Whatever else you may say about this op-ed piece in the Chron that comes to the shocking conclusion that the recent perjury prosecution of Chief C.O. “BAMF” Bradford may have been a waste of time and/or politically biased, you can’t say they rushed to their judgment, since the trial ended a month ago. It mostly recapitulates the points that have been noted here and elsewhere (the best reporting on the case comes from this Houston Press article), though it does contain one nugget to file away the next time you hear an assistant DA insist that they “had” to take this case to trial:
Very few cases of disputed testimony between two or more witnesses testifying under oath in an evidentiary hearing end with a grand jury indictment for perjury, even when those witnesses have completely opposite versions of the facts. For example, a judge referred Anna Nicole Smith to the Harris County district attorney for allegedly lying on the witness stand in the will contest of deceased oil tycoon, E. Pierce Marshall’s estate, but the district attorney has not taken any action.
I’d love to hear Chuck Rosenthal’s answer to that assertion. Perhaps they didn’t want to appear to be grandstanding.
Anyway, the next sounds you’ll hear from this case will be when Captain Aguirre goes to trial in a few months.