Brady & Over-Reliance on an Open File
Prosecutors and Defense Attorneys alike were buzzing about on Friday afternoon, discussing the hearing in the 180th District Court over whether or not prosecutor Denise Oncken had wilfully withheld Brady information on a Sexual Assault of a Child case. At issue was whether or not the head of the District Attorney's Child Abuse Division had failed to notify defense attorneys Bill Stradley and Lisa Andrews that the child victim in the case had initially stated she had been sexually assaulted by a black man when the Defendant in the case was white.
As noted in Brian Rogers' article, Judge Van Culp ruled that the exculpatory evidence had indeed been withheld, but since it had been discovered before the trial was over, the error was harmless and therefore no mistrial would be granted. That's a good thing for the District Attorney's Office because if a mistrial had been granted due to prosecutorial misconduct, Glen Kahlden (the Defendant) would be a free man. The State would have been barred from retrying the case.
But this may have been a case of winning a battle and losing a war for the D.A.'s Office, because in Judge Culp's finding, he officially acknowledged that the Office had committed the most unpardonable of sins that a prosecutorial agency can commit -- they had withheld evidence that pointed towards a Defendant's innocence.
And although the act of a Brady violation is most definitely inexcusable, it is usually explainable on how it happened. (NOTE: Before people start jumping on me for my phraseology on this sentence, please read it more closely.)
The Defense Bar loves nothing more than to loudly announce that prosecutors withhold Brady information all the time. In their mind, they picture prosecutors sitting in their office, twirling their moustaches like Snidely Whiplash and gleefully giggling "The DNA completely exonerates this guy, but I'll never tell his lawyer!"
That's a bunch of crap.
But where prosecutors can often find themselves in trouble is not doing their Due Diligence in going through their files and making sure that they themselves are aware of the Brady information. Although they have been told time and time again that their duty under Brady extends to being responsible for the actions of the police agency and any other representative of the State, they are often normally more than content to rely on just what's in the file.
In fact, the standard response of a prosecutor to most accusations of a Brady violation is to say "Well Judge, I've maintained an open file policy and the defense attorneys were always welcome to come look at it. That information was in there."
I'm keenly aware of that explanation, because that's what I did as a prosecutor. I kept a wide open file that was available to the defense even after trial had begun. I rarely, if ever, had a work product file that I wouldn't share with the Defense. If a defense attorney didn't know about something in that file, it was his own damn fault for not looking closely enough at it, right?
The short answer to that is "maybe". That's the lazy method of complying with Brady and it's one that is utilized because of the massive case loads that all prosecutors carry. The problem arises when (as in Denise Oncken's situation) there is something not readily visible by just having an Open File, because it isn't written in the offense report. Although I wasn't at the hearing, my understanding is that the information about the initial outcry describing a black assailant was in a taped statement. Furthermore, the investigating officer admitted to intentionally not writing it down in the offense report. Theoretically, the information was available and out there, but nobody had pointed it out to Stradley and Andrews.
And let me just editorialize about Bill Stradley and Lisa Andrews real quick. These are two outstanding attorneys with excellent reputations for their trial skills and work ethic. They are also extremely diplomatic in dealing with the prosecution. There is no way in hell that they just somehow "missed" that exculpatory evidence. If they were unaware of it as trial began, it was not going to be because they didn't do their homework. They would have never made an accusation of a Brady violation lightly.
But this does not mean that Denise Oncken needs to be vilified over this. I would imagine that her failure to turn over the evidence on this case was more based on a lack of Due Diligence than it was on Snidely Whiplash-esque behavior.
But that doesn't make it any less wrong.
While I'm sure that Lykos and Leitner are already in the midst of their latest knee-jerk reaction to this debacle, I would encourage them to take a step back and think before they react to it. I know that isn't really their style and they are probably already plotting to have Oncken executed on the courthouse lawn, but what they really need to be doing is formulating a well-reasoned way of ensuring this doesn't happen again.
Here's my two cents (for what it's worth):
1. If the Lykos Administration has done anything positive, it has been in the way of sharing information on cases. The step of giving the defense copies of the offense report was huge. I would suggest that they expand on this a bit. In addition to giving copies of the offense reports to the defense, also provide copies of all recorded statements, crime scene videos, photographs and reports. Keep in play all the same rules as you do for the offense reports, and you'll be protected.
I know that the defense bar isn't entitled to copies of these things under the Rules of Evidence, but we weren't entitled to the offense reports either. That policy has worked well, and this one can too.
2. In dealing with the statements of child victims, I know that these statements can't be turned over to the defense bar, nor should they be. You can cover yourself under Brady by having a standard form that basically is addressed to Defense Counsel, listing all taped interviews of child witnesses that are in the possession of the State and telling them that they are available for viewing. Have a form for Defense Counsel to sign.
3. Keep track of what supplement number had been reached when the offense report was turned over to defense counsel. Make sure that when a case gets set for trial that no new supplements have been added.
4. Keep a checklist. Have an itemized list of everything that has been turned over to the Defense and make sure it has everything on it a Defense Attorney could possibly ask for.
5. Pat Lykos needs to issue a blanket statement to all law enforcement personnel in Harris County that they have a duty to include all of their information in their offense reports. If they have information that needs to be kept confidential from the defense than they need to call the prosecutors on that case immediately. It's a policy statement that needs to be made and carried out if she is going to protect her prosecutors.
I'm sure there are some more things that can be done, and if you've got some ideas, let's hear them.
As noted in Brian Rogers' article, Judge Van Culp ruled that the exculpatory evidence had indeed been withheld, but since it had been discovered before the trial was over, the error was harmless and therefore no mistrial would be granted. That's a good thing for the District Attorney's Office because if a mistrial had been granted due to prosecutorial misconduct, Glen Kahlden (the Defendant) would be a free man. The State would have been barred from retrying the case.
But this may have been a case of winning a battle and losing a war for the D.A.'s Office, because in Judge Culp's finding, he officially acknowledged that the Office had committed the most unpardonable of sins that a prosecutorial agency can commit -- they had withheld evidence that pointed towards a Defendant's innocence.
And although the act of a Brady violation is most definitely inexcusable, it is usually explainable on how it happened. (NOTE: Before people start jumping on me for my phraseology on this sentence, please read it more closely.)
The Defense Bar loves nothing more than to loudly announce that prosecutors withhold Brady information all the time. In their mind, they picture prosecutors sitting in their office, twirling their moustaches like Snidely Whiplash and gleefully giggling "The DNA completely exonerates this guy, but I'll never tell his lawyer!"
That's a bunch of crap.
But where prosecutors can often find themselves in trouble is not doing their Due Diligence in going through their files and making sure that they themselves are aware of the Brady information. Although they have been told time and time again that their duty under Brady extends to being responsible for the actions of the police agency and any other representative of the State, they are often normally more than content to rely on just what's in the file.
In fact, the standard response of a prosecutor to most accusations of a Brady violation is to say "Well Judge, I've maintained an open file policy and the defense attorneys were always welcome to come look at it. That information was in there."
I'm keenly aware of that explanation, because that's what I did as a prosecutor. I kept a wide open file that was available to the defense even after trial had begun. I rarely, if ever, had a work product file that I wouldn't share with the Defense. If a defense attorney didn't know about something in that file, it was his own damn fault for not looking closely enough at it, right?
The short answer to that is "maybe". That's the lazy method of complying with Brady and it's one that is utilized because of the massive case loads that all prosecutors carry. The problem arises when (as in Denise Oncken's situation) there is something not readily visible by just having an Open File, because it isn't written in the offense report. Although I wasn't at the hearing, my understanding is that the information about the initial outcry describing a black assailant was in a taped statement. Furthermore, the investigating officer admitted to intentionally not writing it down in the offense report. Theoretically, the information was available and out there, but nobody had pointed it out to Stradley and Andrews.
And let me just editorialize about Bill Stradley and Lisa Andrews real quick. These are two outstanding attorneys with excellent reputations for their trial skills and work ethic. They are also extremely diplomatic in dealing with the prosecution. There is no way in hell that they just somehow "missed" that exculpatory evidence. If they were unaware of it as trial began, it was not going to be because they didn't do their homework. They would have never made an accusation of a Brady violation lightly.
But this does not mean that Denise Oncken needs to be vilified over this. I would imagine that her failure to turn over the evidence on this case was more based on a lack of Due Diligence than it was on Snidely Whiplash-esque behavior.
But that doesn't make it any less wrong.
While I'm sure that Lykos and Leitner are already in the midst of their latest knee-jerk reaction to this debacle, I would encourage them to take a step back and think before they react to it. I know that isn't really their style and they are probably already plotting to have Oncken executed on the courthouse lawn, but what they really need to be doing is formulating a well-reasoned way of ensuring this doesn't happen again.
Here's my two cents (for what it's worth):
1. If the Lykos Administration has done anything positive, it has been in the way of sharing information on cases. The step of giving the defense copies of the offense report was huge. I would suggest that they expand on this a bit. In addition to giving copies of the offense reports to the defense, also provide copies of all recorded statements, crime scene videos, photographs and reports. Keep in play all the same rules as you do for the offense reports, and you'll be protected.
I know that the defense bar isn't entitled to copies of these things under the Rules of Evidence, but we weren't entitled to the offense reports either. That policy has worked well, and this one can too.
2. In dealing with the statements of child victims, I know that these statements can't be turned over to the defense bar, nor should they be. You can cover yourself under Brady by having a standard form that basically is addressed to Defense Counsel, listing all taped interviews of child witnesses that are in the possession of the State and telling them that they are available for viewing. Have a form for Defense Counsel to sign.
3. Keep track of what supplement number had been reached when the offense report was turned over to defense counsel. Make sure that when a case gets set for trial that no new supplements have been added.
4. Keep a checklist. Have an itemized list of everything that has been turned over to the Defense and make sure it has everything on it a Defense Attorney could possibly ask for.
5. Pat Lykos needs to issue a blanket statement to all law enforcement personnel in Harris County that they have a duty to include all of their information in their offense reports. If they have information that needs to be kept confidential from the defense than they need to call the prosecutors on that case immediately. It's a policy statement that needs to be made and carried out if she is going to protect her prosecutors.
I'm sure there are some more things that can be done, and if you've got some ideas, let's hear them.
Comments
Murray, you present two extreme scenarios where Brady is not disclosed. I suspect most violations fall somewhere in the middle. A prosecutor may become convinced of the defendants guilt and not want the jury to be caught up thinking about a particular detail. The problem is that prosecutors shouldn't get to make that call.
IT IS ALSO UNFORTUNATE THAT THE REST OF THE ADA'S WILL PAY THE PRICE FOR THIS. JUST LIKE WE PAID THE PRICE FOR THE ROSENTHAL MESS. EVERY FLY BY NIGHT DEFENSE ATTORNEY WILL BE MAKING ACCUSATIONS JUST TO MAKE THEM. NO PROOF, NO EVIDENCE, NO NOTHING TO BACK UP THEIR ACCUSATIONS. I'M SICKENED WHEN DEFENSE ATTORNEY'S MAKE SUCH A CLAIM WITH NOTHING TO BACK IT UP. I AGREE 100% THAT IT IS UNEXCUSEABLE WHAT DENISE AND DARIN DID. BUT WE ALL DON'T PLAY BY THOSE RULES AND MOST GOOD DEFENSE ATTORNEY'S KNOW THAT.
As for anonymous 2:21, Darin was never accused of any wrong doing. In fact, Lisa, Denise, and Stradly all three testified to Darin being nothing but above the bar. It is my understanding that he came in late on the case and assumed defense knew about the exculpatory evidence since it was contained throughout the record that he reviewed when he came in on the case.
I also understand that Lykos and Leitner support Denise.
In this particular case, the Defendant had previously been no billed by a grand jury and the case was represented. Denise told Bill and Lisa she had presented "all" of the evidence, including the IM messages discovered after a jury was picked, when she represented the case to a different grand jury. It was later learned thru 2 State's witnesses the IM messages weren't turned over to the State until April of 2009, long after the Defendant had been indicted. And these IM messages were never shown to Bill or Lisa, the State relying on "them being in the file." Of course when Lisa reailzed there was something in the file she needed to see the file was all of a sudden closed because it was organized for trial. So, don't rely on an "open file policy" when the file has been closed to the Defense. And in Child Abuse generally they won't give you the entire file. So the Defense would have to know there were IM messages in the file in order to ask for them.
I'm sure Bill and Lisa neither one took any pleasure in having a hearing to determine if there had been misconduct, but when the prosecutor has lied to you and not turned over material you believe to be Brady it makes you wonder what else may be in the file that's Brady.
I for one am glad the defense requested the hearing. This needs to come out. It needs to stop. Oncken needs to be accountable.
C'mon, saying open file is good enough in a child rape case with a delayed outcry and no physical evidence... Those cases are made on inferences, circumstances, and psychological bulslhit- all of which can be controlled by the prosecutor.
That is disgustingly bad. I do not anticipate Lykos will tolerate this and she shouldn't. A knee jerk reaction would not be inappropriate nor would it be a knee jerk reaction after a judge officially ruled on this and the HCDAO was represented in the hearing.
ACHL, you are just being a diplomat but this isn't the situation to be diplomatic.
Who did Denise and her family support?
I am willing to bet she wasn't an out front Siegler supporter. Leitner, quit being such a god darn whore.
Regardless of whether the false allegations made by the complainant that the perpetrator was an unknown black male were contained in the offense report, what is most troublesome to me is that nowhere in “the file” or the offense report was there any mention of the instant messages between the complainant and potential witnesses where that false allegation was made. Also several witnesses were explicitly told by Denise not to speak to any member of the defense team. Those instant messages could have been vital information that the defense might never have stumbled upon. When asked point blank, Denise told the attorneys for the defense that she had ABSOLUTELY presented the evidence of the instant messages to the second grand jury. When it became obvious that was an impossibility because the IMs weren’t received by the State until long after the second grand jury heard the evidence, Denise testified under oath, that she must have “misunderstood” the question. Really???
Denise’s own paralegal testified that Denise directed her to prepare an inventory of the evidence that would be initialed by the defense attorneys after they reviewed each document. The paralegal testified that there is a standard inventory applicable to all child abuse cases. In addition to that list, she also prepared a specific list tailored to this case. There was no category for IMs. How in the world was the defense ever supposed to find out about those messages-the exculpatory evidence-if they weren’t in the file or mentioned anywhere in any of the materials the defense reviewed?
It should also be noted that when the defense attorneys tried to review the file, Denise made it cumbersome and difficult, even going so far as to tell Ms. Andrews that she could not review the complainant’s statement on the eve of trial because all the evidence had been “organized for trial.” I have never closed a file to defense counsel-not before trial and not during. There is no organization system I can contemplate where pulling a DVD from a manila folder would somehow disrupt the State’s organization. Denise’s paralegal testified that Denise was irritated that Ms. Andrews wanted to look at the file so much.
Denise should absolutely be punished. Leitner and Bridgwater would not have stood for that kind of deceit and manipulation of the system when they were defense attorneys and they can’t and most certainly shouldn’t stand for it as prosecutors
Frankly, this is a result of the new administration instilling a win at all cost mentality on any case that could become media worthy. Prosecutors are so afraid to lose now they do this. If they lose, they have to explain why and don't get promoted. The administration is so ripe that they are not sophisticated enough to look beyond wins and losses (personally I don't think they have the capacity but I am being nice).
The prosecutors who succomb to this will get their conviction but very well may escape justice.
You didn't really excuse her action, and you outright say you are not, but you go on to mention how these things happen and ADA's have huge case loads. I think you're on record as saying that when defense lawyers have similar case loads they cannot effectively represent their client and are prone to making mistakes that are indicative of their incompetence.
So, let's be honest and admit that it goes both ways.
Very few people believe that DNA results are intentionally withheld. But I do believe that confessions are withheld, because the prosecutor didn't "believe" them, and as a result it wasn't "really" exculpatory. And I believe that police tactics lead to false convictions more than DA misconduct does, but DA's just roll with what's in front of them and don't adequately review their own case.
Confirmation bias is, in my opinion, the largest problem in prosecuting defendants.
Also, although defendants aren't really entitled to see witness statements and other file materials, yet the prosecutors aren't properly reviewing them, how can there be an effective trial? It's paramount to secret evidence in a Patriot Act case, if you ask me. Evidence is never viewed by the defense and the prosecution, if they review it, may dismiss it in favor of their own confirmation bias.
EVERY FLY BY NIGHT DEFENSE ATTORNEY WILL BE MAKING ACCUSATIONS JUST TO MAKE THEM. NO PROOF,
Isn't this story, which you agree was intentional, proof?
Rage
Of course you "believe" that, because you have no real basis in fact for believeing it.
As Defined by Pat "the Troll" Lykos:
1. Experienced Rock Star prosecutor with national reputation who has an incredible trial record based on her obsessive preparation coupled with charismatic courtroom presence and ability. The record speaks for itself.
Political Pat condemns this behavior as bad and corrupt based on unsubstantiated innuendos and rumors.
2. Prosecutor knowingly withholds exculpatory evidence and is found by a trial judge to be in violation of Brady.
Political Pat praises and defends this prosecutor's behavior.
Rationale for this seemingly illogical assessment:
Prosecutor 1 opposed Political Pat while Prosecutor 2 supported Political Pat.
Bottom Line:
Political Pat is not cleaning up political corruption at the Harris County District Attorney's Office she is taking it to new heights never imagined in law enforcement. Shame on us Harris County!
Rule 1: If there is a problem issue in a case, lessen the potential damage by dealing with it up front. Tell the jury immediately, confront it, and move on.
This is one of the oldest rules in the book.
Rule 2: You are a prosecutor, the jury should be able to trust your every word. If there is ANY sign of dishonesty on behalf of the prosecutor or law enforcement, you have severely compromised your case.
The outcry issue could and should have been dealt with long ago. This would have a been a non-issue had the government not decided to hope the defense would not find it. It was a way of cutting corners and not doing the right thing.
What those two Batson prosecutors did was actually competent... but this...
This is a reflection of the trial leadership that is left in Lykos' cupboard. Many times political hacks are just that because they couldn't try cases. Leitner was never known for his judgment or trial skills. Lykos is well known for her lack of ability. Start going down the list of Bureau Chiefs...
Talent exists at that office but most of the talent has one foot out of the door and has been stripped of their passion because of the consistent absurd leadership decisions that are made. These two prosecutor should not just be reprimanded for their unethical decision, they should also be reprimanded for their judgment.
Of course, those in a position of leadership would have to know what judgment and competence was before they made that determination.
And I'll bet you've got a pile of old rotted teeth under your nasty little pillow still waiting for the ever elusive Tooth Fairy.
Anon 1:20,
100% agree that Denise Onken needs to go. This ain't her 1st rodeo.
You were good to get out when the getting was good....twice fired beats the heck out of working for a Craig Watkins wanna be.
There will be a media explosion very soon......there's just way too much good old boy dealing going on to keep covering up and ignoring.
One thing certain is that the media folks are the vultures of humanity and Shield Law loyalty to Lykos won't be enough to stave off a feeding frenzy when one news outlet starts the expose.
The DA's office will be decimated......and at this point, who cares?
I do. This incident is proof positive that the cuts haven't been deep enough yet. So keep on decimating...
We all should try and win as hard as we can. Where Denise Onken is confused is that by winning at all costs a prosecutor wants to achieve justice at all costs; not convict at all costs regardless of guilt.
Pat Lykos' political ally, Denise Onken, actually is what Pat Lykos accused others of who weren't.
Disgusting how politics works and that's precisely why we needed a prosecutor and not a politician as DA.
It's a shame your parents didn't love you as a child you poor bastard.
If your daddy had been better connected you wouldn't have had to settle for VMI and all the mediocrity that went with that.
As for the etiology of the HCDAO's decimation you have it ass backwards once again. You're always on the outside looking in. But hey, the way things are going you would be perfect for an actual inside gig at the L&L DA's office. I know, you make way too much money in your lucrative private practice to go work as a gubment lawyer....my bad so sad. It's just that you and Patsy would work so well together......your commonality with respect to intellect, character, morals, work ethic, empathy and criminal law experience is a virtual match made in Hell. So rethink it Rage...
Darin has been put in very difficult positions over the past few years dealing first with the Rosenthal crap and now putting out all of the Lykos and the gang's brush-fires. It was just a matter of time when one of the rogue ADAs befriended by Lykos would get caught pulling a stunt like Denise did. To blame Darin for Denise's bad behavior is like blaming a defense lawyer for his/her client's bad behavior. So let's place the blame where it belongs on this--squarely on Denise Onken's arrogant shoulders and ultimately on Pat Lykos unless she takes swift action in strongly disciplining one of her own.
In terms of Denise's lackey Darin, I would feel bad for him if he got in trouble trying to do the right thing, but that isn't the case. I just don't see him as a victim.
The issue raised in the background for all this is what access does the defense attorney get to the prosecution’s files. So far as I know there is no policy (pre or post Pat) for the office. Both sides are busy; both sides want to see the file when it is convenient for them. I also know that many defense attorneys have abused this right by copying information without permission, trashing the file (either intentionally or being pigs), or most often by making and breaking appointments the ADA has made in good faith without bothering to let them know and then complaining they didn’t get to see the file. Nor does their being the defense attorney allow them to have unlimited access to a file a prosecutor might also need. The ADAs cannot hide facts of the case from the file or the defense attorney either. Word product--yes, lab tests, interviews, and facts--no. What some folks see as Brady material others may not. This would be a good subject for RATIONAL discussion.
The razor’s edge is what needs to be available and when. The administration which believes in letting its employees know its policies via press releases needs to address the issue. That however would require that they take responsibility, something that has been thin on the ground with Lykos and company. Would they bother to consult some of the experienced prosecutors on their staff, unlikely?
What has made me angry at posters here has been all the comments about “spineless” ADAs and accusations that so-and-so is a Lykos pawn. In most cases I know it’s false—some of the folks accused of being pawns were big Kelly supporters and were at the restaurant with her on election night. The majority of ADAs are just hunkered down and trying to do the right thing. They are stuck with an administration that is so out of touch and arrogant they could be in another building and it would make no difference and has made a difficult job so much harder. It’s so sad to see morale so very low. But they know the administration is not all of the job—some do the job because it’s a job, most do it because they believe in what they do and are trying to do it under appalling conditions.
If Pat Lykos does not terminate Onken then her mantra regarding cleaning up corruption at the HCDAO is a flagrant joke.
If a grievance is not filed against Onken then Bennett is a joke.
Personally I believe neither will occur because Onken, Lykos and Bennett are 3 big jokers who are all talk.
The troops anxiously watch to see if political cronyism will trump leadership once again at the Harris County District Attorney's Office.
BTW 7:35, Denise Onken showing up at a restaurant on election night to "support" Kelly is called hedging one's bets not supporting a candidate. How would you define spineless pawn, bubba?
What facts are missing exactly? Are you saying that the judge really didn't find Onken to have intentionally withheld exculpatory evidence?
@9:44,
Too bad you weren't Ms.Onken's chief early on in her career.
*Lykos' campaign theme comes full circle....except this time the allegations are actually true
"Perhaps it is time for professionals to take over training and by that I mean professional prosecutors not politicians."
* that's not what the voters wanted so don't piss off "I Support My Elected DA" and her blue hair buddies
"The majority of ADAs are just hunkered down and trying to do the right thing."
*ADAs aren't cowards they just represent a form of cruel kindness?
"How would you define spineless pawn, bubba?"
*Hmmmm.....Denise Onken.
I'm sure it'll be reset for trial post haste---too bad the defendant wasn't driving a Wrecker truck. LOL
Now THAT'S funny!
Justice at all costs, AKA pejoratively as "winning at all costs", is only a bad thing if you're a really good prosecutor who calls bullshit on incompetent Pat.
However, "winning at all costs", regardless of actual justice, is a good thing so long as you're one of Pat's Pet Bitches?
The Lykos "Rule of Law" is quite a concept!
Can you imagine the material that will be available for Lykos' opponents in 2012? Too funny!
JBH was a main of principle and honor. Ms. Onken is fortunate not to have Johnny at the helm at this point in her career.
Lykos could give a shit about justice. Doing the right thing because it is the right thing to do would never enter her mind.
At least Rosenthal wanted a just result to prevail. Unfortunately the end justifying the means mentality went too far under his watch; but it was also unfairly applied by association to others in too broad a fashion.
Rosenthal was just not the sharpest knife in the drawer when it came to personal morality, trial advocacy, IQ or managerial skills and he took those that were, down with him.
In balance, Lykos is personified evil while Rosenthal is just stupid.....neither should have been DA and the ADAs under each have, with rare exception, been too chickenshit to stand up in ways that count.
AMEN AMEN AMEN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
a. when defense attorneys are deemed not up to par the prosecutor(s) shall "tone it down a notch" (as defense attorney Neal Davis suggested in the Chronicle comments) so as not to make the defense attorney or defendant look bad
b. Brady violations are okay if you're a Lykosite (as suggested by former defense attorney Little Jimmy Leitner) and therefore your courtroom prowess is not up to par with opposing defense counsel.
Thus endeth the lesson in judicial equity at the new and improved Harris County DA's office.
Murray, what is the line on whether or not Leitner will be instructed by Lykos to dismiss Susan Wright?
I think an administration that had any fortitude to it would go to trial on punishment only and see what happens. We had asked the jury for 45 years during punishment the first time and they came back with 25 years. Who knows what would happen on a new go-round.
But I doubt the Lykos Administration will have the guts to see.
That would be political suicide for the old hack. Lykos cannot afford a plea of 10 years and have any credibility left in the community....even the old blue hairs would abandon her. A plea offer of anything less than 20 years would result in a Mike Dukakis/Willie Horton issue in 2012.
If Wright does not take the offer of 20 it will go to trial on punishment and if the prosecutor gets an undesirable result Lykos will simply fire her/him and blame Rosenthal.
Never forget that Lykos is out for Lykos and then you will be better able to predict her actions.
You underestimate the vile deception that defines Lykos and her Gangsters.
In addition, there are many, many prosecutors who during their tenure in that division have had to try a case or two with Oncken. They are placed in a terrible position where if the case goes south, they shoulder the blame, if it goes well its all Oncken's doing.
And most prosecutors who have tried one with her, swear never to do it again if they can help it. But no way will that administration ever punish her, or remove her from that position, which is a shame, there are many good prosecutors in that division, and they could do much better with good support and leadership
The problem is that Oncken LIED about what she had when. She does NOTHING to restore the public's faith in the prosecution. And I can't say that I blame them. Unfortunately, we can't blame this on the Chronicle.
Also, I found it funny (ironic) that Lisa Andrews was accusing a prosecutor of wrong doing. Lisa was also a very unpleasant, unfair and untrustworhty prosecutor who had a terribloe reputation with the defense bar.