713-224-1747
Recent Blog Posts
The BAT Van Contempt Hearing, Interpreted
I didn't go to the 185th for the hearing yesterday, but Murray Newman, Paul Kennedy, and Mr. Kelly Case did (Kelly didn't blog about the proceedings, but I link to his blog so that you can encourage him to write more).
Bottom line: Judge Brown announced that she was recusing herself, based on the motion to recuse filed by Randy Schaffer, Steve Morris's lawyer. Delay of game, as Murray predicted.
But Schaffer didn't file a motion to recuse; he filed a Reply and Motion to Set Aside the Show Cause Order. I have a copy of it, but I'm not sure I may share it online. When I see it on the District Clerk's website, I'll grab it and share it.
The Brain and the Law
An introduction to neurolaw, from David Eagleman of Baylor College of Medicine:
Eagleman teaches a seminar on the subject at Rice University; I'm signing up.
He also has a book:
My BAT Van Contempt Guess [Updated]
[Update 7 November 2011, 9:32 a.m.: Murray was half-right, and I was half-right: the lawyer for one of the alleged contemnors (not the DA's Office) reportedly (according to Paul Kennedy on Twitter) filed a motion to recuse. We'll discuss it when I get a copy.]
Murray Newman's guess:
After talking to Todd, my guess would be that the District Attorney's Office is going to file a Motion to Recuse Judge Susan Brown from hearing the contempt hearing. According to Todd, that's something that any officer of the court (i.e., a lawyer) is entitled to. It's nothing against Judge Brown, and I don't think it will affect the ultimate results of the hearing.But it will possibly delay them.And it will absolutely make the District Attorney's Office look like they are hiding something, in my opinion.
This Is Supposed to Help?
Aransas County Court-at-Law Judge William Adams spoke out through his lawyer today, questioning his daughter's motives for releasing a video that amassed millions of hits on YouTube, sparked a national debate about child discipline, and thrust his family's personal turmoil into public scrutiny.
Corpus Christi Caller, 3 November 2011. Here‘s the PDF of the letter.
Perhaps Hillary Adams should explain, if she felt she was raised by a tyrannical father, a claim shared with no one until five years after adulthood, why she insisted on living with her father and not her mother from the time of her parent's divorce, until she moved out on her own. Hillary Adams has been living on her own for some time, and has been an adult for almost six years, so why post the video in late 2011?
I dunno.
The Secret Lives of Judges (corrected and updated)
Disturbing video of Aransas County, Texas Judge William Adams abusing his teenage daughter.
After watching some of that (I couldn't watch the whole thing), you may be happy to learn that the statute of limitations on felony injury to a child runs until ten years after the child turns 18. [I had it in my head that the child was 14 at the time of the assault. She was 16, which means that this incident was not injury to a child. It may have been an assault, an aggravated assault, or an injury to a disabled person, each of which has a limitations period of less than seven years. I hesitate to point this out because-just watch-the Texas Legislature will now extend the limitations period for all assaults, or lower the age at which someone is still considered a child for purposes of the injury-to-a-child statute, or otherwise do something to put more people into prison.]
This was not the first time Adams abused his child. If there were evidence that it had happened before she was fourteen years old, he would still be indictable. Aransas County District Attorney Patrick Flanigan could summon mother and child before a grand jury, and ask them about similar incidents before the child's fifteenth birthday. If there were (it's possible that their were not-Adams might simply be a frustrated pedophile who started beating his child when she became physically attractive to him), Adams could be indicted, and the state could argue for the admission of the unindicted assault videotape under Rule 404(b).
The BAT Van Show-Cause Order
Here (PDF) is the order requiring one of two Harris County prosecutors to appear before the 185th District Court, along with two grand-jury court reporters, next Monday
to show cause why he should not be held in contempt and/or sanctioned under the Court's inherent powers for (1) violating this Court's October 18, 2011, order denying the Harris County District Attorney access to the Harris County Grand Jury for the 185th District Court, August Term; (2) violating this Court's October 26, 2011, orders disqualifying the Harris County District Attorney and her office from participating in the 185th Grand Jury's investigation of possible criminal conduct by members of the Harris County District Attorney's Office; and (3) violating Chapter 20 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure.
Why?
It has now come to this Court's attention that members of the Harris County District Attorney's Office may be in possession of official transcripts of testimony from witnesses who appeared before the Harris County Grand Jury for the 185th District Court, August Term.
Live by the Hatchet, Die by the Hatchet
In Harris-County-Prosecutor Land, there is a strong current of belief that Kelly Siegler a) should have won the 2008 Republican Primary instead of Pat Lykos; b) should be DA now; and c) should challenge Lykos for the position in 2012. Prosecutors who don't find the Lykos DA's Office as amiable a place to work as the Rosenthal DA's Office was see Siegler as their white knight, poised to ride in and bring back those good old days.
But Pat Lykos is politically formidable. Siegler could no more beat her in a primary now than she did in 2008. Nor could Mike Anderson, whose name is also bandied about by the wistful Rosenthal-Office alumni as a potential DA. Unless, that is, Lykos's office were rocked by a scandal that the public might care about.
A scandal like an indictment against the sitting DA.
A grand jury would be needed to hand down such an indictment, and in the ordinary course of things, with Harris County grand juries closely controlled by Harris County prosecutors, a grand jury would never do so.
Houston DWI “BAT” Vans—A Timeline
(A chronology of Breath Alcohol Testing, or BAT, Vans in Houston. To be updated as more information comes in. If you have a suggestion for the timeline, please leave it in the comments.)
November 2007: Houston City Council approves $250,000 expenditure for six "BAT Lab" vans (in February 2008 the story was at <http://www.khou.com/news/local/crime/stories/khou071114_tj_mobiledwi.44e23db.html>; it is no longer).
20 November 2010: An HPD BAT Van is working the Renaissance Festival.
18 February 2011: Houston criminal-defense lawyer Paul Kennedy asks:
[H]ow much testing is performed to determine whether moving the machine from location to location affects its ability to do whatever the hell it's supposed to do? How much testing is performed to determine if the communications systems in the BATmobiles interferes with the machine's innards? How much testing is performed to determine if the machines are affected by the ambient air both inside the van and outside in the real world? More importantly, has the (pseudo)scientific director of the DPS approved this new initiative?
¡Que Pendejosidad!
From page 26 of Joseph Rakofsky's sworn Affidavit in Support, between his Notice of Motion and his Amended Complaint (OCRed copy of all 347 pages here, 55.4MB):
MOTION FOR SANCTIONS131. On or about May 9, 2011, plaintiffs retained Richard Borzouye, Esq. to represent them in this matter.132. Richard Borzouye has breached various rules of professional conduct, deviated from standards of care, and otherwise acted wrongfully, causing damages and prejudice to plaintiff.133. First of all, after noticing his appearance for plaintiffs, Borzouye abruptly sought to withdraw his appearance only a couple of weeks into his representation of plaintiffs.134. Plaintiffs relied to their detriment on Borzouye's representation and now have been required to spend time and money to retain replacement counsel.135. Furthermore, Borzouye undertook to make secret communications to an individual with whom he was specifically admonished and specifically instructed by Plaintiff Rakofsky to refrain from communicating, who sought to represent certain defendants, but was not admitted to practice law in New York, and therefore, was not yet admitted to practice in the case at Bar, which were damaging to plaintiffs' case and clearly should not have been made.136. The result of the communications was that defendants and/or their attorneys posted various comments on the internet that were damaging to plaintiffs and that certain defendants were exposed to various aspects of Plaintiffs' strategy.137. Rule 1.1 of the Rules of Professional Conduct provides that a lawyer shall not intentionally prejudice or damage the client during the course of his representation.138. Rule 1.6 of the Rules of Professional Conduct provides that a lawyer shall not knowingly reveal confidential information.139. Borzouye's secret and extremely improper communications with the aforementioned individual were unnecessary and contained confidential information.140. Furthermore, Mr. Borzouye failed to disclose material information to plaintiffs before they retained him. Had the material information been revealed to plaintiffs, they would not have retained him, as Mr. Borzouye has demonstrated a long history of abandoning clients in the middle of litigation. In fact, at the hearing on September 15, 2011, even Judge Goodman acknowledged that Mr. Borzouye's refusal to attend the hearing evidenced his contempt for the rules of this Court and his patent pattern of completely neglecting his clients, who duly retained and compensated him for such representation and to protect their respective interests.141. Further, Mr. Borzouye failed to serve this Court's Order dated July 22, 2011 upon Plaintiffs in the manner and/or within the time limits directed by this Court in such Order.142. In addition, Mr. Borzouye failed to file the Retainer Statement for his representation of plaintiffs in this case.143. Mr. Borzouye failed both to provide to clients and to file any Letter of Engagement.144. Simply, Mr. Borzouye engaged in conduct in violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct.145. The above actions of Richard Borzouye, Esq. are wrongful and/or violations of professional rules, standards and duties, and have damaged plaintiffs.146. For these reasons, plaintiff respectfully requests that sanctions be imposed upon Borzouye, attorneys fees be awarded to plaintiffs in the amount of $10,000.00, and that this matter continue to be stayed until the stay is dissolved by this Court, as was decided at the hearing before Judge Goodman on September 5, 2011.
Falsus in Unum…
The criminal-defense lawyer's Christmas that started last week with a grand jury going rogue and evicting the prosecutors while investigating possible wrongdoing in connection with HPD's Breath Alcohol Testing, or BAT, vans, continues today with Pat Lykos giving the Houston Police Department a vote of no confidence:
Lykos tells us she still doesn't know what went wrong inside that grand jury room last week that nearly led to the arrest of two of her top assistants, despite the fact one of them was in the room with us during the interview. What she does know is that she no longer wants HPD supervising its own DWI vans."That's what perturbs me," she said.Lykos told us Monday she's done trusting HPD to tell her the truth about DWI testing."We were never informed there were questions about whether the tests were valid," Lykos said.
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
