Due to the recent activities of one poster who seems to be enjoying hijacking posters' names, I have (under Mark Bennett's suggestion) changed it to only accepting Registered User's comments. If you want to post, it takes just a second to register an ID, and then nobody else can post under your name.
FYI-I have a real good idea at who the personality-crisis conflicted individual was that was posting under your pseudonyms, and quite frankly, I thought HE was a little old to be doing something like that. However, I'm not 100% sure, so I'm not stating it.
Look on the bright side, some of the names on here are the most entertaining on this blog.
Friday, February 8, 2008
Thursday, February 7, 2008
Another News Website
Everybody who is following the D.A. election is probably regularly checking all the news websites for ABC, CBS, NBC, and Fox. And if you are a glutton for punishment, perhaps the Chronicle's, as well.
Here's one you might not know about: http://www.khcw.com/
A couple of week's ago, I got a post from Channel 39's Kese Smith, letting me know that an interview with Kelly Siegler was going to be airing that evening. In response, I asked him if Channel 39 had a website, and here was his response:
Yes, we have a website: www.khcw.com. The piece on Siegler is the on the third page of the video. Sherry Williams also did a longer format interview with Siegler on the Conversation (also posted on the web). I'm not trying to do a plug- In the future, I'd be happy to privately email you if this kind of stuff comes up. Just thought you'd want to know and do with it what you will.
Thanks for the head's up, Kese. And please post any time regarding interviews or news stories about any and all things around the Criminal Justice System.
Here's one you might not know about: http://www.khcw.com/
A couple of week's ago, I got a post from Channel 39's Kese Smith, letting me know that an interview with Kelly Siegler was going to be airing that evening. In response, I asked him if Channel 39 had a website, and here was his response:
Yes, we have a website: www.khcw.com. The piece on Siegler is the on the third page of the video. Sherry Williams also did a longer format interview with Siegler on the Conversation (also posted on the web). I'm not trying to do a plug- In the future, I'd be happy to privately email you if this kind of stuff comes up. Just thought you'd want to know and do with it what you will.
Thanks for the head's up, Kese. And please post any time regarding interviews or news stories about any and all things around the Criminal Justice System.
The Chronicle Editorial Board
Well Folks, we are down to twenty-six days until the March 4th primary election, and things are starting to get a little bit strained for all those involved. Not to mention, there have been some surprises coming in the wake of the Chronicle's editorial board meeting with the candidates yesterday.
The most surprising thing was what the Chronicle printed today about Jim Leitner's responses to some of the questions.
Now, I realize that probably 99% of the people reading this blog are either prosecutors or criminal defense attorneys, but I want to address this to anyone who isn't.
Jim Leitner stated that if elected, he would forbid his prosecutors from using peremptory strikes for three months. In a felony trial, both sides gets 10 peremptory strikes that they can use to strike jurors for almost any reason (except for those outlined by the Batson decision). During the jury selection process, as attorneys talk to the jury panel, and learn things about them, it becomes extremely clear that although a potential juror hasn't said anything to disqualify themselves from being on the jury, they are still very much leaning one way or another in the case. To remedy that, the peremptory strikes are available to both sides.
Leitner's statement that he would forbid the use of any of these ten peremptory strikes by the State is ludicrous. He's basically stating that "in the interest of fostering better P.R. with the community, we are going to tie our hands behind the backs of our prosecutors". Nice in theory, but the idea is absolutely insane.
Answer me this, dear readers: if someone was on trial for murdering your child, your mother, your brother, etc., would you like to see a social experiment run on the trial over whether or not the State of Texas can still win after not exercising any strikes? My answer (and I'm really not trying to be an alarmist here) is probably not. Not being able to exercise peremptory strikes means the odds of a person who is a ticking time bomb being on the jury is magnified exponentially. Does it mean all "not guilties"? Not necessarily. But I guarantee that hung juries will go through the roof.
Hung juries mean re-trials. Lots and lots of re-trials. Putting victims of crime through multiple trials isn't fair to them. And on an economic note, it's not real fair to the tax payers, either.
Jim, this idea is beyond horrible. It's idiotic.
The news that Jim could come up with such an idiotic idea was surprising. What's not so surprising is what Lykos said.
Jumping on the "All D.A.'s are racist" bandwagon was a no-brainer for Lykos. Unfortunately, in yet another moment of inadvertently proving that LYKOS HAS ABSOLUTELY NO BUSINESS BEING the District Attorney, she inculpated herself.
Lykos said that when she was a Judge (back in the 80s), that she saw ADAs being racist all the time and making racist peremptory strikes all the time.
Hmmmmmm. Very interesting.
Of course, she didn't really think that out did she? Because obviously, as a JUDGE over a court, it would be HER DUTY to stop such a travesty.
Now, I'm willing to bet the deed to my home that if we were to go back and look at the court records (or news stories or any other form of documentation) from her time back on the bench that we probably wouldn't be able to find ONE SINGLE INCIDENT where she either:
1) called a prosecutor on the carpet for a racially based strike;
2) called the elected D.A. to complain about the "racist" A.D.A.;
3) filed a grievance on a "racist" ADA practicing in her court;
4) banned that ADA form practicing in her court;
5) granted a mistrial after seeing it happen;
6) held a prosecutor in contempt for racist behavior; or
7) gave an interview to a local media outlet over her "concern" over these racist practices.
Those are seven options that she could have exercised to fight the racism she now alleges to have witnessed all the time.
I'm sure there are more options that I'm not thinking of at the moment.
And I'm guessing that she didn't do a damn one of them.
This leads me to the conclusion that Judge Lykos :
a) didn't know if something racist was going on in her court back then;
b) didn't care if something racist was going on in her court back then;
c) is just now making stuff up from the olden days to benefit her campaign;
OR
d) is just generally full of it.
The most surprising thing was what the Chronicle printed today about Jim Leitner's responses to some of the questions.
Now, I realize that probably 99% of the people reading this blog are either prosecutors or criminal defense attorneys, but I want to address this to anyone who isn't.
Jim Leitner stated that if elected, he would forbid his prosecutors from using peremptory strikes for three months. In a felony trial, both sides gets 10 peremptory strikes that they can use to strike jurors for almost any reason (except for those outlined by the Batson decision). During the jury selection process, as attorneys talk to the jury panel, and learn things about them, it becomes extremely clear that although a potential juror hasn't said anything to disqualify themselves from being on the jury, they are still very much leaning one way or another in the case. To remedy that, the peremptory strikes are available to both sides.
Leitner's statement that he would forbid the use of any of these ten peremptory strikes by the State is ludicrous. He's basically stating that "in the interest of fostering better P.R. with the community, we are going to tie our hands behind the backs of our prosecutors". Nice in theory, but the idea is absolutely insane.
Answer me this, dear readers: if someone was on trial for murdering your child, your mother, your brother, etc., would you like to see a social experiment run on the trial over whether or not the State of Texas can still win after not exercising any strikes? My answer (and I'm really not trying to be an alarmist here) is probably not. Not being able to exercise peremptory strikes means the odds of a person who is a ticking time bomb being on the jury is magnified exponentially. Does it mean all "not guilties"? Not necessarily. But I guarantee that hung juries will go through the roof.
Hung juries mean re-trials. Lots and lots of re-trials. Putting victims of crime through multiple trials isn't fair to them. And on an economic note, it's not real fair to the tax payers, either.
Jim, this idea is beyond horrible. It's idiotic.
The news that Jim could come up with such an idiotic idea was surprising. What's not so surprising is what Lykos said.
Jumping on the "All D.A.'s are racist" bandwagon was a no-brainer for Lykos. Unfortunately, in yet another moment of inadvertently proving that LYKOS HAS ABSOLUTELY NO BUSINESS BEING the District Attorney, she inculpated herself.
Lykos said that when she was a Judge (back in the 80s), that she saw ADAs being racist all the time and making racist peremptory strikes all the time.
Hmmmmmm. Very interesting.
Of course, she didn't really think that out did she? Because obviously, as a JUDGE over a court, it would be HER DUTY to stop such a travesty.
Now, I'm willing to bet the deed to my home that if we were to go back and look at the court records (or news stories or any other form of documentation) from her time back on the bench that we probably wouldn't be able to find ONE SINGLE INCIDENT where she either:
1) called a prosecutor on the carpet for a racially based strike;
2) called the elected D.A. to complain about the "racist" A.D.A.;
3) filed a grievance on a "racist" ADA practicing in her court;
4) banned that ADA form practicing in her court;
5) granted a mistrial after seeing it happen;
6) held a prosecutor in contempt for racist behavior; or
7) gave an interview to a local media outlet over her "concern" over these racist practices.
Those are seven options that she could have exercised to fight the racism she now alleges to have witnessed all the time.
I'm sure there are more options that I'm not thinking of at the moment.
And I'm guessing that she didn't do a damn one of them.
This leads me to the conclusion that Judge Lykos :
a) didn't know if something racist was going on in her court back then;
b) didn't care if something racist was going on in her court back then;
c) is just now making stuff up from the olden days to benefit her campaign;
OR
d) is just generally full of it.
WTF Jim?
I don't have a lot of time to write, but the Chronicle today cited in its' candidate interview that Jim Leitner said the following:
Leitner, saying he was trained as a prosecutor in the late 1970s to try to keep minorities off juries, offered a three-month experiment of no "peremptory challenges" by prosecutors during jury selection. In Texas, the prosecution and defense each can block 10 members of a jury panel for a variety of reasons, based on written and oral information each juror supplies to the court.
Um, Jim, I love ya, brother, but are you out of your mind?
Or did you get misquoted?
Leitner, saying he was trained as a prosecutor in the late 1970s to try to keep minorities off juries, offered a three-month experiment of no "peremptory challenges" by prosecutors during jury selection. In Texas, the prosecution and defense each can block 10 members of a jury panel for a variety of reasons, based on written and oral information each juror supplies to the court.
Um, Jim, I love ya, brother, but are you out of your mind?
Or did you get misquoted?
Falkenberg's Article Today
Okay, so compared to some other articles that Lisa Falkenberg has written, the one in today's Chronicle isn't so bad, and actually has newsworthiness to it.
She apparently met with 10 former and current African-American prosecutors at Vivian King's home to discuss what it was/is like to work at the District Attorney's office. In addition, Lisa also interviewed Joe Owmby for a counter-point to what was said at Vivian's house.
Out of the ten prosecutors at Vivian's house who spoke, only two, Carvana Hicks and Te'iva Bell had the courage to list their names in the article, which in my opinion gives them a lot more credibility than those who don't.
For those of you who don't know Carvana Hicks, she has a sterling reputation within the D.A.'s Office on both sides of the Bar. She is also someone that is truly working to make this community better. The fact that she is raising a red-flag means that the messsage clearly needs to be listened to.
And the fact that Chuck Rosenthal sends out an office wide apology for the "ear kissing e-mails" when they are revealed, yet remains conspicuously silent after the "watermellon e-mail" is offensive.
And in my humble opinion, there's no excuse for that.
Te'iva Bell is a former prosecutor, whom (to my understanding) had a difficult time in the felony bureau with the outcome of some of her cases, and left the Office as a Felony Three (if my information is correct. I can't 100% attest to this). She stated that a Chief told he that she was letting too many minorities on a jury is a little surprising, but it's worth noting that the written evaluation that Te'iva produced stated she needed to be aware of the "make up" of her juries. Falkenberg doesn't specify what the exact phrase of that sentence was, so there's no way to know the complete context.
I will say this, though. All attorneys who litigate have to be aware of the "make up" of their juries. That doesn't mean racial make up. That doesn't mean gender make up. That doesn't mean religious make up.
It just means make up. Folks, the media seems to think that walking into voir dire and saying "I'll take the first 12 jurors" is a fine way to select a jury. Nice idea, but its just not right. If that idea worked, there would be no such industry for The Jury Consultant. In higher powered civil trials and also in capital murder trials, great amount of attention is paid to the "make up" of the juries to an almost ridiculous degree:
"# 3 would be a leader. They've clearly got a dominant personality. That's your foreman."
"# 17 already hates #14. You put them both on the jury and you'll never get a verdict."
"#27 is clearly a follower. He's going to do whatever the rest of them want to do."
These are all part of the analysis of the "make up" of the jury.
Now, one last thing before I go. Two of the former-prosecutors who have chosen to remain anonymous (which is their right, and I'm certainly not the one to be identifying them) are only telling half the side of the story. I will address them as Anon 1 and Anon 2.
Anon 1, who was the prosecutor that was angry with the initial breaking of the "Candadian e-mail" story, was a very talented trial attorney with the D.A.'s Office. He rose and rose quickly to the level of Felony Two within the Office, before leaving for a higher paying job. During his time with the Office, he had two run-ins with the law that were serious. Very serious. Under interpretation, it could even by regarded as felonious. However, in spite of this, the Office kept him there.
He may claim hostile work environment, but the fact is that the Office bent over backwards to keep this talented young litigator in it's employment. Some would say long past the point when it was rational to do so.
Anon 2, on the other hand, may or may not have been a good litigator. We don't know, because he steadfastly refused to go to trial. He was given opportunity after opportunity to go to trial, and would find a reason not to. It is alluded to in Falkenberg's article that the term "trial dodging" was thrown out as a silly excuse for him not being promoted.
Trial dodging in the D.A.'s Office is not a silly excuse. It's actually bordering on derilicition of duty.
Anon 2 became angry when he wasn't promoted to Felony Two (the level where a prosecutor starts trying murders and aggravated sexual assaults of children), and was in fact, skipped over. What he neglects to mention when he is talking to the media is that he only had 3 or 4 other felony trials under his belt when it came to promotion time.
No supervisor in their right mind is going to try and send a prosecutor in to try murders when they only have four felony trials as experience. It would be horribly irresponsible to the victim's family, not to mention the entire community.
Anon 2 became so angry that he wasn't promoted despite his low trial numbers, that he ultimately walked off the job and never returned.
NOTE: I'm sure there are going to be a lot of posts on this story. I ask whoever posts not to name Anon 1 or Anon 2, although I'm sure you know who they are. They want to be anonymous, and they will remain so as far as my blog is concerned. Any comments that name them will not be published.
She apparently met with 10 former and current African-American prosecutors at Vivian King's home to discuss what it was/is like to work at the District Attorney's office. In addition, Lisa also interviewed Joe Owmby for a counter-point to what was said at Vivian's house.
Out of the ten prosecutors at Vivian's house who spoke, only two, Carvana Hicks and Te'iva Bell had the courage to list their names in the article, which in my opinion gives them a lot more credibility than those who don't.
For those of you who don't know Carvana Hicks, she has a sterling reputation within the D.A.'s Office on both sides of the Bar. She is also someone that is truly working to make this community better. The fact that she is raising a red-flag means that the messsage clearly needs to be listened to.
And the fact that Chuck Rosenthal sends out an office wide apology for the "ear kissing e-mails" when they are revealed, yet remains conspicuously silent after the "watermellon e-mail" is offensive.
And in my humble opinion, there's no excuse for that.
Te'iva Bell is a former prosecutor, whom (to my understanding) had a difficult time in the felony bureau with the outcome of some of her cases, and left the Office as a Felony Three (if my information is correct. I can't 100% attest to this). She stated that a Chief told he that she was letting too many minorities on a jury is a little surprising, but it's worth noting that the written evaluation that Te'iva produced stated she needed to be aware of the "make up" of her juries. Falkenberg doesn't specify what the exact phrase of that sentence was, so there's no way to know the complete context.
I will say this, though. All attorneys who litigate have to be aware of the "make up" of their juries. That doesn't mean racial make up. That doesn't mean gender make up. That doesn't mean religious make up.
It just means make up. Folks, the media seems to think that walking into voir dire and saying "I'll take the first 12 jurors" is a fine way to select a jury. Nice idea, but its just not right. If that idea worked, there would be no such industry for The Jury Consultant. In higher powered civil trials and also in capital murder trials, great amount of attention is paid to the "make up" of the juries to an almost ridiculous degree:
"# 3 would be a leader. They've clearly got a dominant personality. That's your foreman."
"# 17 already hates #14. You put them both on the jury and you'll never get a verdict."
"#27 is clearly a follower. He's going to do whatever the rest of them want to do."
These are all part of the analysis of the "make up" of the jury.
Now, one last thing before I go. Two of the former-prosecutors who have chosen to remain anonymous (which is their right, and I'm certainly not the one to be identifying them) are only telling half the side of the story. I will address them as Anon 1 and Anon 2.
Anon 1, who was the prosecutor that was angry with the initial breaking of the "Candadian e-mail" story, was a very talented trial attorney with the D.A.'s Office. He rose and rose quickly to the level of Felony Two within the Office, before leaving for a higher paying job. During his time with the Office, he had two run-ins with the law that were serious. Very serious. Under interpretation, it could even by regarded as felonious. However, in spite of this, the Office kept him there.
He may claim hostile work environment, but the fact is that the Office bent over backwards to keep this talented young litigator in it's employment. Some would say long past the point when it was rational to do so.
Anon 2, on the other hand, may or may not have been a good litigator. We don't know, because he steadfastly refused to go to trial. He was given opportunity after opportunity to go to trial, and would find a reason not to. It is alluded to in Falkenberg's article that the term "trial dodging" was thrown out as a silly excuse for him not being promoted.
Trial dodging in the D.A.'s Office is not a silly excuse. It's actually bordering on derilicition of duty.
Anon 2 became angry when he wasn't promoted to Felony Two (the level where a prosecutor starts trying murders and aggravated sexual assaults of children), and was in fact, skipped over. What he neglects to mention when he is talking to the media is that he only had 3 or 4 other felony trials under his belt when it came to promotion time.
No supervisor in their right mind is going to try and send a prosecutor in to try murders when they only have four felony trials as experience. It would be horribly irresponsible to the victim's family, not to mention the entire community.
Anon 2 became so angry that he wasn't promoted despite his low trial numbers, that he ultimately walked off the job and never returned.
NOTE: I'm sure there are going to be a lot of posts on this story. I ask whoever posts not to name Anon 1 or Anon 2, although I'm sure you know who they are. They want to be anonymous, and they will remain so as far as my blog is concerned. Any comments that name them will not be published.
Wednesday, February 6, 2008
BubbaJoe6Pack
Yesterday, Mark Bennett and I both received posts from the same person under the label of "BubbaJoe6Pack" that were clearly cut and pasted into both forums. Both were clearly very pro-Jim Leitner, which is fine. However, I, being the fool that I am, read and commented on Bubba Joe's posting on my blog before realizing that Bubs had posted the exact same thing on Mark's webpage.
I felt so cheap. I felt used.
Okay, well that may be overstating it slightly, but I did feel kind of like a dumb ass for commenting on it.
I only had one post from BJ6P, but Mark had the saga continuing on his comments board and the saga became a little bit interesting. BJ6P upped his posting by talking about "normal Tuesday night drinking session" for a group of ADAs (which I found a little judgmental coming from somebody named BubbaJoe6Pack), and talking about some sort of misinformation that the group had.
BJ6P goes on to characterize this misinformation by saying "I guess this is going to be the norm for the increasingly desperate Kelly faction."
Um, okay. Sounds to me like this was a group of ADAs talking, not a campaign rally. I wasn't aware that this type of behavior was prohibited.
Things then get interesting when a poster under the name of Pro.Victims calls out BubbaJoe by identifying him as Clint Greenwood, Jim Leitner's friend (and I believe, campaign manager). ProVic calls for a truce of some sorts between the Siegler and Leitner campaigns, encouraging BJ6P to fight the real enemy: Pat Lykos.
Mark then chimes in by chiding BJ6P for double posting on my website and his website.
Since there was never a denial from BJ6P regarding whether or not he was Clint Greenwood or not, I'm kind of inclined to believe that it was. I have to say that Clint isn't doing Jim much of a favor with this type of petty posting, if it was him.
I've always been very clear in my posts (at least, I hope I have) that I have a great deal of respect and admiration for Jim Leitner. He's a good candidate with good ideas, but I have concerns over whether or not his name-recognition will resonate with voters.
That being said, I hate to see postings from an over-zealous friend hurting his credibility, which I think that BubbaJoe6Pack, whoever he is, did last night with his posts.
I felt so cheap. I felt used.
Okay, well that may be overstating it slightly, but I did feel kind of like a dumb ass for commenting on it.
I only had one post from BJ6P, but Mark had the saga continuing on his comments board and the saga became a little bit interesting. BJ6P upped his posting by talking about "normal Tuesday night drinking session" for a group of ADAs (which I found a little judgmental coming from somebody named BubbaJoe6Pack), and talking about some sort of misinformation that the group had.
BJ6P goes on to characterize this misinformation by saying "I guess this is going to be the norm for the increasingly desperate Kelly faction."
Um, okay. Sounds to me like this was a group of ADAs talking, not a campaign rally. I wasn't aware that this type of behavior was prohibited.
Things then get interesting when a poster under the name of Pro.Victims calls out BubbaJoe by identifying him as Clint Greenwood, Jim Leitner's friend (and I believe, campaign manager). ProVic calls for a truce of some sorts between the Siegler and Leitner campaigns, encouraging BJ6P to fight the real enemy: Pat Lykos.
Mark then chimes in by chiding BJ6P for double posting on my website and his website.
Since there was never a denial from BJ6P regarding whether or not he was Clint Greenwood or not, I'm kind of inclined to believe that it was. I have to say that Clint isn't doing Jim much of a favor with this type of petty posting, if it was him.
I've always been very clear in my posts (at least, I hope I have) that I have a great deal of respect and admiration for Jim Leitner. He's a good candidate with good ideas, but I have concerns over whether or not his name-recognition will resonate with voters.
That being said, I hate to see postings from an over-zealous friend hurting his credibility, which I think that BubbaJoe6Pack, whoever he is, did last night with his posts.
Endorsements
I know that Kelly Siegler and Jim Leitner have gotten a lot of support (in the form of endorsements) from numerous people who deal with them in the Criminal Justice world. People who have dealt with them on a professional level and who know the requirements of the job of the District Attorney have signed their names for both of them.
It made me curious as to who was supporting Pat Lykos, so I checked out her list of endorsements, and guess what . . .
With the exception of maybe one name, all of those endorsements come from people who don't set foot in the CJC.
Now, don't get me wrong. The people listed there are all fine, upstanding citizens, I'm sure.
But don't you think it's interesting that nobody who deals with criminal law and knows her in that capacity has signed up for her?
The silence speaks volumes.
It made me curious as to who was supporting Pat Lykos, so I checked out her list of endorsements, and guess what . . .
With the exception of maybe one name, all of those endorsements come from people who don't set foot in the CJC.
Now, don't get me wrong. The people listed there are all fine, upstanding citizens, I'm sure.
But don't you think it's interesting that nobody who deals with criminal law and knows her in that capacity has signed up for her?
The silence speaks volumes.
Tuesday, February 5, 2008
Mental Health Will Drive You Mad
After watching the raging screaming match (I mean, debate) between Anon C, Ron in Houston, and Mark on one of the other posts I've done, I saw that there was a mention of the mental issues in the criminal justice system. Since my latest posts may be a bit, ahem, partisan, I thought I might address a topic of concern to everyone on both sides of the Bar.
I think there is a major misunderstanding when it comes to the prosecutorial view of how mental health issues should be handled. I think that the blame behind that misunderstanding lies with the legislative, and not the executive branch of our Texas Government.
Don't nod off in the middle of this Civics lesson, because I've got a point.
When the Defense Bar and mental health advocates around the country and the world say that Texas is woefully inadequate in their ability to deal with the mentally ill, the response of most prosecutors that I know is "no shit".
But the law that prosecutors enforce is not the law that they wrote.
Prosecutors often times find themselves in the extremely uncomfortable position of having to negotiate some sense of justice and public safety without trampling on those who have legitimate issues with their mental health.
Now, before I go too far off into this argument, I know that someone out there is already calling bullshit on me, and their rallying cry for that is Andrea Yates.
I was at the Office when both Yates I & II happened. I saw the pictures of those precious children, and call it cliched, but those pictures still haunt me.
The children in the bed. The little boy floating face down in the gray water of the bathtub.
I didn't have a thing to do with that case, but what I saw are things that still make me sick to my stomach. And if you want to ask me did I feel sorry for Andrea Yates and her condition, I will be quite honest with you in saying, "no, I didn't".
And although I don't know the full details of everything about the case, I know that Andrea Yates had previously halted her plan to kill her children because she knew a relative was coming over who would have stopped her. Under the definition of insanity in the State of Texas, I think that Kaylynn Williford and Joe Owmby were well within their rights to believe that Andrea Yates knew the difference between right and wrong. In my opinion, under the law as it currently stands, Andrea Yates was guilty.
I also believe that the D.A.'s Office was right to seek the death penalty on her, even though they knew it would more than likely never be given by a jury. Why? Because this case was such an absolute freaking anomally that perhaps the only way to ever figure out what should happen was to submit it to 12 members of our community.
If you remember, Joe Owmby eased off the throttle very much in his closing on punishment ("If you don't sentence her to death, we will know that it wasn't because you forgot about those five children"), and in doing so, he submitted the case to the public conscience through the jury.
And he earned my eternal admiration in doing so, as well.
I digress.
The issue with mental health is that the system doesn't have safeguards to protect the general public from those who are mentally ill and dangerous. For those of you who don't realize it, the process for those found to be not guilty by reason of insanity creates a real public danger because there are no safeguards.
They get shipped off to Rusk or wherever. Doctors give them medicine. They become more coherent. Doctors pronounced them healed. They ultimately get released (not always, I know). They get back in the real world. They stop taking their medicine. BOOM - back to square one.
I'm not trying to be an alarmist. I'm calling for realistic help for these folks. They aren't responsible for their actions criminally, but that doesn't make them any less dangerous.
Being formerly/currently in the Executive Branch of the Texas Government (I don't really consider the D.A.'s office to be judicial. Some may quibble with me over that one), I can't offer any meaningful answers. I am no legislator, and I never will be.
But somebody really needs to be coming up with some meaningful ideas for change.
And if by chance a legislator is reading this, please listen to any and all ideas for change, even if you are suspicious of the source. Put aside your ideas that all people claiming insanity are malingering and operate under the theory that the system that needs to be in place is for those who are truly mentally ill to the degree that they aren't responsible for their own actions.
I would submit to you that I am certainly no authority on this issue, and I don't pretend to be. I'm just speaking from a perspective that I know to be real. Yes, prosecutors will always have a strong suspicion of defendants whom they believe to be malingering, but when they do believe that a person is mentally ill to a severe degree, they are put into a very upsetting position. They don't want to be unfair to the Defendant, but they also don't want to release a dangerous person back into society.
Find some better safeguards, and you'll find more prosecutors that are more willing to be accepting of an insanity defense.
I would submit to you that this is a proposition that both the prosecution and the defense bar could be working together on, quite peacefully.
I think there is a major misunderstanding when it comes to the prosecutorial view of how mental health issues should be handled. I think that the blame behind that misunderstanding lies with the legislative, and not the executive branch of our Texas Government.
Don't nod off in the middle of this Civics lesson, because I've got a point.
When the Defense Bar and mental health advocates around the country and the world say that Texas is woefully inadequate in their ability to deal with the mentally ill, the response of most prosecutors that I know is "no shit".
But the law that prosecutors enforce is not the law that they wrote.
Prosecutors often times find themselves in the extremely uncomfortable position of having to negotiate some sense of justice and public safety without trampling on those who have legitimate issues with their mental health.
Now, before I go too far off into this argument, I know that someone out there is already calling bullshit on me, and their rallying cry for that is Andrea Yates.
I was at the Office when both Yates I & II happened. I saw the pictures of those precious children, and call it cliched, but those pictures still haunt me.
The children in the bed. The little boy floating face down in the gray water of the bathtub.
I didn't have a thing to do with that case, but what I saw are things that still make me sick to my stomach. And if you want to ask me did I feel sorry for Andrea Yates and her condition, I will be quite honest with you in saying, "no, I didn't".
And although I don't know the full details of everything about the case, I know that Andrea Yates had previously halted her plan to kill her children because she knew a relative was coming over who would have stopped her. Under the definition of insanity in the State of Texas, I think that Kaylynn Williford and Joe Owmby were well within their rights to believe that Andrea Yates knew the difference between right and wrong. In my opinion, under the law as it currently stands, Andrea Yates was guilty.
I also believe that the D.A.'s Office was right to seek the death penalty on her, even though they knew it would more than likely never be given by a jury. Why? Because this case was such an absolute freaking anomally that perhaps the only way to ever figure out what should happen was to submit it to 12 members of our community.
If you remember, Joe Owmby eased off the throttle very much in his closing on punishment ("If you don't sentence her to death, we will know that it wasn't because you forgot about those five children"), and in doing so, he submitted the case to the public conscience through the jury.
And he earned my eternal admiration in doing so, as well.
I digress.
The issue with mental health is that the system doesn't have safeguards to protect the general public from those who are mentally ill and dangerous. For those of you who don't realize it, the process for those found to be not guilty by reason of insanity creates a real public danger because there are no safeguards.
They get shipped off to Rusk or wherever. Doctors give them medicine. They become more coherent. Doctors pronounced them healed. They ultimately get released (not always, I know). They get back in the real world. They stop taking their medicine. BOOM - back to square one.
I'm not trying to be an alarmist. I'm calling for realistic help for these folks. They aren't responsible for their actions criminally, but that doesn't make them any less dangerous.
Being formerly/currently in the Executive Branch of the Texas Government (I don't really consider the D.A.'s office to be judicial. Some may quibble with me over that one), I can't offer any meaningful answers. I am no legislator, and I never will be.
But somebody really needs to be coming up with some meaningful ideas for change.
And if by chance a legislator is reading this, please listen to any and all ideas for change, even if you are suspicious of the source. Put aside your ideas that all people claiming insanity are malingering and operate under the theory that the system that needs to be in place is for those who are truly mentally ill to the degree that they aren't responsible for their own actions.
I would submit to you that I am certainly no authority on this issue, and I don't pretend to be. I'm just speaking from a perspective that I know to be real. Yes, prosecutors will always have a strong suspicion of defendants whom they believe to be malingering, but when they do believe that a person is mentally ill to a severe degree, they are put into a very upsetting position. They don't want to be unfair to the Defendant, but they also don't want to release a dangerous person back into society.
Find some better safeguards, and you'll find more prosecutors that are more willing to be accepting of an insanity defense.
I would submit to you that this is a proposition that both the prosecution and the defense bar could be working together on, quite peacefully.
Technical Difficulties Again
I'm happy to announce that after battling with my damn internet wireless router for the past three hours, I've finally been able to log on and post.
For those of you who don't blog, you have no idea how frustrating it is to be the only person who CAN'T log on to your own website.
For those of you who don't blog, you have no idea how frustrating it is to be the only person who CAN'T log on to your own website.
Reminder
I'm closing the nominees for the Hector Heathcoat Award for Prosecutors at 7 p.m. on Friday, so if you haven't nominated yet, get your votes in.
Remember, the voitng is for nominees at this point, so multiple votes for the same person are unneccessary. One nomination will take a candidate into the bracket system (except for Michael Pham, whom, although his nomination was pretty funny, isn't really a candidate).
On a side note, since I like this voting system thing, I was also thinking about the next vote being for something outside of our little incestuous world.
POSSIBLE TOPICS:
Best Police Officer (other than Walker, Texas Ranger)
Best Expert Witness
Best Judge
Best Court Coordinator (these folks never get the recognition they deserve)
I'm open to suggestion for other categories. I know this is cheesy, but I think it's a nice idea to let folks know that they are appreciated.
On that note, does anyone know if Skip Cornelius ever found out he was the Defense Bar winner? I've been dying to find out his reaction (or lack thereof) to this highly prestigious honor.
Remember, the voitng is for nominees at this point, so multiple votes for the same person are unneccessary. One nomination will take a candidate into the bracket system (except for Michael Pham, whom, although his nomination was pretty funny, isn't really a candidate).
On a side note, since I like this voting system thing, I was also thinking about the next vote being for something outside of our little incestuous world.
POSSIBLE TOPICS:
Best Police Officer (other than Walker, Texas Ranger)
Best Expert Witness
Best Judge
Best Court Coordinator (these folks never get the recognition they deserve)
I'm open to suggestion for other categories. I know this is cheesy, but I think it's a nice idea to let folks know that they are appreciated.
On that note, does anyone know if Skip Cornelius ever found out he was the Defense Bar winner? I've been dying to find out his reaction (or lack thereof) to this highly prestigious honor.
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 ...