Wednesday, February 14, 2018

Top 10 Excuses from the D.A.'s Office for Hiring a Convicted Felon to Be a Prosecutor

As most courthouse regulars know by now, the Harris County District Attorney's Office had an embarrassing situation this week after hiring Marlene Bovell, a convicted felon, to be an Assistant District Attorney.  Here are the Top 10 Excuses that I think the Office could potentially use in this scenario.  So, here we go . . .

The Top 10 Excuses from the Harris County District Attorney's Office
for Hiring a Convicted Felon to Be an Assistant D.A.

10.  The Office was just feeling kind of self-destructive ever since Drew Rountree left.

9.  Someone needed to drive the Justice Trolley.

8. Still had Parental Controls activated on the Investigators' Google accounts, so there was no way they could have ever found out plainly obvious information from the Internet.

7. Hey, if the Trump Administration can employ crooks, why can't we?

6.  She told us that she didn't like Keiter, either.

5. She had a law degree and a pulse.  Have you seen our attrition numbers lately?

4.  She came highly recommended by David Temple.

3.  Leitner needed a personal trainer at his intake gym.

2.  Denholm smeared ketchup all over the Criminal History portion of her job application.

1. Let's just say that with the way we've been managing our budget, a little check fraud in the future wasn't totally out of the question.

17 comments:

Anonymous said...

Ms. Bovell applied to be a paralegal during the Anderson administration. Obviously she was not hired. But for some reason the Ogg administration decided she was just what they needed. Doesn't that just sum up the state of everything about this DA's office? Was this a Vivian hire? Was the background check an example of incompetence or were the results ignored? Or maybe Beedle wanted her in misdemeanor for some reason. Just sayin'.

Anonymous said...

I hope she doesn't have access to criminal histories, that might be a problem.

Dave said...

Her conviction was in the Cayman Islands? Tax havens don’t exactly have a stellar record in sharing info with US authorities.

Anonymous said...

True, but a simple Google search would have told the story.

Anonymous said...

11. This is what happens when you put Vivian King in charge of hiring. Or anything.

Rumor around the Office is that the investigator found the felony conviction, told Vivian, who didn’t think it was a big deal and hired her anyway.

Anonymous said...

She’s not the first person to be hired after getting rejected by the last administration. They must pull from the reject pile.

Anonymous said...

How did she get licensed in Texas. She got her license in November 2017. This is long after she went to jail in Caymans. The board of law examiners is supposed to run background checks too.

Anonymous said...

I guess the DA's office doesn't have Google. The Cayman newspaper story literally is the 6th result yielded by searching her name (and I'm guessing it would have been a higher result a few weeks ago). Plus, and not to be ageist, should a 54 year old applying for an entry level job raise some red flags? Like what the hell have they been doing for 20-plus years. All that said, the TX Bar missed it too. But hey, we've got folks running for judge who've been publicly reprimanded by the Bar.

Tom Zakes said...

I had a client once who was sentenced to 20 years for embezzling, got out, got hired by another company and embezzled from them.
Looking through the discovery material, I found her resume she submitted to the second employer.
In the "work history" section, she showed the time she had served in prison as "unemployed, working on education."
I'm Tom Zakes, and I approve this message.

Snacker said...





Anonymous, your statement about Vivian is utterly and completely false! I talked to Vivian, and she had nothing to do with hiring this lady. She did not know her, recommend her, interview her, or even sit on the panel that hired her. She found out about the lady's criminal history over the news just like you. I don't know what your agenda is, but you should probably stick to truth and facts in the future.

Te'iva Bell

Anonymous said...

Yes, because everything you read on the internet is true.

Anonymous said...

Te’iva,
With all due respect, do you truly believe that Vivian King would admit (publicly or privately) that she had any participation, involvement, or influence over the hiring of this employee after the situation turned out the way it did?

Vivian may not have been on any committee or personally interviewed that woman before the hire, but you have to know that she has her hands in everything at that office. And well she should, she is the chief of staff.

Anonymous said...

They are offering jobs to people rejected by Devon’s administration... and they kept losing people hired under Devon. A lot of prosecutors haven’t even made it to 3 years before leaving. It’s that bad. People are rejecting offers to work at HCDA, which two years ago was unheard of...

Anonymous said...

Well, that just sounds like dumb-assery. But in Tarrant County, Sharen actually hired a guy who had been suspended from the practice of law -- and knew it.

Te'iva Bell said...

Anonymous,

Yes, I do. I know Vivian. So instead of using a rumor advanced by someone that wouldn't sign their name to it, I asked the questions. My beliefs and opinions are based on nothing more than the facts. Facts which I stated, and you didn't dispute. What benefit would she get from hiring a Felon. We know the DA's office has more than enough applicants. Yes, she is the chief of staff, but we both know that doesn't mean that she is involved in every hiring decision.

If you have something that suggest she knew more, say that. But, this discourse requires more than baseless rumors and speculation, especially when your comment suggests that she was not being honest in our conversation.

I know Vivian, her word, her reputation, and her integrity means a lot to her. She stands up and owns it all (the good and the bad). Maybe you should give her a call and ask her your questions instead of just speculating without a firm grasp of the facts. Furthermore, in the future you should probably sign your name to your comments because I can't really respect them if you lack the confidence to own your words.


Te'iva Bell

Anonymous said...

Te’iva,
I guess you can say that someone should put their name on a blog post or else you won’t respect them. However, under this current administration, people can’t speak freely and openly in public for fear of losing their job. So I honestly don’t care whether you respect me or my blog post.

You say your opinions are based on facts. But your “facts” are based on what Vivian said to you. Just because I didn’t dispute your “facts” doesn’t mean I have to accept them as believable. People, often your clients, get on the witness stand and testify under oath to “facts”, and I definitely wouldn’t believe that information. Plus, you might believe that Vivian is concerned about her word, reputation, and integrity, but I know others who would dispute that belief.

And to directly answer your question, of course I think Vivian knew more than she let on with you. I don’t think Vivian wanted to hire a felon. I just think that Vivian okayed the hire and forwarded it higher up without an thorough background check being done. I don’t think it’s her fault that the felon got hired. She can only rely on the information provided to her.

The only thing I’m saying is that Vivian is doing the same thing everyone else is doing in the Office, and that is to deny having any role in a decision or action when it turns out badly. Everyone is afraid of getting fired.

Te'iva Bell said...

Anonymous,

I am a firm believer that if you make a statement that suggests that a person is liar, less than honorable or lacks integrity you should have the courage and conviction to sign your name.

You can't have it both ways. Either she knew or she didn't. The original statement was that they told her and she disregarded the information and hired her anyway. Now she didn't have the information, because the office didn't do a thorough background check.

At this point there is really nothing left to say. I wish you the best.

Te'iva