Dallas Criminal Defense Lawyer Blog

Maybe the government should just buy some of the Marijuana that is already being grown domestically. Marijuana is New Mexico's 3rd highest grossing cash crop.

Here is my earlier post on medical marijuana. I wish we did not need Medicial Marijuana laws to advance decriminalization. Pot should be legal because we are free, not because it is medicine. Medical marijuana is necessary because the political courage to legalize marijuana is lacking, especially at the federal level.

That day is coming. I predict Europe and Canada will lead the way in deciminalization and America will follow.

On a side note, a car bomb exploded in in Scotland. While our DEA is arresting medical marijuana patients and providers some very evil people are plotting to kill us. Still believe the war on drugs is a good idea?

Labels: Marijuana

IWTS went to Shreveport, LA last night with my beautiful wife Elizabeth. It seems that the State of Texas is not keeping Texans from gambling, only from gambling in Texas. Every casino hotel room was booked and 90% of the license plates I saw were from the Lone Star State. I had such a hard time getting a room that I accidentally called a gambling helpline and asked for a room. I ended up at the new casinoless Hyatt. Nice hotel, good beds, clean and quiet.

I ended up losing about $300 on craps and blackjack. My wife is a good craps player. She won about $50. I would rather have lost this money in Texas.

There is nothing nice about Shreveport. It is a dump with casinos. I would not go there except we can not gamble in Texas.

Texas needs casinos. Specifically, we need them in our dump, the Fair Park area of Dallas. It would be great for the South Dallas economy. It would keep gambling dollars at home. It would close down Shreveport and save countless 3 hours drives from Dallas.

If adults want to throw dice and place money on the outcome why is that illegal?

In Texas you can bet on horse races and the lottery but the government has deemed in necessary to keep evil table games and slot machines from the public. It's hypocritical nanny state paternalism.

Labels: Casinos, Texas

Here are the stats about Prison, USA-

1. America has 5% of the world's population, and 25% of the world's prison population.
2. 5% of ALL black males are in prison.
3. One out of every 133 Americans in in prison.
4. The American prison population is greater than the population of New Mexico.

The drug war is to blame for this mess. Prisons are not full because of a surge in violent offenders. Violent crime is down dramatically since 1993.

Federal prosecutions for violent crimes are at the same level as 1980. Drug prosecutions are up over 400% over the same period.

Labels: Prison, War On Drugs

SCOTUS ruled in favor of the school and held that preventing drug use among students is more important than free speech. The court said that speech "promoting drug use" can be banned. If that is the case then "No Bong Hits 4 Jesus" shirts should be ok. I see a marketing opportunity.

The dissent correctly points out that banning speech promoting "drug use" is going to also limit speech that challenges drug laws. The dissent and concurring opinion leave one question unclear- Could students be suspended for advocating changing drug laws as opposed to drug use?

Justice Roberts, the "strict constructionist" wrote the majority opinion. A real "strict constructionist" would have seen that the First Amendment protects free speech even if the government really, really, really wants to punish it.

Conservatives are judicial activists after all. They are just activists for the Police State, whereas as liberal justices are judicial activists for the Nanny State. Both are wrong.

The Bill of Rights is supposed to limit the government's role in our lives. However, since we have decided the government must take care of us from cradle to grave and educate our children we have given up that freedom for security, and deserve neither for it.

Labels: Marijuana, Supreme Court

Officer Mark Torres is facing a felony theft charge after stealing $700 from a motorist.

Officer Torres turned his camera off during the stop. The Dallas police chief vows to do whatever it takes to keep the police cameras rolling in the future.

Every stop, every interrogation, every home invasion search needs to be recorded. There is no good reason to hide police activity.

It is much easier for a prosecutor when there is no video. The trial turns out to be the cop's word versus the defendant. Guess who the judge/jury believes?

The motorist's "immigration status" has yet to be determined. The politically powerless are always the most vulnerable to injustice.

People think that civil liberties and constitutional "technicalities" only protect criminals. It is time to re-examine that idea. We need more accountability and transparency in law enforcement. Video taping every stop and detention a great place to start.

Labels: Dallas Police

MADD tells us we need roadblocks to stop deaths on the roadway. MADD/law enforcement like to use fabricated "alcohol related fatality" numbers to scare us into giving up our freedom.

MADD has sold us the lie we must ignore the Bill or Rights and the outdated probable cause requirement to pull a car over.

Really?

"DUI road checkpoints, in and of themselves, are not necessarily designed to catch people under the influence," said Sgt. Rob Netherland, who supervises DUI checkpoints and patrols for Henrico County.

Four sobriety checkpoints run by Richmond Police last year netted 3 DUI arrests in a city that recorded 590 DUI convictions, though officers made 170 arrests on related and unrelated offenses.

You mean waiving probable cause for a stop to catch DWI offenders turns into a fishing expidition for law enforcement? What a shock. Police actually use roadblocks to write tickets and look for drugs.

Why have DWI roadblocks if they do not stop DWI?

"It's kind of like shock and awe," Hanover County Sheriff's Office Sgt. Mike Trice said of checkpoints.

Shock and awe? Police states are built upon fear of law enforcement. That is where we are headed with DWI.

Most drivers who have had something to drink have low blood alcohol content or concentration (BAC) and few are involved in fatal crashes. On the other hand, while only a few drivers have BACs higher than .15, many of those drivers have fatal crashes.

Roadblocks tend to catch the low BAC DWI offender. The vast majority of these drivers never get in an accident and injure no one. Roadblocks should never have been allowed in a free country. It is time to stand up for freedom and against MADD propaganda.

Labels: DWI, MADD

If ticket sales don't improve the public schools may lose some funding. Despite that potential positive development Texas Lottery officials are looking at ways to boost ticket sales.

Is anyone suprised that the State can lose money on something as profitable as gambling? The Government can never run a business as well as private enterprise.

The State of Texas uses law enforcement to maintain it's gambling monopoly. It sends SWAT teams to raid private poker rooms. The Attorney General fights Indian casinos at every step.

It seems that gambling is immoral and a danger to society; unless the State of Texas runs it.

Why not allow private competition for gambling dollars? Why are we wasting SWAT team resources on Texas Hold Em Prevention?

We need to get the State out of the gaming business. Tax the profits of real casinos.

I will live to see real gaming in Texas. You do not have to travel far across any of Texas' borders to see where Texans gambling dollars are going (Winstar, Shreveport, etc). No amount of tinkering with the Texas Two Step is going to convince poker and slots players to buy more lottery tickets.

Labels: Texas

Basically, DPD officers got better evaluations for, inter alia, writing tickets. They would write phony tickets to inflate their numbers.

A traffic ticket is worth one point, a felony burglary arrest is worth one point. Guess which is easier to fake? Instead of solving real crime a cop could get promoted by writing more tickets.

The officers would arrest citizens without probable cause, write multiple tickets for offenses that never happened, and arrest citizens on warrants for tickets the defendant never received. They would intimidate defendants into signing tickets for offenses they did not commit. They would even get some defendants to sign blank tickets. The cops would fill in the "offense" later.

These defendants were junkies and prostitutes. They had no right to an attorney even if they were arrested because the offenses were class C misdmeanors.

IWTS Recipe for Injustice- Take a politically powerless group, add an incentive for promotion, take away the right to counsel, and add a little blue wall of silence.

Here is a great quote. The officers would create the "criminal scenario, manipulate the variables, and they nullify probable cause. They detain these people and manufacture the reasons. They’re generating activity numbers on the backs of the disenfranchised—the whores, the street-level drug users, the people no one cares about. Meanwhile, there’s real crime happening out there."

We shoud never reward officers for activity. We should reward cops for stopping and solving real crime. Crimes with victims should take precedent over revenue generating tickets. In a system that rewards a traffic ticket as much as an arrest for rape, how many rapists are going to get caught? Real crime takes a long time to solve. Phony tickets take seconds to manufacture.

We need to see tickets for what they are; A revenue generator for the city and a threat to our civil liberties. If you can be arrested for a ticket then you should have the right to due process, including the right to counsel. We could prevent future abuse by requiring that all police encounters be recorded.

Hopefully these victims will file a class action against the Dallas Police Department. When Dallas loses more money to yet another police scandal things may actually start to change.

Labels: Dallas Police, Tickets

1. You shall not kill. 2. The road shall be for you a means of communion between people and not of mortal harm. 3. Courtesy, uprightness and prudence will help you deal with unforeseen events. 4. Be charitable and help your neighbor in need, especially victims of accidents. 5. Cars shall not be for you an expression of power and domination, and an occasion of sin. 6. Charitably convince the young and not so young not to drive when they are not in a fitting condition to do so. 7. Support the families of accident victims. 8. Bring guilty motorists and their victims together, at the appropriate time, so that they can undergo the liberating experience of forgiveness. 9. On the road, protect the more vulnerable party. 10. Feel responsible toward others.

I guess number 5 could apply to DWI. Does "charitably convince" include arrest, incarceration, and ignition interlock?

7, 8, 10 seem to directly denounce stingy insurance companies who don't help accident victims. I wonder if I can use that in my car accident practice?

In our case you have to read the dicta to find a direct mention of alcohol. The paper mentions that all those who enganger others on the road are gravely guilty, whether through drunkeness or love of speed.

Basically all careless driver's are equally morally responsible for the accidents they cause. That is a good lesson. DWI accidents are accidents after all. The same type of accidents that are caused by changing the radio station, talking on your cell phone, eating in the car, daydreaming, driving too fast, etc.

I would argue that .08 is not a level of intoxication that endagers others and that the many drivers who drink are responsible and make it home without endangering anyone. That is probably why I am not Pope.

Labels: DWI

From Scotusblog "Applying a considerable dose of common sense, aligning itself with the overwhelming majority of lower courts, and voting unanimously, the Supreme Court ruled on Monday that a police traffic stop of a car also amounts to at least temporary detention of everyone in the vehicle, so passengers, as well as the driver, may challenge the legality of the stop."

The old rule was that if a passenger was free to leave he was not detained and could not challenge the stop. The Supreme Court decided that passengers in a stopped car are not free to leave.

Good job, SCOTUS.

This opinion will only apply in cases where the cops pull a car over without probably cause that a traffic violation has occured. In Texas we have made it nearly impossible for a driver to obey all the traffic laws all the time. There are dozens of offenses that give rise to a traffic stop and arrest. Most texans may not realize it, but every traffic violation except speeding and open container is an arrestable offense.

It will be a rare stop that falls under this ruling. Cops can always find the car had a bad license plate light, was following too closely, speeding, or not using a turn signal.

It is still a win, albeit a small one.

Labels: Supreme Court

Kaufman County started a public defender office last fall. The goal was to save money on attorney fees. I remember hearing rumors that some defense attorney's were making 6 figure salaries on appointmented cases.

The new PD, Andrew Jordan, is doing a great job. Defendants are moving out of the jail quicker and the criminal dockets seem to be moving much faster. It seems that even though the PD office is working well the county is not seeing the savings they wanted.

This is not Andrew Jordan's fault. Kaufman county had systemic criminal justice problems that the PD office inherited. It seems that local law enforcement actually withheld cases until the new DA arrived on January 1.

PUBLIC SAFETY-

Here is a great quote from the Kaufman Sheriff - "What we're saving is we no longer have people who have misdemeanors spending 45 or 60 days awaiting court on a DUI or something," he said. "We're getting a much higher level of criminal justice and due process to these people in a timely manner. It allows them to get out and be productive citizens, so they can pay [in fines and fees] for this criminal justice system."

That says a lot. The Sheriff seems to acknowledge that our tough laws are not keeping the citizenry safer. He advocates letting these "productive citizens" out to work. If these defendants are not a threat and should be working why are we jailing them? Why not change the laws that require the incarceration of productive citizens?

I wonder if MADD is unhappy that DWI defendants are getting out faster?

The truth about the drug war and other tough on crime measures is clear at the county level. You can see how such policies are a never ending drain on county resources.

Most indigent defendants just want to end their case, get out of jail, and move on with their lives. The system is not reforming indigent defendants. It is warehousing, feeding, clothing, and paying for their medical care. Taxpayers should realize that most of the tough laws they support are keeping their property taxes high, but not keeping them safer.

I have personal experience as a public defender. My first job out of law school was as an assistant PD. The toughest part of being a PD for me was the complete lack of hygiene among many indigent defendants. Really bad breath was common. The other tough part was that a lot of misdemeanor defendants knew as much or more about criminal procedure than me. I learned a lot as a PD but private practice is for me.

For insight into PD life check out these links to PD blogs.

Labels: Kaufman County

For those of you with a father or other family member in jail here is the Texas Department of Criminal Justice guide for families.

As of 1998, 1.4 million children had one parent in jail. 94% of those were fathers. I am sure that number has only increased in the last decade.

I wonder how many families we destroy to enforce prohibition? Is it worth it? Our for profit prison industry is only happy to accomodate more dads.

To all the dads behind bars- Quit getting arrested, I like my job, but your family needs you.

We have given the police awesome authority to combat drugs. No knock home invasion searches would not be necessary if we ended prohibition. How many more innocent homes need we invade until we realize the system is broke?

Labels: Police, War On Drugs

When I was a DA in East Texas the judge required a pro se waiver. Most defendants signed it and pled guilty. Before I got my chance at plea bargaining with any pro se defendant they at least knew what their rights were and signed them away.

If the end result is the same, what is the difference? Why require a waiver?

Proceeding pro se is a horrible decision. The lack of bargaining power, education, and experience create a significant disadvantage for pro se defendants. HB 1178 prevents judges or prosecutors from pressuring a defendant to proceed pro se.

Many people come to court without any clue as to how the criminal justice system works. Repeat offenders have the benefit of experience. The naive defendant, the innocent defendant, they are the ones who need HB1178.

A naive defendant is one who answers all of the police officer's questions. Naive defendants believe that the police are trying to help, and that if they are guilty they should just plead guilty and take the plea bargain the DA is offering.

Naive defendants do not understand that neither the police or the prosecutor is watching out for their rights or their best interest. They believe in the inherent justness of the law and benevolence of authority.

Innocent defendants also need protection. They often believe that if they can just tell their story that the case will be dismissed. What they lack is knowledge of the law and knowledge of the criminal process.

As a prosecutor, I remember many defendants telling me they did not do it. I would answer "I was not there. I only know what is in this police report. It says you are guilty. If you want to hire an attorney we can argue over the facts at trial." Faced with that most defendants pled guilty. A defense lawyer can sell a defense in a way pro se defendants can not.

Could an attorney "beat" all these cases? No, but if HB1178 keeps innocent defendants from pleading guilty or naive defendants from taking awful plea offers then it is worth it.

A pro se defense is most often no defense at all. HB 1178 is a great development.

Labels: Plea Bargains, Prosecution

A recent study by the University of Florida finds that tougher DWI laws have little or no deterrent effect on drunk driving or traffic fatalities.

I had a recent DWI case that was going to plead for various reasons. My client had no record and was a hard working young woman in her 20's. Being a good citizen this young lady did everything the cops asked. She performed field sobriety tests and took a breath test when asked.

IWTS rule- In a DWI stop the cops are not there to help you. They want to arrest you. You do not have to assist them in your conviction.

The plea bargain was for 15 months probation. She now faces alcohol education classes, a Victim Impact panel, thousands in fees to renew her license, community service, fines, court costs, probation fees, drug tests and a breath test machine in her car.

This young lady had no criminal history. Not as much as a traffic ticket. It was a tough on DWI DA in a county that worships at the MADD altar.

If tougher DWI laws do not improve safety then there is no reason to keep punishing our fellow Texans. We are ruining lives with these convictions.

Most Americans have driven under the influence at some point in their lives. Since some horrible tragic accidents are caused by DWI we have decided to treat every DWI defendants as if they killed someone.

The punishment does not fit the crime. We have made DWI a money grab for the state and a moral crusade for law enforcement.

DWI is not a moral failure. It does not make you a bad person. DWI happens.

George W Bush, Dick Cheney, the guy from Extreme Makeover Home Edition, and Mel Gibson have all driven drunk. How many Victim Impact Panels and Alcohol Education classes should Dick Cheney have been put through? George W. did not have to spend any time in the county jail and he became President.

We need to change our approach to DWI enforcement. Hopefully this study will convince the public that MADD should be ignored. Enforcement has reached its limits. Tougher laws will not work.

Thanks to the Defense Perspective for inspiring this post.

Labels: DWI, MADD, Probation

One of the most popular Google searches that lands me readers is "affidavit of non prosecution form."

You are probably trying to get a domestic violence case dismissed.

There is no AONP form on this site. Even if there was an AONP does not mean the DA has to drop the case.

Victims often think they can press charges or drop charges against a defendant. Only the prosecutor has that authority.

My advise to those of you wanting to help your loved one is to talk to an attorney. Pro se criminal defense practice is fraught with peril.

For my perspective as an ex-DA here is an earlier post.

Labels: Family Violence

Here are some quotes-

Thirty-six years after President Nixon declared a "war on drugs," cocaine remains thoroughly in demand and it's as cheap and trendy as ever.

I will keep repeating this. Making something illegal does not eliminate demand, it just changes the suppliers. Despite spending billions on enforcement and incarceration the price of cocaine has not even gone down.

With limited manpower and money matched up against no shortage of supply or demand, enforcing the "war against drugs" in any other way is, as the LAPD narcotics detective told ABC News, "as effective as throwing a bucket of water into the Atlantic Ocean."

This quote seems to blame the limited man power and money. It never stops to question the policy. Limited manpower and money? The budget for the DEA, FBI, Coast Guard, Local Enforcement and the billions we spend in Columbia to fight cocaine is not enough?

The DEA has alone has 11,000 employees and a $2,000,000,000 annual budget.

Man power and money is not the problem. Prohibition is the problem.

"Our goal is not to get drug usage down to zero percent but to get it down as low as possible and by taking a public health approach to the problem we feel that can be done," said Lemaitre, who added that a strong network of drug treatment programs allied to educating the young as to the dangers of drugs was the way to achieve this.

Why does public health require no knock home invasion searches? How is the public health improved when we incarcerate thousands of cocaine users?

They rhetoric may shift but it is the same failed Prohibition. Education, public health, and treatment are all nice buzzwords but the War on Drugs is still about incarceration.

The police do not kick your door down and say "This is the police we are here to educate and treat you!!"

I can win the war on drugs tommorow. Let Pfizer or Phillip Morris or Miller Brewing sell cocaine.
The Columbian drug lords, the gangs, the local dealers are all out of business.

Until then it's more of the same failure. More prisons, more enforcement, more overdoses.

Labels: War On Drugs

IWTS has been named "New and Noteworthy."

I agree with new. Hopefully, I can become noteworthy.

These blogs are a great insight into the practice of law in the Lone Star State.

A great resource for lawyers and non lawyers alike.

I especially like Defending People by Mark Bennett.

Austin Criminal Defense Lawyer Jamie Spencer also has a list of the Top 11 Criminal Law Blogs.

Labels: Lawyers

When we end Marijuana prohibition I will lose some business. It is still the right thing to do. I can always take more car wrecks. I would still have a busy criminal practice.

If we changed our felony drugs laws I would have to sell Amway.

My office is in Kaufman, Texas. Kaufman is the county seat of Kaufman County. Kaufman County is directly East of Dallas and is growing with the exurb boom.

Kaufman has two district (felony) courts, the 422nd and 86th judicial district.

Let's look at the new cases for June in the 422nd District Court.

The grand jury indicted 66 new cases. Grand jury indictments are how felony cases are filed. Out of those 44 were drug cases.

Out of those 44-

30 were for Possession of a Controlled Substance. 15 of those cases for under 1 gram.

8 were for Manufacturing and Delivery. No Pablo Escobars in this group. 3 of the dealers had less than 1 gram of drugs. All had under 4 grams.

3 were for Marijuana possession (over 4oz is a felony, that's a lot of weed).

3 were for bringing a prohibited substance into jail. That charge is when you do not give the cop the crack rock in your shoe and it is found during book in.

2/3 of the new cases for one month in one court involve prohibition enforcement. Those cases all required substantial law enforcement time and resources to get to the grand jury. The cops made arrests, compiled reports, conducted interviews, and gathered evidence. All drugs in Kaufman county are sent to a lab for verification. Then the case goes to the district attorney for intake. A prosecutor spends time reviewing the evidence, looking for problems with the case, and either prepares an indictment, rejects the case, or asks an investigator to gather more evidence.

All of the defendants charged were arrested, booked, bail was set, and now they have at least one if not many court appearances in their future. All felony defendants get an attorney in Kaufman before they plead. If they are indigent the taxpayer pays for that.

All of those resources are not being used to catch or convict killers, rapists, burglars, arsonists, or identity thieves.

One month does not a statistical sample make. It does show how the answer to a failed drug policy is not more of the same. Texas recently approved 8,500 more prison beds. That is the War on Drugs version of a troop surge.

Not only would I lose business if we ended prohibition but thousands of government employees would be gone also. With a new approach to the drug war we could lower the budget for law enforcement and increase the amount we spend prosecuting non drug crimes (sex offenders, violent crimes, theft, murder etc).

I will be happy to find other ways to make money (Were you injured in a car wreck?). Prohibition is a failure, an expensive failure that makes us less safe. As a society we should demand that our tax dollars and criminal justice resources be better utilized.

Labels: Kaufman County, War On Drugs

I love freedom. I love liberty.

I do not love MADD.

MADD, how do I not love thee, let me count the ways.

1. MADD supports an 8-10 year sentence (later reduced to 27 months) for parents allowing underage drinking at their house. Not one of the teenagers was legally drunk. All keys were confiscated. The local MADD chapter liked "the message the judge was trying to send."
MADD advocates a zero tolerance policy abstinence only alcohol policy. If you disagree they are happy to watch you spend a decade in jail.

2. MADD views defense lawyers as a nuisance in their neo prohibtionist quest. MADD calls the DWI bar a "Hurdle to Reform." What's wrong with defense attorneys? We are more interested in "winning the case" than in helping convict defendants. Shame on us.

3. MADD hates the Constitution and liberty. Like all tyrants MADD believes that their ends justifies their means. To them, no freedom is more important than stopping every DWI.

Their most recent triumph; reducing the legal BAC to .08, is a complete failure. "Alcohol related" traffic falalities are up since that law passed. What to do when one law does not work? Repeal it? No. Get tougher.

MADD advocates "getting serious" about the "War on Drunk Driving" by putting breath machine technology in all cars.

MADD also loves police roadblocks (sobriety checkpoints). Authoritarian dictatorships stop and question their citizens for no reason. Traffic stops used to require a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. MADD helped rid our country of that bothersome 4th Amendment.

4. MADD was founded as an organization against drunk driving. However, MADD has transformed into a neo prohibitionist movement (which caused their founder to quit).

5. MADD uses phony "alcohol related fatality" statistics to scare the public and silence opposition. Only 1/4 of alcohol related fatalities involve a drunk driver killing a sober driver. The rest of the "alcohol related fatalities" include situations where a pedestrian had been drinking (not drunk) and was killed by a vehicle. Or sober drivers who accidently get in a wreck and kill a passenger who was drinking.

It is time to stand up for freedom and against MADD. DWI enforcement is not more important than the Constitution.

The PO's response- "This is crap."

Actually, it is urine. Feces is not used for drug testing.

The same office is accused of "inappropriate contact" with a female probationer. The PO has since resigned.

Probation officers have a tough job. I have known a lot of them and they work hard with difficult subjects. One of the reason their job is so tough is that we have too many probationers. Texas passed tough drug laws but the jails are too full to enforce them so we encourage or require (POCS cases) probation.

Probationer officers have to collect hundreds of gallons of urine from these probationers to make sure they stay off drugs. We have a myriad of rules and conditions probationer officers must enforce (fines, fees, community service, no booze, no gambling, no leaving the county without permission etc). The job of a PO is not easy.

Just like small class sizes are important to schools, the more probationers we create the harder it is to manage.

Most probation revocation hearings involve the probation officer's word versus the defendant. Guess how that turns out?

As a prosecutor, I always believed my probation officers. I never had a reason not to. If one of them had lied I would not have known. I was handed an affidavit from the PO listing the defendants infractions and I would file a Motion to Revoke.

I enjoyed putting defendants I did not like on probation knowing they would not make it. If a criminal case has issues, you can offer the defendant probation and get the jail time you want later. Probation in Texas is tough and many defendants can not make it.

Probation violaters almost always plead true"and take a deal. Probation revocation hearings are unlike a criminal trial. The State only has to be prove an allegation by apreponderance of the evidence, not beyond a reasonable doubt. Probationers do not have many of the rights criminal defendants enjoy.

The sheer number of defendants makes probation neccessary. That same volume of defendants also make corruption more possible. Lower standards of proof and less legal protections for probationers leave the system vulnerable

Labels: Probation, Prosecution

At large tickets are issued when the suspect is not available to cite in person. If the ticket is not mailed to the right address and the suspect never appears in court a warrant can be issued. It seems that defendants were jailed without any knowledge of a ticket being issued.

DMN speculates that these highly decorated officers were motivated to "write more tickets so that it appears they are working harder than their peers. Cpls. Stecker, Nelson and Schoelen have been prolific ticket writers.. "

How could this go on for so long?

1. The defendants are not very sophisticated, educated, or sympathetic. Many of these ticketswere to prostitutes and the homeless. If they end up in jail and complain it is their word against the police. Guess how that looks in court?

2. Class C misdemeanor defendants do not have the right to counsel; even if they are incarcerated for the tickets. These defendants had no one to challenge these tickets. I am guessing most plead out for "time served."

3. These officers had oustanding credentials. Quoting from the article- The three officers have all received positive reviews from supervisors. A sergeant wrote in a recent evaluation that Cpl. Schoelen "excels in the performance of his duties." Cpl. Stecker's sergeant called him a "resourceful, intelligent, poised professional police officer." Cpl. Nelson's supervisor described him as "dependable, responsible and one of the most knowledgeable officers" he knew.

We need to quit jailing defendants for tickets. It's repugnant to liberty. If we are going to throw people in jail for tickets they need the same legal protections as other defendants. Otherwise, we will have more situations like this.

When I was prosecuting in East Texas I received a phone call from the Mexican Consulate in Dallas. It seemed that a Mexican citizen had been in our county jail for the past 7 months. The Consulate had been contacted by the defendant's family who were wondering about his whereabouts.

The Mexican National, lets call him Jose, had been arrested for DWI 7 months ago. Jose was not a citizen and had an immigration issue that led to an INS hold. Jose was arrested and booked in. But somehow Jose's DWI offense report and other paperwork never made it to the DA's office.

Jose was stuck in county jail purgatory. A hold by INS kept him from making bail. A pending charge kept INS from picking Jose up. And a lack of paperwork kept me from filing a charge. I had no knowledge of the case until the phone call.

DWI is a class B misdemeanor. The maximum punishment is 180 days in jail. Jose had already spent around 210. I immediately filed charges. An attorney was appointed and Jose plead guilty. The sentence; 180 days in jail with credit for 180 days served.

Why not just dismiss the case? Two reasons- 1. He was really really drunk if I remember correctly. 2. Guilty pleas limit potential lawsuits against the county.

I knew Jose was going to plead guilty and take the plea. He wanted to go back home. This is common among indigent defendants.

Any lawyer who has taken an appointed case will tell you that one reason people plead guilty is to get out jail NOW!

It creates a huge disparity in bargaining power when one party can incarcerate the other.

So while all the media attention is focused on Paris, just think of all the Jose's around the country. Stuck in county jail because no one is watching.

Labels: Plea Bargains, Prosecution

The DA claims to lack jurisdiction in some cases, and to lack evidence and cooperation from Perverted Justice in others. Perverted Justice is angry and states that "We've gone from questioning the competency of the Collin County prosecutor's office to questioning their sanity."

It is never politically popular to not charge pedophiles. It leads me to wonder if any other factors were at play? Bad blood between the CCDA and PJ? Or the CCDA and the Murphy PD? Residents of Murphy were upset with the entire production taking place in their neighborhood. Other residents are upset the cases are not being filed.

It is unfortunate that we may never know why these cases were not charged. Open records requests are limited in these situations.

Personally, I find it strange that Collin County would reject these cases, especially for "insufficient evidence." Criminal Defense lawyers know that it is impossible to get a DWI dismissed in McKinney no matter how "insufficient" the evidence is.

There is a larger issue; how private market forces affect law enforcement.

PJ critics accuse them of not making complete transcripts public and hiding evidence of innocence (brady material), violating child pornography laws, and entrapment. Critics say NBC violates their own ethics rules and ignores complaints against PJ in the quest for ad revenue and higher ratings.

Law Enforcement and profit motives do not make the best combination. Asset forfeiture, private prison lobbying, and red light cameras show how justice can always be warped by a profit motive.

I love profit and I love free markets. I am a defense lawyer who makes money in the criminal justice industry. What is the difference?

I do not have the power of government. The government can arrest, incarcerate, seize, forfeit, and harrass in a way no private citizen can. The government has awesome power. Power that should be wielded without concern for TV ratings.

Who feels sorry for child sex predators? Nobody. Serious crimes require serious prosecutions with trained officers, not Stone Phillips.

Check back Tuesday.