713-224-1747
Recent Blog Posts
Declaration: The Author's Cut, Restored
Text added by Congress is indicated by strikethrough; text removed by Congress is italicized. Information is from Thomas Jefferson's Autobiography.
A Declaration by the Representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress assembled.
When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth the separate & equal station to which the laws of nature & of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with inherent and certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, & the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, & to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, & organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety & happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light & transient causes; & accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses & usurpations, begun at a distinguished period and pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty to throw off such government, & to provide new guards for their future security. Such has been the patient sufferance of these colonies; & such is now the necessity which constrains them to expunge alter their former systems of government. The history of the present king of Great Britain is a history of unremitting repeated injuries & usurpations, among which appears no solitary fact to contradict the uniform tenor of the rest, but all have all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over these states. To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world for the truth of which we pledge a faith yet unsullied by falsehood.
The Declaration of Independence
When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. - That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, - That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. - Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
Proof that Lawyers Can Survive Without Honor.
Recall the story of the two Chicago PDs whose client, Wilson, confessed to them that he had murdered a security guard, and that Logan, who was doing life for the murder, had not. The two lawyers, Jamie Kunz and Dale Coventry, waited till Wilson died in prison, 25 years later, to reveal the truth and set Logan free. They spoke in May at the ABA's 35th National Conference on Professional Responsibility in Chicago.
From the June, 17th BNA Criminal Law Reporter:
Kunz told the audience that he has thought frequently and critically about Logan's fate and Kunz's part in it. He said he still does not doubt that keeping Wilson's confession secret was an obligation he had to honor. Under the ethics rules, he said, "I don't think we had a choice."But, just as emphatically, Kunz said he agrees with that professional responsibility, because "by golly, I don't want to have a choice."Kunz said that if the ethics rules give lawyers in his and Coventry's position discretion to reveal a client's confidential confession, it may make their dilemma worse because counsel will feel a strong temptation to do so and thus put at risk for life imprisonment or execution a client who trusted them to protect him from just that risk. "I'm going to fight any rule change that puts me in [that] position," Kunz said.
The UCC: Ban it Fully, or Not at All.
I got a letter from a Texas prison last week: contraband had been confiscated from an inmate (not a client) after arriving in an envelope with my return address on it. The contraband was described as "two UCC Packets."
After dashing off a cross letter to the warden about people using my return address to send contraband to Texas prisons, I investigated why "UCC Packets" might be classified contraband. It seems that some prisoners go around filing vexatious liens against prison guards under the UCC. To try to stop the practice, Texas prisons have proscribed the UCC.
I have no philosophical objection to adding the UCC to the new Index Librorum Prohibitorum. Its arcane powers are so great that they should be available only to the chosen few (by which I mean members of the British Accreditation Registry (B.A.R.)).
As inmates' loved ones on the outside can get their hands on the One Law to Rule them All (by which I mean the UCC), though, it seems counterproductive to try to keep it out of the hands of inmates. Including it in the same category as drugs, or obscenity, or cell phones only serves to emphasize its dominion. If we want to-and I believe we do want to-maintain the B.A.R.'s official position, the pretense that the Uniform Commercial Code is not the supreme law of the land, trumping statutes, caselaw, treaties and even the Constitution, then the better course is to let the inmates have their UCCs. If we keep pretending, some of them will believe that the UCC is just a statute governing commercial transactions. (Some of them won't, but we should be able to trust the courts to dispose of their claims in line with the B.A.R.'s official position.)
Justice vs. The Law
Defending People reader "Ryan", writing at Plain Error, the official blog of the Innocence Project of Florida, responds to my "Law and Justice Explained." post:
As someone with the status just above armchair philosopher (disclosure: I will be attending graduate school for a PhD in philosophy in the fall), I have a few words on that one.The idea that "justice" has no relationship to the law – and the poster is very clear that they believe this – is, I think, obviously mistaken. This is what they say:
1) Justice is a topic that exists in philosophy.
2) Law is what a bunch of mostly long-dead politicians thought would get them elected.
3) Never the twain shall meet.Here are the missing premises.
1) Justice is a topic that exists in philosophy.
2) The public, with whatever understanding of philosophy they have, combined with their upbringing and social mores, have formed concepts of justice for themselves.
Law and Justice Explained.
I just stumbled upon this, in comments to a long-ago Ann Althouse post:
One of the most annoying things about lawyers is the way they casually conflate "law" with "justice." To clarify: justice is a concept in philosophy; also to some extent in psychology, sociology, economics, etc. Law is what a bunch of mostly long-dead politicians thought would get them reelected. There's no connection between the two. None. The relation between law and those other fields is much like the relation between astrology and astronomy...except that astrologers don't have guns.
Perfect.
Fifteen Books for Becoming a Better Criminal Defense Trial Lawyer
At Illinois and Missouri lawyer Evan Schaeffer's Trial Practice Tips Weblog, Evan has a link to an Amazon list of 16 Books to Read if You Want to Become a Better Trial Lawyer by Dallas Government lawyer Shane Read. Shane's list includes Gerry Spence's How to Argue and Win Every Time, Posner's How Judges Think, and Read's own Winning at Trial, as well as 14 other books from which people might try to learn skills and the The New Yorker Book of Lawyer Cartoons.
The Hair in the Food, and Jury Selection
A few rules from growing up Bennett:
Slow, slow. Look, Look.
Never pass up a chance to relieve yourself.
Don't let too much small stuff pile up (this is the companion rule to the more widely known "Don't sweat the small stuff" and "It's all small stuff").
There's always a hair in the food.
This last rule is crucial to a correct understanding of both life and jury selection.
A hair in the food is disgusting, right? Eating someone else's hair never killed anyone but, still, not eating someone else's hair is-as a general rule-better than eating it. When you're eating at a restaurant and you find a hair in your food, if you didn't already know that there's always a hair in the food you might get upset and angry.Once you know that there's always a hair in the food, though, you celebrate when you happen to find it. (You also don't complain: if you find a hair in a dish and send the dish back, you're guaranteeing yourself a second hair, and you might not be so lucky as to find it the second time.)
Keep the NPMSRP Alive!
The National Police Misconduct Statistics and Reporting Project...
devoted to solving [the lack of information about police misconduct] by gathering information about reported incidents of police misconduct across the US, analyzing and compiling statistics based from several sources, and then publishing the results of all this information in a reader-friendly way in order to encourage informed debate where it was once impossible to do because of the lack of information on the subject of police misconduct
... is in trouble. Its author, Packratt, has been slammed by the economy; he needs to reclaim the hours he spends each day on collecting and analyzing incidents of police misconduct and turn his efforts toward making money and taking care of his family.
Injustice Everywhere is about to go dark.
I empathize with Packratt. We men are hardwired and culturally programmed to take care of our families, and the feeling that we're failing or even in danger of failing is a sickening one. I hope Packratt is able to find work that frees him from worrying about his family having a roof over their heads and food in their bellies. I hope it pays him well enough that he can afford to spend the time to resurrect his blog and @InjusticeNews Twitter feed (which I have scraped into my left sidebar).
Woody: Diddy?
I've watched the video, and I don't know if he did it. Maybe he, like so many of my clients, is the victim of a false accusation, betrayed by the criminal justice system. Maybe he was just running his hand along the side of the car feeling the damage that someone else had done.But (please keep this just between us) I felt a frisson of guilty pleasure when I learned that retired judge (and former HCCLA President) Woody Ray Densen had been indicted for criminal mischief after his neighbor gave prosecutors this video, showing a guy who could well be Woody doing something that could well be keying the neighbor's car:
Woody Densen is the rare defendant who probably wouldn't want to be judged by a jury of 12 criminal-defense lawyers. The Harris County Criminal Lawyers Association filed an ethics complaint against him in 2007 for:
Threatening to jail an unrepresented defendant for being financially unable to retain counsel;
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
