713-224-1747
Recent Blog Posts
Interesting Mandamus Case
Via Liberty and Justice for Y'all, In Re Escamilla (PDF), in which the Travis County Attorney (Escamilla, who is the elected official responsible for prosecuting misdemeanor cases in that county) filed a mandamus against a judge for allowing a defendant to plead open (that is, without an agreed recommendation) to the judge without the state's consent.
The Austin Court of Appeals granted mandamus (conditionally) because the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure doesn't allow a defendant to waive a jury trial without the state's consent. That's black-letter law, and not the interesting thing about the case.
The judge sentenced the defendant to thirty days in jail on each case (four counts of possession of marihuana, one count of possession of a controlled substance, and one count of bail jumping). There's no intimation in the opinion that these were illegal sentences.
Fear Not.
Synchronicity. Two interesting posts from 10:48 this morning:
TSA: when the abnormal becomes normal by Lisa Simeone at TSA News, and Be Thankful And Fearful And Know Your Place, Citizen by Ken at Popehat.
Here's Simeone:
Things that were once unthinkable become accepted, both by the people doing them and by those on the receiving end.This slow habituation is often called conditioning, or grooming. It's not a new concept, it's not a difficult concept, and people have no problem understanding it in lots of situations.
She's talking about TSA's crimes. "People are being conditioned, and they're accepting - nay, embracing - that conditioning. I don't know how else to put it but that they're getting exactly what they asked for."
Ken explains, in a slightly different context (the story of the man who, walking hand-in-hand with his young daughter, is accosted by a police officer because some Mrs. Grundy "saw something and said something") some of the hows and whys of the grooming that we're asking for:
When in Doubt, Choose “D is Screwed”
Sample question for the Texas Board of Legal Specialization board-certification exam in criminal law:
Defendant Dillon committed a bank robbery on January 1, 2004. On March 3, 2005 he was arrested on an unrelated state drug charge. Tired of being on the run, Dillon copped a plea on the state case and got 10 years TDCJ. Dillon's accomplice on the bank robbery snitched him out and feds charge him with bank robbery. The Assistant U.S. Attorney filed a writ of habeas corpus ad presequendum to get Mr. Dillon into federal custody for his prosecution. Mr. Dillon cut another deal and got another ten year sentence. The federal judgment was silent on whether the sentences would be concurrent or consecutive. Dillon looked forward to being in federal custody, the food is so much better. Which of the following is true? a. Dillon will serve both sentences in federal custody because he was "writted" into federal custody. b. Dillon's federal time will "eat up" his state time and the sentences will run concurrently. c. Dillon is screwed. He will be sent back to state custody to serve his state sentence. When he completes his state sentence he will be sent to the feds to begin serving his federal sentence. d. None of the above.
Dionne Press, Helping Keep the Trains Running on Time
The British guy charged with aiding his wife's suicide and represented by Dionne Press (who tried to get the DA's Offfice to file charges against me or grieve me for offering to help him for free) has now been sitting in jail for 30 days.
He is still charged with a class "C" (maximum $500 fine, dischargeable at $50 or $100 a day) misdemeanor.
Today his case was reset till 27 August.
There is still no sign of Ms. Press having taken any action to secure her client's freedom. She has not filed a writ of habeas corpus.
She has, however, accepted appointments to an astounding fifty-four other cases in the month since she took on his case (and has pled a depressing thirty-three of them).
Ten Years of Windypundit
Something about Mark Draughn of WindyPundit:
I recently had a problem in federal court: my client had been ordered to pay restitution for a bank robbery, and had been made jointly and severally liable with his five coactors. After getting out of prison, he wanted to work hard and improve himself. He paid off a sixth of the restitution; his coactors paid off almost nothing. Under the terms of the order, my guy was still liable for the the other five sixths of the restitution. (That's what joint-and-several liability means.) The five clowns who were also liable had shown no interest in paying their share, so my client had two options: work hard and pay almost the entire judgment himself, or join the clowns and have a judgment hanging over him forever.
He didn't think that was fair, and neither did I.
The judge had statutory authority to modify the order and discharge my guy's debt, but in my estimation "we don't think it's fair" was not going to persuade her. What I figured I needed was an economic argument.
Less Government! More Bacon!
Crime and Federalism‘s tagline: "Because everything I was ever told is a lie." Scott Greenfield recently gave us a reminder of the truth of the proposition in TWA Flight 800 Remembered. Greenfield was one of the hundreds of witnesses who saw "what [he] thought to be a firework shoot from the water up toward the sky, curve and explode. It was not an explosion in the sky, but clearly something that went from the water upward for a significant distance" off the southern coast of Long Island on the evening of 17 July 1996-an observation contrary to the official "a fuel tank just exploded" governmental explanation of events that night.
Greenfield is a reliable source; if he says that the government is not telling the truth about TWA 800, the government is not telling the truth about TWA 800. And Greenfield says, "It's not true."
Why would the government not tell us the truth about the cause of the disaster? It's easy to think of reasons. But the "why" doesn't matter; seeking it may even be counterproductive: by imposing our own logic on events we may deceive ourselves. By finding reasons for the government's deceptions, we might even delude ourselves into thinking that there are circumstances in which our government might be trusted.
Same Continent, Different Worlds
Here's how this story ended in Canada:
"It's just a kid who made some bad choices. Criminal charges aren't in the best interest for that kid," Van Winkel told Now News, adding that police don't believe the teen made a conscious decision to fight with the officers.
And here's how it would have ended in Harris County: "The juvenile is charged with criminal mischief, public intoxication, disorderly conduct, resisting arrest, possession of a controlled substance, and two counts of felony assault on a peace officer."
Pass the Popcorn
Jim's client is Paul's client's mistress.
Chip's client is Paul's client's wife.
Jim's client hires a hitman to kill Chip's client.
After she is arrested, Jim's Client claims that Paul's client was in on the scheme.
The case against Paul's client is dropped after Jim's client, via letter from jail, tries to get Paul's client whacked.
Jim's client pleads to twenty years in prison.
Chip's client says, ""This corrupt plea deal would be understandable if she had not lived her adult life lying, cheating, stealing and trying to kill anyone who crossed her or stood in her way," and "I feel completely betrayed by [the trial prosecutor and the elected DA] for making this crooked deal. It is clear that this monster is very unstable and she should spend the rest of her existence behind bars where she cannot attempt to kill anyone else." (She presumably refers, in that last sentence, to Jim's Client and not to the elected DA.)
Puppets Without Puppeteers
This opinion piece in the NYT by John Monterosso and Barry Schwartz doesn't support the conclusions that the authors want us to reach:
It is crucial that as a society, we learn how to think more clearly about causes and personal responsibility - not only for extraordinary actions like crime but also for ordinary ones, like maintaining exercise regimens, eating sensibly and saving for retirement [an exhortation "to think more clearly" is unlikely to draw any objection]. As science advances, there will be more and more "causal" alternatives to intentional explanations [recent history suggests that this is true], and we will be faced with more decisions about when to hold people responsible for their behavior [likely]. It's important that we don't succumb to the allure of neuroscientific explanations and let everyone off the hook.
There is nothing in the op-ed that leads to that last conclusion. It's non sequitur, sitting right where a logical conclusion rightfully belongs. It's also a repetition of the same non sequitur from earlier in the piece:
Defend Well and Prosper
Other old business, from the archives...
Kansas appellate PD "S" writes at Preaching to the Choir:
I don't begrudge my colleagues in private practice from earning a living and charging a fair fee for their work. But it makes me angry to see clients forced to sell cars, homes, land, or whatever else they can to pay lawyers who then join country clubs and buy BMWs. Maybe my anger is better directed at the criminal justice system that can ruin a person's life just by being charged with a crime and maybe I'm not being fair but to me, defending people shouldn't be a path to prosperity.
As a lawyer who has prospered by defending people (doing well by doing good), I disagree. I suspect that it's really easy for someone who's getting a government paycheck plus benefits to say, "I would represent all my clients for nothing (or next to it)," but that's not what she is in fact doing, and it's a position divorced from the reality shared by the rest of the criminal-defense world.
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
