Craig Washington's Day In Court

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.

NAACP at 100 Years

Tonight, President Barack Obama spoke to the NAACP in New York commemorating 100 years (Video). Throughout history the NAACP's objections to racist laws and policies have been SUSTAINED!

A Sheet For Sessions

During the Supreme Court confirmation hearings being conducted this week on Capital Hill, Judge Sonia Sotomayor has been vigorously questioned about her "wise Latina" remark by Alabama Senator Jeff Sessions. The statement was made some eight years ago, but has been revived by Republicans desperate to paint President Barack Obama into a political corner of weakness. But Jeff Sessions is far from qualified to accuse Judge Sotomayor of being racist.

In 1986, Sessions was nominated for a federal judgeship by President Ronald Reagan. At the time, he served as a United States Attorney in Alabama. During confirmation hearings, it was revealed that Sessions had made several racist statements. Sessions allegedly made a variety of comments that opponents pointed to, when he jokingly said that the Ku Klux Klan was not so bad until he found out that some of them smoked marijuana. Sessions also allegedly referred to the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) as "un-American" and "Communist-inspired" because they "forced civil rights down the throats of people." When these comments and others surfaced, the nomination was killed by the Senate Judiciary Committee, which refused by a 9-9 vote to let the nomination come to the Senate floor for a vote. Sessions' opponents politely accused him of "gross insensitivity" on racial issues instead of calling him a blatant racist (video). Following the confirmation process, Sessions was quoted as saying that the Senate on occasion had been insensitive to the rights and reputation of nominees.

Surprisingly, it is Sessions who is now being insensitive. He repeatedly characterized Judge Sotomayor as a judge who would be an activist judge and ignore precedent. He even criticized Judge Sotomayor for her role in the Ricci v. Destefano Decision. However, what Sessions missed was that the second circuit's decision was consistent with then existing Supreme Court precedent. It was the Supreme Court that broke with precedent and employed judicial activism to limit the intended reach of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (and all other American discrimination laws for that matter). Like a racist, Sessions even suggested that Sotomayor was in error for failing to vote in line with a Latin colleague on the Second Circuit (video) during the Ricci v. Destefano case.

If Sessions' history is any indication, he is a racist and is not qualified to vote on the nomination of any minority judge. When Sessions was a prosecutor, he unsuccessfully prosecuted three black civil rights workers, including a former aide to Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., on a case of election fraud during the 1984 election. Sessions spent hours interrogating African American voters in predominantly black counties, finding only 14 allegedly tampered ballots out of approximately 1.7 million ballots cast. The objection to the baseless prosecution was SUSTAINED! when the three civil rights workers were acquitted after only four hours of jury deliberation. Sessions has been opposed to parts of the Voting Rights Act, which he described as "intrusive legislation." He even expressed concerns about its renewal in 2006.

Years ago, the late Judge Andrew Jefferson of Houston, Texas was nominated to the United States Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. Judge Jefferson was a distinguished African-American attorney and jurist. But his appointment was delayed and ultimately derailed by a Republican controlled Senate. His judgeship never came up for a vote during the confirmation process. One must wonder how many other minority judges were stymied by Sessions and other racist congressmen. Minority Judges who themselves may have tasted the bitter whip of discrimination may be more inclined to disarm cowardly racists and reach results that are favorable to people and people's rights.

Judges who favor civil rights and civil liberties are routinely labeled as judicial activists and are criticized for upholding the law. But the truth of the matter is that many conservative judges are judicial activists as well. Earlier this year, I was arguing a case before the United States Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. The case contained an issue of first impression (it was the first time the court had considered the issue). The statute in question was clear about a certain point (a time period in which something had to be done). However, in reaching its decision, the Court created a new law that was in addition to what the statute provided (the Court added an additional 30 days). Simply put, the Court did not like the result of my client going free because things were not done in the manner prescribed by the statute. So, the Court created a rule that had the effect of my client, and others similar to him, losing liberty. The additional process carved out by the Court was no where in the Statute. This is the root of the Sotomayor debate. Sessions and others like him are lying when they say they do not want a results driven judges, just judges that will interpret the laws. The truth is that they do not want results driven judges who will reach results favorable to the disenfranchised.

It's easy to see why the Klan was "alright" with Sessions. Like the Klan, Sessions' history contains instances of the corrupt use of power to pressure and persecute the disenfranchised. He does not wear a sheet, but his bigotry is as easy to see as a burning cross. Judge Sotomayor should be confirmed.

Nothing Like a Mother's Love...Except a Righteous Quest for Justice

I have been representing a young African-American male in a felony juvenile case since December of 2008. We set his case for trial a few months ago. And today was the jury trial date. From first impression, it looked like a case that should have been the subject of a plea bargain. But my client’s mother insisted on his innocence and gave us every resource to investigate and fight the case. She stood by him even though she did not have a lot of means. A few days ago, I learned that she was dying with cancer. I was surprised. She never told me anything about it. Not once did she use it as an excuse for anything that was happening. She paid all of her attorneys fees and never gave any hint that she was struggling with any other issue.

After some digging, it looked like my client was victimized by the alleged “complaining witness.” I made my argument to the state and presented my client’s truth to an honest prosecutor. And, the state dismissed the case this morning. Within minutes of having the case dismissed, my client’s oldest sister (now his legal guardian) received a call from a family member informing them that their mother had passed away. On this day, July 14, 2009, she died and was under sixty.

It shocked me. Frankly, I am still in shock. Because the last time I saw her, she was uncompromising in her principles. She was standing her ground and was ready to fight. Her son could have easily been a victim of the system. A different parent would have caved under the pressure of mounting financial obligations and mortgaged his future and hope to pay for their temporal contentment. But my client’s mother stood on truth. To her justice was not an elusive concept about which to theorize and postulate. It was tangible and worth much more than a little sweat from her brow. No matter what the cost or the consequence of paying that cost, justice should never be place on layaway. My client's mother could not wait. Thankfully, her righteous quest for justice was SUSTAINED!

Fire In The Firehouse

Someone scrawled sexual and racial slurs in the secure area of Fire Station 54 at Bush Intercontinental Airport which was directed at firefighter Paula Keyes on Tuesday of this week. Another firefighter in that same station, Jane Draycott, discovered that a photo of herself and her late daughter on her locker was mutilated, and the word “die” scrawled on her face and “dead” over that of her daughter, who was killed in an auto accident. Both women were the only female members of the station. The story has dominated the news here in Houston. Elected City Officials have been outraged by the treatment of these women. Their outrage is appropriately placed. Sexist and racist public servants are a danger to the public welfare and represent a public safety risk. But where was the outrage of elected officials when the cameras were not present?

Since this has been reported other people have come forward with stories of harassment. “It's starting to look systematic throughout the department,” said Joe Ahmed, the lawyer for Keyes and Draycott. “We feel like we've uncovered the tip of the iceberg. … I certainly don't believe all the firefighters are in on it, but it seems like nobody has been able to make it through the complaint system. No one would listen, until now.”

The City of Houston gets countless discrimination cases filed against it and vigorously defends all discrimination cases, even those with merit. The fact that there is sexual harassment among public servants in Houston is no secret. It was not even a secret to our elected officials. Last year, the City of Houston resolved a lawsuit in which former police Sgt. Michael L. Cox alleged that he was fired for backing the sexual harassment claims of a female motorcycle officer. The suit, filed in 2004, claimed Houston Police Department brass manipulated the investigation that led to his termination. The settlement of the case had to be approved by the City Council. There was evidence that the discrimination was systemic in that case that made it to the attention of the city council. But no one called for an investigation. Additionally, the city appealed the claim of Beth Kreuzer, the female officer who was being harassed in the case in which former Sgt Cox testified. A jury awarded a $600,000 verdict to Kreuzer in 2005. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals SUSTAINED! the decision and tacked on another $315,000 in attorneys' fees. That case was the third successful sexual harassment lawsuit won by Houston lawyers Katherine Butler and Margaret Harris on behalf of a female Houston Police Department officer. These cases did not receive much press. But they were all known to city officials who had to approve payments in those cases.

Discrimination has flourished in city systems and has been allowed to continue to grow because of the City’s attitude towards discrimination. To the City, “It is just something that happens.” No one is outraged by the suits or by the harassment... until a camera shows up. Moreover, little has been done to rectify gender disparity. 2.6 percent of the Fire Department’s members are female. Over 80 percent of the Fire Department’s members are white males. In a city as diverse as Houston, our civil servants should be reflective of our city’s population. Ironically, less than two weeks ago the United States Supreme Court overturned the Second Circuit's decision in Ricci v. Destefano and dealt a blow to an important tool to fight systemic discrimination. It was a 5 to 4 decision with Justice Kennedy writing the opinion for the majority. In the dissenting opinion, Justice Ginsburg criticized the majority for ignoring that "f]irefighting is a profession in which the legacy of racial discrimination casts an especially long shadow." Judge Sonia Sotomayor was on the Second Circuit panel which decided the case. And Republican congressmen are positioning themselves to question Judge Sotomayor about her reasoning in that case during confirmation hearings (they have subpoenaed parties from the case to testify). Perhaps Senator John Cornyn can get them to back off that stance with what is happening in Houston.

Unfortunately, the Supreme Court's decision in Ricci may limit the City’s ability to attempt to correct race and gender disparities in the Fire Department which are systemic. Moreover, with such an atmosphere, the city may find it difficult to recruit minorities. The city must take quick and decisive action to extinguish the fire of discrimination in the fire department before it sets ablaze public confidence in the department. It must cease its policy of tolerating the intolerable. There must be zero tolerance for racism and sexism. We are paying civil servants, not the other way around. Our tax dollars demand nothing less.

Battered and Bruised

Earlier today, Susan Clemmer, a Los Angeles police detective who testified during the trial of the officers who brutally beat Rodney King, killed herself after walking into the lobby of a suburban sheriff's station. During the trial, Clemmer was among the first to testify in defense of her fellow officers. She rode in the ambulance with King after he was brutally beaten on the night of March 2, 1991. She testified that King was laughing and spitting blood on her uniform. Her testimony portrayed King as an unremorseful aggressor. She also testified that one of the officers who brutalized King was “in shock” after the assault occurred. She was a witness for the defense who was not involved in the assault and appeared disinterested. Much of her testimony was of events which were not captured on video. It was testimony which could not be independently verified. Her testimony was one of the reasons a suburban California jury felt justified in acquitting the officers involved. The acquittals lead to widespread riots in Los Angeles and called national attention to law enforcement abuses and the quotient of race in law enforcement tactics. The officers were later tried and convicted in a federal court for violating King’s civil rights.

Yet, here we stand over eighteen years after Rodney King was viciously beaten by Los Angeles police officers and little has changed. Race is still a dominant ingredient in our melting pot and all too often arouses the appetite of law enforcement officers to dine on the mistreatment of citizens. Many are still being battered and bruised by police.

On the night of March 2, 1991, Rodney King led police officers on a high-speed vehicle chase. He initially resisted officers. His decisions that night were unwise. His actions were reckless and justified his arrest. However, once King was subdued by police, shot with a Taser, and no longer resisting arrest; an Officer struck King with a baton, knocking him to the ground. Thereafter, multiple officers repeatedly struck King with their batons, stomped on him and kicked him while he was on the ground for almost a minute and a half. The entire assault was captured on video. King was taken to the Hospital immediately after his arrest. He suffered a fractured facial bone, a broken leg, and numerous bruises and lacerations. The officers later testified that they believed King was under the influence of the dissociative drug Phencyclidine (PCP), although King's toxicology results tested negative for PCP.

His beating was unjustified. Yet, without the video, nothing would have happened to the officers involved. And for a jury with ten whites and two non-black citizens in suburban California, nothing should have happened even with the video. That same jury could not convict any of officers of any charges. Since King’s beating, police brutality has continued. An extensive U.S. Department of Justice report on police use of force released in 2001 indicated that in 1999, “approximately 422,000 people 16 years old and older were estimated to have had contact with police in which force or the threat of force was used." A 2006 Department of Justice report SUSTAINED! that there were 2,000 verifiable cases of excessive force in 2002. Other studies have shown that most police brutality goes unreported.

Historically, police officers in America have been White Anglo-Saxon Protestants. As urban areas in America have raced to more diverse populations, police forces have failed to keep pace. Differences in race, religion, politics, or socioeconomic status often exist between police and the citizenry. Some police officers view people who are from a different group as being criminals based on their inclusion in that group. Racial profiling is evidence of this type of thinking. Driving while black is another phenomenon attributable to these differences. The problem is ubiquitous. Black people have been shot and killed by white officers in many different states. Following 911 many Arab-Americans in New York were repeatedly harassed by the New York City Police Department despite having been born and raised in this country. As a result, communities distrust police and are hesitant to look to them for help. Within the last few days, the largest police officer’s union in Houston urged Houston’s mayor to allow officers to question people about their immigration status during police encounters (citing the deaths of several officers allegedly at the hands of illegal immigrants as justification). The request is evidence that the Union seeks to stereotype citizens of Latin descent. It is this mind set that must be addressed and changed.

A 1997 survey conducted by the International Association of Police Chiefs found that more than 80 percent of police departments devote time to ethics education during recruit training, highlighting use of force and cultural diversity. However, such training is limited to the academy and has been ineffective to curb the problem. What is needed is a partnership between police and communities. Officers need to be in the trenches with citizens who what to better their communities instead of being in the community to arrest those citizens who live in the community (which is the function of the current model of community policing). Officers need to be involved in community functions. Representatives of law enforcement should be sent to homeowner’s association meetings, civic club meetings, community center functions, protest rallies and other community functions. Officers need to empathize with people's struggles. Police need to partner with people in communities to understand and appreciate the humanity of people who look different than them. Such a partnership can only exist with trust. Trust can only be earned. Stereotyping and racial profiling betrays the trust of every American and undermines the integrity of our system of Justice. Nearly twenty years ago Rodney King’s beating and the subsequent trial highlighted this major problem in law enforcement and the resistance to changing it. Trust for law enforcement is no higher today than it was then. It is time for change.