Fun with the Houston Chronicle Billing Department

As I was totaling up my end-of-month bills this afternoon, I couldn't help but notice that our esteemed city newspaper, the Houston Chronicle, had taken the liberty of billing me three separate times in the past thirty days.  Now, I'm not proud to admit that I subscribe to the Chronicle on most days, but in my defense, I only get the paper on Sundays.

For a "Sunday Only" subscription, I pay the sum of $14 a month -- in theory.  Assuming there are four Sundays in a month, that comes to $3.50 a paper.  That's not really all that great of a deal for something I can usually work through in the space of ten minutes on the average Sunday.  Not to mention, the newspaper lady routinely forgets to deliver the paper about once a month.

As with most of my bills, I have it on a credit card with autopay.

I noticed today that the Chron had billed me $14 on October 31st, $19 on November 3rd, and another $14 on November 24th.   This seemed to boost my average bill to $11.75 per newspaper, which seemed a tad hefty.

So, I called in to question my bill.  After being on hold for about fifteen minutes, I finally spoke to an actual living person!  The explanation went a little something like this.

Chronicle Lady:  Well, that bill on October 31st was supposed to be on October 15th, but we charged you late.  Don't worry, we did not charge you extra for the late fee.

Charge me extra for a late fee on something that auto-drafts?  Huh?

Chronicle Lady:  The bill on November 3rd is because we bill ten days before your subscription expires and it was going to expire on November 15th.

Wait.  What?

Chronicle Lady:  The bill on November 24 is because your subscription was going to expire on December 10th, so we billed you for it.

I'm completely confused at this point.

ME:  So, why was the November 3rd bill for $19 instead of $14?

Chronicle Lady:  That was because you receive a special Christmas edition paper which is an additional $5.  Oh, wait, I mean, you receive a special Thanksgiving edition paper which is an additional $5.

ME:  Wait, you charge me an extra five dollars because you put extra advertisements in it?

Chronicle Lady:  Yes sir.

ME:  You know, nevermind.  Just cancel my subscription.

Chronicle Lady:  That will be another department.  Let me transfer you.

She then hung up on me.

And they wonder why the newspaper industry is dying.

A Second Blog

I was recently invited by the Houston Chronicle's Dwight Silverman (via Lisa Falkenberg) to join the Chronicle's blog section on www.chron.com.

So today, I'm starting a second blog over with the Chronicle.  It's called "Criminal Background", and you can reach it by clicking here.

To be clear, nothing is going to happen to this blog.

There are some rules and parameters that I have to follow over with the Chronicle that will necessitate it being a little more toned down than what we talk about over here, so please keep that in mind (ahem, Rage).

I'm excited about the opportunity to reach out to more readers through the new blog.  We may have more "insider" debate on this blog, but I think the Chronicle blog will be a chance to educate more people about how the Criminal Justice System works in Harris County.

I'll need y'all's help.  Please help me with your input (either through the comments or your off-blog e-mails) on the different sides of different issues.  Remember that it is a family newspaper so we need to keep the comments clean (ahem, Rage).

And while we are on the topic of the comments, I will probably be a little more restrictive on folks posting as "Anonymous".  If you like the blog over there and want to comment on it, I'd appreciate it if you developed a pseudonym so that the readers can identify your perspectives by authorship.  I'm not saying you need to sign your name, but I'd love to see regular and easily-identifiable commenters over there.

And, as always, I'll appreciate your input on the blog itself -- whether publicly or privately.

(NOTE:  From a technical standpoint, the blog layout over there is a little different from the one I'm used to here, so please have patience if it takes me a little bit to figure out how it all works.)

The Shamelessness of Pat Lykos

In this morning's Houston Chronicle, there is an editorial entitled "Laurels for Lykos".

In the editorial, the author of the editorial lauds Lykos from clearing out the DNA backlog (which was underway long before she got there) and for her launching the investigation into the death of Asher Brown (which I mentioned in the post below).

The praise that they are heaping on Lykos becomes so frenzied that the author even has to blurt out: "It's hard to imagine Lykos' predecessor, Chuck Rosenthal, concerning himself about such an issue [Asher Brown]. The DA's office has certainly changed, and for the better."

Well, the author of that is kind of correct about that, actually. Chuck Rosenthal wouldn't have launched an investigation into Asher Brown's suicide.

Because Chuck Rosenthal would have known that there wasn't a crime to investigate.

Asher Brown committed suicide because he was being bullied at school. The bullies who picked on him for being small, poor, or gay were despicable beyond imagine. They should be suspended from school. They should have to be known for what they did to that poor little boy for the rest of their lives.

But under the laws of the State of Texas and the laws of the United States, they committed no crimes. Under the First Amendment, which protects the rights of the Weak Minded to spew out idiotic opinions (like the Editorial Board of the Chronicle does every day), those nasty children that tormented Asher Brown can say whatever they want and be free of prosecution from the government.

And Pat Lykos knows that.

She also knows that Asher Brown's death is something that will garner National Media Attention. Announcing that there will be "an investigation" does nothing more than hitch Pat Lykos' bandwagon to Asher's death.

There is certainly nothing substantive that a criminal investigation will lead to.

Jeff Cohen over at the Chronicle should know better. He's married to a defense attorney. Hell, even Brian Rogers is an attorney.

And if you don't believe me that there isn't a charge to file on the bullies who taunted Asher, pick up a copy of the damn Penal Code.

What Pat Lykos did by announcing her "investigation" into Asher Brown's death was to stand over the grave of a poor and desperate child and attempt to turn it into a campaign rally. She hijacked a tragedy for her own selfish purposes.

It's called exploitation for you morons over at the Chronicle, and you are applauding her for it.

The editorial wraps up with this: "Her concern over Asher Brown's tragic suicide, and her decision to examine its causes, is a reminder that, even in Harris County, a DA can be both tough on crime and compassionate."

No. Not quite. As a matter of fact, during her tenure, Lykos has proven that she is neither tough on crime nor compassionate.

She is just a politician.

A politician who wants to ride on the shoulders of a dead 13-year-old into a second term.

With the Chronicle cheering her on all the way.

The Chronicle Endorses Pat Lykos

I got an e-mail bright and early this morning from my old friend/arch-Nemesis (kidding!)Alan Bernstein checking to make sure I had seen that the Chronicle had endorsed Pat Lykos for District Attorney. Alan was bringing to my attention my comments earlier this year (under one of my more conspiratorial days) where I predicted that the Chronicle folks were supporting Lykos during the primary so that they could turn around and endorse Bradford in November.

He wanted to make sure that I knew I was wrong!

Well, this whole "being wrong" thing isn't something that is all that new to me, but I am more than willing to address the topic for old times' sake.

I'm still thinking out the D.A.'s race and I plan on addressing it in the next day or so, once I'm done with my analysis of all the Judicial Races. But there were a couple of things that I found interesting about the Chronicle's endorsement.

Although endorsing Lykos, the article seems to give her a bit of criticism on her personal skills and demeanor. The endorsement notes "She has been criticized privately and officially for poor listening skills and brusqueness with colleagues and subordinates".

At the same time, they never really list what exactly they have against Clarence Bradford, other than noting [regarding the crime lab scandal] that "the corruption and ineptitude in that lab began before former Police Chief Bradford took office, but his under-aggressive responses have weakened his leadership credentials".

They also list several ideas that Bradford had as part of his platform and they stress that they hope that "Lykos should take them seriously".

I guess what I'm getting at here is that although the Chronicle gave Lykos the official nod, they sort of seemed rather half-assed about it, and they surely didn't really come out with guns blazing against Bradford. About the only thing the editorial is decisive about is pointing out the District Attorney's Office's "long-standing dysfunctions".

Like I said, I'm still in the middle of a lot of mixed emotions when it comes to the D.A.'s race, but I'm still feeling pretty solid in my dislike of the Chronicle editorial board (which Alan is not a part of). The folks there just seem to have a really solid dislike of the D.A.'s Office and those who work there.

But, for the meantime, Alan, I will admit that you were right and I was wrong.

Kind of.

Cry Me a River

I gotta admit that I thought it was pretty damn funny to read the Chronicle's editorial this morning lamenting Ken Magidson's decision to create a media office.

I mean, it just absolutely cracks me up.

Let's see, Jeff Cohen and crew have been calling the prosecutors at the Office racists, corrupt, and stupid for quite some time now, and yet they now seem stunned (just, stunned, I tell you!) that perhaps the Office has decided to exercise some "caution" in talking to reporters.

Don't get me wrong, I will freely admit that as a prosecutor, I love(d) talking to the media about my cases. It was always great to send a link to a website on one of my cases to the folks back at home. Its a sad day that it can't be done anymore, but I think Mr. Magidson's decision is a reasonable and prudent one.

Will it make the jobs of the roving reporters and columnists who work the courthouse more difficult? Yep.

Do I feel sorry for them? Well, yes and no. I like Brian Rogers and Peggy O'Hare and I don't think that they ever abused what a prosecutor had to tell them.

For them, I feel sorry.

For Lisa Falkenberg, Rick Casey, and my boy, Alan Bernstein? Not so much.
(As an aside, I did find the complaint about the "establishment of a fresh layer of bureaucracy" to be pretty funny as well. This is the same Chronicle that allows Falkenberg to write four articles a week advocating the creation of the Public Defenders Office, right?)

And do I feel sorry for the Chronicle as a whole? Absolutely not.

Over the past five months their "institution" has done everything it can to make the jobs of the people at the District Attorney's Office as difficult as they could. I'm not feeling much sympathy if the D.A.'s Office is doing the same thing to them now.

Cohen and Crew are griping about the Office talking to them in a more limited fashion?

Hell, they should be glad that the Office is talking to them at all.

Houston's Newspaper

As much as I like to blast the Houston Chronicle, the irony of the situation is that my grandfather had been a reporter for a newspaper in his younger years.

Although he only did it for a few years, it was an experience that he always spoke very fondly of. He went on to a more lucrative career, but I think he was always very wistful of his time reporting the news. I was raised by him telling me that a journalist was a noble profession and one that was there to seek the truth and keep people honest.

I suppose that the duty to seek the truth is something that newspapermen and prosecutors have in common, theoretically.

But it seems that on a daily basis that Jeff Cohen's Houston Chronicle has more and more turned it's back on it's duty to report the news.

Now, I'm not getting overly sensitive -- yet.

The editorial that ran in today's edition probably didn't sway a single person on their opinion on the death penalty. For that matter, I don't know that the Chronicle has yet to write any column or article on that topic that swayed an opinion. We are Houston, Texas, after all.

What ticks me off is that the results of studies are being misrepresented and they are over-emphasizing some portions while wilfully overlooking others. As someone who has been involved in a capital murder trial when the State sought death, the idea of putting a statistical number on its outcome is as absurd as it is obscene.

It mathematically accounts for things that can't be mathematically accounted for -- the people pulled at random to be in the multiple jury pools that the jurors will be pulled from. The jurors' responses on their questionnaires and their Q&A with the attorneys. The attorneys' "gut instinct" on who to strike and who to keep. The witnesses that will testify and the way the jury will react to those witnesses. The closing arguments and their ability to sway. The evidence presented in the punishment phase.

And most importantly, when twelve people sit in that back room, can they answer the question to decide the defendant's fate?

How in the hell do you put a number on that?

But that doesn't slow the Chronicle down. Editor Jeff Cohen knows that he will catch hell at home from his anti-death penalty zealot wife, Katherine Kase, if he doesn't maintain the offensive against the Death Penalty.

And there's nothing wrong with that. At least, there's nothing wrong with it until the news and the facts start getting twisted or ignored.

Last week, a conference was held in Galveston for Judges, Prosecutors, and Defense Attorneys who practice criminal law. It was a good conference with a lot of information coming from it. Noted defense attorney and Innocence Project founder Barry Scheck spoke. In addition, attorney Bob Wicoff spoke regarding his continued work with Chris Downey and Judge Mary Bacon on reviewing flawed serology from the HPD Crime Lab.

Wicoff pointed out to the room of prosecutors, judges, and defense attorneys that on several occasions he had complimented the prosecutors he had been working with and he had made those compliments to the Chronicle. Specifically, Wicoff told the room that he complimented the job done by Alicia Devoy O'Neill for her active assistance in the project. He told the room, almost apologetically, that he had informed the media of this several times, but nobody really seemed all that interested in printing the fact that the D.A.'s Office was being righteous.

Did you ever wonder why the Chronicle could possibly endorse a former-judge who had been retired from the bench for 14 years (and had a controversial career when she was there) over one of the most effective prosecutors in the Nation? Why did they bury all those Lykos stories?

It's simple: Kelly Siegler was an effective prosecutor who got the death penalty on Defendants. Stopping her early was a primary objective.

I'm well aware that this article will prompt folks, like Grits, to say that Old AHCL is back to pissing and moaning about the election again. That's not really my point (and the 12-step program is really helping me recover from it). And Ron will smirk at my conspiracy theory.

My point is that the Chronicle is a disingenuous, poorly-written, propaganda piece for the Death Penalty Opponents. And I think it continues to exist in that realm because Jeff Cohen is just pushing his wife's agenda.

I've said it before and I will say it again that I understand why people oppose the death penalty, and I agree with them on some of their points. But I don't think that the readers of the Chronicle deserve to have the news filtered to adjust to Cohen & Kase's viewpoints. It's bad management, and I would hope that, at some point, somebody (with a lot more influence than me) would take note of it.

Weren't newspapers founded on the idea of fostering more intellectual honesty? That certainly seemed to be why my grandfather respected the business so much.

I've never seen a newspaper that fought so hard to curb it.

The Capital Murder Decision

Harris County has long been synonymous with being the "Death Penalty Capital of the World" and it has always been pretty much the center of every debate on capital punishment since the 1970s. Couple that in with the fact that Mr. Kathryn Kase (AKA Jeff Cohen) is the Editor of the very anti-death penalty Houston Chronicle, and it seems like the District Attorney's Office will always be destined to be portrayed as more blood-thirsty than those it puts on Death Row.

This piece isn't about whether or not the Death Penalty should exist. Former District Attorney Johnny Holmes once told me that there was no point in ever debating the death penalty, because it is too much of a part of a person's moral and religious values to ever change a mind. If you believe in it, then you will, most likely, always believe in it. If you oppose it, you will always oppose it.

But have you ever wondered what goes into the decision-making process behind a capital murder case in Harris County, Texas?

Like almost all other cases, a capital murder is first presented at D.A. Intake. Homicide investigators come in and present the case to a District Court Chief or above for acceptance. Only a person who has attained the rank of District Court Chief or higher has the authority (according to the Operations Manual) to even file a charge of Capital Murder.

And when they do so at Intake, they are simply deciding whether or not the elements of the offense of Capital Murder have been met, and whether or not the case can be proven.

For those of you who don't know, not every murder is a Capital Murder. To be a Capital Murder, it must be one or more of the following:
1. A murder in the course of committing another enumerated felony (such as burglary, robbery, sexual assault, kidnapping, etc.)
2. A murder of a police officer or fireman in the line of duty.
3. A murder of a child under 6 years of age.
4. A murder of another for money.
5. A multiple murder

There are a couple of others, but those are the main ones.

When a Capital Murder is filed at Intake, there is no decision made at that time about the appropriate punishment that should be sought. The case is simply filed and it lands in a court. Once it is there, the Chief Prosecutor of the Court will handle it in most cases (sometimes a "higher up" may actually be the one handling the case).

The Chief Prosecutor will spend the next 90 days working on the case, and will go over it with a fine-toothed comb. The offense report is read multiple times over. The scene photos and videos are reviewed. The autopsy report and photos are reviewed. All statements are read and noted.

If a Defendant has priors, the prosecutor won't just order the Judgment and Sentence reflecting the conviction. They will order the offense report, the old file, and everything else that they possibly can to understand what happened on the prior offense. They often pull the Defendant's school records if he is young. They will talk to the victim's family members and discuss their feelings about the case. They will look at the offense itself and decide how bad the facts of the case-in-chief are. Sadly, in this day and age, a capital murder during a convenience store robbery doesn't really "shock the conscience" like it used to.

The Chief will also talk with the defense attorneys about things that might mitigate, or lessen the Defendant's personal blame-worthiness in the case. Was the Defendant abused as a child? Did the Defendant have a low IQ? Are there any mental issues that might tend to explain what is going on? Was there some form of provocation behind the murder?

Once all of this information has been gathered by the Chief Prosecutor, it becomes his or her duty to write up a "Capital Murder Report", which details the offense. It will contain a detailed narrative of the offense. It will also have a list of "aggravating" factors that might make the case more egregious. It also has a list of the mitigating factors that should be considered as reasons why death should not be sought.

When the Chief has finished the Capital Murder Report, he or she will write a recommendation as to how the charge should be presented to the Grand Jury. Perhaps it shouldn't be a capital. Maybe it should be indicted as a regular murder or even an Aggravated Robbery. Whatever the case may be, they hand-write their recommendation. Although I have heard other Divisions may do it differently, I always included whether or not I thought it should be a non-death or death case at that time. Some say the decision is made a little further down the road.

Once the Chief Prosecutor has made their recommendation, they take the form to their Division Chief, who is usually a prosecutor that has been at the Office over 15 years and has a good feel for what cases are worthy of seeking the death penalty on versus those that are not. They write down their recommendation as well. The Chief Prosecutor and his or her Division Chief then travel to the 6th Floor where they meet with the Bureau Chief of the Trial Division (currently, that would be Lyn McClellan). They review the case with him, and he writes his recommendation.

The Chief, the Division Chief, and the Bureau Chief (this is starting to sound like the Wizard of Oz, now, isn't it?) then travel down the hall to meet with the District Attorney. He reviews the summary and sometimes there is discussion and sometimes the summary is enough. Obviously, the District Attorney has the final say-so in how the charge is filed, and whether or not to seek death.

So, for those out there who believe that prosecutors at the Harris County District Attorney's Office yell out: "Yee haw! Get the gurney ready!" every time a capital murder charge is filed, please rest assured that there is a lot more to it than that.

Mr. Holmes once told me that in making the decision whether or not to seek death on a Defendant charged with Capital Murder, he asked himself the question "would 12 reasonable minds agree that a Defendant deserved to die for what he had done". If you look at how many people were sent to death row during the Holmes administration, it would appear that the man's assessment of those 12 "reasonable minds" was usually pretty accurate.

A senior prosecutor told me that in his mind, the standards at the Office are whether or not the Defendant's actions "shock the conscience". Perhaps the facts of the case-in-chief shock the conscience, or perhaps a Defendant's violent criminal history does. The more the Defendant "shocks the conscience", the more likely the State will seek death.

One last note before I turn this over to the commenters to blast me.

Although the Chronicle likes to make a big deal out of how many people Harris County sends to death row, they seem to pay very little attention to those capital murders where the State does not seek the death penalty. Now, I know that Mr. Kase, uh, Mr. Cohen has his agenda, and portraying the D.A.'s Office as being the slightest bit reasonable would not help his agenda, but the vast majority of Capital Murders are "non-deaths". They get tried with little to no fanfare on an almost weekly basis.

For those who oppose the death penalty, I know that there is no such thing as a case that would change your mind. However, for those who do agree with it, or are, at least, willing to consider it the Conscience Shockers are going to be the only ones on the table for consideration of lethal injection.

Those cases where death is sought are truly the ones that "shock the conscience".

From Our Humor Section . . .

Top 10 Reasons the Chronicle Endorsed Pat Lykos for D.A.

10. Despite years of chain smoking, she still has dazzling white teeth like the Osmonds.

9. The way her eyes twinkle before she calls other judges "f*ck face".

8. She makes Clarence Bradford look a little more competent.

7. Because dirty campaigning and baseless allegations sell papers, dammit!

6. Lykos stating the same meaningless things over and over again make Lisa Falkenberg's articles seem a little less repetitive and irrelevant, by comparison.

5. Drug Legalization Advocate Dean Becker wasn't running.

4. She reminds Chronicle editor Jeff Cohen of his great-grandmother.

3. Threats of "I'll get you, my pretties" during meeting with the Editorial Review Board.

2. She is rumored to be in possession of nude photographs of Alan Bernstein.

1. Every fifth time she cites "The Rule of Law", the Editorial Board gets a free pizza from Pizza Hut.

A Prelude of Things to Come?

Lisa Falkenberg's column today was her third in an apparent three-part series of saying the exact same thing -- that Harris County needs a Public Defender's Office. This time, the article, in addition to saying the exact same thing, had quotes!

Quotes from people!

Quotes from people in politics!

Other than that, it was nothing new.

As I've mentioned before, I don't really give a rat's behind whether or not we get one, although I don't think it would be beneficial for defendants.

What was interesting to me was how the Chronicle is already starting to turn its back on its endorsee Pat Lykos in favor of the, uh, wisdom of Clarence Bradford. Check out this quote regarding Lykos' response to the idea:

"It's going to take some considerable thought," said Lykos. "We certainly can't go on the way we are. And I certainly don't have a visceral rejection of it by any stretch."
She paused.
"That doesn't make sense, what I just said, does it?"

Well, no, it doesn't, Pat, but that's never really slowed you down before.

I'm just kind of surprised that the Chronicle is already pointing out Pat's dumb moments in an effort to make Bradford's generically meaningless statement seem more intelligent:

"There has been a tendency to accept the principle of locking everybody up and throwing away the key is the answer," Bradford said. "That has failed."

Um, yeah, this from the guy who brought you the Crime Lab Scandal and the K-Mart Raid.

And, as a side note, wouldn't Bradford be a more appropriate choice for the Elected Public Defender, rather than District Attorney? Think about it. He could argue "You should never convict on this shoddy evidence. It came from the HPD Crime Lab. Who would know that better than me?"

And people said that Ron and I were crazy when we said that the Chronicle is conspiring to get Lykos the Republican nomination because she would be easier for Bradford to beat . . .

The Bottom Line: Vote Safe. Vote Siegler.

Today's Chronicle Agenda

For the third time in the week, the Chronicle has run an opinion piece on the need for a Public Defender's Office in Harris County. It's amazing to me that a story that is against their pro-Lykos agenda doesn't get published at all, but something that they want gets run three freaking times in a week! The Chronicle certainly has a special way of being annoying, doesn't it?

In an unrelated story, there is no article, but just a brief snippet with a photograph in the lower right corner of the City & State section about the swearing in of Kenneth Magidson. I guess the fact that it would be a positive and non-scandalous story about the District Attorney's Office probably made it non-newsworthy to Jeff Cohen and crew.

Back to the editorial, I would suggest reading the comments in the on-line version of it. A poster under the name of "Helpful" points out, much more eloquently than I can, his or her views against a PDs Office.

As I've said before, most ADAs don't really care who they are facing in a trial. However, the Chronicle, Senator Ellis, and Barry Scheck's tact in chasing after getting a PD's Office annoys me.

First of all, nobody is citing any specific cases where a Defendant got screwed over because of a court appointed attorney.

Second, the reputations of some of the most skilled defense attorneys in the Nation are being slandered by Ellis, Scheck, and Cohen. Indigent Harris County defendants have the opportunity to have some of the best attorneys in the world representing them for free, and Ellis, Scheck and Cohen are basically sitting in Ivory Towers and telling them that they aren't good enough.

Third, no one has yet to list a case where a defense attorney asked for additional funds for investigations and couldn't get them.

Fourth, the Chronicle cites things that could happen as if they are happening:

All too often, the jurists' wishes count for more than their commitment to defend their clients to the best of their ability.
The system is easy to manipulate in favor of particular lawyers who might be friends or political contributors.
An attorney who displeases a judge can be removed from the appointment list.

On behalf of the judges and defense attorneys who take appointments, please allow me to tell the Chronicle that you can kiss their butts with lines like those.

The Holy Trinity of Cohen, Scheck, and Ellis seem to just be scratching their heads and thinking, if so many people are being convicted in Harris County and sentenced to prison, there must be something wrong with the system. It must be racist. The D.A.'s must be overaggressive. The defense must be incompetent.

Or it could be, that we live in a major metropolitan area and there is a ton of crime and therefore, there are a ton of people being punished. Maybe, just maybe, a lot of these defendants are getting sentenced to prison sentences because, oh, I don't know, maybe they actually did what they're accused of.

One last parting thought.

The editorial starts off with the following line:

Harris County is the only major metropolitan area in the country without a public defender system to represent indigent defendants.

Ah, under that theory, isn't the Chronicle the only major metropolitan newspaper to never win a Pulitzer Prize?

Maybe under that theory, we should scrap them, too.

What's the Chronicle Really Up To?

Fellow Blogger and Friend-That-I've-Never-Met, Ron in Houston is currently running a post on his blog that discusses the idea that the idea of a conspiracy that the Chronicle is setting the Republicans up to fail in the November elections, by endorsing Pat Lykos.

Where did he get such a crazy idea? Okay, maybe I came up with it in one of my earlier posts.

Ron postulates that the Chronicle may not be quite smart enough to pull off such an "elaborate conspiracy", and he's probably right about that.

My personal opinion is that the Chronicle is committed to bashing everything that is even remotely tied to the prior D.A. administration, and will more than gladly throw a baby out with some bathwater. They wouldn't endorse Jim Leitner (even though they did so in 2000), because they knew that he couldn't win, so they chose Lykos for their endorsement.

That's fine, if that's their principle, but at some point, they let their own agenda override their journalistic duties.

They are ignoring the Lykos stories because to air them would admit that they were wrong. They may have wanted Leitner for D.A., but they knew they couldn't get him. In lieu of that, they endorse Lykos, and they are committed to that course of action.

But that doesn't change their duties. The stories on Lykos are out there, and as biased as I am, those stories are relevant as to the type of candidate that Lykos is.

The Chronicle dug deep to find dirt on Kelly Siegler. What did they find? Let's count it: 1) The Lakewood Church scandal; 2) the "Jew" as a verb statement; and 3) the fact that Kelly worked for Chuck Rosenthal.

That's it.

No civil rights violations. No dirty e-mails. No wrongful convictions.

But, they ran all those other stories with an emphasis akin to Kelly selling secrets to the Soviets.

Yet, they turn a blind eye to Lykos' civil rights violations. Her hair-trigger temper. Her flagrant violation of the Constitution. Her disrespect of other people's religion. And more importantly, her lack of honesty.

I know I've given Alan Bernstein a hard time on this blog, and I'm still waiting for him to prove to me that it was undeserved. However, after watching The Wire, this season, I saw that sometimes good reporters get overruled by Editors with an Agenda.

Is that what happened to Alan?

I don't know. But I know that journalists become journalists to report the news. I don't know how any self-respecting journalist in their right mind can justify digging up old dirt on Kelly (which, by the way, she apologized for. Something Lykos has yet to do on any of her transgressions), and ignoring these stories simply because of who they endorsed.

That's not journalism.

That's campaigning.

Why the Chronicle is a bunch of B.S.

Earlier this week, I laughed out loud while reading this post from http://www.lonestartimes.com/. It seems that the writers over there have about as much respect for the Chronicle as I do. They also find it as wildly amusing that such a ridiculous newspaper could somehow earn its editor, Jeff Cohen, an award.

Now, we've discussed the issue of liberalism in the media and "liberal arts" education before, and I've got no problem with the idea of "liberalism" in a news entity. Editors and writers of newspapers are just as entitled to their opinions as the rest of them. And they are more than welcome to express their opinions often and loudly. I think its great that newspapers endorse candidates (even though I usually disagree with them).

I think it's great if they want to write opinion columns opposing every issue I personally believe in on a daily basis. Hell, it's a free country.

I just ask that you try to maintain some semblance of credibility and keep your opinions designated as opinions, and still report the NEWS when it happens. Your omissions are just as bad (if not worse) than your characterizations in news pieces.

Obviously, I'm still pretty fired up about Alan Bernstein still not reporting Yale Professor Gil Fried's experience with Pat Lykos (I will be back to you, in a minute, Alan), but the Chronicle's B.S. goes much farther than that.

It goes up to Jeff Cohen, the Editor of the Chronicle (or maybe we should call him the Chuck Rosenthal of the Chronicle, to give the folks at home a little perspective). Jeff is married to anti-death penalty advocate Katherine Kase. Katherine is to the death penalty what the Terminator is to Sarah Connor -- that is, continuously trying to eradicate it, and failing.

Obviously, I'm pro-death penalty, but I have a healthy respect for those who aren't. Although I don't agree with those who wish to abolish the death penalty, I at least understand their argument. But Katherine Kase is a lot more credible to me than her husband. She makes no bones about her feelings and fights against the death penalty in the legal field. Her husband, on the other hand, buries stories that don't suit his and his wife's agenda.

Want some examples? Andrea Yates is a household name, right?

Can you tell me who Elijah Joubert is? How about Dexter Johnson? Antonio Williams?

They were Defendants who were charged with capital murder because they each killed multiple people and were sent to death row. Joubert killed an check cashing clerk, as well as the police officer trying to save her. Johnson robbed, raped, and murdered a girl and killed her boyfriend for good measure. Williams killed five people in several incidents over the summer of 2006.

Haven't heard of them? That's because the Chronicle didn't pay much attention to those cases when they all got sentenced to death. Why? Because heaven forbid that you picked up the newspaper, read about what they did, and said "Thank goodness for the death penalty!"

If Cohen wants to write about the death penalty being unfair and immoral in his opinion pages, go for it. But hiding stories like that to help your agenda is just, well, chickenshit.

Now, back to you, Dear Alan Bernstein.

You and I have been going round and round about the yarmulke story for weeks now. Quite frankly, I'm just confused as hell as why you 1) don't run the story; or 2) just give a brief explanation in the comments as to why not. I'm confused as to why, when Anon C wrote on your blog at the Chronicle, that you elected to hunt down her real identity and e-mail her at work to let her know you knew who she was.

Kelly Siegler has put, what, like 18 people on death row? It's no wonder that your boss hates her. It's no wonder that he wants anybody but Kelly Siegler to be the District Attorney. It's no wonder that Jeff Cohen would have you dig up a story on Kelly from the 1980s when she used the word "Jew" as a verb. It's no wonder that Cohen would want to make Kelly look as bad as possible.

But you're a journalist, Alan, and you know what's a story and what's not a story. Are you just following orders? Hmm, maybe you are having just as much trouble getting through to your "Chuck Rosenthal" as the ADAs were having getting through to theirs. (NOTE: I totally stole this analogy from pro. victims' comments at Ron's blog).

You know that running the story on Kelly and then not on Lykos is chickenshit. You know that your editor is trying to sandbag her by tying her as closely as a newspaper can to Chuck Rosenthal.

You know that this wasn't why you became a journalist.

So, Alan, to paraphrase The Silence of the Lambs, are you strong enough to point that high-powered perception at yourself, and explain to us folks at home your actions and the actions of the paper? Come on man, you've been an employee there for at least 28 years, so you must be part of Jeff's "inner-circle". Can you explain why we shouldn't just attribute all of the paper's bad actions (and bad writing) to you?

NOTE: I have no expectation whatsoever that anyone from the Chronicle will respond to this article.

So Now What?

A little over 24 hours have passed since Chuck Rosenthal's sudden resignation on Friday. I have to admit that last night, I was still trying to process the meaning of it all on the Big Picture of the State of the CJC.

This morning, I read the articles and the usual blather on the Chronicle blogs. I read all of the candidates reactions, and the reactions of County Officials.

And then I realized, that Rosenthal's resignation yesterday doesn't really change all that much.

So, for the record, the following 10 things remain unchanged by Chuck's departure:

1. Alan Bernstein still isn't running the yarmulke story in the Chronicle.

2. Lloyd Kelley is still a pompous jackass who is pretending to care about his clients when, in fact, he is just trying to usher Clarence Bradford into office. (NOTE: I really liked what attorney John O'Neill said in the Chronicle: "We believe Lloyd Kelley is simply trying to take over public offices that he and his party could never win in a free election." )

3. The usual batch of moronic posts on the Chronicle website will never stop.

4. Pat Lykos still thinks dropping meaningless phrases like "the rule of law" will somehow make her seem qualified to hold the job of DA.

5. Doug Perry is still wearing his trademark hat.

6. Clarence Bradford is still remaining quiet as the Republican candidates attack each other.

7. Jim Leitner still doesn't have the name familiarity that he needs to win the nomination.

8. Kelly Siegler's detractors will still try to link her to the mythical "inner-circle" of Chuck Rosenthal, even though his prescription pain killer revelation seems to indicate he was listening to no one.

9. Kelly Siegler still has the most skill and experience to run the Office (yeah yeah yeah, I'm biased).

10. Crimes are still being committed. Prosecutors are still prosecuting the Defendants. Defense attorneys still defend them. Life goes on.

Looks like the only real difference is that Chuck is now remaining silent on the issue from the comfort of his own home, rather than on the 6th Floor of the CJC.

That was shocking. Yawn.

After consistently burying the Yarmulke story on Pat Lykos, it should be of little to no surprise that Alan Bernstein and his crew at the Chronicle would endorse the career politician in today's editorial section.

Now, I'm not stupid enough to have thought that Kelly Siegler was ever going to get the endorsement from this wildly liberal editorial board (remember that the Editor is married to ferocious anti-death penalty advocate Katherine Kase), but Lykos over Leitner?!?!?

I just don't get the love affair that Bernstein and Crew are having with Lykos at the moment.

Back in 2000, when Chuck Rosenthal was running against Mike Stafford, Pat Lykos, and Jim Leitner, the Chronicle endorsed Leitner. Fast forward 8 years, and again you have Leitner and Lykos in the same race.

What's happened in the past 8 years, Chronicle that made you change your mind?

I think that Jim has continued trying cases out the wazoo (thus, gaining even more trial experience and knowledge of how things work in the CJC).

Lykos, on the other hand, has been sitting over in Ed Emmett's Office gathering bureaucratic dust. True, she goes and sits as a visiting judge one day of the month in other counties (NOTE: No sitting criminal District or County Court Judge in Harris County will have her sit for them anymore).

But other than that, where did Lykos "make up the ground" that Leitner had on her in 2008? It certainly wasn't through additional experience within the Criminal Justice System.

The only skill that she's polished in the past eight years is political pandering.

Oh, and by the way, Mr. Bernstein . . .

Apparently in your frenzy to blast Kelly Siegler for her use of the word "Jew" as a verb (um, 20 years ago), you seemed to have neglected this little tidbit from Judge Lykos' past. And I'm really shocked that you were unaware that this story was out there.

The New York Times certainly seemed aware of it, but our local Houston paper didn't?

Now, it seems to me that an incident where Kelly wasn't aware of the offensive nature of her words twenty years ago is much less offensive than Lykos willfully showing her true feelings in open court and on the record.

Kelly immediately apologized for her actions.

Lykos steadfastly stuck by her feelings.

Which one is more offensive?

And more importantly, Mr. Bernstein, how on earth did you miss this?

Or did you?

NOTE: The search for the articles that Alan Bernstein from the Chronicle missed took an incredible amount of effort and research to find. Not only did I have to plug in the term "Jewish" into google.com, I also had to plug in the term "Lykos". Obviously, this was waaaaaaaay too difficult for the Chronicle staff to look into. Thanks to my anonymous poster for pointing this incident out.

Hey, y'all don't think that the Chronicle intentionally ignored this story because they are biased, do you?

Trial 101: For you, Lisa Falkenberg

Yesterday must have been National Integrity in Journalism Day, because I didn't see a single article bashing the D.A.'s Office for racism. Did I dare let myself believe that this was the entry into a new era of good feelings between the Chronicle and the D.A.'s office?

Nah, I'm not that stupid.

Lisa Falkenberg rode back into town this morning on her old dead horse that she's been beating, with an article about Kelly Siegler and the Lakewood juror. Except, this time she has a new twist on it. Apparently, Kelly had not exercised a peremptory strike on two other Lakewood Church members, but (gasp) they were Hispanic, and not African-American. Falkenberg clearly believes she has now found the smoking gun that proves that Kelly is a racist.

Falkenberg opines that these two dastardly potential jurors even put on their juror cards that they thought the propensity to commit violence could be linked to race. And Kelly still, didn't do her civic duty as a prosecutor and use her peremptory strikes.

So here's the deal, Lisa, because you clearly don't understand trial. Both sides have a certain set of peremptory strikes. If I recall correctly, in a death capital, each side gets 15 peremptory strikes that they can use to strike a juror for any damn reason (as long as it isn't about race).

Now, here's the deal, Lisa, which you don't seem to understand. The number "15" is a long way from infinity. Both sides tend to horde their peremptory strikes and not use them unless they have to. If one side is certain that the other side will have to "burn" one of their strikes, all the much better.

Now, Kelly and her trial partner Luci Davidson, being no dummies, read that two jurors in their questionnaires felt that "blacks are more violent than other racial groups". And, Kelly and Luci also realized that their opponents in the case were also, no dummies. Kelly and Luci knew that there was no way in Hell that Loretta Johnson Muldrow and her trial partner were going to allow those two jurors on the jury.

Does it really stretch a columnist's mind so much to see the strategy here? Okay, let me spell it out to you, Lisa. Kelly and Luci knew that Loretta would have to burn defense strikes on those jurors (if Loretta wasn't able to get the two jurors for cause). Why on earth would they use strikes?

Now, Lisa, I gotta say that I appreciate you for keeping your articles in the Columnist section, and don't pretend to be writing "real news" like Alan Bernstein does on his editorials.

But Loretta, I'm disappointed in you. You know damn good and well how a capital murder voir dire works, and you are manipulating the press to make Kelly Siegler and the D.A.'s Office out to be racists. Where's the article on you for striking not one, but two Lakewood Church members? There's not one? Why is that? Maybe because you had good, sound reasons to?

Does it really stretch the imagination so much to think that maybe Kelly and Luci had some sound reasoning in their trial strategy too?

They did win the trial, after all.

In Case You Don't Read the Comments . . .

. . . there is currently a pretty interesting exchange going on between myself and Mr. Bernstein from the Chronicle. There are also a lot of other good comments being brought up as well.

You can find them under the comments to "WTF - Pt. II".

WTF? - Part I

Damn, I hate the Houston Chronicle. I mean, I know they have always been as biased as my mother at my 5th grade spelling bee, but I mean - - well, damn.

Alan Bernstein wrote a puff piece for this morning's otherwise uneventful edition. Four separate articles on each of the four Republican candidates (I tried to find the link for y'all, but can't find it on the web for some reason. Mark, if you can find it for me, could you post it in the comments?)
At least, it starts off as a puff piece, but what it ends up being is three puff pieces on Lykos, Leitner, and Perry (the Chronicle may still acknowledge him as a candidate, but I don't) and a hatchet-job on Kelly Siegler.

I suppose that the Chronicle editors may have finally realized that stretching out the "nuts and screwballs" comment slowly over four weeks has gotten to be old news. (NOTE TO EDITORS: It was old news about three and a half weeks ago). And Lisa Falkenberg's article on Canadians had played out (which I guess happens when you do an article on something that Fox 26 broke two and a half weeks earlier). So they went looking more dirt on Kelly.

And they found it. But not until they 1) looked into her prosecutorial past for about twenty years, and 2) interviewed the president of her fan club: Dick DeGuerin.

Now let's look at this crap:

Apparently when Kelly was a misdemeanor prosecutor twenty years ago, she used the term "Jew" as a verb. The article points out that she didn't know what it meant, and went to the extra-ordinary step of actually going to the home of an offended juror and personally apologizing.

Now, everybody who is reading this board knows that the difference of knowledge and experience levels between a Baby Misdemeanor Prosecutor and a Bureau Chief could fill volumes. If I recall correctly from office folklore (and Kelly's inspirational talks at prosecutor training sessions), this is somebody who didn't win a lot of trials when she first started out. She worked her butt off to become the best prosecutor in the Office, the State, and the Country.

My point is that the Chronicle and Bernstein are absolutely ridiculous point shows that their zeal against the Office has hit new levels -- very low levels. To write such cheesy puff pieces about Lykos ("I was a charm school dropout" hee hee hee), Leitner ("I shaved my moustache") and Perry ("the tall candidate does often look the lawman part"), and then use Kelly's article to continue the smearing is just poor journalism.

Oh but wait, we aren't quite done yet. I haven't mentioned the Dick DeGuerin source. I can't link to the article, but here's what it says:

"After Siegler's recent prosecution of David Mark Temple in the 1999 killing of his pregnant wife, defense lawyer Dick DeDuerin's unsuccessful request for a new trial noted that she told law students that she regularly made remarks to juries that she knew judges would find out bounds."

So our in-depth background research was getting handed a copy of the Temple Motion for New Trial, Bernstein? Did you not do the follow up investigation into, oh, I don't know, common legal practices, which would have taught you that what is alleged in a Motion isn't evidence. I just point that out because you seem to site the Motion as some sort of proof.

And all it really is is DeGuerin stating: "It sucks that I lost my trial. I want a new one. Kelly must have cheated. I heard that she tells people she cheats."

Give me a break.

I know that there are plenty of people who read my posts on this website that don't support Kelly, and that's fine. But at least y'all will have rational discussions with me over the merits of her candidacy, as well as the candidacies of everyone else in the race (except Perry).

The Chronicle does it's readers a disservice by failing to analyze Kelly as a serious candidate when all they do is blast her with anecdotal stories.

But, then again, I've always kind of felt that the Chronicle did it's readers a disservice by existing.

NOTE: WTF? - Pt. II will be written after I eat breakfast.