I enjoy reading The Texas Prosecutor journal. It has helped me many times in my career, and I look forward to future issues.

However, I have concerns about a small portion of one of the articles in the March/April 2003 edition. Following is a quote from the article "The Neighborhood Expert Witness":

"The ADA knew a not-guilty verdict would be devastating and could very well send her packing. Why was she taking such a chance?"

In all fairness, maybe I have misunderstood the intent of what was written. But, I must say, if it was intended the way it came across in the article, I believe it protrays prosecutors in a poor light.

We do not prosecute on a contingency fee basis. Whether we "win or lose" is not our motivation. We are to decide what is right, then do that to the best of our ability.

If we seek justice, we win. If we do what is right because it is the right thing to do, we win.

That is what prosecutors do. Anything else should be left to those on a different career path.

I agree that the Texas Prosecutor should be cautious about the image they want to project. I was also disgusted with the comments in this article. Furthermore, this man writes in a very egotistical and chauvinistic style. "ADA's " ace in the hole'"; "still rather attractive . . . ADA"; "the ADA . . smiled, exposing her beautiful, perfectly aligned, shiny white teeth"; and "last I heard . . . the attractive DA . . . "

Perhaps he was merely using some humor to encourage prosecutors to seek out help from their local investigators. I hope that we haven't become so politically correct that we can't use humor to make a point.

I happen to know both the author of the article and the prosecutor, and I can assure you that both of them take their oaths very seriously. The forger in question was very, very guilty, and simply needed some additional proof to see that a guilty verdict was forthcoming.

But, having said that, you both make good points about being sensitive to the perceptions that the public might have about how we do our work. Thanks for reading the article and taking the time to comment on it.

PS. The prosecutor in question felt flattered by the descriptions.

Dear Texas Prosecutor Readers:

First, I want to say how impressed I am that we've got folks reading the articles at the back of the Prosecutor -- page 48, no less. That's impressive, and says a lot about our new Communications Director, Sarah Wolf. This is her second edition, and I think she is doing a great job....

Second, as the executive director around here, and in the past as a frequent speaker on prosecutor ethics, I couldn't agree more that we never want to leave the impression that we aren't ding anything but seeking the truth. That's why the front cover on our publication has our mission as prosecutors...not to convict, but to see that justice is done.

I guess as an editor and proofreader, I will say that I read Randy's article in a different light. I read it as written in kind of a time-period spoof. It reads, to me, like it was written by Humphrey Bogart, and in that style I found it to be pretty entertaining....

I know Randy pretty well, and can tell you that the thoughts you had when you read the article just aren't the kind of thoughts I would assign to him, and surely they weren't the ideas we thought of when we proofed the article, or we never would have run it.

That being said, you sure are right that we need to always step back and be sure that our writing style can't be misinterpreted...

And you should know that we always try to play it straight....these publications are widely distributed to defense attorneys, judges, law professors, and others in the field. We try hard to make sure the content reflects the highest ethical standards.

So, sorry if we booted it on this one. But you must admit, if you try to do a Bogey imitation when you read the article, it kinda works....

rob kepple
executive director

I am sure you are reading more into Mr. Nichols's statement than what he intended to say, but I would also venture to say many assistant prosecutors likely do feel they will be evaluated based on their track record, even if they are not told as much. I do not think that will force them to seek anything other than justice by proper means, but it is a thought likely in the back of one's mind. Still that is no cause for concern. It merely means you are as selective as you can be in choosing your fights and can offer good reasons for your failures to secure a conviction.

It's not meant to be sexist -- the article is written in a 1940's detective movie style. Think of the gritty private dick sitting in his office, when this woman walks in wearing a suit and a hat, high heels, and a cigarette in a holder. In black and white. Believe me, I would be the first one to jump up and down if I thought it was offensive and sexist. And knowing the prosecutor in question, she's only offended that the article referred to her as "rather attractive" instead of "very attractive."

Okay, I apologize. I guess if you read it in a "Bogey" style it doesn't seem quite so bad. Just wish we could get past describing women by their looks, rather than their abilities. Especially when the article made him out to be the knight in shinig armor rescuing the poor maiden from the grips of devastation (loss of her job).

Humor is a tricky business. My wife hates Monty Python. And I get the giggles any time anyone does even a bad imitation of that stuff.

On the other hand, my wife loves any comedy (such as Everybody Loves Raymond) that makes fun of the married man. That stuff gives me the willies.

But perhaps I reveal too much....

If you did reveal too much, you were probably wearing a pastel shirt that made you do it!

After reading Investigator Nichols(The Texas Prosecutor) article on Forgery and Handwriting Expert. The facts stated are true. Every Investigator young and old have made statements resembling these at one time or another. This article is not about a RATHER ATTRACTIVE ADA, or KEEPING SCORE, it's about what INVESTIGATORS do day in and day out for our PROSECUTORS.