713-224-1747
Recent Blog Posts
Welcome to the Blog, Amy Reynolds
"Amy Reynolds" of WUFSD to me:
I saw that your website http://www.bennettandbennett.com has accepted guest posts in the past and I would like to write one for you as well. I looked at your site, but I did not see a link to any submission criteria for guest posts. If I missed it, I apologize...... Best regards,
(That last image, for those reliant on text, begins, "This email is intended to be confidential and is intended for the addressed recipient only. The contents are intended to propose a relationship and not to sell or promote a good or service or to promote the contents of a particular website." It gives the address of WUFSD as "2885 Sanford Ave. SW #18540, Grandville, MI 49418." That address is a mail-forwarding company.)
My response to Amy Reynolds:
You mean this site?:/2011/10/your-latest-trick-with-bonus-lawyers.html
Amy's reply:
Your Latest Trick (With Bonus Lawyers)
Today:
I saw that your website FirstCreditCardResource.org has accepted guest posts in the past and I would like to write one for you as well. I looked at your site, but I did not see a link to any submission criteria for guest posts. If I missed it, I apologize.I am willing to write an article for your website on any topic you choose. In exchange for the article, I would ask that you allow me to place a discrete link to my website in the signature line at the bottom of the post.You do not need to do anything. I will research and prepare a unique article with great content that your readers will find timely and relevant. Then you can evaluate my writing and article and make sure that it fits your website's style, content, and quality. I am confident that it will.If you are interested in seeing the kinds of articles that I have written in the past, I can send you some examples.Best regards,Amy ReynoldsEmail: Amy ReynoldsOutreach CoordinatorWebsite: Gay Dating SitesHouston, TXAmy Reynolds is a proud member of WUFSD and has been a member since 2011."Get In S.T.E.P. Community Safety Takes Every Person."
False Flags and Simpletons
An Iranian man makes contact with a pretend Mexican killer, and arranges for the killing of the Saudi ambassador to the U.S.; the Iranian man makes it clear to his contact, who is to participate in the killing, that people in Iran were backing the plot.
It is plain to me, reading the complaint in the Arbabsiar case, that whoever was behind the arrangements to kill the Saudi ambassador either intended to implicate Iran or was highly incompetent: if the killing had happened, there would have been a big flashing neon arrow pointing right at Iran.
A simpleton of the first degree would say, "the evidence points to Tehran, so Iran must be responsible."
A simpleton of the second degree would say, "whoever is responsible tried hard to make us think that Iran is responsible, so Iran must not be responsible."
A simpleton of the third degree would say, "whoever is responsible tried hard to make us think that Iran is responsible so that we would not believe Iran is responsible, so Iran must be responsible."
Other States' Offenses Requiring Sex Offender Registration in Texas
Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Article 62.003 provides:
(a) For the purposes of this chapter, the department is responsible for determining whether an offense under the laws of another state, federal law, the laws of a foreign country, or the Uniform Code of Military Justice contains elements that are substantially similar to the elements of an offense under the laws of this state.(b) The department annually shall provide or make available to each prosecuting attorney's office in this state:(1) the criteria used in making a determination under Subsection (a); and(2) any existing record or compilation of offenses under the laws of another state, federal law, the laws of a foreign country, and the Uniform Code of Military Justice that the department has already determined to contain elements that are substantially similar to the elements of offenses under the laws of this state.(c) An appeal of a determination made under this article shall be brought in a district court in Travis County.
Couplathree Thoughts
• This is taking "do not publish" just a little too far.
• "God called me to run for president" should be an automatic disqualifier. Also, you've been "brutalized" because you're a Christian? In America? Shut up. Furthermore,
Sociopaths are exceedingly selfish, over demanding, manipulative and exploitive and none of them has any remorse or guilt feelings. Sociopaths tend to lie, cheat take advantage and exploit and they always find some way to justify their behavior. They never blame themselves and they harbor paranoid suspicions and accusations of others. They believe that they are "innocent victims" of adverse conditions and/or hostile environments and they justify their hostile actions by the need to defend themselves.
Taking Back “Reasonable”
After writing this post, it occurred to me that, using allowable living-expense numbers from the IRS, the courts could create a rule of thumb for deciding whether defendants can afford counsel.
For a person with no dependents in Houston, the IRS Collection Financial Standards are:
$428 housing
$808 vehicle
$60 out-of-pocket health care
$534 clothes, hygiene, etc.
So just as someone taking home $1,830 or less a month would have no money to pay a delinquent tax liability, he has, presumptively, no money to spare to pay a lawyer. If you make less than $22,000 a year or $11 an hour after taxes, you should get court-appointed counsel without cavil.
If you take home more than that, you might or might not be indigent and entitled to a free lawyer; further inquiry is called for.
Don't Do This
Preservation of evidentiary error in a Texas criminal trial in a nutshell:
If a trial court hears objections to proffered evidence outside the jury's presence and rules that the evidence is admissible, the objections are deemed to apply to the evidence when it is admitted before the jury without the necessity of repeating the objections. Tex. R. Evid. 103(a)(1); Geuder v. State, 115 S.W.3d 11, 13–14 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003); Ethington v. State, 819 S.W.2d 854, 859 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). If the party did not preserve error through an objection outside the jury's presence, the party must continue to object each time the objectionable evidence is offered or make a running objection and get a ruling. Martinez v. State, 98 S.W.3d 189, 193 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003) (citing Ethington, 819 S.W.2d at 859); Fuentes v. State, 991 S.W.2d 267, 273 (Tex. Crim. App.), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 1026 (1999). Moreover, a trial court's erroneous admission of evidence will not require reversal when other such evidence was received without objection, either before or after the complained-of ruling. Leday v. State, 983 S.W.2d 713, 718 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998). This rule applies whether the other evidence was introduced by the defendant or the State. Id.
The Problem of the Working Poor, Illustrated
If you're making ten dollars an hour and working full time you need to try to hire a lawyer.
That was a Harris County Criminal Court at Law judge this morning, talking to a young man who was asking for court-appointed counsel. This-"ten dollars an hour and working full time"-and that he worked "for a contractor" is all the judge knew about the young man's financial situation, and all she needed to know. When she last had to work for $20,000 a year, it was worth a whole lot more than it is today.
But, since we are not judges, let's look a little more closely. Ten dollars an hour is $20,000 a year. That's below the poverty level for a family of four. This judge didn't know-and didn't feel any need to inquire-whether the young man (call him "Jose") was supporting himself, himself and a partner, or himself, a partner, and five kids.
That's Just How We Roll
Until recently, Texas Penal Code § 31.03 provided that theft is "a state jail felony if," among other things, "the value of the property stolen is less than $20,000 and the property stolen is insulated or noninsulated tubing, rods, water gate stems, wire, or cable that consists of at least 50 percent: (i) aluminum; (ii) bronze; or (iii) copper." But the new statute deletes the text from "insulated" to "50 percent," so that the new version now makes theft a felony when "the value of the property stolen is less than $20,000 and the property stolen is... (i) aluminum; (ii) bronze; (iii) copper; or (iv) brass."
(Volokh)
This is not the first time that the Texas Legislature has incompetently written a penal statute. It won't be the last time. Texas legislators are, after all, mostly products of Texas's public education system, and most of them were highly stupid to begin with. When the Texas Legislature manages to get it right, it's the exception rather than the rule. Sometimes it even passes statutes intending to do one thing but doing the exact opposite.
Guest Post: Sesha Kalapatapu on Rule 3.06
Lawyer (and HCCLA member) Sesha Kalapatapu wrote a short essay-apropos of Brian Wice's op-ed criticizing a prosecutor's post-trial conduct and the prosecutor's response-which I thought was too good not to share (with Sesha's permission, of course):
Nobody really knows what Brian "did" or "didn't do," or what Nathan "did" or "didn't do" unless you were there. All we can rely on is the first person account statements that Brian and Nathan gave. Here's what the accounts tell us as facts we can rely on, though: It's clear that the jury did not convict because they found the complaining witness to be credible enough to convict. It's clear, from Nathan's own account, that Dick DeGuerin was talking to the jury about that very subject, the complaining witness's credibility – i.e., what a "psycho" she was according to Nathan. It's not clear if Dick was talking about facts outside the record, but it's a fair assumption that he was only discussing evidence that the jury had already heard and considered relevant to the outcome. This is all fair and proper post-verdict conduct – ask the jury about the facts they received and how their weighted it, and possibly even tell the jury how you agree or disagree with how they weighted the evidence they heard. By contrast, It's clear that Nathan interjected because he believed it to be his "duty to explain the truth," and by "truth" he meant the facts that the jury WAS not allowed to consider. And that's the problem entirely - he has no such "duty to explain the truth" and in fact, he has an affirmative duty NOT to explain the truth to the jury in a manner inconsistent with the Court's limine instructions. Even if his purpose was not to embarrass the jury or to influence their future behavior, the entire body of Texas lawyers (not just the criminal defense bar) has already accepted and codified the principle that such "truth telling" behavior is in fact harmful to the process for reasons already discussed. So, whether he should or should not have done it isn't a debate at all. He should not have done it, and should be held accountable for it when he admits that he did it, and especially when he clearly indicates that he would do it again. Would any of us engage in a debate on barratry if a lawyer said, yeah I solicited a client, but I turned out to be the best lawyer for the client, I gave him a great outcome and so I'm not sorry and I'll do it again? Of course not. If you or he or anyone else wants to have a debate about the injustice of it all, pull a Thurgood Marshall and get the entire body of Texas lawyers - not just criminal lawyers, mind you - to change the Disciplinary Rule. Until then, the rest of us have a right to be outraged by his unapologetic attitude about the whole subject. And lastly, I'll be honest here – I was equally offended by his final comment about standing up for what's right "even if it isn't easy." Really, Nathan? Pick any cross section of defense lawyers, and I guarantee you would find people who really, truly stand up for what is right even when it isn't easy. The lawyers who report judicial misconduct and then go back into those same courtrooms. The lawyers who don't get paid but still doggedly defend their clients. The lawyers who couldn't get in exculpatory evidence, and then have to swallow the fact that their clients are going to jail while they desperately try to make sure they preserved the appropriate appellate arguments. The lawyers who sacrifice family and livelihood because otherwise, they would have to live with knowing that their mistakes could put innocent people in jail. These are all things that are right but not easy. Next time, please compare that with the difficulty of KEEPING YOUR MOUTH SHUT WHEN YOU LOSE, because I honesty don't see what's so difficult at all. Especially when there's a rule that requires you to keep your mouth shut. Prosecutors who lament the fact that it is "difficult" to put someone in jail are NOT people standing up for what is "right." They are the people who chip away at our constitutional rights, bit by bit, until it's "easy" to put any innocent person in jail, not just the people who are found guilty based on credible evidence presented in a truly adversarial context.
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
