Five guys arrested in Montgomery County and charged with 33.021(c) online solicitation—not the portion of the statute that has been held unconstitutional, but the portion that should be. They all made bail (though one has a warrant pending); one of them has another case pending. The lawyers who are hired or appointed on these cases need to give some serious thought to filing writs challenging the constitutionality

The meat of Judge Keller’s opinion in Karenev v. State: Marin took a functional approach to error preservation, dividing rules into three types: (1) absolute requirements or prohibitions, (2) rights that are waivable-only, and (3) rights that can be forfeited.[51] A facial challenge to the constitutionality of a statute falls within the third category. Statutes are presumed to be constitutional until it is determined otherwise.[52] The State

I've had a report that prosecutors in Montgomery County want a defendant to plead guilty to online solicitation of a minor by communication under Section 33.021(b) of the Texas Penal Code (the "talking dirty to a minor" statute that was held unconstitutional a couple of weeks ago) and take two years in prison. So what do they think will happen after the defendant pleads guilty and takes

Here's one of Dave Wilson's campaign flyers: Wilson, a white man, was running for the office of Houston Community College Trustee in a predominantly black district. Here's local TV station KHOU's spin: White guy wins after leading voters to believe he’s black. My initial reaction, when I saw the KHOU story (which didn't show detail on the flyers on which the dispute was based) was meh. I

At Keith Lee's Associate's Mind he writes about impostor syndrome, which is "a psychological phenomenon in which people are unable to internalize their accomplishments. Despite external evidence of their competence, those with the syndrome remain convinced that they are frauds and do not deserve the success they have achieved. Proof of success is dismissed as luck, timing, or as a result of deceiving others into thinking they are more intelligent and

There is much advice available to young and aspiring lawyers on how to be a lawyer. The vast majority of it is written by: a) People who are selling something—failed lawyers and charlatans using "free webinars" to sell vaporware; or b) People who practice law, but have been doing so for so long that they aren't in close touch with the world that new lawyers face, with

Since Robb Fickman seems to have abandoned The "Meaning" of America, I asked for and received his permission to republish here his thoughts about Ken Anderson's ten-day sentence for hiding exculpatory evidence to keep Michael Morton in prison for twenty-five years: 1. As has been repeatedly noted by John Raley and the Innocence Project, Anderson has never apologized to Michael Morton for Anderson's conduct.  He apologized for what

A reader suggested that I was a hero. I’m no hero. I’m more Kid Shilleen than Superman:

[Update: the below is a nightmare. It is not how things are, much less how things have to be. I’ve identified four ways a good lawyer might make the nightmare end; I’m sure I’ll think of others as I litigate these cases. Your takeaway from this post should not be that there is no hope, but rather that the relief that people convicted of 33.021(b) should—morally, ethically,

In Peeler v. Hughes and Luce the Texas Supreme Court held that a convicted criminal defendant’s crime is the sole proximate cause of any consequences of that crime, so that a criminal-defense lawyer cannot be sued for malpractice “without first establishing that she has been exonerated by direct appeal, post-conviction relief, or otherwise.” Does “exonerated” in this context mean “proven innocent,” or just “unconvicted”?