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

Special Responsibility of Prosecutors

April 11, 2023 Leave a Comment

 

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
CONTACT: Jed Silverman, HCCLA President
(713) 226-8800 / email


State Bar of Texas Proposed Disciplinary Rule Change:
Rule 3.09 Special Responsibilities of Prosecutors

Houston, Texas – April 11, 2023 – The State Bar of Texas Committee on Disciplinary Rules and Referenda will hold a public hearing on Proposed Rules 1.08, 3.09, 5.01, 5.05, and 8.05 by teleconference at 10 a.m. CDT on April 12, 2023.

Jed Silverman, President of the Harris County Criminal Lawyers Association (HCCLA), submitted the following comments regarding the responsibilities of prosecutors in the proposed change to Rule 3.09 of the State Bar of Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct.

For teleconference participation information: texasbar.com/cdrr/participate, where an agenda with a Zoom link will be posted before the meeting. If you plan to address the Committee at the public hearing, it is requested that you email cdrr@texasbar.com in advance of the hearing stating on which rule(s) you will comment.


Dear Committee:

I am writing to you on behalf of the Harris County Criminal Lawyers Association, the largest local criminal defense bar in the United States with more than 500 active members engaged in the defense of citizens accused of criminal acts. The proposed change to Rule 3.09 of the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct has received a great amount of attention from our Board of Directors and members and I can confidentially say that our entire organization stands behind this proposed Rule. We urge this Committee to recommend the proposed rule to the Board of Directors for the State Bar be submitted for a vote before the entire Bar.

For years, Texas has struggled with the concept that prosecutors are to seek justice, not just convictions, and, in seeking to adhere to that duty, they are to disclose exculpatory evidence. It should be noted that the current version of Article 39.14 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure was enacted a decade ago and named for Michael Morton, a man wrongfully convicted of murder who spent 25 years in prison for a crime he did not commit. As was well-documented and confirmed in court, prosecutors withheld evidence in his trial and subsequently continued to fight against producing DNA evidence during the post-conviction writ process that eventually proved his innocence.

Harris County too has seen its share of convictions overturned due to prosecutorial misconduct where prosecutors withheld exculpatory evidence. See Ex parte Temple, No. WR-78,545-02, 2016 WL 6903758 (Tex. Crim. App. 2016); Ex parte Brown, No. WR-68,876-01, 2014 WL 5745499 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014); Prible v. Davis, No. 09-CV-1896, 2020 WL 2563544 (S.D. Tex. May 20, 2020), vacated sub nom. Prible v. Lumpkin, 43 F.4th 501 (5th Cir. 2022).

Although it is not a perfect solution to curbing this untenable problem, our organization believes the presently proposed change to Rule 3.09 is a necessary step for what we see as a considerable concern for our Bar: maintaining public confidence in our criminal justice system. Every one — including prosecutors — should be concerned about that.

Harris County recently led the country in exonerations due, in large part, to our District Attorney continuing to seek out exculpatory evidence in drug cases even after defendants pleaded guilty. See Samuel R. Gross, Maurice Possley & Klara Stephens “Race and Wrongful Convictions in the United States,” National Registry of Exonerations (2017). This proves that requiring prosecutors to take affirmative steps to correct a wrongful conviction when presented with exculpatory information is a workable solution.

We are deeply concerned by prosecutors who have stood in the way of this proposed Rule. Their motivations are no different than those of the prosecutors in the case of Michael Morton, fighting at every step to keep a horrible wrong from being made right. This is not the image that we as lawyers should be promoting to the public at large.

Our plea to this Committee is to let our entire Bar who serves the public have an opportunity to have their voices heard on this necessary change to the Rules.

We appreciate your consideration and hope for the best.

 

Sincerely,

Jed Silverman

HCCLA President

Filed Under: press release, prosecutors

Sentencing Juveniles

November 15, 2018 Leave a Comment

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Houston, TX :: November 15, 2018

Alan Nickerson on trial (2007 © Houston Chronicle)

Joint Letter to Harris County District Attorney Kim Ogg:

Download (PDF, 308KB)

Related image

Filed Under: press release, prosecutors Tagged With: Alan Nickerson, Campaign for the Fair Sentencing of Youth, Campaign for Youth Justice, Harris County Criminal Lawyers Association, Kim Ogg, Lone Star Justice Alliance, Texas Criminal Justice Coalition

“Open Carry” NOT “Papers Please”

December 30, 2015 Leave a Comment

Having been made aware of District Attorney Devon Anderson’s advisory opinion to law enforcement officers [below], it appears the debate is alive and well. Whether or not a police officer may stop a citizen engaged in open carry to check for a license is a very real question.Your-Papers-Please-300x175

First and foremost, nothing in the open carry statute authorizes an officer to detain a citizen to determine if they have a license. The ability of a law-abiding citizen to lawfully open carry a handgun does not forego the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures.

While Ms. Anderson is correct that an officer may approach any individual in a consensual encounter, citizens are generally free to decline the encounter and walk away. The Supreme Court has consistently held that a person’s refusal to cooperate with a police request during a consensual encounter cannot, by itself, provide the basis for a detention.[i]

Her position that anything short of voluntary compliance with the officer’s inquiry should be reasonable suspicion to believe the person is illegally possessing the gun is perhaps too broad. Anderson cites Chiarini v. State for the proposition that courts have routinely permitted law enforcement officers to approach and detain those individuals observed to be in possession of a handgun. Recognizing that Chiarini was decided prior to the open carry law, we note that observation of a handgun may no longer carry the same connotation of illegal conduct.

There are three types of police-citizen inter-actions: (1) consensual encounters that do not implicate the Fourth Amendment; (2) investigative detentions that are Fourth Amendment seizures of limited scope and duration that must be supported by a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity; and (3) arrests, the most intrusive of Fourth Amendment seizures, that are reasonable only if supported by probable cause. Police officers are as free as any other citizen to approach citizens to ask for information or cooperation. Such consensual encounters may be uncomfortable for a citizen, but they are not Fourth Amendment seizures. However, investigative detentions go beyond the consensual encounter and impact the Fourth Amendment rights of citizens.

Ms. Anderson’s position that declining the officer’s inquiry should be reasonable suspicion to justify an investigative detention discounts the necessity for reasonable suspicion. If declining an officer’s inquiry amounts to reasonable suspicion, then a citizen could never resist an officer’s inquiry. Consistent with Supreme Court opinions, an officer may only detain (stop) someone when the officer has specific, articulable, and individualized facts to make it reasonable to suspect that the person may be committing a crime.

In any event, if an officer does detain a citizen solely for engaging in open carry, that detention must be brief and limited to determining whether or not the citizen has a license to carry.

HCCLA will encourage lawyers to challenge the validity of any detention that fails to comply with the long established constitutional requirements governing the seizure of citizens. Though an officer may engage in a consensual encounter with any person regardless of their choice to open carry, nothing in the statute divests an otherwise law-abiding citizen of his or her constitutional rights. Generally, citizens may decline the consensual encounter and expect law enforcement to meet reasonable suspicion standards prior to their detention.

Much like a drivers license is required to legally operate a motor vehicle on our Texas roadways, a license is required to carry a handgun both openly and concealed. Law enforcement does not stop every vehicle operator to present his or her license. Why would they stop every open carry citizen?

Instead, it sounds as though Devon Anderson doesn’t support the Republican platform for open carry. While the Governor preaches liberty, Ms. Anderson wants to usher in an era of “papers please.” This is not what one expects in a free society. Ms. Anderson must accept that elections have consequences and the peoples elected legislature has spoken and approved open carry throughout Texas and Harris County.

____________________

[i] Wade v. State, 422 S.W.3d 661, 664-665 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013), citing Florida v. Bostick, 501 U.S. 429, 437, 111 S. Ct. 2382, 115 L. Ed. 2d 389 (1991) (“[A] refusal to cooperate, without more, does not furnish the minimal level of objective justification needed for a detention or seizure.”); Florida v. Royer, 460 U.S. 491, 498, 103 S. Ct. 1319, 75 L. Ed. 2d 229 (1983) (plurality op.) (a suspect’s refusal to listen or answer a police officer’s questions in a non-seizure circumstance “does not, without more, furnish” the officers with reasonable suspicion for a seizure.).

 

View and Download Devon Anderson’s Advisory Opinion Here

Download (PDF, 941KB)

Filed Under: constitution, police, politics, prosecutors, search and seizure Tagged With: constitution, Criminal Justice, devon anderson, district attorney, handguns, harris county, Harris County District Attorney, hccla, law enforcement, open carry

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

Outrageous Attack on Judge

July 30, 2015 1 Comment

After losing a hearing on the constitutionality of the online solicitation of a minor law this week, the Montgomery County District Attorney’s Office, through its First Assistant Phil Grant, has levied media attacks against Judge Kelly Case for political posture.

“Judge Case continues his one man war on our proactive efforts to protect the children of Montgomery County,” stated First Assistant Grant. “This statute is designed to identify and arrest individuals searching for children online to victimize. The methods and procedures used by our investigators specifically weed out those who are merely engaged in twisted sex talk, and arrests are made only when adults get in their car and drive to a location to meet the minor child. The defendants we arrest have made proactive efforts to find and molest children. Judge Case’s rulings continue to place the children of Montgomery County in danger.”  Breitbart.com July 29, 2015

Phil Grant, who by no coincidence has indicated he will run against Judge Case in the next election cycle, attempts to paint Judge Case as creating a war on the protection of children.

Nothing could be further from the truth!

Using the protection of children as his pawn for political gain, Phil Grant intentionally misleads the media regarding the current state of law in Texas. Rather, Judge Case is following the law of the land in which the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals (the highest court in Texas for criminal cases) has already held sections of this law as over-broad and unconstitutional as it infringes upon the First Amendment’s free speech provision.

Following the realization that this particular law was over-broad and unconstitutional, Senator Joan Huffman (a strong Republican, former prosecutor, and former district court judge) worked hard to introduce and pass new legislation which would presumably cure the error and solidify these types of prosecutions. The Montgomery County District Attorney’s Office supported this new legislation (which takes effect September 15, 2015). They supported it because they knew the law was improperly and unconstitutionally written and needed to be fixed! Now they want to complain that a judge who swore to uphold the Constitution is following the law? That’s absurd. Perhaps this media stance would be different if Mr. Grant had not chosen to run against Judge Case.

Responding to the outrageous attack, the Montgomery County Criminal Defense Lawyers Association issued a statement setting forth the true facts. It can be viewed and downloaded here:

Download (PDF, 169KB)

If you want more information on why the statute is unconstitutional, you should read Mark Bennett’s blog on a Roadmap to the Texas Online Solicitation Statute

HCCLA supports the Montgomery County Criminal Defense Lawyers Association in their response. We too are outraged that the Montgomery County District Attorney would launch such an unwarranted attack to aid its own First Assistant’s political agenda.

Updated Courier media with a response from Phil Grant does not sway our opinion or his agenda.

Filed Under: appearance of impropriety, justice, politics, prosecutors, Public Trust Tagged With: constitution, constitutional law, following the law, free speech, judge kelly case, montgomery county district attorney, online solicitation, phil grant, unwarranted attack, using media for political gain

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

McSpadden Battles Jail Overcrowding

July 9, 2015 1 Comment

Today, Senior District Court Judge Michael McSpadden shared his thoughts with Senator John Whitmire regarding jail overcrowding.

While we do not always agree on each issue, we applaud Judge McSpadden for his efforts in pushing for reduction in low-level drug offenses which would clearly have a major impact on our local jail overcrowding. Rather than shipping inmates out of county for holding, pending court (meaning they have not been convicted of anything), had the legislature reduced the “trace” cocaine cases to misdemeanor class C offenses, a substantial portion of those awaiting trial would be released so that courts, law enforcement, and prosecutors could focus on more serious offenses and more violent offenders. Additionally, barring a legislative change, elected District Attorney Devon Anderson could exercise her prosecutorial discretion to serve the same purpose.

Jail overcrowding is a problem. It must be fixed. Shipping inmates around the state for housing is not the answer.

Thanks to Judge McSpadden for at least attacking the problem and offering viable solutions. Read Judge McSpadden’s correspondence here:

 

Download (PDF, 80KB)

Filed Under: incarceration, jail, justice, politics, prosecutors, Public Trust Tagged With: devon anderson, district attorney, harris county, Harris County District Attorney, harris county sheriff, jail overcrowding, overcriminalization, pretrial detainees, ron hickman, senator john whitmire, trace cocaine cases

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

  • 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

  • CLE: Code of Criminal Procedure: Chapter 2 (Part 1)
    Wed Oct 22 2025, 7:00pm CDT - 9:00pm CDT
  • CLE: Code of Criminal Procedure: Chapter 2 (Part 2)
    Wed Oct 29 2025, 7:00pm CDT - 9:00pm CDT
  • VETERANS DAY: FEDERAL COURTS CLOSED
    Tue Nov 11 2025

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.