This Week's Reasonable Doubt's Special Guests (12/15/11)

Normally I don't write about Thursday's episode of Reasonable Doubt until the morning of the show.  That's because we don't know who our guest is going to be until a day or two before.

This week is different, because Todd Dupont and I are bringing you two very special guests that we have been trying to get on the show for quite some time.

With the help of Kelly Siegler, we are proud to announce that this week's Reasonable Doubt guests will be Anthony Graves and Nicole Casarez.  Mr. Graves, as you probably know, served 19 years on Death Row for a crime he did not commit.  Ms. Casarez is an attorney and professor at the University of St. Thomas who was instrumental in proving Mr. Graves' innocence.

It is going to be a great show, and as always, we will be taking your calls and questions.  You can watch it live on Thursday, December 15 at 8:00 p.m. on television or on the web by clicking here.

Black Ink's Open Letter to Kelly Siegler

Black Ink has a new post on his blog worth reading.  It is as sobering as it is accurate.

I have no idea whether or not Kelly will run again, but if she does, Black Ink has a pretty clear picture of what she'll have to go through.  That's Pat Lykos Politics and it is very disheartening to read.

If Kelly does run, she'll have my whole-hearted support.  If she doesn't . . . hell, who could blame her?

New Chronicle Blog Post

This is probably the most untechnological way of "linking a blog", but there is a new post on my Chronicle website about Charles Sebesta and the Anthony Graves case.  You can get there by clicking here.

An Aggressive Prosecutor

One of the things that I am not proud to admit about myself is that I do actually have a subscription to the Houston Chronicle. In my defense, it is only a weekend subscription and I have it because I do like to kick back on Sunday mornings and read the newspaper and drink coffee.

This morning's edition, however, has a column in it from Rick Casey that (as of this writing) still hasn't hit the on-line edition, so I guess for once, it at least helped me get a head start on writing a post. The title of Casey's column nearly made me laugh out loud. It read:

My Fantasy: Siegler puts DA on trial.

Now, nevermind the fact that Freud could have a Field Day with Mr. Casey based on the title alone, I was still shocked to see Casey write something that could even remotely be considered complimentary of Kelly Siegler. Let's face facts, the Houston Chronicle wouldn't say nice things about Kelly if she took a dinner spoon, dug a mile into the earth, and rescued 33 Chilean miners completely by herself.

Kelly Siegler represents to the Chronicle and its staff something that they disapprove of: an "aggressive" prosecutor. One who actually knows her job and the law, and enforces it to the best of her ability, regardless of public perception. For some reason, we live in a city where the local newspaper treats the profession of prosecution with same resentment of a high school senior who got caught spiking punch by his teacher.

And in the world of those kill-joy prosecutors, there was never anyone better at it than Kelly.

But damn, what to do when Kelly actually is pointing her accusations at the actions of another prosecutor?

One like Charles Sebesta who truly broke the law, pressured and manipulated witnesses, and sent a factually innocent man to Death Row. A guy who decided that the preliminary readings of a high-profile case were enough to demand prosecution in his small town county, and then bent the facts to meet his theory of guilt. Someone who clearly didn't know what he was doing, but wanted to look good while doing it in the public perception.

Well, then, Rick Casey guesses it would be okay if Kelly were to prosecute somebody like Sebesta. I guess, in Casey's mind, as long as she were feeding on one of her own profession, then it would be okay to let her do her job.

The reality of the situation, however, is that Casey is just finally acknowledging something that most prosecutors have always felt, and that is that bad prosecutors like Charles Sebesta are hated even more by other prosecutors than they are hated by the general public. Prosecutors like Sebesta (and Mike Nifong before him) give prosecutors ulcers because they rock the credibility of prosecutors everywhere.

And yes, before somebody else points it out, Chuck Rosenthal gave all prosecutors a pretty big kick in the crotch with his actions, too.

My point is that while Casey and the Chronicle staffers loved taking potshots at Kelly Siegler when she was running for D.A. because she was too "aggressive", they would suddenly love to have her back to prosecute somebody like Sebesta. It is almost like they are suddenly getting a perspective on what it is like to be a victim of crime and hoping you have a good prosecutor trying it.

And don't get me wrong, an "aggressive" prosecutor is not necessarily synonymous with a "good prosecutor".

But the biggest fallacy in logic that the Chronicle always seemed to make was that being a good prosecutor was mutually exclusive from being an aggressive one as well.

Kelly was always both, and I know that the actions of prosecutors like Sebesta, Nifong, and even Rosenthal made her sick to her stomach. In all the criminals she prosecuted over the years, I can guarantee you that she has much more contempt in her heart for Charles Sebesta than for, say, Susan Wright.

I'm sure that based on this post, I will get my usual taunts from folks like Rage and Grits, pointing out that a defense attorney such as myself shouldn't have any clients since I'm so pro-prosecution.

Whatever.

Yeah, you know what, I'll admit it. I'm very pro-good prosecution. Even when it is aggressive.

I will sing the praises of a good prosecutor who knows the law and knows the facts of his or her case. One who doesn't hide the truth or try to twist the law. One who will sign a dismissal when the facts or even compassion calls for it on one case, and then will turn around and seek the death penalty in the next one. One who, at the ends of the day, strives to do what is right, and isn't even afraid to do it aggressively.

I'm a defense attorney and the job of defending is on me. Dealing with a good prosecutor makes my life and my job easier, believe it or not. Even when that prosecutor is telling me things I don't want to hear. I can't change the facts of my cases, but I'll always respect a good fight with a good prosecutor who I trust.

And for the record, there are still many many good prosecutors left in the Harris County D.A.'s Office.

It strikes me as sad how much disdain the Chronicle had for Kelly Siegler during her 2008 campaign for District Attorney. I never quite understood why they thought Kelly's aggressiveness made her somehow less worthy of the job than a career-politician who was more adept at saying things the public wanted to hear. You would have thought that city newspaper folks would have dug a little deeper into what really makes a truly good District Attorney.

Who is truly the better candidate to be a District Attorney? A pandering politician or an "aggressive" prosecutor?

I'm sure that today Anthony Graves wishes he had an aggressive prosecutor like Kelly Siegler back in 1992.

What to Do With Susan Wright

Back in the Spring of 2004, I got the opportunity to sit second chair with Kelly Siegler on the State of Texas vs. Susan Wright -- a highly publicized murder case at the time which was made even more highly publicized during trial.

The short version of the case was that a young mother tied her husband, Jeff Wright, to their bed and stabbed him over 190 times before burying him in a flower bed right outside their bedroom door. She then reported him to the police as having beaten her and then left their home on foot. For a more detailed version of the case, here is an article I wrote for TDCAA several years ago.

The case got National attention when Kelly had us reconstruct the bed in the middle of Judge Jim Wallace's courtroom and did a re-enactment of the stabbing for the jury. (NOTE: No, I was not the dude in the bed. That was Paul Doyle.)

Ultimately, Susan Wright was convicted of the murder of her husband and was sentenced to 25 years in TDCJ. The jury had rejected a claim of "Sudden Passion" (which would have capped sentencing at 20 years) and had also rejected the State's request for 45 years.

Almost immediately, the verdict was attacked both in the Press and in the Appellate Courts by the shy and demure Brian Wice. He took on Susan Wright's case and for the past five years has fought like a mad man to get her a new trial. Brian is a good friend of mine, and although we were on opposite sides of this particular issue, I truly respect the work he did on this case.

Last year, he and Carmen Roe took the case to a hearing in front of Judge Wallace making the claim that Wright's defense counsel had been ineffective for failing to put forth an effective Battered Woman Defense. Specifically, Brian and Carmen were arguing that defense counsel had erred in not putting on witness Mistie McMichael (Jeff Wright's ex-girlfriend who alleged abuse by him) and an expert on Battered Woman's Syndrome.

Although Judge Wallace did not have the power to overturn the case, he did make findings agreeing with Brian's assertions that there was ineffective assistance, and the case was then taken to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. In a ruling that I will admit absolutely stunned me, the Court ruled 9-0 that Susan Wright deserved a new punishment hearing.

With that ruling, the ball is now thrown into the District Attorney's court to see what they want to do with Wright's case on punishment. Both Kelly Siegler and I are both gone from the D.A.'s Office now, obviously, so new prosecutors will be making the decisions.

The case goes back to the 263rd District Court with Judge Wallace. Mia Magness is the Chief in that court now and she is one of the best trial prosecutors that the D.A.'s Office still has left. You might remember her from that little Clara Harris trial awhile back.

But the chances of the Wright case actually going back to trial aren't in Mia's hands at the moment. The decision of whether or not to plea bargain the case away is in the hands of Pat Lykos and Jim Leitner.

What they will decide to do with the Wright case will be a pretty big statement on their feelings for victim's advocacy and how much they will bow down to the defense bar.

Obviously, Wice and Wright would love nothing more than to get a plea offer of time served. The Office could accomplish this by letting her to plead to 5 years TDCJ. In lieu of that, the Office could also plead her to 10 years TDCJ making Wright automatically eligible for parole.

I hope they don't. And here's why:

-Susan Wright was convicted of tying her husband to a bed and stabbing him over 193 times.

-the number 193 is an under-estimated count, because as Dr. Dwayne Wolfe testified, there were so many wounds that many of them ran in together and couldn't be counted individually.

-Wright testified that she went for her husband's eyes first when the stabbing began.

-Wright also testified that in the middle of the stabbing, she was interrupted by the couple's young son, who she had to put back to bed. (Can you imagine what she looked like walking down the hall with him?)

-Wright went to great efforts to disassemble her bedroom and clean it with paint and bleach.

-while Jeff Wright's body was being desecrated by the family dog in the back yard, Susan had the audacity to go file a police report that he had assaulted her.

I expect supporters of Susan Wright to claim she was a battered woman, but her claims weren't even close to credible. During trial, she testified to only three specific incidents of abuse (while saying that Jeff beat her continuously, she could only remember these three).

The three incidents were as follows:

1. An incident where Susan had a small bruise under her eye. She told neighbors that her son had accidentally popped her in the face with an action figure. The neighbor saw the action figure and saw it was consistent with the size of the bruise.

2. An incident where Jeff (who was a very large and strong man, especially when compared to Susan's small frame) had repeatedly slammed her hand in a heavy door. She admitted under Kelly's cross-examination that her hand was not broken and she never sought medical treatment for it. Her description was rejected by the jury.

3. An assault the night of the murder which had led to bruising on her arms and legs. All the bruising on the arms and legs were consistent with somebody banging themselves up while moving a body and disassembling a bed.

And let's not forget that Jeff Wright's body was found with ties around both wrists and both ankles, with corresponding ties found tied to the bed frame. There was also candle wax dripped on his genitalia.

The crime scene was much more indicative of kinky sex than an assault, folks.

So, Pat and Jim, you've got a decision to make.

Susan Wright tortured her husband and the father of her children and killed him about as brutally as one can imagine. Jeff Wright was far from the perfect husband, but he didn't do the things Susan claimed. Her claims of domestic abuse are an affront to all the real victims of domestic violence out there.

Quite frankly, 25 years TDCJ was a gift from the jury.

If you guys are interested in doing the job you were elected to do, it's time to make a statement.

One of your best prosecutors could retry this case in a heartbeat and leave Susan Wright wishing for that 25 years.

Or you can just surrender and plead her out to back time.

If I were you, I'd take this case back to trial.