Tuesday, September 11, 2012

David Temple and the Dereliction of Duty

On the afternoon of January 11, 1999, David Temple took a shotgun, placed it to the back of his pregnant wife's head, and murdered her in cold blood.

On November 15, 2007, after a long and winding road through the Criminal Justice System, a jury convicted Mr. Temple of the murder of Belinda Temple, and sentenced him to Life in prison and a $10,000 fine.  The jury had listened to six weeks of testimony in a battle between one of Harris County's best defense attorneys, Dick DeGuerin, and the District Attorney's best prosecutor, Kelly Siegler, before arriving at their verdict.  Despite the length of the testimony, their time of deliberation was only a few hours.

At the end of July, I wrote this post, explaining how Harris County First Assistant District Attorney Jim Leitner was working with DeGuerin in an effort to clear the name of David Temple.  In that earlier post, I mentioned that Leitner had authorized unlimited overtime for a Harris County D.A. Investigator (Steve Clappart) to assist in the investigation.  Clappart was to assist defense attorney John Denholm as Denholm (a former Harris County Sheriff's Department Homicide Lieutenant) assisted DeGuerin.  Clappart, by his own admission, had a "personal relationship with John Denholm for 20 years."

The position of the Harris County District Attorney's Office quickly became one of an agency talking out of both sides of its mouth.  While the Appellate Division of the Office was arguing that Temple's conviction should stand, the First Assistant was covertly authorizing an investigator to try to undermine the factual basis of the very same conviction.  Leitner's authorization of funding for Clappart's investigation was something he wished to keep under the radar.  Belinda Temple's family (the Lucas family) wasn't informed of what Leitner and Clappart were up to.

As of this writing, the Lucas family still hasn't been informed of what is going on.

The objective of the Clappart/Denholm "investigation" was to shift attention away from David Temple as the prime suspect in the murder of his wife and focus it on a trio of teenagers who were believed to have been committing burglaries in the neighborhood during that time frame.  A startling new piece of evidence came from a new witness who had allegedly heard one of those teenagers make a statement of "guilt." (NOTE:  More on that "statement of 'guilt'" in a moment.)

When I wrote the post at the end of July, Leitner was reportedly infuriated -- not that he and I were exactly best friends in the first place.  Suddenly, he was having to field phone calls about why the victim's family had not been informed.  In an effort to attempt some semblance of an appearance of neutrality in the DeGuerin/Denholm/Clappart investigation, the Office appointed a "Special Prosecutor."  That prosecutor is a reputable attorney by the name of Brad Beers.

Let me start off by saying that I like Brad Beers.  He's a nice guy and an excellent attorney.  Many moons ago, he gave me some advice as a prosecutor that I will never forget and will always appreciate.  But Brad Beers has a conflict of interest in this case that is so significant that he should have NEVER accepted a request to serve as a Special Prosecutor at the behest of Pat Lykos where Steve Clappart was the lead investigator.

Clappart and Denholm are currently trying to get warrants signed for the arrest of at least one of the teenagers (at the time) mentioned above.  In their opinion, one of the teenagers committed a burglary and killed Belinda Temple in the process.  Under Texas Law, that would make him a Capital Murderer.  The type of warrant they are trying to get signed is informally called "Pocket Warrants," but it is nonetheless an arrest warrant accusing someone of Capital Murder.  Clappart and Denholm want the (then) teen arrested and charged with the highest crime our State has to offer.

If they are successful in having the warrant signed (NOTE:  More on the content of the warrants in a moment), Brad Beers will be the "Special Prosecutor" and Steve Clappart will be his star witness.  Here's where the Conflict of Interest comes in:

Several years ago, there was a highly publicized case involving an exonerated defendant -- George Rodriguez -- who sued several people and agencies in conjunction with his wrongful conviction for sexual assault.  Steve Clappart was one of those people sued.  Clappart's attorney in the matter?  Brad Beers.

Fast forward a bit, and Harris County Investigator Steve Clappart is disciplined by the Office for breaking policy and surreptitiously sending offense reports to a criminal defense attorney (before such things were permitted).  The defense attorney in question?  That would be Brad Beers.

Brad is also rumored to have been Hannah Chow's defense attorney during the recent Grand Jury investigation into the Office.  Brad also contacted me several months ago to let me that he was representing Investigator Leon Wilson, who was looking to sue somebody for nasty things being said about him on this blog.

Leitner and the Gang may call Brad Beers a Special Prosecutor, but they damn sure can't call him a neutral one.

Now, let's get back to the events of this week and that Pocket Warrant.

Clappart has been shopping around a warrant for the arrest of the (then) teen for the Capital Murder of Belinda Temple.  He cites the testimony of a new witness who, per the warrant, had only learned of Belinda Temple's death (which happened in 1999) only "5 or 6 months ago."  Furthermore, that "Smoking Gun" evidence that this new witness has involves him overhearing one of the three (then) teens admitting to shooting a dog during a burglary and throwing it in the closet.

Yep, you read that right.

There isn't some new confession to the murder of Belinda Temple.  There's the confession of shooting a dog that Clappart and Denholm would like to extrapolate into a Capital Murder warrant.  There are no fingerprints.  No DNA.  No confession.  Yet a licensed peace office and a former licensed peace officer would like a judge to arrest someone for Capital Murder because he stated that he once shot a dog.

In the meantime, while Clappart and Denholm are trying to arrest somebody for a Capital Murder based on that evidence, we have DeGuerin and Stanley Schneider filing an "Out of Time Motion for New Trial or Alternative Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus Based on Actual Innocence, Newly Discovered Evidence, and the Willful Suppression of Exculpatory Evidence."

They did that yesterday.

Well, of all the strange coincidences -- that Motion for New Trial for David Temple just so happens to have gotten filed right around the time that Clappart is trying to get a warrant signed on the teens.

Amazing, isn't it?  How on earth could Schneider and DeGuerin have known what a D.A. Investigator was up to?  At least, how would they have known without the collusion of the District Attorney's Office?

As an aside, in their Motion/Writ, DeGuerin and Schneider make mention of the statement of the "New Witness" being sealed for his protection.  It isn't being sealed for the witness' protection -- it's being sealed because it's a confession to animal cruelty -- not capital murder.

Still not convinced that the District Attorney's Office isn't operating out of Dick DeGuerin's back pocket?  Let's take a look over at our friend Don Hooper's blog.  Don, if you will remember, is the husband of 5th-Amendment-taking-prosecutor Rachel Palmer, and he operates a blog to combat mine.  He remains cyberspace's best Lykos Administration Defender.  He had an interesting post in his comments section last night:

So, Don apparently got advance word from the Office and was quite excited about the Temple story getting some press attention.  Glad to see that he shares their interest in Justice.

Anyway . . .

That brings us to today, as Schneider and DeGuerin are trying to get Judge David Mendoza of the 178th District Court to make a ruling on their Motion.  The District Attorney's Office via their Appellate Division Head Alan Curry have made the argument that since Temple's case is currently pending in front of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, the trial court doesn't have jurisdiction to rule on the new motion.  (NOTE:  Although the Temple Case was tried in the 178th District Court, visiting Judge Doug Shaver presided at trial.)

DeGuerin and Schneider don't like Mr. Curry's arguments and they would sure like him recused from the hearing.  Unfortunately, the only way they can do that is to try to recuse the District Attorney's Office as a whole.  They don't want that, because then they would have to recuse Clappart, too.

Additionally, they would have to recuse Special Prosecutor Brad Beers as well.  You see, he's not a Prosecutor Pro Tem -- he's a special prosecutor, and thus, an employee of the District Attorney's Office, albeit temporarily.  

The defense needs Beers and/or the District Attorney's Office to agree that David Temple was wrongfully convicted so they can either a) get him a new trial or b) get him released.

Sound like a mess?  It is.  And it certainly isn't a mess that the District Attorney was elected to create and encourage.  

The debacle created by Leitner and the rest of the Gang is an absolute disgrace to the District Attorney's Office and it illustrates a gross dereliction of duty.  


Anonymous said...

1) Is Hooper misspelling "Personal" or have you created an LLP and now have associates? 2) Sure hope Hoop wasn't referring to your injured shoulder, cause I heard Palmer pulled a Bobbitt and made Hoop a new pacifier while he slept. He hardly noticed the "prick" of the little piece of skin removed; 3) Not being tacky here, and from what I know of the case you speak of, Kelly got the right guy and the jury's verdict was just; however, could it be the alleged "new" teen target said: "I shot a (word for female dog) and threw it into the closet? If THIS was the case it might have merit, but if this is the "new" testimony to get a new trial - bullshit! And IF all he said was plain old DOG then still bullshit. Obviously no disrespect intended towards this victim or her family - just following the toilet paper trail being left by the defense. Denholm was (seriously) a good cop – just ask him; but if he doesn’t truly believe in this case and is just engaged in it for the association with Dick and the chance to be a “playa” so soon out of law School……..(FILL IN THE BLANK).

Anonymous said...

Murray, can you please elaborate on your statement that a Special Prosecutor is an employee of the DA's office? By "elaborate," I mean, cite some authority? You distinguish between a Special Prosecutor and a Pro Tem. I did thought that Special Prosecutors, even if requested by the DA's office, were appointed by judges and paid by the county, just like defense attorneys. And I didn't think a recusal of the DA's office would effect them. If you can point us to the rules or caselaw on this subject, I would appreciate it.

Murray Newman said...

Anon 6:00 a.m.,
I'll have to look up the statutory authority that defines the difference between a "Pro Tem" and a "Special Prosecutor."
However, remember that Kelly Siegler was appointed as a Special Prosecutor on the Anthony Graves case so that she could work alongside and assist the Burleson County District Attorney on that case. It basically "deputized" her as a prosecutor again, temporarily.
A Pro Tem has the attorney in question acting as the District Attorney's Office, separately and independently where the D.A.'s Office has been recused from the case (as in the 185th Grand Jury investigation).

BLACK INK said...


You might just get a blog "Pulitzer" for this.

Apologetically, I haven't read your blog since a few weeks after Mike crushed the Lykos/Leitner Gang in the April Republican Primary. A sense of peace and hope replaced my disgrace and frustration at what had become of a top tier district attorney's office. I knew that Mike would restore the justice, competence and pride decimated by Lykos/Leitner. I was confident the HCDAO was on the mend. JUSTICE would once again reign supreme and the gaggle of incompetents was through wrecking havoc at the HCDAO. However, an old ADA buddy proved me wrong this morning when his text read "you gotta read Murray's new blog this morning.....it'll make you sick".

This conspiracy is bigger and more sinister than I could have ever imagined. As it unravels it will explode onto the national stage. The co-conspirators will get their review..........but ironically, the intense scrutiny will expose the depths of their collaborative corruption and will exalt the reputation and character of the very people they sought to defame and destroy.

Justice is our new destiny.

Scott C. Pope said...

BTW--what's the Bible verse of the day Murray?

Anonymous said...

Please please please can Belinda's family hold a press conference NOW to show their outrage??? I will bet any number of lawyers will represent them for free (and by "represent" I mean call all of the press).
I am curious as to who is funding all of DeGuerin at this point. He doesn't work for free. And he takes every opportunity to bad-mouth Kelly when he can. You got whipped, take it like a man, willya???

Anonymous said...

Lykos' decision to hire an attorney with a built-in conflict is outrageous. What is even more outrageous is the fact that he will likely be billling the HCDAO by the hour and who knows how much that will total. Lykos will have to pay him from one of the office funds that doesn't require prior notice or approval from Commissioners Court. Maybe part of that $335,000 she was trying to get approval of will be going to Beers. Regardless the taxpayers have to foot the bill.

On top of that, the Special Prosecutor is actively working against the Appellate section of the Office. all about conflicting agendas and that doesn't even take into account the agenda Leitner has with Little Dickie.

The whole thing illustrates once again how incompetent and two-faced Lykos is and why she has been fired.

Anonymous said...

So, they said "dog."

How many times has the DAO struck a Canadian? I bet none. But a "Canadian?" Quite a few.

Words can have other meanings...


Anonymous said...

Reading the newest article on the Chronicle, in which Dick asks for a recusal of the entire DA's Office because of their "schizophrenic" approach - that is, denying on appellate while investigating with a special prosecutor - shows the wholesale, willful manipulation of justice and the clear collusion of Lykos, Leitner, and their gang.

It's actually an impressive conspiracy, which makes me think that it's Dick's idea.

Anonymous said...

Isnt this the case where there was a dog in the backyard who would have barked if the intruder were a stranger? That dog wasn't shot right?

Jigmeister said...

Can't see Clappert or Denholm trying to get a warrant without at least a bare bones showing of probable cause and I certainly don't see pc based on your description, Murray. And what is the point in arresting someone who has an attorney if the purpose is developing further evidence. Obviously Cruelty would have a two statute, so an arrest on that basis wouldn't fly. So, either your wrong or the arrest would just be for media attention. That would be a really bad idea.

Anonymous said...

anon 12:38,

the dog didn''t bark either.
that is until law enforcement arrived at the crime scene at which time the dog had to be forcibly restrained to allow officers into the house.
it seems that bad ass dog took a liking to the burgler.
brotha puleeeze.

Anonymous said...

Jigmeister please provide an example of a good idea Patsy the troll and/or Jimmy the weasel have independantly come up with. Renaming and plagerizing don't count.

Anonymous said...

C/Mon January.. PLEASE get here. We need you so badly. A new year will clean this place and rid it of the likes of Palmer, Chow, Leitner, Lykos and the crew that has let Harris County down. And ie are lucky, it will silence Hooper, even if for a while... Peaceful water are ahead and we are eagerly waiting their arrival.

This place is a WRECK and its shameful. Some days it's hard to hang your head high and be proud of this place, but there are still some very hardworking people here who don't deserve to the bad rap.

Anonymous said...

Kelly might only be 5'4" at best but is still taller than DeGuerin in height and ability and I'll bet the fact that this little girl whooped his ass so many times in trial makes him crazy.
If anybody needs a hearing it's Dick on competency.

Anonymous said...

Please let them take jj with them when they go. He's just as sleazy as the rat of them. Typo and it stays.

Anonymous said...

So, they said "shot the dog".

A misogynist might jump to the conclusion the word dog was actually a reference to the derogatory term he commonly uses for women--"bitch". A more rational explanation might be that the kid simply "shot" his mouth off.

Anonymous said...

Looks like Dick DeGuerin played Pat Lykos and her whipping boy Jim Leitner like a pair of cheap fiddles.
Schizophrenic indeed!

Anonymous said...

How is this any different than a police officer caught lying in one case and yet prosecutors will argue that he is credible in the next case.

Anonymous said...

They can take Clappart with them.

Anonymous said...

The terms "special prosecutor" and "attorney pro tem" are often used interchangeably, but there is a distinction between the two. I recently had to do some research on this issue so I have pasted portions of it below. A special prosecutor is an attorney who is not a part of the district attorney’s office who is enlisted to assist the district attorney in a particular case. Mai v. The State of Texas, 189 S.W. 3d 316, 319 (Tex. App. 2006) In appointing a special prosecutor it is not necessary that the district or county attorney be absent, disqualified, recused, or otherwise unable to perform their duties. Id.; see also Tex. Code of Crim. Proc. art. 2.07(a). Approval of the special prosecutor by the trial court is not required and the “district attorney remains primarily responsible for the prosecution, control, and management of the case.” Mai, supra at 319. Alternatively, in defining the role of an attorney pro tem article 2.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure states in part that “[w]henever an attorney for the state is disqualified to act in any case or proceeding, is absent from the county or district, or is otherwise unable to perform the duties of his office, or in any instance where there is no attorney for the state, the judge of the court in which he represents the state may appoint any competent attorney to perform the duties of the office during the absence or disqualification of the attorney for the state.” Tex. Code of Crim. Proc. art. 2.07(a) If the appointed attorney is not an attorney for the state, he or she must file an oath with the clerk. Tex. Code of Crim. Proc. art. 2.07(c); see also, Mai supra at 319

Anonymous said...

Dear Don,

You have failed at so many things in life (marriages, fathering, 1st grade spelling). Your continued attempts to insert yourself in just about every issue involving the courthouse is the mark of a miserable, desperate man trying in vain to rewrite history. Your candidate lost. Get over it. Move on.

Anonymous said...

These are FACTS that cannot be disputed and should be considered before arresting anyone else.
#1 - This 'witness' claims he didn't know about Belinda Temple's murder until 4 or 5 months ago?? He went to Katy High School and still lives in the area! #2 - When he decided that he needed to report this supposed confession, he didn't call the police, he called Dick Deguerin! #3 - Out of the other three people he says were present when this statement was made, two are implicated in the crime and the third is conveniently wanted by law enforcement and is currently a fugitive who has left the country. Hard to believe anyone is taking this guy seriously!

Anonymous said...

Well, maybe now we know the unfinished business that has kept Jimmy around since the election. Looks like he had a job to do for Dick.

Lassie said...

Dear Dick DeGuerin:

Sir, I read in this morning's Houston Chronicle that your witness' sworn affidavit is under seal. Now I can understand your desire to shield his identity but why would you deliberately want to hide the actual contents of his testimony which you claim exonerates your client David Temple? Why have you "leaked" bits and pieces of this testimony out of context and now complain that perhaps the entirety of the testimony might have been leaked to Mr. Chip Lewis and others? Oh, and on what basis was the testimony sealed in the first place?


Anonymous said...

The dog in the Temple case was unharmed, which would contradict the statement made by this new "witness". Does Dick have dementia? Kelly's not even in court anymore and she is still beating him.

Anonymous said...

Huh. If it comes out that Siegler withheld Brady material, Temple most likely gets a new trial.

It's bad enough that this case was shopped to more than one grand jury, but withholding evidence? This case was manufactured from the start if that turns out to be the case.


Anonymous said...

The type of shotgun used in the murder just so happened to be same type that was stolen from the dad of one of Riley Joe Sanders friend. I knew this group of guys from school, and have a good idea who this new witness is, and always thought Joe and 2 others had something to do with it. Then the public got caught up in the "cheating husband kills wife" fervor and "decided" that he HAD to have killed his wife (i.e. the Peterson case). If I am correct in my prediction on who the new witness is, he has known these details from Day 1, but like all of the Katy "teens" during those shocking times, disregarded his gut suspicions and naively assumed the Justice system would investigate everything thoroughly and convict the right person. There's more to this case than meets the eye, and that has nothing to do with the political "mud-slinging" that everyone is focusing on.

Murray Newman said...

Anon 11:55 a.m.,
My understanding is that the shotgun that was used was not recovered. I don't know how ou could say it was the same type of shotgun stolen in another burglary.

Murray Newman said...

Anon 11:55 a.m.,
My understanding is that the shotgun that was used was not recovered. I don't know how ou could say it was the same type of shotgun stolen in another burglary.

Anonymous said...

that he HAD to have killed his wife (i.e. the Peterson case)

Murray's right that the shotgun was not recovered, but they are all basically the same type--they shoot shot.

But 11:55 hit on the same basic point that I did--after Scott Petersen, Siegler sent this case to the grand jury for at least the second, and maybe the third or more time, and finally got an inkling that the grand jury would indict. So after a famous case with a similar situation, she felt like she could finally get the guy she thought did it. On its own in the past, without the sensationalism surrounding the Petersen case, a grand jury most likely would not have indicted Temple--as evidenced by the fact that they had not to that point.

And I'm not saying she didn't honestly hold that belief. It's a common trap. Prosecutors get an idea of what they think happened, so from then on every "credible" piece of evidence just reinforces that. So every piece of evidence that even hints to the contrary couldn't be credible, and is therefore not exculpatory, and does not need to be disclosed to the defense. Which is wrong.

Happens to the best of them. Highly celebrated prosecutors like Sebesta and Bradley fell prey to confirmation bias, and only later were villified when it was proven they were outright wrong. Same with Pat Batchelor, one of the longest-serving DA's in the state, who put Willingham down on evidence that today would be thrown out of court.

In a system fraught with this type of error, why would anyone not want to investigate a new lead? And if you think this evidence isn't new you would have to assume that Deguerin knew about it but intentionally did not argue this to the judge or jury. Which is downright impossible to believe.


Anonymous said...

If the new witness is who I think it is, then I know for a fact he was never questioned by authorities so his testimony about the conversation he overheard wasn't known by either side until just recently. So what I was attempting to say was that the witness and his testimony are "new" to the prosecution and defense, but he's known of this all along and was never questioned by anyone. For what it's worth, I've heard a secondhand account of what was said, and if it's even 70% accurate it will bring all the leaked details (i.e. "dog") into context for everyone. At the very least it will show that there is more circumstantial evidence against Sanders and his friend (who was there too by the way) than there is against David Temple, which apparently is all one needs in our Justice System to convict someone of murder.

Anonymous said...


Perception: David Temple was GJ shopped multiple times.

Fact: Siegler only presentd the Temple case to one GJ

Lesson: if a lie is told enough times certain people believe the lie to be the truth

Perception: Siegler withheld exculpatory evidence from DeGuerin in the Temple trial because Dick said so

Fact: Siegler never violated Brady in the Temple trial.

Lesson:see above lesson

Moral: Rage has such a vendetta against law enforcement that he stereotypes and believes things he wants to be true without regard to the facts or proper due diligence in evaluating that which he professes to be so sure about. Most racists and promoters of hate share the same rationale.

Anonymous said...

Rage, Why is it so downright impossible to believe DeGuerin is a liar while you so readily assume all law enforcement lies?
Stereotyping, afterall, is a sign of ignoroance.

Anonymous said...

4:58, we know more than one grand jury was involved. Murray has admitted it on this blog.

I never said I believed Deguerin. All I said was the "new" evidence had to be new to him or else he would have used it.

And the "new" evidence isn't the same as the allegedly "withheld" evidence. So keep your accusations regarding the two straight, please.


Murray Newman said...


I may be able to clear some of this up. Kelly Siegler wasn't the initial prosecutor handling the Temple case. It had been taken to a Grand Jury by other prosecutors. When the case did ultimately get assigned to her, she only had the one Grand Jury that ultimately returned the indictment.

In regards to "new" evidence - what is now "suddenly available" to DeGuerin is not some new, alternate suspect. It is a tangential support of his original trial theory -- that neighborhood burglars were the real culprits. The alternate suspect that DeGuerin is focusing on even testified in David Temple's trial.

The new evidence is that somebody overheard that alternate suspect admitting to shooting a dog. Not a bitch. A dog. And throwing it in a closet. He came forward after watching the 48 Hours episode on the Temple case.

The ensuing argument over whether or not this is "new evidence" is really about whether or not it is new "credible" evidence. It certainly isn't a new theory of the case.

Anonymous said...

Didn't Kelly have additional evidence than what Ted Wilson and Donna Goode had when they presented it to a grand jury in the past?

Anonymous said...

That may clear something up for the other poster who incorrectly said (lied?) there was only one grand jury, but it doesn't change a thing for me. It doesn't matter who presented it, the fact is that it took more than one grand jury to get an indictment.

The "New" evidence is the new witness. The fact that it supports an existing theory doesn't make it old, or "not new." Just because it makes an old theory more likely to be true doesn't mean we get to ignore it now. You'll remember in Sebesta's case that the original theory was that the accused didn't do it. The suppressed evidence tended to support that theory. Old theory--new evidence. Siegler argued that the new evidence should be considered and she was instrumental in getting the correct result. Now she's arguing new evidence shouldn't be considered? Just because she was the prosecutor? Come on now.

And of course, if she did withhold testimony that would have significantly narrowed the time frame, and then argued that he had plenty of time during trial, well, that's something else entirely different.

We'll see where it ends up.


Murray Newman said...


Let's clarify some things real quick.

First of all, what Kelly's opposition to has nothing to do with keeping evidence buried. Her issue is with the fact that the Lykos Administration is rolling over and playing dead because it is DeGuerin asking. The bad blood is tremendous and they are no longer being objective.

If they truly wanted to be objective, they would have asked a court to appoint a Pro Tem, rather than hire their lead investigator's old attorney.

Take the personal grudge against Kelly Siegler aside. How do you feel about the idea of charging someone with Capital Murder because a guy came out of the woodwork 13 years later and said that he overheard somebody say he shot a "dog." Would you feel comfortable with that?

Anonymous said...

I agree the politics are fishy. So I'm sure she will limit her responses in the future to "Lykos is doing something inappropriate," and not "Temple is guilty and no new evidence should be considered." But we all know she'll help fight to keep the conviction on its merits. She will help try to exclude the new evidence and any alleged withheld evidence.

Context is everything here. Like I said before, the DAO has a documented history of excluding "Canadians" from jury service. Do you believe for a minute they were excluding folks from Canada?

Do I believe this new witness 100%? I don't know what to believe.

Do I believe making sure we got the right guy in jail is worth a little extra work? Absolutely.

We have several recent exonerations across the state of people who were convicted on stronger evidence than Temple was.


Anonymous said...

Didn't Kelly have additional evidence than what Ted Wilson and Donna Goode had when they presented it to a grand jury in the past?

She may have presented something as different, but essentially I don't remember anything new.

And anyway, the issue here is essentially this:

"New" evidence allowing a second bite at an indictment = good, according to prosecutors.

"New" evidence allowing a second bite at acquittal/exoneration = bad, according to prosecutors.

To the citizen, that is anything but fair.


Anonymous said...

Rage, you constantly attack prosecutors as being unethical people out to win at all costs and uncaring as to whether they convict the right person. You are so wrong about that. The majority of prosecutors do their jobs (often for low pay) because they have a sense of duty to stand up for crime victims. I have never known a prosecutor who knowingly has tried to convict an innocent person. What I have seen innumerable times is the prosecutor fighting to get the truth told in a courtroom where the defense has no qualms about advocating for their client knowing that the client is guilty as charged. Even knowing that, I have often seen the defense knowingly suborn perjury from the client or the client's witnesses. In our system of justice, it is apparently acceptable and expected for the defense to do or say anything they can to either hide the truth or at least blame someone else for the crime in order to "walk" their client. The more money the client has, the more elaborate scenario the defense will present. Prosecutors don't do that and my opinion, have way more integrity than some defense lawyers.

Anonymous said...

Rage, you constantly attack prosecutors as being unethical people out to win at all costs and uncaring as to whether they convict the right person.

Not all of them.

You are so wrong about that.

Oh, well, you got me then. I change my mind.

The majority of prosecutors do their jobs (often for low pay) because they have a sense of duty to stand up for crime victims.

Great. It's the minority that screws citizens over then, is that what you're saying?

I have never known a prosecutor who knowingly has tried to convict an innocent person.

Of course not. I'm sure you know some that just KNEW they were getting the right guy. That's what they all think. I never, not once, have ever said that I think prosecutors intentionally prosecute a guy they know did it.

Also, I bet Ted Bundy's neighbors all thought he was a good looking, nice guy.

What I have seen innumerable times is the prosecutor fighting to get the truth told in a courtroom where the defense has no qualms about advocating for their client knowing that the client is guilty as charged.

First of all, you presume to know that the defense lawyer knows this. Or that the state proving its case is not a crucial part of our system. Because of the state can convict just because they think the guy is guilty, every one who is prosecuted would go to jail every time. Are you honestly telling me that every defendant is always guilty? Because otherwise, the adversarial process is the only way to counter the state--and that is a lot of firepower the state can bring to bear against a single individual.

Even knowing that, I have often seen the defense knowingly suborn perjury from the client or the client's witnesses.

Of course. You don't know a single unethical prosecutor, but all the time you see defense lawyers being unethical. That is complete horse shit.

In our system of justice, it is apparently acceptable and expected for the defense to do or say anything they can to either hide the truth or at least blame someone else for the crime in order to "walk" their client.

Your bias is showing. Again.

The more money the client has, the more elaborate scenario the defense will present.

Also, the less he has, the more likely he is to be wrongly convicted. Just ask Ricard. Tim Cole (oops, he died in jail), any of the Tulia defendants...

Prosecutors don't do that and my opinion, have way more integrity than some defense lawyers.

This is just down right laughable. You're a pretty pathetic human being.


Anonymous said...

"I have never known a prosecutor who knowingly has tried to convict an innocent person."

IMHO, that will always be a Good One, no matter how many times he say's it.