DA Watch: In Dallas, You Can't Fall in Love While Out on Bail

Clay Chabot -- doesn't that name sound like something from a daytime soap opera, or a Harlequin romance novel?

Wasn't Clay Chabot one of Erica Kane's husbands on All My Children back in the 1980s?

Um, no.

Clay Chabot is a real man though his story is reading somewhat like a melodrama. It seems that the Dallas County District Attorney's office is seeking to revoke Clay's bond and send him back to jail because they argue he's violated the terms of his release. The revocation hearing was yesterday.

What did Clay Chabot do that was so very bad?

He fell in love with one of his live-in chaparones while living under house arrest in his Cedar Hill home. Who's the lucky lady? She's his sister-in-law's daughter. And, of course, Clay has a MySpace page where the happy couple published photos of their wedding ceremony.

Oh fine, so there's a question of no marriage license even though she's going by "Mrs. Chabot" these days. And, yes, she's 37 and he's 49.

But it's love - the stuff that dreams are made of.

Love as the Basis for Bond Revocation

Meanwhile, the prosecution is ticked off about this marriage. They are moving for bond revocation because, they argue, a sexual relationship may violate the terms of his release.

First Assistant District Attorney Terri Moore actually argued at the hearing yesterday that she "didn't believe that the court intended for Mr. Chabot to be permitted a live-in girlfriend, wife, or spouse while out on bond." (Quoting the Dallas Morning News, who reported events from Tuesday's revocation hearing.) According to Moore, "[w]e give him an inch, and he takes a mile."

Chabot Already Victim of False Testimony That Resulted in Murder Conviction

Now, here's where the story goes from silly to serious. Clay Chabot was out on bond because the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals is hearing his motion for a new trial -- because it's been discovered that Chabot was convicted of murder based upon the lies of his brother-in-law. Seems DNA testing has revealed that the brother-in-law actually raped the murder victim.

The District Attorney is claiming that they are going to retry Chabot when his motion is granted, because they still think he's guilty of the crime. Now they're arguing that Chabot and his lying brother-in-law are both guilty of the murder.

Chabot Did Stop at a CellPhone Store on the Way to the Doctor

Perhaps the only real argument they've got here is that Clay did stop at a cellphone store on the way to the V.A. for medical treatment (he's allow to leave his house for doctor visits). However, it wasn't off the beaten path: it was a store on the route from Cedar Hill to the V.A. Hospital -- and please: he wasn't stopping off to gamble, buy booze, or get porno -- he stopped with his sister-in-law at a phone store.

For this, Chabot should go back behind bars after he was wrongfully convicted of murder? Maybe the DA knew this wouldn't be a big enough argument - so she added on this horrible event: Chabot married the woman he loves.

The audacity of it all.

Love Shouldn't Be Penalized

In prisons everyday, there are couples who wed without even the hope of building a life together. It's the story of legend how many penpal relationships have evolved in marriages behind bars. Heck, About.Com has an how-to article online, "How to Marry a Prisoner."

Surely if Texas Cadet Murderer Diane Zamora and Night Stalker Richard Ramirez can marry while in prison for life, then Clay Chabot can get hitched while on house arrest while his wrongful conviction is being ironed out.

Perhaps Clay's sister sums it up best: "He may have fallen in love, but he didn't do anything wrong."

Source:

Dallas Morning News
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/localnews/crime/stories/111808dnmetchabot.1c592accf.html

DA WATCH: Dallas Prosecutor Hid Evidence in 1996 and Only Now are Defendant's Rights Being Respected

Today is a very big day for Antrone Lynelle Johnson -- because today, Mr. Johnson may regain his freedom after serving 12 years of what would have been a life sentence. Antrone Johnson is just 31 years old.

Today is also a very big day for Dallas County prosecutors because once again they are facing charges of prosecutorial misconduct. And this time, it's not about DNA evidence -- it's about withholding evidence that would have helped Mr. Johnson's case.

The District Attorney Hid Evidence That Would Help Johnson's Defense

That's right: a Dallas County district attorney had evidence that tended to exonerate Antrone Johnson back in 1996, and they didn't turn it over to the defense. That D.A. doesn't work for the Dallas County District Attorney's office anymore, and hasn't responded to media queries. (Fancy that.)

It's Been a Recognized Constitutional Violation Since 1963

When a prosecutor does this -- intentionally or accidentally withholds exculpatory evidence -- it's a violation of the defendant's constitutional rights, according to the U.S. Supreme Court. That defendant's conviction must be overturned.

Sadly, these errors have become such a commonplace event across this country that everyone just refers to the situation as a "Brady violation" (named after U.S. v. Brady, the 1963 case where the high court ruled this was a constitutional violation).

What Did the DA Hide, and What Were Johnson's Accused Crimes: the Backstory

Back in the 1990s, Mr. Johnson faced two cases of sexual assault before he turned 18 years old. Here's what the prosecutor didn't turn over to the defense:

1. In one case, the girl told the prosecutor that Mr. Johnson did not rape her.

2. In the other case, the girl gave conflicting statements about whether she had sex with him.

What about DNA testing?

No DNA testing was done (in either matter). That's right: zip DNA testing in two rape cases.

The Girls' Statements Were Kept From the Defense From 1996 to 2008

All this remained on the QT for what's going on 20 years, until earlier this year when Mr. Johnson and his defense attorneys were informed about these two statements of the girls.

Mr. Johnson's defense counsel promptly filed the proper motions for his convictions to be overturned as Brady violations. He should be free, they argue -- and based upon what the girls said, he should never have spent one night in prison for these crimes.

DA's Office Now Agrees With the Defense that Johnson Should Go Free

Now, the Dallas County District Attorney's office (throught Mike Ware, the head of its Conviction Integrity Unit), has filed a document with the court that states the DA's office agrees that Mr. Johnson's life sentence conviction should be overturned.

Meanwhile, Johnson's Already Finished One Sentence and He's Spent A Decade of His Young Life Behind Bars

Mr. Johnson went from being a high school student to being an incarcerated felon serving a life sentence, until hopefully today. And that's just on the first convction. As for the convition on the second sexual assault charge, Mr. Johnson has already served that five-year sentence.

What Happens to the Attorney Who Hid the Evidence? Is the State Bar Going to Do Anything?

The prosecutor who knew about this evidence that would clear him -- and she knew, it was no accident, her own handwritten notes show this -- has not had her identity revealed by the media or the Dallas County District Attorney's Office, and probably faces little if any consequences for her actions.

That's right - it's not very likely that the State Bar of Texas will seek to disbar her (though many are arguing that she should have her law license taken from her because of this bad act).

This, while the Bar has filed its own grievance against an Austin solo criminal defense attorney for his allegedly offensive conduct in a county court at law DUI proceeding.

Comparing The Bar's Disciplinary Actions: Adam Reposa vs. this case's Mystery Prosecutor -- If You Go Against Reposa, Surely You Go Against This DA

If the State Bar of Texas is going to sua sponte institute disciplinary action against this Austin solo, then surely they should have the chutzpah to file an action against Mr. Johnson's prosecutor, who blatantly let a young man go to jail for life when she knew better.

Even the Bar must see that when Austin solo Adam Reposa allegedly "...began whispering in Williams' ear and made a masturbatory gesture when the prosecutor said something about the continued whisperings .... " (quoting the Texas Lawyer) his purported actions are far less offensive to Texas courts and American justice than those of former Dallas prosecutor Madame X, who intentionally let an innocent teen go to jail for life.

Meanwhile, maybe Mr. Johnson's attorneys can think of a civil action to file ....



Sources:

Dallas Morning News
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/localnews/stories/DN-evidencewithheld_17met.ART.State.Edition2.4a2ecd3.html

Grits for Breakfast
http://gritsforbreakfast.blogspot.com/2008/11/brady-violation-may-lead-to-next-dallas.html

Law.Com/Texas Lawyer
http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202426058142&pos=ataglance

Court Opinions: Melendez-Diaz Oral Arguments and the Need to Confront Forensic Scientists on the Stand

You've seen CSI.

Yes, you have -- whether you've watched Gil Grissom in the original CSI: Crime Scene Investigation, or Horatio Caine in CSI - Miami or Mac Taylor in CSI:NY (which I can never take too seriously, because everytime I see that guy's face, I hear "Lt. Dannnnnn" in Forrest Gump's drawl).

Well, in whatever version of CSI you're talking about, these guys are busy being lab rats one minute, and cops with guns the next. Maybe Miami does it more than Vegas, but it rings true for all three.

Forensic Scientist - Cops

As well it should -- in real life, the forensic science pros in law enforcement think of themselves just as much as police officers as they do science gurus. They just don't have the same cool lighting effects in the labs or the same tight low-cut shirts as their TV counterparts.

Confronting the Forensic Reports Is A Big Defense Problem

Which has been a big problem in the courtroom, because there has been a big brouhaha over whether or not criminal defense attorneys have the right to confront these forensic guys (and gals) over their reports and such -- on the witness stand, in front of the jury.

After all, a criminal defendant has the right to confront his (or her) accusers under the U.S. Constitution. Why can't they confront these science folk on the neutrality and objectivity of their lab findings?

Prosecutors, of course, want to introduce forensic reports as if they are the Holy Grail, never to be questioned by anyone -- after all, science is science right? District attorneys argue that criminal defense attorneys are just trying to manipulate things when they want to bring the forensic scientist into the courtroom: the lab results say what they say, they give routine results, and having some white-coat witness take the stand is just an attorney playing games.

Defense attorneys, meanwhile, believe that not only are these forensic professionals merely human, and therefore subject to making mistakes, but these pros see themselves as law enforcement -- and are far from impartial in their work. They're not independent third parties from some faraway laboratory, wearing monocles and speaking with a slight European accent.

Things May Be Changing: the pending case of Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts

The US Supreme Court has just heard oral arguments in the case of Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts. Looks like they'll be deciding really soon whether or not forensic experts should be subject to confrontation by the defense.

What does this mean to you and me?

Seems that the High Court is considering the possibility that a forensic expert who has a paycheck signed by the same kahunas that sign the beat cop's paycheck might have a bias or be subject to err on the side of the prosecution. And if that's true, then the defense attorney should be able to cross-examine that forensic expert on the witness stand. That's the right thing to do.

Looks like the Supremes watch a bit of CSI, too, doesn't it?

Sources:

New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/11/washington/11scotus.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

Brief for Petitioner:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/11/washington/11scotus.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

Brief for Respondent:
http://www.abanet.org/publiced/preview/briefs/pdfs/07-08/07-591_RespondentAmCu35StatesDC.pdf


For more discussion on Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, check out:

Grits for Breakfast
http://gritsforbreakfast.blogspot.com/2008/11/pragmatism-vs-confrontation-frames.html


SCOTUSBlog
http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/argument-preview-melendez-diaz-v-massachusetts/

DA Watch: Judge Dismisses Felony Corruption Charges Against DA Juan Angel Guerra

You gotta wonder.

Once Upon A Time, Juan Angel Guerra Was Just Planning a Re-Election Campaign ...

Almost two years ago, Willacy County District Attorney Juan Angel Guerra was planning his re-election campaign, after serving his region in South Texas for three straight terms. Guerra was gearing up for a run to serve another term in office - he would be voted the top prosecutor of the area for the fourth straight election.

Next, DA Guerra was Indicted on Three Separate Felony Indictments ....

Then, about 18 months ago, Guerra was indicted for allegedly doing some very bad things. In fact, there were three separate indictments:

First, it was alleged that DA Guerra commited theft when he demanded that a bail bonds company fork over $10,000 or he'd put them out of business.

Second, the DA was indicted for allegedly tampering with government records, perjury, or abuse of office because Guerra purportedly lied under oath when he claimed the bail bonds company was over its limit.

Third, Guerra was indicted for allegedly stealing over $200,000 in public funds by using county equipment and personnel for his own personal use.

Then, The Special Prosecutor Is Held to Be Improperly Appointed ....

Gus Garza was the man appointed to be Special Prosecutor of the Guerra case. DA Guerra challenged Garza's appointment, and in May 2008, the 13th Court of Appeals agreed with Guerra -- Gus Garza was improperly appointed to serve in this role. Ron Barroso replaced Garza.

And, State District Judge Manuel Banales Dismisses All Three Indictments.

In October 2008, the new Special Prosecutor Ron Barroso files a motion that the indictments against DA Guerra be dismissed, and Judge Banales grants the motion.

Why? Ron Barroso found NO EVIDENCE to support the three felony corruption charges that had been leveled against DA Juan Angel Guerra.

That's right: NO EVIDENCE.

But This is Only After Guerra's Lost the March Primary and His Re-Election Bid.

So, DA Guerra should be very happy, right? Well, no.

Seems that DA Juan Angel Guerra was beaten in the March 2008 Primary, when all this felony indictment stuff was being thrown around in the media -- and after serving three terms in office, this experienced prosecutor was beaten even before the November election day.

His reputation will forever be tainted, too - because lots of people are just going to remember that he was accused of being a thief and misusing his office, and they'll assume where there is smoke there is fire ... regardless of the fact that he's been cleared of any wrongdoing here.

Did Politics Go So Far As To Indict An Incumbent to Drive Him Out of Office?

Some might wonder if there were some closed-door shenanigans here. And, they would include Juan Angel Guerra - who has been quoted by the media as stating he believes the indictments came down to keep him from being re-elected.

Well, Juan Angel -- it kinda looks that way, doesn't it?



Postscript

By the way, on those three charges: Juan Angel had explained that he was using the $200,000 in county equipment and personnel as part of his job to offer free legal services to those in need; and he had legitimately demanded $10,000 from the bail bonding company to pay lawsuit judgments filed against the company, because it couldn't cover its bonds after the criminal defendants failed to show.

Source:

Associated Press
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hq7wvItWMIO8lWA-2tQGEOUkHlYQD94ATK200

Crime News: Jose Baez Has A Tough Job as Defense Attorney for Casey Anthony

If you read People magazine at all, or watch CNN's Nancy Grace any day of the week, then you're aware of the "tot mom" case: young mother Casey Anthony has been charged with killing her 3-year-old daughter, Caylee Anthony, sometime this summer.

No body has been recovered, and the Anthony family maintains that the little girl is alive and well, having been taken by evildoers.

Heavy Media Coverage Turns to Jose Baez's Relationship with His Client

Media coverage has been heavy in this case; I've already posted about fair trial and due process concerns given the heavy media play (see 09/15/08).

On the web, the Websleuths site has dedicated an entire forum with numerous, active threads specifically dealing with the Caylee Anthony disappearance. The Websleuth forums have heavy traffic 24/7.

During the past week, however, the piercing eye of the press has turned away from Casey, the formal investigation, and the manned searches for Caylee's remains to Casey's defense attorney, Jose Baez. Web chatter has followed close behind.

It seems that Jose Baez hugged his client during two separate jailhouse visits, and jail officials have asked him to refrain.

There were early reports that the Florida Bar Association was investigating Jose's activity for purposes of formal disciplinary action - but the FBA has nixed those reports as untrue.

There have been many unsavory suggestions that Jose and his client have entered into a personal relationship - again, without factual support.

The Unmitigated Gall of Hugging Your Client

A hug might have been a big deal during Victorian times, just like showing the female ankle, but in our present culture, nothing could be more innocent than a hug. Friends hug. Grandmas hug. Colleagues hug. You hug your pet, you hug your pillow, you hug your doctor when he gives you good news and you hug your pastor on Sunday after a particularly touching sermon.

Of course, jail officials will point to past precedent of contraband being passed to prisoners during apparently innocent hugs -- sometimes, yes, by attorneys -- and that this is a legitimate reason for their request to Mr. Baez.

Jose's Defending a Client Who Has Already Been Found Guilty or Crazy By Many People

Jose Baez has the job of representing a woman who, before she has reached the age of 25, faces formal charges of murdering her only child - and possible execution for this crime, if convicted - as well as charges of assorted felony thefts that carry enough jail time that she'll be lucky to get out of jail before she is eligible for an AARP card.

Public opinion has pronounced her guilty, she's been labeled a monster by the masses and armchair psychologists have been busy diagnosing Jose's client as a sociopath, a psychopath, or someone suffering from Antisocial Personality Disorder, Histronic Personality Disorder, or Borderline Personality Disorder.

Jose's Defending a Client Who Hasn't Told the Truth and Has No Support System

In addition to the public arena, Jose has the job of defending a client who hasn't told the truth to authorities regarding the circumstances surrounding her daughter's disappearance (that's all in the recorded interviews and transcripts) and who has lost apparently all her friends, who assumedly feel betrayed by her lies to them. It's one of her former close friends, for example, that pressed the felony theft charges.

Jose's client has not had a visit from family or friends since she was returned to jail, based upon the murder indictment. According to media reports, Jose Baez is Casey Anthony's only visitor.

A Criminal Defense Attorney's Relationship with His Client

It's not the job of a criminal defense attorney to judge his client's guilt or innocence: that's the job of the factfinder, be it judge or jury. Doing so -- making the call on whether or not your client did the deed -- can sometimes hamper your work, in fact.

It is the job of a criminal defense attorney to make sure that a client's rights are protected, and that the prosecution truly proves its case beyond a reasonable doubt.

Defending the accused is an honorable and vital role in our criminal defense system. If you or a loved one are accused of committing a crime, you will want your attorney to defend you, not to judge you.

The Relationship Between Attorney and Client

Representing someone who has had their freedom taken away from them is a heady matter. It's a tremendous responsiblity to defend someone sitting in jail, much less someone facing a death sentence.

You need not be your client's friend in order to feel compassion and empathy with their plight -- and if you hug your client, it doesn't mean you are sleeping with her.

Representing Casey Anthony would be a tough job for the most experienced of criminal defense attorneys, much less one with the years of experience that Jose Baez has. This media exposure places him in the most glaring of lights -- every decision he makes is second-guessed (and often ridiculed) by media talking heads. Still, many of Jose's motions to the court have been granted, and he seems to be holding up well under all the pressure.

Make no mistake -- not only is Casey Anthony's life on the line here, so is Jose Baez's professional reputation. And Jose knows it.

The Paradine Case

Of course, it makes a better story the other way around ... and if you're interested in the plot of a criminal defense attorney falling in love with his client, check out Gregory Peck in Alfred Hitchcock's The Paradine Case. (And, yes - of course the client was guilty of poisoning her husband in the movie, would it be a Hitchcock movie otherwise?)

DA Watch: Legislator Promises Action to Fight Against DA's Wrongful Convictions

Well, it's good to know that someone's paying attention to the Dallas Morning News scoop on known wrongful convictions of innocent men and women by the DA here in Dallas besides a blogger or two (see this blog's October 13, 2008 post)....

State Senator Rodney Ellis Has A Plan for Laws to Fix the Eyewitness Identification Problem

State Senator Rodney Ellis (who represents District 13, covering parts of Harris and Fort Bend counties) actually wrote a column in the Dallas Morning News last month, where he promised to:

1. introduce legislation in 2009 to reduce the likelihood of an innocent person being convicted in the future with laws requiring that eyewitness identification procedures be based in science and implemented by trained law enforcement personnel;

2. introduce legislation in 2009 to pass a law that will require videotaping of custodial interrogations, arguing that this will not only stop false confessions but also false claims of police brutality as well as disclosing any deals made with informants for their testimony; and

3. introduce legislation to create an Integrity Commission within the Texas Legislature, if the Texas Criminal Justice Integrity Unit created within the Texas Judiciary (i.e., formed by Justice Barbara Hervey of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals) doesn't hit the ball out of the park in reform aimed at preventing the conviction of innocent people in this state.

What About Ellis' Proposals?

Rodney Ellis is known for advocating criminal justice reform, and he's been one of the first appointees to Justice Hervey's Integrity Unit. He's not new to the scene here, trying to grab a headline or two: this isn't Ellis's first rodeo.

And, writing a short column for the Dallas paper might not be the proper place for details on how Ellis intends to implement his ideas.

Nevertheless, an argument can be made that we already have trained law enforcement personnel that are supposed to use scientific techniques (proper lineups, not show-ups) and it's just not happening when zealots are anxious for a quick conviction.

Academics have shown that eyewitness testimony has historically resulted in more wrongful convictions than all other causes, combined (See source link, below). Good luck to Senator Ellis on finding the cure.

As for the videotaping of custodial interrogations? You don't have to watch many episodes of Law & Order to figure out that taping the formal interrogation isn't going to stop police brutality and false confessions. It's just going to move the bad stuff down the hall.


Sources:

"Rodney Ellis: Lowering odds that innocents end up in prison," Dallas Morning News, October 21, 2008
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/opinion/viewpoints/stories/DN-ellis_22edi.State.Edition1.26faf47.html

Eyewitness Identification Procedures: Recommendations for Lineups and Photospreads, Law & Human Behavior Vol. 22, No. 6 (1998)
http://www.psychology.iastate.edu/faculty/gwells/whitepaperpdf.pdf

For More Information:

DA Watch: Dallas County Prosecutors Routinely Convicted Innocent Men Using Eyewitness Testimony Known to Be Faulty
http://dallaslawyer.blogspot.com/2008/10/da-watch-dallas-county-prosecutors.html

JUDGE WATCH: Austin Judge Thinks His Power Includes Ordering Woman Not to Get Pregnant

Here in Texas, even a state district judge can be a man with a hat and no cattle ....

Last month, Travis County Judge Charlie Baird faced off against 20-year-old Felicia Salazar, who admitted to the court that she had failed to properly protect her 19-month-old daughter from the child's father - who had beat the baby, breaking bones and causing other injuries.

Felicia and the baby daddy both had their parental rights to the child terminated, and the little girl was placed in foster care. Meanwhile, the father was sentenced to 15 years in prison.

When it came time for Felicia Salazar to face the music, she stood before Judge Baird with no prior criminal history and an acknowledgement that she'd failed her daughter -- and with her defense attorney, she'd entered into a plea bargain with prosecutors, where she would get 10 years probation. It was time for the Judge to impose conditions upon that probation, and usually judges require things like community service and mental health treatment.

Judge Baird did impose standard conditions to Felicia's probation: she has to perform 100 hours of community service, and she's got to undergo a mental health assessment. But Judge Baird went one further: he ordered Felicia NOT TO HAVE CHILDREN FOR THE NEXT TEN YEARS.

Can a judge really order a woman not to have a child? Really???

Nope. Of course, the Judge thinks so. He's told the media that it's a reasonable condition of her probation. And, there are those who would argue that it's all too often that parents who have had parental rights terminated just repeat the abuse cycle when they bear new offspring. They'd see this as avoiding a tragedy, and applaud Judge Baird's efforts.

They'd be wrong. This just isn't constitutional, period. A trial court judge can't tell someone that they can't have children. It's exceeding his power. Blatantly.

1. A man elected to preside over criminal proceedings doesn't have the authority to tell a 20 year old woman that she can't have a baby at any time, much less until she's 30 years old.

2. Even assuming that somehow this action could be justified, this would still be overreaching in this situation -- the woman has no prior history with criminal authorities or Child Protective Services, and she herself was not the one who committed the violent acts. I believe we can all read between the lines here: she looks to be a woman who cowered before an abusive boyfriend, and was too weak to stop him. What about getting her classes in parenting? life management? individual counseling?

3. How enforcable is this? What if she does get pregnant - is the Judge going to order that she have an abortion, in addition to revoking her probation and sending her to jail? Ridiculous.

Dangerous precedent being set here -- and in Wisconsin.

As much as this sounds like some story out of the annals of Judge Roy Bean, it appears that Felicia may be stuck with Judge Baird's ruling. Her attorney hasn't filed an appeal. Heck, Felicia may be counting her blessings that she's not behind bars, and she's happy enough right now.

If so, Felicia's challenge may come up later -- when she gets pregnant, and some probation officer tries to throw her in jail for violating a condition of her probation. Then, her lawyer will get this arrogant, unconstitutional ruling overthrown -- hopefully.

Why hopefully? Because up in Wisconsin, there sits on the books a case where a father of 10 kids got caught for not paying child support. As a condition of his probation, he was ordered not to father any more children. The Wisconsin Supreme Court upheld that decision.

Criminal Defense is all about Protecting Our Rights

Every single criminal defense attorney in this country gets questioned on almost a daily basis with a version of the same query: 'how can you represent those bad, guilty people who did horrible things to good folk?'

And, every single criminal defense attorney in this country has to remind people on almost a daily basis that those accused clients, in each and every case, are testing the strength of our judicial system -- a system of rights that serves to provide justice and freedom for each and every one of us.

The System of Rights that Protects All of Us is Weaker Today Because of this Decision

Felicia Salazar admitted to not being a good mother. Judge Baird thinks he's doing the right thing by keeping her from becoming a mother again. But, to you and to me, a constitutional right has been disrespected and weakened here and we should all be very concerned about this.

Any time the rights of any single individual are denied, one brick in that system of freedoms we all hold dear falls away.


Source:

Austin American Statesman
http://www.statesman.com/news/content/news/stories/local/09/12/0912salazar.html

Crime News: Brain Scan as Truth Test Sends Woman to Life Imprisonment

Sit down for this one.

This is scary, scary stuff - even for Hallowe'en ... because what has been reported is true, not just some science fiction story or horror movie or boring lab report.

"Experiential knowledge of the crime" - an Automatic Guilt Machine

Technology now exists where some lab worker in a white coat can attach wires to your head, and then decide whether or not you have "experiential knowledge" of a crime -- as in, you really remember doing it -- and if you do, voila -- you're guilty!

That's right. Let's ponder this again: there's a gizmo that is supposed to conclusively know if you're guilty of a crime or not by monitoring your brain waves with wires.

How's this supposed to work?

Well, the guy in the white coat takes an electroencephalogram, or EEG -- in other words, he places electrodes on your head that will measure electrical waves.

You set there, silent, with your eyes shut tight. Wires on your head.

Then, white-coat guy starts reading aloud the details of the crime (and you can bet, this is a script written by the prosecutor). As he reads, and you just set there, the EEG machine is recording all your brain images.

Using this new gizmo software. the brain is said to purportedly "light up" in certain areas that store memories, lighting up when past experiences are recognized.

Oh, and sure, the gizmo software is supposed to be able to clearly, easily, and conclusively be able to determine whether or not your brain is "lighting up" because you witnessed, or saw, something happen, as opposed to whether or not you committed the act yourself.

Right.

I cannot even begin to describe the horrific affront this is to the most basic human rights, much less those constitutional rights like due process .... Heck, we know lie detectors are not accurate. We still have some problems with fingerprint analysis. And, this testing of air in the Casey Anthony case is getting lots of skeptical responses.

But, some machine can not only report that you have a memory of an event, but that you committed a crime, based upon whether or not your brain "lights up" -- this would be hilarously stupid to consider, if it weren't being taken so very seriously.

Surely this isn't being taken seriously, you ask? Wrong.

Over in India, a young woman was accused of poisoning her fiance by putting arsenic in his McDonald's meal. It's apparently understood by everyone that in India "police interrogation" is synonimous with "torture," so when the woman had the choice between the "interrogation" or undergoing this new Gizmo Guilt Test, she chose the brain scan. Who wouldn't?

She claimed she was innocent. She probably hoped science would be her friend in ways that law enforcement would not.

No such luck. The woman purportedly "failed" the brain scan, was found guilty of murder based upon the brain scan, and sentenced to life imprisonment - because of this scary, scary brain scan.

Just think what an overzealous Dallas County prosecutor could do with this thing.

Check out this YouTube video that shows the CNN report on Aditi Sharma's murder conviction and life sentence, ordered by a judge (no jury), based upon a brain scan.

For more information:

International Herald Tribune
http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/09/15/asia/15brainscan.php?page=1

Neuroscience
http://io9.com/5050009/indian-court-accepts-brain-scans-as-evidence-of-murder

Crime News: Now Informers Can Narc Anonymously by Text Message

For criminal defense attorneys in Texas, it's getting closer and closer to Orwell's 1984 every day ....

Have you heard about this one? A Nacogdoches, Texas, company called Anderson Software issued a press release that victoriously announced its introduction of a new product, Tips via Text TM, which will allow anyone, anywhere to send an anonymous tip to an agency, like CrimeStoppers, and have the cops text them back, all without revealing their identity.

Informers Can Text In Their Tips Anonymously Using The New Tips via Text program

CrimeStopper programs are chomping at the bit to get this software for their communities (it assigns an encrypted alias to the tipster's call, so their real identities are not revealed).

Anderson promotes Tips via Text as a way for informers to send in their tips when its "not feasible or safe" to telephone a tip line. CrimeStoppers is particularly excited about the product, predicting it will be "particularly useful for student programs."

Doesn't anyone think about the implications here?

How does this anonymous text messaging impact the rights of you, me, and our teen aged kids -- you know, like our right to privacy and all those civil rights that we are guaranteed under the Constitution??

Ponder this situation: teenager A is mad at teenager B because A's boyfriend has left the party with B, and it's not looking like they're coming back to the soiree. What does A do?

She sends a Tips via Text and with her guaranteed anonymity, reports that the boyfriend is driving drunk. There's a prompt reply and a quick text discussion on the type of car being driven, the road they've taken, a description of the driver.

Remember, there's no human to listen to her giggle as she reports this, or to judge how inebriated she might be....

The police quickly respond and pull over boyfriend on suspicion of drunk driving. Nevermind that the cops never saw anything that would lead them to believe he might be intoxicated -- they act solely on the text-tip and when boyfriend fails the field sobriety test, he's busted.

What Happens to Due Process and Privacy and All Those Other Rights?

In this country, we're supposed to have LIBERTY and JUSTICE ... which means that the government cannot detain us, much less arrest us, without good reason. Cops shouldn't be able to pull someone over for a suspected crime unless those cops actually have their own reason to believe a crime is occurring. Period.

Police power is supposed to be exercised within carefully defined, clear-cut boundaries. This Text Tip Under an Alias messes with that ... and police power can be misused.

Think this won't happen? Think again. It's already been okayed by the California Supreme Court (police acting on anonymous tips without their own verification of a possible crime). They even have signs along the road, encouraging fellow travelers to narc on each other about possible drunk driving.

Imagine the misuse this invites. Imagine. Think of your ex-wife. Think of the disgruntled employee. Think of the cop who's tempted to text himself.



Sources:

Anderson Software
http://www.andersoft.com/default.aspx

Darren Kavinoky's NoCuffs.com
http://www.caexpungementcentral.com/articles/anonymous_tips.htm

COP WATCH: New Online Website for Those Most Wanted of Criminals, the Unpaid Traffic Tickets (But Don't Trust the Site, It Warns)

Have you seen this yet?

Dallas County has actually spent the time and money to publish a website (click here to check it out) that lists (with photos!) the most notorious, heinous wanted men and women in the county who ... wait for it ... haven't paid their traffic tickets. Yes. Not kidding.

And, it gets better.

The site itself admits that the information shown may not be "current information for any legal purpose." The people may not really be wanted. The amounts shown may not be accurate. You get the idea.

And, finally -- the website itself warns that no action should be taken based upon anything shown on the site.

What You've Really Got Here

So, you've got U.S. citizens (remember those "innocent until proven guilty" folk?) with their photos posted online for anyone and their neighbor (including their mother-in-law) to see, under a bold headline in red type (RED) that says really great stuff like "MOST WANTED," along with lots of disclaimer language that says "well, maybe ... but don't trust anything you read here and above all, don't rely on it."

I could not make this stuff up.

Full Text of Vasilas Opinions - Oct 2008 Memorandum Opinion by Judge Sandoval and March 2006 Opinion of Texas Court of Criminal Appeals

For those interested in reading the details in the Vasilas case, including the memorandum opinion just released by Judge Sandoval this month (finding Jim Vasilas "not guilty"), here they are (click on each link):

October 6, 2008, Memorandum Opinion of Judge Charles Sandoval, Cause No. 380-82535-03 in the 380th Judicial District Court of Collin County, styled State of Texas v. James Vasilas; and

March 22, 2006 Opinion (unanimous) of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, Cause No. PD-0351-05 and styled State of Texas, Appellant, v. James Vasilas, Appellee on petition for discretionary review from the Fifth Court of Appeals of Collin County

In case you'd like to read the underlying section of the Texas Penal Code, check it out here:

Texas Penal Code 37.10(a)(5)
Texas Penal Code 37.01 (Definitions)

Note the text of the following Penal Code definitions:

(1) "Court record" means a decree, judgment, order, subpoena, warrant, minutes, or other document issued by a court of:
(A) this state;
(B) another state;
(C) the United States;
(D) a foreign country recognized by an act of congress or a treaty or other international convention to which the United States is a party;
(F) any other jurisdiction, territory, or protectorate entitled to full faith and credit in this state under the United States Constitution.

(2) "Governmental record" means:
(A) anything belonging to, received by, or kept by government for information, including a court record;
(B) anything required by law to be kept by others for information of government; ....

District Judge Charles Sandoval's Memo Opinion in the Vasilas Case: Jim Vasilas Not Guilty, But the Story's Not Over

Along with almost every other attorney in the State of Texas, I've been following James Vasilas' case as its traveled the appellate highways (e.g., my May 1, 2006 post). Now, Judge Charles Sandoval has issued a memorandum opinion from his bench on the 380th Judicial District Court of Collin County that should be a welcomed relief not only to Brother Vasilas, but to some degree to lawyers everywhere.

For those of you who aren't well aquainted with this case, here's a brief wrap-up:

James Vasilas is a Dallas attorney who was criminally charged with violating Texas Penal Code section 37.10(a)(5), tampering with a governmental record, which is a third degree felony carrying the possibility of 2 years in jail.

All this came about after James Vasilas represented a man charged with, and acquited of, delivery of marijuana while being convicted of a lesser charge (possession). Attorney Vasilas filed a petition for expunction of his client's criminal record. The petition stated that the delivery charged had been dropped.

Based upon that statement, the District Attorney pursued James Vasilas on the felony charge. (For civil lawyers, dropped and acquited are two different arguments to be made for expunction and technically, the petition held factual error.)

An attorney was charged with a felony because a pleading he filed in civil court allegedly contained a factual error. Imagine the ramifications and the misuse this invites.

At the get-go, the judge quashed the indictment. The DA appealled and the games began.

In Vasilas v State, 187 SW3d 486 (Tex.Crim.App.2006), the court found a petition to be a "government record" under the Texas Penal Code. Whoa.

Then, the Dallas Court of Appeals (on remand) held that Tex.R.Civ.P. 13 (the civil procedural rule against frivolous pleadings that includes the possibility of sanctions) did not override the Penal Code provision, and they set James Vasilas' case for trial.

Vasilas fought back, taking the Dallas appellate opinion up to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, arguing the Dallas court was wrong. Amicus curaie briefing was filed by such noteables as the TTLA and the TADC. This time, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals found the doctrine of in pari materia does not apply, Rule 13 is a court rule adopted by the Texas Supreme Court and therefore not a statute to be construed with any section of the Penal Code.


Then comes Judge Sandoval ....

On October 6, 2008, Judge Charles Sandoval signed his memorandum opinion in the case that started it all (when he granted Vasilas' motion to quash the indictment). Judge Sandoval writes in pertinent part:

"....At any rate, it seems to me that fairness requires that the same standard for pleading should apply to civil and criminal attorneys.

"The State's attorney has governmental immunity, but the rationale for the immunity is similar to the rationale which protects the civil lawyer. These general principles with regard to pleadings have been in existence, I would assume, since before the founding of the nation. I would also assume this rationale applies to legislators' statements made in legislative chambers.

"I find that Mr. Vasilas' pleading could easily have been a mistake of law, or a mistake of fact or the result of carelessness. Accordingly, I find him not guilty. If this sort of case arises in the future, perhaps the defendant may wish to assert that he is protected by the First Amendment, the Fifth Amendment (due process), theSixth Amendment (right to counsel) and the Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection). Who knows what could happen if cert is granted?"


The Bottom Line

It's still possible for attorneys filing pleadings in civil cases to face criminal charges here in Texas. But James Vasilas has been found not guilty, and that makes this a happy day.

Congratulations, Jim.

DA Watch: Dallas County Prosecutors Routinely Convicted Innocent Men, Using Eyewitness Testimony Known to Be Faulty

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

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)

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

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/

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

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)

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:

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

(http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/090408dnmetpriddy.36ffbe1.html)

Reuters

(http://www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idUS140916+12-Jun-2008+PRN20080612)

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:

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/)

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)

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:

“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)

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

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)

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)

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!

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.

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.

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.

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?

Harris County District Attorney sees no pattern of prosecutor misconduct. What do you think?


Dallas Morning News News for Dallas, Texas Texas/Southwest

All Headline News - DEA Busts Ring That Used Virgin Mary Tombstones To Smuggle Drugs - April 10, 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.