•   Posted on

     August 16, 2015 in 

    (Go to the bottom of the post and click play.) When I first read this, I have to admit, I had an ego reaction. Hey, I'm in my 40s!: (That's an interview of Stan Schneider by Brandon Ball in the Summer 2015 HCCLA Defender.) It's not the "you're not like Dick and Dan" that bothered me — I bring different skills to a practice of law that

  •   Posted on

     July 30, 2015 in 

    Yesterday Kelly Case, Judge of the 9th District Court in Montgomery County, Texas, found the remainder of Section 33.021 of the Texas Penal Code unconstitutional, and dismissed the case against a defendant charged with that crime. ((You can stop calling and emailing to tell me about it. I was there.)) Scared White Republican Voters are up in arms. Phil Grant is up in arms. ((To hear Phil

  •   Posted on

     July 30, 2015 in 

    Here's a quick summary (more than a soundbite, less than a brief) of the status of the remains of Texas's online-solicitation-of-a-minor statute. The statute forbids adults soliciting people whom they believe are minors to have sex, but it also forbids their soliciting other adults whom they believe to be adults to have sex, as well as soliciting people to not have sex (that is, fantasy communications or

  •   Posted on

     July 18, 2015 in 

    From Texas Penal Code Section 43.02, effective September 1: (a) A person commits an offense if, in return for receipt of a fee, the person knowingly: (1) offers to engage, agrees to engage, or engages in sexual conduct; or (2) solicits another in a public place to engage with the actor in sexual conduct for hire. (b) A person commits an offense if, based on the payment

  •   Posted on

     July 12, 2015 in 

    You've probably heard about the bakers in Oregon penalized $135k for refusing to bake a wedding cake for a lesbian couple. You probably haven't read the order. I have so that you won't have to. (It's long—3,000-plus words—so tl;dr: The facts are fascinating, but if you must, jump over the facts to the conclusion.) You may have heard that the bakers were also ordered not to talk about the case

  •   Posted on

     July 11, 2015 in 

    I described in An Apostrophe too Far why, despite the undeniable truth that the criminal justice system would crash if every defendant refused to plead guilty, defense lawyers cannot crash the system. Tl;dr: "Prisoner's dilemma writ large." I hypothesized a criminal-justice system, ours in micro, processing 100 defendants a year, with capacity for four jury trials (for Harris County, multiply by about 300). Twenty defendants of the hundred don't plead guilty, and eighteen

  •   Posted on

     July 9, 2015 in 

    In medieval Europe litigants would arm themselves and beat the hell out of each other to resolve what might now be considered legal issues. The loser was obviously in the wrong. Some litigants could select champions to do their fighting for them. I doubt that this happened often ((Most lawyers are exceedingly trial-averse; how much more trial-averse would litigants and their representatives be if losing meant disfigurement

  •   Posted on

     July 9, 2015 in 

    This is totally adorable: Jim, a litigator with a busy practice, spends 20 minutes each morning practicing something called mindfulness meditation. Meditation is great, but meditation is to mindfulness as "litigators" are to trial lawyers. I've written about mindfulness before; the topic is getting some attention now. Scott Greenfield sees two threads of discussion: a) stress release for lawyers (which should be uncontroversial; and b) "put[ting] personal happiness

  •   Posted on

     July 8, 2015 in 

    Public defender "Norm DeGuerre" asks: Bringing the system to its knees is in you clients' best interest. Why aren't we doing it? @nytimes https://t.co/S0i8NG1lP6 — Norm DeGuerre (@NormDeGuerreEsq) July 7, 2015 The answer is simple: because we do not serve our clients' best interest. We serve our client's best interest. And what is in the clients' best interest has nothing to do with what is in the

  •   Posted on

     July 7, 2015 in 

    Texas's new revenge-porn statute, Texas Penal Code Section 21.16, is effective 9/1/2015. It's unconstitutional (content-based restriction on speech, and no recognized exception applies), but it's "only" a class A misdemeanor, so defendants will be less motivated to take the time and spend the money to hire me to fight it, and lawyers taking their cases will be less motivated to seek my help: Sec. 21.16. UNLAWFUL DISCLOSURE

Recent Blog Posts

Categories

Archive