Runaway grand jury: The aftermath

Not content to sit down while the grand jury investigated the doings-on in her office, Harris County District Attorney Pat Lykos decided to arrange her own investigation. Of the grand jury.

According to the Houston Chronicle, Ms. Lykos ordered investigations into the grand jurors, two judges (Marc and Susan Brown) and Mike Anderson, her opponent in the GOP primary. According to Ms. Lykos, it was a "cursory internet search."

Locked in her shell up on the sixth floor of the Criminal (In)justice Center, Ms. Lykos has apparently lost touch with all semblance of reality as she just can't understand what the problem is.

Just how would it go over if it turned out a defense attorney was conducting an investigation into the backgrounds of the grand jurors? Would Ms. Lykos and her minions have such a relaxed attitude if that were the case? I think not.

"The purpose of the Internet search was to simply try and determine what were the reasons for this grand jury's radical, erratic and what we believed to be unlawful action." -- Pat Lykos

Of course rule number one when you get caught in a bad situation is to minimize it. Rule number two is to shift the blame. The unspoken rule is to avoid any responsibility for your actions. And don't forget the corollary, when in doubt, throw someone else under the bus.

Lykos said she relied on assertions from Don McWilliams, her chief investigator, that there was no "investigation." 

However, according to three sources familiar with the situation, McWilliams was asked by the district attorney's first assistant, Jim Leitner, to "investigate" at least two grand jurors "for the boss." The sources did not want to be identified because they were not authorized to discuss the situation.

Poor Jim. He had the audacity to run against Ms. Lykos in the 2008 Republican primary and, after finishing third in a three horse race, swallowed his pride and went to work for Ms. Lykos. His reward for his loyalty to Ms. Paranoid are the tire marks on his back.

Now here's where it gets interesting. Jack Abercia, the former constable for Precinct One, got himself indicted because either he used, or allowed someone in his office to use, a website available only to law enforcement agencies to run background checks on people. Did Mr. McWilliams' "cursory internet investigation" involve the use of such a website or did he just google the names?

McWilliams went to his courthouse office and used two websites that collect personal information for use by law enforcement and others, according to the sources. He called Lykos with his results and left a voicemail. 

A week later, Leitner directed McWilliams to expand the investigation to state District Judge Susan Brown, her husband who also is a judge and Mike Anderson, a former judge who is running against Lykos in the Republican primary, according to the sources. 

On Thursday, Lykos said confidential law enforcement databases used by authorities to check criminal records were not used. It is illegal to use those websites for unauthorized investigations.

These revelations raise serious concerns about the ability of Pat Lykos to serve as Harris County District Attorney. While her actions may or may not have been legal, they certainly add to the stench emanating from  1201 Franklin. A grand jury is supposed (and I stress the word "supposed") to be an independent body determining whether or not there is probable cause to believe someone committed a criminal act. What message does it send to grand jurors when the sitting District Attorney is using her office to investigate members of a grand jury while it conducts an investigation?

And what was the purpose of the investigation - to intimidate or to blackmail? Ms. Lykos and her minions have some serious questions to answer. But don't hold your breath waiting to her them.

Graffiti, courthouse style

Handiwork of an unknown artist on the 2nd floor of the Harris County Criminal (In)justice Center.

Runaway grand jury closes up shop

Yesterday the grand jury investigating the Harris County District Attorney's Office announced that it was not issuing any indictments. The news was greeted with a big yawn by folks around the Criminal (In)justice Center.

The grand jury foreman, Trisha Pollard, said the grand jury didn't find any evidence of a crime but that they were troubled by the actions of the DA's office. They singled out Rachel Palmer for her refusal to answer questions pursuant to her rights under the Fifth Amendment.

Left unsaid is why special prosecutors didn't offer Ms. Palmer immunity in exchange for her testimony. They went so far as to file a motion to compel her testimony that was denied by the judge. They claimed that none of the questions they wanted to ask were incriminating; but when given a choice between having Ms. Palmer answer the questions under a grant of immunity or not asking the questions at all - they chose to keep their mouths shut.

What information did they seek from Ms. Palmer? And if it was so damn important to the investigation that they were more than willing to ignore the Bill of Rights, why didn't they offer her immunity?

Whatever. Now Pat Lykos will stand up and declare victory and the Mike Anderson forces will stare down at their toes. The fact is the investigation is a black eye on Ms. Lykos and her administration. And, no matter how you want to spin it, Ms. Lykos and her office did their best to stonewall the investigation. That also doesn't bode well for a person who has the ethical duty to see that justice is done.

Given the public's notoriously short attention span and the fact that we don't know when the primary will be held, there's a good possibility that most of the folks in Harris County are going to forget all about this little affair before they step into the voting booth.

I'm not so certain that anyone in the DA's Office broke the law in the BATmobile fiasco. Withholding exculpatory evidence is a Brady violation and, at best, could get you a new trial - unless the error was determined to be (wait for it) harmless. There is no monetary or criminal sanction for not turning information over to the defense that the defense doesn't know about.

As such, there was never the possibility of anyone being indicted for not giving up the goods. The only thing that would have bitten someone in the ass was lying under oath to the grand jury.

So, go on, there's nothing to see here.

Crisis? What crisis?

Yesterday my colleague Murray Newman serenaded us with word that there was a serious shortage of grand juries in Harris County because Pat Lykos and her minions dropped the ball.

Murray seemed quite concerned that someone the lack of indictments make cause the sun not to rise or cause solar flares or even cause the hole in the ozone layer to get bigger.

My response? So freaking what?

So the state's ability to infringe upon the freedom and liberty of its citizens is curtailed. So someone who might not otherwise qualify for bail in Harris County gets to spend some time with his family. What's the problem, Murray?

We're criminal defense attorneys. Our job is to defend the Constitution. Our job is to make it harder for the state to take away someone's freedom. It just so happens that Ms. Lykos may have done part of our job for us. Bully, I say.

A demotion

Now, lest anyone think I'm biased with regard to the unmitigated disaster known as the HPD breath alcohol testing van (BAT van) program, I am now giving the Harris County District Attorney's Office a little equal time. 

This is a statement from the DA's Office dated November 8, 2011 addressing concerns raised about the program:

To the citizens of Harris County,

As many of you know, there have been several news stories regarding the Houston Police Department’s Breath Alcohol Testing (BAT) vans, the evidence they provide, the technicians who perform the work and the Harris County District Attorney’s Office (HCDAO). 

A technician, who is a former employee of the HPD crime lab and supervised the BAT van testing, testified on July 27 and 28 that she believed it is possible that the breath tests conducted by the HPD BAT vans could be problematic. 

August 4, representatives of the HCDAO notified the Scientific Director at the Texas Department of Public Safety—the authority that develops rules and regulations and provides training and laboratory support to local, state and federal authorities for breath alcohol testing throughout the state—of her claims. 

August 11, in a meeting between HCDAO and the technician she stated that she could not verify the accuracy of results of an intoxilyzer instrument that had previously experienced overheating in a HPD BAT van. She said that she could not testify to the accuracy of such intoxilyzer results because this issue had never before been scientifically tested.

August 12, the HCDAO issued a Brady Notice to attorneys to inform them of the potentially exculpatory, or mitigating, evidence raised by the technician and to not allow any HPD BAT van cases to be resolved unless the defendant is made aware of the technician’s comments.

Additionally on August 12, the Harris County District Attorney’s Office requested that the Texas Department of Public Safety’s Breath Alcohol Laboratory conduct scientific tests on the HPD BAT van and the intoxilyzer instruments.

August 23, representatives from the Harris County District Attorney’s Office met again with the technician. At this interview the technician said she believed that all breath tests conducted by the HPD BAT vans dating from summer 2009 - present were suspect because she believed HPD BAT vans were an unsuitable testing location. August 24, the HCDAO distributed a second Brady notice to attorneys alerting them to the technician’s comments.

The Texas Department of Public Safety conducted an Ambient Temperature Study on the HPD BAT van and intoxilyzer instruments that addressed the technician’s concerns. Scientists concluded that the HPD BAT van instruments correctly analyzed breath alcohol concentrations .

October 28, a DWI jury trial was held in a County Criminal Court where evidence was presented in open court about the reliability and accuracy of the HPD BAT vans. The defense presented their position on the reliability of the HPD BAT van instruments. After hearing all the evidence, the jury returned a verdict of guilty.

It is our duty to see that justice is done and to protect the lives, property and rights of our citizens. We respect the rule of law and strive to always do the right thing.

The "technician" referred to is Amanda Culbertson, the former technical supervisor in the HPD crime lab. The statement from Ms. Lykos' office is an interesting exercise in the use of language. Ms. Culbertson is a technician, but the DPS personnel who conducted tests on the breath test machines are scientists.

However, prior to Ms. Culbertson's leaving the crime lab, prosecutors delighted in touting Ms. Culbertson's professional qualifications. She was the scientist in charge of maintaining the machines. According to the Texas Department of Public Safety, she was a forensic scientist. Before a breath test result could be entered into evidence, Ms. Culbertson had to testify that the machine was working properly and that it was reliable.

Now that she's raising concerns over the reliability of the testing program she is a mere technician. According  to the Collins English Dictionary, a technician is "a person employed in a laboratory... or scientific establishment to do practical work." In other words, a mere button pusher.

So, in recent weeks we've been told that HPD isn't trustworthy and that the person who maintains the breath test machines is doing "practical" work. Any more gems for us, Ms. Lykos?

Don't let the distractions fool you

State District Judge Susan Brown has decided not to compel Assistant Harris County District Attorney Rachel Palmer to answer questions from a grand jury investigating HPD's trouble BATmobile program. The decision means that the special prosecutors in charge of the investigation can either offer Ms. Palmer immunity to testify or proceed without her testimony.

As my colleague Mark Bennett so eloquently wrote the other day, if Ms. Palmer were going to testify, that testimony would be immunized, either by act of the special prosecutor or through the Fifth Amendment's prohibition on forced self-incrimination.

Jim Mount, one of the special prosecutors, should grant Ms. Palmer immunity in exchange for her testimony. That will put Ms. Palmer in the position of either testifying or risking being jailed for contempt.

The question still remains whether Ms. Palmer was protecting her own backside or trying to protect someone higher up the food chain at 1201 Franklin.

Ms. Palmer's grand conspiracy theory from Monday's proceedings may give us a hint at the answer. On Monday, during a hearing on her motion to recuse Judge Brown, Ms. Palmer claimed that Judge Susan Brown, her husband, Judge Marc Brown and special prosecutor Stephen St. Martin were engaged in a conspiracy to unseat Harris County DA Pat Lykos.  As an aside, Ms. Palmer is married to local GOP bigwig Don Hooper.

Ms. Palmer, and the cabal in the DA's office, want you to believe that the entire investigation is politically motivated. They want to distract your attention from the ways in which prosecutors in Harris County violated the Constitution and the due process rights of people charged with driving while intoxicated. They don't want you to focus on the junk science behind the breath test machine. They don't want you to pay attention to Brady violations. They certainly don't want you to think about state experts committing perjury on the stand when testifying as to the reliability of the breath test machines in the vans.

Perhaps someone on the sixth floor of the Harris County Criminal (In)justice Center needs a refresher course in the special ethical responsibilities of a prosecutor - namely, to see that justice is done.

I'll have a fifth, please

On Thursday morning, Harris County Assistant District Attorney Rachel Palmer appeared before a grand jury looking into the troubled HPD mobile alcohol testing vans (BATmobiles). Ms. Palmer invoked her Fifth Amendment right to remain silent and refused to answer any questions.

The grand jury then filed a motion to compel with State District Judge Susan Brown. A hearing on that motion was held Thursday afternoon after which Judge Brown announced she would hear from both sides on Monday.

Now why would the ADA invoke her right to remain silent? Don't they like to tell us that an innocent person has nothing to hide? That our client had the opportunity to give his side of the story but chose not to?

And how might her answering questions incriminate her?

Did the Harris County DA's Office know about the problems with the BATmobiles? Did prosecutors provide that information to defense attorneys? Were prosecutors aware they were putting on perjured testimony regarding the reliability of the breath test machines in the vans? Did the DA's Office prosecute motorists knowing that the "evidence" upon which they relied was faulty?

However this shakes out, it's a black eye for Harris County DA Pat Lykos. It doesn't look good when a prosecutor refuses to answer questions from a grand jury investigating the conduct of both the police and the DA's Office.

I just wonder if the DA's Office is so hell bent on prosecuting DWI's that they will violate the law in so doing, what do they do on more serious cases?

See also:

"Your Fifth Amendment at work," Defending People (12/15/11)
"Motion to compel," Life at the Harris County Criminal Justice Center (12/15/11)

Grand jury subpoenas top county officials in DWI probe

Remember that "runaway" grand jury investigating the HPD BATmobiles? Well, they're baaack...

The county judge and two commissioners have been subpoenaed to testify before the grand jury. It is believed that the grand jury is looking into the contract the county entered into with the Texas Department of Public Safety to administer breath test machines in Harris County. The county entered into the contract after Harris County District Attorney Pat Lykos urged county commissioners to dump Lone Star College after former HPD crime lab technical supervisor Amy Culbertson spilled the beans on the malfunctioning breath test machines in HPD's BATmobiles.

First a word for those of y'all not from Texas. The county judge isn't really a judge, he's the head of the county government. The commissioners are the elected representatives who run the county.

Ostensibly, the reason for the change in maintaining the breath test machines was a cost-saving function. The county's contract with the DPS is $330,000 for the first year versus $342,000 with Lone Star College. But there's more to the calculation than that. Remember, DWI is big business in Texas and running the breath test program is no exception. For every DWI conviction obtained without the use of DPS technicians, the state reimburses the county $22. Doesn't sound like a lot on the surface but, between 2008 and 2010, the county was reimbursed $220,000 by the state. Do the math; the DPS contract will cost the county more money in the long run.

The change had nothing to do with saving the county money. The change was retaliation against Lone Star College for hiring Amy Culbertson after she left the Houston Police Department. The change was retaliation against Ms. Culbertson for testifying truthfully about the problems with the BATmobiles.

Ms. Lykos and her minions got caught withholding Brady material from defense attorneys handling DWI cases. Ms. Lykos has blamed Ms. Culbertson and she has blamed HPD for the fiasco. All of that is an attempt to deflect attention away from the actions of the Harris County DA's Office.

Now, about that separation of powers thing...

I have spent thirty years in law enforcement in Harris County as a prosecutor and District Court judge.

So begins the campaign rhetoric on Harris County District Attorney-wannabe Mike Anderson's website. I find it interesting that he lumps working as a prosecutor and a judge into law enforcement.

Especially since they're not the same.

Law enforcement is part of the executive branch - the police enforce the laws. The District Attorney's Office is part of the executive branch. The DA's job is to enforce the laws by prosecuting those accused of breaking the law.

But judges aren't supposed to be part of law enforcement. Judges are part of the judicial branch. The job of a judge isn't to enforce the law, the job of a judge is to interpret the law and to preside as a neutral and detached referee at trial. The judiciary is supposed to act as a check on the power of both the executive and legislative branches.

Mike Anderson, like too many men and women sitting on the bench today, confused his role. He thought himself a prosecutor in a black robe (or, as Mark Bennett would say "dress"). He refers to himself as a "strong law and order judge." That, of course, means that he came down on the side of law enforcement, ignoring the "testilying" that takes place on witness stands throughout the Harris County Criminal (In)justice Center on a daily basis. That means he ignored allegations of police brutality and racial profiling.

If you're a prosecutor there's nothing wrong with that. Prosecutors are advocates. But, if you're a judge, that attitude indicates an abdication of power.

Mike Anderson never left the Harris County District Attorney's Office - he just transferred to a different division.

A couple of questions for Mike Anderson, please

Okay, Murray, I took a look at Mike Anderson's website. I had to because I had a couple of questions for the prospective District Attorney that I thought needed answering, so I e-mailed him:

Mr. Anderson,
 I understand that you are opposed to the current DA’s policyof not prosecuting “trace” possession cases. If you were going to pursue thosecases, how would your office handle the problem of having enough of a samplefor defense attorneys to have re-tested? 

 Additionally, if these cases are to be prosecuted, wherewould you find the beds and the money to house the additional inmates? 

 Furthermore, as the “War on Drugs” has largely been afailure, how will locking someone up help that person to get over their drugaddiction? 

 I will be more than happy to run your answers in my blog, TheDefense Rests, unedited. I look forward to your response.

It's easy to offer criticism of another's approach to any problem, it's much harder to formulate a proposed solution. I would like to hear Mr. Anderson's ideas on how to handle residue cases. I would like to hear that he's thought beyond the knee-jerk "lock 'em all up!" approach.

The cost of thinking outside the box

I'm no fan of Pat Lykos.

Her job is to infringe upon the rights of the citizenry as zealously as the courts will allow. She is part of the mechanism by which the state seeks to keep folks under its thumb.

But there are a couple of areas in which Ms. Lykos got it right.

Now, with apologies to my colleague, Murray Newman, I don't mind the chaos emanating from the 6th floor of the Criminal (In)justice Center. Chaos in the prosecutor's office is a good thing for the citizens of Harris County. So long as prosecutors are fighting with one another, with the District Attorney and with law enforcement, they aren't waging total war against our clients.

Ms. Lykos was right when she changed her office's policy on drug residue cases. Let's face it, the war on drugs has been a colossal failure (it makes Vietnam seem like a good idea). Even State District Judge Michael McSpadden acknowledges its failure.

"No one respects law enforcement more than I do, but they're wrong about this. I want them out there going after the career criminals, the sex offenders, the people who pose a real threat to our society, and not someone who has a residue amount of drugs." - State District Judge Michael McSpadden

There are far too many folks in the Harris County Jail on possession cases. There are far too many folks in the penitentiary on possession cases. Most of these people are addicts. Locking them up in jail does no one any good. The addicts aren't receiving the treatment they need and there's no room in the inn for those who really need to be put away.

No, local law enforcement doesn't like the policy. They want to go out and arrest everyone they possibly can, lock 'em up and forget about them. That's fine and dandy - but where are you going to put them? Maybe it's the fear that with fewer drug arrest, jobs and overtime might vanish. Maybe it's the fear that the public is fed up with the overcriminalization of American life and desires a bit of sanity.

Ms. Lykos also understands that the stigma associated with a DWI conviction is a little bit out of whack when compared to the consequences befalling those convicted of some violent crimes. DIVERT may have been a good concept but the execution is poor (not to mention illegal). The reason given by the DA's Office for DIVERT is so that folks arrested for driving while intoxicated can get treatment to help prevent them from doing it again. The reality is that Ms. Lykos thought that too many people were "getting off" with time served and a fine. What better way to force them into probation than to make the minimum sentence 30 days in jail?

Need I even mention that the judges who signed off on the program are violating their constitutional duty to consider the full range of punishment in a DWI case? But, then, most of those on the bench are part of the DA's "trial court" division.

Sometimes change comes from the most unexpected agents. Just as it took Nixon to open China, maybe it took Lykos to bring some sense to drug prosecutions.

Surprise! Surprise! Surprise!

What a shock. The day after the local police unions announce they will not endorse current Harris County DA Pat Lykos in the upcoming election, former judge Mike Anderson announces his entry in the race.

Let the games begin...

Judge punts show cause hearing

Today was the day and I was determined not to be denied. Assistant District Attorneys Carl Hobbs and Steve Morris were to appear in the 185th this morning for a show-cause hearing to determine whether they should be held in contempt of court for allegedly violating Judge Susan Brown's order that the Harris County District Attorney's Office be denied access to the grand jury investigating HPD's batmobile fiasco.

I dropped my youngest daughter at school in plenty of time to get downtown. But, when I walked into the Harris County Criminal (In)justice Center, the lines at the elevators were beyond ridiculous. I knew what had to be done. It was off to the stairwell.

For those of y'all not familiar with the courthouse, the 185th District Court is on the 17th floor. Yes, the 17th floor. And I was hoofing it up the stairs.

With every step my body reminded me of the 14 mile run on Sunday morning and the soccer game that afternoon. My body was not very happy. But there I was - on the 17th floor. It was around the corner and down the hall and into the courtroom. The place was packed.

The judge called the docket and we sat in anticipation of what was to come. She called up the attorneys representing Mr. Hobbs, Mr. Morris and the two court reporters. With a gaggle of attorneys wearing dark suits crowded around the bench, I could have sworn I was in the civil courthouse.

The attorney for the court reporters filed a motion to recuse Judge Brown. That seemed to halt the proceedings (at least for the time being). However, Mr. Hobbs' attorney, Bill Hawkins, made it known that his client was ready to proceed. I left the courtroom to take care of some other business.

I returned about 30 minutes later and saw the same cast of characters in the courtroom. But there was one new addition -- my colleague, and fellow blogger, Murray Newman. After his perfunctory insult of my choice of neck wear, we began to discuss what was going on. It seems that there were quite a few conferences at the bench with the defense attorneys and the judge -- the attorneys appointed to represent the state never bothered to approach.

Word went out that the fireworks would begin at 11am. This did not sit well with me since I had only paid for parking til 11am. Oh well, if a parking ticket was the cost of this exercise, it was probably worth it (so long as I don't have too many unpaid parking tickets, I suppose).

Shortly before 11am the defense attorneys once again approached the judge and, the longer the conversation went on, the more animated the judge became. Something was a-brewing and Judge Brown wasn't a happy camper. Neither, it did appear, was Mr. Hawkins. There appeared to be some dissension in the ranks.

Shortly after 11am, Judge Brown went on the record. Mr. Morris' attorney asked that the proceedings be public and not at the bench. Judge Brown then announced that, based on the motion to recuse filed by Mr. Morris' attorney, that she was recusing herself. Mr. Hawkins was not pleased.

So, what was accomplished this morning? Not a whole lot. A small forest was destroyed to make enough paper for all of the motions that were filed. The judge recused herself (Murray was right on the money with his prediction). An interesting subtext was disclosed.

Why would Mr. Hobbs' attorney want to proceed on the show cause hearing? Why not delay it for a few more days and take it up in front of another judge? Could it be that someone is ready to roll? From my dealings with Mr. Hobbs and from the accounts I have heard from other defense attorneys, Mr. Hobbs is a by-the-book guy. I find it hard to believe that he would go to the court reporters and ask for a transcript of the testimony after a judge told the DA's Office that it was not entitled to access to the grand jury. Did someone order Mr. Hobbs to obtain that transcript? Was he following orders?

Someone is going to take a fall for this. The only question is whom.

Harris County's runaway grand jury: a blawgosphere summary

On Monday morning, two high-level prosecutors in the Harris County District Attorney's Office will appear in the 185th Judicial District Court for a show cause hearing to determine whether they should be held in contempt of court for obtaining transcripts of grand jury testimony in the HPD Batmobile investigation.

Here are a few posts from around the blawgosphere regarding the collision between the runaway grand jury and the HCDAO so y'all can get a feel for what's been going down:

"My prediction for Monday: delay of game," Life at the Harris County Criminal Justice Center (Nov. 4, 2011)

"The BAT van show-cause order," Defending People (Nov. 2, 2011)

"It's the coverup that gets you: BAT van edition," Grits for Breakfast (Nov. 2, 2011)

"Judge calls top prosecutors on the carpet," The Defense Rests (Nov. 2, 2011)

"An interesting docket entry," Life at the Harris County Criminal Justice Center (Nov. 1, 2011)

"Live by the hatchet, die by the hatchet," Defending People (Nov. 1, 2011)

"The official investigation has begun," Life at the Harris County Criminal Justice Center (Oct. 27, 2011)

"Houston DWI 'BAT' vans - a timeline," Defending People (Oct. 27, 2011)

"What you say can be used..." Sustained (Oct. 27, 2011)

"The plot thickens," The Defense Rests (Oct. 26, 2011)

"A rat in a trap," The Defense Rests (Oct. 26, 2011)

"What's that: a "runaway" grand jury!," Criminal Jurisdiction (Oct. 25, 2011)

"Grand jury hysteria," Texas Criminal Defender (Oct. 24, 2011)

"Runaway jury," The Defense Rests (Oct. 24, 2011)

"Pat Lykos' star chamber rebels," Life at the Harris County Criminal Justice Center (Oct. 21, 2011)

Judge calls top prosecutors on the carpet

Oh, what tangled webs we weave...

As you already may know (if you read Murray Newman's blog), two top-ranking prosecutors and two court reporters have been called on the carpet by State District Judge Susan Brown to explain why she shouldn't hold them in contempt of court.

It would appear that transcripts of secret grand jury testimony found there way into the hands of Carl Hobbs and Steve Morris. Mr. Morris is the head of the grand jury division and Mr. Hobbs is, ironically enough, head of the government integrity bureau.

Left unsaid, interestingly enough, is how Judge Brown found out that the Harris County District Attorney's Office had obtained transcripts of grand jury testimony regarding HPD's batmobile fiasco.

Would it surprise anyone if Mr. Hobbs and Mr. Morris are sacrificed by Pat Lykos to the gods of public opinion in an attempt to hold on to her rapidly sinking ship? This is some serious shit Mr. Lykos has stepped in and there doesn't appear to be a tidy way to dispose of it.

13 Undercover first exposed maintenance problems with the BAT vans that could have led to bad test results. The DA now says the breath tests are sound. The grand jury is trying to figure out when did the DA First hear about the problems and did they speak up about it as the law requires.

But then there's the curve ball. According to this story from KTRK-13, the breath tests in question are suddenly valid again. But wait, you ask, wasn't it just last week that Ms. Lykos said she couldn't trust HPD when it came to breath tests conducted in the batmobiles?

What changed? Are we suddenly going to pretend that Amanda Culbertson made it all up? Has Ms. Lykos forgotten the e-mails outlining the problems with the batmobile program? Or is it just a case of her realizing that she opened her mouth without thinking in a desperate attempt to deflect blame for the situation?

Why do I get the impression that what's going to happen on the 6th floor at 1201 Franklin is going to resemble the closing scenes in Casino in which the the crime lords decided that Joe Pesci's character is just a little bit too dangerous to leave alive? Or maybe the sequence in Goodfellas when Robert DeNiro kills off everyone who participated in the airline heist? Or maybe...

You can call it what you will, but it's still illegal

You may remember Ruben Trejo, he's the former HPD sergeant who collided with a school bus on his way to work -- with an alcohol concentration of .176. On Friday, Mr. Trejo pleaded guilty to driving while intoxicated, paid a $500 fine and was placed into the Harris County District Attorney Office's pretrial intervention program (DIVERT).

Trejo, who has retired from the department, was allowed to the Harris County District Attorney's pretrial intervention program in which defendants plead guilty to DWI, but the verdict is deferred for a year. If the defendant completes all the requirements in the program, there is no conviction but the initial arrest remains on record.

What's wrong with this picture, you ask?

When a defendant opts for deferred adjudication in a criminal case, she enters a plea of guilty before the court, the judge then states that he finds enough evidence to find her guilty but that he will withhold a finding of guilt for a period of time (the length of the probation). Once the defendant completes her probation the criminal case will be dismissed and she will be eligible to file a petition for nondisclosure.

The problem is that deferred adjudication is not available for anyone charged with driving while intoxicated in Texas - even though it is available to a person charged with murder. The Houston Chronicle article points out, in plain English, why the DIVERT program is illegal.

Calling it pretrial intervention doesn't change that fact. Once the defendant enters a plea of guilty on a DWI case, there is nothing the judge can do (legally) other than record it as a conviction and sentence accordingly. As soon as the judge states she is deferring a finding of guilt, we're talking about deferred adjudication.

The plot thickens

It would appear that the shit has hit the fan over at 1201 Franklin.

Today, State District Judge Susan Brown appointed former prosecutors Stephen St. Martin and James Mount to serve as special prosecutors for the grand jury investigating the Harris County District Attorney's Office.

From the Houston Chronicle: 

The order appointing St. Martin and Mount, both former assistant district attorneys now in private practice, states that grand jurors are investigating “possible criminal conduct by members of the Harris County district attorney’s office.”

“After considering the grand jury’s request and the applicable law, the court finds the Harris County District Attorney and her office are disqualified from participating in the grand jury’s investigation,” Brown wrote.

Harris County District Attorney Pat Lykos manages her office through fear and intimidation (just read Murray Newman's posts on the warm and fuzzy feelings that Ms. Lykos evokes on the 6th floor). That might work on her staff - after all, with the current economic climate, hanging out your own shingle is a scary prospect - but it doesn't work with people outside the office.

Ms. Lykos is upset with Amanda Culbertson. She is upset with the Houston Police Department. Okay, I get it, but retaliating against Ms. Culbertson by subjecting her to a grand jury investigation was going a bit too far. Ms. Lykos' need for total control and her intolerance toward dissent may very well end up haunting her between now and next year's election - if she manages to hold on that long. Fear does not breed loyalty - and that's something Ms. Lykos should think about as the investigation continues.

This is not going to end well for Ms. Lykos and her minions.

A rat in a trap

As my colleague Murray Newman reported earlier today, four prosecutors with the Harris County District Attorney's Office were subpoenaed to testify before a grand jury today. The grand jury is looking into HPD's Batmobile program.

Well, Pat Lykos is not taking this lying down. First she sent her minions to Judge Brown in the 185th and demanded she tell the grand jurors to let her prosecutors in the room. Judge Brown politely declined. Then she fired off a request to the 14th Court of Appeals to order the grand jurors to let her prosecutors in the room. Again the answer was no.

The topic du jour would appear to be when the DA's office found out there were problems with the Batmobiles and just how many folks were prosecuted using evidence that has since been found to be unreliable.  With that we're no longer just talking about Brady violations and the possibility of a lot of writs, we're also talking about ethics violations.

Prosecutors have a duty to see that justice is done. Prosecuting people with evidence you know is unreliable is not fulfilling one's ethical duties.

It also raises questions about the reliability of breath testing in general. If the police can't maintain their machines in the Batmobiles, what makes you think they're maintaining them at the police station? We know now that these machines are sensitive to temperature and humidity. What else causes them to go haywire? And since the machines run a self-diagnostic check, what guarantee is there that the machines are operating properly.

HAL ran a self-check and determined that he was functioning properly. We all know how well that went.

And then there's this gem...  

Lykos tells us she still doesn't know what went wrong inside that grand jury room last week that nearly led to the arrest of two of her top assistants, despite the fact one of them was in the room with us during the interview. What she does know is that she no longer wants HPD supervising its own DWI vans.

"That's what perturbs me," she said.

Lykos told us Monday she's done trusting HPD to tell her the truth about DWI testing.

"We were never informed there were questions about whether the tests were valid," Lykos said.

What's this? A public pronouncement that the chief prosecuting attorney in the county doesn't trust the biggest police department in the county to run its own breath testing program. If the DA won't trust HPD to be truthful about its breath testing program, why should a jury? If Ms. Lykos said she can't trust them, how can a prosecutor, in good faith, present evidence to a judge or jury regarding a breath test conducted under the auspices of HPD?

Now the only question remaining is whether Ms. Lykos will accept responsibility for what has transpired or whether she will seek out a scapegoat (or two) and leave them hanging in the wind for all the public to see. I know where I'm putting my money.



See also:

"Pat Lykos' star chamber rebels," Life at the Harris County Criminal Justice Center (Oct. 21, 2011)

"The voice of the people," Gamso - For the Defense (Oct. 24, 2011)

Thinking before speaking

Why would some local criminal defense attorneys be singing the praises of ex-HPD crime lab technical supervisor Amanda Culbertson?

Ms. Culbertson left the beleaguered HPD crime lab earlier this year as a result of what she called retaliation on the part of department employees after she raised questions about the accuracy and reliability of breath test machines in the departments BATvans.

Now Harris County Commissioner's Court is looking at whether to renew a contract with Lone Star College to manage breath test machines in the county or turn over their machines to the DPS. Adding drama to the events is the fact that Ms. Culbertson now works for Lone Star College (along with one of her former colleagues Jorge Wong).

Tyler Flood, Mark Thiessen and Brent Mayr spoke at the most recent meeting of the county commissioners to voice their belief that the county is retaliating against Ms. Culbertson for recently speaking out about problems with the BATvans.

Mr. Mayr told county commissioners that the county's technical supervisors are "committed to justice" and to seeking the truth. He said that he believed the contract was in jeopardy because the DA's office was more concerned about chalking up convictions than seeking justice.

Referring to technical supervisors as scientists is stretching the truth just about as far as it can be stretched. Technical supervisors are hired to maintain breath test machines in Texas. Their job is to ensure that the machines are working and to remove malfunctioning machines from service. They must also testify in criminal proceedings that the particular machine was working properly and that the breath test was conducted per Texas guidelines.

They are not paid to be objective. They are not paid to take a critical view of the breath test machine. They are paid to work with police and prosecutors to obtain convictions against motorists accused of driving while intoxicated.

They are no more committed to justice than the rulers of Yemen or Syria.

By singing Ms. Culbertson's praises these attorneys are telling future jurors that she speaks the truth; that she views science as impartial; that she wants to make certain that innocent folks are convicted of DWI.

Is that the image you want jury panels to come into the courtroom with? Are you sure you want to puff up the person who will testify - without any evidence other than a number on a test slip - that your client was intoxicated at the time she was driving?

I understand realpolitik and that the enemy of your enemy may very well be your friend -- but never forget the fox who offered to carry the gingerbread man across the river.

Let the county switch from Lone Star College to the DPS. It doesn't really matter. In the end the police, the technical supervisors and the judges are all working to see that your client is convicted. Maybe Ms. Culbertson had some interesting things to say about the batmobiles -- but it doesn't mean she's a friend of the defense.

Peeing in the pool

"Well I just can't believe you bunch of ignoramuses just voted to find that piece of shit defendant not guilty! Would y'all have voted the same way if I told you all the stuff the judge said I couldn't? Do y'all want to know just what this little SOB has done in the past?"

Okay, that's probably not how it goes down. It's more subtle than that. The prosecutor, still bothered that a jury acquitted a defendant, wants them to know what a bad decision they actually made. He wants them to know that there's a whole lot of stuff that mean ol' judge wouldn't let him talk about. So he lets loose with a tasty morsel of two.

Problem?

You bet.

Why would he do that?

Because he knows that the jurors have family, friends, neighbors and co-workers. He knows those jurors are going to talk about the case once it's over. He knows those jurors are going to tell everyone to be wary because they won't be getting the whole story. In short, he's doing his best to poison a little bitty piece of that jury pool.

In Wednesday's Houston Chronicle, Houston appellate attorney Brian Wice fired a shot across the bow of the Harris County District Attorney's Office when he publicly castigated the prosecutors who decided to pee in the pool after a famed Houston doctor, Michael Brown, was acquitted of assaulting his wife. 

Apropos of nothing, the junior prosecutor who had handled almost all of the most important parts of the trial announced that he wanted the jury to know all about "the real Michael Brown." In a matter of moments, and over DeGuerin's objection, the prosecutor tainted the jury with the details surrounding Brown's plea of no contest and his deferred adjudication for assaulting his third wife in 2003 that made this case a felony, not to mention a number of assertions disputed by the defense disparaging Brown's character and reputation - the very evidence Judge Wallace had properly excluded from trial. But the prosecutor was not quite through. By repeating these reckless allegations to the battery of cameras, microphones and notepads outside the courtroom, the prosecutor took a backhanded slap at Judge Wallace for following the law and the jurors for following their oaths.

Simply put, in my opinion the prosecutor's comments crossed the line on both a personal and professional level. A former high-ranking member of the Committee for Lawyer Discipline said she thought these remarks violated State Bar Disciplinary Rule 3.06, which prohibits any lawyer from making any post-verdict comments to a juror "calculated merely to harass or embarrass the juror or to influence his actions in future jury service." By informing the jury about evidence that was clearly inadmissible in a thinly veiled attempt to make the jury feel badly about its verdict, the prosecutor's comments were calculated to influence not just the 12 folks who had acquitted Brown, but any of their friends with whom they might share the prosecutor's remarks, and who might find themselves on juries in the future.

There is little doubt what the prosecutor was attempting to do - and what he was attempting to do was unethical. He was caught red-handed standing in the yellow end of the pool.

Mr. Wice could have called out the prosecutor by name - but he chose not to. He was upset about what happened after the verdict was read and he voiced his displeasure in an op/ed piece. He was not interested in humiliating or embarrassing a prosecutor.

But it didn't take long for Nathan Hennigan, our antagonist, to make himself known.

I am the "out of line" prosecutor. My name is Nathan Hennigan. Wice didn't want to call me by name, but I feel a necessity to respond, as most don't know who I am, due to his subterfuge, but I am proud to say,,. Brian Wice is an appellate attorney. He is a good appellate attorney, but he isn't a trial attorney. That is because he is not a likable person in the least. He actually reminnds me of the weasels from "Who Framed Roger Rabbit." Uncanny. What happened in the jury room is as follows...Dick Deguerin went on a 5 minute rant on what a psycho the complainant was. I wanted just to answer questions, but, I felt it was my duty to explain the truth. The truth was Michael Brown beat Darlina with a bedpost while she was 7 months pregnant. The truth was he is probably the worst person I've ever dealt with, (and that includes an MS13 Gang member I locked up for life). I offer no apologies to Wice, DeGuerin, or anyone else. I am proud to stand up for the Harris County District Attorney's Office and fight for what is right. Even if it isn't easy.

It's a shame that Mr. Hennigan couldn't have shown the same class that Mr. Wice did. Instead of a reasoned defense of his actions, Mr. Hennigan chose to resort to name-calling. He couldn't defend his actions so he attacked those who spoke against him. Mr. Hennigan is a true believer and he has gulped down the koolaid on the 6th floor of the Harris County Criminal (In)justice Center.

My colleague, Murray Newman, weighed in on Mr. Wice's op/ed piece yesterday. I like Murray. He's a good guy. I'd buy him a beer (or even give him one of my home-brewed brown or English ales). But Murray still has a place in his heart for the DA's office. I think there are times he loses a little bit of perspective -- and this one of them.

Mr. Wice pointed out a problem that we have been dealing with for years. It's a practice that's been allowed to continue because we haven't stood up and fought to change it. Jury members are exposed to the bias of the state from the minute they enter the Jury Assembly Room. Bailiffs make comments that cast aspersions on the defense. Judges conduct a voir dire that, in some cases, comes right out of the prosecutor's manual.  The citizen accused is not called by his name during the proceedings, he is labeled as "the defendant" in an attempt to dehumanize him. And then prosecutors do their bit after the verdict.

It all adds up to chipping away at the very presumption of innocence -- the only presumption you are allowed to make in a criminal courtroom. I don't know if Mr. Hennigan had "malice aforethought" before he spoke to the jurors. I don't know Mr. Hennigan. From what I've been told he's a nice guy. And I'm sure he is.

But just because he's a nice guy doesn't mean that he didn't do anything wrong.

We're at such a disadvantage from the beginning that the last thing we can afford to do is to allow the state to poison the jury pool any further. That's what Mr. Hennigan did. And that's what we've got to stop.

See also:

"A sore loser" Simple Justice (Sept. 29, 2011)