This morning jury selection in the trial of former Congressman Craig Washington is scheduled to begin in the 208th District Court of Harris County, Texas. He is standing trial for an alleged Aggravated Assault charge which is alleged to have occurred New Years Eve of last year in the parking lot of his office building. Mr. Washington asserts that the firing of his weapon was justified because of self-defense (video). What is striking is that Washington is standing trial in a felony case where the issue of self-defense is present. Last year, Joe Horn was no billed following two Homicide cases in the same county where defense of another’s property was at issue.Last year Joe Horn killed two men as they were fleeing from burglarizing the home of one of his neighbors. Before the shooting, Horn called the police while the two men were committing the burglary. During that phone call, a police dispatcher told Horn that officers were on the scene and urged him not to go outside. Horn, however, was upset because he perceived that the men were getting away. Despite the police dispatcher urging him to stay inside, Horn grabbed his shotgun and went outside and killed the two unarmed men by shooting them in the back. Officers who were on the scene witnessed the shooting. Surprisingly, the entire event was captured on audio. Upon listening to the 911 call, one can hear the actual shooting because Horn leaves the phone off the hook as he goes outside to shoot the men. The case was presented by the Harris County District Attorney’s Office to a grand jury and the grand jury did not find that there was probable cause to return an indictment. To date, no charges have been brought against Horn.
Yet Mr. Washington was indicted by a Harris County grand jury for firing shots at a car driven by trespassers on his property that he perceived was about to run him over. Unlike the Joe Horn case, Mr. Washington was on his own property and was defending his person. And no one was injured by Mr. Washington.
The real and obvious difference in the two cases was that Horn shot two black illegal immigrants who were stealing in an affluent white neighborhood. The alleged complaining witnesses in Mr. Washington’s case, were young white males from the suburbs (one of whom is the son of a police officer). Horn is a white man and Mr. Washington is black. Race appears to be one factor distinguishing these two cases. And I am not surprised by a grand jury displaying some racist tendencies. Many black men have been railroaded by juries in Texas over the last twenty or thirty years. Such is evidenced by the fact that the great majority of the people freed by innocence project in Texas were of African descent. One can only imagine how many men are incarcerated wrongfully and who do not have the benefit of DNA evidence in their cases.
What is surprising is that our District Attorney has not acted as a filter. One of the criticisms of Chuck Rosenthal and Johnny Holmes that was lodged by some in positions of power in the current DA’s office was that Rosenthal and Holmes relegated their power as prosecutors to decide the application of the death penalty to juries. Critics argued that Harris County had so many people on death row because the DA would seek the death penalty in most eligible case and leave it up to the jury to decide whether or not the death penalty was appropriate. Opponents from outside the DA’s Office suggested that these two DAs were not stepping in and filtering capital cases. Mr. Washington’s case is an example of the current regime doing the same. In comparison to Horn’s case, it seems like an injustice is being committed against Mr. Washington. Granted, the prosecution of Mr. Washington began under the old regime which made questionable decisions and was inherited by Lykos' Office. But our current DA should have shown strength of character and SUSTAINED! objections to this biased prosecution and ended this whole thing. Nevertheless, my prayers are for justice in Mr. Washington's case.
ADDENDUM: 3:07 pm. - Word has just been received that the District Attorney's Office has offered Mr. Washington a pretrial diversion and he has accepted. Pre-Trial Diversion is an out of court resolution in which the DA offers a defendant a contract to perform some obligations (community service, counseling, etc.) in exchange for a dismissal. Such a contract does not involve an adjudication of guilt. Nor does it involve a defendant admitting guilt. It is a safe resolution of this case. It is encouraging that the DA took a stand and was not being controlled by pressure from a complainant.
5 comments: