Let's all stop for a minute and appreciate the efforts of the Dallas Morning News -- who released a report yesterday that summarized their 8 month investigation into 19 Dallas County convictions that were later overturned as being clearly WRONG because of DNA evidence.
These reporters asked the question -- why didn't the investigation or the prosecution reveal that an innocent man was being accused?
Journalists at the Dallas Morning News looked at the complete files of these 19 cases, all overturned because DNA has revealed that an innocent man was convicted of the crime. And these were serious crimes -- rape, murder.
What they found isn't pretty.
According to their own published report, in all but ONE of these wrongful convictions, the prosecutors chose to build their case on eyewitness testimony.
This, despite the longstanding and common knowledge among prosecutors and defense attorneys alike - as well as academics and researchers - that eyewitness accounts are simply unreliable.
You just can't trust eyewitness accounts of what happened. They're rarely accurate. Everyone knows this.
Which makes what they found all the more shocking ....
From the Dallas Morning News, in part:
1. Thirteen of the 19 wrongly convicted men were black. Eight of the 13 were misidentified by victims of another race. Police investigators and prosecutors in the cases were all white, as were many of the juries of the 1980s.
2. Police officers used suggestive lineup procedures, sometimes pressured victims to pick their suspect and then cleared the case once an identification was made.
3. Prosecutors frequently went to trial with single-witness identifications and flimsy corroboration. Some tried to preserve shaky identifications by withholding evidence that pointed to other potential suspects.
4. Judges, governed by case law that has not kept pace with developments in DNA testing or research on eyewitness testimony, routinely approved even tainted pretrial identifications as long as an eyewitness expressed certainty in court.
Here's the thing:
You just don't take a man's life, or his freedom, on a case that is dependent upon eyewitness testimony for a conviction. And, yet, the Dallas County Prosecutors thought this was a fine thing to do -- and did it for years, apparently.
(They're not alone. According to the Dallas County Morning News investigation, misidentifications have been cited as a key factor in an estimated 75 percent of the 220 wrongful convictions exposed by DNA testing nationwide since 1989. Looks like prosecutors across the country would rather get another win on their resumes than avoid trying a case that doesn't have much evidence except for eyewitness testimony.)
Thank you, Dallas Morning News. Specifically, thank you DMN reporters Steve McGonigle and Jennifer Emily. Thank you.
Sources:
Dallas Morning News
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/politics/local/stories/DN-DNAlineups_05pro.ART.State.Edition2.4a899db.html
Dallas Morning News
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/politics/local/stories/DN-DNAdetails_05pro.ART.State.Edition1.4a87484.html
Houston Chronicle
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/tx/6053228.html
New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/12/us/12dna.html?ref=us
Monday, October 13, 2008
Wednesday, October 08, 2008
Cop Watch: With Homeowners Like This Guy, Can The Cops Keep Up?
Over in Fort Worth, it's a whole new ballgame. A dangerous one.
Jim Cox, Homeowner, Is Ready for Action
Jim Cox is a FortWorth homeowner who makes a living as a weapons instructor, and he's got his house all ready for crime. He's installed video cameras around the place, and even when he's at home, those cameras are rolling and he's got the lights on.
Well, seems this past Monday morning around 11, a group of guys (the cameras caught 4 of them) pulled up in a minivan to Cox's house and one guy gets out, knocks on the door, rings the bell.
Jim Cox has just taken a shower, now he's finishing up his morning nap. All the lights are on.
The cameras then film a second guy joining the guy at the door, and they're shown kicking in the front door. Jim Cox has just come into his kitchen.
The next thing that the cameras pick up? These guys are running for the hills -- Cox has pulled out his semi-automatic and he's introduced himself.
Of course, Jim Cox reports that he "knew to hold his fire, ..." but " '[i]f they had confronted me, there would have been a noise.'"
Jim Cox's Home Video Available for Review Online
Now, Cox has printed up photos from this video, and he's sharing them with the neighborhood and the media: you can see his excerpts online at the link shown below.
And the Fort Worth police? They're reported to be "investigating the incident. "
The Reality - It's Dangerous for Everyone
This is a dangerous situation for everyone -- luckily, the only violence in this story appears to be the kick leveled against the front door. This homeowner could have been seriously injured, or killed -- or he could be facing criminal charges himself, for harming someone else.
But that's where we are these days, because there are a lot of folk out there that don't believe that they can leave their safety in the hands of their local law enforcement.
Source:
CBS11TV.com
(http://cbs11tv.com/local/North.Fort.Worth.2.834961.html)
Jim Cox, Homeowner, Is Ready for Action
Jim Cox is a FortWorth homeowner who makes a living as a weapons instructor, and he's got his house all ready for crime. He's installed video cameras around the place, and even when he's at home, those cameras are rolling and he's got the lights on.
Well, seems this past Monday morning around 11, a group of guys (the cameras caught 4 of them) pulled up in a minivan to Cox's house and one guy gets out, knocks on the door, rings the bell.
Jim Cox has just taken a shower, now he's finishing up his morning nap. All the lights are on.
The cameras then film a second guy joining the guy at the door, and they're shown kicking in the front door. Jim Cox has just come into his kitchen.
The next thing that the cameras pick up? These guys are running for the hills -- Cox has pulled out his semi-automatic and he's introduced himself.
Of course, Jim Cox reports that he "knew to hold his fire, ..." but " '[i]f they had confronted me, there would have been a noise.'"
Jim Cox's Home Video Available for Review Online
Now, Cox has printed up photos from this video, and he's sharing them with the neighborhood and the media: you can see his excerpts online at the link shown below.
And the Fort Worth police? They're reported to be "investigating the incident. "
The Reality - It's Dangerous for Everyone
This is a dangerous situation for everyone -- luckily, the only violence in this story appears to be the kick leveled against the front door. This homeowner could have been seriously injured, or killed -- or he could be facing criminal charges himself, for harming someone else.
But that's where we are these days, because there are a lot of folk out there that don't believe that they can leave their safety in the hands of their local law enforcement.
Source:
CBS11TV.com
(http://cbs11tv.com/local/North.Fort.Worth.2.834961.html)
Monday, October 06, 2008
DA Watch: Tarrant County DA's Office Held Back Favorable Evidence in Death Row Case for 23 Years
On Thanksgiving Day 1985, a bomb was left in a briefcase on the doorstep of a trailer in a mobile home park.
It exploded and killed three people (a 44-year-old man, his teenaged daughter, a teenaged relative) and severely wounded another (the victim's 13 year-old son).
On October 2, 2008, another bomb of sorts hit this case: the Tarrant County District Attorney's Office officially admitted that evidence favorable to the defense was intentionally held back -- and it was important stuff.
This evidence might have cleared Michael Toney -- who sat through a jury trial, was found guilty, was then sentenced to death, and who has sat on Death Row since 1999. That's 9 years on Death Row for a man who has consistently maintained his innocence of the crime.
The Evidence Against Toney
The bombing was an unsolved crime for 12 years. Then, an inmate came forward to say that Michael Toney was talking to him about this bombing -- when Toney was questioned, he said it was all a plan to help out the inmate get out of jail. He was helping his buddy, but he didn't make that bomb, or kill those people.
It's not disputed that there's no fact to connect Michael Toney to the victims. Didn't know 'em, didn't have a beef with 'em.
The only witness evidence against him was:
(1) an ex-wife (yeah, that's right) who said back then that she had seen Mike Toney with a briefcase near the mobile home park on the night of the bombing. Now, she's saying she can't remember anything because she's got memory loss from injuries sustained during her military service in the Gulf War; and
(2) his ex-best-friend, whose story has jumped more than popcorn on a hot skillet: he saw Toney at the mobile home park, no he didn't, yes, he did.... You get the idea.
I, for one, wonder about the relationship between the ex-wife and the ex-best friend -- but then, maybe I read too many Grisham novels. And that's before I even consider this mystery evidence, you'll see what I mean ....
What Was Held Back?
Back then, the Tarrant County DA saw fit to hide documents that showed inconsistencies in the stories of the ex-wife and the ex-best-friend. They just weren't provided to the defense.
There were 14 separate documents that were either exculpatory or impeaching evidence -- things that the defense attorney could have used to tear apart the stories of the ex-wife and the ex-best-friend.
What Happens Now?
Suppressing evidence violates civil rights protected by the U.S. Constitution. Mr. Toney has an argument that his federally protected civil rights involving due process have been violated.
Meanwhile, last Thursday, an "Agreed Proposed Findings of Fact," was filed before the same district court judge that presided over Torey's first trial. In this document (filed jointly by the DA's office and Torey's attorney), the Tarrant County District Attorney's Office admits its error, and a motion for a new trial has been set for hearing.
Torey could face a new trial. He could also have his conviction reversed by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, the highest court in the State of Texas dealing with criminal matters.
What About that 1985 DA who held back the evidence?
That DA, Mike Parrish, has since retired and he's not talking to the press.
What about that inmate-buddy who started this whole wagon train?
Dunno. I'm wondering how much he knew about this long ago Thanksgiving Day bombing ....
Source:
Dallas Morning News
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/localnews/stories/DN-toney_03met.ART0.State.Edition1.274a805.html
It exploded and killed three people (a 44-year-old man, his teenaged daughter, a teenaged relative) and severely wounded another (the victim's 13 year-old son).
On October 2, 2008, another bomb of sorts hit this case: the Tarrant County District Attorney's Office officially admitted that evidence favorable to the defense was intentionally held back -- and it was important stuff.
This evidence might have cleared Michael Toney -- who sat through a jury trial, was found guilty, was then sentenced to death, and who has sat on Death Row since 1999. That's 9 years on Death Row for a man who has consistently maintained his innocence of the crime.
The Evidence Against Toney
The bombing was an unsolved crime for 12 years. Then, an inmate came forward to say that Michael Toney was talking to him about this bombing -- when Toney was questioned, he said it was all a plan to help out the inmate get out of jail. He was helping his buddy, but he didn't make that bomb, or kill those people.
It's not disputed that there's no fact to connect Michael Toney to the victims. Didn't know 'em, didn't have a beef with 'em.
The only witness evidence against him was:
(1) an ex-wife (yeah, that's right) who said back then that she had seen Mike Toney with a briefcase near the mobile home park on the night of the bombing. Now, she's saying she can't remember anything because she's got memory loss from injuries sustained during her military service in the Gulf War; and
(2) his ex-best-friend, whose story has jumped more than popcorn on a hot skillet: he saw Toney at the mobile home park, no he didn't, yes, he did.... You get the idea.
I, for one, wonder about the relationship between the ex-wife and the ex-best friend -- but then, maybe I read too many Grisham novels. And that's before I even consider this mystery evidence, you'll see what I mean ....
What Was Held Back?
Back then, the Tarrant County DA saw fit to hide documents that showed inconsistencies in the stories of the ex-wife and the ex-best-friend. They just weren't provided to the defense.
There were 14 separate documents that were either exculpatory or impeaching evidence -- things that the defense attorney could have used to tear apart the stories of the ex-wife and the ex-best-friend.
What Happens Now?
Suppressing evidence violates civil rights protected by the U.S. Constitution. Mr. Toney has an argument that his federally protected civil rights involving due process have been violated.
Meanwhile, last Thursday, an "Agreed Proposed Findings of Fact," was filed before the same district court judge that presided over Torey's first trial. In this document (filed jointly by the DA's office and Torey's attorney), the Tarrant County District Attorney's Office admits its error, and a motion for a new trial has been set for hearing.
Torey could face a new trial. He could also have his conviction reversed by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, the highest court in the State of Texas dealing with criminal matters.
What About that 1985 DA who held back the evidence?
That DA, Mike Parrish, has since retired and he's not talking to the press.
What about that inmate-buddy who started this whole wagon train?
Dunno. I'm wondering how much he knew about this long ago Thanksgiving Day bombing ....
Source:
Dallas Morning News
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/localnews/stories/DN-toney_03met.ART0.State.Edition1.274a805.html
Wednesday, October 01, 2008
JUDGE WATCH: Galveston Federal Judge Sam Kent Indicted For Sex Crimes
Hurricane Ike isn't the worst of problems for Sam Kent, who presides as judge over the Federal District Court over in Galveston. Ike's actually been a big help to Judge Kent.
Judge Kent has been indicted (formally charged) with three crimes: (1) two counts of abusive sexual contact and (2) one count of attempted aggravated sexual abuse. His trial was initially set for the first week of November, in a Houston federal courtroom -- now that Ike's done its damage, the trial has just been moved back to January 2009.
First Federal Judge to ever be charged with federal sex crimes
Judge Kent is the first federal judge - ever - to be charged with federal sex crimes. If he is convicted, he could face life imprisonment and a fine of $250,000.00. Judge Kent is 59 years old.
What's the story? No one's denying something happened ...
Judge Kent's former case manager has said that the judge groped her, and tried to force her into a sexual act. The Department of Justice investigated, and these formal charges are the result of that investigation.
Judge Kent calls the charges “flagrant, scurrilous” (quoting the New York Times) and promises lots of witnesses will testify on his behalf. Judge Kent also told Fifth Circuit Judge Ed Prado, when he was asked to formally respond to these charges, “I plead absolutely, unequivocally not guilty and look very much forward to a trial on the merits.” (NYT)
His attorney, Dick DeGuerin, isn't denying that something happen between the judge and the employee; instead, DeGuerin has explained that what happened between them was consensual. “To charge Judge Kent of conduct of which he is absolutely innocent based on this kind of flimsy evidence is inexcusable and we will fight it to the bitter end,” DeGuerin said (quoting the Wall Street Journal).
In the meantime, the Judge is on the bench ....
Innocent until proven guilty, Judge Kent is still hearing cases from the bench.
Sources:
New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/04/us/04brfs-JUDGEPLEADSN_BRF.html?ref=us
Houston Chronicle
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/6027380.html
Wall Street Journal
http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2008/09/02/kent-not-spent-judge-to-continue-hearing-cases-pending-indictment/
Judge Kent has been indicted (formally charged) with three crimes: (1) two counts of abusive sexual contact and (2) one count of attempted aggravated sexual abuse. His trial was initially set for the first week of November, in a Houston federal courtroom -- now that Ike's done its damage, the trial has just been moved back to January 2009.
First Federal Judge to ever be charged with federal sex crimes
Judge Kent is the first federal judge - ever - to be charged with federal sex crimes. If he is convicted, he could face life imprisonment and a fine of $250,000.00. Judge Kent is 59 years old.
What's the story? No one's denying something happened ...
Judge Kent's former case manager has said that the judge groped her, and tried to force her into a sexual act. The Department of Justice investigated, and these formal charges are the result of that investigation.
Judge Kent calls the charges “flagrant, scurrilous” (quoting the New York Times) and promises lots of witnesses will testify on his behalf. Judge Kent also told Fifth Circuit Judge Ed Prado, when he was asked to formally respond to these charges, “I plead absolutely, unequivocally not guilty and look very much forward to a trial on the merits.” (NYT)
His attorney, Dick DeGuerin, isn't denying that something happen between the judge and the employee; instead, DeGuerin has explained that what happened between them was consensual. “To charge Judge Kent of conduct of which he is absolutely innocent based on this kind of flimsy evidence is inexcusable and we will fight it to the bitter end,” DeGuerin said (quoting the Wall Street Journal).
In the meantime, the Judge is on the bench ....
Innocent until proven guilty, Judge Kent is still hearing cases from the bench.
Sources:
New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/04/us/04brfs-JUDGEPLEADSN_BRF.html?ref=us
Houston Chronicle
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/6027380.html
Wall Street Journal
http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2008/09/02/kent-not-spent-judge-to-continue-hearing-cases-pending-indictment/
Monday, September 29, 2008
DA Watch: On Second Thought, Let's Drop All the Charges
This is a great story.
It all began last week, over in West Viriginia, when some poor guy got pulled over because he was driving with his headlights off.
After he was pulled over, the police suspected that this guy (let's call him "Jose" because that's his name - Jose Cruz) was driving drunk, so they had Jose do a few field sobriety tests.
Jose failed. Jose was arrested. The cops took him to jail.
At the jail, Jose was being fingerprinted (imagine how bad a day that Jose is having right about now) which is part of the standard booking process. He'd get photographed, too -- you've seen those mugshots over at TMZ.com, right? (Heather Locklear's is online today, for her DUI bust this weekend.)
Well, while Jose is getting his inky fingers smashed on the fingerprint boards, Jose let one go. You know what I mean. Jose passed gas. Jose let one rip. Jose cut the cheese. Jose broke wind.
Jose pooted or tooted, but there was absolutely no report that Jose asked the officer to pull his finger.
And then, yes folks, Jose was arrested for BATTERY because he passed gas while he was being booked. The cop that was standing there said that "the odor was very strong." You think?
I suppose that if Jose HAD asked the officer to pull his finger, then an assault charge would have been added ....
Of course, this story went all over the web that night. Drudge Report had it as one of their headlines, it was all over the blogs and forums -- you get the idea.
And, the next morning, one of the assistant prosecutors roamed into the magistrate's office and asked that the battery charge be dropped.
It was. Fancy that.
For more on this important topic:
FartsRFun
FartiFacts
FartSounds
It all began last week, over in West Viriginia, when some poor guy got pulled over because he was driving with his headlights off.
After he was pulled over, the police suspected that this guy (let's call him "Jose" because that's his name - Jose Cruz) was driving drunk, so they had Jose do a few field sobriety tests.
Jose failed. Jose was arrested. The cops took him to jail.
At the jail, Jose was being fingerprinted (imagine how bad a day that Jose is having right about now) which is part of the standard booking process. He'd get photographed, too -- you've seen those mugshots over at TMZ.com, right? (Heather Locklear's is online today, for her DUI bust this weekend.)
Well, while Jose is getting his inky fingers smashed on the fingerprint boards, Jose let one go. You know what I mean. Jose passed gas. Jose let one rip. Jose cut the cheese. Jose broke wind.
Jose pooted or tooted, but there was absolutely no report that Jose asked the officer to pull his finger.
And then, yes folks, Jose was arrested for BATTERY because he passed gas while he was being booked. The cop that was standing there said that "the odor was very strong." You think?
I suppose that if Jose HAD asked the officer to pull his finger, then an assault charge would have been added ....
Of course, this story went all over the web that night. Drudge Report had it as one of their headlines, it was all over the blogs and forums -- you get the idea.
And, the next morning, one of the assistant prosecutors roamed into the magistrate's office and asked that the battery charge be dropped.
It was. Fancy that.
For more on this important topic:
FartsRFun
FartiFacts
FartSounds
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
COP WATCH: It's Good to Be a Snitch in Dallas
Ladaryl Kelly sure led a charmed life -- for awhile.
Seems Kelly was best buds with a detective over at the Dallas County Sheriff's Department, a guy named Lonnie Cole. (I'm using the past tense here, because I'm doubting the friendship is as close now as it once was.)
Kelly Allegedly Protected by Cole
It was an interesting relationship. Ladaryl is purportedly a career outlaw: he's alleged to have robbed a couple of Subway sandwich shops in Irving; stolen cargo (and maybe even the 18-wheeler, too) in Waxahachie; as well as stealing a semi in a failed attempt to load up a bunch of plasmas TVs at an Ardmore, Oklahoma Best Buy.
And whenever Ladaryl's name came up -- in Oklahoma, Texas, or presumably elsewhere -- Detective Cole worked hard to keep Ladaryl out of any hassle with the authorities.
Ladaryl's alleged partners-in-crime could be busted left and right, and Ladaryl would fly away free, to chirp again on another day. Until now.
Snitch Heaven
Seems law enforcement in Waxahachie, Irving, and Ardmore, Oklahoma, have gotten togehter and compared notes - and none of them like Detective Cole's protection of Ladaryl.
There's talk of Cole stepping over the line, maybe even monkeying with investigations and hiding Ladaryl from investigators. Talk about snitch heaven.
Snitch is Busted, Detective is Investigated
Now, Detective Cole's being investigated by internal affairs and Ladaryl Kelly, identified by Cole as his long-time informant, has been indicted for his role in the Waxahachie aggravated robbery of the cargo truck.
Guess Mr. Kelly is going to be making lots of new friends now. Ratting out your pals to the cops, apparently as a routine career move, will probably make Kelly pretty darn popular in the local jail.
Source:
Dallas Morning News
(http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/082708dnmetinformant.3f5a5b9.html)
Seems Kelly was best buds with a detective over at the Dallas County Sheriff's Department, a guy named Lonnie Cole. (I'm using the past tense here, because I'm doubting the friendship is as close now as it once was.)
Kelly Allegedly Protected by Cole
It was an interesting relationship. Ladaryl is purportedly a career outlaw: he's alleged to have robbed a couple of Subway sandwich shops in Irving; stolen cargo (and maybe even the 18-wheeler, too) in Waxahachie; as well as stealing a semi in a failed attempt to load up a bunch of plasmas TVs at an Ardmore, Oklahoma Best Buy.
And whenever Ladaryl's name came up -- in Oklahoma, Texas, or presumably elsewhere -- Detective Cole worked hard to keep Ladaryl out of any hassle with the authorities.
Ladaryl's alleged partners-in-crime could be busted left and right, and Ladaryl would fly away free, to chirp again on another day. Until now.
Snitch Heaven
Seems law enforcement in Waxahachie, Irving, and Ardmore, Oklahoma, have gotten togehter and compared notes - and none of them like Detective Cole's protection of Ladaryl.
There's talk of Cole stepping over the line, maybe even monkeying with investigations and hiding Ladaryl from investigators. Talk about snitch heaven.
Snitch is Busted, Detective is Investigated
Now, Detective Cole's being investigated by internal affairs and Ladaryl Kelly, identified by Cole as his long-time informant, has been indicted for his role in the Waxahachie aggravated robbery of the cargo truck.
Guess Mr. Kelly is going to be making lots of new friends now. Ratting out your pals to the cops, apparently as a routine career move, will probably make Kelly pretty darn popular in the local jail.
Source:
Dallas Morning News
(http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/082708dnmetinformant.3f5a5b9.html)
Monday, September 22, 2008
JUDGE WATCH: Judge Priddy's Law License Suspended But He's Still On the Bench
Bruce Priddy is a state district court judge, presiding over civil cases in the 116th Judicial District Court of Dallas County, Texas. You can see him today, in his robes and on the bench, down at the courthouse (New Tower) on Commerce Street.
He hears non-criminal matters that can be complex and involve a lot of money. For example, this past June the Dallas company ICC Energy Corporation filed a big lawsuit in his court against Oklahoma City's Chesapeake Energy Corp (NYSE: CHK) claiming that Chesapeake breached a deal with ICC to market gas from the Barnett Shale at the Dallas-Fort Worth International Airport. Millions are at stake.
Presiding Judge Priddy's License Pulled for "Professional Misconduct"
What's interesting is that while Judge Priddy can preside over civil matters, ruling on motions made by attorneys, and accepting verdicts found by juries, he cannot practice law right now. His law license has been suspended by the State Bar of Texas for "professional misconduct."
Yes, that's right: in this State, a judge can still preside over a courtroom even if his law license has been suspended. For professional misconduct. Whoa.
Diane Jennings at the Dallas Morning News apparently thought this was strange, and asked the Executive Director of the State Commission on Judicial Conduct about the situation. Jennings reports that the director, Seana Willing, explained: "He was qualified when he stood for election ...[t]he fact that he, for the next three months, will have his license suspended, I don't think it's a constitutional disqualification."
Constitutional disqualification. Right.
Judge Priddy's Also Been Sued by the AG (Who Won) and His DUI Trial is Set for November
And guess what? Jennings has discovered that Judge Priddy:
2. In November 2007, Judge Priddy was arrested on suspicion of driving under the influence. That DUI case is scheduled for trial this November. According to the records, Judge Priddy told the cops that he has a "motor-coordination problem" and that he is diabetic.
Sources:
He hears non-criminal matters that can be complex and involve a lot of money. For example, this past June the Dallas company ICC Energy Corporation filed a big lawsuit in his court against Oklahoma City's Chesapeake Energy Corp (NYSE: CHK) claiming that Chesapeake breached a deal with ICC to market gas from the Barnett Shale at the Dallas-Fort Worth International Airport. Millions are at stake.
Presiding Judge Priddy's License Pulled for "Professional Misconduct"
What's interesting is that while Judge Priddy can preside over civil matters, ruling on motions made by attorneys, and accepting verdicts found by juries, he cannot practice law right now. His law license has been suspended by the State Bar of Texas for "professional misconduct."
Yes, that's right: in this State, a judge can still preside over a courtroom even if his law license has been suspended. For professional misconduct. Whoa.
Diane Jennings at the Dallas Morning News apparently thought this was strange, and asked the Executive Director of the State Commission on Judicial Conduct about the situation. Jennings reports that the director, Seana Willing, explained: "He was qualified when he stood for election ...[t]he fact that he, for the next three months, will have his license suspended, I don't think it's a constitutional disqualification."
Constitutional disqualification. Right.
Judge Priddy's Also Been Sued by the AG (Who Won) and His DUI Trial is Set for November
And guess what? Jennings has discovered that Judge Priddy:
1. also has the distinction of being the first sitting judge in the history of the State of Texas to be sued -- yep, sued -- by the Texas Attorney General. The Attorney General sued Judge Priddy and got judgments against the Judge for failing to file campaign finance reports with the state Ethics Commission. Judge Priddy got $39,000 in fines and after paying $31,500 to the Ethics Commission, the remaining $7,900 was recovered by garnisheeing his bank account. He still owes the State thousands in attorneys' fees, accrued interest, and a $500 late filing penalty.
2. In November 2007, Judge Priddy was arrested on suspicion of driving under the influence. That DUI case is scheduled for trial this November. According to the records, Judge Priddy told the cops that he has a "motor-coordination problem" and that he is diabetic.
Just one more example of how we're building confidence in the judicial system these days.
Sources:
Dallas Morning News
Reuters
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
CRIME NEWS: Will DNA Tests Free Johnnie Lindsey on Friday?
Let's hope Friday is a very, very good day for Johnnie Earl Lindsey.
That's because on Friday morning in the Crowley Courts Building, a judge may well order Mr. Lindsey's release from jail after Johnnie Lindsey's served almost 26 years for a crime he didn't commit.
That's right: they got the wrong guy back in 1981, for the rape of a 28-year-old woman near White Rock Lake. The victim identified Johnnie Lindsey as her rapist based upon six photos; only two photos showed men without shirts on (her rapist was shirtless) and Johnnie was one of those two.
Just one more example of how faulty eyewitness testimony can be.
No one listened to Mr. Lindsey when he argued that it couldn't have been him: he was at work at the time (he pressed pants and things at a commercial laundry and cleaners). Until now.
Thanks to The Innocence Project, Johnnie Lindsey's DNA has been compared to the DNA evidence from the crime scene. DNA has scientifically ruled out Mr. Lindsey as the rapist.
According to the Innocence Project, Johnnie Lindsey will be the 19th man in Dallas County to be cleared of a crime, after being convicted, since 2001.
The Integrity of Johnnie Lindsey
Mr. Lindsey is now 56 years old, setting in a jail cell assumedly relieved that the innocence he's been proclaiming though two jury trials and countless parole hearings has been recognized.
And why wasn't he released on parole long ago? Because of the severity of the crime, and the fact that he would not admit that he was guilty of raping anyone.
Johnnie Lindsay sat in jail since rather than confess to something that he didn't do, in order to gain his freedom. I think that's called integrity in some circles. Imagine that.
Think of it. Think of how long this man held onto his innocence, despite the sacrifice. To give you an idea, back in 1981:
Seems cruel and unusual that Mr. Lindsey has to wait until Friday, doesn't it? And, to Mr. Lindsey: good luck to you, sir, and God Bless.
Sources:
DallasMorningNews
(http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/localnews/stories/091608dnmetlindsey.173e456.html)
The Innocence Project
(http://www.innocenceproject.org/)
That's because on Friday morning in the Crowley Courts Building, a judge may well order Mr. Lindsey's release from jail after Johnnie Lindsey's served almost 26 years for a crime he didn't commit.
That's right: they got the wrong guy back in 1981, for the rape of a 28-year-old woman near White Rock Lake. The victim identified Johnnie Lindsey as her rapist based upon six photos; only two photos showed men without shirts on (her rapist was shirtless) and Johnnie was one of those two.
Just one more example of how faulty eyewitness testimony can be.
No one listened to Mr. Lindsey when he argued that it couldn't have been him: he was at work at the time (he pressed pants and things at a commercial laundry and cleaners). Until now.
Thanks to The Innocence Project, Johnnie Lindsey's DNA has been compared to the DNA evidence from the crime scene. DNA has scientifically ruled out Mr. Lindsey as the rapist.
According to the Innocence Project, Johnnie Lindsey will be the 19th man in Dallas County to be cleared of a crime, after being convicted, since 2001.
The Integrity of Johnnie Lindsey
Mr. Lindsey is now 56 years old, setting in a jail cell assumedly relieved that the innocence he's been proclaiming though two jury trials and countless parole hearings has been recognized.
And why wasn't he released on parole long ago? Because of the severity of the crime, and the fact that he would not admit that he was guilty of raping anyone.
Johnnie Lindsay sat in jail since rather than confess to something that he didn't do, in order to gain his freedom. I think that's called integrity in some circles. Imagine that.
Think of it. Think of how long this man held onto his innocence, despite the sacrifice. To give you an idea, back in 1981:
1. Ronald Reagan was President;
2. Dallas was the most popular TV show;
3. "Bette Davis Eyes" by Kim Carnes won a Grammy as the Record of the Year (that's right, record);
4. Chariots of Fire won the Oscar for Best Picture, and Henry Fonda and Katherine Hepburn won Oscars for their acting in On Golden Pond; and
5. Marcus Allen won the Heisman trophy and the Oakland Raiders won the Super Bowl.
Seems cruel and unusual that Mr. Lindsey has to wait until Friday, doesn't it? And, to Mr. Lindsey: good luck to you, sir, and God Bless.
Sources:
DallasMorningNews
(http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/localnews/stories/091608dnmetlindsey.173e456.html)
The Innocence Project
(http://www.innocenceproject.org/)
Monday, September 15, 2008
CRIME NEWS: Can Casey Anthony Get A Fair Trial and Why We Should Care
Casey Anthony may have never set foot in our fair State of Texas, but what she's experiencing over in Orlando, Florida, is coming into our homes on a daily basis.
And that's good -- because we all need to be watching to see how Casey Anthony's rights are being respected over there in Florida. Because her loss of rights today does impact upon your rights, as well.
Your rights are only as safe as hers are.
What's This Case About?
The bottom line to the case is Casey Anthony's 3 year old daughter, Caylee, has been missing since June and mom Casey didn't report her missing until 31 days later - and then, she tagged onto a 911 call made by her mother, and the little girl's grandmother, Cindy Anthony.
Since that 911 call, Casey Anthony has been charged with child neglect, filing a false statement, and check fraud. She's out on bond in excess of $500,000 and is currently on house arrest in her parents' home, spending her days in the law offices of her attorney, Jose Baez.
What's Her Attorney Been Doing?
1. This past Thursday, Baez filed a motion seeking a court order to stop the prosecution's testing and handling of forensic evidence until the Judge can set rules on how this testing should occur. Baez is arguing that forensic testing can destroy the forensic samples, and he wants the Judge to oversee how this key evidence is tested, as well as what methods are used. Baez also wants a member of his defense team to observe the testing.
Why is Baez requesting all this -- even before his client is charged with anything BASED upon this evidence? He's urging that this court oversight is needed to protect Anthony's right to a fair trial.
Of course, pundits are critical of Baez's motion (just listen over at Nancy Grace) because this type of motion usually isn't filed until the client has been charged with something correlated to the forensic testing. The soil and carpet samples from her car, much less the air (yes, air) from the car's trunk, presumably connect to some type of murder charge - not the current charges that Anthony is facing.
Still, given what Baez has already seen, his motion isn't a surprise ....
2. Baez filed a Motion to Decrease the Half-Million Dollar Bail earlier, and not only was that denied by the trial court but the appellate courts upheld the bond amount. Remember, excessive bail is prohibited by the U.S. Constitution and Casey Anthony is only charged with two things in connection with this bond amount: child neglect and giving false information to the police. This is an extremely high bond for these charges.
3. Baez filed a Motion to suppress audio and video recordings of Casey Anthony communicating with family and friends while at the jail, arguing that releasing this to the press would inhibit his client's ability to get a fair trial. The Motion was denied.
What's At Stake Here?
At the time of this post, not only have the jailhouse communications been released to the media, but there's also 400 pages from the police investigation files (incident reports, etc.) readily available on the web, along with audios of interviews between the detectives and Casey Anthony. Additional charges have been made against her -- more economic charges, for writing bad checks, etc.
At the Anthony home, protesters yell and carry handwritten signs ("BabyKiller") 24/7, and one "blogger" was filmed taking away the Anthonys' trash and later combing through it for "evidence."
The neighbors' lives, as well as the Anthony family's, have to deal with this chaos now -- apparently, the police come only to break up fist fights.
Casey's parents, Cindy and George Anthony, have hired their own criminal defense attorney. Someone has offered Casey over $1,000,000 for her story and someone else has put up a reward of $250,000 for information regarding the whereabouts of little Caylee.
Why This Should Worry You
Every night, CNN devotes two hours to this story since it's all that Nancy Grace follows anymore. FoxNews usually has an hour, unless Greta Von Susteren is covering something about the presidential race.
On the web, an unbelievable amount of the police investigation files are available for anyone to download and read. Countless blogs and forums exist to chat and discuss the latest information as well as the latest rumors.
And what is the common theme here? Judgment. Casey Anthony is being judged on whether or not she did something to her child long before she is ever charged with a crime or made to face a jury.
She has a right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty. You have that right, too.
She has a right to be tried fairly, with an unbiased jury who have not made up their minds in advance. You have that right, too.
It is not a question of whether or not Casey Anthony harmed her daughter. It is a question of whether or not the system is being played.
Disrespecting our system of justice is something that should make us all very, very worried.
Good luck, Jose.
Sources:
OrlandoSentinel.Com (Complete Coverage of Missing Caylee Marie Anthony)
(http://www.orlandosentinel.com/services/newspaper/printedition/monday/orl-caylee-anthony-missing-stories,0,5047466.storygallery)
NancyGrace/CNN's Find Caylee Blog
(http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/09/08/NGfindcayleeblog/)
Investigation Discovery -- Full Coverage of the Caylee Anthony Case
(http://investigation.discovery.com/blogs/criminal-report/casey_anthony_full_coverage/caylee_anthony.html)
And that's good -- because we all need to be watching to see how Casey Anthony's rights are being respected over there in Florida. Because her loss of rights today does impact upon your rights, as well.
Your rights are only as safe as hers are.
What's This Case About?
The bottom line to the case is Casey Anthony's 3 year old daughter, Caylee, has been missing since June and mom Casey didn't report her missing until 31 days later - and then, she tagged onto a 911 call made by her mother, and the little girl's grandmother, Cindy Anthony.
Since that 911 call, Casey Anthony has been charged with child neglect, filing a false statement, and check fraud. She's out on bond in excess of $500,000 and is currently on house arrest in her parents' home, spending her days in the law offices of her attorney, Jose Baez.
What's Her Attorney Been Doing?
1. This past Thursday, Baez filed a motion seeking a court order to stop the prosecution's testing and handling of forensic evidence until the Judge can set rules on how this testing should occur. Baez is arguing that forensic testing can destroy the forensic samples, and he wants the Judge to oversee how this key evidence is tested, as well as what methods are used. Baez also wants a member of his defense team to observe the testing.
Why is Baez requesting all this -- even before his client is charged with anything BASED upon this evidence? He's urging that this court oversight is needed to protect Anthony's right to a fair trial.
Of course, pundits are critical of Baez's motion (just listen over at Nancy Grace) because this type of motion usually isn't filed until the client has been charged with something correlated to the forensic testing. The soil and carpet samples from her car, much less the air (yes, air) from the car's trunk, presumably connect to some type of murder charge - not the current charges that Anthony is facing.
Still, given what Baez has already seen, his motion isn't a surprise ....
2. Baez filed a Motion to Decrease the Half-Million Dollar Bail earlier, and not only was that denied by the trial court but the appellate courts upheld the bond amount. Remember, excessive bail is prohibited by the U.S. Constitution and Casey Anthony is only charged with two things in connection with this bond amount: child neglect and giving false information to the police. This is an extremely high bond for these charges.
3. Baez filed a Motion to suppress audio and video recordings of Casey Anthony communicating with family and friends while at the jail, arguing that releasing this to the press would inhibit his client's ability to get a fair trial. The Motion was denied.
What's At Stake Here?
At the time of this post, not only have the jailhouse communications been released to the media, but there's also 400 pages from the police investigation files (incident reports, etc.) readily available on the web, along with audios of interviews between the detectives and Casey Anthony. Additional charges have been made against her -- more economic charges, for writing bad checks, etc.
At the Anthony home, protesters yell and carry handwritten signs ("BabyKiller") 24/7, and one "blogger" was filmed taking away the Anthonys' trash and later combing through it for "evidence."
The neighbors' lives, as well as the Anthony family's, have to deal with this chaos now -- apparently, the police come only to break up fist fights.
Casey's parents, Cindy and George Anthony, have hired their own criminal defense attorney. Someone has offered Casey over $1,000,000 for her story and someone else has put up a reward of $250,000 for information regarding the whereabouts of little Caylee.
Why This Should Worry You
Every night, CNN devotes two hours to this story since it's all that Nancy Grace follows anymore. FoxNews usually has an hour, unless Greta Von Susteren is covering something about the presidential race.
On the web, an unbelievable amount of the police investigation files are available for anyone to download and read. Countless blogs and forums exist to chat and discuss the latest information as well as the latest rumors.
And what is the common theme here? Judgment. Casey Anthony is being judged on whether or not she did something to her child long before she is ever charged with a crime or made to face a jury.
She has a right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty. You have that right, too.
She has a right to be tried fairly, with an unbiased jury who have not made up their minds in advance. You have that right, too.
It is not a question of whether or not Casey Anthony harmed her daughter. It is a question of whether or not the system is being played.
Disrespecting our system of justice is something that should make us all very, very worried.
Good luck, Jose.
Sources:
OrlandoSentinel.Com (Complete Coverage of Missing Caylee Marie Anthony)
(http://www.orlandosentinel.com/services/newspaper/printedition/monday/orl-caylee-anthony-missing-stories,0,5047466.storygallery)
NancyGrace/CNN's Find Caylee Blog
(http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/09/08/NGfindcayleeblog/)
Investigation Discovery -- Full Coverage of the Caylee Anthony Case
(http://investigation.discovery.com/blogs/criminal-report/casey_anthony_full_coverage/caylee_anthony.html)
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
JUDGE WATCH: Secret Love Affair Between Trial Judge and DA Stops Execution?
Charles Dean Hood was scheduled to be executed today for the 1989 killings of Tracie Wallace and Ronald Williamson. Hood's been staring the death penalty in the face for almost twenty years.
Yesterday, things changed.
The highest criminal court in the state, the Court of Criminal Appeals in Austin, issued a stay of execution on Execution Eve, purportedly to consider arguments made in his criminal appeal that the jury got bad instructions on the law, way back when.
However, many are thinking the real reason that Charles Dean Hood lives to fight another day is because of a civil suit filed on his behalf, which enabled his attorneys to take the sworn testimony of the judge who presided over his trial as well as the prosecutor.
The Secret Love Affair
What's the big deal about these depositions? Well, it appears that courthouse gossip was true.
Former Collin County Judge Verla Sue Holland and Collin County District Attorney Thomas O'Connell reportedly admitted to being romantically involved during the time period when the Hood case was tried. It was a secret they'd kept all these years.
Here's a part of the letter that Gregory Wiercloch, Hood's attorney, wrote to Governor Rick Perry:
Last week, the Texas Attorney General asked for a reprieve, so the Secret Love Affair rumors could be investigated.
Defense Attorney Nightmare
Talk about a criminal defense attorney's nightmare! You're trying a murder case with the possibility of death row, and the Judge and the prosecutor are an item. It's the stuff of a Law & Order episode.
The Brave Soul
How did all this happen? It appears that an attorney who worked as an assistant DA in Collin County during the time of the Hood trial had the courage and integrity to step forward and provide Hood's civil lawyers with a sworn affidavit, swearing that it was common knowledge at the time that there was a rumored romance between the trial judge and the prosecutor in the case.
This affidavit gave Hood's civil attorneys the legal ammo they needed to move the court for these depositions to be taken, in the face of arguments against them.
It's true that Judge Brewer, presiding over the civil case, then had the fortitude to allow the depositions to proceed - with a gag order. However, it took a lot of spunk for that attorney to provide that affidavit for all the world to see -- including fellow attorneys who may decide to ostracize this whistleblower.
Editorials are being written about giving credit to Judge Brewer -- it would be nice to see some hat-tipping to this brave attorney, too.
The Underlying Crime
What was Hood's crime? Hood (now 39) was found guilty and sentenced to death for shooting to death Ron Williamson, his boss. and Williamson's girlfriend, Tracie Wallace, along with stealing Williamson's car and credit cards, along with some jewelry. Hood was arrested in Indiana, and returned to Texas for trial. Hood still maintains his innocence.
Sources:
Reuters.Com (http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSN0934589420080910)
New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/10/us/10texas.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=Charles%20Dean%20Hood&st=cse&oref=slogin)
DallasMorningNews.Com (http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/opinion/editorials/stories/DN-hood_10edi.ART.State.Edition1.26ae2e0.html)
Yesterday, things changed.
The highest criminal court in the state, the Court of Criminal Appeals in Austin, issued a stay of execution on Execution Eve, purportedly to consider arguments made in his criminal appeal that the jury got bad instructions on the law, way back when.
However, many are thinking the real reason that Charles Dean Hood lives to fight another day is because of a civil suit filed on his behalf, which enabled his attorneys to take the sworn testimony of the judge who presided over his trial as well as the prosecutor.
The Secret Love Affair
What's the big deal about these depositions? Well, it appears that courthouse gossip was true.
Former Collin County Judge Verla Sue Holland and Collin County District Attorney Thomas O'Connell reportedly admitted to being romantically involved during the time period when the Hood case was tried. It was a secret they'd kept all these years.
Here's a part of the letter that Gregory Wiercloch, Hood's attorney, wrote to Governor Rick Perry:
“Judge Holland and Mr. O’Connell confirmed that they kept the relationship secret .... She never disclosed it to a single litigant or lawyer who appeared before her, and she never recused herself from hearing a single case because of her affair with the elected district attorney.... Similarly, Mr. O’Connell never disclosed the romantic relationship to any of his adversaries nor did he recuse himself or his office from prosecuting a single case because of his affair with Judge Holland.”
Last week, the Texas Attorney General asked for a reprieve, so the Secret Love Affair rumors could be investigated.
Defense Attorney Nightmare
Talk about a criminal defense attorney's nightmare! You're trying a murder case with the possibility of death row, and the Judge and the prosecutor are an item. It's the stuff of a Law & Order episode.
The Brave Soul
How did all this happen? It appears that an attorney who worked as an assistant DA in Collin County during the time of the Hood trial had the courage and integrity to step forward and provide Hood's civil lawyers with a sworn affidavit, swearing that it was common knowledge at the time that there was a rumored romance between the trial judge and the prosecutor in the case.
This affidavit gave Hood's civil attorneys the legal ammo they needed to move the court for these depositions to be taken, in the face of arguments against them.
It's true that Judge Brewer, presiding over the civil case, then had the fortitude to allow the depositions to proceed - with a gag order. However, it took a lot of spunk for that attorney to provide that affidavit for all the world to see -- including fellow attorneys who may decide to ostracize this whistleblower.
Editorials are being written about giving credit to Judge Brewer -- it would be nice to see some hat-tipping to this brave attorney, too.
The Underlying Crime
What was Hood's crime? Hood (now 39) was found guilty and sentenced to death for shooting to death Ron Williamson, his boss. and Williamson's girlfriend, Tracie Wallace, along with stealing Williamson's car and credit cards, along with some jewelry. Hood was arrested in Indiana, and returned to Texas for trial. Hood still maintains his innocence.
Sources:
Reuters.Com (http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSN0934589420080910)
New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/10/us/10texas.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=Charles%20Dean%20Hood&st=cse&oref=slogin)
DallasMorningNews.Com (http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/opinion/editorials/stories/DN-hood_10edi.ART.State.Edition1.26ae2e0.html)
Monday, September 08, 2008
CRIME NEWS: Texas' Criminal History Records are Really, Really Inaccurate
You watch CSI, or NCIS, or any one of a number of crime shows on TV, and there they are: huge databases of information on folk who have been arrested for crimes in all sorts of jurisdictions.
Federal, state, city,military - heck, they'll even pull up someone who's been busted overseas somewhere. And, it's so fast, too: the screen zips thru file after file, and suddenly stops on an exact match (who's usually the guest star for that episode).
Well, those in the know have long recognized that this isn't reality -- but never more so than this past month, when the Texas Department of Public Safety publicly admitted that its criminal history records database is far from complete. According to Angie Klein, who manages this database, it's only got 69% of the state's actual criminal records.
If this were a report card, DPS would be getting a D+.
What's going on? Counties aren't reporting, for a variety of reasons. And, of course, prosecutors are really upset by this. They may not have information regarding past criminal histories before offering up a nice plea deal.
Bottom line, what does this mean? There's a 31% chance that a criminal record isn't going to be in the system.
Think about it. The good news: you're pulled over on suspicion of driving drunk and there's a 31% chance the cop's not going to know about a past DWI on your record. Or, you're arrested for burglary: there's a 31% chance that a past conviction for burglary back in Houston isn't going to pop up on your record.
Of course, you and your criminal defense attorney need to make sure that any acquittals or dismissals of your case are recorded in the system. You don't want those old criminal charges to pop up when you are applying for a lease, or a job, or buying a gun, or adopting a child ....
Source: DallasNews.com, August 22, 2008
Federal, state, city,military - heck, they'll even pull up someone who's been busted overseas somewhere. And, it's so fast, too: the screen zips thru file after file, and suddenly stops on an exact match (who's usually the guest star for that episode).
Well, those in the know have long recognized that this isn't reality -- but never more so than this past month, when the Texas Department of Public Safety publicly admitted that its criminal history records database is far from complete. According to Angie Klein, who manages this database, it's only got 69% of the state's actual criminal records.
If this were a report card, DPS would be getting a D+.
What's going on? Counties aren't reporting, for a variety of reasons. And, of course, prosecutors are really upset by this. They may not have information regarding past criminal histories before offering up a nice plea deal.
Bottom line, what does this mean? There's a 31% chance that a criminal record isn't going to be in the system.
Think about it. The good news: you're pulled over on suspicion of driving drunk and there's a 31% chance the cop's not going to know about a past DWI on your record. Or, you're arrested for burglary: there's a 31% chance that a past conviction for burglary back in Houston isn't going to pop up on your record.
Of course, you and your criminal defense attorney need to make sure that any acquittals or dismissals of your case are recorded in the system. You don't want those old criminal charges to pop up when you are applying for a lease, or a job, or buying a gun, or adopting a child ....
Source: DallasNews.com, August 22, 2008
Wednesday, September 03, 2008
JAIL WATCH: At Least Stanley Lived to Tell The Story
Over at Grits for Breakfast, Scott Henson gives a rundown on the recent $900,000 verdict against the Dallas Jail -- where the federal jury found former jail inmate Stanley Shepherd's constitutional rights had indeed been violated.
How? Stanley was found to have been wrongfully denied basic medical care during his 2003 stay in Dallas County's Lew Sterrett Justice Center. (Stanley was being held on some burglary and drug charges.) He wasn't given his high blood pressure medicine, and as a result, he's suffered permanent disabilities.
Henson's also got a nice wrap-up about the state of our local jail -- including listing several analogous tragedies, which bring to mind that Stanley did fare better than some other folk: there are those who have died in that jail from not getting their meds.
Sources:
Grits for Breakfast, August 27, 2008 (http://gritsforbreakfast.blogspot.com/2008/08/jury-awards-fat-verdict-against-dallas.html)
How? Stanley was found to have been wrongfully denied basic medical care during his 2003 stay in Dallas County's Lew Sterrett Justice Center. (Stanley was being held on some burglary and drug charges.) He wasn't given his high blood pressure medicine, and as a result, he's suffered permanent disabilities.
Henson's also got a nice wrap-up about the state of our local jail -- including listing several analogous tragedies, which bring to mind that Stanley did fare better than some other folk: there are those who have died in that jail from not getting their meds.
Sources:
Grits for Breakfast, August 27, 2008 (http://gritsforbreakfast.blogspot.com/2008/08/jury-awards-fat-verdict-against-dallas.html)
Monday, September 01, 2008
COP WATCH: Dallas Cop Allegedly Robs Sam's Club, Stops Himself
This story is really going to make you feel safe.
About three weeks ago, a Dallas Police Department officer thwarted an armed robber who was trying to hold up a local Sam's Club.
Officer Al Coleman, who was off-duty as a Dallas cop and working his second job as a security officer at the Sam's Club on West Wheatland Road, told NBC-5 that " ' he [the robber] just told me the last part of his plan and I didn't agree with it. Says he was gonna kill me.'"
According to Officer Coleman, this evildoing Masked Man rushed Sam's and took Coleman hostage - yes, hostage! - whereupon Coleman fought back. Guns were drawn. Guns!! Shots were fired. Shots!! Coleman was hit in the chest ... luckily, he had on a bullet-proof vest.
The robbery was prevented and Officer Coleman, what a hero, right?
Well, no.
Dallas Police Department detectives now report that all the evidence, which includes store surveillance tape, shows that Coleman is lying.
Turns out that Coleman was in on the whole thing with the getaway driver parked out front in Coleman's car while their pal, the Masked Man, came into the store. They're all three facing robbery charges today.
Who really stopped the robbery? The Sam's employees -- who barricaded the door, preventing Coleman and the Masked Man from gaining access to the vault.
Sources:
WISTV (www.wistv.com)
WFAA (www.wfaa.com)
About three weeks ago, a Dallas Police Department officer thwarted an armed robber who was trying to hold up a local Sam's Club.
Officer Al Coleman, who was off-duty as a Dallas cop and working his second job as a security officer at the Sam's Club on West Wheatland Road, told NBC-5 that " ' he [the robber] just told me the last part of his plan and I didn't agree with it. Says he was gonna kill me.'"
According to Officer Coleman, this evildoing Masked Man rushed Sam's and took Coleman hostage - yes, hostage! - whereupon Coleman fought back. Guns were drawn. Guns!! Shots were fired. Shots!! Coleman was hit in the chest ... luckily, he had on a bullet-proof vest.
The robbery was prevented and Officer Coleman, what a hero, right?
Well, no.
Dallas Police Department detectives now report that all the evidence, which includes store surveillance tape, shows that Coleman is lying.
Turns out that Coleman was in on the whole thing with the getaway driver parked out front in Coleman's car while their pal, the Masked Man, came into the store. They're all three facing robbery charges today.
Who really stopped the robbery? The Sam's employees -- who barricaded the door, preventing Coleman and the Masked Man from gaining access to the vault.
Sources:
WISTV (www.wistv.com)
WFAA (www.wfaa.com)
Monday, July 14, 2008
This One's On Me!!!
Here's some international coverage from the Economist concerning article 59 abuses across Texas. As many of you know, article 59 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure is the way our trusted District Attorneys go about seizing millions of dollars in "drug dealer" assets. You would think that this money then goes to help out children or crime prevention. Well sometimes it does and sometimes it can pay for a pretty awesome margarita machine. Montgomery County District Attorney Mike McDougal used article 59 seizure money to acquire a margarita machine for the county fair. Maybe the first toast at the party was to all of the defendants that could make the party possible. This one's on me!
Friday, May 05, 2006
Law Enforcement: This Week's Corrupt Cops Stories
Drug War News
Here is a good summary of the latest in embarassing law enforcement foul ups in pursuit of America's War on Drugs.
Here is a good summary of the latest in embarassing law enforcement foul ups in pursuit of America's War on Drugs.
Monday, May 01, 2006
Collin County Justice
Questionable Collin County Indictments Get New Life
Collin County prosecutor Chris Milner has had some mixed results. However, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals recently breathed new life into Mr. Milner's case against Dallas Attorney Jim Vasilas.
As far as the Court of Criminal Appeals is concerned, a lawyer that makes a mistake in a civil Petition he filed can be charged with Felony Tampering With a Governmental Record. After both a Collin County District Judge and the Dallas Court of Appeals logically reasoned that a Petition generated by and filed by a lawyer could not be a "governmental record", the high court somehow found that it could be part of the definition set by the legislature. Unless the Dallas Court of Appeals rules that the Rule 11 provisions of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure is in pari materia to this type of obtuse allegation, the Court of Crimial Appeals cleared the way to prosecuting all civil and criminal lawyers for making mistakes in their Petitions or other records typically filed by lawyers in Texas.
Collin County prosecutor Chris Milner has had some mixed results. However, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals recently breathed new life into Mr. Milner's case against Dallas Attorney Jim Vasilas.
As far as the Court of Criminal Appeals is concerned, a lawyer that makes a mistake in a civil Petition he filed can be charged with Felony Tampering With a Governmental Record. After both a Collin County District Judge and the Dallas Court of Appeals logically reasoned that a Petition generated by and filed by a lawyer could not be a "governmental record", the high court somehow found that it could be part of the definition set by the legislature. Unless the Dallas Court of Appeals rules that the Rule 11 provisions of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure is in pari materia to this type of obtuse allegation, the Court of Crimial Appeals cleared the way to prosecuting all civil and criminal lawyers for making mistakes in their Petitions or other records typically filed by lawyers in Texas.
Tuesday, April 25, 2006
Dallas County Justice
This article originally published by the Dallas Morning News doesn't illustrate the difference between black and white in the criminal justice system. Rather, this article clearly illustrates the difference between court appointed representation versus retained representation.
This article originally published by the Dallas Morning News doesn't illustrate the difference between black and white in the criminal justice system. Rather, this article clearly illustrates the difference between court appointed representation versus retained representation.
Monday, April 10, 2006
PROSECUTOR COMMENTS ON DEFENDANT'S RIGHT TO REMAIN SILENT, RECKLESS OR INTENTIONAL??
In a captial murder trial the State prosecutor commented on the Defendant 5th Amendment rights. The Judge declared a mistrial. Federal Double Jeopardy law says no new trial for the State if it can be shown that the prosecutor's conduct was reckless or intentional. Tim Cole, the district attorney for Montague, Clay and Archer counties argued that the prosecutor's comments were due to inexperience and were not intentional or reckless. The Fort Worth Court of Appeals went with that explanation.
Does it make sense that a prosecutor trying a multiple count captial murder case isn't experienced enough to understand how the 5th Amendment works?
In a captial murder trial the State prosecutor commented on the Defendant 5th Amendment rights. The Judge declared a mistrial. Federal Double Jeopardy law says no new trial for the State if it can be shown that the prosecutor's conduct was reckless or intentional. Tim Cole, the district attorney for Montague, Clay and Archer counties argued that the prosecutor's comments were due to inexperience and were not intentional or reckless. The Fort Worth Court of Appeals went with that explanation.
Does it make sense that a prosecutor trying a multiple count captial murder case isn't experienced enough to understand how the 5th Amendment works?
Harris County District Attorney sees no pattern of prosecutor misconduct. What do you think?
Dallas Morning News News for Dallas, Texas Texas/Southwest
Dallas Morning News News for Dallas, Texas Texas/Southwest
Sunday, April 09, 2006
Did a public intoxication raid go too far?
10:34 PM CDT on Wednesday, April 5, 2006
By BYRON HARRIS / WFAA-TV
Also Online
Byron Harris reports
More stories on this subject
The Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission was accused of being heavy handed during Dallas raids last month, but charges of over-reaching don't begin there.
An operation at Cedar Creek Lake last summer still has some people fuming. They said TABC officers threw people in jail based simply on their opinion. Some also said the TABC broke its own rules in the process.
The incident occurred on a Friday night last July in the small town of Seven Points when TABC agents, fire marshals and local police cracked a mellow mood with a public intoxication raid at Rita's Club, Walker's Landing, the First and Last and Cedar Isle.
Over several hours, in a sweep of nearly every bar and private club in Gun Barrel City and Seven Points, TABC officers and local police arrested 25 people.
"It was something like you would see on 'Cops,'" said club owner Nita Walker. "It was like they had committed several murders in the bar. It was like a TAC force busting through."
The sting had two parts. The TABC often sends an undercover officer into a bar 15 minutes to an hour before enforcement officers arrive. The undercover officer observes the patrons for signs of intoxication like red eyes, slurred speech and declining motor skills. Whether a person is or is not intoxicated is based on the officer's judgment.
Although TABC officers receive some classroom training on how to recognize public intoxication at headquarters in Austin, the agency has no training film on the subject.
"In the 20 years that I've been in law enforcement, public intoxication has been subjective," said Sonja Pendergast. "It has been up to the officer."
Many felt the July raid was too aggressive and unjust.
"To come in and take somebody outright because they had two beers [or] three beers, I feel like that's an injustice," Eldon Campbell said.
But precisely what happened at Cedar Creek is in dispute.
Some of those charged said the TABC officer who arrested them had no visible badge and did not identify himself, but he said he did.
Some of those arrested said they were not given a field sobriety test of motor skills, while officers said tests were administered.
Those arrested also said they were not given a breathalyzer exam; Officers said a breathalyzer was offered, but was refused.
But it turns out, blood alcohol level is irrelevant in public intoxication cases, because public intoxication is based solely on the judgment of the officer.
While motor vehicle officers routinely videotape DWI arrests, TABC officers do not, and many don't even have cameras.
Public intoxication is a Class C misdemeanor, which is a crime too small for most district attorneys to prosecute.
In 2004, TABC made 2,055 public intoxication arrests and charged 113 bartenders for overserving patrons.
The agency does not have complete statistics for 2005 because it said it lost the numbers.
Last year, the TABC received a budget increase. It hired 60 new officers and increased its enforcement of public intoxication.
TABC officers said most of the people they arrest are so intoxicated there is little doubt they're endangering themselves. The officers said they are saving lives.
Cedar Creek bar owners said business is down 25 percent since last year because customers are afraid to come in.
10:34 PM CDT on Wednesday, April 5, 2006
By BYRON HARRIS / WFAA-TV
Also Online
Byron Harris reports
More stories on this subject
The Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission was accused of being heavy handed during Dallas raids last month, but charges of over-reaching don't begin there.
An operation at Cedar Creek Lake last summer still has some people fuming. They said TABC officers threw people in jail based simply on their opinion. Some also said the TABC broke its own rules in the process.
The incident occurred on a Friday night last July in the small town of Seven Points when TABC agents, fire marshals and local police cracked a mellow mood with a public intoxication raid at Rita's Club, Walker's Landing, the First and Last and Cedar Isle.
Over several hours, in a sweep of nearly every bar and private club in Gun Barrel City and Seven Points, TABC officers and local police arrested 25 people.
"It was something like you would see on 'Cops,'" said club owner Nita Walker. "It was like they had committed several murders in the bar. It was like a TAC force busting through."
The sting had two parts. The TABC often sends an undercover officer into a bar 15 minutes to an hour before enforcement officers arrive. The undercover officer observes the patrons for signs of intoxication like red eyes, slurred speech and declining motor skills. Whether a person is or is not intoxicated is based on the officer's judgment.
Although TABC officers receive some classroom training on how to recognize public intoxication at headquarters in Austin, the agency has no training film on the subject.
"In the 20 years that I've been in law enforcement, public intoxication has been subjective," said Sonja Pendergast. "It has been up to the officer."
Many felt the July raid was too aggressive and unjust.
"To come in and take somebody outright because they had two beers [or] three beers, I feel like that's an injustice," Eldon Campbell said.
But precisely what happened at Cedar Creek is in dispute.
Some of those charged said the TABC officer who arrested them had no visible badge and did not identify himself, but he said he did.
Some of those arrested said they were not given a field sobriety test of motor skills, while officers said tests were administered.
Those arrested also said they were not given a breathalyzer exam; Officers said a breathalyzer was offered, but was refused.
But it turns out, blood alcohol level is irrelevant in public intoxication cases, because public intoxication is based solely on the judgment of the officer.
While motor vehicle officers routinely videotape DWI arrests, TABC officers do not, and many don't even have cameras.
Public intoxication is a Class C misdemeanor, which is a crime too small for most district attorneys to prosecute.
In 2004, TABC made 2,055 public intoxication arrests and charged 113 bartenders for overserving patrons.
The agency does not have complete statistics for 2005 because it said it lost the numbers.
Last year, the TABC received a budget increase. It hired 60 new officers and increased its enforcement of public intoxication.
TABC officers said most of the people they arrest are so intoxicated there is little doubt they're endangering themselves. The officers said they are saving lives.
Cedar Creek bar owners said business is down 25 percent since last year because customers are afraid to come in.
Tuesday, July 19, 2005
STATE BAR DISCIPLINED FORMER DISTRICT ATTORNEY
In January, Mr. Coleman was convicted of perjury and given probation. Former District Attorney, was defeated in the Republican primary as he tried to run for re-election for DA of Swisher and Hale Counties in 2004. Mr. McEachern is currently in private practice defending criminal matters and touting his 23 years of prosecutorial experience.
Saturday, May 21, 2005
IF A DISTRICT ATTORNEY REFUSES TO TAKE FIELD SOBRIETY TESTS AND THE BREATH TEST, WHAT SHOULD YOU DO?
As a criminal defense lawyer I am often asked if stopped for DWI in Texas, whether one should submit to a breath test or the field sobriety (drunk) tests. If there was a debate, the debate is officially over.
Hutchison and Hansford County District Attorney Clay Ballman pulled a drunk driving hit and run a few nights ago. After running away from the scene of his drunk driving accident, he was apprehended by Borger police. The DA's car was found by police abandoned on a residential road in Borger shortly after his vehicle was involved in a collision.
When given an opportunity to follow the implied consent law he has sworn to uphold, Mr. Ballman refused to give a specimen of his breath. He also refused all field sobriety tests. Folks, if the District Attorney doesn't rely on these test when it comes to his freedom, why should anyone else? That should tell you all you need to know about the reliability of these "tests."
Here's the kicker. Apparently, the local police could not clean this one up like they did before. Mr. Ballman was allegedly pulled over for DWI about a year ago and was let go. Of course, the video has been destroyed; ooops!!
Thursday, May 12, 2005
DISTRICT JUDGE FORCED TO STEP DOWN ON SERIES OF CASES
Criminal defense lawyer Laura Cass filed a motion to recuse State District Judge Rick Davis. Judge Davis accussed Cass of being a racist and compared her to a Nazi guard at Auschwitz while she served as an Assistant DA in his court. The Nazi comments were originally made in 2001 when Cass was a prosecutor in his court. Judge Davis was reprimanded by a 3 Judge panel appointed by the Texas Supreme Court and ordered to attend Anger Management class.
Judge Davis' anger problems apparantly relapsed recently when he launched his website wherein he again commented about the incident involving Ms. Cass. Judge Olen Underwood agreed with Cass and ordered Davis recused on a series of cases one of which is a Capital Murder case. In that case, Brazos County DA Bill Turner sought to have Judge Davis recused also. Original article
Tuesday, May 03, 2005
"Government Crossed the Line . . ."
The Fifth Circuit recently reversed and remanded for resentencing U.S. v. Munoz. Munoz had signed a plea agreement with the Government wherein he and the Federal Prosecutor stipulated to a total offense level 25 (71 months max) in exchange for his plea of guilty to the wire fraud, mail fraud and money laundering counts in the indictment. The Presentence Report sought the application an "abuse of trust" enhancement to his sentence and a higher calculation for the loss amount. The PSR recommended a total offense level 29. What is worse, the Federal Prosecutor urged the court to apply the "abuse of trust" enhancement, in violation of his own plea agreement. Of course, the court went along with the Government and sentenced Mr. Munoz to 90 months.
Who Abused Their Trust?
The Fifth wrote that this type of prosecutorial slight of hand "crossed the line . . ." In particular, the Court found that the Governement breached the plea agreement by advocating the "abuse of trust" enhancement.
Read the opinion
Monday, April 18, 2005
FORT WORTH COA DISMISSED MURDER PROSECUTION DUE TO PROSECUTOR MISCONDUCT DURING TRIAL
The Fort Worth Court of Appeals issued a second opinion on remand from the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals concerning alleged misconduct by a Tarrant County Assistant District Attorney. For the second time, the Fort Worth Appeals Court found the prosecutor's trial tactics to be intentional and/or reckless prosecutorial misconduct such that jeopardy attached after the trial judge declared a mistrial. In particular, the court cited the prosecutor's tactic of repeatedly commenting on the Defendant's invocation of her right to remain silent as intentional or reckless misconduct.
Although the trial Judge, Judge Sharon Wilson, found that the prosecutor's actions did not amount to reckless or intentional misconduct, the Court of Appeals found that Judge Wilson abused her discretion in this regard. The Court of Appeals dismissed the pending indictment against Ms. Lewis.
THE CASE WAS GOING BADLY FOR THE STATE
The Court of Appeals noted in it's analysis that "The case was going badly for the state." The court noted that the prosecutor had failed to call the responding or investigating officers to testify and failed to offer the Defendant's prior statement into evidence before the Defendant took the witness stand. Once Ms. Lewis testified that the complainant had twice raped her and that the weapon accidentally discharged, the prosecutor twice attempt to cross-examine her with her refusal to talk to the investigating detective instead of impeaching her with her prior statement. A link to the opinion: Texas Judiciary Online - HTML Opinion
The Fort Worth Court of Appeals issued a second opinion on remand from the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals concerning alleged misconduct by a Tarrant County Assistant District Attorney. For the second time, the Fort Worth Appeals Court found the prosecutor's trial tactics to be intentional and/or reckless prosecutorial misconduct such that jeopardy attached after the trial judge declared a mistrial. In particular, the court cited the prosecutor's tactic of repeatedly commenting on the Defendant's invocation of her right to remain silent as intentional or reckless misconduct.
Although the trial Judge, Judge Sharon Wilson, found that the prosecutor's actions did not amount to reckless or intentional misconduct, the Court of Appeals found that Judge Wilson abused her discretion in this regard. The Court of Appeals dismissed the pending indictment against Ms. Lewis.
THE CASE WAS GOING BADLY FOR THE STATE
The Court of Appeals noted in it's analysis that "The case was going badly for the state." The court noted that the prosecutor had failed to call the responding or investigating officers to testify and failed to offer the Defendant's prior statement into evidence before the Defendant took the witness stand. Once Ms. Lewis testified that the complainant had twice raped her and that the weapon accidentally discharged, the prosecutor twice attempt to cross-examine her with her refusal to talk to the investigating detective instead of impeaching her with her prior statement. A link to the opinion: Texas Judiciary Online - HTML Opinion
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
"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
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.
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.
Wednesday, April 06, 2005
TEXAS EXPUNCTION OF CRIMINAL RECORDS
Everyday I am asked whether someone is eligible to have their criminal records expunged in the state of Texas. The following is a dallas criminal attorney summary of the laws in the state of Texas concerning expungement and the newer practice called Petition For Non-Disclosure.
WHAT IS AN EXPUNCTION?
Upon the petition of a criminal defendant, a court can direct certain law enforcement agencies to destroy all records associated with an arrest and subsequent prosecution. Many times the court will specifically direct law enforcement agencies to destroy jail records, police reports, prosecution reports and court files. In addition, a successful expungement petitioner, can legally deny ever having been arrested for or charged with the criminal offense for which he is receiving the expunction.
WHAT IS A PETITION FOR NONDISCLOSURE?
Upon the petition of a criminal defendant, a court can direct certain law enforcement agencies to refrain from disclosing to any third party any criminal records associated with an arrest, prosecution and deferred probation. A successful petitioner can legally deny the existence of his arrest, charge and deferred probation. The order requires that any third party who buys criminal history information from Texas remove that information from their databases. If these third party vendors do not do so in accordance with the court’s order, they would be subject to civil penalties. Therefore, website such as PublicData.com would be required by law to remove criminal history information subject to the court’s nondisclosure order or face civil penalties.
Expungement of Criminal Records
Dismissed Case or Grand Jury No Bill
If a case was dismissed by the District Attorney’s office or No Billed by the Grand Jury, the first thing to do is find out what the statute of limitations is for the particular offense. The statute of limitations usually begins to run on the date of the offense. The records can be expunged upon the expiration of the applicable statute of limitations. For example, the applicable statute of limitation for any misdemeanor in Texas is two years. Therefore, if a misdemeanor assault case was dismissed more than two years ago, any record associated with that case can be expunged.
For felony offenses that were no billed by a Grand Jury (the Grand Jury refused to indict), the same rule applies. The limitations period for felonies range anywhere between five years and ten years. However, some felonies such as Murder do not carry a limitations period. Upon the expiration of the applicable limitations period, the felony case can be expunged.
Exonerated Defendants
If after a trial on the merits of any criminal offense in Texas the judge or jury returns a not guilty verdict, that Defendant is eligible to have an expunction.
Petitions For Nondisclosure of Criminal Records
Successful completion of deferred adjudication probation is the key to opening the door to a Petition For Nondisclosure (“PFN”). A petitioner is NOT eligible for a PFN is he was placed on regular probation or was placed on deferred adjudication and later found guilty by the court during probation.
What is deferred adjudication? There are two types of probation. Regular probation is a conviction in that the court actually finds the defendant guilty and suspends imposition of the jail sentence for a period of time. Under article 42.12 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, a Texas Judge can alternatively place a defendant on probation for a period of time and DEFER any finding of guilt unless and until the defendant successful completes the probation. If the defendant successfully completes probation, the court will dismiss the case. It is critical that a potential petitioner obtain the judgment and sentence for their case to determine whether they received deferred adjudication probation or regular “conviction” probation.
For most misdemeanors, a defendant is eligible for their PFN immediately upon the successful completion of their deferred probation. For some misdemeanor offense such as sex-related offense (indecent exposure or public lewdness), there is a five year waiting period. During this period, the defendant cannot be convicted of or placed on probation for any offense other than a traffic ticket.
For all felonies in which the defendant successfully completed his deferred probation, the waiting period is ten years. This waiting period also operates in the same manner as described above regarding misdemeanors. That is, the successful probationer cannot have had a conviction or probation for any offense other than a traffic ticket during the ten year waiting period.
The only exception to the above is that if a defendant has previously convicted of or placed on probation for any offense which requires registration as a sex offender. In addition, if the defendant has been convicted of or placed on probation for any of the following he will never be eligible for a PFN:
• An offense with an affirmative finding of family violence.
• Violation of a Protective Order
• Stalking
• Aggravated Kidnapping
• Murder
• Capital Murder
• Manslaughter
I hope the above will help you evaluate your potential success on your Petitions of Expunction and Petitions for Non-Disclosure.
Attorney Client Relationship
The materials on this web site are intended for informational purposes only. The materials on this Web site are not intended to be, nor should they be interpreted as, legal advice or opinion. The reader should not consider this information to be an invitation to an attorney client relationship, should not rely on information presented here for any purpose, and should always seek the legal advice of counsel in the appropriate jurisdiction. Transmission and receipt of the information in this site and/or communication with the Firm via e-mail is not intended to solicit or create, and does not create, an attorney-client relationship between the Firm and any person or entity.
Everyday I am asked whether someone is eligible to have their criminal records expunged in the state of Texas. The following is a dallas criminal attorney summary of the laws in the state of Texas concerning expungement and the newer practice called Petition For Non-Disclosure.
WHAT IS AN EXPUNCTION?
Upon the petition of a criminal defendant, a court can direct certain law enforcement agencies to destroy all records associated with an arrest and subsequent prosecution. Many times the court will specifically direct law enforcement agencies to destroy jail records, police reports, prosecution reports and court files. In addition, a successful expungement petitioner, can legally deny ever having been arrested for or charged with the criminal offense for which he is receiving the expunction.
WHAT IS A PETITION FOR NONDISCLOSURE?
Upon the petition of a criminal defendant, a court can direct certain law enforcement agencies to refrain from disclosing to any third party any criminal records associated with an arrest, prosecution and deferred probation. A successful petitioner can legally deny the existence of his arrest, charge and deferred probation. The order requires that any third party who buys criminal history information from Texas remove that information from their databases. If these third party vendors do not do so in accordance with the court’s order, they would be subject to civil penalties. Therefore, website such as PublicData.com would be required by law to remove criminal history information subject to the court’s nondisclosure order or face civil penalties.
Expungement of Criminal Records
Dismissed Case or Grand Jury No Bill
If a case was dismissed by the District Attorney’s office or No Billed by the Grand Jury, the first thing to do is find out what the statute of limitations is for the particular offense. The statute of limitations usually begins to run on the date of the offense. The records can be expunged upon the expiration of the applicable statute of limitations. For example, the applicable statute of limitation for any misdemeanor in Texas is two years. Therefore, if a misdemeanor assault case was dismissed more than two years ago, any record associated with that case can be expunged.
For felony offenses that were no billed by a Grand Jury (the Grand Jury refused to indict), the same rule applies. The limitations period for felonies range anywhere between five years and ten years. However, some felonies such as Murder do not carry a limitations period. Upon the expiration of the applicable limitations period, the felony case can be expunged.
Exonerated Defendants
If after a trial on the merits of any criminal offense in Texas the judge or jury returns a not guilty verdict, that Defendant is eligible to have an expunction.
Petitions For Nondisclosure of Criminal Records
Successful completion of deferred adjudication probation is the key to opening the door to a Petition For Nondisclosure (“PFN”). A petitioner is NOT eligible for a PFN is he was placed on regular probation or was placed on deferred adjudication and later found guilty by the court during probation.
What is deferred adjudication? There are two types of probation. Regular probation is a conviction in that the court actually finds the defendant guilty and suspends imposition of the jail sentence for a period of time. Under article 42.12 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, a Texas Judge can alternatively place a defendant on probation for a period of time and DEFER any finding of guilt unless and until the defendant successful completes the probation. If the defendant successfully completes probation, the court will dismiss the case. It is critical that a potential petitioner obtain the judgment and sentence for their case to determine whether they received deferred adjudication probation or regular “conviction” probation.
For most misdemeanors, a defendant is eligible for their PFN immediately upon the successful completion of their deferred probation. For some misdemeanor offense such as sex-related offense (indecent exposure or public lewdness), there is a five year waiting period. During this period, the defendant cannot be convicted of or placed on probation for any offense other than a traffic ticket.
For all felonies in which the defendant successfully completed his deferred probation, the waiting period is ten years. This waiting period also operates in the same manner as described above regarding misdemeanors. That is, the successful probationer cannot have had a conviction or probation for any offense other than a traffic ticket during the ten year waiting period.
The only exception to the above is that if a defendant has previously convicted of or placed on probation for any offense which requires registration as a sex offender. In addition, if the defendant has been convicted of or placed on probation for any of the following he will never be eligible for a PFN:
• An offense with an affirmative finding of family violence.
• Violation of a Protective Order
• Stalking
• Aggravated Kidnapping
• Murder
• Capital Murder
• Manslaughter
I hope the above will help you evaluate your potential success on your Petitions of Expunction and Petitions for Non-Disclosure.
Attorney Client Relationship
The materials on this web site are intended for informational purposes only. The materials on this Web site are not intended to be, nor should they be interpreted as, legal advice or opinion. The reader should not consider this information to be an invitation to an attorney client relationship, should not rely on information presented here for any purpose, and should always seek the legal advice of counsel in the appropriate jurisdiction. Transmission and receipt of the information in this site and/or communication with the Firm via e-mail is not intended to solicit or create, and does not create, an attorney-client relationship between the Firm and any person or entity.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)