713-224-1747
Recent Blog Posts
Power, Responsibility
As if it were not humbling enough being, on my very best day, the fourth-smartest mammal in the house, I've got this blog and my loyal readers to remind me of my modest position in the universe.
If I were afraid of making mistakes, I'd never get anything done. Life and the practice of law, like walking upright, are continuous series of controlled falls that take me to interesting places to help people. Most of the mistakes a) are harmless; b) are easily corrected; and c) lead (by successive approximations) to a good result:I do a good job for my clients not despite my errors but because of them.
This blog, however, is a little different. For whatever reason, it has become ludicrously powerful (for what it is). When I get something wrong here, it can hurt people in the real world and (thanks to Google's caching) the damage might not be easily fixed despite my best efforts.
This ain't exactly journalism (surely you realize that), but the journalists have been dealing with this issue for as long as there has been journalism. I'm still working on how best to deal with it here.
Honor, Integrity, Honesty, and Dignity
Quite often a guilty subject will invoke such expressions as, "I swear to God I'm telling the truth," "I hope my mother drops dead if I'm lying," "I'll swear on a stack of Bibles," etc. Although expressions of this type cannot be considered as symptoms of deception, they frequently are used by guilty subjects in an effort to lend forcefulness or conviction to their assertions of innocence.
Inbau & Reid, Criminal Interrogation and Confessions, 1962.
In the interrogation room, the truthfulness of the subject is naturally in question. The man who proclaims his honesty (when it is not otherwise challenged) is probably not being honest. When dealing with someone who tells you he's honest, keep a hand on your wallet.
Likewise integrity. If you have integrity, people will know it without being told. If they don't or if you aren't, telling them won't convince them. In fact, if people don't know you to have integrity and you claim to, they will (appropriately) question why you should think it necessary to protest. The more offended noises you make in response, the more their questions will seem justified.
I'm Not Sure What to Think About...
... Houston criminal-defense lawyer Cole Brooks's new blog. I'm glad to see another Houston criminal-defense lawyer jump into the practical blawgosphere (even if he isn't a member of HCCLA... hint, hint), and Cole's blog isn't blatant "I'm great! hire me!" marketing, but so far it's heavy on explications of Texas law and "what to do if you're arrested for DWI."
This is probably good for search engine optimization, but it gets old fast-to read, at least, and I'll bet to write.
But welcome, Cole. I don't think I know you (maybe because you aren't a member of HCCLA...) but I've added you to the blawgroll, and hope you can stick around. Join the conversation!
(Update: I found Cole's blog because someone came here from his blogroll; there's a lot he's doing right.)
The End of an Era?
Houston DWI defense lawyer Todd Overstreet got the State to agree to a motion for new trial for a client who had pleaded guilty on September 14th to two counts of criminally negligent homicide (a class A misdemeanor State Jail Felony-thanks, TY) for deaths of a Houston couple in a traffic accident.
Todd is being coy about the details, but First Assistant DA Jim Leitner wrote: "as tragic as this accident was, the facts simply do not rise to the level of a criminal offense."
The client, a tow truck driver, had used cocaine at some point before the wreck, in which prosecutors had said he was driving about 60 mph in a 45 mph zone. It sounds as though the client had the right of way but was speeding. He also had some prior convictions for DWI and drug possession.
The prosecutor who filed the charge was the same one who, back in June 2007, tried to claim after losing at trial that he had tried another accidental fatality case to "honor" the dead child. He left the DA's office this year, and went to the Montgomery County District Attorney's Office.
The Jew With a Gun Next Door
A couple of years ago (!) I wrote about mapping the blogosphere as a metaphorical space, with proximity measured by commonality of interest as represented by mutual links.
Today New York criminal-defense lawyer Scott Greenfield has a nice profile today of one of our virtual neighbors, Minneapolis renaissance man Joel "Jdog" Rosenberg. Not a lawyer, Joel is a well-informed amateur with an excellent sense of fair play and justice.
Joel is a frequent commenter here. He's also a guy I have called a time or two when I was in serious need of reliably wise and objective advice not tainted by a law degree. He hasn't steered me wrong.
There's perennial yammering about blogs being obsolete, or defunct, or summat, but I'm not buying it. I see the connection of that Minnesota scifi writer and this Houston criminal-defense lawyer as a triumph of the medium.
The Media
I got to deal with Channel 2, Channel 11, Channel 13, The Houston Chronicle, and Channel 26 this week.
One one case, I gave the first four the choice of getting video of my client and me walking to or from court, or getting a statement from me. They chose the pictures. I can't really blame them. We can manage to do our respective jobs (theirs: putting together sensationalist news; mine: protecting my clients) without antagonizing each other, and if some day I have some interesting message to convey, I might talk to Channels 2, 11, 13, or the Chron.
Not so Channel 26. On another case (one that the other media outlets had zero interest in), they jumped us outside the courtroom, shoving camera and microphone in our faces and asking for comment on this and that. They got nothing, except probably some pokerfaced footage of a sick-looking sweaty lawyer (I've been fighting some bug) with bad hair and his cool client... oh, and some dude jumped on the elevator with us shouting that it "was bullshit"; I don't think that's newsworthy.
I Confess, I Get All My Pop Culture From Randazza
Boy, is this guy a lousy liar:
(h/t Legal Satyricon.)
David Martin, Willingham's Trial Lawyer, Speaks Up (Updated With New Links)
Cameron Todd Willingham's trial lawyer, David Martin, on Anderson Cooper yesterday.
Awfully defensive for a guy who thinks he is right. Repeated highlights:
"You pour lighter fluid on a carpet and set it on fire, it looks just like those pictures." (We're not much on the scientific method here in Texas.)
"I have been a trial lawyer for 25 years." (Meaning that in 1992 he'd been a trial lawyer for only eight years.)
"That's absurd." (Repeated frequently enough that it must be absurd.)
Texas Moratorium Network, who sent me the link, asked (reasonably):
Is there any Texas Bar ethical rule that should constrain lawyers from arguing for their former now-dead client's guilt, like attorney-client privilege or fiduciary responsibility, even after the former client is dead. Maybe that would be an interesting topic for a blog post, Martin seemingly violating the trust put into him by his former client. If a person can not trust that his lawyer will not turn on him and start advocating for his guilt, then how can a person trust the lawyer enough to speak openly with him. I would be interested in reading what lawyers think are their ethical obligations to former clients.
Injustice Through Ignorance
Texas Governor Rick "Goodhair" Perry says that Cameron Todd Willingham is a "monster" and a "bad man" who murdered his children (Houston Chronicle). He is convinced that Willingham was guilty of his crime.
That's good enough for me. If the Governor of Texas says someone is a monster, then dadgummit he's a monster. Why is he convinced that he's a monster?
Because "he murdered his three children [and] tried to beat his wife into an abortion so he wouldn't have those kids."
We know he murdered his three children because he's a monster, and we know he's a monster because he murdered his three children.
To be fair, that's not quite all. There's also that allegation that Willingham tried to beat his wife into a miscarriage (forgive Goodhair; he doesn't know the difference. But he does know a monster. Like the good little Animal Science major he is, he's not calling Willingham an animal.) This was not culpability evidence in Willingham's trial-the jury didn't get to hear about it when deciding Willingham's guilt-and with good reason: it's 403 as hell.
Waiving Conflict II
From the comments to my post on Waiving Conflict of Interest:
Of course, sometimes it's a prisoner's dilemma.Both clients have a good chance of winning if neither cooperates.If one cooperates against the other, both clients will certainly lose - one more than the other.The government plays divide and conquer, trying to intimidate one into losing only a little so that the other one loses big, and the government wins both.Also, often the clients between them can only afford one GOOD lawyer, or two bargain-basement lawyers. It becomes in their interest to pool resources.I just don't see the issue as being as black and white as you put it. The question is what is most likely to get both clients the best result - if joint representation achieves that goal, then it is in both their interests to have joint representation. If not, not.Very often, in federal cases, you see coordinated defenses succeeding - different lawyers but sharing resources and information. The only real difference between that and one lawyer is that you have more hands on the wheel.
Contact Us if You're
Ready for a Better Future
Schedule a consultation today by filling out the form below or calling our office at 713-224-1747. We look forward to representing you.
The use of the Internet or this form for communication with the firm or any individual member of the firm does not establish an attorney-client relationship. Confidential or time-sensitive information should not be sent through this form.
I have read and understand the Disclaimer and Privacy Policy.
From our office in Houston, we represent clients throughout Harris County and across the state of Texas. We assist with criminal cases in Conroe, The Woodlands, Kingwood, Bellaire, Friendswood, Highland Village, West University Place, Cypress, Willis, Austin, Dallas, For Worth, Arlington, San Antonio, Corpus Christi, Beaumont, Tyler, Plano, Spring, New Caney, Porter, Humble, Atascocita, Aldine, Cloverleaf, Pasadena, South Houston, Pearland, Fresno, Missouri City, Sugar Land, Pecan Grove, Richmond, and Katy.
Results listed are not a guarantee or indication of future case results.
917 Franklin Street, Fourth Floor, Houston, TX 77002
713-224-1747
