The Campaign For DA

2.17.2015

Texas Prosecutor Casually Mentions That He Might Have Wrongfully Prosecuted People


For almost two decade, the Texas District and County Attorney's Association has had an online message board where prosecutors can ask for advice.  It's rarely used.  But I noticed this one today which really got my attention. Don't get bogged down in the details because it really is straight forward: His office has been prosecuting pregnant mothers under a statute which says it doesn't apply to pregnant mothers.

This really is amazing. Not only is it an admission of not knowing the law, but it also demonstrates an "aw shucks" mentality about wrongful prosecutions.

Edit: So some of you think I'm in favor of pregnant women using drugs? Really? That is what you discerned from all of the above?

12 comments:

Anonymous said...

Milam County Assistant District Attorney Joseph Parker Johnson has been licensed since November 2014. I think this is probably a case of the new lawyer seeing what's being done in the office and pointing out that it's wrong. You can't blame Joe Johnson -- he's probably not only not cavalier about it, he's probably the guy that called his boss on it.

Bill Torrey's been DA since 2012.

Anonymous said...

Let's do what we can to allow pregnant women to take more drugs, I guess. Send the bill for the lifelong care of these kids born into these situations only to those that think it's wrong to prevent pregnant women from taking drugs, please. I'm tapped out.

Anonymous said...

So the guy is trying to do the right thing, but he's being to flip about it? He's being to casual, in asking for help?

If you respond like this, what's his incentive to police himself?

And more importantly, why aren't you calling out the crappy defense attorneys who didn't catch this on their own?

Anonymous said...

This is a new low, even for this blog and its author.

Would it be fair to summarize the post as: "Former DA turned defender ridicules newby ADA in another county for seeking clarification on the applicability of a specific law"?

So, class, what's more reprehensible? Reaching out to one's professional peers to try to faithfully discharge the duties of one's office? Or, posting a snarky, faux populist criticism because you didn't research the material (or because you think it's a swell idea for pregnant mothers to endanger their unborn babies through substance abuse)?

Anonymous said...

Have a nephew that is such a child! Like to meet him someday and see what you think then?? The good news is that the mother died a drug addict without having anymore children .

Anonymous said...

"...because you didn't research the material (or because you think it's a swell idea for pregnant mothers to endanger their unborn babies through substance abuse)?

So, 7:39, in your mind, those are the only two possible motives for this post?

Anonymous said...

What you need, but apparently never received, is one big attitude adjusting ass whipping.

Anonymous said...

How many defense attorneys and judges did these plea deals make it through? Prosecutors and defense attorneys are free to make plea deals all they want. But if it is prohibited by statute then is up to judge to not allow it. Maybe it was in the defendants best interest to take a plea on this charge instead of a harsher one?

Anonymous said...

10:30 puts in neatly.

B.G., you're better than this.

Aren't you?!?

Anonymous said...

That is what you discerned from all of the above?

No. What is discerned is your lack of comprehension in reading the prosecutor forum post. ADA Johnson prefaced that it had been the office practice to use 22.041(c) in a way that was possibly incorrect, and then sought suggestions for alternative approaches.

That your post pilloried a rookie ADA can be forgiven, as it's the M.O. of this blog to ridicule all thing related to law enforcement, and all but the newest readers understand this. What's not understandable is getting your hackles up defending your position after being presented with reasonable evidence showing your initial take on the subject was flawed. Based solely on the forum post, you and Johnson may have exactly the same position regarding the use of 22.041(c).

When a prosecutor dismisses or conceals exculpatory evidence, truth suffers. Honorable people admit when they've erred. So what's noble about standing by your initial post? On the other hand, if your readers misunderstood your point, then elucidate us.

For the record, I do not know ADA JPJ, and had to Google Milam County to see where it is.

Anonymous said...

"For the record, I do not know ADA JPJ, and had to Google Milam County to see where it is."

I think they call 'em CD's now. Try to keep up. But I don't know those bands either

Anonymous said...

Hey, Councilor... Ran across a hidden gem of a film that you would thoroughly enjoy, Twilight of Honor. Reluctant young attorney appointed to defend a despicable client of murdering a local big shot. Really good stuff. Right up your alley.

DF Art Harper