Not "If" but "When:" A Lesson in Impropriety

As the Harris County District Attorney's Office begins to settle in under the new Administration of Kim Ogg, the biggest question still left open is how Ogg will dispose of the murder case against David Temple.  Temple was granted a new trial in November of last year, following his 2007 conviction for the murder of his pregnant wife, Belinda.

Since Ogg has taken office, I have written several posts arguing that the Ogg Administration should recuse Harris County from further involvement in the case due to multiple conflicts of interests.   One of the more notable conflicts that Ogg has is that she hired a former member of Temple's defense team, John Denholm, as part of her upper Administration.  In addition to Denholm, she also hired former private investigator, Steve Clappart, as her Chief Investigator and he also did defense work on Temple's case.

This picture shows the two of them at a press conference with the rest of Temple's defense team. For those of you who might not know Denholm and Clappart, they are the two on the far right in the picture below.

However, despite my arguments (as well as Mark Bennett's and Kathryn Casey's) to the contrary, Ogg has steadfastly refused to recuse the Office from the case.

The refusal to recuse defies logic.

Several weeks ago, Ogg recused the Office from all other first degree felonies handled by anyone in her Administration.  The last I looked, Murder was still a first degree felony and John Denholm was still in her upper Administration.   Surely, if the case is as weak as Ogg's mentor Dick DeGuerin claims it is, any other prosecutorial agency would have no problem arriving at a just conclusion, right?

So why, exactly, is D.A. Ogg so damn attached to the Temple case?  Why on earth does she not simply ask another prosecutorial agency (or an attorney pro tem) to handle the investigation?  Why is she so unconcerned about the massive appearance of impropriety that she is creating for herself by not letting go of the case?

The seemingly obvious answer to the skeptics amongst us is that D.A. Kim Ogg promised DeGuerin and the rest of Team Temple that she would make the Temple case go away.  The only way she can guarantee the case's demise is if she maintains solitary control over it.  Farming it out to any other agency or pro tem prosecutor would jeopardize that.

Those skeptics amongst us also believe that all of this "review" by Kim Ogg is nothing more than her attempt to wait an appropriate amount of time before dismissing the case and then subsequently claiming that she spent that time reading transcripts, offense reports, lab reports, and talking to witnesses.

For those skeptics amongst us, the question isn't if Kim Ogg dismisses the Temple case.  It is simply a matter of when.

There are some new indicators that the answer to when Ogg dismisses the Temple case is "Very soon."

The law firm of Musick and Musick shrunk significantly on January 1st, when attorneys JoAnne Musick and John Denholm, as well as private investigator Steve Clappart, left the firm to join the D.A.'s Office.  Former police officer and former Assistant District Attorney Earl Musick seems to be the only member of the firm still practicing defense.

In Earl's spare time, he does a little writing for the City of Houston Police Officer's Union website, and it looks like an article that Earl wrote in advance for their March newsletter has already hit the internet.
In the article, Earl extolls the virtues of his former associate, John Denholm, and investigator, Steve Clappart, while pointing out how clearly innocent David Temple must be.  He regurgitates the information from Clappart and Denholm's ridiculous warrant and levels capital murder accusations at a then-teenage boy.

Obviously, Earl is free to write whatever he wants about the case, but the timing of the article sure does seem to coincide with Temple's next court date on March 3rd.  At that court date, the Ogg Administration is going to have to make some kind of announcement about what they are going to do with the case.  Given Earl's close ties to Ogg's upper Administration, a logical mind does have to wonder if he is privy to something that the rest of us only assume to be true.  Given the target audience for Earl's article (former and active Houston Police Officers), he sure does seem to be explaining why dismissing the case will be a great idea.  Generally, police officers don't like to hear about murder cases getting dismissed.

I can't help but wonder if the article got released a little prematurely.

Perhaps Earl's article doesn't really bug the reader as much as it bugs me.  Well, then, how about this little item that a friend sent to me today?

Temple's trial attorney, Dick DeGuerin, is co-hosting a very high dollar fundraising reception for the sole person in charge of his most high profile case ever, the night before that same client has court?  Oh, and by the way, before DeGuerin was Temple's lawyer, Temple was represented by co-host Paul C. Looney.

Seriously?  I mean, if we are going to be this shamelessly blatant, why don't we just put David Temple himself on the host committee?

Although Kim Ogg doesn't seem to be too concerned about the appearance of impropriety, surely the people in her Administration are.  Is there really someone on her support staff advising Ogg that keeping that case is proper?   

I've tried to remain supportive of the Ogg Administration.  I like many of her hires.  I like a great many of her policies.  But if she dismisses the case against David Temple without letting another single soul look at it, all of her progressive moves will be overshadowed by what, by all appearances, is a shamelessly dirty decision.

It would be one that her reputation would never recover from.


Anonymous said…
In one of Kim Ogg's first interviews after winning the election, she told the reporter that she wanted to secure the community without hurting the victims? Isn't that what she would be doing by dismissing this case? Wouldn't she be hurting the very victims she was entrusted to protect? On her own website, she claimed that, if elected, she would make sure there were new policies put in place which would be aligned with the Texas Crime Victim's Bill of Rights. Where are those policies and would a dismissal be in line with those policies? On a different website, Kim Ogg stated that she was the daughter of a kidnapping victim, she knows the pain of victims. Wow, if she knows the pain, what about Belinda's family? How much pain are they going through? I am at a complete lost for words if she doesn't make the decision to recuse the Office from this case....
Anonymous said…
Good ol' Earl sure did #$%$% up that timeline. And he forgot some crucial info about the new witness (Daniel Glasscock). For example, it was proven that the ID Discovery show that he claimed inspired him to come forward with the new information did not even air in the entire MONTH that he claims to have seen it. And then he changed course and admitted that DeGuerrin and Schneider ambushed him prior to deposition and made him change his story. Glasscock said he felt like a fool after walking out of their office. These shenanigans aren't about a harris county murder, they're about the assault on Deguerrin's ego during his battles with Siegler. Get over it democraps and give the Lucas family some justice.
Anonymous said…
Maybe she should review her guiding principles and goals she posted on Facebook. Wasn't there something about how we will have evidence-based prosecutions and not relationship-based prosecutions?

We all knew she was dirty, we just didn't know the extent. She's not even 100 days into her reign and she's being this blatant about being bought and paid for.
Unknown said…
Why isn't the mainstream local "investigative" media covering this corruption
Anonymous said…
While there are certainly many conflicts of interest here that should lead to DA Ogg recusing the Office, the craziest one is Denholm. You left out a couple layers of his absurd conflict of interest.  

1) Denholm was the supervisor of HCSO Homicide when they conducted the Temple investigation.  He supervised the investigation.

2) Denholm, as a law student (and a cop), participated in the prosecution's mock trial preparation for the trial.

3) As you have detailed, Denholm was heavily involved in the Temple defense team and their efforts to spring him from the pokey.

4) Now Denholm is a member of the agency that is ostensibly prosecuting Temple.

If you are following at home, John Denholm was, in order, a member of the police team investigating the case, the prosecution team that prosecuted the case, the defense team that got him out of the hoosegow, and now the prosecution team that is supposed to evaluate the case and decide about a retrial.

It is an absurd conflict.

DA Ogg is a lot of things, but a good politician is certainly one of them. It isn't just the right thing to do to recuse the Office, it is the smart political move. She can punt this radioactive football by the stroke of a pen. Yet she chooses not to.

This is why many are convinced that there is a questionable motivation behind her decision making on this case.
Anonymous said…
The amount of unethical and dirty deals Kim Ogg made to get where she is doesn't just stop here. She is so blatant about it, people must not care what she really is. The Texas Rangers could have a real busy time if they started an investigation with her.

And 2 months into a 4 year terms and you're already throwing fundraisers? Is that normal? I know she is just a politician but still...
Anonymous said…
Kim Ogg is just like her daddy, corrupt to the core.
Anonymous said…
Is it a bit early in a 4 year term to start fundraising? It's not like she's running for the US House of Reps where your term is 2 years so you have to start fundraising the second you're elected.
Anonymous said…
I voted for Kim but if she doesn't recuse herself from this case, she will lose my support.
Anonymous said…
Actually it is not uncommon to have fundraisers to retire the debt early in a new term. But this deal smells all the way out in the DFW area. Sorry for y'all.
Anonymous said…
I figured Soros' money took care of that....
Anonymous said…
Anon @ 8:25 PM

Denholm was in the Traffic Enforcement Division at the time of the murder and investigation in 1999. He was not in Homicide and did not supervise the investigation.

He was in Homicide at the time of the trial and trial prep.
Anonymous said…
Earl should have mentioned that the pastor that Daniel Glasscock spoke with prior to contacting Dick is....THE PASTOR OF THE CHURCH WHERE DAVID TEMPLE'S PARENTS ATTEND!
Oh and shortly after pouring his heart out to Dick, Daniel Glasscock moved from an apartment to a house and bought a motorcycle...hmmmm
Anonymous said…
So the usual suspects were out in force when Devon made a misdemeanor DWI dismissal that had the appearance of impropriety. Will they have the same level of outrage for a murder?
Anonymous said…
Above at 821 "Wondering when the mainstream media is going to investigate this" I'm sure it will being coming soon. There is a lot of dirty crap going on and the truth is about ready to come out!
Anonymous said…
Above at 821 "Wondering when the mainstream media is going to investigate this" I'm sure it will being coming soon. There is a lot of dirty crap going on and the truth is about ready to come out!
Anonymous said…
Anon 8:21pm, never. Ogg has the media in her back pocket. They promoted her during the campaign and they will protect her during her term. The Houston Press is the only publication that will even come close to criticizing her.
Eva said…
Aaaaaand we have the Soros comment!

Christ on a cracker, Murray. Every time one of the snowflakes cries about Soros, my opinion of your audience drops. The people non-ironically using Soros as an argument, defense, or accusation need to find their safe spaces, woosah, find someone who likes them, and ask that person for a hug. These must be the same people who grab their tinfoil hats and watch InfoWars religiously, like some militant extremist. Gah!

Bless you, Murray, for sifting through all that garbage.
Anonymous said…
Murray lest you forget, "Money talks and bullshit walks."

The fix was in once Judge Gist was selected to hear the Habeas Writ.

Ogg will Scapegoat Kelly, continue to deposit the DeGuerin pay offs and hope her opponent in the Democratic primary is really really stupid.

It seems of late that the elected DA of Harris County is a one term and you're out gig.
Anonymous said…
Murray, I think you're pretty much spot on in your assessment of this slow roll out of Ogg's announcement of the decision to dismiss the Temple case. I would add one thing here. It's probably in Ogg's political best interest to go ahead and make the announcement now as opposed to waiting. With it still being early in her term, by announcing her decision early she will at have plenty of time for whatever public blowback there might be to die down over the next three years. Plus, as some of the commenters above noted, she seems to have the Chronicle behind her which is unsurprising given that publication's "soft on crime" leanings. I'm guessing that if there's any coverage by the Chronicle at all regarding a dismissal, it will be buried somewhere in the State/Metro section.
Anonymous said…
So let's say Ogg dismisses the case. NOTHING would prevent a future grand jury from indicting him for murder again and again and again (until he was acquitted). Grand juries are independent bodies. Someone from Katy could certainly be on a Harris County Grand Jury and get 8 of their fellow grand jurors to make this happen.
Anonymous said…
What will be very interesting to see is whether any dismissal proclaims that Temple is "actually innocent" which, of course, would enable him to become eligible for a very large financial reimbursement from the state for having been "wrongfully convicted." Talk about adding insult to injury. That would also likely prevent any effort to obtain a subsequent indictment for murder as suggested by 3:15 above.
Anonymous said…
Not so fast 4:11. There have been multiple appellate court opinions finding the evidence sufficient. Hell even Gist did not find actual innocence. And, I submit that only an acquittal can bar a subsequent indictment. You know double jeopardy and all that technical stuff.
Anonymous said…

Oh laudie deliver us from Eva!
Tom said…
It pisses me off when people start talking about a lawyer, in this case, Kim Ogg, having a conflict or being unethical without reading the applicable Rule of Disciplinary Conduct. In this case, it is Rule 1.10.
In private practice, a conflict between a lawyer and a former client disqualifies an entire lawfirm. Not so with successive government/private employment. Rule 1.10 disqualifies a former government lawyer from participating in a MATTER he or she handled as a government lawyer but the firm can as long as the former government lawyer is screened by the proverbial Chinese Wall. That's Rule 1.10(b)(1).
The same is true for government lawyers who formerly were in private practice. They cannot participate in a matter involving a former private client but there is no rule disqualifying the government office. That's Rule 1.10(e)(1).
Comment 3 to Rule 1.10 discusses why the rule is different for government/private practice conflicts versus private practice/private practice conflicts. Basically, the rule exists to allow lawyers to move rather freely between government and private employment because government needs to attract qualified lawyers.
Ogg, of course, is disqualified personally in any case she handled with the Ogg Law Firm before Jan. 1 and possibly from all cases involving her former firm. But other lawyers now working for the DA's office are disqualified only in cases they dealt with in private practice. So, Denholm is disqualified from the Temple case and probably Joanne Musick because she was in the same firm. But the office is not disqualified as long as they are screened.
Ogg can, if she chooses, disqualify the entire office from some or all of the cases handled by assistant DA's before they joined the office but it is not required by any ethical rule. For example, during the Enron scandal, the then-U.S. Attorney disqualified his entire office because most AUSAs had friends or relatives who worked for Enron. That was his call but not required.
In the interests of full disclosure, my firm represented Temple on the writ but I had nothing to do with it. I've met the man twice and I sat in the writ hearing for about 20 minutes. I have no confidential information on the case.
But, unlike most of the people who are suggesting that Ogg is doing something wrong or unethical in the Temple case, I not only have the good sense to read the disciplinary rules of professional conduct. And, I have the balls to sign my name.
Tom Moran
Murray Newman said…
I hope you know that I have a tremendous amount of respect for your legal and ethical knowledge. That being said, we both know that there is a difference between "ethics" as codified and true ethics as applied. Those ethics that are codified generally reflect bare minimum standards that a lawyer must abide by. Under those standards, Kim is insulates and within her rights to do as she pleases with the Temple case. If she wasn't, somebody would have stopped her.

She can't be stopped.

But the higher standard of ethics is he one that we all live by. Not because we have to but because there is something that tells us intrinsically that we should. Those are the ethics that I find Kim to be lacking when it comes to how she is handling the Temple case. Her relationship with Dick and her ultra-secretive handling of Temple gives a tremendous exhibition of indifference to the Criminal Justice System and a huge appearance of impropriety. I have always been a believer in the idea that prosecutors are held to a higher standard. I hope I exhibited that during my time as a prosecutor and I damn sure believe in it now.

Her handling of the case may not violate the codified rules of ethics that we have to follow as lawyers, but it reeks of an elected District Attorney who is giving out personl favors. That's unjust in any case, but it is mortifying in a case involving the murder of a pregnant mother killed in her own home.
Tom said…
Murray: We elect district attorneys to make judgment calls. The elected public prosecutor should be the one making those calls. And, most of those calls are going to make someone unhappy.
When it comes to ethics, last year in about a month, my firm was involved in three cases in which appellate courts or a district court found misconduct in serious cases.
The first was David Temple where your friend was hammered for hiding or releasing too late exculpatory information. The second involved a senior prosecutor who knew she was losing a case, so she deliberately forced a mistrial to get a second shot at the defendant. A Republican trial judge and a three-judge panel of the 14th court of appeals found she violated the defendant's right against double jeopardy and dismissed the case. The last involved a death penalty case I tried in the early 1990s where a Republican trial judge last December found the state's ballistics expert lied and my former client deserves a new trial.
Three convictions either vacated or having a recommendation for vacating a death penalty conviction for two lawyers in a month. In a properly functioning DA's office that never happen.
If those are examples of the standards of conduct you support, I prefer Kim Ogg's any day.
It would be easy for Ogg to recuse the DA's office from the Temple case and let someone else make the tough call on whether to retry him. Frankly, if I were her, I probably would take that easy way out. But, that's not what she hired on to do.
What set me off is the claims of unethical conduct and frankly legally incorrect comments to your post. For example, your poster anon 6:39 seeming to say Temple cannot be found actually innocent because two appellate courts found legally sufficient evidence.
That's wrong because both trial judges and appellate courts look at sufficiency of the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution. If my client's alibi is "I was in prison when the crime occurred and here's the warden with his records to prove it," a state witness with five prior convictions for perjury saying the client did it makes for legally sufficient evidence.
I don't know what Ogg will do in the Temple case. I have no clue. I do know that if after a careful review of the evidence it is determined the state cannot prove its case to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt, the case ought to be dismissed.
I recall a case many years ago when one of Dick DeGuerin's clients was charged in a robbery murder and the eyewitnesses were absolutely sure it was Dick's guy. And I also remember then DA's division chief Keno Henderson and DA Johnny Holmes looking at the evidence and dismissing because they thought they couldn't prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. It was all about that part of the code of criminal procedure where it says a prosecutor's job is not to get convictions but to see that justice is done.
And, I can't understand your comment about Ogg's "relationship with Dick." OK, Dick's throwing her a fundraiser. Maybe that's because he and a lot of us want her to succeed in changing the culture of the DA's office so we'll never again have three convictions called into question in one month because of ethical violations or use of perjured testimony by the DA's office.
As for what you call her "ultrasecretive" handling of the Temple case, I don't recall any district attorneys or US attorneys or US attorneys general making decisions on major cases in public.
At the end of the day, Ogg will 1) dismiss the case; 2) retry it; or 3) punt it to another body to decide. Whatever her decision, she will have to explain it to the electorate. That's how our system works.
Murray Newman said…
Seriously, Tom? I don't even know where to begin with this, but I'll give it a shot. I may just need to write a separate blog post.

First of all, let's start with "your friend was hammered for hiding or releasing too late exculpatory information". You are entirely too smart and too well versed to be making use of such semantics, my friend. The narrowly split-decision finding was that the information in question wasn't released in a timely manner. Fair enough, but let's not overstate the real impact of that finding. Team Temple's argument that this merits never retrying the case again is akin to a runner who lost a race by thirty minutes arguing that the five second head start by the winner is why they lost. The losing runner may be entitled to a rematch but claiming that they are the fastest runner is pretty big stretch of the imagination.

Second, let's not act like the law isn't a consistently evolving creature. I've been a defense attorney for a whopping eight years and even during my brief tenure, the rules of discovery have vastly changed. For instance, prior to the Michael Morton Act, prosecutors in Brazos County never allowed defense attorneys to even LOOK at the offense report, until (and if) a witness testified that they had used it to refresh their memory. The laws have changed and they have changed for the better, but I would hold off on vilifying individuals who get singled out for some pretty damn common practices from the old days.

Third, I totally fail to see your logic in the comparisons to the other cases your firm handled. They seem like comparisons to apples and oranges to me. I agreed with the rulings on the case involving the improper jury argument and I applauded Judge Bond's decision on my blog post that I did for Fault Lines. I'm not familiar with the ballistics case, but I would have no dispute that unfair testimony calls for a new trial. I fail to see how that relates to Temple. You know as well as everyone else that cases get reversed all the time, but that doesn't automatically bar retrial without more. The problem here is that Team Temple keeps inferring that there is that "more" when there isn't. It's disingenuous how you've gone from demanding a new trial to just demanding a dismissal. It's also disingenuous how Team Temple made such a huge argument to recuse the previous Harris County D.A. when they found her unfriendly to their calls for dismissal, but now they insist the current one should be the sole decider.

And finally, "As for what you call her "ultrasecretive" handling of the Temple case, I don't recall any district attorneys or US attorneys or US attorneys general making decisions on major cases in public." Are you freaking kidding me? District and US attorneys absolutely make their decisions public in something called "a trial." And that's the very basis of our Criminal Justice System. When they make the decision to try something, they put their evidence in a public hearing that 12 members of the community grade. Period.

Kim Ogg is going to bury this case for reasons other than Justice and that's what makes me sick. And she's not stupid. She's burying it very early in her administration with the hopes that it is but a distant memory when she runs for re-election in 2020. Sadly, it very well may be.

I understand that you are a member of Schneider and McKinney and you are biased, just as I am. But dammit, Tom, getting a case dismissed because you are buddies or gave money to the D.A. or hosted a fundraiser for the D.A. isn't Justice. It's corruption. There is no way around that.

I am so disappointed to see you argue otherwise.

Luci said…
Sorry, Tom. As much as I love you and respect you, I have to agree with Murray. This whole thing stinks and, unfortunately, I think the Lucas' are going to pay that price. Luci.
Anonymous said…
Anon:3:15 hit the nail on the head. Don't think it could happen? David Medina was re-indicted for arson by an independent thinking grand jury after the HCDAO dismissed the case.

There have been plenty of instances dating back to at least the Holmes era where a grand jury has done there own thing, HDAO be damned.
Anonymous said…
The new grand jury procedures put an end to the professional grand jurors, like the one who led the charge against Medina.

But Ogg's successor could certainly charge him.

As for her recusal, why do it in 400 other cases but not this one? If the others justified it, certainly the Temple case does, because it's even more of a hot mess.

From her hires to this fundraiser, there is more than the appearance of impropriety.
Anonymous said…
If Ogg files a dismissal that asserts that Temple is "actually innocent," that will, for all practical purposes put an end to the case. Even if a later DA or grand jury wanted to pursue Temple, can you imagine how difficult any such prosecution might be with a pleading in the file, signed off on by the DA and approved by a district judge, that asserted that Temple was innocent? Never mind that any such dismissal will also qualify Temple for compensation under the Wrongful Conviction statute.
Anonymous said…
I hate comments like "I have the balls to sign my name". You think you'd have those same balls if your boss would fire you in a second for publicly speaking out against her? Or maybe as a defense attorney, not being so close with Ogg as you, where speaking out could hurt your clients or practice? These discussions can only happen due to the option of being anonymous. Hell some of the best reporting and news stories came about due to people/sources remaining anonymous. No offense but it doesn't take balls to stand up and declare your allegiance/support for a candidate that is not your boss, just won the election, and is in power for the next (miserable) 4 years.
Anonymous said…
Murray points out that there's a difference between what might pass legal muster and what would pass the stink test here. If the voters want better governance, they'd better demand it by requiring these nest feathering fools like Ogg be held accountable, just like Anderson was in the DWI case. Ogg's purse strings courtesy of Soros and outside interests show no need for such early fund raisers and one held by someone with so much at stake in a case under review seems outlandish. So to the Tom's of the world with their mercenary tactics, be on notice that short of retrying the case, this isn't going away. The victim's family is disgusted by how the case is being treated and rightfully so, a great many more will join them in making their voices heard should Ogg do what Murray suggests is going to happen.
Anonymous said…
What authority does a DA have to declare someone actually innocent?
Anonymous said…
@Anonymous 2:43, she doesn't have that authority. She will simply choose to dismiss charges and not retry the case. David Temple will be off the hook (for now), but still have that cloud looming over him of if he will be prosecuted again.
Anonymous said…
Anon 2:43, she can indicate on the nolle that he is actually innocent, and that will be enough to get him exoneration compensation.
Anonymous said…
Anon 11:38 - please provide a ccp or case cite.
Murray Newman said…
Man, if this blog is the new resource for Appellate, the Ogg Administration has even worse problems than I initially thought, Anon 6:29 p.m.
Anonymous said…
Anon 6:29 has apparently never heard of Anthony Graves.
Anonymous said…
Actual compensation statute!
Anonymous said…
Graves was declared innocent by a court.
Anonymous said…
So there is an avenue for Ogg to contribute to his availability for compensation, but she would have to find that "no credible evidence exists" of his guilt and that she believes that he is actually innocent. And then the judge would have to dismiss.

I'm not sure she has the audacity to go that far. We're not even talking partisan politics, or bought and paid for politics here. This would be outright sold-her-soul politics. I'm not convinced of his guilt, but I think theres enough evidence to try him on.

I gotta' say I'm looking forward to her ruling. Maybe the timing of the announcement and fundraiser is because she's going to take all of that Deguerin/Looper money first, and then say she's going to prosecute him again?

I wonder what the over/under is on Ogg filing such a pleading, and then the judge refusing to dismiss, forcing an acquittal (after the prosecution tanks the case to honor Ogg's agreements), preventing him from getting any money?

Can we get a poll?

1. Ogg Retries Him (with the HCDAO);
2. Ogg Retries Him (with the AG or special prosecutor);
2.a That prosecutor is Ketier or some other member of the 38 who stayed in town;
3. Ogg declares him innocent, and judge dismisses (sound of cash register goes here); or
4. Ogg declares him innocent, but judge refuses to dismiss (the Whammy sound from Press Your Luck goes here).

Anonymous said…
Appropriate answer:

5. Ogg recuses HCDAO, AG retries Temple and Temple is convicted for the murder of his wife and baby

Anonymous said…
Unknown said…
Sorta like in the Andrea Yates case.How the lawyer was working for the DAs office then became her defense attorney after the first trial,Interesting
Anonymous said…
It looks like Ogg is going to wait to see how much money Dick can take in for her on Thursday evening before she makes a decision. I can't wait to see what her number is on the cost of a dismissal.
Anonymous said…
Anon 12:30 re :
4. Ogg declares him innocent, but judge refuses to dismiss (the Whammy sound from Press Your Luck goes here).

Signing a Nolle is a ministerial act. If Judge Johnson were to refuse to sign, HCDAO could successfully mandamus her, compelling her to sign.
Anonymous said…
I'm confused Murray.

Ogg is obviously conflicted out so what could possibly change after 60 more days to review?

WTF is she reviewing, exactly? No one has ever even implied that Temple was factually innocent except Team Temple?

Perhaps Ogg realizes that there are irreparable consequences for dancing with the Devil?
Anonymous said…
Ogg is delaying in hopes that media attention dies down and she can further justify her actions by saying "look at all the time I spent reviewing it". She isn't doing anything on it. I doubt she could find the Temple file even if she tried. No one actually believes she is doing real criminal justice work.
Attorney said…
"I doubt she could find the Temple file even if she tried."

The Temple files are physical objects that exist in the office. Can someone find them and tell us where they are? I'll eat my shoe if they're in Kim's office.
Anonymous said…
I learned two things from this blog post.

1. Tom Moran is not nearly as smart as Murray thought he was, and certainly not as smart as he thinks he is.

2. Earl Musick is still a moron.

Popular posts from this blog

Boss Ogg's Slate

Rent-A-Center & the Civil/Criminal Continuum

The 2022 Primary Elections