NOTICE: Due to this blog putting newest articles on top, please scroll down to WTF - I and read it before reading this.
Okay, now I've had breakfast and three cups of coffee, so I've calmed down a little bit with my fury towards the Chronicle. But only just a little bit.
I would now like to address the column on Pat Lykos. There are many things that I like in life, one of the things I like the most is when I experience one of those rare moments when I'm right about something. In yesterday's article on Reality vs. Perception, I pointed out that Pat Lykos is not a good candidate for the D.A.'s Office, because she gives over broad and general answers to questions that sound lovely to the voters, but aren't really worth a bucket of pee pee to those who know the litigation side of the Criminal Justice System.
The "puff piece" on Lykos in today's Chronicle proved me right. Although, undoubtedly, the voters probably loved it.
Here's what she listed:
1. "She proposes that the agency establish an ethics office to provide guidance for achieving the right kind of justice" - cute idea. And what exactly would this "ethics office" do? Would it be staffed full time? Would it have a hotline?
"Hello, you have reached Harris County District Attorney's Ethics Office. Do you have an ethics crisis? Are you up on a ledge and thinking of acting unethically? Let our experienced professionals talk you down."
This is a weak-minded and political attempt to win over the public.
The right answer - sending more prosecutors to more ethics classes. If you want to make a difference in the public opinion, make sure that prosecutors aren't getting just minimal CLE, but even more than required. Prosecutors that get in trouble with the Office? Make them take a CLE that might directly relate to what they did.
2. "that (the Office) get more concerned with stopping human trafficking, organized crime and drug cartels" - this one is awesome, and thus my favorite. I have this vision of her dispatching prosecutors like Vic Wisner, armed to the teeth, down to Columbia to focus on the drug cartels. There's something about that visual that just cracks me up.
Um, Judge, the people who do that are usually called the Feds. True, sometimes HPD and other agencies do get involved with the major cases when human trafficking, organized crime, and drug cartels come into Harris County limits, but this is the cops job.
True, there should be a specialized division that helps handle major cases like this. Oh wait, there already is one.
It's called Special Crimes, and Kelly Siegler is the head of it.
Nice shot with the pandering and a good try at re-inventing the wheel.
3. "and less concerned with imprisoning low-level offenders who have problems with addiction, homelessness or mental disease" - Lykos also made several other controversial statements such as "the sun is hot", "cancer is a bad thing", and "I like puppies."
My response to this portion: "Well, duh". Jim Leitner said in his speech at the Spaghetti Warehouse that "a change is coming no matter what". He was so right about that. I would argue that only a trial lawyer would know how to effectively put "less concern" into drug cases. What does that mean, Judge? More 12.44(a) or (b)? Class Cs on all crack pipe cases? Not taking residue cases at all at intake?
All of the above are interesting solutions. I know which one I like best, but it would be naive to think there aren't also, at least some, downsides to them, as well. Don't forget that in neighborhoods where the use of crack cocaine is a problem, there are a lot of good people there who want that stuff off their streets in their neighborhood. These are the people clapping when the cops arrest a guy for walking in the street where a sidewalk was provided (and subsequently found a crack pipe). Why are they clapping? Because that guy just got taken away from their house.
Somewhere, a balance must be struck between protecting neighborhoods, and also not over-charging and ruining people's life. It takes careful thought and consideration. Not just a glib answer from a candidate.
4. "make sure convicts are sentenced consistently, with no regards to whether their lawyer is a high-paid private practitioner or a relatively inexperienced lawyer supplied by the county?!?!?!?"
Okay, loyal readers (this means you, Bennett). You blasted me for my "faint praise". You blasted me for my explanation of Batson and the African-American juror. You gotta be jumping all over this quote.
"Relatively inexperienced lawyer supplied by the county?" Oh, and who does she mean by that? Folks like that poor, slow Jerry Guerinot? The barely functioning Ricardo Rodriguez? How about that half-wit, Rob Morrow? Is that a little bit of drool running down Charlie Brown's chin? And that Skip Cornelius guy just doesn't get it, does he? Poor old Pat McCann still screws up the alphabet doesn't he?
I don't mean to be pandering to those members of the Defense Bar that take appointments, but who in the hell does Lykos think she is to insinuate that y'all are anything other than some of the best attorneys in the State of Texas, and thus the world.
Maybe once you guys get a little more experience you can do as good as Dick DeGuerin.
What happened on his last murder trial, by the way?
5. She presided over the Karla Faye Tucker trial - Ann Richards once stated that George Bush taking credit for the end of the Cold War is like the rooster taking credit for the sun coming up in the morning. A Judge presiding over a high-profile death penalty case and then claiming it like Lykos always has is a little bit silly, if you ask me. But the sad thing is that it seems to be effective.
The Karla Faye Tucker trial was before my time at the Office, although I'm certainly familiar with the facts of the case. But for the life of me, Lykos has done so much crowing over it over the years, that she's the only name I know associated with the case. Some of you older (um, I mean seasoned) lawyers help me out here. Who were the prosecutors? Who were the defense attorneys? You know -- those people who actually did all the work on the case while the Lykos presided? The ones who's names she seems to eclipse.
32 comments:
Henry Oncken represented Karla Faye Tucker
The important thing to recall about the KFT case is that Charlie Davidson and Rusty Hardin, two of the prosecutors of KFT, later came to believe in her jailhouse conversion and earnestly sought commutation of her death sentence from the Governor. A rarity not only for that office, but for Davidson and Hardin (at least in those days anyway).
Wow. You have not been around long, have you?
This is "Bernstein," (alan.bernstein@chron.com) writing under my real name in response to this anonymous blog, not to argue with opinions or name-calling but to correct the record. My articles on the four candidates are now posted on www.chron.com. Kelly was a 3 in Shaver's felony court when she made the remark I reported. I did not interview DeGeurin but did quote his motion about a fact (not an allegation), since Kelly says the quote is accurate. And if anyone needs to voice opinions to me by name or needs any information or recollections about courts from 1981-83, please write. I covered the court beat then, when Poe, McSpadden, Rains and Rosenthal were ADAs and Lykos was a judge.
Mr. Bernstein,
I'm glad you stopped by and corrected the record and let us know that the link is now on chron.com. I don't believe that I called you any names during my article, but I stand by my original position that what you wrote about Kelly was a hatchet-job. I'm very curious to know when the Chronicle is going to start writing things about Kelly that matter. Like her trial record, or, you know, something relevant like that. Given the tone of the articles you wrote about the other three candidates, Kelly's article seemed to stick out like a sore thumb.
So Kelly was a three in Shaver's court when this happened? I guess I was slightly off in my commentary, then, but only slightly. Back in those days, people were making Felony Chief in four years (as opposed to an average of 10, I think now). A felony three still has much to learn when they take that position. Call me crazy, but I just don't see it relevant to her qualifications now.
Since you offered, who was the prosecutor on Karla Faye Tucker back then? A helpful poster has already let us know who the defense attorney was.
northside,
That's interesting about Charlie and Rusty. I didn't know about their change of opinion.
Seeee.....AHCL
Arn't you glad you didn't fold up shop? ;-) I told you it was a " good thing" to have differnt opinions and readers and writers.... even a biased liberal columnist has stopped in. Of course, his jab at your annoynimity made me laugh. The difference between his biased articles and your blog, he gets paid. You are here on your free time to incite thought. He is there to incite sales. Ever since the Houston Post became defunct, the level of journalism at the Chronicle plumeted.
Yes, Anon,
I'm glad you talked me into staying. I do wish you Anon posters would get IDs, so I know who all is saying what. But, yes, I'm glad I've stayed. Of course, I may regret it down the road, but for today, I'm glad I'm here.
I don't blame Mr. Bernstein for taking a potshot at the anonymity issue. He's right. He puts his name on a by-line, and I don't. But your distinction is absolutely correct. This is just me voicing my thoughts, not making a living. I love the interaction that happens on this site.
I am flattered that Mr. Bernstein dropped by, because God knows I love a healthy discussion.
Thank you for coming back for another visit, Anon. Come back soon.
ACHL - I wanted to respond to your WFT "duology," but I wanted to give it some careful thought. In the end, I can sense your partisan upset, but I can't understand the degree.
Okay, you didn't like the Chronicle's treatment of her. But I read the same articles, and I see a smart prosecutor who claims to belong to MENSA but doesn't necessarily show it in her actions. For example, after she graduated from UT and South Texas, am I really supposed to believe that she didn't know what it means to "jew" someone down? I grew up in the South and I knew exactly what it meant before I hit junior high. I think her intelligence kicked in when she contritely puckered her lips and called on the juror. Twenty-odd years later, as a manager, how much less is she inclined to shoot from the lip? Ask the folks at Lakewood. The best explanation the MENSA member can come up with to explain her actions is a jab at a juror's church. I couldn't care less about her trial record, because it has little to do with the job for which she is applying. I care about how she treats the public for whom she works.
I know you support her, but filing for the office opened her to scrutiny. And as newsdad00 alluded, anecdotes become fact when the subject acknowledges their truth. Examples of past (or not so past) judgment become significant precisely because she is running to replace someone for whom judgment (past and not so past) has been an issue.
Now, in fairness, I don't think newsdad00 busted his buns on the stories, but I also think the stories were intended to give an opening sketch of the candidates. Many folks know nothing about them and it's so early in the process (remember, they all dove in at the last minute) that the only thing they've really fought to do was increase their respective distances from Chuck.
As to your observations on Lykos, maybe she's clueless or maybe she's checking instead of raising.
Let's see . . .
1. Ethics - I agree that CLE opportunities should be increased, but I see people every day who go to training and fail to practice that to which they were exposed. I'm not sure that an Office of Professional Responsibility is a bad thing, and the HCDAO would not be the first local agency in the country to have one. Interesting.
2. Human trafficking, etc. - Maybe you were out of the loop, but a couple of years ago the feds began offering training to locals (not just cops) who interact with victims and defendants. The idea was/is that locals in the jails and the courts are in a good position to identify victims of human trafficking and provide that information to local and federal prosecutors. This should be of interest to the HCDAO, since a good many street and quality-of-life crimes result downstream from such organized criminal activity. Attenuation of those organizational influences will improve the lives and safety of the community. Not original, but worthwhile.
3. Low-level offenders, etc. - I agree with you that this is a no-brainer. What is worth considering is that we will spend the rest of eternity making the neighbors happy (but doing little else) if we don't figure out a way to break some of the cycles we all see every day (the CJC frequent flyers).
4. Consistent sentencing, etc. - This one makes my brain hurt, but for a reason different from yours. Screw the insult. She apparently believes all should be sentenced consistently, but recidivists should be punished more harshly than first offenders. Please make up your mind! And don't get me started on what stricter courts have to do with anything . . .
The essence of justice lies in treating both victims and defendants as individuals. No decisions made at the bar of justice should be made on other than an individual basis, from the setting of bail to the sentence imposed.
5. I honestly can't think of any way that this case relates to anything, so I'll just let it go.
Just a few random thoughts . . .
I am very glad that I found this blog. Bernstein should be fired. I cut off my Chronicle delivery today. I have been tempted to do it for the last 2 years, but today was the straw that broke my back. They aren't even trying to hide their opinions anymore. If I want editorialized news I will go to dailykos.com.
Uh oh, Sorry AHCL.. I usually sign off with JAGJO but forgot in my earlier post at 5:01pm. It was I that said I'm glad your stuck around. And for the record people, Are there any major newspapers in any large cities that are not liberal/democrat biased? btw -AHCL - if you are acting on a true passion/conviction then you should never have any regret. :-) ~JAGJO
Well, welcome back JAGJO. I don't know about whether or not other major city papers have non-liberal/ democrat biased. I think that may just be a function of reporting the news rather than experiencing it happen. But I do think a lot of papers can do it with more credibility than the Chronicle does. Our local Houston Press is a pretty liberal publication, but the writing is good and they will at least examine all issues when writing. I'm sure that since it is a weekly publication that the poor writers there don't get too much in the salary department, but I like their writing a lot better than what I see at the Chronicle.
"Hey Aggie Face! Did you see the paper today about the four Repubs for DA?"
"Nah, Longhorn Lobes, I stopped taking the paper. Now I read it for free online on some days, and the other days the only thing I miss out on is what's going on in my own community. Guess I save money coming and going."
"Well you should have seen it. Total fluff piece on Kelly Seiger and a hatchet job on the others."
"How so, Austin Herbalist?"
"Well, B-CS Boy, it says Siegler has management experience in the DA's office, disagreed with Chuck on several important issues, fights passionately for crime victims, has a national rep for being effective in trial and apologizes when she says stuff she realizes later was not the best thing to say."
"Really! Now, what's it say about the others, Travis County Tough Guy?
"Well, makes it clear two have never been prosecutors and one switched sides for money, Farming Friend. And the one who was the judge was judged harshly."
"So where's the liberal bias we've been talking about, Lake Lover?"
"Twelvth Man, I gotta admit I don't know."
"And if there was liberal bias, who would it be against? A famous prosecutor, a cop or a judge?"
"Beats me, just like you Ags beat our football team."
"So you think I should take the Chronicle again?"
"You mean 'the paper.' When we don't like the job they do, we call it the Chronicle. When we like it, we say, 'Hey, did you see in the paper that . . . .?"
Leviathan,
I don't think that you and I are all that far apart in our thinking. We both agree that Leitner would be an excellent D.A. We just differ over the issue of Kelly, because I think she would also be an excellent D.A. based on her trial ability and intelligence. Yes, there are anecdotal stories about her that perhaps tarnish her reputation, but I think the overall picture is one that would be a benefit to Harris County.
I also respectfully disagree with you about Lykos. I don't think she is "checking" and not "raising", because I don't think she has a complete comprehension of the system. I also think that there would be a mass exodus of ADAs under her reign (whether it be voluntarily or involuntarily). I think she is a politician who is just saying what she thinks will be most well received with the voting public.
As to the five issues that I brought up and that you responded to:
1) I don't think an ethics bureau or mandatory CLE will ever change the heart of a person who is just (at their core) unethical. I think its just a nice idea that may look good on paper but won't make any type of meaningful change with anybody.
2) I probably lost a little of my message in my sarcasm. The point that I was trying to make is that Lykos didn't have a new idea, and she was calling for a Bureau that Kelly is already the Chief of.
3) I think that progressive ideas like "Drug Court" that Harris County now has are definite steps in the right direction, but, it's hard to help those who don't want to help themselves. Its hard not to be cynical when it comes to some repeat offenders.
4) I agree with you completely. Thus lies the benefits of "prosecutorial discretion". Unfortunately, prosecutorial discretion also generates a lot disparities in sentencing. It's a double edged sword.
5) Regarding KFT, it probably has nothing to do with anything. It's just irksome to me.
AHCL,
I think you nailed it in your description of Lykos's answers: "over broad and general answers to questions that sound lovely to the voters, but aren't really worth a bucket of pee pee to those who know the litigation side of the Criminal Justice System."
But here's the thing: the candidate who is in the best position to give specific answers worth a bucket of pee pee isn't. The only candidate who is in a position to say, "here are the specific challenges the Office faces, and here's how I'll fix them" is saying, "I'll solicit reform ideas from fellow prosecutors." Everyone else could truthfully say, "I don't yet know enough about the problems at the DA's office to offer specific solutions"; not Kelly. Not unless she's had her head in the sand for the last seven years.
P.S. it looks like the Chronicle blog commenters have followed Mr. Bernstein over here.
P.P.S. According to The Google, Joe Magliolo prosecuted Karla Faye Tucker.
Mr. Bernstein,
I understand that things are all a matter perspective, but seriously, I opened my paper this morning (because I do still actually buy the paper), and I thought it would be a general background on all the candidates. And that's what it seemed like for Lykos, Perry, and Leitner.
But the article on Kelly ran like an expose. You are the professional writer, Mr. Bernstein. I'm just a person with a computer. Can't you see the difference in tone in the article on Kelly versus the others?
And I really don't see how you can pass this off as a "matter of different perspectives" when the Chronicle keeps going after Kelly every single day and never looks with any type of scrutiny at any of the other candidates.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not calling for a scrutiny into the personal lives of the other candidates, because I think that's B.S. in county politics. It discourages too many good people from running. But the Chronicle's treatment of Kelly has consistently been a one-two punch. You all fail to acknowledge her skills as a prosecutor who fights hard on tough cases that nobody else could have a chance on, and you blast her on anecdotes (one that happened twenty years ago).
I realize that I am quite clearly a Kelly fan, but here's the difference between you and me: I'm a blogger who his clearly asserting his opinions. You're a journalist who is supposed to be reporting the news neutrally (or at least as neutrally as possible).
Mark,
I can't speak for Kelly, but what I think she was trying to say was that her door will be open to other prosecutors who want to let her know about things that are going wrong with the Office. As I've mentioned time and time again, the circle of people that advise Chuck successfully was/is extremely small.
I don't think she was saying "I've got no idea what to do, but I'll check with younger prosecutors."
As to Chronicle bloggers that followed Mr. Bernstein over here, what makes you say that?
Is there a bias against people blogging in both places, y'all?
Should I jump on the "I'm offended" bandwagon that seems to be all the rage these days? ;)
I like this blog very much - for the most part people seem open to actually talking about the issues...we can't really talk openly around the office at the moment, so this is good.
However, I hope the Chronicle bloggers who seem to have some deep, personal issues to work out DO NOT come here.
I hope we keep this as an open, respectful place. We need it.
Thanks to the person who started this - you're alright, dude or dudette.
Nicely put "HC-ADA".
The problem with newspapers is that they employ so damn many educated people; more educated people -- especially those whose educations are in the humanities -- are generally more empathetic, and therefore more "liberal", than less educated people.
That said, the Wall Street Journal isn't a particularly liberal rag.
I agree Mark that the WSJ is not liberal biased. I have one on my desk every morning but it is also not a "main stream", city specific paper per se'.It's a specific paper focusing on business and financial news on a national and international level. I think I understand the point you are making regarding academic backgrounds of journalists influencing their writing perspective but I do not consider a liberal arts degree in journalism to be much superior than no degree at all. (ouch) I am most curious as to your comparison of liberal arts majors being more "liberal" than less educated people. Can they not be more liberal just for the fact, that they come from a liberal academic structure as opposed to another educated person that does not? In away, I like your theory of comparing liberal arts majors being more libeal than uneducated persons! lol Because an edjamcated person with a degree that exceeds a liberal arts ( which ain't hard to do)would therefore be too smart to have liberal sympathies. Ok.. Im just yanking your chain because Im about to post" liberal bias in newspapers" article and I happen to love most all of your posts thus far. Are we having fun yet?
:-) ~JAGJO
I have read so many articles on liberal bais in mainstream news papers for years and now that some posters here disagree so I copied this snippet from wikipedia.org It borders on the theory posed above by Bennett regarding journalists backgrounds.Enjoy!
Claims of a liberal bias
Liberal bias in the media is commonly thought to be the result of liberal principles and ideas influencing the coverage or selection of news stories.
Conservative critics of the media say this bias exists within a wide variety of media channels including network news shows of CBS, ABC, and NBC, cable channels CNN and MSNBC as well as major newspapers, news-wires, and radio outlets, especially CBS News, Newsweek, the New York Times, and National Public Radio.[13]
ABC News political director Mark Halperin supports the concept of a liberal media bias, saying that as individuals most journalists, and news producers, hold liberal political views and that these views affect their reporting.[14] In a survey conducted by the American Society of Newspaper Editors in 1997, 61% of reporters stated that they were members of or shared the beliefs of the Democratic Party. Only 15% say their beliefs were best represented by the Republican Party.[15]
A 2002 study by Jim A. Kuypers of Dartmouth College, Press Bias and Politics, investigated the issue of media bias. In this study of 116 mainstream US papers, including The New York Times, the Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, and the San Francisco Chronicle, Kuypers found that the mainstream press in America tends to favor liberal viewpoints.[16] They found that reporters expressed moderate or conservative points of view were often labeled as holding a minority point of view.[16] Kuypers said he found liberal bias in reporting a variety of issues including race, welfare reform, environmental protection, and gun control.[16]
A poll of likely 2008 United States presidential election voters released on March 14, 2007 by Zogby International reports that 83% of those surveyed believe that there is a bias in the media, with 64% of respondents of the opinion that this bias favors liberals and 28% of respondents believing that this bias is conservative.[17]
[edit] Watchdog groups
Conservative organizations Accuracy In Media, Media Research Center and NewsBusters support the claim that the media has a liberal bias, and are dedicated, in some cases specifically, to publicizing the issue. The Media Research Center, for example, was founded with the specific intention to "prove ... that liberal bias in the media does exist and undermines traditional American values".[18][19]
I'm kind bored with the newspaper rant... lets drift back into CJC land! ;-)
~JAGJO
JAGJO,
I'm not one to judge whether one education is better than another, or indeed whether education is better than ignorance, but I'd rather surround myself with empathetic people than narrowminded ones. Happy to continue this discussion offblog. mark -at- fightthefeds -dot- com.
Mark,
Please don't tell me that you just typed this...
"more educated people -- especially those whose educations are in the humanities -- are generally more empathetic, and therefore more "liberal", than less educated people"
...with a straight face???
Back to the CJC discussion - before this completely turns into a liberal v. conservative discussion! I finally made time to read the article by Alan Bernstein. Wow! It is dripping with bias, right down to the titles (the one about Kelly containing the word "controversy"). The pieces seem to imply that all the other candidates are saints compared to Kelly. As if all the others have dedicated their lives to raising a good American family, completing an education to fulfill their dream to be the DA in Harris county or to be tough on crime. Meanwhile, the piece on Kelly all but paints her to be a stupid, backwards b&^ch and she is, by far, not that. By the way, how does Mr. Bernstein qualify to report on the goings on at the CJC after having spent merely two years on the court beat in the 80s! He's got a lot of catching up to do!
I am a fan of Kelly as a prosecutor because she is that, a PROSECUTOR. Someone please tell me when being a prosecutor meant you should give anyone a break? The Code and the laws are there to prosecute, not to ignore crime. Prosecutors are there to enforce the law, not ignore them. And Kelly does just that. Except for Jim Leitner, no one else is good enough. - AFHCP
Actually, the CCP says the primary duty of a prosecutor is not to convict, but to see that Justice is done.
What happened to the two comments I read last night that were deleted? They seemed pretty relevant...
Since when is prosecuting someone for committing a crime inconsistent with seeing that justice is done. Certainly mercy can be an important consideration in some cases. Doesn't the DA's office participate in the drug courts and mental health court? Wasn't it a grant from the DA's office that provided a large part of the seed money for these courts? At the same time, I think it should be extremely rare that deferred is awarded to someone who shoots an innocent victim. Look at Kelly's defendants. Tell me does the thrill killer, cop killer, serial killer or baby killer deserve mercy?
Merriam Webster online defines justice as "the maintenance or administration of what is just especially by the impartial adjustment of conflicting claims or the assignment of merited rewards or punishments" and "prosecuting" as "the act or process of prosecuting; specifically : the institution and continuance of a criminal suit involving the process of pursuing formal charges against an offender to final judgment. Yes, the duty of a prosecutor is to see that justice is done. Without a doubt! Victims deserve justice, too. And in their case, justice usually means punishing those who have done them wrong, be it by incarceration or probation.
When I was at the office, I was known to be quite fair by the defense bar (which likely meant I dismissed a lot of cases. I saw myself as a gatekeeper of those good and bad cases, always dismissing those I thought were not righteous. As a misd chief, I always instructed my prosecutors to do what was right, even if it meant dismissing a case. To do "justice" and see that it is done can be to prosecute. It's an overzealous prosecution that isn't justice. -AFHCP
Great discussion.
I think it is obvious that the Chronicle is behind the game in breaking news, so they're trying to make up for it by posting column after column. Facts be damned, they've got something to say!
Bernstein might be the best reporter they have covering the local beat, but that's almost damning by faint praise.\
Sorry Alan, but you've been stuck in the mud with a bunch of rank amateurs from San Antonio.
Joe Magliolo was one of the Carla Faye Tucker prosecutors. I can't remember who the other was.
Charley Davidson and Rusty Hardin didn't prosecute Carla Faye Tucker. They prosecuted Danny Garrett, her codefendant. Carla Faye testified for them. That is the reason they wanted her sentence commuted. Joe Magliolo never wanted her sentence commuted.
Allow me to comment on your points.
1) If prosecutors have to take an ethics course then defense attorneys need to be sitting right beside them reading the same book!
2) Like the police, the DA's office has to deal with the crimes brought to its attention. It shouldn't pick and choose.
3) People who usually say this don't have to deal with the vagrants and crackheads in their neighborhood.
4) The law sometimes allows discretion and by my understanding that is up judges and juries, not the DA.
5) Oh big damn deal. Anyone who saw the pictures of what Tucker did (like I did) could make a good decision on that case.
Post a Comment