Eric Hanson and Richard Stewart, reporters from the Houston Chronicle, recognized something in the paper today that many of us who have or do work in Fort Bend County courtrooms have known for years: That Fort Bend County First Assistant DA Fred Felcman rocks in his cross examinations.

The defendant took the stand in punishment yesterday, and Hanson/Stewart reported:

"Prosecutor Fred Felcman, who is well-known in Fort Bend County legal circles for his prowess in cross-examining defendants, immediately fired a barrage of questions at Whitaker."

Anyone who has worked with Fred at Fort Bend, like I did for years, or who as tried a serious case against him as a defense attorney,already knew this fact.

By the way, Eric Hanson (I don't know Stewart) is one of the most fair and accurate reporters in Houston. A nice fellow too, and any paper in the country would be lucky to have a reporter of his caliber and high ethics working for them. I know this compliment means alot to Fred and his family, and it was nice of Eric to say it.

Everyone should aspire to reach Fred's level of legal abilities. From reading the article, it sounds like the defendant should have just sat at counsel table and kept his trap shut! Let his family members ask for life. I also find the "I found God" argument disingenious since he had his mother and brother killed. Go get'em Fred.

[This message was edited by SAProsecutor on 03-07-07 at .]

Another aspect of that case is curious to me. Let me say at the outset that defense attorney Randy McDonald is a friend of mine and an excellent lawyer.

But I don't understand what has been termed by some defense attorneys as the "slow guilty plea", as evidenced in several recent murder cases I have seen, with this one and the murder case tried early this year in Austin being prime examples. The guilt evidence is overwhelming, and it would just seem to me that if a defendant is attempting to garner points of some kind with the jury who will determine his punishment, that the first step is the admitting of guilt and the acceptance of guilt and responsibility.

To me it gives the appearance of the defendant "rolling the dice" on some very remote off-chance that a jury might find him not guilty or hang during the guilt phase. It seems very disingenuous to me for the defendant not to testify during guilt but to pop up in the punishment phase accepting his guilt and begging for mercy.

Thoughts on that? Does it make a difference to a punishment jury how early in the trial that the defendant admits his guilt? Or is it a non-issue?

I think pleading not guilty in this case forced the state to put an accomplice witness on the stand which allowed the defense to show the lesser sentence he received in an attempt to get life instead of death for the defendant. Not much of an angle, but sometimes that's all you have.

Good point Ken. Sometimes I don't think like a defense attorney.