A New First Assistant

Okay, I'm going to admit to the title of this being somewhat misleading (although accurate).

You can rest assured that Harris County still has the same First Assistant (at least in title) and that Jim Leitner's huevos are still resting comfortably in Pat Lykos' purse.

However, the Galveston County District Attorney's Office apparently has a new First Assistant . . .

Donna Goode.

One of the increasingly cliched statements I keep hearing on this blog is "Pat Lykos vowed to create the best District Attorney's Office in the Nation, and she has . . . just in another county." Both Galveston and Montgomery County have reaped the incredible benefit of dedicated public servants who have joined them when the Gang Who Couldn't Shoot Straight became too unbearable to work for.

I think it is worth pointing out that Donna Goode more than had her retirement points in and could very easily have settled into a well deserved retirement, but she didn't.

There is something special about prosecutors -- especially career ones. Lykos, Leitner, Bridgwater, and the rest of the Branch Davidians may have been successful in running Donna out of Harris County, but nothing they did could take the prosecutor out of her.

The situation that Bridgwater created (and Lykos condoned) with Donna has now proven itself to be a clear definition of winners and losers in Harris County. I'll let you decide for yourself who is who.

Right now, I'm too busy applauding Galveston County and Donna Goode.

On a side note, speaking of huevos and who has them (and who doesn't), major kudos to George Weissfisch for his speech at Baby Prosecutor's school today. George, a former Harris County prosecutor spoke at the semi-annual seminar hosted by the Texas District and County Attorney's Association. His topic was prosecuting DWI offenses in Texas, and his audience was the entirety of rookie prosecutors in the state.

If Roger Bridgwater didn't like Donna Goode disagreeing with him during a Tuesday morning Show and Tell meeting with an audience of about 25, he probably nearly imploded with George blasting the new Pre-Trial Diversion policy and Bridgwater himself to a room filled with hundreds of prosecutors from across the State.

Don't you just know that Bridgwater was wishing he could rehire George for the sole purpose of firing him? Doesn't it suck when your bullying power isn't there any more, Roger?

My message to George is simple: You rock, dude.

I'm glad that you took the opportunity to call out a bad administration and let them know that what they were doing is wrong.

And reminding them that the First Amendment is still alive and well.

So, this evening, if you're around a beverage of an alcoholic nature, raise your glass and have a toast.

Here's to Donna and to George.

I'm glad there are some people out there that can still remember what being a prosecutor is all about.

Institutional Memory

I was having a conversation at the elevator bank today with my friend and fellow defense attorney, Todd Bennett, and our conversation turned to talking about Todd's father, Bob Bennett, who is a retired attorney. Back in the late 60s/early 70s, Todd's dad had been involved in one of Houston's most notorious murder cases that was detailed in Thomas Thompson's book Blood and Money. (NOTE: I'm not giving the details of the book, because I'm hoping you'll go actually read it yourself. It's a great book.)

But anyway, what Todd and I were talking about was the sad fact that a lot of lawyers around the CJC sometimes pass through that building and deal with prosecutors, defense attorneys, and judges without ever realizing some of the amazing things these members of the Bar have done or been involved in. As time passes, the newer attorneys lose the institutional memory of some of the "Old Dogs" and the fascinating cases that they tried.

I think that's a shame.

So, in an effort to combat that, I'm recommending to you three books that you ought to read to learn more about the lawyers you interact with on a daily basis. I guarantee you that you will see some very familiar names and faces in them. Learn a little about the legal footsteps we're all following in and go talk to those folks about their cases.

God has yet to invent the lawyer that doesn't like telling War Stories, and they are always entertaining.

So, here's my list:

1. Blood and Money by Thomas Thomspon-this is a fantastic and well-written book about a murder in River Oaks. I don't want to give anything away on it, because it is extremely suspenseful.

2. The Cop Who Wouldn't Quit by Rick Nelson-also an outstanding book about former-HPD Homicide Sergeant and Harris County District Attorney's Office Investigator Johnny Bonds. I don't think this book is in print anymore, but you can still get a used copy off of Amazon.com. If you can't find one, give me a call, and I'll loan you my copy. It's a great book and you'll learn why Johnny had such a great reputation as an investigator.

3. Daddy's Girl by Clifford Irving-this one was a big fan favorite at the D.A.'s Office because of a certain picture in the photo section of a prosecutor that we shall just refer to here as "Big Poppa". I first read Daddy's Girl when I was in college, because my friend and mentor, Gil Schultz, was one of the lead investigators on the case. His partner at the time was Sgt. Paul Motard, who is still with HPD Homicide. Those guys were my heroes. Hell, they still are. The case is also interesting because the lead prosecutor on the case was Rusty Hardin.

Okay, so there's my Top Three. If you've got some additional suggestions, let us know about them.

Me and My Blog

Last year when I was still relatively new at this blogging thing, I went several days without doing a new post. I began the next one I did by apologizing for having gone so long without writing, to which a sarcastic (yet funny) commenter wrote in something to the effect that they found it amusing when a blogger apologized for actually not writing for awhile (as if the entire world was waiting on the next words of wisdom to come from said blogger).

It made me laugh, because it was true, and I always think of that guy's commentary whenever I've gone a bit without writing.

But then I get a comment like the one at 5:13 a.m. this morning on my last post talking about "When Blogs Go Blank" and I'm not sure what to make of it. I can't tell if they are taunting me for not having written in a while or just encouraging me to write something new.

Either way, I can assure you that the Old Life at the CJC blog has not gone completely blank and I don't have any plans of taking the site down anytime soon. I truly apologize if my absence over the past week has given the false hope to Lykos, Leitner, Bridgwater and Chow that I had died. Quite frankly, if I were them, I would just be touting the fact that they've gone over a week without committing a public screw up. Good job, guys.

The bottom line, though, is that I do thoroughly enjoy writing this blog and I'm glad that (at least some of) you enjoy it. I'm glad that there is a place where some attention gets paid to what is happening in the CJC and if the comments section provides a place for people to vent, then I'm glad for that, too.

But sometimes life does get in the way of writing.

I just got back from an absolutely AWESOME weekend at the lake with my three-year-old Little Man, and I'm actually closing on a house today. So, the old personal life has been somewhat busy the past couple of weeks.

In addition, I do have this whole law practice thing going on, and as it picks up steam, I have less and less time to write.

And, in all seriousness, Lykos and the Gang didn't really do much of significance last week. Sometimes there just isn't that much to write about.

As a side note, if you are looking for something about the legal field coupled by some really excellent writing, I highly recommend my friend Scott H. Greenfield's Simple Justice. Scott is one hell of a brilliant and talented writer, not to mention a very nice guy.

I do have several things that I'm looking into and want to write about in the near future, and there is one VERY BIG rumor circulating right now that I'm not quite willing to put into print yet (NOTE: that's called a "teaser" in the blogging biz.) I will get back to writing more frequently in the near future.

But in the meantime, please rest assured that this blog isn't going away any time soon.

Trouble in Paradise?

Rumors began swirling yesterday afternoon across the Offices of the District Attorney regarding an alleged "fight" brewing on the 6th Floor.

Although the rumors are not confirmed, apparently the departure of Special Crimes Bureau Chief Donna Goode has opened up a power struggle between First Assistant Jim Leitner and Bureau Chief Hannah Chow. My sources indicate that Chow has her eye on the First Assistant position and Jim is reacting none-too-happily over that.

The move wouldn't surprise me. Every time I have seen Lykos in person since January 1st, she has had Chow at her side. The two are appear to be inseparable.

Word on the street is that Leitner may be moving to the Special Crimes Bureau Chief position with Chow taking over his comfy office.

We shall see.

Of course, several of my friends in the Defense Bar put an over/under wager of 14 months as how long Leitner would last as First Assistant before either getting fired by the temperamental Lykos or getting so sick of her that he resigned. I think a demotion would count.

Now, the question will be that if he does get demoted, will he stay at the Office. Don't forget, he went to great trouble to shut down his practice, and starting it back up again would probably be a gigantic pain in the rear. I wonder if he will be able to walk out of the office with as much dignity as Donna Goode did.

Like I said, though, this is just a rumor coming in from numerous sources and there is nothing official on it as of yet. I just know that I would be stunned. Stunned, I tell you if Lykos somehow ended up double-crossing Jim after he endorsed her (at the expense of his credibility).

In an unrelated story, I will be renaming this website www.itoldyouso.com.

Bad Boys Breaking Bad

In the wake of Pat Lykos' election, Harris County prosecutors were nervously waiting to see how the Office would be structured on January 1st, 2009. Obviously the first thought on most people's minds was whether or not their job was safe. The next thought was curiosity over who she would be bringing in as her upper-administration.

Jim Leitner was obviously going to be the First Assistant. Although he had lost the trust and respect of many of the ADAs when he endorsed Lykos (after he and Clint Greenwood had sworn up and down that would never happen), there was actually a little relief to hear that Jim would be in the Upper Admin. The thought being that he would provide some calm advice and stability during those moments where Lykos was letting her infamous temper flare up.

When Roger Bridgwater lost the election for the 178th bench, and was named as part of Team Lykos, I was glad to hear it. I had always liked Roger as a defense attorney and had been very happy for him when he had been appointed judge. I thought Lykos was making a great call by bringing him on.

I (and a lot of others) thought that if anything was going to make the next four years survivable with a crazy political hack, it would be having the calm and guiding force of these two men.

Good God, did we miss the mark on that prediction.'

Over the past six months, Jim Leitner and Roger Bridgwater have transitioned from the spineless hatchetmen to Official Administration Apologists to downright Grade-A Bullies.

Jim was the first to fully embrace his Napoleonic complex, as he first decided he would break bad and just verbally eviscerate Rifi Newaz and Mark Donnelly after the Batson debacle. Some would think that a good administrator might have actually given them the benefit of letting them explain themselves, but not Big Jimmy Leitner. Of course, in all fairness, I guess he was under a deadline to chew them out since Lykos was in the next room calling the Chronicle about what was happening.

He's continued his "tough guy" image by doing a lot of shooting first and asking questions later. Demanding explanations on perceived wrongs rather than asking what happened from his troops. As one prosecutor mentioned to me, "there's a presumption that you have done something wrong and he acts like he is looking for any reason to fire you."

There have been at least two occasions that I'm aware of where Leitner has tried to play a diminutive Clint Eastwood tough guy on younger prosecutors for actions that they had carried out because he told them to.

But the bottom line is that Leitner has become little more than Lykos' chief thug.

What was more surprising to me, personally, was that former-judge Roger Bridgwater has now apparently decided to get into the act.

I will freely admit that I used to be a big fan of Roger's. I thought better of him.

I was wrong.

His behavior has become as bizarre and erratic as the rest of the Gang Who Couldn't Shoot Straight. Whether it be his officially revoking an invitation to Rusty Hardin to speak at an in-house CLE (yeah, that Rusty Hardin guy. What the hell does he know about trying a case?), or trying to push the moronic DWI Diversion Program off on the general public, the Roger Bridgwater I used to know ain't there anymore.

But Roger hit his all-time low yesterday.

During yesterday morning's weekly "Show and Tell" meeting (which is a regular update meeting attended by all Division chiefs, Bureau Chiefs and the Elected D.A.), he apparently went completely off the deep end. After being questioned on his rationale on decisions about Rusty Hardin, the diversion program, and the fact that more people learn about their Administration decisions from the paper than from the administrators, Bridgwater lashed out at none other than Donna Goode.

Now, before reading on, keep in mind that Donna Goode and I aren't exactly best friends. Although I liked her and respected her during my time at the Office, we were never particularly close nor did we work on any cases together. Earlier this year, she referred to the blog as being "toxic" (which actually cracked me up). I don't dislike her, but I doubt we will be going bowling any time soon.

But whether I'm friends with Donna or not, I respect her. She's a good lawyer and prosecutor who has devoted somewhere in the ballpark of 30 years to the Harris County District Attorney's Office. She was a Division Chief when I started with the Office, and prior to this morning, she was the Bureau Chief of Special Crimes (the position held by Kelly Siegler when Kelly left the Office).

After having the audacity to question Roger on some very valid questions regarding how he was running his Division, Roger blew up on her and some others in the room. He completely lost his cool and went after a lady who has worked there, literally, over 50 times longer than he has. He did his best to humiliate her in front of everyone in the room.

But he didn't stop there.

When the meeting was over, he decided to file a complaint against Donna with the Disciplinary Committee for her remarks during "Show and Tell".

The complaint he made against her? Insubordination.

Now, if you are keeping score at home, two questions should be coming to mind.

1. Um, when did the Office get a Disciplinary Committee? I thought if somebody did something bad that Lykos just called the Chronicle.
2. How exactly could Donna be "insubordinate" to Bridgwater when they are both Bureau Chiefs?

Well, I don't know the answer to Question # 2, but apparently since Lykos shot her mouth off on the Batson debacle, they have developed a Disciplinary Committee.

Guess who is on it! Well, that would be Patsy Lykos, Jim Leitner, Hannah Chow, John Barnhill, and um, oh yeah, Roger Bridgwater. Yes, the Gang Who Couldn't Shoot Straight has their own hit squad, and it is pretty much the entirety of the Gang Who Couldn't Shoot Straight.

As an added insult, somebody within the Gang decided to have Donna remotely locked out of utilizing her county computer. Jimmy Leitner was kind enough to offer Donna his computer if she would like to type a response to Bridgwater's complaint. She declined.

So this morning, Donna Goode, a career prosecutor took her retirement and left the building as a prosecutor for one last time. It was pretty much the only move left to her by the incestuous and low-rent Gang.

She was able to walk out of the CJC with class and with her head held high. I know she and I didn't always see eye to eye, but I wish her well, and I respect the hell out of her for leaving because of her principles.

Perhaps the D.A.'s Office could bring her back to give a CLE on character. Nah, Roger would rescind the invite.

So, today my opinion of Donna Goode has skyrocketed, while my opinion of Leitner and Bridgwater has pretty much bottomed out.

They are both, unquestionably bullies.

When Craig Goodhart got his notice of termination from Leitner and Bridgwater, he told them he was ashamed of them both. I think Craig was just slightly off on that assessment. Jim and Roger are who they are. They only have to answer to themselves at the end of the day, I suppose. They are more than welcome to be the bad guys.

I'm more ashamed of myself for ever thinking that either one of them were ever good guys.

Strange Moments on Facebook

I was just checking out my Facebook page (which if you know me at all, you know I'm addicted to damn Facebook) and Pat Lykos popped up as a "Friend Suggestion".

Now, I'm not sure what I find more amusing - the fact that Pat Lykos has a Facebook page or the fact that someone thought she and I would be good Facebook friends.

Either way, I'm very disappointed that Facebook clearly doesn't know me at all.

Help Needed

The following information was brought to my attention by my good friend (and Defense Czar of Provocation) Robert Fickman regarding the family of an Assistant District Attorney who needs some help from our CJC family. Robb writes:

Josh Reiss is a young Assistant District Attorney. He is married and has two small children.

Sadly his wife Ahn has a blood disease (MDS) which will require a stem cell transplant in order to save her life.

A blood drive in search of a suitable donor is ongoing.

The drive will be at the Courthouse, (on the 2nd floor) on Friday the 26, from 11 until 2pm.

Members of the DA's office, court staff and defense lawyers will all giving blood to try to find a suitable donor. Please come by. You may save a life.

This young lawyer and his family need all of us to kick in and do what we can. The odds are greater that a suitable match will be found in the Vietnamese-American or the Asian-American Community. So if you know anyone from the community please encourage them to participate. No matter what you have planned,

I am sure we can all agree that there is nothing more important than trying to help save a young mother's life.

As an added bonus, Brother Fickman has sworn that he will shave his hair into a Mohawk if he gets 300 Defense Attorneys to participate.

I'm in.

Lykos and the Legislative Update

With the closing of this year's Legislative Session, it is now time for Judges, Prosecutors and Defense Attorneys across the State of Texas to begin familiarizing themselves with the newest laws that are coming into effect on September 1st.

The Texas District and County Attorney's Association (TDCAA, for short) which is an organization of all the prosecutors across the State of Texas has typically spearheaded the teaching of the new laws as their upper administration travels from venue to venue across the State, holding day-long seminars that cover everything you need to know. In the past, every two years, there will be a seminar that joins together Judges, Prosecutors and Defense Attorneys. TDCAA, especially Staff Attorney Shannon Edmonds, does a thorough and entertaining job of presenting all the new criminal laws.

Obviously, in years past, the Harris County District Attorney's Office has comprised a very large portion of the attendees there. Prior to Pat Lykos' arrival on the 6th Floor, Harris County was one of the two most sizeable and active counties involved in TDCAA, and it was a great relationship. TDCAA is a wonderful organization that serves as an excellent resource for prosecutors across the State. They organize Continuing Legal Education (CLE) seminars year-round, including the incredibly helpful Baby Prosecutor's School for rookie prosecutors.

More importantly, TDCAA helps foster a feeling of camaraderie with all prosecutors and builds friendships and contacts across the State. One of the things I hated the most about leaving the D.A.'s Office was that I was no longer a member of TDCAA. It really was something I was very glad to be a part of.

Apparently, however, Pat Lykos is taking a bit of a more chilly approach to TDCAA.

Prosecutors were informed on Friday via e-mail that the Harris County District Attorney's Office would not be participating in this year's Legislative Update in Houston. Instead, they would have several prosecutors from within the Office giving lectures on the new laws.

The kicker on the deal, however, is that the in-house update is occurring on July 23 from 5:30 p.m. to 7:30 p.m. So, after a long day of work, Patsy and her Gang are going to make all the prosecutors and investigators stay until 7:30 p.m. to get their CLE. I guess if you have such a thing as a "family" or some of those pesky "children" thingies, you are going to have to get a babysitter or make other arrangements.

God knows that Patsy, Little Jimmy and Roger could give a crap less if they are inconveniencing you.

It is worth noting, however, that at the end of Bridgwater's e-mail regarding the new mandatory CLE, he notes that the Houston Legislative Update offered by the TDCAA is still going on at South Texas College of Law on July 31st. However, he posts the following caveat:

Please be advised should you desire to attend that presentation it must be on self-pay basis and using vacation or comp time.

Are you freaking kidding me, Roger? I mean, I can understand you making the prosecutors pay for the class if they want to attend, but seriously, comp time? A prosecutor wants to go listen to the organization that helped write a lot of these laws actually speak on the topic and you are treating it like they are taking time off the go see Weekend at Bernie's II? If a prosecutor is willing to pay to take the class to make them a better prosecutor, then don't insult them by making them take Comp Time.

Here's the bottom line on this, folks. Once again, Patsy and Crew are making an ass out of themselves and the entirety of the Office. By pulling out of attending the TDCAA Seminar, she is guaranteeing that the seminar will be better attended by Judges and Defense Attorneys than prosecutors. Seeing how TDCAA is an organization for prosecutors, that's just embarrassing. And taxpayers should be aggravated that Lykos is going to make all of her prosecutors and investigators earn some comp time with her stupid after hours lessons.

As a side note, these after-hours training sessions are nothing new. Bridgwater has been forcing his misdemeanor people to have after hours training sessions quite frequently on Thursdays. Kind of funny when you consider the fact that even the Babies have more prosecutorial experience than he does in recent memory.

So the big question about Lykos' decision to pull out of the seminar is "Why?"

I can think of three possible scenarios. Let me know if you've got a theory.

Scenario # 1-recently, Lykos tried to persuade TDCAA to move the Advanced Advocacy Training from Waco to Houston. TDCAA looked into it, but ultimately declined. The leaving of the TDCAA Seminar is possibly nothing more than a straight up retaliation from a cranky old lady in a snit.

Scenario # 2-given the absolutely sterling budget management that Lykos and the Gang have exhibited during their six months in Office, they flat out just don't have the money. Looks like the water coolers that were strategically placed throughout the Office by Hannah Chow were more important than actually, uh, having prosecutors who were up-to-date on the law.

Scenario # 3-since Pat Lykos is clearly not a prosecutor and is more interested in appeasing the media than doing her job, she may be a little bit nervous about what TDCAA might have to say about some of the bills that she had the Office advocate for -- especially that whole Journalist Shield Law that TDCAA has always opposed. God forbid that the scenario arose where TDCAA came to town and had to talk about what a bad idea for prosecutors that bill was. That scenario might have Lykos looking like, um, I don't know, perhaps, an idiot.

Whatever her motives were, Lykos is once again showing her unbridled arrogance. She has been a prosecutor (in title only) for less than six months and is already shunning the guidance and assistance of the best prosecutors organization in the country for her own "wisdom".

She continues to be an embarrassment to Harris County, and now she is taking it to a Statewide level.

The Unholy Alliance

One of the questions that I get quite frequently from people who read this blog is "why doesn't the media ever report the bad stuff about Pat Lykos?"

During her five and a half months in power, Lykos has had the luxury of being treated like someone who can do "no wrong" by the Houston media, most specifically the Houston Chronicle. It would be extremely difficult for anyone to argue that Patsy is anything other than our local paper's, um, Golden Girl.

The Chronicle has continued in the tradition that Alan Bernstein started during the campaign of either ignoring, or giving exceptionally light treatment to Lykos screw ups. Ask yourself how you think Jeff Cohen's paper would have reacted if Chuck Rosenthal, or even Johnny Holmes had done the following:

-announced a policy of keeping "whale cases" and forcing them to go to trial;

-announced that no probation would be given to non-citizens of the United States;

-has a beyond shameful record of Adminstrative Racism;

-publicly humiliated two excellent prosecutors without checking her facts;

-snubbed two of her other outstanding prosecutors when they were presented with a National Award;

-paid money out of the budget for a motivational speaker to come tell the ADAs that their job was to make their boss "look good" (during the middle of docket hours, no less); OR

-singles out an African-American prosecutor with a sterling reputation and punishes her for supporting a political opponent;

Is there any one of you who can honestly say with a straight face that the Chronicle writers wouldn't be screaming at the top of their lungs?

So, what's the deal here?

Some folks have suggested that since the Chron endorsed Patsy that they have to stand by her now to save face. Maybe, but I don't really think that's it. That would tend to imply that they had some sort of institutional integrity.

My personal belief is that Lykos created an unholy alliance with them awhile back. She backs their agenda and she comes out smelling like a rose with them.

No matter what.

Before you start calling me Oliver Stone, consider this: I have it on very good authority that Lykos sent representatives from the D.A.'s Office to the Chronicle prior to this past legislative session. Their job was to see what Jeff Cohen's crew wanted the Office to back in the way of legislative bills. So, rather than basing her opinions on what was best for the community she was elected to represent, she's going to see what the media thought would be best.

The clearest example of this? The Free Flow of Information Act (AKA the Press Shield Law) This has been a bill that has been uniformly opposed by District Attorneys across the State for years now for reasons that should be apparent. It protects a journalist from having to reveal their sources if they are called upon to do so by the Court. Two exceptions to that protection are if the reporter actually witnesses a crime, or if a source admits to committing a felony to the reporter.

Those are two fantastic exceptions. But let me give you two hypothetical situations that aren't exceptions, and exemplify things that a reporter could keep hidden from law enforcement if they decided to:

Scenario # 1 - let's say there are a series of unsolved crimes in a location like, say, Acres Homes, that lead HPD to believe there may be a serial killer in the community. A witness is scared to come to the police but does agree to talk to a Chronicle reporter on the condition of anonimity. They tell the reporter that they have good information on who the killer may be. Chronicle runs the story, and the cops want to know who can help them solve the case. Under the Shield Law, the reporter doesn't have to give up the info.

I'm sure the idea of this would give many Civil Libertarians a good laugh. Let's see if the next scenario makes them laugh too:

Scenario # 2 - HPD arrests a suspect in the killings and charge him with Capital Murder. A Glory Hound Elected D.A. announces she will be seeking the death penalty. The same witness from Scenario # 1 calls up the same reporter and says that the police have got the wrong person and they know who the real killer is. Guess what? Under the Shield Law, the reporter doesn't have to give up the info.

I absolutely believe in the 1st Amendment and the Freedom of the Press. But in matters of life and death, it needs to take a back seat sometimes. That's why prosecutors have uniformly opposed the Shield Law for years.

But guess who decided to break with tradition and actually support the Shield Law this year?

Yep. That would be our gal, Patsy Lykos.

In doing so, she became Jeff Cohen and the Staff of the Chronicle's Dream Girl. And in exchange for selling her soul to the Chronicle, she gets nothing but rave reviews from them. She crafted an unholy alliance that undercuts the interests of victims of crime and (potentially) all other members of the community she is sworn to represent. In exchange, she gets the media's (bought and paid for) love.

That's why I was absolutely stunned to read Falkenburg's article last week which belittled Lykos' lack of planning on the DWI Diversion program. Of course, the Chronicle had to make up for Lisa's error. They ran a cute little article about Lykos' love of baseball, to show her sweet, human side.

Never saw anything run about Holmes or Rosenthal like that, did you?

And they made sure to also run an editorial about how right she was to be instituting pre-trial diversions on first time DWI cases in the same Sunday edition. They have yet to even air what MADD's response might be to Lykos' new scheme, or dare to write an opposing view.

No, the love affair that the Chronicle is showing towards Pat Lykos has many of us wanting to yell out "get a room!". But, when it comes to the Chronicle, why wouldn't they love Pat Lykos? They have always been more interested in an agenda that puts the interests of criminals way ahead of the interests of crime victims. The sympathy of the Chronicle has always been for those who violate the law rather than those who uphold it.

The interest of the Chronicle has always been very much the opposite of the community which they write for, in my opinion.

And when you make the realization that the Chronicle and Pat Lykos are of the same mind when it comes to our community's interest . . .

Folks, that's just damn scary.

Lisa Falkenberg's Excellent Column

Bet you never thought I would write a post with that title, did ya?

But, I gotta say that I loved Lisa Falkenberg's column today on Pat Lykos' new poorly-thought-out plan for Pre-Trial Diversions for first time DWI offenders. From start to finish, the whole article kept me laughing, and that laughing was mostly at Lykos' expense.

Now, I would imagine that Lisa probably went over to interview Lykos and her stand-in "Yes Man" Roger Bridgwater with the best of intentions as a way of illustrating how wonderful the new plan would be. But even the liberally slanted columnist for the very pro-Lykos Chronicle was forced to point out that the "program is far from thoroughly thought-out" and "a new district attorney launching a controversial program should probably be a little more prepared before going public."

Ya think?

I love Lykos' explanation that the reason the details hadn't been ironed out yet was "because news [of the plan] broke a bit prematurely".

No kidding? I hear that Lykos holding a press conference announcing the plan was a leading suspect as to the cause of why the news may have "broke a bit prematurely".

Funny how that works out. I bet that really caught the Old Girl off guard.

In defense of her plan's disorganization, Patsy decided to rely on some of her campaign experience and decide to launch some negative publicity -- not at detractors of her plan, but at other counties.

"We're not going to engage in any fraud as they do in other counties by calling a DWI something else."

Holy crap, that one nearly made me spit out my coffee. First of all, this statement alone from Patsy pretty much ensures that nobody from another county is going to dance with her at the next annual Texas District and County Attorney's Association meeting. Second of all, who on EARTH is Lykos to be criticizing other counties and the way they handle DWI cases?

The Lykos plan is to erase the first DWI that an offender gets, and make it as if it never happened, and she is blasting counties like Bexar County that apparently utilize other offenses as a method of plea bargaining? You've got to be kidding me.

And she emphasizes that the purpose of her plan is "to reduce the number of repeat offenders". Well, um, yeah, if you don't actually count the first offense, I suppose that will technically reduce the number of repeat offenders from a mathematical standpoint. You aren't a true repeat offender if the first one didn't count, right?

And then she points out that DWI is a "pandemic in Harris County". And the elected District Attorney's solution to that is to treat it less seriously?


To wrap up, Lisa points out that Roger Bridgwater and Lykos weren't even on the same page as to the requirements they would demand for their Pre-Trial Diversion. Bridgwater, who does not drink, wanted to make no alcohol at all a requirement for the probation, leading Lykos to disagree and state: "I'm not Carrie Nation."


NOTE: I am glad that Lykos cleared up that she is not, in fact, Carrie Nation (pictured above), however, I think there is still an astounding chance that they may have been sorority sisters.

The conclusion of Lisa's article wraps up with Lykos joking (over Bridgwater's doddering attempt to downplay it) about her own drinking habits:

With a laugh, she [Lykos] added, "I wish I had a Jack and Coke right now."

I don't have a problem with Patsy having as many Jack and Cokes as she wants.

She just needs to cut down on making these policy decisions after so many of them.

A Side Effect of Lykos' DWI Announcement

Defense Attorneys at the CJC who approached prosecutors asking for their pre-trial diversions for first time DWI cases were told by Harris County Prosecutors that no such animal exists quite yet. The official word coming from prosecutors is that it is a plan that is still being worked out and will take a while. The word on the street is that nothing will be ironed out before August of this year.

So, I know that Lykos needed her daily affirmation of love from the Press and that's why she made her announcement before actually thinking out how the plan would work, but let's now examine the consequences of her premature announcement.

Say you are a defense attorney who is representing a client charged with Driving While Intoxicated for the first time.

Wouldn't you pretty much be committing malpractice to plead that client out right now, if you know that the D.A.'s Office is going to be offering the Pre-Trial Diversions in a few months?

My prediction is that first time DWI cases are about to come to a complete stand-still in the County Courts until Lykos and the Gang figure out how to implement her plan and get it rolling.

Maybe next time, Lykos will think before she shoots off her mouth.

Nah.

Ed Gonzalez for District H

On June 13th, there will be a special election for District H City Councilman which has my friend, Ed Gonzalez as a candidate in the run off.

Ed is a City of Houston Homicide Sergeant who grew up in District H and has dedicated his life to public service. He has a very impressive biography that details his care and commitment to his fellow neighbors and his community. His dedication will serve the City of Houston very well if he is elected to the City Council.

As we all know (unfortunately), run off elections don't generate much attention or turnout which can lead to really bad results in elections sometimes.

Please do everything in your power to make sure it doesn't happen this time. Check out Ed's website and go vote!

I Don't Know Where to Begin . . .

I have to admit that I was pretty much caught off guard to read this article from the Houston Chronicle today announcing that your friend and mine, Patsy Lykos, had decided to create Pre-Trial Diversions for first time DWI offenders.

Now, I know that I am now a defense attorney and should probably be dancing in the street over any type of program that gives wholesale leniency towards a type of crime, but this policy decision deserves a pretty critical look, if you ask me. Now, I know that the Chronicle was practically gushing in it's article, but that's to be expected. After all, Lykos did support them in their efforts to have the Press Shield Law passed (becoming one of about, uh, two District Attorney's in the State to actually support it). In doing so, she bought the Chronicle's love forever, so expect this type of ass-smooching to continue for some time.

As a side note, the term "Journalistic Integrity" has officially become an oxymoron in Houston, but I digress.

First a little background on Texas DWI law as it now stands. Driving While Intoxicated, even a first offense is one of the very very few crimes in the State of Texas that a Defendant cannot receive a Deferred Adjudication. You can receive probation, but the conviction is going to be final. Many people from the Defense Bar and elsewhere have railed against this as being a direct result of over-lobbying by Mother's Against Drunk Driving (MADD, for those of you who have been living in a cave for the past 30 years).

Perhaps so. I'm not really entering into that debate right now. I'll let people who practice DWI law handle that aspect.

The bottom line, however, is that the Texas Legislature dictates that there is to be no Deferred Adjudication for DWIs. The prosecutors have no discretion in that matter, unless they want to reduce that charge to something else or dismiss it. They are pretty stuck with pleading it to a probation or jail time, or take the case to trial.

That is, until Patsy came in with her new program and began (for the first time in Harris County history) an actual policy of doing Pre-Trial Diversions on all first time DWIs.

A pre-trial diversion is an unofficial probation that if a person successfully completes their "probation" the case is completely dismissed and then can be expunged off the person's record as if the DWI never happened. No conviction. No record. A pre-trial diversion is even better than a Deferred Adjudication.

If you don't like judges who "legislate from the bench", how do you feel about an ex-judge legislating from the D.A.'s office? Her message of creating a pre-trial diversion policy is pretty much subverting the intent of the legislature (whether you agree with them or not).

Since Lykos failed at winning a Statewide Office in 1994, I guess she just decided to make herself the Senate, House, and Governor on this particular issue.

Another issue I have with Lykos' new policy statement is that it is an across-the-board policy. All first offender DWIs get Pre-Trial Diversion? Really?

Okay, so the thirty year old guy with a spotless record who gets stopped for speeding and blows a .09 I can live with.

How about the 25 year old kid who crashes his car into the side of a house and blows a .24? Are we still feeling that this is something that needs to be completely wiped off of somebody's record?

Her policy of giving Pre-Trial Diversions to all first time DWIs is the definition of "reckless and negligent" (where have I heard that term before?). It is overbroad and it sends a clear message that the best place to drive drunk for first timers is Harris County, Texas.

Good job there, Snooks.

And my third and final issue with Lykos' policy is that once again she is (yet again) misrepresenting the facts to sell her agenda. The reality of first time DWI cases is that it is extremely rare that a person actually goes to jail on a first offense. They can be ordered to treatment and get all of the benefits that Lykos is now touting as somehow only being available under Pre-Trial diversion.

In addition, to sound tough to her pro-law enforcement crowd, she decided to give a stern warning: "Lykos warned those who did not abide by the program, or were arrested for other charges, would face maximum sentences."

Um, yeah, a person who screws up a pre-trial diversion is basically having their case brought back to life. They will still have the right to take their case to trial and be absolutely no worse off because they failed at pre-trial diversion.

Awhile back, one of my commenters criticized me for not being able to make up my mind over whether I thought Lykos was either a defense attorney in disguise or an over-zealous "win at all costs" prosecutor. My answer to that criticism is that I can't make up my mind until Lykos decides who in the hell she wants to be. She's like a windsock that is basing her policy decisions on whatever will be the most politically advantageous to her.

If she's trying to be a media darling, she is going to be following in the footsteps of Dallas County District Attorney Craig Watkins, who is doing every thing he can to turn his office into a pseudo Public Defender's Office.

If she's back to pandering to her Republican base, she's trying to be Johnny Holmes.

The bottom line is that Pat Lykos is a joke of a politician with no substance and integrity. The job of the District Attorney is to represent the State of Texas in enforcing it's laws and to ensure that Justice is done. A good District Attorney does that job regardless of whether or not the media is kissing his or her ass or if the public loves them.

I'm reminded of what my favorite author, Cormac McCarthy said when interviewed by Oprah on an issue: "You work your side of the street and I'll work mine."

I don't think the elected District Attorney should be acting as a Defense Attorney.

Oh, and as an addendum, I would be remiss if I did not mention the final quote of the article in our "Well, No Sh*t" Department, where Lykos finally admitted that she doesn't think of herself as "warm and fuzzy".

I know we can all sleep easier knowing that she doesn't believe herself to be a chain-smoking Teddy Ruxpin.

NOTE: Since posting this article a couple of hours ago, the Chronicle has modified their original article, including taking out Lykos' moronic quote about not being "warm and fuzzy". So, I guess you folks that read the article before the Chron changed it to protect their gal will just have to vouch for me!

Another Friday - Another Chief Leaves

In what is seemingly becoming a new Harris County District Attorney's Office tradition, yet another Felony District Court Chief turned in his resignation this Friday.

Chief of the 178th District Court, Lester Blizzard, turned in his two week notice this afternoon. On a sidenote, neither Pat Lykos nor Jim Leitner could be found on the 6th Floor to accept the resignation, so Lester turned it over to the administrative assistant in charge of timesheets. I don't know where Leitner was, but it must have been Lykos' nap time.

For those of you who don't know Lester Blizzard, he had been a Division Chief in Major Fraud/White Collar Crime prior to Lykos and the Gang Who Couldn't Shoot Straight pulled into town. In addition to taking on massive and complicated cases involving specialized knowledge and a tremendous amount of patience to prosecute, Lester was also in charge of taking on dirty lawyers that practiced law without a license. He has a very analytical mind and a very effective way of presenting complicated cases to juries. His success record as a prosecutor on these types of cases was extremely impressive.

But Lester wasn't only talented at trying the "paper" cases. He also did quite well in trying violent cases. He sat second chair with Kelly Siegler on the infamous "Wig Shop" murder, successfully prosecuting Dror Goldberg for the Bellaire thrill kill. He also was the lead prosecutor on the case of Beau Maloney, who was murdered an innocent woman at random in the Rice Village area (as part of a larger string of random and unprovoked violent crimes).

Lester's specialized knowledge in white collar cases made him the natural choice when promoted to head the White Collar Division of Special Crimes. Quite frankly, it was a match made in Heaven. Lester had prosecuted massive insurance fraud cases and had even testified before Congress on the topic. The D.A.'s Office was quite fortunate to have a prosecutor with that type of background.

In an era where White Collar Crime is becoming the most lucrative areas of practice for criminal defense, Lester remained a public servant and stayed true to remaining on the prosecution side of it.

Unfortunately, and extremely stupidly, when Lykos and the Gang took over, they (in their infinite wisdom) chose to demote Lester from his position in White Collar Crimes and move him back to the Trial Bureau as a District Court Chief. In all of the stupid things that they did (and Lord knows there are a lot to choose from), moving Lester out of that position was probably the dumbest. By analogy, it would be like a new coach taking over the San Francisco 49ers in the late 1980s and deciding to move Joe Montana to linebacker.

Lester tried to make the best of the situation, and for the past five months he has continued to serve as the Chief of the 178th District Court.

But apparently, he finally grew fed up with the incompetence of the Lykos Administration, and turned in his resignation today.

Now, common sense would dictate that an attorney with Lester's talent and experience would most likely be headed to a big firm where he could draw a tremendous salary doing White Collar defense, right?

Nope.

Lester is actually taking a 40% pay cut and heading to the Galveston County District Attorney's Office. He'll be making a lengthy commute for less money, but at the end of the day, he will continue to be a Public Servant.

Harris County's loss is Galveston's gain. And once again, we have Pat Lykos and the Gang to thank for it.

Bernstein's Back

I heard from several folks and sources this week that former-Chronicle writer Alan Bernstein is changing jobs over to the Harris County Sheriff's Office.

Given the current climate towards newspapers as they are rapidly becoming extinct, it is probably a wise move on Bernstein's part to grab a lifeboat before the S.S. Chron is completely submerged under water. Now, although Bernstein didn't want to be my friend on Facebook for some bizarre reason, I wish him well in his new position.

And to Sheriff Adrian Garcia, you've made an excellent call for a PR guy!

There ain't nobody that can ignore negative news about who he supports quite like Alan Bernstein!

Welcome back Alan!

Richard Wintory

This is a little bit outside of our CJC realm, but a notable prosecutor and friend to many of us in Harris County, needs the help of anyone who can possibly add a little bit of assistance.

Richard Wintory was a high profile prosecutor with the Oklahoma County District Attorneys Office (Oklahoma City) for quite a while. He tried a lot of major cases. At one point in his career, he headed up a section out of the Oklahoma Governors Office targeting highway drug interdiction. He was very active in the National District Attorneys Association and involved in committees as well as a regular lecturer at NDAA conferences and the National College.

In 2002, Richard left the Oklahoma County D.A.'s office after being recruited by the District Attorney of Pima County(Tuscon) Arizona to work in that office. He was assigned to the High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area (HIDTA) prosecutor trying major drug cases. He was awarded Prosecutor of the Year by the Arizona Narcotics Officers Association. He was also awarded Arizona Prosecutor of the Year by the Arizona Bar Association.

Besides being one heck of a prosecutor, he is also a gifted instructor. Richard has lectured prosecutors all over the country. He has spoken at the Harris County District Attorneys Office as well as the Texas District Attorneys Association. He also regularly teaches police officers at the Regional Counterdrug Training Academy in Mississippi and the Midwestern Counterdrug Training Center in Des Moines Iowa.

After Richard moved to Tuscon he married Lisa, the love of his life. They met in Oklahoma City and she followed Richard to Arizona. Lisa and Richard welcomed their first and only child, Michael three years ago. Sadly, two weeks after his birth, Lisa had a heart attack that resulted in her total disability. Lisa suffered brain damage that left her in a near vegetative state. Richard has done everything possible to make her life as comfortable as possible. She is now living at their home in Tuscon and Richard is providing 24 hour professional care while he continues to prosecute HITDA cases and teach prosecutors and police officers. His life is difficult but you will never hear him tell you that.

Just when you would think that no more bad things could happen to Richard, on Sunday, while trying to retrieve Michael's balloon that got hung up in a ceiling fan, Richard fell from a ladder and struck his head on the floor. While still conscious but knowing that the blow was serious, he drove himself to the hospital. There they discovered a subdural hematoma and took him directly to surgery. While the doctors say that they believe that the surgery was successful and that Richard is doing reasonably well, they do not know what, if any, permanent damage may have occurred. Richard has been kept in a drug induced coma and, as of today, is not moving the left side of his body.

In addition to the concern for Richard and Lisa, there is a financial issue too. Richard needed his salary and the extra money that he made doing lectures around the country to pay for the costs of care for Lisa. It will be quite some time before Richard is teach again. And, we don't know how long he will be away from his ob and how long that job will wait on his return.

Richard needs our help, and he needs it now.

So here’s something specific that you can do to reach out and help Richard.

A special bank account was set up in 2006 to help Richard with the many extraordinary expenses he regularly incurs for Lisa’s care, and many of you have contributed to it. That account is still open and is at Wells Fargo Bank, 6270 N. Oracle Road, Tucson AZ 85704, account # 3826-7315-68. What Richard needs more than anything right now is a financial cushion to help him and his family make it through that hideous 7 week gap where he will not be earning any money.

If you have it in your heart to open up your wallet, it would be very deeply appreciated.

Lykos on Diversity (Revisited)

You know, as I prepared to write this post, it occurred to me that I'm starting to run out of title captions that will accurately convey that the article is about yet another Lykos Administration screw up. I mean, she and the Gang just keep throwing me softballs here.

During her four and a half months in office, Lykos has, in fact, made some good decisions. She's made some iffy decisions. She's made some bad decisions.

And then, on days like yesterday, she makes decisions that honestly leave me wondering whether or not Lykos could beat a cantaloupe in an intelligence test.

Now, as I've pointed out here before, Lykos has never been particularly good at promoting diversity within her Office. With the exception of Hannah Chow, she formed the Gang Who Couldn't Shoot Straight out of 100% white folks. In addition, she brought over Frances Madden, a Caucasian friend and former Montgomery County prosecutor, who is now progressing up through the ranks of the Office like a Rocket Sled on Rails.

I suppose that's fine if you really could give a flying flip less about whether or not your Office appears to have any interest in diversity.

But yesterday, Lykos made a move that highlighted that sometimes her promotions are not just non-diverse, but are actually rather discriminatory.

In the earlier article I wrote about Lykos on Diversity, I made mention of the fact that of two of the African-American Felony Twos in the Office, the Gang Who Couldn't Shoot Straight had shipped one of them out of the Trial Bureau entirely. Well, there's a little bit more to that story, and it needs to be told.

The name of that prosecutor is Carvana Cloud. Carvana is an outstanding prosecutor who grew up in Houston and devoted her career to public service. Prior to Lykos taking over the helm of the Office, Carvana was very much on the fast track of promotions. She was liked and respected by her peers and highly praised by her supervisors.

Carvana, much to Lykos' apparent dismay, is also a Democrat. She supported Clarence Bradford in the District Attorney's race. Nothing over the top (like running a blog or something), but she did exercise her Constitutional right to support the candidate of her choice.

And when Lykos took over, she punished Carvana for it.

First, a little background.

Prior to Lykos taking over, the way the Office hierarchy worked was that when a prosecutor was first promoted to the coveted level of Felony Chief, they went to one of three places as their first assignment as Chief. They either a) went to a year long rotation in the Writs Division; b) served as the Intake Chief; or c) served as the Probable Cause Chief. (NOTE: For a general description of the difference between Intake Chief and Probable Cause Chief, see here and here.)

The Writs gig was actually pretty good if a new chief could get it, but I always referred to P.C. Chief and Intake Chief as the "sh*t spots". The job description is not much fun (especially if you have to do it for 9 months, like I did!).

However, if you are a new chief, you don't really mind going to one of those two spots, because by making Chief, you get a significant raise, your parking paid for, and you are eligible to make the big bucks at intake as Chief.

When Lykos took over, she kept both the Writs spot and the Intake spot as Chief Positions (with all the perks). However, the day she set foot in the Office, she decided to downgrade the Probable Cause spot so that it was no longer a Chief slot. The position got a demotion.

And guess who Lykos decided to send there. You guessed it - Carvana.

So basically, Carvana got moved out of the Trial Bureau (where she was thriving) and put in the aforemention "sh*t spot", but to add insult to injury, Lykos took away all the perks. No raise. No free parking. No intake eligibility. And she certainly didn't promote Carvana. It was a blatant and retaliatory move.

Fast forward to yesterday. Carvana is having a baby soon, and is out of the Office for that. So, the Administration decided they needed to get a full time replacement for the P.C. court. If Lykos was going to keep up consistency with her ideas about a Felony Two serving in P.C. Court, it would stand to reason that the Gang Who Couldn't Shoot Straight would just laterally move a Felony Two into Carvana's position, right?

Wrong.

Lykos made a Chief promotion for the spot.

Yesterday, Craig Feazel was promoted to District Court Chief and was assigned to Probable Cause court to replace Carvana. Don't get me wrong, Craig is an extremely talented prosecutor and will make a great chief. I've got no arguments with his promotion at all. But it is relevant that he is also Caucasian.

If this all sounds a bit convoluted, here's the bottom line:

The position of Probable Cause Chief has historically ALWAYS been a Chief position with all the benefits that go with being a Chief. Under the Lykos Administration, for four and a half months, that position was downgraded to a Felony Two position solely for the purpose of placing Carvana Cloud there (with no perks). The second that Carvana left the position, Lykos changed it right back to a Chief Position with all the perks.

So the question I have for Lykos and the Gang is simple:

Are you retaliating for political reasons (as you've sworn before you don't do), or are you racist, or just both?

Drama

A few weeks ago, I was told by a friend of mine that she couldn't ever imagine dating me (in a theoretical situation) because I thrived too much on "drama". My office-mate, Luci Davidson likes to refer to me as "C-Squared", which is short for "Captain Chaos" because of the seemingly endless amount of dramatic situations that I seem to always to be griping to her about.

So, I've been thinking about it a bit lately.

According to the internationally respected basis-of-knowledge known as Wikipedia.com, the term "drama" derives from a Greek word meaning "action" or "to do". And I think that we can agree that the term "action" ain't so bad, can't we? It's a helluva lot better than "inaction", isn't it?

Manufacturing drama where drama normally wouldn't be present would probably have the makings of a good Drama Queen.

But I think that there are some situations where a bit of drama makes us feel Life in its full-effect and completely appreciate those things that are worth living and fighting for. It separates those who go through the motions in life for the sake of safety and placidity from those who would rather feel the power of just being alive.

It has its upsides, without a doubt.

Ten days ago, my three year old son looked at me and told me "Daddy, you shouldn't smoke." I took it as a rather dramatic moment, and today I'm starting Day Eleven without a cigarette. A less powerful moment to me may not have had the same effect.

It also has its downsides.

I've been married twice. The first one (although very full of conflict) didn't have much drama in it. There wasn't that passionate type of relationship that led to "stand and deliver" moments that had either one of us believing there was much worth fighting for. The end of that marriage was largely emotionless.

The second one, well, let's just say that I felt every moment in it, from the highest high to the lowest low. It was something that I think gave us both some very deep sadness, but also brought us the Greatest Joys in Life with our Little Man. Through the Good and the Bad, it is a marriage that neither of us will ever regret.

From a professional standpoint, feeling drama and thriving on it makes better lawyers and better trial attorneys.

There's a difference between a prosecutor who can flatly present a murder case and one who can successfully convey to the jury the sense of loss that family and friends felt.

On the flip side, there's a difference between the defense attorney who can just talk in the abstract about the deprivation of his or her client's personal freedom, and the attorney who can make a jury fully appreciate what that truly means. When a jury is deliberating and they completely grasp the magnitude of what they could be taking away from another human being, odds are that they are going to make damn sure that they are holding the State to its burden of Beyond a Reasonable Doubt.

Feeling the passion and the drama of that situation is the only way to truly convey that.

In my opinion, feeling the "drama" of Life is truly living it.

Sure, you take the risks of getting yourself hurt from time to time, but sometimes the chances you take in life are the ones that pay off in the wonderful moments that you never would have missed for all the World. It is better to have done that than to have gone through it all in some sort of half-dazed sleepwalk, if you ask me.

There may be moments of regret, but the moments where you stood and delivered are the moments you remember for the rest of your life. More often than not, they are the moments where you end up proud of yourself for the way you handled them.

Feeling the drama in life is taking a moment to fully appreciate what the people around you mean to you, and not being shy about sharing that with them - even if you seem a little sappy in telling them.

It means taking those moments where you can stand up and fight for something that means something to you, even if you know that you will probably fail. Failure to take that shot will hurt a lot more down the road, than the memories of going out in a Blaze of Glory.

Seek out the humor in life and laugh as hard as you can. Sometimes the time between the laughs can go on seemingly forever, so embrace them when you can.

Drama is not being embarrassed to cry a little bit at those moments that tug at your heartstrings regardless of who is around -- whether they be tears of joy or sadness.

Drama is pretty much just giving Life everything you've got, and making no apologies for it at the end of the day.

Life definitely has its ups and downs, but ultimately it is wasted if not fully lived.

And, yes, I know that this writing was probably a bit dramatic.

But, I make no apologies for that, either.

"Look Good, Think Smart, and Win!"

"It doesn't matter if you win or lose. It's how good you looked!" - David Lee Roth

Despite the fact that District Attorney Pat Lykos campaigned partially on the platform that there would no longer be any "counting scalps" under her promised regime, it appears that she and the Gang have backed off of that promise in regards to how the Misdemeanor Division is being run.

A month or so ago, Jim Leitner got to eat some, uh, crow, over the Office's new "whale policy", which dictated that misdemeanor prosecutors were to find a no-lose case and refuse to plead it, thus ensuring a trial victory. The motivation behind this quickly-retracted policy was to boost the winning stats coming out of the Misdemeanor Division. The idea was stupid from get-go. If a case could work out to a reasonable resolution, isn't it a bit unethical to be selectively prosecuting cases more aggressively just because it is a weak case for the defense?

It seems to me that this policy was nothing more than institutionalized bullying for the sake of making Pat Lykos, um, I mean the Office look successful.

Having now backed off this beyond-stupid policy, the upper Admin has now let the Baby Prosecutors in Misdemeanor know that Big Brother is now carefully watching them. Well, not actually watching the individual prosecutors, actually, but watching their statistics, which is the only thing that seems to matter to them.

I cannot stress enough how idiotic and dangerous it is to have a District Attorney who is now being governed solely by statistics. When prosecutors start having to look at cases based on percentages and statistics rather than on a "case by case" basis, everybody involved is going to get screwed.

Misdemeanor prosecutors have now been informed that promotions are going to be based primarily on their win/loss ratio.

The side effects of this are horribly damaging.

As I've mentioned before, the Office always has had a good ladder structure of promotions. Rookie prosecutors don't get to try a murder on their first day at work. They start off low, sometimes even in the Justice of the Peace Courts trying traffic ticket cases. They then progress gradually upwards toward the more serious cases.

In the past, this structure has allowed prosecutors to develop familiarity with the Rules of Evidence, case law, and trial skills without an enormous amount of pressure that they might be accidentally freeing Charles Manson in trial. Prior administrations had a good mentoring system and open doors of their supervisors for advice. If a Misdemeanor Prosecutor lost a "no test/no accident" DWI case, they didn't spend a month's worth of sleepless nights wondering "My God, what have I done?".

It was all part of the education process of training good prosecutors, and it worked out well. Mistakes were made and learned from. Trust me, if I learned from all of my trial mistakes in Misdemeanor, I would have qualified for MENSA by the time I started trying serious felony cases.

But more importantly, what I gained from growing up as a prosecutor in the Misdemeanor Division was an absolute infatuation with being in trial. I mean, I freaking LOVE being in trial. I didn't have associated stress with what my statistics were. I wasn't afraid of getting in trouble for a "Not Guilty", and I ended up having no fear of losing a tough case. The support network there let me know that if I went into trial and tried my hardest and left everything I had out on the Battlefield, then I did my job.

And because of that, I loved my job. So did most of the other prosecutors that I worked with back then.

An added bonus of having no fear of trial was that if you had a case that you didn't think could or should be tried, you knew that when you talked to a supervisor about dismissing it, they would take your concerns seriously. There wasn't an underlying concern that "well, this prosecutor seems to only want to try the 'whale cases'."

I heard from a Misdemeanor prosecutor the other day who said that the Misdemeanor Division now has an official slogan of "Look Good, Think Smart and Win!". As this prosecutor aptly told me, "Quite frankly, many of us feel that if we really must have a motto, it should be something along the lines of 'Do the right thing'."

I couldn't agree more.

Placing an emphasis on "winning at all costs" is never a good idea, but it is even more damaging in the Misdemeanor Division. If Lykos and the Gang Who Couldn't Shoot Straight are going to keep up with this policy, not only are they going to run off some excellent future felony prosecutors, they are going to be committing some serious injustice.

A Baby Prosecutor's win-loss ratio is no indicator of what kind of felony prosecutor they are going to be. Legend has it that Kelly Siegler lost her first 8 misdemeanor trials. On the converse side, I knew a prosecutor who claimed to have never lost a Justice of the Peace trial, yet he somehow couldn't manage to win a felony case if his life depended upon it.

My advice to Baby Prosecutors is simple.

Screw the Administration. Go out there and try your cases with all your heart and learn to love the profession that you went to law school to join. Good chiefs will back you up on your valiant efforts, even if you get the "two word verdict" at the end of the day. You didn't join the Harris County D.A.'s Office to make Lykos look good, despite the mandatory CLEs that she sends you to. You joined it to be prosecutors. Real prosecutors. Not the kind that wanted to be bureaucratic dweebs like the Gang Who Couldn't Shoot Straight.

"Look Good, Think Smart, and Win!" might look nice on a cookie cake, but at the end of the day "doing the right thing" is something that you will carry with you forever.

Yet Another Departure

While today is the last day at work for District Court Chiefs Stephen St. Martin and George Weissfisch, yet another long-time member of the District Attorney's Office had his last official day at the Office yesterday.

Edward Porter, a 27-year veteran of the Harris County District Attorney's Office turned in his resignation a week or so ago, and his last day on the job was yesterday.

Edward had an interesting career path.

He started as a clerk in the 174th District Court while in law school, before ultimately coming to the District Attorney's Office in July of 1982. (NOTE: I'd like to point out that I was 9 years old when Edward started at the Office). He began working in the Child Support Division back when the D.A.'s Office still handled those matters routinely, and then went on to become the Division Chief of the Family Law Division.

In 1989, he went to the Office's Civil Rights Division where he would stay for the next 19 years. During the course of his career, he personally made the scene of over 200 officer-involved police shootings. Odds are that if you ever saw a guy on the news wearing a hat and a fanny pack at an officer-involved shooting, it was probably Edward.

His most high-profile case that he tried was that of Joseph Kent McGowan, a Harris County Sheriff's Deputy who illegally obtained a warrant and then shot a woman named Susan Smith. The story of that case was detailed in "A Warrant to Kill" by Katherine Casey.

Rumor also has it that Edward was the constructor of the legendary harpoon presented to Casey O'Brien (aka Jigmeister) upon completion of one of Casey's notorious "whale cases".

The Office is losing a great character and a lot of Institutional Memory with Edward's departure.

Best of luck to you, Edward. You're a good friend and a good prosecutor. You will definitely be missed.

Visitation & Funeral Information for Bob Sussman

Visitation for Bob Sussman will be tonight, Thursday, April 30, 2009 from 5:30 p.m. to 7:30 p.m. at Bradshaw-Carter Memorial & Funeral Services, 1734 W Alabama St., Houston, TX 77098.

The funeral will be tomorrow, Friday, May 1, 2009 at 1:30 p.m. at Woodlawn Funeral Home - Chapel, 1101 Antoine Dr, Houston, Texas.

Bob Sussman

I started law school at the University of Houston in the Fall of 1996. I knew I wanted to be a criminal lawyer, but I had about as much direction on how to achieve that goal as a wind sock. Unlike most of my fellow law students, I had no great plans for a clerkship at a Court of Appeals or some equivalent that was career-guided.

I had absolutely no idea how a law student was supposed to fill his Summer Break.

A very dear family friend, Gardner Parker, called and told me that I ought to spend my Summer as a law clerk for the firm of Hinton Sussman Bailey & Davidson -- a criminal firm built of four former Harris County prosecutors with amazing credentials.

Although my ambition was to ultimately to be a prosecutor, I obviously jumped at the chance.

I started in May of that year. I was dating the girl who would ultimately become my (first) wife, and the job was fantastic. Mike Hinton, Bob Sussman, Joe Bailey, and Charley Davidson were some of the best bosses that any aspiring criminal lawyer could ever hope to have. They were very family oriented. They worked hard. They played hard. There probably couldn't have been more of an affirmation that I was seeking out the right line of work.

All of them had legendary cases under their belts, and I found myself in the company of those Giants that I speak of when it comes to Harris County Criminal Lawyers.

As the clerkship began, I found myself primarily working for Bob Sussman. He and Joe Bailey were working on a death penalty capital case against Kelly Siegler and Vic Wisner. I've mentioned the case before on this blog. For the most part, I was doing whatever Bob Sussman told me to do.

Bob was the gruff, labor-intensive attorney who was the Rainmaker for the Firm. His analytical analysis of the case was unparalled, because the man was simply brilliant. He worked every angle of the case from guilt/innocene to mitigation to legal issues that could be brought up on appeal should the case falter.

And the person he had doing the leg work was me.

Bob was, without a doubt, the toughest boss I ever worked for. He was demanding. Challenging. Unrelenting,

And at the end of the day, amazingly successful.

If I ever had someone that approached the fabled Professor Kingsfield of The Paper Chase fame, it was Bob Sussman. What he had me doing on that case consumed my life. We spoke of the Death Penalty and how to fight the case, and he made me realize what being a criminal lawyer was all about. My entire summer was devoted to living up to Bob's expectations.

He wanted to save our client's life and he would stop at nothing short of doing so.

Good God, we fought hard for Brian Gonzalez's life.

And, in the end, we prevailed. Through a bizarre set of circumstances involving a pregnant juror who went into early labor, there was a mistrial, and thus resulted the one case that Kelly Siegler ever sought the Death Penalty and did not get it.

Bob Sussman had been adamant about putting that pregnant juror on the jury.

The man, although seldom warm and cuddly, was quite brilliant. He was the ultimate vision of what a talented and successful criminal defense attorney could be.

Years later, I was the Division Chief of the Justice of the Peace Division of the District Attorney's Office, when Bob called me. He had a client that he wanted to talk to me about. I was so glad to hear from him, because there was a part of me that so wanted to show him what I had become as a prosecutor. I wanted to show him that his piddly-butt law clerk was actually doing well as a member of the District Attorney's Office.

It was great talking to him, and dealing with him as an equal. And during our entire conversation, I knew that a large part of the way I handled myself as a prosecutor was how hard he had driven me when I was his law clerk. I would like to think that I made him proud of me, but whether or not that was true, I knew that I wouldn't have been where I was if it hadn't been for him and his expectations of me.

He was a tough man to work for, but he had a Heart of Gold, and I stand here today knowing that he made me a better lawyer.

Bob Sussman died today.

He was coming back from working on a case in Jordan, of all places, when he collapsed at the airport and paramedics were unable to revive him.

The last time I had seen him was in March of last year, and it was good to see him.

It was good to feel the mutual respect from someone that I respected so much when I was just a peon First Year Law Student.

I never told Bob Sussman how much his level of drive and dedication served as an example to me in trying each and every one of my cases, but the mark he made in my mind will never go away.

I am very proud to have worked for Bob Sussman. The things I learned from him were countless. He was a great litigator. He was a great legal scholar.

He was a great teacher.

I can promise that he is very much someone I will never forget, and someone who drove me to be the best that I could possibly be.

God Speed, Bob. You will be truly missed.

Sincerely,

Your Student

CLE Cancelled

Sorry for the notice about the CLE this morning. It was cancelled shortly after my arrival at the CJC this morning and I'm just now getting back to my computer.

I've been informed that it will be rescheduled in the near future.

Free CLE Today

For those of you who don't get the notices from HCCLA about upcoming CLE classes, today there is a free CLE called "Dealing with the Practice" on the 20th Floor of the CJC in the Ceremonial Courtroom.

It's 6.5 hours of CLE, with 2.5 being for ethics.

And as an additional bonus, I'm apparently moderating during the 2:00 to 3:30 session.

You just can't beat that with a stick.

Thanks to HCCLA for putting it on.

An Amusing Morning

I was caught a little off guard this morning walking into the 177th District Court, where I was assigned to work as Attorney of the Day today.

The media was in the front foyer hoping to get some film footage of a locally high-profile murder case that came in last week, and one of the cameramen asked me: "Hey, is your guy going to come out today?"

Now, by "coming out", the camera man wanted to know if the Defendant was going to actually be brought out of the holdover cell to be talked to by Judge Kevin Fine (thus giving them something to actually film). However, when serving as Attorney of the Day, a defense attorney has no idea what cases he will be actually handling until he arrives in the court that morning.

So, basically, I had absolutely no clue as to what case the camera man was referring too.

"My guy?" I asked him.

"Yeah, the student who killed the homeless man," he told me.

"Am I getting that case?" I asked him.

"We talked to you about it on Friday," he responded.

At this point, I was getting confused, because I'm pretty sure that I would have remembered being assigned to a murder case that I had talked to the media about the previous week. I asked him if he sure it was me that he had talked to, and he insisted that I was.

I was now beginning to think that I needed to enter rehab or something if my memory was fading out that badly.

Finally, the situation was resolved when he said: "You are Ed, aren't you?"

Now, everything made sense, because I realized he was referring to prosecutor Ed McClees, who, like myself, is a damn good-looking bald man.

However, I guess I can now claim that I have been discriminated against by a camera man who clearly operates under the long-held stereotypical belief that all bald men look alike.

Or, as my friend David Hilburn assessed this morning's situation by telling me: "Compliment to you. Kind of a slap to Ed."

I'm Just Saying . . .

Today will be the last day for yet another member of the Harris County District Attorney's Office.

Now, before you Lykos fans start applauding too hard about old Patsy and the Gang running off another one of those "lazy, corrupt and racist prosecutor holdovers from the Evil Rosenthal Administration", you might want to know who it is.

Beverly Chambers, who was handpicked by Lykos to be the top Executive Administrative Assistant and brought into the D.A.'s Office on January 1st is now making her exit -- shortly after about 100 days of having the "honor" of working right outside Pat's door. Perhaps you remember her from her role in Secretaries' Day.

No official reason has been provided for her departure after her three month contribution to the job. Also, there's no word from Patsy if Ms. Chambers was being "negligent" or "incompetent" (but then again I haven't read the Chronicle yet this morning).

However, given the fact that during Lykos' tenure as Judge in the 1980s that she ran off more court coordinators than any other judge, it does give one cause to wonder what happened here.

I'm just shocked. Shocked, I tell you. Shocked.

Another Day Another Chief Leaves

Immediately on the heels of Stephen St. Martin's resignation on Friday, the Lykos Administration received yet another resignation from a Senior Felony Chief Prosecutor this morning.

Chief Prosecutor for the 230th District Court, George Weissfisch turned in his two weeks notice today.

George was very much a shining star at the District Attorney's Office from the moment he arrived there. Most prosecutors when they first begin at the Office take several months if not years developing their trial skills, and their win-loss ratios often reflect that. It's not unusual for very talented prosecutors to come out of misdemeanor with a 50% success rate, just due to the level of inexperience and the nature of their cases.

George defied those odds and (if I recall correctly) was undefeated for quite some time in his stint as a baby prosecutor.

He continued to impress people at high levels as he worked his way through the Office. Ultimately, George's reputation as a trial attorney became so impressive that he was promoted to Felony Chief waaaaay ahead of many more senior prosecutors (including myself).

I wish George the best of luck in his new endeavors, but for the second time in two business days, another good chief has decided not to continue working with the Gang Who Couldn't Shoot Straight.

That makes the total of four felony chiefs who have quit rather than work with Lykos in her first four months of Office.

And folks, I think we are just looking at the tip of the iceberg here.

More Experience Leaves the Building

Yet another Senior Prosecutor turned in their two weeks notice to Lykos and the Gang Who Couldn't Shoot Straight today.

Veteran Chief Prosecutor Stephen St. Martin will be leaving the District Attorney's Office and joining the Defense Bar, effective at the end of business on May 1st.

If you will recall, Stephen, along with fellow Chief Prosecutor Lance Long was recently honored by the Federal Bureau of Investigation's Director's Award on April 1st for his role in working with the FBI on the Randy Sylvester case. His dedication to the Office for well over a decade has been a tremendous asset to the law enforcement community. His award was the one where Lykos snubbed both of her prosecutors at the ceremony.

Stephen also has a reputation as a no-nonsense and fair-minded prosecutor that Defense Attorneys find to be reasonable and attentive to their arguments.

Harris County's loss will definitely be the Defense Bar's gain.

I have a feeling that the above phrase will be said many many more times this year as more experienced prosecutors continue to file out of the D.A.'s Office.

Day One

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

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

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

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

It's Day One, Judge Lykos.

You're on the clock.

The Transcript Is In

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A Letter to Pat Lykos

Former Bureau Chief of the Appellate Bureau under former-District Attorney Johnny Holmes, Calvin Hartmann, sent the following letter to Pat Lykos in response to the scandal she created regarding Mark Donnelly and Rifi Newaz and the Batson controversy. It is reprinted here with his permission.

March 30, 2009

Patricia Lykos
District Attorney, Harris County Texas
Harris County Criminal Justice Center
1201 Franklin, Suite 600
Houston, Texas 77002

District Attorney Lykos:

Approximately nine years ago at a campaign debate between Chuck Rosenthal and yourself for the office of the Harris County District Attorney, being vacated by the retirement of John B. Holmes, Jr., I stated to you that if you were elected that it would lead to numerous departures of the professional staff and that you ultimately would destroy the employee morale in the office. In three short months following your election in November 2008 that prediction unfortunately has come to fruition. The purpose of this letter is twofold: 1) to educate you on what I will call “lawyering” in light of the fact that to my recollection you have never litigated a criminal case except as a “cop-out” lawyer in the early 1970’s and 2) to educate you on what a respected administrator does and does not do. Hopefully, you will take these constructive comments in the vein in which they are offered, that is to insure that the office over which you administer is able to employ and retain the best legal talent for the taxpayers and voters of Harris County – that only will occur, however, when those employees respect you in the manner that they did John B. Holmes, Jr.

There is an old adage among lawyers that bad facts make bad law. Undoubtedly the Supreme Court decision in Batson made bad law – bad law not from a philosophical, theoretical or equitable perspective, but from one of practicality, patently because lawyers are not race or gender blind (for sake of brevity these terms hereinafter will be referred as “minorities”). Although none of us are born into this world with biases and prejudices, these attitudes are instilled in us as the result of personal experiences and societal and environmental factors. Setting aside all of the laudable goals and objectives mandated by Batson the rationale underlying the decision is predicated upon a logical fallacy, namely that the exclusion of minorities from a jury panel is prima facie evidence of blatant discrimination.

This rationale immediately has a chilling effect on the questioner, and is difficult to harmonize with the real world of advocacy, to which you were never seemingly exposed, since when all the high principles and accolades are given their due, the primary
objective of one in voir dire is to seat a jury that is biased and prejudiced in your client’s favor and adverse to that of your adversary. Unfortunately the victim or the complaining party (the State) in a criminal case is not entitled to Due Process, but the accused, in practice, can select a jury employing discriminatory calculus with little or no consequence. The Texas Legislature has provided the mechanics, that is essentially the three stage process for Batson scrutiny in TEX.CODE CRIM PROC., art. 35.261. Little would be gainsaid except to direct you to that provision for your further education.

At first blush the prosecutor is cast upon the horns of dilemma, since to strike minorities would automatically expose one to a claim of invidious discrimination, and a prima facie violation of Batson in every case. Moreover, it again ostensibly would lead to an assertion by you that the prosecutor was incompetent and negligent without a regard to the facts. It is suggested, however to the contrary, that a prosecutor would be incompetent and negligent to intentionally fail to strike minorities if their responses during voir dire in any wise suggested a potential juror displaying a bias and prejudice in your adversary’s favor, merely to preclude or survive a Batson challenge.

Contrary to myth popularized by members of the defense bar, during my fifteen plus year tenure as the training coordinator for the District Attorney’s Office prosecutors were not taught techniques as to how to successfully discriminate against minorities in voir dire selection. What prosecutors were taught was the manner in which to address unsubstantiated or unfounded claims of invidious discrimination in voir dire such that it was clear to the trial court and ultimately to an appellate court, if there was a conviction, that the State of Texas had accorded the accused Due Process. There is no reason for the undersigned to believe that this policy and aspirations somehow have changed.

Based upon the information available to me, and most particularly the trial judge’s comments in chambers to the effect that the defense had failed to demonstrate a violation of Batson, but it “did not look right” for the minorities to have been excluded from the jury panel, we have now reached the position where you have thrown two well respected prosecutors by their peers under the proverbial bus ostensibly based solely on an effort to please those disciples of “political correctness.” These two prosecutors were merely doing their job, apparently believing, based upon information and responses of these minorities that to seat any one or more of them would result in a hung jury, if not an out right not guilty in a case in which the prosecutors patently believed supported a guilty finding. They were “lawyering”, a concept apparently unknown to you.

The most troubling aspect of this whole unfortunate scenario, however, is your ready willingness to air this matter in the press, exposing these prosecutors to public ridicule and hatred in some quarters, clearly for your own self aggrandizement and without a wit of concern to their future legal careers, whether within or outside the office. As stated earlier you have “thrown them under the bus.” Regardless of the facts, good administrators do not conduct their assessment of employees in the press; good administrators conduct administrative matters in private. Quite candidly one would wonder whether even bad ones would do otherwise. Therefore, it is difficult to discern where that places you. It is clear that this exercise was undertaken solely for the media in order to again attempt to please those people at the Chronicle and their rapidly diminishing readership as to what a politically correct prosecutor that you are. It is suggested that it demonstrates something else, however, namely that the voters made a terribly wrong decision in November 2008.

During your brief tenure in office you have amazingly proven two things not subject to conjecture, that is you are not a leader and that you are a blatant narcissist I worked for John B. Holmes, Jr., for twenty-three (23) years. John B. Holmes, Jr., intimidated the members of his staff, but that intimidation was born of respect, respect that he was fair and that he would not ask you to do something that he would not do. You likewise have intimidated the members of your staff, but that intimidation is born of fear, fear of unabated arbitrariness, fear of an ever expanding “1984 Orwell” atmosphere within the office.

One can only hope that there will remain some semblance of this once proud and respected office when the 2012 elections roll around.

Sincerely,


CALVIN A. HARTMANN

cc: Honorable Mark Donnelly, Assistant District Attorney
Honorable Rifian Newaz, Assistant District Attorney
Brian Rogers, Houston Chronicle

Well said, Calvin. Much better than I could have!

Shameful

Well, one has to give credit to our gal, Patsy -- she is consistent.


When she doesn't like her prosecutors, she makes no bones about throwing them under the bus or distancing herself from them in both the good times and the bad. We all know what she did to Rifi Newaz and Mark Donnelly last week, and knowing the shameless politico like we do, it wasn't really all that surprising.

But today was a day that was actually a day that would shine a positive light on the Office, as Andrew R. Bland, Special Agent in Charge of the Federal Bureau of Investigation's Houston Office, came to the CJC to personally give awards to Assistant District Attorney's Lance Long and Stephen St. Martin on behalf of the FBI.

Lance and Stephen were both Chief Prosecutors in the Special Crimes' Major Offenders Unit for years until Lykos promptly kicked them out of the Division due to her political cronyism. These guys, along with others, worked day and night, drafting search warrants, arrest warrants, and providing advice to any law enforcement agency dealing with major cases. If you want an analogy, the Special Crimes' Major Offenders Unit is like the Navy Seals of the District Attorney's Office, and prior to their transfers, Lance and Stephen were two of the Division's All-Stars.

In recognition of their work, Special Agent Bland had organized a ceremony on the 6th Floor of the CJC in an effort to show the FBI's gratitude. Stephen was recognized for his work on his several cases, including the Randy Sylvester case (NOTE: Stephen was actually present at the crime scene when police recovered the bodies of Sylvester's children. That is dedication that will break your heart.). Lance was recognized for his work on the Roderick Fountain case, helping investigators trying to recover the body of 3-year-old Kendrick Jackson.

Apparently, getting the District Attorney's Office to participate in honoring two of it's own was a little more difficult than one would have thought, as Pat Lykos and Jim Leitner had little to no interest in actually participating in the plans. Ultimately, however, a ceremony was ultimately planned and it occurred today on the 6th Floor of the CJC at 1 p.m.

Special Agent Bland gave a speech, giving heartfelt thanks to Stephen and Lance, and at some point, Pat Lykos was called upon to say something kind about her prosecutors.

Now here is where I would have guessed wrong -- I would have assumed that Pat would have jumped to the front of the crowd and loudly proclaimed credit for all Stephen and Lance had done.

Instead, she refused to speak or acknowledge their accomplishments.

The situation went from bad to worse, as Lykos was then asked to stand up for pictures with her two prosecutors, which would be a no-brainer for any politico like Lykos.

She refused to have her picture taken with them.

It is worth pointing out that the way I learned of this latest shameful behavior by Pat Lykos was a phone call from a person who does not work for Pat Lykos, but was so horribly offended by her behavior that they felt compelled to call and let me know about it.

How much more is Harris County going to have to take from Pat and her Gang?

On a happier note, congratulations to Stephen and Lance! What an incredible award! Having worked with both of you guys on different occasions, I couldn't be happier for you both!