Dallas Criminal Defense Lawyer Blog

Facing a DWI charge in Kaufman county? Have a serious drinking problem and/or a history of alcohol related offenses? DWI court may be in your future.

What is the Kaufman County DWI court? This is from a handout I found in CC2. I think the DA's office made this although I can't be positive as no authorship is claimed.

"The Kaufman County DWI court is a twelve month minimum program that integrates local criminal justice resources, case management, and alcohol abuse treatment to rehabilitate targeted repeat DWI offenders. There are two aspects of the program, the Court side, and the Treatment side and there are three phases to the court side. As a participant progresses through the phases, the intensity of the program lessens."

Phase I
- Weekly court meeting
- Group meeting twice a week
- Two AA (or similar) meeting a week
- Weekly probation meetings

Phase II
- Court meeting on the 1st, 3rd, and 5th week of the month
- Two AA (or similar) meetings per week
- Group meeting once a week
- Meet with probation every other week

Phase III
- Attend court once a month
- Aftercare group meeting once a month
- Two AA meeting/week
- Meet with probation every other week

Who is eligible?
- Over 17
- Reside or work in Kaufman county (there may be some leeway with this, just don't live in Houston and expect to be accepted)
- Have no current holds (that means TDC can't be waiting to pick you up)
- Physically and mentally capable of participating in the program
- Eligible to be on probation, or have your probation extended
- Must be alcohol or drug dependent

Disqualifications
- Severe mentally illness
- Prior conviction as an "abusive offender" (I think this means crimes of violence)
- Prior DWI court participant
- Prior felony conviction within 10 years of the immediate case

Why do people enter DWI court?
The carrot in this approach is that defendants get a better plea deal if they enter the program. For example, felony defendants get a shorter probation period (and avoid prison), but they have to sign up for some serious life changes.

I recently watched the Christohper Hicthens/Tony Blair debate on whether religion is a force for good in the world. To paraphrase Mr. Hitchens; "You can expect good people do good things, and bad people do bad things. To get a good person to do a bad thing you need religion." The idea being that one can bypass ordinary human decency and morality by stating that an act is divinely warranted.

The parallels with statism, positive law, and the War on Drugs, are evident to a front line observer of the Texas criminal justice system. The state may not claim divine authority, but it does share religion's ability to get good people to do horrible things.

Which brings me to our appellate case of the day- Hereford vs. State.

Facts- from the 7th Court of Appeals

One thousand-one, one thousand-two, one thousand-three, one thousand-four, one thousand-five, one thousand-six, one thousand-seven, one thousand-eight, one thousand-nine, one thousand-ten, one thousand-eleven, one thousand-twelve, one thousand-thirteen, one thousand-fourteen, one thousand-fifteen, one thousand-sixteen, one thousand-seventeen, one thousand-eighteen, one thousand-nineteen, one thousand-twenty. That was the amount of time Officer Arp initially tased Anthony G. Hereford, Jr., according to the instrument's log. At the time, appellant was handcuffed and being held down in a hospital emergency room. Arp wanted appellant to spit-out what he had in his mouth. When appellant did not comply after Arp's first foray, the tasings resumed. No one viewed appellant as a threat to others during the episode. Nor had he attacked anyone. Arp simply wanted appellant to comply. When asked if "repeated taser use [was] acceptable" and whether "20 seconds worth of tasering" was "okay," the policeman answered "yes" to both. Arp was not the first to tase appellant, though. Officer Williams had already done so twice at a locale miles away from the hospital. He too wanted appellant to remove the items, which Williams thought to be drugs, from his mouth, and met with no success. So, Williams decided to take appellant to the hospital in effort to gain medical assistance. In continuing where Williams had failed, Arp said he administered all but one of the electrical shocks to Hereford's inner thigh region; others saw them being administered to appellant's "groin area.

Fortunately, the Court of Criminal Appeals agreed that the 4th Amendment prohibits electro shock torture as an evidence gathering tool (Keller dissented).

Let's talk about Officer Arp, the man who decide to tase Hereford's groin. Let's assume, arguendo, that Officer Arp is not a sick twisted sadist who enjoys electro torture. What could motivate an otherwise decent person to an act of utter depravity?

Officer Arp testified that he believed Hereford had crack in his mouth. Our State has decreed that simple possession of any amount of cocaine is a felony offense. The State pollutes society at large, and especially LEOs, with Tuff on Crime/Drug War propaganda. Officers are trained to arrest as many crack users as they can to please the bureaucracy and.... out comes the groin taser!

It's been a few decades since the Milgram experiment , in which college students were given orders to deliver (fortunately fake) electric shocks to an innocent person. The shockee would feign heart failure and death, still the students would continue undeterred by the screams of their "victims".

The lesson, summarized by Milgram-

Ordinary people, simply doing their jobs, and without any particular hostility on their part, can become agents in a terrible destructive process. Moreover, even when the destructive effects of their work become patently clear, and they are asked to carry out actions incompatible with fundamental standards of morality, relatively few people have the resources needed to resist authority.

This act of electro torture is the end result of our state's idiotic drug laws, the inflamed War on Drugs rhetoric, and the modern milliatirez LEO mindset.The State is to be obeyed, laws enforced, and if you have to torture a defendant to make a crack arrest, that's just collateral damage.

When you show up in court without an attorney it's not unusual for a judge to set you for trial, especially if you make multiple appearances sans counsel. Judges like to move their docket, and some believe that a trial setting may be what it takes to motivate a defendant to hire a lawyer, or cop a plea with the state.

If you can not afford an attorney, be sure and let the court know early on. Ask for a "Pauper's Oath" or "Affidavit of Indigency" to apply for court appointed counsel, or the public defender.

The economy sucks, and many of you are underemployed, or unemployed, but you still may not be broke enough to qualify for a public defender. Remember, the government's broke too, and if the County can find a way to not pay for your attorney, they will. Most defendants prefer a "free world lawyer" to court appointed counsel, but anything is better than representing yourself at trial.

Let me offer a helpful guide to choosing the last minute defense lawyer.

1. Don't shop for a defense lawyer at the last minute. It's a horrible idea. You are going to pay more for immediate attention, you are going to be under pressure to choose a lawyer NOW, and not have time to consult with multiple attorneys, and finally, lawyers can rarely do their best work when facing a quick jury trial setting.

No lawyer can accept a new trial setting in the next few weeks without losing out of other business, sacrifcing other clients, and/or working whatever nights and weekends they hoped to have off. That kind of immediate attention creates logistical problems for which your lawyer will expect to be compensated.

To avoid the emergency trial premium start shopping for a lawyer as soon as you think the police are interested in you, or at the very least when you bail out of jail.

2. I can see that you skipped number 1. Now what.? First, you need to figure out how much money you have to spend. Depending on the seriousness of the charge, you are going to need a few thousand for any decent attorney to take a trial setting. Don't exepct a lawyer to offer a payment plan with a fast approaching trial setting. The reason is two fold.

First, if you don't pay, they lawyer can rarely withdraw close to trial. Lawyers don't like trying cases for free. A trial is a huge time commitment for an attorney. Pro bono is a noble idea, but a gratis trial fee will put most lawyers out of business.

Second, defendants rarely pay after trial, and defense lawyers know this. If we win, you'll be happy, but you may not be back with our fee. If you are found not guilty, you'll probably blame the lawyer and want a refund, much less want to pay your balance.

So get a number together. When you call attorneys asking them to solve your legal emergency you should be able to tell them the maximum you can spend. A lawyer may work with you to meet that number, but without a real amount you can pay right now, you won't get anywhere with your interviews/phone calls/email inquiries.

3. Who to call? As many excellent attorneys as you can find. This part is the same as hiring a defense lawyer and has been blogged out so much that I have nothing to add. Here is Mark Bennett's guide, read it, and follow his instructions.

I'll say this. Kay Bailey Hutchinson will answer your email. Give her enough time, and you'll get something back. I admire that, even if I don't always agree with her answer. It's been a while since I heard from Jim Pitts or Joe Barton. I'm probably in their SPAM folder somewhere.

Recently (as in a few weeks ago) I asked KBH to consider gutting the ONDCP as a possible debt reduction solution. Could a $14 trillion dollar federal debt be enough to make KBH question cutting the few million the feds spend on WOD propaganda?

The GOP is ground zero for the collision of social and fiscal conservatism. On one hand, the budget is in a debt death spiral, on the other, we have to think of THE CHILDREN who would, but for the genius of "this is your brain on drugs" ads, become instant crack addicts!

KBH responds-

Dear Friend: Thank you for contacting me regarding the possible elimination of the Office of National Drug Control Policy. I welcome your thoughts and comments.

Illegal drugs are a problem at every social and economic level. They threaten the fabric of our society, especially our young people. Combating illegal drug use and distribution is and must continue to be a critical federal law enforcement priority.


However, skyrocketing federal deficits require redoubling our efforts to ensure that every taxpayer dollar is spent as effectively as possible. Every federal program and agency, including the Office of National Drug Control Policy, must and will be scrutinized. Overlapping and ineffective bureaucracies must be eliminated.


Many in Congress, including me, are determined to make drastic changes and control the runaway federal spending that has added $3.5 trillion to the national debt in just three years. We have struggled to reach agreement with the White House and its Congressional allies on spending reductions for the current fiscal year that are no more than a deficit-cutting down payment. The larger battle will be joined when Congress attempts to embed deeper cuts in the fiscal year 2012 federal budget. Please be assured that I am committed to winning the fight to restore fiscal sanity and balance the federal budget.

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