713-224-1747
Recent Blog Posts
WWWWD?
A commenter asked recently why I hadn't written about the Joe Amendola circus. I haven't felt inspired because, like Scott Greenfield says, "It's not that being critical of Joe Amendola is the sort of thing any criminal defense lawyer wants to do."
But "It's just that it can't be helped."
Greenfield writes in Amendola, The Tactician:
As for Joe Amendola, he's a complete disaster, a laughingstock, at crisis management and media relations. He may have gotten more attention than he ever dreamed possible for a hick, but unless he ends up having a talent that will get him on the X Factor, he's doomed himself and his client by his constant missteps.
When thinking about managing a client's crisis, if you don't have extensive experience dealing with the media, you must ask yourself: what would Winston Wolf do?
Govern yourself accordingly.
Smart Cops and Ridgebacks
Only the dumb need apply! « Kelly Case Law Firm
One of my closest friends is a police officer in New York. During the horror of 9/11, he was trapped on the island and worked for the next 5 days from his station less than 2 blocks from the World Trade Center. I could not reach him for over a week and was greatly relieved when he was finally able to call me back. He is a hero and inspiration as a police officer. That's because he is a fine person and does his best to really help people. He has trained officers at the Academy and is one of the few people, who if you threw him in the middle of a deserted island, when you came back to pick him up, he would have built a nice hut, lounge area and already have a few friends over. Resourceful and intelligent would sum him up nicely.But if he were to apply for a job just down the road in New London, Connecticut, he probably wouldn't qualify.Why?Because he is too smart.
An American Political Spectrum
The mainstream media would have you believe that all American politics come down to a single spectrum: from liberalism on the left to conservatism on the right:
That spectrum gives the simpleminded something to argue about-Republicans each trying to convince the other that they are the more conservative, and Democrats trying to convince each other that they are the more moderate. It also permits politicians to avoid inconvenient thought: on this spectrum, American thought is weighted toward the right-we are a fairly conservative nation, considering our birth in fire and revolution-and American politicians follow American thought like shops setting up in the middle of town on the one main drag.
There is a more important spectrum, though, one extreme end of which would have totalitarianism and the other extreme end of which would have anarchy:
Call the right end of the spectrum "authoritarianism" or (as my friend Michael would have it) "statism"; the left end of the spectrum is libertarianism or egalitarianism.
Apropos of Nothing…
On NPR the other day, I heard a snippet of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad's interview with Barbara Walters.
With his little lisp, he makes a fascinating villain. If they ever make a film version of the Arab Spring, I know the perfect guy to cast as Assad:
Meet Ronald Ray, Sr.
"It boggles the mind that neither side knew about this during trial," Ellis said. "Both sides in this case were spectacularly incompetent."
(Chron.)
That's Judge Mark Kent Ellis of the 351st District Court commenting, on the record, on the performance of "defense lawyer" Ronald Ray, Sr. and an as-yet-unidentified prosecutor. Not just incompetent but spectacularly incompetent.
Both Ronald Ray, Sr. and the DA's Office had the same response: Me no Alamo. Me no Goliad (history lesson for my non-Texas readers):
"If the defense had raised the issue either prior to or during trial, the prosecutor would have immediately investigated his claims and taken the appropriate action," said the DA's Office.
The Sky is Definitely Not Falling
A couple of people have emailed to ask me my opinion of this story:
That's the headline from the Seattle Weekly blog. And while the two parts are true (ignoring the woeful parallelism), it implies a causal connection that does not exist.
The $2.5 million was a judgment for Cox's defamation of a guy named Kevin Padrick.
A non-journalist like Cox is not allowed to defame a person. But-and this is crucial to an understanding of this case-a journalist is also not allowed to defame a person.
Oregon's journalist-shield law, under which the judge found that Cox was not a journalist, does not shield journalists from liability. It shields journalists from having to reveal their sources. I understand that it also requires a plaintiff to demand a retraction before filing suit.
Keeping America Safe From Granny
Of course they did, you raging imbeciles. When Ms. Sherman and Ms. Zimmerman complained publicly about the humiliation you handed them when they were trying to go about their lawful business, they were not complaining that your employees ("officers"? don't make me laugh) didn't follow your procedures. They're complaining that your procedures are humiliating (and-it should go without saying-unnecessary).
It's nice that you defend your mouth-breathing employees-there should be no doubt that the rot in TSA goes all the way to the top. Employees working the line are the smallest part of the problem.
"It's degrading. It's like someone raped you," Ms. Sherman said. "They didn't know how to handle a human being." She's not talking about the line employees. If she were complaining about them, she'd complain to you.
At What Point?
Now that Congress has repealed the Fifth Amendment, can you please join me in recognizing that this country is on a rocket-sled to totalitarianism?
Some senators think that indefinite detention without due process of Americans arrested in America was allowed before the passage of the NDAA (and that's just their interpretation of the law that they allow us to know about).
Do you trust the government with such power? You shouldn't.
If you trust Obama not to abuse the discretion to detain Americans at home ("part of the battlefield") until the end of the Endless Global War on Terror, you probably don't trust Perry or Gingrich or Romney. (If you trust all of them, your amygdala is damaged; if you trust none of them, you're perfectly healthy.)
The Legality of DIVERT
Murray Newman, in Life at the Harris County Criminal Justice Center: The Legality of D.I.V.E.R.T. writes:
The 14th Court of Appeals ruled that the Defendant was not entitled to a different judge than Judge Harmon, because Judge Harmon was correctly following the law when he refused to participate in DIVERT's pre-trial diversion program. They pointed out that Judge Harmon was, in fact, following the law and considering the full range of punishment because pre-trial diversion is not a legal form of punishment.
Here is the opinion, Rhodes v. State, to which Murray refers.
A judge in Texas must be willing to consider the full range of punishment. DIVERT, like pretrial diversion, is not within the range of punishment. If a defendant pleads guilty to a judge without an agreed recommendation, the judge can't put the defendant on pretrial diversion or on DIVERT. The only way a defendant can get one of those results is with the agreement of the state. And if the judge refuses to accept such an agreement-the position that Judge Bill Harmon takes-she's not recusable for failing to consider the full range of punishment.
Dispatch from the Contempt Front
Retired Judge Don Burgess, formerly of the Beaumont Court of Appeals, has been appointed (order-PDF) by Olen Underwood, Presiding Judge of the Second Administrative Judicial Region of Texas, to hear the contempt cases against the two prosecutors and two court reporters whom Judge Susan Brown of the 185th District Court accused (frivolously, in my opinion) of contempt.
Judge Burgess knows contempt law better than Judge Brown appears to. See, for example, In re Estrello, 130 S.W.3d 391, 396 (Tex. App.-Beaumont 2004)-
The terms of compliance of a court order must be clear, specific and unambiguous, or the order will not be enforceable through contempt. See Ex parte Slavin, 412 S.W.2d 43, 44 (Tex.1967). If the underlying order is susceptible to more than one interpretation, the ensuing contempt judgment will be void. See In re Houston, 92 S.W.3d 870, 877 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2002, orig. proceeding).
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
