Outsourcing the Experience

When I was a First-Year law clerk with Hinton, Bailey, Sussman & Davidson way back in 1997, I had the opportunity to be introduced to the Judge of the 262nd District Court, Doug Shaver.  He asked me what I planned to do when I finished law school and I told him that I wanted to go back home to Brazos County and work at the District Attorney's Office.   He asked me why didn't I want to stay in Harris County and work for the D.A.'s Office here.

In that special brand of arrogance that is so typical of a first-year law student, I told him that at the Brazos County D.A.'s Office, they prosecuted only felonies, and I would be able to jump right in and start trying murders as soon as I got out of law school.  I elaborated by telling him that if I went to Harris County, I'd get stuck trying DWIs and other misdemeanors for too long before I got a chance to start trying the good stuff.

Judge Shaver shook his head and smiled.

"Son, you don't need to be looking down your nose at those DWIs and misdemeanors.  You need to know what you are doing before you start trying serious cases," he said.  "Misdemeanor is where you learn."

Although I didn't want to agree with him, I knew better than to argue. It would be years later before I came to realize how right he was.

I think most of us who have been lawyers for a couple of decades several years now can fully recognize the hubris we have in law school.  To be fair to our younger selves, having that level of cockiness is somewhat necessary if you want to be a trial lawyer.

Obviously, I ended up in the Harris County District Attorney's Office, and on the day I started, I went to the Justice of the Peace Divison.  The arrogant law student from 1997 wasn't even assigned to handle something as serious as a DWI.

I was trying freaking traffic ticket cases.

In retrospect, the four months I spent in the JP Division were some of my fondest at the Office.  I made some great friends.  The camaraderie was tremendous -- and it remains the single thing I miss the most about the Office.

But most importantly, I learned how to stand in front of a jury and try a case.

And if I lost that case, the Scales of Justice weren't too badly damaged.

We tried them all back then and we won sometimes.  We lost a lot.  We tried No Seat Belt cases, fishing without a license, speeding, running stop signs, expired registrations and inspections and (on super serious days) Passing a School Bus -- the capital murder of the Justice of the Peace Division. We would try four or five jury trials a day sometimes.  Sometimes, more than that.  We didn't have to prepare.  Our offense reports were literally traffic tickets.

After four months, we walked out of the JP Division feeling completely at ease with picking a jury, presenting evidence, and doing closing arguments.  Granted, Justice of the Peace Courts are not courts of record, so none of us really walked out of there as procedural rocket scientists, but we learned the fundamentals of Criminal Law and Procedure in a way that just can't be taught in law school.  Not even being on a law school's mock trial comes close to the real thing.

Back then, some of the big firms in Houston recognized the value of rookie lawyers getting some experience in the JP courts.  They offered to send some of their new baby lawyers over to get some experience by trying cases on behalf of the State of Texas.  Those offers were politely declined by District Attorney Johnny Holmes and later, Chuck Rosenthal.  They knew the value of Baby Prosecutors getting that experience and (say what you will about past HCDA regimes) they knew the building blocks of cultivating a rookie and turning him or her into a damn good trial lawyer.

In short, the Justice of the Peace Court experience was priceless for those of us dumbasses, fresh out of law school.  Just like how most of us start our first driving lesson in a mall parking lot or on a dirt road out in the country, we needed to get comfortable with the machines we were operating before we took them out on the freeway.

I bring all of this up now, because of this:

On Monday, District Attorney Kim Ogg proudly announced that she was going to reverse the previous longstanding policy of administrations past, and take those prestigious law firms up on their offers to play prosecutor in the JP Court.  If you notice by the number of comments, it generated a lot of commentary in the Twitterverse.  A lot of that commentary was pretty damn negative. [SIDENOTE:  I totally learned this new trendy term yesterday from some people a lot younger than me called "Ratioed," which apparently is the verb used to describe what happens when you get more comments on your Twitter post than you get likes or retweets.  As in, this post by Kim Ogg totally got ratioed."  Who knew?]

The firms Baker Botts, Bracewell, Hunton, Andrews & Kurth, and Vinson & Elkins are the four big beneficiaries of the new part-time prosecutor gigs.  Coincidentally, those firms all donated to Kim Ogg's campaign.  There's nothing unusual about big firms making donations to political candidates, but one might argue that it is a little bit unseemly when the beneficiary of those donations is handing out free experience to those firms.  But that's just my opinion.

Ironically, as Kim Ogg was outsourcing the experience that is gained in the Justice of the Peace Division, one of her high-level prosecutors, Alex Forrest, was getting raked over the coals for failing to comply with his duty to turn over exculpatory Brady evidence in the high-profile case against Arkema, Inc.   I like Alex as a person, but he jumped to being the Bureau Chief of Environmental as one of Kim Ogg's handpicked hires when she took office in 2017.   He skipped all of those priceless opportunities to gain experience and knowledge by going directly to the top of the ladder.

Coincidentally, Alex Forrest was a contributor to Ogg's campaign, as well. 

I would like to wrap this up by saying a sincere thank you to Judge Doug Shaver for imparting that valuable lesson to me back in 1997.  I may not have agreed with the advice at the time of delivery, but I ended up following it.  You were 100% correct.

You can't put a price tag on that type of experience.

Unless you are Kim Ogg, that is.

The 2020 Democratic Primary Race for Harris County District Attorney

The two biggest local races on the Democratic Primary ballot are the races for Harris County District Attorney and Harris County Sheriff.  Although Sheriff Ed Gonzalez does have a couple of primary challengers, he's done a very good job during his first term and has managed to avoid any major controversy.  He's got my vote and I can't imagine this primary being too difficult for him to manage.

Obviously, the same cannot be said for incumbent District Attorney Kim Ogg, who has courted controversy at every turn, literally before she was even sworn into office.

I supported Ogg in 2016.   Although I didn't know her very well, I agreed with her platform on the future of prosecuting.  Employing the old adage that Judge Caprice Cosper once told me that "there are people in this business who you are mad at and people whom you are afraid of and it would behoove you to learn the difference," I felt that Ogg's beliefs more or less echoed this sentiment -- focus resources on going after violent offenders and start easing up on low-level, victimless offenses.  I believed in giving opportunities to those low-level offenders to keep their records clean so that a mistake early in life didn't cost them a future.  Although then-District Attorney Devon Anderson was a friend (and most of the prosecutors that I knew were happy to have her as their leader), I thought that her views on the Criminal Justice System were not in step with what they should have been.

So, back then, I voted for Ogg.

And it really, really pissed off a lot of my prosecutor friends.  There's one former friend that won't even speak to me after three years.  SPOILER ALERT:  I'm pretty sure Donald Trump candidacy had A WHOLE LOT more influence on Ogg's victory than my 2016 support of her did.

But, I digress.

While I liked what I was hearing from Kim Ogg's platform in 2016, what I failed to account for was Kim Ogg herself.  As I mentioned earlier, I knew her in passing and she had always been friendly.  She certainly didn't seem to be as cheerfully evil as former District Attorney Pat Lykos.  As someone who (along with eight of my coworkers) got fired by Lykos, I never thought that Ogg's political vindictiveness would be anywhere near  Lykosian levels.

Boy, I sure missed the mark on that one, didn't I?

Before even taking office, Ogg let roughly forty experienced prosecutors know that she would not be needing their services under her administration.  She found various and sundry reasons to justify her reasoning for the firings, but in the end, it pretty much came down to the fact that they were either a) perceived as being too loyal to Devon Anderson; or b) had pissed off a loyal Ogg crony.

Sadly, she was just giving a very stark preview of what was to come under her Administration.

For the past three years, the Ogg Administration has largely been governed by the principle of what is best for Kim Ogg, the individual.  From an absolute onslaught of self-serving press conferences (that more often than not turned out to be more puffing than prosecuting) to the shameless hiring of campaign workers "community outreach" specialists (like Clarence Bradford and Dwight Boykins) with Office funds, Ogg has been much more effective at promoting herself than she has been promoting Justice.  I'm not naive.  I get that this is part of being an elected official, but Ogg's use of Office resources to support her electability is gratuitous, shameless, and unseemly for the position.

On the flip side of the Ogg temper is what she's done to those who have crossed her.  One only has to look to last year's firings of Andrew Smith (who dared to stand up to her when she was feeling slightly . . . shall we say "perjurous?") and her own First Assistant, Tom Berg (who disagreed with her on a policy matter).  Both of these men were (and remain) respected attorneys with the highest of integrity, but they learned the hard way that disagreeing with Ogg makes a prosecutor per se a bad public servant in her book.

And let us not forget that her beef with the Houston Police Department (because HPOU President Joe Gamaldi had dared to criticize her publicly) led to her temporarily blocking the entire Houston Police Department's access to the Consolidated Criminal History Database.  Please let that sink in for a moment.  Kim Ogg got so mad at what the Police Union said about her that she blocked access to a computer database used for law enforcement.  There for awhile, I had more access to criminal records as a defense attorney than HPD. 

When I read the Houston Chronicle's endorsement of Ogg on Sunday, I literally laughed out loud when one of the first sentences described her as "stable."  Quite frankly, I can't think of a word that would describe her more inaccurately.  The Chron also stated that "her integrity is sound," which I find genuinely perplexing if one takes even a passing glance at her dealings with Amir Mireskandari.

Mireskandari was Ogg campaign committee chairman in 2016, and did such a great job for her that she appointed him as a "consultant" on financial crime cases.  I guess they were already filled up on "community outreach" personnel.  As it turned out, Mireskandari was apparently using his position within the Ogg Administration to make some pretty shady side deals with some poker gaming rooms for his own personal financial business.  This is kind of akin to letting the proverbial fox guard the henhouse. 

The Mireskandari Scandal led to cases being dismissed and ultimately Mireskandari being terminated from the Office.  Strangely, it doesn't look like Ogg ever investigated what crimes Mireskandari may have committed in the process.  That's kind of a strange contrast from the DA who once threatened to prosecute former prosecutors for disparaging her.  I guess the lesson here is that if you talk bad about her, you might get prosecuted.  Use her office to scam people out of money, no big deal.

The bottom line is that Kim Ogg is neither stable nor is her integrity sound.  It is laughable that the Chronicle would seem to think that.  It's like even the Chronicle editorial board doesn't actually read the Chronicle, either.

As most of you know, Ogg has three former prosecutors challenging her, and my belief is that each of them is a better choice than the incumbent.  Whether or not that will translate into a victory for them remains to be seen.

Former prosecutor Audia Jones quit the District Attorney's Office a year or so ago and almost immediately announced her candidacy to run against her former boss.  Of all the candidates, I probably know her the least, although I am a big fan of her husband, 180th District Court Judge DaSean Jones, whom I've known since he was an attorney.  Of all the candidates, Audia Jones is certainly the youngest and she does not have the years of experience that the others do, having served as a prosecutor for approximately three years.  Her platform is very progressive, and she has garnered the endorsement of several prominent progressive groups who support that platform.  Last week, she even got an endorsement from Bernie Sanders.

I am genuinely curious to see how Jones does in the primary.  The progressive movement is certainly vocal and active across the country, especially within the Criminal Justice System.  However, I think that it remains to be seen how that translates into votes in Harris County.  It is a platform that will definitely appeal to younger voters, but I don't know whether or not it will be enough to unseat an entrenched incumbent like Ogg.

Former prosecutor and highly respected defense attorney Todd Overstreet is also running against Kim Ogg.  Overstreet is a friend and a very popular figure within the Criminal Justice Center.  He is a very skilled litigator who runs an extremely successful law practice.  I'm not entirely sure why he would want to take on the job of District Attorney, but he is unquestionably a man who follows his own path in life.  On the campaign trail, he has indicated that he believes in a slightly more conservative approach to criminal justice than the other candidates.  This has resonated with many former prosecutors from "the old days" but I'm not sure whether or not that will be enough to unseat Ogg.

It should be no surprise to anyone that reads this blog, that my personal endorsement for Harris County District Attorney is Carvana Cloud.

As I've said before and will say again and again and again, Carvana is someone who is uniquely qualified to be the District Attorney.  Her platform is the same progressive platform that led me to vote Democratic in 2016, and her ability to actually execute that platform as an effective and truly stable leader is what makes her the best candidate for the office.

Carvana is a proud Houstonian from Acres Homes, a neighborhood that has embraced her every bit as much as she has embraced it.  She is a bilingual graduate of Kinkaid High School and a former prosecutor.  I first met her when I was still a prosecutor and even back then, she exuded the confidence, integrity, and charisma of an effective prosecutor and leader within the office.  She left under the Lykos Administration after Lykos targeted her for her support of her Lykos's opponent in the 2008 general election, but returned as a Division Chief under Ogg.

Ogg recruited Carvana out of private practice to be a Division Chief in her new administration and subsequently promoted her to Trial Bureau Chief.  In that sense, I guess you could say that even Kim Ogg has endorsed Carvana's abilities to prosecute, administrate, and seek justice -- and she did so twice!

But the most important reason that I am endorsing Carvana Cloud is that Carvana wants to be the District Attorney to serve the Office and the people of Harris County that it represents.  She is there to help, not there to use the Office to promote her own personal agenda and petty grievances.  She is living proof that a progressive prosecutor can be an outstanding prosecutor.  She is loved by her former co-workers at the District Attorney's Office and she is loved by the Defense Bar.

Carvana Cloud would make a truly exceptional District Attorney.

My Vote:  Carvana Cloud

The 2020 Criminal Justice Primaries

With early voting beginning this Tuesday, February 18th, it occurred to me that I might want to get off my lazy butt and write down my thoughts on this year's primaries.

It's an extremely interesting year, in my opinion, because for the first time since I've been a voter in Harris County, the Republican primary is a virtual Ghost Town compared to the Democratic primary.  Most of the District and County Courts that are on the ballot (and with one exception, held by Democratic incumbents) didn't even field candidates.  Those that did have candidates on the ballot were uncontested races, so I'm not going to even address them right now.

The decimating defeats of 2016 and 2018 have apparently led most aspiring Republican candidates to save their money rather than waste it on a campaign.  2020 marks the first year where voters will no longer have the "straight ticket" voting option in November, but I guess that hasn't inspired too many candidacies.  Personally, I do think that lack of straight-ticket voting will narrow the margin of victory in November, but not so significantly that Republican candidates will take back benches in Harris County.

The only contested Republican primary that is directly involving the Harris County Criminal Justice Center is the race for District Attorney.

Republican Primary for District Attorney
The Republican race for Harris County District Attorney is a three-person race pitting former Harris County District Court Chief Lori DeAngelo against former Montgomery County District Court Chief and Houston Police Officers' Union Attorney Mary Nan Huffman and noted moron, Lloyd Oliver.

To be clear, Lloyd Oliver, who last ran for District Attorney as a Democrat, should not be considered an actual candidate by anyone who places even the smallest amount of pride in his or her vote.  He is a vile, misogynistic, and homophobic defense attorney who runs in every election with no expectation of succeeding, regardless of party.  His candidacy is nothing more than a tired joke that we are all forced to suffer through every two years.

By stark contrast, Lori DeAngelo and Mary Nan Huffman are real candidates, albeit they are new to running for office.  I've never met Mary Nan Huffman in person, but she has an excellent reputation with many of our mutual friends.  She's a ten-year veteran of the Montgomery County District Attorney's Office, where she rose to the level of felony chief.   She's been one of the Houston Police Officers Union attorneys since leaving MoCo, and she is obviously the candidate being supported by the Union.  I don't know how well she is known in the Harris County Republican circles, so it will be interesting to see how well she does.

I've known Lori DeAngelo since 1999 when I first started at the D.A.'s Office, where she was already prosecuting.  Her tenure far exceeded mine, serving as a prosecutor for over 20 years.  She worked in different divisions within the Office before returning to the Trial Bureau as a chief.  I like Lori and I consider her to be a friend.  I enjoyed dealing with her as a practical and no-nonsense prosecutor when I had cases in her court.  She was fair and she also recognized when a case had weaknesses for the State.  She wasn't scared to dismiss a case if the evidence didn't rise to the level of being provable beyond a reasonable doubt.   She left the Office under her own terms and in frustration with the way Kim Ogg was running the Office.

I think both candidates are running for similar reasons and that their platforms are relatively similar as well.   Unless some extraordinary circumstances occur between now and November, however, there is a high likelihood that this is just a battle to see who comes in second place.  That's unfortunate because I think Huffman and DeAngelo are both qualified candidates.

I'm not planning on voting in the Republican primary, but if I was, I would vote for Lori DeAngelo.

Now, that we've covered the one and only Republican CJC race, we can move on to the five District Court races that have contested Democratic primaries.  As noted above, with the exception of the 339th District Court's Judge Jesse McClure, all of the District Courts are currently held by Democratic Incumbents.  Judge McClure was appointed to the Court when Judge Maria T. Jackson stepped down to run for County Commissioner against Rodney Ellis.  Additionally, 337th District Court Judge Herb Ritchie is retiring at the end of his term.  Three incumbent judges, Nikita Harmon, Randy Roll, and George Powell drew challengers in their primaries.

It is worth noting that (with the exception of the 339th), there are no Republican challengers.  Whoever wins the primary will be the judge on January 1, 2021.

176th District Court
District Court Judge Nikita Harmon took the bench in 2016 as part of the Democratic sweep.  Prior to that, she had been an attorney and municipal court judge.  At the time, she was relatively unknown to most regulars in the CJC unless they were attorneys who also covered muni court.  During her first year on the Bench, she got some unusual attention when she got into a bizarre dispute with 263rd District Court Judge Jim Wallace over courtroom use in the wake of Hurricane Harvey.

I've only appeared in Judge Harmon's Court on a handful of occasions, so I don't really have a depth of knowledge in giving a review of her performance.  Those times I've been there, she has been a little more formal than many judges.  I have not tried a case or a contested hearing to her, so I'd have to defer to someone with more knowledge on what that is like.

Judge Harmon is being challenged by former HCDA prosecutor and current defense attorney, Bryan Acklin.  I've known Bryan since his days at the D.A.'s Office, and he is a friend.  I enjoyed working with him when he was a prosecutor and found him to be friendly, reasonable and prepared in his handling of cases.  As a defense attorney, I've seen him throw himself enthusiastically into his work.  He is a zealous advocate for his clients while remaining personable and friendly with his prosecutorial opponents.  He researches the law and he applies it to his clients' advantage.

My Vote:  Brian Acklin

179th District Court
District Court Judge Randy Roll is serving his second tour of duty as a District Court Judge of the 179th.  He won the Bench in 2008, lost it in 2012, and won it back again in 2016.  I always hate writing about Judge Roll, because he is truly a nice, nice man.  However, he just always seems to find himself in the middle of controversy as a judge.

I seriously want to be able to endorse Judge Roll, because he is kind.  I am very aware that I've written things on this blog that have hurt his feelings, but to his immense credit, he has never been anything but courteous and professional to me in court and he has certainly never held what I've said about him against my clients.  I really like him as a person very much.  I just wish he would quit doing such questionable things from the Bench.

Judge Roll's opponent in this race is former Assistant District Attorney and current defense attorney, Ana Martinez.  I've known Ana from her years as a prosecutor, and she is one the few candidates running that I've actually gone to trial against.  She whipped my butt in trial (although I'd like to think that was partially due to the fact that she had some pretty good evidence on her side).  I've always believed that there is no better way to learn who a prosecutor (or defense attorney) is than to try a case against them, and I learned a lot about Ana.  She was an extremely impressive, fair, and dedicated prosecutor and she has retained those traits as a defense attorney.

As a prosecutor, Ana worked in human trafficking, where she was passionate about going after those who profited from the sex trade.  As a defense attorney, she has focused her practice on helping people who have been caught up in the sex trade as workers.  She is dedicated to making a difference in their lives and she's doing a pretty remarkable job of it.  She is also a hard worker who educates herself on the law and operates from a place of compassion.  She'd make a great judge.

My Vote:  Ana Martinez

337th District Court
With the retirement of current Judge Herb Ritchie, four candidates are running for the Democratic nomination:  former prosecutor and current defense attorney Colleen Gaido, defense attorney John Clark, defense attorney Brennen Dunn, and general practicing attorney David Vuong.

I don't know David Vuong at all, although we are friends on Facebook (NOTE:  I get a lot of Facebook friend requests from candidates).  I don't recall him being a face that I see very often around the courthouse and I've never dealt with him.  He does seem very enthusiastic about his yard signs, but other than that, I don't think he has the qualifications of the other three candidates.

I don't know Brennen Dunn personally either and I see that he lists several areas of law practice on his State Bar profile.  However, I do know that he has an established reputation as a criminal defense attorney, and as a good one, at that.

I do know John Clark.  He's been a practicing criminal defense attorney for as long as I can remember, serving for a very long time as the contract attorney in the 208th District Court.

With all due respect to the other candidates, however, it is hard to imagine a better candidate for judge than Colleen Gaido.  Colleen is a former Harris County Assistant District Attorney who was probably one of the most respected and beloved prosecutors that Office has ever produced.  She literally may be the most popular person to have ever worked there.  I mean, everyone loves Colleen.  She was fair, friendly, reasonable, knowledgable, and nice.  Her co-workers loved her and so did defense attorneys.  She was no pushover, but she never relished punishing people during her ADA days.  She had a strong sense of right and wrong, but no matter how right she was, that never translated into arrogance or anything else negative.  As a defense attorney, she remains equally loved by both sides and there is a groundswell of support for her.

She is ultra-qualified to be judge.  She's probably ultra-qualified to be president, for that matter.  I would vote for her over myself in any given election.  She's a fantastic candidate, friend, and human.  I hope to see her on the Bench in January.

My Vote:  Colleen Gaido

339th District Court
When former 339th District Court Judge Maria T. Jackson stepped down to run against Commissioner Rodney Ellis, three Democratic candidates announced that they intended to run for the Bench.   The winner will face off against Republican Judge Jesse McClure (who was appointed by Governor Abbott to fulfill Jackson's unexpired term) in November.  Attorneys Dennis Powell and Candace White are running against former prosecutor and current Assistant Public Defendant Te'iva Bell for the Democratic nomination.

I didn't immediately recognize Powell's name, but I recognized his face when I looked up his website.  He is a longtime attorney who does practice criminal law.  I'm not sure whether or not he practices it exclusively, but I have certainly seen him around the criminal courthouse for years.  I only know him in passing.

I'm not familiar with Candace White at all, although her face does seem familiar when I looked at her website.  Her resume does not indicate that she has a very strong background in criminal law, other than being a municipal court judge, which handles only the lowest level of misdemeanors.

I've known Te'iva Bell since she was a baby prosecutor at the D.A.'s Office.  She was my friend then and I'm proud to call her my friend now.  She left the D.A.'s Office for defense work awhile ago and she's one of the original attorneys who went to work for the Public Defender's Office when it was first established.  She has dedicated her professional career to criminal justice and she is a very zealous and skilled advocate for her clients.  She's also one of the nicest people I know, and I look forward to voting for her this week.

My Vote:  Te'iva Bell

351st District Court
Incumbent 351st George Powell is running for reelection against challenger and attorney Natalia "Nata" Cornelio.  You may recall that there was some drama over Judge Powell being on that ballot after there was some confusion over filing fees.  Fortunately, Judge Powell will be on the ballot in March.

I've known Judge Powell since he was a defense attorney.  I liked him then and I like him now.  I have only had one or two cases in his court since he won the Bench in 2016, but those limited experiences have always been positive.  He is well-liked by both prosecutors and defense attorneys as a Judge who is friendly, reasonable and attentive to the cases before him.

I do not know Natalia Cornelio personally.  She certainly has some impressive items on her resume, including working as a Federal Public Defender, working for the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, and as the Director of Criminal Justice Reform at the Texas Civil Rights Project.  That being said, she doesn't have experience inside the Harris County Criminal Justice Center like Judge Powell does.  She seems to be the preferred candidate of some "higher ups" in the Democratic Party, who attempted to keep Judge Powell off the ballot.  Although there is nothing to suggest that Cornelio had anything at all to do with that, personally, it still bothers me.

My Vote:  George Powell

So, there you have it.

Seems like I'm forgetting something.

Oh yeah, that whole Democratic Primary for Harris County District Attorney.

I'm going to write a separate post about the race between Carvana Cloud, Todd Overstreet, Audia Jones, and incumbent Kim Ogg.  This may shock you, but I have a lot to say about that particular race.

But if you are just dying of anticipation to know who I'm voting for, SPOILER ALERT - - -

My Vote:  Carvana Cloud

Rearranging Deck Chairs on the Titanic

I had a moment of confusion this morning at the Harris County Criminal Justice Center, when I hopped on one of the building's infamous elevators.

The normal, dark wood paneling with the flimsy metal borders and carved graffiti interior had been replaced with shiny metal.  The dark gray flooring had been replaced with a pinkish tile.  It looked space-aged compared to the previous bucket of bolts that had been the trademark of the inefficient transport system that we have all come to know and hate at the CJC.

The little floor monitor thingy that (on days when it was working) told elevator occupants what floor we were stopping on no longer utilized the glowing red, digital numerals found on 1990's-era alarm clocks (and timers for bomb countdowns in spy movies).  It had been replaced by a cool new video monitor that showed the floor we were on, superimposed over an image of the CJC!  

It was all very exciting.  In the two years and five months since Hurricane Harvey, we are finally seeing some exciting signs of improvement!  I almost felt like I was in the elevator of someplace fancy, like a bank or some other place that cares about safety and efficiency.  I wasn't used to such luxuries at the Criminal Justice Center.

Of course, we didn't really need for the repairs on the CJC to make the elevators prettier.  I think that pretty much all of us would settle for an ugly elevator if it, you know, worked.  I've heard many people complain about the number of elevators not running on any given morning, but I've yet to hear someone say: "Sure these elevator work fantastic, but they are so aesthetically hideous that it ruined my entire criminal courthouse experience today."

Making the new elevators pretty and modern is pretty much akin to rearranging the deck chairs on the H.M.S. Titanic.  Two years later and all of the felony courts are still splitting time between the CJC and the Civil Courthouse because many of the courtrooms aren't ready for occupancy.  Absolutely nothing has been done to alleviate the backlog of defendants waiting in lines just to get in the building every morning.  In an obvious gesture of surrender to the masses, the County has constructed some sort of temporary covered walkway for the lines that form outside every morning.  

The building has become the architectural version of a mullet.  Space-age elevators on the inside.  Civil War-era shelters in the front.

I'm trying to figure out how this went down during the construction planning.

Contractor # 1:  I assume our first priority is to get the courtrooms up and running as quickly as possible?  Or maybe restructuring the entry to increase the efficiency of getting people in and out of the building?  Or getting the elevators in working order so that we don't have so many frequent breakdowns?  

Contractor # 2:  No.  First off, we've got to make the elevators look cool as shit. 

I guess I shouldn't be too surprised by the aesthetic elevator improvements.  After all, the first major step they took in the post-Harvey rebuilding efforts was to install a Fuddruckers in the basement of the Civil building.

I've heard from some insanely optimistic people reliable sources that the building is supposed to be back to "normal" by August of this year, but I'll believe it when I see it.

Maybe it would go a little faster if the powers that be realized we don't need a pretty building.

We just need one that works.

By the way, the over/under on when a disgruntled defendant smashes the glass on one of those fancy new floor displays is six business days.   I'm taking the under.

A Letter from a Juror

I received an e-mail from this evening from a juror on a recent case tried down at the CJC.  It wasn't one of my cases, but he wanted to share some of his insights on his experience that I thought were pretty interesting.  I'm sharing what he wrote here, with his permission.  Hopefully, a County Commissioner or County Judge might take note of it too.

Murray,

I recently finished serving on a felony murder trial jury, and I’d like to offer some comments and ask a question that other lay folk might be wondering. (Nothing about the case, btw).  You probably know all of this, but serving on a jury for the first time it was quite an adventure.

You have written on the terrible conditions in the criminal court building. After fighting long security lines, elevators, crowded hallways, and general frustration for a week, I can testify that things are terrible. How disappointing things are in this shape 2 1/2 years after hurricane Harvey. Also, the underground jury assembly room is still closed, so jurors gather in a cramped old cafeteria room under the Admin building. Harris County is larger by population than a lot of states and we don’t have the competent leadership at any level from either party to have made repairs. People seem to be standing in line along every wall in the building. A mass of humanity. There are elevators out of service, flaky monitors and electronics in the courtroom, waiting for 4 or 5 elevator cars going down before one has room to get on, the list of frustrations goes on. 

As a juror, we got some special treatment at the security in the lobby and being escorted around every day by our assigned Sheriff. But my heart goes out to those families of both victims and defendants having to fight all these headaches in addition to the stress of the trials. It was a rainy week last week, and long lines out in front of the building with no shelter. Families and trial participants thinking they are early but facing glitchy elevators which backs people up to security and out the front door wondering if they will be late. We can do better. 

Aside from the building, I must say the people from all roles (defense, prosecutors, judges, police, staff) working in this mess on a daily basis were professional, upbeat, friendly and making the best of it.  With all the good reasons to be of short temper and grouchy, everyone I came in contact with was pleasant and very helpful. My thanks to all of you working in the legal system in less than ideal conditions.

Thanks for your blog and the occasional view behind the scenes of our legal system. I have enjoyed your writing since you began your blog in your prosecutor days.

The juror asked that his name not be mentioned, but I genuinely appreciate him for taking the time to write in and share his observations.  I replied to his e-mail and told him that it was rare to hear from a juror on a case, but it was always appreciated.

Steven "Rocket" Rosen

I was very saddened to hear of the passing of highly respected and beloved attorney Steven "Rocket" Rosen today.

Most of us in the courthouse community have known that Rocket was battling Lou Gehrig's Disease (ALS) for the past couple of years and that he was the very definition of a courageous fighter against a very cruel and debilitating disease.  Over the past two years, he posted multiple videos of himself standing defiantly against the disease, offering encouraging and strong messages about those things that were truly important in life. 

To say that his messages were inspirational would be an understatement. 

But long before Rocket's battle with ALS, he was well known as a fighter in the courtroom.  He was a well-known attorney who handled many high profile cases with flamboyance, skill, and knowledge.  His reputation as an excellent attorney ranked as one of the finest that Harris County had to offer.

When I was interning at the D.A.'s Office during law school, I watched him try a very tough Injury to a Child case to a jury.  His confidence and connection with the jury was extremely strong despite the facts of the case being very much against him.  Whether the jury agreed with him or not, they liked him. 

So did the judge.

So did the prosecutors, for that matter.

He was a trial lawyer who endeared himself to his audience.

Don't get me wrong.  He could be incredibly frustrating to deal with if you were a prosecutor.  I don't say that as an insult.  I would imagine that he would find his ability to frustrate a prosecutor to be a pretty strong compliment, actually.

And he had a sense of humor -- a great sense of humor, even at his own expense.

When I was a felony two,  my friend Bill Exley had tried a hotly contested case against Rocket, where Bill had prevailed and Rocket was still fairly irate about it.  Rocket showed up in my court the following day and said we needed to approach the judge to talk about a different case.

Rocket was talking about how the judge in the court loved him and he had coached the judge's kids in softball.

I mentioned to him, "Well, that's good and all, but I'm not the prosecutor on the case."

Rocket asked, "Who is?"

"Bill Exley is handling it," I lied.

He whipped his head around so hard that I'm surprised that he didn't get whiplash.  He was almost bug-eyed at the idea of trying another case against Bill on the heels of the case he had just lost.  He stared at me for a moment, and then composed himself.

"Well," he said, "the judge loves me."

"Oh, she loves Bill, too," I said.  "She was just telling me how she thinks that Bill is the best prosecutor she has ever seen in trial and she's so excited to have him trying a case in her court that she can't wait.  She will probably give y'all a preferential setting."

Rocket stewed over this until we approached the bench on the case.  He defiantly started monologing about his case and noted that he didn't care whether or not Exley was trying the case.

To which the judge replied: "Who?"

At that point, Rocket realized I was jacking with him.  He started laughing and we told the judge what the joke had been.  He was a good sport.

I never tried a case against Rocket.  Our dealings were mainly anecdotal and in passing.

But I knew his reputation and I knew his ability.  He definitely was one of the Giants that have roamed the halls of the criminal courthouse.  Right now, there are a great many defense attorneys who are posting their warm and admiring recollections of Rocket.  He was truly a respected and beloved member of our courthouse family.

I don't have a courtroom "war story" to share about him.  I'm probably lucky to have not faced him in trial.

I watched from afar as he fought his battle against ALS.  As cruel as it was, it never defeated him.  He gave inspirational speeches on Facebook videos.  He spoke to the Fort Bend County District Attorney's Office.  He never let it break him.

That is an enormous testament to his character and determination, especially in light of what ALS does to a person.

Rocket was a good man.  He was a family man.  He adored and was so proud of his family, and rightfully so.  He was an excellent lawyer and fighter and personality.

He will be missed in the many, many courthouses where he practiced across the State.

And he will never be forgotten for the courageous and unyielding spirit that he was throughout his life and his career.

Kindness

I learned that a friend of mine died today.

Not a close friend, really, but a friend nonetheless.

She was someone that started around the same time as me at the D.A.'s Office, although I think she hired on just a little bit before I did.  I'm not going to write her name here because I don't want this to be something that pops up if someone looks up her name on Google.  I'm not trying to hide who I'm talking about from those of us who knew her.  If you worked within the CJC in the past 20 years, you will doubtlessly know who I am talking about.

I learned of her passing through a random text message.  She died on January 3rd.  I feel kind of like a shitty friend for only learning about it today.

When we were prosecutors together, I only knew her in passing.  She was really pretty.  I mean, she was really really pretty.  I was kind of scared to talk to her back then, all things considered.

But life dealt her a series of really bad hands.  She lost loved ones through extremely tragic circumstances.  She left the D.A.'s Office and life kind of went downhill for her.  Through no fault of her own, she seemed to keep getting the raw end of the deal on thing after thing.  I would hear about these things and my heart always hurt for her.  She was a nice person and she didn't deserve the shit hands that she kept being dealt.

Around the time of Hurricane Harvey, she called me up and asked me to help somebody that she cared about.  I was kind of surprised that she called me.  She said she called me because I had always been kind to her, and she thought I might be willing to help.  The person she was asking me to help was someone who hadn't been particularly kind to her, but she asked me to help him anyway.

And I did.  Quite frankly, I was flattered that she asked me to help.  It felt good to hear someone say that they thought that they could ask me for help because they thought I was a kind person.  In the big scheme of things, I think we all underestimate the value of a person regarding us as "kind."

A few months after helping out that person, I ran into her on a street corner.

She was a mess.

But she smiled when she saw me.  She gave me a hug.  She said she owed me a lunch.  I told her I would take her up on that.

It was the last time I ever saw her.

I'm absolutely sick to learn of her passing.  She was my age.  Like me, she had two sons.

She was a sweet, sweet person.

I don't know the circumstances of her passing, although I have my suspicions.

I can't help but think about the fact that she was willing to pick up the phone and ask for help when someone she cared about needed help, but she didn't do so when she needed help herself.

She was a far kinder person than I could ever hope to be.

But in retrospect, her telling me that I was kind may have been one of the nicest things anyone has ever said about me.

Especially coming from someone like her.

And I'll pass that message along.

In our daily lives, there is so much we cannot control.  But we can always choose whether or not we handle any given situation with the best level of kindness that we can muster.

I'm extremely aware of the fact that on most days, I don't do that.

I need to do better.  I'll try to do better.

You should too.

Life is short.

Be kind.

In retrospect, knowing that someone thought that of you will mean more than you could ever know.

Supporting Other Candidates in a Kim Ogg World

Around 9 a.m. on December 24, 2008, Acting Harris County District Attorney Ken Magidson called me into his office and told me (for the second time in a month) that I was fired.

"I'm firing you for what you wrote on your blog.  It's too much."

He actually uttered those words.

Under the circumstances, I was caught off guard.  I was already planning on that day being my last at the Office and taking comp time for the remainder of 2008.  My contract wasn't going to be renewed so I was done effectively at midnight on December 31st, anyway.

But getting fired cost me some money.  There was no taking comp time if you didn't work there anymore.  I think all in all, Magidson's decision to pull the trigger as an early Christmas present cost me around $4,000.  Given the fact that I was going through a divorce and had child support looming, that was kind of a kick in the financial crotch.

Over the past eleven years since that fateful day, I've revisited the idea of whether or not I should have filed a lawsuit on many occasions.  I thought about it.  In the end I decided it really wasn't worth the effort.  My life was going through a reboot at the time, and adding the pet project of a lawsuit wasn't really all that appealing.

There is still a part of me that wishes I had, because when Magidson uttered those words, he was telling me that he was terminating my employment because of words I had written -- outside of work -- while expressing my opinion.   Sometimes I wish I had made a different decision at the time, just for the principle of defending my 1st Amendment rights. On occasion, I get really angry at 2008 Me for not doing that.

I bring this up now for a couple of reasons.

Campaign season is upon us, and as I have mentioned before, there are already six candidates lined up to challenge incumbent District Attorney Kim Ogg for her job.  Several of those candidates are immensely more popular with prosecutors at the Office than Ogg is.  Given their druthers, most prosecutors that I know (and I know a whole lot of prosecutors) would love nothing more than to support the candidate of their choice.

But unfortunately, they work for Kim Ogg.  And as Ogg demonstrated last month by firing Andrew Smith, she is not afraid to fire an employee for blatantly unethical (and quite possibly illegal) reasons.  Although the job of a prosecutor is to seek justice, in Ogg's paranoid world, the primary job is to be loyal to her.  As she demonstrated with Andrew, she ain't afraid to shank somebody for crossing her.

As a result of Kim's erratic and ruthless behavior, don't expect to see too many current prosecutors exercising their 1st Amendment right to support a candidate other than her Royal Oggness.  Ogg's level of paranoia and retaliatory nature make Pat Lykos seem like Mahatma Gandi.  And keep in mind that Lykos had some of her loyalists staking out fundraising events for Mike Anderson, and she also seriously jacked with Carvana Cloud to retaliate against Carvana's support of Clarence Bradford for D.A.

I would imagine that Kim Ogg will be far more retaliatory towards any employee that she finds supporting any other candidate.  I say this in advance because I hope that nobody thinks that a lack of current prosecutors showing up at fundraisers for other candidates means that they don't support those other candidates.  They just don't want to get fired for that support.

From the outside, looking in, it is easy for critics to say, "Well, if they hate working for Kim Ogg so much, why don't they just quit?"  I heard that line a lot in 2012 when Mike Anderson was running against Lykos.  I'm sure we'll hear it again over the next few months.  It was a stupid criticism then and it would be equally stupid now.  Losing a job is a devastating event -- especially when you have a family to support and need things such as money and insurance.

Not to mention being a prosecutor is a fantastic job.  One can be loyal to the job without being loyal to the paranoid despot who is the current District Attorney.

If you are a current employee of the Harris County District Attorney's Office and you don't want to risk your job by supporting another candidate, there are still many things that you can do to give support. 

First and foremost, tell your family, friends, and neighbors your thoughts in private conversations.  Let them know what you think of your current boss and tell them why you think somebody else would make a better choice.  Encourage those same family, friends, and neighbors to learn more about those candidates and attend those fundraisers and "meet and greets" that you can't safely attend.  Let them know why you can't speak out in public, but find a way to educate them.  Encourage THEM to make a donation since you can't.

Although I don't know if this is still the current law, back in 2012, a candidate only had to list a donor who gave $50.00 or more to a campaign.  There were a lot of folks who donated $49.99 to Mike Anderson's campaign back then.  You don't have to go out in a blaze of glory by starting a blog that bashes Ogg or anything stupid like that, but you can still help other candidates if you so choose.

Sometimes, those little gestures of support are far more sincere and powerful than any donation or attendance at a fundraiser.

Episode Four: A Glimmer of Hope - a One Act Sci-Fi Play

SCENE:  The Star Destroyer Jefferson hovers over Downtown Houston.  It has been two years since the Death Star was destroyed by Harvey and workers are now occasionally working to make it fully operational again.  [INTERIOR] The Observation Bridge leading into the Imperial Throne Room.  Two Imperial Officers are standing outside the entryway to the Throne Room, speaking in hushed whispers.

VICE ADMIRAL MITCHAM:  Corporal Leitner, do you have news?

CORPORAL LEITNER:  Yes, Vice Admiral, and I'm afraid it is all bad.

VICE ADMIRAL MITCHAM:  How bad?

CORPORAL LEITNER:  Bad enough that I'm afraid to tell her.  She's been in such a terrible mood since firing Denholm the Hutt.

VICE ADMIRAL MITCHAM:  Yes, I know.  I had hoped that firing Andrew Wan-Kenobi would have cheered her up some, but it hasn't.  As it turns out, most of the Jawas were big fans of his and when she struck him down, he became more powerful than she could have possibly imagined.

CORPORAL LEITNER:  What can we do?

VICE ADMIRAL MITCHAM:  I do not know.  We hired Jar Jar Rogers as a full-time stormtrooper so that she could give around-the-clock press conferences.  Those do make her so very happy.  He and Cad Dane are in with her now.

As if on cue, the doors open and Jar Jar Rogers and Cad Dane exit the Imperial Throne Room.

JAR JAR ROGERS:  Mooey mooey Boss Ogg!  Deesa be the bestest pressa conference ever!  Even da Cad Dane Schiller say so!

CAD DANE:  Yes, Empress.  You are truly beloved by the masses.  Only a truly biased person would find error in any of your ways.

JAR JAR ROGERS:  Deesa deferred adjudification plan off your is the besta ever, Boss Ogg!  Yousa the smartest prosecutor ever for inventing it!

EMPRESS OGG:  You two are wonderful.  You know I love giving press conferences.   Have a press release out immediately about my deferred adjudication program.

JAR JAR and CAD DANE leave.

EMPRESS OGG:  Mitcham and Leitner, you may enter.

MITCHAM and LEITNER enter the Throne Room.

EMPRESS OGG:  This had better be good news.

MITCHAM and LEITNER look at each other uncomfortably.

VICE ADMIRAL MITCHAM:  Did I hear correctly that you are starting a new deferred adjudication program?

EMPRESS OGG (smiling):  Why, yes.  It is very exciting and innovative.  I'm glad I invented it.

CORPORAL LEITNER:  What is it?

EMPRESS OGG:  A new program where a Defendant enters a plea of guilty, but the judge withholds a finding of guilt and places the Defendant on community supervision.

CORPORAL LEITNER:  But . . .

VICE ADMIRAL MITCHAM (to LEITNER):  Just let it go.

EMPRESS OGG:  So, I hope you bring me good news.  The year has been terrible.  First there was the Temple Disaster.

CORPORAL LEITNER:  The Jedi Temple?

EMPRESS OGG:  No.  David Temple.  I was really hoping that Admiral Schneider could pull that one off.  Darth DeGuerin is livid.  He won't return any of my phone calls.

CORPORAL LEITNER:  You did all you could, Empress.

EMPRESS OGG:  Yes.  I know.  And then we had that whole scandal with Amir promising cantina owners on Mos Eisley that he would legalize their gambling clubs. 

VICE ADMIRAL MITCHAM:  Speaking of Mos Eisley . . .

EMPRESS OGG: What about it?

VICE ADMIRAL MITCHAM:  There have been protests from the locals and the Stormtrooper Union president.

EMPRESS OGG:  Over what?  We investigated and Greedo shot first.

CORPORAL LEITNER:  Accounts vary.

VICE ADMIRAL MITCHAM:  There is still a lot of backlash over Denholm the Hutt asking about Greedo's legal status.

EMPRESS OGG:  And after careful consideration over 8 parsecs, I jettisoned Denholn into hyperspace.

VICE ADMIRAL MITCHAM:  Some feel that you should have dispatched him as quickly as you dispatched Andrew Wan-Kenobi.

EMPRESS OGG:  Don't be ridiculous.  Kenobi made me angry.  Denholm?  Not so much.  Andrew should have learned the lessons of former Vice Admiral Berg that you should only disagree with me if you wish to spend the rest of your days frozen in carbonite.

VICE ADMIRAL MITCHAM:  Speaking of all the people you've been terminating, Your Worship, we have still not received approval from the Galactic Senate for the budget for more Jawas.

EMPRESS OGG:  This is an outrage.

VICE ADMIRAL MITCHAM:  The situation is critical, Empress.  You may need to slow down on firing people . . .

CORPORAL LEITNER:  Speaking of which, Your Highness, I can't help but notice that everyone but me got a promotion.  I've been a corporal since you took over.  You know, under Emperor Patricia, I was a Vice Admiral.

EMPRESS OGG:  Meh.  We all kind of talked about it and decided you were good where you are.

CORPORAL LEITNER: Yes, Empress.

EMPRESS OGG:  What news do we have for the upcoming battle of 2020?

CORPORAL LEITNER:  The news is bad.  There are many who are lined up to take your place.

EMPRESS OGG:  I know of Audia and this Skystreeter person.

VICE ADMIRAL MITCHAM:  Overstreet.

EMPRESS OGG:  Whatever.  Who else?

VICE ADMIRAL MITCHAM:  Lloyd Oliver, Lori Deangelo, Mary Nan Huffman, and there are rumors that Carl from maintenance is eyeing a run.

CORPORAL LEITNER:  And I'm afraid that I have bad news about an additional candidate.

EMPRESS OGG:  Who?

CORPORAL LEITNER:  Carvana Skywalker.

EMPRESS OGG:  Why does that name sound familiar?

CORPORAL LEITNER:  She worked here until last Friday.

EMPRESS OGG:  Hmm.  I can't be bothered to know everyone who works here.

CORPORAL LEITNER:  You handpicked her as part of your staff when you took over.  Made her Bureau Chief recently.  Houston native.  Lifelong Democrat.  Highly respected amongst her peers.  A really really strong candidate.

EMPRESS OGG:  Not ringing a bell.

CORPORAL LEITNER:  You have a picture with her on your desk.

EMPRESS OGG:  No I don't.

CORPORAL LEITNER:  Yes, it's right there.

EMPRESS OGG:  Boba Clappart, please escort Corporal Leitner to the carbon freezing chamber.

BOBA CLAPPART, head of security drags CORPORAL LEITNER kicking and screaming out of the Throne Room.

VICE ADMIRAL MITCHAM:  Well, it isn't like he didn't know what happens when someone disagrees with you . . .

EMPRESS OGG:  I mean, seriously.  Right?! And he wonders why he never got promoted above Corporal.



SEE PREVIOUSLY

Episode One:  The Phantom Kimness

Episode Two:  Attack of the Clowns

Episode Three:  Revenge of the Fifth (Amendment)

A Tale of Two Firings

As I alluded to at the end of Friday's blog post about The Belated Firing of John Denholm, the former Intake Division Chief was not the only person who found himself on Kim Ogg's chopping block last week.  On Monday, Ogg fired Section Chief Prosecutor Andrew Smith from the Writs Division following a heated argument with Smith that occurred Thursday.

Unlike Denholm, Andrew Smith was a longtime prosecutor from within the Office who actually earned his position as Section Chief through years of hard work, intelligence, and honesty.  Unlike Denholm, he wasn't fired for anything improper or racist.  Unlike Denholm, Kim Ogg didn't spend eight days deliberating over whether or not she was going to fire Andrew.  She decided to fire him on Thursday evening.  The only reason he wasn't fired on Friday was that he had taken a sick day.  When he returned to work on Monday morning, he was promptly given the opportunity to resign or be fired. 

On principle, he chose the latter option.  As a result, the highly respected Section Chief Writs Prosecutor was ushered out of the Harris County District Attorney's Office under escort.

The grounds for his immediate termination?  He had contradicted Kim Ogg on the record in a Writ Hearing.  

The lengthy details are in this article written by the Houston Chronicle's Keri Blakinger, published this evening.  If you are not able to access the story, here is the most condensed version I can muster:

Shortly after taking Office, Ogg had a conversation with Andrew regarding former HCDA prosecutor Gretchen Flader.  Flader had been one of 38 prosecutors that Ogg had fired/not renewed their employment contracts when she took Office in January of 2017.  In this conversation, Ogg mentioned that she had felt compelled to not renew Flader's contract of employment due to Flader's romantic relationship with another prosecutor, Nick Socias (whom Flader subsequently married).  Ogg was terminating Socias' contact because of the notorious "Jenny Scandal" that was an issue during the 2016 D.A. Race. 

NOTE:  Again, for the record, I would like to point out that Nick got a really bad rap on that, but I'm not going to argue that point here.

There were at least three people Ogg terminated on "Bloody Friday" that lost their jobs because of whom they were married to or in a relationship with.  When Ogg told Andrew that Flader was terminated because of her relationship with Socias, that seemed to make sense.

After Flader's termination, she filed for unemployment.  Inexplicably, Ogg decided to fight Flader on the issue and the Office hired attorney Katherine Mize (who coincidentally was a large donor to Ogg's campaign) to litigate the issue.  Mize argued, on behalf of the Office, that Flader had been non-renewed for prosecutorial misconduct -- a direct contradiction of what Ogg had said to Andrew.  

NOTE:  The amount Flader sought in unemployment was roughly $1500.  I'm not sure how much Mize was paid to fight the case.

Fast forward to last year.  Andrew finds himself in the middle of a Writ hearing against prominent Writ Attorney Randy Schaffer in the State of Texas vs. Feanyichi Uvukansi, a case that Flader had prosecuted at trial.  During the hearing, Schaffer asserted on the record that Flader had been fired for prosecutorial misconduct.  Andrew, recalling his earlier conversation with Ogg, responded on the record by saying:

"Ms. Ogg told me the reason she let go of Ms. Flader is because she was sleeping with the man who was dealing with the Jenny case."

It seemed like a rather innocuous comment at the time it was uttered.  He simply recalled an earlier conversation with Ogg where she said something contrary to what Schaffer was claiming on the record.  In the big scheme of the Writ Hearing, the grounds for Flader's termination were tangential at best.

But if you're Kim Ogg and you've hired one of your campaign donors an outside lawyer to fight an unemployment claim for reasons contrary to what you've previously stated, Andrew's on-the-record statement becomes a little more troubling to you.

On Thursday, she called Andrew into her Office and told him that he must have "misremembered" and that he needed to fix the error.  Andrew told her that he recalled the conversation distinctly, noting it was the first time he had a one-on-one meeting with Ogg.  He noted that he still had the meeting on his calendar, so he could even specify the date, as well.    Nevertheless, she insisted he "correct the record" and he refused.

As noted above, Andrew was encouraged to resign on Monday.  When he refused, he was fired.

Take a moment to fully appreciate the courage of Andrew's actions.

He loved his job at the D.A.'s Office.  He loved it a lot.  He had extremely close friends there and he was good at what he did.  All he had to do to keep his job was to say that he made a mistake on the record.

Except, Andrew knew he didn't make a mistake so he refused.  It would have been so easy to have just said "maybe I was wrong" and get to keep his job.

But he knew he wasn't.

He wasn't going to be bullied into lying, no matter how much the angry elected District Attorney was screaming at him.  Not a lot of people would have had the intestinal fortitude to stand and deliver like Andrew did.

So, in front of his colleagues, he was marched out of the Office.

Yesterday Kim Ogg took it upon herself to file a "Correction of Record" in the State of Texas vs. Feanyichi Uvukansi, which said Andrew had made a "false statement."  The "correction of record" makes no mention of why exactly Andrew would have been motivated to make such a statement.

That's probably because Andrew didn't make a false statement.  And if that's the case, it would seem to me that Kim's sworn statement to correct the record might be construed by some as aggravated perjury.

In an amusing side note, Ogg claims in the "Correction of Record" that she only learned of Andrew's statement last week.   Ironically, Randy Schaffer attacked Ogg's credibility for entirely different reasons.  He pointed out that he had emailed Ogg about Andrew's statements in August.  Confronted with this easily provable point, Ogg noted that she would be filing a Motion to Correct the Correction of Record.

For the unofficial record, I don't know of anyone in the CJC that would put Ogg's credibility ahead of Andrew's.

On a personal note, I would like to specifically tell Andrew how much I admire the stand he made against our elected District Attorney.  He lost a lot in the process.

The world could use more people like Andrew Smith.