequences for it would be most probable termination from the Office and disbarrment.
But he sent them in with the hopes of saving a life, anyway.
You can make your own call about whether or not that action was good or evil.
Don't get me wrong. Chuck's resignation today was a relief, and a hope that things can now begin to get back to normal (even though there is a long road ahead of us).
But, I can't help thinking of that one portion of Mark Antony's oration:
The evil that men do lives after them
The good is oft interred with their bones.
Thursday, February 14, 2008
Republican Voters, Please Listen
The 2008 election is going to potentially be the most interesting one since the fabled "Republican Sweep" of the 1980s. Democrats across this county are giddy over the possibility that Harris County will become a Democratic stronghold just like Dallas did in the 2006 election.
The presidential election (which normally is a boost to the Republican Party, at least in Harris County) is controversial within the party as the more conservative Republicans feel somewhat tepid about a moderate like John McCain. The Democrats will have one of two Presidential candidates who literally have "rock star status" with the general electorate, and the potential for straight ticket voting for the Dems is running extremely high.
So call me crazy, but I think the best thing that could happen for the Republican Party right now is Kelly Siegler.
Yeah, yeah, yeah, I know I'm biased. I recognize Kelly as the best prosecutor in the history of Harris County, Texas, and I'm an admitted fan and admirer of her work.
But my bias doesn't mean I'm wrong.
The highest profile race locally in November will undoubtedly be the race for District Attorney. And ironically, the weakest candidate that the Democrats will put forth in any race is Clarence Bradford, running for that exact spot.
Bradford is unqualified and utterly incompetent for the position.
On the polar opposite end of that spectrum is Kelly Siegler. Whether you have found all the stories that the Chronicle loves churning out against her to be damning or not, there can be no doubt that Kelly Siegler knows what she is doing and can run the office.
More importantly to the Republican Party, Kelly in a head-to-head competition against Bradford will show all those voters who may be "on the fence" that the Republicans have fielded a candidate that the Democrats can't come close to matching. My prediction is that Bradford will probably not even agree to a debate against her because of the incredible mismatch on knowledge of the law, debate skills, and just general charisma.
My point is that although the "Republican Leadership" may think that Pat Lykos would be a lovely candidate, she won't hold a candle compared to Candidate Siegler when the fight for November begins.
If Pat Lykos is the Republican candidate come November, the Democrats will actually have an opposing candidate on similar footing as their own: one who has never been a prosecutor; one who has a lot of ideas that sound great on paper; and one who has no substance to back her style.
I don't think that this wild theory of mine is all that original.
If you've been reading this blog regularly, you probably are well aware of the fact that Alan Bernstein has been burying a story about Pat Lykos forbidding a Jewish witness from wearing his yarmulke in court while testifying.
Now, consider that.
When was the last time you knew of a media outlet passing up the opportunity to do a little muck-raking? Aren't you kind of curious as to why? It occurred to me today that Bernstein isn't "burying" this story.
He's waiting on it.
The Chronicle has endorsed Pat Lykos, and they are sitting there with their fingers crossed, praying that she wins the Republican primary. If things go according to plan, Lykos wins the primary and then faces Bradford.
My prediction: Alan Bernstein will then suddenly decide the yarmulke story is newsworthy.
Why? So that it can counter-balance against the scandals that Bradford accumulated during his disgraceful reign as police chief.
Can you count them all? The DNA Lab Scandal? The K-Mart Scandal? The perjury scandal? The Exit Pay Raise Scandal?
The Dems are salivating over the idea of Lykos as the Republican nominee.
The Chronicle may endorse her now, but by November, they will gladly point out that she got the lowest ratings as a Judge when on the bench. She made an anti-Semitic decision against a witness that she never apoligized for. And, just like Clarence Bradford, she's never prosecuted a criminal case.
Why else would they have changed their mind from 2000 when Jim Leitner was their endorsement? Because Jim is more qualified than Lykos, and thus infinitely more qualified than Bradford.
Lykos is the Chronicle's choice right now, but by November, she will be their Anti-Christ.
Republicans, you guys are getting played like a fiddle right now. The Chronicle is run by an editor who has an anti-death penalty agenda that makes Bradford their ideal candidate.
If you want a candidate in November who will absolutely expose Bradford for the incompetent candidate that he is, you need Kelly.
Her campaign is picking up steam exponentially. She is working from dawn till dusk to meet the voters, and the people she's talking to are loving her. The local Republican Party leadership may be looking at her with a wary eye, but she is doing more for the Party than any other local candidate in the race right now.
She is vastly more qualified than anyone else in the race, and she has the charisma to translate to the voters. Instead of looking at her with a wary eye, Republicans should be rallying around her.
She may just be the best thing going for you in November.
The presidential election (which normally is a boost to the Republican Party, at least in Harris County) is controversial within the party as the more conservative Republicans feel somewhat tepid about a moderate like John McCain. The Democrats will have one of two Presidential candidates who literally have "rock star status" with the general electorate, and the potential for straight ticket voting for the Dems is running extremely high.
So call me crazy, but I think the best thing that could happen for the Republican Party right now is Kelly Siegler.
Yeah, yeah, yeah, I know I'm biased. I recognize Kelly as the best prosecutor in the history of Harris County, Texas, and I'm an admitted fan and admirer of her work.
But my bias doesn't mean I'm wrong.
The highest profile race locally in November will undoubtedly be the race for District Attorney. And ironically, the weakest candidate that the Democrats will put forth in any race is Clarence Bradford, running for that exact spot.
Bradford is unqualified and utterly incompetent for the position.
On the polar opposite end of that spectrum is Kelly Siegler. Whether you have found all the stories that the Chronicle loves churning out against her to be damning or not, there can be no doubt that Kelly Siegler knows what she is doing and can run the office.
More importantly to the Republican Party, Kelly in a head-to-head competition against Bradford will show all those voters who may be "on the fence" that the Republicans have fielded a candidate that the Democrats can't come close to matching. My prediction is that Bradford will probably not even agree to a debate against her because of the incredible mismatch on knowledge of the law, debate skills, and just general charisma.
My point is that although the "Republican Leadership" may think that Pat Lykos would be a lovely candidate, she won't hold a candle compared to Candidate Siegler when the fight for November begins.
If Pat Lykos is the Republican candidate come November, the Democrats will actually have an opposing candidate on similar footing as their own: one who has never been a prosecutor; one who has a lot of ideas that sound great on paper; and one who has no substance to back her style.
I don't think that this wild theory of mine is all that original.
If you've been reading this blog regularly, you probably are well aware of the fact that Alan Bernstein has been burying a story about Pat Lykos forbidding a Jewish witness from wearing his yarmulke in court while testifying.
Now, consider that.
When was the last time you knew of a media outlet passing up the opportunity to do a little muck-raking? Aren't you kind of curious as to why? It occurred to me today that Bernstein isn't "burying" this story.
He's waiting on it.
The Chronicle has endorsed Pat Lykos, and they are sitting there with their fingers crossed, praying that she wins the Republican primary. If things go according to plan, Lykos wins the primary and then faces Bradford.
My prediction: Alan Bernstein will then suddenly decide the yarmulke story is newsworthy.
Why? So that it can counter-balance against the scandals that Bradford accumulated during his disgraceful reign as police chief.
Can you count them all? The DNA Lab Scandal? The K-Mart Scandal? The perjury scandal? The Exit Pay Raise Scandal?
The Dems are salivating over the idea of Lykos as the Republican nominee.
The Chronicle may endorse her now, but by November, they will gladly point out that she got the lowest ratings as a Judge when on the bench. She made an anti-Semitic decision against a witness that she never apoligized for. And, just like Clarence Bradford, she's never prosecuted a criminal case.
Why else would they have changed their mind from 2000 when Jim Leitner was their endorsement? Because Jim is more qualified than Lykos, and thus infinitely more qualified than Bradford.
Lykos is the Chronicle's choice right now, but by November, she will be their Anti-Christ.
Republicans, you guys are getting played like a fiddle right now. The Chronicle is run by an editor who has an anti-death penalty agenda that makes Bradford their ideal candidate.
If you want a candidate in November who will absolutely expose Bradford for the incompetent candidate that he is, you need Kelly.
Her campaign is picking up steam exponentially. She is working from dawn till dusk to meet the voters, and the people she's talking to are loving her. The local Republican Party leadership may be looking at her with a wary eye, but she is doing more for the Party than any other local candidate in the race right now.
She is vastly more qualified than anyone else in the race, and she has the charisma to translate to the voters. Instead of looking at her with a wary eye, Republicans should be rallying around her.
She may just be the best thing going for you in November.
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
Return of the "Runaway" Grand Jury
I just came across this article on the Chronicle's website which says that 6 of the former members of the so-called "Runaway" Grand Jury that heard the David Medina case have filed a law suit.
Interesting.
Where did they file the suit? Who is the suit against? The whole thing seems very strange.
Apparently their demands are that they 1) be allowed to talk about the evidence they heard; and 2) be allowed to speak to whatever new grand jury is empanelled to hear the case.
As to issue #1, I'm very curious as to whether or not they actually are bound by the grand jury's rules of secrecy, now that it has been revealed that it was improperly empanelled. It would seem to me (and this is just me arm-chair quarterbacking here) that if they weren't properly sworn in, then they weren't really a grand jury under the law after their initial term expired. If that's the case, do the rules of secrecy still apply? I don't know what the law officially says on the issue, and I've got too much going on right now to go look it up.
So, Smarter People Than Me, please let me know the answer to that question and get back to us.
As to issue #2, I don't think that anybody can demand that they be seen by a grand jury. From my experience, the Grand Jurors who are sitting on the case are the only people who can decide whether or not they want to hear from a witness. The prosecutors can't make them listen to their witnesses. The defense attorneys can't make them listen to their clients. The Grand Jurors make the call, and I would be rather surprised if any grand jury would want to hear from members of the original grand jury. I could be wrong about that, though.
But for the meantime, I have to agree with Terry Yates when he says "I don't think it's [the lawsuit's] worth the paper its printed on."
Interesting.
Where did they file the suit? Who is the suit against? The whole thing seems very strange.
Apparently their demands are that they 1) be allowed to talk about the evidence they heard; and 2) be allowed to speak to whatever new grand jury is empanelled to hear the case.
As to issue #1, I'm very curious as to whether or not they actually are bound by the grand jury's rules of secrecy, now that it has been revealed that it was improperly empanelled. It would seem to me (and this is just me arm-chair quarterbacking here) that if they weren't properly sworn in, then they weren't really a grand jury under the law after their initial term expired. If that's the case, do the rules of secrecy still apply? I don't know what the law officially says on the issue, and I've got too much going on right now to go look it up.
So, Smarter People Than Me, please let me know the answer to that question and get back to us.
As to issue #2, I don't think that anybody can demand that they be seen by a grand jury. From my experience, the Grand Jurors who are sitting on the case are the only people who can decide whether or not they want to hear from a witness. The prosecutors can't make them listen to their witnesses. The defense attorneys can't make them listen to their clients. The Grand Jurors make the call, and I would be rather surprised if any grand jury would want to hear from members of the original grand jury. I could be wrong about that, though.
But for the meantime, I have to agree with Terry Yates when he says "I don't think it's [the lawsuit's] worth the paper its printed on."
Technical Difficulties -- yet again
Something strange is going on with my comments today for some reason. I usually get a notification on my e-mail when a comment is made on the website. Today, my e-mail box was sadly empty, leaving me to fill my day playing Sudoko.
However, when I checked on the website this evening, I had a bucket load of comments waiting for moderation that had been sitting there all day. And then Anon C, posted something and retracted it, and then reposted it with corrections, and then it disappeared again.
Guys, if you are posting, and it isn't showing up, I'm sorry! I haven't screened anything out since Northside's epic Parable 2.0. I don't know what is going on.
In a related story, my spell check is no longer working on my postings. Get ready to have some fun with that.
Maybe all of this is related to those UFO sightings out in Stephenville.
However, when I checked on the website this evening, I had a bucket load of comments waiting for moderation that had been sitting there all day. And then Anon C, posted something and retracted it, and then reposted it with corrections, and then it disappeared again.
Guys, if you are posting, and it isn't showing up, I'm sorry! I haven't screened anything out since Northside's epic Parable 2.0. I don't know what is going on.
In a related story, my spell check is no longer working on my postings. Get ready to have some fun with that.
Maybe all of this is related to those UFO sightings out in Stephenville.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
-
I have been extremely fortunate in my 54 years of life to have never suddenly and unexpectedly lost a person I was close with. That all cha... -
One of the types of cases that bothered me tremendously when I was a Prosecutor and continues to bother me as a Defense Attorney is what are...
-
True confession time. I voted for Kim Ogg. It wasn't an easy decision. I had a few reservations about some of Kim's portrayals ...