a person untrained in the law has no idea what his rights are or how to assert them

"I don't think students realize how powerful they are, and I want them to realize that," Garcia said.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

This is the html version of the file http://www.schr.org/reports/docs/electricchair.doc.
G o o g l e automatically generates html versions of documents as we crawl the web.
To link to or bookmark this page, use the following url: http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:BgiUuLf9qHEJ:www.schr.org/reports/docs/electricchair.doc+texas+prosecutorial+misconduct+against+welfare+recipients&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=5&gl=us&client=firefox-a

Google is neither affiliated with the authors of this page nor responsible for its content.
These search terms have been highlighted: texas prosecutorial misconduct against welfare recipients

THE ELECTRIC CHAIR AND THE CHAIN GANG:

CHOICES AND CHALLENGES FOR AMERICA'S FUTURE

Lecture presented by Stephen B. Bright, director of the Southern Center for Human Rights and J. Skelly Wright Fellow at Yale Law School, at the Notre Dame Law School on February 15, 1996, and published in Volume 71, Notre Dame Law Review, page 845 (1996).

Copyright (c) 1996 University of Notre Dame; Stephen B. Bright

The use of capital punishment in America today presents a number of fundamental moral issues about our society and our system of justice. It is fitting that we address those issues here at Notre Dame Law School, which has a well-deserved reputation for raising moral issues, for a deep commitment to justice, and for responding to human needs with compassion.

Our society and the legal professional are failing to meet the need for legal services of many of those most desperately in need of such services in cases involving the highest stake, life itself. There are, of course, urgent needs in other areas besides capital punishment. Those accused of crimes which do not carry the death penalty, the poor, people of color, homeless people, people with mental impairments, people who are HIV positive, people in prisons and jails and many others are without lawyers to represent them in cases which involve their freedom, their shelter, their survival.

Those needs will be greater when you graduate from law school than they are today. But there could be fewer jobs and less resources for those who respond. And, as you know, you will be saddled with enormous debts. This presents a challenge, but it should not deter you from responding. Indeed, my message to you is that you have no choice except to respond Ä the needs and the times demand it.

Let's examine the needs and how individuals and institutions may respond to them.

Children and the poor are going to have a tremendous need for your services. The states are increasingly passing so-called welfare reform measures and Congress and the President are about to follow suit with a measure that will "end welfare as we know it." The result of these "reforms" will be to put thousands of children on heating grates to live.

This message to "get a job or starve" comes even as America's most prosperous companies are "down-sizing" Ä laying off thousands of workers who dedicated their lives to their companies. You will be practicing law in a world in which your fellow human beings are increasingly looked upon by the corporate structure and the government as disposable, as Charles Reich eloquently describes in his book, Opposing the System.1 A person can work hard all her life and suddenly, one day, lose her job, her health insurance, her home and everything Ä not because she did anything wrong, but because the company does not need her any more. Many of those who lose their jobs in this manner have little prospect of finding employment elsewhere.

Many of those growing up in our country today have little chance of obtaining a job because we have not met the promise of providing a quality education for all of our children. Of course, a quality education is essential for a job in today's world. Silicon Valley did not appear by coincidence in California. The opportunities offered there are the sweet fruit harvested as a result of the country's best system of higher education. But now that system is being raided to pay for unnecessary prisons. California now spends more money on its prison system than on its university system.

As a result of the denial of education, opportunity and even hope for so many of our children and their parents, the choice for many by age sixteen is not the one you had Ä which college to attend, what career to pursue. It is a choice between trying to find a minimum wage job at a fast food restaurant or getting in on the material wealth of the American dream through the only business available, the selling of illegal drugs.

As was pointed out recently by Steven Duke and Richard St. John:

Those who would eviscerate welfare contend that welfare recipients need the threat of severe deprivation to motivate them to seek a job. But all the evidence proves that there are no jobs for most of the people now on welfare . . . . A recent study of fastfood workers found 14 applicants for every opening.

There is another glaring gap in the reasoning of those who want to rescind the war on poverty: They assume that the only alternative a welfare recipient has is legitimate work. This overlooks the omnipresent alternative of crime.2

But America's children can still count on their government to fulfill one promise. Both the federal and state governments are committed to spend up to $30,000 a year on every child in the United States. All that child must do to obtain this government support is to try to medicate his depression or despair with illegal drugs or commit some other crime. The state and federal governments are absolutely committed to having a maximum security prison cell for any child who commits a crime Ä especially if that child is a person of color.

Some of those accused of crimes will be entered in a lottery Ä a lottery rigged by race and poverty. Out of thousands eligible, about 250 will be condemned to be strapped down and shot, hung, gassed, electrocuted or injected with lethal drugs.

Other industrialized nations have abandoned the death penalty. Recently the Constitutional Court of South Africa unanimously found the death penalty to be cruel, unusual and degrading punishment under that country's constitution.3 But we continue to sentence people to death in the United States.

I was in a Georgia courtroom last fall defending an African American facing the death penalty for a crime committed against a white person. We were trying to persuade the judge to remove the Confederate battle flag from the courtroom Ä it is a part of the Georgia state flag. The flag was adopted in defiance of the Supreme Court's decision in Brown v. Board of Education4 that schools be integrated.5 We were also asking the court to bar the state from seeking the death penalty against my client because of racial discrimination in the infliction of the death penalty in Georgia.

As we were litigating those motions, I was struck by several thoughts. The Olympic games are coming to Georgia next year. Georgia, like South Africa, has a long history of apartheid, racial oppression and racial violence. Yet now South Africa has moved ahead, it has joined the rest of the civilized world in abandoning capital punishment. But Georgia is still flying the Confederate battle flag in its courtrooms and burning people up in its electric chair while others celebrate their deaths outside.

But the problems are not limited to Georgia. The sad fact is that, increasingly, our state and federal governments are offering the young not hope, opportunity and equality, but the threat of incarceration and execution. Last summer, President Clinton began running television advertisements proclaiming his support for the death penalty and tough sentencing laws. In 1994, he signed into law a crime bill providing for the death penalty for fifty federal crimes.

The federal death penalty was brought back in 1988. Since that time the Justice Department has approved fifty-four capital prosecutions. All but nine have been against people of color. During the Clinton administration, Attorney General Reno has approved twenty-seven capital prosecutions. Twenty were against African Americans. Yet despite this sorry record, even more capital crimes were adopted last year.

In addition to providing for more death, state and federal governments pass new measures each year to provide for more incarceration. Longer prison sentences, mandatory minimum sentences, unreasonable and inflexible sentencing guidelines and other legislation such as "three strikes and you're out" result in more people serving longer periods of time behind bars at enormous cost. The United States now imprisons more people than ever before Ä over 1.5 million in both prisons and jails Ä and has the highest incarceration rate of any country in the world.6 To keep up with the growth in prison population will require the construction of 1,725 new prison beds each week.

And legislatures are moving to make life even more unbearable for those crowded into prisons and jails. Alabama has brought back the chain gang.7 Its only purpose is degradation and humiliation of human beings for political points. A person cannot get much work done chained to another person. Alabama has also returned to the practice of having prisoners stand in the hot Alabama sun for ten hours a day breaking rocks with ten-pound sledge hammers.8 This activity serves no practical purpose Ä there is no need for the crushed rock Ä but apparently it serves political purposes.

Not long ago such barbarism would be seen as just another aberrational act by Alabama. Today, it starts a national trend. Arizona and Florida have already reinstated the chain gang and other states are contemplating it as well. And the Alabama legislature, continuing its role as the trend setter, is now considering a bill to return to caning as punishment for crime. Children even as young as thirteen are being prosecuted as adults. Not just in Alabama, where fourteen and fifteen year old children are serving sentences of life imprisonment without any possibility of parole, but all across the land.

As prisons and jails become even more overcrowded, conditions deteriorate. Yet legislation proposed in the United States Congress would restrict the ability of federal courts to provide relief for unconstitutional conditions in prisons.9 This legislation is based on irresponsible assertions by the National Association of Attorneys General and members of Congress that prisoner lawsuits are about nothing more important than soggy sandwiches or being deprived of watching football games on television or the use of electronic games.

Nothing is said about the unconscionable degradation and violence in America's prisons that was corrected only by order of federal courts in response to suits brought by prisoners. Judge Frank Johnson ordered the correction of barbaric conditions in Alabama's prisons twenty years ago. Judge Johnson found "horrendous" overcrowding with inmates sleeping on mattresses in the hallways and next to urinals; prisons were "overrun with roaches, flies, mosquitoes, and other vermin"; mentally disturbed inmates were "dispersed throughout the prison population without receiving treatment"; and robbery, rape, extortion, theft and assault were "everyday occurrences" among the general inmate population.10

Prisons in thirty-nine states and the District of Columbia have been put under some form of court supervision because of the failure of state officials to operate constitutional facilities. For example, a federal judge found that residents of the California State Prison at San Quentin were "regarded and treated as caged animals, not human beings."11 At a prison in Pendleton, Indiana, the federal court found that inmates were shackled spread- eagle to metal bed frames for up to two and a half days at a time and "frequently denied the right to use the toilet and had to lie in their own filth."12 At the Southern Center for Human Rights, our docket of suits on behalf of prisoners is not about melting ice cream, but about the most fundamental human rights of people, such as the right to safety and security, to basic medical and mental health care.

It is the threat of punishment and degradation, not the promise of hope and opportunity, that we hold out to children who have the misfortune to be born into poverty, the victims of brutal racism, those who have the misfortune to be born into dysfunctional families, those who are the victims of physical, sexual and psychological abuse, and those who have the misfortune to be born with a deficit in intellectual functioning or some other mental impairment.

One would think that if all we hold out to these children is a prison cell, the chain gang and the electric chair, at least we could provide a little process Ä fair procedure with a good lawyer Ä before we take away their lives or freedom and subject them to such suffering and degradation for the suffering and degradation they caused others. And one would think that, at the very least, we would make sure that racial prejudice, which already puts so many at such a disadvantage, would not influence the severity of their punishment. But both fair procedures and the access to courts through competent and experienced counsel are being taken away even from those with the most desperate needs of all, those facing the executioner. And the courts are completely indifferent to the prominent role that race plays in the criminal justice system.

Since 1977, Chief Justice Rehnquist has waged a relentless war on the once great Writ of Habeas Corpus, which the Supreme Court described over thirty years ago as "the common law world's 'freedom writ."'13 It gives a person the right to go into federal court and assert that he or she has been imprisoned in violation of the Constitution. It gives a life-tenure federal judge the power, where there has been a constitutional violation, not to let the defendant go free, but to require the state to provide a new and fair trial. The Supreme Court once said "there is no higher duty than to maintain it unimpaired."14

But the Supreme Court under the leadership of Justice Rehnquist Ä later Chief Justice Rehnquist Ä has placed all manner of technicalities in the way of vindication of violations of the Bill of Rights.15 And now Congress and the President are poised to finish off the Writ. The Anti-Terrorism Bill that has passed the Senate includes provisions which would limit even further the ability of federal judges to set aside an illegally obtained death sentence.16 It will impose time limits that would treat capital cases like small claims cases.

This legislation would leave enforcement of the Bill of Rights primarily to state court judges. This sounds reasonable, but it overlooks that state court judges in all but a handful of states must stand for election.17 Those judges are not independent. In high publicity, high profile cases, enforcing the law may cost them their jobs. In the present political climate, an elected judge who grants relief in a capital case signs his or her own political death warrant. It has happened in California. Three justices of the state supreme court were swept from office because of their votes in capital cases.18 It happened in Mississippi.19 It has happened in other places, but often it does not happen because judges pay more attention to the next election than to the law in making their rulings.

There was an election last year for the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. Stephen W. Mansfield ran for a seat on the court on a three-plank platform: greater use of the death penalty, greater use of the harmless error doctrine, and fines for lawyers who file "frivolous appeals" in death penalty cases.20 Mansfield challenged an incumbent, a former prosecutor, who had served for twelve years on the court. Before the election, it was revealed that Mansfield had been a member of the Texas bar only a couple of years, that he had been fined for practicing law without a license in Florida, that he had almost no criminal law experience.21 Nevertheless, Mansfield won the election. The Texas Lawyer aptly described him after his election as an "unqualified success."22

Of course the most fundamental element of a fair process is the right to counsel. Because without a lawyer, a person untrained in the law has no idea what his rights are or how to assert them. I am sure that many of you were inspired to go to law school, as I was, by Anthony Lewis' marvelous book, Gideon's Trumpet. It is the story of Clarence Earl Gideon who was convicted in Florida and then filed his own handwritten petition with the United States Supreme Court saying it just was not fair that he did not have a lawyer at his trial. This ultimately led to the case of Gideon v. Wainwright,23 which held that the poor person accused of a felony is entitled to a lawyer. Anthony Lewis observed after the decision:

It will be an enormous task to bring to life the dream of Gideon v. Wainwright Ä the dream of a vast, diverse country in which every person charged with a crime will be capably defended, no matter what his economic circumstances, and in which the lawyer representing him will do so proudly, without resentment at an unfair burden, sure of the support needed to make an adequate defense.24

Over thirty years after Gideon was decided, this dream has not been realized. There is no public defender office in many jurisdictions; in some jurisdictions, the indigent defense work is assigned to the lowest bidder.25 It was recently discovered that in Putnam County, Georgia, the local sheriff appointed lawyers to the cases of poor defendants and refused to appoint lawyers who would not agree to the plea dispositions proposed by the sheriff.26

Congress cut off all funding in the fall of 1995 for a very modest program to provide some measure of justice to those facing the death penalty Ä the post-conviction defender organizations or resource centers that had existed in twenty states. The resource centers, created in 1987, were a relatively small program for the size of the problem. All together they had about 200 lawyers to deal with the post-conviction representation of over 3,000 people condemned to death. But the young lawyers who were at the resource centers during their eight years of existence proved what a difference you can make if you tackle a problem, work hard at it, build an expertise and are committed to justice.

Some of the resource center attorneys were right out of law school. They were not paid very much by the prevailing standards of the legal profession. But after two or three years, those young lawyers had mastered the complex areas of criminal law, the sub-specialty of capital punishment law, and the procedural maze of state and federal post-conviction law. Besides building their own expertise and applying it, they recruited lawyers from firms to provide pro bono representation. Many lawyers responded to the call. And they, working with the resource center lawyers, provided the highest quality of representation.

And they made a difference. Walter McMillian, who spent six years on Alabama's death row, is a free man today because the Alabama Resource Center proved that he was innocent of the murder for which he was condemned to die.27 Lloyd Schlup is alive today because the resource center in Missouri established his innocence.28 Curtis Lee Kyles is alive today because the resource center in Louisiana marshalled evidence of his innocence.29

In addition, these young lawyers, and the pro bono attorneys with whom they worked, exposed constitutional violations in other cases Ä violations such as failure to disclose exculpatory evidence, racial discrimination, and prosecutorial misconduct. These are not technicalities. These are constitutional violations that go to the very integrity and reliability of the system.

And because these lawyers and these programs made a difference, they came under attack by the National Association of Attorneys General, led by the new Attorney General of South Carolina who ran on a promise to replace the state's electric chair with an electric sofa so that more people could be executed at one time.30 Apparently the attorneys general consider it a bad reflection on our criminal justice system that innocent people are being sentenced to death. The House and the Senate responded by cutting off all funding last fall.

Those who depend upon government funding must recognize that a reality of our times is that if they are effective in helping the poor or people of color, there is a very substantial risk that the government will take away or reduce the funding or, as with the federal Legal Services Corporation, which makes legal assistance available to the poor in civil cases, interfere with their ability to help their clients by placing restrictions on their practices. Of course, that has always been the case in many states; the only programs that received funding were the ones that were completely ineffective. But at least the federal government could be counted on for some programs and the federal courts for some measure of justice that could not be obtained in the state courts. But now there is no commitment to access to the courts or to fairness on the part of our national leadership in either party.

The result is that many who most need legal assistance are without it. Many of the 3,000 men, women and children on death rows throughout the country are without counsel. Many of the lawyers from the capital resource centers who would have provided representation have gone to other jobs in other states. This leaves two choices. One is the states can execute the condemned without providing counsel for the post-conviction stages of review. The Supreme Court has held there is no right to counsel in state post-conviction proceedings.31 The other choice is to assign a lawyer who knows nothing about post- conviction practice and pay the lawyer a token amount for providing the appearance of some process. Alabama compensates lawyers $600 for handling post-conviction representation. An attorney who devotes the necessary time will be earning less than ten cents an hour. But the fees in Alabama are better than in Georgia, Mississippi and some other states. They pay nothing.

If the states do provide counsel, we can expect to see the same quality of representation during post-conviction that we see at trial. And the quality of representation at trial in capital cases has been a disgrace to the legal profession.32 For example, judges in Houston, Texas have often appointed to defend capital and other criminal cases a lawyer who occasionally falls asleep during trial.33 When a defendant in a capital case there once complained about his lawyer sleeping, the judge responded that the Constitution guarantees the accused a lawyer, but it does not guarantee that the lawyer must be awake.34 The trial of a woman facing the death penalty in Alabama had to be suspended for a day because the lawyer appointed to defend her was too drunk to go forward.35 The judge sent him to jail for a day to dry out and then produced both the client and lawyer from jail and resumed the trial. She was sentenced to death.

Last month, I handled a post-conviction proceeding in a capital case in Georgia in which the court-appointed lawyers did not make one objection during the entire trial, which lasted only one and a half days.36 Only one motion was filed prior to trial. One of the attorneys appointed to defend the accused had never heard of two important Supreme Court decisions in Georgia capital cases, Furman v. Georgia37 and Gregg v. Georgia,38 which provide the structure for much of the Eighth Amendment law governing capital trials. Another lawyer who has handled a number of criminal and capital cases in Georgia was asked to name all of the criminal law decisions of which he was aware. He could answer only Miranda and Dred Scott.39

The Alabama Supreme Court affirmed a conviction and death sentence in a case after receiving a brief from the lawyer that was only one page long.40 The lawyer did not show up for oral argument. One might have expected the Alabama Supreme Court Ä or the courts in the other cases I have described Ä to call a halt to proceedings where the lawyering was so bad and appoint new counsel, not only to protect the rights of the accused, but also so that the court could do its job. Do these courts care at all about justice? How can a court decide a capital case based on a one-page brief and without oral argument? But the Alabama Supreme Court affirmed without ever having adequate briefing or any argument. The client was eventually executed.

Poor people do not choose their lawyers. They are assigned lawyers by state court judges, many of whom are elected and are more concerned about the next election than the Bill of Rights. We must ask, is it morally right to assign a poor person a lawyer who does not know the law, who does not care enough to investigate, who is incapable of properly handling such a serious case, and then penalize the poor person for errors made by the lawyer?

Another great moral and legal issue that courts continue to ignore is the role that racial prejudice plays in deciding who dies. Edward Horsley was executed in Alabama's electric chair on February 16, 1996. He was the eleventh African American put to death by Alabama of the fourteen that have been executed since the Supreme Court allowed resumption of capital punishment in 1976. He and his codefendant were sentenced to death by all- white juries selected in Monroeville, Alabama.

Two African American men sentenced to death by an all-white jury in Utah were executed even though jurors discovered during a lunch recess a note which contained the words "Hang the Nigger's" [sic] and a drawing of a figure hanging on a gallows.41 No court, state or federal, even had a hearing on such questions as who wrote the note, what influence it had on the jurors, and how widely it was discussed by the jurors. William Henry Hance was executed in Georgia without any court holding a hearing on the use of racial slurs by jurors who decided his fate.42 The racial disparities in the infliction of the death penalty are undeniable,43 yet courts refuse even to hold hearings on such ugly racial incidents as I have described here.

But even if our system could provide the person facing the death penalty with a fair and impartial judge, a responsible prosecutor who was beyond political influences, a capable defense lawyer, and a jury which represented a fair cross-section of the community, it would not eliminate the discrimination and unfairness in the infliction of the death penalty. No procedure employed by the court during jury selection or trial can eliminate the centuries of racial prejudice and discrimination in our history. Beyond that, the task of deciding who should live and who should die is simply too enormous for our court system. And our courts do not function best when caught up in the politics and passions of the moment, which is almost always the case when a capital trial is taking place.

I am reasonably confident that this sad situation is only going to get worse because no one in a leadership position speaks out against it. That was not always the case. Over thirty years ago, the Attorney General of the United States, Robert F. Kennedy, observed, "the poor person accused of a crime has no lobby." And he did something about it. He, the Attorney General of the United States, became a lobby for the poor person. He found responsible leaders on Capitol Hill who responded to his call. Together they brought about passage of the Criminal Justice Act to give lawyers to poor people accused of crimes in the federal courts. One opportunity that will be open to you upon graduation is to work at one of the federal defender offices all across the country now in existence thanks to the leadership of Attorney General Kennedy. Attorney General Kennedy supported the Criminal Justice Act not because he was soft on crime Ä Robert Kennedy was a tough prosecutor Ä but because he believed in fairness. It was as simple as that.

But after the election of 1994, as the state attorneys general and politicians in both parties moved to take away funding for the resource centers Ä to remove the small fig leaf of fairness that did not begin to cover the injustices and inequities in the use of the death penalty Ä not a word of protest was heard from the White House or the Department of Justice.

Those of us who remember Robert Kennedy hoped that someone might at least say: "Wait, if we are going to have the death penalty, if we are going to kill our own people Ä even our children Ä at least we must give lawyers to those accused of crimes." And not just a stable of plug horses that would not be accepted by a decent glue factory, but real lawyers who know what they are doing. It is a matter of fairness. We hoped that someone might say: "Wait, we cannot gut the great Writ of Habeas Corpus. Life and liberty are too precious. Even in this material world, life and liberty should have the protection of the federal courts." Our country could have benefitted from a lesson in fairness and due process from the President or the Attorney General or some of the leaders in Congress.

Those are some of the challenges. What can we do about them?

It can be difficult to find a public interest job Ä not as hard as some think, but it is certainly more difficult than finding a job with a law firm. As I said earlier, there are no public defender offices in many jurisdictions where those accused of crimes have the greatest need for competent legal counsel. And it is getting harder. Many of the capital resource centers have closed. The civil legal services programs are also under attack for providing too much justice. They are being cut back and restrictions placed on their work. And of course you have those law school debts.

Law schools and human rights organizations must come to the rescue. The legal profession must respond to the challenge. And you as individuals must respond to the problems I have described.

A number of law schools have responded. The University of Texas Law School now has a capital punishment clinic which provides an outstanding experience for students and desperately needed help for lawyers defending capital cases in that state. The Capital Clearinghouse at the Washington and Lee College of Law has helped improve the quality of representation in Virginia. Loan forgiveness programs are making it possible for law school graduates to take jobs which pay very little but allow them to respond to desperate needs. Yale and New York University are among the leaders in providing full loan forgiveness for students who go into public interest careers. Law students at many institutions have created public interest foundations, through which those who have well paying jobs make contributions to enable other graduates to accept public interest jobs and pay their loans.

Our program, the Southern Center for Human Rights, has benefitted tremendously in the last six years because each year we have had a Skadden Fellow, a new law graduate whose salary and benefits were paid for by the fellowship foundation of the law firm of Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom. Now in its seventh year, the Skadden program provides two-year fellowships for twenty-five law graduates. Thanks to that program, we have had three outstanding lawyers who would not have been with us otherwise. There are clients who are alive today who would be dead were it not for our Skadden Fellows. It is time for other firms to follow Skadden's lead.

Some people concerned about the death penalty created last year the Harry A. Blackmun Fellowship at our office. That fellowship is making it possible for us to put another recent law graduate in the field to respond to these desperate needs.

Judy Clarke, the federal public defender in Spokane, Washington, recently donated her fees for representing Susan Smith in South Carolina, $83,000, to the South Carolina Post-Conviction Defender Organization so it could establish a fellowship to provide representation for condemned inmates.44 This contribution was made by a public defender who is providing representation in the courts to poor people every day. Where is the rest of the legal profession? Lawyers have a monopoly on access to justice; they have a duty to see that it is not only available to those who can pay.

But what is also needed is the response of individuals who are willing to go where the needs are. The legal services offices that survive, the public defender offices that exist, and the various public interest law projects, like my office, are not going to offer you jobs a year before you graduate like the law firms do. The reason is we do not know if we will be cut back thirty percent or eliminated completely.

But those offices will need you at some point. Last year, two of my third-year students at Yale Law School were discouraged in January because they could not find public defender jobs. But by May they were calling for help in deciding between the three public defender offices that had made offers. Another recent graduate worked for a criminal defense lawyer in Atlanta while he waited for his bar results and an opening at a public defender office. He passed the bar and will start practicing with the public defender office in Atlanta next month.

I also urge you to explore creating your own programs, your own non-profit public interest law projects Ä not offices where lawyers get rich, but places where people get justice. But to do that, you must settle for less in material rewards than what other lawyers are receiving for their work.

It is easy to lose perspective. Remember that it is no sacrifice to receive the same income as that received by teachers, farmers, workers on the assembly line and other good, decent working men and women who raise families and contribute to their communities. To the contrary, it is a great privilege to devote one's life to things that are important and about which you care passionately.

You who will someday graduate from law school have the opportunity to become what Martin Luther King, Jr., in one of his many great sermons, called "drum majors for justice." Dr. King described the drum major for justice as one who speaks the truth Ä no matter how unwelcome it may be and no matter how uncomfortable it may make the listener Ä and as one who gives his or her life to serving others: to feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, and Ä particularly important for lawyers Ä to visiting those who are in prison, and to loving and serving humanity.45 He described his goal as a drum major for justice: "I just want to be there in love and justice and in truth and in commitment to others, so that we can make of this old world a new world."46

Follow the example of a young lawyer who graduated from Howard Law School, opened a practice in Baltimore and handled civil rights cases and became a great drum major for justice Ä Thurgood Marshall. Follow the example of a nun who ministered to the poor in the projects of New Orleans and on death row at Angola Ä Sister Helen Prejean.47

I offer my office as an example of what you can do only because it is the one I know something about and we have had some experience in surviving in hard times without much money. We have never received any government money. We must spread very thinly what little money we have to provide justice for those most in need of it. And that requires living a simple life, not letting a lot of material things clutter our existence.

We pay everyone the same, whether secretary, senior lawyer, or junior lawyer. Our annual salaries have been as low as $8,500. Now, everyone makes $23,000. You can live on this amount. I have lived on such a salary for the last thirteen years. But, of course, so have many other people in our society who work at jobs that are not nearly so interesting and fulfilling as what we do.

A law firm may pay one partner $600,000 or even more. At the Southern Center for Human Rights, that is the entire operating budget for a year for nine lawyers, three investigators, one paralegal, three administrative people and a number of law students. With that we provide representation in fifty capital cases and twenty-four cases challenging prison and jail conditions.

There are other possibilities. The new technology of today enables us to practice law from our homes with a computer, a modem, a printer, a telephone and a fax machine. It is possible to maintain very low overhead so you can charge reasonable fees for services or even barter, as William Kunstler often did with his neighbors.

Consider practicing law not in Washington, New York or the Bay Area, but in communities where there has never been a lawyer who would question the status quo, who would give African Americans the same representation as white people, who would give the poor the same representation as the rich. You can change that. Those communities are not hard to find. Get a map of any state in the Union. It will be full of them.

We live in a society where it is possible to isolate ourselves from the poverty, the racism, the injustices that affect the lives of so many people. The culture of becoming a lawyer is one in which there is almost overwhelming temptation to take the job that pays the most money to pay those debts; but then it is so easy to fall into a costly culture of BMWs, big houses, and summer homes. There is so much money available and so many good uses we can think of for it, that it is easy to give in to the twin evils of complacency and complicity.

I urge you to commit yourselves today not to do that. As Elie Wiesel said in accepting the Nobel Peace Prize, "Our lives no longer belong to us alone; they belong to all those who need us desperately."48 I have not had enough time to describe all the desperate needs, only some of what needs to be done to work toward finally realizing the promise of Clarence Earl Gideon's case.

Your time, your talents and your commitment are urgently needed. Let me give you an example of how much you are needed. Cornelius Singleton, a mentally retarded African American youth on death row in Alabama, went eight years without seeing the lawyer assigned to represent him in post-conviction proceedings. Can you imagine what it must be like to be on death row for eight years and not see a lawyer? Not to know whether you are going to be executed the next day, the next week, the next year? To have no idea what is even happening on your case? Do you see what a difference you could make if you had been Cornelius Singleton's lawyer? Just by going to see him, by counseling him, you would have provided a valuable service.

We cannot solve all the problems, but we can lend a helping hand and our professional skills to those who most need us. Like those who helped slaves escape to freedom as part of the underground railroad before the Civil War, we can help people reach safe passage, one at a time, from the injustices which threaten to destroy them.

And what a difference you can make to those individuals whom you help. Last summer, one of my clients, Tony Amadeo, who had been condemned to die by Georgia when he was only eighteen years old, but whose death sentence was set aside due to racial discrimination,49 graduated summa cum laude from Mercer University. Do not let anyone tell you that you cannot make a difference as a lawyer.

And we can bear witness to the injustices we see until we shake our fellow citizens out of the indifference which we see about us.

I leave you with the challenge issued by Justice Thurgood Marshall, six months before he died, in accepting the Liberty Bell Award in Philadelphia. Justice Marshall was frail. He was in a wheelchair. But by the end of his remarks, it was observed that "his voice was as booming as [it had been] in those magnificent times when he argued before the Supreme Court."50 Justice Marshall said:

I wish I could say that racism and prejudice are only distant memories . . . and that liberty and equality were just around the bend. I wish I could say that America has come to appreciate diversity and to see and accept similarity. But as I look around, I see not a nation of unity but of division Ä Afro and white, indigenous and immigrant, rich and poor, educated and illiterate. . . .

Look around. Can't you see the tensions in Watts? Can't you feel the fear in Scarsdale? Can't you sense the alienation in Simi Valley? The despair in the South Bronx? The rage in Brooklyn?

We cannot play ostrich. Democracy cannot flourish among fear. Liberty cannot bloom among hate. Justice cannot take root amid rage. We must go against the prevailing wind. We must dissent from the indifference. We must dissent from the apathy. . . . We must dissent from a government that has left its young without jobs, education or hope. We must dissent from the poverty of vision and an absence of leadership. We must dissent because America can do better, because America has no choice but to do better. Take a chance, won't you? Knock down the fences that divide. Tear apart the walls that imprison. Reach out; freedom lies just on the other side.51

That's the challenge. To continue the work which Justice Marshall so nobly advanced in his great career at the bar. Now it's your turn.

I hope to see you in the courts.

. Charles Reich, Opposing the System (1995).

. Steven B. Duke & Richard St. John, Less Welfare: More Crime, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, Jan. 14, 1996, at B1.

. The State v. Makwanyane, Constl. Ct. of South Africa, June 6, 1995, reprinted in 16 Hum. Rts. L.J. 154 (1995).

. 347 U.S. 483 (1954) (holding that racial segregation in the public schools violates the Equal Protection Clause); see also Brown v. Board of Educ., 349 U.S. 294, 301 (1955) (requiring that desegregation of the public schools proceed "with all deliberate speed").

. Coleman v. Miller, 885 F. Supp. 1561, 1569 (N.D. Ga. 1995) (finding that the flag was adopted "as a statement of defiance against federal desegregation mandates and an expression of anti-black feelings").

. 1,725 New Prisons Beds a Week; Biggest 1-Year Spurt in Inmate Population, Atlanta Const., Dec. 4, 1995, at 1A (reporting a Department of Justice announcement that there are 1.1 million inmates in prison and another 484,000 in jails, giving the United States an incarceration rate of 565 per 100,000, higher than even Russia, which had been the world leader).

. Rick Bragg, Chain Gangs to Return to Roads of Alabama, N.Y. Times, Mar. 26, 1995, at 16; Brent Staples, The Chain Gang Show, N.Y. Times Mag., Sept. 17, 1995, at 62.

. Alabama to Make Prisoners Break Rocks, N.Y. Times, July 29, 1995, at 5.

. Stop Turning Out Prisoners Act, H.R. 667, 104 Cong., 1st Sess. (1995). After some modification, the restrictions were adopted as the Prison Litigation Reform Act by the Congress as a rider to the Omnibus Rescission and Appropriations Act of 1996, Pub. L. 104-134, and signed into law by President Clinton on April 26, 1996.

. Pugh v. Locke, 406 F. Supp. 318, 322-27 (M.D. Ala. 1976), aff'd as modified, 559 F.2d 283 (5th Cir. 1977), rev'd in part on other grounds, 438 U.S. 781 (1978) (per curiam).

. Toussaint v. McCarthy, 597 F. Supp. 1388, 1400 (N.D. Cal. 1984), aff'd in relevant part, 801 F.2d 1080 (9th Cir. 1986), cert. denied, 481 U.S. 1069 (1987).

. French v. Owens, 777 F.2d 1250, 1253 (7th Cir. 1985), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 817 (1986). These are, of course, only a few of the many examples of unconscionable constitutional violations that could be found in America's prisons before they were corrected by federal lawsuits brought on behalf of prisoners. For an excellent and sobering account of conditions in the Mississippi State Pentitentiary over the decades before federal court intervention, see David M. Oshinski, "Worse than Slavery": Parchman Farm and the Ordeal of Jim Crow Justice (1996); see also Nils Christie, Crime Control as Industry: Toward GULAGS, Western Style? (1993) (a description of failures of the American prison system by an eminent Norwegian criminologist); Susan P. Sturm, The Legacy and Future of Corrections Litigation, 142 U. Pa. L. Rev. 639 (1993) (describing reforms accomplished through corrections litigation).

. Smith v. Bennett, 365 U.S. 708, 712 (1961).

. Id. at 713 (quoting Bowen v. Johnson, 306 U.S. 19, 26 (1939)).

. The Court has limited the availability of the Writ to vindicate constitutional rights by adopting strict rules of procedural default, see, e.g., Smith v. Murray, 477 U.S. 527, 533-36 (1986); Engle v. Isaacs, 456 U.S. 107, 130-34 (1982); Wainwright v. Sykes, 433 U.S. 72, 88-91 (1977); Timothy J. Foley, The New Arbitrariness: Procedural Default of Federal Habeas Claims in Capital Cases, 23 Loy. L.A. L. Rev. 193 (1989); by excluding most Fourth Amendment claims from habeas corpus review, Stone v. Powell, 428 U.S. 465 (1976); by requiring deference to fact finding by state court judges, see, e.g., Patton v. Yount, 467 U.S. 1025 (1984); Sumner v. Mata, 439 U.S. 539 (1981), after remand, 455 U.S. 591 (1982), after second remand, 464 U.S. 957 (1983); by making it more difficult for a petitioner to obtain an evidentiary hearing to prove a constitutional violation, Keeney v. Tamayo- Reyes, 504 U.S. 1 (1992); by adopting an extremely restrictive doctrine regarding the retroactivity of constitutional law, Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288 (1989); James S. Liebman, More than "Slightly Retro:" The Rehnquist Court's Rout of Habeas Corpus Jurisdiction in Teague v. Lane, 18 N.Y.U. Rev. L. & Soc. Change 537 (1991); by reducing the harmless error standard for constitutional violations recognized in federal habeas review, Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619 (1993); and by restricting when a constitutional violation may be raised in a second habeas petition, McCleskey v. Zant, 499 U.S. 467 (1991).

. The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, signed into law by President Clinton on April 24, 1996, Pub. L. 104-132, requires deference by federal courts to decisions of state courts unless the decision is "contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law," id. s 104(3); establishes a statute of limitation for the filing of habeas corpus petitions, id. s 101; further restricts when a federal court may conduct an evidentiary hearing, id. 104(4); and adds new barriers to hearing a successive habeas corpus petition, id. s 105; see David Cole, Destruction of the Habeas Safety Net, Legal Times, June 19, 1995, at 30.

. Stephen B. Bright & Patrick J. Keenan, Judges and the Politics of Death: Deciding Between the Bill of Rights and the Next Election in Capital Cases, 75 B.U. L. Rev. 759, 779 n.89 (1995) (in 32 of the 38 states that have the death penalty, state court judges must stand for periodic election or retention).

. Governor George Deukmejian announced his opposition to Chief Justice Rose Bird because of her votes in capital cases and warned two other justices he would oppose them unless the death penalty was upheld. Leo C. Wolinsky, Support for Two Justices Tied to Death Penalty Votes, Governor Says, L.A. Times, Mar. 14, 1986, at 3; Steve Wiegand, Governor's Warning to 2 Justices, S.F. Chron., Mar. 14, 1986, at 1. He eventually campaigned for the removal of all three justices and the voters responded by voting all three from their positions. Frank Clifford, Voters Repudiate 3 of Court's Liberal Justices, L.A. Times, Nov. 5, 1986, pt. 1, at 1 (describing results of election and commercials in the last month of the campaign which insisted "that all three justices needed to lose if the death penalty is to be enforced").

. David W. Case, In Search of an Independent Judiciary: Alternatives to Judicial Elections in Mississippi, 13 Miss. C. L. Rev. 1, 15-20 (1992) (describing how Justice James Robertson was defeated by a "law and order candidate" who had the support of the Mississippi Prosecutor's Association). Robertson was the second justice to be voted off the Mississippi Supreme Court in two years for being "soft on crime." Andy Kanengler, McRae Overwhelms Justice Joel Blass, Clarion-Ledger (Jackson, Miss.), June 6, 1990, at 4A; Tammie Cessna Langford, McRae Unseats Blass, Sun Herald (Biloxi, Miss.), June 3, 1990, at A1.

. Janet Elliott & Richard Connelly, Mansfield: The Stealth Candidate; His Past Isn't What it Seems, Tex. Law., Oct. 3, 1994, at 1, 32.

. Id.; John Williams, Election '94: GOP Gains Majority in State Supreme Court, Houston Chron., Nov. 10, 1994, at A29.

. Jane Elliott, Unqualified Success: Mansfield's Mandate; Vote Makes Case for Merit Selection, Tex. Law., Nov. 14, 1994, at 1.

. 372 U.S. 335 (1963).

. Anthony Lewis, Gideon's Trumpet 205 (1964).

. For a description of the lack of indigent defense systems and the state of indigent defense, see Stephen B. Bright, Counsel for the Poor: The Death Sentence Not for the Worst Crime but for the Worst Lawyer, 103 Yale L.J. 1835, 1849-55 (1994).

. Judy Bailey, Does Sheriff Run Putnam's Indigent Defense?, Fulton County Daily Rep., Nov. 10, 1995, at 1.

. Peter Applebome, Black Man Freed After Years on Death Row in Alabama, N.Y. Times, Mar. 3, 1993, at A1.

. See Schlup v. Delo, 115 S. Ct. 851 (1995).

. Kyles v. Whitley, 115 S. Ct. 1555 (1995) (finding a violation of due process by the prosecution due to failure to turn over exculpatory evidence).

. Marcia Coyle, Republicans Take Aim at Death Row Lawyers, Nat'l L.J., Sept. 11, 1995, at A1, A25 (describing the effort of South Carolina's Attorney General and other members of the National Association of Attorneys General to eliminate funding for the post-conviction defender organizations even though the organizations had established the innocence of at least four men condemned to die); David Cole, Too Expensive or Too Effective? The Real Reason the GOP Wants to Cut Capital-Representation Centers, Fulton County Daily Rep., Sept. 8, 1995, at 6 (pointing out that eliminating funding for the capital representation centers would increase the cost of providing representation, but decrease the quality).

. Murray v. Giarratano, 492 U.S. 1 (1989).

. For a more comprehensive discussion of the problems of deficient representation in capital cases and the reasons for it, see Bright, supra note 25.

. Paul M. Barrett, Lawyer's Fast Work on Death Cases Raises Doubts About System, Wall St. J., Sept. 7, 1994, at 1 (describing Houston lawyer Joe Frank Canon, who is known for hurrying through capital trials like "greased lightening," occasionally falls asleep, and has had 10 clients sentenced to death); Ex Parte Burdine, 901 S.W.2d 456, 457 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995) (Maloney, J., dissenting) (noting testimony of jurors and court clerk that defense attorney slept during trial).

. John Makeig, Asleep on the Job; Slaying Trial Boring, Lawyer Said, Houston Chron., Aug. 14, 1992, at A35.

. Record at 846-49, Haney v. State, 603 So. 2d 368 (Ala. Crim. App. 1991), aff'd, 603 So. 2d 412 (Ala. 1992), cert. denied, 113 S. Ct. 1297 (1993).

. Judy Bailey, A Poor Example of Indigent Defense, Fulton County Daily Rep., Jan. 16, 1996, at 1 (describing hearing in Fugate v. Thomas, Super. Ct. of Butts Co., Ga., No. 94-V-195 (Jan. 10-11, 1996)).

. Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238 (1972) (striking down Georgia's death penalty statute).

. Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153 (1976) (upholding the death penalty statue enacted by the Georgia legislature in 1973 in response to the Court's decision in Furman).

. Transcript of Hearing of Apr. 25-27, 1988, at 231, State v. Birt, Super. Ct. of Jefferson Co., Ga. No. 2360 (1988) (on file with author). The lawyer was referring to Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), and Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393 (1857). Dred Scott was not a criminal case.

. Brief for Appellant, Ex parte Heath, 455 So. 2d 905 (Ala. 1984). The brief is set out in full in Bright, supra note 25, at 1860-61 n.154.

. See Andrews v. Shulsen, 485 U.S. 919 (1988) (Marshall, J., dissenting from denial of certiorari).

. See Hance v. Zant, 114 S. Ct. 1392 (1994) (Blackmun, J., dissenting from denial of certiorari); Bob Herbert, Mr. Hance's 'Perfect Punishment,' N.Y. Times, Mar. 27, 1994, at D17; Bob Herbert, Jury Room Injustice, N.Y. Times, Mar. 30, 1994, at A15.

. For further discussion of the influence of race on the imposition of the death penalty and the failure of legislatures and courts to deal with the problem, see Stephen B. Bright, Discrimination, Death and Denial: The Tolerance of Racial Discrimination in the Infliction of the Death Penalty, 35 Santa Clara L. Rev. 433 (1995).

. Clif LeBlanc, Smith Lawyer Donates $83,000 in Fees, The State (Columbia, S.C.), Feb. 2, 1996, at B3; Andrew Blum, Defender Proffers Fees, Nat'l L.J., Apr. 15, 1996, at A7.

. Testament of Hope: The Essential Writings of Martin Luther King, Jr. 259- 67 (James M. Washington ed., 1986).

. Id. at 267.

. See Helen Prejean, C.S.J., Dead Man Walking: An Eyewitness Account of the Death Penalty in the United States (1993) (describing her work with death row inmates).

. Wiesel's Speech: This Honor Belongs to All the Survivors, N.Y. Times, Dec. 11, 1986, at A2.

. Amadeo v. Zant, 486 U.S. 214 (1988).

. A. Leon Higginbotham, Jr., Justice Clarence Thomas in Retrospect, 45 Hastings L.J. 1405, 1430 (1994).

. Carl T. Rowan, Dream Makers, Dream Breakers: The World of Justice Thurgood Marshall 453-54 (1993).

Page

"I don't think students realize how powerful they are, and I want them to realize that," Garcia said.

o ASK THE PROS

Del Mar regent arrested
Watts charged with sexual assault early Tuesday

By Israel Saenz (Contact)
Originally published 10:26 a.m., December 11, 2007
Updated 07:25 p.m., December 11, 2007

CORPUS CHRISTI — Attorney and Del Mar College Regent Guy Leland Watts remained in Nueces County Jail Tuesday night after he was arrested in connection with a possible sexual assault.

Watts’ wife, Kimberly, accused him of the assault before midnight Monday. Police arrested him shortly after at his home in the 4200 block of Ocean Drive.

Kimberly Watts, 42, was taken to Doctor’s Regional Hospital, but police didn’t indicate her condition. Judge J. Manuel Bañales with the 105th District Court said at a hearing Tuesday that as is standard in family violence cases, Guy Watts, 66, would be held for 24 hours and able to post his $50,000 bond today.

Bañales set an arraignment hearing for 8 a.m. Jan. 2, in the same court. He also ordered Watts to take an HIV test and wear an electronic monitoring device, measures court officials said are standard in sexual assault cases.

He said he was innocent Tuesday afternoon, when he was brought before Municipal Court Judge Margie Silva Flores for a emergency protective order hearing. The order was filed against him after his arrest.

Under the terms of the protective order, Watts is not permitted to return to his house in the 4200 block of Ocean Drive and must stay away from his wife and stepdaughter.

Watts is the Del Mar College District 4 regent; his term expires next November. Before elected to his current seat in 2001, he served as a regent from 1988 to 1990 and 1992 to 1999. Watts ran unsuccessfully for the city council and applied to fill a vacant Corpus Christi Independent School District seat last spring.

View latest stories with comments »
Before you post a comment, consider this:
Note: We've changed the way comments appear on the site. Click here for more information.

* 1. Keep it clean.Comments that are obscene, vulgar, lewd or sexually-oriented will get the ax. Creative spelling of such terms also will be banned.
* 2. Don't threaten to hurt or kill anyone.
* 3. Be truthful. Don't lie about anyone or anything.
* 4. Be nice. No racism, sexism or any other sort of -ism that degrades another person.
* 6. Keep it local. Do not post direct links to sites outside of Caller.com.
* 7. Police yourselves. Hit the "Suggest Removal" button on offensive comments.
* 8. Share what you know. Give us your eyewitness accounts, background, observations and history.
* 9. Ask questions. What more do you want to know about the story?
* 10. Stay focused. Keep on the story's topic.
* 11.Help us get it right. If you find a factual error or misspelling, email newmedia@caller.com or metrodesk@caller.com, or call 886-3697.

Your Comment Display Options:
Show Flagged Comments Hide Flagged Comments
+ Increase Font Size - Decrease Font Size
Post Your Comments

Post 1 December 11, 2007 at 10:36 a.m. (Suggest removal)

This just proves it really doesn't matter what part of town you live in...people from all walks of life are capable of abuse.

Post 2 December 11, 2007 at 10:39 a.m. (Suggest removal)

WOW!

Post 3 December 11, 2007 at 10:45 a.m. (Suggest removal)

no way

Post 4 December 11, 2007 at 10:46 a.m.

(This comment was removed by the site staff.)

Post 5 December 11, 2007 at 10:46 a.m. (Suggest removal)

SEXUAL assault?

At age 66?

Something stinks about this one because the old saying, "it takes all night to do what I used to do all night" is in full force long before that age, which makes me wonder what the "fight" was all about and who started it!

We already know who lost...

Post 6 December 11, 2007 at 10:52 a.m. (Suggest removal)

And so it begins.........

how quick you all are, and begin to take sides and point blame! shame on you.

Age and money do not matter. NO means NO!

Post 7 December 11, 2007 at 10:56 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Let me guess...Sandra Watts will be the judge and he will go free or the case will be dropped for lack of evidence when Kim refuses to tesify against him.

Post 8 December 11, 2007 at 10:58 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Mr. Watts is my attorney and is a very good man. I don't believe this story. There's bound to be more to this. It's very fishy. Mr. Watts would never, ever, ever do anything like that...He's innocent.

Post 9 December 11, 2007 at 11:02 a.m.

(This comment was removed by the site staff.)

Post 10 December 11, 2007 at 11:03 a.m. (Suggest removal)

And everybody was worried about the Del Mar interim president regulating tenure.......Looks like there are more problems with Del Mar than we thought.

Post 11 December 11, 2007 at 11:03 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Wow.

I've known him for many years. This is very surprising. I hope it's true that there's more to the story.

Post 12 December 11, 2007 at 11:08 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Hopefully she isn't a scorned woman trying to ruin his name before she files for divorce and goes after his money citing this allegation as the reason for filing divorce. WOW 24 years younger, often heard marry for love the first time and if that doesn't work go for $$$$ second and third time around.

Post 13 December 11, 2007 at 11:09 a.m. (Suggest removal)

i dont believe this story for one minute. the news said that they were in his home for a good while talking to him before taking him into custody. there has to be something more than what the news is saying

Post 14 December 11, 2007 at 11:10 a.m. (Suggest removal)

He probably wishes he had his DeLorean to go back in time right about now.

Post 15 December 11, 2007 at 11:12 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I have to say that I believe the story and Kim's side of it. The man is a stalker. Ask around to women he's visited when he's supposedly "campaigning" but asking very personal questions of women.
He might be someone's attorney and be perfectly capable of doing a good job at his profession, but there's another side of him.

Post 16 December 11, 2007 at 11:17 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Sandra Watts will get it dismissed.

Post 17 December 11, 2007 at 11:24 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Hello....Sandra Watts is his EX !!!!

Post 18 December 11, 2007 at 11:25 a.m. (Suggest removal)

That dude has been whacked for years.

Post 19 December 11, 2007 at 11:26 a.m. (Suggest removal)

So when you tell your wife "NO we can't afford a new couch." But she buys it anyway, can you have her arrested for theft? Or what about telling your wife "NO I don't want to see PS I love you" but she drags you to the movies to see it anyway, can you have her arrested for kidnapping or false imprisonment? No means "NO!" right?

Post 20 December 11, 2007 at 11:30 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Place you bets now...place your bets now...

Who is the next Del Mar administrator that will get busted for a sex charge??? We had Garcia, now we have Watts....who is next ???

Post 21 December 11, 2007 at 11:31 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Well Post 19, we see who wears the pants in your house.

Keep whining and we will have you arrested for noise violation.

Post 22 December 11, 2007 at 11:35 a.m. (Suggest removal)

20 --- You've got one there already currently sitting on the Del Mar BOR who lost a major government job because of a sex scandal. So, what's new!?

Post 23 December 11, 2007 at 11:36 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Yikes, is this another Smith case where the charges will eventually be dropped?

Post 24 December 11, 2007 at 11:40 a.m. (Suggest removal)

You know what they say about Karma. If it's true, guess who's getting a lump of coal in his stocking from Santa this year.

Post 25 December 11, 2007 at 11:46 a.m. (Suggest removal)

that's not the only place he'll get a lump in.

Post 26 December 11, 2007 at 11:47 a.m. (Suggest removal)

was he drunk?

Post 27 December 11, 2007 at 11:48 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Is he Mikal Watts father?

Post 28 December 11, 2007 at 11:48 a.m. (Suggest removal)

That dude has been a creepy type for a long time...

Post 29 December 11, 2007 at 11:50 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Oprah said this happens all the time and wifes take the abuse, the rape, the beatings...she must have decided NO MORE! Way to GO!

Post 30 December 11, 2007 at 11:52 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Post 15 - "I have to say that I believe the story and Kim's side of it."

Based on what? Psychic ability? Have you heard HIS side of the story drifting through the ether as well?

I don't believe either one of them. They had a fight, she lost so she called the cops! It happens all the time. Since she had no "bruises or abrasions" she told them it was a SEXUAL assault! I'm not sure about you youngsters but no one over 60 is going to buy that story! It may not be impossible but it's right there next to it and EXTREMELY improbable!

Time to break out the old checkbook! THAT little disagreement is fixing to cost him a BUNDLE!!!

Post 31 December 11, 2007 at 11:53 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Not only is he creepy, he feels he is entitled to anything...even other peoples reserved parking spaces at the college. He just parks where he wants, I had him moved, Boy, was he upset. I am glad I am not his wife and he felt he could just assault me.

Post 32 December 11, 2007 at 11:55 a.m. (Suggest removal)

His is a lawyer (attorney) at Mikal Watts law firm, there may be a relation. Some one put some bad karma on that family if there is a relation.

Post 33 December 11, 2007 at 11:58 a.m.

(This comment was removed by the site staff.)

Post 34 December 11, 2007 at 11:58 a.m.

(This comment was removed by the site staff.)

Post 35 December 11, 2007 at 11:59 a.m. (Suggest removal)

During last spring's city council campaigning Pete Alvarez former Chief of Police told one audience that the candidates need to be checked out. I often wondered what he meant.

Post 36 December 11, 2007 at noon

(This comment was removed by the site staff.)

Post 37 December 11, 2007 at 12:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)

WOW, I never knew Del Mar had so much drama.

Post 38 December 11, 2007 at 12:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Wow post 8, do you live in his home, are you a fly on the wall or what? Just because you see him in one way- in his office or in the court room, doesn't mean he's not a mean s.o.b. at home.
I'm not saying he did or didn't do it. I'm saying how do you know if you weren't there.

Post 39 December 11, 2007 at 12:18 p.m.

(This comment was removed by the site staff.)

Post 40 December 11, 2007 at 12:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Actually, Del Mar College has an excellent drama department.

Post 41 December 11, 2007 at 12:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)

WOW ... this town is really messed up!

Post 42 December 11, 2007 at 12:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)

You know what... His youngest son is a big crook... He likes to break into cars (mine included... during morning church services no less) and when he gets arrested, Daddy Guy Watts bails him out with nothing more than a slap on the wrist!!! I don't know if he did this or not... but it is about time this family realizes that they are NOT above the law!!!

Post 43 December 11, 2007 at 12:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Mikal Watts is his son - he does not work for Mikal - he has his own law practice and Mikal has his own law practice.

Sandra Watts is his ex-wife and Mikal's mother.

Post 44 December 11, 2007 at 1:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)

So easy for a wife to yell rape, and the husband is guilty automatically.
Please don't point the finger yet. Young wife, wants a divorce with out cause, I just got cause. Takes husband to cleaner, possible to jail. He is out of the way, so, young wife can trade for a newer model. She has his money and ruins the guy along the way. HAPPENS EVERY DAY.

So, let's stand back and see what is what when the smoke clears.

Post 45 December 11, 2007 at 1:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Post 30, no I'm not psychic; the man followed me home from the grocery store and handed me his "campaign" card and then proceeded to ask me very personal questions.
He's got problems. I'll bet with a little wine or gin in his system, he takes what he wants when he wants it.
It was creepy when he followed me then questioned me.

Post 46 December 11, 2007 at 1:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)

A 42 year old woman assaulted by 66 year old man? I sure would like to sit in on this trial. It would be iteresting to see all the details on this goofy story.

The Caller Times is beginning to look more like the the tabloids.

Post 47 December 11, 2007 at 1:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Post 45, if you are not still thinking about sex after 65 and beyond, what do you want to live for. Glad I'm not married to you.

Agree with Post 46, stand back and see what happens, better than a reality show.

Post 48 December 11, 2007 at 1:12 p.m.

(This comment was removed by the site staff.)

Post 49 December 11, 2007 at 1:15 p.m.

(This comment was removed by the site staff.)

Post 50 December 11, 2007 at 1:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Damn those Dem's sure know how to party.

Post 51 December 11, 2007 at 1:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I am posting here for one single reason: Because someone should say that this situation is unfortunate and it is equally unfortunate that people see it just as an opportunity to post snarky comments. Reading many of these comments here makes me feel worse about humanity.

Post 52 December 11, 2007 at 1:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Look people … if you have ever worked in a retirement home and I’m not talking about a nursing home where people are ill … I’m talking about where the elderly go to get a little help doing their daily activities ... then you know that old people still have sex … it’s a myth the elderly are not sexual. I can tell that the men who live in these homes are highly sought after by all the women there because there are far more women than men … women live longer. So those of you saying that no way did he want or was capable of sex at 66 is wrong.

Rape and sexual assault are about power not sex.

Post 53 December 11, 2007 at 1:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Post 45:
I hope my husband is still thinking and performing WITH me when he's 66.

Post 54 December 11, 2007 at 1:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Post 55, what is your occupation, if any? I don't suppose I could locate people who share your profession who have violated the law or committed newsworthy crimes, could I?

Post 55 December 11, 2007 at 1:40 p.m.

(This comment was removed by the site staff.)

Post 56 December 11, 2007 at 1:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Well, Post 46, I agree we need to just wait and see what happens. Although, I can not fathom why the older men marry women young enough to be their daughters and sometimes even their granddaughters...seems you are just asking for problems when you do that...

Post 57 December 11, 2007 at 1:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Post 58 - you could not be more wrong. Married women have not given up their right to say no and mean it. A married woman is not a slave but a partner who has free will. And if a judge set the bail at 50k not "releasing on his own recognizance: then one is tempted to believe there was some corroborating evidence. That still doesn't mean he was guilty, or that she is innocent.... only that there was some reason to believe there may be a case to be made.

Post 58 December 11, 2007 at 2:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)

There is no way we can judge either side on this yet. I've met Guy and worked with him on some things years ago. Seemed like a good guy. Ofcourse that doesn't mean anything. Most of the time in these situations, both parties are whack. If it is true, "no does mean no", even in a marriage (which really stinks).
He should've done what the rest of us do. Pout, throw a guilt trip, refuse to do house work when "she" wants you to, and stay up late to watch Cinemax!

Post 59 December 11, 2007 at 2:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)

All I know is, if I sexually assaulted my wife they would not be leading me out of the house in handcuffs. I would be horizontal.
And post # 58 your an idiot.

Post 60 December 11, 2007 at 2:12 p.m.

(This comment was removed by the site staff.)

Post 61 December 11, 2007 at 2:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Thank you Post 60. You are so right.

Post 62 December 11, 2007 at 2:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Well said, Post 60. I don't know how old you are post 58 but you must have grown up in a cave. NO MEANS NO!!! No matter what. Abuse is abuse, whether it be sexual, physical, verbal or emotional. If a woman says no to her husband and he attacks her anyway, he has no respect for her. It really doesn't matter whether I know the Watts' or not. The fact of the matter is, he is a public personality and if this had happened (and it does) to any other average Joe, there would not be such a big deal made about it. I just hope that if it is true justice is served.

Post 63 December 11, 2007 at 2:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Post 58:

A Wikipedia search for "spousal rape" may prove enlightening for you.

Post 64 December 11, 2007 at 2:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Do some homework in the local commnuity...Guy Watts is one weird individual. Wait til all of the sordid details start coming out?
His 42 year old wife probably just got fed up with his over-the-top creepy narcissism.

Post 65 December 11, 2007 at 2:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)

62 --- I agree --- 58 is an "idiot!"

Post 66 December 11, 2007 at 2:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Yikes, post 63, got a little jealousy/resentment there?

Post 67 December 11, 2007 at 2:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Post 68 - It damn sure isn't jealousy..... resentment/hatred is definitely a possibility.

Post 68 December 11, 2007 at 2:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Hey, Guy. If you are reading this, just want to say that I am praying for both you and Kimberly. You and I have known each other since highschool. You call me "Barnyard" whenever we meet. We haven't always agreed on things, but I consider you my friend. I am thinking about you and hope and pray that you and Kimberly can work the rest of this out peacefully and away from the media.

Post 69 December 11, 2007 at 2:24 p.m.

(This comment was removed by the site staff.)

Post 70 December 11, 2007 at 2:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Post 60, you are wrong - the bible tells me so:

"Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything." (Ephesians 5:22-24)

Post 71 December 11, 2007 at 2:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)

74 --- "the boystown incident in mexico!?" Well now, there's a character builder for Grandpa Watts!? Yep Guy Watts --- just tell your child bride about your "boystown incident!?" She'll really be impressed!

For those who may not know what "boystown" is I'll tell you this --- it's no orphanage! It's a town of prostitution...a red light district.

74 --- Why in the world would you write that!? Knucklehead!

Post 72 December 11, 2007 at 2:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Cripes, it was a joke. And you killed it. Thanks.

Post 73 December 11, 2007 at 2:36 p.m.

(This comment was removed by the site staff.)

Post 74 December 11, 2007 at 2:38 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Post 58 and 73 must be a bunch of single men idiots.

Post 75 December 11, 2007 at 2:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Post 75 you are a goober - Post 74 is making fun of Post 71

Post 76 December 11, 2007 at 2:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)

what kind of a name is Guy?

Post 77 December 11, 2007 at 2:46 p.m.

(This comment was removed by the site staff.)

Post 78 December 11, 2007 at 2:46 p.m.

(This comment was removed by the site staff.)

Post 79 December 11, 2007 at 2:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I don't know, what is your name?

Post 80 December 11, 2007 at 2:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Post 58 sounds like a rapist, you've got to be something wrong to think that way. I can only imagine what someone would be going through when they are raped. I pray for the victim and the person charged in this case. I do not know them personally, but it seems like so many things have gone wrong in their marriage and hopefully with GOD's help they can fix it. For those of you that think that marriage gives you the right to take sex from your spouse anytime you want it, your so wrong. Marriage is an institution created by GOD and sex is a beautiful thing for married people to share and show their love towards one another, also created by GOD. It's not suppose to be perverted or forced upon. God bless.

Post 81 December 11, 2007 at 2:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Amen post 84

Post 82 December 11, 2007 at 2:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Before I opine on this I need to check my scripture.

Post 83 December 11, 2007 at 2:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)

79 --- Thanks for the "goober" compliment. Man, I'm climbing in stature today. Truth is I worked that also myself for my own purpose sans yours or his direction. You were tools.

Wait a minute --- "goober?" "tools?" That's what started this whole incident...goobers and tools, or lack thereof!?

Post 84 December 11, 2007 at 2:50 p.m.

(This comment was removed by the site staff.)

Post 85 December 11, 2007 at 2:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Stunning. Just stunning. Wow.

Post 86 December 11, 2007 at 2:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Lets see what judge will recuse themselves in this case. Oh, that's right, Watts is a real attorney.

Post 87 December 11, 2007 at 2:53 p.m.

(This comment was removed by the site staff.)

Post 88 December 11, 2007 at 2:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)

post 80

"what kind of name is guy"?

Havent you ever heard of Guy Ritchie? You know, the guy that married to Madonna... His name is Guy. And I've seen other people that also had that name, but they dont come to mind right now...

Post 89 December 11, 2007 at 2:54 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Post 87 - you are very welcome.
I adore being a tool.

Post 90 December 11, 2007 at 2:55 p.m.

(This comment was removed by the site staff.)

Post 91 December 11, 2007 at 2:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I have met Mr. Watts on several occasions and I agree that he is creepy. This doesn't surprise me at all. He would be late to a function on purpose so he could "arrive" and be the center of attention. Then he proceeded to monopolize the conversation. I hated to have to sit near him because I always had the feeling he was watching me and not for a good reason. It makes me shiver just thinking about it. Is disbarrment a possibility if convicted?

Post 92 December 11, 2007 at 2:57 p.m.

(This comment was removed by the site staff.)

Post 93 December 11, 2007 at 2:58 p.m.

(This comment was removed by the site staff.)

Post 94 December 11, 2007 at 2:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)

post 91, wow, thanks for the info. My family has been mistaken all these years. Will call Granny as soon as I log off. Who knew, watermelon, hum, makes sense since we are all kinda shaped like watermelons and we have been often told we were full of it....water that is. The largest watermelon on record weighed 262? Wow, my mother beats that, she weighs a good 310.

Post 95 December 11, 2007 at 2:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)

removal Nazis!?

Post 96 December 11, 2007 at 3:03 p.m.

(This comment was removed by the site staff.)

Post 97 December 11, 2007 at 3:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Post 51

I can hardly believe Carlos Garcia, former president of Del Mar College would lower himself to the level of arguing on this forum. He should be quiet and be glad that he was just sued and not arrested. The disgrace at Del Mar just keeps on coming.

Post 98 December 11, 2007 at 3:11 p.m.

(This comment was removed by the site staff.)

Post 99 December 11, 2007 at 3:11 p.m.

(This comment was removed by the site staff.)

Post 100 December 11, 2007 at 3:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Post 73- The bible was written a long time ago by men. It's also been revised and translated so many times, who knows what it's original intent was anymore. I doubt God really expects women to just "put out" whenever because her husband's in the mood. Isn't marriage supposed to be about love and respect for each other? Also, sexual assault really doesn't have to do with sex, it's a power trip. I'm not sticking up for her, either. For all I know she made it up, and is wanting his $, I have no idea, but comments like yours give me yet ANOTHER reason to stay out of the churches and away from people like you. I'm quite capable of thinking for myself and I know right from wrong without someone preaching at me to figure it out.

Post 101 December 11, 2007 at 3:20 p.m.

(This comment was removed by the site staff.)

Post 102 December 11, 2007 at 3:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Post 101 Guy is a proper name, my brother is named Guy. What is your name? Stupid! Is that a proper name?

Post 103 December 11, 2007 at 3:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Post 103 you are absolutely correct. The book of Mormon offers the missing pieces of the bible.

Post 104 December 11, 2007 at 3:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The headline is misleading......I thought it was a stranger type assualt.....it was a domestic disturbance and probably the old coot did not know what NO meant from his young wife since he might have been all hyped up on VIAGRA.

The attack/advances or whatever the assualt was..... must have been pretty insulting for the wife to involve the police. Most women would have said, hey buddy, go sleep in the next room or either I will.

So by her calling 911, this must have been a gross situation going on in that house.
.
Surely she did not dial that emergency number and ruin his reputation lightly, nor were they drunk or some such. Her complaint had a basis and some merit, right? This is legit, right?
Yeah, right.
No one would take up the cops time needlessly. So he must have done something to merit the call for help.

Post 105 December 11, 2007 at 3:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Post 107...You obviously watched Murder She Wrote way too many times.

Post 106 December 11, 2007 at 3:38 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Poster #73

Eph 5:25 Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;

Col 3:19 Husbands, love [your] wives, and be not bitter against them.

Are you suggesting that forced intercourse is part of Christ's love for the church?

Post 107 December 11, 2007 at 3:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Post 106-This is 103. Thanks, but no thanks on the Mormonism. You guys are scarier than the Bible thumpers...scratch that-you're all scary. And, no, I'm not worried about going to Hell. Look around folks...we're here.

Post 108 December 11, 2007 at 3:54 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Post 103 - You are obviously a heretic, or worse, a witch!

Post 109 December 11, 2007 at 3:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Post 73, I'm sorry because of stupid crud like that I'm an Atheist...

Post 82, the Chief wasn't arrested because the woman didn't report the alleged rape until days later.

Post 110 December 11, 2007 at 4:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Post 109-There is no hell, just celestial kingdoms. I can sign you up if you want.

Post 111 December 11, 2007 at 4:11 p.m.

(This comment was removed by the site staff.)

Post 112 December 11, 2007 at 4:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"Just because someone rapes or is accused of rape doesnt mean they are bad people"

Actually #112, that's exactly what it means.

Post 113 December 11, 2007 at 4:17 p.m.

(This comment was removed by the site staff.)

Post 114 December 11, 2007 at 4:20 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I never understood athiest... I am a Christian and am proud to say that... there are those crazy Christians Radicals out there that do get on my nerves... but I would never let some one else determine my faith... or in you case post 111, lack there of.... but if you are not a believer, then tell me, do you celebrate the Christmas celebration... take advantage of taking the days off of work?? enjoy the gift of giving? i was just wondering... but anyway... another way to look at it is.... I would rather be a Christian and be wrong about my faith in God, than be an atheist and be wrong... just a thought....

As for the accusations... I hope they are not true.... however.... people tend to blow things way out of proportion without all the facts in place....

Have a good day...

Post 115 December 11, 2007 at 4:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Post 110- Sticks and stones...blah blah. Get a grip, I was only being a smart___ because everytime something happens in the news different religious groups start spewing their answers for everything. Jeez. I practice a religion called "common sense". Ever try it? Or do you need other people to constantly tell you what to do? And do you always resort to namecalling when someone doesn't happen to agree with you? Very mature. -Post 103 or maybe I should be "666" ha! ha!

Post 116 December 11, 2007 at 4:21 p.m.

(This comment was removed by the site staff.)

Post 117 December 11, 2007 at 4:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)

That picture doesn't look like Guy Watts, that looks like Freddy Krugger.

Its a good thing that Mikal Watts resigned from the Senate Race. They would have definately used this against him.

Post 118 December 11, 2007 at 4:30 p.m.

(This comment was removed by the site staff.)

Post 119 December 11, 2007 at 4:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Just about anyone would like to have their 15 minutes of fame. Maybe that's what this is about. Facts are Mr. Watts filed a divorce proceeding in August 2007, dismissed the case in September 2007. Mr. Watts just recently filed a divorce on December 7, 2007. Kinda makes you go hum!!!!!!!. I'm not taking either or side. What was right or what was wrong. Age has no barring. Just giving the facts.

Post 120 December 11, 2007 at 4:37 p.m.

(This comment was removed by the site staff.)

Post 121 December 11, 2007 at 4:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)

you are mixing up confusing Guy Watts & Mikal Watts

Post 122 December 11, 2007 at 4:48 p.m.

(This comment was removed by the site staff.)

Post 123 December 11, 2007 at 4:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)

NO MEANS NO. For all of you women AND men out there that feel that just because the person is your spouse or friend, that you are not allowed to say NO. It isn't true. IT'S RAPE. No matter how horny, drunk, married for years, i made you what you are EXCUSES they give. IT'S RAPE. Laugh at it if you will. It doesn't matter why she made the decision to call 911--It she said NO, and he decided to ignore that NO, the next place need to be with the INMATES., in JAIL The popularity of the person doesn't mean a thing when it comes to breaking the law. NO MEANS NO-------Stop making light of this situation folks--If it did truly happen then I truly applaud Mrs. Watts for her bravery , and hope that her husband gets help for this national problem with some spouses( no one wants their business out in the streeet, esp. the streets of CC) and if it did not happen, i hope she gets help for accusations that can ruin a person and their career. Let's just pray for their family, and the truth will be before all at some point. Let's pray for our city as a whole. This place as one has already said , (CC) needs major moral boosting. It's evident in so many of the comments here. By the way, if my spouse EVER raped me, i would have NO PROBLEM in sending his A -- to jail to be with the other rapists. I love him, but not to where i would not report the awful disrespect, and crime of RAPE. Don't wonder who i am, just continue to love and respect each other. Take care Corpus Christi. God is Good.

Post 124 December 11, 2007 at 4:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Post 114 December 11, 2007 at 4:20 p.m.

OMG! I was being sarcastic...I'm sorry if you got the wrong impression...some people read waaaaayyyyy too much into these posts...

Post 125 December 11, 2007 at 4:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Everyone would like to have their 15 minutes of fame. The facts are G. Watts filed for divorce in August 2007, had the case dismissed in September 2007. G. Watts recently filed a divorce on December 7, 2007, makes you want to go HUM!!!!!!!. I do not take either or side in the matter. Age has no barrier. These are the facts.

Post 126 December 11, 2007 at 4:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)

POST 118
Since you obviously do not know the meaning of NO MEANS NO, OR the meaning of RAPE. It is sad to say, but if you keep up that attitude just written by you, you are headed to JAIL in the future for sure because of some excuse like---the one you wrote. --Just as the other comments say--------RAPE IS NO LAUGHING MATTER--
GROW UP !

Post 127 December 11, 2007 at 5:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Post 126...did the article say she was raped?
He could just pull her blouse off and they could call that sexual assualt if she did not want him to do that to her.....

Wait until the information comes in.....the news report is still very sketchy. He may be guilty as hell, but see what the facts are and if she made a false report in the middle of an argument.
However, it had to be pretty bad stuff going on for her to call the cops.....so let's just wait and see if the guy named Guy is guilty or innocent.

Post 128 December 11, 2007 at 5:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I don't think Guy Watts and Mikal Watts are father/son....I know as a FACT that he does have a son...Guy Watts, Jr. I know this because I went to school with him...his mom is Sandra Watts. I will wait until I hear all of the facts in this case. Those of you referring to the Bible, our church pastor preaches mutual respect...the man's #1 need is "sex" the wife's #1 need is "affection"...husband and wife should not expect their needs to be met, but respect the other's need. Expecting the wife to meet his needs and not meeting her needs is wrong.

Post 129 December 11, 2007 at 5:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Remember the last woman who accused a local official of sexual assault? Me neither.

Post 130 December 11, 2007 at 5:20 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I am glad post 118 was removed. It was sickning. That person needs serious medical mental evaluation. Thanks Caller-Times staff for keeping an eye on this comment section. I think it's good to have one, but some people take it too far, and ruins it for the rest---Hey folks----lighten up! Don't insult, just give your opinion ( you are entitled to it ) but respect others when you are doing it. If the nasty comments continue, the Caller Times will for sure stop this section. It's a nice section, because we can communicate about things going on right in our city, with people in our city, but please, be respectful of each other so that we can continue with this section. It's not meant to cause anyone ill feelings. Let's just all do our part in keeping it clean.

Post 131 December 11, 2007 at 5:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)

POST 121

You don't remember her, because you didn't rape her. DUH !
What kind of a question is that-------Oh Oh, Don't even answer that.
I just might get an answer from you. Scary thought.
Let's stick to the subject in here. GEEZE!

Post 132 December 11, 2007 at 5:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)

POST 121----I'M SORRY---- I'M POST # 131
I MEANT MY POST TO GO TO POST # 129

Post 133 December 11, 2007 at 5:38 p.m. (Suggest removal)

REPLY
Ok 127 I'm 126
No the news did not say rape, and i didn't say he raped her either. I SAID NO MEANS NO. I and SOCIETY stils say it . Now don't put words in my mouth. I told some people that do not appear to know the definition what it means in simple terms. I am not judging him. But let me approach you with this question, since you seem to know a little more about what the accusations were, lets say he JUST pulled off her shirt, does that mean he did not violate her because he did finish off what his intentions? And one more question, should she have waited to see WHAT ELSE he was going to pull off before calling 911----Anymore excuses for what he did ? Give a Break----I never accused him of anything, but why are you defending if you want everyone to wait on facts---You know the facts???

Post 134 December 11, 2007 at 5:38 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Re: Post 20 & 97 - just keep the record straight. There are laws dealing with libel and slander. Hate to see action against those choosing to make defamatory statements.

Post 135 December 11, 2007 at 6:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Post 126... I agree that rape is no laughing matter.
I don't know if he raped her or not, the article did not say.
So I guess rape should be brought up on the comment board.

The assault charge can be for any number of things which are also not laughing matters.

And indeed, No means no, does not matter if married or not.

And with this latest update to the article above, it sounds like he should not have been in the same house with her at all if he had filed for divorce on Dec. 7.

He must be nuts to try something that could land him in jail and he being a lawyer should know better.

Post 136 December 11, 2007 at 6:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Wouldn't what he is alleged to have done is considered Assault with a Dead Weapon?

Post 137 December 11, 2007 at 6:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)

134 --- I am not 20 OR 97, but you need to get a grip pal --- "There are laws dealing with libel and slander. Hate to see action against those choosing to make defamatory statements!?" Whatever!

This is a public forum where privacy has been established by the Caller-Times and no one but them knows, or is supposed to know, who is posting.

And even at that the ability to legally determine whether someone or their family dog was posting is beyond the ability of anyone but God Himself.

I don't know how long you've been coming into the cyberspace realm, but this universe is boundless and you do not rule it for any of us.

Call your attorney dude --- but I suggest you don't call Guy Watts as he is way busy right now.

Post 138 December 11, 2007 at 7:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Lots of posts being removed. However, some posts using politically polite language in tone are still very vulgar.

Post 139 December 11, 2007 at 7:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)

After reading these posts...and noting how many of them had to be removed by the site staff (presumably because of being lewd or otherwise violating the standards set by the C-T)... I can't help but wonder: does this blog feature really enhance the public discourse in this community?

I have for the past few weeks seen some of the most mean-spirited, often completely inaccurate comments posted on this site. Who really knows what happened in this incident?

Is this "slambook" really edifying this community?

Post 140 December 11, 2007 at 7:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)

post 29- who gives a damn what oprah says?

Post 141 December 11, 2007 at 7:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Corpus Christi pillars of the community...............Watts, Noe, Celis, Smith, Vesely, Olivares, Ortiz, Seaman, and Judge __________ (fill in the blank they are all the same).

Like a Merle Haggard verse, Corpus Christi is rolling downhill like a snowball headed for ......

Post 142 December 11, 2007 at 7:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)

66 years old - unless viagra is found in his system, the case will be dismissed due to lack of believable evidence.

Post 143 December 11, 2007 at 7:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I bet Sandra is glad she divorced him.

Post 144 December 11, 2007 at 7:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)

of the marriage of Guy Watts and Sandra Watts are several Children at least two of them Attorneys, one is Mikeal the other is Guy Jr. Sandra Watts and her Children have been estranged from Guy Watts senior for years, I do not belive there has been any contact between Judge Watts and the Children for years

Post 145 December 11, 2007 at 8:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I believe this whole incident is an embarrassment to Corpus Christi. You should rename it Peyton Place 2.

Post 146 December 11, 2007 at 9:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I heard it was sexual assault with a dead weapon :)

Post 147 December 11, 2007 at 9:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)

#17 Correct
#37 Believe me you have no idea what else goes on at Del Mar
with the employees. However, that's not the point here,
time or place to.
#43 Exactly
#51 Agree.

Readers need to stick to the topic and review the 11
comments guidelines of posting. Obviously, whoever is in
charge of deleting needs to reconsider many more comments
being posted.

Post 148 December 11, 2007 at 9:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Judge Sandra Watts would never just let him off. First of all, she is one of the best and fairest judges in the county. Second, she was once married to him and know what he is capable of.

My question is how many judges will recuse themselves and just WHAT good ole Carlos Valdez is going to do to with this one. Another book in the making for him?

Nueces County politics is nauseating!!!

Post 149 December 11, 2007 at 9:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Every community has their soap operas... and snoops... and over-the-fence gossipers.... it's just in big cities you don't actually know the players... no matter how big Corpus get's it still stays a small town at heart!

Post 150 December 11, 2007 at 9:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Wow! Yet another upstanding citizen making Corpus Christi look better every day! What is this place coming to? "Peyton Place" nothing - try Sodom & Gomorrah!

Post 151 December 11, 2007 at 9:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I pray that in four more years I can get my family out of this third-world burg. Yep...I know ... trust me, I'd go now if I could, but I have three more years to retire and then one year to get us into the twenty-first century.

The only thing I'll miss about this joke of a city is the Mexican food.

Post 152 December 11, 2007 at 9:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Post 136 "dead weapon" lol.

Post 153 December 11, 2007 at 9:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The "Watts" name is really getting to be a dirty word. I'm sure Mikal Watts and Sandra Watts are cringing right about now.
Mikals kids are saying...."Granpa did what?"

Post 154 December 11, 2007 at 10:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)

CHAOS IN THE BODY OF CHRIST BURN 'ER DOWN!

CORRUPT FASCIST TOWN!

PRAISE SATAN!

Post 155 December 11, 2007 at 10:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)

This is post 58: I think you guys are misreading what I wrote.

I said he seemed like a nice guy, but that doesn't mean anything.

I said, "if this is true" meaning if the fact that he raped his wife is true.." no does mean no - even in a marriage"

The "which really stinks" was a joke.

Sorry to offend all. Probably shouldn't have run it all together.

The last part about Cinemax etc was also a joke. Basically implying that if a spouse doesn't want to have sex, the other should "pout", "throw guilt trips," etc. Not rape their spouse.

Fact is, no telling what really happened. Kind of suprised that you guys read it that way.

Post 156 December 11, 2007 at 11:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Must be a record here. I haven't seen this many comments deleted -ever.

Post 157 December 12, 2007 at 4:56 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Talk about spinning the wheel.......I bet The naked chick @ Mauricio'ds and ms, Kim tagged teamed these Guy's.

Where do these Guy's pick up these "dog" cases?

Dang I guess the grass is so green on the other side , now how is that Twinkie tasting?
Scary is that byline~ misleading so much I thought for sure it was another copper toned metal winning parker of a space reserved just for them.

Baker Botts anyone?

I thought these girls liked Clayton Williams? Guys need to notice why she is relaxing and enjoying it, or are they?

She be playin' her man
at the same time
burnin' her man......

Just chill till
the
next episode......

Wake up guys if you want a divorce be ready to play hardball.

Looks like she learned how to play or she has an adviser, but that house on Ocean drive is an incentive to burn notice any love that was invested.

50 K seems abnormally high for a "domestic/family" dispute.

Watt's is the leading specialist on "Family Law". I wonder how many DNA fluids are on that "comfort

Comments are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, contain links to sites other than Caller.com, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.