Overall, I think the debate went well, and I think it really separated the pretenders from the contenders. The format of it was good and well-organized. The substantive answers won out over the political B.S.
I thought (as mentioned below) that Perry was out of his league.
I thought that Pat Lykos seemed like she was barely keeping a lid on her anger, which she was feeling for some reason. Her cheap shots at Kelly were petty and stupid. Not to mention that they've been overplayed at this point. And I think Kelly checkmated Lykos when she said that she (Kelly) acknowledged and apologized for her mistakes. (That reminds me, Bernstein, it's our three week anniversary!) To her credit, Lykos only said the meaningless phrase "rule of law" twice.
She was still all fluff, and no substance, and she radiated the genuine warmth of a rattlesnake sunning itself on a rock.
I know I'm a Kelly fan, but I have to admit that I thought Jim Leitner really shined tonight. He had good substantive answers, and I thought his candor in admitting the "no peremptories" rule being a mistake went over well with the audience.
I thought Kelly did great too, especially considering how the entire design of the debate was bashing the past sins of the D.A.'s office. Almost every question dealt with a failing from the Rosenthal administration, and by implication, the questions very much appeared to be attacking Kelly.
Throughout it all, I think Kelly did an excellent job of responding to the questions without getting hostile at them being asked. She kept on message that she is the most qualified of the candidates, regardless of Chuck's sins. I also think the fact that none of the other candidates posed any questions to her spoke volumes.
If the voters can get past the taint that Rosenthal has put on the D.A.'s Office, Kelly would be the no-brainer winner. The job ahead of her is tougher, but it is made tougher through Chuck's actions.
Aside from Lykos' snide remarks, the debate stayed on the issues.
Tuesday, February 19, 2008
Two Real Candidates
In my opinion, only two real candidates took the stage this evening at the Debate: Jim Leitner and Kelly Siegler.
Perry and Lykos shouldn't even be real considerations.
Consider this:
When a brand new Misdemeanor Three, fresh out of law school tries their first criminal case, they will then have more trial experience as a prosecutor than either Lykos or Perry.
Hell, some of the interns even have more experience than Lykos and Perry.
Am I the only one seeing the significance of that?
I mean, seriously, a freaking intern with more trial experience than the elected D.A?!
Perry and Lykos shouldn't even be real considerations.
Consider this:
When a brand new Misdemeanor Three, fresh out of law school tries their first criminal case, they will then have more trial experience as a prosecutor than either Lykos or Perry.
Hell, some of the interns even have more experience than Lykos and Perry.
Am I the only one seeing the significance of that?
I mean, seriously, a freaking intern with more trial experience than the elected D.A?!
I plan to fight crime vigorously . . . as long as I'm awake
When asked what mistakes they made during the campaign, Leitner brought a lot of good-natured laughs by addressing his "no peremptory challenges" bombshell. Luckily you didn't throw out that "no cross-examination allowed" policy, Jim. Just kidding.
The really humorous moment to me occurred when Lykos was called upon to address her mistake.
In true political fashion, Lykos wouldn't acknowledge any mistakes on her part other than, gosh- darnit, just working too dang hard.
Bless her heart. She then went on to elaborate that sometimes she and her staff sometimes worked as late as . . . (gasp) . . . 9 p.m!
For those prosecutors who have routinely worked late into the night, taken call-outs to crime scenes in the middle of the night, or worked those God-forsaken midnight to eight intake shifts, the idea of making sure you were closed for business at 9 p.m. is hysterical.
Come on, Pat. Don't you know that crime never sleeps?!
Are you really campaigning on the slogan that you vow to be more lazy in the future?
That's awesome. Can the ADAs in your theoretical regime look forward to "nap time" under your reign?
One of my earlier posters when this blog first started addressed the issue of Lykos' age as a consideration. At the time, I didn't really think much of it.
Now, I'm kind of reconsidering.
The really humorous moment to me occurred when Lykos was called upon to address her mistake.
In true political fashion, Lykos wouldn't acknowledge any mistakes on her part other than, gosh- darnit, just working too dang hard.
Bless her heart. She then went on to elaborate that sometimes she and her staff sometimes worked as late as . . . (gasp) . . . 9 p.m!
For those prosecutors who have routinely worked late into the night, taken call-outs to crime scenes in the middle of the night, or worked those God-forsaken midnight to eight intake shifts, the idea of making sure you were closed for business at 9 p.m. is hysterical.
Come on, Pat. Don't you know that crime never sleeps?!
Are you really campaigning on the slogan that you vow to be more lazy in the future?
That's awesome. Can the ADAs in your theoretical regime look forward to "nap time" under your reign?
One of my earlier posters when this blog first started addressed the issue of Lykos' age as a consideration. At the time, I didn't really think much of it.
Now, I'm kind of reconsidering.
If you're scared, say you're scared
I found it interesting tonight that when given the opportunity to ask questions of the other candidates, that Perry, Lykos, and Leitner all elected not to ask any questions of Kelly Siegler.
Given Kelly's trial skills, that was probably a wise move. At least Jim explained that he thought he had been picking on Kelly too much lately.
Lykos preferred to make thinly (and I mean "thinly") veiled potshots at Kelly in her answers to other questions, but didn't quite have the cojones to ask her a question directly.
Given Kelly's trial skills, that was probably a wise move. At least Jim explained that he thought he had been picking on Kelly too much lately.
Lykos preferred to make thinly (and I mean "thinly") veiled potshots at Kelly in her answers to other questions, but didn't quite have the cojones to ask her a question directly.
Doug Perry
It's getting more and more difficult to write about Captain Perry without being mean.
The poor guy is just in waaaaaaaaaay over his head.
His catch phrase tonight was repeatedly referring to himself as having been "in the trenches". As a matter of fact, he referenced it so much, I was beginning to think he was a World War I veteran. Other than that, he had no substantive answers to real questions.
Captain Perry seems like a nice man, but he just doesn't seem to understand how the job of District Attorney works.
Still, when it came to just general charisma, he did beat Lykos.
The poor guy is just in waaaaaaaaaay over his head.
His catch phrase tonight was repeatedly referring to himself as having been "in the trenches". As a matter of fact, he referenced it so much, I was beginning to think he was a World War I veteran. Other than that, he had no substantive answers to real questions.
Captain Perry seems like a nice man, but he just doesn't seem to understand how the job of District Attorney works.
Still, when it came to just general charisma, he did beat Lykos.
The Debate
Wow. So much to talk about. Rather than write my usual mile-long posting, I think I'll divide it up into segments to talk about different aspects of the debate that I found interesting and/or amusing.
But before I do that, congratulations to Earl Musick and all the members of HCCLA who put on this worthwhile event. It went well and was extremely informative.
Great job HCCLA!
But before I do that, congratulations to Earl Musick and all the members of HCCLA who put on this worthwhile event. It went well and was extremely informative.
Great job HCCLA!
Important Reminders
REMINDER # 1 - EARLY VOTING BEGINS TODAY. No matter who you want to vote for, get on out there and do it.
REMINDER # 2 - THE D.A. CANDIDATES DEBATE TONIGHT - The HCCLA will be sponsoring a debate at South Texas tonight (I think it's at 6:30, but I'm not 100% on that). If you can't make it, KHOU.com should be airing a live webcast of it. Sadly, they couldn't find time to air it on TV.
REMINDER # 2 - THE D.A. CANDIDATES DEBATE TONIGHT - The HCCLA will be sponsoring a debate at South Texas tonight (I think it's at 6:30, but I'm not 100% on that). If you can't make it, KHOU.com should be airing a live webcast of it. Sadly, they couldn't find time to air it on TV.
Is that you, Lisa?
Lisa Falkenberg wrote a column today that was actually sympathetic to the ADAs left at the Office in the wake of the Rosenthal resignation.
I'm stunned and thankful.
And by the way, you looked lovely in your staff photo this morning.
I'm stunned and thankful.
And by the way, you looked lovely in your staff photo this morning.
Sorry Lloyd
According to an article in the Chronicle today, Chuck Rosenthal's abrupt departure last Friday was part of a deal he had cut with the AG's office on Thursday. Not, as previously claimed, caused by the lawsuit filed that morning by Lloyd Kelley.
Sorry, Lloyd. You can do your rooster-strut next time.
I guess you aren't quite as damn important as you think you are.
Sorry, Lloyd. You can do your rooster-strut next time.
I guess you aren't quite as damn important as you think you are.
Monday, February 18, 2008
The Canadian E-mail Response
For the past several weeks, I have asked Alan Bernstein (through this blog) why he has failed to publish the e-mail from Rob Freyer to Mike Trent, explaining himself for the use of the term "Canadian". For reasons unbeknownst to me, Mr. Bernstein has elected not to publish this e-mail. For some reason, Mr. Bernstein (and other members of the media, to be fair) has decided that the publication of anything even slightly mitigating on behalf of the Office is not worth their time.
Below is the e-mail that he has been sitting on all this time.
I realize that the explanation offered by Rob will not be acceptable to those who have been bashing him on every website that they could find, but the fact remains that he did give an explanation at the time.
I apologize for not having access to a scanner so I can't scan the copy of the e-mail that I was able to obtain. It was written on August 7, 2003 to Mike Trent. I have faithfully re-typed it word for word. If you have a doubt about any of the wording in it, contact Alan Bernstein at the Chronicle. He should have a copy of it, although he has elected not to publish it for his own reasons.
The trial referenced in the e-mail involved two counts of intoxication manslaughter related to a defendant who killed two people and injured a third while driving the wrong way down I-10, while intoxicated. The defendant had pled guilty to a jury, and the jury was only deciding the appropriate punishment on the cases (a fact that Mike Trent got wrong in the now infamous e-mail he sent to "All Prosecutors"). The jury deliberated for approximately two days, and at the time of the comment, Rob was frustrated with their inability to reach a verdict.
As stated earlier, this e-mail was written on August 7, 2003 at 11:58 a.m. and was not recently drafted in response to the bashing that Rob has received as part of the 2008 election. It reads:
This memorandum is written in response to an incident which took place on August 6, 2003.
On that date, as well as the day before, I had a jury deliberating punishment (the def. had already pled guilty to the jury) on a very bad and highly emotional intoxication manslaugher case in the 263rd District Court. I was frustrated by their inability to reach a verdict and commented in passing that (after reading some of the numerous pointless and confusing questions that they had sent out) that there must be some "canadian" back there in the jury room that was hanging them up. I in no way ever intended that such remark be taken seriously, nor did I attach to it or intend or suggest any other connotation for the term, other than it signifying that there was some weak-minded juror who was back there confusing the rest of the jury and preventing them from reaching a verdict. While I asked the jury to give the defendant the maximum on each of the three cases, a few members of the jury, in reading the questions that they sent out, were actually considering giving the defendant probation on one of the cases. After the case was over, I spoke at length with the jury before they left, and they told me that they had been confused by the deadly weapon special issue that had been submitted to them. I came back to my office and learned that my chief had sent out an all prosecutors email congratulating me on the result (12 years on two cases, stacked and 10 years on the inxication assault), and that some people in the office were offended by the email. I am truly sorry for that fact and want to stress that it was minsinterpreted and not intended in any way to offend or upset anyone.
Now, as I mentioned, I know that this e-mail will not appease those who have already decided within their own minds what they think of Rob Freyer.
However, that being said, it still does not explain nor justify why journalists such as Alan Bernstein have elected not to publish it as some form of mitigation. They have preferred to sit by and allege that Rob never responded to the allegations, when, in fact, they knew that he had. They have let him be called a racist (as well as several other choice names) by everyone who read their stories.
To me, that is irresponsible journalism.
It's also cowardice.
Below is the e-mail that he has been sitting on all this time.
I realize that the explanation offered by Rob will not be acceptable to those who have been bashing him on every website that they could find, but the fact remains that he did give an explanation at the time.
I apologize for not having access to a scanner so I can't scan the copy of the e-mail that I was able to obtain. It was written on August 7, 2003 to Mike Trent. I have faithfully re-typed it word for word. If you have a doubt about any of the wording in it, contact Alan Bernstein at the Chronicle. He should have a copy of it, although he has elected not to publish it for his own reasons.
The trial referenced in the e-mail involved two counts of intoxication manslaughter related to a defendant who killed two people and injured a third while driving the wrong way down I-10, while intoxicated. The defendant had pled guilty to a jury, and the jury was only deciding the appropriate punishment on the cases (a fact that Mike Trent got wrong in the now infamous e-mail he sent to "All Prosecutors"). The jury deliberated for approximately two days, and at the time of the comment, Rob was frustrated with their inability to reach a verdict.
As stated earlier, this e-mail was written on August 7, 2003 at 11:58 a.m. and was not recently drafted in response to the bashing that Rob has received as part of the 2008 election. It reads:
This memorandum is written in response to an incident which took place on August 6, 2003.
On that date, as well as the day before, I had a jury deliberating punishment (the def. had already pled guilty to the jury) on a very bad and highly emotional intoxication manslaugher case in the 263rd District Court. I was frustrated by their inability to reach a verdict and commented in passing that (after reading some of the numerous pointless and confusing questions that they had sent out) that there must be some "canadian" back there in the jury room that was hanging them up. I in no way ever intended that such remark be taken seriously, nor did I attach to it or intend or suggest any other connotation for the term, other than it signifying that there was some weak-minded juror who was back there confusing the rest of the jury and preventing them from reaching a verdict. While I asked the jury to give the defendant the maximum on each of the three cases, a few members of the jury, in reading the questions that they sent out, were actually considering giving the defendant probation on one of the cases. After the case was over, I spoke at length with the jury before they left, and they told me that they had been confused by the deadly weapon special issue that had been submitted to them. I came back to my office and learned that my chief had sent out an all prosecutors email congratulating me on the result (12 years on two cases, stacked and 10 years on the inxication assault), and that some people in the office were offended by the email. I am truly sorry for that fact and want to stress that it was minsinterpreted and not intended in any way to offend or upset anyone.
Now, as I mentioned, I know that this e-mail will not appease those who have already decided within their own minds what they think of Rob Freyer.
However, that being said, it still does not explain nor justify why journalists such as Alan Bernstein have elected not to publish it as some form of mitigation. They have preferred to sit by and allege that Rob never responded to the allegations, when, in fact, they knew that he had. They have let him be called a racist (as well as several other choice names) by everyone who read their stories.
To me, that is irresponsible journalism.
It's also cowardice.
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 ...