Articles Posted in Gun Cases

In the realm of criminal defense law, seemingly small intricacies can often mean the difference between conviction and acquittal. A recent case from Texas sheds light on the significance of corroborating testimony when evaluating evidence, exemplifying the essential role played by a skilled criminal defense attorney. This case underscores the importance of understanding how corroborative evidence is assessed under the accomplice-witness rule, as well as the admissibility of expert testimony.

The Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, Article 38.14, underscores the principle that testimony from an accomplice requires corroboration through additional evidence connecting the accused with the crime. This rule acts as a safeguard against wrongful convictions by ensuring that accusations from accomplices are supported by reliable evidence. To evaluate such a case, the court must eliminate accomplice testimony from consideration and analyze the remaining evidence to determine if it connects the accused to the crime.

In the recently decided case, the defendant was implicated in a capital murder case. The case hinged on corroborative evidence supporting the testimony of an accomplice. The court highlighted that the corroborating evidence doesn’t need to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, but it must establish a connection between the defendant and the crime. As a result of the ruling, the defendant’s conviction will stand.

The right for Americans to keep and bear arms is a fundamental right that is protected by the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Although the right to bear arms is sacrosanct, there are exceptions and restrictions to gun ownership that have been upheld in the courts. Federal laws have been in effect for decades that prevent domestic violence offenders and respondents in valid protective orders from owning or possessing firearms. A Texas man’s recent challenge to a conviction under this law may result in a complete overhaul of these commonly used ownership restrictions for domestic violence prevention.

The defendant from the recently decided case was found to have firearms in his possession after a search warrant was issued for his residence in early 2021. The defendant had agreed in 2020 to a civil protective order preventing him from contacting or harassing an ex-girlfriend. Federal law prohibits persons subject to such protective orders from owning or possessing firearms. After the search, the defendant was arrested on federal charges and was ultimately convicted of the crimes as charged.

The defendant appealed his conviction, arguing that the federal law prohibiting him from firearm ownership was unconstitutional. Although the defendant’s constitutional arguments initially failed, the federal law on this issue changed when the U.S. Supreme Court decided New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen in 2022. In Bruen, the highest federal court created a new framework for evaluating the constitutional validity of firearms restrictions. Under the Bruen standard, the government had an increased burden in demonstrating the constitutionality of gun regulation statutes.

In a recent firearm case coming out of a Texas court, the defendant appealed his conviction, arguing that the officer that found a firearm in his car did not have the right to pull him over in the first place. Because the officer illegally conducted the traffic stop, argued the defendant, the evidence found as a result of the traffic stop should have been suppressed. The court of appeals disagreed with the defendant, affirming the original conviction.

Facts of the Case

According to the opinion, the defendant was driving one evening when an officer pulled him over at a major intersection. The officer informed the defendant that he made a wide right turn, swerving into an adjacent lane as a result of the turn. As the officer spoke to the defendant, he noticed the smell of marijuana and decided to conduct a search of the vehicle.

Upon looking inside the car, the officer found a firearm in the glove box. The officer gave the defendant Miranda warnings, and the defendant admitted that he knew he had the firearm in his glove box. The defendant explained to the officer that he was holding the firearm for a friend temporarily. The defendant was charged and convicted of possession of a firearm.

Continue reading