The Shadwick Leave Of Absence

As we grow closer to the beginning of early voting, someone posted on the blog last week that Grand Jury prosecutor and aspiring judge Lana Shadwick has taken a leave of absence from the District Attorney's Office.  The "official" word is that the leave was done for Lana to spend the last few weeks before May 29th campaigning.

Other sources have indicated that the leave of absence may not have been for such simple reasons.

Apparently, a case was recently dismissed in one of the felony courts due to the Defendant having an alibi.  The co-defendant on the case was not so fortunate as to get a dismissal from the State.  After a court setting, that co-defendant's file was sent down to the Grand Jury Division to prepare for presentation to the Grand Jury.

As is the practice with co-defendant files, the dismissed Defendant's case file was rubber-banded to the pending active co-defendant's case.  My understanding is that the dismissal was properly marked and documented on the front of the Defendant's file.  Unfortunately, both files landed on the desk of Grand Jury prosecutor Lana Shadwick.

Who promptly got both cases indicted.  That includes the one that was dismissed and the client was released from jail.

Luckily, this extremely enormous error was caught by someone (not Lana) before the Defendant was wrongfully arrested.

Folks, the job of being a Grand Jury prosecutor in the Harris County District Attorney's Office is one of the easiest (if not THE easiest) jobs in the Office.  It is not tricky.  Lana Shadwick has bounced through three different divisions before landing in this massively low-pressure job.

And yet, she still screwed it up.  She managed to find a way in her short time in Grand Jury to screw up something in the worst way possible for a Grand Jury prosecutor.

My understanding from several reliable sources is that her Leave of Absence may not have entirely been her choice.  It seems that even Pat Lykos realizes how bad it would be if someone got wrongfully arrested right before Election Day.  Political hire or not, Shadwick will be spending the rest of the campaign season on the sidelines of the D.A.'s Office.

Even though she can't manage being a Grand Jury prosecutor, Lana Shadwick hopes you will vote for her for judge.

Hopefully you are starting to see why that would be a really terrible idea.

Vote for Kristin Guiney, folks.  It is really a no-brainer.

The Houston Bar Association Poll Results

On April 15th of this year, I wrote this post detailing why I believed that Judge Mike Anderson was a much better candidate for Harris County District Attorney than his opponent.  I also detailed how Kristin Guiney, Joe Vinas, Ryan Patrick, and Renee Magee were the best candidates for Judge in their respective races. Yesterday, the Houston Bar Association released the results of its poll on the candidates' qualifications for office, which showed that I am not alone in my opinions.


If I did my math correctly (which is not a given, since I am an Aggie), 1720 members of the Houston Bar Association voted in the poll.  Those who voted in the contested races were given the option of selecting one of four answers in response to a candidate's qualifications.  Those options were: Not Rated, Not Qualified, Qualified, orWell Qualified. Given the fact that only lawyers who are members of the Houston Bar Association voted in the poll and that the majority of those members do not practice criminal law, it is not much of a surprise that the most commonly selected answer for the criminal races was "Not Rated."


This post is a breakdown of the percentages of each race by those who did feel that they knew the candidates well enough to rank their qualifications.


DISTRICT ATTORNEY CANDIDATES (REPUBLICAN PRIMARY) - PAT LYKOS vs. MIKE ANDERSON


In the votes for D.A., 570 voters (33.1%) did not rank Pat Lykos and 940 (54.6%) did not rank Mike Anderson.  Of the percentages that did cast votes, the breakdown is as follows:


Mike Anderson WELL QUALIFIED - 452 (57.9%)  QUALIFIED - 166 (21.3%)  NOT QUALIFIED - 162 (20.7%)


Pat Lykos WELL QUALIFIED -350 (30.4%)   QUALIFIED - 270 (23.5%)  NOT QUALIFIED - 530 (46.1%)


SUMMARY: To know Pat Lykos doesn't appear to mean that one loves Pat Lykos.  While some Republican faithful may like Lykos the Candidate, Lykos the Lawyer does not foster much confidence.  It is also worth noting that attorneys working for the Harris County District Attorney's Office have their membership to the Houston Bar Association paid for by the Office.  Despite having over 200 of her own employees voting on her qualifications, Pat Lykos got dangerously close to a 50% "Not Qualified" vote.


DISTRICT ATTORNEY CANDIDATES (DEMOCRATIC PRIMARY) - ZACK FERTITTA vs. LLOYD OLIVER


In the votes here, 1164 voters (67.7%) did not rank Zack Fertitta and 1172 (68.1%) did not rank Lloyd Oliver.  Of the percentages that did cast votes, the breakdown is:


Zack Fertitta WELL QUALIFIED - 173 (31.1%)  QUALIFIED - 187 (33.6%)  NOT QUALIFIED - 196 (35.3%)


Lloyd Oliver WELL QUALIFIED - 19 (3.5%)  QUALIFIED - 46 (8.3%) NOT QUALIFIED - 483 (88.1%)


SUMMARY: Ouch.  As, I've pointed out before, Lloyd Oliver isn't a real candidate.  He's been indicted numerous times and runs in every election.  88.1% of the lawyers voting recognize that.  If it is any consolation to Mr. Oliver, more attorneys think that Pat Lykos isn't qualified (at least when it comes to raw numbers).


174th DISTRICT COURT (REPUBLICAN PRIMARY)


In the votes here, 1350 voters (78.5%) did not rank Joe Vinas and 1353 voters (78.7%) did not rank Robert Summerlin.  In the percentages that did cast votes, the breakdown is:


Joe Vinas WELL QUALIFIED - 157 (42.4%)  QUALIFIED - 106(28.6%)  NOT QUALIFIED - 107(28.9%)


Robert Summerlin WELL QUALIFIED - 110 (30.0%)  QUALIFIED - 60 (16.3%)  NOT QUALIFIED - 197 (53.7%)


SUMMARY: As I mentioned in my earlier post, Summerlin hasn't been doing criminal law for the duration of his career like Vinas has.  The results here are not surprising.


177th DISTRICT COURT (REPUBLICAN PRIMARY)


Of the votes here, 1391 voters (80.9%) did not rank Ryan Patrick and 1495 voters (86.9%) did not rank Antonio Benavides.  Of the percentages that did cast votes, the breakdown is:


Ryan Patrick WELL QUALIFIED - 115(35.0%)  QUALIFIED - 99(30.0%)  NOT QUALIFIED - 115 (35.0%)


Antonio Benavides WELL QUALIFIED - 25(11.1%)  QUALIFIED - 27(12.0%)  NOT QUALIFIED - 173(76.9%)


SUMMARY: Patrick is a relatively young candidate for the bench, and I would imagine that would probably explain some attorneys having reservations about ranking him as "Well Qualified."  For those of us who have worked with him, however, we know that he has a good head on his shoulders and will be a good judge.  His age should not be a determining factor, especially in comparison to Mr. Benavides' lack of experience.


179th DISTRICT COURT (REPUBLICAN PRIMARY)


In the votes here, 1355 voters (78.8%) did not rank Kristin Guiney and 1225 voters (71.2%) did not rank Lana Shadwick.  Of the percentages that did cast votes, the breakdown is:


Kristin Guiney WELL QUALIFIED - 206 (56.4%)  QUALIFIED - 67 (18.4%)  NOT QUALIFIED - 92 (25.2%)


Lana Shadwick WELL QUALIFIED - 93 (18.8%)  QUALIFIED - 78 (15.8%)  NOT QUALIFIED - 324 (65.4%)


SUMMARY: I think it is kind of amusing to see that almost the exact same number of attorneys who deem Shadwick to be "Well Qualified" find Guiney to be not qualified.  Of course there are going to be hard-core partisan voters in all of these bar polls, but that type of mirroring indicates to me that only a die-hard Shadwick fan would pick her over Guiney.  I cannot stress how much of a better candidate Kristin Guiney is than her opponent.


337th DISTRICT COURT (REPUBLICAN)


In the votes here, 1346 voters (78.2%) did not rank Renee Magee and 1223 voters (71.1%) did not rank Jim Barr.  Of the percentages that did cast votes, the breakdown is:


Renee Magee WELL QUALIFIED - 206 (55.1%)  QUALIFIED - 74 (19.8%)  NOT QUALIFIED - 94(25.1%)


Jim Barr WELL QUALIFIED - 83(16.7%)  QUALIFIED - 115(23.1%)  NOT QUALIFIED - 299(60.2%)


SUMMARY: As I mentioned in my previous post, Barr may have once been qualified to be a judge, but his misconduct on the bench effectively eroded those qualifications.

The Long-Anticipated Rachel Palmer Endorsement

If you are like me, you have probably been sitting anxiously by your computer for the past five months, anxiously awaiting news from the internet to find out who Rachel Palmer was going to endorse in the 2012 Harris County District Attorney Race.  Would she go Republican?  Would she go Democrat?  It was quite a nail-biter.

Well, my friends, your wait is over, because over the weekend, Rachel's long anticipated endorsement was finally revealed as her husband, Don Hooper, forwarded an e-mail written by her to all of his friends. It quickly made its way across the internet and I received multiple copies of it from friends under the title of "FW:  Have you seen this?"

Drumroll, please.  In a move that is about as surprising as Squeaky Fromme endorsing Charles Manson in 1969, Rachel Palmer has endorsed Pat Lykos.

Now, I'm not going to post the e-mail in its entirety for fear that somebody might miss my sarcasm and actually think I agree with what this political "power couple" has to say.  (NOTE: It is printed in the comments section of my last post by a commenter, however, if you want to see it.)

I do, however, want to hit some of the highlights of it.

1.  The e-mail begins with a personal message from Don, who is being quite demure in comparison to his usual behavior (which reminds one of a feces-flinging Rhesus monkey.)  He writes:

My wife Rachel Palmer asked me to pass on her thoughts concerning the DA's race and I could have not said it any better.

Well, Don and I finally agree on something.  No kidding.  Don "could have not said it any better" because anyone who reads what he writes can tell you that he has yet to master the English language.  They say people write the way they talk; others seem to write the way that Yoda talks.

2.  Rachel begins her portion of the letter by giving herself a big pat on the back for trying a murder case several years ago in an effort to earn credibility with the reader.  She is ambiguous about how the case turned out other than saying "justice prevailed" and how that means she has wonderful character.  She throws out that over the years "a number of national scandals have tarnished my profession" yet fails to acknowledge that the B.A.T. van scandal is one of them.

3.  She never mentions invoking her 5th Amendment rights to a Harris County Grand Jury, but does say "I made a decision to rebuke their misuse of the grand jury process."  Yes, the same can be said for all of the inmates in jails across the country who chose not to speak to authorities -- they weren't hiding anything; they were merely "rebuking" the police.

4.  The e-mail continues on like a reading of Rachel's own personal Mein Kampf as it blames everyone from Judge Susan Brown to Chuck Rosenthal to the Police Officers' Union for all of the problems that she and the Lykos Administration have endured over the years.  She accuses Judge Brown of creating "a public spectacle" designed to "place a stain" on the District Attorney's Office.

5.  Rachel moves on to touting the "successes" of the Lykos Administration and defending the DIVERT program, as well as the controversial decision to not file drug trace cases.  Of the trace case decision, she points out that it has created a "significant reduction in crime."  I suppose if Lykos decided to stop prosecuting murder cases, she would cite a "significant reduction in the murder rate" as well.  She also notes that DIVERT has "reduced the number of repeat impaired driving offenders."  Mathematically, that's true, I guess -- you can't really be a repeat offender if Lykos isn't counting your first DWI, now can you?

6.  Despite the fact that the D.A.'s Office Policy seems to dictate that a prosecutor shall not use the fact that they are a prosecutor to endorse any candidates, Rachel is quite free in talking about how she is a prosecutor endorsing the candidacy of Pat Lykos.  I have to wonder how an employee who sent out an e-mail saying they were endorsing Mike Anderson would be treated.

At this point, I think the Lykos Administration has clearly illustrated that there is absolutely NOTHING that Rachel Palmer can do that will lead to her being disciplined or fired.  She took a bullet for them by pleading the 5th in front of the Grand Jury and she will reap the benefits as long as Lykos is in office.  There is no nobility in that, regardless of how Rachel tries to spin it.  It is the same mentality that the Mafia has when an underling takes his prison time without snitching.

The bottom line is this: Rachel Palmer is well aware of the fact that no other candidate than Lykos (in the four-person District Attorney race) will keep her employed as a prosecutor.

Okay, well, maybe Lloyd Oliver would keep her out of sympathy.

Palmer's endorsement is as worthless as it is offensive.

Channel 13 Tonight (5/1/12) [UPDATED]

UPDATE- In case you missed Ted' story, you can catch it by clicking here.

I had heard about this incident awhile back but I'm glad that Ted did a story on it.  Granted, a fake inspection sticker case isn't the most gritty of all street crime, but the principle behind what Leitner did is huge.

Leitner, who jumped to the position of 1st Assistant when Lykos rolled into office, overruled all of the people below him.  Seeing as how the Trial Court Chief in that particular court has been a prosecutor for about 12 years now, he has been at the office at least 3 times longer than Leitner, and in his experience, he thought the deal was inappropriate.  The Chief's ruling was backed up by a Division Chief and a Trial Bureau Chief (who have even more seniority than the Trial Court Chief).

But who cares what over thirty years of prosecutorial experience has to say if you have Jim Leitner using his power and influence to pay you back a favor?  Clay Rawlins got a deal for his client that wasn't offered to that same client's co-defendants.

It looks like Rawlins got a bonus for his representation of Rachel Palmer.

END UPDATE

I have been told through a reliable source that Channel 13's Ted Oberg has a story airing tonight as 6 p.m. that will be of interest to those of us at the CJC.

I honestly have no idea what it is about, but I have been told that it will be worth your time to make it to a TV by six o'clock.

The District Attorney Debate this Thursday

It seems that whenever I am completely swamped in my actual (as opposed to blogging) life that it suddenly begins raining topics that I want to blog about.

As most of you know, my favorite New York Editor got promoted to Wife over the weekend and I'll be away from the CJC this week.  There are several interesting things going on around the CJC and in the political world (with early voting a mere two weeks away).  I may or may not have time to write about those stories, but I do want to make sure that I bring one to your attention before I go off honeymoonin'.

On Thursday, May 3rd from 7:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m., there will be a District Attorney Candidates Forum between Pat Lykos and Mike Anderson, sponsored by my on-again-off-again friend Big Jolly (NOTE:  I'm just kidding.  Although he frustrates me to the point that I want to beat my head into the wall, I like Dave.) and the King Street Patriots.  The event is being held at 7232 Wynnwood Lane, Houston, TX 77008.

The moderators are Paul Bettencourt and Scott Braddock, who Big Jolly swears will "reign these two candidates in and not let them get away with obfuscating and dodging tough questions."  If that is truly the case, Lykos may be in for the longest hour of her life.  Since neither Bettencourt nor Braddock practice criminal law (to my knowledge), I hope there will be a good turnout of prosecutors and defense attorneys who will know the truth from the sound bytes.

Dave has billed it as "60 minutes of Straight Talk" and I hope he is correct about that.

My understanding is that those who arrive before 6:45 are allowed to submit questions for the candidates which makes your turnout very important.  It looks like an outstanding venue to let substance shine over style.

I'm sorry that I won't be able to make it, but I hope you will.  Like I said earlier, Early Voting starts in two weeks.

It is time to go into overdrive on making a difference.

Fundraiser for Mike Anderson on Saturday

Please join the LC/LF MC (SE Houston Chapter) on Saturday, April 28, 2012 from (Noon - 4:00 p.m.) for a campaign rally for Republican Candidate for District Attorney Mike Anderson.  The event will be held at Bubba's on Washington (6225 Washington Avenue, Houston, Texas 77007).

There will be live music by The Honky Tonk Heroes and everyone is welcome!

Thursday Fundraiser for Joe Vinas

This Thursday, April 26th at 5:00 p.m., Todd Dupont is hosting a fundraiser for 174th District Court Candidate Joe Vinas at the Char Bar, located at 305 Travis, Houston, Texas 77002.

Everyone is welcome and we hope to have a good turnout for a great candidate.

Me and Marley

I apologize in advance.  This is one of those posts that I write every once in awhile because I need to clear my head, and not because it has anything to do with the CJC.

Long before the book Marley and Me came out (but, to be fair, after the author of that book had named his dog), I bought a Sheltie puppy at a half-priced discount.  She was half-priced because the white collar that goes around most Shelties' necks was just a small tuft of white on hers.  It was the end of my first year of law school and I was only 24 years old.  To put it in terms more applicable to the reader, I still had most of my hair back then.

I had just started dating the person who would ultimately become my first wife and we were both cigarette smokers.  We named our discount dog "Marley," saying it was short for Marlboro.  Somewhere along the way, she picked up the middle name of Jane, but I'm not entirely sure how that happened.

She was a very affectionate and very bright puppy.  She learned the common tricks of sit, stay, roll over, and play dead, but there was something so keenly intelligent about the dog that I often claimed if I had commanded Do my taxes, she would have gotten out a calculator.  By the time she was two years old, she would reluctantly do the tricks commanded of her, only after casting a glance at me, letting me know that she thought silly pet tricks were beneath her.

There was something about her charisma, though, that seemed to shine beyond just my affection for her.  For the last two years of law school, it was almost as if she were an honorary mascot.  My friends that came to the apartment all knew and loved Marley, and she seemed to enjoy nothing more than interacting with new people.  She didn't fetch or do anything that was all that wildly entertaining to watch, but she had some sort of magnetism so that everyone who met her, loved her.

Even my dad, who at the time was not the biggest fan of the multitude of dogs my mom had taken in over my years growing up, adored Marley.  Marley's favorite treat in the world when she was younger was ice, and she would sit at Dad's feet whenever he headed to the ice machine.  He never let her down in handing her a few pieces when he fixed his drink.  She seemed to like the ice even better when it was a cube or two he had pulled from a Scotch.

She was always present, yet seldom underfoot.  Over the next fifteen years, she would see me through the end of law school, the entirety of my career at the D.A.'s Office, six different apartments, four different houses, two marriages and the birth of my son.  When my boy was born, I wondered if he and Marley would have a bonding moment or if she would exhibit jealousy towards him.  In typical Marley fashion, she politely acknowledged his arrival in the house and went on about her business.  She gracefully accepted a new center-of-attention and tolerated the years of tail and hair pulling and fingers in the face that toddlers do around dogs.

My friends at the D.A.'s Office all knew Marley as a personality whenever they came over to my house or apartment.  Any girl that I ever introduced her to quickly abandoned any interest in talking to me when Marley wanted attention.  Can't say that I blamed them; she had more hair and was much more charming.

She weathered many storms with me, including that Christmas Eve in 2008 when I lost my job and had no immediate family to spend the holiday with.  Sometimes it seemed like Marley was the most stable relationship I had ever had.

Earlier this year, a routine check-up at the vet's office revealed that she had cancer.  She was far too old to attempt any type of surgery or treatment.  The extremely kind veterinarian and I agreed that the best course of action was to bring her home with me and treat her like a queen until it became apparent that it was time to let her go.

Not that Marley had ever failed to be treated like a queen in the first place, but she did get an extra serving of dog treats and dog food over the past few months.  When I had to go out of town, she would stay with Luci and Charley Davidson, which was like a full-service spa for dogs.  Over the past few months, they were both as actively involved in taking care of Marley and helping make decisions about her as I was.

My fiancee (and soon-to-be bride) also was a Godsend in taking care of Marley over the past few months.  Without her presence, love, and kindness, I would probably not be able to write this post at the moment.

This morning, unfortunately, it became clear that it was time to let Marley go.

I'm really not trying to turn this post into something overly emotional, but sometimes that's a little hard to avoid.  I will just say that between my fiancee and the wonderful veterinarians at Westbury Animal Clinic, I couldn't have been more at peace in saying goodbye.

It is amazing to think back and realize how owning a dog is often a measure of a span of time.  I owned her for well over a third of my life.  She was always there with a wag of the tail whenever I made eye contact with her.  In the wonderful times to the not-so-wonderful times, she was always there.  With as much that has changed over the past fifteen years, she remained the one true constant.

I wanted to write this to say thank you to everyone who ever took care of Marley, petted her, babysat her, gave her ice, or called her their own.  She loved everybody.

But most of all, I wanted to thank Marley for being the best dog I ever had.

Your Friday Dose of Irony [UPDATED]

We've all had a good laugh at Gary Polland's hypocrisy in criticizing Republican candidates who take court appointments to do criminal defense when he brought in over $400,000 in appointments last year.  Now, we can also have a laugh at Jared Woodfill who has joined the Juvenile or Family Court appointments list, as well.

Both Woodfill and Polland have violently opposed the creation and continued existence of the Public Defenders' Office, and now you know why.

They seem to be a little worried that the more cases the PD's Office gets, the less money there will be to go around for them.  If the PD's Office continues to thrive, Woodfill might even be forced to sell his house in River Oaks.

[UPDATE:  Several people (who are apparently in the know) have pointed out that Woodfill is not doing appointments through the juvenile courts, but as ad litem through the Family Courts.  If the distinction of what type of appointments Mr. Woodfill is taking matters to you, this is my notice of that distinction.  Either way, he's still taking appointments.]

Tonight's Reasonable Doubt (4/19/12)

Sorry for the late notice on this.

Please join us for tonight's Reasonable Doubt, where our guest will be Robb Fickman, the Czar of Provocation.  Robb has had a lot on his mind lately, including some issues with the TSA and their affiliation with Houston METRO.  It is going to be a great show covering a lot of issues dealing with your right to be free of unreasonable searches.


The show airs live at 8:00 p.m. and will be carried live streaming on the internet.  If you want to watch on-line, you can do so by clicking here.

The channels that carry the show are also as follows:
Comcast-Channel 17
Sudden Link-Channel 99
AT&T U-Verse - Channel 99
Phonoscope - Channel 75
TV Max - Channel 95

Gary Polland's Struggle for Relevancy

Ah, Gary Polland.

He so desperately still wants to be considered a player in the Republican Party.  Ever since being replaced as the head of the Republican Party for Harris County by Jared Woodfill, he's been trying to peddle his influence inside the Harris County Criminal Justice Center.  He touts his influence with certain judges shamelessly.  He mumbles threats that he can have prosecutors fired based on his close relationship with Pat Lykos.  It must be working well for him.  He apparently made around $400,000 last year in appointments.

I've known him since 1999 and I haven't seen him try a jury trial yet.

He claims to be the Republican "spokesman."

Gary has been backsliding with the Republican Party lately, however.  He lost credibility with his conservative constituency as their "spokesman" when he endorsed Annise Parker for Mayor of Houston (lamely explaining that he did so because it was a non-partisan election).  He lost credibility with anyone who had half a brain by endorsing Janice Law in 2010 over Judge John Clinton.

Yet, he still attempts to peddle his influence -- selling ads to folks for his "endorsement," which is the proverbial example of not being worth the paper it is printed on.

We had all been waiting with bated breath for Gary's big endorsements which finally came out today.  Thankfully, the uninformed Republican masses would be told who to vote for by a guy who redefines taking government subsidies.

And, now, without further ado, here we go . . .

Yeah, that's all he put (at least in regards to elections pertaining to the Harris County Criminal Justice Center.) 

He managed to leave a couple of races out.  Like the 176th (which is uncontested), the 337th, the 338th (which is uncontested), the 339th (which is uncontested) and the 351st (which is also uncontested).  Now, before you go saying "Well, he probably didn't feel a need to make a recommendation in an uncontested race," you'd be wrong.  Roger Bridgwater is uncontested in his race, as well.  He just felt like doing a little kissing up to Bridgwater (a Lykos crony).

Extremely informative there, G-Man.

Stacey Bond, former Judge Brock Thomas, Brad Hart, and Judge Mark Ellis are all running uncontested in their primaries bravely, without Gary's blessing, apparently.

But here is the funny part.

Polland didn't feel strongly enough about either candidate to make a judgment call on the 337th race.

Really.

Renee Magee, a senior Special Crimes prosecutor is running against former Judge Jim Barr, who was literally removed as judge by the State Commission on Judicial Conduct for making sexually inappropriate comment from the bench.  

And Gary just can't make the tough call on who to endorse.  Yeah, that one is tricky.

I feel sorry for you, Gary.  I'm sure you wanted to endorse Jim Barr so very very badly, but you just couldn't do it, could you?  I guess you thought you would lose credibility like you did with the Parker endorsement.

Newsflash, Gary.  You don't have any credibility.  

Nor integrity, for that matter.

As a side note, if you are looking for endorsements in the contested races (where nobody paid a single dime for an advertisement and the reasoning for said endorsements are explained), just click here.

Election Code Violation Contest

How many Election Code Violations can you find in the below invitation?

HBA Bar Poll Ballots Due Friday

Just a friendly reminder to those of you who are members of the HBA.  Don't forget that your ballots are due to the HBA no later than Friday.

Your votes matter and those of you who read this blog know who is qualified better than anyone else when it comes to the Criminal Court Benches and the candidates for District Attorney.  Make your voices heard and get your ballots in.

Rachel Palmer's Life at the Harris County Criminal Justice Center

For those of you who keep up with the comments section of my posts, you may have noticed yesterday that someone brought up the fact that Assistant District Attorney Rachel Palmer had filed a DBA (Doing Business As) notice with the Harris County Clerk's Office sometime in January.  Now, keeping in mind that Rachel has a full-time job, it seems a little bit strange that she would be starting up her own business.

What is even more bizarre is the title of the business.

She apparently filed as "Life at the Harris County Criminal Justice Center."

Um, okay.

Most of you know that Rachel's beloved husband, Don Hooper, started a knock-off version of my blog a few months ago.  I'm not going to link to it, because it is grossly inaccurate to the point of being libelous and the spelling and grammar is mind-numbingly bad.  Seriously, I was going to sign him up for a Hooked on Phonics class as a peace offering.  That being said,  I have found that the best way to deal with an idiot is to ignore him.

Hooper had been making noises about "taking Murray's blog" for awhile.  I guess that he and Rachel decided to make it all official by getting the DBA.  I don't know what exactly their goal was.  Maybe Rachel just wanted to see if exercising her 1st Amendment Right felt as good as exercising her 5th?

Mark Bennett did a post this morning with his thoughts on Rachel's entrepreneurship.  Who knows what Rachel and Don are up to?

I sincerely doubt that Rachel is attempting to take credit for my blog.  We aren't exactly best friends, in case you haven't noticed.  She probably wouldn't want to explain to Pat Lykos why she would be so desperately trying to affiliate herself with a blog that is so critical of the Lykos' Administration.

More likely, she was just trying to pave the way for Don to create his knock-off blog.

What is interesting, however, is that Don's blog bashes not only me, but Rachel's fellow prosecutors and several sitting judges, as well.  It bashes them harshly.  It is my understanding that some of the half-assed attempts by the Upper-Administration of the D.A.'s Office to get Don to tone it down have been rebuffed by him.  He doesn't work for Pat Lykos, after all.

But the new business entity of "Life at the Harris County Criminal Justice Center" doesn't have Don Hooper's name on it.

It has the name of Harris County Assistant District Attorney Rachel Ann Palmer.

The Lykos Administration has been very clear that they don't like it when their prosecutors talk on blogs.  When Scott Pope was a prosecutor, he left a relatively innocent comment on Mark Bennett's blog that said nothing bad about the Administration.  He was called to the 6th Floor and admonished for daring to sign his name.  A few months ago, a prosecutor was disciplined for defending himself against a defense attorney's public criticisms on the Chronicle.  Even David Benzion was apparently told to stifle his comments on my blog after he posted something here a while back.

Yet here we have prosecutor Rachel Palmer affiliating herself with Life at the Harris County Criminal Justice Center in writing -- bashing judges and prosecutors with impunity.

Doesn't it seem like there is something wrong with this picture?

Renee Magee on Reasonable Doubt

Republican candidate for the 337th District Court Renee Magee was on Reasonable Doubt last Thursday.  You can catch her interview below.


Reasonable Doubt, April 12, 2012, Renee Magee from HCCLA on Vimeo.

New Blog Post on Chronicle Website

I just published my recommendations for the races affecting the Harris County Criminal Justice System on my Chronicle blog.  You can get there by clicking here.

I encourage you to comment with your insights into the candidates, but please try to keep the comments a little tamer over there.

Tonight's Reasonable Doubt (4/12/12)

Please join us on tonight's Reasonable Doubt with me and Todd Dupont, where our guest will be Republican candidate for the 337th District Court, Renee Magee.

The show airs live at 8:00 p.m. and will be carried live streaming on the internet.  If you want to watch on-line, you can do so by clicking here.

The channels that carry the show are also as follows:
Comcast-Channel 17
Sudden Link-Channel 99
AT&T U-Verse - Channel 99
Phonoscope - Channel 75
TV Max - Channel 95

Robert Eckels' Everlasting Love/Everlasting Hate

I had an e-mail forwarded to me today by several readers expressing shock and concern (and in some cases, outrage) over the endorsement of Pat Lykos by former County Judge Robert Eckels.

I appreciate the notice of Eckels' endorsement e-mail, but I was kind of surprised that my readers are surprised at his endorsement.

Eckels, after all, is the same guy who kept Lykos employed after her failed bid for Attorney General in 1994.  Nobody to this day is sure exactly what Lykos was doing for Eckels, other than drawing a steady paycheck.

He also bankrolled her campaign in 2008, as I pointed out in this blog post way back when.  The article that I linked to back then was one by then-Houston Chronicle columnist Alan Bernstein.  He reported that  Eckels had handed Lykos a very large chunk of change so that she could publish some very misleading campaign literature that created the impression that she had the official endorsement of the Harris County Republican Party.

Eckels has proven that his affection for Lykos runs deep.

What also runs deep, apparently, is his hatred.

Students of Harris County Courthouse History may remember that back in the Johnny Holmes era, Mr. Eckels' father was prosecuted by Mr. Holmes.  Those of us who have ever prosecuted a case will be the first to tell you that we don't really earn a big fan following from a Defendant's family.  Eckels' disdain for the Holmes Administration (and anyone he seems to consider to be formerly tied to the Holmes Administration) is par for the course in the Criminal Justice Business.

It is understandable that he would sympathize with Pat Lykos for being investigated by two Grand Juries and now the Texas Rangers.

But as Lykos takes his endorsement (and doubtlessly, his campaign donations), you should take what he has to say with a shaker grain of salt.  It has as many lies and misrepresentations in it as the mailer he financed (and denied) back in 2008.

Robert Eckels' endorsement pretty much exemplifies the origins of the phrase "consider the source."

Guest Post: Speaking Up for the "Average Voter"

From Our Friend, Spunk:

Apparently Brian Rogers and certain bloggers would like everyone to believe that the DA's race is really only about issues of concern to a small group of courthouse detractors which only courthouse insiders would understand. That message is insulting to the "average voter" because the "average voters" are not receiving full and accurate coverage in the main stream media as to what is really going on at the criminal justice center and in the DA's Office under Lykos, and also because the point Brian Rogers on behalf of the Houston Chronicle is seeking to make is predicated on selective, incomplete and downright false information, which is exactly the way one would behave who doesn't care at all what else Lykos does, as long as she maintains her light handed policies on the death penalty.

Wasn't one of the first of Lykos' "accomplishments" in the last 3 + years as DA to join forces with the Chronicle to basically lobby the Texas Legislature to help successfully pass some sort of "Journalist -Shield" law?  Where is the story on this? Not one other DA in Texas joined Lykos in this unprecedented endeavor. I believe I also heard that she hired someone from outside the DA's office to accompany and assist  Asst. DA Kevin Petroff in Austin during that legislative session.  No one reading this should assume she went to this kind of effort and publicly exposure on this on this issue without first getting something big in return.  This is just an early example of one of many instances of "the appearance of impropriety" to which she has either been a party directly or which she has indirectly approved.  The Chronicle now owes her every benefit of the doubt, and therefore will always work toward covering DA news in a light most favorable to her.  Add to this the simple but not widely known fact that although DA Pat Lykos calls herself a conservative Republican, she is, in practice, the most lenient DA in Harris County history on seeking the death penalty on defendants who are eligible for it, deserving of it and where evidence supports it.  Priorities being what they are, no wonder the liberal-leaning media such as the Chronicle is willing to forgive just about anything else she does or allows to be done in her name. No wonder Brian Rogers was so careful in his article on Easter Sunday to frame the issues involved in the DA race such that the "average voter" might not follow the real Lykos story, you know, to "[k]eep the interest low."               

So it was, in this light most favorable to Pat Lykos that only she was depicted in that article by way of a large color photograph of her at one of her many photo-ops.  Brian Rogers wrote about "2 grand juries at issue?" as if there is not yet a third formal criminal investigation which is still pending and for which yet a third special prosecutor has been appointed.  Instead the article reads as if the two grand jury terms, both of which have concluded, is the end of it, except for some insignificant report some of the grand jurors released, castigating the DA's Office and accusing "it" of investigating them. There is but a single comment comment, one line in length, about the on-going investigation by the Texas Rangers looking at whether Lykos' investigator used county resources "for a serious probe," leaving out that these county resources were being used in a retaliatory fashion against GRAND JURORS for having the audacity to investigate her operation in the first place.  Brian Rogers, don't you consider ANY type of investigation, ANY use of taxpayer resources, by a DA into the private lives of individual grand jurors who are at the time, investigating the DA's Office, SERIOUS? Can you at least agree with me that this scenario on its face reeks of an appearance of impropriety, worthy of public discussion?   So where is that in your article?

What Rogers did NOT say is that Pat Lykos caused this 3rd pending criminal investigation herself.  He did NOT write that she initially lied to the public in a press conference she called herself about whether she was aware that her own investigator was investigating grand jurors who were at the time, investigating her.  Rogers did NOT say that on the very next day she released a statement admitting, in so many words, that yes, she did initiate the investigation into the personal lives of grand jurors and others surrounding the issue. Rogers did NOT explain why is this so egregious. He could have explained that  Grand juries are independent fact finding bodies.  That grand juries are not beholden to anyone, and that includes the District Attorney.  That they are composed of citizens in the community, some just like the "average voter."  That they should never be made to feel threatened, intimidated, watched, followed or photographed for doing what they are sworn by oath to do and they deserve to be protected from those who seek to retaliate against them for their service to the public.  That this kind of behavior undermines the objectivity of the grand jury process as a whole and has a chilling effect on the willingness of citizens to serve on grand juries.  And that above all, the very worst part of this particular situation is that Brian Rogers failed to say that the DA herself, Patricia Ann Lykos, approved, condoned and by her own admission even directed that this intimidation be carried out on members of a grand jury. What about this would the "average voter" not understand?  Society as a whole is and has been for decades, familiar with what a "mobster's mentality" is. The "average voter" gets it. 

With no figures published yet, how is it that Rogers seems to know that Lykos is "raising more" and "spending more" money, presumably than Mike Anderson?  According to who?  And Rogers made only a scant comment about the remarkable fact that long-time former DA Johnny Holmes has endorsed Mike Anderson.  The "average voter" in Harris County damned sure knows who Mr. John B. Holmes, Jr. is because "average voters" elected him 4 times if I am counting properly and they listen closely to what this honorable servant of the public has to say.  Rogers did not elaborate on this significance of the endorsement by this "high-ranking Republican" of Mike Anderson.  This is a man who was the "average voter's" elected DA for 22 years and would still be today if he had not decided to retire.  Rogers also did not mention other key endorsements which would normally go to a Republican incumbent which Mike Anderson now holds, such as the Link Letter endorsement, the Hotze endorsement, and both major police union endorsements. Be honest, does Brian Rogers, his Democrat strategist and his Rice University professor really believe that all this shifting away from Lykos truly means that nobody is paying attention to the DA's race?   

And instead of civil injunctions against apartment complexes, why didn't Brian Rogers even mention the fact that one of Lykos' current employees, Rachel Palmer, asserted her 5th amendment right (as an ordinary citizen, but not so much as a prosecutor sworn to see that justice is done) not to incriminate herself by refusing to answer a grand jury's questions under oath and thereby probably protecting Palmer herself, or Lykos, or both from being indicted in the process?  Where is the story of this appearance of impropriety, of harboring a witness as an employee in your office at taxpayers' expense as a reward for hiding behind the "5th" instead of telling the truth under oath?  What was so "nasty" about the truth that Rachel Palmer would rather take the 5th in public and ruin her reputation forever than to testify and tell the truth?  And what is important about keeping Palmer placated and her mouth shut that Lykos can't just terminate her employment.  Isn't that what prosecutors go to work and ask their witnesses to do everyday, take an oath and tell the truth?  I think the "average voter" can smell the hypocrisy and the corruption in this sordid tale.  And I didn't see any of it in Brian Roger's Easter article.                        

IF interest is low (and I don't believe it is low) would only be so because, in large part, honest reporting of the real issues is almost non-existent particularly in the DA race.  And if the real issues happen to be truly "nasty", who do we have to thank for that "vitriol"?  The truth of the matter is that Pat Lykos really is incompetent for the job she now holds because she has never been a prosecutor, and she has shown us first hand just how brutally unethical she is, because that is the type of character she has. The campaign against Lykos isn't vicious, the facts she has created show her to be vicious. And yes, character and competence do count for something with the "average voter", they are everything in fact.  That is, unless you favor letting the criminals who are guilty out of jail because prosecutors at your DA's Office can't try a case and you are also in favor of a DA's Office staffed by cronies who will cover up the DA's crimes for her and intimidate those who seek to find out the truth. Or unless you are the Chronicle and have made a deal with the devil.

We have yet to hear who the Chronicle will endorse in the DA race, but I believe that even the "average voter" can see that it probably won't be the right person. 

-Spunk.

Nasty

Brian Rogers posted an article on the Chronicle website that is already buried fairly deep on the site this morning, claiming that although the candidates in the District Attorney's race are being very civil on the campaign trail, the rest of us are being "nasty."

I'm glad he wrote the article, because it does highlight the complaints against Pat Lykos, even if they seem to minimize them by characterizing them as minor gripes.

What do you think of the article?

Kimberly Samman and State Bar Elections

In addition to the campaign season for District Attorney and numerous District Court benches, the State Bar of Texas is also holding elections as we speak.

Most of us in the criminal arena usually find ourselves unfamiliar with most of the candidates because they come from predominantly civil backgrounds.  Last year, Buck Files was elected as President of the State Bar, marking the first time (in a long time if not ever) that a criminal lawyer held that post.  That was a great step in the right direction in making sure that the criminal law issues are addressed by our governing body.

This year, Kimberly Samman who practices criminal defense in Harris County is on the ballot for Director 4, Place 5, and I hope you will join me in voting for her.  Kimberly has been practicing with us in Harris County for some time now and it is always good to have a representative with the State Bar who is familiar with the issues that we all deal with in criminal law and the area where we work.

So, please vote for Kimberly and make sure you get your ballots in by May 1st.

Additionally, we are also doing a write-in campaign for Robb Fickman for State Bar President-Elect.  Go with it.

No Reasonable Doubt Tonight (4/5/12)

There will be no show tonight due to the Good Friday and Easter holiday. Todd needs the evening to hide Easter eggs in his beard.

See you next week.

Rules Only Apply to the Little People

I got back to my office from court on Monday to find a very impressive piece of campaign literature from aspiring judge Lana Shadwick.  Not impressive in the sense that it made me feel that her credentials had been somehow boosted, but impressed as the son (and former employee) of a printer on how much money Lana must have spent to get it published.

The target of Lana's mailers were clearly Houston attorneys who would possibly be voting in the upcoming Houston Bar Association poll, and she blatantly asks for the recipient of the mailer to vote for her as being well-qualified.  This kind of flies in the face of logic, since she just had to move to Grand Jury because she couldn't handle the pressure of campaigning and being in appellate.  Also, I'm hearing numerous reports that Lana has yet to figure out how to read Probable Cause to a Grand Jury.  It really isn't that tricky.

Given how badly Kristin Guiney has been outclassing Lana at public appearances, it is no wonder that Lana would feel the need to shell out a lot of money for these direct mailers.  Perhaps in her mind, a flashy print piece might help overshadow her bumbling through answers in person.

But here's what the title of the post is about -- Lana had her mailers sent to her fellow employees at the Harris County District Attorney's Office, in direct violation of Rule 2.11 of the Office's rule book, which states, in part:

    "Political activities are prohibited from within the office.  No campaign material will be mailed by an employee to personnel at a District Attorney's Office address."


Perhaps you remember how pissy Jim Leitner got when Chip Lewis invited all of the Assistant District Attorney's to come to the D.A. Reunion awhile back?  I wonder if Jim is feeling equally indignant that Lana is so flagrantly violating the rules.  I mean, hell, Chip was just inviting people to a reunion -- not to mention that he doesn't work for Pat Lykos (or Jim) and he isn't running for anything.

Yet again, we find that there are special rules for those political candidates that Jared Woodfill is trying to shove down our throats.  Pat Lykos is helping accommodate Jared, which is why Jared endorses Pat.  Isn't that convenient for everybody?

While we are all waiting for Lana to be called up from her cushy position in grand jury to be disciplined for this violation of Lykos' rules, I suppose we could go vote in the HBA Bar Poll.

Just remember when you are voting which candidate left the Office as a District Court chief after years of service, trying the most serious cases under the Texas Penal Code, and which one is asking around for a cheat sheet on how to read a probable cause statement to a Grand Jury.

Leapin' Lloyd Oliver on Reasonable Doubt

If you've never tuned in for an episode of Reasonable Doubt, I would highly encourage you to watch this one.


Reasonable Doubt, March 29, 2012, Lloyd Oliver from HCCLA on Vimeo.

Experiencing Technical Difficulties

Many of you have been asking when the Reasonable Doubt video of Lloyd Oliver is coming out.

We are working on it.  My technical guy, Franklin Bynum, who shall remain nameless, is behind in getting it downloaded.  He promises to have it up and running by this afternoon.

You will definitely want to catch this episode as Lloyd handles the tough questions such as:

1.  Reasonable ways of dealing with domestic violence cases
2.  His history as a prosecutor
3.  His run-ins with the law
4.  His views on the Public Defender's Office
5.  His ideas for effective CLE classes for prosecutors

It was definitely an episode that will be remembered for a long, long time.

Reasonable Doubt (3/29/12)

Please join me and host Todd Dupont on Thursday, March 29, 2012 for Reasonable Doubt, where our guest will be Democratic candidate for District Attorney, Lloyd Oliver.  Yes, Lloyd Oliver.  Lloyd is currently challenging Zack Fertitta for the Democratic nomination.

Not many folks know about Lloyd's platform, policies or ideas, and all polite questions will be welcome.

As always, you can tune in to watch it live streaming at 8:00 p.m. by clicking here.

Great Post by Mark Bennett

I'm being lazy today and outsourcing my blogging duties to Mark Bennett's Defending People.

He's got a really good article on the D.A.'s Office today.  Check it out by clicking here.

Joe Vinas on Reasonable Doubt

For those of you who missed Joe's appearance last Thursday on Reasonable Doubt, he did a great job.  Here's the instant replay.  Look for a special guest appearance in the first half hour, by the way.


Reasonable Doubt, March 22, 2012, Joe Vinas from HCCLA on Vimeo.

Disconnect [UPDATED]

For those who have been rumbling that the disconnect between the police agencies of Harris County and Pat Lykos' District Attorney's Office is strictly political, perhaps this story being aired by Channel 11 and other news agencies might give you an alternative perspective.

It seems that every summer we hear of at least one tragic case of a child dying because he or she was left alone in a hot car.  For every one of those cases, there are numerous other ones where fortunately the child wasn't permanently harmed.

Some of those cases should most definitely NOT be filed.  Although leaving a child in the car unattended for any amount of time is never a good idea, a five minute lapse in judgment while Mom runs into the cleaners doesn't necessarily warrant a felony charge of Abandoning a Child.  Somewhere along the slippery slope that runs between that scenario and a man who leaves two infants in a car while shopping for a firearm, one could argue that charges should be filed.

At the scene of the crime, the responding officer is usually a fairly decent set of eyes and ears in helping the Assistant District Attorney at Intake decide whether or not charges should be filed.  What seems pretty clear in the news piece from Channel 11 is that the Precinct Five Deputy Constable who responded did his part by calling the case into Intake.

What isn't as clear is why the charges were rejected.

There could be a host of reasons.  Perhaps since the children did not appear to be in physical danger, the Assistant D.A. decided to take more time in investigating before filing it.  Maybe there was some other intervening factor.  I don't know.  I wasn't there.

But this case does illustrate what the police unions were talking about when they issued their vote of No Confidence in Pat Lykos.  The communication has apparently broken down between the police and the Office and that can't be good for anybody.

[UPDATE:  I heard from several friends at the District Attorney's Office who gave me a little more background into this case and the information provided to the D.A.'s Office at intake.  The prosecutor who took the call is a highly respected, knowledgable and fair Assistant District Attorney.  According to my sources (who, just FYI was not the prosecutor in question), the case was discussed at length with the Deputy Constable at the scene.  They went over the Code and the elements needed to be proved and the Deputy apparently expressed that he did not feel the children were harmed or placed in danger, thus charges were not accepted at that time.  Furthermore, it is my understanding that the case was referred for further investigation.]

"Reasonable" Accommodation

There was not a tremendous amount of news coming out of the CJC this week other than today's revelation that Lykos political hire and judicial candidate hopeful Lana Shadwick is moving to the Grand Jury Division (upon her request).

Now, as much as I love the fact that those political hires made by the Pat Lykos Administration pretty much get to dictate where they want to serve within the Office, I feel it is worthwhile to point out that this is the fourth slot that Lana has served in since arriving at the Office in 2009 (with little to no experience as a prosecutor).  Ms. Shadwick has already bounced from Child Abuse, Family Violence, and Appellate during her brief tenure at the District Attorney's Office.

Please keep in mind that although 99.9% of all prosecutors at one point or another spend at least some time in the trial bureau, Shadwick drew a special exception from Pat Lykos.  Perhaps Lykos thought that having the ex-wife of a prominent former Judge would provide some sort of political benefit for her down the road, and therefore there was no need to make her work in the trenches.  You know, the Shadwick name is recognizable and all that.

Unlike the other political hires that Lykos made (Leitner, Bridgwater, Chow, Barnhill, Morris, etc.), Shadwick wasn't hired to work in the upper-Administration.  Rather, her hiring is more of a blatant example of trying to find job placement for someone to draw a steady government salary without actually having to put them in charge of anything.  The unfortunate experiments of putting Shadwick in Child Abuse and Family Violence failed miserably, but she has managed to spend the past couple of years in appellate, quietly refraining from doing too much damage.

But apparently the pressure of being in the Appellate Division has proven way too much for Lana, especially since she is trying to run a campaign for judge against the vastly more qualified Kristin Guiney.  Word from the campaign trail has been the Guiney has been outclassing Shadwick so much during Republican events that now Lana won't even show up to events where her opponent will be present.  At some point this week, Shadwick requested to be moved to the low-pressure position of Grand Jury prosecutor.

Grand Jury prosecuting ain't a real tricky job.  Quite frankly, if you still have something to do in your Office that will go past noon, you are probably doing something wrong.  It is the very definition of a "cush" position.

But the pressures of the campaign trail were so demanding on Ms. Shadwick that she asked for some reasonable accommodation, and Lykos gladly complied.  Please keep in mind that Assistant District Attorneys Ryan Patrick, Brad Hart, Joe Vinas and Renee Magee have all somehow been able to run for office without asking for a lighter caseload from the boss.  Then again, they weren't Lykos Political Hires.

If you think I'm sounding even more annoyed than usual about this particular move, you're right.  I'm highly disgusted by it.

I have a hard time understanding why the Lykos Administration would make accommodations for Shadwick so that she could campaign more effectively.  In light of the fact that they wouldn't make any accommodations for Shirley Cornelius when she asked for consideration in light of her severely handicapped son, it bothers me tremendously.

I saw Lykos this morning, actually.  I was headed to interview a client at the jail, and she was outside smoking a cigarette, with Hannah Chow following diligently at her side.  I heard from a friend of mine that at about the same time, he saw Lana Shadwick getting her car washed.  I wonder if she took comp time to do so.

I'm sorry if these criticisms seem petty, but they really freaking bug me.  I thought the District Attorney's Office was supposed to be a place where people worked together to do the best job possible for the administration of Justice.  It isn't supposed to be some sort of political incubator where the main purpose is to help foster political allies.

Lykos and Shadwick just took cronyism to a whole new level.

Tonight's Reasonable Doubt (3/22/12)

Join us tonight at 8 p.m. for Reasonable Doubt with me and Todd Dupont.  Our scheduled guest in Republican candidate for the 174th District Court Joe Vinas.  Note, I say "scheduled" because he still had a  potential scheduling conflict that he had to resolve.  Hopefully he will be able to work it out and be on the show.

Over the next coming weeks, we hope to have all the candidates in contested primaries on the show.  We've extended invitations to Pat Lykos and, yes, even Lloyd Oliver to be on the show for the D.A. race.  All episodes with candidates will get posted on the blog.

So, join us tonight at 8 p.m.  You can watch it live streaming online by clicking here.

Pat Lykos on the Penal Code

This speaks for itself.



Pat Lykos' answer seems to be in direct contrast to Sec. 481.115 under the Controlled Substances Act.

Zack Fertitta's Appearance on Reasonable Doubt

It was recently brought to my attention that I failed to put Democratic Candidate for Harris County District Attorney Zack Fertitta's episode of Reasonable Doubt on the blog after his appearance last month.  That was an oversight and I apologize to Zack for the tardiness of this video.  I hope to put all the candidates we interview on the blog.  

Reasonable Doubt, February 9, 2012, Zack Fertitta from HCCLA on Vimeo.

Now, we are just waiting for Pat Lykos and Lloyd Oliver's appearances.

***NOTE:  Dupont's beard is not getting shorter.  The videos are just getting out of order.

Judge Mike Anderson on Reasonable Doubt

Several of you have written in asking if there is a way to see Judge Anderson's appearance on Reasonable Doubt from last Thursday.  Now, thanks to the technological work of Franklin Bynum, there is.  See below.


Reasonable Doubt, March 8, 2012, Judge Mike Anderson from HCCLA on Vimeo.

The Final Field & A Potential Departure

As I pointed out a few posts ago, the primary for Texas is Tuesday, May 29th.  When the powers that be set that date, it temporarily re-opened the field for any aspiring candidates that wanted to run for public office.  That temporary re-opening ended yesterday at 6 p.m. with only one addition to the races involving the CJC.  Someone named Antonio Benavides added his name as a Republican candidate for the 177th District Court, facing off against Assistant District Attorney Ryan Patrick.

Given the fact that Ryan has been running a polished campaign from the very beginning and nobody seems to know who the late-arriving Mr. Benavides is, I don't know that this race will be too hotly contested.

None of the other judicial fields landed any additional candidates, which I'm sure leaves that lovable lunatic and grammar rock star, Don Hooper, furious.  He's been waging a private war against his ever-growing list of enemies that pretty much consists of him generating on-line discussions with himself and butchering the English language in the process.

The big news coming out of the end of filing time is that no third person spoiler entered the race for District Attorney, leaving it a head-to-head match-up between Pat Lykos and Mike Anderson.  I'm not a political science major, but Lykos has got to be a little uneasy knowing that there won't be a runoff like the one that got her into office in 2008.  It will be interesting to see how it shakes out without Jim Leitner to play the spoiler.

Speaking of Leitner, my e-mail and phone started blowing up yesterday afternoon with reports that Leitner had turned in his letter of resignation effective June 1st (which is coincidentally the first Friday after the primary.)  Obviously Jim and I don't have our nightly chats anymore so I cannot absolutely confirm that, but it sure was coming from multiple sources that have been credible in the past.  It was also very specific.

Things are getting curiouser and curiouser.

Reasonable Doubt with Judge Mike Anderson (3/8/12)

Please join us on Thursday, March 8 at 8 p.m. for another Reasonable Doubt with host Todd Dupont and me.  Our special guest will be Judge Mike Anderson, who is running for Harris County District Attorney.  Judge Anderson is the second of three candidates (four, if you count Lloyd Oliver) to appear on the show, and we are excited to have him on.

As always, you can tune in to watch it live streaming by clicking here.

And speaking of Judge Anderson, he's got a new commercial out with a familiar face on it.

Andy Tobias

We learned the sad news yesterday that longtime former-Assistant District Attorney and Division Chief Andy Tobias passed away.

For most people who worked at the District Attorney's Office within the past ten to twenty years, we all knew Andy as the head of the Grand Jury Division.  However, Andy's career with the Harris County District Attorney's Office spanned over thirty years and there was nobody in that Office that I can remember (before or since) that better exemplified the love of the job.

Andy bridged the gap between the "Old Dog" prosecutors (and their stories of the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s) and those of us who were fascinated by the legends that came before us.  He never seemed to tire of walking around the Grand Jury afternoon telling us war stories about things that happened both in and out of the courtroom.  He loved talking about prosecuting the Max Soffar case back in the 1980s.  He truly was a walking history book when it came to the Office.

In his role as the Grand Jury Division Chief, Andy also supervised the Grand Jury interns who came to work for the Office from the surrounding law schools.  Getting a spot working there was a coveted position  in law school and it seemed like everyone who interned for Andy ended up in criminal law -- many as prosecutors, but others as defense attorneys.  There was an enthusiasm for criminal law that he exuded.  In the later years of his career, he supervised many of us that literally had not been born when he first became a prosecutor.

But the biggest thing that Andy represented in my mind was how much the Harris County District Attorney's Office was a family.  In addition to be a great job and a calling to strive to do the right thing, the people that we worked with were so much more to each other than any other workplace environment.  No body exhibited that more than Andy Tobias.

He kept working at the District Attorney's Office long past the point of being eligible to retire.  He proudly pointed out that he was losing money by staying at the Office rather than taking his retirement.  We calculated it out once and realized that was true.  He was actually losing a significant amount of money by not retiring.  He also liked to point out that he had suffered a major heart attack years earlier and even "died on the table", but couldn't wait to get back to work as soon as possible.

I don't know that anybody loved his job and the people that he worked with as much as Andy Tobias.  To me, he represented a bridge of history from a long-gone era, and working with him made me feel like a part of the Office's history.

My deepest sympathy goes out to his family.  I will keep you posted when funeral plans are announced.

The Primary Is Officially Set

The Houston Chronicle is reporting that we finally have an official date of May 29th for the primary election in Texas.  I can't say that I've been following the debacle over re-districting all that closely over the past couple of months, but I do feel that I can speak authority in saying that it was all jacked up.

Additionally, the filing deadline for elected positions has been extended from now until March 9th.

I'm not a politician, but I've heard varying opinions over whether a late primary helps or hurts incumbents.  I have no idea what the correct theory is, but I do know that now more than ever, it is time to get out the word on who to vote for.

As a side note:  when we reach May, I will become even more insufferably persistent in making sure that you all got out there and voted for Mike Anderson, Kristin Guiney, Joe Vinas, and Renee Magee in their contested races.

Mark your calendars.

A Lesson From History

A friend of mine recommended this story from the past that has a lot of ties to the present situation at the Harris County District Attorney's Office.  It makes for some interesting reading for a variety of reasons.

You can check it out by clicking here.  (NOTE:  It took a while to load on my computer which may be because of the age of the article.  Have patience.)

Tonight's Reasonable Doubt (3/1/12)

Happy March to everyone.  Please join us for tonight's Reasonable Doubt with hosts me and Franklin Bynum.  Our special guest will be Todd Dupont (even though he has yet to acknowledge it).  We're on at 8 p.m., and you can watch it live streaming by clicking here.