The Matlock Blog

Scooped?

There are really only about three things I can claim to do very well, and needless to say, investigative reporting is not one of them.  Of course, that doesn't mean I can't scoop the famed Fort Worth Star-Telegram.  

I recently reported posted about Robb Catalano running for Criminal District Court Number 3.  I posted this about 10 days after I knew about it.  The Star-Telegram reported it two days later.  After me.  Coincidently, I was in court the next week and heard about how the Star-Telegram called him up to interview him about his run.  Apparently, they were embarrassed that they had not known about it sooner.  They found out about it from "some legal blog."  Their words, not mine.

So I know the Star-Telegram has fallen on hard times lately.  With budget shortfalls and early retirements, there are many that fear Fort Worth's newspaper will go the way of the presumption of innocence.  (Get it?  That was a joke.)

I would like to think however that no matter how bad things get down at Amon Carter's newspaper, there would still be at least a modicum of journalistic integrity.  I mean is that too much to ask?

So with that said, can I at least get a cite?  I mean any sophomore journalism student knows to cite your sources, even if you developed a lot after the fact, right?  

With that said, I'm hoping to one day open up the Star-Telegram and see a story coming out of the Justice Center, and at the bottom there be a cite to "Some Legal Blog."  I'll take what I can get, I guess.

But what the hell do I know?

Tarrant County on track for new felony district court

So it appears the criminal courts of Tarrant County are about to grow my one.  

Senate Bill 1553, which has passed the full Senate and now sits in House Committee, calls for the creation of five new district courts in Texas.  In addition to the Tarrant County court, it calls for the creation of a general district court for Denton County and a new criminal district court, juvenile district court, and civil district court in Bexar County.

The Tarrant County court would be named the 432nd District Court.  It's creation of course raises some questions.

The first is that the bill, as worded, goes into effect on September 1, 2009 if passed.  If that's the case, that means the governor would be in a position to appoint someone to the bench until the next election.  As a result, the question becomes who get's the spot?  

There are certainly a number of people that would like to be on the bench.  However, the new court may not be the only felony court in play next year.  I have it on pretty good authority that at least one incumbent will not run again, and that number might increase by as many as two before it's all said and done.   Once I've got more info, of course I'll be back to handicap the field for not only the new court, but the other open benches that might be up.

The other question is where will this court go?  I assume the Auxiliary Court would be replaced by the new court on the Sixth Floor of the newly renamed Tim Curry Justice Center.  After that however, there's not a lot of room left in the courthouse.  

This raises another issue.  When will Tarrant County start discussing a new courthouse?  With the population of Tarrant County expected to double in the next ten years, the current courthouse will be hard-pressed to keep up in its current setup.  

All that is known for sure right now, however, is that it looks like I'll have one more court to run back and forth from in the near future.

Politics or pragmatism?

Word out of Austin is that longtime Assistant District Attorney, and former Democratic state lawmaker Joe Shannon will be appointed by Governor Rick Perry to the remainder of the late Tim Curry's term as Tarrant County District Attorney.  

Shannon's appointment comes as a surprise to many courthouse insiders, most of whom expected the governor to appoint either the heir apparent or someone from whom he can collect political support in the governor's upcoming reelection bid against Senator Hutchison.  

Apparently, Governor Perry called potential nominees to give them the bad news on Tuesday.  Calls were placed to District Court Judges George Gallagher and Sharen Wilson, and former judge and current prosecutor Bob Gill.  

The appointment itself is somewhat interesting.  Shannon has said in the past that he is not interested in campaigning for the position.  Given that the office comes up for reelection next year, with the primaries set to be held in less than 11 months, it means there will be a free-for-all.

If the goal of the appointment was to ensure the status quo and allow all of the well-qualified candidates, as well as the less-than-qualified, to hash it out in the primaries, then this certainly accomplishes the goal.  But what does the governor get out of it?

Governor Perry can be called many things, but politically naive is not one of them.  So why appoint someone to what will probably be the most hotly-contested political office in the next election in the nation's second most Republican county that can't help you win reelection?  

The shrewd political move was to appoint former ADA J.D. Granger, son of Congresswoman Kay Granger, in hopes that Congresswoman Granger would throw her political support in Tarrant County behind the governor.  But that didn't happen.  Is it because Congresswoman Granger told the governor she would not support him for reelection?  

The bottom line is that the landscape is wide open in the race for Tarrant County District Attorney in 2010.  The four leading candidates at this point have to be current judges Sharen Wilson and George Gallagher and former judge Bob Gill, all Republicans, and Democrat Terri Moore, current Dallas ADA and former candidate herself.  

It should be an interesting race to replace the legendary Tim Curry next year.

But what the hell do I know?

When did you stop beating your wife?

Domestic violence is bad.  It is.  I'm not sure you'll find anyone that condones it.  But in many respects, this is true with any criminal activity.  But like its cousin, DWI, Domestic Violence is often a politically-charged crime.  It plays well in the media.  It's one of those crimes that can be played out as a "it can happen to anyone" crime.  

Domestic violence is such a "big deal" that there is actually a misdemeanor court in Tarrant County devoted solely to handling domestic violence assaults and similar crimes.  County Criminal Court Number 5, Judge Jamie Cummings, presiding.  I love that court.  I hate that court.

I will admit that domestic violence cases are somewhat unique in the sense that, for a number of reasons, there are more recantations in a domestic violence case than any other.  Too often, the alleged victim decides that it didn't happen.  Whether it be because she realizes her boyfriend is going to jail for real, that a conviction for her husband could ruin the family, or the acknowledgment that she was really just trying to get him in trouble and realizes how big of a deal it is, there isn't a day that goes by where a domestic violence "victim" says it didn't happen.

Of course, from the defense perspective, this can be great.  I would say seventy percent of my practice is victim-less anyway, so if I can have an honest-to-goodness victim say it didn't happen, why would I complain?  Go ahead, madam prosecutor, call the "victim" to the stand.  This should be fun.  And I'm all about fun.

I have more cases set for trial in this one court than any other four courts combined.  Why?  It's not because I have more triable cases than the rest, although strangely this is a lot of it.  But rather it's that I have fewer options to me but to put the State to its burden and go to trial.  

Granted, deferred adjudication is available for domestic violence cases.  This is unlike DWIs, which go to trial for many of the same reasons.  But in recent years, domestic violence cases have become weighed down by so many collateral consequences that pleading to deferred is of no significant value.  Sure, you don't get "convicted" in the strictest sense of the term, but you still have to deal with a number of collateral consequences associated with a conviction.

Sure, I do like to try cases, but sometimes cases should be resolved some other way.  Of course every defense attorney would like to get their cases dismissed, just like every prosecutor would probably like to get a conviction for every case.  The problem is we don't start from the same place.

"We don't dismiss."  I've heard this mantra all too often associated with domestic violence cases.  The truth is, the good prosecutors who apparently have personally offended someone high up in the D.A.'s office to be assigned to the "Love Court" in the first place will dismiss cases they know to be "dogs."  I applaud them for that.  It's just knowing what your case is worth and resolving it.  They are good prosecutors.  And there is always the prosecutor who will finally dismiss a case after it has languished for almost year when they know it's a "dog" and are only holding off in hopes the defense will cave to a plea.

But it's the zealot that causes the problems.  Those prosecutors that make the argument that "it happened in front of the kids" or "it could have been a lot worse" that become the problem. 

First of all, if "it" didn't happen, as relayed to you by your "victim"  in her statement saying she only wanted to get him in trouble, then "it" didn't happen in front of the kids.  See how that works?  I think there is a freshman year logic class you can enroll in to get that.

Secondly, if you really think the case should have been a felony, why don't you, as the prosecutor, charge it as such.  There is no more ridiculous argument from a prosecutor, the person who decides how a case is filed, than to say it could/ should have been a felony.  If it's a felony, file it as such.  If not, shut up.

The problem is that all too often one of the trappings of being a misdemeanor prosecutor, believing that if it's in the police report it must be true, is exacerbated in a domestic violence case.  It almost seems with some prosecutors that they hold out no possibility for another side of the story.  It's funny, kind of.  It's also sad.

I don't really know what the source of the problem is.  I know that Court 5 is swamped with cases.  They have tried a number of things to relieve the pressure of an overloaded docket over the last several years, but it only seems to be getting worse.  

I don't know if it is an internal policy of the D.A.'s office, a directive of those "senior" felony prosecutors that oversee the misdemeanor prosecutors, or just dumb luck that causes the problems in this court.  But there has to be something.

There is a reason why prosecutors in Court 5 lose more trials (a very well-respected defense attorney told me the other day it's between 2 out of every 3 and 3 out of every 4 trials).  I wonder if it has to do with not getting value from your case?  I can't imagine the prosecutors in this court are not any good.  The ones I deal with are very good.  Of course one comes to mind that may be the exception.  But she hates me anyway.  I'll just have to be brave about that.

Granted, I am probably public enemy number one in the D.A.'s office, or at least with those in Court 5 over the last year and a half.  But it's never personal with me.  It's a job.  They think I am screwing with them because I set so many cases for trial, or that I don't negotiate with them to resolve it.  It's not.  It's valuing my cards.  My client tells me he didn't do it and there is a witness who can substantiate that.  What would I do but set it for trial?

The problem with this court seems that there are too many prosecutors being held to an unreasonable expectation by their superiors.  Those that do the day-to-day grunt work of handling these cases can value them pretty well (although there is the exception, and you know who you are).  It's just that their hands are tied.  

But what the hell do I know?