Tonight, I watched the Collin County DA on a 20/20 TV espisode, explain why he dismissed some 20 cases against child molesters. He pointed out the weaknesses created by a too-close relationship between local police, a vigilante group (Perverted Justice) and the media (Dateline's "To Catch a Predator"). With remarkable clarity, the DA defined the correct role of law enforcement (to investigate), media (to report) and the district attorney (to make sure the law was followed). If you missed the report, find a way to watch it. I was proud to see a Texas DA stand tall.

Anyone else see it?

Ditto. I watched it with some non-lawyers in the Dallas area. They had been pumping me for an explanation for letting the deviants go free, but I wasn't familiar enough with the facts to give them a complete answer. They didn't have many questions after seeing the show. The DA gave a good showing for us all.

I sure wish I'd seen it; saw the teaser for it. I hope it'll be rerun or youtube'd.

DA says police mishandled child-sex sting on TV show

The Associated Press
DALLAS -- After a Dateline NBC segment criticized the Collin County district attorney for not pursuing more than 20 child-sex cases produced during the program's To Catch a Predator sting in suburban Dallas last year, the DA appeared Friday night on a rival network news show.

Collin County District Attorney John Roach declined to be interviewed for a Dateline segment that aired Wednesday. But he went on ABC News' 20/20 to say that Murphy police allowed Dateline to take control of the sting.

The controversy dates to four days in November when a Dateline crew and correspondent Chris Hansen spent four days in Murphy, working with the activist group Perverted-Justice.com to try to catch men who were soliciting Internet sex with juveniles.

Murphy police arrested more than 20 men at a house where Dateline cameras were waiting. In one case, the police went to the home of a Rockwall County prosecutor, who killed himself while the camera crew waited in the street.

But Roach declined to prosecute the cases, citing among other reasons lack of jurisdiction, lack of good witnesses and lack of evidence.

The subsequent fallout included the resignation of the Murphy city manager who worked with Dateline and a lawsuit by the family of the man who committed suicide

I saw it too but I'll have to say I came to a different conclusion on how it looked. While I am not a big fan of these "reality" news shows, I thought the attorney from Austin did a pretty good job of picking through the issues (he was on the Dateline show earlier in the week not the 20/20 show).
I would NEVER criticize another DA for rejecting a case or cases without having looked at the evidence myself, but I do think the outright rejection of all those cases looks bad TO THE PUBLIC, at least in the way it was portrayed by Dateline (no surprise of course that they will spin it their way since they are under fire) and not to mention to have the tragedy of a prosecutor's suicide in the mix really gives the impression that we (as fellow prosecutors) have a BIG stake in making the cases look bogus.

I feel for Mr. Roach, but I don't agree that the programs left his decision or our profession in a positive light.

And just for full disclosure here I'll report my bias on the issue, my husband is a police officer and a former cyber crimes investigator.

For some thoughts on the show and links to video, click here.

[This message was edited by JB on 09-10-07 at .]

That article JB cites is is very informative and covers with remarkable clarity all of the reasons why that DA's office would not pursue these cases.

I didn't catch the DA's interview. I saw a piece of the Dateline show with the Austin prosecutor putting holes in what they said the DA said when rejecting the cases for prosecution. I gotta say it made the DA look pretty bad.

The show we are talking about was on 20/20. Dateline was defending itself with its own show, hardly an objective approach. Admittedly, 20/20 probably enjoyed criticizing Dateline, but it did provide substantial time for the DA to explain his actions.

that kind of stinks getting a prosecutor from one county to speak generally about the law and use that discussion as criticism of another prosecutor's charging decision.

quote:

---

Originally posted by David Newell:
that kind of stinks getting a prosecutor from one county to speak generally about the law and use that discussion as criticism of another prosecutor's charging decision.

---

I'm not surprised. NBC is getting sued for $100m -- why wouldn't they try to get an "expert witness for the defense" for free?

Consider this a good lesson for the next time anyone in the media calls and asks you to opine about anything remotely related to a case in another jurisdiction!

just expressing my knee-jerk olifactory reaction.

i know, it defies the laws of science.

quote:

---

why wouldn't they try to get an "expert witness for the defense" for free?

---

Maybe they're getting what they pay for. Can someone explain to me why the specific computer crime venue statute (CCP 13.25) wouldn't apply to online solicitation?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jimbeaux:

quote:

---

why wouldn't they try to get an "expert witness for the defense" for free?

---

Maybe they're getting what they pay for. Can someone explain to me why the specific computer crime venue statute (CCP 13.25) wouldn't apply to online solicitation?

---

CCP 13.25 or CCP 13.19 would apply.

In context, the gentleman from Travis County seemed to be telling Chris Hansen that venue would be proper because because the defendants traveled to Collin County to meet the child. But since everyone is pretending to be talking "generally" about the case, it's difficult to tell what his rationale is for the venue argument. See Hansen's defense

As for 13.19, I assumed that the Collin Co. cases that were dropped for venue reasons were dropped because it was clear that venue was somewhere else.

None of us has all the facts; we're all going on what the media is telling us, which is never complete. Since Judge Roach's office isn't going to weigh in here -- nor should they -- you are free to speculate about the law applicable to a case, but questions about venue, etc., cannot be answered by anyone here, so please don't pretend otherwise.

Since this seems to be a hot topic, I'll post links to some stories/videos for those who haven't seen them (listed in the order of publication):

Esquire article about Dateline

Dateline follow-up

20/20 story on Dateline (Part 1)

20/20 story on Dateline (Part 2)

[This message was edited by Shannon Edmonds on 09-10-07 at .]

[This message was edited by Shannon Edmonds on 09-10-07 at .]

[This message was edited by Shannon Edmonds on 09-10-07 at .]

the esquire article is pretty good, i thought.

I agree about the Esquire article, but it made me sad...for the law enforcement that got carried away and the media for doing the carrying away (and both may have had good intentions to begin with).

Could you imagine trying to use as star witnesses people that create dramatic television for a living, do not go by their own names, and lie according to whatever the producer says....oh, yeah, and will make big money if the show is successful? Even if their stories didn't conflict, they have bias flowing out their ears! That sounds way harder than my usual star witnesses--officers who are better at doing their jobs than at explaining the hows and whys!

And how many subpoenas would those tv people actually show up for, when they are star witnesses on twenty something cases--grand jury, multiple trial settings, suppression hearings. Sounds like a logistical nightmare.

Somewhat ironic given how the media has been demanding a reporter privilege to prevent the use of the reporter as a witness in a criminal case. But it makes sense if you apply the economic theory:

the media wants to be involved in the criminal case if it increases viewership and ratings (advertising dollars);

the media does not want to be involved in the criminal case if it takes time, energy and prevents the reporter from being a part of the story.

it made me sad, too.