Lawyer in Georgia

  Jury selection issues often come up in Dallas County, where the numerous felony courts are always busy trying serious cases. The Dallas Court of Appeals will resolve those issues. In October, a significant case involving improper jury selection was before the Court of Appeals in Houston. The Houston Court found that the State had engaged in purposeful discrimination during the jury selection process. As a result the defendant's controlled substance conviction was set aside, and a new trial was ordered. The process of jury selection is called voir dire. During voir dire, the prosecution and the defense have a limited number of "strikes"--that is, each side can exclude certain individuals from serving on the jury. This policy has a number of useful functions, but it cannot be used as a pretext for purposeful discrimination. In this case, the defendant was African-American, and the State struck two or three African-American citizens during voir dire. The defendant challeng

  The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals recently considered the following question: "Does taking photographs at a public pool permit a police officer to detain the photographer, in the name of a police investigation?" This seems like a case that might come out of the family-oriented suburbs in and around Dallas County, but it came from a sparsely-populated county in Southeast Texas near Shiner and Yoakum. In this case, the defendant was seen taking photographs of patrons at a public swimming pool. Police were notified and responded quickly. Based on a description of the defendant's car and its location, an officer was able to determine who the defendant was. After the defendant pulled away in his car, the officer followed him briefly and then initiated a traffic stop. The officer asked for and received consent to look through the photos on the camera. The photos were primarily of women and girls in their swim wear. The defendant was arrested and charges of "improper ph

  An important case out of the San Antonio area (Bexar County) was decided by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals in April 2013. The Court considered whether a police officer was justified in forcibly entering the apartment of a man who possessed marijuana while living with a six-month-old baby. This type of issue will come up across the State of Texas, particularly in urban areas like Dallas, Tarrant, Collin and Denton Counties, and similar cases will probably be decided by the Dallas and Fort Worth Courts of Appeals. When the police were informed of the odor of marijuana coming from the apartment, an officer went to the apartment and knocked on the door. The resident of the apartment cracked open the door, and the officer asked if the six-month-old baby or the baby's mother were at home. The resident answered that neither of them were home, and the officer left. Shortly after that, the officer returned to the apartment with a fellow officer. Believing that if he left to obtain a

  This week the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals reversed the decision of the Texas Court of Appeals at Dallas in a marijuana case where the defendant was convicted by the District Attorney in Kaufman County. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals decided that, since driving in the left lane without passing was not a traffic violation, the defendant should not have been stopped by a Kaufman County sheriff's deputy. Consequently, there was no basis to search the defendant or his vehicle. The male driver was followed for a mile by the sheriff's deputy, who observed that the driver was staying in the left hand lane, although there were no cars in the right hand land for him to pass. The deputy pulled the driver over and arrested him after discovering marijuana in his possession. The driver was charged with possessing under two ounces of marijuana. The trial court refused to suppress the marijuana as evidence against the driver. Although the driver argued that he did not know the left

  An important case out of the San Antonio area (Bexar County) was decided by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals in April 2013. The Court considered whether a police officer was justified in forcibly entering the apartment of a man who possessed marijuana while living with a six-month-old baby. This type of issue will come up across the State of Texas, particularly in urban areas like Dallas, Tarrant, Collin and Denton Counties, and similar cases will probably be decided by the Dallas and Fort Worth Courts of Appeals. When the police were informed of the odor of marijuana coming from the apartment, an officer went to the apartment and knocked on the door. The resident of the apartment cracked open the door, and the officer asked if the six-month-old baby or the baby's mother were at home. The resident answered that neither of them were home, and the officer left. Shortly after that, the officer returned to the apartment with a fellow officer. Believing that if he left to obtain a

  A decision from the Fourteenth Court of Appeals last week illustrated a problem that plagues the indigent defense system in Texas: the defendant is dissatisfied with his court-appointed lawyer. In this case, the defendant thus tried, ineptly, to represent himself at trial. Of course, a defendant has a constitutional right to have a lawyer represent him for free, but he does not have the choice of which lawyer will represent him unless he can pay the lawyer of his choosing. The defendant in the case from last week received a life sentence. Since a defendant must voluntarily waive his right to be represented by counsel, the argument on appeal was that the trial judge failed to properly warn the defendant about the dangers of self-representation. The defendant argued on appeal that the quality of court-appointed counsel "coerced" him into representing himself. DWI/DUI lawyer . The Court of Appeals rejected this argument, since refusing to allow the defendant to represent hims

  The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals sent a failure-to-register-as-a-sex-offender case back to the Dallas Court of Appeals last week with instructions for the Court of Appeals to re-decide in view of a decision in a recent case from Tyler, in Smith County, where the Court of Criminal Appeals held that an out-of-state conviction does not trigger the reporting requirements unless it has been considered to be substantially similar to a Texas offense by the Texas Department of Public Safety. In the Dallas case, the Dallas Police Department arrested the defendant because he had been convicted of "sexual battery" in Louisiana. The legal question for the Dallas Court to now decide is whether the Department of Public Safety has made a "substantial similarity" determination with respect to that offense; if not, the conviction should be set aside, according to the majority of the Court of Criminal Appeals. Violent crimes lawyer . The Court of Criminal Appeals instructed the

 This week the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals reversed the decision of the Texas Court of Appeals at Dallas in a marijuana case where the defendant was convicted by the District Attorney in Kaufman County. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals decided that, since driving in the left lane without passing was not a traffic violation, the defendant should not have been stopped by a Kaufman County sheriff's deputy. Consequently, there was no basis to search the defendant or his vehicle. The male driver was followed for a mile by the sheriff's deputy, who observed that the driver was staying in the left hand lane, although there were no cars in the right hand land for him to pass. Drug crimes . The deputy pulled the driver over and arrested him after discovering marijuana in his possession. The driver was charged with possessing under two ounces of marijuana. The trial court refused to suppress the marijuana as evidence against the driver. Although the driver argued that he did not

  Earlier this month, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals at Dallas recently decided an important sex offender case out of Kaufman County, Dallas County's immediate neighbor to the southeast. The Court addressed the longstanding issue of the rights of sex offenders who are on probation in Texas, and, in its opinion, recognized their basic constitutional right against self-incrimination, as guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment. The defendant sex offender had pled guilty to a charge of indecency with a child and was undergoing treatment in a program that required him to take several polygraph (lie detector) tests. Drug crimes . For one year, he successfully passed the polygraph tests and attended over fifty group therapy sessions, as required by the program's guidelines. When the defendant took his third polygraph test, he was questioned about any previous sexual offenses he might have committed. The defendant properly replied that he would not answer any questions that might impl

  An important case out of the San Antonio area (Bexar County) was decided by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals in April 2013. The Court considered whether a police officer was justified in forcibly entering the apartment of a man who possessed marijuana while living with a six-month-old baby. This type of issue will come up across the State of Texas, particularly in urban areas like Dallas, Tarrant, Collin and Denton Counties, and similar cases will probably be decided by the Dallas and Fort Worth Courts of Appeals. When the police were informed of the odor of marijuana coming from the apartment, an officer went to the apartment and knocked on the door. Lawyer office in Georgia . The resident of the apartment cracked open the door, and the officer asked if the six-month-old baby or the baby's mother were at home. The resident answered that neither of them were home, and the officer left. Shortly after that, the officer returned to the apartment with a fellow officer. Believing

  Today the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals in Austin held in a cocaine trafficking case that went up to the Court through the Seventh Texas Court of Appeals at Amarillo that the Lubbock County Sheriff's Office violated the defendant's rights by questioning him during a roadside traffic stop without reading him his Miranda rights.* Since the unsophisticated defendant was not warned that he had the right to remain silent, he admitted that he and his wife were in possession of cocaine. The police have to provide Miranda warnings only when they "interrogate" somebody who is in "custody." The question in today's case was whether the defendant was in "custody," which does not necessarily require someone to be under arrest. Drug crimes lawyer in Georgia . A detention during a roadside investigation or similar circumstances can amount to a custodial situation. The Court of Criminal Appeals held that the defendant was in custody at the time of his in

 Yesterday the Texas Court of Appeals at Fort Worth held for the defendant in a warrantless-entry methamphetamine manufacturing case out of Weatherford, in Parker County. The police went ahead and entered the defendant's home, pending their warrant application, on the basis that a confidential informant indicated that the defendant was soon going to be cooking a batch of methamphetamine using the dangerous "shake and bake" method. The Fort Worth Court of Appeals held that all of the evidence against the defendant had to be excluded under the Texas Exclusionary Rule. With certain exceptions, police have to obtain a search warrant even if there is probable cause to conduct a search of a home. The Fort Worth Court of Appeals held in yesterday's case that there was no "exigent circumstances" exception because the situation did not require "now or never" action by the police to prevent "imminent" destruction of evidence. For the exception to

 In a DWI case that was tried in Bexar County, the San Antonio Court of Appeals earlier this month addressed a common situation in DWI cases where prosecutors seek to use recorded statements of the investigating officer during the roadside investigation even though the statements were one-sided and self-serving. These recordings are known as "talking offense reports." On-the-scene officer observations in DWI cases are "fraught with the thought of future prosecution," according to the courts, because the police officer is gathering evidence to use in deciding whether to arrest and charge someone with a crime. Lawyer firm in Georgia . Calculation "shimmers in the air," since the officer is gathering evidence; he is not making an off-hand, non-reflective observation about the world as it passes by. For a talking offense report to be admissible over the hearsay rule, the statements have to be "non-reflective observations of a neutral observer." In

 Polygraph tests are used routinely in Dallas County as a means of obtaining information and assuring compliance with conditions of probation (Community Supervision) in sex offender cases. In Dallas, and across State of Texas, sex offenders who are subject to rehabilitation are often granted deferred adjudication community supervision on condition that they participate in sex offender treatment. Lawyer office in Georgia . This week the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals held in a case out of Fort Worth (Tarrant County) that polygraph results cannot be used as the sole basis for revoking probation, for adjudicating guilt or for imprisoning the defendant in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. People who are charged with sex offenses are often faced with a difficult choice: go to trial and risk up to a life sentence, or admit guilt and accept deferred adjudication community supervision, with the risk of up to life in prison remaining an option if the probation department motions the c

  The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals addressed a situation last week that I have seen come up in Dallas County drug cases more than once: what do the police have to do when somebody lets the police come into their home but then changes their mind? The case went to the Court of Criminal Appeals from the San Antonio Court of Appeals, with the case originating from Kerrville. The defendant was charged with methamphetamine possession. When deputy sheriffs responded to a disturbance call at her apartment, the defendant answered the door, and she appeared intoxicated and distraught. The officers asked to go inside, and the defendant agreed. While waiting on a warrant check, the defendant changed her mind about letting the police in and asked them to leave. The officers ignored her request because they wanted the warrant check to came back before they decided to leave. Lawyer office in Georgia . While waiting, the officers saw evidence of drug use, and the defendant shortly thereafter admit

 Issues concerning the defendant's right to a bond and the amount of the bond are often contested after an arrest in Dallas County. Both the federal and state constitutions, and specific Texas law, prohibit excessive bail. A hearing can be held, and if the defendant can appeal if he believes that the bond is set too high in violation of his rights. In setting the amount of bail, a court should consider factors such as: (1) the defendant's work record; (2) the defendant's family and community ties; (3) the defendant's length of residency; (4) the defendant's prior criminal record; (5) the existence of other outstanding bonds, if any; and (6) any aggravating circumstances alleged to have been involved in the charged offense. The primary purpose of an appearance bond is to secure the presence of the accused at trial on the offense charged. Lawyer office in Georgia . The amount of bail must be high enough to give reasonable assurance that the accused will appear as req

 Because it affects so many resident aliens and other immigrants in the process of becoming citizens in Dallas and other metropolitan parts of Texas, I have been keeping my eye closely on ongoing developments in Texas applying the Supreme Court's 2010 decision in Padilla v. Kentucky. In Padilla, the Supreme Court held that defense lawyers have a duty under the Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution to accurately and specifically advise a defendant about deportation and other immigration consequences that will result from a guilty plea. Lawyer office in Georgia . A defendant will plead guilty either under an "open" guilty plea to a judge or jury, where the punishment is left to the judge or jury, or in a situation involving a plea bargain, a more common scenario. The case law says that, whenever a defendant pleads guilty and waives his rights, the defendant has to be informed about immigration consequences in terms that are "succinct, clear and specific.&qu