Double Standards
I love being a member of the Defense Bar.
And I remain eternally appreciative of the help that I have received from other members of the Harris County Defense Bar over the past two years as I began a defense practice.
I've been honored to work alongside some of the best in the criminal defense business.
And I've been a very enthusiastic and dedicated advocate to those clients who have entrusted me with their cases.
Contrary to the belief of some, this wasn't all that big of a transition from my job as a prosecutor, which I held for a little over 9 years.
I never relished in the misery of a defendant that I was prosecuting. I was always keenly aware of the repercussions prosecuting somebody had on collateral matters such as a defendant's family, his job, etc. I've written here before about one of the most memorably heart-breaking moments of my career was when a small child came waddling up to me moments after his father had been sentenced to life in prison as I had requested of the Court.
That's a memory that makes me incredibly sad.
But it doesn't change the fact that the defendant in that particular case deserved a life sentence. He had ordered the death of a 17-year-old kid and that death had occurred. He had ordered two other murders that had not.
I guess I'm rambling, but the point that I am (poorly) trying to make is that prosecutors often do jobs that are heart-breaking and sad, but nonetheless, important. And necessary.
Somewhere along the way, people picked up the erroneous perception that prosecutors, and by extension, police officers do their jobs because they just truly enjoy ruining people's lives. They enjoy the power trip. They enjoy the chaos.
I am sure that there are probably some prosecutors and police officers that fit that description. And maybe I'm naive, but I truly believe they are in the small minority.
I hope they are. The ones that I worked with during my time with Harris County certainly weren't representative of that. At least not to my knowledge.
But for some reason, some of my brethren in the Defense Bar regard prosecutors and police officers as power-mad authoritarians who do their jobs solely for the reason of suppressing the rights of citizens who were simply minding their own business.
Those same defense attorneys, who will gladly stand by any accused murderer, rapist, or pedophile, will vocally celebrate if a police officer or (fingers crossed!) a prosecutor gets arrested for anything. Die-Hard civil libertarians who will (rightfully) proclaim any citizen's Presumption of Innocence, suddenly forget that standard if the person accused is a public servant enforcing the law.
It is a double standard beyond comprehension to me.
If every Defense Attorney ultimately fancies themselves to be a modern-day-Atticus-Finch, why do they forget the principles Finch stood for solely because it is a prosecutor or police officer charged? If they were truly devotees of the principles of Atticus Finch, it would seem to me that the more unpopular a person or more scandalous of a charge they faced, the more they would dig their heels in to stand beside them.
The irony of the situation is stunning, because as members of the Defense Bar celebrate and rebroadcast the arrest of a prosecutor or police officer, they are abandoning the most sacred principles of the Constitution.
First, they are presuming them guilty.
And second, they are relishing in the idea that they should be treated more harshly under the law because they are different.
We've all had friends who have been arrested. Today, I had a friend who was arrested for DWI.
Unlike 99.9% of the population, his DWI arrest made the paper.
Unlike 99.9% of the population, he may lose his job simply because he was arrested.
Unlike 99.9% of the population, morons will have the opportunity to make idiotic comments about him on the news blogs.
Unlike 99.9% of the population, many people will be hoping he is guilty.
Why? Because he just so happened to be a prosecutor at the time of his arrest.
For those who will comment on this blog about me still being a prosecutor at heart, go ahead and knock yourself out.
But, I can do my job as a Defense Attorney every day without having to vilify my opposition, or rejoice in their troubles.
I will look any prosecutor in the eye and tell them that I think they are wrong about my case and I will fight them tooth and nail in a courtroom.
But I will never think that they are bad people deserving of trauma in their lives simply for being prosecutors, because that is nothing short of absurd.
And I would never take pleasure in the troubles.
Just like I would never take pleasure in the troubles of those I prosecuted.
And I remain eternally appreciative of the help that I have received from other members of the Harris County Defense Bar over the past two years as I began a defense practice.
I've been honored to work alongside some of the best in the criminal defense business.
And I've been a very enthusiastic and dedicated advocate to those clients who have entrusted me with their cases.
Contrary to the belief of some, this wasn't all that big of a transition from my job as a prosecutor, which I held for a little over 9 years.
I never relished in the misery of a defendant that I was prosecuting. I was always keenly aware of the repercussions prosecuting somebody had on collateral matters such as a defendant's family, his job, etc. I've written here before about one of the most memorably heart-breaking moments of my career was when a small child came waddling up to me moments after his father had been sentenced to life in prison as I had requested of the Court.
That's a memory that makes me incredibly sad.
But it doesn't change the fact that the defendant in that particular case deserved a life sentence. He had ordered the death of a 17-year-old kid and that death had occurred. He had ordered two other murders that had not.
I guess I'm rambling, but the point that I am (poorly) trying to make is that prosecutors often do jobs that are heart-breaking and sad, but nonetheless, important. And necessary.
Somewhere along the way, people picked up the erroneous perception that prosecutors, and by extension, police officers do their jobs because they just truly enjoy ruining people's lives. They enjoy the power trip. They enjoy the chaos.
I am sure that there are probably some prosecutors and police officers that fit that description. And maybe I'm naive, but I truly believe they are in the small minority.
I hope they are. The ones that I worked with during my time with Harris County certainly weren't representative of that. At least not to my knowledge.
But for some reason, some of my brethren in the Defense Bar regard prosecutors and police officers as power-mad authoritarians who do their jobs solely for the reason of suppressing the rights of citizens who were simply minding their own business.
Those same defense attorneys, who will gladly stand by any accused murderer, rapist, or pedophile, will vocally celebrate if a police officer or (fingers crossed!) a prosecutor gets arrested for anything. Die-Hard civil libertarians who will (rightfully) proclaim any citizen's Presumption of Innocence, suddenly forget that standard if the person accused is a public servant enforcing the law.
It is a double standard beyond comprehension to me.
If every Defense Attorney ultimately fancies themselves to be a modern-day-Atticus-Finch, why do they forget the principles Finch stood for solely because it is a prosecutor or police officer charged? If they were truly devotees of the principles of Atticus Finch, it would seem to me that the more unpopular a person or more scandalous of a charge they faced, the more they would dig their heels in to stand beside them.
The irony of the situation is stunning, because as members of the Defense Bar celebrate and rebroadcast the arrest of a prosecutor or police officer, they are abandoning the most sacred principles of the Constitution.
First, they are presuming them guilty.
And second, they are relishing in the idea that they should be treated more harshly under the law because they are different.
We've all had friends who have been arrested. Today, I had a friend who was arrested for DWI.
Unlike 99.9% of the population, his DWI arrest made the paper.
Unlike 99.9% of the population, he may lose his job simply because he was arrested.
Unlike 99.9% of the population, morons will have the opportunity to make idiotic comments about him on the news blogs.
Unlike 99.9% of the population, many people will be hoping he is guilty.
Why? Because he just so happened to be a prosecutor at the time of his arrest.
For those who will comment on this blog about me still being a prosecutor at heart, go ahead and knock yourself out.
But, I can do my job as a Defense Attorney every day without having to vilify my opposition, or rejoice in their troubles.
I will look any prosecutor in the eye and tell them that I think they are wrong about my case and I will fight them tooth and nail in a courtroom.
But I will never think that they are bad people deserving of trauma in their lives simply for being prosecutors, because that is nothing short of absurd.
And I would never take pleasure in the troubles.
Just like I would never take pleasure in the troubles of those I prosecuted.
Comments
In any event, I felt sad for him when I read about the bust in the paper today. As you said, unlike 99%...
Happy New Year, Murray!
Why would the outgoing Democratic DA fire him on a county holiday? There is nothing in it for him. Why wouldn't he let Roady make that call?
However, I begrudgingly agree with this post.
Generalizations of any population are flawed and dangerous.
"All of any population is [fill in negative]" is a sentiment completely antithetical to the spirit of a defense attorney. (Or at least a "true believer.") Or at least it should be.
But you know how defense attorneys are--every single one of them will do anything for a dollar.
However, I begrudgingly agree with this post.
Generalizations of any population are flawed and dangerous.
“All of any population is [fill in negative]” is a sentiment completely antithetical to being a defense attorney. (Or at least a "true believer.") Well, it should be.
But you know how defense attorneys are--every single one of them will do anything for a dollar.
Rage
Yet, you have no problem putting out the personal business and names of others...even when they specifically ask you not to.
I don't have to mention my friend's name. It is all over the news. I specifically chose not to name him to make a point.
Rage,
Your point is well taken, and I agree with you whole-heartedly. Warren is a personal friend of mine, but I strongly disagree with the posting of accused people's names. Just as Mark Bennett and I often disagree, it doesn't affect the fact that we are friends.
Robb Fickman
Robb Fickman
Really? What about judges? Jurors? If anything, the defense bar works to make sure that presumption is enforced regardless of guilt or innocence.
And I'm sure Warren is your friend, Murr), but when I read this I was hoping it was him that got arrested. Only because he's a pretty vicious crusader, and the public is no safer because of his BS tactics.
Rage
I have subsequently deleted the comment, and I apologize to Mark.
I haven't heard a single member of the Defense Bar wish ill to your friend. They may react with sadness or hope that the situation will improve with regards to your friend's circumstances, but no celebration. There is a certain irony, but all this proves is that we are all human and capable of getting caught up in the system. As Mark Bennett expressed, I hope your friend goes to one of the DWI blood gurus and beats the case.
Michele Hartmann
Unlike the average Joe he will undoubtedly receive a 'professional courtesy fee' if he is even billed for legal services at all.
Additionally, your friend's income bracket more than likely could afford him the opportunity to hire a driver or rent a hotel room.
Without meaning to sound harsh, your friend knew better than to drink and drive. He made a very poor choice and hopefully will have learned something from the experience.
I have seen numerous defense attorneys chuckle as officers or attorneys were arrested. And I know that if it had been a well-known defense attorney, the HCCLA listserve wouldn't have been buzzing so much over the weekend. I mean, really!
Sometimes trial attorneys look at everything as a win or lose situation. When a cop or prosecutor gets arrested, the defense bar chalks it up as a win. I recall a number of defense attorneys getting arrested over the past years and I don't remember a single prosecutor getting off on any of it.
How about realizing that people, regardless of their job (and maybe especially because of their job if they're in law enforcement), suffer when they have to go through the criminal justice system? How about doing what the Bible says (even if you aren't a Christian because it makes good sense) and not rejoicing in someone else's suffering? Be mournful when others are mourning and be joyful when others rejoice. That's what I tell my kids all the time. How about attorneys who don't act like kids?
I will admit I first hated defense attorneys with a passion until a couple approached me outside the courtroom and we had a pleasant conversation and I realized they are doing a job as well. Plus I'll never forget some cute defense attorney named Michelle I chatted at a club one night. Now that I'm single where is she????
Yes everyone is innocent until proven guilty in a courtroom. However on the streets when a police officer sees the crime occurring (especially if the officer is assaulted) innocence is a moot point. Also, officers typically deal with the same people over and over and knows better than any lawyer, judge, or Joe Citizen what type of person this is. For example, an officer catches a guy in an apartment complex and finds he has a wad of cash in 10s, 20s, etc. The guy has a history of drug arrests and is unemployed. No courtroom will convict him at that moment for dealing drugs but it's clear where that money came from.
But hey, what do us anonymous pussies and children know anywayt?
WTF do you care if someone calls Bennett Hitler? He is just as big of an ass clown when he does something like this: http://blog.bennettandbennett.com/2010/11/yodle-because-hytlr-com-was-already-taken.html
It's hilarious that "Hey Bennet me too" Paul Kennedy wants to chime in, as if on cue as well. So cute.
Bennett's a true believer and Kennedy is a wanna be, and neither of them will ever have any respect of any prosecutore whatoseover--nothing to lose any sleep about.
Couldn't agree with you more. Spot on.
A prosecutor has a higher, much higher duty to the judicial system than the average joe. He/she is an officer of the court. He/she has a mandate to ensure "justice is done", and has incredible discretion to achieve that. He/she is virtually immune from prosecution in performance of official duties. As a member of the bar, he/she has formally enshrined ethical obligations that restrict his/her civil liberties compared to the average citizen, as well as an implied if not explicit obligation to avoid even the appearance of impropriety.
"Innocent until proven guilty" IS the absolute principle that applies to everyone charged in our formal system, even if some have difficulty with that concept, and so absolutely applies to a prosecutor that has been charged when appearing in court. But as Jackie Carpenter noted, there can also be a human judgement. "Innocent until proven guilty" sounds so absolute, black and white, cut and dried. But in reality, one becomes guilty in the formal system after a judge or jury finds one so "beyond a reasonable doubt", which really boils down to a matter of probabilities. And while an accused prosecutor is formally innocent until proven guilty, the a priori probabilities are different for a prosecutor versus old joe being charged with a DUI. It seems more unlikely to me that a police officer, whom generally works with prosecutors, is going to cite a prosecutor, and the DA/CA charge a prosecutor, rather than old joe, for reasons such as being power-hungry, wanting to exert authority, etc that they might be able to get "away with" with old joe. A prosecutor/trix wields more power than joe, knows the law, and knows how to apply it.
The "power-hungry, testilying scum" argument works in the opposite direction here: while it may increase one's human, a priori judgement that old joe might not be guilty, the idea that a police officer might be willing to lie or falsely accuse a prosecutor doesn't hold as much water. So when a CDL snickers off the record when a prosecutor is charged, I don't find it as hypocritical as I get from the tone of this post. I find it sad when especially when a prosecutor is charged, given to draconian sentences that apply, and the unconstitutionality of many of the DUI laws and evidence procedures, not to mention the detriment to the respect to the judicial system and loss of livelihood. My take would be many prosecutors may have some serious issues, given the power they have over people's lives, and may have substantial personal guilt or whatever because of past mistakes that might have been made in the course of their job, and so might drink to excess at times - a mitigating factor, not a cause to cheer about. If on a jury, would I prejudge a prosecutor guilty?? Hell no. Reading an article in the newspaper in the living room informally? Perhaps more likely than if old joe had been charged.
Also, while prosecutors do have a lot of power in their official capacity, that hasn't stopped them (in many counties) from being treated the same as anyone else once they've been accused of a crime. When I was in law school (in Texas, but not in Houston), a DA failed to charge his ADA with intox manslaughter when it was warranted. Instead, the ADA was quietly fired and he left town. That ultimately resulted in the DA losing his job in the next election. When I worked for Harris County, I was proud of the fact that every ADA who committed a criminal offense (there were not many, but there were a few) from class C misdemeanors on up was investigated and charged and the case was handled by an independent special prosecutor (usually a respected defense attorney who used to be a prosecutor and remembered how to do the job). That's the way it's being handled in Galveston. Most cops may find themselves in a sticky situation when and ADA is being investigated, but it's not like the cops view ADAs as one of their own. (Speak to any about their intake frustrations and you'll see that's nowhere near the case!) So I disagree with your assertions that prosecutors somehow have an edge on getting charged with crimes or that they can influence the investigation. However, it seems like Pat Lykos is fielding favors for Rachel Palmer's fiance!
I just feel for Jack Roady, who I think highly of. What a rough way to begin office!
I am doing research on ethical considerations, standards, rules, or anything else that would contain information pertaining to any restrictions the elected DA can place on ADA running for Judicial Office. Also, if the ADA is running against a sitting judge who is also running for re-election to the position sought by the ADA, anything addressing campaign comments or materials of the ADA in regards to the sitting judge's performance, fitness, or anything negative.
I am the king of run-on sentences, so forgive me for any confusion.
Any help you can provide would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks.
Roger Bridgwater, Bureau Chief
Professional Development, Community
Protection, and Ethics Bureau
Harris County District Attorney's Office
1201 Franklin, 6th floor
Houston, Tx., 77002
Wk: 713-755-3796
Fax: 713-755-6865
REPLY TO:
BRIDGWATER_ROGER@dao.hctx.net
Calvin Hartmann
The answer to "Darkwater's" inquiry is very simple. A Federal Court ruling prohibits Lykos from preventing one of her assistants from running against an incumbent. She cannot do anything that would have a chilling effect on the political activities of those individuals running against incumbents as that would violate the spirit of the Federal ruling. She cannot demote them. She cannot fire them. She cannot give them bad asignments. If she does she will wind up in Federal Court.
The only real restrictions on the candidates are those set forth by the Code of Judicial Conduct, which govern judicial campaigns. These rules apply to candidates as well as sitting judges. It is a pity thay Lykos et al are such poor lawyers that they cannot quickly resolve the issue.
The citizens of Harris County should be very disturbed that the elected DA wishes to interfere in the election process in such a manner. It is yet another example of the administration wanting to control every aspect of each employees lives.
2) That a defense attorney's personal opinion is limited to "well he's innocent until proven guilty" I am a person with personal opinions. I am also a member of the community who does not cheer when somebody dangerous to my family is put on the street. I am also a defense attorney who knows who plays fair down at the courthouse and who does not.
Lastly, I also used to be a prosecutor who gossiped about the troubles of the defense bar just like my colleagues did. I have noticed no difference from one side of the bar to the next.
Interesting. A week ago I bet lots of you would have said the same thing about Blizzard.
While on the thought, a personal recogizance bond would seem to have been appropriate.
I think it would be too. And it would be for thousands of others in Harris and Galveston Counties, who never get a PR bond, either.
Rage
I'm with you on Judge Roger "you can't fix stupid" Brigewater but the real question is, "what will Judge Pat run for after her defeat in 2012"?
Just Sayin'
The Pied Piper of Hamelin is hosting his annual Lexington Rat Pack Jumper at the Grand Canyon Sunday....I can't wait to see the aerial footage.
The Chuckster shared your flippancy.
Just Sayin'
I think you have your courts wrong, and are confusing the 176the with the 177th.
From what I have heard, Brad Hart is running for 339th, Joe Vinas is running for 338th, Bridgwater is running for either 337th,or 177th, and Rachel Palmer has her eyes on the 177th.
Murray, not to tell you your business, but perhaps you could do a brief post on who is rumored to be running for what bench? Your blog is the only source of info for most of us who don't tie outselves to internal R or D party politics. Just a thought . . .
Brad Hart wouldnt be a bad choice for 339th, according to a lot of people who are "in the know" down here at the office. He has been around a while and is qualified, at least (and wont need to relay on "grandma" to get the party's support).
Bridgewater is gunning for 337th, I hear and he has Lykos' nod to do so. Hence the memo he put out regarding not finding a reason why a DA can not run against a sitting judge. HEY ROGER, It just makes sense and removes any hint of bad blood... It prevents a lot of problems, something you have not been able to do here under the "Greek Goddess grom Hell"!!
I think I just threw up a little in my mouth.
My $.02
I can't offer much HC political insight. But after 20 years as a federal agent, who is now a 3L, I can tell you that I have few reservations about criminal defense.
In fact, I am not much of a religious person, but I have carried the words; there but for the grace of God go I, or words to that effect.
You are not the first to struggle the transition, but I figure that if I advertise my experience as a selling point, I had better be prepared to truly embrace my new role.
Thanks for the posts Murray.. They are generally spot on.
Thanks for the posts Murray.. They are generally spot on.
http://thepolicenews.net/(X(1)S(qwkpsfxxav0j0ehkkyjpil2m))/default.aspx/act/newsletter.aspx/newsletterid/23248/category/letters+to+the+editor/MenuGroup/Home.htm