UPDATE- In case you missed Ted' story, you can catch it by clicking here.
I had heard about this incident awhile back but I'm glad that Ted did a story on it. Granted, a fake inspection sticker case isn't the most gritty of all street crime, but the principle behind what Leitner did is huge.
Leitner, who jumped to the position of 1st Assistant when Lykos rolled into office, overruled all of the people below him. Seeing as how the Trial Court Chief in that particular court has been a prosecutor for about 12 years now, he has been at the office at least 3 times longer than Leitner, and in his experience, he thought the deal was inappropriate. The Chief's ruling was backed up by a Division Chief and a Trial Bureau Chief (who have even more seniority than the Trial Court Chief).
But who cares what over thirty years of prosecutorial experience has to say if you have Jim Leitner using his power and influence to pay you back a favor? Clay Rawlins got a deal for his client that wasn't offered to that same client's co-defendants.
It looks like Rawlins got a bonus for his representation of Rachel Palmer.
END UPDATE
I have been told through a reliable source that Channel 13's Ted Oberg has a story airing tonight as 6 p.m. that will be of interest to those of us at the CJC.
I honestly have no idea what it is about, but I have been told that it will be worth your time to make it to a TV by six o'clock.
Showing posts with label Ted Oberg. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Ted Oberg. Show all posts
Tuesday, May 1, 2012
Friday, February 3, 2012
From Around the Web
Brian Rogers and the Chronicle finally jumped on board and started following the story of Pat Lykos investigating the members of the 185th Grand Jury with this article. As usual, the Chronicle has given it a soft sell -- the linking caption on their home page points out that Lykos merely "used the web" to look into the Grand Jurors, and they also put David Jennings' blog defending Lykos on their home page, as well.
Ted Oberg had a good follow up to last night's story with this one from tonight. I do have to point out that since Channel 13 now apparently has the Ibarra brothers as legal commentators, I understand why Channel Two settled for Wice. (Just kidding, Brian.) In all seriousness, Oberg once again is able to get at what is of real concern and that is Chief Investigator Don McWilliams' use of Accurint.
I wasn't all that familiar with the use of Accurint until today. Fortunately, Mark Bennett has done a very good piece explaining how it works. Check it out by clicking here.
Ted Oberg had a good follow up to last night's story with this one from tonight. I do have to point out that since Channel 13 now apparently has the Ibarra brothers as legal commentators, I understand why Channel Two settled for Wice. (Just kidding, Brian.) In all seriousness, Oberg once again is able to get at what is of real concern and that is Chief Investigator Don McWilliams' use of Accurint.
I wasn't all that familiar with the use of Accurint until today. Fortunately, Mark Bennett has done a very good piece explaining how it works. Check it out by clicking here.
Wednesday, February 1, 2012
Investigating the Investigation Investigating the Other Investigation
Okay, so I'm sitting at home on the couch with my jaw hanging wide open after just watching Ted Oberg's six o'clock report on Pat Lykos' latest antics. I mean, I know that no one is going to ever accuse me of being President of the Lykos Fan Club, but Oberg's story tonight falls under the "Holy Cr*p" category regardless of your feelings of Lykos.
The long story short is that despite Lykos' triumphant "Hey I didn't get indicted!" press conference yesterday, where she denied investigating the 185th Grand Jurors, she, in fact did. On SATURDAY, October 22nd, First Assistant Jim Leitner called Chief Investigator Don McWilliams at home and ordered him to run all the background information he could on the Grand Jurors. On SATURDAY, October 29th, that investigation expanded into researching not only the Grand Jurors, but also Judges Marc and Susan Brown, and Judge Mike Anderson.
Lykos' response is that this is not an investigation. I guess that would depend on what your definition of "is" is, wouldn't it? Or something like that.
I'm sure that Lykos supporters will once again scoff at the paranoia behind this story and how it really is no big deal, but to them, I will once again pose the following question:
If any other Defendant or subject of an investigation was caught researching the men and women of a sitting Grand Jury or Jury, would there be a cause for concern or at least an air of potential retaliation in the works?
What exactly differentiates that type of behavior when the District Attorney is the one doing it as opposed to a "common criminal"?
ANSWER: Absolutely nothing.
The long story short is that despite Lykos' triumphant "Hey I didn't get indicted!" press conference yesterday, where she denied investigating the 185th Grand Jurors, she, in fact did. On SATURDAY, October 22nd, First Assistant Jim Leitner called Chief Investigator Don McWilliams at home and ordered him to run all the background information he could on the Grand Jurors. On SATURDAY, October 29th, that investigation expanded into researching not only the Grand Jurors, but also Judges Marc and Susan Brown, and Judge Mike Anderson.
Lykos' response is that this is not an investigation. I guess that would depend on what your definition of "is" is, wouldn't it? Or something like that.
I'm sure that Lykos supporters will once again scoff at the paranoia behind this story and how it really is no big deal, but to them, I will once again pose the following question:
If any other Defendant or subject of an investigation was caught researching the men and women of a sitting Grand Jury or Jury, would there be a cause for concern or at least an air of potential retaliation in the works?
What exactly differentiates that type of behavior when the District Attorney is the one doing it as opposed to a "common criminal"?
ANSWER: Absolutely nothing.
Wednesday, November 9, 2011
A Significant Ruling
Ted Oberg at Channel 13 did a report tonight on County Court at Law # 1 Judge Paula Goodhart granting a Writ filed Defense Attorney Brent Mayr in a B.A.T. Van case.
The long story short is that Brent took a case to trial earlier this year where his client was charged with D.W.I. and the results of an intoxilyzer from a B.A.T. Van were used in the trial. The client was convicted and Brent filed this Writ on the grounds that the Harris County District Attorney's Office failed to turn over exculpatory evidence to him regarding the reliability of the vans. In essence, the allegations of the Writ were Prosecutorial Misconduct that resulted in his client not receiving a fair trial.
Judge Goodhart granting the Writ is tremendously significant, because that means that she felt the facts of the case supported what Brent said in his Writ -- the Harris County District Attorney's Office withheld exculpatory evidence. Regardless of what happens with the 185th Grand Jury, we now have an official ruling from a court that Pat Lykos' gang is definitely not shooting straight when it comes to the Rules of Evidence.
As I was thinking about the significance of this Writ being granted, it jogged my memory to an incident that had occurred earlier on in the Lykos Administration. Apparently, allegations of withholding evidence favorable to a client isn't something exclusive to B.A.T. vans.
If you will recall, back in October of 2009, a hearing was conducted in a Child Abuse case where a Judge found that the District Attorney's Office had withheld Brady (exculpatory) material in trial. At that point, although the Judge made the ruling, it was found to be "harmless" error because the trial was still proceeding. Little ever became of the issue after the trial.
But another one of the similarities that I recalled from the 2009 trial was the role of a Whistleblower.
In the Child Abuse case, a Harris County D.A. paralegal named Kim Flores confirmed that exculpatory evidence had been withheld. Ms. Flores suffered the same fate that Amanda Culbertson is currently going through.
Rather than be rewarded for bringing to light the D.A.'s Office's errors, she got fired (after she had turned in her resignation letter).
She wrote about it on the blog back in 2009.
At some point, I'm hoping that the folks around this county are going to take notice of the Lykosian method of dealing with Brady violations. It is worth noting that thus far, there has been no statement from Lykos or her Council of Geniuses that condemn the hiding of exculpatory evidence.
At a minimum, I suppose that Kim Flores and Amanda Culbertson can at least start a support group for each other.
The long story short is that Brent took a case to trial earlier this year where his client was charged with D.W.I. and the results of an intoxilyzer from a B.A.T. Van were used in the trial. The client was convicted and Brent filed this Writ on the grounds that the Harris County District Attorney's Office failed to turn over exculpatory evidence to him regarding the reliability of the vans. In essence, the allegations of the Writ were Prosecutorial Misconduct that resulted in his client not receiving a fair trial.
Judge Goodhart granting the Writ is tremendously significant, because that means that she felt the facts of the case supported what Brent said in his Writ -- the Harris County District Attorney's Office withheld exculpatory evidence. Regardless of what happens with the 185th Grand Jury, we now have an official ruling from a court that Pat Lykos' gang is definitely not shooting straight when it comes to the Rules of Evidence.
As I was thinking about the significance of this Writ being granted, it jogged my memory to an incident that had occurred earlier on in the Lykos Administration. Apparently, allegations of withholding evidence favorable to a client isn't something exclusive to B.A.T. vans.
If you will recall, back in October of 2009, a hearing was conducted in a Child Abuse case where a Judge found that the District Attorney's Office had withheld Brady (exculpatory) material in trial. At that point, although the Judge made the ruling, it was found to be "harmless" error because the trial was still proceeding. Little ever became of the issue after the trial.
But another one of the similarities that I recalled from the 2009 trial was the role of a Whistleblower.
In the Child Abuse case, a Harris County D.A. paralegal named Kim Flores confirmed that exculpatory evidence had been withheld. Ms. Flores suffered the same fate that Amanda Culbertson is currently going through.
Rather than be rewarded for bringing to light the D.A.'s Office's errors, she got fired (after she had turned in her resignation letter).
She wrote about it on the blog back in 2009.
At some point, I'm hoping that the folks around this county are going to take notice of the Lykosian method of dealing with Brady violations. It is worth noting that thus far, there has been no statement from Lykos or her Council of Geniuses that condemn the hiding of exculpatory evidence.
At a minimum, I suppose that Kim Flores and Amanda Culbertson can at least start a support group for each other.
Monday, October 24, 2011
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...
