I need an explanation. I heard an ad where Kelly Siegler said she hadn’t lost a case in 7 years. That’s something she is proud of, but shouldn’t I be worried? It seems to me, a prosecutor takes on cases they will have difficulty winning, but that need to be before a judge. If she hasn’t lost a case in 7 years, what did she do to win? We have been dealing with prosecutors who are so full of themselves, they win at all costs. Johnny Sutton and Mike Nifong have been in the news this past year. I don’t want a prosecutor like those two. It sounds like Lykos is not a good choice. What is a voter to do?

AW– you’ll be happy to note that one of your earlier comments along these lines was a big part of why we asked AHCL to guest-blog on LST!

You raise good points, and AHCL has promised to respond to our readers’ thoughts as best they can, as they are able.

Stay tuned.

Do great litagators necessarily have the skills required to be good administrators?

Isn’t the DA basically the Managing Director (or head honcho, CEO, tai-pan,….)?

I am not thrilled by Ms Seiglar, Ms Lykos, or the Mr I-used-to-be-a-chief.

Of the three, only Ms Lykos can claim she did not have some passing knowlege or taint from the Houston Crime Lab scandal. I still feel that someone should have gone to jail on Federal Civil Rights charges.

I really don’t care if Ms Lykos is a meany. I am doubtful that there isn’t some bu## kicking needed at the prosecutor’s office. Being well liked is not essential for an effective manager, but being respected is ……

Simple

Simple, I work in a job where my manager has little understanding of what I do. It definitely has an impact on my ability to do my job, my productivity, job satisfaction, and the overall effectiveness of my entire department. I would prefer we have a DAs office with as little internal conflicts as possible.

Ultimately any choice is better than C.O. Bradford, the incompetent former Police Chief. Anybody associated with or chosen by Lee. P. Brown should give you an indication as to their abilities. So its ABB (Anybody But Bradford).

#4

duhmoose

I am with you on the unexperienced person on the job. I want someone in the DA’s office that can be civil to the employees and not be like Shelly S Gibbs and have the whole work force walk out on her. That last statement about SSG was sarcastic towards Lykos.

4 - duhmoose

One of the primary requirements of a good leader is a solid understanding of what your subordinates do and how they do it. The job of DA is not a job that we want to give to a politician - which is what Ms. Lykos is. Ms. Siegler may not be the perfect choice, but, given our options, she is overwhelmingly the best choice we have.

7. Sorry duhmoose, that should be addressed to #3 Simple. My bad.

AW

I need an explanation. I heard an ad where Kelly Siegler said she hadn’t lost a case in 7 years. That’s something she is proud of, but shouldn’t I be worried? It seems to me, a prosecutor takes on cases they will have difficulty winning, but that need to be before a judge

I think yet I am not sure that in Kelly’s case her cases were not chosen but were assigned to her. Unlike Rosenthal who got to pick and choose. If that is the case than saying she hadn’t lost a case in 7 years is a major attribute.

And what did she do to win ? She’s a major performer. Beds in the court room. Straddle dummies and stab them repeatedly. If she had prosecuted Jeffery Dahmer there would have been Barbecue grills fired up. I really think she puts her heart in her work.

I would assume that as a department manager, she did not try cases all that often, and instead spent much of her time supervising and administering the department, would it be safe to say the number of cases she has tried in the last 7 years has been relatively small compared to the rank and file prosecutors? If that is the case, I’m not sure that the statistic pointed out in the ad is all that relevant.

Kelly Siegler, 2003 Best Criminal Lawyer, Houston Press

Waiting at a red light, a Press editor hears honking coming from a truck in the next lane. The news type looks over and sees the face of the prosecutor he’d written about only days earlier. Kelly Siegler leans out her window and grins. “Pull over,” she says. “Pull over and I’ll kick your a$$.”

“Didn’t you like the story?” he asks.

“Yes,” she says, laughing. “Now pull over and I’ll kick your a$$.”

The Harris county DA’s office will lose a significant amount of talent and institutional memory should Pat Lykos be elected and will likely see a mass exit if Bradford wins. I say Siegler deserves a chance as DA and she is, undoubtedly, the best candidate in the race.

This past sunday, Ch 13 had a forum with all the candidates for the DA’s job. Some thin that Siegler said that I found to be particularly on point to some of the post here this morning. She said that doing justice for the people of the county was the priority. She explained that meant looking at all the evidence and getting good evidence so that a conviction can be secured that would not be overturned. She also said she would expect all her prosecutors to look at any and all evidence that was presented to the by the Defense attorney prior to a trial so that an innocent person is not put through a trial.

I found that interesting. That she defined getting justice for people by stating that it is not only getting convictions but getting all the facts investigated so the innocent are not prosecutes like ala Nifong or Sutton!

I also like the fact that she seemed to be the only only who did not refer to or acted like the DA’s job was simply a managerial job but as the top law enforcement position in the county. I think that there are times when the crime is so horrible or involves a high degree of corruption, that the DA should handle the Case them selves and it seems the Siegler is the only one who could do that if the need arose.

#10 Rorschach

Siegler has tried, as prosecutor, more than 150 criminal jury trials, 19 of which were capital murder/death penalty cases. Pat Lykos was a judge, a not very popular one, and as far as I know, has never prosecuted anyone in a criminal trial. In my book, that is a an enormous gap in skill and knowledge.

#12 - I watched that forum too and walked away with the conclusion that, by far, Siegler was the only choice. The other three candidates seems to have a deer-in-the-headlights look. With the intense scrutiny that will undoubtedly be placed on the DA’s office thanks to Chuckie she is the only one running that can handle the pressure while effectively running the office.

Couldnt you also put that story in context of the Presidential race? lol

So, what ever happened to Doug?

Moosie,

Line supervisors need to have good technical knowlege. Managers at higher levels do not. High level managers need to know how to pick the right line level supervisors.

There are a lot of successful CEOs out there that could not explain the nitty gritty of their businesses.

Simple

Doug got stuck in the toilet when he flushed while sitting on it; even though the sign says do not flush while sitting!

Do great litagators necessarily have the skills required to be good administrators?

Whether she’s a good administrator is still an open question. But we do know that she’s very, VERY good at the main function of a DA — prosecuting people. She’s the best in the business.

I haven’t seen anything that suggests that Pat Lykos is the best in the judge — or any other — business. Her list of accomplishments isn’t that inspiring, and her endorsements include a whole lot of *former officials.*

Well, I didn’t like what Joe Nixon and Jon Lindsay had to say when they were in office, and I sure as hell ain’t gonna listen to them now.

Simpleton, Good managers, at any level, need to be aware of the processes involved in their underlings work. Does the DA need to understand everything about the intricacies of each case? No, do they need to be able to understand what is going on if a case becomes high profile? Yes they do.

16 - simple -

She’s not gonna manage a manufacturing plant, it’s an office full of prosecuting attorneys. The Leader (far more accurate a description than administrator) needs to understand what her subordinates do, and in turn they have to respect her. I don’t believe Ms. Lykos can claim those qualifications.

Some times an endorsement can be a bad thing. The actions of the endorser shows the kind of judgement they have and where they are coming from. Like I would never want Lee. P. Brown’s endorsement because his judgement in the past has been flawed so who can trust him, I certainly don’t.

A lawyer driving a truck? Good enough for me…

Seriously though, Kelly Seigler is the only person who belongs in the race. Lykos was a judge and couldn’t even get re-elected to that job. Bradford presided over HPD during the crime lab debacle and still hasn’t publicly answered questions about how things got so bad under his watch. Who do you want running the DA’s office…an incompetent former cop, a former judge who couldn’t hang on to her job, or the widely recognized best prosecuting attorney in the state (possibly in the country)? Everybody keeps saying that being the best prosecutor doesn’t necessarily make somebody a good manager of the department. However, how could you possibly look at somebody like Lykos who can’t hang onto a job managing a coutroom and who was not highly regarded when she was a judge, and conclude that they would make a better manager than somebody who has been doing the job for 22 years and who has managed large trial staffs and managed people within the DA’s office already? The fact that the other prosecutors want Kelly is a huge sign to me…they know her…and they know what they want to see in a DA…if they want her…thats good enough for me.

It is amazing how C.O. Bradford jumped from, I believe, sargent to Police Chief but given the person making that choice, who was Lee. P. Brown, nothing amazes me about him. Now, he wants everyone to elect him from being a person with a law degree to District Attorney, I don’t think so!!!!! You had Brown help you then, you got nobody but your record to run on now so good luck you imcompetent fool. Least we forget, that K-Mart/street racing debacle happened under his watch. And for that he claims he didn’t know, well, you should have!!!!!!!!

You may find in the private sector really great managers/supervisors that don’t understand anything about what the company does. As one friend of mine put it, “all you have to know is who to kick and when”.

However, being around attorneys/lawyers a good bit of my adult life, very few are good managers/supervisors. If you can find a person that is a good attorney and a good leader/manager, you have solid 18K gold in a volatile market. You don’t sell that, you keep it!

You may believe that any good supervisor can kick the right person at the right time. I have not found that to be true in a department full of attorneys. They all believe they are the smartest person in the room and could go elsewhere for more money (and some probably could). They can smell incompetence and they will take advantage of it and make that supervisor’s life hell and make the department absolutely chaotic. That’s just the nature of the beast.

What they need is a leader they can respect. They need to respect this leader so the leader can teach and mentor them to be better at their job! An outsider cannot do that.

As a voter, I never was a Chuck Rosenthal fan for this very reason. (I did not respect him or believe he was a good leader, I never was sure that others within his office did either.)Chuck was a politician and those people just end up being a cancer to an organization before it is all over.

It seems that Siegler is talented in both the Court Room and the boss’ office. Why not keep that gold?

Simple

I work as a director of Engineering. I know a lot of engineers that can not manage, But I have never met an Engineering manager that could do a good job without first being an good Engineer. I expect it is the same in the D.A.’s office. The D.A. should be a good prosecutor.

12

How unexpected, A prosecutor that actually wants to look at all the evidence prior to going to trial so they are certain that the person being prosecuted is actually guilty.

24, Ree-C

It is my experience that good managers know WHO TO PICK AND WHEN….rather than who to kick and when.

Andrew Carnegie admitted that he never knew the first thing about how to make steel…but he knew people and how to judge their character.

The higher one goes in the feeding chain of management…the more important this ability becomes. People working at the line level often think it is essential for the boss to be able to “know” that person’s job, but if one thinks just a while about the various talents required in even the most modest sized company or government bureau, then it is fairly obvious how impractical it is for the boss (Manager/CEO/DA….)to know each and every job. It is more practical for the boss to be a good judge of his subordinate managers’s abilities and character.

Simple

Simple, I have never met a good manager that did not have a firm understanding of their business and the job duties of their subordinates.

trl3,

Oddly…I am in the same position. I have seen good engineers be terrible managers.

Bad engineers usually do make bad Engieering Managers for the same reasons that they made bad engineers.

I have never met an engineer that got to the mahogany corridors that did not have the requisite people and leadership skills for the post. At least none that lasted. I suspect most of them used their people skills far more than their engineering skills.

I don’t know about you..but that sort of thing wasn’t in my school’s course catalog for the engineering department.

Simple

Ok Simple Simon…I’ll bite. Tell me what evidence there is from the publically available information to suggest that Pat Lykos is better at that than Kelly Seigler? Prosecutors have to manage people as part of their job. They have to oversee the work of paralegals, they have to work with junior attorneys and mentor those below them. As they become more senior and move into management roles, they have to help select prosecutors to assist with cases, they have to negotiate with defense attorneys, and they have to oversee large staffs of support personnel. Those are all things that Kelly Seigler has had to do with increasing frequency for the last 22 years. If the people she has worked with and supervised in that role believe she is the best person to become their boss, that is a VERY strong endorsement to me.

What evidence is there that Lykos has similar abilities or experience? Her qualifications seem to be that she was a judge and has failed in several political campaigns for higher office. What has she done that should inspire me to believe that she would be a better manager than Kelly Seigler?

Take the parable and apply it to the presidential election…kinda fits there too!

The great majority of the posted comments are either purposefully misleading or are made from a lack of understanding of the concept of leadership and how a leader takes charge and administers a governmental unit. It doesn’t matter if it’s a small governmental office of filing papers and public documents or being the commander of a post or base, the traits of leadership are common in kind and differ only in degree.

The fact that Ms. Seigler is a reasonably competent trial lawyer does not inexorably result in the conclusion that she has the organizational skills, temperament, interpersonal and communication abilities to manage pubic assets and supervise well a large number of professional and non-professional staff. The analogy to flying a distressed airplane above in these comments is not an apt comparison and is reducing the discussion to absurdities.

What commanding a large governmental district attorney’s office requires is not a trial lawyer who can convince a jury that some antisocial character is guilty of a crime; virtually every good trial lawyer can do that. In fact, almost any prosecutor can pick up a file on Monday and be in front of a jury by Friday as an advocate for the state. I doubt if there’d be much argument from knowledgeable lawyers of that reality as well as the truism that of all forms of trial practice, criminal law is the easiest to practice. It is a repetitive process that operates within a fairly narrow set of parameters and the prosecutor’s jury arguments are essentially the same each time; tempered only by the variant facts.

I speak not from a lack of experience. Rather, I was a prosecutor and criminal court trial judge for several years. I’ve heard what has to have been virtually every competent and not-so-good argument and fact and law presentation during those years of experience in the field of law concerning persons charged with crimes. The administrative skills absolutely necessary to administer a multi-million dollar budget, supervise mid and lower level management personnel, preserve the unit’s public confidence and be a public speaking advocate for the organization with adult manner and dignity and without a hint of lack of integrity, demand a different orientation and skill set far, far removed from the courtroom. Thus, based on my personal experience and many years in the fields of operative law and its characteristics, the more appropriate analogy would be that of a successful all-professional, championship caliber football running back with a bagful of touchdowns and great catches on his resume’ who becomes a failure in changing to the coach’s role. It’s not merely rhetorical to ask: How often have we seen that inglorious flop?

Maturity, variations in experience, differing levels of service in local judicial government and policy making and those personal attributes, including never a hint of being associated with scandal,flowing from Pat Lykos’ more years in a courtroom than Ms. Seigler has as a member of the bar and being on all sides of the entire criminal process from the street cop to the appellate courts is inexorably more qualifying than the single and repetitive act of arguing a case to a judge and jury—irrespective of how successful that single act may have been. Mature lawyers, indeed, all amture adults, recognize that it is the breadth - rather than the length - of experiences in the field of criminal law that prepares an effective leader in the administration of a battalion of lawyers, a government bureaucracy, realtions with the courts, a huge budgetary process and a public advocate for the agency. Ms. Seigler is doubtless an excellent lawyer, but in the real world that, and nothing more, is exactly that; nothing more.

Moreover, I get the clear, unmistakable understanding that Ms.Seigler believes that it is the District Attorney’s job to “get convictions.” That is a troubling orientation. The rules of practice and ethics demand that it is the correct duty of the prosecutor–any prosecutor from a traffic ticket to the most serious felony– to, as the rules say: see that justice is done. It is most certainly the prosecutor’s duty to present the state’s case with all the vigor and fervor the evidence allows, that will achieve the end that justice is served. But to simply count the notches on a prosecutor’s criminal trial six-shooter as indica of possessing administrative qualities says way, way too little of the D.A. office. In fact, last Sunday, March 2nd, she lamented the fact that she has only a 95% rate of convictions rather than 100%. That shows, without legitimate challenge, that she views that job as one in which every person charged with a crime who refuses to enter a plea is, because of that fact standing alone, guilty. As a judge and colleague at the bar, I find that orientation to be abhorrent; not merely wrong or misguided. That attitude is much more of a danger to society than the ethical rules allow prosecutors. The fact is, and recent event have disclosed, that some totally innocent persons have been the recipient of Ms. Steigler’s 95% rate. Her job in the courtroom, and that of the D.A. on another floor of the courthouse or across the street, is to see that justice is done, If that means recognizing half-way through a trial that the D.A.’s office has been working with some bad information or is aware that a prosecution witness is not being truthful, it is her duty and pursuant to her oath of office, to go no further. Permitting known false testimony to go to the jury and upon which a guilty verdict is achieved is a gross breach of any prosecutor’s office. Thus, Ms. Seigler expressing dissatisfaction that she doesn’t have a 100% conviction rate says much about her, and none of it is good to this former prosecutor, judge and bar member.

I have supported Pat Lykos in the D.A. race because I am awre of her absolute dedication to constitutional principles and demands, an ability to view the D.A.’s office from a mangerial rather than a gun-fighter’s perspective, she has a budget to hire all of those she needs, and a sense of integrity that would have caused her to sweep clean the infestation of hubris and just plain wrong–perhaps even corruption, that has been a prominent part of the upper management of the D.A.’s office; a feature that could not have escaped the note of Ms. Seigler. To ignore evil is to condone it.

Too often when we elect someone to an offiice on the strength of cheerleading rather than real leading, we experience a sort of buyer’s remorse and say, too late, to oursleves:” What in the world were we thinking about?”

H.T. Schwartz, Lt. Col. USAF (ret)
Attorney at Law

#32: colonel Says: “Ms. Seigler expressing dissatisfaction that she doesn’t have a 100% conviction rate says much about her, and none of it is good to this former prosecutor, judge and bar member.”

It’s doesn’t sit well with me, either.

There are some issues to be addressed in the DA race. For one thing, Rosenthal was an enemy of gun owners and folks who use deadly force to defend themselves. Rosenthal seemed to go out of his way to prosecute a home owner who would use deadly force to defend themselves often causing a bankruptcy because of the high cost of a legal defense.
Which candidate is going to decline to prosecute Joe Horn?
Which candidate is willing to sign the ATF form 4 that allows honest Harris County citizens their God given right to own Class III firearms?

These are issues of concern to me.

32: Col. Schwartz,

Thank you sir for your post. I won’t say that you have completely convinced me, but I’m certainly going to reconsider my support for Ms. Siegler.

Col., that was indeed a great post.

The colonel has hit upon my concern. I want justice served. I want equal justice for all. If convictions come because of an inept defense attorney provided by the court, to someone who is innocent….. what good does that do? If convictions come, because the poor cannot afford high powered legal service, what good does that do? What good is justice when the evidence is kind of skimpy, but the crime is horrid, and the prosecutor pleas it out to something minimum? It’s not always about winning…. it’s about justice. I don’t want a hot-dog who sees this as his/her next step to be a hot-dog AAG. I am not saying Kelly Siegler has these traits, but I find it very odd she hasn’t lost a case in 7 years. Now, if she has only tried 4 cases, well thats understandable, but if she has tried 60 and not lost one…….. I’m scared.

and I should have added… hugs to you Colonel.

American Women

Maybe the question you should be asking is; is the no lose record due to the fact that she did her homework and did not prosecute those she believed to be not guilty because she took the time to examine all of the evidence instead of just trying to make a case?

# 34 Barry

I think it is the Sherriff or his appointed representive that signs of on class III weapons permits? Not the D.A.

#39 that’s a good point. After this past year with Nifong and Sutton, I have become aware of how important it is to choose the right person. This is a serious position. The DA has the cities money behind them to proceed with a case, and the citizen has to find the means to afford a defense. We have seen how devastating prosecution can be to families. It can destroy them. The innocent can find themselves bankrupt, trying to prove their innocence. I just need to be sure before I click the button, that I am picking the right person.

If you listen to what the candidates in this race are saying, it boils down to this question:

Do you think the office is in need of overhaul? or do you think that the problems relate to personal issues with the past DA?

Everyone in the race except Kelly Siegler wants to make changes to be more sensitive to defendants, to minority jurors, etc. God help us if the picture they paint is the true one.

Siegler is strongly supported from within the DA’s office, she has excellent experience and energy to be a strong DA.

I went with Leitner in round 1 because I think the HCDA’s office needs serious change. I still believe it needs change, but I also know that Lykos is a notoriously weak campaigner. Siegler has done a lot to distance herself from Rosenthal, who I never liked and never supported in any election. So i’m going with her this time around.

Let me also note for the record that I don’t think it’s the end of the world if somebody other than Siegler were to get the nomination. I don’t think the airplane analogy is good in that regard. It’s hard to significantly change the status quo in an office, and there’s a lot more than a single pilot flying that plane.

That said, Lykos is the weaker campaigner and thus the weaker candidate against Bradford. And that’s all I need to know to make my decision for Siegler.

Siegler is “goal oriented” and I’ll take that over a “politician” anyday. When certain departments such as the existing HPD is run by a politician like Chief Hurd justice isn’t served…”wheels are greased”.

Colonel,
I respectfully disagree with several of your assertions, first and foremost that Kelly is only a “reasonably competent trial lawyer”, which everyone knows is a vast understatement. I also disagree with your assertion that criminal law is somehow easier than other types of law. I respect your experience sir, but you clearly are unaware of the legwork that goes behind trial preparation in a criminal case. I think that anyone involved in criminal law would argue that point with you.
As for Kelly bemoaning her 95 percent conviction rate, she is speaking of her trial record. As a former judge and prosecutor, you are surely aware that it would be completely unethical for a prosecutor to proceed on a case where they a) didn’t believe the person was guilty; or b) don’t believe that they can prove that case beyond a reasonable doubt. That 95 percent that Kelly speaks of does NOT address those cases that she dismissed or would not take to trial. A prosecutor who has low trial stats is clearly not properly evaluating the cases taken to trial, and that serves no one.
If you didn’t care for my earlier analogy, let me try another one:
As a Colonel in the military, how would you feel if a promotion for General came up, and rather than fill the position with a career military person, they filled it with a civilian?
AHCL

#32 colonel

Your points on leadership and the duties of an officer of the court are well taken. However, there is nothing I have read, or been told by members of the Houston Bar, which offers any confidence Pat Lykos has the requisite skills, temperament or characteristics to perform the tasks and confront the problems you so ably enumerated.

None of us know whether Kelly Siegler will perform well in the hot seat of the DA’s desk, but given what I have seen and heard, I am willing to give her a chance at the job. I also believe the continued elevated scrutiny of the DA’s offfice will help drive out any latent Rosenthalism that may exist.

AHCL,

Why did you put Lietner in a blindfold?

While well-written and generally intelligent, I must strongly disagree with Colonel Schwartz’ comments.

First of all, his assertions that criminal law is the “easiest law to practice” is spoken like the true PI lawyer that he is. While criminal law may be easy to practice BADLY, many criminal cases are far more challenging and complex that a simple slip-and-fall or other tort case. Effective criminal prosecution is not a province for the faint of heart, and Col. Schwartz’ experiences 35+ years ago in the JAG notwithstanding, it requires both knowledge and skill. (If your sole experience with criminal law comes from the military, where most outcomes are predetermined, foregone conclusions, the assumption that criminal law is “easy” is understandable.) It most definitely is not.

Second, the Col. as well as other bloggers take issue with Ms. Siegler’s high conviction rate. This is the ultimate hyprocrisy, a complete double-standard, and once again reflects a deep mistrust and misunderstanding of our criminal justice system. The job of the prosecutor is to seek justice. That goes without saying for professional, experienced attorneys. Assistant DAs are ethically bound to dismiss or not file cases where they believe the defendant to be innocent. When Ms. Siegler states that she wishes her conviction rate was 100%, it is because she fervently, passionately, and ETHICALLY believes that the people she prosecuted were guilty. If she said anything different, it would beg the question why she proceeded to trial in the first place! Once a prosecutor makes the decision, as she is required to do by oath of office and in her discretion, that a defendant is guilty, then she is bound to pursue a conviction. And convictions of the guilty are the measure of a prosecutor’s success. A typical conviction rate for an effective prosecutor is around 90%. Kelly Siegler is far more than effective. She excels in every aspect of her job. The double-standard is that, if she had only a 75% conviction rate, you would be decrying her as ineffective!

Folks, wake up and smell the coffee. You’ve been watching too much TV if you think that innocent people go to prison all the time. Of all the websites, you would think that the readers of this one would be aware of the cutural and media biases at work, spreading propaganda against our criminal justice system. Like any enterprise run by human beings, it is not perfect, but its error rate is far better than what would be acceptable in other arenas that we hold to be important, such as medicine and airline safety.

Ms. Siegler is the best person to be the District Attorney of Harris County. Period, hands down, end of story. You do not WANT a prosecutor who is going to pursue only those cases approved by her political bosses, or one who is timid in the quest for justice. Her comments are totally understandable and should not be disturbing to anyone other than a criminal or liberal.

As for Col. Schwartz’ support of Lykos…it says a lot that his areas of practice (as listed on his website) are class action lawsuits and other forms of civil litigation. Ask anyone who handles criminal cases in Harris County what they think of Lykos. The opinions you get will be overwhelmingly negative.

Vote for Kelly Siegler in the April 8 runoff. You don’t play politics with justice.

AHCL,

Although I have supported Siegler, it is not with passion and based solely upon the recommendation of someone I trust. One of the many things that troubles me about her is something the Col. touched upon briefly:

the infestation of hubris and just plain wrong–perhaps even corruption, that has been a prominent part of the upper management of the D.A.’s office; a feature that could not have escaped the note of Ms. Seigler. To ignore evil is to condone it.

This is something I brought up earlier in the race which remains unanswered. Why didn’t she do something about the stuff she had to have known about? Her emails were searched and nothing published has indicated that she expressed even a hint of reservation about misdeeds in the office. The things that now everyone seems to want to reform.

Why?

I need to know more. How are cases assigned at the DA’s office? How many cases has she had in 7 years? What type of cases does she handle? How many of her convictions have been overturned? Where do I get this info?

BigJolly,
I was referring to Jim’s idea of unnecessarily handicapping prosecutors with his “no peremptories” idea. It was a comment on his idea, not on him.

Colonel, I will pose the same question to you that I did to Simon. What information can you point to that gives you the belief that Pat Lykos has the experience, skills, or ability to be a better manager than Kelly Seigler? All those posting in favor of Lykos seem to act as if Ms. Seigler’s recognized skill as a trial lawyer is somehow mutually exclusive with the ability to be a good manager of a team, while simultaneously making the unsupported assumption that Ms. Lykos’ experience as a judge, cop, and politician somehow automatically makes her more likely to be a good manager. Please give me some foundation for that assumption.

I think what some people are missing is that Kelly Seigler hasn’t operated for the last 7 (or 22) years as a lone ranger in the DA’s office. As a senior member of the office and on the DA’s staff, she supervises other people, she manages caseloads, she mentors junior lawyers, and she is responsible for making the decision to prosecute or not prosecute frequently. To me, that experience is invaluable…but more importantly, if she didn’t have the temperment or ability to be an effective manager, that would have become obvious in the last 7 years (or 22) and she would not have the support of her coworkers.

Mr. Spock–I am not the issue, neither is my complex civil litigation, antitrust and RICO- Not that it is of any monent–I haven’t been involved in a personal injury–hummm, let’s, that would———never! Disagree, that’s fine, but doing it be an ad hominem method aimed at the poster is inappropriate. Vote for whomever you please, but it should be based on adult reasoning, not childish pique.

Siegler worked for Rosenthal so it seems best to “clean house” and start a fresh with Lykos in the D.A. to avoid what happen to the lingering “crime lab” malaise when the crime lab did not clean break away from their past.

Its maybe like Segler is to Corbin Van Arsdale (”insiders”) as Lykos is to Allen Fletcher (”not part of the problem”).

#50 BJ

What do you think she should have done and how do we know she didn’t try ?

As to the e-mails, Kelly is obviously alot smarter than Chuck when it comes to communicating on government servers about sensitive internal problems. I’m not surprised there is no record.

BigJolly, Colonel:

I must take issue with your assertion:

“the infestation of hubris and just plain wrong–perhaps even corruption, that has been a prominent part of the upper management of the D.A.’s office; a feature that could not have escaped the note of Ms. Seigler. To ignore evil is to condone it.”

What EXACTLY are you referring to? A couple of insensitive emails? A few mistakes in judgment by one man, a man who happens to be in charge? Please explain, specifically, how you impute his errors to all of upper management, and then insinuate that there is “corruption” in the DA’s office? Neither Ms. Siegler nor any of Chuck Rosenthal’s other subordinates were in any position to know about or point out his failings. Employees typically do not lecture their employers about moral decisions. Ms. Siegler wasn’t around when Chuck got those emails, and she wasn’t in his office when he deleted the other emails, either. I challenge your smear, apparently fostered by too much reading of the Houston Chronicle, that there is some kind of rampant problem with corruption in the DAs office. There is not. The only problem was a civil lawsuit that got used as a political tool, aided and abetted by the media, to bring down a District Attorney they loathed.

Your comments are an insult to the 250+ fine, ethical attorneys who serve justice every day and is another shameful example of brainwashing by pop culture and the news media.

As a “senior” in the department, I assume that she would have been able to press change from within. I don’t know the specific grievance process of the DA’s office but surely there is one.

How do I know she didn’t try it? I don’t specifically. I only know that no efforts have been made public, that I am aware of.

Why would it be prudent to keep sensitive internal problems off of government, specifically DA, servers? Not sure I understand that one. Was/is the office more corrupt than I thought? Chuck’s stuff was personal, wasn’t it?

Mr. Spock,

I’ll turn the question back to you. Why are the candidates talking about change if nothing needs to be changed? Chuck is gone, no need to do more. Is that what you are saying?

There are 250 prosecutors or there abouts? Now, can you tell me how cases are assigned, and how many she has had in the past 7years?

ref: #58

sometimes company culture, “stockholm syndrome”, “good old boys club” blurs ethics and pubic responsibilty and accountability so just to proctect their “turfs” and circle the wagons

Mr. Spock,

From AHCL’s blog:

Kelly proposes an Innocence Panel made up of prosecutors, defense attorneys, investigators, community leaders, and former judges to review claims of actual innocence.

Now, feel free to attack me rather than answer the question (I’ve noticed that is a pattern of pro-Siegler commenters) but, if this is such an urgent need, did she do anything to further this cause before she became a politician?

You guys apparently view any question about her as an attack. (no, not you mr. texpat, I know what your position is)

C’mon now Big Jolly…you are talking about lawyers here. Every person in that office knows that anything you put in writing can and probably will show up in a court of law at some point. So when you have something sensitive that you want to discuss with somebody else, you go talk to them. Chuck obviously was dumb enough to do something stupid in the first place and then to try to cover it up by withholding emails, and he compounded his stupidity by having put his personal life into emails on the office computer.

Assuming that anybody was silent about those issues simply because there wasn’t a record of objections found in their emails is pretty naive.

I’m not attacking……. and Kelly Siegler will probably get my vote. I just need to know I’m doing the right thing. I have concerns. This isn’t a vote to take lightly.

Sorry, Colonel, but when you cite your “experience” in a practice area in an effort to give your opinion weight and credibility, you need to realize it is fair game to question it, especially when it appears you haven’t done any criminal work for the better part of 40 years. And I daresay none in Harris County. If I’m wrong, please tell me. No childish pique intended.

BigJolly,

I think anyone familiar with the DA’s office and criminal court system would acknowledge that some changes need to be made. Plea negotiations need to be standardized more and a lot more leadership needs to be given to an office that essentially has been rudderless for quite some time. I am not disputing that. But to imply some widespread corruption is not just ill-informed, it’s wrong.

To No. 62 above:

I’m not sure what Ms. Siegler intends with this Innocence Panel so I can’t speak for her, but I do know that Chuck rejected any form of outside review. I believe Ms. Siegler is simply trying to reassure the community that the right thing is being done down here. I doubt she put it forward before because only recently has the climate of fear and distrust been so bad, and Chuck didn’t see the need for it. She wants to regain the public confidence. What’s wrong with that?

Bill F., I don’t believe that I’m all that naive. What the heck is so sensitive about solving problems in the DA’s office? I assume we aren’t talking about innocent people purposefully being sent to prison.

Note that I said “public”. So, all of these attempts at change are private and so sensitive that naive citizens cannot be trusted to hear them?

I am going to have to go with Kelly Seigler on this one. Having worked in the same organization as Chuck is NOT a dis-qualifier.

While being an outstanding Prosecutor does not necessarily mean one will be a good D.A. I do think that someone that is a good prosecutor has a better chance of being a good D.A. than a former Judge with a reported mean streak.

Mr. Spock:
As William Buckley was quoted as saying: “I will not insult your obvious intelligence by suggesting that you really believe what you just said.”

American Women #64

Asking questions when you are unsure of a candidate’s qualifications is as American as it gets. More people should try it instead of just following name recognition or a pumped up crowd. Keep asking until you are sure.

Mr. Spock,

I agree with most of what you are saying… but if I might, allow me to suggest your emotions are a little too evident than is necessary.

Everyone here, especially LST contributors, are supportive of law enforcement and very aware of liberal media bias and the agendas of certain community “agitators”.

My point is, not every concern expressed about the potential for “overzealous” prosecution or wanting to excise “Rosenthalism” (nice, texpat) is a liberal attack… we are conservatives, and want our government to operate efficiently and in accordance with the highest standards of ethics… folks aren’t accusing, their just raising concerns.

You seem to have a lot of facts at hand… my friendly advice is to ease back and simply share your perspective, so that others might be persuaded.

Logical, no?

Mr. Spock,

If you think that it is only recently that the DA’s office has been distrusted, I’d say you haven’t gotten out of your office much.

You have characterized her as a senior leader in the department. When did she first recognize the problems that she herself wants to correct? Did filing for office open her eyes?

Sheesh, now I’m arguing solely because you guys attacked a simple question. Like I said, I trust the guy that says she’s right for the job.

Colonel,

Thanks for the quote. I like it. Hmmm…do I admit being dumb or admit being a liar? I think I’ll go with (c) None of the Above.

David,

Understood. I’ve popped some chill pills and I’m ready to reason with you. Live long and prosper.

#58 BJ

Bill F in #63 touched upon what I meant about the e-mail records. If I were Kelly and thought my boss was doing something to jeopardize the office, I would quietly approach him and try to suggest he stop doing it. Failing that, I would probably try to get a close friend or associate who has his ear to convince him to change his behavior.

I would not e-mail him directly about it nor would I e-mail anyone about the subject except on a privately owned e-mail channel. I probably would not put anything about it in writing at all.

I found this at Law.com, and it speaks well of her. It’s impressive.

Kelly Siegler
Assistant district attorney, Harris Co., Texas
Kelly Siegler is known as a giant-killer in Texas, having won high-profile prosecutions against some of the state’s best known, and most highly regarded, defense attorneys. Siegler began her career with the prosecutor’s office in Houston 15 years ago. Since then, her felony conviction rate at trial is 95 percent, and the wins include the convictions of clients of top-flight defense attorneys Richard DeGuerin, Joe Bailey, Stanley Schneider, Mike DeGuerin and George Parnham. She handles only big cases — she’s tried 13 capital murder cases and won death penalty verdicts in 12.

76

Thanks for that post. It does indeed speak highly of her.

Anyone that believes Seigler should have openly challenged her boss if she was aware of a couple of inappropriate emails is not living in the real world.

Anyone that publically challenges the authority or manner in which his/her boss conducts business better have a new job lined up.

From KHOU

Hollywood loves a good courtroom drama, but if you want to see real legal drama, head to the Harris County courthouse and watch Kelly Siegler in action.

She is a feisty, fire-breathing prosecutor who believes you can’t be too slick or too smooth with a jury. Read on

http://www.khou.com/topstories/stories/khou071128_ac_prosecutorsiegler.49e70f21.html

trl3, that’s about the third time you’ve hit the nail right on the head! Amen. I know of very few employees who police their bosses emails and personal lives.

BJ,

What I meant was that the claim that not having record of objections to how the department was run in her emails doesn’t mean she didn’t dispute or disagree with some of the things her boss might be doing. As tex said above…if I were in her shoes and had problems with what my boss or coworkers were doing, I would tread very carefully in how I approached trying to makes changes.

Keep in mind that most everybody with a job and a boss has something they disagree with their boss about. Some people raise hell and try to change what is ultimately out of their control…and others simply put their efforts into doing their own job as well as they can, with the hope that they will set a good example for those around them. I don’t know the ins and outs of what went on in the DAs office anywhere near as well as many of the others posting here. What I do know is that nobody has posted anything of substance to make me think Kelly Seigler would be a bad manager of the DA’s office.

The arguments against Kelly mainly seem to be 1) that she is a good lawyer which doesn’t automatically mean she will be a good manager and 2) she has been working there for a while and hasn’t gotten herself fired or resigned fighting with her boss over how the department is run (and therefore must be just as corrupt as her former boss was). There is nothing of substance that I can see to make either of those arguments compelling to me. With regard to #1, there hasn’t been anything substantive posted by anybody that suggests she would be “bad” as a manager, while the claim that she has the support of her coworkers is fairly compelling evidence that those who know her (and the department) best think she WOULD be a good manager. With regard to #2, I think that is the worst form of smear tactic and it unfairly calls into question the integrity of every attorney working in the DA’s office. If simply working in the DA’s office during Rosenthal’s term in office makes one likely to be corrupt or somehow a party to the things Rosenthal was eventually fired for, then why aren’t we talking about a mass firing of the DA’s office? Lumping Kelly (or any other senior prosecutor) in with Rosenthal as corrupt simply because they worked under him is unfair, and in the absence of actual evidence of wrongdoing is something that should be seen as baseless smear tactics of the type typically employed by somebody working for Hillary Clinton.

On the other hand, there are numerous people who would be in a position to know, who characterize Pat Lykos as less than personable on the bench or possessing a “mean streak” towards those she works with (which is generally not a great trait to have in a manager). If somebody with firsthand knowledge wants to refute that claim, I would gladly listen attentively.

Dangit…just realized I have been spelling her name wrong all this time. Nobody really wants to see me write Siegler 100 times do they? Ok thanks…didn’t think so…

#82 Bill F

That’s okay about the spelling…Kelly will probably just kick your - see #11.

texpat,

I’m not talking about her telling Chuck and her husband to stop with the racist emails.

I’m talking about the change that she says needs to be done. That is certainly and absolutely something you would talk to your boss about, especially via email so that you would have a record of it. IF you wanted change.

Happens everyday in every office in the world.

One of my questions about her has been answered by my earlier post. She has gone up against the toughest, highest paid lawyers in Houston and won…. not just the lawyers poor people can afford. Good to know. Now, I want to know how many of her convictions have been overturned. Is there anywhere I can get that info?

trl3,

What about new direction? Suppose, as indicated by BillF and Mr. Spock, nothing needs changing at the DA’s office except direction.

Why would you not, as a subordinate, recommend these changes to your boss? Do you just want to leave him hanging in the wind so that you can take his place? Do you not think change is necessary but are now running for office and see that the public demands it?

That’s what I’m asking. I don’t care about Chuck and her husband emailing pictures about fried chicken.

I want to know why, if she is as effective a supervisor as her peers are saying, she didn’t initiate these changes prior to running for office.

Bill F,

What I meant was that the claim that not having record of objections to how the department was run in her emails doesn’t mean she didn’t dispute or disagree with some of the things her boss might be doing.

Dude, if that’s the way it runs at the DA’s office, where everyone is scared to tell their boss that they think he is wrong, it says a heck of a lot about the mentality of the ADA’s, Siegler included.

If Rosenthal was the type to fire people that objected to him, where is the public record of that? Or did he just intimidate with his looks? Amazing.

Challenging your boss is stupid. But there is absolutely nothing wrong with and everything right about telling your boss your opinion, especially if you believe that it is the right thing to do. And again, I’m talking about the “change” that Siegler now proposes, not about Clusterchuck emails and kisses behind the ear.

Are the ADA’s so weak that they cannot do that?

American Woman,

The only recent convictions Kelly Siegler has had reversed on appeal are related to the capital murder-for-hire of Farrah Fratta. Two of those have been reversed, one at the federal level (meaning it survived state appeals scrutiny) on highly dubious technical grounds. While I am not certain, I believe the basis was the admission of certain statements into evidence, and the federal judge involved (Vanessa Gilmore) has a reputation for making some strange decisions, to put it nicely. There is little dispute as to the guilt of the three men who conspired to murder Farrah Fratta, and I know of no case of Ms. Siegler’s involving the “actual innocence” of any defendant (apologists for Dror Goldberg and Mark Temple notwithstanding!) She gets convictions against guilty defendants in challenging cases, where evidence trails are cold and sometimes the case seems to hang by a thread.

So, although I have no specific stats on her appellate reversals, I can tell you that her opponents would be making more of an issue out of it if she had lots of reversals, as that can be indicative of various problems that Kelly Siegler does not have.

Thank you Mr. Spock, another question answered. I feel better by the minute.

Bill F,

Good grief. You cite two “arguments” against Siegler, neither of which are accurate.

Regarding #1, texpat himself has offered up the best argument. Stars rarely make good managers. Your evidence to counter that has been anecdotal about her teamwork and the fact that numerous ADA’s are supporting her. Go back to your argument about never disagreeing with your boss and I think I can see why. If all ADA’s are as weak spined as you suggest, no wonder they support her. If she gets elected, and they have spoken out against her, my, my, she might not treat them nicely.

Your #2 is just as bad. To refute it, just show me where she has said publicly or through whatever system they have at the DA’s office, that “change” needed to occur prior to her becoming a politician. That should be easy enough.

And then, to cap your argument, you say that Lykos is “mean”. Well, by golly. You got me. She’s mean. This from a supporter of a person whose main claim to fame is that she was almost, almost