Friday, April 15, 2005

TEXARKANA COA REVERSES CONVICTION ON CHILD PORN CASE, BAD SEARCH WARRANT (Elardo v. State)

"Reliable Source" is reliable because the source is reliabe . . . get it?

Mr. Elardo was convicted of multiple counts of child porn possession and sentenced to 20 years TDC.

The daughter-in-law of Mr. Elardo's wife tipped off police to child porn in Mr. Elardo's home. The police went to their local Justice of the Peace (not licensed to practice law) who signed their search warrant. The search warrant stated that the informant was a "reliable source", but stated no other facts in support of this contention. Justice Ross wrote that such a statement was conclusory without any "basis of knowledge" contained in the search warrant indicating the trustworthiness of this informant. The State urged the court to apply a more relaxed standard on the reliability issue because the informant was a private citizen whose only contact with the police was to witness a crime. Justice Ross declined, noting that there is nothing in the search warrant affidavit that puts this informant into the good samaritan category of tipster.


Texas Judiciary Online - HTML Opinion

Sunday, April 10, 2005

"DEGARMO DOCTRINE" ON THE WAY OUT?

Are appellate rights waived if a Defendant is convicted and he or she admits guilt in punishment? In Degarmo v. State, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals ruled that a Defendant who admitted guilt in the punishment phase of his trial could not later appeal based upon insufficient evidence.

The Corpus Chrisi Court of Appeals recently rejected the "Degarmo Doctrine." In a well reasoned opinion, Judge Garza noted that the Court of Criminal Appeals' 1985 opinion was really just dicta on the waiver issue and declined to apply this oft cited and feared rule.

I feel confident that the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals will weigh in on this issue. Read the opinion below:

Texas Judiciary Online - HTML Opinion
ABC News: Judge Sentences Spammer to Nine Years

This is the first felony prosecution resulting in conviction against a spammer for junking up your inbox. However, it doesn't sound like the judge is very confident the conviction will survive appeal.