I am not a big fan of the Houston Chronicle, its agenda-driven biased editor, Jeff Cohen, or KPRC TV (Channel 2 in Houston); but I strongly support their First Amendment right to have access to a video surveillance tape which might document police misconduct.
Any limitation on the videotape's publication should be based strictly on the degree of graphic content and not political favor.......our Constitution would demand nothing less.
How can DA Pat Lykos explain her teaming up with the Houston Police Officers' defense teams in support of a protective order that hides the tape of an alleged HPD police brutality incident from the public?
1. Does the criminal defense bar really intimidate the Keystone Cops running the Harris County District Attorney's Office to that extent?
2. Perhaps Lykos does not appreciate the cultural differences between Houston and Los Angeles?
3. Could it be that Lykos' inexperienced crew is too afraid to try a high profile slam dunk case after the public videotape viewing?
4. The publicity of a public viewing would undoubtedly preempt a plea bargain.
Well whatever the case might be: "The Rule of Law", "Transparency", purging "The Culture of Corruption", etc. etc. is as meaningless to DA Pat Lykos' administration as it is to any other cartel.
The Chronicle's legal counsel, Joe Larsen, summarizes the issue quite well noting: "the videotape is indisputably the key evidence in the case and is a court record." Larsen went on to say, " It looks more to me this motion (the Lykos Protective Order) is to protect law enforcement more than the trial process."
The absurdity and blatant subterfuge by Lykos is succinctly spelled out by Larsen when he effectively points out that Lykos' argument that, "a public release of the videotape would prejudice the entire jury pool does not account for the fact that the jurors are going to see this whether they see it on the Web or see it when they are empaneled as jurors, and the impact will be the same."
Benjamin Hall, who is representing the alleged police brutality victim at the Civil courthouse, is not afraid of taking this matter to trial and neither should the Harris County District Attorney's Office.
Heck, even Clint Greenwood or a comparable first year law student could prosecute this whale and win.......so maybe DA Pat Lykos can bust her cherry and actually prosecute her 1st criminal case.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
Bust Lykos' cherry? EEEEEEEEwwwwwww
GRRRRRROOOOOOOOOOOOOOS!!!!!
Just sayin.....
KPRC really did a one two punch on Lykos tonight pointing out that an average Joe caught on surveillance tape comitting a crime doesn't get a motion filed on his behalf before the tape is spread to the media and then revealed Lykos' resume showing she worked as a police officer as she went through law school.
Just sayin,
Talk about censorship based on inflammatory graphic content...OMF'ingG!
The Judge has confused the 1st ammendment with the 1st commandment and believes: "I, Pat Lykos, am the Lord your God".
Inkman:
1) Lykos is scary not scared
2) The voters prefer experienced politicians over experienced prosecutors
3) Lykos is broken but you can't fix stupid.
BTW: character and integrity do not count in politics so you need a new angle if you expect to change things. Good luck.
I was involved in a case in the 90's where a plaintiff's attorney sought a copy of the defendant's confession in a high profile case where a social worker-with AIDS-allegedly sexual assaulted his 10 year old patient. The trial court ordered the Bexar County DA's office to turn over the statement to the Plaintiff's lawyer. DA mandamus-ed and the 4th COA sustained their objection, so right after the affirmance, the trial judge ordered a hearing on my Motion to Suppress and denied the Motion. Here is where it got interesting---the DA introduced the confession into evidence at the suppression hearing, thus making it a public record, and VOILA, it was public, and there is no precedent to stop it from being publicized after that.
Post a Comment