Only Results Matter

supreme court.jpgYou have the right to counsel of your choice. If you can afford it, you need to hire the best attorney for your case that you can. Under current economic conditions, many cannot afford the attorney they need and must petition the court for counsel. If indigent by standards set in Texas, you are entitled to a court appointed attorney (but cannot choose which specific attorney).

Courts have an awesome (sometimes life and death) responsibility to appoint lawyers in capital case dedicated to going the extra mile to ensure that the accused truly has the most able assistance of counsel possible. The Code of Criminal Procedures sets the minimum qualification for such counsel. Additionally, the 6th Amendment to the US Constitution guarantees ALL persons accused of a crime the right to effective assistance of counsel. But what does this mean? Surely someone simply standing or sitting (or sleeping) by the client as the prosecutor buries him is not enough. You don’t get a lawyer just to hold your hand while you plead guilty, or even one to do an OK job but miss key facts.

Courts have held that you are, at a minimum, entitled to a lawyer whose performance in your case is reasonable under prevailing professional norms (mainly established by the American Bar Association) and whose representation does not prejudice your case. However, appellate courts presume that a lawyer’s representation is reasonable, and that most choices made in the course of representation are “trial strategy.” Lawyers will oftentimes lie about their errors (or motives for committing them) in post-conviction challenges to protect their reputation at the expense of their client’s freedom or life. That is the reality.

jail.jpgFalse accusations of sexual abuse plague our court system, locally and statewide, putting innocent people at risk of life in prison and wasting resources that could be used prosecuting legitimate cases. The typical false allegation case arises when kids are “coached” by an authority figure to make a false claim against another, with a motive for the adult to coach the child. Research shows that, after such coaching, children can start believing that the sexual assault took place the more often they are told (and tell themselves) the false story.

A case apparently on point is the Mineola Swinger’s case, which originated in Wood County, but went to trial in more prosecution-friendly Smith County, Texas. As reported on WFAA.com, the case began (supposedly) when four children in foster care accused a handful of adults of training them to perform sexual acts on stage at a nightclub in Mineola, a horrific tale which shocks the conscience upon reading its details.

However, the true background of the story is that these children’s professional foster parents, believed by defense lawyers to have coached the story, were themselves being investigated for abuse charges out of California during the relevant time period, and none of the children’s allegations have been corroborated by any evidence outside of the other children’s statements. Additionally, their foster mother was improperly allowed to sit in on their interviews by the Ranger investigating, further taining the evidence. Regardless, three citizens, based on the children’s testimony, trial court rulings which favored the State even when obviously contrary to clearly established law, and potential prosecutorial misconduct in suppressing key evidence favorable to the accused, several people were sentenced to life in prison. They were fortunate to have appellate lawyers who brought much of the misdeeds to light on appeal in State of Texas v. Patrick Kelly.

pills.jpgAmerica is a pill culture. Every day a large percentage of our population drives the highways of Texas under the care of prescription medication that can possibly effect their mental or physical abilities. Key word: possibly. Each individual is in the best position to use their judgment as to when they should or should not drive, but you should exercise caution when driving on prescription medication, because it can lead to a DWI arrest. If an officer believes that you have lost the normal use of your physical or mental faculties because of a certain drug, you can be arrested. This includes your own medication. Drugs such as “narcotics” and “painkillers” and “antidepressants/psychotropics” are ones that will get the closest look. And, most officers are not trained extensively on testing for the side effects of these drugs like they are trained to test for alcohol impairment.

Add in alcohol, which could possibly (again, possibly) increase the side effects of certain drugs, and things become much more difficult. Officers have a difficult time in judging how one medication interacts with another, or interacts with alcohol. The prejudice factor is very high, so err on the side of caution when choosing to drive with alcohol, and be much more careful when mixing it with prescription medications. There is a strong likelihood that a DWI stop will result in your arrest, and you will need a lawyer and a toxicologist to help the jury understand why you could have been okay to drive at that point.

If you or someone you know is facing criminal prosecution, please feel free to call me at 903-744-4252.

248031_pills.jpgI recently had the pleasure (and challenge) of representing a particular client that was charged with DWI 3rd or more in Fannin County. The case was unique because the client consented to a blood draw, and in client’s blood was half the legal limit of alcohol (.04), a narcotic analgesic (painkiller) and a central nervous system depressant (muscle relaxer). The State’s theory was “synergistic effect of the drugs,” i.e. that the combination of the drugs caused intoxication. The police officer testified to arresting client for failure to complete the field sobriety test to officer’s satisfaction, plus admission of alcohol and painkillers. However, the officer could not recognize the field sobriety manual for lack of being provided one at training. Also, the officer was also not trained on drug recognition, an additional training course for DWI detection due to drugs or a combination of drugs and alcohol.

Additionally, the lab tech who drew the blood admitted that a nurse could have been called pretty easily to test client’s vital signs and to test for intoxication by drugs plus alcohol. The chemist who tested the blood testified and admitted to the hour-long average time to peak ratio, i.e. that it takes about an hour from the last drink to reach your highest concentration. Another chemist testified to “potential side effects” of the narcotic analgesic and nervous system depressants, but admitted on cross that someone that had taken these types as long as client would have a pretty high tolerance level. Another chemist proved up the actual narcotic analgesic tablets found on client.

A pharmacist was called who also testified to the “potential” side effects of these drugs, but admitted that after a few years the narcotic analgesic in question could actually cause euphoric-like energy, and admitted to tolerance issues as well. All admitted that the levels in client’s blood were therapudic. Most admitted to the overt signs of intoxication by the drugs in question that we may have seen through a drug recognition exam (or simple medical exam), had client actually been tested (or his vital signs taken) at the hospital where the blood was drawn.

As Rick James said, “cocaine’s a helluva drug.” Federal crack-cocaine defendants can tell you it is much more dangerous than even Rick knows.

Crack-cocaine is the most harshly treated drug in the Federal criminal system. However, the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010Cocaine.jpg modified the super-unjust 100-1 crack-to-powder ratio for Federal guidelines and mandatory minimum sentencing purposes. Under the old law, drafted in the 80s during the so-called “crack cocaine epidemic,” the drug known as the cheap inner-city minority drug was punished by law 100 times more harshly than powder cocaine, known as a white, upscale drug. So, a person possessing or delivering 5 grams of crack-cocaine would face the same 5 year mandatory minimum sentence as a defendant possessing or delivering 500 grams of powder cocaine.

However, the new law reduces the crack-to-powder ratio from 100-1 to 28-1, so only about a fourth as racist as before. There is no evidence to my knowledge, and I cannot conceive, that crack is 28 times as addicting as powder. Twice, maybe three times is possible because Crack is a more pure form of the drug. But, crack cocaine defendants in the Eastern District of Texas, primarily minorities forum-shopped from the Dallas Division to the very Conservative Sherman Division, can sleep slightly better at night. The act was silent on whether it applies retroactively, i.e. to people already sentenced under the old laws.

Giffords.jpgWith the horrific news of the shooting of a United States Congresswoman and other innocent bystanders, many are asking whether and when her shooter will get the death penalty. The Federal Death penalty, although rarely carried out, is available for many types of crimes. As explained on the USDOJ website, these crimes generally include crimes in which “(1) the defendant is charged with a crime for which the death penalty is a legally authorized sanction, (2) the defendant intended or had a high degree of culpability with respect to the death of the victim, and (3) one or more aggravating factors specified in a statutory list are present in the case. The statutory aggravating factors include such factors as the commission of a killing in the course of another serious offense, the defendant’s having a prior criminal history involving serious violent offenses, the commission of a killing after substantial planning and premeditation, killing multiple victims, or endangering the lives of other persons (in addition to the person killed) in committing the crime. 18 U.S.C. 3591-93.(1)”
If US Representative Gabrielle Giffords does not survive, her shooter will be prosecuted under 18 U.S.C. 351 (murder of a member of Congress, an important executive official, or a Supreme Court Justice). However, since multiple federal employees were killed at the scene according to reports, if any were engaged in their duties (such as a congressional staffer assisting the representative in official business), the shooter can be death-penalty prosecuted under 18 U.S.C. 1114 (Protection of officers and employees of the United States). The general federal murder statute, 18. U.S.C. 1111, can also lead to the death penalty if the “death qualification factors” are proven.

Suprised.jpgI was sitting at court last week when I overhead a non-lawyer assistant at a district attorney’s office giving someone charged in a criminal case (a case that would be very hard to prove) advice about their case. Apparently, the person had somehow “waived” their right to an attorney and wanted to speak with the prosecutor’s office. She was getting advice on how long she would sit in jail when she “booked in and booked out” on her charges, which prompted me to ask why she didn’t have a lawyer. Texas law now requires courts to inquire as to waivers of attorneys and the court should ensure that the waiver is voluntarily, and the prosecutor’s office is not to encourage people to waive counsel. However, these new rules don’t mean much when citizens accused are afraid to ask for a lawyer to talk about their case.

If you are facing actual jail time, the Constitution GUARANTEES you the right to an attorney to not only talk to you about your case, but to defend your rights and to competently represent you at trial if you so choose. While some people might not take this right very seriously, if you are facing jail time, and YES, probation on a jail time case means jail time if you violate probation, YOU NEED A LAWYER. A court appointed lawyer has much more legal training and ability than a non-lawyer. Most courts seek to have competent counsel on their appointment lists because they do not want to have to re-try a case if a lawyer is found to have committed malpractice.

Thus, it is YOUR RIGHT and you should say NO to waiving your right to counsel. I have talked to many bailiffs who agree that they would not be found NEAR a courtroom without a lawyer. If you cannot afford a lawyer, the court must appoint one FREE OF CHARGE. Also, most attorneys give FREE initial consultations for criminal clients, so why not talk to one about what possible defenses you might have to a case? Pleading guilty is usually permanent, so why go in blind when our government guarantees you a right to counsel? Either hire one or see if you qualify for an appointed lawyer!

Fireworks.jpgLast week I had the pleasure of defending one of the finest young men I have ever represented. He was falsely accused of a horrible act and we were fortunate to have a wise jury who listened very attentively to our evidence and came to the correct conclusion. I am very glad this young man will forever have this accusation removed from his name and it never be spoken of again except by those who unlawfully attempted to do him a grave harm. He was very brave in insisting on his day in court in face of a very long potential sentence if convicted. Much thanks to all who helped me brainstorm our case.

1250281_wild_turkey.jpgI have much to be thankful for this Thanksgiving in Sherman, Texas. I am most thankful that I have such a good family support network in all I do, and that my family understands what I do for a living. It is sacrifice to work all the time to be a better lawyer and do the best job possible in each case, but it puts strains and distance on your relationships. However, the relationships with those you work for and work with grow and improve and it makes a difference in the long run. I heard a lawyer the other day say how hard they work NOT to get close to their clients, and I believe this is the opposite of what it takes to win as a lawyer, especially with clients facing horrible accusations. If you truly care for your client, that caring can become contagious in the courtroom. Jurors and judges can tell when a lawyer believes in what he is talking about and when he is just going through the motions.

I am very thankful for those who have helped my practice become what it is, and helped me become the lawyer I am. I am better able to serve people because of those who gave their time and effort to improving me as a person and a lawyer, and I cannot say how thankful I am for that. As iron sharpens iron, one man sharpens another.

Graves.jpgInnocent Texas death-row inmate Anthony Graves was released earlier this week from the Burleson County Jail. Mr. Graves was wrongly imprisoned for 18 years, most of it on death row, due to the horrendous behavior of dishonest and unethical prosecutors. As KHOU noted,
“The only evidence tying Graves to the killings was Carter’s testimony, and Carter recanted just before his 1998 execution. The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans overturned Graves’ conviction in 2006, ruling that prosecutors withheld evidence and elicited false testimony.”
Mr. Graves can take little comfort that he will get a pittance in compensation from the State of Texas for his time on death row due to suborning of perjury and hiding of evidence by those who swore an oath to “seek justice.” He does have a great civil rights claim under 42 U.S.C 1983 and 1985 for violation of civil rights and conspiracy to violate civil rights against those involved. Such claims cannot be brought until a criminal prosecution ends successfully for the defendant, so he is well within the statute of limitations. Hopefully those who prosecuted him are no longer lawyers, and certainly no longer criminal lawyers.

Contact Information