May 15th, 2013

New Texas Laws Targeting Prosecutorial Misconduct: The Michael Morton Act and new Tex Gov’t Code 81.072(b) Limitations – Do They Really Help Texas Citizens?

Yesterday, the Texas Legislature sent two bills over to Governor Rick Perry’s desk for his signature:  the new Michael Morton Act (SB 1611) and an amendment to the Texas Government Code Section 81.072 (SB 825).  It’s expected that Governor Perry will sign this bills into law, and soon we’ll all be under their sway.

Here’s the big question:  what exactly do these new laws do – and how do they impact Texans who are investigated, arrested, charged, tried, or convicted in a Texas courtroom through the efforts of a Texas prosecutor?  Are Texas citizens helped here?

1.  The Amendment to Texas Gov’t Code 81.072

This section of the codified Texas statutes deals with time periods within which cases can be filed — “limitations” are placed into law here as time deadlines and they are commonly known as “statutes of limitations.”  The new law amends an existing statute of limitations to provide for prosecutorial misconduct (something that Texas has in arguably epidemic proportions).

Now, assuming that Governor Perry okays SB 825, the time deadline clock starts to run when the wrongfully convicted person is released from incarceration and there is a four (4) year time deadline within which to file a lawsuit based upon a district attorney withholding or suppressing evidence in that wronged person’s case.

From the language of SB825 itself:

BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS:

SECTION 1. Section 81.072, Government Code, is amended by amending Subsection (b) and adding Subsections (b-1) and (b-2) to read as follows:

(b) The supreme court shall establish minimum standards and procedures for the attorney disciplinary and disability system. …

(b-1) In establishing minimum standards and procedures for the attorney disciplinary and disability system under Subsection (b), the supreme court must ensure that the statute of limitations applicable to a grievance filed against a prosecutor that alleges a violation of the disclosure rule does not begin to run until the date on which a wrongfully imprisoned person is released from a penal institution.
(b-2) For purposes of Subsection (b-1):
(1) “Disclosure rule” means the disciplinary rule that requires a prosecutor to disclose to the defense all evidence or information known to the prosecutor that tends to negate the guilt of the accused or mitigates the offense, including Rule 3.09(d), Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct.
(2) “Penal institution” has the meaning assigned by Article 62.001, Code of Criminal Procedure.
(3) “Wrongfully imprisoned person” has the meaning assigned by Section 501.101.

This new bill when it becomes law essentially changes the law’s starting point:  before, the limitation’s clock began at the time that the evildoing happened (when the prosecutor did his or her bad acts).  For those who have been victims of prosecutorial misconduct, this gives them a clear and open field to investigate and pursue complaints to the folks that police law licenses in the State of Texas about bad prosecutors who have done bad things with evidence in criminal trials.  (Unlike now, where Ken Anderson is arguing a limitations defense in the Michael Morton prosecutorial misconduct case.)

This helps Texas citizens who have been wrongfully convicted to seek justice against district attorneys who, for whatever misguided reason, held back or suppressed or failed to share evidence at the criminal trial which would have helped the defense.  It does so by giving them four years to take action after they’ve been released from jail and that is a good thing.

2.  Michael Morton Act

It’s not clear how much the new Michael Morton Act, passed as SB 1611, will help Texans in the future when they have fallen victim to a bad prosecutor.  Of course, many are thrilled to see this law come into being and it’s being touted as an excellent action for the Texas Legislature to have taken. Others aren’t so sure what we’ll be dealing with once all that confetti gets swept off the streets.

The Michael Morton Act is designed to deal with prosecutorial misconduct and it is named after wrongfully convicted Texan Michael Morton (read more about his story here).  It does so, explains State Senator Rodney Ellis, by “… ensuring that all relevant evidence that speaks to a defendant’s innocence or guilt is revealed.  It creates a uniform, statutory “open file” criminal discovery policy for the State of Texas.”

You can read the Michael Morton Act in its entirety online here.

Here’s the thing:  read the language of this new law closely and you will not find any tools to deal with evildoing district attorneys, or “rogue prosecutors” as they are often called.

It is the intentional decision to hold back evidence that is at the heart of the Michael Morton case, and in this law named after that victim of prosecutorial misconduct there is no firm hand taken in how exactly to stop and to deal with district attorneys who decide for themselves that certain pieces of evidences should never make it into the discovery process and thereby into the hands of competent criminal defense counsel.

Would Ken Anderson, now found in contempt of court and appealing that ruling on limitations grounds, have been stopped by this new law?  That’s a good question.

May 8th, 2013

Texas Top Prosecutors In Trouble: Dallas DA Craig Watkins, Austin DA Rosemary Lehmberg, Corpus Christi ex DA Anna Jimenez, Williamson County ex DA Ken Anderson – How Big is Prosecutorial Misconduct Problem in Texas?

In the past couple of months, top prosecutors from Texas counties all over the Lone Star State (both presently serving as head prosecutor as well as former top D.A.s) have made the national news after being accused of doing assorted bad things while acting as head district attorney for their respective counties.

What is the lesson to be learned here, when so many head prosecutors of prominent Texas counties are facing or have already been found guilty of serious bad acts?  Consider these pending actions:

1.  Dallas County District Attorney Craig Watkins

Currently the head prosecutor for the Dallas area, Craig Watkins has been running the Office of the District Attorney for Dallas County in the State of Texas since 2006. Mr. Watkins has been facing charges of prosecutorial misconduct for several months, read our prior coverage for the backstory.

The Dallas District Attorney has been found in contempt of court for not giving testimony at a hearing into his possible prosecutorial misconduct, and that contempt ruling has been scheduled for review prior to Mr. Watkins having to face the consequences of being found in contempt of a Texas trial court judge.

Right now, it’s expected that Wichita Falls District Court Judge Bob Brotherton will set a hearing sometime this month to review the ruling made on March 7, 2013, by Dallas District Court Judge Lena Levario that the Dallas County District Attorney, Craig Watkins, was in contempt of court because he refused to testify in her courtroom at a hearing on possible prosecutorial misconduct in the filing of mortgage fraud criminal charges against Al Hill III.

2.  Travis County District Attorney Rosemary Lehmberg

Currently the head prosecutor for the Austin area, Rosemary Lehmberg has been running the Office of the District Attorney for Travis County in the State of Texas since 2009 and is presently up for re-election. Today, Ms. Lehmberg was released after serving 20 days of a 45 day jail sentence after being arrested for Driving While Intoxicated on April 12, 2013 and sending a letter on April 14, 2013, where Ms. Lehmberg graciously took responsibility for her actions (read her letter here) and entered an unconditional plea of guilt.

Rosemary Lehmberg was also punished by being fined $4000 and having her Texas Drivers’ License suspended for six months. However, it does not appear that the Travis County DA will suffer the loss of her office: while there are those seeking her removal, she is not resigning after being arrested for DWI, and there are many local attorneys among others who are publicly supporting her remaining in office as the head prosecutor for Travis County.

3.  Nueces County District Attorney Anna Jimenez

Serving as the head prosecutor for the Corpus Christi area after being appointed by Governor Rick Perry in 2010, Anna Jimenez ran the Office of the District Attorney for Nueces County in the State of Texas until she failed to retain the position in a full election.

Last week, ex-District Attorney Anna Jimenez, who served in the Nueces County District Attorney’s Office for over 15 years prior to her appointment as top prosecutor, was indicted by a Jackson County Grand Jury on aggravated perjury charges.

The indictment alleges that Ms. Jimenez made false statements about witnesses in the pending case of Christian Blair Robinson, who will be tried in September 2013 for the murder of his 5 month old infant son.   While acting as prosecutor, Anna Jimenez is alleged to have sworn in an affidavit that three witnesses were not available because they refused to be interviewed and one witness could not be found, when the three witnesses had been interviewed by others and the fourth witness was not contacted.

Read the Indictment here.  Ms. Jimenez has been suspended from work with pay at the Nueces County District Attorney’s Office.

4.  Williamson County District Attorney Ken Anderson

Serving as the head prosecutor for the  Georgetown area for several years and later as a Texas District Court Judge, Ken Anderson ran the Office of the District Attorney for Williamson County in the State of Texas.  Right now, Mr. Anderson has been found guilty of violating Texas law as well as being in contempt of court by Judge Louis Sturns who presided over a Court of Inquiry ordered by the Texas Supreme Court to investigate and rule over charges of prosecutorial misconduct by then-prosecutor Ken Anderson in the homicide trial of Michael Morton, a man later shown to be innocent of the charges for which he was convicted.

Specifically, the former prosecutor was found to have done two bad things:  withholding  (1) the transcript of an interview local police had with Michael Morton’s little boy where the child told them that his dad was not home when his mother was killed and that he had seen the murder as it happened; and (2) evidence that there was a green van parked near the Morton’s house that day, and that a stranger was seen parking the green van and walking not once, but several times, into the woods behind the Morton home during the pertinent time period.

Judge Sturns issued his ruling in late April 2013 (read his ruling here) and for a short time, ex-DA Ken Anderson was behind bars after being arrested in accordance with that ruling.  Currently, Anderson is out on bail and appealing the ruling on statute of limitations grounds:  his argument, the Court of Inquiry proceedings are time barred by Texas law.

(Note:  The Austin American Statesman has made Ken Anderson’s deposition transcript available to those interested in reading his testimony here.)

May 1st, 2013

Staged Car Crashes: Dallas Grand Jury Indicts Duncanville Man for Multi-Million Dollar Insurance Fraud Scheme

The Florida legislature has passed special legislation to deal with staged car crashes but faking auto accidents to collect on insurance claims hasn’t been as common a basis for arrests here in Texas — but things may be changing.

Investigators Targeting Arrests for Staged Car Crashes to Collect Insurance Money

More and more often, all over the United States, law enforcement officers are charging people with insurance fraud felonies as defined by their particular state laws for allegedly staging car accidents in order to file claims with insurance companies for damages to property as well as personal injury damages.

States like Florida where Personal Injury Protection (PIP) coverage is offered are enticing places to stage the staged car crash since PIP insurance protection pays for medical costs in an automobile accident without fault being an issue.  It pays the doctor bills, etc., regardless of who is responsible for the crash.  PIP insurance exists to protect people who are hurt in an accident where the other driver doesn’t have insurance and all that is needed is to file a claim with carrier.

Texas may provide even more incentive for staged car crashes.

For Texas, “financial responsibility law” under Texas Insurance Code Section 601.072 mandates that drivers buy a minimum amount of liability insurance, currently set at $30,000 for each person injured in the accident up to a total coverage of $60,000 along with coverage for property damage up to $25,000.  Knowing that cars on Texas roads drive along with mandatory insurance policies covering any accidents they may have may form a solid basis for staged car crashes here in the Lone Star State.

What is a Staged Car Crash?

The staged car crash has evolved into a grift worthy of the classic 1970s movie The Sting or the TV show Leverage:  in fact, the variations in how the actual crash is staged have nicknames like “the T-Bone,” “the Wave,” and “the Swoop and Stoop.”

Essentially, all staged car crashes are phony accidents which are minor in nature, but serious enough to warrant filing an insurance claim.  Any number of people can be involved in the con, depending upon the version being played that day.

Sometimes one driver crashes into a car as it crosses through an intersection, ramming into its side, and when the police arrive there are compatriots ready to give witness statements that the car which has been hit broadside ran the light or the stop sign.  (This is the version nicknamed the T-Bone).  There are many other versions of the staged crash, of course, as creative new ways to create an accident for insurance claim purposes are evolving all the time.

Duncanville Man Indicted for Felony Fraud Charges in Multi-Million Dollar Texas Stage Car Crash Scheme

This week, Leroy Nelson was indicted by a Texas federal grand jury after being arrested by FBI agents on felony charges of insurance fraud including 6 counts of mail fraud and 6 counts of engaging in illegal money transactions.  (Read the Grand Jury Indictment filed by the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of Texas here.)

According to the April 29, 2013 news release by the Dallas Division of the FBI, Mr. Nelson began working with his colleagues back in 2005 to build an operation that over the past 8 years has brought in millions of dollars in revenue to Mr. Nelson and his team.

Texas Version of the Staged Car Crash: Claims for Property Damage to Geeky Equipment

How? According to the Grand Jury Indictment, Mr. Nelson filed false claims based upon fake automobile accidents where he paid cash to folk who would make false claims to their car insurance companies, telling their carriers that “they damaged a piece of equipment that was on the road or that was being hauled by a trailer.”

Clever Mr. Nelson also allegedly helped these people sound good to the insurance adjusters, going so far as to give them written scripts to help them in making their claims.

The claims would be based upon interesting and geeky kinds of things: the indictment provides examples like a “Remote Aircraft Landing Marker” and a “Seismographic Probe.”  There would be photos of these things, too, and the claims never appeared to go over $19,000.

The Indictment reports that the carriers paid claims by sending their insurance company checks to warehouses owned by Mr. Nelson in Duncanville, Texas, or to one of those private mail addresses he had set up in several different states (Minnesota, Missouri, Mississippi, Washington, Arizona, Connecticut, and Louisiana), where the private mailbox place would then periodically forward his mail back to Mr. Nelson in Duncanville.

Today, Leroy Nelson faces felony time behind bars as well as the federal government seeking restitution for all that money that he’s collect from insurance companies since 2005.  And undoubtedly, the U.S. Attorney’s Office and the Texas Division Offices of the Federal Bureau of Investigation have been encouraged to seek out more indictments and take on more investigations into possible insurance fraud based upon cunning and creative staged car accident operations here in Texas.

April 24th, 2013

Will U.S. Supreme Court Protect Citizens Once Again Against Overzealous Law Enforcement in Salinas v Texas? Dallas Prosecutors May No Longer Be Able to Argue Silence Means Guilt

A week ago today, the United States Supreme Court heard oral arguments in a Texas case called Salinas v. Texas, grading the papers of the highest criminal court in the Lone Star State, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals.  It’s another major federal case that will impact Texas criminal defense cases and people arrested and charged in Texas, coming right on the heels of last week’s Supreme Court decision finding warrantless DWI searches to be unconstitutional.

Which means that while the prosecutors and district attorneys across the State of Texas are still reeling from the Supreme Court’s opinion that taking someone’s blood in a DWI case without a search warrant violates the U.S. Constitution, they may get whammed a second time when the Salinas opinion comes down.

Why?

Texas prosecutors like the idea of arguing to a jury that when someone remains silent during questioning by police or other law enforcement – before they’ve been arrested, and before they’ve been Mirandized – that it’s evidence of their guilt.

So, if someone is savvy enough to remain silent when police officers are asking them questions about a crime, then the district attorney can use their silence against them later on, if they are arrested and tried for the crime.

For example, in the Salinas case, Mr. Salinas clammed up and said absolutely nothing to the police after their questioning about his shotgun suggested to him that the police considered him to be a suspect in a murder.  The Harris County District Attorney argued to the jury that Mr. Salinas’ failure to answer the police officer’s questions (remember, he hasn’t been arrested, he hasn’t been taken into custody, no one has brought up Miranda at the time) in and of itself showed Mr. Salinas’ guilt … because “an innocent person” would answer the questions.

Many believe this is wrong.  That it’s unconstitutional.

However, arguments made before the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals were unsuccessful, and the Court of Criminal Appeals issued its opinion back in April 2012 that prosecutors may indeed tell a jury that someone who keeps quiet while being questioned by law enforcement before he’s arrested or read his rights has really admitted that he or she is flat out guilty of that crime.

Obviously this is a very important issue for many criminal defendants – not only in Dallas or the rest of Texas, but the entire country – so the United States Supreme Court agreed to hear the case, and has accepted briefs from both the parties as well as “friends of the court” and now, the final step before an opinion is written has happened with last week’s oral arguments of the lawyers before the Justices.  (Check the US Supreme Court docket here.)

Here’s the question, the only question, that is being decided:

Whether or under what circumstances the Fifth Amendment’s Self-Incrimination Clause protects a defendant’s refusal to answer law enforcement questioning before he has been arrested or read his Miranda rights.

You can read the transcript of the oral argument here, as posted on the United States Supreme Court’s website.  As Stanford Law Professor Jeffrey Fisher argued to the Justices last week:

“The Fifth Amendment prohibits using a person’s silence during a noncustodial police interview against him at trial, and nothing about the specific facts of this case give this Court cause to refrain from applying that rule here.

“To the contrary, the State’s closing argument in this case urging the jury to find Mr. Salinas guilty because, quote, “an innocent person would have denied law enforcement’s accusations,” strikes at the core of everything the Griffin rule and, indeed, the Fifth Amendment is designed to prohibit.

“It evokes an inquisitorial system of justice. It effectively shifts the burden of proof onto the defendant, and it demeans individual dignity by conscripting the defendant as a product of his own demise.”


April 17th, 2013

Warrantless DWI Blood Tests Violate the United States Constitution Rules U.S. Supreme Court in Today’s Opinion, Missouri v. McNeely: Police Need a Warrant Before DWI Blood Test

This morning there’s big news out of Washington D.C. for those defending DWI cases, something that prosecutors and police probably aren’t going to be happy to learn.

The United States Supreme Court issued its opinion in Missouri v. McNeely, a DWI case where there was a blood test taken from a man without his consent and without a warrant.  The High Court has ruled that it is not constitutional to take someone’s blood for testing because the police officer suspects they may be intoxicated without that officer having a proper search warrant to do so.

You can read the opinion here, as it has been placed on the United States Supreme Court website.

Warrantless DWI Blood Tests Violate the United States Constitution

1.  What happened in Missouri that impacts Texas?

Awhile back, a man named Tyler McNeely was pulled over on a rural Missouri road by a Missouri State Trooper after the trooper reported McNeely’s car was driving over the speed limit.  Mr. McNeely, with two prior DWI convictions on his record, was savvy enough to refuse a breath test at the scene.  He did perform some field sobriety tests, and they suggested to the trooper that McNeely was intoxicated.

So, Tyler McNeely was handcuffed and driven to a nearby hospital by the state trooper where his blood was taken without a search warrant.  That blood test showed a BAC of  0.154 % (the Missouri legal limit is 0.08%).

2. McNeely Appeals His Case, Arguing Unreasonable Search and Seizure against State of Missouri  and even Eric Holder

The Missouri man fought his DWI case by appealing on the federal constitutional issue that it is against the search and seizure protections of the federal constitution to take someone’s blood from their body for a DWI blood test without getting a search warrant before taking (seizing) it.  He argued that it’s unconstitutional to do so, and the fact that the blood test in his particular case showed his blood to have two times the Missouri legal blood alcohol content is irrelevant.

And he won his fight.

First, the Missouri Supreme Court (as well as the lower Missouri appellate court) both ruled that the blood test taken at the Missouri hospital was in violation of constitutional protections against unreasonable search and seizure and was therefore not admissible evidence against Mr. McNeely.

The highest court in the State of Missouri held that the police can take blood without a warrant only when the situation involves the possibility that evidence may otherwise be destroyed or in situations where someone’s life is in danger.  That’s it.

The appeals didn’t end there.  This argument continued to the federal courts with the Office of the Attorney General of the United States representing the Obama Administration before the U.S. Supreme Court arguing that warrantless DWI blood tests should be held constitutional in this country.  (Read the brief filed by the Justice Department here.)

3.  The U.S. Supreme Court Confirms Today That Warrantless Blood Tests are Unconstitutional

The Supreme Court Justices voted in the citizen’s favor (8-1) and ruled that it’s not enough for police to argue that BAC levels will fall because the alcohol leaves the system before the search warrant can be obtained logistically (the government’s argument): that isn’t enough to sidestep the protections placed against search and seizure by the Founding Fathers in the U.S. Constitution.

Which means that in Texas today, unlike yesterday, it’s been made clear by the highest court in the land that when some refuses a DWI blood test, then the police must get a search warrant (where a judge has found probable cause) before the blood can be taken – unless special circumstances exist in a particular case.

To learn more about search and search, check our website’s resource materials for information.

April 10th, 2013

Report on Crime Lab Evidence Released: DPS Lab Tech Jonathan Salvador May Have Sent 1000s to Texas Prisons in Wrongful Convictions – and the CCA is Reversing The Convictions

Juries are known by criminal defense lawyers and prosecutors alike to consider forensic evidence as being irrefutable and some of the most respected evidence in a criminal trial.

Juries like lab stuff: it’s known as the “CSI effect” by some roaming around the courthouse, and it has nothing to do with the realities of what scientific evidence really provides.  Maybe with the latest revelations by the Texas Rangers and the Texas Forensic Science Commission, public perception will change.

And if it does, then history may reward one single individual with credit for reversing the respect and reliance placed upon lab results in Texas Courtrooms.  That man’s name is Jonathan Salvador,  formerly employed as a DPS-Houston crime lab worker.

Texas Forensic Commission Report Released

Last week, the Texas Forensic Science Commission officially adopted a report compiled by TFSC and based in part upon similar investigations by both the Texas Rangers and the Office of the Inspector General.  The report investigates crime lab results used as evidence is lots and lots of criminal trials.  It’s big news:  the official report determines that Jonathan Salvador’s failures as a crime lab technician puts literally 1000s of convictions into question.

Thousands.

That’s right.  The official report finds that there are 1000s of men setting behind bars today who didn’t get a fair trial.  Why not?  They were convicted on crime lab evidence that came from Mr. Salvador’s work.

Crime Lab Results Only As Good as the Lab Tech – Bad, Bad Jonathan Salvador

What’s with Salvador’s lab results?  Seems that the DPS Houston office had this guy doing work in their Department of Public Safety Crime Lab:  he worked there for a long time and performed lots and lots of lab work destined for criminal trials.

By the time that Mr. Salvador was suspended from his job as a DPS forensic scientist in February 2012, he had worked on 4900 different drug cases in 30 different Texas counties.

Jonathan Salvador lost his job when it was discovered that he replaced the results of one test with another, unrelated lab test. That brings many to the question of what to do with those other 4899 cases that Salvador worked:  what to do about them?  Should any of them be trusted?  Aren’t they all scientifically compromised?

Think about it.  That’s a lot of lab tests before Salvador’s faking lab results in a controlled substance drug test was discovered.  (Note:  A Houston Grand Jury considered Salvador’s actions but didn’t indict him for any criminal charges.)

How could this happen?  That’s not clear.  The Report includes interviews with Salvador’s former lab buddies and these DPS lab employees reported that Mr. Salvador ”… struggled with corrections and an overall understanding of the chemistry, especially in difficult cases.”

Court of Criminal Appeals Will Rule in Favor of Defendants in These Tainted Convictions

According to a representative of the Innocence Project of Texas in reporting to the TFSC, the answer to this problem regarding appeals of the other cases where Salvador was involved is to have the Court of Criminal Appeals apply its same opinion to every case that comes before it that involves Jonathan Salvador lab evidence.

The High Court is taking the practical approach of ruling in favor of these defendants as they bring their cases before the CCA.

Ten convictions have already been reversed by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals because of crime lab results involving the now infamous DPS Houston crime lab worker, Jonathan Salvador.

As the Court of Criminal Appeals explained in its March 6, 2013, per curiam opinion in Ex Parte Junius Sereal (read the opinion here):

The DPS report shows that the lab technician who was solely responsible for testing the evidence in this case is the scientist found to have committed misconduct. While there is evidence remaining that is available to retest in this case, that evidence was in the custody of the lab technician in question. This Court believes his actions are not reliable therefore custody was compromised, resulting in a due process violation. Applicant is therefore entitled to relief.

April 3rd, 2013

Cell Phone Information: Police Investigators Can Grab Tons of Personal Information Off Smart Phones Without a Warrant

The mysterious shooting deaths of two Kaufman County prosecutors, as well as one of their wives, is taking up lots of media coverage as well as lots of chatter around Dallas area courthouse hallways.  The investigation into these deaths is ongoing, and there’s no clear answer as to what has happened here.

You’ve probably heard about how Michael McClelland and his wife, Cynthia, were shot to death last Saturday; McClelland was the District Attorney of Kaufman County.  One of his assistant DAs, Mark Hasse, was shot to death on January 31, 2013.  The investigations into all three deaths are intertwined.  State and federal authorities are all on the job.

The Dallas Morning News’ Crime blog is providing great coverage of the Kaufman County slayings, if you are interested in following the case(s).

Kaufman County Investigations Spotlight Criminal Investigations Use of Cell Phone Records In Building Their Case

For future criminal defense cases, one important detail is popping up during all this coverage: the ability of investigators to access cell phone records in their criminal investigations.

The Fort Worth Telegram has obtained and shared the affidavit that was submitted in the Kaufman County investigation (read it here):  the Texas Rangers are seeking not only the cell phone records of the deceased but also records of all cellphone traffic near their home in Forney, where the shootings occurred.

(If you were driving around that area over the weekend with your cell phone, do you think the Texas Rangers get to know that information without your okay?)

Cell Phones Are a Different Kind of Property Since They Hold So Much Digital Information

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) recently revealed just how much law enforcement is able to pull off any smart phone they come across.  The ACLU published a list of the items that the federal government was able to pull from a single phone search without a search warrant.

The federal government went through the bedroom of a suspect in a drug investigation and one of the ICE agents grabbed up an iPhone while they were there.  From that one cell phone, without any search warrant where a judge approved them looking at this personal information, the government was able to find all this off that one phone:

  1. call activity — everyone the person called, and everyone who  called them (and how long each chat took);
  2. phone book directory information — every number he looked up (pizza joints, parents, other people, whoever);
  3. stored voicemails and text messages — that’s right: the agents could listen to all the phone’s voice mails and read all the texts;
  4. photos and videos — they could watch all the stored videos and check out every single photo stored on the phone;
  5. apps — they could skip through all the apps stored on the phone and gather more personal information there;
  6. eight different passwords — they could grab all the person’s passwords; and
  7. they could track where the person had traveled through 659 geolocation points, including 227 cell towers and 403 WiFi networks with which the cell phone had previously connected.

Think about that — without a warrant, the ICE agent got all this information off that one phone.  Something that otherwise, the federal investigators would clearly have had to get a search warrant to obtain.

Location information, the last item on this list and what some might argue is the least intrusive, is still arguably a violation of privacy rights protected by the Fourth Amendment.   This issue is key to the Kaufman County investigation — and something that hopefully media coverage will bring to the attention of a lot more people out there.

What Does Eric Holder Say?  Department of Justice Holds Position That Warrantless Searches of Cell Phones Are Okay

The federal government’s legal position on searching cell phones without the protection of a judge approving the search via a search warrant is clear:  the Department of Justice and Attorney General Eric Holder take the position that no one has a “reasonable expectation of privacy” for whatever is stored on their cellphone – at least insofar as location information.

(Do you agree with this?)

Texas Doesn’t Agree With the Feds on Cell Phone Information — You Need a Warrant Here in Texas

Texas isn’t as free with tossing around someone’s privacy rights as the Justice Department appears to be.  Right now, a proposed law is making its way through the Texas Legislature  that will amend the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure to force all law enforcement agencies to get a search warrant signed by a Texas judge before they can grab and use location information on a cellphone.  The law would also make cellphone companies reveal how many requests for location information they get from law enforcement.

Also, at least one federal judge down in the Rio Grande Valley is fighting against law enforcement using cellphone data without a search warrant.  As we reported earlier, the Honorable Brian L. Owsley, U.S. Magistrate for the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, is ruling against authorities use of Stingrays and Cell Phone Tower dumps without an official search warrant.

Right now, the investigation is hot in the Kaufman County D.A. Shootings and law enforcement from various jurisdictions have formed a task force to track down the persons responsible for killing two prosecutors as well as one of their spouses.

Seems likely that this sort of posse will be happy to use cell phone information to track down suspects — but what is happening to the privacy rights of all of us in the meantime?

Here in Texas, what will happen to the Fourth Amendment right to protection from invasive search and seizure? Your privacy rights are at risk.

March 27th, 2013

Dallas Cowboys Josh Brent Intoxication Manslaughter Trial Date Set for September 2013 as DWI Manslaughter Plea Bargain Remains a Possibility

Whether or not a deal will be negotiated remains to be seen, but right now Dallas Cowboys’ Josh Brent is scheduled for a September 23, 2013, criminal trial on charges of intoxication manslaughter.

The Dallas Cowboys have confirmed that with these pending criminal proceedings, defensive tackle Josh Brent will not be playing pro football this season.

What Happened to Josh Brent?

Last December 8, Josh Brent was driving his four-door Mercedes S600 west on the service road of State Highway 114 near Loop 12 in Irving, Texas, with his fellow Cowboy and best pal Jerry Brown, Jr. as his front seat passenger.  It was a few minutes after two o’clock in the morning.  They were going over the 45 MPH speed limit.  Neither man was wearing a seat belt.

Tragically, the vehicle crashed as the car hit the curb, flipped, crashed, and caught fire. While Brent survived, his friend Jerry Brown died from blunt force trauma injuries sustained in the accident at Parkland Hospital a short while after the accident happened.

Irving Police reported that Brent’s blood alcohol level was 0.18 percent and arrested him. (Under Texas law, you are technically driving drunk if your BAC is at or above 0.08.)   Josh Brent was also reported by police to have failed field sobriety tests at the time.

(Apparently, Josh Brent had some criminal defense savvy, because he refused a Breathalyzer test; however, Texas law allowed his blood to be taken from him regardless of his refusal because the situation involved accident with a fatality.)

The official Irving Police Report states that Brent “was intoxicated, speeding over the limit, failed to drive in a single lane and struck the north (right) curb, causing the operator to lose control” of the car.

What is Intoxication Manslaughter?

Intoxication manslaughter is a felony charge under state law that is defined in the Texas Penal Code as follows (Texas Penal Code Sec. 49.08). It is a criminal charge that can apply in situations where someone is arrested for driving while intoxicated and another person dies in the crash although the driver had no intent or desire for this person to be harmed.

    INTOXICATION MANSLAUGHTER.
    (a) A person commits an offense if the person:
    (1)  operates a motor vehicle in a public place, operates an aircraft, a watercraft, or an amusement ride, or assembles a mobile amusement ride; and

    (2)  is intoxicated and by reason of that intoxication causes the death of another by accident or mistake.

    (b)  Except as provided by Section 49.09, an offense under this section is a felony of the second degree.

In Texas, a second degree felony conviction means significant incarceration and jail time.  Here, from the statute itself (Texas Penal Code 12.33):

    Sec. 12.33.  SECOND DEGREE FELONY PUNISHMENT.
    (a) An individual adjudged guilty of a felony of the second degree shall be punished by imprisonment in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice for any term of not more than 20 years or less than 2 years.

    (b)  In addition to imprisonment, an individual adjudged guilty of a felony of the second degree may be punished by a fine not to exceed $10,000.

Will Dallas Cowboys Lineman Josh Brent Return to Play Football?

Right now, Josh Brent is not in jail: he posted a $100,000 bond and he’s free right now, although he is required to wear an electronic ankle monitor at all times.  The monitor, a Secure Continuous Remote Alcohol Monitor (SCRAM) is court-ordered, and transmits body sweat readings to a computer in order to track alcohol intake.

The Dallas Cowboys have not terminated Brent, but it doesn’t look like Brent will be playing defense for Dallas in the 2013 NFL Season.  For one thing, if this case does go to a full trial, the September 2013 trial date hits after the start of the 2013 football season.  Brent can’t be two places at once.

The Dallas Cowboys have posted on their blog that the Front Office and the coaching staff are in limbo right now, waiting to learn not only what happens in the criminal case (i.e., will there be a successful plea bargain) but also to find out what the National Football League decides on Brent’s status.  Right now, according to the Cowboys web site, Josh Brent is officially on the “reserve non-football injury” list.

The Cowboys are not abandoning Josh Brent: Coach Jason Garrett has stated publicly that both the team’s players and their coaches are supporting Josh Brent through this thing “without condoning his actions.

Will There Be a Plea Bargain?

Criminal defense attorneys recognize that making deals for their clients is a big part of their job, and it’s something that prosecutors do all the time: bargain on punishment, bargain on jail time and fines and charges to be faced.  Given that there are five months ahead of Josh Brent before any jury will be convened, there is a lot of opportunity for his defense team to negotiate something with the district attorney.

What will that be?  Who’s to say, but a plea bargain remains a real possibility for Josh Brent.

For example, check out the Case Results page on our web site, which includes a Dallas County Felony DWI case reduced from 3rd Degree Felony to Misdemeanor Charge in an August 2010 plea deal.

March 20th, 2013

Texas Legislature Considers New Marijuana Law That Would Make Punishment for Marijuana Possession of One Ounce or Less a $500 Fine With No Jail Time

The Texas Legislature is in session right now and one thing that is being considered by the lawmakers this year is a new law proposed by Representative Harold V. Dutton, Jr., an attorney from Houston, that would change longstanding marijuana laws here in Texas.

The bill, HR 184, was considered in a public hearing before the Criminal Jurisprudence Committee on March 12, 2013, where anyone who was interested could show up to Room 16 in the basement level of the Texas State Capitol there in downtown Austin and hear the arguments being made pro and con for the passage of this new marijuana crime law.  Reports are that lots of people showed up.

HR 184 Changes Marijuana Laws to Remove Jail Time for Small Possession Convictions

After the hearing, the bill remains alive in at the Committee Level.   HR 184 has got a long road to travel:  first, HR 184 must get the approval of the House Criminal Jurisprudence Committee to proceed to consideration via a full House vote. Once the House votes approval, the proposed law will need first Senate Committee approval and thereafter a full Senate vote before finally reaching the Governor’s desk for signature (he could sign or veto).

During this journey through the statehouse and the Governor’s Office, the current text of HR 184 may change, but the spirit of the proposed bill will remain the same: to change the laws governing marijuana in the State of Texas.

Will it succeed?  Too soon to tell, but it’s surviving right now and there are a lot of marijuana supporters out there that are pushing legislators to vote yes for HR 184.

Image: Small amount of marijuana, Wikimedia Commons | public domain

What HR 184 Will Do If It Becomes Law

If the bill is passed essentially as the text of the bill is currently written, then anyone arrested in Texas for an ounce of marijuana would not face jail time as a punishment.  Instead, the crime would be much more palatable for marijuana users:  under HR 184, those arrested, charged, and convicted of possessing 1 oz. of marijuana would be fined $500.00 — there wouldn’t be any jail time involved in punishment.

You can read the full text of the proposed marijuana law, HR 184, online here. In essence, the bill seeks to change the crime of possessing small amounts of marijuana ( 1 oz or less) in Texas to a Class C misdemeanor.

What happens now? Under current Texas law, anyone who is found guilty of possessing 1 ounce of marijuana in the State of Texas faces a fine of up to $2000 and jail time up to 180 days (6 months).   It’s a Class B misdemeanor in the State of Texas to possess marijuana in the amount of 1 ounce or less.

Exceptions Remain in Proposed New Law

There are exceptions, however.  Under the new proposed law, some folk would still face significant jail time for a small amount of pot – it will remain a Class B misdemeanor for those who have prior convictions on their record of possessing marijuana or synthetic marijuana within the previous 24 months before the current conviction.

As stated in the pending bill text:

(c) An offense under Subsection (b)(1) is a Class B misdemeanor if it is shown on the trial of the offense that the defendant has been previously convicted three or more times of an offense involving the possession of marihuana or a synthetic cannabinoid and each prior offense was committed within the 24-month period preceding the date of the commission of the instant offense. For purposes of this subsection, “offense involving the possession of marihuana or a synthetic cannabinoid” means an offense under this section or Section 481.121 or an offense under the laws of another state that contains elements substantially similar to the elements of an offense under either of those sections.

There are Strong Arguments being made for Passing HR 184 and Making Possession of 1 ounce (or less) a Class C Misdemeanor

Right now, there are forces moving to get HR184 passed based upon the obvious marijuana decriminalization platforms, like the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML) which is asking its followers to contact their state lawmakers and voice their approval of HR 184′s passage (for details, read the March 9th NORML blog post on HR 184).

According to the Texas branch of NORML, around 70% of all marijuana possession arrests in Texas would be impacted here: most marijuana arrests in Texas involve police arresting people for having an ounce or less of marijuana in their possession. It’s a big deal, this proposed change in Texas law, from a marijuana decriminalization standpoint.

However, there are other forces moving to make HR 184 the law of the Lone Star State that come solely from fiscal concerns. During the March 12th hearing on the proposed legislation, there was a lot of testimony devoted to the costs of keeping marijuana possession a Class B Misdemeanor — and many were interested in how much money the State of Texas could save (LOTS) if this one, small bill were made into the official law of the land.

Money always talks, but it speaks with a particularly loud voice these days, in this economy.  Will Texans be able to carry a joint in their pocket and face only a $500 fine if caught, instead of 6 months in jail and up to $2000 in a fine?   Too soon to tell, but lots of people are keeping their fingers crossed.

Track HR 184′s Progress

If you’re interested, you can track the progress of HR 184 up in Austin at the official Texas Legislative web page for tracking pending legislation (here).

March 13th, 2013

FBI Investigating Dallas DA Craig Watkins — and U.S. Attorney Is Involved, Too, as Watkins Charged with Contempt of Court Last Week

It’s official:  the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) is investigating the activities of the Dallas County District Attorney Craig Watkins.  The Office of the United States Attorney for the Eastern District of Texas is reported to have its own files opened into Dallas DA Watkins’ activities, as well.

And this isn’t something that has just begun: reports are that the FBI Investigation has been going on for almost two years now as the FBI operation is 20 months old.

FBI Looking Into Dallas DA Watkins — Investigation Is “Active” and “Serious” – But How Big is It?

The Texas Lawbook apparently got the scoop on the FBI looking into Watkins and it’s being reported in the local news media that The Texas Lawbook has first-hand information from lawyers who know about the investigation details that the FBI (and the U.S. Attorney’s Office) are “very active” and “extremely serious” about finding out everything they can about District Attorney Craig Watkins’ decision to go after Al Hill III for mortgage fraud.

(For details on the Hill fraud charges, see our earlier post.)

Apparently, the federal agents are wondering what Watkins’ motivation was in filing criminal charges against Mr. Hill — was it because Lisa Blue asked him to do it?  was it because it would serve him well on re-election?  was it both?  something else?

News of the FBI looking into the reasons why charges were filed against Al Hill III and his wife (charges against her were dropped early on) first came to light when Lisa Blue’s attorney advised the Dallas trial court that the FBI’s inquiry was one of the reasons that Lisa Blue would be taking the Fifth Amendment in her testimony before the court that day.

However, many are questioning what is going on with the FBI looking into Dallas DA Watkins, since an investigation going twenty months back in time clearly goes further than this recent controversy over the Hill mortgage fraud charges.

If the FBI has been looking into Watkins since Summer 2011, then are they looking into more than this single fraud charge — and what spurred their interest in the Dallas District Attorney twenty months ago? The FBI isn’t saying.

Right now, no one really knows the scope of the FBI’s investigation into the Dallas County District Attorney except the FBI, apparently.  DA Watkins’ representatives are not sharing anything, but one of the attorneys working in the office is reporting that DA Watkins has not been given any official notification of a federal investigation.

Contempt Hearing: Dallas District Attorney Held in Contempt of Court by Texas District Judge

In the criminal mortgage fraud case brought by Dallas County DA Watkins against Al Hill III, the defense attorneys for Al Hill III subpoenaed the district attorney to take the stand and to provide evidence they told the judge would support Hill’s defense.  Lisa Blue was also subpoenaed for the same hearing, for the same reason.

Their argument:  the charges stemmed from prosecutorial misconduct on the part of Watkins, whose office they claimed had never before filed charges for mortgage fraud against anyone in a situation where there was no evidence of any financial loss.

At the initial February 2013 hearing, Watkins never entered the courtroom (he was sick).  Blue took the Fifth.  (Details here.)

When the hearing resumed last week, Watkins appeared and took the stand.  However, the Dallas County District Attorney didn’t provide substantive answers to the questions posed to him; instead, he refused to answer the defense lawyer’s questions on grounds of work product and attorney-client privileges.

So, Judge Levario found Watkins in contempt.

Reports are that FBI agents were in the courtroom that day, and that FBI investigators initiated conversations with Hill’s defense team.

Next up:  Texas Regional Administrative Law Judge John Ovard was asked to name a special judge to preside over the contempt proceedings, and yesterday Judge Ovard appointed a trial court judge from Wichita Falls, Bob Brotherton, Presiding Judge for the 30th Judicial District of Texas, to hear the DA Watkins’ contempt of court case.

Judge Brotherton is expected to travel to Dallas and preside over the proceedings here in Dallas County.

Meanwhile, the Mortgage Fraud Charges Against Hill III Have Been Dropped

As this whirlwind continues to build here in Dallas County, with a growing fascination into what the FBI is doing checking into the local county district attorney who just got cited with contempt, an important but less covered event also happened in the recent days.

What happened?  Seems District Judge Lena Levario summarily ended the criminal case against Al Hill III.   Judge Levario dismissed the mortgage fraud indictment against Hill III this week after Craig Watkins declined to take the stand in her court and give sworn testimony on his decision to seek an indictment against Hill from the Dallas grand jury.

There’s lots of drums beating about the charges against Al Hill III being re-filed, but whether that happens or not is something that they may be taking odds on in Vegas — for the skinny on all this chatter, check out the analysis over at the Texas Observer on the likelihood of the Dallas District Attorney’s Office re-filing those fraud charges against Mr. Hill.

So, as the brouhaha builds for Dallas District Attorney Craig Watkins, Texas’ Al Hill III has apparently won his battle, and maybe the war: he settled and got a multi-million dollar Big Oil inheritance; he got his legal fees from Lisa Blue and her two fellow lawyers settled down significantly in their fee fight; and he’s no longer facing criminal charges.

It’s not clear what’s happening with Craig Watkins these days, but odds are high that Al Hill III and his defense team are enjoying a very nice Spring Break 2013.