Rifi Newaz

Unfortunately for the citizens of Harris County, the departures at the District Attorney's Office are now coming in so rapidly that I can't even keep up on the official "obituaries" that I've been doing for the Assistant District Attorneys who are leaving. The past couple of weeks have seen the departure of Environmental Law prosecutor Will Graham, Felony Prosecutor Samantha Cox, and Misdemeanor prosecutor David Zeitzoff. There may be more I'm not aware of.

This week has seen prosecutors Colin "Judo" McLaughlin and Daphne "Jazz Hands" Newaz turning in their resignations. Judo and Jazz Hands are headed to be prosecutors in other regions -- Tarrant County and the U.S. Attorney's Office in El Paso, respectively.

Felony Two Abraham Hamilton is also having his last day today as part of the "normal rate of attrition".

All of these guys were/are great prosecutors.

Also leaving along with Daphne, will be her husband, Rifi Newaz, who will also be joining the Feds in El Paso.

Now, as most of you know, Rifi and Mark Donnelly were both the victims of, single-handedly, the most chicken shit thing that Pat Lykos has done during her two year tenure. But I don't want to focus on what that Old Goat did last year for the purposes of this post -- she can deal with her own demons over a few Jack and Cokes while boycotting Christmas.

Mark left the Office in October of last year and is enjoying a successful career with the Feds. Rifi's last day will be December 24th. NOTE: I'm just assuming that Rifi picked that day as a symbolic gesture of solidarity, since that was the day I got canned the second time.

But on a serious note, man, the Office is losing an absolute Class Act when Rifi leaves. And all of us, on both the prosecution and defense side, will be losing a good prosecutor and friend.

I first met Rifi in the early part of 2006. I had just transferred into the 209th District Court as the Two. Mike Trent was the Chief and Rifi was the Three. I had seen Rifi around the Office, but I had never heard him speak a word. Although he had been around for awhile, we were really first introduced on the day I started in Judge McSpadden's court.

I had been a Felony Two in several courts by the time I landed there, and I had worked with some great Threes, good Threes, and some downright bad Threes. The work that Rifi did on a day to day basis of just managing the docket brings to mind the term "brutal efficiency". Every docket was always together. Every "to do" was always done. It seemed like he had the facts of every case he handled memorized and could discuss them with defense attorneys without even having to refresh his memory. He knew the law that applied to his cases because he researched it ahead of time.

Even though I got to know Rifi a little better at first, he still didn't say all that much. I didn't figure that such a quiet man would be a very good litigator.

Boy, was I wrong.

I first observed Rifi in trial when he fought an uphill battle on a case against Tucker Graves. Although the State didn't prevail in the end, Rifi's closing was excellent. Sadly, I guess he just couldn't overcome Tucker's poster that read "Wang is Not Right". You'll have to ask either Tucker or Rifi about the rest of that story.

Over the next several months, I learned that Rifi could actually be quite talkative, and pretty damn funny, too. As a practical joker myself, I had great admiration for Rifi's placement of an Annoy-A-Tron in a co-worker's office. Needless to say, Rifi and I became good friends. His dry sense of humor and his sad devotion to losing sports teams like the Houston Texans, Houston Rockets, and Texas Longhorns were things that I could identify with.

And we stayed friends after I left the Office.

When what I shall refer to as the "Dark Moment" happened to Rifi and Mark, saying that I was beyond outraged doesn't scratch the surface on describing the anger I felt for what Pat Lykos did. And the response of support and solidarity that both Rifi and Mark received from both prosecutors and defense attorneys showed that I wasn't alone in my outrage.

Rifi and Mark handled the incident with their typical class. Although upset about the damage to their reputations that Lykos had done, neither immediately resigned, nor did they complain publicly. They kept on serving the Citizens of Harris County to the best of their ability -- and with their heads held high. They both knew that their reputations would survive intact and they were right. It would be Lykos' reputation that was forever doomed within the Office.

Rifi ultimately would return to the Trial Bureau -- landing as the Two in the 337th District Court.

And it was here, that Rifi and I would do battle. A lot of freaking battle.

Rifi and I ended up on opposite sides of a murder case most familiarly known as the "Baytown Five". At the beginning of this year, Rifi and I picked a jury on the case.

Or at least, we tried to. You see, being in trial against Rifi is like a chess match. Every question he asks, every comment or objection he makes is strategic. And it was without a doubt one of the most mentally grueling duels I have ever been in for a trial.

On the first jury panel, Rifi eliminated so many potential jurors for cause that we "busted" the panel before I even got to speak a word.

So, we brought a new panel over the next day. This time, I got to do my portion of voir dire, too, but the results were the same. We busted that panel too.

So we brought over a new panel, and busted it again, but this time we kept those still eligible venire members and combined them with a fourth panel that we picked the next day. It was only then that we were able to seat a jury for trial.

Which, of course, after a week-long battle of wits, ended in a hung jury.

So, later this year, we picked our fifth freaking panel on the same case. And of course, we busted it too. It got reset to April now.

I now can recite Rifi's voir dire in my sleep, I've heard it so many times -- especially the Wheel of Fortune part ("I suppose it could be 'banana splot'") and the West Side Story dance moves.

Sadly, I won't get to hear it again, since Rifi is finally leaving the D.A.'s Office. Part of me is glad that I won't have to face him in trial again, because damn, he is without a doubt, the best prosecutor I've faced off against in my time as a Defense Attorney.

But the other part of me is very sad to see my friend leaving the Office, no matter how happy I am for him to get out of that increasingly toxic environment.

Hell, part of me will even miss hearing that damn "banana splot" analogy one more time.

Best of luck to you and Daphne, Rifi.

You'll be missed around here.

Day One

I think that since we now know that Rifi Newaz and Mark Donnelly did, in fact, have race-neutral reasons for their strikes in the Ricky Whitfield case that it stands to reason that Pat Lykos:

1. should reinstate both men to their prior positions; and

2. issue a PUBLIC apology for smearing their reputations in the media.

I'm going to keep track here until she actually does it. Just like I did with Alan Bernstein last year when he refused to run the Yarmulke Story.

It's Day One, Judge Lykos.

You're on the clock.

The Transcript Is In

Prior to weighing in on the validity of the Batson challenge being granted in the Ricky Whitfield case, I decided to take a very un-Pat Lykos like approach and actually read the transcript. I only ordered the portion of the transcript that dealt with the Batson challenge being made by Eric Davis and Jacquelyn Carpenter and the responses to the challenge to by Rifi Newaz and Mark Donnelly.

It took about one day to get the transcript, and it only cost about $25 for that particular portion. I guess that Lykos really has screwed her budget up pretty damn badly if she couldn't spend the $25 before she decided to try and ruin Mark and Rifi's careers.

So, here's a synopsis of the bench conference regarding the Batson challenge:

Ms. Carpenter objected to the striking of Juror Numbers 2, 3, 10, 13, 18, and 43 and properly made a Batson claim because those six venire members were African-American. As I've mentioned before (for the non-lawyers out there), that once the Batson claim has been made, it becomes the prosecutor's duty to explain their race-neutral reasons for striking the jurors.

Regarding Juror Number 2, Rifi Newaz cited the fact that this potential juror had a previously dismissed theft charge, and currently had charges pending on a Class C-Issuance of a Bad Check case. In addition, Rifi noted that when the entire panel had been asked their opinion of "what should the main purpose of the criminal justice system be - punishment or rehabilitation?", the juror had difficulty making a decision. Rifi made the argument to the court that the State didn't want an indecisive juror.

Regarding Juror Number 3, Rifi noted that the juror had successfully completed a deferred adjudication for the offense of theft in 2006, and that the juror's case seemed to be involving an employee theft.

Juror Number 10 was also struck for being indecisive on the issue of whether or not the focus of the criminal justice system should be punishment or rehabiliation, and again the cited race-neutral reason was based on wanting to avoid a juror that could not make a decision.

Juror Number 13 was struck for having seven Class C Issuance of a Bad Check cases, and also could not make a decision on punishment versus rehabilitation.

The prosecutors had tried to have Juror Number 18 struck for Cause regarding that juror's inability to follow the "One Witness Rule". This juror, however, did not make a firm enough stance on the issue for Judge Barr to have granted the challenge for cause, but it certainly gave prosecutors grounds to be concerned over her ability to follow it. They used a peremptory strike on her.

And finally, Juror Number 43 also stated that they could not follow the One Witness Rule. On this particular juror, the State had moved to have her struck for cause, but the request was denied. This left the prosecutors with only the option of striking her from the panel.

NOTE: If you are still reading this post at this point, congratulations. You are now officially more informed about this case than Lykos was when she called the Chronicle on her people.

Look, the bottom line is that when six out of ten peremptory challenges are used on African-American venire members, it absolutely looks bad. That is further compounded when it leaves absolutely no African-American jurors. It looks absolutely horrible, and I completely understand Judge Barr being very aware of that fact. I also sincerely doubt that Judge Barr had anticipated what Lykos would do in response to the Batson challenge.

Then again, most sane people do generally have trouble anticipating what Lykos will do next.

But the bottom line is that Rifi and Mark fulfilled their obligation and provided race-neutral reasons for every last African-American juror that they struck. Eric and Jacquelyn did their jobs by making the challenge, and I imagine that Judge Barr was being very well-intentioned by granting the challenge rather than risk that bad perception. I think she meant well.

But, what she didn't count on was Lykos and her speed-dial to the Chronicle.

I've said it before and I will say it again. When decisions start getting made based on perception rather than the actual facts, the Judicial System becomes no better than a lynch mob. Rifi and Mark felt this in full effect two weeks ago - first in the Batson ruling itself, but then more importantly, when Lykos offered up their heads to the Chronicle.

So, folks, how are we feeling about an elected-D.A. that still believes in Lynch Mob Justice?