Articles Posted in Criminal Appeals

I knew in law school that I was going to be a criminal defense lawyer. My criminal law class was a painful study in how our constitutional rights were sacrificed to help save dope cases. Decades of weakening the 4th and 5th amendment (to the point of absurdity) all in the name of WOD. I wish I had my notes for that class, I remember writing “court oks search because cops find drugs, create new exception” etc.

One such tragedy was the line of “automobile” exceptions. Basically, driving a car meant you gave up your privacy rights so cops could search for drugs.

That is why today’s case, Arizona v. Gant is significant. SCOTUS overturns (or “declines to interpret broadly”) bad precedent and actually limits police searches.

Court of Criminal Appeals judge Sharon Keller has been described as “Texas’ Judge Dread”. A self described “pro prosecutor” judge who not only shown a reckless disregard for innocence claims, but infamously closed the courthouse denying a death penalty appeal for Michael Richards.

From the Star Telegram-

Fort Worth State Rep. Lon Burnam filed a resolution this afternoon calling for the impeachment of Texas Court of Criminal Appeals Presiding Judge Sharon Keller.

SCOTUS has a sorry history of eviscerating constitutional protections to save dope cases. Today’s case, Herring vs. US, is textbook SCOTUS drug war/police apologetics.

Facts-

The police really wanted to arrest Herring because they had arrested him before. Once a criminal always a criminal right? The police knew that Herring was going to the impound lot to visit his car and wanted to arrest him before he left. Herring wasn’t breaking any law. How could these cops arrest Herring without evidence of any crime?

First, a capital murder primer. Capital murder cases are those in which the death penalty is available, but not required. If the State waives the death penalty and a defendant is convicted of capital murder, the sentence is automatic life in prison.

On capital appeals it too often seems that the goal is to save the conviction and find/make law to effect that purpose. That’s why this decision was so remarkable. Roberts vs. State involves a bad person, who did a bad thing, has no friends or connections politically, and no reason to expect sympathy from our highest criminal court. All Roberts had is dedicated defense lawyers, including an assistant Dallas Public Defender who represented him in the Court of Criminal Appeals, Chris Souza. Mr. Souza wrote an excellent brief with a simple request- uphold the law.

Facts- Roberts shot and killed a woman in her apartment. The woman was pregnant with an embryo. The embryo died. The state’s medical witness testified that you could not tell this woman was pregnant by looking at her. The defendant did not know the woman was pregnant. Roberts was convicted of capital murder for the intentional killing of two people.