Judge Lykos and Civil Rights

Today, I learned two interesting stories about Judge Lykos and her views on when it is appropriate to incarcerate someone and when it is not. In my humble opinion, Pat Lykos being "mean" is just the tip of the iceberg in dealing with her lack of qualifications to be District Attorney.

My first story that I learned today was reading the comments of "Mr. Roboto" on the Chronicle comments page (yes, I know I usually bash the posters over there, but this was rather interesting) when he wrote:

Ida Jean Tovar, unmarried mother of three, "is the firstHoustonian to escape a prison sentence by agreeing to have aNorplant birth-control device" and a 10-year probation period. In a statement issued to TX District Judge Pat Lykos, Tovar expressed her "wish that she have the implant" over a 10-year prison term for shaking her two-month-old son so violently that it resulted in brain damage.
Judge Lykos: "It was my idea. Ifelt like [the crime] was worth 10 years in the penitentiary, butI'm also very aware of the early release problem." Prison overcrowding in TX "has resulted in numerous early releases,"meaning that Tovar's 10-year sentence might have been closer totwo years and an early release "without much supervision."Tovar's case is not the nation's first. In January, CA Superior Circuit Judge Howard Broadman, "angered civil libertarians" whenhe "forced a woman to get such an implant as a condition of probation for beating her children" (John Makeig, HOUSTON CHRONICLE, 3/6).

Very interesting. A quick Google search of Ida Jean Tovar on the web does show that there is documentation of the case in several books, actually, but none that are easily read on the web.

So, let's see, a mother permanently brain damages her child, but that's okay with Judge Lykos, as long as the woman doesn't have any more children.

Call me crazy, but a woman that intentionally hurts her 2-month-old child to the point that the child has brain damage needs to be buried under the jail.

Now, let this serve as a contrast:

In The State of Texas vs. Mark Alonzo Garner, prosecutors Jeff Laird and (now-Judge) Mike Anderson were trying the case of a serial rapist against highly-respected defense attorney, Connie Williams. The defendant (not real big on the idea of going to trial on a case where he would most likely be sentenced to life) sought to delay the trial by coming up with a list of names that would "help his case" in the middle of trial. (NOTE: This isn't an entirely unusual trial tactic by some defendants).

None of these "helpful witnesses" for the Defendant (who were all law abiding students at Texas Southern University, by the way) had been subpoenaed (probably due to the fact that the Defendant had decided he wanted them after the jury had been selected).

So, what does the Honorable Judge Lykos order done? She doesn't want to delay the trial, and yet, she doesn't want to deprive the serial rapist of his witnesses.

Well, she orders all of those witnesses arrested, of course.

Yep, you read that right. She ordered the investigating officers from the TSU Police Department to go round up 3 or 4 of these students and take them into custody. None of them were under subpoena and none of them had any notice that their presence was even desired in court. My understanding is that at least one of the arrested witnesses even ended up spending the night in jail. (And if you are paying attention, that means that he spent the night in jail when he had done absolutely nothing wrong!)

When the TSU students were finally able to make it to court, none of them knew a damn thing about Mr. Garner or his case.

By the way, if you like doing math like Lykos does , try this equation:

No legal basis + unlawful incarceration = Civil Rights Violation

So, let's do a real quick recap here.

Shake your baby to the point he has brain damage -- you get probation with birth control.

Do absolutely nothing wrong but have a serial rapist know your name -- spend the night in jail.

NOTE: I want to stress for the record that my source on the Garner case is absolutely not Judge Mike Anderson. I do not wish to cause him any type of grief if anyone was to make that incorrect assumption.

NOTE # 2: Mark Alonzo Garner still got life in prison. But from a jury, not Lykos.


Anonymous said…
Reading this post made the hairs on the back of my neck stand on end. The thought of Lykos as the elected District Attorney becomes more frightening by the minute. Thank you for your research AHCL. I certainly hope people read your blog so they can make an informed decision in the runoff next month.

Please everyone, vote in the runoff. This election is too important.

hcresident said…
I vaguely remember the Garner case. I think he was the defendant that made one of his victims, a doctor, drink his urine after raping her. Imagine what that trial would have been like if she had to rely on an unexperienced prosecutor to try her case b/c everyone with experience quit after a Lykos election. I know that I would want an experienced lawyer if I was ever charged with a serious crime, but I would want the same if I was ever on the receiving end of an awful crime.
Anonymous said…
If that story is true, it is very upsetting. Is that part of the "Rule of Law"?
Anonymous said…
It must be the Rule of Law according to Pat Lykos. I am assuming AHCL has checked his/her sources and facts prior to posting this on his blog.
Murray Newman said…
I did check my sources, and I listed the names of the cases, which should make it available if anyone would like to verify it.

Like, um, somebody like, um Alan Bernstein.

I'll be holding my breath over here, waiting on the story.
Murray Newman said…
By the way, if you are having trouble logging on to leave comments, you aren't alone. I don't know what the problem is, but it seems to be affecting people with actual IDs on blogger. Some people are just posting under "Anonymous" and signing their regular log on ids at the end of the post.

Hey, it works for JAGJO.
batgirl said…
Don't hold your breath AHCL. But keep up the good work. At least people can come here for some facts the Chron chooses to ignore.
Anonymous said…

please ask your "source", which you said was not Mike Anderson, if during that trial, the term "Snookems" ever made it into the record.
Ron in Houston said…
Nothing like a couple of good Crazy Pat stories in the morning.
Anonymous said…
And that is who Jim Leitner endorsed with his eyes wide open. What does that tell you about him? Despite what Mark said, I have yet to talk to a defense attorney who is not disturbed by that endorsement. While most -used to- rave about him, his endorsement shows a lack of judgement, ironically, the same thing he criticized Chuck about.
Anonymous said…
Man, this shouldn't be called anything but the Seigler Supporters' Home Page. I'm sure there will be plenty of good dirt coming up on Seigler as soon as the democrats get ahold of her.

Politics is so ridiculous. There is probably a Lykos blog up somewhere that just bashes Seigler non-stop.

Leitner didn't endorse anyone, but he did claim he would vote for Lykos. Maybe he's just choosing the lesser of two evils. There has already been a few stories in the media about the "judgment" of Seigler.
Ron in Houston said…
Anon 11:58

You're right, there are an awful lot of people who trip all over themselves fawning over Kelly Seigler.

I'm not one of them. If you want "change" you'd vote in the primary for Lykos. The question is whether what Lykos would bring would be better characterized as "change" or "utter and complete chaos."

I strongly disagree with AHCL on a lot of things, but one point where we're in complete agreement is who is the best candidate in the Republican primary.

That is unless you really like chaos.
anonymous c said…
Well said, Ron!

Anon 11:58,

As AHCL always says, if you don't like what he/she is writing here on HIS/HER blog, then there are plenty of other sites to click off to in this big ol' web thingie.
Murray Newman said…
You read an article about Lykos violating civil rights and your response is to speculate that there "must" be something out their on Kelly. Nice wild speculation.
And you can call Jim's statement whatever you want but we all know what it was.

And finally, you won't get any apologies from me for vocally supporting Kelly. When it comes to exposing Lykos for what she is, well, that's just an additional public service.
Anonymous said…
Let me clarify, both of the stories above re: Lykos are incredibly disturbing. My point was that there are a number of items that have already been exposed that KS has done/said that couldn't possibly be a characteristic that someone wants to vote for. Over all, she may be the most qualified candidate left, but she has flaws that aren't addressed on this blog (and I wouldn't expect them to be). The biggest problem will be that the DA's office needs to get out of the spotlight and from rumors I have heard (and I will admit they are only rumors to me) KS may have some dirty laundry that the Dems would love to bring out... only leading to more bad light for the office. I hope that's not the case... only time will tell.

Anonymous said…
I am in not supporting Siegler...

I just want the "Snookems" mystery solved.

After I solve the "Snookems" mystery, I am going to ask Oliver Stone to meet me in Dallas so we can tackle this Kennedy thing.
jigmeister said…
anon 1:38

Only time will take the spotlight off the office. Once Perry appoints a replacement after the runoff, things will settle down (unless Lykos wins). Lots of time between April and November and it won't heat up again until October.

Popular posts from this blog

Boss Ogg's Slate

Rent-A-Center & the Civil/Criminal Continuum

The 2022 Primary Elections