In Today's "Houston Chronicle": "Attorney Emily Munoz DeToto, hired by [George]Parnham to help prepare Harris for trial, said she perceived that Parnham did not call the witnesses because he was physically ill, mentally exhausted and wanted the trial to end. Nineteen witnesses were ready to testify on Harris' behalf, Schaffer said. Eleven of them were not interviewed by the defense."

I wonder what Ms. Emily Munoz DeToto was doing to earn her pay while observing associate Parnham become mentally exhausted?

I liked the part where they say
"Had Parnham not been so preoccupied with his health and acquiring $300,000 from (Harris) and a security interest in all of her property, he could have presented compelling testimony in support of leniency," he said.

The part about being preoccupied w/his own health. Not the $$$ part.

quote:

---

Originally posted by JMH:
I liked the part where they say
"Had Parnham not been so preoccupied with his health and acquiring $300,000 from (Harris) and a security interest in all of her property, he could have presented compelling testimony in support of leniency," he said. The part about being preoccupied w/his own health. Not the $$$ part.

---

Anyone who knows George knows this is absolute unadulterated BS! George is an extremely ethical attorney, and I'd march into hell beside him, just upon his word.

Parnam got that killer a sweet sentence of 20 years, I was thinking she was going to get a whole lot more. A classic case of the killer thinking it's everyone's fault but hers.

And it was my understanding from the news when the lawsuit news first broke that the $300k was to pay for experts, not George.

And Fred, I believe we have seen this "biting the hand that feeds you" before, in a capital case where the honorable Mr. Rosen was trashed in an affidavit by his co-counsel who had a distinct lack of trial experience.

They should ban this Emily whoeversheis from trying any case above the misdemeanor level.

And if Shaeffer is able to beat George's result were the case given a retrial, I'd be shocked.

[This message was edited by Greg Gilleland on 09-07-06 at .]

Well, if the case is reversed, even for ineffective assistance, could the new trial lawyer do any worse? Could the defendant get anything more than 20 years in prison on retrial, given that the jury made a specific finding of sudden passion following a murder conviction? Would the state be collaterally estopped from retrying the issue of sudden passion?

Interesting questions Mr. Bradley. Since "sudden passion" is now a punishment issue with the burden on the defense, I could think of several reasons why the whole trial is up for grabs again, however my gut reaction says "res judicata".

And that is exactly the point, Fred and John. George, according to Randy S, must've "stumbled" his way to getting a finding of sudden passion and thus limiting her exposure to 20 max IF in the unlikely event a new trial were to be granted.
My initial unresearched reaction is that I do believe that she would not be subject to the entire range.

I think it was great and artful lawyering that led to that result Parnham got myself. Had I served on that panel, I would've given at least 20 more than she got and I wouldn't have bought the sudden passion argument. She percolated too long, and well knew what she was going into when she went to that hotel. Sudden passion came and went. Before the killing.

Yet Parnham managed to convince twelve good and decent citizens to the contrary.

Finally, is there anyone who thinks that pandering to the jury and parading a bunch of folks talking about what a fine person the defendant is after a jury just found the contrary would mitigate her punishment more than the jury did? This was the classic "compromise" verdict. The jury found her guilty but didn't hammer her because of the circumstances, i.e. the alleged unclean hands of the victim, the cheating spouse. It's not supposed to happen that we but we all know in our hearts it often does.

when a court buys this crap about george (um, which prison is andrea yates in? none? thank you for playing. check please.) parnham, then i'll feel righteous indignation. right now, this only damages randy schaffer's credibility. oh, and parnham's sidekick, too.

p.s.--i'll bet parnham didn't realize he had such a long nickname made up of sentence fragments posing as sentences.

p.p.s.--you know what? on second thought, that sidekick kind of pisses me off. like parnham had a rookie defense attorney draft and she was reggie bush, eh, i mean mario williams. no, she probably begged him for the opportunity to help out. [insert expletive here.]

The funny thing is, David, when you do a google on Emily whatshername, a profile comes up on zoom-info, part of which reads as follows:

"Detoto represents individuals accused in both State and Federal courts at both trial and appeal. She is a graduate of the Gerry Spence Trial Lawyers College and a faculty member of the Criminal Trial Advocacy Institute. In 2003, Detoto was co-counsel in the nationally televised case, The State of Texas v. Clara Harris, otherwise known as "The Mercedes Benz Murder." "

Too bad it's not like wikipedia where an addendum could be added: "She then resoundly and with great lack of loyalty bit the hand that fed her in "The Mercedes Benz Murder" case, deciding to criticize an extremely sound trial strategy that worked awesomely for the benefit of a client who by all rights should be spending the rest of her life behind bars. Ms. Munoz failed to appreciate the basic fact that her esteemed co-counsel could have paraded the current and former Presidents of the United States across the stand and it still wouldn't have made the jury either feel sorry for or like her client."

Folks who have no concept of loyalty make me wanna puke.

This is an interview with Paula Zahn from CNN on January 21, 2003, wherein Zahn quotes prosecutors in stating that the deceased's stepdaughter, present in the car with the killer at the time of the killing, attributes this comment to the killer:

"I'm going to kill him and get away with it for all he's put me through."

Kind of sounds like intent to murder to me and not sudden passion.

Here's the full text:

PAULA ZAHN, CNN ANCHOR: And we turn our attention now to a trial that is going to get started months down the road, but jury selection getting under way in Texas today in a headline grabbing murder case. Clara Harris, a Houston dentist, is accused in the death of her husband last July. Witnesses say she ran over him repeatedly with her Mercedes Benz while his daughter was in the passenger seat. The scene was the parking lot of a Houston hotel where Harris had gone to confront her husband David about an alleged affair with another woman.
George Parnham is the attorney for Clara Harris.

He joins us now from Houston.

Good morning, Mr. Parnham.

Welcome back.

GEORGE PARNHAM, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Thank you.

Good morning, Paula.

ZAHN: The last time you appeared on the show, you made it abundantly clear there is no doubt in your mind that your client was driving this car. You pretty much confirm what witnesses said, that your client repeatedly ran over her husband.

What is your defense going to be?

PARNHAM: Paula, I am simply going to ask the public to withhold judgment on what was going on in the heart and the mind of Clara Harris until all the evidence is in. There's been some interesting developments concerning some physical evidence that we'll discuss in front of this jury by way of directing cross-examination. Certainly the fact that Lindsey is present in the car, as horrible as that is for that young woman -- and my heart has always gone out to her. No child should be forced nor be voluntarily present when a parent is killed in this manner. But I want any statements that she attributes to Clara to also be placed into context during the course of this case and I look forward to being able to do that in the days coming.

ZAHN: Well, you say your heart goes out to Mr. Harris's daughter, and yet prosecutors have said that at the time of this, what do you want to call it, murder or this killing, that she told her stepmother, quote, or her stepmother told her, "I'm going to kill him and get away with it for all he's put me through."

What is the context we're missing here? PARNHAM: I understand that that is an observation and we will contest the exact nature of that particular statement. But I want to be able to place and for the jury to hear all of those remarks or any of those remarks into a contextual situation.

To give an example, a statement was attributed to Clara by Lindsey that, "I'm going to hit him." Now, is that a declaration of intent? Is it an observation? We know that there were other individuals that were close to that Navigator when that car came around. This will be an interesting area of conjecture and speculation when it's developed on close examination, and I'll do it as gingerly as I can when Lindsey's on the stand.

ZAHN: But are you really telling us this morning, sir, if people were to understand what went on in this relationship that there was a justification to kill another human being? Is that what you expect a jury to believe?

PARNHAM: I'm going to allow a jury to make its own determination as to the events and what was going on in the heart of Clara Harris. All I can tell you at this time, Paula, is that we've got a woman whose heart is not filled with hate, but it's filled with hurt. And she's behind the wheel of that car.

But I want to be able to demonstrate for this jury breaking down the physical evidence, cross-examining people who are eyewitnesses to show this jury what actually occurred out there in that parking lot.

ZAHN: But you're going to try to prove she snapped in some way?

PARNHAM: Well, you know, the word snapped is a word of art. Did she lose it? Did she go through a meltdown? Certainly from her perspective and the perspective, I think, that is shared by any one of us when we are confronted with a situation where the person that we love is in the arms of someone else, what goes through that mind, what happens to that heart, what actions take place that would otherwise not occur in a very logical and rational set of circumstances, my job is going to be able to have a jury identify with Clara Harris in conjunction with all of the circumstances that happened and I'm going to do the very best that I can to give her the very best defense that that woman deserves.

ZAHN: George Parnham, thank you very much for your time this morning.

PARNHAM: Thank you, Paula.

See Ex parte Watkins, 73 S.W.3d 264 (Tex. Crim. App.), cert. denied, 537 U.S. 948 (2002)(state barred by collateral estoppel doctrine from litigating issue of sudden passion in murder of victim 2 where jury found sudden passion in murder of victim 1 where both victims killed in same transaction). I think this would apply in the situation of a retrial where the State previously lost on the sudden passion issue.

quote:

---

She is a graduate of the Gerry Spence Trial Lawyers College

---

Glad to see someone put that old defunct clown college cafenastorium* to good use.


(* - you know ... part cafeteria, part gymnasium, part auditorium, like elementary schools used to have back in the day, complete with a big drawn curtain down the middle to separate the two)

Clara Harris' defense tab will stand
Dentist who killed her husband owes lawyer more than $400,000 for 2 trials

Jurors on Friday found that defense attorney George Parnham did not overcharge or abuse the attorney-client privilege during the well-publicized 2003 murder case of Clara Harris.

Jurors took just under three hours to reach an 11-1 verdict.

"It's been a long five years, and we've been fighting to have our charter resurrected and our integrity righted," Parnham said after the two-week trial. "The verdict doesn't erase everything, but it gives us a fresh start."

See the story here: http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/5583713.html

George, I have to disagree with you. I realize that your personal perception was that you had to clear your name and have your integrity righted, but those of us who know you personally and professionally or who have tried cases against you knew you would be vindicated.

We know George is a man of outstanding personal ethics and of outstanding legal abilities.

Those of us who know George well also know that his personal health sufferred greatly during the trials of Harris and of Yates. Did he withdraw? No. Did he seek a long continuance? No. He cared more about his client than himself, and probably took a few years off of his own life to defend these folks. And how could you argue with the results he got in those two cases?

Congrats George, and hopefully you can take a well deserved vacation after this and get some rest.

Clara Harris, convicted about five years ago of running over and killing her husband, lost her bid for a new trial when the state Court of Criminal Appeals on Wednesday denied her claims of ineffective legal counsel.

Details.

SAN ANGELO � The defense team for polygamist sect leader Warren Jeffs again tried to have the judge hearing his case removed for bias, soliciting testimony Monday from court officials in an attempt to show she took an unusual interest in the case and received extra security because of it.

It's the second time the 55-year-old Jeffs, ecclesiastical head of a radical, Mormon offshoot known as the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, has sought to replace District Judge Barbara Walther. He is scheduled for trial Monday on aggravated sexual assault of a child charges, which could land him in prison for life.

Judge John Hyde of Midland presided over Monday's hearing and said after more than five hours of testimony that he would issue a ruling today . He listened to, and ultimately denied, Jeffs' first motion to remove Walther last month. That motion claimed the judge's body language affected jurors during earlier trials of sect members.

This time, Jeffs' attorney, Emily Munoz Detoto of Houston, said Walther received calls while the raid was going on about how many children were being removed. The judge then called Child Protective Services to ensure they had the manpower to handle so many cases.

The body language recusal attempt