Reader comments
Salt Lake County prosecutor spoke at length with store owner

Mark | 6:17 a.m. April 15, 2008

My mom alays told me, be careful who you choose as friends.

Also, that's an interesting crime, "showing a pattern of unlawful activity". Sounds like a crime created by a harried prosecutor who can't come up with a specific crime to nail someone with.

CITIZEN | 6:50 a.m. April 15, 2008

If morgan is found guilty of these charges he should be decetified and disbarred for life!!!!!

Mike | 7:21 a.m. April 15, 2008

You will note that Kent Morgan has been the only attorney in the DA's office to get a recent death penalty conviction. He is the only DA that exhibits any testosterone. All the rest are heavily involved in "Let's Make a Deal".

As a good Republican, I rue the day that I ever supported Miller. Morgan is the best that they have got. He would never do anything that would taint himself or his office. Miller on the other hand can't say that.

Comments continue below

aquaitence or customer? | 7:26 a.m. April 15, 2008

In the very least Morgan is guilty of being an idiot. Talk about the very appearance of evil. Good grief.

bcs | 8:30 a.m. April 15, 2008

It is unfortunate that the District Attorneyï¿½s office can not lay out their case against Kent Morgan in the press. I am positive that the actions taken by the DA was legally and morally justified. I hope that after this is all over the DAï¿½s office is able to educate the public on what Kent Morgan did.
Morgan is willing and able to air his side of this story in the press and the prosecutorï¿½s are unable to comment because there are abiding by the rules.

Curious | 8:51 a.m. April 15, 2008

Mike...How do you know that Kent Morgan would never "do anything to taint himself or his office?" An investigation will tell us one way or the other. At the very least, we must question Kent's choice of associates. Do you really suppose that during an extended conversation the defendant never once asked about process, odds, or strategy? Give me a break! Perhaps you will "rue the day" you misjudged Lohra Miller.

normal? | 9:22 a.m. April 15, 2008

So let me get this straight. Morgan is just chatting on the phone with his buddy who happens to have an active felony case against him? And they're just talking politics? lol

Politics? | 11:16 a.m. April 15, 2008

Politics-maybe like how to take down DA Miller? With all of the stupid stories being published about her you have to wonder if this is part of their politics.

Interesting how all the other news networks can publish stories about Lohra's personal life and family and now that we know who's behind them, they won't publish that.

Good for you D News for publishing this!

sas4219 | 11:40 a.m. April 15, 2008

I'm with you "Curious". Lohra Miller has been grilled lately for minor unproven accusations, yet some will still look the other way when Kent Morgan clearly subverted justice. Can you say "double-standard"? Give me a break!

cb | 1:34 p.m. April 15, 2008

For anyone who knows Kent Morgan and has seen the high level of competence he shows when representing the good people of the state of Utah,that Kent has been and is a honest and brilliant prosecutor. Kent has used good judgment in the past and there is nothing to prove that he has done any wrong. He has been above reproach and is honest in every sense of the word. Have none of you ever come close to that line and not having crossed, by the Grace of God? Back off folks.

jose | 3:05 p.m. April 15, 2008

I'm sure Kent was competent, but he made some big mistakes in communicating with this criminal at trial time -who financially supported his campgain against Lohra Miller. You can't serve two masters. If he is not guitly as charged, he will be able to get his job back. Due the the prevailing evidence, I don't think that will happen.

Bad judgemnet | 3:44 p.m. April 15, 2008

I don't personally know anyone here. But any prosecutor will tell you that what Morgan did is at the very least very, very dumb. Legal ethics clearly state the kind of contact that Morgan made should not occur. It taints the case, right or wrong, it provides technicalities to be used to throw out cases, or decisions. This was very bad judgement.

Not even close to the line | 3:41 p.m. April 15, 2008

For the rest of us who prosecute, I will say that what Kent has done has already "crossed the line." It not only brings disrepute to the office and the profession as a whole, but it violates prosecutor ethics.

I once supported and admired him as a prosecutor and mentor but this behavior disgusts me. He not only sowed discontent in the office and fed negative stories to the media, but now we learn he has been "friends" with someone the court found probable cause to support charges of money laundering, RICO, and being a pimp.

Good for Lohra for doing the right thing. This hasn't always been the way the office was operated, and I am convinced it was time for a change.

P Diddle | 3:53 p.m. April 15, 2008

The reports surrounding Kent Morgan's firing and the blogs on this and another newspaper's website are filled with supporters who champion Mr. Morgan's integrity, ethics, etc. to support the idea that Mr. Morgan did nothing wrong. It seems hard to buy into the rationale that this guy maintains the highest ethical standards while keeping a close friendship with the owner of a strip club who is facing serious criminal charges. Morgan's supporters sound a lot like the parents of juvenile delinquents who frequently repeat the clueless parent mantra: "Oh, not my kid."

mike leach | 4:35 p.m. April 15, 2008

Can't we all just get along? LOL

Justacop | 5:41 p.m. April 15, 2008

Police officers are prohibited by policy from associating with known felons. Any exemption must be cleared by their administration. This case is a little different, but not much. Mr. Morgan should have told the D.A. that the man was a friend and got permission to continue his association with him. The reason is obvious. Certain jobs come with rules that keep the integrity of the job intact. I know Mr. Morgan. He is a good man... he still should have run his association past the D.A. first. He should have been disciplined.

don't we still live in America? | 5:57 p.m. April 15, 2008

The man Mr. Morgan is accused of talking to is not a known criminal. He's innocent until proven guilty. The DA has laid out their whole case. It's "There were phone calls. They must be inappropriate." That's hardly open and shut. If you see more evidence than that, please explain it to me.

If anyone cares to recall, Lohra Miller accepted donations from Oswald Balfour WHILE HE WAS UNDER INDICTMENT, and she failed to report them. And that is a documented fact.

Instead of having loyalty to people, either Mr. Morgan or Mrs. Miller, shouldn't we all have loyalty to principles?

What's good for the goose is good for the gander and Lohra Miller is hardly above reproach here.

Any clear thinking here? | 7:42 p.m. April 15, 2008

I wholeheartedly agree with "Curious," "Not even close to the line", and "P. Diddle". In addition, I know very little about Lohra Miller, but the undisguised witch hunt I've observed going on in the press has caused me to look more closely at her and her decisions. Somebody clearly has it out for her, and I'm curious to know who and why.

Give me a break | 9:17 p.m. April 15, 2008

A competent prosecutor always speaks to his witnesses (especially expert witnesses) before he puts them on the witness stand at trial. An ethical prosecutor doesn't try his own personnel matter in the press, knowing full well that the D.A. cannot ethically respond to his ridiculous comments.

Red haring? | 9:25 p.m. April 15, 2008

It seems that every administration in the DAï¿½s Office has some major drama unfolding at one time or another. Can this pattern be a red haring?

To: Not Even Close to the Line | 11:13 p.m. April 15, 2008

Really, Kent Morgan is the one bringing disrepute to the DA's office? Really? I don't recall Kent lying to the County Council about crime stats to justify an increase in funding. I don't recall Kent dropping a prosecution on a cop that shot a huddled kid to merely satisfy some campaign promises. You may try to point to previous administrations, but that has no bearing on Kent's integrity (Yocom was a dem, Kent a republican). We'd be lucky to have Kent as our DA. Maybe we'd still have the prosecutorial experience that departed the office over the past 12 months instead of these newbies who get schooled in court by experienced lawyers. The DA's office shouldn't be a training ground. Kent would have kept that office going strong.

Connection | 12:14 a.m. April 16, 2008

Miller fires Morgan for giving the playbook to Maese. Maese hires a PI to do a political hack job on Miller. Am I the only one seeing the connection here?

You Got It | 2:46 p.m. April 17, 2008

Connection, you hit the nail on the head.

Also, Morgan is forgetting one thing about his role-- he has sworn an oath to declare conflicts of interest. That means, he was required not only to tell Miller about the relationship with Maese, but to end the friendship.

The Wisemann | 5:39 p.m. Aug. 13, 2008

I am pleased to say that I knew Kent in law school back in the early 1980s. We graduated in 1982. Many of us were surprised that Kent chose to leave California to return to Utah. We later realized, however, that Kent was willing to live in a less advanced area of the country because he cared about improving the lives of the people of Utah. He could have stayed in California and lead a very good life as most Californians do. Kent had and has integrity.

Add your comment

Comments are monitored. Any comments found to be abusive, offensive, off-topic, misrepresentative, more than 200 words or containing URLs will not be posted.

Words Remaining

E-mail address: For internal use only. We may want to contact you to publish your comment (not your e-mail address) in the newspaper or for a separate story idea.