Fired prosecutor defends question
The former Harris County prosecutor fired for asking about a victim’s immigration status defended his actions this week, framing the police union’s description of the alleged sex assault attempt as a “gross exaggeration” and calling the district attorney and police chief “hypocritical” for voicing outrage over a question he said law enforcement routinely asks.
John Denholm sparked widespread condemnation early last week after the Houston Police Officers’ Union accused him of refusing to file a felony charge without knowing if the victim was “illegal.” Politicians, law enforcement unions and the League of United Latin American Citizens all pushed to have Denholm out of a job, and on Friday the district attorney’s office fired him.
“I refused to resign because I did nothing wrong,” he said in a lengthy statement to the Houston Chronicle. “In an era where ICE is staking out courthouses, it is not unreasonable to determine if the complainant would want to come to court.”
The Harris County District Attorney’s Office disagreed, instead reiterating prior statements on the case and focusing on the difference between questions asked of a victim and questions asked of a suspect.
“It is improper for a prosecutor to ask a victim’s immigration status when determining whether a criminal charge is warranted,” spokesman Dane Schiller said. “Questions are to be limited to establishing the elements of a crime.”
Meanwhile, the police union president pushed back on the idea that his organization overstated their initial description of the altercation, pointing out that prosecutors eventually decided to file attempted sexual assault after Denholm initially refused.
“Clearly it wasn’t a gross exaggeration,” said president Joe Gamaldi, “because the assistant district attorney who looked at it on Monday took the charge.”
The controversy stemmed from an outburst in the Joint Processing Center on the evening of Oct. 31, court records show. Video of the incident shows four men who’ve just been arrested sitting in the waiting room chairs ready to be booked. When one of the men undoes his pants and pulls out his erect penis, the man behind him stands up and starts calling for help.
Then, the man exposing himself — who authorities later identified as 44-year-old Karl Bonner — grabs the Latino man next to him and pulls at his arm and neck, apparently attempting to draw him closer as he struggles to get away.
The dispute only lasts a few seconds before police intervene.
Afterward, officers called the district attorney’s office to press charges. To Denholm, it didn’t seem like enough for the sexual assault charge he said the officer wanted, so he told police it “sounds like an indecent exposure at best.”
Then, he says he asked what charges the alleged victim was facing and whether he wanted the case prosecuted. The officer told him that he’d need to get a
Spanish speaker to find out, so Denholm went on to inquire whether the man was “illegal.”
“The officer said he didn’t know,” Denholm recalled. “I told the officer to find out if the complainant was willing to prosecute which would also mean that he had to come to court and testify and if he was to call me back. The officer never called back.”
Though Denholm told the Chronicle he was still willing to file the lower charge of indecent exposure, he pointed out that Bonner has a documented mental health history so the felony case might be handled more leniently anyway.
Five days later, the police union went public with concerns about Denholm’s handling of the case, saying they were “outraged” and demanding his termination. Union officials again touted the need for felony charges, saying the victim told police Bonner had pulled his head “inches” from his penis.
The surveillance clip obtained by the Chronicle does not appear to show that, though court records show that the officer who asked to file charges wrote in a sworn statement that the suspect tried to “force the complainant’s face and mouth” toward his erect penis.
“I have yet to see the video but have been told this is a gross exaggeration,” Denholm said, of the union’s description. “These are the kind of cases I was hired to screen, not to rubber stamp.”
The lawyer now representing the accused would-be assailant, who was ultimately charged by a different prosecutor, framed the case as an example of prosecutorial overreach in response to media coverage of the case.
“These charges should never have been accepted as a felony, regardless of how inappropriate the prosecutor’s question was,” said defense attorney Lisa Andrews. “Had he never asked it and stuck to the facts, this would have been accepted as a misdemeanor.”
Last week following the union statement, Rep. Gene Wu, DHouston, Precinct 1 Commissioner Rodney Ellis, Police Chief Art Acevedo and the League of United Latin American Citizen all weighed in, with some decrying Denholm’s actions and others calling for his resignation or termination. After transferring him to another division early in the week, Ogg on Friday announced the decision to fire Denholm.
“It is wrong to ask about a victim’s immigration status. It is against our policy, and it won’t be tolerated,” Ogg said last week, announcing her decision. “We treat everyone equally under the law, no matter how they came to be here.”
Denholm, a long-time sheriff ’s office lieutenant who joined the district attorney’s office two years ago, said he found that move striking because the digital records system includes a field for citizenship status of suspects.
“Officers routinely enter ILLEGAL,” he said. “This has been the practice since 1992.”
Although he had only a Mexican consular ID at the time of the incident, online records show the alleged victim, who had ended up in the booking center over a misdemeanor drunken driving charge, is a U.S. citizen.