tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post117260453190931526..comments2024-03-25T20:06:39.794-05:00Comments on Grits for Breakfast: DAs dislike criticisms of DNA destruction practicesGritsforbreakfasthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10152152869466958902noreply@blogger.comBlogger20125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-77992519181898348172007-04-19T18:14:00.000-05:002007-04-19T18:14:00.000-05:00BTW Mr. Rutherford, you're right my problem is wit...BTW Mr. Rutherford, you're right my problem is with the law. That's why in the post I said this: <BR/><BR/>"I just think this DA discussion is evidence that Texas' laws allow DAs too much leeway to secure potentially wrongful convictions through plea bargains."<BR/><BR/>No one disputes your legal analysis - it's equating legal reasoning with ethics, I think, that can get prosecutors and other attorneys into trouble.Gritsforbreakfasthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10152152869466958902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-5983940982112408382007-04-19T17:50:00.000-05:002007-04-19T17:50:00.000-05:00Mr. Rutherford,You're allowed your opinions, but i...Mr. Rutherford,<BR/><BR/>You're allowed your opinions, but it's silly to say you were flamed. You were harder on Judge Chapman (you accused him, wrongly, of judicial misconduct). I didn't do anything here but quote you and respond to your statements.<BR/><BR/>Meanwhile, if your identifying information at TDCAA was dated, that's hardly my fault, is it? I presume, then, you are a "former" Dallas prosecutor.<BR/><BR/>As for whether I can post, I am not registerd to do so. The DAs forum is for prosecutors. I am not one, never have been, and I've seen them kick people off before who aren't members of the club, so I don't think what you're saying is right that I'm able to post.<BR/><BR/>If my email to you came back (honestly, this was a while ago and I never noticed), then the link to this was posted on the DAs site so you certainly had an opportunity to know about it. I'd have published a response by you if I'd received it, or you can always respond here, as you've done - so what's your beef?<BR/><BR/>Finally, Google me all you want, but your arguments still fall short, which is probably why you're mad. You confuse what's legal with what's right, while to me and I think most people, the Dallas County DAs recent actions in DNA testing cases shows that what's right is a better course.<BR/><BR/>You seem to think that the fact that it's legal to deny post-conviction testing makes it okay. I believe that kind of thinking is why many people dislike lawyers. Regards,Gritsforbreakfasthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10152152869466958902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-17494817070509633362007-04-19T16:49:00.000-05:002007-04-19T16:49:00.000-05:00Mr. Henson, You must be right about me living ...Mr. Henson,<BR/><BR/> You must be right about me living in a bubble, as I naively failed to investigate the source of the GfB topic at issue and I took at face value the blog profile identifying you as a “writer/researcher.” Had I googled this blog and your background, I would have quickly learned that you have been a professional political activist and lobbyist for years, not just any writer. Clearly, I should have anticipated being flamed on your website as being arrogant, unjust, and disreputable for expressing an opinion on the way the law is written. <BR/><BR/> Further, had I had the time to respond sooner, I would have merely said your complaint is really with the law that allows destruction of evidence after a reasonable time, not with the application of that law. Also, I would have stated that the current use of misleading (or just flat misrepresented) “facts” by writers and journalists is leading “your profession down a path of frankly well-deserved disrepute.” Such misrepresented “facts” are the province of the Bush administration, not writer/researchers! Nevertheless, these responses were unnecessary, given your ability to read minds (“this non-attorney understood everything you said before you said it”). However, I must appeal to the reputable writer in you, and ask that you correct three statements in your blog post of February 27, 2007, which are not supported by fact. <BR/><BR/> First, you state that you can’t post on TDCAA.com. As the user forums are open to any member of the public to register and post comments, it is disingenuous to say you can’t post. Perhaps it would be more accurate to say you choose not to post, or perhaps some technological issue prevents you from posting, if that is the case. <BR/><BR/> Second, you misidentified me as currently being a Dallas prosecutor, when I had clearly stated I am now a civil attorney. It is misleading to ascribe my words to an office for which I no longer work, and attempt to legitimize your criticisms of me in that way. <BR/><BR/> Third, it is a very cheap trick of disreputable writers to send someone an email and, when an immediate response does not arrive, to say “No word back yet.” The implication to your readers is that days have elapsed with my being so shamed I could not bring myself to respond. In fact, I was curious how you sent me an email, so tried it myself from the TDCAA user forum. It turns out that TDCAA was still listing my email address from 2002, which obviously is no longer good. I know this because Dallas County’s email server replied to my email in minutes, saying my old email address does not exist. I guess if you had waited a few minutes before telling your readers that I had not yet responded, you would have known that email address was bad. <BR/><BR/>Regards,<BR/>Bryan RutherfordAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-1173409369923258702007-03-08T21:02:00.000-06:002007-03-08T21:02:00.000-06:00The lay-person argument is astonishingly ironic, s...The lay-person argument is astonishingly ironic, since the most legally misinformed argument in this whole debate is that it somehow even sniffs the Free Speech clause of the First Amendment. <BR/><BR/>As a lawyer (though really i should be able to say, "as someone who went to 11th grade civics class") I know that the First Amendment is only implicated when the *government* seeks to limit or control someone's form of expression. It blows my mind and downright pisses me off when people invoke the First Amendment as a defense against mere criticism, and from a non-government entity no less. But Jesus Christ on a 10-speed, to hear a LAWYER do it. They probably got their JD at the mall, and it has their picture on it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-1172809630742850752007-03-01T22:27:00.000-06:002007-03-01T22:27:00.000-06:00Thanks for calling out John Bradley. His posts on ...Thanks for calling out John Bradley. His posts on the TDCAA message board fall into three categories: (1) He thinks he's smarter than every hard working ADA, (2) someone quoted him in a news article, so he'll cut and paste it - without regard to copyright issues, and (3) he will begin the post with,"In my book, 'The Perfect Plea' . . . . ".<BR/><BR/>He prosecutes in lily white Williamson County - how hard can that be? Put him in Dallas County and jurors would hand him his ass on a weekly basis.Barry Greenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03313757598415141565noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-1172777979489087042007-03-01T13:39:00.000-06:002007-03-01T13:39:00.000-06:00300 words or less:Please read this article from th...300 words or less:<BR/><BR/>Please read this article from the Dallas Morning News very carefully. I think they articulate the point of view rather well:<BR/><BR/>http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/city/dallas/stories/DN-dnadeal_01met.ART0.West.Edition1.4416dc9.html<BR/><BR/>You'll have to cut and paste it. My hyperlink skills are less than adequate.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-1172759060480187772007-03-01T08:24:00.000-06:002007-03-01T08:24:00.000-06:00Sorry, that should have read "Harris County."Sorry, that should have read "Harris County."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-1172758592592971262007-03-01T08:16:00.000-06:002007-03-01T08:16:00.000-06:00Dallas County can afford the refrigerators needed ...Dallas County can afford the refrigerators needed to store some test tubes until the offenders' sentences are completed.<BR/><BR/>To the mind of this attorney, the practice may be legal, but it is totally corrupt and unethical. DAs who include such clauses in their plea bargains are, in my opinion, less concerned with justice than with their conviction rate.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-1172757076495602952007-03-01T07:51:00.000-06:002007-03-01T07:51:00.000-06:00How amusing/sad that GOVERNMENT attorneys do not u...How amusing/sad that GOVERNMENT attorneys do not understand the First Amendment, i.e., that it is not possible for a Private Grits for Breakfast Blog Writer to commit a First Amendment violation with respect to Blogging D.A.s.<BR/><BR/>I must laugh long and hard at the poster who says D.A.s just want the cases to move along quickly. The Harris County D.A.'s Office is still dragging their feet on the appeal of Erica Sheppard from her death penalty conviction of more than 10 years ago. A team of lawyers timely filed her appeal about 9 years ago, and to my knowledge, the State STILL hasn't responded to that filing. It isn't the defendants who are slowing down the process.Lisahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17131504991384964006noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-1172727292623976102007-02-28T23:34:00.000-06:002007-02-28T23:34:00.000-06:00Why in the name of St. Clarence Darrow would ANY d...Why in the name of St. Clarence Darrow would ANY defense lawyer EVER attach his name to an agreement to destroy potentially exculpatory evidence? I do court appointments too (and down here they don't pay a helluva lot) but you couldn't get me to sign an agreement like that at gunpoint! In addition to grits' point that it is supporting an immoral law, signing an agreement like that is, at best, ineffective assistance and at worst, malpractice. No DA has the power to make me put my bar card in his hands.The Local Crankhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16673363936902590966noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-1172703187309214382007-02-28T16:53:00.000-06:002007-02-28T16:53:00.000-06:00To the commenter who stated that it's a money issu...To the commenter who stated that it's a money issue ... it seems to me that the cost of freeing a handful of wrongfully incarcerated prisoners (who cost the state a ridiculous sum of money yearly) would more than offset storage costs for 10-year-old DNA samples. <BR/><BR/>Maybe I'm crazy, though.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-1172680745709240882007-02-28T10:39:00.000-06:002007-02-28T10:39:00.000-06:00If it weren't the case that 30% of TX prisoners ar...If it weren't the case that 30% of TX prisoners are past clients of the mental health system, I might agree it's enough to "explain the repercussions of destroying this crucial evidence." But neither defendants nor reality are always as rational as it seems like they should be when the issue is discussed in a pristine legislative committee room. best,Gritsforbreakfasthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10152152869466958902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-1172679519281632712007-02-28T10:18:00.000-06:002007-02-28T10:18:00.000-06:00As for preserving crucial, DNA containing samples ...As for preserving crucial, DNA containing samples such as semen or saliva we're talking about keeping something about the size of a shoebox frozen indefinately? If the prisoner wants this crucial evidence preserved, why not bill the prisoner or his family? Better, why not explain the repercussions of destroying this crucial evidence in plain language to the prisoner AND MAKE HIM OR HER SIGN A WAIVER PROVING THAT THEY REALLY UNDERSTAND WHAT THEY ARE DOING, i.e., flushing hopes of future exoneration down the potty.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15222496034266045416noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-1172675426601954472007-02-28T09:10:00.000-06:002007-02-28T09:10:00.000-06:00Why do lawyers want DNA evidence destroyed after a...<I>Why do lawyers want DNA evidence destroyed after a plea bargain has been accepted?<BR/><BR/>I wonder if any could answer in less than 300 words.</I><BR/><BR/>I'm not a lawyer, but I can do it in less than 10: Because it costs money to keep it around. I haven't waded into the TDCAA forum to see if anyone has raised this point, but it's an obvious one, and one that at least has some justification. <BR/><BR/>Now, I don't know if the marginal cost for maintaining DNA evidence (as opposed to any other kind - what's the general policy on, say, fingerprints and fibers?) is truly burdensome, but it is a point that needs to be addressed, since money is always an object.<BR/><BR/>Hope that helps.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-1172657281338315182007-02-28T04:08:00.000-06:002007-02-28T04:08:00.000-06:00Former ADA here. Prosecutor's want DNA destroyed b...Former ADA here. <BR/>Prosecutor's want DNA destroyed because <BR/>1- They believe in the infallibiltiy of conviction and guilty pleas and the system in general. <BR/>They believe "if they law allows it" then that ends the discussion. That's one of the reasons some DA's deny access to evidence (police reports etc), because they can. Even though their job isn't to "convict but to see that justice is done".<BR/>2- They desire judicial economy. Our criminal justice system is set up to be slow. Prosecutors have cases to move. For insight on this see the TDCAA discussion of HB1178.<BR/><BR/><BR/>Finally, I met many great people when I was an ADA. Prosecutors with different viewpoints that John Bradley rarely speak out, especially on the message board. It's a culture that doesn't reward dissent.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-1172656753387014232007-02-28T03:59:00.000-06:002007-02-28T03:59:00.000-06:00A prosecutor (not all lawyers are prosecutors, but...A prosecutor (not all lawyers are prosecutors, but you must be a lawyer to be a prosecutor) wants DNA evidence destroyed after a plea bargain so that when the poor wretch decides that he got a horrible "deal", there will be no biological evidence remaining to test to prove that he or she, in fact, could not have commited the crime.<BR/><BR/>I like Scott's slavery analogy...just because it is legal doesn't make it right. The idea of destroying evidence as part of a plea deal is horrifying. Just goes to show how insecure prosecutors are about their cases and abilities.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-1172646330306131632007-02-28T01:05:00.000-06:002007-02-28T01:05:00.000-06:00I think the "legal jargon" is exactly the point he...I think the "legal jargon" is exactly the point here. Should justice only be accessable to the "educated and informed"? I think not. So lets keep things simple shall we?<BR/><BR/>Why do lawyers want DNA evidence destroyed after a plea bargain has been accepted?<BR/><BR/>I wonder if any could answer in less than 300 words.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-1172635051756201102007-02-27T21:57:00.000-06:002007-02-27T21:57:00.000-06:00Good job Scott. I saw those comments on the forum...Good job Scott. I saw those comments on the forum today and thought about addressing them myself but you've handled it perfectly. But then again, I'm a high 'n mighty lawyer who understands all this complicated legal jargon better than you peons...<BR/><BR/>And that guy ripped off my Frau Blucher reference from my post on all this business without any reference. The nerve!Mike Howardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18111524970633256292noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-1172623812445534402007-02-27T18:50:00.000-06:002007-02-27T18:50:00.000-06:00You know, Dave, I really like that line, too - qui...You know, Dave, I really like that line, too - quite a lot. After seeing your comment, I've added Bradley's "uneducated and unrestrained" comment to the quotes in the permanent sidebar. :)<BR/>best,Gritsforbreakfasthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10152152869466958902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-1172623112784942282007-02-27T18:38:00.000-06:002007-02-27T18:38:00.000-06:00Props to you Scott, from another uneducated and un...Props to you Scott, from another uneducated and unrestrained writer.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com