Criminal Law - Practice area
Criminal Law

DWI, Drugs, Assault, Probation Revocation, Sexual Offenses, Theft, Juvenile Defense. Felony and Misdemeanor Offenses in State and Federal Court

DUI - Practice area
DWI

Driving While Intoxicated, DWI and Your Drivers License Forney, Texas DWI Defense Lawyer.

Juvenile Law - Practice area
Juvenile Law

Sexual Offenses, Drug Offenses, Assault and Violent Crimes, Theft, Truancy/School Related Criminal Charges.

I’m on a suppression win streak. My last two suppression motions in marijuana cases have been granted. Like any other criminal defense attorney I have had more than a few motions to suppress denied. As a NORML legal committee member these marijuana victories are especially satisfying.

Aggregating these cases produces some general advice on being stopped and searched.

First, cops will often try and trick you into granting permission to search your car. You should NEVER consent to a police search of your vehicle.

Background- Read the original post

It seems that Texas prosecutors are in agreement that judges who do not sign off on their blood draw warrants must be removed. Police state apologist (and Williamson County DA) Jon Bradley weighed in with typical blood on the highway rhetoric.

A vehicle crashing into another vehicle, on the other hand, is considered a MAJOR intrusion into the life of an innocent person. If we wait for that to happen, then, amazingly, the prick of a needle is somehow “justified” to prove intoxication murder. For my money, I’d rather deal with forcing the MINOR intrusion before a drunk driver kills someone. So, tell that judge you are actually doing the defendant a favor. Then file the grievance.

Appellate court decisions do not get much MSM coverage. As a public service I will try and break down recent Texas appellate court cases for the non attorney. (This process is made much easier by TCDLA SDR report).

I’m often hard on appellate courts for making decisions I disagree with. However, I want to start this section with some great appellate decisions.

Green v. State, 2008 WL 1822393 (Tex.App.-Waco Apr 23, 2008)

The Court of Criminal Appeals is moving to abolish the special rule of criminal attorney-client privilege. This would leave defendants with a much weaker protection currently only used in civil cases.

Here is the law COCA is seeking to abolish-
Texas Rule of Evidence 503(b)(2)

(2) Special rule of privilege in criminal cases. In criminal cases, a client has a privilege to prevent the lawyer or lawyer’s representative from disclosing any other fact which came to the knowledge of the lawyer or the lawyer’s representative by reason of the attorney-client relationship.

The Court of Criminal Appeals has ruled (see their proposal here) that this protection will be deleted on September 1st, 2008. COCA has made this decision without any public input. The Texas Criminal Defense Lawyers Association was only notified of this decision after it was made.

This special rule has protected Texans since 1856. There is no reason to change it. This letter by Federal Public Defender Richard Andersondocuments the history and case law surrounding 503(b)(2).

You Can Help
Let these judges know that you do not want 503(b)(2) deleted. The deadline for public comments on this proposal is June 30th. You are the public, and I need you to comment.

Here is their contact information-
Judge Cathy Cochran, mailto:cathy.cochran@cca.courts.state.tx.us
Judge Tom Price, tom.price@cca.courts.state.tx.us
Judge Cheryl Johnson, cheryl.johnson@cca.courts.state.tx.us
Judge Larry Meyers, larry.meyers@cca.courts.state.tx.us
Judge Barbara Hervey, barbara.hervey@cca.courts.state.tx.us
Judge Charles Holcomb, charles.holcomb@cca.courts.state.tx.us
Or you may snail mail your letters to individual judges at:
Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, P.O. Box 12308, Capitol Station, Austin Texas 78711
It is bad enough that appellate judges rewrite the Constitution to destroy your rights, now they want to rewrite the rules of evidence.

Continue reading

Texas Governor Rick Perry has opined on the CPS YFZ disaster. What would Mr. Perry have to say to the hundreds of children who were wrongfully taken from their parents?

If responsibility needs to be taken for [court edicts] saying that we stepped across some legal line, I’ll certainly take that responsibility,” Mr. Perry said. “I am substantially less interested in these fine legal lines that we’re discussing than I am about these children’s welfare, that’s where my focus is. That’s where CPS’ focus is.”

How could someone call the law that protects parents from having their children arbitrarily stolen by CPS a “fine legal line”? Statist apologetics are built upon the tyranny of good intentions. Mr. Perry readily endorses this illegal compound raid based on phony evidence, sloppy police work, and religious profiling because CPS meant well.

Contact Information