Monday, April 13, 2009

Day One

I think that since we now know that Rifi Newaz and Mark Donnelly did, in fact, have race-neutral reasons for their strikes in the Ricky Whitfield case that it stands to reason that Pat Lykos:

1. should reinstate both men to their prior positions; and

2. issue a PUBLIC apology for smearing their reputations in the media.

I'm going to keep track here until she actually does it. Just like I did with Alan Bernstein last year when he refused to run the Yarmulke Story.

It's Day One, Judge Lykos.

You're on the clock.


Anonymous said...

Maybe you missed the difference between DICTA and HOLDING somewhere...

Barr apparently made some extrajudicial statement that is entitled to no weight. ON THE BENCH, IN HER RULING, she found by a preponderance of the evidence that the State did not have VALID non-racial reasons for striking all the black jurors.

Methinks you put way too much emphasis on a few words spoken, in all likelihood, to make the prosecutors feel better about her ruling. However, the ruling, and the standards for it, are plain: by a preponderance of the evidence, the judge found that the race-neutral reasons given were pretextual and invalid.

Maybe you should spend more attention to the law and less on your buddies. Law isn't about personal friendships and being warm and fuzzy: it is about rules. They broke them, by a preponderance of the evidence, according to Judge Barr.

End of story. Did Lykos choose to make an example of them, for the rest of the ADA's? Obviously. You don't approve. Obviously. But if Judge Barr maxed a defendant out, to make an example of HIM, would you feel the same way? Probably not.

Live by the sword, die by the sword, kick all the minorities of your jury, fall on your sword.

End of story.

A Harris County Lawyer said...

Okay Anon,
Why don't you tell us which answers given you found to be unacceptable?

Anonymous said...

What I found acceptable or not acceptable is irrelevant.

JUDGE BARR found, by a preponderance of the evidence, that at least some of the answers were pretextual and that there were no valid race neutral reasons for striking one or more of the venire members. That was based, certainly on demeanor of the prosecutors and the veniremembers, which would not be contained in the transcript.

As I'm not wearing a black robe, what answers I find pretextual and invalid matters less than the brand of underwear I prefer. I should point out that Judge Barr is a strongly pro-State judge (she even bragged in her campaign literature about the percentage of convictions in her court, and the percentage of defendants getting long prison sentences.) So for her to grant this Motion, in my mind, speaks very loudly.

It's done. Put a fork in it.

Rage Judicata said...

Well, this is where having the whole transcript comes in. As of now I'd say the reasons given are race-neutral, but again the questions asked and actual answers given by each venireman would control.

I'm loathe to agree with someone who has their nose (or worse) up Lykos' butt, and I don't accept their statements as true, but Barr may very well have found as he says she did.

Anonymous said...

Anon 4:42 & 4:59, I am reminded of a case I tried years ago when a judge told me that he knew what the law was but he just felt the defendant should get a break so none of my prior convictions were admitted. Did that mean the defendant did not have the prior convictions? No, that meant the judge did not follow the law and a habitual criminal was given 20 years instead of at least 25. That is the reality of trying cases. Sometimes judges ignore the law just because.

Anonymous said...

Actually, nothing was resolved in the "The Transcript is In" blogtrail. The opinions were all over the place.

Anonymous said...

The remedy for a sucessful batson challenge is to seat the jurors struck for racial reasons. That wasn't done here...why?

You have to look at the extrajudicial statements here because it tells us why the proper batson remedy wasn't applied. It didn't look good, but they had legitimate reasons for the strikes. So instead of applying the batson remedy, they would just pick a new jury. No harm, no foul.

Besides, it was the comments to the chron that is the real story here.

jigmeister said...

Judge Barr is a politician and perception is important. Trying a murder case with no black, regardless of the reasons, is perceived by her to be politically incorrect and thus her decision. She has no need to lead a large staff. Lykos did the same thing but called the press and publically crucified two good prosecutors. She abdicated her leadership for personal, political agrandizement. I find fault with Barr, but not nearly to the extent that I fault Lykos. She could undo some of the damage that that would require courage that she doesn't possess.

Arthur Seaton said...

"JUDGE BARR found, by a preponderance of the evidence, that at least some of the answers were pretextual and that there were no valid race neutral reasons for striking one or more of the venire members. That was based, certainly on demeanor of the prosecutors and the veniremembers, which would not be contained in the transcript."

NO--she didn't, and said she didn't. What part of that is hard for you to understand?

Anonymous said...


Lykos has no reason nor need to speak to the press. She chose do so. She ought to get it right. She didn't. I would suspect that you would agree that she fire/smear some more of her prosecutors when one of these new democrat judges disgrace them in favor of defendants when the prosecutors get it right? Oh and by the way, why do we have a court of appeals when the judges are alway right? WORDS IN CAPS only highlight how stupid you are.

Anonymous said...

Bernstein is nowhere to be found. We know s/he is lurking on your blog but he has not been laid off because s/he is a company (man/woman).

Anonymous said...

I agree with Anon 4:42 & 4:59.

As others have said there are two separate issues here: (a) the Batson issue and (b) the prosecutors' treatment by Lykos.

First of all, do the commentators review the opinion in Batson before posting or do they just rely on their "perceptions" of the Batson decision? In spite of hysterical commentary to the contrary Batson does not establish “affirmative action” for jury selection nor does it mandate that, in this case, a black Defendant must have a jury with black people on it in order to receive a fair trial.

Batson establishes a simple and clear principle. "It [is] impermissible for a prosecutor to use his challenges to exclude blacks from the jury 'for reasons wholly unrelated to the outcome of the particular case on trial,' or to deny to blacks 'the same right and opportunity to participate in the administration of justice enjoyed by the white population.'"

The latter is the most instructive because it shows the mere act of offering a reason that on its face appears to be racially neutral does not end the inquiry. It is only the beginning.

To really determine whether the reasons offered were racially neutral far more than a snippet is needed from the voir dire. One needs to review the entire voir dire. The trial judge who sustained the Batson challenge was present for the entire voir dire. She witnessed whether the State's rationale was applied equally to black and white jurors. Clearly it was not if she sustained the challenge.

As Anon 4:59 intimated, Judge Barr is no criminal coddling, defense loving, left-wing, activist judge. It does say something that she felt compelled to sustain the Batson challenge. Actually, it is stunning.

DA Lykos's behavior is another matter. She was wrong for criticizing them in the press. It was shameful and not worthy of an elected official. But distaste for her reaction in no way changes the fact that two of her ADA's struck black veniremen from the panel for pretextual reasons.

A Harris County Lawyer said...

Let's get a grip here, folks.

For those of you who would like to challenge Mark and Rifi's supporters on their knowledge of Batson, let's look at what is ABSENT from the record.

What's absent is Judge Barr saying something to the effect of "having listened to the State's explanation, I find their answers to be insufficient beyond a preponderance of the evidence, and I'm therefore granting the Defense's Motion."

There is just a granting of the Motion, which, I have absolutely no doubt Judge Barr thought would make the whole situation go away. There wouldn't be a headline in the Chronicle that read "STATE STRIKES ALL BLACK JURORS FROM PANEL. JUDGE SAYS 'THAT'S OKAY'".

Starting over was the easy remedy to the public perception. No harm. No foul. Let's just start over. It would have been a simple solution, if not but for Lykos deciding to publicly flog her prosecutors.

For those who don't know Mark and Rifi, I suppose it easy to jump on the bandwagon against them. But for those of us who know them, there is no excuse for what happened to them.

Anonymous said...

Rage said, quoting me:

"JUDGE BARR found, by a preponderance of the evidence, that at least some of the answers were pretextual and that there were no valid race neutral reasons for striking one or more of the venire members. That was based, certainly on demeanor of the prosecutors and the veniremembers, which would not be contained in the transcript."

NO--she didn't, and said she didn't. What part of that is hard for you to understand?"

Yes, she DID. She granted the Batson motion. That requires a finding, by a preponderance of the evidence, that at least some of the answers were pretextual and that there were no valid race neutral reasons for striking one or more of the venire members.

Unlike a transcript, the Judge would have based her opinion on the demeanor of the prosecutors and the veniremembers, which would not be contained in the transcript.

Whatever statements the judge may have made outside of her ruling are irrelevant. The ruling clearly held that the State engaged in racailly biased jury selection. That ruling stands.

It seems Murray always has to have some pro-prosecution obsession -- either the Mark and Riffi Fan Club, or the Kelly Siegler is God fan club, etc. However, I think we all realize that Pat Lykos has initiated some reforms Kelly "Lakewood Church is Full of Crackpots Who Just Incidentally Happen to be Canadians" Siegler would never have initiated, and that were long overdue. She's as nuanced as a billy club, but she's getting the job done.

And Mark and Riffi were made an example of. My suspicion is that Harris County ADAs will engage in far less Batson violations than they had under Holmes/Rosenthal -- or would have under Siegler,who considered Batson no more than a speedbump -- i.e., the Lakewood Church comments for a pretextual reason to violate Batson.

Just because a prosecutor gives a race-neutral explanation does NOT mean the Court has to accept it. A good judge will look to see if white and black jurors are treated equally. If not, the prosecutors explanations can and should be considered pretextual and thus invalid. Demeanor evidence can figure into these findings as well.

Few of the All GOP judges pre-2008 in Harris Co. would ever look behind the initial explanation, and would accept all sorts of silly responses from the State ("but judge, he had the same blood type as the Defendant!")

Fortunately, many of the judges, perhaps including Judge Barr, woke up after the last election cycle. More proof that new blood is a good thing. Mark and Riffi's explanations were less than persuasive. They lost.

End of story.

Anonymous said...

Yep, I looked. Nothing on this blog since 3/26 except on this one dead horse issue.

Can it be true that NOTHING ELSE matters in all of Harris County? The Elect Kelly Siegler Blog is now officially the Exonerate Mark and Riffi Blog.

Rage Judicata said...

The remedy for a sucessful batson challenge is to seat the jurors struck for racial reasons. That wasn't done here...why?Actually, the newer statutory remedy is to call a new panel in criminal trials. At common law and in all civil trials, the remedy is to reseat the jurors. So there are two things that can be done, and Barr did the one in the CCP.

It's a bit disturbing that all of the criminal legal experts around here don't know that.

NO--she didn't, and said she didn't. What part of that is hard for you to understand?What he's saying is that the soundbite that was quoted in the Chronicle (a paper often derided by you folks but for some reason you quote like the Word ofGod in this instance) was not a legal ruling. Saying "they gave me their race-neutral reasons" ot the paper is not the same as her ruling in court, which appears to have been "you gave me race-neutral reasons, but I still find that they were pretextual."

We'll never know for sure until we read the full transcript. anon's reliance on Barr's claims outside the courtroom are as faulty as your reliance on anyone else's.


I don't know them, and I don't think anyone here is saying what Lykos did was OK or is jumping on them. Hell, even Mr. all-caps from the MILITARY wasn't really supportive of how she treated the two in the press and is just slavishly parroting the Batson procedure.

Ron in Houston said...

I agree with Jigmeister and disagree with Anon. Just because some black robe ruled one way or another doesn't mean jack. Black robes make inane and illogical rulings all the time for political reasons.

Plus Lykos is a serious nut job. The fact that she is our elected DA is scary. Someone needs to keep the spotlight on her bizarro world and I'm glad Murray is doing it.

Lastly, when are we going to be honest about race? Just because they happened to strike all the black jurors does not make them prejudiced or evil people.

A Harris County Lawyer said...

Anon 9:22 & 9:25 (Again),
You must be one outstanding advocate. Especially if your side is wronged and you decide that after three weeks you should just stop talking about it.
Sorry if I'm boring you, but there are always other blogs to read if mine is becoming stale.

Rage Judicata said...

Hey 9:22:

It's bad enough that people cry and call me names based on things I actually say, but now you're quoting Seaton and saying it's me, and I'll be damned if I can handle that sort of insult. Not to mention that I'm actually kind of taking your side, depending on what the full transcripts show.

Surely your MILITARY training (I actually suspect you're Donna Gode, but can't pass up a cheap shot) taught you to pay more attention to detail than that.

Rage Judicata said...

Lastly, when are we going to be honest about race? Just because they happened to strike all the black jurors does not make them prejudiced or evil people.I'e been saying this since day one.

Anonymous said...

Anon 9:22,
I don't recall Kelly Siegler ever using or condoning the term "Canadian" as you reference.
The Kelly haters seem to lump every negative issue at the HCDAO on her shoulders; even long after her resignation. Lykos and the Chronicle are masters of deception and we are now paying the price.
It's so easy for cowards to continue to condemn Kelly anonymously behind her back.

No one can question that Kelly Siegler would have run the HCDAO with more integrity and ability than Pat Lykos or Chuck Rosenthal.

To Murray's credit he is not a coward. He had the courage to stand up for his convictions on this blog and elsewhere; thereby jeopardizing a job he loved to save an office he loved. A far from perfect office but not one that needed to be totally trashed and dismantled. Murray knew what a complete disaster Lykos would be as DA. The simple truth is he was more correct in that assessment than any of us knew at the time.

Your defamatory misguided judgments should put you in good stead with Lykos and Leitner.

Anonymous said...

The clock will stop without resolution on Day 1,356 +/- 24hrs.

Anonymous said...

Unless the whale is Moby Dick in EVERY respect, the ADA's had better plead them out or they'll be walking with the whales.
L&L Inc.

Anonymous said...

Hey 4:09,
We're only on day 105 of troll ain't seen nothing yet my friend. Let's see where all the "Kelly haters" are by Christmas.

If Anon 9:22 et al continue to condemn this blog for supporting Kelly they'll really get their soiled panties in a knot in a couple of years when Kelly supporting blogs proliferate.

Too bad our office doesn't have more ADAs with Murray Newman's courage and character....we wouldn't be in this mess if we did. Thank you Murray for being Murray.

Anonymous said...

Anon 9:25am aka Negative Nancy
What I see is a man willing to stand up for what and who he believes in. A man of good character.

Anonymous said...

You have it all wrong. The transcript does not tell the whole story, it rarely does. A partial transcript tells even less. First, there is a juror missing; there were seven jurors in the strike zone that were black. Second, all were struck; supposedly, two had JP check cases (one juror's case had been dismissed but that was sufficient to strike her) while the others were indecisive. White jurors were not struck that also displayed indecisiveness. Third, the judge did not rule immediately. The panel was dismissed and the jury (without being sworn) was taken to lunch. Judge Barr did not give an immediate ruling; she thought about it. However, before breaking for lunch, she looked toward the State and warned them that it did not look good, i.e., she was leaning toward granting the Batson challenge (not that it didn't look good that no blacks were on the jury). All things considered, despite the unforseeable events, she ruled correctly. Why is that when a judge rules blindly in favor of the State, there are no problems? Is it that the judges and prosecutors are so well-known for being thick as thieves that no one bats an eyelash?

I feel sorry that Mark and Rifi got caught up in this tragedy. I do not believe anyone, even Lykos, is saying they are racist. I do, however, find it difficult to believe that only the blacks, all the blacks, were the only indecisive ones or the only people who had written a bad check or two. I still do not understand why a dismissed check case was used against one of the black jurors and no one seems to be screaming about that. I don't understand how a white juror could cry and not answer a question about her ability to be fair, but the state did not deem her to be sufficiently indecisive to strike her.

I know that this whole situation has been tragic for the DA's office. Mark and Rifi were doing what each side does: stacking the jury with people they think are more inclined to find in their favor. It was the adversarial process at work; nevertheless, I don't see race-neutral reasons here.

Regardless of what each of our opinions are: we don't know the whole story unless we were there. Even then, perspectives can differ. The judge is supposed to be neutral; we all know she is not light on the defense so for her to rule in favor of the defense, I, too, am inclined to believe that something was amiss in this situation.

A Harris County Lawyer said...

Anon 4:30,
My understanding was that seven African-American jurors had been struck, and perhaps that is the case. However, according to the record, Ms. Carpenter and Mr. Davis only challenged on six of them.

Anonymous said...

You won't print this because your massive ego won't permit it (if you do print it, it will only be because you are trying to prove you don't have a massive ego), but the only arrogance and conceit I see here is coming from YOU, not Lykos. What makes you think that she gives a rat's ass what you think about anything? Why do you think that your silly little blog, read by very few people, most of whom are your sycophants, has any effect on Lykos. Lykos was elected. Siegler was not. Lykos swatted you down like the little fly that you are. She is running the DA's office, while you are out there hustling your next court appointment and worrying about paying your bills and getting health insurance. I read this blog for entertainment value, because its amusing watching you struggle so hard to remain relevant.

A Harris County Lawyer said...

Anon 7:52 p.m.,
Perhaps I will print it to show a representative sample of classiness that Lykos fans tend to represent.

I'm quite content with my life, actually, but I appreciate your well wishes.

As for staying relevant, I'm still getting about 1000 hits a day on the blog -- thanks in part to folks like you.

jigmeister said...

Anon 7:52 has a point: Lykos doesn't give a rats ass about what anyone else thinks. We must keep the pressure on and concertedly defeat her in the next cycle.

Anonymous said...

Yesterday the following email went out to all prosecutors, "Is anyone aware of a man who was just arrested for impersonating an attorney?"

My first reaction was, "Wow either Leitner or Lykos got arrested?

Anonymous said...

Anon 7:52, Hey Jim, lighten up. You have a job with insurance.

Rage Judicata said...

...but the only arrogance and conceit I see here is coming from YOU, not Lykos.

Heeeeyyyyyyyyyyyy. Aren't you reading my posts?

Pretty interesting to see someone from the office responding on a daily basis to a blog that they say isn't relevant...

Anonymous said...

Idiot Leitner,

We all have known of this investigation for a long time. We didn't tell you because we didn't want you to screw up the investigation. You are an idiot.


Your fellow employees who you treat like shit. Eat shit you bastard.

Anonymous said...

My reputation
Anonymous 7:52

I just want you to know that this blog is read by many people that have nothing to do with the CJC in any manner. You can rest assured that I am a citizen of Harris County and I vote, as do many others that read this blog.

I am angry about the situation that is occurring at the CJC. Why, might you ask, am I upset?

Well it goes like this; I am horrified to think that the people that are trying to keep criminals off of the streets must be pulled in different directions. Do my job or please Lycos.

It seems to me that having to second guess every aspect of your job would make it harder to do a good job.

That is a hell of a note for these people to have to face daily. Not only that, how must it feel to think that if you make a simple mistake the wreaking ball aka Lykos will jump right on the phone and announce it to the world effectively wreaking your career and reputation.

I am praying for a solution for the situation to be resolved soon, if not I will be knocking on doors, and making phone calls for the next election to help get it resolved.

I really believe you must be Leitner and the only reason you are angry is you don't have the balls like Mr. Newman to stand up for what is right. If by chance you are this guy please let Ms. Pat know the citizens are watching and don't like what they see.

Anonymous said...

I think each of your new posts need to start with the number of days left under the nasty little troll's autocratic rule of Tartarus. So, absent Diabollos calling the old woman home earlier; we've got about 1,354 days left.

Delusional Anon 7:52,
It is painfully obvious that compassion and insight are not two (2) of your strong suits. It therefore follows that you're not one of the hot shot ADAs at CJC. That would explain your petty frustrations and anger in dealing with your mediocrity. BTW, as you know, Kelly detested mediocrity. Neither she, Murray, Mark, or Rifi were mediocre. Hmmm, a bit telling. Perhaps this retrospective insight would be useful for your therapist.

Further, don't count on two (2) perfect storms. Instead, count on being in the 1st group purged in 2012...the good guys learned a lot in '08.
Ironic that you reference falling on swords in an earlier post.

Anonymous said...

Although Mark and Rifi were victimized in Lykos' attempt to restore public trust in the DA's office, she actually seems to be delivering on most of her campaign promises. Those promises were important to many of us who spend much of our time at the CJC. I would still like to see more racial diversity at the office but am relieved the reign of terror under the Rosenthal administration has ended.

Anonymous said...

The citizens of Harris county are watching what goes on at the courthouse and they are applauding Judge Lykos for the job she is doing. What is happening is a bunch of cry babies are having to do their job the right way.Let them get a real job in law enforcement and see how tough they are.Most of them could not get past the first interview with HPD. They might get a job in Waller or some other small town where they could act like big shots. If they cant take the heat ,let them get out of the kitchen.Lykos Supporter

Anonymous said...

The law enforcement community is behind Judge Lykos 100%. We know the problems she inherited. Our only complaint is that she did not get rid of some more of the deadwood there. Try calling in a report and have some dumdass on the desk tell you charges cant be filed. They need to really read the penal code and quit wasting time complaining about their job. Let them work a shift with us and they might see things the way they really are. Living In The Real World

Arthur Seaton said...

Anon 1045: "reign of terror "

Seriosuly? Why not just "holocaust" or "armageddon" or "Jonas Brothers" if you are going to use some sort of stupid hyperbole for something that wasn't to your liking? Sheesh.

A Harris County Lawyer said...

Anon 12:46 p.m.,
You really must be talking to a different 100% of the law enforcement community than I've been talking to.
The ones that I've been talking to seem to realize that Lykos is first and foremost an Aspiring Media Darling, followed closely by a Bureaucratic Tyrant. Being the District Attorney is actually a very distant third on her list of priorities.
Not to mention that the "good old boy network" that people liked to reference about the Rosenthal days has got absolutely nothing on the "good old gal network" that Lykos and the Gang Who Couldn't Shoot Straight are currently exhibiting.

Anonymous said...

Lykos supporter, I read your comments with some interest. Clearly the people working in and around the CJC are aware of Lykos and what she is doing or really failing to do. With few exceptions, the people working in and around the CJC (including defense attorneys) are aware of the complete failure of the Lykos administration to do anything but garner press for Lykos and salary for cronies who do not have the ability to do the work they have been hired to perform. Most people I have spoken with outside the CJC are vaguely aware there is a new DA. Those that are aware know nothing of her and what she is doing. A couple of persons mentioned to me that Lykos had gotten in trouble for something that happened with a jury. They asked me to explain what Lykos had done. The truth is the vast majority of persons in Harris County have no clue who Lykos is or what she is doing. I suspect if the citizens of Harris County knew anything about Lykos, she could not be elected to any position. Lest you think I was Kelly supporter, I was not. I supported Jim Leitner . Of course I now question that support. The list of candidates for DA in 2008 was a very poor list. Surely the Republicans and Democrats can do better in 2012

Anonymous said...

Dear Hell's Kitchen 12:27,
Well at least all the crooks and most of the defense attorneys would agree with you. However, most of the well informed law abiding citizens of Harris County don't share your Pied Piper mentality.
Lykos' corruption issues will be overwhelming and impossible for even her most stringent supporters, such as you, to cover up as the months and years unfold.
Instead of following the "ignorance is bliss" philosophy by believing Lykos' generic feel good sound bites; why not actually learn how her policies are affecting the criminal justice system in our county.
What sounds like a good idea in theory often fails to measure up in reality. College kids with little real world experience clinging to the idea that socialism is wonderful exemplifies this misjudgment. Lykos lacks the requisite experience to differentiate theory from reality, 70+ years of breathing notwithstanding.
As the months and years pass, talk to the different law enforcement agencies that work with the HCDAO. Talk with victims and their families. Talk with Lykos' co-workers, past and present. Talk with other county officials such as District Judges that she has worked with. Do not limit yourself to the bravado at political events that Lykos attends or the misinformation of the media. Think for yourself based on real facts that affect real people before you make a decision on whether or not you support Lykos.
As for the ADAs being cry babies. Yes we are sad at how the DAs office is being decimated by Pat Lykos.
Yes we are sad at how Pat Lykos treats most employees at HCDOA with contempt and disrespect.
Yes we are sad that our careers are being arbitrarily destroyed.
Yes we are sad to have to resign from meaningful and rewarding jobs that were so much more than you will ever know.
But we are not cry babies simply because we stand strong for the principle of justice in the courtroom as well as in our workplace.
So degrade our character, integrity and ability all you want. We will not only survive, but excel as we move on to new careers.

Anonymous said...

Hey 12:46,
If Lykos hadn't disbanded Special Crimes maybe homicide would have appropriate people to call to accept charges....but then again the new jury selection process will make our arrests a waste of time anyway, so fuck it baby.
FYI, you need a remedial math class unless you're one of those freaks that think they can give 1000%.

Anonymous said...

Anon 2:37,
We all agree Lykos is an old windbag farce.
I also concur with your revised assessment of little Jimmy Leitner. Who'd have ever thought he would turn out to be this big a disappointment?
Obviously Bradford was a total joke to even the die hard democrats who came out in record numbers.
However, if you think Kelly was a "poor choice" then I am really looking forward to your highly qualified butt stepping up to the plate in 2012.
Or maybe you'd prefer a kinder gentler politically correct caretaker like the interim guy who bridged Rosenthal-Lykos. Now what was his name?

Anonymous said...

I am anon 7:52. Its true I have no balls because I am female. I can't stand Pat Lykos. I have never so much as said hello to Jim Leitner. I am not a prosecutor. Twenty years ago I was offered a job interview by Harris County DA by virtue of my performance in a trial ad course taught by Alice Brown and Cathy Herasimchuk. I declined. I am a defense attorney and I am a very good one. I have never said anything about falling on swords. Funny how so many assume that I am an ADA. I guess maybe insight is somewhat lacking? I don't have a therapist, but since someone keeps bringing up therapists, I can only guess that there is some projection in play with that person. What I see is that some ADA's, past and present, are throwing temper tantrums because, like spoiled children, they can no longer get their way. Instead of adapting to the new situation and moving on, they cling to the past. Lykos made it clear she was going to change things. The people voted her in. Its how we do things in this country. Kelly lost because of her caustic remarks and because she was too associated with Rosenthal. People wanted nothing to do with him and his top people. The world has not ended, crooks, thugs, and drug addicts are still being put away on a daily basis and prosecutors are still doing their jobs. Why all the persistent drama about it?

A Harris County Lawyer said...

Anon 7:52 & 5:55,
I love the revisionist history, but if you will recall, Kelly Siegler soundly outscored Lykos during the Republican primary. If it had not been for Jim Leitner running, in fact, Kelly would have defeated Lykos outright in the first primary.
But Jim split the vote, and was well-rewarded for it by Lykos when she made him 1st Assistant. He endorsed her the very next day. It was political duplicity in its best form, especially considering that Leitner and Clint Greenwood had been trying to garner support for Leitner's joke of a campaign by promising that Leitner would NEVER endorse Lykos. If you don't believe me, go back and look at the post that Greenwood did under the name of Bubba Joe 6 Pack last year.
Once the race went into the run-off, Lykos was like a shark in water versus a human. If I recall correctly, there was only one other race on the run-off ballot, and that was for Railroad Commissioner or something else that wasn't a big draw for the public.
Lykos' fan base (which was largely the over 65 crowd) turned out to vote. Others decided that Kelly's decisive margin during the general election indicated she would be just fine during the run-off. The low voter turnout is what won Lykos her position.
Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that there was anything criminal or wrong about how the election was carried out.
But you damn sure shouldn't be acting like Lykos won some sort of popular mandate that spoke loudly against Kelly Siegler.
Lykos is a politician who used insincerity to an art form. She is no leader, and she is certainly no prosecutor.

Harris County Defense Attorney said...

Ok, what in the world is the yarmulke story?

A Harris County Lawyer said...

Anonymous said...

What about the Rush Limbaugh factor whereby many Republicans such as myself, foolishly voted in the democratic primary only to be shut out of the Republican runoff?

Also, I understand Lykos' campaign treasurer played an integral part in changing polling locations for the Republican runoff. The "new" polling locations were not readily identified at many locations and large numbers of confused voters said screw it and never voted.

Call it sour grapes if you will, but the system failed us.
As a long time Houston business owner who is very politically active, cares about his community and strongly supported Kelly Siegler, I am ashamed of the result.

Our breakfast club is already talking about a DA Tea Party movement. Money and time won't be an issue....only the candidate will be.
I can't blame Kelly for not running again but I hope she can suggest and endorse a real candidate in '12.

For those that think Kelly Siegler is too 'caustic".....she was an ADA doing her job; NOT a coddling kindergarten teacher.
For those that think she was too close to Rosenthal--do your due diligence....the Chronicle won't be able to promote that misinformation because they'll be out of business by then and the TV media better think about who pays for their advertising in this new world economy before they skew their "news".

Anonymous said...

What day is it now?