I didn't get around to reading the Chronicle until well after dark this evening, and I'm glad for that. The reason being that if I had read Rick Casey's latest holier-than-thou tripe in the paper, I probably would have just been irritated all day.
Casey has stepped to the defense of the Baytown juvenile who was charged with capital murder this week for murdering her newborn son. I don't know any more details than anyone else who has been reading the paper and/or watching the news, but my understanding is that the baby was found strangled, drowned, and had toilet paper crammed down his throat by his 14-year-old mother.
Gee, who wouldn't have sympathy for that?!
And, of course, Rick Casey is quick to assess who the real villain is in the scenario: Bill Hawkins, the Juvenile Division Chief of the District Attorney's Office.
Yes, let's quickly skip over the fact that apparently we, as a Society, are now quite comfortable with 14-year-olds having babies, and the fact that the 14-year-old should have had some parents to guide her in what to do regarding the child. Let's not blame the 14-year-old herself, either. Let's act as if a 14-year-old has the moral equivalency and intelligence level of a three-year-old, and excuse her right off the bat.
The real villains in this scenario are the prosecutors, yet again, because dammit, those kill-joys down at 1201 Franklin are just totally acting like they've got a stick up their butts when it comes to infanticide.
They dared to charge a 14-year-old with Capital Murder.
Well, guess what, Rick -- from everything I've read in the paper, it sure as hell seems to me that there's a lot of evidence to indicate that she did commit Capital Murder.
Casey's over-arching theme is more about the fact that the D.A.'s Office has a policy of charging the highest crime possible, and gosh-darnit, that's just freaking mean! What a stupid policy! The Office really should look long and hard at how they are filing charges. They really should be filing these charges as lesser offenses.
For example:
The guy who sexually assaults a six-year-old shouldn't be charged with Aggravated Sexual Assault of a Child, when a Class C Assault with "offensive touching" would work.
The guy who burns down his neighbor's house shouldn't be charged with Arson, when a simple misdemeanor of Criminal Mischief will do.
And the guy who goes and shoots a gas station attendant while he's stealing $20 shouldn't be charged with Capital Murder. Hell no, let's charge him with Class C Theft.
Casey surmises all kinds of facts that may or may not be in play, such as the 14-year-old just being confused or stressed out. I'm sure that's true, but it doesn't somehow make the charges of Capital Murder less appropriate.
Bill Hawkins cited a Chuck Rosenthal-era policy of always charging the highest crime possible. Although I wasn't familiar that this was an actual "policy", I fail to see the problem with charging a person appropriately for their actions, especially when it comes to a fatality crime. There are plenty of charges where filing the lesser offense may be appropriate (say for instance, a Class C paraphernalia case on a crack pipe rather than a felony Possession of a Controlled Substance).
But on a Capital Murder? Give me a break, Rick.
Casey talked to both Clarence Bradford and Pat Lykos about their views on the filing "policy", and both danced around the issue, saying that they would have to look at the facts. Although Lykos and I aren't exactly fans of each other, I can say that I found more assurance in her statements than in Bradford's. Her response was to look more at a totality of the circumstances, while Bradford's was more of a vow to stay away from a maximum punishment.
Casey's indignation continues on with the D.A.'s Office. Even after they dared to charge her with Capital Murder, they then dared to keep her detained! And Rick goes ahead and pontificates that the 14-year-old won't flee or commit any more crimes while awaiting trial. Man, it must be nice to be so omniscient.
God forbid that we treat this 14-year-old like a juvenile who has been charged with the most serious crime on the Texas books.
My favorite part of the article comes at the end, after arguing that we should be trying to help this 14-year-old child.
Here, Casey preaches: "That's what a civilized society does with 14-year-olds."
Civilized Society?
Are you freaking kidding me, Casey? What part of any of this is civilized? The part where a 14-year-old is having a baby? The part where that baby is choked to death on wet toilet paper? The part where a 14-year-old doesn't have any appreciation for human life or empathy for what she is doing to the most defenseless of all living creatures?
Are you really preaching that the only thing that isn't "civil" is the prosecution of this?
Rick, you really need to shake your moral compass a few times. I think that damn thing is broken.
I believe I will be siding with the baby that died in the toilet on this one.
Sunday, June 29, 2008
Saturday, June 28, 2008
Ted Busch
Bert Graham sent out the following e-mail regarding the passing of former First Assistant Ted Busch. Mr. Busch had left the Office long before I arrived, so I will print Bert's e-mail here:
From: Graham, Bert
Sent: Friday, June 27, 2008 1:05 PM
To: All DA Employees
Subject: Legend of this Office has died.
Ted Busch, former First Assistant District Attorney of the Harris County District Attorney's Office died two days ago. He was my good friend and mentor and he will be missed by those of us who stayed in contact with him through the years. He was a career prosecutor having started here in the early 1960's and retiring as First Assistant D.A. in 1987. He was smart and extremely dedicated to helping provide a quality prosecutors office while seeing that justice was done.
Ted was definitely what I would call a "character" because of his eccentricities, but they were mostly the endearing type. For example, he never agreed to accept social security because he thought his retirement check from the county was enough, and he thought the program might last a little longer if it didn't have to pay him. Everyone that knew him has a different story to tell about his unique outlook and personality. Each one brings a smile.
He spent his retirement years in Fort Stockton, Texas and every six months he would meet several of us in Salado, Texas for 3 days of golf. He has a brother in Minnesota. I am not sure when, where or if there will be a service.
I am proud to have served with Ted Busch.
From: Graham, Bert
Sent: Friday, June 27, 2008 1:05 PM
To: All DA Employees
Subject: Legend of this Office has died.
Ted Busch, former First Assistant District Attorney of the Harris County District Attorney's Office died two days ago. He was my good friend and mentor and he will be missed by those of us who stayed in contact with him through the years. He was a career prosecutor having started here in the early 1960's and retiring as First Assistant D.A. in 1987. He was smart and extremely dedicated to helping provide a quality prosecutors office while seeing that justice was done.
Ted was definitely what I would call a "character" because of his eccentricities, but they were mostly the endearing type. For example, he never agreed to accept social security because he thought his retirement check from the county was enough, and he thought the program might last a little longer if it didn't have to pay him. Everyone that knew him has a different story to tell about his unique outlook and personality. Each one brings a smile.
He spent his retirement years in Fort Stockton, Texas and every six months he would meet several of us in Salado, Texas for 3 days of golf. He has a brother in Minnesota. I am not sure when, where or if there will be a service.
I am proud to have served with Ted Busch.
Where Are They Now: David Hilburn
I was recently alerted by former Harris County ADA (and current Brazos County ADA) David Hilburn that he had gotten some local acclaim in the Bryan/College Station area for his attempted heroics in a Brazos County Courtroom.
Uh, it didn't turn out so well for him. Who would have ever thought that an ADA in Brazos County would be facing more danger than one in Harris County?
For those of you who don't know David Hilburn, he was probably one of the most popular ADAs to ever walk the halls of the CJC. The reason being he was just so damn nice, and so damn funny. Dave seems to be adapting well in Brazos County -- he's married up and allegedly has a bambino on the way.
Dancing Dave assured me that he is recovering well from the bump on the Noggin, and if there was any type of brain damage, well, nobody really would have noticed.
Uh, it didn't turn out so well for him. Who would have ever thought that an ADA in Brazos County would be facing more danger than one in Harris County?
For those of you who don't know David Hilburn, he was probably one of the most popular ADAs to ever walk the halls of the CJC. The reason being he was just so damn nice, and so damn funny. Dave seems to be adapting well in Brazos County -- he's married up and allegedly has a bambino on the way.
Dancing Dave assured me that he is recovering well from the bump on the Noggin, and if there was any type of brain damage, well, nobody really would have noticed.
Incentives
I had an interesting conversation this morning with a friend of mine from the Office, who we'll call "KB" (since I'm really starting to enjoy assigning pseudonyms to people) about what we thought would the personnel shifts would be under a Bradford and/or Lykos Administration.
Of course, at this point, it is pretty much all random speculation when it comes to either candidate.
Bradford reached out to those ADAs who would be willing to talk to him some time ago. This week, all the ADAs received a letter from Pat Lykos, saying that their jobs were safe for "those who believe in the rule of law, and understand our solemn duty to ensure justice and protect our citizens". I think we all realize that there won't be a wholesale purging of the Office. There just wouldn't be enough people to replace them.
I do imagine that several who have placed themselves "out there" a little more aggressively than others (like say, a certain Blogger, for instance) wouldn't expect to be keeping their post depending on the Administration, but, trust me, they knew that going into the game.
But what is to certainly be expected is for whoever wins the election to replace the "Upper Echelons" with their own people. This, of course, begs two questions:
1. What qualifies as the "Upper Echelons"?; and
2. Who do you replace them with?
The answer to Question #1 is most certainly the First Assistant and the Bureau Chiefs. It's about a 50-50 shot over whether or not it includes Division Chiefs as well.
The answer to Question #2 is more interesting. Does the victor of the election just pull up loyalists from within the Office, or do they recruit from outside?
It was the idea of replacing the "higher ups" with outsiders that made up most of my conversation with K.B. this morning (and it also explains the title of this post).
If a person is brought in from outside the Office, they could theoretically be the new First Assistant and still be on "probationary" status with the county. In other words, they could be the second in command, but still be limited to only two weeks of vacation a year for their first five years there. They also wouldn't even get put on the insurance for the first several months. The lure of that just wouldn't seem all that appealing to me if I was in private practice.
What do you think?
Of course, at this point, it is pretty much all random speculation when it comes to either candidate.
Bradford reached out to those ADAs who would be willing to talk to him some time ago. This week, all the ADAs received a letter from Pat Lykos, saying that their jobs were safe for "those who believe in the rule of law, and understand our solemn duty to ensure justice and protect our citizens". I think we all realize that there won't be a wholesale purging of the Office. There just wouldn't be enough people to replace them.
I do imagine that several who have placed themselves "out there" a little more aggressively than others (like say, a certain Blogger, for instance) wouldn't expect to be keeping their post depending on the Administration, but, trust me, they knew that going into the game.
But what is to certainly be expected is for whoever wins the election to replace the "Upper Echelons" with their own people. This, of course, begs two questions:
1. What qualifies as the "Upper Echelons"?; and
2. Who do you replace them with?
The answer to Question #1 is most certainly the First Assistant and the Bureau Chiefs. It's about a 50-50 shot over whether or not it includes Division Chiefs as well.
The answer to Question #2 is more interesting. Does the victor of the election just pull up loyalists from within the Office, or do they recruit from outside?
It was the idea of replacing the "higher ups" with outsiders that made up most of my conversation with K.B. this morning (and it also explains the title of this post).
If a person is brought in from outside the Office, they could theoretically be the new First Assistant and still be on "probationary" status with the county. In other words, they could be the second in command, but still be limited to only two weeks of vacation a year for their first five years there. They also wouldn't even get put on the insurance for the first several months. The lure of that just wouldn't seem all that appealing to me if I was in private practice.
What do you think?
Wednesday, June 25, 2008
Another Need for a Prosecutor for Hire?
KHOU.com is reporting that the entire Montgomery County District Attorney's Office is having to recuse itself from a murder case involving two year old Madisyn Farrington.
The article reports that District Attorney himself had interviewed Madisyn's eight-year-old sister, who was a fact witness on the case. According to the article, the sister had a "different story" from the one she originally told investigators, although it does not go into details. Whatever the details are, they must be substantial enough for the entire office to be forced to recuse itself from the case in it's entirety.
I find this to be completely bizarre.
I realize that Montgomery County's District Attorney's Office is substantially smaller than Harris County's, but it sounds like the proper procedures were followed by D.A. Mike McDougal in interviewing the child. The interview was not recorded, but in my experience, I never taped a meeting with a witness prior to trial.
Not once.
But I did normally have a witness to the interview (especially when dealing with a child witness). In fact, it is this exact type of scenarios that make the Harris County District Attorney's Office's Victim Witness Division such a God-send. They are the ones who typically will come sit with the child during the interview, and make the child feel at ease. If the child does something unexpected, they can become a witness.
I've even had a routine meeting with a child witness turn into an outcry of additional sexual abuse before, and thankfully, there was a person from Victim Witness there to be the official witness.
KHOU is making a big deal out of "the interview" not being recorded, but I don't see why the second prosecutor as a witness doesn't remedy that. Of course, if the changes in the story amount to Brady they must be disclosed, and the other prosecutor "witness" can't be sitting second chair with McDougal when the case goes to trial.
But what's causing the whole freaking recusal? Am I missing something?
Let's play out the scenario:
The child testifies. The defense attorney is well-informed of any inconsistent statements that she made. She either acknowledges the changes on the stand, or she doesn't. If she doesn't acknowledge them, then the defense attorney calls the "witness prosecutor". What's the big deal?
McDougal states that he doesn't want to be put in the position of cross-examining someone who works in his own Office? What the hell is that about? Is he going to attack his moral turpitude or something? If the child recanted or something along those lines, then so be it.
Investigators, victim witness personnel, and even prosecutors in Harris County take the stand all the time for various and sundry reasons. There's nothing tricky about it. Hell, it can actually be kind of fun sometimes.
I'm sure that there is more to the story than KHOU is reporting at the moment, so I'm not making any judgment calls, other than saying I don't understand it.
What is a tragedy is that it will delay the trial, apparently, which is causing a hardship for the victim's family.
Sounds like a job for Kelly Siegler, if you ask me.
The article reports that District Attorney himself had interviewed Madisyn's eight-year-old sister, who was a fact witness on the case. According to the article, the sister had a "different story" from the one she originally told investigators, although it does not go into details. Whatever the details are, they must be substantial enough for the entire office to be forced to recuse itself from the case in it's entirety.
I find this to be completely bizarre.
I realize that Montgomery County's District Attorney's Office is substantially smaller than Harris County's, but it sounds like the proper procedures were followed by D.A. Mike McDougal in interviewing the child. The interview was not recorded, but in my experience, I never taped a meeting with a witness prior to trial.
Not once.
But I did normally have a witness to the interview (especially when dealing with a child witness). In fact, it is this exact type of scenarios that make the Harris County District Attorney's Office's Victim Witness Division such a God-send. They are the ones who typically will come sit with the child during the interview, and make the child feel at ease. If the child does something unexpected, they can become a witness.
I've even had a routine meeting with a child witness turn into an outcry of additional sexual abuse before, and thankfully, there was a person from Victim Witness there to be the official witness.
KHOU is making a big deal out of "the interview" not being recorded, but I don't see why the second prosecutor as a witness doesn't remedy that. Of course, if the changes in the story amount to Brady they must be disclosed, and the other prosecutor "witness" can't be sitting second chair with McDougal when the case goes to trial.
But what's causing the whole freaking recusal? Am I missing something?
Let's play out the scenario:
The child testifies. The defense attorney is well-informed of any inconsistent statements that she made. She either acknowledges the changes on the stand, or she doesn't. If she doesn't acknowledge them, then the defense attorney calls the "witness prosecutor". What's the big deal?
McDougal states that he doesn't want to be put in the position of cross-examining someone who works in his own Office? What the hell is that about? Is he going to attack his moral turpitude or something? If the child recanted or something along those lines, then so be it.
Investigators, victim witness personnel, and even prosecutors in Harris County take the stand all the time for various and sundry reasons. There's nothing tricky about it. Hell, it can actually be kind of fun sometimes.
I'm sure that there is more to the story than KHOU is reporting at the moment, so I'm not making any judgment calls, other than saying I don't understand it.
What is a tragedy is that it will delay the trial, apparently, which is causing a hardship for the victim's family.
Sounds like a job for Kelly Siegler, if you ask me.
Revolt of the Machines
I know that blaming technology is my favorite scapegoating activity when it comes to problems on the blog, but the damn electronics department has seemed out to get me the past couple of weeks.
First of all, the Great Blogging Spirit of the Sky has somehow arbitrarily decided to stop alerting me whenever I get a new comment, which means that I have no idea when somebody has posted a comment on the blog. It was kind of funny, actually, because first it trickled off, and then it just stopped altogether. So, now I've learned to just check my comments box on the computer at least twice daily.
Then, the mother of all blogging catastrophes happened this week when my laptop crashed altogether. I kept getting messages about the "device" I had installed wasn't allowing the computer to start up. I found this to be very interesting since I had not installed any devices on the computer since . . . uh, ever.
Thankfully, a good friend with a lot more technological know-how fixed the lap top, so we are back in business again.
Now I just have to think of something to write about.
First of all, the Great Blogging Spirit of the Sky has somehow arbitrarily decided to stop alerting me whenever I get a new comment, which means that I have no idea when somebody has posted a comment on the blog. It was kind of funny, actually, because first it trickled off, and then it just stopped altogether. So, now I've learned to just check my comments box on the computer at least twice daily.
Then, the mother of all blogging catastrophes happened this week when my laptop crashed altogether. I kept getting messages about the "device" I had installed wasn't allowing the computer to start up. I found this to be very interesting since I had not installed any devices on the computer since . . . uh, ever.
Thankfully, a good friend with a lot more technological know-how fixed the lap top, so we are back in business again.
Now I just have to think of something to write about.
Sunday, June 22, 2008
Side-Lawyering
One my readers, whom I'll call "J.D." was kind enough to alert me to this article out of Dallas.
It seems that Craig Watkins has been doing some side-lawyering when not busy being a "PR Dream" for prosecutors.
It would be really nice if prosecutors could earn some extra income by drawing legal fees for side jobs like, say, doing a divorce for a friend, or writing a will.
But the law says that you can't. You just have to stick to that ultra-high paying government salary (and the side perk of being universally loved). (NOTE: Please read this mini-paragraph with as much sarcasm as you can muster.)
But not only is District Attorney Watkins doing some side-lawyering, he's also assisting in a little bit of mortgage fraud. I'm willing to give D.A. Watkins the benefit of the doubt and say that I really doubt he knew he was aiding in mortgage fraud.
However, he should have known better with the whole side-lawyering thing.
It seems that Craig Watkins has been doing some side-lawyering when not busy being a "PR Dream" for prosecutors.
It would be really nice if prosecutors could earn some extra income by drawing legal fees for side jobs like, say, doing a divorce for a friend, or writing a will.
But the law says that you can't. You just have to stick to that ultra-high paying government salary (and the side perk of being universally loved). (NOTE: Please read this mini-paragraph with as much sarcasm as you can muster.)
But not only is District Attorney Watkins doing some side-lawyering, he's also assisting in a little bit of mortgage fraud. I'm willing to give D.A. Watkins the benefit of the doubt and say that I really doubt he knew he was aiding in mortgage fraud.
However, he should have known better with the whole side-lawyering thing.
Saturday, June 21, 2008
The Harris County Jail Website
The Chronicle is reporting in an article today that that there is a new website out about what life is like in the Harris County Jail.
The new website is: http://www.harriscojail.com/
It's worth a read.
The new website is: http://www.harriscojail.com/
It's worth a read.
The Char Bar
For those of you who know me and know who I am, you're probably surprised that I haven't done a post on my favorite drinking establishment in Downtown Houston before today. Come to think of it, I'm kind of surprised, too, given how much I love the place.
The Char Bar (aka Duke of Hollywood Tailors) was originally a tailor shop that first opened in 1936. Owner Mike Shapiro, and his son, Jeremy converted and added the "Char Bar" element to the tailor shop in 2001. You can still get your tailoring needs met there, but the primary reason most criminal lawyers gather there is to enjoy a beverage. While the drinks and conversation are flowing, Big Weldon Renfro will be happy to give your shoes the best shine in town.
On any given weekday afternoon, you will likely find an interesting mix of prosecutors and defense attorneys swapping war stories and talking with each other. There are good discussions and debates over the law, and maybe even the occasional mutual griping about some judges. Many trial attorneys who have been battling it out all week in a trial will come to "Char" after a verdict and have a beer together to re-hash the trial.
You'll find defense attorneys being candid with their issues with certain prosecutors, cases, and judges. Prosecutors will be equally candid with them, and everyone knows that what the conversation is all off the record.
It's a fantastic place to unwind. Unlike many bars that pop in and out of Downtown, this one actually has character (not to mention a cast of characters who regularly hang out there). If you haven't dropped by there, you should.
The Char Bar (aka Duke of Hollywood Tailors) was originally a tailor shop that first opened in 1936. Owner Mike Shapiro, and his son, Jeremy converted and added the "Char Bar" element to the tailor shop in 2001. You can still get your tailoring needs met there, but the primary reason most criminal lawyers gather there is to enjoy a beverage. While the drinks and conversation are flowing, Big Weldon Renfro will be happy to give your shoes the best shine in town.
On any given weekday afternoon, you will likely find an interesting mix of prosecutors and defense attorneys swapping war stories and talking with each other. There are good discussions and debates over the law, and maybe even the occasional mutual griping about some judges. Many trial attorneys who have been battling it out all week in a trial will come to "Char" after a verdict and have a beer together to re-hash the trial.
You'll find defense attorneys being candid with their issues with certain prosecutors, cases, and judges. Prosecutors will be equally candid with them, and everyone knows that what the conversation is all off the record.
It's a fantastic place to unwind. Unlike many bars that pop in and out of Downtown, this one actually has character (not to mention a cast of characters who regularly hang out there). If you haven't dropped by there, you should.
Quiet Time
Sorry I've been a little quiet over the past week. I've had a lot going on. I will try to post a little more regularly in the future.
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 ...