A TOUGH reputation
Judge in Ratcliff case is not popular with defense attorneys
Print- •
-
Share
- Share this item
-
Grab the link
Copy and paste the link:
- Blog about it
- Close
- •
-
29 Comments
- •
Favorite- •
-
Report error
-
Thank you for your submission.Error report or correction
- Close
-
- •
Visiting Judge Mark Luitjen sentenced a San Antonio high school athlete in 2000 to five years in prison.
Why? The teen elbowed an opponent in the face during a crosstown basketball game.
Luitjen’s thick gray and black beard isn’t the only bristly part about him.
At least that’s how San Antonio supporters and critics characterize Luitjen, the man picked to preside over the Michael Lewis Ratcliff trial.
San Antonio Judge David Peeples appointed Luitjen to the case after local district judges recused themselves.
Luitjen has other sides, though. He joked from the bench in Victoria. He’s spiritual, loves to fish and hunt. He plays guitar in a bar band, The Court Jesters.
Luitjen’s a millionaire – rich from his years in law but wealthy from the money passed down to him.
The Republican served as a San Antonio district judge from 1998-2006, losing a re-election bid that last year to a Democrat.
“He knows his law, but he doesn’t listen to anybody,” said Richard Langlois, the Bexar County Republican Party chairman. “Is he a good judge? He didn’t get re-elected.”
Langlois said the consensus is that Luitjen lost because he too often treated people poorly.
Newspapers criticized Luitjen before the 2006 election for chastising a lawyer in a hallway for supporting his opponent.
Luitjen might next face criticism if, on Aug. 15, he accepts the plea deal offered to Ratcliff.
Ratcliff, a former local sheriff, was indicted in October on five counts, including aggravated sexual assault of a teenage boy.
On July 3, Ratcliff accepted an aggravated perjury plea, a charge not included in the multi-count indictments.
Terry McDonald proposed the plea to Ratcliff. McDonald is the special prosecutor Luitjen appointed after Victoria County’s district attorney recused himself.
Luitjen and McDonald are 30-year friends.
McDonald taught Luitjen at law school. He then hired Luitjen in private practice. Later, Luitjen worked for McDonald at the Bexar County District Attorney’s Office.
McDonald said the first time he tried a case before Luitjen, his longtime friend said his client better not expect favors.
“He stands his ground,” McDonald said.
And ground, land, is what made Luitjen wealthy.
In business, Luitjen’s grandfather teamed with the father of Lloyd Bentsen, the late Texas senator, McDonald said.
Decades ago, the men sold bits of their land, which became McAllen, McDonald said. The men sold other land, lived frugally and invested wisely.
When Luitjen’s parents died, the judge inherited the wealth.
Luitjen also inherited the reputation of being unkind to defense attorneys.
“As a judge, the criminal defense bar didn’t take kindly to him,” McDonald said, suggesting the association lobbied to oust Luitjen before the 2006 election.
Michael Raign, a former association president, disagreed. “We are not a political organization,” Raign said.
But John “Bud” Ritenour, the vice president of the defense lawyer’s group, said some members lobbied individually against Luitjen.
“He was known to have a temper,” Ritenour said. “It didn’t put him in a good light.”
For all the criticism Luitjen receives, many praise him.
“We had some professional disagreements,” Ritenour said. “He’ll tell you what he thinks. But I also found that he ruled fairly, even when I didn’t like his rulings.”
Law enforcement supports Luitjen.
Agencies that endorsed the former district judge include the San Antonio Police Officers Association, both Bexar County Sheriff’s Officers associations and the Combined Law Enforcement Associations of Texas.
Mike Helle is president of the police officer group.
“He was very, very tough on crime,” Helle said. “As an officer, you’re looking for judges who are tough on crimes.”
Helle bets his paycheck that Luitjen will be tough on Ratcliff, who, per the plea, faces 10 years of deferred adjudication, a form of probation.
But Luitjen doesn’t have to accept the plea.
“He’ll follow the law,” Helle said.
McDonald said he doesn’t know what his friend will do.
“Compared to other judges in Bexar County, he busted more plea bargains than any other judge,” McDonald said.
Gabe Semenza is the Public Service Editor for the Advocate. Contact him at 361-580-6519 or gsemenza@vicad.com, or comment on this story at www.VictoriaAdvocate.com.
-
Print
- •
-
Share
- Share this item
-
Grab the link
Copy and paste the link:
- Blog about it
- Close
- •
-
29 Comments
- •
- Favorite
- •
-
Report error
-
Thank you for your submission.Error report or correction
- Close
-
- •
Comments
"In Victoria it IS, in public places and property. was that photo taken on Courthouse grounds?"
Oh my dear....it is illegal to smoke inside a public building & within so many feey from the entrance....courthouse lawn, driveway, steps, it makes no difference as long as you are 20ft away from the door you are good. This isn't California where you cannot smoke outside at all. But please send the local cops over there with the measuring tape to make sure he is completely legal, would hate to have him 19 ft away from the door & still walking free.
July 17, 2008 at 6:27 p.m.research the vasoconstrictive properties of nicotine on the brain
July 16, 2008 at 10:39 p.m.Sorry to disappoint you conspiracy theorists. Unfortunately, that was one of the few pictures we had of the judge. We weren't allowed in the courtroom on plea day, and the judge didn't want to be involved in this article. Advocate photo editor Frank Tilley, by virtue of his hustle at the scene, happened to get that photo, and similar ones of the judge and prosecutor together, after the Ratcliff plea. Of course, we would have liked to shoot a photo of the judge on the bench or working in his office. Alas, it just didn't happen that way. And we weren't trying to make him look bad. People smoke. He smokes. It's part of his life.
July 16, 2008 at 7:38 p.m.CG23 Sailor ... Please get off it.. already.. people here are only commenting on the fact they took that darn picture of him with a cigarrillo en su voca ..... with the fact of him playing the part of Columbo give me a break.. and as far as a threat .... please...... I know this IS Hick City USA of Victoria and not San Antonio or even Houston by far .. but, things have happened and dont ever say it can't never happen.. because as soon as you say never.. guess what. well you know the rest.. Its better to play it safe dont you think.... I say my part if that were me and I had to do a case as this one.. I would be no where to be seen or heard till its time to get on with it.. cause there are some crazies out there believe me...so, please its all about the picture and how tough it makes him look that is all.. and we all know this we arent that dumb please.. and if he does smoke well good for him.... I am sure he knows its bad for him.. Gosh,...
July 16, 2008 at 6:05 p.m.(Not me) because I completely do not care if he has a cig in hand - but I bet many (if not most) of the Advocate readers immediately formulated a negative impression of the man based on the Advocates pics. And I do think that is the reason the editors chose those unflattering pics. Maybe Chris Cobler can chime in.
July 16, 2008 at 3:39 p.m.barely correct.
July 16, 2008 at 2:57 p.m.Really, what does smoking, your friends and your colleages have to do with judging this case? He and the prosecuter are professionals and should reamain unbiased with no regard to their personal lives.
July 16, 2008 at 2:55 p.m.Admittedly, I was picking, but effect and affect have different applications. Germane to a discussion of human behavior, affect is the correct choice. Just my nit, no offense intended.
July 16, 2008 at 2:22 p.m.those 2 words are a stickler. lol. maybe we all have an affinity to one other or an issue. dunno..
amazing what we see in a pic.
July 16, 2008 at 2:05 p.m.Definition of affect = "produce an effect on" - Fatboy did OK
July 16, 2008 at 1:50 p.m.fatboy, that quote should be: ...visual affect... There's no use in attempting to show off if you get a critical word wrong.
July 16, 2008 at 1:31 p.m.Sailor, my point is Ratcliff has now confessed to lying under oath (speaks to his character and judgment) and the acting-DA still has a bunch of other charges to go after if the Judge rejects this plea.
July 16, 2008 at 1:22 p.m.Mention Gigmasters and Luitjen will buy you a Margarita....
July 16, 2008 at 1 p.m.http://www.myspace.com/thec...
Why has the Advocate intentionally chosen pics of him smoking? Because they want you to dislike the man. They could have just as easily published pics of him not smoking. But instead they have only published pics of him with a cigarette.
July 16, 2008 at 11:38 a.m.OK...hasn't anyone noticed what a spin the paper put on this story? They already used the picture of him smoking to put ideas in the reader's head...then the idea that prosecutor is friends with him. I don't really have a strong opinion about Ratliff...BUT I am disappointed in a paper that puts such a spin on an article.
July 16, 2008 at 11:37 a.m.I can not believe that because he smokes it is causing an uproar! Hey, remember, this is Victoria, if you want to smoke anywhere other than your home or car, you HAVE TO stand outside to smoke.....so does this mean that everyone that has issue with him smoking can claim they have NO vice of thier own? Do youy drink alcohol, do you play bingo, the list can go on and on.
July 16, 2008 at 11:11 a.m.
July 16, 2008 at 10:49 a.m.Ideas...have you ever had the honor of serving on a jury? Being involved in a case, perhaps having to testify?
Yes I have served on a few juries, I have also been dismissed or not chosen several times because I knew either one or both oppossing attorneys. You are right there is trial etiquette and most attorneys, besides Tyler, are friends with other attorneys. What comes into question here is two guys brought in from San Antonio for there non bias opinions-- who happen to be old friends and partners--- it just seem odd.
Or maybe it has been set-up for a plea rejection. Judge and acting-DA are big buddies. You know they talk privately. Maybe this was all set-up to have the plea rejected after Ratcliff confesses to some of his own deceptions.
July 16, 2008 at 10:39 a.m.Ideas...have you ever had the honor of serving on a jury? Being involved in a case, perhaps having to testify?
I have on several occasions throughout my life and something that always amazes and puzzles me is the congeniality and commraderie between the two opposing sides.
Oh....while the trial is going on the two opposing attorneys are at each other's throats.....during the breaks they are talking about their kid's little league games and whether the weather will be good to play golf on the weekend. Several times it was obvious that they were indeed the best of buds.
It is a bit troubling, but in the cases I observed the rights of each of the clients did not seem to be compromised. Perhaps I am naive, but I hardly think that knowing and working with someone is necessarily going to taint a decision unduly, especially with someone like this judge who has a reputation for being a bit of a rogue and not caring what his peers think anyway. Actually having worked together might....in some cases work just the opposite....if there were old tensions on the job, that would just as likely be carried over negatively in a revenge decision. Just my Opinion.
July 16, 2008 at 10:37 a.m.This article was about a judge who will make a decision on one of the highest profile cases in Victoria history. It is not about his personal habits, nor is it about the presidential race. Again, how can we not be concerned that he and the prosecutor have a long background? This almost looks like it was set up for a plea from the very beginning.
July 16, 2008 at 10:28 a.m.Come on Fatboy with the psychological BS.
Obama smokes...he says he is quitting, but that is up for disagreement, since he has been busted with a cigarette a few times on the campaign trail.....I certainly don't see anyone expounding on the significance of HIS addiction to nicotine.....however when it comes to that gentleman, his bad habits both present and past are the least of my worries.
I am more concerned about his racist indoctrination and mindset (denied but nonetheless most assuredly present), his lack of leadership experience, and his uncanny ability to alter his position to that of whatever group he happens to be speaking to at the time.
July 16, 2008 at 10:22 a.m.nobody said nicotine affects his job duties? 1st impressions are imprinted as a visual effect on behavioral response.
July 16, 2008 at 10:06 a.m.What is the deal about smoking....I find that so funny.
You would think having the habit, nasty as it is placed one in the child molester category. What does smoking have to do with anything concerned with justice and the judge's ability to do his job?
I am not a smoker, but Lord, smoking is not a crime.
July 16, 2008 at 9:47 a.m.You guys are talking about this judge smoking? I think the concern should be that the appointed prosecution and him are old friends and one time law partners---- that may be tha SMOKING GUN.
July 16, 2008 at 9:29 a.m.well at least a Stogie would of made it a Kodak moment . just a suggestion though..
July 16, 2008 at 8:44 a.m.who can take this guy seriously when he smokes?
July 16, 2008 at 8:23 a.m.Yeah.... well who remembers these guys... shouldn't be out in the public too much... stranger things have happened if you get my drift......Charles Harrelson,...and U.S. District Judge John Wood Jr. (Lord forbid) just word to the wise
July 16, 2008 at 8:05 a.m.i believe this guy is a chain smoker. his last visit he was captured smoking as well. Sir - do the right thing on the case.
July 16, 2008 at 6:39 a.m.