Around 9 a.m. on December 24, 2008, Acting Harris County District Attorney Ken Magidson called me into his office and told me (for the second time in a month) that I was fired.
"I'm firing you for what you wrote on your blog. It's too much."
He actually uttered those words.
Under the circumstances, I was caught off guard. I was already planning on that day being my last at the Office and taking comp time for the remainder of 2008. My contract wasn't going to be renewed so I was done effectively at midnight on December 31st, anyway.
But getting fired cost me some money. There was no taking comp time if you didn't work there anymore. I think all in all, Magidson's decision to pull the trigger as an early Christmas present cost me around $4,000. Given the fact that I was going through a divorce and had child support looming, that was kind of a kick in the financial crotch.
Over the past eleven years since that fateful day, I've revisited the idea of whether or not I should have filed a lawsuit on many occasions. I thought about it. In the end I decided it really wasn't worth the effort. My life was going through a reboot at the time, and adding the pet project of a lawsuit wasn't really all that appealing.
There is still a part of me that wishes I had, because when Magidson uttered those words, he was telling me that he was terminating my employment because of words I had written -- outside of work -- while expressing my opinion. Sometimes I wish I had made a different decision at the time, just for the principle of defending my 1st Amendment rights. On occasion, I get really angry at 2008 Me for not doing that.
I bring this up now for a couple of reasons.
Campaign season is upon us, and as I have mentioned before, there are already six candidates lined up to challenge incumbent District Attorney Kim Ogg for her job. Several of those candidates are immensely more popular with prosecutors at the Office than Ogg is. Given their druthers, most prosecutors that I know (and I know a whole lot of prosecutors) would love nothing more than to support the candidate of their choice.
But unfortunately, they work for Kim Ogg. And as Ogg demonstrated last month by firing Andrew Smith, she is not afraid to fire an employee for blatantly unethical (and quite possibly illegal) reasons. Although the job of a prosecutor is to seek justice, in Ogg's paranoid world, the primary job is to be loyal to her. As she demonstrated with Andrew, she ain't afraid to shank somebody for crossing her.
As a result of Kim's erratic and ruthless behavior, don't expect to see too many current prosecutors exercising their 1st Amendment right to support a candidate other than her Royal Oggness. Ogg's level of paranoia and retaliatory nature make Pat Lykos seem like Mahatma Gandi. And keep in mind that Lykos had some of her loyalists staking out fundraising events for Mike Anderson, and she also seriously jacked with Carvana Cloud to retaliate against Carvana's support of Clarence Bradford for D.A.
I would imagine that Kim Ogg will be far more retaliatory towards any employee that she finds supporting any other candidate. I say this in advance because I hope that nobody thinks that a lack of current prosecutors showing up at fundraisers for other candidates means that they don't support those other candidates. They just don't want to get fired for that support.
From the outside, looking in, it is easy for critics to say, "Well, if they hate working for Kim Ogg so much, why don't they just quit?" I heard that line a lot in 2012 when Mike Anderson was running against Lykos. I'm sure we'll hear it again over the next few months. It was a stupid criticism then and it would be equally stupid now. Losing a job is a devastating event -- especially when you have a family to support and need things such as money and insurance.
Not to mention being a prosecutor is a fantastic job. One can be loyal to the job without being loyal to the paranoid despot who is the current District Attorney.
If you are a current employee of the Harris County District Attorney's Office and you don't want to risk your job by supporting another candidate, there are still many things that you can do to give support.
First and foremost, tell your family, friends, and neighbors your thoughts in private conversations. Let them know what you think of your current boss and tell them why you think somebody else would make a better choice. Encourage those same family, friends, and neighbors to learn more about those candidates and attend those fundraisers and "meet and greets" that you can't safely attend. Let them know why you can't speak out in public, but find a way to educate them. Encourage THEM to make a donation since you can't.
Although I don't know if this is still the current law, back in 2012, a candidate only had to list a donor who gave $50.00 or more to a campaign. There were a lot of folks who donated $49.99 to Mike Anderson's campaign back then. You don't have to go out in a blaze of glory by starting a blog that bashes Ogg or anything stupid like that, but you can still help other candidates if you so choose.
Sometimes, those little gestures of support are far more sincere and powerful than any donation or attendance at a fundraiser.
Showing posts with label Pat Lykos. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Pat Lykos. Show all posts
Tuesday, December 3, 2019
Sunday, August 11, 2019
Temple Trial Takeaways
As you doubtlessly know by now, the punishment phase of The State of Texas vs. David Temple ended in a mistrial on Friday after jurors failed to reach an agreement on an appropriate punishment for the man they easily convicted of murder.
I've heard from multiple credible sources that the split between the jurors was 10-2, with ten of the jurors demanding Life in prison for the man they convicted of killing his 8-month-pregnant wife, Belinda, by placing a shotgun to the back of her head and pulling the trigger. The remaining two jurors were holding out for something far less and neither side seemed willing to budge from their position despite almost two days of deliberations.
A jury that convicts but then deadlocks over punishment is not unheard of, but it is fairly uncommon. Since Temple was convicted of a 1999 murder, the law of 1999 applies to the case. Back then a person could receive probation for murder, so Temple could technically receive it, as well. Due to this, there is apparently an argument to be made that Temple could be placed on bond while awaiting his punishment.
If 178th District Court Judge Kelli Johnson elects to give Temple a bond, she will doubtlessly consider the brutality of the case, how many jurors wanted Life for Temple, and the fact that when released from jail in 2016, Temple vowed "for the people that lied and cheated who put me there to be held accountable." Texas Attorney General Prosecutors Lisa Tanner and Bill Turner will likely point out that these combined factors make Temple a high flight risk with a revenge agenda who has nothing to lose.
Although the hung jury on punishment prevented bringing the 20-year saga of David Temple to a complete close, the fact that he was convicted again will more than suffice for the time being.
It has been a long and winding road that gave David Temple a second chance at getting away with murder, one that most murderers don't get.
Temple was originally convicted and sentenced to Life in 2007 in a trial that pitted Harris County Assistant District Attorney Kelly Siegler against prominent defense attorney Dick DeGuerin. Despite the fact that the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the case, DeGuerin lobbied the District Attorney's Office under then-D.A. (and Siegler's political rival) Pat Lykos to perform an off-the-books investigation into an alternate suspect.
In July of 2012, Pat Lykos was a "lame duck" D.A., having lost her bid for re-election to Mike Anderson in the Republican Primary. DeGuerin asked then-1st Assistant Jim Leitner to "review" the Temple case before the Lykos Circus left town at the end of December. Inexplicably, Leitner complied, as I detailed in this post.
Leitner had been informed that newly-minted defense attorney and former Harris County Homicide Lieutenant John Denholm had beensucking up to working for DeGuerin on developing an "alternate suspect" to the murder of Belinda Temple. Despite the fact that the Court of Criminal Appeals had recently affirmed Temple's conviction, Leitner was more than happy to do DeGuerin's bidding and assigned Denholm's buddy (and current HCDA investigator) Steve Clappart to work on the case.
By September 2012, the dream team of Clappart and Denholm had drafted a Capital Murder warrant for the arrest of a "suspect" named Cody Ray Ellis based on evidence so absurd that I won't even address it in this post. You can check out the legal document that these two nimwits tried to get signed by clicking here. (NOTE: Don't forget to scroll down to the transcript where Leitner testified that he would have signed that warrant.)
Here's a fun fact, in case you didn't pick up on it already: During the retrial, Stan Schneider didn't even advance Ellis as his "alternate suspect," instead focusing on another teenager from the neighborhood, Riley Joe Sanders. The juries in both the 2007 and 2019 trials quickly rejected all alternate suspects in favor of Temple.
In the meantime, DeGuerin (now joined by Stanley Schneider) filed an "Out of Time Motion for New Trial or Alternative Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus Based on Actual Innocence, Newly Discovered Evidence, and the Willful Suppression of Exculpatory Evidence." (Stanley apparently gets paid by the word.) It is worth noting that during all of this, the Lykos Administration never bothered communicating what was going on to the family of Belinda Lucas Temple, which is something I noted here.
Wanting to avoid the appearance of impropriety, Lykos appointed local defense attorney Brad Beers to be a "special prosecutor" on the Temple matter. There was a small conflict of interest on that, however, seeing as how Beers had previously represented Clappart twice (once in a lawsuit and once on a disciplinary infraction within the Office).
All of this ultimately led to a hearing in 2015 that David Temple wasn't entitled to and that very few others have been the beneficiary of. During that hearing, Stan Schnieder and then-licensed attorney Casie Gotro got to revisit the entirety of the Temple case. That rendition of Team Temple rejected at least five judges to hear the extra-judicial hearing before settling on Judge Larry Gist.
As we all know, the multi-week hearing ultimately resulted in findings from Gist that Kelly Siegler had been untimely in turning over evidence to Dick DeGuerin during the 2007 trial, and recommended that Temple receive a new trial. My opinion then and my opinion now is that Judge Gist wasn't paying attention to much of the evidence that he was hearing. He certainly wasn't paying attention when he signed off on an order where Gotro and Schneider had slipped in an extra finding.
I know that I'm biased, because Kelly Siegler is one of my best friends, but I will go to my grave feeling that the District Attorney's response to Gist's finding, coupled with Houston Press journalist Craig Malisow's article Unreasonable Doubt: Did Kelly Siegler Really Railroad an Innocent Man Eight Years Ago held far more accurate accounts of the Temple hearing than Gist's findings.
Regardless of how I feel, or how Kelly Siegler's detractors feel, David Temple ultimately got his case reversed. Due to Kelly's fame as one of the best prosecutors in the State of Texas, the Houston Chronicle writers were ecstatic. Lisa Falkenberg wrote a really touching article on how Clappart and Denholm were heroic and brave for taking a stand in pursuing the "real killer," despite losing friends.
SPOILER ALERT: Denholm and Clappart lost friends because everyone knew that they (and their warrant) were full of shit, Lisa. They were full of shit then and they are full of shit now. Just FYI.
Brother Denholm even had the audacity to file a grievance against me with the State Bar (with attached affidavits from Gotro and Schneider) for daring to blog about Temple (and try to ruin Temple's fight for freedom). It got rejected summarily. I'm still a practicing lawyer, and that's all I'll say about that topic.
And then came the Reign of Ogg.
Kim Ogg took Office on January 1, 2017, and in her inauguration speech, she thanked Dick DeGuerin profusely for all he had done for her and her career. Within a week, she vowed to be the One Woman Review Team who decided whether or not the District Attorney's Office would retry David Temple. She appointed Steve Clappart to be her CHIEF investigator, and hired John Denholm to a Division Chief position. Despite these clear conflicts of interest with Team Temple, Ogg steadfastly refused to recuse herself from the case.
Again, the Houston Chronicle was giddy with the prospect of the Temple Case being dismissed, because, you know, Kelly Siegler cheated!
While in the midst of Ogg's One Woman Review of Temple, DeGuerin even threw her a fundraiser! It was co-hosted by Paul Looney, who had also been a member of Team Temple at one point.
I've heard from multiple credible sources that the split between the jurors was 10-2, with ten of the jurors demanding Life in prison for the man they convicted of killing his 8-month-pregnant wife, Belinda, by placing a shotgun to the back of her head and pulling the trigger. The remaining two jurors were holding out for something far less and neither side seemed willing to budge from their position despite almost two days of deliberations.
A jury that convicts but then deadlocks over punishment is not unheard of, but it is fairly uncommon. Since Temple was convicted of a 1999 murder, the law of 1999 applies to the case. Back then a person could receive probation for murder, so Temple could technically receive it, as well. Due to this, there is apparently an argument to be made that Temple could be placed on bond while awaiting his punishment.
If 178th District Court Judge Kelli Johnson elects to give Temple a bond, she will doubtlessly consider the brutality of the case, how many jurors wanted Life for Temple, and the fact that when released from jail in 2016, Temple vowed "for the people that lied and cheated who put me there to be held accountable." Texas Attorney General Prosecutors Lisa Tanner and Bill Turner will likely point out that these combined factors make Temple a high flight risk with a revenge agenda who has nothing to lose.
Although the hung jury on punishment prevented bringing the 20-year saga of David Temple to a complete close, the fact that he was convicted again will more than suffice for the time being.
It has been a long and winding road that gave David Temple a second chance at getting away with murder, one that most murderers don't get.
Temple was originally convicted and sentenced to Life in 2007 in a trial that pitted Harris County Assistant District Attorney Kelly Siegler against prominent defense attorney Dick DeGuerin. Despite the fact that the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the case, DeGuerin lobbied the District Attorney's Office under then-D.A. (and Siegler's political rival) Pat Lykos to perform an off-the-books investigation into an alternate suspect.
In July of 2012, Pat Lykos was a "lame duck" D.A., having lost her bid for re-election to Mike Anderson in the Republican Primary. DeGuerin asked then-1st Assistant Jim Leitner to "review" the Temple case before the Lykos Circus left town at the end of December. Inexplicably, Leitner complied, as I detailed in this post.
Leitner had been informed that newly-minted defense attorney and former Harris County Homicide Lieutenant John Denholm had been
By September 2012, the dream team of Clappart and Denholm had drafted a Capital Murder warrant for the arrest of a "suspect" named Cody Ray Ellis based on evidence so absurd that I won't even address it in this post. You can check out the legal document that these two nimwits tried to get signed by clicking here. (NOTE: Don't forget to scroll down to the transcript where Leitner testified that he would have signed that warrant.)
Here's a fun fact, in case you didn't pick up on it already: During the retrial, Stan Schneider didn't even advance Ellis as his "alternate suspect," instead focusing on another teenager from the neighborhood, Riley Joe Sanders. The juries in both the 2007 and 2019 trials quickly rejected all alternate suspects in favor of Temple.
In the meantime, DeGuerin (now joined by Stanley Schneider) filed an "Out of Time Motion for New Trial or Alternative Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus Based on Actual Innocence, Newly Discovered Evidence, and the Willful Suppression of Exculpatory Evidence." (Stanley apparently gets paid by the word.) It is worth noting that during all of this, the Lykos Administration never bothered communicating what was going on to the family of Belinda Lucas Temple, which is something I noted here.
Wanting to avoid the appearance of impropriety, Lykos appointed local defense attorney Brad Beers to be a "special prosecutor" on the Temple matter. There was a small conflict of interest on that, however, seeing as how Beers had previously represented Clappart twice (once in a lawsuit and once on a disciplinary infraction within the Office).
All of this ultimately led to a hearing in 2015 that David Temple wasn't entitled to and that very few others have been the beneficiary of. During that hearing, Stan Schnieder and then-licensed attorney Casie Gotro got to revisit the entirety of the Temple case. That rendition of Team Temple rejected at least five judges to hear the extra-judicial hearing before settling on Judge Larry Gist.
As we all know, the multi-week hearing ultimately resulted in findings from Gist that Kelly Siegler had been untimely in turning over evidence to Dick DeGuerin during the 2007 trial, and recommended that Temple receive a new trial. My opinion then and my opinion now is that Judge Gist wasn't paying attention to much of the evidence that he was hearing. He certainly wasn't paying attention when he signed off on an order where Gotro and Schneider had slipped in an extra finding.
I know that I'm biased, because Kelly Siegler is one of my best friends, but I will go to my grave feeling that the District Attorney's response to Gist's finding, coupled with Houston Press journalist Craig Malisow's article Unreasonable Doubt: Did Kelly Siegler Really Railroad an Innocent Man Eight Years Ago held far more accurate accounts of the Temple hearing than Gist's findings.
Regardless of how I feel, or how Kelly Siegler's detractors feel, David Temple ultimately got his case reversed. Due to Kelly's fame as one of the best prosecutors in the State of Texas, the Houston Chronicle writers were ecstatic. Lisa Falkenberg wrote a really touching article on how Clappart and Denholm were heroic and brave for taking a stand in pursuing the "real killer," despite losing friends.
SPOILER ALERT: Denholm and Clappart lost friends because everyone knew that they (and their warrant) were full of shit, Lisa. They were full of shit then and they are full of shit now. Just FYI.
Brother Denholm even had the audacity to file a grievance against me with the State Bar (with attached affidavits from Gotro and Schneider) for daring to blog about Temple (and try to ruin Temple's fight for freedom). It got rejected summarily. I'm still a practicing lawyer, and that's all I'll say about that topic.
And then came the Reign of Ogg.
Kim Ogg took Office on January 1, 2017, and in her inauguration speech, she thanked Dick DeGuerin profusely for all he had done for her and her career. Within a week, she vowed to be the One Woman Review Team who decided whether or not the District Attorney's Office would retry David Temple. She appointed Steve Clappart to be her CHIEF investigator, and hired John Denholm to a Division Chief position. Despite these clear conflicts of interest with Team Temple, Ogg steadfastly refused to recuse herself from the case.
Again, the Houston Chronicle was giddy with the prospect of the Temple Case being dismissed, because, you know, Kelly Siegler cheated!
While in the midst of Ogg's One Woman Review of Temple, DeGuerin even threw her a fundraiser! It was co-hosted by Paul Looney, who had also been a member of Team Temple at one point.
Coincidentally, Team Temple attorney Stan Schneider said that he was "completely comfortable" in whatever Ogg decided. Gee, I wonder why.
Ultimately, Kim Ogg relented under public pressure and recused the Harris County District Attorney's Office from The State of Texas vs. David Temple.
And the result? Justice. He was convicted again of Murder last week.
The circus that surrounded his case merely resulted in him getting a two and a half year break from prison that he clearly did not deserve. Somewhere in the midst of all of this, the prosecutorial team of Lisa Tanner and Bill Turner were able to turn the focus back to the evidence of the case and back to Belinda Lucas Temple and her unborn daughter, Erin.
The postponement of the punishment phase to March will hopefully serve as merely an extremely lengthy epilogue for David Temple. The real story concluded with the guilty verdict and Temple going back into custody.
Justice prevailed last week.
Monday, December 17, 2012
The Federal Lawsuit
In case you missed it, former-HPD chemists Amanda Culbertson and Jorge Wong filed a Federal lawsuit this morning, targeting both Harris County District Attorney Pat Lykos and Assistant District Attorney Rachel Palmer.
I've briefly scanned over the petition and it is basically the allegation that Wong and Culbertson were punished and retaliated against for their roles as whistleblowers with the HPD B.A.T. Van scandals. The petition lists numerous dates and meetings that specifically involve Rachel Palmer and it covers the cancellation of the County's contract with Lone Star College.
I don't know much about Federal Civil Law, but I would imagine that things will move fairly slowly. It will be interesting to watch it develop.
I've briefly scanned over the petition and it is basically the allegation that Wong and Culbertson were punished and retaliated against for their roles as whistleblowers with the HPD B.A.T. Van scandals. The petition lists numerous dates and meetings that specifically involve Rachel Palmer and it covers the cancellation of the County's contract with Lone Star College.
I don't know much about Federal Civil Law, but I would imagine that things will move fairly slowly. It will be interesting to watch it develop.
Friday, November 16, 2012
A Return to the Grand Jury
The third floor of the Harris County Criminal Justice Center seems to be a very busy place this morning. As expected, one of the Grand Juries meeting today is reviewing the case against Precinct Six Constable Victor Trevino.
What was not expected, however, was the presence of the Texas Rangers who were last seen investigating the Lykos Administration for their involvement instalking investigating the members of the 185th Grand Jury. In addition to the Rangers, former foreperson of the 185th Grand Jury, Trisha Pollard present, along with former-Chief Investigator for the D.A.'s Office, Don McWilliams, and former-1st Assistant (and bench pressing champion) Jim Leitner.
I have to admit that I'm surprised. Based on what I had been hearing for some time, I thought the Rangers' investigation into Lykos had tapered off. As noted in this post, I was skeptical about whether or not criminal charges would be filed on this in the first place.
This may be much ado about nothing. Perhaps the Special Prosecutor on the case is just presenting his findings to the Grand Jury to wrap up his investigation. The only thing that is confusing about that theory is there is not an explanation as to why they would be calling witnesses.
I'll keep you posted.
What was not expected, however, was the presence of the Texas Rangers who were last seen investigating the Lykos Administration for their involvement in
I have to admit that I'm surprised. Based on what I had been hearing for some time, I thought the Rangers' investigation into Lykos had tapered off. As noted in this post, I was skeptical about whether or not criminal charges would be filed on this in the first place.
This may be much ado about nothing. Perhaps the Special Prosecutor on the case is just presenting his findings to the Grand Jury to wrap up his investigation. The only thing that is confusing about that theory is there is not an explanation as to why they would be calling witnesses.
I'll keep you posted.
Sunday, April 29, 2012
The District Attorney Debate this Thursday
It seems that whenever I am completely swamped in my actual (as opposed to blogging) life that it suddenly begins raining topics that I want to blog about.
As most of you know, my favorite New York Editor got promoted to Wife over the weekend and I'll be away from the CJC this week. There are several interesting things going on around the CJC and in the political world (with early voting a mere two weeks away). I may or may not have time to write about those stories, but I do want to make sure that I bring one to your attention before I go off honeymoonin'.
On Thursday, May 3rd from 7:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m., there will be a District Attorney Candidates Forum between Pat Lykos and Mike Anderson, sponsored by my on-again-off-again friend Big Jolly (NOTE: I'm just kidding. Although he frustrates me to the point that I want to beat my head into the wall, I like Dave.) and the King Street Patriots. The event is being held at 7232 Wynnwood Lane, Houston, TX 77008.
The moderators are Paul Bettencourt and Scott Braddock, who Big Jolly swears will "reign these two candidates in and not let them get away with obfuscating and dodging tough questions." If that is truly the case, Lykos may be in for the longest hour of her life. Since neither Bettencourt nor Braddock practice criminal law (to my knowledge), I hope there will be a good turnout of prosecutors and defense attorneys who will know the truth from the sound bytes.
Dave has billed it as "60 minutes of Straight Talk" and I hope he is correct about that.
My understanding is that those who arrive before 6:45 are allowed to submit questions for the candidates which makes your turnout very important. It looks like an outstanding venue to let substance shine over style.
I'm sorry that I won't be able to make it, but I hope you will. Like I said earlier, Early Voting starts in two weeks.
It is time to go into overdrive on making a difference.
As most of you know, my favorite New York Editor got promoted to Wife over the weekend and I'll be away from the CJC this week. There are several interesting things going on around the CJC and in the political world (with early voting a mere two weeks away). I may or may not have time to write about those stories, but I do want to make sure that I bring one to your attention before I go off honeymoonin'.
On Thursday, May 3rd from 7:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m., there will be a District Attorney Candidates Forum between Pat Lykos and Mike Anderson, sponsored by my on-again-off-again friend Big Jolly (NOTE: I'm just kidding. Although he frustrates me to the point that I want to beat my head into the wall, I like Dave.) and the King Street Patriots. The event is being held at 7232 Wynnwood Lane, Houston, TX 77008.
The moderators are Paul Bettencourt and Scott Braddock, who Big Jolly swears will "reign these two candidates in and not let them get away with obfuscating and dodging tough questions." If that is truly the case, Lykos may be in for the longest hour of her life. Since neither Bettencourt nor Braddock practice criminal law (to my knowledge), I hope there will be a good turnout of prosecutors and defense attorneys who will know the truth from the sound bytes.
Dave has billed it as "60 minutes of Straight Talk" and I hope he is correct about that.
My understanding is that those who arrive before 6:45 are allowed to submit questions for the candidates which makes your turnout very important. It looks like an outstanding venue to let substance shine over style.
I'm sorry that I won't be able to make it, but I hope you will. Like I said earlier, Early Voting starts in two weeks.
It is time to go into overdrive on making a difference.
Saturday, March 10, 2012
The Final Field & A Potential Departure
As I pointed out a few posts ago, the primary for Texas is Tuesday, May 29th. When the powers that be set that date, it temporarily re-opened the field for any aspiring candidates that wanted to run for public office. That temporary re-opening ended yesterday at 6 p.m. with only one addition to the races involving the CJC. Someone named Antonio Benavides added his name as a Republican candidate for the 177th District Court, facing off against Assistant District Attorney Ryan Patrick.
Given the fact that Ryan has been running a polished campaign from the very beginning and nobody seems to know who the late-arriving Mr. Benavides is, I don't know that this race will be too hotly contested.
None of the other judicial fields landed any additional candidates, which I'm sure leaves that lovable lunatic and grammar rock star, Don Hooper, furious. He's been waging a private war against his ever-growing list of enemies that pretty much consists of him generating on-line discussions with himself and butchering the English language in the process.
The big news coming out of the end of filing time is that no third person spoiler entered the race for District Attorney, leaving it a head-to-head match-up between Pat Lykos and Mike Anderson. I'm not a political science major, but Lykos has got to be a little uneasy knowing that there won't be a runoff like the one that got her into office in 2008. It will be interesting to see how it shakes out without Jim Leitner to play the spoiler.
Speaking of Leitner, my e-mail and phone started blowing up yesterday afternoon with reports that Leitner had turned in his letter of resignation effective June 1st (which is coincidentally the first Friday after the primary.) Obviously Jim and I don't have our nightly chats anymore so I cannot absolutely confirm that, but it sure was coming from multiple sources that have been credible in the past. It was also very specific.
Things are getting curiouser and curiouser.
Given the fact that Ryan has been running a polished campaign from the very beginning and nobody seems to know who the late-arriving Mr. Benavides is, I don't know that this race will be too hotly contested.
None of the other judicial fields landed any additional candidates, which I'm sure leaves that lovable lunatic and grammar rock star, Don Hooper, furious. He's been waging a private war against his ever-growing list of enemies that pretty much consists of him generating on-line discussions with himself and butchering the English language in the process.
The big news coming out of the end of filing time is that no third person spoiler entered the race for District Attorney, leaving it a head-to-head match-up between Pat Lykos and Mike Anderson. I'm not a political science major, but Lykos has got to be a little uneasy knowing that there won't be a runoff like the one that got her into office in 2008. It will be interesting to see how it shakes out without Jim Leitner to play the spoiler.
Speaking of Leitner, my e-mail and phone started blowing up yesterday afternoon with reports that Leitner had turned in his letter of resignation effective June 1st (which is coincidentally the first Friday after the primary.) Obviously Jim and I don't have our nightly chats anymore so I cannot absolutely confirm that, but it sure was coming from multiple sources that have been credible in the past. It was also very specific.
Things are getting curiouser and curiouser.
Friday, January 20, 2012
Tonight's Red, White and Blue (1/20/12)
Tune in tonight for David Jones and Gary Polland's Red, White, and Blue at 7:30 p.m. on Houston PBS's Channel 8 tonight.
The guests are Pat Lykos and Mike Anderson.
Should be worth watching.
The guests are Pat Lykos and Mike Anderson.
Should be worth watching.
Thursday, February 10, 2011
Right to Know vs. Right to a Fair Trial
By now, I'm sure that most of you are well aware of the video of Houston Police Officers hitting and kicking 15-year-old burglary suspect, Chad Holley. I saw it the morning that Channel 13's Wayne Dolcefino aired it and was saddened and dismayed to see what happened. As anyone who reads this blog with any regularity would know, I hold police officers in very high esteem. They aren't flawless, and part of my job is to locate and bring to light flaws in procedures and investigations that relate to my clients.
It makes me sad for what a 15-year-old kid went through, and it makes me sad for the reputations of police in general that are tarnished by association with that video.
However, the release of the video leaves me with mixed emotions regarding the controversy of whether or not it should have been released pre-trial. As you know, I'm completely against the idea of police officers and prosecutors and other public servants being crucified in the media when they are charged with a crime, simply because of who they are.
Yet, I find myself in favor of this particular video being released, for some reason.
First of all, I think that Quannell X showed cajones of steel by releasing it, knowing that the Federal Courts were attempting to block it. Furthermore, I think that whatever officer was silly enough to file a libel suit against Quannell when truth is a defense to libel pretty much just waved a red flag in front of a charging bull.
But it is very clear that a release of video of police officers beating a surrendering juvenile is a double-edged sword. The sanctity of a trial and the right of the Accused to have an unbiased jury is the absolute cornerstone of the jury system.
That being said, there is an even larger interest in the General Public being aware of the fact that there are some police officers who are victimizing citizens suspected of a crime -- either rightfully or wrongfully.
It is not an uncommon occurrence at all for a Defense Attorney to be told by his or her client that the police roughed them up when they were arrested. Some of those claims are sometimes baseless and no more than an attempt to shift attention away from the crime they are charged with. But others do have merit, and I think that we only have to look at the video of Chad Holley's arrest to realize that we, as both prosecutors and defense attorneys, cannot just ignore those claims every time they are made.
So, ultimately what we have here is a stalemate. You have the competing interests of an accused's right to a fair trial versus the public's interest in keeping from being abused.
What's the answer to resolving that stalemate? I have no freaking idea.
But, what I do see, however, is yet another double standard coming out of Pat Lykos' District Attorney's Office -- you know, the one that campaigned on the issue of "Transparency". While Lykos has yet to make a stand on other non-police officer involved crimes being detailed in the media (how many times has she tried to block the release of a surveillance video of a convenience store robbery?), we do see her and the upper Administration trying to block them when Public Servants are involved.
And it isn't just the Holley case where she does it. If you look back to how Lykos handled the cases against Supreme Court Justice David Medina, Former-District Court Judge Woody Densen, and former County Court at Law Judge Don Jackson, you see that she has already developed a history of trying to protect those she so chooses. I wrote about it here back in August of 2009. The investigation into the Densen case seemed to have stalled out completely in the District Attorney's Office before the complainant on the case released the video to the media, as a matter of fact.
The release of the Holley video to the media seems to have once again caught the Lykos Administration with its pants down.
First Assistant Jim Leitner, as usual, wasn't helping matters for the D.A.'s Office with the remarks he made at the recent NAACP Meeting held at Good Hope Missionary Baptist Church. Good Lord, Jim. Really? "You people?" At this point you should have A-1 steak sauce on your loafers with as often as you put your foot in your mouth.
The charging decision of filing Official Oppression on those officers may have been inevitable. While the Penal Code does provide that Aggravated Assault by a Public Servant is a First Degree Felony (just as Aggravated Assault on a Public Servant is), there is no corresponding statute for regular Assault by a Public Servant. (NOTE: however, regular Assault on a Public Servant is a Third Degree Felony). From what I have seen, it doesn't appear that Chad Holley was the victim of an Aggravated Assault. No weapons were used and I don't believe he suffered from Serious Bodily Injury (the pre-requisites for an Aggravated Assault).
But there does seem to be a fundamental unfairness in the laws as written that there isn't a higher charge for a police officer, under the color of his authority, committing the offense of Assault.
That being said, the Lykos Administration may be justified in filing only the Misdemeanor charges against the officers, but damn, they could have done a better job of explaining that to the General Public. Instead, Lykos chose to hide the ball from the public, and now it has blown up in her face.
And given the way she seems to handle cases against Public Officials, one has to wonder what other files are staying dormant in the Public Integrity and Civil Rights Divisions of the Harris County District Attorney's Office . . .
It makes me sad for what a 15-year-old kid went through, and it makes me sad for the reputations of police in general that are tarnished by association with that video.
However, the release of the video leaves me with mixed emotions regarding the controversy of whether or not it should have been released pre-trial. As you know, I'm completely against the idea of police officers and prosecutors and other public servants being crucified in the media when they are charged with a crime, simply because of who they are.
Yet, I find myself in favor of this particular video being released, for some reason.
First of all, I think that Quannell X showed cajones of steel by releasing it, knowing that the Federal Courts were attempting to block it. Furthermore, I think that whatever officer was silly enough to file a libel suit against Quannell when truth is a defense to libel pretty much just waved a red flag in front of a charging bull.
But it is very clear that a release of video of police officers beating a surrendering juvenile is a double-edged sword. The sanctity of a trial and the right of the Accused to have an unbiased jury is the absolute cornerstone of the jury system.
That being said, there is an even larger interest in the General Public being aware of the fact that there are some police officers who are victimizing citizens suspected of a crime -- either rightfully or wrongfully.
It is not an uncommon occurrence at all for a Defense Attorney to be told by his or her client that the police roughed them up when they were arrested. Some of those claims are sometimes baseless and no more than an attempt to shift attention away from the crime they are charged with. But others do have merit, and I think that we only have to look at the video of Chad Holley's arrest to realize that we, as both prosecutors and defense attorneys, cannot just ignore those claims every time they are made.
So, ultimately what we have here is a stalemate. You have the competing interests of an accused's right to a fair trial versus the public's interest in keeping from being abused.
What's the answer to resolving that stalemate? I have no freaking idea.
But, what I do see, however, is yet another double standard coming out of Pat Lykos' District Attorney's Office -- you know, the one that campaigned on the issue of "Transparency". While Lykos has yet to make a stand on other non-police officer involved crimes being detailed in the media (how many times has she tried to block the release of a surveillance video of a convenience store robbery?), we do see her and the upper Administration trying to block them when Public Servants are involved.
And it isn't just the Holley case where she does it. If you look back to how Lykos handled the cases against Supreme Court Justice David Medina, Former-District Court Judge Woody Densen, and former County Court at Law Judge Don Jackson, you see that she has already developed a history of trying to protect those she so chooses. I wrote about it here back in August of 2009. The investigation into the Densen case seemed to have stalled out completely in the District Attorney's Office before the complainant on the case released the video to the media, as a matter of fact.
The release of the Holley video to the media seems to have once again caught the Lykos Administration with its pants down.
First Assistant Jim Leitner, as usual, wasn't helping matters for the D.A.'s Office with the remarks he made at the recent NAACP Meeting held at Good Hope Missionary Baptist Church. Good Lord, Jim. Really? "You people?" At this point you should have A-1 steak sauce on your loafers with as often as you put your foot in your mouth.
The charging decision of filing Official Oppression on those officers may have been inevitable. While the Penal Code does provide that Aggravated Assault by a Public Servant is a First Degree Felony (just as Aggravated Assault on a Public Servant is), there is no corresponding statute for regular Assault by a Public Servant. (NOTE: however, regular Assault on a Public Servant is a Third Degree Felony). From what I have seen, it doesn't appear that Chad Holley was the victim of an Aggravated Assault. No weapons were used and I don't believe he suffered from Serious Bodily Injury (the pre-requisites for an Aggravated Assault).
But there does seem to be a fundamental unfairness in the laws as written that there isn't a higher charge for a police officer, under the color of his authority, committing the offense of Assault.
That being said, the Lykos Administration may be justified in filing only the Misdemeanor charges against the officers, but damn, they could have done a better job of explaining that to the General Public. Instead, Lykos chose to hide the ball from the public, and now it has blown up in her face.
And given the way she seems to handle cases against Public Officials, one has to wonder what other files are staying dormant in the Public Integrity and Civil Rights Divisions of the Harris County District Attorney's Office . . .
Monday, January 10, 2011
No Rest for the Weary
Just when it seems like we finally got the 2010 elections out of the way, and our newest members of the Judiciary sworn in, we are already hearing talk about the 2012 election.
As you all know, the 2008 Election swept out all but one of the Republican Incumbent Judges and replaced them with their Democratic challengers.
And, of course, 2008 also gave us Pat Lykos -- the gift that keeps on giving.
Even though we are just in 2011, and the election of 2012 is, uh, about 23 months away, speculation and announcements have already begun. Clearly, the Republicans will be seeking to regain the benches lost, and there are rumors and innuendos flying all over the place about who is going to run for what bench.
Thus far, the only person I know who is "officially" running is Felony Chief Prosecutor Brad Hart, who has announced he will be running as a Republican for the 339th District Court. There are very strong indications of others running as well. You need only to look at the comments section of my previous post for that.
I have to say that I was amused that somebody posted there were only "certain courts" that the Republicans were "targeting". Give me a break, man. The Republicans will be targeting all of them! That's just politics.
I imagine that whatever happens in Harris County will depend much more on what is going on in Washington than what is happening here locally -- no matter how many ads Gary Polland runs of Judge Kevin Fine's tattoos. I have spoken to several people whom I consider to be much more knowledgeable about the Harris County political climate than I am, and I have heard them all speak with absolute certainty that their party was going to win.
In my opinion, guessing what the November 2012 election is going to turn out like has about as much chance of being accurate as predicting the 2013 Super Bowl, at this point.
Of course, the biggest question on everybody's mind (at least those who read this blog) is going to be the race for the District Attorney. With all of the butt-kissing that Pat Lykos has gotten from the Houston Chronicle and her die-hard Blue-Haired supporters within the Republican Party, she is is probably feeling pretty invincible.
The big question on that is, will Kelly Siegler run again?
I don't know if she will or not, but I certainly hope so. If you add up all the votes that Kelly got in the general primary and the run-off against Lykos, she crushed Lykos by thousands of votes. My friend Black Ink seems to be pretty optimistic about the idea with this post.
If Kelly doesn't run, I'll be praying for a Mike (Anderson) Christmas (Announcement).
The bottom line is this, however -- focusing on who is going to run for what office can drive us all crazy all year. There are so many different factors that can change between now and the filing deadline at the first of 2012. People can announce. More people can announce. People can drop out. People can change races.
It is all very entertaining to watch and learn, but absolutely impossible to predict the outcome.
My advice to you (as always) is get involved. There will be some great candidates that deserve your support. Don't take for granted that the rest of the public will know what you know about them. Get politically active and let your friends and family know that you'll have recommendations and thoughts for them when it comes to voting. Start an e-mail chain.
If you've got good candidates you support, help them campaign and raise money.
More importantly, if you know of bad candidates, run against them. Or find somebody who will.
The election of 2008 showed us all what happens when apathy infiltrates the System. The election of 2010 showed us what we can do when we get off our butts and work for good candidates.
My hope is that 2012 will look a lot more like 2010 than 2008 and that good candidates on both the Republican and Democratic sides of the ballot get into office.
Now, let the gossiping about who is running for what office continue . . .
As you all know, the 2008 Election swept out all but one of the Republican Incumbent Judges and replaced them with their Democratic challengers.
And, of course, 2008 also gave us Pat Lykos -- the gift that keeps on giving.
Even though we are just in 2011, and the election of 2012 is, uh, about 23 months away, speculation and announcements have already begun. Clearly, the Republicans will be seeking to regain the benches lost, and there are rumors and innuendos flying all over the place about who is going to run for what bench.
Thus far, the only person I know who is "officially" running is Felony Chief Prosecutor Brad Hart, who has announced he will be running as a Republican for the 339th District Court. There are very strong indications of others running as well. You need only to look at the comments section of my previous post for that.
I have to say that I was amused that somebody posted there were only "certain courts" that the Republicans were "targeting". Give me a break, man. The Republicans will be targeting all of them! That's just politics.
I imagine that whatever happens in Harris County will depend much more on what is going on in Washington than what is happening here locally -- no matter how many ads Gary Polland runs of Judge Kevin Fine's tattoos. I have spoken to several people whom I consider to be much more knowledgeable about the Harris County political climate than I am, and I have heard them all speak with absolute certainty that their party was going to win.
In my opinion, guessing what the November 2012 election is going to turn out like has about as much chance of being accurate as predicting the 2013 Super Bowl, at this point.
Of course, the biggest question on everybody's mind (at least those who read this blog) is going to be the race for the District Attorney. With all of the butt-kissing that Pat Lykos has gotten from the Houston Chronicle and her die-hard Blue-Haired supporters within the Republican Party, she is is probably feeling pretty invincible.
The big question on that is, will Kelly Siegler run again?
I don't know if she will or not, but I certainly hope so. If you add up all the votes that Kelly got in the general primary and the run-off against Lykos, she crushed Lykos by thousands of votes. My friend Black Ink seems to be pretty optimistic about the idea with this post.
If Kelly doesn't run, I'll be praying for a Mike (Anderson) Christmas (Announcement).
The bottom line is this, however -- focusing on who is going to run for what office can drive us all crazy all year. There are so many different factors that can change between now and the filing deadline at the first of 2012. People can announce. More people can announce. People can drop out. People can change races.
It is all very entertaining to watch and learn, but absolutely impossible to predict the outcome.
My advice to you (as always) is get involved. There will be some great candidates that deserve your support. Don't take for granted that the rest of the public will know what you know about them. Get politically active and let your friends and family know that you'll have recommendations and thoughts for them when it comes to voting. Start an e-mail chain.
If you've got good candidates you support, help them campaign and raise money.
More importantly, if you know of bad candidates, run against them. Or find somebody who will.
The election of 2008 showed us all what happens when apathy infiltrates the System. The election of 2010 showed us what we can do when we get off our butts and work for good candidates.
My hope is that 2012 will look a lot more like 2010 than 2008 and that good candidates on both the Republican and Democratic sides of the ballot get into office.
Now, let the gossiping about who is running for what office continue . . .
Wednesday, November 17, 2010
Brian Rogers "Expose"
In what is clearly the "harshest" treatment of Pat Lykos by the Houston Chronicle, Brian Rogers wrote an article about the "two sides" of Pat Lykos.
Brian has been working on the story for some time now, and I'm glad to see that the fan club over at the Chron allowed it to actually be published. All in all, it is a pretty fair piece to Lykos, due in most part because they let her rebut (and by that I mean "spin") those negative things said about her.
I'm keenly aware that most fans of Lykos label me and the commenters who blast her as "malcontents" who are suffering from "sour grapes" and who are so bitter over our "reign of terror during the Rosenthal Administration" ending that we can't see that Pat is the second-coming. That's fine. But those who would argue that my motives in blasting the current Administration are somehow tainted never seem to actually rebut the facts and the message that I'm writing. They just throw in the random references to "Chucky" and figure that their point has been made.
And such is the world of politics.
But let's take a critical eye at Brian's article and address some of the things that Lykos has said in her response to some of the criticisms:
1. As Brian points out, "Prosecutors under Rosenthal had much wider latitude on decisions, especially on plea bargains. Shaving years off sentences, lowering felonies to misdemeanor charges . . . are daily decisions that used to be entrusted to line prosecutors . . ."
Lykos responds that "Justice should not be at the whim of any particular individual."
Okay, "at the whim?" Seriously? A prosecutor who has handled the case and worked it up who makes a judgment call on appropriate sentences is NOT doing it on a whim. They are going to be the most informed person employed by the District Attorney's Office about that case. Lykos' recent policy changes have set parameters that her "line prosecutors" know better than to work outside of. This has led to an increase in cases set for trial, which comes with the added side effect of clogging up dockets for months.
Not to mention that this policy of Lykos and the Gang Who Couldn't Shoot Straight is the equivalent of her giving the finger to her prosecutors in the trenches every day and saying that she doesn't trust their judgment to do the right thing. My suggestion is that maybe she should go work a docket one morning and actually handle a freaking case before she makes foolish blanket policy decisions that take the power away from the people who actually know what they are doing.
2. Brian makes mention of the departure of Donna Goode as an example of the numerous seasoned prosecutors that Lykos has run off from the office. Lykos responds that "the attrition rate is normal".
Um, yes, I suppose the attrition rate is normal if you were to compare it to Pickett's Charge. But other than that, the number of senior prosecutors leaving the office during her first two years of her Administration have been staggering. Life long prosecutors have fled. According to my unofficial numbers, around 60 prosecutors have left during her tenure.
That's roughly about 25% of the Assistant District Attorneys.
I'm sure the uninformed will again say this is a good "house cleaning" of the remnants of the Rosenthal Administration, but those who practice in Harris County know better. A seasoned prosecutor is the one most often to recognize a bad search or the lack of provability of a case. They are also the ones who will stand up and say a policy is bad for criminal justice. More importantly, they are the ones who know that a defendant with two prior pen trips that is caught with 1.1 grams of cocaine doesn't deserve 25 years.
The younger ones are usually the more over-zealous, hang 'em high prosecutors. I know that I was in my earlier days.
But the point is kind of moot, I suppose, since Lykos seems to be running everybody off on all levels of the Seniority Spectrum.
3. Lykos "heralds" herself for the major initiatives that she has put forward. Brian specifically cites the injunctions against Gang Members at Haverstock Hills and now lobbying for a new law to target "pill mills" that prescribe dangerous drugs for recreational use.
I actually find the Gang Member Injunction thing fairly interesting. Kim Ogg is spearheading that project and she'll be good at it. That move has worked in some other larger communities. I would point out, however, that I'm curious as to whether or not the District Attorney has the legal authority to go after them. As someone much smarter than me pointed out, only the County Attorney has the authority to initiate a law suit under the Texas Government Code (see Sec. 43.180 versus 45.201).
The pill mill thing is, again, political grandstanding. Doctors who provide wholesale drugs or prescriptions when not necessary are just as susceptible to be charged under the Obtaining Prescription Drugs by Fraud statute as parties as those who actually get the drugs. Perhaps, Lykos might want to familiarize herself with the laws already on the books before lobbying for new ones. However, Lykos coming up with "new" laws is nothing new for her.
4. Lykos created the controversial DIVERT program, which basically allows for pre-trial diversions for DWI cases. The law, as it currently stands, forbids even a deferred adjudication for an intoxication defense. Lykos has bypassed that law with her program, which was created for some rather iffy reasons.
Brian did a good job on following up on this particular issue by interviewing 25 year veteran and former Bureau Chief of the Appellate Division, Calvin Hartmann. Calvin correctly points out that what Lykos is doing isn't following the law or her duties as a prosecutor. Instead, she is unilaterally deciding which cases not to prosecute. This may make her a darling of the defense bar, but it isn't what she was elected to do.
5. Finally, Lykos points out to Brian that she thinks most people are happy at the office. She points out that if they aren't, they are surely members of "some of the old guard". Brian disappointingly gives her some credence on this issue by pointing out that her critics may not like her because she is "an outsider".
Technically, Ken Magidson was an "outsider" when he took the D.A.'s Office under his command. He had been gone for decades from Harris County, and none of us knew him. But Ken Magidson knew what he was doing as an elected D.A. He didn't politicize or pander. He did his job and the Office generally loved him.
Hell, I loved the guy, and he fired me!
I find it an interesting statistic that early on in the article Brian mentions that he interviewed 12 current prosecutors for the piece. He wraps it up by saying "two prosecutors said they like Lykos and complimented her on changing the office."
Wow. 2 out of 12. That's impressive.
But, of course, I'm sure that the other 76% of the prosecutors are just malcontents experiencing sour grapes.
Sunday, August 22, 2010
Action on the Elevators?
There's an article in today's Chronicle by Brian Rogers about the condition of the CJC and how poorly constructed it is.
The accompanying photograph shows the line outside the CJC and the article is entitled "The Long Line of the Law", which I have to admit is a pretty good title.
The article itself is hopeful since it looks like somebody might finally be taking he complaints about the building and safety seriously for a change.
Of course, it wouldn't be a Chronicle article without first thanking Pat Lykos for her merciful bounty that she bestows upon us all. Lykos, who was clearly the first person to discover that there might be a problem with the CJC and its elevators some time last week, notes the CJC is "the most poorly designed criminal justice center in the United States of America."
Funny, I was just saying that about her upper-Administration.
Sorry, that one was just too easy to pass up.
The article goes on to address problems that those of us who are in the building every day are all too familiar with. The difference with this article, however, is that it addresses some possible solutions that are coming at us pretty quickly. These include:
-starting Monday (per the article), Defendants in the Misdemeanor courts will no longer have to go by Pre-Trial Services on the 12th floor. (NOTE: for those of you all who aren't familiar with the CJC, just trust me that this will actually help. Explaining why would just take too long.)
-they are talking about stretching out the length of time between resets. (NOTE: Gee, wish one of us had thought of that idea.)
-an agreement between the judges that jury panels of over 60 people aren't going to be brought over until after 10 a.m. (letting the docket settle in).
and
-renovating the first floor to allow defendants to check in, pay fees and get drug tests in the same area.
These are all great ideas, praise Patsy.
Here's an idea that I was thinking about, too -- remove the first set of exterior doors that lead to the hallway where the jury rooms and judges' chambers are.
That would give everyone access to the stairwells in the corners and would be especially helpful for attorneys who are having to move from floor to floor on their cases. The downside would be that the jury room doors would be less "zoned off", from the general public, but that doesn't jeopardize their safety or the integrity of their verdicts.
Just a thought.
You may now resume your regularly scheduled Sunday morning.
Tuesday, March 30, 2010
Layoffs Coming
A commentor on my last post asked me when I was going to comment about the impending layoffs that the District Attorney's Office is going to go through in light of county-wide budget cuts (as detailed in yesterday's Chronicle).
The bottom line is that I don't know that much about what's happening any more than the rest of you guys. The budget cuts are across the county board, so I don't think that we can directly place the blame on Lykos and the Gang for the necessity of doing the layoffs.
But, I do think it is probably safe to assume that none of the people that Lykos brought with her when she took over will be on the chopping block. Although I'm sure the funding for things like the hardwood floors in her office and Hannah Chow's water coolers were all funded from asset forfeiture and not from the county budget, it still becomes a bitter pill to swallow when good, hard-working employees are being terminated.
I think it would be really interesting to examine how Lykos is spending the money that she does actually have in the budget. She's running off good investigators right and left over there (so that about the only one's left are Nick Lykos' fishing buddies), but they aren't replacing them.
Where is that money going, exactly?
I'll keep you up-to-date as the information becomes available right now, but my guess is that there will be no rhyme nor reason to who Lykos keeps and who she lets go.
Unless, of course, you are one of her buddies, and then you'll be safe.
The bottom line is that I don't know that much about what's happening any more than the rest of you guys. The budget cuts are across the county board, so I don't think that we can directly place the blame on Lykos and the Gang for the necessity of doing the layoffs.
But, I do think it is probably safe to assume that none of the people that Lykos brought with her when she took over will be on the chopping block. Although I'm sure the funding for things like the hardwood floors in her office and Hannah Chow's water coolers were all funded from asset forfeiture and not from the county budget, it still becomes a bitter pill to swallow when good, hard-working employees are being terminated.
I think it would be really interesting to examine how Lykos is spending the money that she does actually have in the budget. She's running off good investigators right and left over there (so that about the only one's left are Nick Lykos' fishing buddies), but they aren't replacing them.
Where is that money going, exactly?
I'll keep you up-to-date as the information becomes available right now, but my guess is that there will be no rhyme nor reason to who Lykos keeps and who she lets go.
Unless, of course, you are one of her buddies, and then you'll be safe.
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
What to Do With Susan Wright
Back in the Spring of 2004, I got the opportunity to sit second chair with Kelly Siegler on the State of Texas vs. Susan Wright -- a highly publicized murder case at the time which was made even more highly publicized during trial.
The short version of the case was that a young mother tied her husband, Jeff Wright, to their bed and stabbed him over 190 times before burying him in a flower bed right outside their bedroom door. She then reported him to the police as having beaten her and then left their home on foot. For a more detailed version of the case, here is an article I wrote for TDCAA several years ago.
The case got National attention when Kelly had us reconstruct the bed in the middle of Judge Jim Wallace's courtroom and did a re-enactment of the stabbing for the jury. (NOTE: No, I was not the dude in the bed. That was Paul Doyle.)
Ultimately, Susan Wright was convicted of the murder of her husband and was sentenced to 25 years in TDCJ. The jury had rejected a claim of "Sudden Passion" (which would have capped sentencing at 20 years) and had also rejected the State's request for 45 years.
Almost immediately, the verdict was attacked both in the Press and in the Appellate Courts by the shy and demure Brian Wice. He took on Susan Wright's case and for the past five years has fought like a mad man to get her a new trial. Brian is a good friend of mine, and although we were on opposite sides of this particular issue, I truly respect the work he did on this case.
Last year, he and Carmen Roe took the case to a hearing in front of Judge Wallace making the claim that Wright's defense counsel had been ineffective for failing to put forth an effective Battered Woman Defense. Specifically, Brian and Carmen were arguing that defense counsel had erred in not putting on witness Mistie McMichael (Jeff Wright's ex-girlfriend who alleged abuse by him) and an expert on Battered Woman's Syndrome.
Although Judge Wallace did not have the power to overturn the case, he did make findings agreeing with Brian's assertions that there was ineffective assistance, and the case was then taken to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. In a ruling that I will admit absolutely stunned me, the Court ruled 9-0 that Susan Wright deserved a new punishment hearing.
With that ruling, the ball is now thrown into the District Attorney's court to see what they want to do with Wright's case on punishment. Both Kelly Siegler and I are both gone from the D.A.'s Office now, obviously, so new prosecutors will be making the decisions.
The case goes back to the 263rd District Court with Judge Wallace. Mia Magness is the Chief in that court now and she is one of the best trial prosecutors that the D.A.'s Office still has left. You might remember her from that little Clara Harris trial awhile back.
But the chances of the Wright case actually going back to trial aren't in Mia's hands at the moment. The decision of whether or not to plea bargain the case away is in the hands of Pat Lykos and Jim Leitner.
What they will decide to do with the Wright case will be a pretty big statement on their feelings for victim's advocacy and how much they will bow down to the defense bar.
Obviously, Wice and Wright would love nothing more than to get a plea offer of time served. The Office could accomplish this by letting her to plead to 5 years TDCJ. In lieu of that, the Office could also plead her to 10 years TDCJ making Wright automatically eligible for parole.
I hope they don't. And here's why:
-Susan Wright was convicted of tying her husband to a bed and stabbing him over 193 times.
-the number 193 is an under-estimated count, because as Dr. Dwayne Wolfe testified, there were so many wounds that many of them ran in together and couldn't be counted individually.
-Wright testified that she went for her husband's eyes first when the stabbing began.
-Wright also testified that in the middle of the stabbing, she was interrupted by the couple's young son, who she had to put back to bed. (Can you imagine what she looked like walking down the hall with him?)
-Wright went to great efforts to disassemble her bedroom and clean it with paint and bleach.
-while Jeff Wright's body was being desecrated by the family dog in the back yard, Susan had the audacity to go file a police report that he had assaulted her.
I expect supporters of Susan Wright to claim she was a battered woman, but her claims weren't even close to credible. During trial, she testified to only three specific incidents of abuse (while saying that Jeff beat her continuously, she could only remember these three).
The three incidents were as follows:
1. An incident where Susan had a small bruise under her eye. She told neighbors that her son had accidentally popped her in the face with an action figure. The neighbor saw the action figure and saw it was consistent with the size of the bruise.
2. An incident where Jeff (who was a very large and strong man, especially when compared to Susan's small frame) had repeatedly slammed her hand in a heavy door. She admitted under Kelly's cross-examination that her hand was not broken and she never sought medical treatment for it. Her description was rejected by the jury.
3. An assault the night of the murder which had led to bruising on her arms and legs. All the bruising on the arms and legs were consistent with somebody banging themselves up while moving a body and disassembling a bed.
And let's not forget that Jeff Wright's body was found with ties around both wrists and both ankles, with corresponding ties found tied to the bed frame. There was also candle wax dripped on his genitalia.
The crime scene was much more indicative of kinky sex than an assault, folks.
So, Pat and Jim, you've got a decision to make.
Susan Wright tortured her husband and the father of her children and killed him about as brutally as one can imagine. Jeff Wright was far from the perfect husband, but he didn't do the things Susan claimed. Her claims of domestic abuse are an affront to all the real victims of domestic violence out there.
Quite frankly, 25 years TDCJ was a gift from the jury.
If you guys are interested in doing the job you were elected to do, it's time to make a statement.
One of your best prosecutors could retry this case in a heartbeat and leave Susan Wright wishing for that 25 years.
Or you can just surrender and plead her out to back time.
If I were you, I'd take this case back to trial.
The short version of the case was that a young mother tied her husband, Jeff Wright, to their bed and stabbed him over 190 times before burying him in a flower bed right outside their bedroom door. She then reported him to the police as having beaten her and then left their home on foot. For a more detailed version of the case, here is an article I wrote for TDCAA several years ago.
The case got National attention when Kelly had us reconstruct the bed in the middle of Judge Jim Wallace's courtroom and did a re-enactment of the stabbing for the jury. (NOTE: No, I was not the dude in the bed. That was Paul Doyle.)
Ultimately, Susan Wright was convicted of the murder of her husband and was sentenced to 25 years in TDCJ. The jury had rejected a claim of "Sudden Passion" (which would have capped sentencing at 20 years) and had also rejected the State's request for 45 years.
Almost immediately, the verdict was attacked both in the Press and in the Appellate Courts by the shy and demure Brian Wice. He took on Susan Wright's case and for the past five years has fought like a mad man to get her a new trial. Brian is a good friend of mine, and although we were on opposite sides of this particular issue, I truly respect the work he did on this case.
Last year, he and Carmen Roe took the case to a hearing in front of Judge Wallace making the claim that Wright's defense counsel had been ineffective for failing to put forth an effective Battered Woman Defense. Specifically, Brian and Carmen were arguing that defense counsel had erred in not putting on witness Mistie McMichael (Jeff Wright's ex-girlfriend who alleged abuse by him) and an expert on Battered Woman's Syndrome.
Although Judge Wallace did not have the power to overturn the case, he did make findings agreeing with Brian's assertions that there was ineffective assistance, and the case was then taken to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. In a ruling that I will admit absolutely stunned me, the Court ruled 9-0 that Susan Wright deserved a new punishment hearing.
With that ruling, the ball is now thrown into the District Attorney's court to see what they want to do with Wright's case on punishment. Both Kelly Siegler and I are both gone from the D.A.'s Office now, obviously, so new prosecutors will be making the decisions.
The case goes back to the 263rd District Court with Judge Wallace. Mia Magness is the Chief in that court now and she is one of the best trial prosecutors that the D.A.'s Office still has left. You might remember her from that little Clara Harris trial awhile back.
But the chances of the Wright case actually going back to trial aren't in Mia's hands at the moment. The decision of whether or not to plea bargain the case away is in the hands of Pat Lykos and Jim Leitner.
What they will decide to do with the Wright case will be a pretty big statement on their feelings for victim's advocacy and how much they will bow down to the defense bar.
Obviously, Wice and Wright would love nothing more than to get a plea offer of time served. The Office could accomplish this by letting her to plead to 5 years TDCJ. In lieu of that, the Office could also plead her to 10 years TDCJ making Wright automatically eligible for parole.
I hope they don't. And here's why:
-Susan Wright was convicted of tying her husband to a bed and stabbing him over 193 times.
-the number 193 is an under-estimated count, because as Dr. Dwayne Wolfe testified, there were so many wounds that many of them ran in together and couldn't be counted individually.
-Wright testified that she went for her husband's eyes first when the stabbing began.
-Wright also testified that in the middle of the stabbing, she was interrupted by the couple's young son, who she had to put back to bed. (Can you imagine what she looked like walking down the hall with him?)
-Wright went to great efforts to disassemble her bedroom and clean it with paint and bleach.
-while Jeff Wright's body was being desecrated by the family dog in the back yard, Susan had the audacity to go file a police report that he had assaulted her.
I expect supporters of Susan Wright to claim she was a battered woman, but her claims weren't even close to credible. During trial, she testified to only three specific incidents of abuse (while saying that Jeff beat her continuously, she could only remember these three).
The three incidents were as follows:
1. An incident where Susan had a small bruise under her eye. She told neighbors that her son had accidentally popped her in the face with an action figure. The neighbor saw the action figure and saw it was consistent with the size of the bruise.
2. An incident where Jeff (who was a very large and strong man, especially when compared to Susan's small frame) had repeatedly slammed her hand in a heavy door. She admitted under Kelly's cross-examination that her hand was not broken and she never sought medical treatment for it. Her description was rejected by the jury.
3. An assault the night of the murder which had led to bruising on her arms and legs. All the bruising on the arms and legs were consistent with somebody banging themselves up while moving a body and disassembling a bed.
And let's not forget that Jeff Wright's body was found with ties around both wrists and both ankles, with corresponding ties found tied to the bed frame. There was also candle wax dripped on his genitalia.
The crime scene was much more indicative of kinky sex than an assault, folks.
So, Pat and Jim, you've got a decision to make.
Susan Wright tortured her husband and the father of her children and killed him about as brutally as one can imagine. Jeff Wright was far from the perfect husband, but he didn't do the things Susan claimed. Her claims of domestic abuse are an affront to all the real victims of domestic violence out there.
Quite frankly, 25 years TDCJ was a gift from the jury.
If you guys are interested in doing the job you were elected to do, it's time to make a statement.
One of your best prosecutors could retry this case in a heartbeat and leave Susan Wright wishing for that 25 years.
Or you can just surrender and plead her out to back time.
If I were you, I'd take this case back to trial.
Friday, August 28, 2009
The Judges' Club
The Houston Chronicle is reporting this afternoon in this article that all charges have been dismissed against Texas Supreme Court Justice David Medina's wife, Francisca Medina, in relation to arson charges which she was indicted on last year.
Now for those of you who don't recall, the indictment against Mrs. Medina stemmed out of the "Runaway Grand Jury" that had indicted both Mrs. Medina and Justice Medina despite the fact that prosecutors were not seeking an indictment at that time. If you recall, then-prosecutor Vic Wisner got lambasted (extremely unfairly) over the actions of the Grand Jurors (whom he could not control). I still believe that Vic's association with the Medina case (and the fact that Medina is a Republican) is what got him his walking papers from "rock solid" Republican "standard bearer" Pat Lykos when she took over in January.
Vic Wisner has got more integrity and trial talent in his little finger than the entirety of the Gang Who Couldn't Shoot Straight put together, so I can't see any other reason why Snookems and the Davidians wouldn't have kept him.
But I digress.
I'm not writing about the merits of Mrs. Medina's case, because I don't know anything about them. Cases get dismissed every day in Harris County with no newsworthy ramifications. I find nothing unusual about that whatsoever.
What I do find unusual, however, is the fact that Lykos and the Gang tried to slide one past the media and do the dismissal as quietly as possible. Charges against Mrs. Medina were dismissed yesterday, but it took the media until today to find out after somebody, somewhere apparently leaked the information.
Now, keep in mind that the Lykos Administration is so enthusiastic about tooting their own horn that they make Louis Armstrong look like a tone-deaf asthmatic. If past behavior were to be any indicator, it would seem that this would be a prime opportunity to the Republicans' favorite Golden Girl to be proudly announcing how she had "righted yet another wrong of the Rosenthal Administration".
But not so with this case. Perhaps Lykos wanted to keep it quiet so that there wouldn't be too much attention to the fact that she was dismissing a case against a fellow Republican judge's wife. Whether the dismissal be completely justified or complete cronyism, it certainly would violate Prong One of the Office's motto of "Look Good, Think Smart, and Win".
Lykos' fondness for judges and doing them solids is nothing unusual. Hell, just from her upper echelons of former-judges Hannah Chow and Roger Bridgwater, you could tell that she was fostering her own de facto Judicial Retirement system for herself and her buddies.
Additionally, she has been showing some extreme deference to the cases of judges accused of crimes under her Administration.
Again, while I'm not commenting on the facts of either the case against Judges Woody Densen or Don Jackson, I again find it interesting that the Gang didn't file charges on either one of them directly -- they presented the cases to Grand Juries to make them do the dirty work.
NOTE: For those of you out of the Criminal Justice System, the vast vast vast majority of all criminal cases in Harris County are filed when the crimes are alleged to have been committed. A person can be charged with the finding of Probable Cause by a Magistrate. It is only a very rare minority of cases that are actually taken "Direct to Grand Jury". Sometimes it is because of the fact that cases need some research with witnesses brought before them. Other times, it is because the case is such a toss up that prosecutors really aren't sure if the case would survive at trial.
But other times it is because a prosecutor (or elected D.A.) doesn't want to be the one directly responsible for the Indictment, or lack thereof. It's kind of the legal equivalent of avoiding getting any blood on your hands.
In the case of Judge Densen, my understanding is that the complaint of Criminal Mischief had been made against him a long time before there was any action on the case. It was only after the Complainants in the case had turned over their surveillance video of the crime to the media that Lykos had her prosecutors take the case into Grand Jury.
Republicans have often been accused of being the champions of the Good Old Boy Network, and Lykos has certainly lived up to that billing in her eight months at the helm.
But apparently, there's something even better than being a member of the Good Old Boy Network when it comes to Patsy.
That's being a member of Pat Lykos' Judges' Club.
Now for those of you who don't recall, the indictment against Mrs. Medina stemmed out of the "Runaway Grand Jury" that had indicted both Mrs. Medina and Justice Medina despite the fact that prosecutors were not seeking an indictment at that time. If you recall, then-prosecutor Vic Wisner got lambasted (extremely unfairly) over the actions of the Grand Jurors (whom he could not control). I still believe that Vic's association with the Medina case (and the fact that Medina is a Republican) is what got him his walking papers from "rock solid" Republican "standard bearer" Pat Lykos when she took over in January.
Vic Wisner has got more integrity and trial talent in his little finger than the entirety of the Gang Who Couldn't Shoot Straight put together, so I can't see any other reason why Snookems and the Davidians wouldn't have kept him.
But I digress.
I'm not writing about the merits of Mrs. Medina's case, because I don't know anything about them. Cases get dismissed every day in Harris County with no newsworthy ramifications. I find nothing unusual about that whatsoever.
What I do find unusual, however, is the fact that Lykos and the Gang tried to slide one past the media and do the dismissal as quietly as possible. Charges against Mrs. Medina were dismissed yesterday, but it took the media until today to find out after somebody, somewhere apparently leaked the information.
Now, keep in mind that the Lykos Administration is so enthusiastic about tooting their own horn that they make Louis Armstrong look like a tone-deaf asthmatic. If past behavior were to be any indicator, it would seem that this would be a prime opportunity to the Republicans' favorite Golden Girl to be proudly announcing how she had "righted yet another wrong of the Rosenthal Administration".
But not so with this case. Perhaps Lykos wanted to keep it quiet so that there wouldn't be too much attention to the fact that she was dismissing a case against a fellow Republican judge's wife. Whether the dismissal be completely justified or complete cronyism, it certainly would violate Prong One of the Office's motto of "Look Good, Think Smart, and Win".
Lykos' fondness for judges and doing them solids is nothing unusual. Hell, just from her upper echelons of former-judges Hannah Chow and Roger Bridgwater, you could tell that she was fostering her own de facto Judicial Retirement system for herself and her buddies.
Additionally, she has been showing some extreme deference to the cases of judges accused of crimes under her Administration.
Again, while I'm not commenting on the facts of either the case against Judges Woody Densen or Don Jackson, I again find it interesting that the Gang didn't file charges on either one of them directly -- they presented the cases to Grand Juries to make them do the dirty work.
NOTE: For those of you out of the Criminal Justice System, the vast vast vast majority of all criminal cases in Harris County are filed when the crimes are alleged to have been committed. A person can be charged with the finding of Probable Cause by a Magistrate. It is only a very rare minority of cases that are actually taken "Direct to Grand Jury". Sometimes it is because of the fact that cases need some research with witnesses brought before them. Other times, it is because the case is such a toss up that prosecutors really aren't sure if the case would survive at trial.
But other times it is because a prosecutor (or elected D.A.) doesn't want to be the one directly responsible for the Indictment, or lack thereof. It's kind of the legal equivalent of avoiding getting any blood on your hands.
In the case of Judge Densen, my understanding is that the complaint of Criminal Mischief had been made against him a long time before there was any action on the case. It was only after the Complainants in the case had turned over their surveillance video of the crime to the media that Lykos had her prosecutors take the case into Grand Jury.
Republicans have often been accused of being the champions of the Good Old Boy Network, and Lykos has certainly lived up to that billing in her eight months at the helm.
But apparently, there's something even better than being a member of the Good Old Boy Network when it comes to Patsy.
That's being a member of Pat Lykos' Judges' Club.
Tuesday, December 30, 2008
In Case You Missed It . . .
Phil Archer did a piece on the Ceremony Honoring the Prosecutors and Investigators that Pat Lykos fired for completely political reasons.
Once again, I nearly did a spit take as Lykos said the firings weren't political.
I guess if she keeps lying to herself and the camera, maybe she thinks somebody will believe it eventually.
Once again, I nearly did a spit take as Lykos said the firings weren't political.
I guess if she keeps lying to herself and the camera, maybe she thinks somebody will believe it eventually.
Monday, December 22, 2008
Secretaries' Day
The Pat Lykos bloodletting continued today with several Administrative Assistants around the Office being told, three days before Christmas, that their services would not be needed under the Reign of Queen Snookems.
I have to say that I honestly don't get the timing of this one, because, quite frankly, it couldn't have been worse for the hard working folks that help us all get our jobs done every day.
You know, I expected to get fired by Old Patsy the second she won the election. I had pretty much been planning on it all year. I had campaigned very diligently against her and I knew her reputation of not tolerating political opposition.
But for me, it was a calculated gamble. I'm an attorney and even if my services weren't needed with the Harris County District Attorney's Office, I still have the potential to make a living outside of it - whether that be hanging out a shingle (which I'm doing) or trying to get on with a law firm.
The Administrative Assistants have it a bit more difficult. In spite of their priceless support to the prosecutors of the Office, they can't really set up their own shops if they lose their jobs. They have to find somebody to hire them in order to continue their profession.
And in today's economy, that's getting to be more and more of a challenge.
Now, Lykos was barely able to land her broom in front of the CJC before she had Jim Leitner fire me and the other attorneys. That has given me more than ample time to get my ducks in a row and get ready to set up my next career move by January 1st -- more on that later.
But for some reason, she elected to wait until three days before Christmas before letting go the secretaries. These are the folks that will have to fan out their resumes wherever they can and hope that somebody has an opening.
It won't be easy for them, and they needed as much advanced warning as they possibly could have to give them time to look. Considering how most businesses in the legal field are closed down (or on extremely light schedules) because it is three days before Christmas, that is going to be no easy task.
My sad prediction is that thanks to Lykos' timing, most (if not all) of those terminated today will begin 2009 with no jobs lined up.
It didn't have to go down that way. There are a lot more attorneys than there are secretaries, but Lykos wasted no time in gleefully starting her firings on the prosecutors.
Why did she wait so long on the secretaries?
None of the secretaries that were fired today actively campaigned for anyone that I'm aware of. If one were to assume that they were fired based on job performance, what exactly does that say about dear Snooks?
What it says is that her lust to fire her political enemies far outweighed her desire to get rid of people based on their job performances.
As a result, some very qualified Administrative Assistants will begin the year amongst the ranks of the unemployed. In this economy, you can guarantee that is a terrifying prospect.
You are doing a bang up job so far, Patsy. You've put the Office morale in the crapper worse than Chuck Rosenthal ever did (even during the scandal).
And you haven't even taken office yet.
Good God, it's no wonder the Coronation is mandatory. I imagine attendance would be pretty damn thin if your people had the choice of whether or not to attend.
Oh, and in case I failed to mention it earlier, Lykos did this three days before Christmas.
I have to say that I honestly don't get the timing of this one, because, quite frankly, it couldn't have been worse for the hard working folks that help us all get our jobs done every day.
You know, I expected to get fired by Old Patsy the second she won the election. I had pretty much been planning on it all year. I had campaigned very diligently against her and I knew her reputation of not tolerating political opposition.
But for me, it was a calculated gamble. I'm an attorney and even if my services weren't needed with the Harris County District Attorney's Office, I still have the potential to make a living outside of it - whether that be hanging out a shingle (which I'm doing) or trying to get on with a law firm.
The Administrative Assistants have it a bit more difficult. In spite of their priceless support to the prosecutors of the Office, they can't really set up their own shops if they lose their jobs. They have to find somebody to hire them in order to continue their profession.
And in today's economy, that's getting to be more and more of a challenge.
Now, Lykos was barely able to land her broom in front of the CJC before she had Jim Leitner fire me and the other attorneys. That has given me more than ample time to get my ducks in a row and get ready to set up my next career move by January 1st -- more on that later.
But for some reason, she elected to wait until three days before Christmas before letting go the secretaries. These are the folks that will have to fan out their resumes wherever they can and hope that somebody has an opening.
It won't be easy for them, and they needed as much advanced warning as they possibly could have to give them time to look. Considering how most businesses in the legal field are closed down (or on extremely light schedules) because it is three days before Christmas, that is going to be no easy task.
My sad prediction is that thanks to Lykos' timing, most (if not all) of those terminated today will begin 2009 with no jobs lined up.
It didn't have to go down that way. There are a lot more attorneys than there are secretaries, but Lykos wasted no time in gleefully starting her firings on the prosecutors.
Why did she wait so long on the secretaries?
None of the secretaries that were fired today actively campaigned for anyone that I'm aware of. If one were to assume that they were fired based on job performance, what exactly does that say about dear Snooks?
What it says is that her lust to fire her political enemies far outweighed her desire to get rid of people based on their job performances.
As a result, some very qualified Administrative Assistants will begin the year amongst the ranks of the unemployed. In this economy, you can guarantee that is a terrifying prospect.
You are doing a bang up job so far, Patsy. You've put the Office morale in the crapper worse than Chuck Rosenthal ever did (even during the scandal).
And you haven't even taken office yet.
Good God, it's no wonder the Coronation is mandatory. I imagine attendance would be pretty damn thin if your people had the choice of whether or not to attend.
Oh, and in case I failed to mention it earlier, Lykos did this three days before Christmas.
Tuesday, December 9, 2008
Transparency and the Toxic Avenger
I had an interesting conversation with a couple of good friends this morning that I found to be rather thought provoking.
We were discussing the irony over Pat Lykos' campaign promises of "transparency" within her District Attorney's Office and the fact that she decided not to renew my contract because of this blog. I guess that "transparency" under the Lykos Standardized Dictionary means only those things that illustrate what a damn fine job she will be doing.
She will fire or demote anyone who dared to even look at another candidate during the D.A.'s race. She proved that over the past few days with her administrative decisions that, amongst other things, had her demoting prosecutors from specialty positions such as White Collar Crime, Appellate, and Consumer Fraud in favor of some of her political cronies.
Yeah, I have a strong feeling that her view of "transparency" will leave some longing for the good old days of the McCarthy era when it comes to being able to speak freely and voice your opinion of the Office policies.
Hell, even today I learned that someone that I considered to be my friend was railing against my "toxic blog" in an e-mail to all the misdemeanor prosecutors. That kind of hurt, but I guess those types of things are going to be expected in the days to come under the Transparent Lykos Administration.
So, I guess for the purposes of this post, you can refer to me as the Toxic Avenger.
Now, at the risk of sounding like I'm whining, I'd like to point out a few things:
#1 - I knew from the second I started this blog that I would be fired if anyone other than Kelly Siegler was elected. I didn't care because I stood up for what I believed in, even though there was professional risk involved. As I've mentioned time and time again, I don't regret that in the slightest. (NOTE: I'm sad to see that the new first assistant isn't quite as willing to stand up for what he believes in, even if it is a professional risk to him.)
#2 - I, ultimately, endorsed Pat Lykos over Clarence Bradford in the general election, and (believe it or not) I don't regret that, either. I liked Chief Bradford on a personal level, but the ultimate direction he wanted to take the Office wasn't a good one, in my opinion. I know it disappointed a lot of my readers, for which I'm sorry. But, as I said back then, what was best for me wasn't what was best for the County. I stand by my endorsement of her over Bradford, regardless of what has happened to me personally.
#3 - I am truly saddened to be leaving the job, although I am optimistic that it may end up being good for me in the long run.
#4 - I am keenly aware of the fact that this Office existed long before I came to it, and it will exist long after I leave. Although several excellent prosecutors got canned, there are still a Legion of excellent prosecutors that remain. Ultimately, the Job will get done, and it will still get done well.
#5 - Items # 1-4 do not in any way, shape, or form change the fact that Pat Lykos is a blowhard politician who is already showing the County that she is firing and demoting people based on her own political vendettas and public perception that is not accurate. In a Nostradamus-like moment back in March, I predicted this type of thing occurring under her Administration.
My friend, Grits for Breakfast, pointed out to me that given what I had written about Lykos that it would be difficult for her to develop any type of trust between the two of us. That's a very valid point, and I don't disagree.
But here's some food for thought:
There are very few things in life that I've been particularly good at, but being a prosecutor is one of them. I don't mean to sound egotistical, but I think I served this County well during my tenure. So did Craig Goodhart. So did Luci Davidson. So did Mike Trent. So did Vic Wisner. So did Bert Graham. So did Joe Owmby. So did all of the prosecutors that got demoted this week.
These were prosecutors who tried Cop Killers, Baby Killers, Rapists, Robbers, and a whole host of other violent offenders.
And we all tried those cases well.
So the irony of the situation is that back in October I endorsed Lykos over Bradford because I thought it was the best thing for the County, even if it wasn't in my own best interest.
Sadly, our newly-elected District Attorney is making her firings and demotions based on what is in her best interest rather than the County's. At least partially because she doesn't take well to being criticized.
The bottom line is that Lykos has already broken her campaign promise of transparency before she has even taken Office. Those of us who got fired weren't fired because of our job performance ratings. We got fired for opposing or criticizing her. In some cases (such as Vic and Joe), the firings were based on a public perception that they somehow did wrong in their jobs (which they didn't).
Yes, Patsy, your administration is clearly going to be very transparent in the days to come.
Just probably not in the way that most people assumed you meant.
We were discussing the irony over Pat Lykos' campaign promises of "transparency" within her District Attorney's Office and the fact that she decided not to renew my contract because of this blog. I guess that "transparency" under the Lykos Standardized Dictionary means only those things that illustrate what a damn fine job she will be doing.
She will fire or demote anyone who dared to even look at another candidate during the D.A.'s race. She proved that over the past few days with her administrative decisions that, amongst other things, had her demoting prosecutors from specialty positions such as White Collar Crime, Appellate, and Consumer Fraud in favor of some of her political cronies.
Yeah, I have a strong feeling that her view of "transparency" will leave some longing for the good old days of the McCarthy era when it comes to being able to speak freely and voice your opinion of the Office policies.
Hell, even today I learned that someone that I considered to be my friend was railing against my "toxic blog" in an e-mail to all the misdemeanor prosecutors. That kind of hurt, but I guess those types of things are going to be expected in the days to come under the Transparent Lykos Administration.
So, I guess for the purposes of this post, you can refer to me as the Toxic Avenger.
Now, at the risk of sounding like I'm whining, I'd like to point out a few things:
#1 - I knew from the second I started this blog that I would be fired if anyone other than Kelly Siegler was elected. I didn't care because I stood up for what I believed in, even though there was professional risk involved. As I've mentioned time and time again, I don't regret that in the slightest. (NOTE: I'm sad to see that the new first assistant isn't quite as willing to stand up for what he believes in, even if it is a professional risk to him.)
#2 - I, ultimately, endorsed Pat Lykos over Clarence Bradford in the general election, and (believe it or not) I don't regret that, either. I liked Chief Bradford on a personal level, but the ultimate direction he wanted to take the Office wasn't a good one, in my opinion. I know it disappointed a lot of my readers, for which I'm sorry. But, as I said back then, what was best for me wasn't what was best for the County. I stand by my endorsement of her over Bradford, regardless of what has happened to me personally.
#3 - I am truly saddened to be leaving the job, although I am optimistic that it may end up being good for me in the long run.
#4 - I am keenly aware of the fact that this Office existed long before I came to it, and it will exist long after I leave. Although several excellent prosecutors got canned, there are still a Legion of excellent prosecutors that remain. Ultimately, the Job will get done, and it will still get done well.
#5 - Items # 1-4 do not in any way, shape, or form change the fact that Pat Lykos is a blowhard politician who is already showing the County that she is firing and demoting people based on her own political vendettas and public perception that is not accurate. In a Nostradamus-like moment back in March, I predicted this type of thing occurring under her Administration.
My friend, Grits for Breakfast, pointed out to me that given what I had written about Lykos that it would be difficult for her to develop any type of trust between the two of us. That's a very valid point, and I don't disagree.
But here's some food for thought:
There are very few things in life that I've been particularly good at, but being a prosecutor is one of them. I don't mean to sound egotistical, but I think I served this County well during my tenure. So did Craig Goodhart. So did Luci Davidson. So did Mike Trent. So did Vic Wisner. So did Bert Graham. So did Joe Owmby. So did all of the prosecutors that got demoted this week.
These were prosecutors who tried Cop Killers, Baby Killers, Rapists, Robbers, and a whole host of other violent offenders.
And we all tried those cases well.
So the irony of the situation is that back in October I endorsed Lykos over Bradford because I thought it was the best thing for the County, even if it wasn't in my own best interest.
Sadly, our newly-elected District Attorney is making her firings and demotions based on what is in her best interest rather than the County's. At least partially because she doesn't take well to being criticized.
The bottom line is that Lykos has already broken her campaign promise of transparency before she has even taken Office. Those of us who got fired weren't fired because of our job performance ratings. We got fired for opposing or criticizing her. In some cases (such as Vic and Joe), the firings were based on a public perception that they somehow did wrong in their jobs (which they didn't).
Yes, Patsy, your administration is clearly going to be very transparent in the days to come.
Just probably not in the way that most people assumed you meant.
Saturday, December 6, 2008
Leitner On Leadership
On Thursday, the Baby Misdemeanor Prosecutors had a mandatory CLE (that's "Continuing Legal Education" for you folks not in the legal field) seminar on Ethics on the 20th Floor. In attendance was District Attorney 1st Assistant-Elect Jim Leitner.
At the end of the seminar, Leitner was given his first opportunity to address the "Troops" who were all there.
Now, keep in mind, this was a captive audience of more-or-less rookie prosecutors and it was two days after the mini-purge that had cost me my job on Tuesday. The Babies (which is the Office's affectionate term for the misdemeanor prosecutors) are probably the most shapeable, inspire-able, and potentially loyal employees that Lykos could get her claws on.
Setting aside the fact that Lykos herself didn't bother to attend the event (on Ethics, no less), this was a big moment folks, and Leitner stepped up to the plate to address them for the first time ever.
HERE IS WHAT HE SHOULD HAVE SAID
"Guys, I know it's been a crazy week and you have a lot of questions. Things are going to change around here, but Justice never changes. Your jobs are all safe on January 1 and Pat Lykos is excited about having you all work for her and looks forward to working with you in the years ahead. Guys, this is the greatest job in the world, and as well as I know Pat Lykos, the next four years are going to be some of the most rewarding of your life."
HERE IS WHAT HE DID SAY (PARAPHRASED)
"A lot of people have been asking me if Pat is going to let the women still wear pant suits. I had lunch with Pat yesterday and she was wearing pants. She said pantsuits will be fine. She is concerned with some of the short skirts she's seen."
The awe-inspired Baby Prosecutor's filed slowly out of the meeting to go do some Justice!
Good job, there, General Patton.
At the end of the seminar, Leitner was given his first opportunity to address the "Troops" who were all there.
Now, keep in mind, this was a captive audience of more-or-less rookie prosecutors and it was two days after the mini-purge that had cost me my job on Tuesday. The Babies (which is the Office's affectionate term for the misdemeanor prosecutors) are probably the most shapeable, inspire-able, and potentially loyal employees that Lykos could get her claws on.
Setting aside the fact that Lykos herself didn't bother to attend the event (on Ethics, no less), this was a big moment folks, and Leitner stepped up to the plate to address them for the first time ever.
HERE IS WHAT HE SHOULD HAVE SAID
"Guys, I know it's been a crazy week and you have a lot of questions. Things are going to change around here, but Justice never changes. Your jobs are all safe on January 1 and Pat Lykos is excited about having you all work for her and looks forward to working with you in the years ahead. Guys, this is the greatest job in the world, and as well as I know Pat Lykos, the next four years are going to be some of the most rewarding of your life."
HERE IS WHAT HE DID SAY (PARAPHRASED)
"A lot of people have been asking me if Pat is going to let the women still wear pant suits. I had lunch with Pat yesterday and she was wearing pants. She said pantsuits will be fine. She is concerned with some of the short skirts she's seen."
The awe-inspired Baby Prosecutor's filed slowly out of the meeting to go do some Justice!
Good job, there, General Patton.
Wednesday, December 3, 2008
A Couple of Random Things
First and foremost, I would just like to say that words alone can never express how amazed, thankful, and humbled I was by all the condolences and well wishes that I received today from fellow prosecutors, Judges, members of the Defense Bar, and even people I had never met. I was absolutely overwhelmed by everyone's profound kindness. I kept thinking that it was like getting to attend my own funeral and hearing all the nice things people usually reserve to say about you until after you've died.
I've said over and over again that I consider our CJC group as a Family. Today, you all let me know that you felt the same way, and I will never forget that. I will be eternally grateful for the wonderful friends and colleagues that I have been fortunate enough to work with over the years.
On December 31st, I will walk out the door of the District Attorney's Office with some excellent company. Luci Davidson, Bert Graham, Craig Goodhart, Vic Wisner, Mike Trent, Joe Owmby, Rob Freyer and Don Smyth are some of the most talented prosecutors in the Nation and they've dedicated their careers to public service. (NOTE: For the record, Rob and Don were not "unrenewed" by Lykos. They both will be leaving of their own accord).
I am honored to work with them all. I'm equally honored to call them my friends.
As a side note, if you are planning on using the comments section of the post to speak badly of any of the aforementioned prosecutors, don't waste your time. Not here. Not now. I won't publish it. If you want to talk badly about me, knock yourself out.
And speaking of speaking badly of people, I'm highly confused by the angry rants of whoever is calling himself "Jeff's Dad". I've got no idea who he is or the reasoning of his very volatile rants on any blog that will post him. If you have a beef with me, I do wish you would tell me why. I will be happy to discuss with you whatever actions I committed that seem to have you so riled up. However, my guess is that your rants are probably more aimed at prosecutors in general, rather than me in particular.
Moving on . . .
Some people claim that my post yesterday was "whining" about getting the old heave-ho. If I sound like I'm whining, I don't intend to.
Are there things about leaving the Office that make me angry? You bet.
Do I have some anxiety about my financial situation for the first couple of months out on my own? I'd be foolish not to.
Am I going to miss the camaraderie and friendship of the Office? I would have to be dead on the inside not to feel that loss.
But am I crying in my beer because I really really really wanted to work for Pat Lykos?
Um, not so much.
Yes yes. I know that it now sounds as if I have shifted from "whining" to "sour grapes"? Oh well. If you don't like what I'm writing, feel free to check out another website. Or you can stick around and rant about the Blogger you love to hate. Doesn't really matter to me.
The bottom line is that leaving the District Attorney's Office is a big change in my life on every level, and I've got a lot to say about it. Hopefully I can refrain from being too repetetive about it, but I find it kind of cathartic to write about this stuff.
And finally, Joe Owmby and I were interviewed by Phil Archer from Channel 2 this morning, and I stated my unshakeable belief that these firings were politically motivated. If you have some strange desire to see my pasty bald head in action, you can click here. When it comes to being on TV, I'm certainly no Will Womble (NOTE: Inside joke.) Don't get me wrong, as far as I'm concerned, a political firing is pretty much fair game (as long as it doesn't violate the 1st Amendment).
I nearly spit out my beer when I saw that Lykos flatly denied that any of the firings were politically motivated. She added the beautiful statement that she wasn't going to say anything bad about us (thus implying that there are a lot of bad things to say, but she is rising above such pettiness).
Yeah right.
I got a certified copy of my personnel file just in case Lykos wanted to insinuate something like that. It has all my evaluations. It has all my trial statistics. What it doesn't have is any reprimands, disciplinary actions, or complaints.
There weren't any.
I tried around fifteen murder cases. Two capital murders (one death/one non-death), and many many sexual assaults of children, aggravated robberies, and other felonies. My trial record was 51 convictions, 2 acquittals, and 2 hung juries.
And keep in mind that out of all those listed prosecutors, I was the most junior.
NOTE: Before anyone starts beating me over the head for "you prosecutors only caring about convictions", let me say that I do believe that trial statistics actually are important in evaluating a prosecutor. They certainly aren't the end-all-be-all by any means, but they are indicators. If a prosecutor has a really lopsided trial record, they are either a) not properly evaluating their trial cases or b) they aren't getting the job done in trial. Both are things that prosecutors need to be able to do.
My point is that I don't think there was anything in my file or about my reputation as a prosecutor that would warrant my ultimate termination.
But I did support Kelly Siegler against Pat Lykos (and I would do it again).
Coincidentally, the folks I'm walking out the door with supported her too.
Like I said, a political firing is fair game for the most part as far as I'm concerned. All is fair in love and war, and all that good stuff. I'm not whining about that.
I just find Lykos' assertion that the terminations weren't politically motivated is about as disingenuous as . . . well, pretty much everything else Lykos has to say.
I've said over and over again that I consider our CJC group as a Family. Today, you all let me know that you felt the same way, and I will never forget that. I will be eternally grateful for the wonderful friends and colleagues that I have been fortunate enough to work with over the years.
On December 31st, I will walk out the door of the District Attorney's Office with some excellent company. Luci Davidson, Bert Graham, Craig Goodhart, Vic Wisner, Mike Trent, Joe Owmby, Rob Freyer and Don Smyth are some of the most talented prosecutors in the Nation and they've dedicated their careers to public service. (NOTE: For the record, Rob and Don were not "unrenewed" by Lykos. They both will be leaving of their own accord).
I am honored to work with them all. I'm equally honored to call them my friends.
As a side note, if you are planning on using the comments section of the post to speak badly of any of the aforementioned prosecutors, don't waste your time. Not here. Not now. I won't publish it. If you want to talk badly about me, knock yourself out.
And speaking of speaking badly of people, I'm highly confused by the angry rants of whoever is calling himself "Jeff's Dad". I've got no idea who he is or the reasoning of his very volatile rants on any blog that will post him. If you have a beef with me, I do wish you would tell me why. I will be happy to discuss with you whatever actions I committed that seem to have you so riled up. However, my guess is that your rants are probably more aimed at prosecutors in general, rather than me in particular.
Moving on . . .
Some people claim that my post yesterday was "whining" about getting the old heave-ho. If I sound like I'm whining, I don't intend to.
Are there things about leaving the Office that make me angry? You bet.
Do I have some anxiety about my financial situation for the first couple of months out on my own? I'd be foolish not to.
Am I going to miss the camaraderie and friendship of the Office? I would have to be dead on the inside not to feel that loss.
But am I crying in my beer because I really really really wanted to work for Pat Lykos?
Um, not so much.
Yes yes. I know that it now sounds as if I have shifted from "whining" to "sour grapes"? Oh well. If you don't like what I'm writing, feel free to check out another website. Or you can stick around and rant about the Blogger you love to hate. Doesn't really matter to me.
The bottom line is that leaving the District Attorney's Office is a big change in my life on every level, and I've got a lot to say about it. Hopefully I can refrain from being too repetetive about it, but I find it kind of cathartic to write about this stuff.
And finally, Joe Owmby and I were interviewed by Phil Archer from Channel 2 this morning, and I stated my unshakeable belief that these firings were politically motivated. If you have some strange desire to see my pasty bald head in action, you can click here. When it comes to being on TV, I'm certainly no Will Womble (NOTE: Inside joke.) Don't get me wrong, as far as I'm concerned, a political firing is pretty much fair game (as long as it doesn't violate the 1st Amendment).
I nearly spit out my beer when I saw that Lykos flatly denied that any of the firings were politically motivated. She added the beautiful statement that she wasn't going to say anything bad about us (thus implying that there are a lot of bad things to say, but she is rising above such pettiness).
Yeah right.
I got a certified copy of my personnel file just in case Lykos wanted to insinuate something like that. It has all my evaluations. It has all my trial statistics. What it doesn't have is any reprimands, disciplinary actions, or complaints.
There weren't any.
I tried around fifteen murder cases. Two capital murders (one death/one non-death), and many many sexual assaults of children, aggravated robberies, and other felonies. My trial record was 51 convictions, 2 acquittals, and 2 hung juries.
And keep in mind that out of all those listed prosecutors, I was the most junior.
NOTE: Before anyone starts beating me over the head for "you prosecutors only caring about convictions", let me say that I do believe that trial statistics actually are important in evaluating a prosecutor. They certainly aren't the end-all-be-all by any means, but they are indicators. If a prosecutor has a really lopsided trial record, they are either a) not properly evaluating their trial cases or b) they aren't getting the job done in trial. Both are things that prosecutors need to be able to do.
My point is that I don't think there was anything in my file or about my reputation as a prosecutor that would warrant my ultimate termination.
But I did support Kelly Siegler against Pat Lykos (and I would do it again).
Coincidentally, the folks I'm walking out the door with supported her too.
Like I said, a political firing is fair game for the most part as far as I'm concerned. All is fair in love and war, and all that good stuff. I'm not whining about that.
I just find Lykos' assertion that the terminations weren't politically motivated is about as disingenuous as . . . well, pretty much everything else Lykos has to say.
Sunday, October 26, 2008
The Race for Harris County District Attorney
It's been over six months now since Judge Pat Lykos defeated Kelly Siegler in the Republican Primary for the District Attorney's race, leaving her to face Democratic candidate and former Houston Police Chief Clarence Bradford in the November election. The last time I wrote anything definitive on the race was immediately on the heels of the run-off vote.
Many things have changed over the past six months. Time has passed and life has settled back down to a large degree -- just in time for everything to get all stirred up again for November! In the meantime, I'll try to take a little less emotional look at what is probably the most important race affecting those of us in and around the Criminal Justice Center.
In the wake of the Republican run-off, I, along with several other prosecutors had a sit-down meeting with Chief Bradford. I was impressed by his easy-going demeanor and his very apparent earnestness at explaining the direction he wanted to take the Office. He was very nice. He answered the tough questions about his past with HPD, and he stayed as long as we had questions. At the end of the meeting, I realized that he was a charismatic leader and I liked him very much.
The flak that Chief Bradford largely gets obviously comes from his time as Chief of the Houston Police Department, with the DNA Lab Scandal and the K-Mart Raid being the Top Two marks against him. It is true that some of the blame of those two events rests with Chief Bradford, but I don't think they should be the factors that are necessarily fatal to his campaign.
The crime lab was already in disarray long before he took over the helm of HPD. It is true that he didn't give the problems the proper attention that they deserved, but I think that he has gotten the lion's share of the blame without being the one most responsible for what happened there.
As for the K-Mart raid, you can count me as one of the citizens of the county that thought the motorcycle racers that regularly hung out at the K-Mart on Westheimer were a bad nuisance to the community. There was more than one occasion that I was driving on 610 when those bikers would all leave the parking lot and go jetting down the highway, causing chaos on the pavement. That raid needed to happen, and if it had gone as planned, it would have been loudly praised. Unfortunately, it got out of hand at the scene for whatever reason. Chief Bradford wasn't at that scene, and I think that we all know that sometimes the best laid plans can often go awry.
No, Chief Bradford's past with HPD does not concern me when looking at his ability to be District Attorney. There is also something to be said for his ability as a manager of large amounts of people in a major law enforcement entity in a large county. Those are relevant skills.
What does concern me about Chief Bradford as the elected District Attorney is that everything I hear him talking about on the campaign trail seems to have more to do with being well liked than creating an effective District Attorney's office. Yes, it would be great if the Harris County District Attorney's Office was the most beloved of all D.A.'s offices throughout the country, but unfortunately, that's not really the job description.
Bill Turner, the elected District Attorney in Brazos County (and someone I consider to be a mentor to me) once told me that "being the District Attorney is the slow alienation of your community". What he meant was that the District Attorney and the prosecutors under him or her have to make tough decisions, and those decisions are often unpopular with the people they affect. But that's part of the job. Everybody cheers the traffic cop who saves the citizen trapped in a burning car, but we'll be cussing his name the second he writes us a traffic ticket, won't we?
(As a side note, if you are reading this in Brazos County, please vote for Bill Turner. He's one of the greatest prosecutors I've ever seen and he makes my old hometown very proud).
The bottom line is that a person doesn't become the District Attorney to be loved. They are there to do a job and it is a job based on tough decisions that have to be made. Often times public opinion has to be set aside to do what is legally correct. Over-exerting yourself trying to be well-loved will set a leader up to doing the wrong thing in the name of popularity. I would rather hear from a candidate who is talking more about being tough on crime than talking about building a public defender's office. That's not the D.A.'s job, and Bradford's devotion to community relationships and public perception greatly concerns me.
The lack of familiarity with what the job entails for him concerns me greatly.
Judge Lykos actually does have that familiarity with the job description. It is also my firm belief that (all campaign slams against Kelly Siegler during the primary campaign aside) she knows that the Harris County District Attorney's Office is the best damn D.A.'s Office in the Nation. While Chief Bradford is talking about a complete dismantling and rebuilding of the Office, she knows that it is an Office filled with the most talented Public Servants in the world. It may need some tweaking, but it doesn't need the massive overhaul that Chief Bradford is promising.
She knows from her experience as a judge how the Criminal Justice System works from inside the courtroom. She knows that the basic structure of the Office is a pretty amazing system that day in and day out meets the needs of a very crime-ridden community. She knows the difference between cases that can be legally proven and those that can't. She also understands that being the District Attorney often means doing the unpopular thing in the name of Justice.
There is also the high likelihood that she will be bringing along Jim Leitner as a part of her upper-Administration. Awhile back, I took some pretty serious potshots at Jim, when I was feeling angry and disappointed with him over his endorsement of Lykos.
For that, I'm sorry. Jim Leitner is a good attorney and a good person. If a Lykos Administration brings Leitner with it, then that's a definite positive.
So, I'm caught in a bit of a Catch-22 here.
On a personal level, I like Chief Bradford a lot, and I would gladly work for him. On the flip side, I think that the way that Lykos ran her primary campaign drug our Office through the mud and it ran one of the greatest prosecutors in the Nation out of public service.
I spoke out about it then, and I don't regret that. I stood by my friend who I believed to be the best candidate for the job and I did it wholeheartedly. I wouldn't be the kind of person I want to be if I had handled it any different.
I would imagine that Pat Lykos will probably fire me (uh, if I actually work there) if elected.
That would be her Right.
But the election isn't about what's best for me. It's about what is best for Harris County.
You can pick at and blast me all you want, but I'm proud of being a member of the Harris County District Attorney's Office. Chuck Rosenthal was not a representation of what we stand for or how we conduct ourselves on a day to day basis. From the top to the bottom, that Office is filled with people that I'm proud to say I work with every day. What was needed to restore the reputation of that Office was for Chuck to leave, which he did. Look at how well the Office has done under the few short months that Ken Magidson has been in charge there.
Ultimately, I think that Pat Lykos is the better of the two choices for Harris County, as much as it pains me on a personal level to say.
The next four years are going to be really interesting, no matter what.
If it gets too bad, just remember this slogan:
AHCL in Twenty Twelve!
Many things have changed over the past six months. Time has passed and life has settled back down to a large degree -- just in time for everything to get all stirred up again for November! In the meantime, I'll try to take a little less emotional look at what is probably the most important race affecting those of us in and around the Criminal Justice Center.
In the wake of the Republican run-off, I, along with several other prosecutors had a sit-down meeting with Chief Bradford. I was impressed by his easy-going demeanor and his very apparent earnestness at explaining the direction he wanted to take the Office. He was very nice. He answered the tough questions about his past with HPD, and he stayed as long as we had questions. At the end of the meeting, I realized that he was a charismatic leader and I liked him very much.
The flak that Chief Bradford largely gets obviously comes from his time as Chief of the Houston Police Department, with the DNA Lab Scandal and the K-Mart Raid being the Top Two marks against him. It is true that some of the blame of those two events rests with Chief Bradford, but I don't think they should be the factors that are necessarily fatal to his campaign.
The crime lab was already in disarray long before he took over the helm of HPD. It is true that he didn't give the problems the proper attention that they deserved, but I think that he has gotten the lion's share of the blame without being the one most responsible for what happened there.
As for the K-Mart raid, you can count me as one of the citizens of the county that thought the motorcycle racers that regularly hung out at the K-Mart on Westheimer were a bad nuisance to the community. There was more than one occasion that I was driving on 610 when those bikers would all leave the parking lot and go jetting down the highway, causing chaos on the pavement. That raid needed to happen, and if it had gone as planned, it would have been loudly praised. Unfortunately, it got out of hand at the scene for whatever reason. Chief Bradford wasn't at that scene, and I think that we all know that sometimes the best laid plans can often go awry.
No, Chief Bradford's past with HPD does not concern me when looking at his ability to be District Attorney. There is also something to be said for his ability as a manager of large amounts of people in a major law enforcement entity in a large county. Those are relevant skills.
What does concern me about Chief Bradford as the elected District Attorney is that everything I hear him talking about on the campaign trail seems to have more to do with being well liked than creating an effective District Attorney's office. Yes, it would be great if the Harris County District Attorney's Office was the most beloved of all D.A.'s offices throughout the country, but unfortunately, that's not really the job description.
Bill Turner, the elected District Attorney in Brazos County (and someone I consider to be a mentor to me) once told me that "being the District Attorney is the slow alienation of your community". What he meant was that the District Attorney and the prosecutors under him or her have to make tough decisions, and those decisions are often unpopular with the people they affect. But that's part of the job. Everybody cheers the traffic cop who saves the citizen trapped in a burning car, but we'll be cussing his name the second he writes us a traffic ticket, won't we?
(As a side note, if you are reading this in Brazos County, please vote for Bill Turner. He's one of the greatest prosecutors I've ever seen and he makes my old hometown very proud).
The bottom line is that a person doesn't become the District Attorney to be loved. They are there to do a job and it is a job based on tough decisions that have to be made. Often times public opinion has to be set aside to do what is legally correct. Over-exerting yourself trying to be well-loved will set a leader up to doing the wrong thing in the name of popularity. I would rather hear from a candidate who is talking more about being tough on crime than talking about building a public defender's office. That's not the D.A.'s job, and Bradford's devotion to community relationships and public perception greatly concerns me.
The lack of familiarity with what the job entails for him concerns me greatly.
Judge Lykos actually does have that familiarity with the job description. It is also my firm belief that (all campaign slams against Kelly Siegler during the primary campaign aside) she knows that the Harris County District Attorney's Office is the best damn D.A.'s Office in the Nation. While Chief Bradford is talking about a complete dismantling and rebuilding of the Office, she knows that it is an Office filled with the most talented Public Servants in the world. It may need some tweaking, but it doesn't need the massive overhaul that Chief Bradford is promising.
She knows from her experience as a judge how the Criminal Justice System works from inside the courtroom. She knows that the basic structure of the Office is a pretty amazing system that day in and day out meets the needs of a very crime-ridden community. She knows the difference between cases that can be legally proven and those that can't. She also understands that being the District Attorney often means doing the unpopular thing in the name of Justice.
There is also the high likelihood that she will be bringing along Jim Leitner as a part of her upper-Administration. Awhile back, I took some pretty serious potshots at Jim, when I was feeling angry and disappointed with him over his endorsement of Lykos.
For that, I'm sorry. Jim Leitner is a good attorney and a good person. If a Lykos Administration brings Leitner with it, then that's a definite positive.
So, I'm caught in a bit of a Catch-22 here.
On a personal level, I like Chief Bradford a lot, and I would gladly work for him. On the flip side, I think that the way that Lykos ran her primary campaign drug our Office through the mud and it ran one of the greatest prosecutors in the Nation out of public service.
I spoke out about it then, and I don't regret that. I stood by my friend who I believed to be the best candidate for the job and I did it wholeheartedly. I wouldn't be the kind of person I want to be if I had handled it any different.
I would imagine that Pat Lykos will probably fire me (uh, if I actually work there) if elected.
That would be her Right.
But the election isn't about what's best for me. It's about what is best for Harris County.
You can pick at and blast me all you want, but I'm proud of being a member of the Harris County District Attorney's Office. Chuck Rosenthal was not a representation of what we stand for or how we conduct ourselves on a day to day basis. From the top to the bottom, that Office is filled with people that I'm proud to say I work with every day. What was needed to restore the reputation of that Office was for Chuck to leave, which he did. Look at how well the Office has done under the few short months that Ken Magidson has been in charge there.
Ultimately, I think that Pat Lykos is the better of the two choices for Harris County, as much as it pains me on a personal level to say.
The next four years are going to be really interesting, no matter what.
If it gets too bad, just remember this slogan:
AHCL in Twenty Twelve!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
The Truth About Prosecuting Domestic Violence Cases
When I was in college at A&M, I worked as an intern at the Brazos County District Attorney's Office for two and a half years. It wa...
-
One of the types of cases that bothered me tremendously when I was a Prosecutor and continues to bother me as a Defense Attorney is what are...
-
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 ...
-
I don't get around to blogging much anymore, but several people have asked me this week to publish a comprehensive list of who all is ru...