Defending People

the tao of criminal-defense trial lawyering

Anonymous Bloggers

I’m in favor of peo­ple in sen­si­tive posi­tions being able to blog anony­mously so that they can bring us insights that we wouldn’t oth­er­wise [edit: receive]. But — and maybe this is just me — I think if you’re going to blog anony­mously you should treat peo­ple with at least as much respect as you would give them were you face-to-face.Dick DeGuerin is one of the respected lead­ers of the Har­ris County crim­i­nal defense bar, and a lawyer who could very well clean up a court­room with AHCL. When Dick’s on a case, the Office puts Kelly Siegler up against him; the cases Kelly brags about on her web­site are the ones in which she beat Dick DeGuerin. He is that good.I doubt very much that AHCL would call Dick DeGuerin “Sore Loser of the Year” to his face. I doubt, also, that she would refer to as “Dickie” in person.Pat Lykos is fair game — maybe — because she’s run­ning for office. She’s put her­self out there. But by tak­ing shots at Dick DeGuerin from behind the cover of anonymity, AHCL drops her blog to a dif­fer­ent level, and makes her­self out to be just another anony­mous coward.

Share

About The Author

Mark Bennett got his letter of marque from the Supreme Court of Texas in May 1995. He is famous for having no sense of humor when it comes to totalitarianism.

Comments

23 Responses to “Anonymous Bloggers”

  1. Terry Stop says:

    AHCL has stu­dent loans to pay and an uncer­tain 2009 ahead of her. An occa­sional emo­tional out­burst is to be expected (and forgiven).

  2. pro.victims says:

    The office doesn’t wait till Dick shows up to assign the case to Kelly. I know a num­ber of pros­e­cu­tors other than Kelly who have han­dled or are cur­rently han­dling cases against Mr. DeGuerin.

    From what I’ve seen, Kelly tends to take on the tough­est cases, which means the evi­dence can be chal­leng­ing. It also means, the defen­dants them­selves can be daunt­ing. And some­times that means they have alot of money. DeGuerin com­mands a high fee. He doesn’t rep­re­sent pro se defen­dants, no mat­ter how “inno­cent” they claim to be. Kelly and Dick have gone head to head four times, so far as I know. Has he only han­dled four cases in 21 years in Har­ris County? If so — maybe his leg­end is a lit­tle over-broad. If not — maybe the office doesn’t really assign Kelly to him since he isn’t “that good.” Pros­e­cu­tors get cases at ran­dom, and who the defen­dant hires doesn’t impact which ADA han­dles the case. Mark, you know better.

  3. Mark Bennett says:

    Okay, I con­cede that I went too far. The DA’s office doesn’t always put Kelly oppo­site Dick. He’s not that good.

    Still, the cases that Kelly brags about are the cases in which she beat Dick (or, in one instance, Dick’s office). He is that good.

  4. pro.victims says:

    I agree. Beat­ing Dick is note­wor­thy for a pros­e­cu­tor — he is that good.

    And, I agree — Dick is not that good, that he should draw Kelly Siegler every time.

  5. Mark Bennett says:

    But that’s tan­gen­tial to the post, of course. AHCL wouldn’t say those things to Dick’s face. Nor should she.

  6. Mark Bennett says:

    Inci­den­tally, some­one com­mented off-blog that I was call­ing AHCL a cow­ard. I know her not to be one.

  7. AHCL says:

    Ah Mark,
    I was won­der­ing when we would have our first fight. Kind of inter­est­ing, isn’t it?

    First of all, I called Dick the names “sore loser of the year” and “Dickie”. I didn’t call him an exple­tive nor insin­u­ate that he had a body buried off the New Jer­sey turn­pike. It sur­prised me that you took such offense on his behalf.

    Sec­ond, as to the com­ment that Dick would “clean up a court­room” with me. Per­haps. I’ve always tried to refrain from talk­ing myself up or pre­dict­ing a win in court. I wouldn’t ever pre­dict a win against any attor­ney, but I cer­tainly would never be scared to try a case against them. Call me Old Fash­ioned, but I’m one of those folks that believes cases are more about the facts, than the attor­neys. I’ve tried a fairly large amount of felony cases, and I’m not say­ing that I’ve won them all One thing that is true of 100% of my cases is that I’ve never once seen you in the audi­ence dur­ing one of them.

    There­fore, your pre­dic­tion of me being used as a uten­sil to clean a court­room may be a bit premature.

    Third, when I first started this gig (and sub­se­quently hired you as my attor­ney to pro­tect my anonymity), I believe that we con­curred that me keep­ing my iden­tity a secret was best for a mul­ti­tude of reasons.

    Cow­ardice over say­ing some­thing to someone’s face was not one of those reasons.

    How­ever, that has put me in the unique posi­tion of being called a “cow­ard” when I say some­thing you dis­agree with, apparently.

    I fully real­ize that you and I will say things that the other will dis­agree with. It hap­pens more often than not, in fact. I give my take on things. You give your take on things. But, we had remained polite to one another.

    Until today, at least.

    We’re freak­ing blog­gers, for God’s sakes. Not newscasters.

  8. Michael says:

    My opin­ion of DeGuerin fluc­tu­ates with what I think of the defen­dant he’s work­ing for (I know, it shouldn’t, but it does). DeGuerin is clean­ing up a mess in cen­tral Texas made by another leg­endary attor­ney who, when push comes to shove, hasn’t lived up to his rep­u­ta­tion a cou­ple of times.

    I think more of AHCL than I do of the anony­mous ADAs post­ing on her site who have noth­ing bet­ter to come at me with than the fact I look like Uncle Fes­ter. (I know I won’t need to be scared of them if ever I have to try a felony in Hous­ton if their trial strat­egy con­sists of name-calling.) But I won­der why she lets those anony-mouse posters get away with that juvenilia.

  9. Mark Bennett says:

    AHCL, I still think your anonymity is impor­tant. Maybe, thanks to anony­mous com­menters on another local blawg, I’ve devel­oped a dis­taste for anony­mous ad hominem attacks. Or maybe I always had such a distaste.

    Am I wrong that you should be at least as respect­ful when you’re anony­mous as you would in person?

  10. AHCL says:

    Michael,
    You are cor­rect. I shouldn’t have allowed the Uncle Fes­ter on my blog. As the blog host, that was my duty, and I apol­o­gize. If you would send me a com­ment on my blog let­ting me know where the com­ment is, I will go back and delete it. I fully real­ize that it is too lit­tle, too late, but I hope you accept my apology.

    Mark,
    I believe, as I always have believed, since start­ing my blog that all state­ments I made should be taken for what they were worth. That is, state­ments made by an Anony­mous Blog­ger. Is it mad­den­ing to read some­thing bad about your­self and have no one to respond to?
    Of course it is. One of the rea­sons I started the blog was in direct response to the anony­mous posters over at the Chronicle’s web­site. I just wanted a voice to be heard that actu­ally was an oppos­ing view to what was writ­ten over there.

    Should peo­ple be respect­ful? Peo­ple should ALWAYS be respect­ful, But some­times things are said to illus­trate points that are dis­re­spect­ful. I think I’ve been clear in early posts about Dick that I think he is one hell of an attor­ney. That doesn’t mean that I strongly dis­agree with how he han­dled the guilty ver­dict of David Tem­ple. I described it as I felt.
    Another case in point, Alan Bern­stein.
    I’m giv­ing him Holy Hell on my web­site because of what he has elected to write and not write at the Chron­i­cle.
    I guess the bot­tom line is that if I sup­port my char­ac­ter­i­za­tions with WHY I made them, maybe you will con­sider them. Maybe not. Feel free to regard me and what I write as being no bet­ter than the mush writ­ten in the Chron­i­cle mes­sage boards.

  11. batgirl says:

    Mark, I think you are too harsh on anon bloggers/posters. Please rec­og­nize that you are your own boss (but for your wife) and nobody will fire you for speak­ing your mind. Oth­ers are employ­ees of some­one or an agency, and only feel com­fort­able blogging/posting with­out giv­ing their names.

    I have a few ques­tions:
    Have you seen AHCL in trial?
    Do you think Dick is bet­ter than you in trial? Dick is good, but is he really the best?
    Is Kelly the only one who can beat him?
    Just wondering.

  12. Michael says:

    Bat­girl:

    I thought the last remark was directed at me, rather than Mark, but since I surfed over here…

    With­out know­ing who AHCL is (and I know Mark does) I am cer­tain I’ve never seen her since I’ve never seen a Har­ris County felony trial. (Well, I guess I should allow for the pos­si­bil­ity I’ve seen her in another county.)

    I think Dick is bet­ter than me in trial. I don’t think Kelly is the only one who can beat him.

    :)

    By the way, off topic: GO RAZORBACKS!

  13. Mark Bennett says:

    Bat­girl,

    Anony­mous blog­ging is okay, but not as cover for ad hominem attacks.

    If I’ve seen AHCL in trial, I haven’t seen her much; even assum­ing that she’s the sec­ond best the HCDAO has Dick could very well clean up a court­room with him. That was intended to be a state­ment of pos­si­bil­ity; my apolo­gies if the expres­sion is unfa­mil­iar to you. Is Dick bet­ter than me in trial? He could very well be. Is he the best? He could very well be. Is Kelly the only one who can beat him? Not likely.

  14. Michael says:

    AHCL:

    Don’t worry about it. The girl I’m dat­ing calls me Uncle Fes­ter too.

  15. Michael says:

    With regard to “who is the best attor­ney” and “who can beat whom”, there’s these pesky things that keep get­ting in the way of trial advo­cacy, called “facts”. About ten years ago, the Austin crim­i­nal bar was abuzz with the rumor that Roy Minton was paid $2,000,000 to rep­re­sent a mur­der defen­dant (the actual amount was prob­a­bly closer to half a mil­lion) but still lost the case. The moral was Minton has a mon­ster rep­u­ta­tion, but Roger Scaggs killed his wife.

  16. Mark Bennett says:

    The best” depends on the case. There are cases for which I’m the best lawyer. There are oth­ers for which I’m not. The trick is find­ing the cases in the first cat­e­gory and avoid­ing those in the second.

  17. PJ says:

    AHCL, you banned me from your blog for call­ing the Har­ris County Dis­trict Attorney’s Office–a gov­ern­ment bureaucracy–depraved. You (and your ADA friends) can dish it anony­mously, but you sure can’t take it, even anony­mously. It’s really no sur­prise to me that, with this petu­lant atti­tude, you’re an ADA in Texas.

    And I’m not sure that I agree with Mark that you deserve anonymity if you are a gov­ern­ment employee in such a pow­er­ful office as the dis­trict attorney’s. You aren’t exactly a whistle­blower, you know. More like a PR spokesper­son. But gov­ern­ments don’t have the pre­rog­a­tive to spin. Maybe Mark sees “insights that we wouldn‚Äôt oth­er­wise” from your blog, but I sure don’t.

  18. AHCL says:

    No, PJ. I banned you from my web­site because you were like a long-winded bro­ken record. You always said the same thing over and over again, usu­ally per­son­ally attack­ing Rob Freyer. It would be one thing if you had a point and made it, but you just kept repeat­ing your­self. It got old.

    Mark, as to my early “Bat­son” arti­cle, I believe that is the one that you referred to in the com­ments as “an excel­lent post”, and it gen­er­ated a lot of dis­cus­sion (albeit, most of it at my expense).

  19. Mark Bennett says:

    AHCL, I believe you’re right. If you wanted to con­firm your belief, you could click on the link I put in my com­ment. Like I say, insights that we wouldn’t oth­er­wise; (I think I meant to put a verb there like “see” or “get”).

  20. AHCL says:

    Mark,
    My bad. I mis­read what you had said at 5:55 p.m.

  21. batgirl says:

    Easy you guys! Appar­ently the view­ers like to read both blogs by AHCL and Ben­nett for the dif­fer­ent opin­ions. As you know, you both have many of the same views/commenters. The ADAs read Bennett’s blog, too. Keep it up…both of you. You both have good infor­ma­tion to con­tribute to the public.

    PJ, play nice.

  22. kevin whited says:

    ** We‚Äôre freak­ing blog­gers, for God‚Äôs sakes. Not newscasters. **

    Amen to that.

    A blog should be able to have some fun with high-profile fig­ures (and Dick DeGuerin is a fairly high-profile fig­ure in this town).

    We fre­quently assign amus­ing nick­names to the things we blog about on bH. That doesn’t mean that in per­son I would ever refer to the mayor dis­re­spect­fully, but that also doesn’t take any­thing away from the points we try to make (in a humor­ous man­ner at times, because we’d rather laugh!). In fact, I think the humor makes them stick­ier (to wit, the Dan­ger Train ref­er­ences). There are many ways to get a point across.

    Now, I’m not such a big fan of anon bloggers/commenters look­ing sim­ply to spread unver­i­fi­able dirt/gossip, but cer­tainly that’s not what AHCL is up to.

Leave a non-anonymous Reply