Dallas Criminal Defense Lawyer Blog

At any given time a few of my clients are in jail. Every defendant experiences the humilation of being booked in and bonded out, but a few are trapped in the county jail for extended periods of time. One things counties hate spending money on is inmate health care. Providng free health care for "criminals" is not a winning political theme.

I get a few questions from inmates and their families on what to do if they don't receive proper medical attention. I advise them to ask for a nurse as frequently as possible, and in writing, until something is done. Each county jail has different policies for dropping off prescriptions etc. But the jail is ultimately responsible for providing a minimum level of treatment for their inmates.

What happens when a county inmate is denied medical care, and suffers irreperable harm as a result? Recently Dallas county's notoriously mismanaged and dangerous jail met the working end of a 1983 civil suit. The defendant won at trial, and the county appealed. Dallas would rather pay lawyers than pay an inmate they almost killed.

Here is the lowdown on Shepherd vs. Dallas County; a recent decision from the 5th Circuit (circuit as in Federal, not State) court of Appeals.

Facts-
Stanley Shepherd was a "pre trial detainee". That's a nice way of saying he was being incarcerated even without a finding of guilt. Stanley had a history of hypertension and was being treated with Clonidine. Dallas county jailers were aware of this condition, but refused to provide him with the required daily prescription. Stanley suffered a stroke, and is now confined to a wheelchair because Dallas was too cheap and/or incompetent to treat Mr. Shepherd. From the opinon-

For the next seven weeks, Shepherd received no medical treatment. His medication was not dispensed as prescribed, and no medical provider checked his blood pressure. The record shows that he and his wife, who was aware of the situation, complained to jail staff and medical personnel about the lack of treatment. His wife, in particular, repeatedly expressed the concern that Shepherd would have a stroke if he did not receive his medication regularly.

Stanley filed a federal 1983 suit challenging the conditions at the jail.

What's a 1983 lawsuit?
1983 lawsuits are federal suits based upon constitutional violations. For county inmates there are two main causes of action. From the opinion-

Constitutional challenges by pretrial detainees may be brought under two alternative theories: as an attack on a “condition of confinement” or as an “episodic act or omission.” Hare v. City of Corinth, Miss., 74 F.3d 633, 644–45 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc). If the plaintiff has properly stated a claim as an attack on conditions of confinement, he is relieved from the burden of demonstrating a municipal entity’s or individual jail official’s actual intent to punish because, as discussed below, intent may be inferred from the decision to expose a detainee to an unconstitutional condition.

In this case, Shepherd showed that the chronically mismanaged and understaffed jail created a condition where inmates were denied basic medical care. This wasn't hard. Dallas has historically had one of the worst run jails in the country.

1983 lawsuits can be an effective way to pierce the veil of sovereign immunity state and local governments so often grant themselves. But for the prospect of writing more checks, you can bet local pols would remain deaf to the concerns of pre trial detainees and their appalling treatment.

Auto accident reconstruction is an issue that comes up in intox assault/manslaughter cases. I know enough about accident reconstruction to know that I need an expert's assistance. Being in the DFW area I don't see a lot of boating while intoxicated (BWI) cases, much less a boating accident reconstruction scenario. So let's learn about this science together shall we?

Recently I had the chance to interview Phil Odom of H20 invesgitations. Phil spent years in DWI/BWI enforcement and is an expert in accident reconstruction. How exactly does one recreate an accident on the high seas? Let's ask Phil.

Resume/Background
I started in Law Enforcement in 1984 and I took most of the alcohol/drug related courses offered through the department. I completed the Drug Recognition Expert training (DRE) and later became a DRE Instructor. I was a DUI Enforcement Unit for a year and a half and received awards from MAAD. I was assigned to numerous “Attack Drunk Driver” Task Force operations on both land and water. I completed all of the training to be qualified as a Major Accident Investigation Team (MAIT) member. I was selected for the MAIT Team in the contract city I worked in and the department’s Regional MAIT Team. In 1996 I was promoted and transferred to the Colorado River Station. There was a lack of organization in boating collision investigation that was present in a MAINT investigation. I developed and supervised the Boating Accident Investigation Team (BAIT) for seven years, which initially got a lot of grins. I completed Boating Accident Reconstruction courses from the State of California, Underwriters Laboratories and The National Association of State Boating Law Administrators. I began teaching boating accident reconstruction for the California Department of Boating and Waterways (DBW). I took part in committees to rewrite DBW’s Accident Investigation Manual and Boating Under the Influence Manual. I was on the committee, which developed the curriculum for DBW’s Advanced Boating Reconstruction Investigation Course. I have been the operator of the striking vessel in over sixty staged boating collisions from speeds of 5 MPH to 45 MPH, which to my knowledge there are only three other people that have done this. My CV is contained on my website.

I've never seen a boating accident reconstruction report. Walk me through the process. How do you do this?

Boating accident reconstruction in the private sector starts with a contact from an attorney. I am sent all the reports, interviews, interrogatories, depositions photographs and any other information for review. In some cases, I can reconstruct the collision from this information alone. In more complex cases, the reconstruction starts with the evidence, which is the vessels involved in the collision, especially if there is question to the collision dynamics and fault. I will go to the location where the vessels are stored and inspect them. Damage analysis is crucial in any vessel accident reconstruction. Occupant kinetics and injuries are also a very important part of the reconstruction. Entry angles, damage and exit angles lead to course of the vessels and speed of the vessels. Most recreational vessels are constructed of fiberglass (there are no industry standards), which is resilient and can be deceptive when analyzing it. Scene examination is also important in considering environmental factors, vision obscurants, along with time-distance factors. I find initial interviews lacking in moist cases because lack of knowledge on the interviewers part and most parties are reinterviewed.

What are some of the difference between your auto accident
 reconstruction and car accident reconstruction?

Boating collisions are in far contrast to a vehicle collision. After a boating collision, the vessels do not stay at rest unless a vessel has struck the shore. Physical evidence can disappear at a very rapid rate along with witnesses; this is due in part to the length of response times of law enforcement. Another factor is, unlike collisions that occur on land, there is a third dimension added to a vessel vs. vessel collision, which is below the waters surface, vessels depress below the surface of the water when struck by another vessel, this creates a ramp for the striking vessel. A striking vessel can completely go over from stern (back) to bow (front) at speeds lower than 20 MPH. In a rear end vehicle collision the energy is absorbed by movement, front and rear end damage to the vehicles Most of the mathematical formulas used in auto collisions to determine speed can’t be applied in a boating collision. Crush calculations are impossible to determine the speed of a vessel using any type of mathematical formula. In contrast to automobile collisions, federal statues require actions on both operators of a vessel to take action to avoid a collision.

What should defense counsel look for in BWI cases?

In defense of a BUI case, there are many similar aspects as a DUI (vehicle) case. The first to look at is the probable cause for the stop, which can be based on an opinion, such as the age of a child not wearing a life vest, regulatory ordnance or a violation of a state and/or a federal statute. The US Coast Guard can board any vessel without probable cause, for safety inspection purposes. The main focus in a defense would be the field sobriety tests. In any field sobriety test conducted on the water, the operator performs the FST’s on a moving platform, the patrol vessel. If field sobriety tests are conducted on the water, it leaves a large area to question as to the validity of the test and the impairment of an operator. Just one example is a “modified” finger to nose test, which is commonly used, on the water. Questions would be what were the environmental conditions at the time? The operator is expected to touch the tip of his finger, to the tip of his nose and if it is missed by a quarter of an inch, it is considered by law enforcement as missed. This test conducted on a moving vessel could be impossible to “pass” if wind, any type of wave or other environmental conditions is present. If the FST’s are conducted on land other factors not associated with motor vehicles is equal librium issues from being on the water which can influence the FST’s. If the tests are conducted on land was it a detention or an arrest? Another area that is overlooked is the preliminary alcohol screen test (PAS). There are manufactures requirements that are rarely practiced in the marine environment, including calibration logs. There was a fatal collision in northern California and the instrument used by law enforcement was not calibrated for over a year. In BUI cases, from police reports I can review the case and prepare questions for council to ask in the proceedings.

What is the status of field sobriety testing in boating cases?

At the present time there are no field sobriety test validated for use on the water. In 2007 The National Association of State Boating Law Administrators (NASBLA) began year one of a three-year SFST Validation Study. The first year gathered BUI arrest reports from across the country and analyzed the data to develop a total of 13 possible candidates for standardized field sobriety testing. Testing on those preliminary tests has shown that six have higher promise than the others. Testing standards have been developed, and laboratory testing has begun and should be completed by the end of this year. The Executive Summary can be found on NASBLA’s website.

Anything else?

In representing someone of any alcohol related offence that occurred on the water or a vessel collision and the use of an expert is needed, look closely at the experts experience and qualifications in the exact field.

Personal friend and criminal appeals guru has reentered the world of private defense practice. His website could use some SEO magic, so here it goes.

www.souzalawdallas.com

Chris designed his own website, I outsourced mine to Justia. Check out his page of significant decisions. It's pretty significant. Chris is fluent in Spanish, a former ADA, a former public defender, and a has earned a solid Avvo review from yours truly.

Sexting is the latest moral panic du jour. In Texas, we have decided that the best way to produce healthy young adults is for the State to criminalize normal consensual teen behavior. Lest our young adults grow up without a healthy fear for the arbitrary and limitless power of law enforcement. Like Lenny and his rabbits sometimes the State can care too much.

How much does Texas love our young adults? Let us count the ways teenagers can be destroyed by the State for sexting.

While you won't find "sexting" in the penal code, the act of sending nude pics of teens violates a few statutes. The first is possession of child pornography.

§ 43.26. POSSESSION OR PROMOTION OF CHILD PORNOGRAPHY. (a) A person commits an offense if: (1) the person knowingly or intentionally possesses visual material that visually depicts a child younger than 18 years of age at the time the image of the child was made who is engaging in sexual conduct; and

First, what is the affirmative defense under 43.25(f)? Basically, cops (acting in an official capacity), spouses, and those within 2 years of age of the child have a defense at trial. Like all affirmative defenses the defendant can still be arrested and prosecuted for the offense.

My question is why just a two year window? Compare this to the affirmative defense to having sex with someone under 17 which has a 3 year "Romeo and Juliet" affirmative defense. According to our laws, it's worse for a 18 year old to look at a naked 15 year old on his cell phone, than it is for that 18 year old to have sex with that 15 year old. A strange sense of morality this penal code has.

If the State decides not to go the child porn route they sexters could also be charged with obscenity.

§ 43.23. OBSCENITY. (a) A person commits an offense if, knowing its content and character, he wholesale promotes or possesses with intent to wholesale promote any obscene material or obscene device. (b) Except as provided by Subsection (h), an offense under Subsection (a) is a state jail felony. (c) A person commits an offense if, knowing its content and character, he: (1) promotes or possesses with intent to promote any obscene material or obscene device; or (2) produces, presents, or directs an obscene performance or participates in a portion thereof that is obscene or that contributes to its obscenity. (d) Except as provided by Subsection (h), an offense under Subsection (c) is a Class A misdemeanor.

Children are sexually confused and frustrated enough in Texas without having to worry about the State's Mutaween. Parents, not cops and prosecutors, should define what is acceptable for their children.

Every defendant who is stuck in county jail wants the same thing- out. Inevitably the defendant, or a friend or family member asks- "Isn't there some 90 day release law when a defendant is not indicted?"

Actually there is, and it's 17.151 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. I also call it the "speedy indictment law" because filing a 17.151 motion will often get your client indicted at the next grand jury.

In Kaufman county it's typical to see a defendant indicted right around the 90 day mark. ADAs are keenly aware of this deadline and loathe to have defendants use their get out of jail free card on serious charges.

Still, if the State is not "ready for trial" and you are stuck in the pokey for 15, 30 or 90 days, your lawyer can file a motion for your release under 17.151.

Art. 17.151. RELEASE BECAUSE OF DELAY.
Sec. 1. A defendant who is detained in jail pending trial of an accusation against him
must be released either on personal bond or by reducing the amount
of bail required, if the state is not ready for trial of the
criminal action for which he is being detained within:
(1) 90 days from the commencement of his detention if he is
accused of a felony;
(2) 30 days from the commencement of his detention if he is
accused of a misdemeanor punishable by a sentence of imprisonment
in jail for more than 180 days;
(3) 15 days from the commencement of his detention if he is
accused of a misdemeanor punishable by a sentence of imprisonment
for 180 days or less; or
(4) five days from the commencement of his detention if he
is accused of a misdemeanor punishable by a fine only.
Sec. 2. The provisions of this article do not apply to a
defendant who is:
(1) serving a sentence of imprisonment for another offense
while the defendant is serving that sentence;
(2) being detained pending trial of another accusation
against the defendant as to which the applicable period has not yet
elapsed;
(3) incompetent to stand trial, during the period of the
defendant's incompetence; or
(4) being detained for a violation of the conditions of a
previous release related to the safety of a victim of the alleged
offense or to the safety of the community under this article.
Sec. 3. Repealed by Acts 2005, 79th Leg., ch. 110, Sec. 2.

Back in my prosecutor days I only ever lost two cases, both were jury trials. One was a speeding ticket (to a prepaid legal attorney no less), the other was a lawnmower theft case.

The lawnmower theft went as follows- CW was inside house and testified she saw D pull up and steal her lawnmower. Pretty simple right? To my utter surprise the jury acquits. Maybe the jury knew something about the inherent unreliability of eyewitness testimony. Grits has more than a few posts on the topic. This latest video (H/T to the Agitator) shows that we aren't all that aware of what's going on around us. In fact, as a species we kind of suck at paying attention and recalling events.

Eyewitness mistakes are another spoke on the wrongful conviction wheel (along with snitch testimony, the war on drugs, the erosion of our constitutional protections). Most defendants don't have the funds to afford an expert in neurology to explain exactly what can go wrong when we try to observe and recall.

Therefore every potential juror has a duty to learn about the limits of eyewitness testimony. To that end, enjoy this video.

No person shall ever be imprisoned for debt.

Article 1, Section 18, Texas Constitution.

Besides criminal defense I also take a limited number of family law cases. Most Texans understand that if you fail to pay child support the court can find the debtor/obligor in contempt, and jail that person for up to 6 months. I have prosecuted and defended civil child support cases where the defendant was sent to jail for non payment. There are so many of these cases that Attorney General child support court (IV-D) often has as many inmates on the jail chain as a misdemeanor or felony docket.

The ability to seek incarceration of the obligor is (not surpisingly) a powerful advantange in litigation. "Oh, you can't pay your arrearage, fine, we'll ask the judge to put you in jail." Such a line leaves little room for negotiation.

Hint to obligors- Don't proceed pro se on civil or criminal non support cases.

Section 18 seems to be an expicit prohibition on incarcerating debtors. We certainly don't want credit card companies et al to have this power. How could the lege enact a law to imprison those who fail to pay support?

This is low hanging fruit for pols. These debtor/defendants are one of the most politically unpopular groups this side of sex offenders and murderers- the Deadbeat Dad. Our lege was going to get this money and incarcerate these debtors. To that end they carefully crafted the statute to survive constitutional challenges (see Lowry v. State, No. 627-84, COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS, 692 S.W.2d 86).

Further, our appellate courts came through with some logical gymnastics to explain that child support isn't really a debt, so we aren't really jailing debtors. Instead, we are jailing debtors for contempt/disobedience of a court order. Ohhh.

Here is an example from a 1992 case, Lyons vs State, 825 SW2d 715.

Imprisonment assessed as punishment for the violation of a statute or court order is not imprisonment for debt, even if the statute or court order has the effect of requiring a payment of money. TEX. CONST. art. I, § 18 commentary, citing Ex parte Robertson, 27 Tex. Civ. App. 628, 11 S.W. 669 (1889); Dixon v. State, 2 Tex. 481 (1847); see also Freeland v. Freeland, 313 S.W.2d 943 (Tex. Civ. App.-Dallas 1958, no writ), holding that a child support order does not create a debt within TEX. CONST. art. I, § 18.

So what's the law on criminal non support? Let's look at the Texas Penal Cdoe 25.05-

25.05. CRIMINAL NONSUPPORT. (a) An individual commits an offense if the individual intentionally or knowingly fails to provide support for the individual's child younger than 18 years of age, or for the individual's child who is the subject of a court order requiring the individual to support the child. (b) For purposes of this section, "child" includes a child born out of wedlock whose paternity has either been acknowledged by the actor or has been established in a civil suit under the Family Code or the law of another state. (c) Under this section, a conviction may be had on the uncorroborated testimony of a party to the offense. (d) It is an affirmative defense to prosecution under this section that the actor could not provide support for the actor's child. (e) The pendency of a prosecution under this section does not affect the power of a court to enter an order for child support under the Family Code. (f) An offense under this section is a state jail felony.

The affirmative defense isn't as helpful as you would think. An affirmative defese shitfs the burden of proof (initially) to the defendant to establish inability to pay, then the State has to rebut. Debtors must show that at the time the State alleges they didn't pay, they couldn't.

Sounds easy right? Just show up with your tax returns and bills and make your case. Not so fast. Some debtors work in construction or other industries in which it is common to pay cash or have employees set up as independent contractors. Such jobs tend to skew towards the lower end of the pay scale and eschew the formalities otherwise associated with employment. Therefore, many debtors don't have the documentation necessary to raise such a defense.

What happens when defendants are without evidence to support an affirmative defense and charged with a felony? In general, these debtors become what we call probationers, or inmates.

Drug possession cases tend to be factually simple scenarios. The State must prove that you had care, custody and control of X, and that X is illegal. We'll save possession for another day. Today let talk about proving X is marijuana.

In most cases drug DPS labs provide analyze the putative contraband and attempt to positively identify whatever it is the police sent them (you'd be shocked how often drugs aren't actually drugs). Not so much with marijuana.

By far, the most untested alleged controlled substance in Texas is weed. In an effort to convict the maximum number of otherwise law abiding citizens for the least cost many marijuana cases are brought without the benefit of drug testing.

Why? First, lab testing takes time and money. We are trying to run this drug war on the cheap. Second, most judges and juries will believe a cop when he says that he can instantly diagnose a green leafy substance as marijuana. "I recognized the distinct odor of burnt marijuana" is a common arrest report proclamation.

Most Americans who have attended college or any outdoor music event (ACL, any 311/Black Crowes concert) remember that pungent odor. When LEO tells a judge/jury that he smelled weed, they believe him. A question I've always had is-Is weed the only thing that smells like weed? I can't find a good answer to that question.

What I've learned is that LEO doesn't know, doesn't want to know, and most judges/jurors don't care anyway.

Beyond odor officers will also testify they can recognize weed on sight. I've always been a little more skeptical that LEO can visually diagnose a plant material pot. Why? Because of the way Texas defines "marihuana". For that, let's go to the Health and Safety Code.

(26) "Marihuana" means the plant Cannabis sativa L., whether growing or not, the seeds of that plant, and every compound, manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture, or preparation of that plant or its seeds. The term does not include:

(A) the resin extracted from a part of the plant or a compound, manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture, or preparation of the resin;
(B) the mature stalks of the plant or fiber produced from the stalks;
(C) oil or cake made from the seeds of the plant;
(D) a compound, manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture, or preparation of the mature stalks, fiber, oil, or cake; or
(E) the sterilized seeds of the plant that are incapable of beginning germination

Some states define marijuana as THC. Texas has gone the botanist route and made this one subspecies verboten. When LEO says he saw, smelled, or used the Force to identify a substance as marijuana what he is really saying is that he can instantly diagnose plant material as Cannabis Sativa L. That's an amazing claim considering there are 170 plants in the Cannabaceae family, not to mention thousands of other "green leafy substances" to exclude.

Sativa, Indica, Ruderalis
Cannabis itself has 3 subspecies- indica, sativa, and ruderalis. I know what you're thinking. "Wouldn't that make C. Indica and C. Ruderalis legal? After all, the plain language of the statute only outlaws one subspecies."

Not so fast Willie. This is Texas and our State has a fetish for malum prohibitum prosecution. We don't let something like the wording of a law get in the way of a drug war. To that end our Court of Criminal Appeals rewrote the statute to seemingly include all subspecies- Williams vs. State, 524 S.W.2d 705. Go Go Gadget Judicial Activism!

Williams is a particularly disturbing case where the court cites the Equal Protection clause to expand police power. That is, it woudn't be fair to sativa defendants if we didn't arrest, prosecute, and incarcerate indica defendants. That's not equal protection, that's equal oppression. Moving on.

Seeds and Stems
You'll notice that the definition of marihuana excludes numerous items including oil, cake, salts and fibers etc from stalks, sterilzed seeds inter alia. Those items should not be included when the State weighs your weed. Defense lawyers refer to this as "removing seeds and stems". I've never seen a case involving oil, cakes, or salts; it just hasn't come up.

You can't count on the police or DPS lab to remove these items before weighing. They have no incentive to check because our reefer mad appellate courts shifted the burden of proof to the defendant. Nice.

It is the defendant's burden to establish the seeds were sterilized. Doggett v. State,530 S.W.2d 552, 554-56 (Tex. Crim. App. 1976); Nowling v. State, 801 S.W.2d 182, 184 (Tex. App.--Houston [14th Dist.] 1990, pet. ref'd); JohnJock v. State, 763 S.W.2d 918, 919-20 (Tex. App.--Texarkana 1989, pet. ref'd).

Weight issues comes up most often in cases that are close to a statutory limit. For example, over 4 ounces is a felony, but less than 4 is a misdemeanor. However, any usable amount up to two ounces is a class B so most joints are never reweighed.

You know what I enjoy? Emailing politicians and asking them to support my favorite pet causes. I can't tell you how many marijuana reform emails I've sent Joe Barton (he's not coming around on the issue at all). NORML, MPP, StopTheDrugWar.Org etc make it easy to contact your rep with a simple fill in the blank form.

Recently I asked future Texas governor Kay Bailey Hutchinson to support SWAT reform. Letting LEO play GI Joe to serve warrants on private residences is dangerous and an insult to our Constitution. This list of drug war casualties is littered with SWAT victims.

How does KBH feel?

Dear Friend:

Thank you for contacting me regarding responsible SWAT reform. I welcome your thoughts and comments.

I fully support the brave men and women that serve on SWAT teams in police departments throughout this country. They partake in some of the most dangerous missions that police departments confront. Their tireless dedication and sacrifice to uphold and enforce the laws of this land are commendable.

Internal reviews of policies and reforms relating to the overuse and reliance on SWAT teams would be beneficial not only to police departments, but also to taxpayers. The use of SWAT teams should be mission-specific. Any ambiguity in that mission should be addressed and corrected. Should any legislation on this topic be created in the Senate, you may be sure that I will keep your views in mind.

I appreciate hearing from you, and I hope that you will not hesitate to contact me on any issue that is important to you.

Sincerely,
Kay Bailey Hutchison
United States Senator

Are there police in your neighborhood? Are you concerned about the rampant Constitutional violations that come from over zealous policing? How can you protect yourself from being a victim of unscrupulous law enforcement? Start by ordering "10 Rules for Dealing with the Police" from Flex Your Rights.

This is a must see film for anyone looking to avoid becoming another casualty of the police state.

Is one sentence I hate to here in a consultation. Potential clients all desire the same thing during a consulation, the one thing that I can not promise them- certainty of outcome. Check the avvo message boards and you will see the most common question asked by defendants is "I'm charged with x, what sentence will I get?"

Most defendants are regular hard working Americans who but for the unlucky lottery and perpetual vigilance of law enforcement would have never been arrested or charged wtih anything. These defendants want the process over and their lives back, post haste.

Unfortunately, I don't do guaranteed dismissals for any case. I can tell you that a small category of cases (hot checks in Kaufman in which the defendant pays restitution) are routinely dismissed. But even that doesn't mean any one particular case will be dismissed.

Why can't I gurantee your case will be dismissed? Criminal law is full of variables I do not control- the prosecutor, the police report, your criminal history, the judge, inter alia.

A cornucopia of potential pitfalls lay in the way of your case being dismissed. Not to mention a whole host of politically sensitive cases that no DA wants to dismiss for fear they appear less "tough on crime" (DWI, AFV, anything with sex in the title). It is unethical to promise something I do not have complete control over to win a new client (and their fee). So I don't.

I tell potential clients that if a lawyer promises a dismissal on a case, to run, not walk out of their office. Don't waste time with someone who would exploit your fear and desire for a quick and easy conclusion. You'll find that this lawyer inevitably discovers some unforseen "problem" with the case that, lo and behold, means there will be no easy dismissal.

What I can guarantee is that I will work hard towards your goals. If you want a dismissal, that's the goal. If that becomes impossible or improbable, we adjust strategy and move on. I can also share what I've seen in other similar cases, but that creates no binding precedent for your case. To a potential clients that's nothing like the siren song of a guaranteed dismissal. But at least it's honest.

The last 70 years of failure call for a new approach.

DEA Recruits Lil Wayne To Use Up All Drugs In Mexico

I got back in from Key West last night an 9pm. I made three phone calls on the way home from the airport. One thing about leaving town for 5 days is the office tsunami that awaits upon return. I tried to not call anyone while in Florida and only sporadically checked my email. Law is a jealous mistress indeed, and right now she's pissed.

Final Key West Thoughts
The NORML seminar is at the Pier House resort and spa. PH is located at the end of Duval street in a perfect location- close enough to the nightlife, secluded enough that you don't realize it. PH also had some of the best food in Key West. It's a little pricey, but we'll probably go back next year. It's good to stay with the NORMLers.

Nightlife- What's a seminar without networking? Where better to network that Duval Street? Two places I recommend are Captain Tony's and the Green Parrot.

CT"s is the bar that Hemingway allegedly spent some time at. I felt guilty that a) I have never read a Hemingway book and b) I didn't even visit his house full of cats while in Key West. So, I spent some time at his bar.

CT's has business cards, dollars, and old bras stapled to the ceiling. Not really sure why, but it seemed a tradition that defied explanation. Any person can create a personal monument to his/her time at CT's. And from the looks of things they never remove this stuff. So if you donate your bra to the CT ceiling, it survives in perpetuity.

Green Parrot proved an excellent venue for live music. We saw the Honey Island Swamp Band and they were phenomenal. I used to play a little guitar back in the day and these guys had it. Excellent musicianship and like all excellent live bands they bring a lot of energy. There were an fun New Orleans/Delta blues/jazz band. Definetly worth seeing again.

Oh yeah, the law part.
I never leave a good CLE seminar without a few new ideas for my practice. NORML brought in some of the best lawyers in the country to speak. James Shellow was one such jurist. He literally wrote the book on attacking drug labratory tests. How does a defense lawyer go head to head with a government "scientist" on say, gas chromotography? Start with James' book.

I'll blog moer about what I learned later this week. Right now I've got to get back to work. In the meantime, here is one link worth checking out.

10 Signs The Failed Drug War Is Finally Ending- (Can you imagine a post with title even 5 years ago?)

I wouldn't leave. I've been in Key West for 24 hours and this is paradise. When I left Dallas it was snowing and I was fighting traffic on 360. Here, the weather is perfect and "traffic" is mostly golf carts and mopeds.

Where to start? First, there is the awe inspiring natural beauty of the Keys. The teal water, sandy beaches, flora and fauna deserve a few hundred words. But nature writing is not my strong point.

Besides beauty the commerce in Key West is refreshingly local and unique. While there is a CVS near our hotel there is nary a chain restaurant in site. One reason I loathe Cancun is that it's been over run with megacorp blandness. I've always been more Port Aransas than South Padre Island. The conch republic/pirate shtick is fun. I've seen more than a few drunk "pirates" in full garb, complete with fake parrots.

Last night we mingled with the fellow NORML legal committee members and had a great time. A more friendly/welcoming group of people can not be found. There are no strangers here. I made fast friends with lawyers from across the county united in our dedication to reform. I can see why so many of the same lawyers return year after year. This is the only way to get CLE hours.