I heard Pat Lykos‘ radio ad today for the first time.
She continues her strategy of offering nothing appealing about herself, but just taking potshots at the clearly more qualified Kelly Siegler.
Lykos has another voice doing the talking for the majority of the commercial, so I guess, technically, it isn’t actually Lykos misleading the public this time.
The ad yammers on about the Rosenthal Administration, and refers to Kelly as Rosenthal’s “Top Lieutenant”.
Um, that’s not true. Bert Graham, as First Assistant, would have been Chuck’s “Top Lieutenant”, but I think we’ve clearly established by now that Lykos isn’t really all that big on acknowledging the facts.
For those of you interested in the truth, Kelly has been the Bureau Chief of Special Crimes for a couple of years now. She handles things like Cold Cases, Major Fraud, and the extremely violent offenders. It’s the elite branch of trial lawyers within the Office, kind of like the legal equivalent of the Navy SEALS.
Lykos (through her spokesman) then states that Kelly admitted “tainted” evidence that got a murder case reversed.
That’s about as disingenuous of a statement that a desperate candidate can make, because Lykos is relying on the general voting community being unfamiliar with legal procedure to make it sound as if Kelly engaged in some sort of misconduct, which she clearly didn’t.
For those unfamiliar with criminal procedure, in almost every criminal case where a Defendant’s statement (commonly referred to as a “confession”) is intended to be admitted as evidence, there will be a hearing to determine the admissibility of that statement. The State of Texas (in this case, Kelly) has to put on evidence outside the presence of the jury to a judge, and show that procedure was followed. The defense will then argue that the statement is inadmissible.
Ultimately, it is the trial judge who decides whether or not that statement is admissible.
In the case that Lykos is attempting to mislead the public about, the trial court ruled that the statement was admissible. The jury heard it. The jury convicted.
Upon appellate review, the Higher Courts decided that the trial court had erred, and they reversed the case. That’s not entirely unusual, because, as I’ve pointed out before, the Appellate Courts change their rulings and modify the shape of laws on a daily basis. It doesn’t mean that anybody did anything wrong. Courts just overrule each other on occasion.
When the trial court admitted the Defendant’s confession, the Judge did so based on her findings on the facts and the law.
The judge wasn’t stupid.
Lykos is just hoping that the voters are.
[Cross-posted from my personal blog]
Filed Under Front Page ·
Comments
45 Responses to “Lie-kos she has to”Search
Our Sponsors
Poll
Loading ...LST Book Club
-
Defending Identity: Its Indispensable Role in Protecting Democracy
by Natan Sharansky -
Fear No Evil
by Natan Sharansky -
The Case For Democracy: The Power of Freedom to Overcome Tyranny and Terror
by Anatoly Shcharansky -
The Jewish State: The Struggle for Israel's Soul
by Yoram Hazony -
Bobos in Paradise: The New Upper Class and How They Got There
by David Brooks -
Snobbery: The American Version
by Joseph Epstein -
A Conflict of Visions: Idealogical Origins of Political Struggles
by Thomas Sowell
Lykos is a failure in many jobs just trying to get a tax payer supported paycheck.
Kelly Siegler on the other hand works for her constituents and earns her keep. My vote goes to Kelly
Perhaps “Lie-Kos” should be the proper spelling.
She’s been trying to feed at the public trough too long.
Maybe I’m a little confused, but wasn’t it Kelly’s (doctor) husband that exasperated the entire e-mail foley that led to the departure of her boss? Perhaps she had no idea her boss and her husband were on such close terms…but I doubt it. Not sure what that means, but it kinda bothers me. On the other hand,I served on a jury in Pat Lykos’s court several years ago and felt she did an excellent job of maintaining order while upholding the respect due to all in her court. I liked the way she conducted business and felt assured that justice was her goal. I’m still trying to figure this thing out.
wfish
It was Kellys husband however Kelly might not have known about the emails. Kelly has been in charge of the major crimes unit of the DA’s office and is a real go getter. She is known to look as deep as possible into a case before she does anything. If she doesn’t believe a perp is guilty she tends to try to get it resolved in another manner.
Lykos on the other hand could not keep her seat on the bench, has no prosecutors experience and recently ran for aa different office with no success. She’s job shopping at the tax payers expense.
I’m really just confused because a very good friend is an assistant DA and he said we should vote for Lykos…so I did in the general election. Now I don’t know.
Dov
Thanks for the input, but to say she didn’t know what was going on between her husband and her boss sounds a bit like Oboma attending the same church for twenty years and not knowing what his preacher was talking about. Something just dosen’t sound right about that.
Who does Dan say we should vote for?
I seem to recall that Mr. BJ is afraid of Ms. Siegler because he read in the paper that she is an aggressive prosecutor.
Dan tells people to use their minds.
I do have reservations about Ms. Siegler. And I don’t like the negative campaigning.
But she is far and away the most qualified and I like her passion and the way she defends the office. I’ll be voting for her.
You?
Big, who is Dan raving about while he tells us to use our minds?
Dunno, haven’t heard him. I think he’s on a boat to China. And I damn sure don’t listen to Pat Gray.
HC lawyer said “because Lykos is relying on the general voting community being unfamiliar with legal procedure ”
Where have I seen that tactic used before?
It remains to be seen whether the more qualified candidate (Siegler, in my opinion) is viewed “guilty by association” by the voters
wfish
I don’t know if she knew or not however I know that my emails are not made known to anyone unless I want the share it. And I do know that anything that we “guys” joke about do not get shared with any of my now exes.
Leaving that aside I still think Kelly is far more qualified for the post of DA. There are several people on here who have been in her court room while she was prosecuting a case and not one speaks ill of Kelly. She does get theatrical at times in the court yet she feels the jury would rather see the incident than see a drawing of it.
my $.02 worth
Dov
Is Kelly’s husband now her “ex”? Hadn’t heard that. That would make a diiference between “husband/boss” and “boss/ex”. Still confused.
wfish
No Kelly is still married to the Dr. I meant my exes. I would not have shared my email with them when we were together
Dov
No offence, but that’s probably why they are your exes.
Well wfish, I think it’s absurd of you to expect two guys telling jokes and being guys, to share their experience with a wife. Unless of course, you are one of husbands who needs to know every minute of every day, when, where and what, is going on. We have gone over Siegler’s knowledge and ability. Lykos is the politician…. Siegler is the successful attorney. I vote Siegler. Don’t worry about Lyko’s a determined politician will find another race, she won’t be gone too long.
# 17
Actually one was killed, one just recently died, one we tried 3 times and she got hung up on drugs, one tried to clean me out while I was having open heart surgery, one is now my best friend. The rest are just gone.
Due to my work habits ( close to a workaholic) I’m not the easiest person to put up with. That and life home alone for a married woman whose husband stays on the road was hard on them.
I had no reason to share or not share. Just didn’t
AW
Somehow,two guys sharing guy things is somewhat different than a husband and a boss sharing as you put “being guys”
Wouldn’t work for me.
#19
Sorry for your loses. Been married to mine for over 40 years and attribute that to sharing almost everything.
#18 — Up until two years ago my parents shared EVERYTHING. They didn’t feel they HAD to but they WANTED to. I think that’s a key to a good marriage is complete honesty. Obviously it doesn’t help when one spouse loses their mind and begins hiding everything but then again we wouldn’t have known something was wrong if we hadn’t known that before he shared everything. That doesn’t make a lick of sense but I just meant I could understand what wfish was saying.
If Kelly Siegler’s husband is on the ballot, I am definitely voting against him.
We need a talented, experienced prosecutor for DA… not a doctor.
Thinking about it. They were sharing racist jokes and porn. I don’t think either one would be proud enough of that to say, “Kelly come here look at this porn. Gee are the racist jokes good ?”
My racist jokes are shared by my exe/now best friend. They are all 100 % joo jokes but we heebs can laugh at ourselves.
#22 David
Or an exe judge with no experience in the DA.s position. Or an Ex Policeman who all but destroyed HPD.
Well if bigjolly’s voting for her then she must be liberal, right?
I’ve got to prank with Mr. BJ every chance I get. I want the meanest bulldog lawyer we can get in the DA’s office, and Ms. Siegler looks (or at least acts) pretty darn mean. I want someone who can prosecute Johnny Satan if they ever get the chance and win. Kelly’s obviously the lady for the job.
Let’s see…if Kelly’s husband was on the ballot, we wouldn’t vote for him; if Hillary’s husband was on the ballot, we wouldn’t vote for him; if Obama’s preacher was on the ballott, we wouldn’t vote for him. Luckily for us,none of these folks are on the ballot. I’m glad to know who I will NOT vote for….just wish I knew who I will
vote for.Still working on that.
wfish, I was in your dilemma two or three weeks ago. LST provided some great threads on this subject with a lot of information. Maybe you could search past weeks, and read some of that. It sure helped me.
AW
Thanks. I’ve been trying to keep up with it and will go back as you suggested. I’m doing the best I can….just hope thats good enough.
I did my best
But I guess my best wasn’t good enough
‘Cause here we are back where we were before
Seems nothing ever changes
We’re back to being strangers
Wondering if we oughta stay
Or head on out the door
Just once can’t we figure out what we keep doing wrong
Why we never last for very long
What are we doing wrong
Just once can’t we find a way to finally make it right
Make the magic last for more than just one night
If we could just get to it
I know we could break through it
wfish
If HAL will let it through. Try these urls
http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1052440856391
http://www.khou.com/sharedcontent/advertising/interstitial/index-khou.htm?fw=http://www.khou.com/topstories/stories/khou071128_ac_prosecutorsiegler.49e70f21.html
wfish
Try ask/search on Kelly Siegler. Quite impressive. Cmon HAL Koff it up
Maybe HAL will let one through
http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1052440856391
Sorry for the duplicate links. HAL finally spit out # 30
A Harris County Lawyer
It is obvious that you are one of the “Friends of Kelly”, a member of her inner circle.
You say that in the ad Lykos offers nothing appealing about herself, if you listened, the ad says she has spent her life protecting the people of harris county as a police officer, tough lawyer and criminal court judge and a leader on the Governor’s task force to stop violent sexual predators.
As for the tainted evidence: The reference is to the Guidry and Fratta cases, both cases were reversed because a confession was obtained by deceit, hence tainted evidence. In the opinion the Judge even said the officers “blatantly violated Guidry’s rights”. The court found that the deputies lied. Siegler simply failed to thoroughly investigate and prepare her case; that’s called incompetence.
As far as Lykos hoping the voters are stupid, come on. I seem to remember Siegler slurred the entire congregation of Lakewood by calling them “screwballs and nuts”. Seigler also advocated unethical conduct in the courtroom, in a lecture to law students at South Texas School of Law. She says so what if an objection is sustained, it’s already in the jury’s mind. She even tells them “forget all the lawyer BS”.
The voters made it clear in the primary that they wanted someone from outside the office to run the office, 59% of the voters didn’t vote for Siegler. New blood is needed in the office; even the Governor thinks so with the appointment of Magidson.
New blood is no guarantee of healthier blood, and we all know what happens when we receive tainted blood.
For me it comes down to the question of whether we want a career prosecutor or a career politician to run the DA’s office. All the rest of the squabbling is just extra nonsense. My personal opinion is that we already have enough career politicians feeding at the taxpayer trough, and therefore, I want a professional prosecutor running the DA’s office. There is only one professional prosecutor in the race, and it isn’t Lykos or Bradford.
Txhawk,
If 59% of the vote indicated that they wanted someone from outside the Office, then clearly 69% indicated that they didn’t want Lykos. I covered this kind of “fuzzy math” on my website:
http://harriscountycriminaljustice.blogspot.com/2008/03/pat-lykos-fuzzy-math.html
As for me being a friend of Kelly, of course I am, just as you are clearly a friend of Lykos. And I’m proud to be a friend of Kelly. She is, without a doubt, the greatest prosecutor that I’ve ever seen in action. The thought of a person at the head of the Office who has LESS TRIAL EXPERIENCE than a rookie prosecutor fresh out of law school is appalling.
In my opinion, Houston has the opportunity to have the Joe Montana of prosecutors leading the Office, and the media and Pat Lykos seem to be doing everything that they can to tear her down. It’s very counter-intuitive.
You clearly aren’t a lawyer, because confessions, under the law are often times obtained by deceit. They just can’t be coerced. A cop is still within their rights to mislead a Defendant, even if that is distasteful to the general public. For instance, a police officer can legally tell a Defendant “you know, your co-defendant has already told us you did it”, even if it isn’t true. That’s how the case law currently stands. Like I said in my article, the case law changes all the time.
In regards to Kelly’s “screwballs and nuts” comments and whatever is on that South Texas tape, it is unfortunate, but Kelly has apologized for it. I find the history of Pat Lykos’ dishonesty, temper, and civil rights violations to be far more disturbing than anything Kelly has ever done.
You can read about those here, if you want:
http://harriscountycriminaljustice.blogspot.com/search/label/Pat%20Lykos
And yes, Rick Perry appointed Ken Magidson, which I thought was a smart idea. If you want to read why I thought it was a smart idea, you can read it here:
http://harriscountycriminaljustice.blogspot.com/2008/03/guardian-cometh.html
Are Siegler and district judge Caprice Cosper sisters? Saw her on TV and man they sure look alike.
Seems Siegler has the upperhand and advantage with “a harris county lawyer” having a forum here at Lone Star Times.
So far Siegler’s “minions” have not made a very convincing “case” why Siegler should be nominated.
Nor has Lyko.
With the “Earle-Nifong-Sutton” cloud still floating around, there is a leery and uneasiness of any prosecutor or public defender who is aggressive and egotistic instead of being responsive and responsible.
LTC - If Siegler “minions” haven’t made a case I’d be interested to know who you think would make a good DA. From what I saw in the primary she made the other candidates look like rank amateurs. And Braford, good grief, I’d be a better DA than that bozo.
Hamous,
No, Cosper and Siegler aren’t sisters. Where did you see Cosper on TV? She’s in a race of her own this year (although uncontested in the primary). She’s drawn an opponent who is a traffic court judge. Big jump from traffic court to trying capital murders, if you ask me. Cosper also had the highest approval rating in the Judicial Bar Poll by quite an impressive margin.
LTC, as to the case for Siegler:
What more can you say about a person who has been recognized as one of the best trial lawyers in the country, and has never let the temptation of more money draw her away from public service. She has done her job extremely well for 22 years now.
I’ve posted my personal reasons for why I admire Kelly before, but in case you missed it, this is what I wrote about her right before the March 4th election:
http://harriscountycriminaljustice.blogspot.com/2008/03/heroes.html
AHCL - It was a news story on a drug court she’s been involved with. Looks like they’ve been having some success with the program.
LTC
“So far Siegler’s “minions” have not made a very convincing “case” why Siegler should be nominated.”
Kelly has a very high prosecution success rate yet Kelly looks at each and every case to determine the facts and the probability of guilt.
Kelly would not take on a case she did not BELIEVE in. Kelly has demonstrated she wants JUSTICE.
As said earlier. “If I were innocent I would prefer Kelly be at the lead. She would dismiss the case. If I were guilty please do not let Kelly prosecute me” My A$$ would be in deep trouble.
“So far Siegler’s “minions” have not made a very convincing “case” why Siegler should be nominated.”
See above
It may be a question of “electability” as well as “qualification”
Siger may find it difficult to go against the political fodder directly and indirectly that the democrats and the press have on her by being so close to the situation (ie Dr Sam Siegler, etc) and some of the “behavior” of a few Assistant D.A. (ie calling Kartina evacuess “NFL”, “Canadian” etc.) while she was there.
She may win the “battle” to be nominated but can she win the “war” of being elected when Republican unity is very fragile and the Democrat enthusiasm is very intense.
I’m not anyone’s “minion” but I count myself as a Siegler supporter. I wrote about it in depth last time I visited here but here’s a few things to consider.
Siegler is the only one in the race to have been a prosecutor. Even setting aside her talent in the field, can either of her opponents lay claim to trying a single case, either as a prosecutor or a defense attorney?
Siegler has supervised a number of attorneys, successfully at that, making a few upset when they proved; incompetent, unwilling to put in the time & energy needed to do their jobs, or otherwise wanting a free ride on the taxpayer dole. Lykos has supervised a few clerks, meriting negative attention from one of her biggest supporters when he recently pointed out her communication skills needed a lot of work. Bradford’s claim to fame in supervising a large organization is such that no one needs mention the horror stories he left behind in his wake.
Siegler’s opponents have done their very best, with the support of the Chronicle’s heavily slanted coverage, to portray her as tied to Rosenthal when there are a number of facts contradicting this. That’s all they have and it will wear thin between now and November. Bradford’s scandals are overwhelmingly terrible and Lykos has such a negative history, not as a “tough lawyer” but as an impotent political hack, that as her history becomes more publicly known, she is even more vulnerable in a general election (rights violations, pandering, and a history of outright lies).
Taking AHCL and Txhawk’s math one step further, I remind everyone that the undervote on the Democratic ticket was almost half the vote, indicative of Bradford’s vulnerability even among his own political party. The April 8th runoff numbers will be an important indicator if either of them has what it takes to win but the one with the least personal baggage is Siegler by far.
Siegler is the only candidate running for the office to have proposed actual structural changes in the way things are done that make sense for all parties too. Contrast that with Lykos whose biggest ideas are for things outside of her span of control. I don’t know about the rest of you but when a politician running for office promises things they don’t have the power to fulfill, I hold onto my wallet and sleep with one eye open. Siegler’s changes will save money and manpower while the only thing Lykos will bring is her patronage hatchet to fire anyone she finds having contributed to her opponents.
So, on 4/8 your choice is an experienced prosecutor with minimal skeletons in the closet that knows the office, everyone in it, and is a fairminded person that has dedicated her entire professional career to prosecution or a politician tht has unsuccessfully run for a series of offices she was unqualified for and did not have the temperment to work in.
Pick Siegler or get what you deserve…