This section went all the way to the United States Supreme Court in Deal v. United States 113 S.Ct. 1993 (1993), in which Mr. Deal got a bad deal at court of 105 years in prison for possessing a firearm during five bank robberies. The Court explored whether “second or…
Thus, if you bring a firearm to a crime of violence or a drug trafficking crime, you will have a mandatory minimum of five years in prison. If you brandish it, which means show it or make it visible to other people, it goes up to a mandatory minimum of…
It is a very bad idea to possess a firearm while robbing a bank, committing any federal crime of violence, or trafficking drugs. Congress has imposed stiff, sometimes unconsciounable penalties for doing so. These include mandatory minimums that, with multiple offenses, could get your mandatory minimum sentence into centuries of…
These policies have changed the dynamics of DWI defense in Grayson and Collin County. When I started practicing, around half of DWI trials did not involve a chemical test, but now almost all of them do. Back then we would mainly argue over the performance and validity of the field…
While on this point, people often ask whether they should take a chemical test when arrested for driving while intoxicated. Our general response as defense attorneys is NO, because there are a lot of things that can go wrong with chemical testing. Both breath testing and blood testing are inexact…
However, this is not the case with a Grayson or Collin County, Texas DWI. Grayson County has a policy of no alternative charges for DWI, and I have never seen themgive a public intoxication or an obstruction of highway/passageway on a local driving while intoxicated charge. Theywould rather let a…
I haven’t written a DWI blog in a bit, so I think it is time to do an update. Grayson County, Texas are particularly strict jurisdictions when it comes to driving while intoxicated, but there are still ways to have a better case and a better result in your case. …
We cannot shut our eyes to the fact that, had the petitioner attempted to violate Proclamation No. 4 and leave the military area in which he lived, he would have been arrested and tried and convicted for violation of Proclamation No. 4. The two conflicting orders, one which commanded him…
In the dilemma that he dare not remain in his home, or voluntarily leave the area, without incurring criminal penalties, and that the only way he could avoid punishment was to go to an Assembly Center and submit himself to military imprisonment, the petitioner did nothing. June 12, 1942, an…
On March 2, 1942, the petitioner, therefore, had notice that, by Executive Order, the President, to prevent espionage and sabotage, had authorized the Military to exclude him from certain areas and to prevent his entering or leaving certain areas without permission. He was on notice that his home city had…