Dallas Criminal Defense Lawyer Blog

The trial did not end the way I wanted. Hopefully, the appeal will go better.

In the case I tried, the arrest was made on 11/27/2005. The officer had no recollection of the facts in this case. He admitted that he had spent the week before trial memorizing his police report. The officer admitted that his testimony was based on that report.

Problem- Police reports are not admissible by the State in a criminal case. The officer was reciting a memorized report. My objections were overruled.

Quit letting the cops search your car. You have no idea what is in your car. Think of all the crazy people who ride in your car. Some of them use drugs. You might use drugs. Either way, just say no to consent searches.

A cop asking to search your vehicle will usually do so very politelty. A common appraoch is- “You don’t have any drugs or guns in your car do you? Then you don’t mind if I search your car do you?”

Of course you mind. It’s your car. Do you routinely let strangers go through your things?

According the FBI’s Uniform Crime Report police arrested over 826,000 marijuana consumers last year. The War on Cannabis is a war on ourselves. These are our friends, family, and loved ones we are arresting.

George W. Bush, Barack Obama, Newt Gingrigh, Al Gore, and most college students have smoked marijuana. Should they all have been incarcerated?

We once believed in limited government. Now we try and incarcerate our way to utopia. I am embarrased by these arrest numbers. But I was once part of the problem.

The DEA continues their consensual crime crusade. This time they made 120 arrests in an “illegal” steroid investigation.

Who cares if adults use steroids? Is it wrong only because it is illegal? Is that the moral justification to ruin lives with incarceration?

A fellow Texas Tech law grad, Karen Tandy, runs the DEA. Watch her try and justify this “bust” by pointing out externalities that are caused by Prohibition.

Do you watch Jeopardy? On Jeopardy they give you the answer and the contestants guess the questions.

DWI field sobriety tests are performed just like Jeopardy. You see the answer to the field sobriety tests in that the officer attempts to perform them for you (although they routinely make mistakes). But the officer never tells you what the question is; suspects are never told what they will be graded on.

For example, in the One Leg Stand Test the NHTSA manual tells officers to count the following as clues the suspect is intoxicated-

In Economics, the principle of opportunty cost states that the cost of something is the value of other foregone opportunities.

Example-You went to the movies this afternoon. You could have exercised, worked, mowed the lawn etc. Those missed opportunities are opportunity costs.

The War on Drugs has opportunity costs also. Every law enforcement resource wasted on Prohibition can not be used on anything else.

In Texas, discovery in criminal cases is limited. The State does not have to turn over much of the evidence used to prosecute. For example, in Texas the defendant does not have the right to obtain a copy of the police report in a case.

Attempts by defense counsel to obtain discovery are frequently thwarted by judges and prosecutors.

Defendants have less discovery rights than parties in a divorce case. Why? We are not prosecuting Al Qaeda in Texas State Court. There is no national security at stake. The State has no need for secret evidence.

Have you ever wanted to see the Intoxilyzer 5000 without being arrested? Here it is. The Bill of Rights is under assault by an Atari 2600.

How does it work? Here is the operator manual.

Is it accurate? We don’t really know. The State’s Conviction machine runs on secret software that has not been independently reviewed for errors.

I get that question often. The idea being that our system is so perfect that it is an insult to the God of Law Enforcement to defend the guilty. In my experience this sentiment is common but without much intellectual foundation.

How do I respond? I do not believe in the moral superiority of law enforcement. I see the War on Drugs as an injustice. I see DWI enforcement as a threat to liberty. How could I not defend the victims of Prohibition or Neo Prohibition?

Furthermore, it is not my job to adjudicate guilt. Judges and juries pronounce such verdicts, not criminal defense lawyers. I present my client with options and advise. If my client believes himself guilty (or the evidence overwhelmingly points to guilt) I still seek the best outcome.