Archive for 2010

December 29th, 2010

New DWI Laws for Texas May Happen: Texas Legislature Considers Revising DWI Laws

It’s not news to anyone that Texas drunk driving laws need to change. There are huge backlogs of pending DWI cases in most Texas counties - 1000s of cases that are bottlenecked. This, of course, is a bigger problem for the prosecution than for the defense.  Any good DWI defense attorney will tell you that those big backlogs aren’t necessarily bad news for DWI defendants. 

However, there’s also the problem of inequality in how DWI laws are carried out in our great state. As we discussed this summer (“Will Texas DWI Laws Finally Become Fair? Maybe.“), it’s checkerboard justice: get pulled over in one part of Texas, it’s serious. Get stopped in another area of the Lone Star State, it’s no big deal.

Texas Legislature May Change the Law for First Time DWI Offenders

However, things may really be changing next year. Down in Austin, come January, the Texas Legislature will hear a proposal that will let first time DWI offenders the option of deferred adjudication with the key benefit of keeping that DWI off their record. Right now, with your first DWI conviction, you’ve got a misdemeanor on your record along with a fine of up to $2000 and a driver’s license that is suspended for 6 months.

What does this mean to you? 

If you are facing your first DWI charge, then the new law would let you opt for “deferred adjudication,” which means you just get your case put on hold for awhile.  If, during this delay period, you do jump through all the hoops (and that will include someone checking out what you’re doing and your taking part in some sort of treatment program) then you could end up acquitted of the DWI charge after you’ve done a year’s probation without another offense.

Sounds like a pretty good deal, right?  Let’s see what happens. 

December 22nd, 2010

Whattha? Judge Charlie Baird Rebuked by Appeals Court in Willingham Case

You’ll remember Judge Charlie Baird – we’ve written about him before:  Judge Baird was the man who took on the Tim Cole matter when others on the bench would not, and we tipped our hat to him for it (read “Judge Charlie Baird May Exonerate a Dead Man and Give Justice to Tim Cole”).  Judge Baird also presided over the case where Austin DA Stephanie McFarland had kept back an expert’s padded resume from the defense, bad acts by the prosecution – details found in our June 2010 post, if you’re interested. 

Now, Judge Charlie Baird is in the news again — and it’s not good.  Seems he has had his papers graded by the 3d Court of Appeals and they’ve ruled that he overstepped his bounds (in legal parlance, “abused his discretion”) when he did not step aside and recuse himself in the Cameron Todd Willingham investigation.  What?

Yepper.  Seems that the appellate court decided that the arguments of Navarro County District Attorney R. Lowell Thompson were sound – and Thompson was arguing that Judge Baird should not have presided over the investigation into whether or not Cameron Todd Willingham was wrongfully executed because (1) Baird is a known opponent of the death penalty and (2) an apparent conflict with his previous ruling in 1995, where Judge Baird as a member of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals voted to uphold Willingham’s conviction. 

Here’s the reality:  Judge Baird, setting in Travis County on a district court bench, did grant a motion brought before him to investigate whether or not the State of Texas executed an innocent man.  Judge Baird is now leaving the bench: he’s going into private practice in a matter of days, and Karen Sage will take the oath of office for that bench.  He’s out of it. 

What will happen to the Willingham Family’s attempts to clear the name of Cameron Todd Willingham?  It’s not clear right now.  It’s pretty sure that Willingham did not kill his kids. It’s pretty clear that Willingham was an innocent man, executed by the State of Texas.  And, it’s pretty certain that Judge Charlie Baird is a man of character and conviction, who seeks to do the right thing.

Judge Baird undertook the task of grading his own papers when he granted the Willingham Family motion to investigate the death of Cameron Todd Willingham.  You’d think he would get some respect for it. 

He’s got it here, folks.

December 16th, 2010

Six Veteran Fort Worth Cops Fired Yesterday for Theft – Felony Charges Should Follow

Police officers getting caught violating the law for whatever reason is always alarming, but it’s especially disconcerting when there’s a group of cops involved and they’ve been on the force long enough to really, really know better.

Fort Worth Cops Fired for Faking Traffic Tickets to Boost Their Pay

Yesterday, six (6) Fort Worth police officers were fired outright because an investigation revealed they were messing with traffic tickets in order to get fake overtime pay available under via a federal grant where federal money is available to pay for police officer overtime (the “Selective Traffic Enforcement Program”).  

Right now, they’ve lost their jobs and their personal reputations but no one has been arrested. Yet. Expect felony charges soon, folks: the U.S. Attorney’s Office is getting its ducks in a row, using the investigation results to build their case. 

And they’ll be going after these six police officers as well as three other experienced cops (one with 25 years on the force) who quit rather than get booted.  

The Nine Cops Who Allegedly Got Caught With Their Hands in the Federal Overtime Cookie Jar

Rookies, you might think, would be tempted to fudge overtime hours – they’re new, they’re gullible.  They’d be the ones culled out of the organization over time, right?  Well, that’s not the scenario here. 

Consider the length of service on the Fort Worth Police Force for the following nine former police officers who allegedly worked the system to get paid for hours they did not work:

  • Robert Peoples — 22 yrs (fired);
  • Patrick Aguilar – 18 yrs (fired);
  • James Dunn – 11 yrs (fired);
  • Maurice Middleton — 11 yrs (fired);
  • Marcus Mosqueda — 7 yrs (fired);
  • Ronald Wigginton — 5 yrs (fired);
  • Herman Young – 25 yrs (resigned);
  • Jonathan Johnson — 8 yrs (resigned);
  • James McDade — 5 yrs (resigned).
December 8th, 2010

Houston Chronicle’s Rick Casey Argues Harris County District Judge Dan Hinde Committed Felony This Fall

Rick Casey is a columnist for the Houston Chronicle, and in his column dated December 7, 2010, he boldly argues that Harris County District Court Judge Dan Hinde, who presides over the 269th Judicial District Court, has violated Section 39.06 of the Texas Penal Code and thus committed a felony — but Judge Hinde sees it differently. (Of course.) 

Casey Argues His Position: Felony By a Texas Judge

Casey argues that Judge Hinde violated state law when he sent out letters to lots of folk who had appeared for jury duty after he’d shown up to give them the standard “thank you for your participation in the jury process” speech.  The thank you letters blatantly asked for their vote in the November 2010 election in which Hinde was running for re-election  (the third paragraph begins, ”[w]e Texans elect our judges, and I am asking for your vote for Judge of the 269th District Court.”).

Rick Casey, a well-respected investigative journalist, first used the Texas Public Information Act to get copies of e-mails sent by Judge Hinde and the Harris County District Clerk’s Office, which confirm that the campaigning judge offered his services – volunteered — to speak to all the people who were showing up for jury duty and setting there, waiting in potential juror pools, from July 12, 2010, t0 November 1, 2010 (the day before the election).  That’s 28 mornings where Judge Hinde is essentially campaigning in front of a captive audience.

Casey’s investigation also reveals that Judge Hinde asked the district clerk for details about these folk, including names and addresses.  Why he asked is obvious: he needed this information so he could send letters to all these people (estimated to be around 10,000 individuals).

In Casey’s opinion, Judge Hinde has committed the criminal act of “misuse of official information” under Tex. Penal Code Section 39.06(c) which states:

A person commits an offense if, with intent to obtain benefit or with the intent to defraud another, he solicits or receives from a public servant information that 1) the public servant has access to by means of his office or employment; and 2) has not been made public.

Judge Hinde Responds That Technically, There’s Been No Violation of the Law

Casey argues that this violates the Texas Penal Code.  Judge Hinde disagrees, arguing that: paragraph D of the law defines information not made public as “information to which the public does not generally have access, and that is prohibited from disclosure under Chapter 552, Government Code,” and the Judge argues that the information on jurors is not subject to Chapter 552  so its disclosure by definition is not prohibited.   Second argument:  seeking reelection isn’t seeking a benefit under Texas law, something already decided in the proceedings involving Texas Supreme Court Justice Nathan Hecht.

Form over Substance: And is This Skirmish The End of This Controversy?

Form over substance, really.  Under Judge Hinde’s argument, technically he didn’t violate the language of the law even though the spirit of the statute is to keep juror info confidential.   The real question is: will this be the end of this controversy (so future jury pools can expect campaign correspondence all across the state), or will there be a tribunal other than Rick Casey’s column where the judge’s actions are considered?

Let’s see what happens.

 

November 23rd, 2010

Texas Cops’ Dashboard Cam Videotapes Alleged Excessive Force Against Motorcyclist

The parents of the 26-year-old man diagnosed with bipolar disorder are alleging excessive force by the Rockwall County law enforcement officers, who first chased the guy for 7 miles along Interstate 30 on September 16, 2010, before tackling him off the bike after he had come to a full stop on the side of the road and afterwards, arresting Austin Guess. 

Watch for yourself.  Of particular note — see the police officer’s two feet lift off the ground as he literally flies through the air during this altercation with Mr. Guess.  Is this excessive force?  Betcha answer yes.

November 17th, 2010

Thanksgiving 2010: Get Ready, Texas, for Another No Refusal DWI Holiday

Law enforcement loves No Refusal weekends – counties all over the Lone Star State are now routinely blanketing holiday weekends with No Refusal efforts with notice to the public popping up in press releases issued as late as 24 hours before the holiday begins. 

You remember No Refusal weekends:  those are the set time periods where the Powers that Be set up mobile laboratories that are setting there with nurses holding needles and judges holding pens, at the ready to sign the warrant needed to take your blood. 

Why? So in the event you listen to criminal defense attorneys recommending that you refuse a Breathalyzer breath test, then they can just force you into the mobile lab where the judge signs the search warrant for your blood and the nurse then takes a sample.  If your blood tests higher than the legal limit for alcohol – you are busted.

Gritty stuff, one wonders what our Founding Fathers would think, huh?

So, this holiday as you are driving to visit family, coming home from college, or just zipping across town to a party, remember you may be driving through a No Refusal Zone. They are popping up all over the place. What authority and what stretch of road is impacted here depends upon what section of our Great State you’re traveling through.

So what is your best bet this Thanksgiving 2010?

  • Don’t drink and drive.  
  • Don’t even have any type of container carrying an alcoholic beverage in the passenger compartment of your vehicle. 
  • Have a designated driver.

Just don’t give the popo a chance to arrest you for driving drunk (an arrest is a bad life event).  And if the worst thing happens, you are pulled over and you’re the victim of a Mobile Lab in a No Refusal Zone, call a lawyer asap.  All is not lost, but you’ve got a fight on your hands.

November 15th, 2010

Texas Highway Patrolman Mistakes US Army 1st Cavalry for Gang/Drug Organization

On Veteran’s Day last week, we posted a video showing you what happened during a recent, local traffic stop where an American Soldier who had served eleven (11) years with the 1st Cavalry of the U.S. Army, was driving along on his way back from getting his daughter settled in here at prestigious Southern Methodist University (SMU).  

As he was returning back home to Tennessee, he was stopped — for no known reason — by a Texas Highway Patrolman on I-30 near Greenville.  This is what you see in the video.  Get this – and remember, it’s all on videotape:

The Texas Highway Patrolman actually asked our hero why there was a  “sticker” on his rental car. (What sticker?  Check out this image, see for yourself.)   This is the magnetic U.S. Army 1st Cavalry plate that he puts on all of his cars.  You know – you’ve seen them.

They Bring Out the Drug-Sniffing Dogs — This Sticker is So, So Suspicious

Well,  the DPS Trooper obviously needs some help, and let’s hope he’s getting it.  The Trooper made the Soldier wait thirty (30) minutes for DPS to bring out a drug-sniffing dog.  Yes, the Trooper thought the sticker was some kind of secret code for druggies, or gangs, or something.  Seriously. 

Well, the dog eventually arrived, did his job, and cleared the car.  Good dog.

That’s not the end of it though:  at this point, the Soldier (and my client) had the audacity to ask the law enforcement officer why he pulled him over for having his 1st Cavalry magnetic plate on his car.  The officer got a little bent out of shape by his question.   Please, please — go watch the video

Perhaps you will notice that my client is African-American.  Listen to the questions he’s asked by the Trooper– things like, are you carrying illegal drugs or other bad things there in the back of your car (guess that the daughter’s college stuff looked really sneaky or something). 

Oh, by the way, what’s the big deal about the 1st Cavalry? 

This division is one of the most famous and most decorated combat divisions of the United States Army.  The magnetic sticker is filled with symbolism (from Wikipedia):

Yellow, the traditional cavalry color, and the horse’s head refer to the division’s original cavalry structure. Black, symbolic of iron, alludes to the transition to tanks and armor. The black diagonal stripe represents a sword baldric and is a mark of military honor; it also implies movement “up the field” and thus symbolizes aggressive elan and attack. The one diagonal bend, as well as the one horse’s head, also alludes to the division’s numerical designation.

And, who knows where the Trooper has been, because this symbol isn’t exactly unknown.  Check this out (also from Wikipedia):

  • In Rambo: First Blood and the Rambo sequels, Rambo’s mentor Col. Troutman wears the unit’s insignia.
  • It was featured in the classic movie Apocalypse Now. 
  • Also seen in the movie We Were Soldiers as well as the book the movie was based upon 
  • Clint Eastwood played a fellow soldier (and Korean war vet) from the 1st Cavalry in his award winning movie, Gran Torino.
  • General Wheeler has this on his dress uniform in The Last Castle.   General Mansfield does likewise in Eureka.
  • Director Oliver Stone is also a veteran of the 1st Cavalry Division  — and it was his experiences with the 1st Cavalry that are brought to film in his classic Vietnam movie, Platoon
  • Oliver Stone also brings the 1st Cavalry onto the big screen in the Tom Cruise mega-hit, Born on the Fourth of July.

Maybe the Drug Cartels and the Drug Gangs Need to Consider Magnets, Too

Finally, one last thought.  Forget the movies.  Forget the nation’s highways, where cars (at least here in Texas) routinely have military symbols on them, particularly the 1st Cav. 

Here’s something to ponder: How many druggies or gangs or evildoers of whatever sort actually have MAGNETIZED symbols that they slam onto their car bumpers? 

Do the Zetas have these magnets?  How about MS13? 

You gotta wonder.

November 11th, 2010

Happy Veteran’s Day

U.S. Army Vet Driving While Black in East Texas from DallasJustice.com on Vimeo.

November 10th, 2010

Denton Cop Bobby Lozano’s Murder of His Wife Covered by Discovery Channel’s David Lohr

Last year, former Texas police detective Bobby Lozano was tried and convicted in a Denton courtroom for the murder of his wife, Viki.  Maybe you remember the case: a real life detective tried to get away with killing his wife — shooting her to death in their bedroom with his service revolver.

Detective Lozano said it was a tragic accident, the gun went off while he was cleaning it. The jury didn’t buy it — or the argument he advanced at trial, that Viki had killed herself (what?) — and Lozano was sentenced to 45 years.

Real life story of cop gone bad, not a TV show

This happened back in July 2002, and Lozano was convicted in 2009. Today, the Lozano story continues its saga into history as David Lohr over at the Discovery Channel’s Investigation Discovery, brings a new spotlight to the Lozano case.  

Lohr describes how it took 7 years for justice to prevail in the case – providing details that include not only the expertise that 17-year law enforcement veteran Bobby Lozano brought to the case but the fact that the victim’s mother was on Lozano’s side. 

TV Show – “I Almost Got Away With It”

So, while the death of Viki Lozano was not the brainchld of a TV script writer but instead her adulterous and coniving husband, Bobby, nevertheless she will become known and remembered indirectly as the Discovery Channel’s David Lohr tells the tale of (unfortunately) another Texas cop gone bad. 

Fiction or reality: at least, we have a good ending here — as the Discovery Channel’s latest TV show promotes, “I Almost Got Away With It,” means that the evildoer did get caught and justice did prevail.  Which is a good thing.

October 28th, 2010

Seeking Compensation for a Work-Related Accident Causing Injury or Death

If you’ve been injured as a result of a work-related accident, or may have even lost a loved one due to such an accident, you may be able to seek compensation for your injury or loss through a civil case. When an injury occurs, compensation for the damages incurred as a result of that injury are sought through bringing a personal injury claim against any and all negligent parties. When loss of life occurs because of some person’s or entity’s negligence, compensation for that loss is claimed through a wrongful death claim. Dallas personal injury attorney Michael Grossman offers the following short article to help further explain what is needed in order for either of these types of cases to likely result in a beneficial outcome for the victim, i.e. the plaintiff.

In either a personal injury case or a wrongful death lawsuit, three issues must be proven in order for a plaintiff to have a legitimate case against a defendant. First, the defendant must have owed a legal duty to the plaintiff, and have subsequently violated that legal duty. For example, an employer owes a legal duty to their employees to ensure a safe working environment. When an accident occurs because the working environment is dangerous, then the employer has violated their legal duty to their employees.

Secondly, the defendant must be shown to have somehow been negligent in their duty towards you, and that negligence somehow helped to cause or have played a role in your accident or your loved one’s death. There are two types of negligence: standard and gross. Standard negligence could be equated to simple carelessness, such as a cleaning crew forgetting to put up a sign denoting a wet floor, which could result in someone slipping and injuring themselves. It could also occur in a vehicle accident in which a person is momentarily distracted and then causes a wreck resulting in injury or death. Gross negligence, on the other hand, requires that the negligent party was well aware that the likelihood of an accident causing injury or death was very great before the accident occurred. Drunk driving is a sad but common example of gross negligence. In relation to work-related accidents, an employer can exhibit gross negligence when they know of a safety hazard but fail to do anything to rectify the situation, and a worker is seriously injured or dies as a result of their inaction. This is an especially important provision to remember in regards to companies that are covered by workers compensation insurance, which will be discussed shortly.

Thirdly, the plaintiff, i.e. the victim, must have incurred some type of damages. Damages do not refer to an actual injury or damage, but to the financial amount tied to that injury or damage. Damages can be medical bills, funeral expenses, lost wages, lost future wages, property damage bills, compensation for pain and suffering, or other financial setbacks, all of which are dependent on the type of case and the circumstances surrounding the particular accident. In other words, the plaintiff must be seeking compensation because the injury or loss that they’ve sustained has cost them a certain amount of financial loss. This amount is known as damages. An experienced work-related accident attorney, like Dallas work injury lawyer Michael Grossman, will work to faithfully calculate all damages incurred so that a plaintiff can stand to receive full and fair compensation for their injury or loss.

However, proving these three issues is only the initial step in seeking compensation for a work-related injury or loss. Two more pressing issues must be addressed before a specific legal route towards compensation can be chosen. The first issue is the question of the worker’s status in regards to their employer, and the second issue is the question of whether or not the employer is covered by workers’ compensation insurance.

If a worker is legally defined as a contractor, the employer will most likely not be held liable for an injury or death that occurred while the contractor worked for them. While certain exceptions exist dependant on the particular circumstances of the case, for the most part a contractor is responsible for their own safety while on the job. However, there can sometimes be outside parties that may have also contributed to the injury or loss, in which these parties can then be held liable for a contractor’s injury or loss. As such, a contract worker who’s been injured, or a family that has lost a loved one that is a contractor, should still consider contacting legal help in order to make sure that all liable parties are held responsible for their particular portions of negligence. However, at least in Texas, the legal definition of an employee is fairly expansive, which means that  a capable attorney can work to prove that a legitimate employee-employer relationship exists based off of certain questions in regards to how that relationship functioned. This can often be accomplished even in spite of the fact that an employer may have called a worker a “contractor” during the entirety of their time working with that employee. Once this relationship has been established, then a legitimate employee could bring a personal injury or wrongful death lawsuit against the negligent employer.

However, even that might be prevented if the employer is covered by workers’ compensation insurance. If the employer is covered, which is also known as being a subscriber, then the employer is immune to lawsuits from injured victims or bereaved family members. In such instances, the victim or victim’s family members must seek compensation through the workers’ compensation policy’s insurance agency. However, as noted above, there is an exception to this rule in Texas if an employer’s gross negligence led to a death. In this instance, if for example an employee died because of bad safety equipment that that company knew about for months but failed to fix, then the company would have been grossly negligent and a wrongful death lawsuit could be brought to bear against them by the victim’s family. However, proving gross negligence requires a high standard of proof, so it’s important that a family seeking compensation for their loved one’s loss enlist the help of an experienced wrongful death lawyer like Dallas wrongful death attorney Michael Grossman.

Unfortunately, because many companies know that an injured worker or a bereaved family aren’t allowed to bring a lawsuit against a company that subscribes to workers’ comp, many companies will act as if they are subscribers in order to prevent an aggrieved party from filing a lawsuit. Often, because these parties simply do not know any better, they will settle with the negligent employer for a compensation package that is often much less than what would be considered fair for their loss. As such, enlisting the help of a competent attorney can often prevent such a scenario from occurring as a work-related accident attorney should be able to easily assess whether or not a negligent employer is covered by workers’ compensation insurance.

As you can tell, there are many hurdles that often exist in work-related personal injury or wrongful death cases. However, with the help of an experienced work-related accident attorney, a victim or a victim’s family can often overcome these hurdles in order to receive compensation for their pain or loss. If you’ve been injured while on the job, compensation can help you get back on your feet and assist you in being compensated for medical bills or lost wages. If you’ve had the misfortune to have lost a loved one due to a work-related accident, compensation can help with medical expenses, funeral expenses, lost wages, lost future wages, and pain and suffering. Don’t allow the apparent challenges in these particular kinds of cases prevent you from seeing justice done in your particular case. By pursuing legal action you will likely accomplish two things: you can stand to receive compensation that can help you return to living your life and also work to see to it that future, similar accidents don’t have to occur to someone else.

Knowing what to do in the aftermath of suffering an injury or a loss as a result of a work-related accident can be confusing. By contacting legal help soon after you’ve been hurt or have lost a loved one, you will likely receive beneficial help that can guide you towards your proper legal options in your personal injury or wrongful death work-related accident case.