It’s become fashionable around Houston to be critical of outgoing Harris County District Attorney Chuck Rosenthal. Frankly, much of the criticism is deserved. But given what Rosenthal has been going through in federal court over the past couple of days, one has to wonder whether the media firestorm regarding Rosenthal has reached the point that otherwise rational observers have taken leave of their senses.
Take this latest Chronicle article on the hearing over Rosenthal’s destruction of emails that he had been ordered to turn over in connection with a civil lawsuit in federal court. The Chron article, which is representative of the newspaper’s vitriolic coverage of Rosenthal’s political demise, calls the hearing a “contempt hearing” in which the judge could “hold Rosenthal in contempt, . . .[and] put the DA behind bars for six months.”
H’mm. I don’t think so.
Although the plaintiffs in the civil lawsuit are having a field day excoriating Rosenthal in court and in the media, I can’t see how the judge could hold Rosenthal in contempt of court, at least at this stage. The plaintiffs’ motion (see here) essentially requests that the judge hold Rosenthal in criminal contempt of court because of Rosenthal’s destruction of email evidence and failure to comply with the court-ordered procedure for reviewing the emails. The motion doesn’t call for Rosenthal to be held in civil contempt. There is no need for the court to take coercive action and Rosenthal would not be able to take any action to purge the contempt, anyway. The destroyed emails are gone for good and Rosenthal can’t do anything about that.
Thus, Rosenthal — who isn’t even a party to the civil lawsuit — is accused of criminal contempt, but he has been provided none of the protections that due process of law requires for a criminal defendant. Inasmuch as Rosenthal’s allegedly contemptuous conduct did not take place in the courtroom, the trial judge does not have the power to hold him in criminal contempt without a full-blown trial on the criminal contempt charges. Indeed, the trial judge cannot even be the judge in Rosenthal’s criminal contempt trial because the judge is a potential witness in that trial.
Likewise, the plaintiffs’ lawyer in the civil lawsuit cannot prosecute a criminal contempt case against Rosenthal. Rather, the contempt charge must be referred to the U.S. Attorneys’ Office, which then decides whether to prosecute Rosenthal based on an evaluation of the evidence and and the charges. If the U.S. Attorney decides to do so, then Rosenthal is entitled to the due process protections that any criminal defendant is entitled to receive, including notification of the specific charges, trial by jury, and confrontation of the adverse witnesses. The circus going on right now over in federal court doesn’t come close to fulfilling those Constitutional safeguards.
So, I don’t think Judge Hoyt is going to hold Rosenthal in criminal contempt and throw him in jail. Even if Judge Hoyt were to do so, the Fifth Circuit would likely stay the commitment order and eventually overturn it. The Chronicle and Rosenthal’s many other detractors can continue to revel in the lame duck DA being filleted in a public court hearing, but at least provide Rosenthal due process of law. We in Houston have already seen what happens to the unpopular public figures of the moment when those protections are ignored.

It’s been a couple of years since I last blogged on it, and it’s been over two and a half years since the new defendants were first mentioned as potential targets in the probe, but the feds finally got around last week to indicting Andrew Schatte and Michael Surface, the principals in the Keystone Group who have made a living over the past decade or so managing big construction projects financed by the City of Houston and other municipalities. The press release on the indictment is here and a copy of the indictment is here. For unknown reasons, the U.S. District Clerk’s office did not post the indictment publicly until yesterday, which is about as long as it took for the Chronicle’s editorial staff to comment on the indictment.
The indictment alleges that Schatte and Surface bribed former City of Houston building services director Monique McGilbra to gain favor on a couple of big City of Housotn building projects for which they were competing. The feds allege that the bribes were both direct (not so big) and indirect (much larger), the latter of which were allegedly funneled through Garland Hardeman, McGilbra’s former boyfriend who Schatte and Surface hired to work with them in obtaining the contracts. McGilbra, who copped a plea back in 2005, will be singing like a canary for the prosecution in this case.
Not enough is known about Schatte and Surface’s defense strategy at this point to know what will be the most important issues in the case. However, one has to wonder why the U.S. Attorneys’ office — which has been investigating corruption in the City of Houston administration of former Mayor Lee P. Brown now for six years — waited for over two and a half years after McGilbra had fingered Schatte and Surface to bring the charges against the two? Similarly, when did the feds notify Schatte and Surface that they were targets of a criminal probe? If it was some time ago (as it would appear), then why was Surface serving on the Harris County Sports & Convention Corp board for the past two years while being the target of a federal criminal probe?
The feds need to wrap this matter up.