Temple guilty in pregnant wife's death

By BRIAN ROGERS
Copyright 2007 Houston Chronicle

Jurors this afternoon decided former high school coach David Mark Temple killed his wife, who was eight months pregnant, in a 1999 shooting.

The jury deliberated for about eight hours before finding the Alief Hastings High School coach guilty of murder.

Jurors will now begin the punishment stage of the trial.

[For the back story on this case, go to this link.]

Kelly and her fine fellow prosecutors won a hard fought battle on this one. When I lived in Houston, I recall following parts of the investigation in the media.

In the quote below, isn't the defense attorney neglecting to mention the role of the jury as factfinder?

Since this statement was made outside the confines of the trial, would it be actionable civilly?

From the Houston Chronicle:

One person filled with emotion but no tears was Temple's defense attorney Dick DeGuerin. He curtly shepherded the Temple family out the front doors of the courthouse. He returned to address reporters.

"Kelly Siegler has finally done what Richard (Racehorse) Haynes predicted she would do," he spat out. "She has convicted an innocent man.

What sour grapes! In general, we all know that prosecutors can't, or at least shouldn't, make such public comments that undermine public's respect for the integrity of the jury system. It's a shame that some defense attorneys evidently feel no similar obligation. Evidence of guilt was very compelling and the jury's verdict is hardly surprising to those who have followed this case. Congratulations Kelly and to those with the Harris Co. D.A.'s office who put so much effort into this prosecution.

So, is Deguerin also thereby conceding that all the other defendants she has convicted were guilty (contrary to Deguerin's arguments at trial)?

From a HC article:

Before this meeting, Siegler beat DeGuerin in two highly publicized cases.

James Tucker, a former pastor accused of sexually assaulting a female member of his church, pleaded no contest in 2004 and received five years' probation from the judge. Tucker also was ordered to perform 160 hours of community service and pay a $500 fine.

During that trial, Siegler and Doyle pantomimed the standing and kneeling sexual acts in front of a wide-eyed jury while the victim described from the stand what happened.

In 2000, Siegler also beat DeGuerin when Dror Goldberg was sentenced to 48 years in prison and fined $10,000 for the 1998 murder of wig-shop clerk Manuela Silverio.

[This message was edited by JB on 11-16-07 at .]

[This message was edited by JB on 11-16-07 at .]

quote:

---

Originally posted by JB:
So, is Deguerin also thereby admitting that all the other defendants she has convicted were guilty (contrary to Deguerin's arguments at trial)?

---

Well, obviously he is from the context of his statement, since he is claiming to speak for at least one other attorney as well. I wonder if any other defense attorneys wish to sign a petition and sign on to that statement?

Of course, despite all Kelly's good work, she did not convict anyone. The jury did.

JAS

Congratulations to Kelly and all the other prosecutors and investigators that worked on the case. Job well done.

It would take a darn fine lawyer to successfully prosecute an innocent person, and an equally crappy defense lawyer to see an innocent client convicted.

Juries convict on evidence not personalities. But, I would take the professor's statement as a clear concession that Kelly is the better attorney, and I am suprised to find, for the first time ever, I agree with Dick.

Well done Kelly and the whole Harris County team, consider justice done.

KPRC reporter to defend juror chase to judge

By BRIAN ROGERS
Copyright 2007 Houston Chronicle


A verdict in a major trial always sends reporters scrambling for interviews with jurors. But the case has to be over before a juror can talk about their decision � a fact one television reporter seemed to forget after David Mark Temple was convicted Thursday of murdering his wife.

According to court documents, KPRC Channel 2's Kym Alvarado-Booth is slated to appear before visiting state District Judge Doug Shaver on Wednesday to explain why she should not be held in contempt.

A seasoned reporter, Alvarado-Booth is accused of chasing down the jurors as they left the courthouse escorted by two bailiffs.

Because those same jurors are set to begin considering Temple's punishment on Monday, the bailiffs refused to let the reporter talk to them or film them. According to an observer, bailiffs threatened to handcuff Alvarado-Booth if she resisted as they escorted her upstairs to see the judge, who had already left. The handcuffs weren't necessary.

In court Friday morning, Alvarado-Booth had little to say as she appeared with her attorney, who also declined comment.

One final word. Let's assume, for the purposes of this thread, that Racehorse did make the comment attributed to him by Deguerin. Those of you who know Richard well will probably agree with me, in that I think had Richard Haynes been the defendant's attorney, he would not have made that comment in a whiney, sore loser fashion in front of the media.

I believe that if Race truly felt that way, and was in the heat of the moment without time for reflection, he would have told Kelly that to her face, but he would never have made that comment to the media, and especially not before the jury had rendered a punishment verdict for his client.

The statement was an insult to the jury and to the victim's family.

Temple sentenced to life for pregnant wife's murder

By CINDY GEORGE
Copyright 2007 Houston Chronicle

David Mark Temple should serve a life sentence in prison for the 1999 murder of his wife, a jury announced this afternoon.

The announcement, after about one and a half hours of deliberation, brought no obvious reaction from Temple. He was eligible for a punishment range that included probation.

Defense attorney Dick DeGuerin had asked jurors not to send Temple to prison, maintaining that his client did not commit the slaying and telling jurors that this was their last chance to avoid punishing an innocent man.

"David Temple is not guilty. David Temple is innocent," DeGuerin said. "The time to stand and to say 'No' is now."

DeGuerin said prosecutors tried the case on emotion to make jurors angry with Temple for having a "fling" with his current wife while he was married to Belinda.

"I cannot believe that the Lucas family (Belinda's relatives) would want someone other than who is really guilty to be convicted and punished," DeGuerin said.

quote:

---

Originally posted by JB:
So, is Deguerin also thereby conceding that all the other defendants she has convicted were guilty (contrary to Deguerin's arguments at trial)?

---

Didn't he represent that rich guy in Galveston that chopped his neighbor to pieces and tossed him in the ocean?

Or was that the other Degeurin? Deguerin? EU or UE? Are they brothers or what?

Is it `DeGeurin' or `DeGuerin'?

A reader sent this missive:

In the 18 years that I've lived in the Houston area, I've seen many articles in the Chronicle about a prominent lawyer named Mike DeGuerin or Mike DeGeurin, depending on which article you read. His name is spelled one way about half the time, and the other way the other half of the time. I've never seen a single letter from Mr. De Guerin/Geurin to the Chronicle, asking that you learn the correct spelling of his name. He must be a patient man. In Louisiana, where French names are ubiquitous, `Guerin' is a common name, but no one is named `Geurin'.

The inquiry from the reader is one that we receive when the name of a DeGeurin/DeGuerin brother appears in the paper. Several years ago, the Chronicle added an entry about their names to our stylebook to avoid staff confusion (reader confusion is another matter):

DeGeurin, Mike; DeGuerin, Dick - Note the different spellings of the last name of the two brothers; both are Houston lawyers.

Yes, the names are spelled differently. A Chronicle staffer, who also is an attorney and knows both well, told me that Dick had his name changed to "ue" rather than "eu" so it would be more like the French word for war.

In their last joint act, the seven men and five women returned to the jury box and sat quietly as the foreman read a brief statement that included the phrase: "We stand by our verdict."

[Think the jury was sending a message to the defense lawyer?]

quote:

---

Originally posted by JB:
In their last joint act, the seven men and five women returned to the jury box and sat quietly as the foreman read a brief statement that included the phrase: "We stand by our verdict."

[Think the jury was sending a message to the defense lawyer?]

---

Well, the real question is do you think he will learn from this message?

Interesting concept. As a defender for a convicted murderer, be sure to tell the jury THEY ARE WRONG during the punishment phase arguments. Especially when that jury of a five week trial was only out on guilt a record short time before reaching their guilty verdict. That way, after you tell them THEY ARE WRONG, then they won't feel like they didn't deliberate enough when they are out only 80 minutes to render the max for a probation eligible convicted murderer.

I've had this happen during a murder trial, and it worked for that defense attorney just like it worked for ole' Mr. D, no matter how you spell his name.

Great job, Kelly and Craig and the other HCDA employees who worked on this case!

When a lawyer makes such a statement about the jury's verdicts (guilt and punishment), does he violate the ethical rules for lawyers? Here is the Texas rule on the subject:

"After discharge of the jury from further consideration of a matter with which the lawyer was connected, the lawyer shall not ask questions of or make comments to a member of that jury that are calculated merely to harass or embarrass the juror or to influence his actions in future jury service."

I looked at that when the reports came out, because I recalled the rule, but after re-reading the rule carefully, I don't think there is a violation of the ethical rules there. His statement was clearly not "merely calculated to harass or embarass" but rather to plead for the jury to nullify their guilt verdict at the punishment phase. The jury clearly got the message and was not impressed.

I do think it is inappropriate for a lawyer to hold forth in public that a prosecutor sworn to seek justice has intentionally convicted an innocent man, but I don't think he went so far as to accuse Kelly Seigler of seeking a conviction against someone that she believed to be guilty, only that she convicted someone that DeGuerin believed to be innocent. Since 12 jurors have already decided that Kelly was right and DeGuerin was wrong, he obviously lost this argument before it began.

He's just making whine from his sour grapes.

quote:

---

[...]His statement was clearly not "merely calculated to harass or embarass" but rather to plead for the jury to nullify their guilt verdict at the punishment phase. [...]

---

The trial is bifurcated.

The statement was made after guilt/innocence but before punishment.

So the jury was "discharged" from further consideration of the matter of guilt/innocence, with which the lawyer was connected...

The plea for nullification is a statement seeking to influence the jury's actions in punishment.

Since punishment has yet to occur, the statement is seeking influence in future jury service.


So if the bifurcation is taken to an extreme interpretation, this statement is contrary to the letter of the law, if not the spirit.

However I'm sure that there is established case law on what is and isn't the percise meaning of "bifurcated." For example it is not required to put a witness under oath a second time. So this is all idle speculation on my part.

[This message was edited by AlexLayman on 11-20-07 at .]

Didn't work.