Sunday, September 30, 2012

Kelly Siegler Responds

NOTE:  The following article is unavoidably long.  It addresses the allegations made by Dick DeGuerin and Stan Schneider in their defense of David Temple.  Most trial cases (especially murder cases) can't be fit into a sound byte or a short news article.  Some can't even be adequately addressed in a full-length documentary.  This article is for those who are interested in reading the facts behind David Temple's murder of Belinda Temple and they have a lot of detail to them.

It has been a little less than three weeks since Dick DeGuerin and Stanley Schneider filed their "Out of Time Motion for New Trial or Alternative Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus Based on Actual Innocence, Newly Discovered Evidence and Willful Suppression of Exculpatory Evidence" on the David Temple murder case.  During the past few weeks, the Harris County District Attorney's Office has elected not to participate in the investigation of the Temple matter, opting to employee Special Prosecutor Brad Beers to handle the work.

As of this writing, David Temple's appeal is before the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals.  It is my belief that the Court of Criminal Appeals has sole jurisdiction over the Temple case at the moment and that Dick and Stanley's "Out of Time Motion" was done more for a publicity stunt in the 178th District Court -- the idea being that the Out of Time Motion was to get some publicity that the justices of the Court of Criminal Appeals might pay attention to before they made their own ruling.

The Upper Administration of the D.A.'s Office seems content to sit silently by and allow DeGuerin and Schneider's allegations to remain unanswered.  However, Kelly Siegler (who was the prosecutor that defeated DeGuerin in the Temple case) has spoken up with an affidavit filed in response.

In the affidavit, filed with the Court on Friday, Kelly addresses all of the allegations made by DeGuerin regarding everything from Temple's actual innocence to DeGuerin's claims of prosecutorial misconduct.

Here are some of the highlights:

Regarding DeGuerin's assertion that "unbeknownst to Temple or his lawyers until only recently, the State presented evidence concerning two possible suspects: Temple and Riley Joe Sanders."

Siegler points out that DeGuerin is basing the idea of the Harris County Sheriff's Office (HCSO) having a "second suspect" on the random statement of a Grand Juror that appears to have been taken out of context.  Furthermore, she points out that DeGuerin claiming that his "alternate suspect" Mr. Sanders was newly discovered is disingenuous.  She states:
What the defense leaves out is that Riley Joe Sanders voluntarily came forth to testify at the trial before the jury as the State's final rebuttal witness and voluntarily allowed himself to be cross-examined by Dick DeGuerin himself.  Regarding this particular assertion, it is deplorable that now the defense wants to misrepresent to this Court that the prosecutors all along believed that Sanders was involved in the murder of Belinda Temple and that the trial prosecutors deliberately withheld that opinion.  
Regarding DeGuerin's assertions that an earlier Grand Jury "Failed to Indict" and that Siegler "shopped the case to multiple Grand Juries" before finally landing an indictment of Temple.

Siegler notes that DeGuerin has made numerous statements to the media and to the Court that a Grand Jury failed to indict Temple in 19999.
I repeatedly told Mr. DeGuerin that the initial grand jury investigation conducted by Ted Wilson and Donna Goode in 1999 was simply used to develop evidence and to present witnesses.
This case was presented for indictment to one and only one grand jury in February 2005, and that grand jury indicted David Temple.   
Regarding DeGuerin's assertions that the subject of his "Out of Time Motion" is his First witness to have allegedly overheard the "true killer" of Belinda Temple admit to the crime.

Siegler brings up that this new anonymous and "mystery witness" is not the first time DeGuerin has miraculously discovered a witness who was available to clear David Temple's good name.  She points out that in January or February of 2005, DeGuerin found a witness from TDCJ named Michael David. Mr. David was apparently represented by a then-little known lawyer named Sean Buckley.  Much like 2012's "mystery witness," he also claimed to have overheard someone else admitting to the murder of Belinda Temple.

It was this controversial bench warranting of witness David that led to DeGuerin and Buckley filing a grievance against Kelly Siegler, alleging, amongst other things, that she was "practicing law through use of an alias not referenced in State Bar records" because she no longer practiced law under her maiden name.

It is worth noting that shortly after the Temple trial concluded, Buckley went to work for DeGuerin, where he is still employed as of this writing.

The similarities to Mr. DeGuerin's "new witness of 2012" and inmate Michael David are interesting.  Both claimed no personal knowledge of the murders, but claimed to have heard from an alternate suspect who admitted to the killing.  Additionally, both mystery witnesses allegedly received death threats that necessitated them remaining anonymous.

Regarding DeGuerin's "Selective Recitation of the Facts and the Record"

This section of Siegler's affidavit is broken into several parts, addressing individual factual disputes.  Some of the more interesting ones are as follows:

  1. DeGuerin's assertions regarding the crime scene on issues of blood spatter were directly controverted by the testimony of Harris County Medical Examiner Dwayne Wolf.
  2. The allegation that no biological matter or gunshot residue was found on David Temple or his clothing is simply false.  A warm-up suit of David Temple, as well as his tennis shoes found at the foot of his bed in the master bedroom did have the presence of gunshot residue.  NOTE:  Judge Doug Shaver ruled that the evidence of the residue was not admissible during trial.
  3. The belief that there was no indication that David Temple ever owned a shotgun was controverted by witness Quinton Harlan, who testified that when "he helped move David Temple out of the house after the murder, he observed boxed shotgun shells and a hunting vest in the garage of the house."
  4. The assertion that the way glass was found at the scene had been caused by the rear door hitting a doorstop was refuted by DeGuerin's own expert witness, Max Courtney.  Apparently, DeGuerin had represented different dimensions of the breakfront in the Temple home to his expert.  Once Mr. Courtney had the actual breakfront to observe, he negated Mr. DeGuerin's theory.
Regarding the truth behind why Siegler closed her file to Dick DeGuerin

During the entirety of the time that I was at the Office, it was policy that if a defense attorney requested an Examining Trial, the State was to close the file to the defense attorney.  Siegler states:
The charges were on David Temple on the Monday following Thanksgiving of 2004.  The State's file was open and available to defense from that time until his Motion for an Examining Trial was filed two months later.
I had a discussion with Mr. DeGuerin where I asked him why he would file such a Motion if he knew the file would then be closed, and he told me not to tell him how to handle his case.  It was his decision that caused the file to become closed.
Regarding DeGuerin's Claim that they had no knowledge of the actual investigation of Riley Joe Sanders

Siegler notes that throughout DeGuerin and Schneider's new motion that they refer to Riley Joe Sanders and the "Katy boys" that he allegedly did burglaries with.  They also assert that there were four statements in the offense report that they were unaware of that would have been considered to be exculpatory (Brady) material that they were entitled to know.  In rebutting this, Siegler points to the testimony of HCSO Detective Charles Leithner who testified regarding Sanders and the "Katy boys."

In fact, Siegler asks the following rhetorical question in her affidavit:
Directing the Court to p. 5 of the trial transcript dated November 13, 2007, immediately before David Temple testified, Mr. DeGuerin is quoted as marking and offering for the record Defense Exhibit # 65, a copy of Detective Leithner's offense report.  How can the defense now say they learned something "new" when he had this report at trial?
Siegler additionally points out that Sanders voluntarily testified at trial and was there to answer every last question DeGuerin might have had at the time.

And finally . . .

Regarding the Defense's Assertion that they were not provided with Brady Evidence

The defense claims that "the prosecutor did not produce any reports, statements or documents relating to the 1999 investigation of Riley Joe Sanders III, prior to trial."  She notes that those issues DeGuerin and Schneider are addressing are contained within Grand Jury transcripts, which require a Court Order to be turned over to the defense.

Siegler points out:
I provided not just one, but two different Judges, Judge Harmon and Judge Shaveer, with the grand jury testimony of all seventeen witnesses.  Those transcripts provided include the Katy Boys . . .
. . . both Judge Harmon and Judge Shaver ruled that there was nothing Brady in all of the Grand Jury testimony. 
Judge David Mendoza of the 178th District Court will make a ruling at some point this week over whether or not he feels his court has proper jurisdiction over DeGuerin and Schneider's Motion.  My guess is that he will rule that he does NOT, and let the Court of Criminal Appeals do the job that they are tasked with.

Either way, Siegler's affidavit certainly provides a different view to DeGuerin's assertions, and that may very well explain why a jury convicted David Temple and sentenced him to Life in prison in the first place.


Unknown said...

I just saw this.

Copy and paste in the browser.

Anonymous said...


Hypothetically: if it were to be shown that Dick DeGuerin willfully and knowingly tampered with a witness in a Capital Murder trial would that be a felony and/or grounds for disbarment?

Anonymous said...

I used to believe Siegler was a good guy. Not so sure after reading her responses that do a poor job of rebutting defense claims. I would not expect the Grand Jury TESTIMONY to contain Brady Material, but what about the investigator's report that they used for that first grand jury presentation. And that they did not ask for an indictment would tend to support that they had some exculpatory information regarding an alternative suspect.

She points to defense entering the offense report into evidence. I don't know the situation, but it is likely that that OR was obtained when the defense asked for materials used to refresh memory after direct. It does not mean he was aware of everything that was in it or that it may have been an amended OR that defense thought they knew the contents of. My guess is that they used it to impeach an officer during cross and could well not have been aware of everything in it if they did not ask for a recess to study the OR. I have not read the defense motion, but is it possible that the defense claimed that there is no evidence in the record that the defendant had bodily fluids or gunshot residue as opposed to saying nothing was found on him. Maybe someone could tell me if she made a straw man here or not. The evidence was not admitted and I am not sure if it was due to reliability issues or exclusionary rule issues. I could go point by point, but I don't find Siegler's responses as presented here very convincing that the defense is being disingenuous.

Further although my cases so far are of a much lower magnitude my experience is that ADA's and law enforcement have a wink and nod relationship concerning evidence which hurts their case. Law enforcement suppresses it and prosecutors don't ask for it even where they know procedures and practices of a department would indicate a piece of evidence should exist. If they think they have enough to convict they go forward, hope the case pleads and the defense does not ask about the missing and potentially case wrecking material(willfully)unknown to the prosecutor and sitting in the police file, evidence room or the trunk of the arresting officers personal car. I have had prosecutors tell me multiple time that a piece of evidence does not exist only to have it turn up when subpoenaed from the police. It never results in the officer being labeled as a Brady cop for withholding evidence and all seems to be forgiven because as a judge once said, "you have it now" and it is before trial. I want heads to roll when this crap happens. I don't appreciate seeing the same lying cops over and over again just because it may cost the DA too many lost prosecutions if they were to run cops, who lie to get around exclusionary rules, off of the force, as they should. Mistakes are one thing but intentionally lying and withholding evidence tells me a cop needs to go into another line of fiction writing or as an illusionist.

Anonymous said...

11:29, why would a DA go after the cop who did that? Because they are going to need that same cop and his coworkers to do the same thing on another case coming up in the future....thats why it takes a good defense attorney to be on the ball. I think these DAs and cops all need to have their butts held to the fire for the misdeeds and harm they cause to the system.

Anonymous said...

Dear Anon 11:29 a.m.
You are a moron. Your statement which says "I have not read the defense motion" tells me everything I need to know about you. You know nothing about nothing. Find something better to do than write useless comments.

Anonymous said...


This would be the same Kelly Siegler who after examining the evidence and testimony in a capital murder case moved to dismiss the charges against Anthony Graves and then publicly castigated a rogue prosecutor for withholding and fabricating evidence. I understand the notion of a vigorous defense and the obligations of a prosecutor to turn over Brady evidence, but isn't the notion of a defense attorney publicly accusing someone of murder without anything other than "something I pulled out of my ass" sort of offensive? The 178th has no jurisdiction due to the pending appeals. Dick Deguerin is a mediocre and over-priced criminal defense attorney who can't stand the notion of losing (although he should be pretty familiar with the concept by now). David Temple is exactly where he belongs, and when Pat Lykos and Jim Leitner waddle off into the sunset, the truth will not have changed.

Anonymous said...

Anon 11:29:

Your closing line is irony at it's best, "Mistakes are one thing but intentionally lying and withholding evidence tells me a cop needs to go into another line of fiction writing or as an illusionist."
Would this same line of reasoning also apply to Dick DeGuerin?
I mean does zealously defending one's client include witness tampering, defamation and conspiracy?

A liar is a liar whether it is a cop, a prosecutor, a priest or even a criminal defense attorney.

Real life is not the pre-occupation of chasing zebras and red herrings. I'm sure your little world of Kumbaya would be simpler and more soothing if nobody was held responsible for their behavior unless the conduct was captured on a dozen triangulated audio visual feeds with a live audience of 10,000 nuns ALL in agreement as to what they witnessed.
Reality is difficult for excuse makers such as yourself.

Your comment, "I don't know the situation, but it is likely that that OR was obtained when the defense asked for materials used to refresh memory after direct...."
kinda reminds me of when the black Harvard professor, Henry Louis Gates, Jr. was arrested and Obama commented,"I don't know any of the facts as to what happened but the white officer acted stupidly". Well even you know how that all turned out.

There is but one guarantee in life and that is the death sentence we are all born with; your odd pontifications, notwithstanding

I suggest that you engage in common sense, common decency and fairness.

Kelly Siegler has given so much to the HCDAO and the people of Harris County. She is successful because she busts her ass instead of making excuses. A lot of people think she can't be that good unless she somehow cheated. Well the real cheaters of the system are those who are too lazy to be thorough, those who wing it, those who underestimate and those who feel entitled to get a free ride by making a mockery of our judiciary.

Dick DeGuerin "lost" because David Temple is guilty.
Justice "won" because Kelly Siegler was thoroughly prepared.

Even now as Kelly Siegler is in private practice the "Kelly Haters" are relentless.
It seems that the only way to "beat" Kelly Siegler is to make shit up and defame her reputation with impunity. For you, anonymously at that, to even question Kelly Siegler's legal prowess is laughable.

Hang in there KS you ARE one of the Good Guys.

Just Sayin' said...


Kelly Siegler........4

Dick DeGuerin........0

5.CCA decision pending
6.sanctions against DeGuerin yet to be determined

Vegas odds of a 6-zip Siegler sweep are 999,999,999,999,999 to 1

Just Sayin'

Anonymous said...

Anon 11:29:

"And that they did not ask for an indictment would tend to support that they had some exculpatory information regarding an alternative suspect."

Anon 11:29 is crossing the medical examiner in an involuntary manslaughter case. The following is that brief testimony:

11:29: Dr. J you performed an autopsy on the victim in this case a Mr. Rage, is that correct Dr.?

Dr. J: that is correct

11:29: Was Mr. Rage actually dead at the time you performed his autopsy?

Dr. J: What?

11:29: Non-responsive. I mean how did you know for sure that Mr. Rage was in fact dead when you performed his autopsy? Did you check a pulse or make sure he wasn't bbreathing before starting the autopsy?

Dr. J: No I did not check a pulse or respirations prior to commencing his autopsy.

11:29: Then how, Dr., can we be sure it wasn't you who in fact killed Mr. Rage and not my drunk, speeding and reckless client?

Dr. J: Mr. Rage was decapitated at the scene and his head was crushed by an 18 wheeler so my autopsy was limited to evaluating his otherwise mangled remains.

11:29: Pass the witness

BTW, Your logic professor just called to say you failed deductive reasoning 101......sorry dude.

Anonymous said...

To Steve Clappart:
Are you EVER going to do the right thing with this case? Every day that you remain silent is one more day those of us who thought we knew you are disappointed in you all over again. What is more important to you--Doing what's right or continuing to be manipulated like Denholm, Dick's other tool?

Anonymous said...

Somebody needs to tell him that horse he's riding died on May 29th. He needs to climb off and start hitting the bricks on his own two feet. The need to feel important wasn't worth the cost.

Anonymous said...

Since several here have used the word "Horse"; it brings to mind some sage advice from medical school regarding the proper diagnosis of the correct ailment in a particular case: Contrary to movie scripts, and conspiracy theorists:

"If you hear the sound of horse hooves, don't start thinking Zebras"

Mr. Temple is NO Zebra - and 12 jurors’tried and true said as much with their verdict.

Someone please put up the paint - unless you're talking about a type of horse not born with stripes.

Anonymous said...

Anon 11:29--

You give yourself away when the content of your post is the same bullshit you either email to ADAs or come into court and say the same thing on every single case you get. You should just post under your real name. We know who you are....

Anonymous said...

It is obvious why you do not put your name or my name to the accusation you made. You would lose a defamation suit. I plead cases where the officers play it straight and have not made claims that are not true and then don't have the evidence they should have to back it up. When I have had a client on a blood draw case stuck multiple times in both arms with bruised forearms and then the blood draw video ends before the first stick; When an officer enters a license plate off by one number gets back inconclusive info, pulls my client over finds he entered the wrong number then makes up another reason for the stop and low and behold no video of the driving in spite of his lights being activated which activates the prerecord loop; when a sheriff's deputy pulls my client over for failure to maintain a single lane then gives three different discriptions of the driving facts and of course had a video malfunction making no effort to recover it; when an officer claims she saw my client traveling at a high rate of speed at mile markers 4 and 5 and that she then confirmed that speed on lidar when the video shows her for 30 seconds before beginning pursuit sitting just shy of mile marker 1 and with no view of mile markers 4 or 5 and other clues in the video indicate that lidar may not have been used by her...when I complain about missing video in a case with a department that has been resistant to turning them over and the same department had been witholding video in two other cases that week in that judge's court maybe you guys could start holding these agencies feet to the fire instead of taking these guys word as gospel. But what happens is your coworkers claim that they inquired and the evidence doesn't exist and then it does. Oh and how about when I go to the chief on a first appearance and explain that my client has told me about a coercion issue on a breath test case, the officer puts in his report that my client agreed to the breath test on video after warnings...I tell the chief I need that video because my client is disagreeing with what the officer claims is on it...the video comes in and lo and behold it is only about 1 or two minutes long and does not show the disputed footage. I am sorry that I have had so many cases in a short period of time with lying cops that can't seem to produce video so often. You and I should be on the same team when these things are happening too frequently, but you would rather ignore that I do plead well done cases and ignore the implications of officers not turning in material evidence.

In fairness the example I gave about the video missing in the judge's court with two other cases from the same department I don't believe that officer was involved in misconduct. But all of those examples are recent and are not even all that I could tell you about. Why don't you look up "every single case [I got]" over the last year or two and then call me and discuss calmly...or put your name and mine to your post and we'll see who is posting bullshit or don't and you and I will know.

Anonymous said...

Anon 2:46,
Long way to go to get it wrong. I did not deduce anything. I was just speculating that it seems strange to me that the DA's office would create a lot of testimony that must be kept secret to develop a case and not seek indictment when they can simply interview those witnesses for their case or ask them to give sworn statements in response to their questions. Why does a grand jury need to hear this testimony if the grand jury is not going to be asked for a decision on that testimony? That is called a straw man when you make a case for something that did not happen that is easy to knock down. If I had said that the DA must have had exculpatory information because they did not ask for an indictment that would have been faulty reasoning because it is not sufficient to make the conclusion necessary. That is why you guys can't be trusted to evaluate what is exculpatory evidence. You don't make those distinctions between tends to support innocence (which is all that is necessary for Brady material) and a slam dunk deduction. You flunked Logic 101, but you were kind of funny doing it. No hard feelings.

BTW if Dick Deguerin is knowingly misrepresenting facts to the court then buy all means he should take down his shingle. I don't personally know either Sieglar or Deguerin. If either or both engaged in misconduct or unethical behavior they should be held to account for it. If they did not hopefully cooler heads will prevail. I am only going by what I read here and asked because I have not read transcripts of the case if anyone knew if Sieglar was mistating Deguerin's claim or if she got it right based on why the evidence of GPR was not admitted.
One more thing, If I flunked deductive reasoning then by your standard so did Ms. Sieglar who claimed that the person who helped the defendant move saw shot gun shells and an orange vest that supported that he owned a shotgun. According to your reasoning she deduced that he owned a shotgun. It sounds supportive, but not deductive so I will leave it to you to tell her she flunked Deductive Reasoning 101 due to an argument she did not make. But you probably would not use a straw man against your buddy like you did me. You probably made an A in Sophistry.

Anonymous said...

Anon 11:29,truth be told you don't have a reputation to defame so stop pretending to be significant--at least Dick USED to have a reputation.

Anonymous said...

Anon. 11:29,

I am not a lawyer and do not know or have loyalties to any of the parties involved here.

However, I did serve 3 months on grand jury in 2008. Among hundreds of other cases that we heard, we spent several days hearing testimony on a big, involved case some ADA's were working on. They explained to us that they were not close to asking for an indictment, but wanted to get these people's testimonies on record in grand jury. The reason given was that the case would likely take so long that some witnesses might die, disappear, or forget before it would go to trial. Their grand jury record is then official testimony that can be used in court. We wanted our grand jury to be extended, so we could follow the case all the way, but they said that they had too much left to investigate at that point.

Another time, on that same grand jury, we heard testimony in another case from someone who was old and in very poor health. The ADA on that case was concerned the witness would die or become unable to testify before they finished the investigation and were ready to ask for an indictment. Again, the ADA wanted to be able to use the testimony in court later.

This is also done when the ADA's feel that the witness' life is in danger because he or she is going to testify. Getting their official testimony in front of a grand jury, not only allows that testimony to be used in court if something happens to the witness, it also might improve the witness' safety if he or she lets word get around that it is now too late to stop the witness' testimony.

In both cases that we heard, ADA's explained to the grand jury members that this was a common practice under those circumstances. The grand juries are not held over in these cases because it could go on interminably. Instead the full case is presented later to another grand jury when and if the ADA feels the case is strong enough.

Hope this helps,

Former Grand Jury Member

Anonymous said...

Anon 8:17. Your buddies are spreading the word that I am making unfounded claims in every one of my cases. Sounds like I am significant enough for you guys to discuss me in group meetings. No I am not famous, but I am getting an undeserved reputation, because I look at every case closely and don't plead quickly when there are issues open, usually because evidence that should be there isn't. Put your name and mine to your accusation and we will see. While you are at it go ahead and accuse Mr. Deguerin as well and sign your name. I am not concerned with my significance in the least. But when some of you struggling for significance choose not to seek all the evidence required to do justice it shows how your bias and need to get convictions for self promotion as opposed to cleaning up corruption in the process takes over your ability to be a minister of justice. Join me to stop lying witnesses or use them to get convictions at the expense of the Constitution. Either way you will be justice or promotion of corruption. I understand that you want the guilty to be convicted. Most of my clients are probably guilty. You are not doing justice even with a guilty defendant if you allow violations of rights in order to get those convictions. I cannot for the life of me understand why several of you have gotten so angry with me for trying to hold people accountable for withholding evidence and fabricating reasonable suspicion for bad stops. If a guilty person goes free because of that how about directing your anger toward the corrupt individuals who are violating the Constitution in order to get evidence to bring and win cases? Are you guys under so much pressure to convict that you feel the need to shoot the messenger when your witnesses are not playing straight in order to cover up their violations that lead to exclusion of evidence where people are guilty and walk. I will plead cases where the police play it straight. Where I see them lying, violating rights or hiding evidence it leads to trials. And even when it is shown that these are dishonest people you still want to use them. On the other hand if you get an honest lab tech the memo goes out not to use them anymore. Sorry that your bosses don't consider you significant enough to use your discretion to hold law enforcement feet to the fire at the risk of losing convictions in the other cases in play when someone gets properly labeled as a Brady cop. The tide is turning. With so many citizens having video equipment in their pockets the people are starting to catch on that these clean cut guys in uniform lie like everyone else to cover their mistakes and misdeeds. If that is requiring too many dismissals me clean it up instead of pretending these guys do no wrong. I have lost trials with officers lying on the stand. One officer pleaded the fifth on direct for the prosecution, another was disciplined for lying when his text messages were obtained by IA yet his testimony was was not revealed by the state before or after trial to be false. The same Officer was suspended and has resigned after misconduct in a DWI FATALITY investigation. He should never have been in uniform on the street. The victims may never get justice because of this corrupt man. You guys could have stopped him, but convicting my client was more important than taking a perjurer off the force.

Anonymous said...

Anon 1:37,

"...that they did not ask for an indictment would tend to support that they had some exculpatory information regarding an alternative suspect".
--anon 11:29

How in God's green earth can you suggest that not seeking an indictment of a particular suspect "tends to support" that the prosecutor HAD info someone else might have done it?
Did you pause to consider that maybe the evidence was simply not overwhelming enough for less tenacious prosecutors to proceed?

Justice is sacrificed when a prosecutor is more concerned with personal stats than doing what is right. The Temple case was not a whale which might explain the hesitancy of some prosecutors to move forward back in 1999. However, the behavior of the prosecutorial team that originally handled the case back then cannot be impuned on Kelly Siegler.

Considerations as to why Temple was not indicted in 1999:
A. Temple was a tough circumstantial evidence case and not a slam dunk
B. The prosecutors originally handling the matter (before Kelly Siegler got involved) were not up to task

Not only was there no credible exculpatory evidence pointing to another suspect, there might not have been sufficient evidence to convict Temple had Dick not put his defendant on the stand.

However, to suggest that a prosecutor should only try a sure thing is prejudicial on its face.
A prosecutor's primary duty is to seek justice---it is not always an easy task, nor should it be; but when a prosecutor becomes too timid and afraid to take the necessary risks to insure that the discharge of justice is paramount he is rendered ineffective........justice is more than a statistic it is the benchmark of a real prosecutor.

BTW, having shotgun shells and a bird vest at a minimum suggests the individual in possession of such items might at the very least have access to a shotgun.....don't begin to compare your logic with that of someone way out of your league.

jigmeister said...

Thank you former Grand juror. It is often surmised that because a grand jury was involved, the ADA asked for an indictment. In the case of murder investigations run by special crimes or other specialty divisions, it is usually wrong to jump to that conclusion. There are a myriad of reasons to involve a grand jury on a case that won't be necessarily be completed in one grand jury session. The grand juror explained one of them. Others include witnesses believed be be lying to police and give them the opportunity to be truthful or lie under oath, straighten out confusing circumstances, taking sworn testimony from witnesses intending to leave the jurisdiction or just have a group lay opinion about evidence. I've certainly gotten ideas from grand jurors about what evidence they would like to see in order to make a case stronger. When Kelly tells you that Ted and Donna didn't seek an indictment in 1999, you can bank on that being truthful.

Anonymous said...


From all I have read or saw of KS I think she is a stand up kind of person. I respect that. To the yahoos on here that would like to malign her character sounds like you could be a little bit envious of her abilities. It is ok though you can go back and study a little more and you can be as good as her.

Anonymous said...

Anon 10:34,

1. What are your thoughts on the Former Grand Juror's post at 10:30?
Does your 11:29 comment need amending?

2. What is your view on stereotypes? Are most law enforcement personnel really corrupt? And if so, does that mean society ought to presume these people to be nefarious until proven trust worthy?

3. What is your view of liars? Does zealously representing your client include fabricating testimony to achieve the desired result? Is that what the drafters of our Constitution meant?

Anonymous said...

Thanks for you insight as a grand juror.
My father sat on a couple of grand juries as well. He tells me they never presented evidence to them without asking for a decision. I don't doubt that the DA's told you what they did. But it may be that they were using the grand jury as an investigative tool to compel testimony without the defense having access to the proceedings. This is not a good way to preserve testimony of infirm witnesses because it affords the defense no opportunity to exercise sixth amendment rights of confrontation. The only way this kind of testimony might come in at trial is if a witness was made unavailable by some bad act of the defendant. There are better way to preserve this evidence for trial.An example of this is Joe Paterno grand jury testimony not being inadmissible in the child abuse cases after his death due to illness.

Anonymous said...

Re: Observations of a former grand juror - it is hoped that the prosecutors in 2008 (and now) were/are not representing to grand juries that testimony before a grand jury is essentially per se admissible testimony in a trial merely because of unavailability of the witness. There are exceptions to admissibility, but since defense attorneys are seldom present in grand juries proceedings, I would suggest that prosecutors might read rule 804 TRE before making the foregoing representations.
Calvin A. Hartmann

Unknown said...

WOW....This started out about Kelly's reply to the allegations that were raised by an Attorney that has a better publicist than he is as an actual attorney. But somehow it all became the COPS fault. After 25 years as a cop I know that there are times when different agencies hire people that would be better off not being cops, but to read some of these anonymous postings one of whom, I guess is an attorney, really hates law enforcement. Seems his only recourse is to blame the police because there all crooked somehow. I guess if that works for you. In my career I have seen Officers get the "brady letter" and therefore cannot testify or even file charges with the HCDAO and they earned it, in most cases they left L.E. work within a year of getting the notice. Irony is that one is an investigator for a defense attorney, hmmm maybe same person. I dont know, I do know that there are about 90 police agencies in Harris County alone and probably about 10,000 cops and i know that out of those 10K there are less than 1% that are bad. SO if you think it helps to belittle the ones that try to do the right thing every day and make decisions that will be 2nd and 4th guessed, even to the point of years later the facts being changed to support the story being told, then go ahead and do what you need to do.

Myself , I will just pray for those in L.E. to go home safe at the end of shift and to remember that right is right, wrong is wrong and the truth is the truth, no matter who tells it. Oh and my momma always told me that if you are going to talk trash about people, then be a man and sign your name, because other wise its just a bunch of words being spoken by a hateful bitter person who enjoys inciting hate.

Anonymous said...

In response to 1:46.
1. see comments @2:28 I am still not sure about Ms. Sieglar or Mr. Deguerin, for the reasons I gave originally. It is possible that both, neither or one of them are guilty of no wrong doing or on the other hand of some misconduct.

2. Regarding stereotypes, I don't like them. I have seen that many law enforcement members will lie if they believe that the defendant is guilty and that being truthful will exclude the evidence needed to convict them. I don't think I have seen an officer lie, except one time against a person he believes to be factually innocent. The DA dismissed at the second setting, but the client still suffered an ALR suspension and lost his job as a commercial driver. Other than losing his criminal case the officer suffered no consequences that I am aware of for violating my client's rights because he mistook him for a sex offender as a result of a bad license plate check. I have many videos of Officer's violating fourth amendment rights of defendants and there is little concern by law enforcement or DA's about stopping this as long as they believe the defendant is guilty(though some will dismiss cases). No, to the presumption of being nefarious. But I would shift the burden to them when they make accusations that are not supported because video mysteriously goes missing or when their sworn statements at ALR hearings and offense reports vary in big ways from trial testimony and other evidence.

3. Liars, I don't care for too much. They have no business being professional witnesses. Of course putting on fabricated testimony is not part of a zealous defense and should be sanctioned severely if proven that the attorney for either side did so. Of course the drafters did not intend for the defense to fabricate testimony. They did not intend for IA to sit and listen to testimony of their officers and then fail to notify the court that the witness had lied on the stand when they became aware of the perjury as happened in one of my cases. But I think the DA in that case is on the way out of the office so problem partially solved as long as another county DA doesn't offer a job.(Miss 5th Amendment).The IA officer is still in place as far as I know (and may have notified the DA or not, I was never told by the state about the officer getting caught with texts confirming the perjury), but the officer was suspended and reinstated before resigning after failing to do his job in a DWI fatality investigation. He is such a good example why we should be getting these guys gone instead of helping them cover their misdeeds which in my case prevented my client from being able to prove her innocence with intox testing protocols that were bypassed because of two officers'misconduct in her case. But what the harm if he does the same thing on another case and the guilty defendant walks and the victims get no justice. There are consequences to turning a blind eye when there is probable cause to believe an officer has falsified a sworn report, withheld evidence or perjured himself. You can't presume bad actors, but you can't presume good actors when evidence doesn't match their statements or goes missing without repair orders for video equipment or there are no efforts to recover video that does not download properly for some reason etc...In light of the way police officers often behave when someone stops to observe their work and use recorders on them do you think there should be a presumption that they are speaking the truth? I have a case coming up for trial. The officer claims my client cutoff a red car. That red car stopped to see why they stopped my client (it was his girlfriend) they made her leave even though she was a witness. Video of the stop is missing, the officer entered his plate incorrectly, the violation was fabricated and the video was truncated not to include the alleged violations. Should I just say, "yeah he is a way he would lie to cover a mistake"? That doesn't sound to zealous to me.

Anonymous said...

@2:58 An ADA apparently seems to know who I am and accuses that I have been telling them bullshit "in every case" that I get. I am waiting for that anonymous trasher to put his/her name as well as mine to the comment regarding me as well as Mr.Deguerin. But that person probably did not have Mama's permission to play on the the blog and of course they don't have absolute immunity for crap they pull outside the scope of prosecuting. Doubt I'll be getting that name anytime soon.

Regarding the trashing of cops. Every example given is real and I am not quite as upset with a cop with an associates degree making these poor choices as I am with some ADA's indifference to these situations and in cases that they have dismissed for similar reasons the dismissal always says "see state's file" which is done so that the dismissal does not read "Officer testimony found to be unreliable" for all to see when the document is scanned into the record published on the internet. Then tucked neatly away in the state's file it is not voluntarily disclosed to anyone when we all should know the reason the case was dismissed. But you would have to push the case into trial first and probably fight hard for discovery to get it.These practices are why I would tend not to discount Mr.Deguerin's claims of withholding Brady material. 95% of the time cases plead so no worries if we are hiding Brady cops in the state's file instead of putting them on dismissal forms for all to see. Would you plead a case where the stop was questionable if the cop had a bunch of dismissals for bad stops and fabricated reasonable suspicion. Me neither. That probably explains several plea deals on DWI's that were reduced to $200 fine, time served (the original night in jail)and a DL suspension with no community supervision on the day of trial. Doubt that they were trying to do me or my client a favor. Clients took the deals so fine. Judge asked the prosecutor if they were going to be fired if she accepted one of these deals. Something was up.

Luci Davidson said...

I hear you, Lon. Best wishes, Luci.

Anonymous said...

oh. my. god. anon 11:29, are you even a lawyer? are we on candid camera? if you are an attorney, i feel like you must practice civil law, because you appear to have no grasp of the code of criminal procedure. you obviously haven't been working in this industry long because you really have no idea how things work. your experience is limited (it appears) to misdemeanor DWIs and even then you are spouting law school theory, not real world experience. you treat things academically, not experientially, and that tells me you just graduated and started talking with bigs words, thinking it makes you sound like a lawyer. it doesn't. it makes you sound like a defendant trying to sound like a lawyer.

advice: this case, and the legal procedures, implications, and complexities involved therein are beyond your ken. talk less, listen more. you'll learn more with your mouth closed and your ears open. try a case. you'll learn more about procedure actually doing it than you would philosophizing about how a trial *should* go. before spouting your ideas about what *must* have happened here, you should have read more about what *actually* happened. you might have come off better.

your idealism is cute. useless, but cute. law school and the practice of law are entirely different. you'll effect more change by learning and doing, and you'll do better at that if you find a mentor. please. find a mentor. teaching yourself is hard and worthless. also, be open to the idea that prosecutors can teach you, too. experience is everywhere - don't close yourself off from it just because of a job title. you do yourself a disservice. and your clients. and your brethren. your reputation is built every day - don't ruin it by opening your mouth. i speak from experience.

tl;dr: talk less, try more, kid. find a mentor, too. i wish you luck.


Anonymous said...

Speaking as apparently one of the many incompetent/corrupt/idiot cops willing to sell out his integrity for no discernible reason other than to screw 11:29's angelic clients, I have this to say: there are enough bad guys in the world to catch fairly and honestly that there is no need to railroad anyone. Have you, perhaps, considered that your clients have more motivation to misrepresent the facts of the case than he officer?

What's really galling, in addition to the idiotic notion that we are jackbooted thugs intent of destroying the Constitution, is that we are somehow too stupid to even be doing it maliciously. Find a conspiracy theory of our evil ways and stick to it.

Anonymous said...

10:34...I rarely claim actual innocence. Most of the cases I win are are because their was no reasonablle suspicion for the stop, which then excludes all of your evidence. Those are 4th amendment violations. They are frequent. So maybe you can understand when police resist requests for video or turn over partial videos when subpoenaed or claim that their dog ate the disc I don't just say yes sir your word is golden, no problem here. How about if we get rid of the exclusionary rule, charge officers who make illegal stops with official oppression and take the taxpayer off the hook for indemnifying them in civil suit if they are convicted of the charge? You ok with that? Should be no problem for honest officers. Bet your cohorts would never sign on for that. Direct your anger at them for the perception that even the good officers are jack booted thugs when they are not. And direct your anger at DA's who allow them to keep doing what they do with no consequences. It makes you good guys distrusted because of their bad acts. For those who justify this because they get drunks off the road...they are also scaring the hell out of and violating the rights of innocent people who are stopped illegally and released often after being coerced to submit to warrantless searches. If you deny this is happening just look at the videos on you tube of that prove it. How often does it happen when no one complains or has video. You may be a great guy but open your eyes man and then admit what you see.

Anonymous said...

Anon 9:25 you volunteering to mentor? You are correct that most of my experience is in DWI defense with very good outcomes and a good dismissal rate mostly by questioning reasonable suspicicion for stops and fighting to get the evidence. I have actually tried cases though not many. I don't think I suggested that something *must* be. I was suggesting a scenario where someone may have entered an offense report into evidence and not be aware of "four exculpatory" items contained in it. I agree that a mentor is a better way to go. Suggestions? BTW I am mostly self taught in my own practice for a little over three years. Had a mentor at a civil job for a couple of years that talked me through a DWI case on the side that ended in dismissal on the day of trial. When my civil work dried up I started taking DWI and occassional drug cases. Would be interested to know what I missed in the CCP that you pickedup on. I may be a baby criminal attorney but not a kid...mid fifties. Apparently even the big boys don't get it right all the time either with Deguerin trying to get something from the trial court while his case is on appeal. I may not have picked up anywhere near all the tools I need, but I see a lot of what Deguerin is complaining of in other cases. Anybody read grits...two resignations over just this type of problem and maybe more to come. It is not the isolated rarity that many would have you believe.

Anonymous said...

Scenario 1:

ADA: What do you think of this case?

Grand Jury: We'd like to see more evidence.

ADA: I'm not asking you to indict, I'm just asking you what you think.

Grand Jury: OK, cause we wouldn't indict on just this evidence.

ADA: Got it. Good thing I wasn't asking you to indict.

Scenario 2:

ADA: What do you think of this case?

Grand Jury: We'd indict this guy.

ADA: OK, please indict him.

Grand Jury: OK.

Although the ADAs around here can find a myriad of reasons to involve a grand jury, the fact is that they are all thinly veiled fishing expeditions. As soon as a grand jury indicates it has enough evidence to indict, the ADA will ask it to do so. But if they say they don't have enough, then the prosecutor is "just investigating." And of course, by "investigating" through a grand jury, you get to keep the investigation sealed even with an open file policy--a tactic not espoused by ol' jigmeister or others, but an obvious reason a prosecutor would want to cloak an investigation in secrecy. Then the judge, a former prosecutor 99% of the time, gets to look at the grand jury testimony and say "nope, no Brady material here." Funny. Many recent exonerations were despite Brady material that wouldn't have been judged as being exculpatory at the time, and some of the prosecutors found to have withheld that evidence have moved on to being a judge. In our system, the fact that a trial judge says it isn't Brady means exactly nothing.

What no-one has asked is what new evidence was not presented in 1999 that was presented in 2005? Or was it just a new prosecutor with a new spin on the same facts in light of other highly public similar cases?

And a closed file is a closed file. Doesn't matter what the policy was, and it should not be used as a tactic to prevent a person from seeking to enforce his rights under the law.

Anonymous said...

10:34 p.m., your statement "there are enough bad guys in the world to catch" scares me. I believe they are only a suspect until proven otherwise. There are too many cases where by assumptions are made and people sit in jail because of them. For instance, his DNA was on a cup in her apartment, therefore he must have raped her.....right?
Innocent until proven guilty.

Jigmeister said...

Amazing 10:46. You found us out. All cops, DAs, Grand Jurors, and District Judges conspire to convict innocent people. Let's all get out of the way and let defense attorneys handle all the crime.

Anonymous said...

"What no-one has asked is what new evidence was not presented in 1999 that was presented in 2005? Or was it just a new prosecutor with a new spin on the same facts in light of other highly public similar cases" --Anon 10:46 You make some excellent points but seem to overlook the obvious. I offer as an analogy the legacy of Denton A. Cooley, M.D. Dr. Cooley was arguably one of the greatest cardiothoracic surgeons who ever lived. Notwithstanding, some in the Texas Medical Center vilified him for operating on high risk cardiac patients that few other heart surgeon would operate on. He chose to crack difficult chests because it was the right thing to do, not the easy thing. He considered being a strong advocate for his patients to be the highest honor and privilege. That it is not to say that other Houston heart surgeons weren't good---but very few will ever measure up to the greatness of a Denton Cooley. Greatness requires risk, dedication, conviction and putting others above public opinion. If you don't like Kelly Siegler you probably wouldn't like Dr. Cooley either......

Just Sayin' said...

naivity @ 12:42 if you are ever in a situation where the "innocent until proven guilty" turd draws down on you just shut your eyes and whisper Kumbaya......but don't you dare call 911.

Just Sayin'

Anonymous said...

Just Sayin,

When did a 911 call ever help when someone draws down on you. Who is being naive?

Anonymous said...

Cooley's patient's took the risks of betting a life of pain and disability soon to end anyway for a longer lease on an improve life. DA's risk nothing themselves by trying a case and losing and certainly don't have the consent of the innocent to try them for their life or freedom. When DA's try a case and win with weak evidence and reasonable doubt that they "risk" overcoming and that any objective person could articulate if they had access to the evidence; the unacceptable risk is that they may convict an innocent person because a witness was well liked or disliked. Maybe someone will figure out the mistake 20 years later and maybe not. Que sera sera. Oops, could be too late in death penalty cases. I have heard several people say that Temple may well have been acquitted had he not testified. Just how did that convict him? Did he confess on the stand or just look bad on cross examination by a much smarter, more articulate Kelly Siegler?

Anonymous said...

Dear just sayin at 2:42, nobody in my scenario was being held at gunpoint, but if I am being held at gunpoint, I'm sure I'll be dead by the time I reach for a phone and get three digits dialed, therefore, I'll reach for my concealed in that onsider the person who shared a cup of coffee with the suspect did have time to call the police after the coffee partner refused her attempt to date him and she came up with a story about a fictitious rape in order to get back at him.....hes still innocent and your still a moron.

Anonymous said...


System ran by human beings is subjective and subject to error! Articulate, principled, brilliant legal scholar destroys others with incisive deduction of this never-before-seen evidence! Judges start throwing out all convictions that do not have all of the above: DNA, video, three independent witnesses in absolute agreement, audio voice-print, and a sworn confession certified as true by a lie detector!

You do realize that crooks sometimes try to cover up their crimes, right? Sometimes you have to try a case with less evidence than you'd like for that reason, as well as a million others. It's not a nefarious conspiracy to throw innocents in jail.

Anonymous said...

6:13...your commitment is to do justice. Sometimes that means not prosecuting someone you are "clearly convinced" is guilty because you know that there is "reasonable doubt" and yet a jury may convict because the defendant is not a likeable person and they choose not to act on their reasonable doubt appropriately with an acquittal. When you get a conviction where you know their was reasonable doubt that is not what you were hired by the people to do. Conviction where there is reasonable doubt is not justice under a system that accepts that it is better that ten guilty go free than one innocent be convicted. If you don't accept that premise you are working for your own brand of justice or your next promotion or a book deal rather than justice under our system of jurisprudence.

Anonymous said...

Criminals definitely try to cover up their crimes. Defense attorneys are supposed to defend their client and make the prosecution "prove" the defendant committed the crime and that they follow the rules of law. No one should have a problem with that and it is the foundation of our criminal justice system.
What I do have a problem with is that some defense attorneys have become masters at "spinning the facts"' and conjuring up plausible scenarios that point to someone else being the perpetrator. They do this knowing their client actually committed the crime.
Between the defendant covering up his crime and the defense attorney covering it up, one can easily see why prosecutors can appear to be aggressive when they go to trial. When both the prosecution and the defense go to the courtroom with the purpose of determining the truth, we will see Justice for the victim and the crook.

Anonymous said...

I heard DeGuerin speak at a Bar function once. He stated that the "job of a criminal defense attorney is to uncover the evidence that the prosecutor hid from you." That is a direct quote.

That sums him up. Every prosecutor on every case commits a Brady violation and he throws out that accusation like candy with no regard for people's reputations and careers.

Anonymous said...

I heard DeGuerin speak at a Bar function once. He stated that the "job of a criminal defense attorney is to uncover the evidence that the prosecutor hid from you." That is a direct quote.

That sums him up. Every prosecutor on every case commits a Brady violation and he throws out that accusation like candy with no regard for people's reputations and careers.

Even some of the criminal defense attorneys in the room cringed at his remark.

Anonymous said...

Who told 6:13 that sometimes you HAVE to go forward with less evidence than you would like. If the evidence overcomes your reasonable doubts it should be enough for you to like it and go forward. If you can still say with the evidence you have that their is a reasonable possibility the person did not do it or there is a reasonable doubt that the evidence was obtained in a legal manner then no, you do not HAVE to go forward with that prosecution unless your boss says so.

Then you have a decision to make. Take the paycheck and risk screwing up someone's life or speak truth to power, quit if necessary and explain why you are quitting to the public that elects your boss. I have seen many dismissal forms that say "unable to prove beyond a reasonable doubt." So if you are trying to do justice rather than achieve a high conviction rate you may have to switch sides when you insist on doing justice when leadership team members interfere with justice to protect their political position, a policy or a program. So what did change between 1999 and 2005 that took Temple from not enough to ask for an indictment (just PC) to we as prosecutors have no reasonable doubt and want to take away his freedom for life? The risk that the prosecutor was willing to take that they could convict someone to a life term on less evidence than they would like. If I am an innocent person maybe accused because of a criminal trying to cover their crime as many do I certainly hope justice is not dependent upon the risk that an ADA is willing to take...on my behalf.

Anonymous said...

Cases get dropped all the time. Stop being so dramatic.

9:00 has it right. 8:56 thinks that cops are poorly educated thugs, prosecutors are cowardly and corrupt, and that juries are stupid and cannot weigh the evidence properly. You do realize that you have the option of a judge trial if you trust the system so little? Or are judges in on it as well, and only good and noble defense attorneys can stop these sham prosecutions?

Just Sayin' said...

Anon 3:21,

Going for a cell phone--REALLY?
I offered a parody on your reasoning ability and your comment proved my point.

BTW, OJ really was guilty too

Just Sayin'

Anonymous said...

Cooley's patients took the risks of betting a life of pain and disability soon to end anyway for a longer lease on an improve life. DA's risk nothing themselves by trying a case and losing and certainly don't have the consent of the innocent to try them for their life or freedom. When DA's try a case and win with weak evidence and reasonable doubt that they "risk" overcoming and that any objective person could articulate if they had access to the evidence......"
--Anon 3:58

First of all Cooley's patients didn't want to die. But for Dr. Cooley's intervention their death was imminent. It was Dr. Cooley who took the risk on their behalf.

Secondly, what you fail to appreciate is that Belinda Temple was not the only IRREFUTABLY INNOCENT victim in her murder. Ms. Siegler represented the other innocent victims left behind (mother, father, sister, children, friends, etc.) as well as the State of Texas.

Thirdly, everything is easy for the arm-chair quarterback.....that is until he steps onto the field.

People make choices and choices have consequences......rather than make excuses for a cold blooded killer like David Temple or just throw the towel in on a complicated surgical patient; I applaud the hard work and dedication great leaders strive for and achieve--our community is better off because of folks like Kelly Siegler and Denton Cooley.


Anonymous said...

That's not even close to what 10:46 said jigmeister, and you know it.

You were, at the very least, less than complete in your reasons for investigating through a grand jury. Most likely you were just being intentionally obtuse, and on the outside I'd say you were being intentionally deceptive by omission.

We get it. This crowd hates Deguerin and Lykos, and you all would fellate Siegler until your dying breath if possible. But at least be honest about it.

Anonymous said...

Your analogy is flawed. In the Cooley scenario there is not much downside risk to trying to save someone facing imminent death. The only risk is failure and the patient was going to die with no action. Very good of him to risk his efforts which may or may not succeed in a case with nothing to lose but the effort put forth. Taking the risk of prosecuting a criminal case where no physical evidence ties the accused to the crime risks punishing an innocent person. Some risks are worth it others are not. If one thinks that closure for the victims and I POSSIBLE justice for the slain is worth the risk of convicting an innocent person where reasonable doubt exists they are actually taking the risk of doing irreparable harm to yet another victim. The good Dr. assumed the risk that he might not succeed. The good attorney IMPOSED the risk that an innocent person may be convicted and lose their life or freedom while assuming no risk themselves other than that of an acquittal and covered by immunity regardless of good faith for any injustice that may occur. I get your point about the good doctor. Ms.Siegler is obviously talented and hard working, but the risk analogy just does not equate. She risks nothing herself. If she gets a wrongful conviction the additional victim has no recourse against her. Where does he go to get the lost years back or his reputation. The guy is probably guilty, but...

Anonymous said...

"Ms.Siegler is obviously talented and hard working, but the risk analogy just does not equate...."

--October 4, 2012 11:29 AM


1. Does Murray's article, "Kelly Siegler Responds" not suggest there was a risk to Kelly Siegler?

2. Did Dick DeGuerin's pet, Sean Buckley, not file a vindictive and baseless grievance against Kelly Siegler that she had to defend?

3. Has Kelly Siegler not been defamed on the front page of the Houston Chronicle with seeming impunity?

4. Does this saga not create and endless forum for the "Kelly Haters"?

And you dare to suggest that Kelly Siegler took zero personal risk in putting JUSTICE above self?

I take umbrage to your self righteous pretense.


Anonymous said...

Yeah, all cops are really great guys:

Anonymous said...

Someone find me an article about a defense attorney so we can make illogical comparisons fairly.

Anonymous said...

It's pretty obvious to reasonable people what a phenom KS is and that 11:29 is nothing more than a blowhard crab best ignored.

Law Enforcement,
Some people enjoy hating on you guys until they need you but the rest of us appreciate the sacrifice you make day after day--thank you.

Great b-day party last night and watching Luke showed what a terrific dad you are.

What goes around comes around and what's fixin' to land in your lap is something you can only blame yourself for.

You're going to have your hands full in January and I suggest not forgetting your promise to be a real prosecutor and NOT a politician.

Anonymous said...

Another strong rumor out there that Lykos' First Leprechaun is resigning today. Where's the party?

Def of Leprechaun:
is a type of fairy in Irish folklore, usually taking the form of an old man, clad in cowboy boots, who enjoys partaking in mischief. So fits...

Anonymous said...

Anon 9:38 just because Siegler obviously has more balls than you doesn't mean she can be felated. Don't be an ass!

Anonymous said...

26For Double Dick to be a top lawyer in Texas is about the dumbest i've seen yet.

Anonymous said...

I am still trying to figure out how an attorney files an "out-of-time motion for new trial" since there is no express provision for allowing out-of-time motions for new trial and the trial court does not maintain continuing jurisdiction over criminal cases. I guess these defense superstars know something this little old habeas litigator has never learned.

Anonymous said...

Look up "due process of law," 10:55. And interpret it broadly, as it was meant to be interpreted. Not like the CCA would have you believe. And of course, don't get bogged down in procedural due process, that sort of procedural nonsense is the hobgoblin of little minds (e.g., your average ADA).


Anonymous said...

What's the latest on the appeal?

Anonymous said...

Looks like Ms. Siegler is not doing too well on her explanation of Brady as she justified protecting an alternative suspect by withholding material evidence that someone else committed the murder. What a difference a couple of years make. How can we have Brady turned over when so many state actors have it in their hands and use twisted logic to deny that exculpatory evidence is Brady or claim it is somehow exempt from disclosure. I have not seen any sanctions materialize against Deguerin. I predict Temple gets granted a new trial that never happens because of prosecutors dismissing to keep the light off of the roaches.

Murray Newman said...

1:02 a.m.,

I'm going to go out on a limb here and predict that a) you aren't a lawyer; and b) you aren't watching the hearing.

Anonymous said...

It is a shame that it has taken three years since this thread began in order to have a court find and conclude so many examples of Brady violations were committed by Ms. Siegler, LEOs and agents of the state. I took a lot of jabs over my impressions of Ms. Siegler's affidavit. I may have only been practicing criminal law for a few years when this thread started, but her explanations did not ring true to me and apparently not to Judge Gist either. You ADA's who apparently knew who I was and are upset that I call you out for turning a blind eye to Brady violations and now Michael Morton violations can eat crow and stop assuming that these heroes you worship would never think about engaging in misconduct. Another one is on the verge of biting the dust. Those ADA's that tried to impune me regarding my legal knowledge while exalting your hero might want to consider that this peoples' hero testified that it's not Brady if the the State doesn't believe it is true. Brilliant analysis! I'm sure some of you agree with her. Good luck with that and your future endeavors. For those of you now absent your illusions please join me in calling out anyone who hides material evidence from any defendant in order to secure a conviction. Maybe also consider that a prosecutor has a duty to discover exculpatory evidence especially when offense reports don't pass the smell test. Thank you to the good guys and to those still in denial and thinking you are doing God's work, may you end up like the former Texas DAs recently disbarred or banished to Palau. Signed 11:29.

Gritsforbreakfast said...

C'mon, Murray, let's open this one up again and hear your opinions in light of Judge Gist's findings of fact.

Anonymous said...

Grits, he denied 11:29's attempt to reopen this discussion. 11:29 was told by a Kelly supporter to study the way Kelly prosecuted her cases in order to get better. Done. I just need to get better at finding out what they are hiding from me under Brady and MMA. To all of you who chose not to scrutinize your idol, go back, study and get better. Quit violating the law to win cases...even if the defendant is in your mind, guilty. That is how the innocent get convicted.

Anonymous said...

Temple just got released. I hope He gets tried again

Anonymous said...

I hope David is cleared of all charges.

Good luck with your misguided hate.

Unknown said...

You only hope he's cleared because why?Hes a pos who doesn't be deserve a minute out of jail freely walking amongst others.He deserves to rot in his jail cell.

Unknown said...

Mrs.Kelly Siegler I have a cold case that may interest me