The final contested matter in the Felony District Courts of the CJC for the primary season is the Democratic Primary for the 248th to see who will challenge incumbent Republican Judge Joan Campbell in November. Defense attorneys Jim Sullivan and Trent Gaither are competing for the nomination.
And unfortunately, I'm not going to have a whole lot to say on this particular race. Although I know Jim Sullivan in passing, I don't recall ever dealing with him on a case or having seen him in trial. I also don't know much about his reputation as an attorney. He has always seemed to me to be a nice and pleasant person, but I'm really don't know enough to say anything about him otherwise.
And, unfortunately, I was even less familiar with Trent. I also never had any dealings or trial with him, and it wasn't until I looked at his website that I actually put a face with the name.
Clearly, I need to get out more.
I wish I had some more information on this particular race. The bottom line is that both guys are regulars at the courthouse who do primarily criminal law work. I've never heard anything bad about either of them, so I can't really make a call on this race.
So, I'll just wish them both good luck and see what the commenters have to say.
Wednesday, February 10, 2010
Tuesday, February 9, 2010
The Race for the 180th District Court (Democrat) [Updated]
[NOTE: I received an e-mail from Darrell Jordan this morning (2/12/10) pointing out some things he disputed in the post I did on him regarding his dealings with Sylvia Escobedo. I have made those changes and noted where they are within the post. If these edits and additions change your mind about Mr. Jordan, then I apologize for their initial omissions.]
Some of the recommendations in the Judicial Races are very difficult to make.
This isn't one of those difficult ones.
The race on the Democratic side of the 180th District Court race is between former-prosecutor and now defense attorney Lori Gooch and defense attorney Darrell Jordan.
In case any of you are dying in suspense, the clear choice for this race is Lori.
Lori graduated from law school in 2001 and came to work at the Harris County D.A.'s Office that year, which is where I first met her. There are some people that walked in the door of that Office that were just instantly adored by everyone that they worked with, and Lori was one of those people. She quickly earned a reputation as a tough, no-nonsense prosecutor with excellent trial ability and excellent judgment. She had an uncanny ability to read the people she dealt with on a daily basis and use that in trial.
I'm not exaggerating when I say that Lori ranks near the top as one of the Office Favorites during the time I was there. She certainly was one of my favorite people.
I was sad to see her leave the Office around 2004, but stunned at the same time to see how quickly she made the transition to a very skilled defense attorney. She jumped headfirst into the defense side of the law, and soon had a reputation as a tough lawyer who could handle the toughest murder case on down. Lori has also demonstrated an amazing level of "client control", as I've watched her stand up to even the most hardened criminal who tried to be disrespectful to her. She genuinely cares about her clients and tries to get the best result for them, but she definitely doesn't put up with their B.S., either.
She would make a great judge.
Before I proceed on Darrell Jordan, I am going to acknowledge that a lot of my criticisms of him are based on a personal level, although I do think the story is relevant. You can discount it if you want. I'll understand.
Darrell Jordan does have an impressive background in his schooling and his military JAG service. However, he hasn't even been a licensed attorney for 5 years, and prior to the middle of last year, I'd never even heard of the guy. My understanding is that you have to have been a lawyer for 5 years before you can even become a judge. He will cross the five year thresh hold in June, but do we really want someone with the bare minimum credentials sitting on the bench?
My bigger issue with Darrell is the way he treated my ex-wife last summer when she was hired to take family pictures for him.
As many of you know, my ex-wife, Sylvia Escobedo also dabbles as a photographer, which is something she is very talented at. Last year, Darrell asked her to photograph him and his family, which she gladly did.
When the pictures were ready, she turned them over to Darrell, which left the only thing remaining on his order a large canvass photograph that was still being processed. Prior to turning over the canvass to Darrell, Sylvia asked him to pay for the pictures.
And that's when it got ugly.
[ADDITION: Darrell came and picked up all the initial prints from Sylvia and she told him that the bill for those pictures was going to be $1500. At that time, Darrell only had $500 on him, which he gave to Sylvia and said he would pay her the rest the following week. Sylvia agreed and gave him the pictures at that time. On August 25, 2009, he sent her an e-mail saying (among other things) "I am not a confrontational person so I tried to tell you in a nice way that I am not going to pay $1500 for pictures. I have never agreed to do so."] Darrell announced he wasn't going to pay Sylvia's bill because he thought it was too expensive.
After Sylvia had explained to him that the prices were listed on her website, he angrily accused her of changing the prices since the photo shoot. (NOTE: She didn't). [ADDITION: In the August 25th e-mail, Darrell also wrote: "I had no idea you would go from affordable photographer to photographer for the rich and famous. I think it was very clear when I came to pick up the pictures I had no idea how much they were and I told you so." Yet, he was told on that date what the price was, and he said he would pay the rest later and took the pictures.]
In the meantime, Sylvia had an out-of-pocket expense for the canvass that she had to pay.
And although I was encouraging her to sue Darrell, she ultimately made the agreement that if he would just pay her for the price of the canvass, she would call it even -- just so that she could cover the price of its out-of-pocket expense. [ADDITION: Darrell agreed to pay the $549 price for the cost of the canvass, but required Sylvia to deliver it to his wife's office.]
Darrell got all those photos for the [EDIT: $500 and the] cost of a canvass, and Sylvia operated at a loss. [ADDITION: Sylvia had already discounted her website prices about 50% since Darrell had placed such a very large order and she still lost $500 due to Darrell's refusal to pay the remainder of the tab.]
And the follow up was that Darrell had the audacity to later ask Sylvia for permission to use the photographs for his campaign. She told him if he would like to pay her the remainder of his bill that would be fine. She hasn't heard back from him since.
[ADDITION: When I initially wrote this post, I was not aware that Darrell had paid Sylvia $500 on the day he took possession of the pictures. However, in my opinion, he still placed an order for something, received that which he ordered, dictated that he was not going to pay more than what he wished, and basically got what he wanted. That wouldn't work at a store or in a restaurant, but apparently works in the world of photography.]
So, due to the way he treated the mother of my child, I've got some issues with Darrell Jordan's character. Maybe I'm just biased, but you can make that decision yourself.
But, as for Lori Gooch, I've got absolutely no reservation.
Lori has the experience, the ethics, the toughness, the guts, and the integrity to be a great judge.
Some of the recommendations in the Judicial Races are very difficult to make.
This isn't one of those difficult ones.
The race on the Democratic side of the 180th District Court race is between former-prosecutor and now defense attorney Lori Gooch and defense attorney Darrell Jordan.
In case any of you are dying in suspense, the clear choice for this race is Lori.
Lori graduated from law school in 2001 and came to work at the Harris County D.A.'s Office that year, which is where I first met her. There are some people that walked in the door of that Office that were just instantly adored by everyone that they worked with, and Lori was one of those people. She quickly earned a reputation as a tough, no-nonsense prosecutor with excellent trial ability and excellent judgment. She had an uncanny ability to read the people she dealt with on a daily basis and use that in trial.
I'm not exaggerating when I say that Lori ranks near the top as one of the Office Favorites during the time I was there. She certainly was one of my favorite people.
I was sad to see her leave the Office around 2004, but stunned at the same time to see how quickly she made the transition to a very skilled defense attorney. She jumped headfirst into the defense side of the law, and soon had a reputation as a tough lawyer who could handle the toughest murder case on down. Lori has also demonstrated an amazing level of "client control", as I've watched her stand up to even the most hardened criminal who tried to be disrespectful to her. She genuinely cares about her clients and tries to get the best result for them, but she definitely doesn't put up with their B.S., either.
She would make a great judge.
Before I proceed on Darrell Jordan, I am going to acknowledge that a lot of my criticisms of him are based on a personal level, although I do think the story is relevant. You can discount it if you want. I'll understand.
Darrell Jordan does have an impressive background in his schooling and his military JAG service. However, he hasn't even been a licensed attorney for 5 years, and prior to the middle of last year, I'd never even heard of the guy. My understanding is that you have to have been a lawyer for 5 years before you can even become a judge. He will cross the five year thresh hold in June, but do we really want someone with the bare minimum credentials sitting on the bench?
My bigger issue with Darrell is the way he treated my ex-wife last summer when she was hired to take family pictures for him.
As many of you know, my ex-wife, Sylvia Escobedo also dabbles as a photographer, which is something she is very talented at. Last year, Darrell asked her to photograph him and his family, which she gladly did.
When the pictures were ready, she turned them over to Darrell, which left the only thing remaining on his order a large canvass photograph that was still being processed. Prior to turning over the canvass to Darrell, Sylvia asked him to pay for the pictures.
And that's when it got ugly.
[ADDITION: Darrell came and picked up all the initial prints from Sylvia and she told him that the bill for those pictures was going to be $1500. At that time, Darrell only had $500 on him, which he gave to Sylvia and said he would pay her the rest the following week. Sylvia agreed and gave him the pictures at that time. On August 25, 2009, he sent her an e-mail saying (among other things) "I am not a confrontational person so I tried to tell you in a nice way that I am not going to pay $1500 for pictures. I have never agreed to do so."] Darrell announced he wasn't going to pay Sylvia's bill because he thought it was too expensive.
After Sylvia had explained to him that the prices were listed on her website, he angrily accused her of changing the prices since the photo shoot. (NOTE: She didn't). [ADDITION: In the August 25th e-mail, Darrell also wrote: "I had no idea you would go from affordable photographer to photographer for the rich and famous. I think it was very clear when I came to pick up the pictures I had no idea how much they were and I told you so." Yet, he was told on that date what the price was, and he said he would pay the rest later and took the pictures.]
In the meantime, Sylvia had an out-of-pocket expense for the canvass that she had to pay.
And although I was encouraging her to sue Darrell, she ultimately made the agreement that if he would just pay her for the price of the canvass, she would call it even -- just so that she could cover the price of its out-of-pocket expense. [ADDITION: Darrell agreed to pay the $549 price for the cost of the canvass, but required Sylvia to deliver it to his wife's office.]
Darrell got all those photos for the [EDIT: $500 and the] cost of a canvass, and Sylvia operated at a loss. [ADDITION: Sylvia had already discounted her website prices about 50% since Darrell had placed such a very large order and she still lost $500 due to Darrell's refusal to pay the remainder of the tab.]
And the follow up was that Darrell had the audacity to later ask Sylvia for permission to use the photographs for his campaign. She told him if he would like to pay her the remainder of his bill that would be fine. She hasn't heard back from him since.
[ADDITION: When I initially wrote this post, I was not aware that Darrell had paid Sylvia $500 on the day he took possession of the pictures. However, in my opinion, he still placed an order for something, received that which he ordered, dictated that he was not going to pay more than what he wished, and basically got what he wanted. That wouldn't work at a store or in a restaurant, but apparently works in the world of photography.]
So, due to the way he treated the mother of my child, I've got some issues with Darrell Jordan's character. Maybe I'm just biased, but you can make that decision yourself.
But, as for Lori Gooch, I've got absolutely no reservation.
Lori has the experience, the ethics, the toughness, the guts, and the integrity to be a great judge.
Saturday, February 6, 2010
The Race for the 180th District Court (Republican)
The announcement of long-time 180th District Court Judge Debbie Stricklin that she would not be seeking re-election this year has brought out five candidates to replace her, with 3 on the Republican side and 2 on the Democratic side. On the Republican side, we have Harris County District Attorney's Office Division Chief Marc Brown, defense attorney Emily Munoz, and Danny Dexter vying for the spot.
In this race, I know all three candidates. Two of them are very good candidates. The other one absolutely flabbergasts the mind as to why anyone would consider voting for him.
Danny Dexter is a former Assistant District Attorney who was fired from the Office in 2004 because he was incompetent of doing the job. Since 2004, nobody has seen him around the CJC and he certainly hasn't been practicing as a defense attorney at the State level. For some reason, he has been able to garner the endorsements of some high level Republicans, which just absolutely astounds me, because Danny has absolutely no clue on earth as to what he is doing.
I don't mean to be cruel about Danny. I worked with him and he was a very nice person, but being a nice person doesn't mean that you are cut out for a job. I consider myself to be a swell guy, but that doesn't mean that I deserve to be the quarterback for the Texans, for example.
Danny was a terrible prosecutor and he didn't do his job.
At all.
When I started at the D.A.'s Office, he was a misdemeanor chief. He was still at the same level when I became a Felony Two three years later. The Office tried to take a gamble on him and promote him to the level of Felony Two, but he absolutely cratered within months and had to be fired.
Back then, the Office was extremely cautious in their firings and there was careful documentation before a person got terminated. And although Danny fought the release of the evaluations that ultimately led to his termination, they are now making the rounds of the political circles.
Some of the highlights from his evaluations include these criticisms from one Chief:
-"[his]preparation has become increasingly disappointing."
-"making offers on trial day that are well below what has previously been offered, including the reduction of cases for the simple purpose of pleading it."
-"Danny has been less than truthful with me on several of his cases"
-"Danny is too quick dismiss on some cases and too hard line on others."
-"it has not been unusual to have cases reset multiple times for Danny to complete one task"
-"Danny no longer appears to have enthusiasm for his job".
-"Danny is currently doing the bare minimum on his cases."
-"Danny's uninspired trial skills and lackadaisical attitude have made it clear to me that he is not ready to handle the more serious cases."
-"I have counseled with Danny on several occasions regarding this decrease and have seen no improvement."
Another Chief had this to say:
-"on occasion [he] misstates the law and confuses the jurors".
-"He sometimes pouts when the judge rules against him."
-"Danny's knowledge of some basic areas of the law is weak."
-"his [trial preparation] was woefully lacking."
-"Too often Danny does not exercise good judgment."
-"deficiencies in Danny's judgment, case evaluation, case preparation, and people skills suggest he would not make a good chief."
-"there have been instances where he has done exactly as he pleases despite being told otherwise."
This same chief also detailed at length about how Danny had been sent to Career Prosecutor School and left the vast majority of his extremely serious cases unprepared and uncovered for trial. He also took days off after being expressly told that he couldn't.
I'm sorry, Danny. You were a nice guy, but you were no prosecutor. You aren't a practicing attorney in the CJC now, and you've got absolutely no business sitting on the bench handling such incredibly important matters in the future.
In an election year where we've already identified several bad choices running for Office, Danny may just be the Crown Jewel of Bad Decisions.
My friend, Emily Munoz, on the other hand, is a former prosecutor and has now had a successful defense practice for about ten years. Prior to working at the District Attorney's Office, she worked as a Briefing Attorney for the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. She is also Board Certified in Criminal Law.
Emily is a very vocal and active member of the defense bar who doesn't shy away from going to trial on even the toughest cases. She is an admirable advocate for her clients, combining her intelligence and trial presence to help them.
One of the things that impresses me the most about Emily is her desire to win the 180th bench is based on a duty to serve the public. She wants good candidates in good positions, and she has conducted her campaign accordingly.
But as much as I like Emily and think she would do a good job as judge, my support in this race goes to Marc Brown.
Marc is a 21 year veteran of the District Attorney's Office who has tried every type of case from DWI to a death penalty capital murder. During the time I was with the Office, he (along with Ted Wilson) were the foremost authorities on Search and Seizure law, and he was a walking law library on the latest case law. When Marc was promoted to Division Chief, he became the head of the Misdemeanor Division, where he found himself enjoying the opportunity to teach the Baby Prosecutor's on the basics of how to do their job.
Marc is a very laid back prosecutor who was never afraid to show compassion in his job when compassion was warranted. But on the other hand, Marc also never shied away from a jury trial and putting the hammer down on violent criminals. In 2004, Marc was trying an extremely violent defendant who had tried to rob an undercover police officer at gunpoint, when the Defendant attacked him in open court. Marc never let that scare him off of trying cases or helping make suggestions about courtroom security.
He's tried high profile cases, including the murder of an off duty police officer, and he is a nationally recognized authority on major narcotics trafficking cases.
He's also a guy I admire a lot and think would make a great judge.
In this race, I know all three candidates. Two of them are very good candidates. The other one absolutely flabbergasts the mind as to why anyone would consider voting for him.
Danny Dexter is a former Assistant District Attorney who was fired from the Office in 2004 because he was incompetent of doing the job. Since 2004, nobody has seen him around the CJC and he certainly hasn't been practicing as a defense attorney at the State level. For some reason, he has been able to garner the endorsements of some high level Republicans, which just absolutely astounds me, because Danny has absolutely no clue on earth as to what he is doing.
I don't mean to be cruel about Danny. I worked with him and he was a very nice person, but being a nice person doesn't mean that you are cut out for a job. I consider myself to be a swell guy, but that doesn't mean that I deserve to be the quarterback for the Texans, for example.
Danny was a terrible prosecutor and he didn't do his job.
At all.
When I started at the D.A.'s Office, he was a misdemeanor chief. He was still at the same level when I became a Felony Two three years later. The Office tried to take a gamble on him and promote him to the level of Felony Two, but he absolutely cratered within months and had to be fired.
Back then, the Office was extremely cautious in their firings and there was careful documentation before a person got terminated. And although Danny fought the release of the evaluations that ultimately led to his termination, they are now making the rounds of the political circles.
Some of the highlights from his evaluations include these criticisms from one Chief:
-"[his]preparation has become increasingly disappointing."
-"making offers on trial day that are well below what has previously been offered, including the reduction of cases for the simple purpose of pleading it."
-"Danny has been less than truthful with me on several of his cases"
-"Danny is too quick dismiss on some cases and too hard line on others."
-"it has not been unusual to have cases reset multiple times for Danny to complete one task"
-"Danny no longer appears to have enthusiasm for his job".
-"Danny is currently doing the bare minimum on his cases."
-"Danny's uninspired trial skills and lackadaisical attitude have made it clear to me that he is not ready to handle the more serious cases."
-"I have counseled with Danny on several occasions regarding this decrease and have seen no improvement."
Another Chief had this to say:
-"on occasion [he] misstates the law and confuses the jurors".
-"He sometimes pouts when the judge rules against him."
-"Danny's knowledge of some basic areas of the law is weak."
-"his [trial preparation] was woefully lacking."
-"Too often Danny does not exercise good judgment."
-"deficiencies in Danny's judgment, case evaluation, case preparation, and people skills suggest he would not make a good chief."
-"there have been instances where he has done exactly as he pleases despite being told otherwise."
This same chief also detailed at length about how Danny had been sent to Career Prosecutor School and left the vast majority of his extremely serious cases unprepared and uncovered for trial. He also took days off after being expressly told that he couldn't.
I'm sorry, Danny. You were a nice guy, but you were no prosecutor. You aren't a practicing attorney in the CJC now, and you've got absolutely no business sitting on the bench handling such incredibly important matters in the future.
In an election year where we've already identified several bad choices running for Office, Danny may just be the Crown Jewel of Bad Decisions.
My friend, Emily Munoz, on the other hand, is a former prosecutor and has now had a successful defense practice for about ten years. Prior to working at the District Attorney's Office, she worked as a Briefing Attorney for the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. She is also Board Certified in Criminal Law.
Emily is a very vocal and active member of the defense bar who doesn't shy away from going to trial on even the toughest cases. She is an admirable advocate for her clients, combining her intelligence and trial presence to help them.
One of the things that impresses me the most about Emily is her desire to win the 180th bench is based on a duty to serve the public. She wants good candidates in good positions, and she has conducted her campaign accordingly.
But as much as I like Emily and think she would do a good job as judge, my support in this race goes to Marc Brown.
Marc is a 21 year veteran of the District Attorney's Office who has tried every type of case from DWI to a death penalty capital murder. During the time I was with the Office, he (along with Ted Wilson) were the foremost authorities on Search and Seizure law, and he was a walking law library on the latest case law. When Marc was promoted to Division Chief, he became the head of the Misdemeanor Division, where he found himself enjoying the opportunity to teach the Baby Prosecutor's on the basics of how to do their job.
Marc is a very laid back prosecutor who was never afraid to show compassion in his job when compassion was warranted. But on the other hand, Marc also never shied away from a jury trial and putting the hammer down on violent criminals. In 2004, Marc was trying an extremely violent defendant who had tried to rob an undercover police officer at gunpoint, when the Defendant attacked him in open court. Marc never let that scare him off of trying cases or helping make suggestions about courtroom security.
He's tried high profile cases, including the murder of an off duty police officer, and he is a nationally recognized authority on major narcotics trafficking cases.
He's also a guy I admire a lot and think would make a great judge.
Commissioner Gordon, Turn on the Pat Signal!
Looks like the past 24 hours have been busy ones for the fine men and women that investigate homicides in Harris County.
According to this article in the Chronicle this morning, there were ten homicides in a 24 hour period, which is an unusually high amount. Normally, an article like this isn't something that I would put in the blog, except for the fact that Pat Lykos decided to come to the rescue in figuring out the murders!
District Attorney Pat Lykos said her office is studying the surge in violence that included two double homicides, two murder-suicides, a police-involved death and a shooting in which a mother allegedly killed her son.
“We are conducting an analysis to determine whether this is a tragic anomaly or if it portends an alarming trend,” Lykos said in a statement released Friday.
An analysis?
Um, yeah. Considering the fact that Lykos and the Gang Who Couldn't Shoot Straight couldn't find their ass with both hands and a flashlight, I'm not feeling really confident that Snookems is going to crack the statistical reason these murders occurred.
Are we examining the possibility that perhaps the Joker put some sort of homicidal-rage-inducing-agent in the city's water supply?
Holy catfish, Hannah Chow! Well, at least Lykos was able to correctly use the word "portends" in a sentence. That's more credit than I would have given her, quite frankly.
In the meantime, I think as a citizen and a voter, I'm pretty much satisfied when HPD and HCSO says the homicides were all unrelated domestic violence situations. It is certainly a tragic series of events, but I'm hoping Lykos doesn't spend a whole lot of time and money trying to relate the killings.
She should be saving the money to polish her hardwood floors and finish out the conference room.
According to this article in the Chronicle this morning, there were ten homicides in a 24 hour period, which is an unusually high amount. Normally, an article like this isn't something that I would put in the blog, except for the fact that Pat Lykos decided to come to the rescue in figuring out the murders!
District Attorney Pat Lykos said her office is studying the surge in violence that included two double homicides, two murder-suicides, a police-involved death and a shooting in which a mother allegedly killed her son.
“We are conducting an analysis to determine whether this is a tragic anomaly or if it portends an alarming trend,” Lykos said in a statement released Friday.
An analysis?
Um, yeah. Considering the fact that Lykos and the Gang Who Couldn't Shoot Straight couldn't find their ass with both hands and a flashlight, I'm not feeling really confident that Snookems is going to crack the statistical reason these murders occurred.
Are we examining the possibility that perhaps the Joker put some sort of homicidal-rage-inducing-agent in the city's water supply?
Holy catfish, Hannah Chow! Well, at least Lykos was able to correctly use the word "portends" in a sentence. That's more credit than I would have given her, quite frankly.
In the meantime, I think as a citizen and a voter, I'm pretty much satisfied when HPD and HCSO says the homicides were all unrelated domestic violence situations. It is certainly a tragic series of events, but I'm hoping Lykos doesn't spend a whole lot of time and money trying to relate the killings.
She should be saving the money to polish her hardwood floors and finish out the conference room.
The Ghost of Bernstein Lingers
Okay, so apparently the offense report regarding Rachel Palmer's fiancee, Don Hooper, and Rachel's badge is out and about, now. The question now becomes is the media going to ask Lykos and crew why something wasn't done about Hooper and/or Palmer following the incident. Is it because Hooper is a big Republican backer and buddy of Lykos?
I'm hoping that one of the journalists (hint, hint Brian Rogers) is going to step up with the story and not follow in the footsteps of journalistic hack Alan Bernstein who hid from the Pat Lykos yarmulke story like a scared kitten for months and months.
At least we can't blame Bernstein for not doing this story -- he finally stepped down from pretending to be a journalist so that he could go work for the HCSO as Chief Apologist.
I'm hoping that one of the journalists (hint, hint Brian Rogers) is going to step up with the story and not follow in the footsteps of journalistic hack Alan Bernstein who hid from the Pat Lykos yarmulke story like a scared kitten for months and months.
At least we can't blame Bernstein for not doing this story -- he finally stepped down from pretending to be a journalist so that he could go work for the HCSO as Chief Apologist.
Thursday, February 4, 2010
The Race for County Court at Law # 13 (Democrat)
The final contested primary at the Misdemeanor level is that of County Court at Law # 13, where Dennis Slate and John V. O'Sullivan are competing on the Democratic ticket to replace retiring Judge Mark Atkinson.
Unfortunately, I'm not familiar with John V. O'Sullivan, or at least, I'm not putting a face with a name. He also doesn't have a website up for me to do an unofficial photo array. His name sounds extremely familiar and I've been told I would know who he was if I saw him. But, right now, I've got nothing. I have heard that he's a nice guy.
I do know Dennis Slate, however, and I've got to say that his resume is an impressive one. As you can see from his website, he's been in the military since he graduated from high school, and in addition to his law practice, he has also been serving as a municipal associate judge in both Pearland and Houston.
Someone had previously written on the blog that Dennis didn't do criminal law, but that's not true. I have seen him working on criminal cases at the CJC on numerous occasions. It's true that he doesn't do all his work here, but he isn't someone who has never walked in the door of the place.
On a personal level, Dennis is a good guy. He and I have a group of mutual friends so we run into each other every once in a while. He's clearly a very intelligent attorney with a good and balanced demeanor who would make a good judge.
Unfortunately, I'm not familiar with John V. O'Sullivan, or at least, I'm not putting a face with a name. He also doesn't have a website up for me to do an unofficial photo array. His name sounds extremely familiar and I've been told I would know who he was if I saw him. But, right now, I've got nothing. I have heard that he's a nice guy.
I do know Dennis Slate, however, and I've got to say that his resume is an impressive one. As you can see from his website, he's been in the military since he graduated from high school, and in addition to his law practice, he has also been serving as a municipal associate judge in both Pearland and Houston.
Someone had previously written on the blog that Dennis didn't do criminal law, but that's not true. I have seen him working on criminal cases at the CJC on numerous occasions. It's true that he doesn't do all his work here, but he isn't someone who has never walked in the door of the place.
On a personal level, Dennis is a good guy. He and I have a group of mutual friends so we run into each other every once in a while. He's clearly a very intelligent attorney with a good and balanced demeanor who would make a good judge.
Wednesday, February 3, 2010
A New Houston Press Article
This week's Houston Press is out with a great article on the D.A.'s Office's handling of vehicular fatalities written by John Lomax.
The article is somewhat stunning because it has me agreeing with Mark Bennett on several issues -- although I do think that Bennett is trying to recreate his High School Senior Photo with his pose in the article's picture. (That will teach Mark to insult my couch.)
I think Catherine Evans should be commended for finally articulating some of the criteria the D.A.'s Office is looking at in filing the charges. See how she did that Jim? You don't have to run out of the interview when you actually know what in the hell you are talking about.
The article is somewhat stunning because it has me agreeing with Mark Bennett on several issues -- although I do think that Bennett is trying to recreate his High School Senior Photo with his pose in the article's picture. (That will teach Mark to insult my couch.)
I think Catherine Evans should be commended for finally articulating some of the criteria the D.A.'s Office is looking at in filing the charges. See how she did that Jim? You don't have to run out of the interview when you actually know what in the hell you are talking about.
Tuesday, February 2, 2010
The Race for County Court at Law # 13 (Republican)
Unquestionably the most heated primary race this Spring is the Republican Primary in County Court at Law # 13 to replace Judge Mark Atkinson, who is not running for re-election. Before the field was even finalized, there was mass confusion as Felony Division Chief Denise Bradley (who was originally in the CCL # 13 race) switched to the 262nd race, leaving controversial Deputy Misdemeanor Chief Rachel Palmer seemingly unopposed in the primary.
That changed on December 23rd, when Division Chief Don Smyth announced his candidacy. Don's decision to run was a principled and gutsy call considering the fact that Palmer had about a year headstart on him in campaigning. Nevertheless, Don and his supporters were able to raise over 700 signatures in slightly over a week (when only 250 were required) and Don is now at the top of the ballot.
The differences between the two candidates could not be more pronounced.
Rachel has been practicing law less than 7 years. Don has been doing criminal law for over 32.
Rachel hasn't risen to the level of Felony Chief in the Office, although she claims (in an extremely misleading manner) to be the Deputy Chief of the Office. Don is a Division Chief and Former Bureau Chief.
Don has tried every type of case that the District Attorney's Office has handled, while Rachel seems to be cooling her heels as a Lykos loyalist in Misdemeanor.
Don is loved by the prosecutors working under him, while Rachel's misdemeanor prosecutors have complained about feeling pressured to support her when they have found her campaign literature placed on their desks. Don is also known for backing up his people when they need it, while Palmer is more known for her willingness to tattle to Lykos.
Rachel's knowledge of the law has been questionable as her judgment during her history with the Office. During an Aggravated Sexual Assault of a Child case, she caused a mistrial by asking the police officer whether or not the defendant had refused to take a polygraph exam -- a very basic question that even a regular viewer of Law and Order would recognize as inadmissible. Because the mistrial had been based on the prosecution's question, the Defense argued the case was barred from retrial due to prosecutorial misconduct. Fortunately, the Court ultimately ruled against prosecutorial misconduct and the case was allowed to proceed. Prosecutor Brent Mayr ultimately retried it and the Defendant went to prison. (NOTE: For more information, check out State of Texas v. Daniel Lee Sandifer.)
In addition, Rachel's attitude both in and away from the Office has been very off-putting for many. She is clearly a Lykos Insider who enjoys her position of power, but word of her exerting her influence as Deputy Dawg of Misdemeanor and a prosecutor, in general, are concerning. She is known as a bully to those people that aren't in HER inner circle.
Don, on the other hand, has never been accused of playing favorites. He is, quite literally, a Boy Scout -- having been active in the Organization since 1986 as a Scout Master and Scout Master Emeritus. He served for years and years as the Division Chief of the Civil Rights Division before becoming the Bureau Chief of the Governmental Affairs Bureau (which encompassed the Civil Rights and Public Integrity Divisions). He had to take the unpopular job of being the prosecutor that investigated police officers accused of wrong-doing. It may not have made him entirely popular with some police officers, but it takes a man of high integrity to hold the position for as long as he did.
He held the position of Bureau Chief until the Lykos Circus came to town and demoted him to Division Chief (because apparently in a Lykos world, they need more Rachel Palmers and less Don Smyths -- go figure.)
Don is unquestionably more qualified and would be the better judge, but he has an uphill battle due to Rachel's head start. She has the support of wealthy benefactor Carolyn Farb (has she ever even been to the CJC?) and Pat Lykos. Don's campaign is more of a Grassroots Movement from people who know the difference between a good candidate and a bad one. He needs all the help he can to win this campaign.
That being said, there is a Fundraiser for Don Smyth tomorrow (Wednesday, February 3rd) from 5 p.m. to 7 p.m. at the Armadillo Palace on Kirby in the Rice Village Area.
For those of us interested in good government, it's a "Can't Miss" Event.
Don Smyth is far and away the best candidate in this race.
That changed on December 23rd, when Division Chief Don Smyth announced his candidacy. Don's decision to run was a principled and gutsy call considering the fact that Palmer had about a year headstart on him in campaigning. Nevertheless, Don and his supporters were able to raise over 700 signatures in slightly over a week (when only 250 were required) and Don is now at the top of the ballot.
The differences between the two candidates could not be more pronounced.
Rachel has been practicing law less than 7 years. Don has been doing criminal law for over 32.
Rachel hasn't risen to the level of Felony Chief in the Office, although she claims (in an extremely misleading manner) to be the Deputy Chief of the Office. Don is a Division Chief and Former Bureau Chief.
Don has tried every type of case that the District Attorney's Office has handled, while Rachel seems to be cooling her heels as a Lykos loyalist in Misdemeanor.
Don is loved by the prosecutors working under him, while Rachel's misdemeanor prosecutors have complained about feeling pressured to support her when they have found her campaign literature placed on their desks. Don is also known for backing up his people when they need it, while Palmer is more known for her willingness to tattle to Lykos.
Rachel's knowledge of the law has been questionable as her judgment during her history with the Office. During an Aggravated Sexual Assault of a Child case, she caused a mistrial by asking the police officer whether or not the defendant had refused to take a polygraph exam -- a very basic question that even a regular viewer of Law and Order would recognize as inadmissible. Because the mistrial had been based on the prosecution's question, the Defense argued the case was barred from retrial due to prosecutorial misconduct. Fortunately, the Court ultimately ruled against prosecutorial misconduct and the case was allowed to proceed. Prosecutor Brent Mayr ultimately retried it and the Defendant went to prison. (NOTE: For more information, check out State of Texas v. Daniel Lee Sandifer.)
In addition, Rachel's attitude both in and away from the Office has been very off-putting for many. She is clearly a Lykos Insider who enjoys her position of power, but word of her exerting her influence as Deputy Dawg of Misdemeanor and a prosecutor, in general, are concerning. She is known as a bully to those people that aren't in HER inner circle.
Don, on the other hand, has never been accused of playing favorites. He is, quite literally, a Boy Scout -- having been active in the Organization since 1986 as a Scout Master and Scout Master Emeritus. He served for years and years as the Division Chief of the Civil Rights Division before becoming the Bureau Chief of the Governmental Affairs Bureau (which encompassed the Civil Rights and Public Integrity Divisions). He had to take the unpopular job of being the prosecutor that investigated police officers accused of wrong-doing. It may not have made him entirely popular with some police officers, but it takes a man of high integrity to hold the position for as long as he did.
He held the position of Bureau Chief until the Lykos Circus came to town and demoted him to Division Chief (because apparently in a Lykos world, they need more Rachel Palmers and less Don Smyths -- go figure.)
Don is unquestionably more qualified and would be the better judge, but he has an uphill battle due to Rachel's head start. She has the support of wealthy benefactor Carolyn Farb (has she ever even been to the CJC?) and Pat Lykos. Don's campaign is more of a Grassroots Movement from people who know the difference between a good candidate and a bad one. He needs all the help he can to win this campaign.
That being said, there is a Fundraiser for Don Smyth tomorrow (Wednesday, February 3rd) from 5 p.m. to 7 p.m. at the Armadillo Palace on Kirby in the Rice Village Area.
For those of us interested in good government, it's a "Can't Miss" Event.
Don Smyth is far and away the best candidate in this race.
Monday, February 1, 2010
This Has Absolutely Nothing to Do with the CJC . . .
. . . but the History major in me couldn't keep from posting this article off of CNN.com.
It is very thought-provoking that out of the entirety of World War I, we only have one single veteran from such a massive conflict left in the United States. It is amazing to me how quickly the "present" can transform into "history" without so many of us ever fully appreciating it.
Take a minute to recognize and ask questions of the Veterans in your family and circle of friends. They were a part of a history that seems to escape all too quickly.
It is very thought-provoking that out of the entirety of World War I, we only have one single veteran from such a massive conflict left in the United States. It is amazing to me how quickly the "present" can transform into "history" without so many of us ever fully appreciating it.
Take a minute to recognize and ask questions of the Veterans in your family and circle of friends. They were a part of a history that seems to escape all too quickly.
The Race for County Court at Law # 12 (Democrat)
There are two attorneys running in the Democratic primary to face off against incumbent Judge Robin Brown for Court 12 in November. Robert Cardenas and Cheryl Harris-Diggs both practice criminal law, but I'm only familiar with Robert. Neither candidate appears to have an available website for their campaigns that I could find.
I recognize Ms. Diggs' name, but I don't believe that we've ever dealt with each other on a case. Maybe one of the commenters will be able to provide some information on her.
Robert and I tried a case against each other back when I was a Baby Prosecutor, and I recall him as being a very ethical and pleasant person to try a case against. He was fairly quiet, but he was thorough in his defense. We tried a DWI case against each other and I do remember that he cultivated a defense indicating his client had diabetes. Although the defense ultimately did not work, Robert had done a thorough job of presenting the case and establishing his defense.
He was above-board throughout the trial and I never knew of anyone ever having a problem with the way he handles his business.
I recognize Ms. Diggs' name, but I don't believe that we've ever dealt with each other on a case. Maybe one of the commenters will be able to provide some information on her.
Robert and I tried a case against each other back when I was a Baby Prosecutor, and I recall him as being a very ethical and pleasant person to try a case against. He was fairly quiet, but he was thorough in his defense. We tried a DWI case against each other and I do remember that he cultivated a defense indicating his client had diabetes. Although the defense ultimately did not work, Robert had done a thorough job of presenting the case and establishing his defense.
He was above-board throughout the trial and I never knew of anyone ever having a problem with the way he handles his business.
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...
