Bloody Friday
True confession time.
I voted for Kim Ogg.
It wasn't an easy decision. I had a few reservations about some of Kim's portrayals to the media on things she knew weren't exactly accurate when it came to the law. Kim is a former Chief Prosecutor under Johnny Holmes and she knew better. She did a lot of spinning on things that were contrary to law in order to get some votes.
I like Devon Anderson and I adored Mike. Not voting for her bothered me tremendously. It wasn't because I bought into the hype and spin of the Planned Parenthood or "Jailed Rape Victim" stories or that I thought she was a bad person.
But at the end of the day, things Devon said on the campaign trail led me to believe that there was too much of an "Us versus Them" mentality that she fostered at the D.A.'s Office. This culminated in her saying something to the effect of "We all know there is nothing a defense attorney won't say to get a case reversed" during the one D.A. debate. That implication that my side of the courtroom was a profession filled with nothing but wholesale liars didn't sit well with me, and ultimately, I realized that a vote for Devon was really starting to feel like a vote against myself -- and all of my clients.
I made my final decision to vote for Kim Ogg because I agreed with her overall outlook on the Criminal Justice System. I know this is going to lead to backlash from some of my law enforcement friends, but I agree with not filing crack pipe cases as felonies. I agreed with Lykos when she stopped filing them, and I agree with Kim for saying she won't file them. I feel the same way about her marijuana policies. When she said that our drug policies were labeling a large segment of our community as criminals who otherwise wouldn't be, I agreed with her.
I also had this underlying belief that Kim Ogg was no Pat Lykos. I thought Kim had a better understanding of the men and women that work at the Harris County District Attorney's Office and that she lacked Lykos' mean and vindictive streak. I thought that Kim would make good and practical decisions when it came to whom she kept and whom she didn't.
Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.
Yesterday, Kim Ogg stunned pretty much everyone in the CJC building byfiring not renewing the contracts of 38 Assistant District Attorneys under her Administration. Yes, it is absolutely true that this happens with every Administration, but the numbers are usually relatively small. I believe that my firing class was right around 10 people (and I was proudly at the head of that class). Kim basically quadrupled that number.
And the way she went about it was pretty damn tasteless. It was certainly a cowardly way to end the careers of 38 people who had devoted years (and in many cases, decades) to the D.A.'s Office.
Kim had let it be known on Thursday that her Administration would send out an e-mail at noon on Friday and each prosecutor would get one. That e-mail would tell the prosecutor whether they would be welcome in the new Administration. No personal interaction. I mean, damn, even I got the honor of being personally fired by Jim Leitner and Roger Bridgwater. I even shook old Roger's hand!
Not only was the Death by Email plan a disturbing indication that the Ogg Administration is going to be doing some things that they can't quite look you in the eye about, they weren't even punctual about it. Prosecutors had to sit at their desks past noon, waiting. Waiting to see if they needed to pack up their home away from home and start a completely knew career path in life -- in the next two weeks.
And then there was the media.
Cameras were posted at the D.A.'s Office and in front of the building. Someone -- gee, I wonder who -- had managed to stage 38 people getting fired at Christmas time into a media event.
Nice.
So, let's talk about the firings themselves.
As I mentioned above, a certain amount of firings are to be expected, and they usually begin at the Bureau Chief Level. For those unfamiliar with the hierarchy of the Office, there is the elected D.A., followed by the First Assistant, followed by the Bureau Chiefs. They are the equivalent of a President's Cabinet, and like in a Presidency, it is to be expected that the District Attorney would want her own handpicked Cabinet. This is not to say that any of the terminated Bureau Chiefs were bad prosecutors or deserved termination, but there is a certain risk involved when one rises so high in the Office.
If I'm not mistaken, all of the Bureau Chiefs were not invited to return.
The next step below Bureau Chiefs are the Division Chiefs. Division Chiefs are most definitely senior prosecutors and comprise the most talented trial attorneys in the Office. I believe that Kim elected not to renew all but three of the Division chiefs.
Unlike the Bureau Chiefs, the Division Chiefs aren't quite as easily described as being the normal part of any Administration Change. Although they were certainly senior, the job description of a Division Chief is much more of a leader in the field. For instance, all Death Penalty Capital cases require a Division Chief to be sitting on the case, along with a District Court chief. They embody the battle-tested prosecutor who knows how to try complex and difficult cases. Most of them all started their career under Johnny Holmes and continued through all of the successive administrations, including Lykos.
I'm not exactly sure who told Kim that firing her most talented and experienced prosecutors was in the best interest of the Office.
After the firings of the Division Chiefs, it becomes a bit scattershot. There are several District Court Chiefs (more experience) and a couple of Felony Twos. I may be mistaken, but I don't think I saw anyone below the Felony Two level on Kim's list.
Some of the people on the below Division Chief level were not surprising terminations. Rightfully or wrongfully, they were on the media radar, and thus the New Administration's radar. Most of these firings were disappointingly based more on hype than substance. My biggest concern about Kim becoming the District Attorney was that she would govern her Office with more attention to perception than reality. That was clearly the case on many of the fires.
The most troubling of the firings, however, fall under the category of "Who the hell did they piss off?" These were the fires that left almost everyone in the Criminal Justice community scratching their heads and wondering why these seemingly good, ethical, and well-liked prosecutors weren't continuing in their jobs. I'm not going to name any of the prosecutors who were terminated because I don't want this popping up when future employers or clients do an internet search of their names.
In the immediate aftermath of the D.A. election, I had written this post and told prosecutors not to worry about the jackasses who walked around bragging of their "wish lists" of firings. Apparently, those wish lists were a little more prevalent than I would have imagined.
After having a day to talk about these particular terminations, there seemed to be a developing pattern of these prosecutors having beefs with the dynamic duo of Roger Bridgwater and Jim Leitner -- with a little bit of Dick DeGuerin's influence tossed in for good measure. There are some early indications of another former prosecutor who wielded some influence, too, but I haven't confirmed that yet. However, let's just say that if he is returning under the Ogg Administration, her call for less aggressive "win-at-all-costs" prosecuting will be regarded as a complete and total joke.
It won't be surprising if Leitner and Bridgwater return to the D.A.'s Office, or, at a minimum, have Kim Ogg's ear. Those two die hard Republicans have made no secret about being on Team Ogg ever since Lykos got decimated in the 2012 primary by Mike Anderson. I hope that Kim Ogg remembers that as much as I disliked Bridgwater and Leitner on a personal level, I looked like a member of their fan club compared to the rank and file that worked under them. They were widely regarded as petty tyrants and bullies by the Assistant D.A.'s.
If Leitner and Bridgwater are, in fact, returning to the D.A.'s Office, I don't know what to say other than Welcome back! This blog and I have missed you.
All in all, the Ogg Administration got off to a bad start yesterday. If her first goal was to decimate morale, she certainly accomplished that. She seemed to take no notice of the idea that when you become the elected official over any government agency, you want people to be rooting for you -- and that begins with the people who work for you. Although some of her terminations were justified, there were many that were not. Her message seems to be taken out of the Pat Lykos Playbook, except it is making Lykos look tame by comparison.
I still have hope that Kim can become a good D.A. if she actually starts governing with less attention to perception and more to reality. Kim should remember that Lykos, Leitner and Bridgwater basically governed a running four year mutiny before getting blasted out of Office. It was a miserable situation for everyone involved. Miserable situations don't attract good personnel and without good personnel, you cannot have a good Office.
That's a lesson that the Ogg Administration is going to have to learn the hard way, apparently.
I voted for Kim Ogg.
It wasn't an easy decision. I had a few reservations about some of Kim's portrayals to the media on things she knew weren't exactly accurate when it came to the law. Kim is a former Chief Prosecutor under Johnny Holmes and she knew better. She did a lot of spinning on things that were contrary to law in order to get some votes.
I like Devon Anderson and I adored Mike. Not voting for her bothered me tremendously. It wasn't because I bought into the hype and spin of the Planned Parenthood or "Jailed Rape Victim" stories or that I thought she was a bad person.
But at the end of the day, things Devon said on the campaign trail led me to believe that there was too much of an "Us versus Them" mentality that she fostered at the D.A.'s Office. This culminated in her saying something to the effect of "We all know there is nothing a defense attorney won't say to get a case reversed" during the one D.A. debate. That implication that my side of the courtroom was a profession filled with nothing but wholesale liars didn't sit well with me, and ultimately, I realized that a vote for Devon was really starting to feel like a vote against myself -- and all of my clients.
I made my final decision to vote for Kim Ogg because I agreed with her overall outlook on the Criminal Justice System. I know this is going to lead to backlash from some of my law enforcement friends, but I agree with not filing crack pipe cases as felonies. I agreed with Lykos when she stopped filing them, and I agree with Kim for saying she won't file them. I feel the same way about her marijuana policies. When she said that our drug policies were labeling a large segment of our community as criminals who otherwise wouldn't be, I agreed with her.
I also had this underlying belief that Kim Ogg was no Pat Lykos. I thought Kim had a better understanding of the men and women that work at the Harris County District Attorney's Office and that she lacked Lykos' mean and vindictive streak. I thought that Kim would make good and practical decisions when it came to whom she kept and whom she didn't.
Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.
Yesterday, Kim Ogg stunned pretty much everyone in the CJC building by
And the way she went about it was pretty damn tasteless. It was certainly a cowardly way to end the careers of 38 people who had devoted years (and in many cases, decades) to the D.A.'s Office.
Kim had let it be known on Thursday that her Administration would send out an e-mail at noon on Friday and each prosecutor would get one. That e-mail would tell the prosecutor whether they would be welcome in the new Administration. No personal interaction. I mean, damn, even I got the honor of being personally fired by Jim Leitner and Roger Bridgwater. I even shook old Roger's hand!
Not only was the Death by Email plan a disturbing indication that the Ogg Administration is going to be doing some things that they can't quite look you in the eye about, they weren't even punctual about it. Prosecutors had to sit at their desks past noon, waiting. Waiting to see if they needed to pack up their home away from home and start a completely knew career path in life -- in the next two weeks.
And then there was the media.
Cameras were posted at the D.A.'s Office and in front of the building. Someone -- gee, I wonder who -- had managed to stage 38 people getting fired at Christmas time into a media event.
Nice.
So, let's talk about the firings themselves.
As I mentioned above, a certain amount of firings are to be expected, and they usually begin at the Bureau Chief Level. For those unfamiliar with the hierarchy of the Office, there is the elected D.A., followed by the First Assistant, followed by the Bureau Chiefs. They are the equivalent of a President's Cabinet, and like in a Presidency, it is to be expected that the District Attorney would want her own handpicked Cabinet. This is not to say that any of the terminated Bureau Chiefs were bad prosecutors or deserved termination, but there is a certain risk involved when one rises so high in the Office.
If I'm not mistaken, all of the Bureau Chiefs were not invited to return.
The next step below Bureau Chiefs are the Division Chiefs. Division Chiefs are most definitely senior prosecutors and comprise the most talented trial attorneys in the Office. I believe that Kim elected not to renew all but three of the Division chiefs.
Unlike the Bureau Chiefs, the Division Chiefs aren't quite as easily described as being the normal part of any Administration Change. Although they were certainly senior, the job description of a Division Chief is much more of a leader in the field. For instance, all Death Penalty Capital cases require a Division Chief to be sitting on the case, along with a District Court chief. They embody the battle-tested prosecutor who knows how to try complex and difficult cases. Most of them all started their career under Johnny Holmes and continued through all of the successive administrations, including Lykos.
I'm not exactly sure who told Kim that firing her most talented and experienced prosecutors was in the best interest of the Office.
After the firings of the Division Chiefs, it becomes a bit scattershot. There are several District Court Chiefs (more experience) and a couple of Felony Twos. I may be mistaken, but I don't think I saw anyone below the Felony Two level on Kim's list.
Some of the people on the below Division Chief level were not surprising terminations. Rightfully or wrongfully, they were on the media radar, and thus the New Administration's radar. Most of these firings were disappointingly based more on hype than substance. My biggest concern about Kim becoming the District Attorney was that she would govern her Office with more attention to perception than reality. That was clearly the case on many of the fires.
The most troubling of the firings, however, fall under the category of "Who the hell did they piss off?" These were the fires that left almost everyone in the Criminal Justice community scratching their heads and wondering why these seemingly good, ethical, and well-liked prosecutors weren't continuing in their jobs. I'm not going to name any of the prosecutors who were terminated because I don't want this popping up when future employers or clients do an internet search of their names.
In the immediate aftermath of the D.A. election, I had written this post and told prosecutors not to worry about the jackasses who walked around bragging of their "wish lists" of firings. Apparently, those wish lists were a little more prevalent than I would have imagined.
After having a day to talk about these particular terminations, there seemed to be a developing pattern of these prosecutors having beefs with the dynamic duo of Roger Bridgwater and Jim Leitner -- with a little bit of Dick DeGuerin's influence tossed in for good measure. There are some early indications of another former prosecutor who wielded some influence, too, but I haven't confirmed that yet. However, let's just say that if he is returning under the Ogg Administration, her call for less aggressive "win-at-all-costs" prosecuting will be regarded as a complete and total joke.
It won't be surprising if Leitner and Bridgwater return to the D.A.'s Office, or, at a minimum, have Kim Ogg's ear. Those two die hard Republicans have made no secret about being on Team Ogg ever since Lykos got decimated in the 2012 primary by Mike Anderson. I hope that Kim Ogg remembers that as much as I disliked Bridgwater and Leitner on a personal level, I looked like a member of their fan club compared to the rank and file that worked under them. They were widely regarded as petty tyrants and bullies by the Assistant D.A.'s.
If Leitner and Bridgwater are, in fact, returning to the D.A.'s Office, I don't know what to say other than Welcome back! This blog and I have missed you.
All in all, the Ogg Administration got off to a bad start yesterday. If her first goal was to decimate morale, she certainly accomplished that. She seemed to take no notice of the idea that when you become the elected official over any government agency, you want people to be rooting for you -- and that begins with the people who work for you. Although some of her terminations were justified, there were many that were not. Her message seems to be taken out of the Pat Lykos Playbook, except it is making Lykos look tame by comparison.
I still have hope that Kim can become a good D.A. if she actually starts governing with less attention to perception and more to reality. Kim should remember that Lykos, Leitner and Bridgwater basically governed a running four year mutiny before getting blasted out of Office. It was a miserable situation for everyone involved. Miserable situations don't attract good personnel and without good personnel, you cannot have a good Office.
That's a lesson that the Ogg Administration is going to have to learn the hard way, apparently.
Comments
Not sure facts matter, but since I handled communications for Kim during the campaign I thought I should help educate you.
The notion that Kim, me or anyone else associated with the campaign asked that cameras be there to capture the normal transition at the District Attorney;s Office is absurd. I don't play that way. Either does Kim.
You said it yourself, the culture of the DA's office had changed. To change the culture you have to make serious changes. Kim spent weeks with her team and talked to lot's of prosecutors before making her decisions.
She wouldn't name names. Offered people a chance to resign.
You also know that the media has been full of headlines in recent years about cases of alleged prosecutorial misconduct, even possible criminal wrongdoing stemming from the District Attorney's Office. The place has been a black hole for public corruption complaints and consumer fraud.
Some of the changes announced Friday will re direct precious resources for an attack on serious crime.
My consulting firm was glad to help Kim. She is a long time friend, and as a reporter I worked with her at the gang task force and crime stoppers.
Give her a chance. She began her transition after Thanksgiving. Prosecutors wanted to know yesterday. Waiting until January would have been a greater disruption to the office.
Voters want change. Sometimes that means a change of leadership.
Cheap shot.
Wayne Dolcefino
President
Dolcefino Consulting
Many listen and a few do not. Those who choose one side or another run the risk of being in one day and out the next.
I have not seen the list, but it is clear there are a handful who need to go *struggles not to name names* and many that are going to be really good prosecutors if given a chance.
I will wait to see how this shakes out with who is out before I make a judgement on whether it was a good call or not.
Did you even read what I wrote?
Perhaps you should actually read the article and embrace the positive things I've said about the incoming administration rather than getting your feathers ruffled over receiving ANY criticism. I didn't criticize the timing of the firings. I think we all know that can't be avoided. I also agreed that changes in upper administration are part of an incoming administration and that is fair game.
So spare me your lecture and canned responses that play well to a less discerning readership. That didn't impress anyone when it came from the Anderson Administration and it won't impress anyone when it comes from Ogg.
...the hospital? Nope! Straight over to a press conference she staged to complain about the Porch Pooch.
Your lack of certainty about that sure explains a hell of lot...
You're a narcissistic hack. Your presence anywhere near a cause or candidate is highly suspicious. In your world, facts are inconvenient unless they support your agenda. Kim could have run her campaign with integrity, relying on her experience and vision for the office. Instead she turned to you, and similar to King Midas, everything you touched turned to crap.
I'm still here. I voted for Kim and I'll work hard to honor the oath I swore, but I'll never forget the good men and women she sacrificed in the name of political expediency.
My one piece of advice for her as it relates to her association with you: when you lie down with a dog, you're going to wake up covered in fleas.
Really?
Hahahahahahahahahahahaha.
Excuse me. I just laughed so hard snot came out of my nose.
Hahahahahahahahahahaha,
If Leitner and Bridgwater are returning the rules have reverted back to the Lykosian era.
Loyalty to the office is now second to loyalty to the Leader.
Do not read or post on this blog from an office computer, even at 3:00 am from intake. They can and will monitor all DAO computer contact with this blog. Especially once things heat up as they will.
If you do post on this blog be careful so that Team Ogg cannot figure out who did the posting.
Good luck.
Item:
We have been silent for a time. We are still here. We have always been here. We will always be here. We were not all fired.
End of line.
Sure, she didn't fire *everyone*, but that's not the point. She gutted the felony division chiefs and several felony chiefs that the less experienced prosecutors rely on. You do know that you don't start out trying agg sex assaults and cap murders, right? Many of the felony 2s haven't tried a murder or sex assault yet. Guys like Hennigan busted their ass, took tough cases, ran a good court and for that didn't even get a face to face.
Dolcefino- I like how you repeat the talking point line that it was the DAs who wanted to know and still deflect from how poorly it was all handled. Apparently accountability and transparency will not be a part of the new regime.
I hope their are no delusions by the defense bar that this will encourage ADAs to exercise discretion......
Your comment at 5:31--There were too many typos in that post to not be rogue, right? Looks like Wayne is the second coming of Hooper. He should be embarrassed.
For four years I had a boss who had my back. Now I'm about to have a boss who will call a press conference to denounce me the moment she thinks she can get a good news cycle out of doing so. And then she'll tip off journalists as to where I parked so they can film me putting my belongings in my car.
It's hard to guess why she did this. Perhaps she thought by getting rid of the best and most experienced of us she wouldn't leave any influential enemies. But prior to Friday I was looking forward to working in a new administration, hoping that they might shake things up in a positive way. Now I regard her and everyone she brings in with her as an enemy. In the last day and a half I don't think I've talked to anyone in the office who feels otherwise. She did bad things to good people who didn't deserve it: That's the opposite of what prosecutors should do.
As defense counsel, I can say that list contains many who we will miss, Nathan you are one, and more than a few that needed to move on from that office.
All of them were based on politics and not capability.
1) If you need any further evidence that this web site is influential with the new Ogg administration look no further than the fact that Wayne found it necessary to comment. Well done, Wayne! (And I am sure that our current Mayor has some thoughts about your views on cheap shots). And in that spirit I hope you pass on my comments to Kim.
2) Elections have consequences. Kim was well within her rights to do what she did -- as much as many of us in the office are saddened by it. She meant what she said about a new culture -- the majority of the people let go were individuals with more than 20 years experience. They will be replaced by outsiders she hired or internal candidates elevated to positions of leadership by her. They will be HER people and will face the judgment of the voters in the future regarding her decision.
3) The long arm of Jim Leitner and his petty grievances (more on this later) is very present in Friday's action.
4) Kim has gotten off on the wrong foot and the fact that she has not transitioned from her campaign rhetoric is insulting to the prosecutors who remain. Terminating people with more than 20 years of experience via e-mail is insulting. It demonstrates that you have no courage and are a coward. You continue to talk about "evidence based prosecutions." What does that mean? On any given day there are more than 20,000 open cases -- do you think we are prosecuting these cases with fairy dust and positive thoughts? It is demeaning.
5) That there was a quid pro quo for the Soros money for a change in position on the death penalty is evident. Kim won't do it right away -- but my guess is it will happen soon. Probably after the SCOTUS rules on Buck and Moore.
6) The whole thing with a transition team working in the library reviewing files was a farce. It was done to protect against employment lawsuits. Kim lied. There absolutely was a preexisting list of employees who were going to be terminated. This includes several prosecutors who were ethical, successful, but the defense bar did not like because of their temperament, and Kim gave them what they wanted.
7) The rumors about Leitner coming back are rampant. He is loathed and lacks the respect of any prosecutors from the Lykos era. He is viewed as a lightweight. His weightlifting video, badge on his belt, stories about the Coast Guard and requirement that his desk be regularly cleaned with Windex remain the butt of jokes. Caveat emptor.
8) Kim -- you have demonstrated no knowledge or experience regarding how to manage a 70 million dollar government entity. Take great care that you understand the implication of Lance's post above.
9) Kim -- there are more democrats in the office than you realize. Not everyone, including people you let go, were enamored with Devon; the bar poll should have told you that. Lots of prosecutors agree with you on marihuana and bail reform. Nevertheless, you can spin this however you want in a press conference, but this is the equivalent of Lykos throwing two senior, experienced prosecutors (both of whom have gone on to successful careers with the feds) under the bus within the first weeks of her administration in order to demonstrate that there was a new culture in town. She never recovered. You blew this and are immediately viewed by most of the staff as a person who cannot be trusted, is suspicious of staff, lacks decency, and does not have our backs. You need to figure out how to fix this situation quickly, or you will see this blog once again become what it was during the Lykos era -- a continuous source of leaks, news, and observation that regularly embarrassed her administration and contributed greatly to her demise.
Many felt like you about this election. I even considered voting for Kim Ogg. At the end, I didn't because I hoped to spare the office from more upheaval. But, I felt Kim had good sense and could do the job but- boy was I wrong!
She isn't Kim Ogg. She is Kim Jong Ogg who has put all her Generals and ranking officers in front of an anti-aircraft gun. She has proven how unfit she is to do her job.
Anonymous posters are welcome on this blog because there are petty little politicians like Leitner and Bridgwater who will absolutely lobby for the termination of dissenters. I publish views I agree with and views I disagree with, regardless of whether or not the poster signs his or her name.
Okay, from now on I'll use the the name that Kim addressed me by in the email. Presumably that means she'll know who I am and can add me to the list.
You'd rather have those kids prosecuting your murders with zero trial experience, than someone who was mean to little Jimmy Leitner? You don't think it'll get bad news coverage when they start losing all the trials?
Her actions thus far are setting up a dangerous precedent. She is going to be so busy listening to defense attorneys complain about prosecutors that she won't be able to get anything else done. Prosecutors should, of course, be professional, but at the end of the day, we have a job to do and that usually means that defense attorneys and defendants aren't going to get what they want.
Seriously???
Wayne Dolcefino posted a comment in defense of Ogg ???
That certainly doesn't carry any weight in Houston except to be more suspicious of Ogg.
Anon 12:56 look up Guy Fawkes mask on google.
I am anonymous
I am in the bunker.
To Kim Ogg (Wonder Woman): Great forst step! Your job is not to be liked by the first administration but to win hearts & minds by seeing justice done. It is better to instead of clean the house, just demolish the house & start from scratch to build a better house. I see the check that you wrote to the voters beginning to be cashed. Consider how many innocent people those disposable lawyers might have put in prison via prosecutorial misconduct.
Did you go to The Third Reich's Book of Cut Downs for that one?
Lots of spelling and grammatical errors here, Lee. Seems awfully familiar . . .
I stand by the attacks on prosecutors but do apologize for the spelling & grammar as I was typing this on my new touch phone while riding the bus on the pothole ridden streets of Westheimer (which is why it did not come across correctly).
Ogg’s entire campaign was about change. Someone on that list chiseled out a tiny cave in an extremely specialized area of law, and was still worried about their job. If they were worried, not one other person on that list should have thought they were irreplaceable. No one in this business gets to say, “It’s a shame these decisions are so political,” because it’s not a “shame” when the politics work in their favor. And not all of the firings were political. Some appear to be “guilty by association,” and some are likely on that list because of their longevity. BUT. There are still several at the DAO who were conspicuously absent from the office (campaigning for Anderson) that weren’t fired.
Long is a great trial lawyer; he’s amazing in front of the jury, but being a prosecutor is more than just being an outstanding trial attorney, getting convictions, or sticking around long enough. It’s about being a good teammate, colleague, and leader. For years, Long went out of his way to ruin prosecutors’ careers if he deemed them “not worthy” of being at the DAO for whatever reason. He took pleasure in gossiping about people’s personal and professional downfalls just to be in the know. He ran off good people, and looked them up in the state bar to gloat about their next ventures. He might have been a good attorney, but he was a horrible colleague. He was the Terrell Owens of the office: Great individual player, horrible teammate.
Hennigan has a rep of liking what he considers to be “educated minorities,” and hating poor ones. He made a comment in a diversity training session to the effect that “We all know what kinds of people commit certain types of crime.” It’s not as though he was shy about his views. Early in his career at the DAO, Hennigan stole trial cases from a co-worker and lied about it when confronted (someone else who’s all about the individual to the detriment of the team). And then there was the whole Brian Wice/Michael Brown fiasco. The least of his errors in that incident was saying Wice looked like a rat.
Look at the list. You’ll see lots of folks who spent years cultivating a reputation of extreme prosecutorial zeal – to the point that it became an abuse of power. Some were on thin ice already. Some were on social media telling people to vote for Anderson, and NOT to vote for Ogg. Some were in the actual media as a consequence of the choices they made as prosecutors (right or wrong, the public perception was damaging). Some went out of their way to perpetuate a culture of cutthroat adversarialism against both colleagues and the defense bar. Some went out of their way to target other prosecutors for arbitrary reasons, track their progress through the office, sabotage their careers, blackball them from promotion, and harangue them until they left the office (there’s no redemption once certain people decide to stall your progress there). Some retaliated against other prosecutors for various reasons, none of which had anything to do with justice. Some have been rightfully grieved by the defense bar for their actions as prosecutors. Some misused city and/or county resources for personal reasons. No matter the reason, ultimately, almost everyone on that list bought and paid for their spot on it. Now they want refunds, but Ogg’s got receipts.
Is it listed somewhere in Ogg's receipts?
Anon 6:17: A hit dog will holler...and, apparently, launch ad hominem attacks and non sequiturs. Have you anything substantive to add?
1. She is montoring Facebook; and
2. She is monitoring this blog
Be cautious, folks.
In that case, the person of which I speak was in favor with the Lykos administration (the administration at the time this event occurred). What makes you think the upper echelon *didn't* know? That was the same administration that happily overlooked Rachel Palmer allowing her husband to use Palmer's badge to misrepresent himself to a police officer. As one of the last to know, I wouldn't have had a friendly ear in that administration. But it's adorable how you're outraged at what you perceive to be *my* moral failing in that specific situation.
Go find someone who likes you and ask them for a hug.
Lee, whether not I agree with your puerile comments, I cannot fathom that you quoted Yoda from Episode III. I do not think the english language has a word that can describe the mixture of heresy and idiocy of such an action.
The only conclusion I can draw is that you are a millenial and don't know any better (because if you are not...may the Force have mercy on your wretched soul).
I am not claiming to be one to teach people how to be good or decent but I can offer you this piece of advice: NEVER quote Yoda outside of the original three. It makes you look like a buffoon to do so.
~~~
I came here after seeing the article in the Chron about the not fired firings. Forgive me for asking but I did not see the answer to this in either your blog or the article but how many prosecutors does that leave her with and how big of a task will it be to replace them? Where do you pull talent like that from? Is it a Herculean task or something that won't be a big deal if she's been planning it for months?
If the "new talent" is comprised of newly minted lawyers, the learning curve will be steep indeed under these circumstances but even seasoned defense attorneys typically make rookie mistakes when brought in, Kim herself already showing the exact mentality she claimed existed under the current administration. Whether or not she lied, because there is a chance she just shot from the hip without knowing squat about what she was talking about, her failure to acknowledge the loss of expertise shows she is in denial. The hope by butt kissing fools like "Grits" is that her public stance in favor of bail reform and against the death penalty warrants overlooking these failings and the many likely to come out as she stumbles around. Working at Daddy's boutique law firm and serving in figurehead positions for public organizations doesn't prepare you for a position like this.
Over time, the new members will learn the ropes the old fashioned way, by making mistakes. and her well meaning political cronies brought in for the upper level positions will get a lot of egg on their faces, likely to start pointing fingers when they fall short. Kim has already set the tone of the new administration by making false accusations based on innuendo over evidence, many of her dismissals also following that pattern, and a willingness to dismiss over how a case looks versus the facts. As a result, expect many more to find sweeter opportunities in surrounding communities that will move heaven and earth to hire these people as quickly as possible. But who isn't concerned when an irate public official starts announcing how they are going to launch investigations in knee jerk fashion, when they can't even articulate a crime?
Anon 6:17 here. Jesustittyfucking Christ! You bet your sweet ass I have something to add. A supervising prosecutor's job is to make sure that the people he or she supervises perform as expected. At a minimum the means doing the work and showing up for work. If people cannot or will not do the job they are assigned they should be fired. That's the way the real world works.
Maybe you think everyone gets a trophy. Go teach pre school then.
As for gossip. You are joking right? In any large organization there will be "gossip." That said any supervisor needs to find out what is going on in his or her department. If that is your idea of gossip, then go to your safe space.
Vivian King knows.
Did…did you read your post before clicking ‘submit?’ Because there’s a whole lot going on there.
You say people who don’t do the job as expected deserve to get fired. That’s what happened to most (though by no means all) of the people on that list: they didn’t perform as the incoming DA expects, so they’ve been fired (non-renewed, whatever). And you’re over here bitching because your friends aren’t getting their participation trophies. Your friends just hit the real world. Your friends have to leave their safe space.
You’re also assuming facts not in evidence. You assume everyone driven from that office was fired, and that everyone who left didn’t do the job as expected. The truth is much more complex and complicated than that. If you don’t think so, then you’re not paying attention, and that’s probably why these firings surprised and hurt you so much. Do *you* need a safe space?
You’re absolutely defending gossip as a leadership tactic – and not merely hearing gossip (and then investigating to determine the truth of the matter alleged). You’re defending spreading and perpetuating gossip as a leadership skill. Gossip is hearsay, and there’s a reason corroborating evidence is important. Too many people rely on gossip as gospel, when it’s really rather easy to establish facts in that office by going to the source.
Leaders don’t need to be gossipy middle schoolers. If that’s the only tool in one’s leadership kit, then maybe that person should never have been a supervisor. There are a lot of people who can prosecute (and well), but courtroom skills don’t necessarily translate into good leadership or business skills. There’s not much opportunity in that office to learn or demonstrate the necessary skills for supervisory positions. In fact, there’s almost none. The truth is that many prosecutors lack the life and work experience to learn those skills before becoming prosecutors. And those deficiencies become evident in a big way, and take a toll on the office. None of this information is new, or newly discovered; the same standards have held true throughout several decades and industries. “Everyone does it” isn’t a sufficient reason to excuse substandard behavior.
Why does Kimbra feel the need to keep everything such a secret from us? It's almost like she doesn't think we're on the same team.
The public should be happy with these changes and all the new judges so the county can reform bail practices, decriminalize low level drug use, and continue to marginalize the death penalty. The savings from offering PR bonds to first time drug offenders alone should free up 1000 beds in the jail for higher level crimes, the saving in manpower by changing priorities in drug offenses can allow the police in both county and city to focus on crimes people care about, and the over use of the death penalty in Harris County is well documented.
It is interesting, though, that you focus so heavily on judges in a post about the DA, but as far as your specific claims that...
"The public should be happy with these changes and all the new judges so the county can reform bail practices"
Any generalization that all judges of a particular party will not do one thing, or will, as a class, do something else, is just silly. One of the most petty judges I've dealt with about bitchy little things was a Democrat--Guerrero. I felt like Guerrero took pleasure in revoking bonds.
I think the same experience will be had by even some of the incoming judges. Some will embrace PR bonds. Some will not. Some may hide behind the magistrates, who are known to not give PR bonds. And if they are not given by the magistrates, there will be very little savings in terms of jail beds because hundreds of beds are taken up by the time someone spends in intake and the day or so after until they do make bail.
"decriminalize low level drug use"
This is up to the DA (and legislature), not the judges. But it does sound like Ogg is headed that way for pot cases, not narcotics (other than trace cases).
"and continue to marginalize the death penalty."
This is well underway even under Anderson. The single greatest tool to reducing the death penalty has been LWOP, not a change in stance toward the death penalty. If a jury had to either give a guy life with the chance that he gets out, or death, they'd choose death. Now that they have a third option, prosecutors are more likely to use it because they know the defendant can be taken off the streets for good without the crazy-expensive trial and appeals. Think of it like abortion--the best way to prevent abortion is to have good access to birth control. The best way to end the death penalty (effectively) is to show that there are other ways to maintain the same assurance that the defendant will never get out and kill again.
"The savings from offering PR bonds to first time drug offenders alone should free up 1000 beds in the jail for higher level crimes"
Again, this has little to do with the sitting judges. Maybe they hire better magistrates; maybe they hide behind them to keep from looking soft on crime. We'll see. And again, if the PR bond isn't offered by the magistrate, there is really no savings to be had.
"the saving in manpower by changing priorities in drug offenses can allow the police in both county and city to focus on crimes people care about"
While you are right, this will not be because of the judges. It will be because of changes at HCSO and HPD. So far Gonzales has said that he will "lobby for" and "work with other agencies" to do these things, but the truth is that he can do it right now. He simply needs to announce that he will do it, and then get the paperwork and scheduling sorted out. Judges have nothing to do with it. Acevedo did it in Austin, so maybe HPD starts it too.
So, if these were your reason for voting straight ticket, you did it wrong and threw out some good judges simply because of a party affiliation. While that's not smart, all the butthurt from the cops is because their history of voting straight ticket the other way is now constantly at risk. So all of their petty bitching about how unsafe Harris County will be is just plain old bullshit. They're afraid they'll be held accountable, because so far they have not been.
Personally, although I hate to see good people lose their jobs, I like a little instability in the system. Only then will the people in charge not run rough-shod over the rest of us.
Firing the 37 prosecutors 9 days before Christmas through an email? I know there are always regime changes when a new administration takes over but it would seem to me she knew exactly who would be let go long before now. Why wait and in the manor it was done in? It doesn’t show respect to the people who have devoted their careers to the field of criminal justice. Firing by email is cowardly, doing it right before Christmas makes one look coldhearted and ultimately makes it look like political revenge. There were better ways to handle this, IMHO. Furthermore, with the press conference held the other day, she is exploiting people for her own personal and political gain. Enough is enough. Anyone surprised? Innocent until proven guilty, anyone?? No, here she is the one making assumptions without the facts and says she will not discuss the issues with the prosecutors in question.
It all boils down to this:
Kim Ogg was so desperate to get elected; she said and did anything (and she will continue to do so) even when she KNOWS it’s not true. Having been in that office before, Ogg knows the things coming out of her mouth are untrue. She has run on both parties on the ticket once before-R and D and failed both times if that tells you anything, people did not like her on either side of the ballot before. She only won because she rode on the party ticket; just like all the other D’s. She had to run with corrupt, anti-American Soros behind her. That should have told every voter what they really need to know about her and who is going to be behind running the DA's office. When she was running she basically said that she will pick and choice the laws in which they follow and think should be enforced. That is not how it works. You do not get to choose what the office decides to try based on what you want. The Harris County District Attorney is there to pursue justice and enforce the law, not pick and choice what laws she enforces and upholds whether they agree with it or not. This is what Devon always did, hence the PP case. Maybe she forgot that in her 20 yrs away from being a prosecutor defending criminals?
Yes, we all know the criminal justice system has flaws and with the 116,000 cases filed a year that sometimes things happen but let me just say I will be especially praying for Harris County all around the board for the next 4 years.
Denholm to head intake (also heard could be lead investigator)
Carvana over fcld
David Mitchum as trial bureau chief
Bradley over juvenile
Vivian as chief of staff
Shawna Reagin over writs
Joanne Musick over sex crimes
Sean Teare over vehicle crimes
Colleen Barnett returning (role unknown)
Attorneys,
To assist in the ongoing transition, I am asking that all Felony #2 and Chief Felony prosecutors with trials pending in January 2017 prepare a brief, one-page memo for each January trial case providing the following information:
1) Style of the case;
2) Number of trial settings for the case;
3) Number of continuances, by party;
4) Confirmation that subpoenas have been issued;
5) Known evidentiary/witness issues, problems (very brief description);
6) Estimated length of trial; and
7) Whether the state is ready.
Memos should be attached to the physical file as well as electronically submitted to Naomi Lines in the Trial Bureau by 5:00 PM on December 30, 2016. If you are a Chief Felony prosecutor who will not be returning, your memo should be completed prior to your final day of employment. If you are in a court where the chief is not returning but had trial(s) pending, this responsibility falls to the #2 if the chief fails or is unable for any reason to prepare the requested memo. If this is the case, please note that fact on the memo. If the #2 is unable to answer any of the requested information queries, please note that fact on the memo as well.
Additionally, any prosecutor “holding” any felony trial case who is not currently assigned to the trial court where the case is pending is asked to return the physical file to the chief’s office of the court where the case is assigned. This should also be done by 5:00 pm on Friday, December 30th. The previously requested trial memo is to be included with the file. If the prosecutor who has “held on” to the case is returning to the office in January and desires to try the case, include that notation in the memo.
Thank you all for your professionalism and assistance in these matters.
Best regards,
But I have to ask - why is Devon succumbing to this request?
The man does like his coloring books, though.
Confused
No division chiefs
Who will try the division chief cases
No post conviction writ division
Who will defend convictions
Entropy do not ask me how
Compartmentalize integrity conflicts with the obligation to provide access
End of line
You gotta advertise you're Latino or it doesn't count?