Ten years ago this morning, I woke up in a small house that I was renting over in the Timbergrove Manor part of town. I was a Baby Prosecutor of three months, assigned to the Justice of the Peace Division and I was due in Judge Patronella's court Downtown that morning. I got up, showered and got dressed with Good Morning America on the television set. I wasn't paying much attention to it until I saw that it was covering the Aggie Bonfire.
I'm from Bryan, Texas and I grew up in a house about a mile and a half from the polo fields at Texas A&M. I graduated from there in 1995. So, when I saw that a national TV show was covering my hometown, my initial reaction was "oh, cool". I figured they were just doing a profile on the traditions of college football and they were covering the A&M tradition.
It took me about ten seconds to realize that what they were covering was probably the worst tragedy that ever hit the community where I grew up. I stopped everything and sat down and watched the coverage in stunned silence.
Seeing something like that happen in the small town you grew up and have great affection for was heartbreaking. It was 2 years prior to the attacks of 9/11, and at the time, it seemed like the worst thing I had ever seen in my life.
I had to go to work, though. I didn't even have a cell phone back then, so during every break during Judge Patronella's docket, I would call home and get an update on what was happening. Every time I called, the death toll would have risen and it felt like a kick in the stomach.
When I had attended A&M, I was by all accounts what the Aggies call a "Two Percenter". I guess growing up in Bryan/College Station had caused some of the novelty of the Traditions there to lose their effect on me. I didn't go Midnight Yell. I didn't even go Bonfire, usually. I liked going to the football games, but for the most part, there was very a much a disconnect between me and my college experience.
But on that day I felt a deep connection through deep sadness.
In the days that would follow, I would go home to Bryan/College Station for Thanksgiving. I saw the logs of the fallen bonfire and I went to the candlelight vigil. I remember standing there when the crowd parted and then-Governor George W. Bush and his father walked out. He shook my hand and said "It's a sad day."
I heard my voice cracking as I said "Yes sir, it is."
I remember the A&M/U.T. game the next day. I've never been to a more emotional sporting event. The Longhorn players and their Student Body exhibited so much sympathy and class to the Aggies in the wake of the tragedy that I don't think the rivalry ever really recovered. It was just too difficult to get fired up with hatred towards a group of people that had been so kind during the darkest days.
I remember the Aggies won the game that day. I remember Ja'Mar Toombs scoring a touchdown and I remember the giant fullback weeping in the end zone.
I cried too.
So much has changed in my life and in the world over the past ten years. In some ways it is incomprehensible to think about how much is different from way back then. But even now, ten years later, it seems no less heartbreaking as it did right about this time that morning.
I don't know why exactly I felt the need to write this post, other than to tell that little old town where I grew up, and that big old university that I once attended that I'm thinking about them today.
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
Saturday, November 14, 2009
The Paralegal
I received a comment on the blog this morning under my previous post on Ethics Training that I thought was worth posting in its own article.
If you recall, during the Brady hearing last month, the testimony of Denise Oncken was contradicted by longtime Child Abuse Paralegal Kim Flores. Shortly thereafter, Kim turned in her resignation and accepted a job working for Bill Stradley. In what I think is a pretty stand up move, Stradley was willing to give her a job after she made the courageous stand by testifying against her employers.
Some might even call Kim a whistleblower . . .
All was well in the wake of the Brady hearing. Lykos and company held an Ethics Training and then went about sweeping the whole incident under the rug. The media stopped paying attention to the violation and Kim turned in her two weeks notice.
It was looking like Lykos and the Gang Who Couldn't Shoot Straight were going to successfully dodge the issue until yesterday.
I'll just let "The Paralegal" tell the rest of the story:
Friday I was called by Judge [Hannah] Chow and was told that my last day would be that day effective immediately. I asked why (considering I gave a two week notice the Friday before). She responded with, "Because we can." and then turned around and walked out the door.
It didn't bother me that they were cutting me a week short and docking me a weeks pay, but what really bothered me was that I was insulted when I was told that I would be escorted to my office and out the door by an investigator.
I was treated like I had been fired.
Forget the 10 years of loyalty and the great reputation that I had earned for my dedication to my job. Luckily someone fought for me and I was not escorted out. Thank you for that.
What I can tell you is that information is out there. What the office chooses to do with it is up to them...which I know that nothing will change.
I have had a great deal of support from many about my difficult decision to leave the office and for that I thank you. However, I know that there are a couple...that I know of for sure that aren't pleased.. not my decision for leaving, but rather who I am going to work for.
For those doubters, you already know my character and have commented on such...do you really think it's going to change? I'll tell you like I told Denise...I have morals. I didn't put up with it when my morals were challenged at the office and I will not put up with it when I work defense.
Interesting to see how Lykos reacted when a little too much "transparency" occured.
Like I said, it sure seems like Kim Flores could be considered a whistleblower to me, but what do I know?
If you recall, during the Brady hearing last month, the testimony of Denise Oncken was contradicted by longtime Child Abuse Paralegal Kim Flores. Shortly thereafter, Kim turned in her resignation and accepted a job working for Bill Stradley. In what I think is a pretty stand up move, Stradley was willing to give her a job after she made the courageous stand by testifying against her employers.
Some might even call Kim a whistleblower . . .
All was well in the wake of the Brady hearing. Lykos and company held an Ethics Training and then went about sweeping the whole incident under the rug. The media stopped paying attention to the violation and Kim turned in her two weeks notice.
It was looking like Lykos and the Gang Who Couldn't Shoot Straight were going to successfully dodge the issue until yesterday.
I'll just let "The Paralegal" tell the rest of the story:
Friday I was called by Judge [Hannah] Chow and was told that my last day would be that day effective immediately. I asked why (considering I gave a two week notice the Friday before). She responded with, "Because we can." and then turned around and walked out the door.
It didn't bother me that they were cutting me a week short and docking me a weeks pay, but what really bothered me was that I was insulted when I was told that I would be escorted to my office and out the door by an investigator.
I was treated like I had been fired.
Forget the 10 years of loyalty and the great reputation that I had earned for my dedication to my job. Luckily someone fought for me and I was not escorted out. Thank you for that.
What I can tell you is that information is out there. What the office chooses to do with it is up to them...which I know that nothing will change.
I have had a great deal of support from many about my difficult decision to leave the office and for that I thank you. However, I know that there are a couple...that I know of for sure that aren't pleased.. not my decision for leaving, but rather who I am going to work for.
For those doubters, you already know my character and have commented on such...do you really think it's going to change? I'll tell you like I told Denise...I have morals. I didn't put up with it when my morals were challenged at the office and I will not put up with it when I work defense.
Interesting to see how Lykos reacted when a little too much "transparency" occured.
Like I said, it sure seems like Kim Flores could be considered a whistleblower to me, but what do I know?
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
What to Do With Susan Wright
Back in the Spring of 2004, I got the opportunity to sit second chair with Kelly Siegler on the State of Texas vs. Susan Wright -- a highly publicized murder case at the time which was made even more highly publicized during trial.
The short version of the case was that a young mother tied her husband, Jeff Wright, to their bed and stabbed him over 190 times before burying him in a flower bed right outside their bedroom door. She then reported him to the police as having beaten her and then left their home on foot. For a more detailed version of the case, here is an article I wrote for TDCAA several years ago.
The case got National attention when Kelly had us reconstruct the bed in the middle of Judge Jim Wallace's courtroom and did a re-enactment of the stabbing for the jury. (NOTE: No, I was not the dude in the bed. That was Paul Doyle.)
Ultimately, Susan Wright was convicted of the murder of her husband and was sentenced to 25 years in TDCJ. The jury had rejected a claim of "Sudden Passion" (which would have capped sentencing at 20 years) and had also rejected the State's request for 45 years.
Almost immediately, the verdict was attacked both in the Press and in the Appellate Courts by the shy and demure Brian Wice. He took on Susan Wright's case and for the past five years has fought like a mad man to get her a new trial. Brian is a good friend of mine, and although we were on opposite sides of this particular issue, I truly respect the work he did on this case.
Last year, he and Carmen Roe took the case to a hearing in front of Judge Wallace making the claim that Wright's defense counsel had been ineffective for failing to put forth an effective Battered Woman Defense. Specifically, Brian and Carmen were arguing that defense counsel had erred in not putting on witness Mistie McMichael (Jeff Wright's ex-girlfriend who alleged abuse by him) and an expert on Battered Woman's Syndrome.
Although Judge Wallace did not have the power to overturn the case, he did make findings agreeing with Brian's assertions that there was ineffective assistance, and the case was then taken to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. In a ruling that I will admit absolutely stunned me, the Court ruled 9-0 that Susan Wright deserved a new punishment hearing.
With that ruling, the ball is now thrown into the District Attorney's court to see what they want to do with Wright's case on punishment. Both Kelly Siegler and I are both gone from the D.A.'s Office now, obviously, so new prosecutors will be making the decisions.
The case goes back to the 263rd District Court with Judge Wallace. Mia Magness is the Chief in that court now and she is one of the best trial prosecutors that the D.A.'s Office still has left. You might remember her from that little Clara Harris trial awhile back.
But the chances of the Wright case actually going back to trial aren't in Mia's hands at the moment. The decision of whether or not to plea bargain the case away is in the hands of Pat Lykos and Jim Leitner.
What they will decide to do with the Wright case will be a pretty big statement on their feelings for victim's advocacy and how much they will bow down to the defense bar.
Obviously, Wice and Wright would love nothing more than to get a plea offer of time served. The Office could accomplish this by letting her to plead to 5 years TDCJ. In lieu of that, the Office could also plead her to 10 years TDCJ making Wright automatically eligible for parole.
I hope they don't. And here's why:
-Susan Wright was convicted of tying her husband to a bed and stabbing him over 193 times.
-the number 193 is an under-estimated count, because as Dr. Dwayne Wolfe testified, there were so many wounds that many of them ran in together and couldn't be counted individually.
-Wright testified that she went for her husband's eyes first when the stabbing began.
-Wright also testified that in the middle of the stabbing, she was interrupted by the couple's young son, who she had to put back to bed. (Can you imagine what she looked like walking down the hall with him?)
-Wright went to great efforts to disassemble her bedroom and clean it with paint and bleach.
-while Jeff Wright's body was being desecrated by the family dog in the back yard, Susan had the audacity to go file a police report that he had assaulted her.
I expect supporters of Susan Wright to claim she was a battered woman, but her claims weren't even close to credible. During trial, she testified to only three specific incidents of abuse (while saying that Jeff beat her continuously, she could only remember these three).
The three incidents were as follows:
1. An incident where Susan had a small bruise under her eye. She told neighbors that her son had accidentally popped her in the face with an action figure. The neighbor saw the action figure and saw it was consistent with the size of the bruise.
2. An incident where Jeff (who was a very large and strong man, especially when compared to Susan's small frame) had repeatedly slammed her hand in a heavy door. She admitted under Kelly's cross-examination that her hand was not broken and she never sought medical treatment for it. Her description was rejected by the jury.
3. An assault the night of the murder which had led to bruising on her arms and legs. All the bruising on the arms and legs were consistent with somebody banging themselves up while moving a body and disassembling a bed.
And let's not forget that Jeff Wright's body was found with ties around both wrists and both ankles, with corresponding ties found tied to the bed frame. There was also candle wax dripped on his genitalia.
The crime scene was much more indicative of kinky sex than an assault, folks.
So, Pat and Jim, you've got a decision to make.
Susan Wright tortured her husband and the father of her children and killed him about as brutally as one can imagine. Jeff Wright was far from the perfect husband, but he didn't do the things Susan claimed. Her claims of domestic abuse are an affront to all the real victims of domestic violence out there.
Quite frankly, 25 years TDCJ was a gift from the jury.
If you guys are interested in doing the job you were elected to do, it's time to make a statement.
One of your best prosecutors could retry this case in a heartbeat and leave Susan Wright wishing for that 25 years.
Or you can just surrender and plead her out to back time.
If I were you, I'd take this case back to trial.
The short version of the case was that a young mother tied her husband, Jeff Wright, to their bed and stabbed him over 190 times before burying him in a flower bed right outside their bedroom door. She then reported him to the police as having beaten her and then left their home on foot. For a more detailed version of the case, here is an article I wrote for TDCAA several years ago.
The case got National attention when Kelly had us reconstruct the bed in the middle of Judge Jim Wallace's courtroom and did a re-enactment of the stabbing for the jury. (NOTE: No, I was not the dude in the bed. That was Paul Doyle.)
Ultimately, Susan Wright was convicted of the murder of her husband and was sentenced to 25 years in TDCJ. The jury had rejected a claim of "Sudden Passion" (which would have capped sentencing at 20 years) and had also rejected the State's request for 45 years.
Almost immediately, the verdict was attacked both in the Press and in the Appellate Courts by the shy and demure Brian Wice. He took on Susan Wright's case and for the past five years has fought like a mad man to get her a new trial. Brian is a good friend of mine, and although we were on opposite sides of this particular issue, I truly respect the work he did on this case.
Last year, he and Carmen Roe took the case to a hearing in front of Judge Wallace making the claim that Wright's defense counsel had been ineffective for failing to put forth an effective Battered Woman Defense. Specifically, Brian and Carmen were arguing that defense counsel had erred in not putting on witness Mistie McMichael (Jeff Wright's ex-girlfriend who alleged abuse by him) and an expert on Battered Woman's Syndrome.
Although Judge Wallace did not have the power to overturn the case, he did make findings agreeing with Brian's assertions that there was ineffective assistance, and the case was then taken to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. In a ruling that I will admit absolutely stunned me, the Court ruled 9-0 that Susan Wright deserved a new punishment hearing.
With that ruling, the ball is now thrown into the District Attorney's court to see what they want to do with Wright's case on punishment. Both Kelly Siegler and I are both gone from the D.A.'s Office now, obviously, so new prosecutors will be making the decisions.
The case goes back to the 263rd District Court with Judge Wallace. Mia Magness is the Chief in that court now and she is one of the best trial prosecutors that the D.A.'s Office still has left. You might remember her from that little Clara Harris trial awhile back.
But the chances of the Wright case actually going back to trial aren't in Mia's hands at the moment. The decision of whether or not to plea bargain the case away is in the hands of Pat Lykos and Jim Leitner.
What they will decide to do with the Wright case will be a pretty big statement on their feelings for victim's advocacy and how much they will bow down to the defense bar.
Obviously, Wice and Wright would love nothing more than to get a plea offer of time served. The Office could accomplish this by letting her to plead to 5 years TDCJ. In lieu of that, the Office could also plead her to 10 years TDCJ making Wright automatically eligible for parole.
I hope they don't. And here's why:
-Susan Wright was convicted of tying her husband to a bed and stabbing him over 193 times.
-the number 193 is an under-estimated count, because as Dr. Dwayne Wolfe testified, there were so many wounds that many of them ran in together and couldn't be counted individually.
-Wright testified that she went for her husband's eyes first when the stabbing began.
-Wright also testified that in the middle of the stabbing, she was interrupted by the couple's young son, who she had to put back to bed. (Can you imagine what she looked like walking down the hall with him?)
-Wright went to great efforts to disassemble her bedroom and clean it with paint and bleach.
-while Jeff Wright's body was being desecrated by the family dog in the back yard, Susan had the audacity to go file a police report that he had assaulted her.
I expect supporters of Susan Wright to claim she was a battered woman, but her claims weren't even close to credible. During trial, she testified to only three specific incidents of abuse (while saying that Jeff beat her continuously, she could only remember these three).
The three incidents were as follows:
1. An incident where Susan had a small bruise under her eye. She told neighbors that her son had accidentally popped her in the face with an action figure. The neighbor saw the action figure and saw it was consistent with the size of the bruise.
2. An incident where Jeff (who was a very large and strong man, especially when compared to Susan's small frame) had repeatedly slammed her hand in a heavy door. She admitted under Kelly's cross-examination that her hand was not broken and she never sought medical treatment for it. Her description was rejected by the jury.
3. An assault the night of the murder which had led to bruising on her arms and legs. All the bruising on the arms and legs were consistent with somebody banging themselves up while moving a body and disassembling a bed.
And let's not forget that Jeff Wright's body was found with ties around both wrists and both ankles, with corresponding ties found tied to the bed frame. There was also candle wax dripped on his genitalia.
The crime scene was much more indicative of kinky sex than an assault, folks.
So, Pat and Jim, you've got a decision to make.
Susan Wright tortured her husband and the father of her children and killed him about as brutally as one can imagine. Jeff Wright was far from the perfect husband, but he didn't do the things Susan claimed. Her claims of domestic abuse are an affront to all the real victims of domestic violence out there.
Quite frankly, 25 years TDCJ was a gift from the jury.
If you guys are interested in doing the job you were elected to do, it's time to make a statement.
One of your best prosecutors could retry this case in a heartbeat and leave Susan Wright wishing for that 25 years.
Or you can just surrender and plead her out to back time.
If I were you, I'd take this case back to trial.
Thursday, November 5, 2009
On a Lighter Note . . .
Congratulations to all the Pre-Commits who passed the Texas Bar Exam today!
There is nothing quite as miserable as those three to four months waiting for the results, and today should be one of the happiest days of your life.
Although as you progress in the Office you will eventually get to know all of your fellow prosecutors, there will always be a higher level of camaraderie and friendship with the ones who are in your "starting class" with you. They will be the ones that you will celebrate your victories with, drink after your losses with, and grow up in the Office with. The longer you stay at the Office, the more they will become a second family to you.
You've got some great times ahead of you.
Enjoy them.
And congratulations, again, for getting that damn test in the rear-view mirror.
There is nothing quite as miserable as those three to four months waiting for the results, and today should be one of the happiest days of your life.
Although as you progress in the Office you will eventually get to know all of your fellow prosecutors, there will always be a higher level of camaraderie and friendship with the ones who are in your "starting class" with you. They will be the ones that you will celebrate your victories with, drink after your losses with, and grow up in the Office with. The longer you stay at the Office, the more they will become a second family to you.
You've got some great times ahead of you.
Enjoy them.
And congratulations, again, for getting that damn test in the rear-view mirror.
Ethics Training
In response to the tremendous Brady blunder committed the week before last by the Harris County District Attorney's Office, fearless leader and speed-spender Pat Lykos decided to jump into action. Rather than take any sort of definitive action such as publicly calling any prosecutors names or issuing any type of apology on behalf of the Office, Lykos decided just to throw some money at the problem.
She hired TDCAA representative Clay Abbott to come to Houston and give a lecture on Brady material.
Now, I like Clay Abbott and he is a very good speaker. He speaks every term at Baby Prosecutor's School in Austin about Ethics. In addition to being an incredible resource on DWI cases, he is also a great teacher. I've got no gripes about him.
That being said, the early reports that I've gotten about the training seem to indicate that the message was put forth that an open file policy was adequate to comply with Brady. I wasn't there, so if anybody wants to chime in on that, please do so.
I am kind of curious as to what old Roger Bridgwater is doing to earn his keep around 1201, though. Last I heard, he was the head of this fabled "Ethics Bureau" that Lykos promised during her campaign. I wonder why exactly he wasn't the one spearheading this project. You would think with as cash-strapped as they are, the D.A.'s Office wouldn't be doing so much out-sourcing.
Then again, I have heard that since the Donna Goode incident, Roger doesn't exactly have the street cred with his underlings like he once hoped.
The biggest question to me is whether or not the Lykos Administration thinks that this little training session will serve as the only type of answer to the Brady disaster. If so, I don't think any of us should be expecting this story to be ending any time soon.
She hired TDCAA representative Clay Abbott to come to Houston and give a lecture on Brady material.
Now, I like Clay Abbott and he is a very good speaker. He speaks every term at Baby Prosecutor's School in Austin about Ethics. In addition to being an incredible resource on DWI cases, he is also a great teacher. I've got no gripes about him.
That being said, the early reports that I've gotten about the training seem to indicate that the message was put forth that an open file policy was adequate to comply with Brady. I wasn't there, so if anybody wants to chime in on that, please do so.
I am kind of curious as to what old Roger Bridgwater is doing to earn his keep around 1201, though. Last I heard, he was the head of this fabled "Ethics Bureau" that Lykos promised during her campaign. I wonder why exactly he wasn't the one spearheading this project. You would think with as cash-strapped as they are, the D.A.'s Office wouldn't be doing so much out-sourcing.
Then again, I have heard that since the Donna Goode incident, Roger doesn't exactly have the street cred with his underlings like he once hoped.
The biggest question to me is whether or not the Lykos Administration thinks that this little training session will serve as the only type of answer to the Brady disaster. If so, I don't think any of us should be expecting this story to be ending any time soon.
Tuesday, November 3, 2009
Your Friendly Neighborhood Office Lobbyist
While Pat Lykos and her Gang seem to have been incapable of approaching the County Commissioner's Court to try and drum up a little money to pay their pre-commits, she seems to have had no problem in approaching the Court for money for an Office Lobbyist.
Historically, the District Attorney's Office has sent a legislative liaison of some sort to Austin when Congress was in session to work with the Representatives and Senators on upcoming criminal law bills. This has generally drawn a disgusted eye roll from members of the Defense Bar, who assume that this was an example of a Police State trying to come up with more laws to imprison the poor citizen. However, the liaisons in the past have often worked along with TDCAA in trying to help the legislators keep from putting laws into effect just because they seemed politically popular. (EXAMPLE: Harris County actually tried to talk Legislators out of expanding the death penalty to non-Capital murder situations like sexual assault a few years back).
However, prior to the Lykos Administration, the liason was a prosecutor who worked in a regular assignment until the Session was on the horizon. They then would spend the Session in Austin, meeting with the Legislators. Different prosecutors were often called to Austin to testify in support (or opposition) to a Bill on different topics, but only one person was there full time. In the past, that position has gone to senior prosecutors like Troy Cotton, Chuck Noll, and most recently, Kevin Petroff.
That all changed when the Free Spending Pat Lykos came to town and began treating her D.A. budget with all the restraint of Paris Hilton on Rodeo Drive with a new platinum card.
In her view, the Office Legislative Liason would certainly need some professional help -- especially, if they were going to get laws passed of such public criminal justice importance as the Press Shield Law!
So, Lykos decided to seek the help of professional lobbyist Hank Mitchell, who was already doing a little lobbying for a group called the Retired Senior and Visiting Judges (a group that Lykos served for three terms as president of, I might add). On February 24, 2009, Lykos and the Gang asked the Commissioners Court for approval of $17,500 for Mr. Mitchell to serve as a liaison from February 24 through June 1, 2009.
The move got some attention in Dallas (but not Houston).
Okay, so fine. Lykos doesn't think that her own inside people can do an effective job of lobbying in Austin during the Session. I guess she can sort of justify getting a professional lobbyist. (NOTE: Not really.)
But let's now jump forward to the June 9, 2009 Commissioner's Court Agenda to see what the Gang has on their wish list . . .
Well, goodness gracious, there's old Hank Mitchell's name again. It looks like Hank did such a good job for them when Congress was in Session that they thought they would bring him on for a longer period of time.
This time, Lykos requested $58,000 to employ Hank from June 9, 2009 through January 10, 2011. Yep, $58,000 for a time period where there is no legislative session going on.
This, folks, is bureaucracy at its finest.
We can get $58,000 for one guy to sit around during the off-season like a red shirted golfer, but we can't drum up the money to pay 12 pre-commits for the month of November?
Now, I'm sure that Lykos will defend herself by saying these funds were out of the discretionary account, which are not legally allowed to be used to pay prosecutorial salaries. To my understanding, that's true.
However, what that argument does not defend is why in the hell wasn't she spending as much time in front of the Commissioner's Court trying to get money authorized for her Pre-Commits as she was for Hank Mitchell?
Historically, the District Attorney's Office has sent a legislative liaison of some sort to Austin when Congress was in session to work with the Representatives and Senators on upcoming criminal law bills. This has generally drawn a disgusted eye roll from members of the Defense Bar, who assume that this was an example of a Police State trying to come up with more laws to imprison the poor citizen. However, the liaisons in the past have often worked along with TDCAA in trying to help the legislators keep from putting laws into effect just because they seemed politically popular. (EXAMPLE: Harris County actually tried to talk Legislators out of expanding the death penalty to non-Capital murder situations like sexual assault a few years back).
However, prior to the Lykos Administration, the liason was a prosecutor who worked in a regular assignment until the Session was on the horizon. They then would spend the Session in Austin, meeting with the Legislators. Different prosecutors were often called to Austin to testify in support (or opposition) to a Bill on different topics, but only one person was there full time. In the past, that position has gone to senior prosecutors like Troy Cotton, Chuck Noll, and most recently, Kevin Petroff.
That all changed when the Free Spending Pat Lykos came to town and began treating her D.A. budget with all the restraint of Paris Hilton on Rodeo Drive with a new platinum card.
In her view, the Office Legislative Liason would certainly need some professional help -- especially, if they were going to get laws passed of such public criminal justice importance as the Press Shield Law!
So, Lykos decided to seek the help of professional lobbyist Hank Mitchell, who was already doing a little lobbying for a group called the Retired Senior and Visiting Judges (a group that Lykos served for three terms as president of, I might add). On February 24, 2009, Lykos and the Gang asked the Commissioners Court for approval of $17,500 for Mr. Mitchell to serve as a liaison from February 24 through June 1, 2009.
The move got some attention in Dallas (but not Houston).
Okay, so fine. Lykos doesn't think that her own inside people can do an effective job of lobbying in Austin during the Session. I guess she can sort of justify getting a professional lobbyist. (NOTE: Not really.)
But let's now jump forward to the June 9, 2009 Commissioner's Court Agenda to see what the Gang has on their wish list . . .
Well, goodness gracious, there's old Hank Mitchell's name again. It looks like Hank did such a good job for them when Congress was in Session that they thought they would bring him on for a longer period of time.
This time, Lykos requested $58,000 to employ Hank from June 9, 2009 through January 10, 2011. Yep, $58,000 for a time period where there is no legislative session going on.
This, folks, is bureaucracy at its finest.
We can get $58,000 for one guy to sit around during the off-season like a red shirted golfer, but we can't drum up the money to pay 12 pre-commits for the month of November?
Now, I'm sure that Lykos will defend herself by saying these funds were out of the discretionary account, which are not legally allowed to be used to pay prosecutorial salaries. To my understanding, that's true.
However, what that argument does not defend is why in the hell wasn't she spending as much time in front of the Commissioner's Court trying to get money authorized for her Pre-Commits as she was for Hank Mitchell?
The Pre-Commits Get Screwed Over
The budget woes of the Harris County District Attorney's Office continued to deepen reportedly today. This time the folks losing out because of Pat Lykos' spending habits were the Pre-Commits.
As I've mentioned before, the term "Pre-Commit" refers to recently (or soon-to-be) graduated law students who have been hired as interns for the District Attorney's Office. They are promised employment conditioned only upon them passing the Bar Exam. Prior to the Bar results arriving, they are employed by the Office as interns. My understanding is that they are paid about $12 an hour during their internship.
Upon passing the Bar Exam, the Pre-Commits are then upgraded to a starting "real" salary, and they get sworn in by a judge in a nice ceremony that family can attend. At present time there are somewhere between 10 to 15 Pre-Commit Interns who are awaiting their Bar results.
This week was supposed to be a big one for the Pre-Commits, because the Bar results are due to be released on Thursday or Friday. It's time to upgrade from working for beer money to a real salary, right?
Apparently, wrong.
Pre-commits were told this morning that due to a "budgetary shortfall," the Office can't afford to actually pay them "real attorney" salaries. The Office is hopeful that they will be able to start paying them a real salary in December, but for now, the Pre-Commits are just sh*t out-of-luck.
These poor rookie prosecutors have made a commitment to the Office and the Office has made a commitment to them for employment. These attorneys bypassed employment with other people to work for the D.A.'s Office and now they are getting absolutely screwed over financially. This is beyond ridiculous.
As my NYC editor pointed out, you can get paid more for babysitting.
Most of the prosecutors and support staff around the Office have already come to terms with the fact that they won't be getting raises this year, but not paying the Pre-Commits jeopardizes these kids' ability to afford to live. It's insulting and dishonest. Lykos and the Gang are breaking a promise to the Pre-Commits that is beyond shameful.
But, hey, on the plus side, I hear that the hardwood floors in Lykos' office look fantastic! Oh, and the driver she hired to drive her around hasn't had a fender bender in months!
As I've mentioned before, the term "Pre-Commit" refers to recently (or soon-to-be) graduated law students who have been hired as interns for the District Attorney's Office. They are promised employment conditioned only upon them passing the Bar Exam. Prior to the Bar results arriving, they are employed by the Office as interns. My understanding is that they are paid about $12 an hour during their internship.
Upon passing the Bar Exam, the Pre-Commits are then upgraded to a starting "real" salary, and they get sworn in by a judge in a nice ceremony that family can attend. At present time there are somewhere between 10 to 15 Pre-Commit Interns who are awaiting their Bar results.
This week was supposed to be a big one for the Pre-Commits, because the Bar results are due to be released on Thursday or Friday. It's time to upgrade from working for beer money to a real salary, right?
Apparently, wrong.
Pre-commits were told this morning that due to a "budgetary shortfall," the Office can't afford to actually pay them "real attorney" salaries. The Office is hopeful that they will be able to start paying them a real salary in December, but for now, the Pre-Commits are just sh*t out-of-luck.
These poor rookie prosecutors have made a commitment to the Office and the Office has made a commitment to them for employment. These attorneys bypassed employment with other people to work for the D.A.'s Office and now they are getting absolutely screwed over financially. This is beyond ridiculous.
As my NYC editor pointed out, you can get paid more for babysitting.
Most of the prosecutors and support staff around the Office have already come to terms with the fact that they won't be getting raises this year, but not paying the Pre-Commits jeopardizes these kids' ability to afford to live. It's insulting and dishonest. Lykos and the Gang are breaking a promise to the Pre-Commits that is beyond shameful.
But, hey, on the plus side, I hear that the hardwood floors in Lykos' office look fantastic! Oh, and the driver she hired to drive her around hasn't had a fender bender in months!
Sunday, November 1, 2009
Open Range
Okay Boys and Girls,
I'm on vacation this week, so I don't feel like blogging on a topic right now. So you all can talk about whatever you want in the comments section (in an idea I totally am borrowing from Lone Star Times).
Have fun and keep it semi-clean.
Sincerely,
The Blog Czar (inside joke)
I'm on vacation this week, so I don't feel like blogging on a topic right now. So you all can talk about whatever you want in the comments section (in an idea I totally am borrowing from Lone Star Times).
Have fun and keep it semi-clean.
Sincerely,
The Blog Czar (inside joke)
Thursday, October 29, 2009
Adios, Amigo
Tomorrow (Friday, October 30th) will be my friend, Mark Donnelly's last day at the Harris County District Attorney's Office before he heads off to work at the U.S. Attorney's Office.
To say his departure is a loss for the D.A.'s Office is a tremendous understatement, but given the way he was treated by Pat Lykos, the move comes as no surprise.
I first met Mark when I was a Misdemeanor Chief during the Summer of 2001. The offices at 1201 Franklin had been abandoned in the wake of Tropical Storm Allison and we were operating under Flood Conditions out of the old Early Voting location on Texas. He was a rookie prosecutor who had the audacity to wear some sort of prissy little bow tie to work.
It was a pretty bold move for a rookie, and I decided to harass him about it. If I recall correctly, he had no hesitation about hurling back a barrage of bald jokes in response. Even though it was totally at my expense, it was hysterical. Mark pretty much fit right in from the second he set foot in the door at the D.A.'s Office.
Mark was immensely popular at the Office, and he was one hell of a good prosecutor too. He was smart, talented in trial, and bilingual. He was fair and even-handed with the Defense Bar. He was helpful to his co-workers. He was respected by the judges. I don't think he had an enemy within the Office, and we all knew he was going to end up in politics some day.
Everybody freaking loved Mark.
I can remember one time having to call Judge Susan Brown about getting a search warrant signed in the middle of the night. I was assigned to her court, so when she answered the phone, I joked: "Hey Judge, it's your favorite prosecutor."
Her response: "Donnelly?"
The point I'm trying to make (without letting this post sound too much like a eulogy) is that Mark was literally a Golden Child at the Office and few prosecutors who have ever worked there could make the claim that they represented the Office as well as he did. He was born to be a leader in that Office, and I have no doubt he will be a leader with the Feds.
His career was immaculate and unblemished until Pat Lykos decided to jump the gun and call him "negligent and incompetent" on the front page of the newspaper. Of all the colossal f*ck ups that Lykos and crew have committed in their 10 months in power, nothing has gotten anywhere near what she did to Mark and Rifi.
And she never even bothered to offer those guys an apology.
I find it tremendously interesting when you compare Lykos' reaction to the Batson situation with her complete and total lack of reaction to last week's Brady situation. Apparently Lykos and the Gang don't consider the hiding of exculpatory evidence to be quite as serious of an ethical violation as a Batson challenge.
My hope is that HCCLA will ultimately beg to differ on that particular issue.
So Mark, I (and everybody else who worked with you) wish you the best of luck over on the National Level. I assume we'll see the bow-tie trend taking over the Federal Courthouse in no time. Even if your fashion sense was a little off, you are a great prosecutor and you'll continue to be one no matter where you are.
And to Patsy and the rest of the Gang Who Couldn't Shoot Straight, I hope at some point you all will sit down and realize what a tremendous screw up you have made in running off a dedicated public servant like Mark Donnelly. You showed your asses on that move back in March and now you're paying for it.
The citizens of Harris County were lucky that he stuck around as long as he did.
To say his departure is a loss for the D.A.'s Office is a tremendous understatement, but given the way he was treated by Pat Lykos, the move comes as no surprise.
I first met Mark when I was a Misdemeanor Chief during the Summer of 2001. The offices at 1201 Franklin had been abandoned in the wake of Tropical Storm Allison and we were operating under Flood Conditions out of the old Early Voting location on Texas. He was a rookie prosecutor who had the audacity to wear some sort of prissy little bow tie to work.
It was a pretty bold move for a rookie, and I decided to harass him about it. If I recall correctly, he had no hesitation about hurling back a barrage of bald jokes in response. Even though it was totally at my expense, it was hysterical. Mark pretty much fit right in from the second he set foot in the door at the D.A.'s Office.
Mark was immensely popular at the Office, and he was one hell of a good prosecutor too. He was smart, talented in trial, and bilingual. He was fair and even-handed with the Defense Bar. He was helpful to his co-workers. He was respected by the judges. I don't think he had an enemy within the Office, and we all knew he was going to end up in politics some day.
Everybody freaking loved Mark.
I can remember one time having to call Judge Susan Brown about getting a search warrant signed in the middle of the night. I was assigned to her court, so when she answered the phone, I joked: "Hey Judge, it's your favorite prosecutor."
Her response: "Donnelly?"
The point I'm trying to make (without letting this post sound too much like a eulogy) is that Mark was literally a Golden Child at the Office and few prosecutors who have ever worked there could make the claim that they represented the Office as well as he did. He was born to be a leader in that Office, and I have no doubt he will be a leader with the Feds.
His career was immaculate and unblemished until Pat Lykos decided to jump the gun and call him "negligent and incompetent" on the front page of the newspaper. Of all the colossal f*ck ups that Lykos and crew have committed in their 10 months in power, nothing has gotten anywhere near what she did to Mark and Rifi.
And she never even bothered to offer those guys an apology.
I find it tremendously interesting when you compare Lykos' reaction to the Batson situation with her complete and total lack of reaction to last week's Brady situation. Apparently Lykos and the Gang don't consider the hiding of exculpatory evidence to be quite as serious of an ethical violation as a Batson challenge.
My hope is that HCCLA will ultimately beg to differ on that particular issue.
So Mark, I (and everybody else who worked with you) wish you the best of luck over on the National Level. I assume we'll see the bow-tie trend taking over the Federal Courthouse in no time. Even if your fashion sense was a little off, you are a great prosecutor and you'll continue to be one no matter where you are.
And to Patsy and the rest of the Gang Who Couldn't Shoot Straight, I hope at some point you all will sit down and realize what a tremendous screw up you have made in running off a dedicated public servant like Mark Donnelly. You showed your asses on that move back in March and now you're paying for it.
The citizens of Harris County were lucky that he stuck around as long as he did.
Sunday, October 25, 2009
Brady & Over-Reliance on an Open File
Prosecutors and Defense Attorneys alike were buzzing about on Friday afternoon, discussing the hearing in the 180th District Court over whether or not prosecutor Denise Oncken had wilfully withheld Brady information on a Sexual Assault of a Child case. At issue was whether or not the head of the District Attorney's Child Abuse Division had failed to notify defense attorneys Bill Stradley and Lisa Andrews that the child victim in the case had initially stated she had been sexually assaulted by a black man when the Defendant in the case was white.
As noted in Brian Rogers' article, Judge Van Culp ruled that the exculpatory evidence had indeed been withheld, but since it had been discovered before the trial was over, the error was harmless and therefore no mistrial would be granted. That's a good thing for the District Attorney's Office because if a mistrial had been granted due to prosecutorial misconduct, Glen Kahlden (the Defendant) would be a free man. The State would have been barred from retrying the case.
But this may have been a case of winning a battle and losing a war for the D.A.'s Office, because in Judge Culp's finding, he officially acknowledged that the Office had committed the most unpardonable of sins that a prosecutorial agency can commit -- they had withheld evidence that pointed towards a Defendant's innocence.
And although the act of a Brady violation is most definitely inexcusable, it is usually explainable on how it happened. (NOTE: Before people start jumping on me for my phraseology on this sentence, please read it more closely.)
The Defense Bar loves nothing more than to loudly announce that prosecutors withhold Brady information all the time. In their mind, they picture prosecutors sitting in their office, twirling their moustaches like Snidely Whiplash and gleefully giggling "The DNA completely exonerates this guy, but I'll never tell his lawyer!"
That's a bunch of crap.
But where prosecutors can often find themselves in trouble is not doing their Due Diligence in going through their files and making sure that they themselves are aware of the Brady information. Although they have been told time and time again that their duty under Brady extends to being responsible for the actions of the police agency and any other representative of the State, they are often normally more than content to rely on just what's in the file.
In fact, the standard response of a prosecutor to most accusations of a Brady violation is to say "Well Judge, I've maintained an open file policy and the defense attorneys were always welcome to come look at it. That information was in there."
I'm keenly aware of that explanation, because that's what I did as a prosecutor. I kept a wide open file that was available to the defense even after trial had begun. I rarely, if ever, had a work product file that I wouldn't share with the Defense. If a defense attorney didn't know about something in that file, it was his own damn fault for not looking closely enough at it, right?
The short answer to that is "maybe". That's the lazy method of complying with Brady and it's one that is utilized because of the massive case loads that all prosecutors carry. The problem arises when (as in Denise Oncken's situation) there is something not readily visible by just having an Open File, because it isn't written in the offense report. Although I wasn't at the hearing, my understanding is that the information about the initial outcry describing a black assailant was in a taped statement. Furthermore, the investigating officer admitted to intentionally not writing it down in the offense report. Theoretically, the information was available and out there, but nobody had pointed it out to Stradley and Andrews.
And let me just editorialize about Bill Stradley and Lisa Andrews real quick. These are two outstanding attorneys with excellent reputations for their trial skills and work ethic. They are also extremely diplomatic in dealing with the prosecution. There is no way in hell that they just somehow "missed" that exculpatory evidence. If they were unaware of it as trial began, it was not going to be because they didn't do their homework. They would have never made an accusation of a Brady violation lightly.
But this does not mean that Denise Oncken needs to be vilified over this. I would imagine that her failure to turn over the evidence on this case was more based on a lack of Due Diligence than it was on Snidely Whiplash-esque behavior.
But that doesn't make it any less wrong.
While I'm sure that Lykos and Leitner are already in the midst of their latest knee-jerk reaction to this debacle, I would encourage them to take a step back and think before they react to it. I know that isn't really their style and they are probably already plotting to have Oncken executed on the courthouse lawn, but what they really need to be doing is formulating a well-reasoned way of ensuring this doesn't happen again.
Here's my two cents (for what it's worth):
1. If the Lykos Administration has done anything positive, it has been in the way of sharing information on cases. The step of giving the defense copies of the offense report was huge. I would suggest that they expand on this a bit. In addition to giving copies of the offense reports to the defense, also provide copies of all recorded statements, crime scene videos, photographs and reports. Keep in play all the same rules as you do for the offense reports, and you'll be protected.
I know that the defense bar isn't entitled to copies of these things under the Rules of Evidence, but we weren't entitled to the offense reports either. That policy has worked well, and this one can too.
2. In dealing with the statements of child victims, I know that these statements can't be turned over to the defense bar, nor should they be. You can cover yourself under Brady by having a standard form that basically is addressed to Defense Counsel, listing all taped interviews of child witnesses that are in the possession of the State and telling them that they are available for viewing. Have a form for Defense Counsel to sign.
3. Keep track of what supplement number had been reached when the offense report was turned over to defense counsel. Make sure that when a case gets set for trial that no new supplements have been added.
4. Keep a checklist. Have an itemized list of everything that has been turned over to the Defense and make sure it has everything on it a Defense Attorney could possibly ask for.
5. Pat Lykos needs to issue a blanket statement to all law enforcement personnel in Harris County that they have a duty to include all of their information in their offense reports. If they have information that needs to be kept confidential from the defense than they need to call the prosecutors on that case immediately. It's a policy statement that needs to be made and carried out if she is going to protect her prosecutors.
I'm sure there are some more things that can be done, and if you've got some ideas, let's hear them.
As noted in Brian Rogers' article, Judge Van Culp ruled that the exculpatory evidence had indeed been withheld, but since it had been discovered before the trial was over, the error was harmless and therefore no mistrial would be granted. That's a good thing for the District Attorney's Office because if a mistrial had been granted due to prosecutorial misconduct, Glen Kahlden (the Defendant) would be a free man. The State would have been barred from retrying the case.
But this may have been a case of winning a battle and losing a war for the D.A.'s Office, because in Judge Culp's finding, he officially acknowledged that the Office had committed the most unpardonable of sins that a prosecutorial agency can commit -- they had withheld evidence that pointed towards a Defendant's innocence.
And although the act of a Brady violation is most definitely inexcusable, it is usually explainable on how it happened. (NOTE: Before people start jumping on me for my phraseology on this sentence, please read it more closely.)
The Defense Bar loves nothing more than to loudly announce that prosecutors withhold Brady information all the time. In their mind, they picture prosecutors sitting in their office, twirling their moustaches like Snidely Whiplash and gleefully giggling "The DNA completely exonerates this guy, but I'll never tell his lawyer!"
That's a bunch of crap.
But where prosecutors can often find themselves in trouble is not doing their Due Diligence in going through their files and making sure that they themselves are aware of the Brady information. Although they have been told time and time again that their duty under Brady extends to being responsible for the actions of the police agency and any other representative of the State, they are often normally more than content to rely on just what's in the file.
In fact, the standard response of a prosecutor to most accusations of a Brady violation is to say "Well Judge, I've maintained an open file policy and the defense attorneys were always welcome to come look at it. That information was in there."
I'm keenly aware of that explanation, because that's what I did as a prosecutor. I kept a wide open file that was available to the defense even after trial had begun. I rarely, if ever, had a work product file that I wouldn't share with the Defense. If a defense attorney didn't know about something in that file, it was his own damn fault for not looking closely enough at it, right?
The short answer to that is "maybe". That's the lazy method of complying with Brady and it's one that is utilized because of the massive case loads that all prosecutors carry. The problem arises when (as in Denise Oncken's situation) there is something not readily visible by just having an Open File, because it isn't written in the offense report. Although I wasn't at the hearing, my understanding is that the information about the initial outcry describing a black assailant was in a taped statement. Furthermore, the investigating officer admitted to intentionally not writing it down in the offense report. Theoretically, the information was available and out there, but nobody had pointed it out to Stradley and Andrews.
And let me just editorialize about Bill Stradley and Lisa Andrews real quick. These are two outstanding attorneys with excellent reputations for their trial skills and work ethic. They are also extremely diplomatic in dealing with the prosecution. There is no way in hell that they just somehow "missed" that exculpatory evidence. If they were unaware of it as trial began, it was not going to be because they didn't do their homework. They would have never made an accusation of a Brady violation lightly.
But this does not mean that Denise Oncken needs to be vilified over this. I would imagine that her failure to turn over the evidence on this case was more based on a lack of Due Diligence than it was on Snidely Whiplash-esque behavior.
But that doesn't make it any less wrong.
While I'm sure that Lykos and Leitner are already in the midst of their latest knee-jerk reaction to this debacle, I would encourage them to take a step back and think before they react to it. I know that isn't really their style and they are probably already plotting to have Oncken executed on the courthouse lawn, but what they really need to be doing is formulating a well-reasoned way of ensuring this doesn't happen again.
Here's my two cents (for what it's worth):
1. If the Lykos Administration has done anything positive, it has been in the way of sharing information on cases. The step of giving the defense copies of the offense report was huge. I would suggest that they expand on this a bit. In addition to giving copies of the offense reports to the defense, also provide copies of all recorded statements, crime scene videos, photographs and reports. Keep in play all the same rules as you do for the offense reports, and you'll be protected.
I know that the defense bar isn't entitled to copies of these things under the Rules of Evidence, but we weren't entitled to the offense reports either. That policy has worked well, and this one can too.
2. In dealing with the statements of child victims, I know that these statements can't be turned over to the defense bar, nor should they be. You can cover yourself under Brady by having a standard form that basically is addressed to Defense Counsel, listing all taped interviews of child witnesses that are in the possession of the State and telling them that they are available for viewing. Have a form for Defense Counsel to sign.
3. Keep track of what supplement number had been reached when the offense report was turned over to defense counsel. Make sure that when a case gets set for trial that no new supplements have been added.
4. Keep a checklist. Have an itemized list of everything that has been turned over to the Defense and make sure it has everything on it a Defense Attorney could possibly ask for.
5. Pat Lykos needs to issue a blanket statement to all law enforcement personnel in Harris County that they have a duty to include all of their information in their offense reports. If they have information that needs to be kept confidential from the defense than they need to call the prosecutors on that case immediately. It's a policy statement that needs to be made and carried out if she is going to protect her prosecutors.
I'm sure there are some more things that can be done, and if you've got some ideas, let's hear them.
Friday, October 23, 2009
The Not Ready for Prime Time Player
It's tough being one of the spokespeople for the Gang Who Couldn't Shoot Straight.
Your boss doesn't understand the law and good policy making. You don't understand your boss.
You have to go on camera and defend what your boss is doing.
It's kind of like the Perfect Storm -- just ask Jim Leitner, who found himself in front of Channel 13's Ted Oberg this week to answer some questions about the District Attorney's new policy of reviewing vehicle fatality cases. The problem is that (as I pointed out in this post) there doesn't seem to be any guidelines for what cases make the grade for Pat Lykos and crew and what cases don't.
So, poor Jim Leitner was pretty much a deer in the headlights when Ted Oberg came a calling for an explanation on the cases. Bless his heart, Jim didn't even make it past "State your name" before he apparently decided to bail out on the interview. Clearly violating the Office's earlier motto of "Look Good, Think Smart, and Win!" by spontaneously changing it to "Look Foolish, Don't Think and Run Away!"
Now that's the kind of leadership I'm looking for in my D.A.'s Office!
In Jim's absence, Oberg turned to my anarchist, former-HCCLA President and defense attorney buddy Mark Bennett to explain how the D.A.'s Office should be run.
That's just awesome. Does the term "fox running the hen house" come to anybody else's mind? See what happens when you don't know what you're doing, Gang?
To catch Jim in all his glory during the "non-interview", click here.
In the meantime, Jim's response to Ted Oberg reminds me of the Knights of the Holy Grail's response to the Killer Bunny in this old movie favorite.
Your boss doesn't understand the law and good policy making. You don't understand your boss.
You have to go on camera and defend what your boss is doing.
It's kind of like the Perfect Storm -- just ask Jim Leitner, who found himself in front of Channel 13's Ted Oberg this week to answer some questions about the District Attorney's new policy of reviewing vehicle fatality cases. The problem is that (as I pointed out in this post) there doesn't seem to be any guidelines for what cases make the grade for Pat Lykos and crew and what cases don't.
So, poor Jim Leitner was pretty much a deer in the headlights when Ted Oberg came a calling for an explanation on the cases. Bless his heart, Jim didn't even make it past "State your name" before he apparently decided to bail out on the interview. Clearly violating the Office's earlier motto of "Look Good, Think Smart, and Win!" by spontaneously changing it to "Look Foolish, Don't Think and Run Away!"
Now that's the kind of leadership I'm looking for in my D.A.'s Office!
In Jim's absence, Oberg turned to my anarchist, former-HCCLA President and defense attorney buddy Mark Bennett to explain how the D.A.'s Office should be run.
That's just awesome. Does the term "fox running the hen house" come to anybody else's mind? See what happens when you don't know what you're doing, Gang?
To catch Jim in all his glory during the "non-interview", click here.
In the meantime, Jim's response to Ted Oberg reminds me of the Knights of the Holy Grail's response to the Killer Bunny in this old movie favorite.
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
Ghosts of Cases Past
Something that occasionally arises when you are a former or current Assistant District Attorney is the scenario where you are out and about in town and get flagged down by someone who recognizes you. I'm not talking about somebody that recognizes you from the TV or the newspaper, but recognizes you from a case that you worked on that involved them.
When a current or former prosecutor gets the question "Aren't you a D.A.?", one thing flashes through your mind very quickly -- "Does this person love me or hate me?"
Odds are that if you are encountering someone you once prosecuted or one of their family members, you could be dealing with a potentially dangerous situation (depending on the outcome of the case). Luckily, this situation has yet to happen me.
But if you are seeing someone who you had as a victim or a witness on a case, the results can usually be very pleasant, or in some cases pretty funny.
Coming back from lunch today, I was flagged down by a guy that I didn't recognize who asked me "Aren't you a D.A.?"
After running through a couple of names and the facts of the case, I realized he had been the victim on an aggravated assault case that I had used during the punishment phase on a case back in 2001. The defendant on the case had ultimately gotten 60 years.
I told him that I was the prosecutor on his case, and he nodded, very satisfied with his own memory.
"I thought so," he said. "But it's been awhile back, and you've put on some weight."
Um, thanks.
Gotta love the life of a (former) public servant.
When a current or former prosecutor gets the question "Aren't you a D.A.?", one thing flashes through your mind very quickly -- "Does this person love me or hate me?"
Odds are that if you are encountering someone you once prosecuted or one of their family members, you could be dealing with a potentially dangerous situation (depending on the outcome of the case). Luckily, this situation has yet to happen me.
But if you are seeing someone who you had as a victim or a witness on a case, the results can usually be very pleasant, or in some cases pretty funny.
Coming back from lunch today, I was flagged down by a guy that I didn't recognize who asked me "Aren't you a D.A.?"
After running through a couple of names and the facts of the case, I realized he had been the victim on an aggravated assault case that I had used during the punishment phase on a case back in 2001. The defendant on the case had ultimately gotten 60 years.
I told him that I was the prosecutor on his case, and he nodded, very satisfied with his own memory.
"I thought so," he said. "But it's been awhile back, and you've put on some weight."
Um, thanks.
Gotta love the life of a (former) public servant.
Monday, October 19, 2009
A Tale of Two Cases
A couple of years ago, under the Chuck Rosenthal Administration, a specialized "team" was created that was specifically designed to assist in the investigation of automobile fatality cases -- those involving alcohol and otherwise. The group of prosecutors, under the leadership of Warren Diepraam, was called the Vehicular Assault Team (or VAT) for short. (NOTE: Personally, I found the alternative of Fatality Accident Review Team to be more appropriate only because of the acronym it created, but my idea never "officially" caught on).
Prosecutors would be sent out to make the scene of auto fatalities to advise and assist the police officers as they were investigating the case. Although it may seem like an automobile fatality case would be a relatively simple one to investigate, nothing could be further from the truth. The assistance of prosecutors was something that could definitely be used in the drafting of warrants and making charging decisions at the scene.
The team soon generated a little bit of controversy when the investigation of non-alcohol related fatalities were resulting in the filing of criminal charges (usually felonies). The most high profile of these being the case of a school bus driver who was charged with a manslaughter charge after accidentally running over a young student in a cross-walk. The bus driver was ultimately acquitted by a jury, but the outrage amongst the Defense Bar over charges being filed in the first place was very vocal.
The Defense Bar argued that not every accident that results in a fatality needs to be filed on as a felony criminal charge.
I couldn't agree more. Not every accident does.
But some accidents are caused by such negligent or reckless behavior that they do actually deserve charges being filed and a jury to decide what happens.
The trick becomes determining the fine line between tragedies and criminal acts.
Within the past two or three weeks, there have been some interesting developments within the VAT Team that make me wonder just who is making the judgment calls on that line.
Take for instance, the case of Jeri Montgomery, the 24-year-old lady who was convicted last month of criminally negligent homicide for causing a fatality while talking on her cell phone, and subsequently sentenced to 30 days in jail as a condition of her probation. We all know that talking on the cell phone (or God forbid texting) while driving is dangerous. But it isn't illegal (yet) and it doesn't make a driver Charles Manson.
However, a jury found the evidence presented by prosecutor Brent Mayr to be compelling enough to return a guilty verdict. A few days later, your friend and mine Pat Lykos was not just standing by the verdict, but doing a little name-calling on the side. According to Patsy, Miss Montgomery wasn't just a crook, but a "selfish and narcissistic" one at that. (NOTE: By the way Pat, isn't that a little "Pot calling Kettle" with the name-calling?)
Now, compare the Montgomery case to the case of Sergio Jiminez Gonzalez that this article is describing. Here Pat Lykos' gang didn't just dismiss any old case -- they dismissed a case where the Defendant had already pled guilty. For those of you who don't deal with criminal law, we aren't talking about a pending case where the prosecutors decide they can't prove it and then dismiss it. We are talking about a completely finished case where a defendant has accepted responsibility and admitted to the criminal charges leveled against him. By pleading guilty, the right to appeal is typically waived.
But here, the Lykos Administration resurrected the case just long enough to dismiss it, which astounds me.
While Miss Montgomery's talking on the cell phone got her a conviction and some nasty names from the D.A.'s Office, apparently the fact Mr. Gonzalez killed not one, but two people (who were leaving church) while speeding in a tow truck, and had cocaine metabolite in his system was somehow less egregious.
In the meantime, the Lykos Administration has been having Special Crimes Bureau Chief Joni Vollman go through the pending cases of vehicular fatalities and there has been some dismissing of cases going on. I'm not necessarily criticizing this, but I am pretty curious to know the criteria for who gets the dismissal form and who gets called "selfish and narcissistic". There seems to be a sudden and drastic lack of consistency going on, if you ask me.
The Defense Bar is applauding the new move towards dismissing these cases, but at some point you have to ask yourself if you have self-admitted anarchist Mark Bennett applauding the D.A.'s Office for the job they are doing isn't that a little concerning? I mean, seriously, when was the last time we saw my friend Mark applauding the D.A.'s Office for a nice Life sentence? Just kidding, Mark.
It doesn't make much sense. Or does it?
Lykos is well-known for seeking out publicity and loves nothing more than adoration from the media. With the current backlash against those drivers talking and texting on cell phones, perhaps she felt that she could play that to her advantage.
Or then again, maybe at her age, the new technology of cell phones just scares her.
Prosecutors would be sent out to make the scene of auto fatalities to advise and assist the police officers as they were investigating the case. Although it may seem like an automobile fatality case would be a relatively simple one to investigate, nothing could be further from the truth. The assistance of prosecutors was something that could definitely be used in the drafting of warrants and making charging decisions at the scene.
The team soon generated a little bit of controversy when the investigation of non-alcohol related fatalities were resulting in the filing of criminal charges (usually felonies). The most high profile of these being the case of a school bus driver who was charged with a manslaughter charge after accidentally running over a young student in a cross-walk. The bus driver was ultimately acquitted by a jury, but the outrage amongst the Defense Bar over charges being filed in the first place was very vocal.
The Defense Bar argued that not every accident that results in a fatality needs to be filed on as a felony criminal charge.
I couldn't agree more. Not every accident does.
But some accidents are caused by such negligent or reckless behavior that they do actually deserve charges being filed and a jury to decide what happens.
The trick becomes determining the fine line between tragedies and criminal acts.
Within the past two or three weeks, there have been some interesting developments within the VAT Team that make me wonder just who is making the judgment calls on that line.
Take for instance, the case of Jeri Montgomery, the 24-year-old lady who was convicted last month of criminally negligent homicide for causing a fatality while talking on her cell phone, and subsequently sentenced to 30 days in jail as a condition of her probation. We all know that talking on the cell phone (or God forbid texting) while driving is dangerous. But it isn't illegal (yet) and it doesn't make a driver Charles Manson.
However, a jury found the evidence presented by prosecutor Brent Mayr to be compelling enough to return a guilty verdict. A few days later, your friend and mine Pat Lykos was not just standing by the verdict, but doing a little name-calling on the side. According to Patsy, Miss Montgomery wasn't just a crook, but a "selfish and narcissistic" one at that. (NOTE: By the way Pat, isn't that a little "Pot calling Kettle" with the name-calling?)
Now, compare the Montgomery case to the case of Sergio Jiminez Gonzalez that this article is describing. Here Pat Lykos' gang didn't just dismiss any old case -- they dismissed a case where the Defendant had already pled guilty. For those of you who don't deal with criminal law, we aren't talking about a pending case where the prosecutors decide they can't prove it and then dismiss it. We are talking about a completely finished case where a defendant has accepted responsibility and admitted to the criminal charges leveled against him. By pleading guilty, the right to appeal is typically waived.
But here, the Lykos Administration resurrected the case just long enough to dismiss it, which astounds me.
While Miss Montgomery's talking on the cell phone got her a conviction and some nasty names from the D.A.'s Office, apparently the fact Mr. Gonzalez killed not one, but two people (who were leaving church) while speeding in a tow truck, and had cocaine metabolite in his system was somehow less egregious.
In the meantime, the Lykos Administration has been having Special Crimes Bureau Chief Joni Vollman go through the pending cases of vehicular fatalities and there has been some dismissing of cases going on. I'm not necessarily criticizing this, but I am pretty curious to know the criteria for who gets the dismissal form and who gets called "selfish and narcissistic". There seems to be a sudden and drastic lack of consistency going on, if you ask me.
The Defense Bar is applauding the new move towards dismissing these cases, but at some point you have to ask yourself if you have self-admitted anarchist Mark Bennett applauding the D.A.'s Office for the job they are doing isn't that a little concerning? I mean, seriously, when was the last time we saw my friend Mark applauding the D.A.'s Office for a nice Life sentence? Just kidding, Mark.
It doesn't make much sense. Or does it?
Lykos is well-known for seeking out publicity and loves nothing more than adoration from the media. With the current backlash against those drivers talking and texting on cell phones, perhaps she felt that she could play that to her advantage.
Or then again, maybe at her age, the new technology of cell phones just scares her.
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
Absence from the Keyboard
I've gotten a couple of complaints about my lack of posting lately.
And by "a couple", I mean two. Thanks to Feroz and Kiatta for your enthusiasm towards the blog.
I actually sat down and started writing a new post on Monday, but then a family medical emergency sprung up and I had to head to out of town ASAP.
I'll get around to typing up something new soon. Anybody got any proposed topics?
And by "a couple", I mean two. Thanks to Feroz and Kiatta for your enthusiasm towards the blog.
I actually sat down and started writing a new post on Monday, but then a family medical emergency sprung up and I had to head to out of town ASAP.
I'll get around to typing up something new soon. Anybody got any proposed topics?
Tuesday, October 6, 2009
Lise Olsen's Weekend Article
In the participation with the Chronicle's latest zealous campaign for a Public Defender's Office (which has already been approved), writer Lise Olsen assisted with this article over the weekend talking about indigent defendants spending inordinate amounts of time in jail. As usual, the Chronicle is missing their mark on the cause of the over-lengthy stays, but in this case, Ms. Olsen seems to have gone really overboard with some mischaracterizations and outright inaccuracies throughout her story.
The first problem with her article is that it flat out just misses the boat. If the Chron was looking for why Defendants remain in jail for so long they can blame one main factor -- the enormous caseload of pending cases in each and every court in Harris County. It's been awhile since I last looked at the actual case counts for the individual courts, but before I left the D.A.'s Office, most courts were running between 900 to 1000 cases pending, on average. When you start dividing that up to how many cases can be on a daily docket, you start to realize that the average setting for each case is probably going to be at a minimum of one month intervals.
In other words, a Defendant is only going to get his or her turn to go to court about once a month. If the case isn't resolved on that date, they are normally going to be waiting for another month for something to change with their case. The reasons for a case not being resolved on a setting can range from a flat-out assertion of innocence to something as simple as a prosecutor not being able to reach a Complainant yet.
If a case is headed to trial, a Defendant is typically in for a good wait of anywhere from 9 months to 1 year (or more) before they get their day in court. If they can't afford to bond out, they are going to be sitting in jail. A court can only try one case at a time. Some courts try two cases a week, but the vast majority only have time for one a week. If you are keeping up with the math at home, this means (at the most), each court can try between 50 to (ballpark figure) 70 cases a year under the most ideal circumstances.
That isn't going to happen. So, when cases set for trial start hitting about 100 in the courts, you are going to have Defendants cooling their heels for awhile.
But according to Ms. Olsen and the Chronicle, rather than try to get more money and approval for more courts, the answer is a Public Defender's Office -- because dammit, those attorneys taking appointments right now just aren't getting the job done.
Um, okay. Let's look at some of the things that Ms. Olsen erroneously asserts in her article:
1. "None of the lawyers are routinely required to document the hours or provide details on how much they worked on each case" -- Oh really? Because the last I looked there was a form that had to be filled out for all out of court hours done by an appointed attorney on a defendant's case. An attorney has to keep up with that if he wants to get paid for the work he has done. Whether it be legal research, talking to witnesses, or jail visits, they all have to be documented before the case is disposed of and the attorney is paid.
And guess what! Attorneys do like to get paid.
And by the way, a Public Defender's Office would alleviate this how, exactly?
2. "Harris County's court-appointed indigent defense attorneys often are paid a flat daily rate regardless of how much time they spend on cases in or out of court." -- That's just a flat out load of crap. I don't know who Ms. Olsen was talking to, but she got some bad information. It is true that an appointed attorney does get a flat fee when they are working a Term Assignment (aka Attorney of the Day/Week) and that there is a set fee for appearances in court, but there is absolutely an amount where attorneys are paid for their out of court hours.
Again, don't you anticipate that the individual Public Defender's are going to be paid a flat salary? If so, there will be even less incentive for them to document their out of court hours.
3. "The bills don't usually provide details on the hours worked, with the exception being capital cases." -- Seriously, Ms. Olsen, where are you getting this information from? You couldn't be more incorrect. On every appointed case that I have handled, it has been documented on all billing what I've done on the case.
4. "Any poor defendant with complaints about a lawyer generally must appeal to the same judge who appointed him or her." -- Yep, they can certainly start out with complaining to the judge and asking for a new lawyer. And judges will listen. But they typically won't remove an defense attorney just because the attorney can't get the defendant the exact deal they wanted. It isn't unusual for attorneys and their clients to butt heads, but if a defense attorney's representation is really egregious, the Judge of the court isn't the only person they can complain to. There's this little-known organization called the State Bar . . .
And once again, I ask the question, how does a public defender's office help this? A judge can remove an attorney from a case if he or she appointed them. Do you really think they will be able to do the same for a public defender who is actually assigned to the case?
I'm in complete agreement with what Judge Michael McSpadden said about the topic in the article: "The people who think the public defender system is going to cure all ills in our system are crazy."
He's absolutely right.
I wonder if the Chronicle has thought that part out yet, while they are busy revamping the criminal justice system.
There are some other things that can be done to alleviate the amount of defendants who are languishing in the Harris County Jail, including revamping the bond schedule. I've got a few thoughts on that, as well, but I'll save them for another post. In the meantime, maybe the folks over at the Chronicle ought to be spending more time working on how to boost sales revenue rather than sponsoring an ill-written and poorly researched article like Ms. Olsen's.
The first problem with her article is that it flat out just misses the boat. If the Chron was looking for why Defendants remain in jail for so long they can blame one main factor -- the enormous caseload of pending cases in each and every court in Harris County. It's been awhile since I last looked at the actual case counts for the individual courts, but before I left the D.A.'s Office, most courts were running between 900 to 1000 cases pending, on average. When you start dividing that up to how many cases can be on a daily docket, you start to realize that the average setting for each case is probably going to be at a minimum of one month intervals.
In other words, a Defendant is only going to get his or her turn to go to court about once a month. If the case isn't resolved on that date, they are normally going to be waiting for another month for something to change with their case. The reasons for a case not being resolved on a setting can range from a flat-out assertion of innocence to something as simple as a prosecutor not being able to reach a Complainant yet.
If a case is headed to trial, a Defendant is typically in for a good wait of anywhere from 9 months to 1 year (or more) before they get their day in court. If they can't afford to bond out, they are going to be sitting in jail. A court can only try one case at a time. Some courts try two cases a week, but the vast majority only have time for one a week. If you are keeping up with the math at home, this means (at the most), each court can try between 50 to (ballpark figure) 70 cases a year under the most ideal circumstances.
That isn't going to happen. So, when cases set for trial start hitting about 100 in the courts, you are going to have Defendants cooling their heels for awhile.
But according to Ms. Olsen and the Chronicle, rather than try to get more money and approval for more courts, the answer is a Public Defender's Office -- because dammit, those attorneys taking appointments right now just aren't getting the job done.
Um, okay. Let's look at some of the things that Ms. Olsen erroneously asserts in her article:
1. "None of the lawyers are routinely required to document the hours or provide details on how much they worked on each case" -- Oh really? Because the last I looked there was a form that had to be filled out for all out of court hours done by an appointed attorney on a defendant's case. An attorney has to keep up with that if he wants to get paid for the work he has done. Whether it be legal research, talking to witnesses, or jail visits, they all have to be documented before the case is disposed of and the attorney is paid.
And guess what! Attorneys do like to get paid.
And by the way, a Public Defender's Office would alleviate this how, exactly?
2. "Harris County's court-appointed indigent defense attorneys often are paid a flat daily rate regardless of how much time they spend on cases in or out of court." -- That's just a flat out load of crap. I don't know who Ms. Olsen was talking to, but she got some bad information. It is true that an appointed attorney does get a flat fee when they are working a Term Assignment (aka Attorney of the Day/Week) and that there is a set fee for appearances in court, but there is absolutely an amount where attorneys are paid for their out of court hours.
Again, don't you anticipate that the individual Public Defender's are going to be paid a flat salary? If so, there will be even less incentive for them to document their out of court hours.
3. "The bills don't usually provide details on the hours worked, with the exception being capital cases." -- Seriously, Ms. Olsen, where are you getting this information from? You couldn't be more incorrect. On every appointed case that I have handled, it has been documented on all billing what I've done on the case.
4. "Any poor defendant with complaints about a lawyer generally must appeal to the same judge who appointed him or her." -- Yep, they can certainly start out with complaining to the judge and asking for a new lawyer. And judges will listen. But they typically won't remove an defense attorney just because the attorney can't get the defendant the exact deal they wanted. It isn't unusual for attorneys and their clients to butt heads, but if a defense attorney's representation is really egregious, the Judge of the court isn't the only person they can complain to. There's this little-known organization called the State Bar . . .
And once again, I ask the question, how does a public defender's office help this? A judge can remove an attorney from a case if he or she appointed them. Do you really think they will be able to do the same for a public defender who is actually assigned to the case?
I'm in complete agreement with what Judge Michael McSpadden said about the topic in the article: "The people who think the public defender system is going to cure all ills in our system are crazy."
He's absolutely right.
I wonder if the Chronicle has thought that part out yet, while they are busy revamping the criminal justice system.
There are some other things that can be done to alleviate the amount of defendants who are languishing in the Harris County Jail, including revamping the bond schedule. I've got a few thoughts on that, as well, but I'll save them for another post. In the meantime, maybe the folks over at the Chronicle ought to be spending more time working on how to boost sales revenue rather than sponsoring an ill-written and poorly researched article like Ms. Olsen's.
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
After Over a Month of Careful Consideration . . .
The long awaited "Move Memo" from the 6th Floor at the D.A.'s Office finally arrived over the weekend. Now, keeping in mind that the Division Chief who retired (which caused the need for the Moves in the first place) has been gone for almost two months now, it boggles my mind that Lykos and the Gang Who Couldn't Shoot Straight really needed all that time.
But, the good news for prosecutors is that the Move Memo has now finally arrived.
The bad news is that Lykos, Bridgwater and Jimmy apparently drafted it over a few too many Jack and Cokes at the TDCAA Seminar in Corpus.
Here are some of the highlights comings from this brilliantly crafted document:
1. Marc Brown was promoted to Division Chief of Grand Jury. That's good news, because Marc had been quite an excellent Division Chief prior to the Lykos Administration. They had decided to demote him to a regular Chief because of political reasons when they took over. Good to see that they came to their senses and put him back at a level he earned and deserves. The downside to that is that Marc is one of the most brilliant minds in the Office when it comes to Search and Seizure issues and drafting Search Warrants. His mind is going to turn to mush in the Grand Jury Division from lack of use.
Seriously Gang, you aren't utilizing one of your skill players in the appropriate position. You did good by making him a Division Chief again, but you need to get him in a place where he's putting his mind to work.
2. Kari Allen is being moved to Special Crimes. That's good news for the longtime veteran, and she'll do great in that job. The downside is that the Gang apparently forgot to replace her. So, the 338th is currently without a chief.
3. Katie Warren is being moved to Family Violence. Katie is a very skilled trial lawyer and she'll do great in the Family Violence Division, which is filled with tough cases and recanting complainants. The downside is that the Gang forgot to replace her, as well. So the 263rd is going to be running a bit short in their staffing without a Felony Two in that court.
4. Jen Falk is going to the 338th as a "Co-2". Jen is also a rising star in the Trial Bureau with very strong trial skills. She will be joining David Nachtigall as a Felony Two in the 338th. So, by my count, that leaves no chief in the 338th, no Two in the 263rd, but now two "Twos" in the 338th. I have nothing to add to this, other than WTF??
5. All moves are effective Immediately. Wow. Although Move Memos have always been notoriously made at the last minute, the worst I ever recall was being informed on a Friday that I was going to be in a new court the following Monday. I thought that was bad. This memo is dated on Monday, September 28, 2009, and states the moves are to take place "Immediately".
What does that mean exactly? Drop everything and proceed directly to your nearest court like a warped game of Musical Chairs? Seriously? The nimwits on the 6th Floor took two months to devise the moves, and now they wanted it in full effect instantaneously? You've got to be kidding me.
Good job, Gang! Y'all really did a bang up job this time.
Next time you may want to try putting all of your prosecutors' names on pieces of paper and then have chimpanzees stick the the names on a flow chart.
That would probably make more sense.
And it certainly wouldn't take two months.
But, the good news for prosecutors is that the Move Memo has now finally arrived.
The bad news is that Lykos, Bridgwater and Jimmy apparently drafted it over a few too many Jack and Cokes at the TDCAA Seminar in Corpus.
Here are some of the highlights comings from this brilliantly crafted document:
1. Marc Brown was promoted to Division Chief of Grand Jury. That's good news, because Marc had been quite an excellent Division Chief prior to the Lykos Administration. They had decided to demote him to a regular Chief because of political reasons when they took over. Good to see that they came to their senses and put him back at a level he earned and deserves. The downside to that is that Marc is one of the most brilliant minds in the Office when it comes to Search and Seizure issues and drafting Search Warrants. His mind is going to turn to mush in the Grand Jury Division from lack of use.
Seriously Gang, you aren't utilizing one of your skill players in the appropriate position. You did good by making him a Division Chief again, but you need to get him in a place where he's putting his mind to work.
2. Kari Allen is being moved to Special Crimes. That's good news for the longtime veteran, and she'll do great in that job. The downside is that the Gang apparently forgot to replace her. So, the 338th is currently without a chief.
3. Katie Warren is being moved to Family Violence. Katie is a very skilled trial lawyer and she'll do great in the Family Violence Division, which is filled with tough cases and recanting complainants. The downside is that the Gang forgot to replace her, as well. So the 263rd is going to be running a bit short in their staffing without a Felony Two in that court.
4. Jen Falk is going to the 338th as a "Co-2". Jen is also a rising star in the Trial Bureau with very strong trial skills. She will be joining David Nachtigall as a Felony Two in the 338th. So, by my count, that leaves no chief in the 338th, no Two in the 263rd, but now two "Twos" in the 338th. I have nothing to add to this, other than WTF??
5. All moves are effective Immediately. Wow. Although Move Memos have always been notoriously made at the last minute, the worst I ever recall was being informed on a Friday that I was going to be in a new court the following Monday. I thought that was bad. This memo is dated on Monday, September 28, 2009, and states the moves are to take place "Immediately".
What does that mean exactly? Drop everything and proceed directly to your nearest court like a warped game of Musical Chairs? Seriously? The nimwits on the 6th Floor took two months to devise the moves, and now they wanted it in full effect instantaneously? You've got to be kidding me.
Good job, Gang! Y'all really did a bang up job this time.
Next time you may want to try putting all of your prosecutors' names on pieces of paper and then have chimpanzees stick the the names on a flow chart.
That would probably make more sense.
And it certainly wouldn't take two months.
Sunday, September 27, 2009
Eyewitness I.D. Mystery
Alright my fellow honorary members of the Bloodhound Gang, I've got a mystery for you. I need help reconciling an absolutely positive identification of somebody with the fact that I'm not sure that there was any logical way it could have actually been the person I thought I saw.
Sound confusing? It is.
First a little background.
I'm in New York City for the weekend visiting my favorite Grammar Editor, and last night she made reservations for us at Sparks Steakhouse. Now, as much I love a good steak, my Editor also knows that I like all things about famous crime, and Sparks is the scene of the famous Organized Crime hit on Paul Castellano that John Gotti ordered back in 1985. Needless to say, I was already quite excited about the evening.
We arrived at 8:30 p.m. and had a drink at the bar while waiting for our table. As we were talking to the bartender, a blond lady walked in, dressed in some sort of purple velvet suit. Her date was an eccentric looking man who was dressed in a bizarre suit with a ultra-wide tie that only a celebrity could get away with. I took one look at the man, and I knew exactly who he was.
He was this guy:
Yeah, Phil Spector walked into the bar. I'm not talking about a guy who looked like Phil Spector. I'm talking about Phil Spector. We compared this guy to pictures on my Editor's IPhone for two hours. Same hair. Same cheekbones. Same eyes. Same nose. Same mouth. Same eccentric taste in clothing.
The only problem being that the last I heard, Phil Spector was serving the beginning of a 19-year-sentence in California for the murder of Lana Clarkson.
So we thoroughly searched through Google.com to see if perhaps Mr. Spector was out on an appeal bond or something. I know in Texas you can't get an appeal bond following a murder conviction or a conviction with a sentence of over 10 years, but we all know that California has always marched to the beat of a different drummer.
But the only thing our Google search yielded for the Spector case was an article about how he was having trouble finding a location to transition to from his lock-down drug rehab.
So, of course, being a complete and total tourist and celebrity gawker, I did a walk-by on the way to the restroom for a closer look.
Yep, it was Phil Spector. And to make matters worse, the woman he was with was arguing with him!
Good Lord, lady! Don't you know how this guy handles an unruly woman!! Quit arguing with him!
We also sat and watched as a waiter was taking photographs in the general vicinity and Phil kept turning his back to the camera. He was clearly feeling very awkward with being documented. I mean, it was hysterically blatant how this guy was avoiding being photographed.
We discussed with our waiter whether or not he thought the mystery guest was Phil Spector, and he agreed completely with us.
But how could he be in New York City and Corcoran Prison in California at the same time?
The Grammar Editor and I left the restaurant at about the same time as Mystery Phil, and he was pacing around, waiting for a cab. He wouldn't stand still as she tried to sneak a photograph of him on the IPhone. The closest thing she got to a picture of him was this shot:
Although it is a crystal clear photograph of my right shoulder, Mystery Phil came out a little blurry.
So, you guys be the judge. I'm 99.99% positive we were sitting across the restaurant from a convicted murderer who is supposed to be sitting in prison right now.
Can anybody help me reconcile this?
Or is Eyewitness I.D. really that unreliable (at least when it comes to me?)
Sound confusing? It is.
First a little background.
I'm in New York City for the weekend visiting my favorite Grammar Editor, and last night she made reservations for us at Sparks Steakhouse. Now, as much I love a good steak, my Editor also knows that I like all things about famous crime, and Sparks is the scene of the famous Organized Crime hit on Paul Castellano that John Gotti ordered back in 1985. Needless to say, I was already quite excited about the evening.
We arrived at 8:30 p.m. and had a drink at the bar while waiting for our table. As we were talking to the bartender, a blond lady walked in, dressed in some sort of purple velvet suit. Her date was an eccentric looking man who was dressed in a bizarre suit with a ultra-wide tie that only a celebrity could get away with. I took one look at the man, and I knew exactly who he was.
He was this guy:
Yeah, Phil Spector walked into the bar. I'm not talking about a guy who looked like Phil Spector. I'm talking about Phil Spector. We compared this guy to pictures on my Editor's IPhone for two hours. Same hair. Same cheekbones. Same eyes. Same nose. Same mouth. Same eccentric taste in clothing.
The only problem being that the last I heard, Phil Spector was serving the beginning of a 19-year-sentence in California for the murder of Lana Clarkson.
So we thoroughly searched through Google.com to see if perhaps Mr. Spector was out on an appeal bond or something. I know in Texas you can't get an appeal bond following a murder conviction or a conviction with a sentence of over 10 years, but we all know that California has always marched to the beat of a different drummer.
But the only thing our Google search yielded for the Spector case was an article about how he was having trouble finding a location to transition to from his lock-down drug rehab.
So, of course, being a complete and total tourist and celebrity gawker, I did a walk-by on the way to the restroom for a closer look.
Yep, it was Phil Spector. And to make matters worse, the woman he was with was arguing with him!
Good Lord, lady! Don't you know how this guy handles an unruly woman!! Quit arguing with him!
We also sat and watched as a waiter was taking photographs in the general vicinity and Phil kept turning his back to the camera. He was clearly feeling very awkward with being documented. I mean, it was hysterically blatant how this guy was avoiding being photographed.
We discussed with our waiter whether or not he thought the mystery guest was Phil Spector, and he agreed completely with us.
But how could he be in New York City and Corcoran Prison in California at the same time?
The Grammar Editor and I left the restaurant at about the same time as Mystery Phil, and he was pacing around, waiting for a cab. He wouldn't stand still as she tried to sneak a photograph of him on the IPhone. The closest thing she got to a picture of him was this shot:
Although it is a crystal clear photograph of my right shoulder, Mystery Phil came out a little blurry.
So, you guys be the judge. I'm 99.99% positive we were sitting across the restaurant from a convicted murderer who is supposed to be sitting in prison right now.
Can anybody help me reconcile this?
Or is Eyewitness I.D. really that unreliable (at least when it comes to me?)
Saturday, September 26, 2009
The Public Defender Debate Continues
The tabloid we all love to hate, the Houston Chronicle is again spreading their wisdom of how to best administrate the Harris County Criminal Justice System with today's editorial piece calling for a Public Defender's Office in Harris County. The article is co-authored by Cynthia Hujarr Orr, a defense attorney out of San Antonio who is the president of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, and Norman Lefstein, who is a professor and dean emeritus at Indiana University School of Law.
Now, as much as I just thoroughly enjoy people who don't practice criminal law in Harris County telling us how to run our business, I'm afraid I'm going to have to disagree with their assessments.
The idea of a Public Defender's Office has always appealed to critics of the Harris County Criminal Justice System, because those who don't understand the system seem to believe that a new bureaucratic agency with investigators and secretaries, etc. would put the Defense Bar on a more level playing field with the District Attorney's Office.
And, in principle, I would be inclined to agree -- to a point.
One of the things I miss about working at the District Attorney's Office is the support network. Although often unappreciated, the work of the Administrative Assistants and the Investigators provides prosecutors with priceless assistance. In the world of private practice, an attorney can certainly have a secretary, an investigator, and hell, even a paralegal, but these personnel are usually really needy and want things like paychecks and insurance.
So from the aspect of a Public Defender's Office with support staff with investigators, paralegals and administrative assistants provided, I will concede that this particular element is a good idea.
After that, however, is where the plan goes astray for a couple of reasons.
First of all, I'm absolutely astounded that Orr and Lefstein (and the Chronicle) would actually try to say with a straight face that a P.D.'s office would actually save money for Harris County. I mean, come on. How in the hell would creating an entirely new bureaucratic agency with personnel from top to bottom that need insurance, retirement plans, and office space end up saving taxpayers money? Sure, you can argue all day long that it is the right thing to do, but when you start asserting that it's going to be some sort of bargain, you're undermining your own credibility.
Make no mistake about it. If a Public Defender's Office is going to be created, it's going to cost money -- a boat load of money. And in the big scheme of things, it's probably going to cost a lot more money than even Orr and Lefstein are contemplating if they want to make it any good.
In the comments to the Chronicle's editorial, a regular commenter under the name of "Helpful" astutely points out several other issues that would come along with a new P.D.'s Office. The one that should be most concerning to the general public is the type of attorney that would be drawn to work for this bureaucracy:
". . . a public defense office will mostly employ newly minted lawyers without much experience and pay them at such a rate that the best of the batch will leave once they get enough experience to compete with their seasoned counterparts. The resulting government body will still demand ever-increasing amounts of money each year, all supported by people like Orr that tell us how ill-funded it is and the horrors of underpaid defense attorneys fighting against those mean old prosecutors."
Right now, there are Defense Attorneys who accept appointments in Harris County that could dance circles around other attorneys across the Nation when it comes to trying criminal cases. The indigent defendant who gets an attorney appointed to him like, say, Skip Cornelius or Tyrone Moncreif, just hit the freaking mother lode when it comes to quality representation. Skip and Tyrone won't be headed to work for a government agency any time soon.
The ones that will be going there are going to be attorneys who either 1) just got out of law school, or 2) are not successful enough to survive in their private practice.
As the current appointment system works, a Court needing an attorney to represent an indigent defender will get a computer generated list of ten attorneys that they can select from. Court coordinators aren't going to select an incompetent attorney. I'm sure that the last comment will draw comments from the skeptics, but the bottom line is that the current system does give a Court a choice in what attorney they are getting. Under a Public Defender system, they are going to get stuck with a certain attorney assigned to the court, regardless of their skill.
Think about it. Skilled attorneys in the defense bar aren't going to stick around with a governmental salary for very long. In fact, the majority of good defense attorneys are typically veterans of the D.A.'s Office who left, not because they didn't enjoy the job, but because it didn't pay enough. The creation of a Public Defender's Office ultimately is just a call for a Bureaucratic money pit that recruits mediocrity (at best).
Right now, to accept felony appointment in the criminal courts, attorneys have to take a test, have trial credentials that reach the standards for appointment, and then be approved by the District Court Judges. Under a P.D.'s system, they'll have to do none of those things before representing defendants.
The Chronicle likes to insinuate that the current system is prone to cronyism and appointments being given solely to campaign donators. That's pretty damn insulting, but it's also lazy reporting in my opinion. If they want to start doing some hard fact writing about an incompetent attorney who is getting appointments solely because he delivered a hefty campaign donation, then let's see it. Otherwise, this is just idle griping about what they feel may be behind a high conviction rate in Harris County.
Now, before I close and the commenters start bringing in their usual banter of insults, I acknowledge that I take felony appointments, and I am happy to do so. I was a prosecutor for nine and a half years, and from a business standpoint, appointments are how one builds a defense practice. I make absolutely no apologies for that. I will also freely admit that I would hate for there to be a Public Defender's Office because it could potentially cut into my business. I have no intention whatsoever of going back to work for a government agency.
That being said, I also know that I bust my butt for all cases I get appointed to and work on them with the equal amount of zeal and effort that I do for the retained cases I have. I've been happy with the results so far, and more importantly, so have my clients.
If Orr, Lefstein, and the Chronicle want to do something to increase the level of effectiveness of indigent representation in Harris County, there are plenty of things that can be done.
Creating a new bureaucracy that appeals to the lowest common denominator of the legal practice isn't one of them.
Now, as much as I just thoroughly enjoy people who don't practice criminal law in Harris County telling us how to run our business, I'm afraid I'm going to have to disagree with their assessments.
The idea of a Public Defender's Office has always appealed to critics of the Harris County Criminal Justice System, because those who don't understand the system seem to believe that a new bureaucratic agency with investigators and secretaries, etc. would put the Defense Bar on a more level playing field with the District Attorney's Office.
And, in principle, I would be inclined to agree -- to a point.
One of the things I miss about working at the District Attorney's Office is the support network. Although often unappreciated, the work of the Administrative Assistants and the Investigators provides prosecutors with priceless assistance. In the world of private practice, an attorney can certainly have a secretary, an investigator, and hell, even a paralegal, but these personnel are usually really needy and want things like paychecks and insurance.
So from the aspect of a Public Defender's Office with support staff with investigators, paralegals and administrative assistants provided, I will concede that this particular element is a good idea.
After that, however, is where the plan goes astray for a couple of reasons.
First of all, I'm absolutely astounded that Orr and Lefstein (and the Chronicle) would actually try to say with a straight face that a P.D.'s office would actually save money for Harris County. I mean, come on. How in the hell would creating an entirely new bureaucratic agency with personnel from top to bottom that need insurance, retirement plans, and office space end up saving taxpayers money? Sure, you can argue all day long that it is the right thing to do, but when you start asserting that it's going to be some sort of bargain, you're undermining your own credibility.
Make no mistake about it. If a Public Defender's Office is going to be created, it's going to cost money -- a boat load of money. And in the big scheme of things, it's probably going to cost a lot more money than even Orr and Lefstein are contemplating if they want to make it any good.
In the comments to the Chronicle's editorial, a regular commenter under the name of "Helpful" astutely points out several other issues that would come along with a new P.D.'s Office. The one that should be most concerning to the general public is the type of attorney that would be drawn to work for this bureaucracy:
". . . a public defense office will mostly employ newly minted lawyers without much experience and pay them at such a rate that the best of the batch will leave once they get enough experience to compete with their seasoned counterparts. The resulting government body will still demand ever-increasing amounts of money each year, all supported by people like Orr that tell us how ill-funded it is and the horrors of underpaid defense attorneys fighting against those mean old prosecutors."
Right now, there are Defense Attorneys who accept appointments in Harris County that could dance circles around other attorneys across the Nation when it comes to trying criminal cases. The indigent defendant who gets an attorney appointed to him like, say, Skip Cornelius or Tyrone Moncreif, just hit the freaking mother lode when it comes to quality representation. Skip and Tyrone won't be headed to work for a government agency any time soon.
The ones that will be going there are going to be attorneys who either 1) just got out of law school, or 2) are not successful enough to survive in their private practice.
As the current appointment system works, a Court needing an attorney to represent an indigent defender will get a computer generated list of ten attorneys that they can select from. Court coordinators aren't going to select an incompetent attorney. I'm sure that the last comment will draw comments from the skeptics, but the bottom line is that the current system does give a Court a choice in what attorney they are getting. Under a Public Defender system, they are going to get stuck with a certain attorney assigned to the court, regardless of their skill.
Think about it. Skilled attorneys in the defense bar aren't going to stick around with a governmental salary for very long. In fact, the majority of good defense attorneys are typically veterans of the D.A.'s Office who left, not because they didn't enjoy the job, but because it didn't pay enough. The creation of a Public Defender's Office ultimately is just a call for a Bureaucratic money pit that recruits mediocrity (at best).
Right now, to accept felony appointment in the criminal courts, attorneys have to take a test, have trial credentials that reach the standards for appointment, and then be approved by the District Court Judges. Under a P.D.'s system, they'll have to do none of those things before representing defendants.
The Chronicle likes to insinuate that the current system is prone to cronyism and appointments being given solely to campaign donators. That's pretty damn insulting, but it's also lazy reporting in my opinion. If they want to start doing some hard fact writing about an incompetent attorney who is getting appointments solely because he delivered a hefty campaign donation, then let's see it. Otherwise, this is just idle griping about what they feel may be behind a high conviction rate in Harris County.
Now, before I close and the commenters start bringing in their usual banter of insults, I acknowledge that I take felony appointments, and I am happy to do so. I was a prosecutor for nine and a half years, and from a business standpoint, appointments are how one builds a defense practice. I make absolutely no apologies for that. I will also freely admit that I would hate for there to be a Public Defender's Office because it could potentially cut into my business. I have no intention whatsoever of going back to work for a government agency.
That being said, I also know that I bust my butt for all cases I get appointed to and work on them with the equal amount of zeal and effort that I do for the retained cases I have. I've been happy with the results so far, and more importantly, so have my clients.
If Orr, Lefstein, and the Chronicle want to do something to increase the level of effectiveness of indigent representation in Harris County, there are plenty of things that can be done.
Creating a new bureaucracy that appeals to the lowest common denominator of the legal practice isn't one of them.
Monday, September 21, 2009
Memo of the Highest Importance
Prosecutors at the Harris County D.A.'s Office got a rare e-mail from the 6th Floor last week. Given the Upper Administration's general reluctance to send out Office Policy via e-mail, it clearly had to be something of the utmost importance to warrant the All Prosecutors e-mail, right?
What could it possibly be?
The long awaited and long overdue memo regarding promotions and moves?
Nah.
An explanation about how the investigators could be potentially about to lose their TCLEOSE certification if the Office doesn't find the money to pay for their training by October?
Nope.
A schedule for whose turn it is to walk the Office Dog?
Not even that.
This e-mail was for those slacking Assistant D.A.s who haven't changed the standard boiler-plate language at the end of the each of their e-mails (regarding Work Product and Privacy, etc.) to reflect that the elected D.A. is now a "she" and not a "he".
It's a controversial and hot topic issue, but apparently some of you lazy prosecutors hadn't ever changed it. You guys really need to watch your pronouns if you truly want to keep looking good, thinking smart and winning.
Now, hopefully you will all take care of this immediately, because if the 6th Floor has to take a break from redecorating again to send a follow up e-mail, some heads are going to roll.
NOTE: Special thanks to my NYC grammar editor for pointing out how bad I am with contractions.
What could it possibly be?
The long awaited and long overdue memo regarding promotions and moves?
Nah.
An explanation about how the investigators could be potentially about to lose their TCLEOSE certification if the Office doesn't find the money to pay for their training by October?
Nope.
A schedule for whose turn it is to walk the Office Dog?
Not even that.
This e-mail was for those slacking Assistant D.A.s who haven't changed the standard boiler-plate language at the end of the each of their e-mails (regarding Work Product and Privacy, etc.) to reflect that the elected D.A. is now a "she" and not a "he".
It's a controversial and hot topic issue, but apparently some of you lazy prosecutors hadn't ever changed it. You guys really need to watch your pronouns if you truly want to keep looking good, thinking smart and winning.
Now, hopefully you will all take care of this immediately, because if the 6th Floor has to take a break from redecorating again to send a follow up e-mail, some heads are going to roll.
NOTE: Special thanks to my NYC grammar editor for pointing out how bad I am with contractions.
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
All Quiet on the Western Front
I'm spending the first part of this week in San Antonio for a Continuing Legal Education seminar, which is a real Barn-Burner, let me tell you. There's Wi-Fi which is allowing to spend countless hours browsing the Internet and checking my e-mails, which helps pass the time. Yesterday, I got an e-mail from my best friend in Austin remarking that things are awfully quiet on the blog during those down times where the Branch Davidians haven't screwed anything up lately, but I guess that's just the nature of the game.
Hell, even Rage seems to be hibernating.
But apparently the Lykos Administration has finally realized if they quit doing stupid crap then I wouldn't have much to write about. It's a solid plan, and one I don't mind at all.
Maybe I'll write a book or something in my down time!
The only thing of note really coming out of the 6th Floor is actually a lack of action. The Division Chief of Grand Jury retired from the Office a couple of months ago, and the Gang still hasn't caught up on corresponding personnel moves that need to be made. Word has it that based on some, um, spending indiscretions, the Office doesn't have the money in the budget to promote anyone to the Division Chief level.
It's not really all that big of a deal, though. Being the Division Chief of Grand Jury is kind of like being a Red-Shirt Golfer when it comes to job difficulty and stress. It doesn't really need a true division chief to handle it. Quite frankly, that would be a waste of money.
So it is kind of hard to criticize the Gang for that particular move. However, they have been sitting on their hands for weeks and weeks now on other Office moves, which isn't quite as acceptable. Moving courts is a regular occurrence within the D.A.'s Office, although it is often stressful. Prosecutors have to wrap up their caseloads and leave them in a presentable form to their successors. Advanced notice is needed, but the moves need to get made.
Lykos and her Gang do need to get off their butts and make their moves.
But other than that, folks, it's all quiet on the Western Front.
Hell, even Rage seems to be hibernating.
But apparently the Lykos Administration has finally realized if they quit doing stupid crap then I wouldn't have much to write about. It's a solid plan, and one I don't mind at all.
Maybe I'll write a book or something in my down time!
The only thing of note really coming out of the 6th Floor is actually a lack of action. The Division Chief of Grand Jury retired from the Office a couple of months ago, and the Gang still hasn't caught up on corresponding personnel moves that need to be made. Word has it that based on some, um, spending indiscretions, the Office doesn't have the money in the budget to promote anyone to the Division Chief level.
It's not really all that big of a deal, though. Being the Division Chief of Grand Jury is kind of like being a Red-Shirt Golfer when it comes to job difficulty and stress. It doesn't really need a true division chief to handle it. Quite frankly, that would be a waste of money.
So it is kind of hard to criticize the Gang for that particular move. However, they have been sitting on their hands for weeks and weeks now on other Office moves, which isn't quite as acceptable. Moving courts is a regular occurrence within the D.A.'s Office, although it is often stressful. Prosecutors have to wrap up their caseloads and leave them in a presentable form to their successors. Advanced notice is needed, but the moves need to get made.
Lykos and her Gang do need to get off their butts and make their moves.
But other than that, folks, it's all quiet on the Western Front.
Friday, September 11, 2009
Card for Steve Pena's Family
Jen Falk, the Two in the 183rd District Court, just posted a comment on the post on Esteban "Steve" Pena. In case you aren't a regular comment checker, I thought I would repost it.
Jen will have a card today in the 183rd District Court, Judge Vanessa Velasquez, on the 18th Floor for the family of Esteban Pena. Everyone is invited to drop by and sign it to express their condolences.
Thanks Jen for taking the time out to set that up.
Jen will have a card today in the 183rd District Court, Judge Vanessa Velasquez, on the 18th Floor for the family of Esteban Pena. Everyone is invited to drop by and sign it to express their condolences.
Thanks Jen for taking the time out to set that up.
Wednesday, September 9, 2009
Esteban "Steve" Pena
Yesterday, I was set for trial in the 180th District Court.
I showed up right around eight o'clock to make sure I had everything ready and set up, even though I had been told by the prosecutor that my case wasn't the first in line to go to trial. As everyone who practices in the CJC knows, just because your case isn't the first one "up" for trial, you can easily find yourself in front of a jury panel at the blink of an eye.
While I was killing time in the courtroom, waiting to find out whether or not my case was going to trial, I thumbed through the court's docket to see who else was set for trial that day. The defense attorney on the first case up was a man named Esteban "Steve" Pena. An attorney I would later realize that I knew in passing, but not by name.
I did recognize his name yesterday, however.
The reason I had known the name was because it had been posted on the Harris County Criminal Lawyer's Association website that Steve Pena had passed away over the weekend.
It was a sobering thought to realize that an attorney set for trial in front of me wouldn't be in court that morning because he had died. It was even more sobering when I realized that Steve Pena was a year younger than I am. When I saw his picture posted in the hallway of the 185th District Court today, I did remember who he was. He was a nice guy, who was always very pleasant to deal with.
As I mentioned earlier, I didn't know Steve other than to nod and say "hello" in the courtroom, but I do wish to extend my condolences to his widow and his family. If any of you knew him and want to say something in the comments section, I hope you will.
And although I didn't know him, I think he definitely provided us all with the reminder that life can often times be unexpectedly short.
You should appreciate it -- love it -- live it well.
I showed up right around eight o'clock to make sure I had everything ready and set up, even though I had been told by the prosecutor that my case wasn't the first in line to go to trial. As everyone who practices in the CJC knows, just because your case isn't the first one "up" for trial, you can easily find yourself in front of a jury panel at the blink of an eye.
While I was killing time in the courtroom, waiting to find out whether or not my case was going to trial, I thumbed through the court's docket to see who else was set for trial that day. The defense attorney on the first case up was a man named Esteban "Steve" Pena. An attorney I would later realize that I knew in passing, but not by name.
I did recognize his name yesterday, however.
The reason I had known the name was because it had been posted on the Harris County Criminal Lawyer's Association website that Steve Pena had passed away over the weekend.
It was a sobering thought to realize that an attorney set for trial in front of me wouldn't be in court that morning because he had died. It was even more sobering when I realized that Steve Pena was a year younger than I am. When I saw his picture posted in the hallway of the 185th District Court today, I did remember who he was. He was a nice guy, who was always very pleasant to deal with.
As I mentioned earlier, I didn't know Steve other than to nod and say "hello" in the courtroom, but I do wish to extend my condolences to his widow and his family. If any of you knew him and want to say something in the comments section, I hope you will.
And although I didn't know him, I think he definitely provided us all with the reminder that life can often times be unexpectedly short.
You should appreciate it -- love it -- live it well.
Sunday, September 6, 2009
A Good Idea Implemented
Brace yourselves, folks. The Gang Who Couldn't Shoot Straight did something right last week, and I'm acknowledging it.
Starting last week, numerous Felony District Courts began getting pre-commit attorneys as Felony "Fours".
For those of you not familiar with the terminology, a "Pre-Commit" is a soon-to-be lawyer who is just waiting on the results of his or her Bar Exam results before they can get sworn in and all officially lawyerlike. The District Attorney's Office hires them after a lengthy interview process and they begin conditional employment with a Bar Card (it's kind of like a Learner's Permit for lawyers. You can drive, but a licensed attorney has to be sitting with you). The condition is that the Pre-Commit has to pass the Bar Exam.
In the past, Pre-Commits who were hired by the Office went directly to the Misdemeanor Courts where they filled the role of a Misdemeanor Three -- trying DWI cases with no accidents or breath tests, small marijuana and theft cases, etc. It wasn't a bad idea, because they could get a couple of trials under their belt before they were even bona fide lawyers.
However, although starting a pre-commit could get some trial experience, what starting in Misdemeanor failed to provide them with was some good old fashioned Perspective.
In one of my posts last year, I pointed out that rising up through the ranks as the D.A.'s Office promotion ladder is structured was a good way to gradually get more comfortable trying progressively serious cases. The downfall of that is that the prosecutor is perpetually at the zenith of his or her most important cases tried.
I pointed out the example that I started in the Justice of the Peace Division and by God, I was one hell of a crusader against them No-Seatbelt-Wearing Bastards. Had I spent some time in the Felony Division before heading down to Class C court, the speeding ticket cases might not have seemed quite as proportional to a Capital Murder to me.
The Gang's idea of sending the Pre-Commits into the Felony Courts first is not one that they originated, but they do deserve credit for implementing it.
A Baby Pre-Commit now has the benefit of getting his or her first lessons in prosecution from a seasoned Felony Chief who has been prosecuting for years. These are the men and women of the D.A.'s Office who have actually tried the murders, sexual assaults, and aggravated robberies and have a lot to teach. The Pre-Commits might actually get to learn how to truly work up a case, and ultimately learn the difference from a good case and a bad case.
But the real value in it, in my opinion, is that the Pre-Commits under the new policy will realize that there is a tremendous difference between a murder and a misdemeanor possession of marijuana, and there truly is not such a thing as a "Capital DWI" trial. That type of perspective can shape the general attitude of the prosecutors in the Trial Bureau, while making them better at their jobs at the same time.
So, good call this time, Gang.
There, now I've actually written a post complimenting the new administration. The Final Sign of the CJC Apocalypse has arrived . . .
Starting last week, numerous Felony District Courts began getting pre-commit attorneys as Felony "Fours".
For those of you not familiar with the terminology, a "Pre-Commit" is a soon-to-be lawyer who is just waiting on the results of his or her Bar Exam results before they can get sworn in and all officially lawyerlike. The District Attorney's Office hires them after a lengthy interview process and they begin conditional employment with a Bar Card (it's kind of like a Learner's Permit for lawyers. You can drive, but a licensed attorney has to be sitting with you). The condition is that the Pre-Commit has to pass the Bar Exam.
In the past, Pre-Commits who were hired by the Office went directly to the Misdemeanor Courts where they filled the role of a Misdemeanor Three -- trying DWI cases with no accidents or breath tests, small marijuana and theft cases, etc. It wasn't a bad idea, because they could get a couple of trials under their belt before they were even bona fide lawyers.
However, although starting a pre-commit could get some trial experience, what starting in Misdemeanor failed to provide them with was some good old fashioned Perspective.
In one of my posts last year, I pointed out that rising up through the ranks as the D.A.'s Office promotion ladder is structured was a good way to gradually get more comfortable trying progressively serious cases. The downfall of that is that the prosecutor is perpetually at the zenith of his or her most important cases tried.
I pointed out the example that I started in the Justice of the Peace Division and by God, I was one hell of a crusader against them No-Seatbelt-Wearing Bastards. Had I spent some time in the Felony Division before heading down to Class C court, the speeding ticket cases might not have seemed quite as proportional to a Capital Murder to me.
The Gang's idea of sending the Pre-Commits into the Felony Courts first is not one that they originated, but they do deserve credit for implementing it.
A Baby Pre-Commit now has the benefit of getting his or her first lessons in prosecution from a seasoned Felony Chief who has been prosecuting for years. These are the men and women of the D.A.'s Office who have actually tried the murders, sexual assaults, and aggravated robberies and have a lot to teach. The Pre-Commits might actually get to learn how to truly work up a case, and ultimately learn the difference from a good case and a bad case.
But the real value in it, in my opinion, is that the Pre-Commits under the new policy will realize that there is a tremendous difference between a murder and a misdemeanor possession of marijuana, and there truly is not such a thing as a "Capital DWI" trial. That type of perspective can shape the general attitude of the prosecutors in the Trial Bureau, while making them better at their jobs at the same time.
So, good call this time, Gang.
There, now I've actually written a post complimenting the new administration. The Final Sign of the CJC Apocalypse has arrived . . .
Friday, September 4, 2009
Abuse versus Argument
For some reason, the comments on my last post made me think of my favorite Monty Python skit.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lL9oA1LFoMw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lL9oA1LFoMw
Thursday, September 3, 2009
Monday, August 31, 2009
Humor on the Elevator
Overheard today on the elevator:
ATTORNEY: Yeah, they didn't put anything [any courts] on the 13th floor, you know, because the 13th floor is supposed to be bad luck.
DEFENDANT: Shit, every floor in this building is bad luck.
ATTORNEY: Yeah, they didn't put anything [any courts] on the 13th floor, you know, because the 13th floor is supposed to be bad luck.
DEFENDANT: Shit, every floor in this building is bad luck.
Friday, August 28, 2009
The Judges' Club
The Houston Chronicle is reporting this afternoon in this article that all charges have been dismissed against Texas Supreme Court Justice David Medina's wife, Francisca Medina, in relation to arson charges which she was indicted on last year.
Now for those of you who don't recall, the indictment against Mrs. Medina stemmed out of the "Runaway Grand Jury" that had indicted both Mrs. Medina and Justice Medina despite the fact that prosecutors were not seeking an indictment at that time. If you recall, then-prosecutor Vic Wisner got lambasted (extremely unfairly) over the actions of the Grand Jurors (whom he could not control). I still believe that Vic's association with the Medina case (and the fact that Medina is a Republican) is what got him his walking papers from "rock solid" Republican "standard bearer" Pat Lykos when she took over in January.
Vic Wisner has got more integrity and trial talent in his little finger than the entirety of the Gang Who Couldn't Shoot Straight put together, so I can't see any other reason why Snookems and the Davidians wouldn't have kept him.
But I digress.
I'm not writing about the merits of Mrs. Medina's case, because I don't know anything about them. Cases get dismissed every day in Harris County with no newsworthy ramifications. I find nothing unusual about that whatsoever.
What I do find unusual, however, is the fact that Lykos and the Gang tried to slide one past the media and do the dismissal as quietly as possible. Charges against Mrs. Medina were dismissed yesterday, but it took the media until today to find out after somebody, somewhere apparently leaked the information.
Now, keep in mind that the Lykos Administration is so enthusiastic about tooting their own horn that they make Louis Armstrong look like a tone-deaf asthmatic. If past behavior were to be any indicator, it would seem that this would be a prime opportunity to the Republicans' favorite Golden Girl to be proudly announcing how she had "righted yet another wrong of the Rosenthal Administration".
But not so with this case. Perhaps Lykos wanted to keep it quiet so that there wouldn't be too much attention to the fact that she was dismissing a case against a fellow Republican judge's wife. Whether the dismissal be completely justified or complete cronyism, it certainly would violate Prong One of the Office's motto of "Look Good, Think Smart, and Win".
Lykos' fondness for judges and doing them solids is nothing unusual. Hell, just from her upper echelons of former-judges Hannah Chow and Roger Bridgwater, you could tell that she was fostering her own de facto Judicial Retirement system for herself and her buddies.
Additionally, she has been showing some extreme deference to the cases of judges accused of crimes under her Administration.
Again, while I'm not commenting on the facts of either the case against Judges Woody Densen or Don Jackson, I again find it interesting that the Gang didn't file charges on either one of them directly -- they presented the cases to Grand Juries to make them do the dirty work.
NOTE: For those of you out of the Criminal Justice System, the vast vast vast majority of all criminal cases in Harris County are filed when the crimes are alleged to have been committed. A person can be charged with the finding of Probable Cause by a Magistrate. It is only a very rare minority of cases that are actually taken "Direct to Grand Jury". Sometimes it is because of the fact that cases need some research with witnesses brought before them. Other times, it is because the case is such a toss up that prosecutors really aren't sure if the case would survive at trial.
But other times it is because a prosecutor (or elected D.A.) doesn't want to be the one directly responsible for the Indictment, or lack thereof. It's kind of the legal equivalent of avoiding getting any blood on your hands.
In the case of Judge Densen, my understanding is that the complaint of Criminal Mischief had been made against him a long time before there was any action on the case. It was only after the Complainants in the case had turned over their surveillance video of the crime to the media that Lykos had her prosecutors take the case into Grand Jury.
Republicans have often been accused of being the champions of the Good Old Boy Network, and Lykos has certainly lived up to that billing in her eight months at the helm.
But apparently, there's something even better than being a member of the Good Old Boy Network when it comes to Patsy.
That's being a member of Pat Lykos' Judges' Club.
Now for those of you who don't recall, the indictment against Mrs. Medina stemmed out of the "Runaway Grand Jury" that had indicted both Mrs. Medina and Justice Medina despite the fact that prosecutors were not seeking an indictment at that time. If you recall, then-prosecutor Vic Wisner got lambasted (extremely unfairly) over the actions of the Grand Jurors (whom he could not control). I still believe that Vic's association with the Medina case (and the fact that Medina is a Republican) is what got him his walking papers from "rock solid" Republican "standard bearer" Pat Lykos when she took over in January.
Vic Wisner has got more integrity and trial talent in his little finger than the entirety of the Gang Who Couldn't Shoot Straight put together, so I can't see any other reason why Snookems and the Davidians wouldn't have kept him.
But I digress.
I'm not writing about the merits of Mrs. Medina's case, because I don't know anything about them. Cases get dismissed every day in Harris County with no newsworthy ramifications. I find nothing unusual about that whatsoever.
What I do find unusual, however, is the fact that Lykos and the Gang tried to slide one past the media and do the dismissal as quietly as possible. Charges against Mrs. Medina were dismissed yesterday, but it took the media until today to find out after somebody, somewhere apparently leaked the information.
Now, keep in mind that the Lykos Administration is so enthusiastic about tooting their own horn that they make Louis Armstrong look like a tone-deaf asthmatic. If past behavior were to be any indicator, it would seem that this would be a prime opportunity to the Republicans' favorite Golden Girl to be proudly announcing how she had "righted yet another wrong of the Rosenthal Administration".
But not so with this case. Perhaps Lykos wanted to keep it quiet so that there wouldn't be too much attention to the fact that she was dismissing a case against a fellow Republican judge's wife. Whether the dismissal be completely justified or complete cronyism, it certainly would violate Prong One of the Office's motto of "Look Good, Think Smart, and Win".
Lykos' fondness for judges and doing them solids is nothing unusual. Hell, just from her upper echelons of former-judges Hannah Chow and Roger Bridgwater, you could tell that she was fostering her own de facto Judicial Retirement system for herself and her buddies.
Additionally, she has been showing some extreme deference to the cases of judges accused of crimes under her Administration.
Again, while I'm not commenting on the facts of either the case against Judges Woody Densen or Don Jackson, I again find it interesting that the Gang didn't file charges on either one of them directly -- they presented the cases to Grand Juries to make them do the dirty work.
NOTE: For those of you out of the Criminal Justice System, the vast vast vast majority of all criminal cases in Harris County are filed when the crimes are alleged to have been committed. A person can be charged with the finding of Probable Cause by a Magistrate. It is only a very rare minority of cases that are actually taken "Direct to Grand Jury". Sometimes it is because of the fact that cases need some research with witnesses brought before them. Other times, it is because the case is such a toss up that prosecutors really aren't sure if the case would survive at trial.
But other times it is because a prosecutor (or elected D.A.) doesn't want to be the one directly responsible for the Indictment, or lack thereof. It's kind of the legal equivalent of avoiding getting any blood on your hands.
In the case of Judge Densen, my understanding is that the complaint of Criminal Mischief had been made against him a long time before there was any action on the case. It was only after the Complainants in the case had turned over their surveillance video of the crime to the media that Lykos had her prosecutors take the case into Grand Jury.
Republicans have often been accused of being the champions of the Good Old Boy Network, and Lykos has certainly lived up to that billing in her eight months at the helm.
But apparently, there's something even better than being a member of the Good Old Boy Network when it comes to Patsy.
That's being a member of Pat Lykos' Judges' Club.
Tyler Flood's Experience with the DIVERT Program
My friend and Officemate, Tyler Flood, was kind enough to share his recent experience with Pat Lykos' new, controversial DIVERT program. Tyler, who's criminal law specialty is DWI and other related intoxication offenses details how Bridgwater's "rehabilitation program" really is just a great opportunity for a DWI Defendant to risk getting betrayed and screwed over by the Gang Who Couldn't Shoot Straight.
Tyler describes his experience as follows:
I accompanied a client to a DIVERT interview a week and half ago and met Raymie Hairell-Sweat, the person in charge of this program at 49 San Jacinto. She was very professional and did an excellent job at calming my concerns about what questions would be asked of my client about the actual incident. I was concerned with my client making any admission that could later be used against him. I expressed my concern to Raymie that I didn’t want my client to have to go into details about the incident and she ASSURED me that the interview wouldn’t be that intrusive and that a brief statement of what happened would suffice, such as “I was arrested for DWI.” I was more impressed upon our exit that Raymie actually went to the interviewer and told her to be cautious about asking too many questions about the incident that the attorneys were there and are very concerned.
WELL…on another client, we just received an email from ADA Roger Bridgwater, stating, “It appears his needs exceed the ability of DIVERT.” A Rejection from the program! His SALCE scores weren’t even at the highest 5 mark. They were in the middle and they still rejected him. Mr. Bridgwater attached the interview and it is a complete de-briefing on the incident covering EVERYTHING about what happened, including how much the client drank, admissions of operating, basically everything they need to have a solid case at trial now. They first promised they wouldn’t ask intrusive questions and were not seeking admissions and now not only do they send me a rejection letter into the program but through the interview process they have just prepared themselves for trial at our $202 expense!
After calming down and reflecting, it all makes perfect sense…They claim DIVERT is about rehabilitation and treatment for those that struggle with substance abuse. They also say that they are going to have a ZERO TOLERANCE policy meaning one screw up, one reading of alcohol in the ignition interlock, one relapse, whatever you call it, that person is out of the program and on their way to jail.
The problem is that treatment and zero tolerance are contradicting strategies. Treatment is not about "no mistakes". Treatment commonly involves relapse. This presents a problem to the DIVERT program. It sets it up to have very low success rates. The DA’s office needs for it to appear successful. So how do we fix the problem? By now deciding to reject anybody who they think won’t make a zero tolerance policy. Rejecting everyone who truly needs and could benefit from REAL treatment. Reject anybody who may have a problem and then you’ll have higher success rates. From what I heard yesterday, there was a meeting and it was stated that half of all applicants are in fact being rejected. So much for across the board acceptance for first time offenders.
I was suspicious of this program before, and now I am just angry. I would caution every attorney and client considering taking it and I would urge the attorney’s presence at the interview when possible.
Tyler describes his experience as follows:
I accompanied a client to a DIVERT interview a week and half ago and met Raymie Hairell-Sweat, the person in charge of this program at 49 San Jacinto. She was very professional and did an excellent job at calming my concerns about what questions would be asked of my client about the actual incident. I was concerned with my client making any admission that could later be used against him. I expressed my concern to Raymie that I didn’t want my client to have to go into details about the incident and she ASSURED me that the interview wouldn’t be that intrusive and that a brief statement of what happened would suffice, such as “I was arrested for DWI.” I was more impressed upon our exit that Raymie actually went to the interviewer and told her to be cautious about asking too many questions about the incident that the attorneys were there and are very concerned.
WELL…on another client, we just received an email from ADA Roger Bridgwater, stating, “It appears his needs exceed the ability of DIVERT.” A Rejection from the program! His SALCE scores weren’t even at the highest 5 mark. They were in the middle and they still rejected him. Mr. Bridgwater attached the interview and it is a complete de-briefing on the incident covering EVERYTHING about what happened, including how much the client drank, admissions of operating, basically everything they need to have a solid case at trial now. They first promised they wouldn’t ask intrusive questions and were not seeking admissions and now not only do they send me a rejection letter into the program but through the interview process they have just prepared themselves for trial at our $202 expense!
After calming down and reflecting, it all makes perfect sense…They claim DIVERT is about rehabilitation and treatment for those that struggle with substance abuse. They also say that they are going to have a ZERO TOLERANCE policy meaning one screw up, one reading of alcohol in the ignition interlock, one relapse, whatever you call it, that person is out of the program and on their way to jail.
The problem is that treatment and zero tolerance are contradicting strategies. Treatment is not about "no mistakes". Treatment commonly involves relapse. This presents a problem to the DIVERT program. It sets it up to have very low success rates. The DA’s office needs for it to appear successful. So how do we fix the problem? By now deciding to reject anybody who they think won’t make a zero tolerance policy. Rejecting everyone who truly needs and could benefit from REAL treatment. Reject anybody who may have a problem and then you’ll have higher success rates. From what I heard yesterday, there was a meeting and it was stated that half of all applicants are in fact being rejected. So much for across the board acceptance for first time offenders.
I was suspicious of this program before, and now I am just angry. I would caution every attorney and client considering taking it and I would urge the attorney’s presence at the interview when possible.
Thursday, August 27, 2009
Congratulations to Joey DeBruyn
Congratulations to my good friend, Joey DeBruyn, who is celebrating his 25th year with Harris County today.
Joey is the court coordinator in the 337th District Court under Judge Herb Ritchie, but I first met him many moons ago when I was the Felony Two in the 177th District Court under Judge Davies. Given the fact that we were both damn good lookin' bald guys with goatees, people were always confusing us with each other.
Joey is one of the best coordinators in the building. It doesn't matter if he is in the middle of the worst day of the year, he remains polite, professional and cheerful under all circumstances. In a job that is as hectic as a coordinator's, it's amazing he's still smiling after all this time!
Congratulations, my friend, on a job well done!
Joey is the court coordinator in the 337th District Court under Judge Herb Ritchie, but I first met him many moons ago when I was the Felony Two in the 177th District Court under Judge Davies. Given the fact that we were both damn good lookin' bald guys with goatees, people were always confusing us with each other.
Joey is one of the best coordinators in the building. It doesn't matter if he is in the middle of the worst day of the year, he remains polite, professional and cheerful under all circumstances. In a job that is as hectic as a coordinator's, it's amazing he's still smiling after all this time!
Congratulations, my friend, on a job well done!
Wednesday, August 26, 2009
Judge Hatten's Birthday
Today is Judge Bill Hatten's 96th birthday, and a celebration will be held in the 176th District Courtroom at noon.
Judge Hatten was before my time as an elected Judge, but I had him once as a visiting Judge during a voir dire on a Robbery case I was picking in the 179th. It wasn't all that serious of a robbery case and I had decided that some humor in my voir dire would work well.
Unfortunately for me, I didn't realize that Judge Hatten was going to talk to the jury before I did. If I recall correctly, it was around the time of his 90th birthday when the trial occurred, and he mentioned his birthday to the jury panel, before launching into the problems with getting older.
In a deadpan voice, he told the jury panel:
The problem with getting older is that it's getting harder and harder to wake up in the morning.
I knew I was getting older when my hearing was going and I couldn't hear the alarm anymore. Then I would try to just look at the clock and see what time it was, but my eyesight started going and I can't see it anymore.
So, then I just started turning over and asking my wife what time it was, but now I don't have my teeth!
The jury erupted in laughter and there was just no following that act. It was hysterical.
Happy birthday, Judge.
Judge Hatten was before my time as an elected Judge, but I had him once as a visiting Judge during a voir dire on a Robbery case I was picking in the 179th. It wasn't all that serious of a robbery case and I had decided that some humor in my voir dire would work well.
Unfortunately for me, I didn't realize that Judge Hatten was going to talk to the jury before I did. If I recall correctly, it was around the time of his 90th birthday when the trial occurred, and he mentioned his birthday to the jury panel, before launching into the problems with getting older.
In a deadpan voice, he told the jury panel:
The problem with getting older is that it's getting harder and harder to wake up in the morning.
I knew I was getting older when my hearing was going and I couldn't hear the alarm anymore. Then I would try to just look at the clock and see what time it was, but my eyesight started going and I can't see it anymore.
So, then I just started turning over and asking my wife what time it was, but now I don't have my teeth!
The jury erupted in laughter and there was just no following that act. It was hysterical.
Happy birthday, Judge.
Tuesday, August 25, 2009
Lisa Falkenberg's Column Today
I'm a little late on the draw on commenting on Lisa Falkenberg's column this morning about the actions of Judge Kevin Fine in a recent sexual assault trial.
I think it is a very good column and makes a very good point, and I say that despite the fact that I like Judge Fine, and Judge Fine has never been anything but kind to me (both as a lawyer and now as a Judge).
The problem is that sometimes when shifting into a new job position, one needs to learn that the role you used to play isn't the one you will be playing any longer. I can certainly sympathize, having shifted from a prosecutor to a defense attorney right around the same time that Judge Fine switched from defense attorney to Judge. Although I've been criticized for blogging like a prosecutor, I think that all of my clients would gladly tell you that once we're in the courtroom, I am able to put my past career entirely behind me.
I'm there to represent them wholeheartedly.
If I didn't do that, I would have a very short career as a defense attorney ahead of me.
In the trial case mentioned by Lisa in her column, it would appear that Judge Fine was having some difficulty in putting his past career as a member of the Defense Bar behind him.
And as Lisa aptly points out, he just can't do that.
It doesn't mean that Judge Fine is a bad person. I can attest that he is a very good person who is truly trying to make a difference in the Criminal Justice System. Unfortunately, it sometimes results in some unorthodox methods that lead to complications that should not be coming from the Bench.
In this case, a line was crossed, and major credit should go to prosecutor Ed McClees for standing up for the Complainant in his case. Lisa described it:
The question drew an objection from Prosecutor Ed McClees, who questioned the relevance in a tense exchange.
Objecting to a Judge (as opposed to Opposing Counsel) is a gutsy move, and not a lot of Prosecutors (or Defense Attorneys, for that matter) would have been brave enough to do so. A lawyer can quickly find himself in jail for objecting to a judge.
But Ed clearly understood the definition and parameters of his job, and he did the right thing despite potentially being held in contempt. In an Office that seems to rapidly be losing a lot of its Leadership, I think younger prosecutors can look to Ed as somebody who can lead them in the right direction and by example. It is very easy to stand up for something when you are surrounded by people. It's much more difficult to stand up alone at counsel table, which is exactly what Ed did.
Judge Fine was a very talented and brilliant Defense Attorney in the years he spent before becoming a Judge. I have no doubt that he has the potential to be a talented and brilliant Judge, as well. But I think he's going to have to let go of the past life to progress to the new one.
I have no doubt he would have passed along the same advice to me if I was still behaving like a prosecutor in his courtroom.
At least I hope he would.
I think it is a very good column and makes a very good point, and I say that despite the fact that I like Judge Fine, and Judge Fine has never been anything but kind to me (both as a lawyer and now as a Judge).
The problem is that sometimes when shifting into a new job position, one needs to learn that the role you used to play isn't the one you will be playing any longer. I can certainly sympathize, having shifted from a prosecutor to a defense attorney right around the same time that Judge Fine switched from defense attorney to Judge. Although I've been criticized for blogging like a prosecutor, I think that all of my clients would gladly tell you that once we're in the courtroom, I am able to put my past career entirely behind me.
I'm there to represent them wholeheartedly.
If I didn't do that, I would have a very short career as a defense attorney ahead of me.
In the trial case mentioned by Lisa in her column, it would appear that Judge Fine was having some difficulty in putting his past career as a member of the Defense Bar behind him.
And as Lisa aptly points out, he just can't do that.
It doesn't mean that Judge Fine is a bad person. I can attest that he is a very good person who is truly trying to make a difference in the Criminal Justice System. Unfortunately, it sometimes results in some unorthodox methods that lead to complications that should not be coming from the Bench.
In this case, a line was crossed, and major credit should go to prosecutor Ed McClees for standing up for the Complainant in his case. Lisa described it:
The question drew an objection from Prosecutor Ed McClees, who questioned the relevance in a tense exchange.
Objecting to a Judge (as opposed to Opposing Counsel) is a gutsy move, and not a lot of Prosecutors (or Defense Attorneys, for that matter) would have been brave enough to do so. A lawyer can quickly find himself in jail for objecting to a judge.
But Ed clearly understood the definition and parameters of his job, and he did the right thing despite potentially being held in contempt. In an Office that seems to rapidly be losing a lot of its Leadership, I think younger prosecutors can look to Ed as somebody who can lead them in the right direction and by example. It is very easy to stand up for something when you are surrounded by people. It's much more difficult to stand up alone at counsel table, which is exactly what Ed did.
Judge Fine was a very talented and brilliant Defense Attorney in the years he spent before becoming a Judge. I have no doubt that he has the potential to be a talented and brilliant Judge, as well. But I think he's going to have to let go of the past life to progress to the new one.
I have no doubt he would have passed along the same advice to me if I was still behaving like a prosecutor in his courtroom.
At least I hope he would.
Monday, August 24, 2009
'bout Damn Time
Brian Rogers long anticipated article regarding the departures from the D.A.'s Office hit Monday morning's edition of the Chronicle today, and it's a pretty good read. It's a shame that whoever is in charge of article placement couldn't have gotten it in Sunday's edition so that more folks could become familiar with the wonderful world of the Davidians.
Of course, as usual, Lykos is stating that there is no problem in a scene reminiscent of Sergeant Schultz from Hogan's Heroes. There was nothing unexpected about that.
It was nice to see that Leitner was back to lying on the record by denying a a communication problem within the Office:
“Channels of communication have always been open,” Leitner said. “Just because one person says something doesn't mean that's the universal way of the office.”
Yeah, the problem with that, Jimbo, is that it isn't just "one person" saying it. It's your whole damn Office, and you arrogant schmucks aren't listening to a one of them.
My prediction - wait until after November and you'll see that these departures are just the tip of the Iceberg.
Of course, as usual, Lykos is stating that there is no problem in a scene reminiscent of Sergeant Schultz from Hogan's Heroes. There was nothing unexpected about that.
It was nice to see that Leitner was back to lying on the record by denying a a communication problem within the Office:
“Channels of communication have always been open,” Leitner said. “Just because one person says something doesn't mean that's the universal way of the office.”
Yeah, the problem with that, Jimbo, is that it isn't just "one person" saying it. It's your whole damn Office, and you arrogant schmucks aren't listening to a one of them.
My prediction - wait until after November and you'll see that these departures are just the tip of the Iceberg.
Friday, August 21, 2009
Malicious Twits
Looks like the Fake Pat Lykos blogger has gotten the attention of Houston Chronicle legal blogger Mary Flood with this article on the Chron's website today.
Looks like Ms. Flood is as amused with Jared Woodfill's McCarthy-esque accusations of the "wild eyed Liberal elite" being behind the fake Twitter account as I was.
I did enjoy learning what Patsy's response was to the fake Twitter account:
"The fraudulent twitters appear to be the work of a malicious twit."
Should I respond with the "takes one to know one", or is it too obvious?
Nah. Too obvious.
As someone close to me would say "That's beneath you."
I'll let Snooks slide on that one.
Looks like Ms. Flood is as amused with Jared Woodfill's McCarthy-esque accusations of the "wild eyed Liberal elite" being behind the fake Twitter account as I was.
I did enjoy learning what Patsy's response was to the fake Twitter account:
"The fraudulent twitters appear to be the work of a malicious twit."
Should I respond with the "takes one to know one", or is it too obvious?
Nah. Too obvious.
As someone close to me would say "That's beneath you."
I'll let Snooks slide on that one.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
