Dougherty Arts Center
Re: A Question of Compassion
RECEIVED Fri., June 19, 2020
Dear Editor,
I want to make it perfectly clear that I do not condone the conclusions of Ms. Marloff in her article entitled "A Question of Compassion." ["A Question of Compassion For Travis County's Family Court," News, June 19] The author requested that Krista Chacona and I answer her questions concerning a victim feeling that she was not treated with respect in a jury trial. We spoke to her, hoping that she would understand that the criminal defense lawyer must do their job of questioning the credibility of all the witnesses in the case, or they can be sanctioned. She did not. She allowed the victim to repeatedly claim that Margaret Kercher had acted unethically. MARGARET DID NO SUCH THING. She was assigned this case as a court appointed attorney and she did her job with integrity and professionalism, and the jury found her client not guilty. The conclusion Ms. Marloff draws from that is that a defense lawyer then can not be a good judge. This comes right before the run-off election, in which Margaret is running against a prosecutor to be the judge of County Court #4.
A jury of 12 people, who did not know the victim or the accused, heard all the evidence and they did not hear any evidence that the judge ruled was inadmissible under the rape shield law. After careful deliberation they made the decision that the accused was not guilty.
We should make our decisions for judge based on what lawyer seeking the job will uphold our constitutional rights of a fair trial, due process, and the right to cross examine the witnesses, not on a misleading and obviously politically motivated article.
I want to make it perfectly clear that I do not condone the conclusions of Ms. Marloff in her article entitled "A Question of Compassion." ["A Question of Compassion For Travis County's Family Court," News, June 19] The author requested that Krista Chacona and I answer her questions concerning a victim feeling that she was not treated with respect in a jury trial. We spoke to her, hoping that she would understand that the criminal defense lawyer must do their job of questioning the credibility of all the witnesses in the case, or they can be sanctioned. She did not. She allowed the victim to repeatedly claim that Margaret Kercher had acted unethically. MARGARET DID NO SUCH THING. She was assigned this case as a court appointed attorney and she did her job with integrity and professionalism, and the jury found her client not guilty. The conclusion Ms. Marloff draws from that is that a defense lawyer then can not be a good judge. This comes right before the run-off election, in which Margaret is running against a prosecutor to be the judge of County Court #4.
A jury of 12 people, who did not know the victim or the accused, heard all the evidence and they did not hear any evidence that the judge ruled was inadmissible under the rape shield law. After careful deliberation they made the decision that the accused was not guilty.
We should make our decisions for judge based on what lawyer seeking the job will uphold our constitutional rights of a fair trial, due process, and the right to cross examine the witnesses, not on a misleading and obviously politically motivated article.
Betty Blackwell
