Harris County Criminal Lawyers Association

  • Home
    • COVID-19 Court Updates
    • Local Court Information
    • Criminal Law Jobs
  • Membership
    • HCCLA Membership
    • Mentorships
  • About HCCLA
    • Officers & Directors
    • Member Directory
    • Mentorships
    • In Memoriam
    • Bylaws
  • Media
    • Press Releases
    • The Defender
    • Reasonable Doubt 2021
  • Events & Seminars
    • Event Calendar
    • Holiday Party 2024
    • Declaration of Independence Readings
    • HCCLA Annual Banquet & Awards
  • Blog
  • Contact
  • Member Login

Kent Schaffer: a profile

December 17, 2015 Leave a Comment

Kent Schaffer was a drama college major at the University of Texas when he saw Richard “Racehorse” Haynes cross-examine a Texas Ranger. For the next four days, Schaffer would skip his classes to attend the trial.   At the end of the trial, Haynes offered Schaffer a job. Schaffer showed up at the job the day after classes ended and for the next three summers he would continue working as an investigator for Haynes until he decided to be a lawyer. He graduated from the University of Houston Law School in 1981.

i-kentSchaffer has represented high profile clients such as Farrah Fawcett, Congressman Craig Washington, and R. Allen Stanford. He’s most recently been in the Tom Sizemore short film “Pieces” and was one of the producers of An Unreal Dream: The Michael Morton Story.

Q: It seemed like you enjoyed being an investigator for Haynes. Why law school?

A:    I was always in and out of trouble as kid. I’d often get in trouble for saying things that were on my mind. So it was always one of those ‘it takes one to know one…’ I always enjoyed trying to find out something about someone that they didn’t want me to find out.

 

Q: Did being a drama major in school help you with being a lawyer?

A: Being in trial is similar to a dramatic production. You have to get their attention and interest and you have to learn to make things interesting to someone. In drama you learn the tools to make people want to listen and pay attention. I don’t get stage fright. I enjoy the performance.

 

Q: How has going to trial changed from when you were first practicing?
A: Now, it’s a lot harder to take cases to trial. There’s not than many cases that get to trial. The federal sentencing guidelines are insanely high. When I first practiced, there was no talking to the police. Now a lot of people are snitches. A lot of people want to cooperate to get that probation or year instead of going to trial. The [State] threatens to hammer you if you go to trial so there aren’t a lot of lawyers willing to go to trial.

 

Q: How have you seen the jury system change over the years?

A: Now it’s an ADD generation. You can’t be too emotional and jurors have more mistrust of the lawyers. Jurors are more skeptical and conservative. They know the police lie, they know there’s an inherent racism in the system. They’ve seen CSI and in a case where there’s an absence of forensics, it can seem as though there’s no evidence. Lawyers need to be cognizant of their audience and pick members [of the jury] that are closer to the defendant. You have to adapt to a jury and I have to frame a case to that audience.

 

Q: How are judges different now than when you first started?

A: It seems a lot of people are in a hurry. You have to take the time to get your story out there; you can’t speed up the trial for the sake of brevity. Now we’re being told you have to speed things along. Judges compare the size of their docket as though that matters. Why does that make a quality judge? The quality of a judge is where justice is meted out and not how quickly they proceed through a case. Federal judges are different.

 

Q: What about the system itself. How has that changed?

A: There’s a lot of people who are in the criminal justice system who should not be there. We criminalize things we should not. When I went to St. John’s, I would get five pops for talking in class. Then when I got home, my parents would spank me for getting in trouble in school. I got spanked so much that I thought it was an S&M movie. We need more accountability from the family. In Aspen, the Sheriff recommends milder forms of marijuana. The deputies will protect the marijuana growers. The police there protect people unlike here where they’re kicking in the door to get a bag of weed. We will be the one of the last states to legalize marijuana. The electorate is not an intelligent group because we have a lot of people from West and East Texas.

 

Q: Is there a lawyer who you admire?

A: Gerry Goldstein. He enjoys life everyday. A lot of lawyers’ lives revolve around work. I don’t have a lot of passions but I enjoy photography, art, film, travel, and people. I’m not a good loner. Being a good lawyer is knowing people. You need a real appreciation for people.

 

Q: What advice do you have for the younger lawyers out there?

A: Always keep your word even though you don’t want to. People come to you and trust you. You made them that promise that you will give them a hundred percent of your time and talent. We’re like surgeons. People are on the table. You take the shortcut: that’s inexcusable because you want to go play golf. You can’t have it all. It’s hard to be all things to all people. When you have a profession instead of a job, you have to put in the time and keep your word. No shortcuts.

 

Q: You’ll be 60 years old on August 22. What would you be doing if you weren’t a lawyer?

A: I’m a Jew; we’ve always wandered the desert. If I’m not practicing law, I’d want to own the Bellagio.

 

interview by Thuy Le

Filed Under: honor, Members Tagged With: kent schaffer, member profile

Tyrone Moncriffe: a profile

December 5, 2015 Leave a Comment

Moncriffe_TyroneTyrone Moncriffe was on the path to be a Worthing high school football star when a leg injury prevented him from finishing the season. Without football, Moncriffe was unsure about what he wanted to do with his life. When he was a sophomore at Texas Southern University, Moncriffe’s cousin was arrested. Going to court with his cousin got him interested in a career in law that would make him be known as a “story-teller” among his peers. It is his ability to tell the stories of his clients, many of whom have faced capital offenses, that makes him one of the most effective defense attorneys in Harris County.

Last year, Moncriffe was able to fulfill one of his lifelong dreams by lecturing to a group of Harvard Law School students. Earlier last month, Moncriffe defended a young man convicted of killing a Bellaire police officer.

 

Q: How did you end up going into law?

A: I was a sophomore in college and I get a phone call from my mother that my cousin had been arrested. We all went to the courthouse to support him and I see the defense attorneys talking to the prosecutors. I told my grandfather that night that I wanted to be a lawyer but didn’t know if I was eloquent enough or smart enough to go to law school. My grandfather told me to “never let your limitations hold you back.” He told me to seek someone that I admired and asked them how they got to where they are.

 

Q: Who did you contact?

A: One night, I’m watching tv and I heard the “golden voice” of Barbara Jordan. I called Jordan’s office to ask to speak to her. I wanted to ask her how I could be a better speaker and more eloquent. I wasn’t able to reach her that day so every day for the next two or three weeks I call her office trying to reach her. Her staff had to ask me to stop calling and that Ms. Jordan would call me back. A few weeks later, the phone rings at my mother’s house. On the other line is the “golden voice” of Barbara Jordan.

 

Q: What advice did Barbara Jordan give you?

A: Barbara Jordan told me to dream big. She told me to imagine I was a lawyer at Harvard talking to all these people. She told me that lawyers are the movers and shakers of the world and that they represent the Constitution. If I wanted to be a lawyer, I had to be the best.

At the end of the conversation, I asked if she would send me a letter so that my friends and family would believe me when I told them I spoke to Barbara Jordan. She sent me a letter a week later that is framed and hung on the wall near the entrance to my office.

 

Q: What would young Tyrone Moncriffe tell the first year lawyer Tyrone Moncriffe?

A: “It’s not all about you.” When I was young, everything was the Tyrone show.   I wasn’t able to connect to the jurors. As I became mature, I allowed the client’s story to connect with the jurors. I was too busy being a lawyer instead of a human being.

 

Q: How has that helped you with your cases?

A: Trials are about telling your client’s story. It’s a story within a story. There’s the story the prosecutor wants to tell the jurors and then there’s the client’s story. Lawyers have to be trained to understand that jurors are a combination of the logical and emotional. You have to acknowledge them, let them know you see them. Then they will want to help you. Jurors make decisions based on stories: who they should help, who are the good guys, who are the bad guys, what are the themes, what are the stories in this case. We have to help them see the humanity in the client.

 

Q: What advice would you give young and new lawyers starting out?

A: Robert Jones told me when I first started to take an acting class.   I took an acting class in 1984 and it transformed my ability to communicate with people. I was able to learn to respond to something the audience was doing. I learned to read a frown or a headshake and learned how to respond. I learned to say something and then wait for a response.

Also, all lawyers should go to the trial college training. I went to the training in 2000 in Wyoming and learned how to take off my mask. As lawyers, we have masks. We put them on and we take them off. We become “authentic” when we take off the masks. You become strong because you’re authentic.

We forget when we’re talking to jurors to look into their eyes because we’re too busy being a lawyer. I one time saw a juror tell a lawyer that his father had died. Instead of responding to the juror, the lawyer moved on and did not respond to the juror. That lawyer failed to see that juror as a human being. Jurors see things and know things. They want to connect with the human spirit. You have to try to get the jury to see the good in your client.

Finally, watch as many trials as you can. Ask a lawyer if you can sit with them when they’re in trial. Go to trial. You have to let the prosecutors know that you’re willing to go to trial or they won’t be afraid of you or respect you as a lawyer.

 

Q: How have you noticed the practice of law change from when you first started out?

A: Back when I first started out, the judges, the prosecutors, and state all talked. They tried to resolve things. Now, there’s not that much talking between the parties going on. There are many that come into the district attorney’s office with no life experience. The defense lawyers are different, too. Now, the lawyers want to make a lot of money and drive a certain car. Back then, the defense lawyers tried to challenge the fourth amendment. We had a zeal back then. Now it seems like there’s this attitude that we can’t fight them (the State). Let’s move our cases as quick as possible to make money.   There’s a trend of lawyers going after money instead of honing their craft.

 

Interview with Tyrone Moncriffe as told to Thuy Le. Thuy Le is a former Galveston and Harris County prosecutor. She has been licensed since November 2007 and is a graduate of Syracuse University College of Law.

Filed Under: honor, Members Tagged With: member profile, tyrone moncriffe

Stanley Schneider: a profile

October 11, 2015 Leave a Comment

stanley

Stanley Schneider, Houston Lawyer, and 2015 Lifetime Achievement Recipient

Where are you from?

Schenectady, NY, born and raised. I went to undergraduate at Alfred, University which is about 70 miles south of Rochester, NY. I left the state of New York in the summer 1971 to attend law school at St. Mary’s School of Law in San Antonio.

What brought you to San Antonio from the East Coast?

I only applied to four law schools in the fall of 1970. Albany, American, Notre Dame, and Syracuse. All four schools rejected me. My advisor told me about St. Mary’s and that they were looking to diversify their program with some Yankees, so I applied and was accepted. I packed my bags and moved to Texas.

When you started law school did you know you wanted to practice criminal defense?

No. I had no idea what I wanted to do. But, in the spring of 1972, I went to the courthouse and watched Warren Burnett, one of the greatest lawyers in the history of Texas, try a murder case. It was fascinating. I hung on his every word; so did the jury. He was the center of attention. It was his courtroom. He commanded respect. The client’s name was Kincaid, who coincidently enough, I represented on a separate matter about 15 years later.

What was your first job out of law school and how did it come about?

I took a course in law school on civil rights law or something like that. It was taught by Judge Cadena out of San Antonio. I wrote a paper on the due process rights of prisoners during prison disciplinary proceedings. Procunier v. Martinez had just come down from the Supreme Court. I was told by Jerry Gibson that if I was interested in prisoner’s rights I should contact this guy he went to law school with who was in Huntsville working at the Texas Department of Corrections as Staff Council for Inmates. I sent in my resume and got the job.

The first day of work my boss, Harry Walsh, told me I had a brief due in the 5th Circuit the next week. My first question to him was “what’s the 5th Circuit?” The issue in the case had to do with a defendant being tried in front of the jury in jail clothes. While my case was pending in the 5th Circuit, the Supreme Court granted certiorari and addressed that very issue. I was licensed in October of 1974 and argued my case in the 5th Circuit in March of 1975.

Over the 39 months I worked as staff council, I had six arguments in the 5th Circuit, one argument in the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, and appellate cases in state and federal courts all over Texas.

Why do you say 39 months instead of three years?

Because that was my sentence: I spent 39 months in prison.

Why did you choose to start a practice in Houston?

I felt Houston was more open. There was more things happening here than in Dallas or San Antonio. The community was more vibrant and active.

What attorneys did you attach yourself to when you first moved to Houston?

I associated with Mark Vela and Terry Collins. I followed them around. I tried my first capital murder case with Terry Collins in 1978.

How did you go about first getting cases when you opened your practice?

Various ways. I received a felony court appointment everyday. Anything that Mark or Terry didn’t want, they gave to me. I had a whole bunch of prostitution cases and was representing various modeling studios. I was trying at least two cases a month. Back then whenever someone was going to trial the newspaper would write a small blurb about it. So folks would see the cases I was trying and would contact me.

You just mentioned the fact that you were getting appointed to felony cases as a young attorney. You don’t see that in the criminal defense bar in Houston area as much these days. Do you think that it’s a good thing that young attorneys aren’t being appointed to felony cases straight out of law school?

I don’t think young attorneys should be trying felony cases. I did mainly appellate work my first three years after law school. So I was able to see the good and the bad from all of the records I had read. I knew what not to do, but I just wasn’t sure how to do it. It took me a while to learn how to transfer from reading a record to doing it in the courtroom.

There is a distinct difference between trying a case for a not guilty verdict and trying a case to preserve error or create error. I didn’t realize that until I starting reading Dick DeGuerin’s records in the early 1980s. Dick has a great way of presenting the evidence while simultaneously telling the story of his case.

What are some of the major changes you have noticed in criminal law in Texas since you began your career?

Back in the early 80s the Court of Criminal Appeals was really a different court: the judges on the court were lawyers who really cared about criminal law; who really cared about defendants; who really cared about justice and fairness. Hon. Sam Houston Clinton was a scholar. Hon. Marvin Teague was a great lawyer. Hon. John Onion, Jr., the presiding judge, was very conservative, but if he thought something was unfair he stood up for what he believed.

What advice would you give a young Texas criminal defense attorney who is just starting out?

Read the law. That consists of reading the slip opinions that come down from the various courts of appeals and the Court of Criminal Appeals. Be better prepared than everyone else. By everyone else I mean the judge, the district attorneys, etc. I still read slip opinions weekly. If I still read the law, a young attorney should be reading the law.

I will give you an example. Today (May 20, 2015) a case came out, Ex Parte Keller, where relief was granted because false testimony was presented at trial. I did a supplemental authority memorandum for a case that has been pending in the Court of Criminal Appeals citing the Court’s ruling in Keller as support for an issue in a case I have pending in the Court. So the day the opinion is out I am filing something citing the Keller opinion as authority. This was only possible because I still read the law. So to all of the young attorneys out there: read the law.

Would you consider arguing in front of the United States Supreme Court and winning the highlight of your legal career?

In many ways, yes. It was the most intellectually challenging thing I have ever done. It was extremely difficult. The fear of failure was with me throughout. Anyone and everyone can listen to the argument and can criticize you for how you are presenting your argument. You could fall flat on your face during the argument if you are not prepared so it’s a very difficult thing to do. I couldn’t have done the argument without the help of Buck Files, Casie Gotro, and Romy Kaplan. It was a true team effort.

Discuss what it was like to find out your team had won in the Supreme Court?

I was in district court in Angleton, Brazoria County, Texas. David Ryan handed me his cell phone and said “Congrats, you won.” I said, “Won what?” He replied, “The Supreme Court,” and handed me his cell phone. I looked at it and ran out of the courtroom. I saw it was as 5-4 decision and I was pissed. I knew Justice Sotomayor was not on my side, but I had hoped I had Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Scalia. After reading the opinion, it was really an 8-1 decision because the issue Roberts dissented on was an issue in our favor. Once I saw that I felt better.

Are there any cases out there that keep you motivated to wake up and continue doing what you do?

I think a great deal about my first visit to death row. Meeting Fred Durrough. Shaking his hand and being told by the guard that if I ever shake a death row inmate’s hand again I will be fired from my job as staff council. Over the years I’ve thought about a number of my clients who have been executed. Joe Cannon and Gerald Mitchell: both of them were 17 when they committed the crimes for which they were executed. In both of those cases the courts rejected our arguments that they couldn’t be executed because they were 17 at the time the crimes were committed. If Roper v. Simmons had been decided earlier, they would still be alive. I think about the five or six others who possibly would have been alive today if the law on mitigation evidence had been around 25 years earlier.

What do you think about this trend of attorneys only practicing certain areas of law such as criminal defense or personal injury? Do you think it is a good or bad thing for the legal field?

I think it is a great thing. You started seeing it around the mid-80s I think. As things got more difficult, there was a trend toward specialization. The Texas Board of Legal Specialization began in 1974 and there was a trend from there. As the rules became more technical you couldn’t keep up with all the rules. So lawyers became criminal trial lawyers or civil trial lawyers and so on.

What has you nervous about the future of criminal defense in Texas?

Growing up as a lawyer I watched Warren Burnett in trial. I became a Racehorse groupie. I had co-defendants with Percy Foreman. In the 80s, I worked alongside and watched some of the greatest criminal defense lawyers that ever lived, on a daily basis. Since then I’ve had the pleasure of seeing Mike Ramsey, Dick DeGuerin, Kent Schaffer, Randy Schaffer, Dan Cogdell, Jack Zimmermann and Jim Lavine. These guys are amazing lawyers. I think Kent and Dan may be the youngest of the group, and they are in their late 50s. I don’t see the next generation; the people who are in their 40s that are like Dick and Dan when they were in their 40s. I don’t see those people. I don’t see those leaders in the criminal defense bar. That’s a concern.

Do you have any advice for young attorneys?

The way you dress is important. If the courthouse is open I am in my uniform which is a suit and tie. Regardless of whether you have court that day or not. Who knows, you may be called to court.

What is something some people may not know about you?

I love listening to baseball on the radio. It goes back to 1957. I grew up listening to the Yankees on the radio. Listening to Mel Allen, Phil Rizzuto, and Jerry Coleman call the games. I’m an Astros fan now. I became one about 15 years ago when I started going to their games.

Interview by Brandon Ball

 

Filed Under: honor, Members Tagged With: member profile, stanley schneider

Happy Constitution Day

September 20, 2015 Leave a Comment

Harris County Criminal Lawyers Association
Celebrates Constitution Day

September 17th is Constitution Day, and this year HCCLA began a new tradition of celebrating our United States Constitution with a public reading of the Preamble and Amendments. HCCLA also provided commemorative pocket constitutions for attendees and passersby.

BR-28

This event is modeled after our celebration and reading of the Declaration of Independence with occurs each 4th of July and was started by Past President Robert Fickman.

Special thanks to member Grant Scheiner for the inspiration for this event and to Grant, Philip Gommels, Jennifer Gaut, and Gemayel Haynes for organizing this celebration.

12045710_10207685213629701_5875322875994634008_o

Thank you to the following lawyers for participating in the reading of the United States Constitution Preamble and Amendments:

JoAnne Musick – Preamble
Grant Scheiner* – 1st Amendment
Danny Easterling – 2nd Amendment
Dyan Owens – 3rd Amendment
Gemayel Haynes – 4th Amendment
Jen Gaut & Lydia Johnson – 5th Amendment
Phil Gommels – 6th Amendment
Andrew Wright – 7th Amendment
Robb Fickman– 8th Amendment
Lonnie Knowles – 9th Amendment
Patti Sedita – 10th Amendment
Alma Garcia – 11th Amendment
Cheryl Irvin, Ryan Marquez and Alan Macia – 12th     Amendment
Staci Biggars – 13th Amendment
Michael Wynne – 14th Amendment, §1
Justin Harris – 14th Amendment, §2
Wade Smith – 14th Amendment, §3
Roberto Quijano – 14th Amendment, §4 (TSU student)
Akeem Ayinde – 14th Amendment, §5 (TSU Student)

Shout out to the judges who took time to attend and celebrate with us:
Michael McSpadden, Mike Schneider, Brock Thomas, Brad Hart, and Renee Magee (who was out of town but asked her coordinator, Joey DeBruyen, to attend in her absence)

Photos of the event can be found here

Texas Lawyer coverage!

Filed Under: celebrations, constitution day, honor, justice, Members, Public Trust Tagged With: constitution, constitution day, hccla, members, public reading, united states constitution

Nothing To See Here, Move Along People

August 2, 2015 1 Comment

If you’ve been following the David Temple story, you know that Judge Gist found veteran ex-prosecutor Kelly Siegler committed at least 36 instances of misconduct and/or hid evidence. A prosecutor’s duty is to do justice. How can justice be had amongst lies, hidden evidence, and a win at all costs mentality?

Now, lawyers for David Temple have requested the Office of District Attorney, which has accepted no responsibility for prior transgressions by its own, to recuse itself from the continuing legal battle.

Instead of determining whether or not recusal is in the interest of justice, Devon Anderson asks, “Why should I?” In essence she says they have not given her a good reason to recuse her office.

How about Justice? How about Integrity? How about Public Trust? How about Appearance of Impropriety?

We can think of many reasons that seem to escape Ms. Anderson.

Read Ms. Anderson’s response here: 

Download (PDF, 200KB)

Filed Under: appearance of impropriety, honor, justice, politics, prosecutors, Public Trust Tagged With: conflict of interest, Criminal Justice, david temple, devon anderson, fair trial, harris county, Harris County District Attorney, hccla, honor, Improper Conduct, justice, kelly siegler, prosecutorial misconduct, prosecutors

Will the Harris County District Attorney Accept Responsibility?

July 18, 2015 3 Comments

Our clients have problems.

Despite their denial, the Harris County District Attorney has problems as well.

They want our clients to accept responsibility. Will they as well?

In yet another instance, injustice and an appearance of impropriety permeates the Office of District Attorney for Harris County. Apparently, it seems the prosecutor and the bailiff engaged in a series of conversations and text messages about the jury. The importance of this is two-fold: (1) the bailiff, a Harris County Deputy Sheriff, is an officer and arm of the court who is the only person authorized to speak with jurors and (2) the prosecutor is an officer of the court who is forbidden from talking to the jurors. Granted, the prosecutor did not engage in direct communications with the jurors; however, she did attempt to communicate through the bailiff.

She texted the bailiff saying she wished she knew what the jury was thinking. The bailiff responded saying he would find out. THAT IS INAPPROPRIATE. There is no way to spin this so that any part of that conversation was proper and within the rules that require the court (via his bailiff) and the parties (via the prosecutor) to avoid the appearance of impropriety.

So what’s the big deal? Well, the thing is this is just one of many instances – all seemingly small – which cast doubt on the ability to have a fair trial in Harris County.

When will Devon Anderson accept responsibility? She didn’t in her response to our request about Dan Rizzo and the Alfred Brown case. She didn’t in an inquiry about prosecutor’s Connie Spence and Craig Goodhart threatening witnesses. She hasn’t in her media responses to the Kelly Siegler findings of prosecutorial misconduct. And, she hasn’t here. What will it take?

 

Filed Under: appearance of impropriety, honor, justice, police, politics, prosecutors, Public Trust Tagged With: alfred dwayne brown, appearance of impropriety, bailiff, cell phone, criminal defense, Criminal Justice, Dan Rizzo, devon anderson, district attorney, fair trial, fundamental fairness, harris county, Harris County District Attorney, harris county sheriff, hccla, honor, Improper Conduct, justice, kelly siegler, lawyers, perception, prosecutorial misconduct, prosecutors

Prosecutorial Misconduct Must Be Addressed

July 14, 2015 1 Comment

Sadly, Harris County District Attorney Devon Anderson has declined our request calling for an investigation into former prosecutor Dan Rizzo’s conduct in the Alfred Brown case.

She cites expired statutes of limitations (the time in which a criminal charge or grievance can be brought).

Download (PDF, 365KB)

Though the prosecutor has declined any follow-up, we remain vigilant in our investigation into what appears to be yet another instance of prosecutorial misconduct.

When a person takes steps to conceal their behavior, the statute is tolled, and it seems clear that Mr. Rizzo did just that: he concealed exculpatory evidence, he colluded with a cop to intimidate a witness and then falsely charge that witness in a criminal case, and he used the veil of grand jury secrecy to carry out his witness intimidation.

The State Bar has already established new rules for bringing grievances, even years later, where a prosecutor commits misconduct, and the time for filing the grievance now runs from the time of discovery. So much of this tragedy, while occurring years ago, has just recently been discovered.

This is such a blatant attempt to dodge responsibility that it should, along with her statement today regarding the pending decision about prosecutorial misconduct by Ms. Siegler,* result in the consideration of a possible court of inquiry as former prosecutor Ken Anderson faced in the wake of the Michael Morton tragedy. (*Devon Anderson was quoted as saying, “Any actions such as reopening an investigation into this case would be premature.”)

Filed Under: honor, incarceration, justice, police, politics, prosecutors, Public Trust Tagged With: alfred brown, court of inquiry, Dan Rizzo, devon anderson, former prosecutor, grand jury secrecy, grievance, harris county, kelly siegler, ken anderson, prosecutorial misconduct

Hollywood: Cold INjustice

July 11, 2015 Leave a Comment

Chronicle Editorial Hits Nail on the Head: Hollywood ending, A potentially innocent man sat behind bars so that a prosecutor could get on television.

“an awful lot of razzle dazzle for the serious business that goes down in criminal courtrooms”

Some prosecutors forget. Some never know it to begin with. But, criminal courtrooms are serious business. Life and liberty (for all) are at stake. Criminal courtrooms mean much more than their civil counterparts who fight over money.

It is interesting that most people do not care about the criminal justice justice system; most do not care if rights are trampled; most have no idea innocent people can be convicted; until it happens to them or a family member.

For over 21 years, Kelly Siegler (a Harris County Assistant District Attorney) played fast and loose with the rules. She used the courtroom as her stage for theatrics. Yes, she was aggressive, and that’s ok, as long as it is fair. Hiding evidence is not fair. Subpoenaing witnesses under a different case to hide the witness is not fair. Lying to the court is not fair. Interfering with public information requests is not fair. Continuing to hide evidence long after you no longer work as a prosecutor is not fair.

Just as there are bad influences in every profession, Kelly has marred the reputation of prosecutors, even those who do seek justice. It’s easy to be fair. A web of lies and deceit do nothing for our system of justice, except create injustice.

Filed Under: honor, jail, justice, politics, prosecutors, Public Trust, Reasonable Doubt Tagged With: cold justice, criminal defense, devon anderson, dick deguerin, district attorney, harris county, Harris County District Attorney, hccla, honor, Improper Conduct, injustice, justice, kelly siegler, lawyers

Egregious Prosecutorial Conduct

July 9, 2015 1 Comment

David Temple, the innocent man Kelly Siegler finally convicted, may finally get a new trial. In his 19-page findings of fact, Judge Gist notes at least 36 instances of prosecutorial misconduct; he paints a picture of a prosecutor willing to win at any cost and failing to follow her duty to disclose, or timely disclose, evidence favorable to the defense. Siegler, he notes, testified she didn’t need to turn over the evidence because she didn’t believe it was true.

The prosecutor’s personal belief in the truth of the favorable evidence can never be the benchmark for what prosecutors must disclose. Almost always, the Brady information which must be disclosed will be contrary to the prosecutor’s case or at least at issue with a portion of their case. But that’s exactly why it must be disclosed; defense attorneys are entitled to explore and investigate that information which may tend to exculpate their client. Defense attorneys are entitled to information which could harm the prosecutor’s case or cast doubt upon their witnesses. That’s been the law for decades. Certainly, if a prosecutor were to believe the information, her duty would be not only to disclose the information but also to dismiss the prosecution.

Read more from the Houston Chronicle: Judge Finds Fault with Legendary Local Prosecutor

HCCLA in the news criticizing ex-prosecutor Kelly Siegler’s conduct in the David Temple murder case (excerpts here):

Gist made his findings after a 10-week hearing that began in December, in which attorneys Stanley Schneider and Casie Gotro questioned prosecutors, investigators and defense attorneys about what happened throughout the murder trial. The two took over Temple’s appeal from DeGuerin.

“The evidence supports the findings,” Schneider said. “I feel relieved. The next step is getting David a new trial.”

Commenting on Siegler’s conduct outlined in the judicial findings, trial attorney dick DeGuerin is quoted:

“I think it’s bad, and I think she ought to be held accountable,” Dick DeGuerin said. “But I’m going to let someone else decide that.”

On behalf of HCCLA,

JoAnne Musick, president of the Harris County Criminal Lawyers Association, said Gist’s findings show “egregious” conduct.

The organization of defense attorneys is reviewing transcripts of the hearing to determine if a grievance should be filed.

“Whether it’s Morton or Graves or whoever, we see prosecutors who want to win, so they don’t want to disclose everything,” Musick said. “If they’re hiding things or playing games, that’s not upholding their duty to do justice. That’s trying to win.”

One of Temple’s attorneys who spent days questioning Siegler blasted the former prosecutor:

“Charles Sebesta was just disbarred for this same kind of conduct,” said Casie Gotro. “Dick DeGuerin stood on the courthouse steps and told the world Kelly Siegler had finally convicted an innocent man. These findings reveal exactly how she did it.”

This is certainly one story that will continue as Judge Gists’ findings are forwarded to the Court of Criminal Appeals for review.

The Houston Press is following this story as well, read more (excerpts here):

Prosecutors “intentionally, deliberately, or negligently failed to disclose” investigators’ reports and witness statements that pointed to other suspects, but Siegler continued the suppression even following the conviction, according to the findings.

Siegler testified in the habeas hearing that potential exculpatory evidence didn’t need to be disclosed if prosecutors “did not believe it was true,” according to the findings.

Gist also wrote that Siegler influenced post-trial maneuvers by telling police and officials within the DA’s Office not to disclose public records if they were requested. The findings also state that Siegler continued to pull strings even after leaving the DA’s Office in 2008, after 21 years, by getting an alleged witness who approached DeGuerin after the trial to change his story.

In that situation, Daniel Glasscock gave DeGuerin a sworn statement that he overheard another man implicate himself in the murder. Glasscock passed a polygraph administered by the DA’s Office and also gave the same story to a DA’s investigator.

But Siegler “asked” a Harris County Sheriff’s deputy — who was involved with the trial investigation — to contact Glassock and another witness “before they could be contacted by the Special Prosecutor [in the habeas investigation] or current members of the District Attorney’s Office. The Deputy did so and afterwards, their stories were significantly different than the original version,” according to the finding.

“In substance, Glasscock repudiated the most important details to the extent that his future credibility as a witness is significantly impaired,” Gist wrote.

Houston attorney Paul Looney, who worked on Temple’s case before DeGuerin took over, told theHouston Press that Siegler’s ultimate goal was to use the case as leverage to get her own TV reality series — an idea she had unsuccessfully pitched once before.

Siegler then asked to take over the Temple case, which had been languishing for years because the original grand jury chose not to indict.

“This was her opportunity to enhance her resume to the point where she would get her TV show,” Looney said. “It worked, she got the show (“Cold Justice” on TNT). But boy, at what a price. At the price of David Temple’s life, at the price of an entire family’s reputation, and at the price of her own integrity.”

As for Siegler’s impression of exculpatory evidence, Looney said, “If Kelly’s bizarre interpretation of that rule were ever to be the law, then all a prosecutor would ever have to do to keep any witness statement away from the defense is say, ‘Well, I didn’t believe it, so I didn’t give it to the defense.’ That’s never been the law, it would totally eliminate law, but she just boldly stated it — and the only thing I can figure is she’s trying to find some arguable basis to try to defend her law license from the ultimate scrutiny of the State Bar of Texas, which undoubtedly is going to happen over this case.”

But Looney alleged that Siegler not only violated professional ethical standards, but that she committed a felony by obstructing justice.

“If Kelly Siegler’s a lawyer in five years, I’ll be shocked,” Looney said. “And if she’s not a felon in five years, it’ll be because [District Attorney] Devon Anderson decided to protect her own friend.”

Pulitzer Prize winning journalist Lisa Falkenberg hits the nail on the head with her column: Judge is Right: Prosecutor Didn’t Live Up to Her Duty

The prosecutor’s duty is to seek justice, not win at all costs. Her “ego” wouldn’t let her lose this cold case. Cited twice now, once by the appellate court and now by the habeas judge, Kelly’s conduct is egregious and intentional as she hid evidence, failed to disclose evidence, and lied to the court about the evidence.

Filed Under: honor, justice, Members, politics, prosecutors, Public Trust Tagged With: casie gotro, criminal defense, dick deguerin, ethical violations, harris county, hccla, Improper Conduct, joanne musick, justice, kelly siegler, prosecutors, stanley schneider

Free from Tyranny

July 4, 2015 1 Comment

11713762_10207087343963333_5644811668517364144_o11538967_10207087337843180_4432589235042740427_oOn July 2, 2015 members of the Harris County Criminal Lawyers Association again assembled on the courthouse steps for our annual reading of the Declaration of Independence. Began in 2010 by Robert Fickman, this was our 6th Annual Reading.
10636874_10207087333843080_3404999347319209620_oAlways moving and inspiring, this year we were fortunate to have the added joy of hearing two Wor11700626_10207092943223311_2599068859094080682_old War II Veterans, Virgil Poe and Joseph Varela Sr., read with us.

We would like to thank all those in attendance as well as those who participated in the reading.

Readings by:
Virgil Poe, JoAnne Musick, Todd Dupont, Chris Tritico, Paul Schiffer, John Raley, Evan Myers, Carmen Roe, Damon Parrish II, Jason Sosa, Robert Fickman, Joseph Varela Sr. (assisted by his son Joe Varela Jr.), Grant Scheiner, Alex Bunin, Danny Easterling, Justin Harris, Ernesst Bo Hopman, Vivienne Schiffer, Mark Metzger, Drew Prisner, Gemayel Haynes, Sarah Wood, Mike Trent, Paul Kennedy, Robert Pelton, Vivian King, Wade Smith, Paul St. John, Jackie Carpenter, Thuy Le, Alejandro Macias, Philip Gommels, Tristan Legrande, Mary Moore, J. Julio Vela, Mark Bennett, Earl Musick, and Nicolas Hughes.

Special thanks to these judges who attended:
Brad Hart, Jay Karahan, Susan Brown, Kristin Guiney, Robin Brown, Brett Busby, Marc Brown, Brock Thomas, Denise Bradley, Mike Fields, Paula Goodhart, Mary Lou Keel, and Michael Schneider.

Very special thanks to those behind the scenes that make it all happen:
Christina Appelt, Joel Avendano, and Bob Rosenberg (official HCCLA photographer).

Our photos can be found via Bob Rosenberg’s Facebook (public posting) here: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3

We are proud to have started this tradition and watch it grow across the State of Texas. Joined by TCDLA, Robert Fickman has grown this event to cover more than one-half of Texas Counties. A recap can be found here: http://www.criminaldefensedeclarationreading.com/

Some of our members have blogged their personal experiences:

JoAnne Musick, HCCLA President

Philip Gommels, Board Member

You can view the video of our reading here: https://youtu.be/3Bm55f-FQnI

And lastly, KTRH added a little insight into the practice!

Filed Under: celebrations, declaration of independence, honor, justice, Members, Public Trust Tagged With: 4th of july, courthouse, declaration of independence, fourth of july, free from tyranny, freedom, freedom rings, hccla, honor, independence, justice, tcdla, veterans

  • 1
  • 2
  • Next Page »

Helpful Links & Resources

  • Seminars & Events
    • Speakers Bureau: Request a Speaker
  • Court Info & Policies
  • Harris County Managed Assigned Counsel (MAC)
  • Guide to ePLEA
  • HCCLA Ethics Hotline 713.518.1738
Harris County Criminal Lawyers Association (HCCLA)

Important Links

  • Bylaws
  • HCCLA Membership
  • Join HCCLA
  • Media
  • HCCLA Blog

Upcoming Events

  • 16th Annual Reading: Declaration of Independence
    Thu Jul 3 2025, 11:00am CDT

Contact Us

Harris County Criminal Lawyers Association
P.O. Box 924523
Houston, TX 77292-4523
(713) 227-2404

    

Copyright © 2025 · Harris County Criminal Lawyers Association. The HCCLA logo is a registered trademark.