Defending People

the tao of criminal-defense trial lawyering

Another Brilliant Idea from Lykos and Company

I was relax­ing on the front porch of Ben­nett Manor with a glass of good single-malt when the tele­phone rang. It was my pri­vate line — the num­ber I don’t give out to any­body. Caller ID showed an unfa­mil­iar over­seas area code. I answered it.

–Hello?

Pssst. Mark.

–Mr. X? Where are you call­ing from?

I’m here in town. I’m rout­ing this call through Bul­garia so they can’t lis­ten in.

X, my con­fi­den­tial source in the Dis­trict Attorney’s Office, has been a
lit­tle para­noid since he showed up late (and, truth be told, a lit­tle stoned, albeit on tech­ni­cally legally pre­scribed med­ica­tion) to Pat Lykos’s coro­na­tion in
Jan­u­ary, but this is going a lit­tle far even for him.

–Bul­garia?

Yes. They’re listening.

–Okaayyyy. Hey, thanks for the scoop on the whale thing. I saw that Jim Leit­ner is back­ing off on that dumb idea now.

You’re wel­come. Never in a mil­lion years would I have guessed that there would be so many ADAs cheer­ing on your crit­i­cisms of the administration.

–My plea­sure. We’re all human beings fight­ing arbi­trary gov­ern­ment power together, right?

Um, yeah, sure. What­ever. Lis­ten. I’ve got some­thing else for you.

–Tell me.

On Fri­day Jim Leit­ner told us that the plea papers are being rewrit­ten so that defen­dants will have to swear whether they are in the coun­try legally before plead­ing guilty.

–What if they don’t swear?

No plea for them.

–What if they’re not in the coun­try legally?

No pro­ba­tion for “illegals”.

–What if they falsely swear to be in the coun­try legally?

Look, Ben­nett. Fig­ure it out your­self. I hear foot­steps. I’ve got to go. Click.

Hmm. No pro­ba­tion for undoc­u­mented immi­grants. Equal Pro­tec­tion prob­lem, maybe? The Four­teenth Amend­ment for­bids a state deny­ing equal pro­tec­tion of the law “to any per­son within its juris­dic­tion.” Plyler v. Doe says that undoc­u­mented immi­grants are within the juris­dic­tion. So could the Har­ris County pol­icy of refus­ing pro­ba­tion to undoc­u­mented immi­grants be uncon­sti­tu­tional under the U.S. Con­sti­tu­tion? I’ll leave that ques­tion for the law-lawyers to hash out.

Assum­ing that the pol­icy passes con­sti­tu­tional scrutiny, is it a good idea?

Pat Lykos is putting the DA’s Office in the posi­tion of polic­ing immigration.

The usual argu­ment by pros­e­cu­tors (includ­ing those of the black-robed
vari­ety) who don’t want to give pro­ba­tion to undoc­u­mented immi­grants is
that they are com­mit­ting a fed­eral crime by just remain­ing in the
coun­try, so that they couldn’t pos­si­bly suc­cess­fully com­plete pro­ba­tion
(because they would be sub­ject to revo­ca­tion for a new law vio­la­tion
from day one). This is incor­rect. Being in the coun­try ille­gally is
not, by itself, a crime.

The Chron­i­cle, shortly after elec­tion day, focused on undoc­u­mented immi­grants get­ting pro­ba­tion and found 330 cases involv­ing peo­ple admit­ting to jail­ers that they were in the coun­try ille­gally, and then being sen­tenced to pro­ba­tion. “At least 44 of those cases involved defen­dants who later had their pro­ba­tion revoked and were sent to prison or who now have out­stand­ing arrest warrants.”

Is this an inor­di­nate num­ber? Is it rep­re­sen­ta­tive of all undoc­u­mented immi­grants, or only of those who self-identified in jail? And if undoc­u­mented immi­grants are more likely to fail on pro­ba­tion than those in the coun­try legally, is refus­ing to agree to pro­ba­tion for those who don’t swear to have legal sta­tus an appro­pri­ate response?

Immi­gra­tion and Cus­toms Enforce­ment offi­cial John P. Tor­res said in a let­ter to the Chron­i­cle fol­low­ing the Chronicle’s “inves­ti­ga­tion into how ille­gal immi­grants are cycling through local jails” that “ICE has worked aggres­sively to pur­sue coop­er­a­tion with state and local offi­cials that will facil­i­tate tar­get­ing crim­i­nal aliens for removal.”

Dis­trict Attor­ney Pat Lykos’s new pol­icy may be more about immi­gra­tion pol­icy — about iden­ti­fy­ing undoc­u­mented immi­grants and jail­ing them so that ICE can deport them — than about mak­ing the Har­ris County crim­i­nal jus­tice sys­tem work bet­ter or more fairly.

I pre­dict that this pol­icy will be a big hit with the Repub­li­can Party’s base of Scared White Vot­ers. How’s it going to play out down at the courthouse?

Here’s how it might play out with a pros­e­cu­tor and defense lawyer try­ing to reach a set­tle­ment:

At some point Pat Lykos is going to real­ize that among the scarce resources she has to man­age as Dis­trict Attor­ney are her employ­ees’ and the courts’ trial time. TANSTAAFL. Every polit­i­cally pan­der­ing pol­icy (no mat­ter how pop­u­lar in the real world) that makes some cases more likely to go to trial also makes it nec­es­sary for pros­e­cu­tors to cut cor­ners in other cases.

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

8 Responses to “Another Brilliant Idea from Lykos and Company”

  1. Jigmeister says:

    3/2/and a hun

  2. Remy says:

    LMAO!!!

    Mark you have really done it now!!! The skit was great reminds me of some convo’s with ADA’s that I have!!!

  3. […] Another Bril­liant Idea from Lykos and Com­pany — Defend­ing Peo­ple — Hous­ton Crim­i­nal Lawy… […]

  4. Tarian says:

    Bril­liant movie.

    This is just the lat­est hot-button, hot potato, hot mess issue. About 2 weeks into my pros­e­cu­to­r­ial career, I learned Les­son No. 1: If a deci­sion really doesn’t make a whole lot of sense, it is prob­a­bly political.

  5. sctexas says:

    The movie thing is fan­tas­tic. The pos­si­bil­i­ties are endless!!!

  6. law_tab says:

    This is a very scary turn of events.

  7. […] unless you con­fess your immi­gra­tion sta­tus to us” pro­posal is a dif­fer­ent ket­tle of fish. Mark Ben­nett gets into some of the prob­lems with this idea, which he also sums up in a sim­ple ques­tion, but […]

  8. […] eight months, shown a marked ten­dency to act with­out calm delib­er­a­tion. See the whale pol­icy, the no-probation-for-illegal immi­grants pol­icy, the pre­ma­ture announce­ment of DIVERT, Pat Lykos call­ing two of her prosecutors […]

Leave a non-anonymous Reply