Who are you voting for? The candidates are Jarvis Parsons and Maritza Sifuentez-Chavarria (both are Republicans). I'm voting for Parsons.

[This thread has been cleaned up and the moderation is going to be strict if posters are not respectful or post rumors about either candidate. Posters may give their opinions about the candidates but will be respectful to each other and stay on topic and that includes any questions on this thread about posts that get removed. This is a long thread with a lot of discussion and if posters can't follow the rules we are not going to take time to edit or explain posts that ignored this warning. -Staff]

[This thread is being temporarily locked until it can be reviewed. -Staff]

[Locked again for posters ignoring the warnings about rumors and being respectful. March 3, 2023 -Staff]

Me too. Great guy with impressive resume and experience.

Parsons…every single time. Good Godly man that cannot be bought.

I seem to remember seeing Parsons made contributions to Obama. Same with Esparza.

Parsons. He's served us well and has my full support. Not sure how anyone can say he's been soft on crime.

lethalninja said:

---

https://www.fox44news.com/news/30-years-for-attacking-atm-with-crowbar/

https://wtaw.com/brazos-county-district-court-jury-convicts-and-sentences-bryan-man-for-intoxication-manslaughter-that-took-place-in-may-2017/

https://wtaw.com/bryan-mans-criminal-history-in-arkansas-leads-to-a-35-year-prison-sentence/

These are some cases Maritza Sifuentez-Chavarria was a prosecutor on

---

She's also never tried a murder case. That makes me nervous. Experience matters.

Ask any CURRENT Bryan or CS detective or hierarchy officer. You will get a clear consistent answer on who to vote for and why. If you want to know which candidate is an authentic Republican ask any highly involved member of a local Republican Party club.

Gunner0740 said:

---

ANY current Detective? Seems pretty all encompassing. There isn't a single person in either of their detective divisions that would vote for Jarvis?

---

Did I say Jarvis? Did I say Maritza? Why do you presume I was directing my post specifically or negatively at Jarvis?

Both people have been prosecutors for a sufficient length of time here to be well known among CURRENT detectives and CURRENT local Republican Party Club involved people. I am confident the great majority of people in both these groups will give the accurate answer so that the reader will not have to rely on the back and forth possibly ill informed or partisan or conflict of interest opinions on this thread. Talk to the people that are currently committed day to day in both areas. They know and are up to date.

Both candidates should welcome this kind of voter research. In fact they should both come on here without qualification and encourage you to do exactly what I've suggested. In fact, I challenge each of them to personally do so. If one does not and the other one does, that will tell you a lot right there.

And don't rely on some anonymous person who comes on here and says "I am a detective" or "I am a member of the local Republican Club." Do your own research. It won't take you long at all to discover the truth.

#TeamMaritza

I'll vote for who I want, and don't answer to the TexAgs mob.

I have firsthand experience with the staff of Parsons, and they were nothing short of excellent. Someone I know was a victim in a sexual assault case and they brought justice to the offender while walking alongside us every step of the way. Parsons even stopped in a couple of times to talk with us during the trial. Phenomenal staff and prosecutors that worked the case. They did everything they could in their power to make sure justice was served.

Take this from firsthand experience. They are paving the way for prosecuting sex assault cases in the nation.

Edit to say: we no longer live near the region whatsoever, but would have our vote if we did!

BCSWguru said:

---

I seem to remember seeing Parsons made contributions to Obama. Same with Esparza.

---

I would hope that people vote for their DA based on experience/integrity/results instead of caring about a campaign donation made at least a decade ago.

The press releases from the District Attorney's office should be more transparent. For example, there was a case where someone recently got a plea deal for eighteen years for assaulting a police officer, which is a substantial sentence, but the press release didn't mention that he was facing 25 to 99 years before he pled guilty. Also, there was a case where someone got fifteen years for aggravated assault with a deadly weapon and was facing 25 to 99 years, but the press release implied the maximum sentence was twenty years.

https://wtaw.com/bryan-man-heading-to-prison-after-admitting-to-breaking-the-ring-finger-of-a-bryan-police-officer/

https://wtaw.com/college-station-man-who-admits-to-an-attempted-stabbing-receives-a-prison-sentence/

Jarvis Parsons has personally prosecuted three capital murder cases that ended in the death penalty (Gabriel Hall, Marcus Druery and John Thuesen). He's also prosecuting the Kent Moore Cabinets shooter (not a capital murder case, but still a murder case).

lethalninja said:

---

Jarvis Parsons has personally prosecuted three capital murder cases that ended in the death penalty (Gabriel Hall, Marcus Druery and John Thuesen). He's also prosecuting the Kent Moore Cabinets shooter (not a capital murder case, but still a murder case).

---

Don't know much about those cases, but what I have read and heard, those were pretty slam dunk cases and probably doesn't reflect a significant amount on his team's ability to prosecute. I believe that DA's that are very successful oftentimes won't take a chance on prosecuting a difficult case to its fullest extent in the chance they would lose and it would look bad on them. I'm not suggesting that is the case in the local environment, but not everything that looks rosy is accurate.

"Slam dunk" on guilt and obtaining the death penalty are two different things. It has become much more difficult to obtain the death penalty in recent years.

And, again, I think it is important to point out that Martiza has yet to prosecute a murder case, "slam dunk" or otherwise.

Death penalty cases are usually slam dunks for the prosecution on the guilt/innocence (first) phase of the trial because of the jurors' horror of the killing(s). . The punishment phase is never a slam dunk for the death penalty. Most ordinary murder cases are also slam dunks on the guilt/innocence phase but not on the sentencing phase (5-life) for the same reason as a capital murder punishment phase. A case like a sexual assault is much more difficult to obtain a conviction than a death penalty eligible murder case.

harrierdoc said:

---

lethalninja said:

---

Jarvis Parsons has personally prosecuted three capital murder cases that ended in the death penalty (Gabriel Hall, Marcus Druery and John Thuesen). He's also prosecuting the Kent Moore Cabinets shooter (not a capital murder case, but still a murder case).

---

Don't know much about those cases, but what I have read and heard, those were pretty slam dunk cases and probably doesn't reflect a significant amount on his team's ability to prosecute. I believe that DA's that are very successful oftentimes won't take a chance on prosecuting a difficult case to its fullest extent in the chance they would lose and it would look bad on them. I'm not suggesting that is the case in the local environment, but not everything that looks rosy is accurate.

---

I have been a prosecutor for much of my life and an elected DA. What is drilled into us when considering whether we should seek the death penalty is that guilt MUST be a slam dunk. No juror will give death if there is any hesitancy about guilt. Also, 98% of the work when seeking the death penalty HAS to be in the punishment phase.
Another reason guilt has to be a slam dunk.

From reading that short synopsis of the case, there was a good reason to give probation in that case.

1. Appears they were husband and wife and taking husband away from family after wife has been killed seems
like a double hit to the family.

2. The jury would probably attribute some "causation" to the woman for getting on a motorcycle with a
a driver she knew to have been drinking.

When a family member dies with another family member being the intoxicated driver, there is an entirely different dynamic at play.