Posted on August 11, 2016 in Uncategorized

TCDLA has given me the go-ahead to tell you that if you sign up for the voir dire seminar (which I am directing) or the cross examination seminar (which I am not) in Dallas September 8–9 at the Sheraton Dallas Hotel by the Galleria, you can attend sessions of the other.

Sign up here . See you in Dallas.

TCDLA Voir Dire seminar Dallas 2016

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on August 04, 2016 in Uncategorized

You may have noticed that I've added a widget to the right-hand column of "Cool Things I Really Like." It's stuff that I buy for myself, and can get more of if you use the links (or, with UberEats, the code "eats-nw0pp") to buy something for yourself.

I just added a link to Nootrobox. I chew their GoCubes, which are coffee (with other sparkly ingredients) in small gelatinous cubes. They've got other nootropics as well, and if you are interested in biohacking they have a lot of interesting stuff to read on their website.

Thank you especially to those of you who have ordered custom shirts from Original Stitch . I hope you enjoy wearing them, and think fondly of me when you do. I'll think fondly of you, whoever you are, for helping fund my custom shirt habit.

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on August 02, 2016 in Uncategorized

I wrote yesterday about Texas's Law of Parties, and how it is different from Texas's Felony-Murder Rule. An observant reader emailed to ask:

What about Enmund v Florida?

An excellent question. In Enmund the U.S. Supreme Court reversed Mr. Enmund's death sentence because he "d[id] not himself kill, attempt to kill, or intend that a killing take place or that lethal force w[ould] be employed."

So how is it that Wood, who according to Hedayati "had no reason to anticipate" the killing, got the death penalty?

Because the jury found otherwise.

The law when Wood was prosecuted, as now, was that if a person was convicted of capital murder and the State sought death, the jury had to be asked:

(2) in cases in which the jury charge at the guilt or innocence stage permitted the jury to find the defendant guilty as a party under Sections 7.01 and 7.02, Penal Code, whether the defendant actually caused the death of the deceased or did not actually cause the death of the deceased but intended to kill the deceased or another or anticipated that a human life would be taken.

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on August 01, 2016 in Uncategorized

Wood was convicted and sentenced to die under Texas' arcane felony-murder law, more commonly known as the "the law of parties" - for his role as an accomplice to a killing, which he had no reason to anticipate.

( Hedayati: In Texas death row case, punishment does not fit crime .)

That Wood "had no reason to anticipate" the killing should have prevented him from being convicted under a parties theory. Here's the Law of Parties:

Sec. 7.02. CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY FOR CONDUCT OF ANOTHER. (a) A person is criminally responsible for an offense committed by the conduct of another if:(1) acting with the kind of culpability required for the offense, he causes or aids an innocent or nonresponsible person to engage in conduct prohibited by the definition of the offense;(2) acting with intent to promote or assist the commission of the offense, he solicits, encourages, directs, aids, or attempts to aid the other person to commit the offense; or(3) having a legal duty to prevent commission of the offense and acting with intent to promote or assist its commission, he fails to make a reasonable effort to prevent commission of the offense.(b) If, in the attempt to carry out a conspiracy to commit one felony, another felony is committed by one of the conspirators, all conspirators are guilty of the felony actually committed, though having no intent to commit it, if the offense was committed in furtherance of the unlawful purpose and was one that should have been anticipated as a result of the carrying out of the conspiracy.

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on July 25, 2016 in Uncategorized

TCDLA Jury Selection Course, Dallas September 2016

Come play with us in Dallas. Your mind will be blown, and I guarantee that you'll come away a better lawyer.

Register here .

PDF of poster, if you like.

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on July 20, 2016 in Uncategorized

I did not write the following post. Scott Greenfield wrote it and posted it to Simple Justice in 2013. Carl David Ceder has filed what appears to be a fraudulent DMCA takedown letter regarding it (because Scott used Carl's JC Penney portrait as an illustration).

On the chance that the takedown succeeds for a moment, I bring you Scott Greenfield's...

Carl David Ceder Learns The 12 Rules of The Blawgosphere

When I received the email from Dan Hull at What About Clients/Paris? it wasn't hard to imagine the look of exasperation on his face. There are few people in the blawgosphere who have had their content ripped off more consistently than Dan, and unlike the rest of us whose posts ended up on some scammer's website, Dan's was different. The thief always seemed to be a lawyer. Lawyers just wanted what Dan wrote.This time it was a young Dallas/Fort Worth criminal defense lawyer named Carl David Ceder, who had lifted wholesale one of Hull's best known and most appreciated posts, his12 Rules of Client Service. This was first posted in 2006 and may be the post for which Hull is best known.And there it was, on 2007 Houston law grad Carl David Ceder's website, in all its glory. No permission. Not even credit. Just as if this kid came up with it all by himself, instead of stealing it from Dan Hull.So I asked Dan if he sent the kid an email, and he told me he sent the kid a question, whether Ceder wrote the 12 Rules himself? But Hull heard nothing back and was off to Hanover, New Hampshire to conduct a Sensitivity training Seminar for the Dartmouth College rugby team. Again.Not being particularly inclined to let things go so easily, I sent Ceder an email as well:

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on July 20, 2016 in Uncategorized

From Popehat (h/t Scott Greenfield):

It is currently fashionable for defense attorneys to say "clients lie" and "most clients are guilty." I wouldn't agree with either proposition. Everybody lies; I don't think clients lie more than anyone else in terrifying and stressful circumstances. Humans tend to remember a version of events that puts them in the best light, something we normally regard as a mere venal sin. It's just that criminal defense scenarios require a level of precision and accuracy that most human interactions don't.Being an effective and responsible criminal defense attorney doesn't require believing everything a client says, exactly. The policy could be better described as "trust, but verify." The key isn't to build a defense on the premise that everything the client says is perfectly accurate. The key is to take what the client says seriously and follow up on it, rather than dismissing them out of hand. If you don't, you're not defending the client - you're defending your stereotype of the client.

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on July 17, 2016 in Uncategorized

From here :

Eugene Volokh, a professor at UCLA School of Law, told Vocativ in an email that he is "not a fan of most privacy-based speech restrictions," but said "this law seems quite narrow, and pretty clearly defined."

Seems.

There is no "seem" to it. The law says what it says. There is nothing more to it than this. Either you have read it and thought about it and redteamed it to figure out how narrow it is, or you make a handwavy statement to the press about how it "seems." For those not familiar with the ways of lawyers, this is not an opinion on the constitutionality of the Internet Privacy Protection Act. It's not at all hard to imagine a "but" following it. Like:

...but it is not as clearly defined as it seems.

or

...but it is not narrow enough to pass First Amendment muster.

From the same piece:

Similarly, Neil Richards, a First Amendment scholar and law professor at Washington University, underscored the importance of revenge porn laws being narrow enough so they aren't "used as tools of censorship that threaten our commitment to free expression, including sexually-explicit expression," but said, "I think on balance, this is a very well-drafted law."

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on July 15, 2016 in Uncategorized

I'm going to be messing around with Google Hangouts. If you'd like to join in, haz clic aquí.

Does the embed work?

It appears to be about 20 seconds behind.(If I'm not in, holler. I'm probably nearby. Otherwise check back later.)

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on July 14, 2016 in Uncategorized

Via scribd:

(a) IN GENERAL.-Whoever knowingly uses the mail, any interactive computer service or electronic communication service or electronic communication system of interstate commerce, or any other facility of interstate or foreign commerce to distribute a visual depiction of a person who is identifiable from the image itself or information displayed in connection with the image and who is engaging in sexually explicit conduct, or of the naked genitals or post-pubescent female nipple of a person, with reckless disregard for the person's lack of consent to the distribution, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.(b) EXCEPTIONS.-(1) LAW ENFORCEMENT AND OTHER LEGAL PROCEEDINGS.-This section-(A) does not prohibit any lawful law enforcement, correctional, or intelligence activity;(B) shall not apply in the case of an individual reporting unlawful activity; and(C) shall not apply to a subpoena or court order for use in a legal proceeding.(2) VOLUNTARY PUBLIC OR COMMERCIAL EXPOSURE.-This section does not apply to a visual depiction of a voluntary exposure of an individual's own naked genitals or post-pubescent female nipple or an individual's voluntary engagement in sexually explicit conduct if such exposure takes place in public or in a lawful commercial setting.(3) CERTAIN CATEGORIES OF VISUAL DEPICTIONS EXCEPTED.-This section shall not apply in the case of a visual depiction, the disclosure of which is in the bona fide public interest.(4) TELECOMMUNICATIONS AND INTERNET SERVICE PROVIDERS.-This section shall not apply to any provider of an interactive computer service as defined in section 230(f)(2) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 230 (f)(2)) with regard to content provided by another information content provider, as defined in section 230(f)(3) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 230(f)(3)) unless such provider of an interactive computer service intentionally promotes or solicits content that it knows to be in violation of this section.(c) DEFINITIONS.-In this section:(1) Except as otherwise provided, any term used in this section has the meaning given that term in section 1801.(2) The term ‘visual depiction' means any photograph, film, or video, whether produced by electronic, mechanical, or other means.(3) The term ‘sexually explicit conduct' has the meaning given that term in section 2256(2)(A).

Continue Reading ››