October 2015

Renowned Trial Lawyer, Vincent Bugliosi, Explains One of His Theories About Cross-Examination

In 2011, I had the privilege of escorting the late Mr. Vincent Bugliosi around Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton, as he was the guest speaker at a trial advocacy conference my office organized.  Mr. Bugliosi, 76 years old, was best known as the prosecutor that put Charles Manson away.  He was also a renowned true crime author, writing such books as Helter Skelter, And the Sea Will Tell, 'Till Death Us Do Part, and Outrage.  He would tell you, however, that his proudest moment was his victory over Gerry Spence in the mock trial of Lee Harvey Oswald for the assassination of President John F. Kennedy.  Other than this mock trial, Gerry Spence boasts a perfect trial record.

One of the things about which Mr. Bugliosi spoke was cross-examination.  He noted that many of the best-selling books on cross-examination caution lawyers from asking a witness WHY they took a certain action.  Lawyers are warned that they should never allow a witness to explain themselves on cross.  Well, Mr. Bugliosi did not exactly agree with that maxim.  Here's what he had to say on the subject:

Even if I do not ask "why," the lawyer who called the witness, if alert, will do so on redirect.  The witness has then often had a court recess or perhaps overnight to think up the very best answer to the "why" question.  I would much rather force the witness to answer on cross, not giving him extra time to fabricate.

Although both lawyers can avoid asking the "why" question and, as in some other situations, "save for final argument" the implications of the witness' testimony, by that late point in the trial the witness' reason for his improbable act is a matter of competing speculations by the lawyers, not the court record.

The "why" question, of course, can be a dangerous one, but I feel this is so only if the lawyer hasn't first blocked off possible and anticipated escape hatches.  Admittedly, real witnesses, unlike their fictional counterparts in novels and on the screen who cave under pressure of the first or second good question, are as doughty and elusive as all hell.  When all but trapped, and at the brink of a public, courtroom humiliation, human beings seem to secrete a type of mental adrenaline that gets their minds working extremely fast, and well.  So the witness a lawyer faces on the stand, for some curious reason, is almost inherently formidable.  But a witness can't go somewhere when he has nowhere to go.

If I feel a witness if lying, a technique I frequently employ is to first elicit answers from him on preliminary matters (blocking off all escape hatches), answers which, when totaled up, show he would be expected to take a certain course of action.  The witness having committed himself by his answers, I then ask him what course he in fact took (which is not the course he would be expected to take), and follow this up with the "why" question.  If time after time a witness is unable to satisfactorily justify conduct which is incompatible with what would be expected of a reasonable person, the jury will usually conclude that his testimony is suspect.

Mr. Bugliosi made sure to caveat that we should never ask the "why" question unless all possible escape hatches have been blocked off.  He was truly an outstanding speaker on this and many more topics.  His true crime books are excellent and are highly recommended for all criminal trial lawyers out there.  Vincent Bugliosi passed away on June 6, 2015.

Attempted Transfer of Explicit Video of Self to a Minor (Sexting) Amounts to a ‘Sexual Act’ Resulting in Registration on the Sex Offender Registry

United States v. Schofield - (5th Circuit Court of Appeals, 2015)

Should a person be ordered to register as a sex offender for sending explicit video to a minor (sexting), but never physically touching the victim? The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals says yes.

In November 2013, twenty-four year old Nick Schofield began sending text messages to a fifteen-year-old girl. They sent text messages for four months, when an undercover federal agent assumed the girl’s side of the conversation. Believing he was still communicating with the girl, Schofield sent the undercover agent sexually explicit photos and videos of himself. A grand jury indicted Schofield on one count of transfer of obscene material to a minor and four counts of attempted transfer of obscene material to a minor, violations of 18 U.S.C. § 1470. In his plea agreement, Schofield pleaded guilty to one count of attempted transfer of obscene material to a minor, and the other counts were dismissed at sentencing.

The district court sentenced Schofield to two years imprisonment and ordered him to register as a sex offender under the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (“SORNA”). The purpose of SORNA is to establish a national sex offender registry, “to protect the public from sex offenders and offenders against children.” 42 U.S.C. § 16901. Under SORNA, a convicted sex offender must register his current address and employer’s address.

At trial, Schofield objected to the registration requirement of his sentencing. Schofield appealed to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, contending (1) that the crime of attempted transfer of obscene material to a minor was not a sex act under SORNA and (2) that the statutory definition of a sex offense as a “criminal offense against a minor” was an unconstitutionally vague, all-encompassing residual clause.

First, the Court stated the purpose of SORNA is to “cast a wide net to ensnare as many child offenders as possible.” United States v Dodge, 597 F.3d 1347. The wide net was meant to apply to as many offenses against children that make sense according to the plain language and plain meaning of the statute. The Court also quoted an Eleventh Circuit case dealing with similar facts and charges. The Eleventh Circuit held that the 18 U.S.C. § 1470 intended “[not] to exclude certain offenses but rather to expand the scope of offenses that meet the statutory criteria.” Id. In short, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals held that the crime of attempted transfer of obscene material to a minor, was in fact, a sex act under SORNA’s plain language, structure, legislative history, and purpose.

Second, the Court found that Schofield’s conduct in sending the explicit video to a fifteen-year-old girl falls within the SORNA residual clause, noting, “the key is conduct that contains a sexual component toward a minor.” Because Schofield’s conduct “engaged with” a young girl in a sexual manner, the Court held that his conduct includes a sexual component toward a minor, falling under SORNA’s residual clause. The Court reiterated, “Judges do not need a statute to spell out every instance of conduct that is a sexual offense against a minor.” Id.

The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals held that the language of SORNA’s residual clause was intentionally vague, with the purpose of including as many criminal offenses as possible. Even though the Defendant did not have physical contact with the girl, he was deemed by the Court to have behaved in a sexual manner, which amounted to a sexual act requiring registry on the sex offender registry. If you or a loved one is facing a sexual or computer crimes charge in Tarrant County, Texas, please call our experienced criminal defense attorneys today at (817) 993-9249.

Dallas Fort Worth Bail Bond Scam

Public Service Announcement:  Attorneys beware that your clients could be the target of a Bail Bond scam that is going around.  There is a person with a Florida phone number (352-210-7464) that is calling criminal defendants in the DFW area claiming to be a representative from their bail bond office.  The caller then claims that the person (who is typically in good standing) owes some amount of money to the bail bondsman.  The caller then threatens to go off the bond if the person does not pay immediately.

This happened to one of our clients yesterday and we called the number to investigate and quickly uncovered the scam.  Please let your clients know that this is going around so that they are not fooled if they get a similar call.

Does the State or the Defense have the Burden of Proof?

 - 14th Court of Appeals (Houston) 2011

Carlos Arias was observed speeding by a police officer and pulled over. Arias was unable to provide proof of financial responsibility (proof of insurance), when asked by the police officer. Arias went to trial in the municipal court of record and after the close of State’s case-in-chief, Arias claimed that there were statutory exceptions to the requirement to establish financial responsibility and that the State had not negated them.  He appealed his conviction to the County Criminal Court at Law.

Generally, when a penal statute includes an exception as part of the statute itself, the State must negate the existence of the exception in the indictment of the offense and prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant or defendant’s conduct does not fall within the exception. Failing to negate an exception is the same as failing to allege an essential element of the offense and renders the indictment void. However, when an exception is in a separate section from the provision that states the offense, it is not essential for the State to negate the exception. This is different from an exception and called a defense, which must be raised by the defendant.

An "Exception" or a "Defense"

The key distinction is who has the burden of proof—an exception means the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt or the defendant should be acquitted; a defense means a defendant bears the initial burden to produce some evidence that supports the defensive theory. Once the defendant produces such evidence, the State then bears the ultimate burden of persuasion to disprove the defense beyond a reasonable doubt.  So, to be clear, the defense does not bear the "burden of proof," but only a burden to produce some evidence of the defensive theory.  The burden then shifts to the state to disprove the defense.

The Court of Appeals found that no Texas court has determined whether the State must negate the exceptions to the financial responsibility requirement as an element of the offense or whether the exceptions are defenses that must be raised by the defendant. The Court of Appeals looked to the statute in the Transportation Code and decided if exceptions or defenses are listed. To do this they decided whether they are a necessary part of the definition or a description of the offense.

The Court first looks to the main code of “Requirement of Financial Responsibility.” They then found in a separate subsection, “Exceptions to Financial Responsibility,” which Arias relies on. The code only states that a person commits an offense if the person operates a motor vehicle in violation of the “Requirement of Financial Responsibility” section, but the exceptions are not mentioned.

The court finds that because they are not mentioned in the offense, the exceptions are therefore not a necessary part of the definition or description of the offense. This means that these are not exceptions that the State must negate, but merely defenses that the defendant has the option to bring evidence in to prove. Additionally, the State is not generally required to negate as an element of the offense matters “peculiarly within the knowledge of the defendant.” Here, these exceptions are things such as the character of the car, such as older than 25 years old. The court holds that under most circumstances, the defendant would be more likely than the State to know whether one of the exceptions applies.

This can be absolutely crucial for building your defense. An exception can get you acquitted if the State doesn’t prove beyond a reasonable doubt, whereas a defense is merely a chance to persuade the judge or jury. It appears that the key deciding factor is whether the “exceptions” are listed with the main code or are in a separate subsection.

Contrary to television portrayals, most criminal cases never reach trial. While it is difficult to put a number of it, I would say that 90 to 95% of criminal cases are resolved by dismissal or plea bargain. Our Fort Worth criminal defense attorneys put the interests of the client first and will always pursue a dismissal and sometimes attempt to reach a favorable plea deal with the prosecutor as an alternative to the uncertainty of trial.  But in some occasions, a trial is the only way to go. What follows is a recent case opinion from the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals regarding a plea bargain situation gone wrong.

Rodriguez v. State (Texas Court of Criminal Appeals 2015)

On advice from counsel, Israel Rodriguez rejected a ten-year sentence plea bargain. Rodriguez was convicted and received eight life sentences.

Rodriguez filed for a new trial based on ineffective assistance of counsel; he believed his attorney's advice regarding the plea offer was wrong. Rodriguez asked that the State be required to re-offer the ten-year deal.

The judge granted a new trial and ordered the State to re-offer the deal. The judge proceeded to reject the deal.

After denying the ten-year deal, the judge informed Rodriguez he could withdraw his guilty plea and go to trial or accept a 25-year sentence. Rodriguez rejected the 25-year sentence and filed a recusal motion, arguing that the judge had demonstrated prejudice. The judge recused, and a new judge was assigned.

Rodriguez filed a motion to require the State to re-offer the ten-year deal. The new judge said the original judge's recusal had "wiped the slate clean," including the ten-year plea offer, but he would accept a new agreement if one were presented. The state offered a plea deal of 25 years, which Rodriguez accepted. The judge accepted the plea agreement and executed the judgments of conviction.

Rodriguez argued on appeal that he was entitled to the original ten-year offer and the court was required to accept it. The court of appeals considered three factors: (1) whether Rodriguez would have accepted the original offer; (2) whether the State would have been likely to withdraw the offer; and (3) whether the judge would have likely accepted the agreement.

The court of appeals concluded Rodriguez had suffered inadequate representation. The court's solution was for the State to re-offer the ten-year deal and have a judge who had not recused herself accept or reject the deal. The court did not agree that the judge was required to accept the ten-year deal. The case was remanded for the State to re-offer the deal.

The State filed for review of the court of appeals' decision, alleging four errors:

(1) The voluntarily recusal should not have been considered.

(2) Nothing in the record supported the possibility of the original judge accepting the ten-year deal.

(3) The second judge should not have been required to order the State to re-offer the ten-year deal.

(4) The judgment of conviction should not have been reversed.

The CCA considered the same three factors considered by the court of appeals. Although Rodriguez's convictions were vacated, he was still entitled to a determination of whether he had received effective counsel. The CCA agreed with the court of appeals that Rodriguez had been harmed by following his attorney's advice in rejecting the offer. No evidence suggested Rodriguez would have rejected the deal. The State was not likely to withdraw the offer because the passage of time had made the victims' testimony at trial unreliable.

The CCA said the only question was whether the first judge would have likely accepted the ten-year deal. No intervening circumstances would have given the judge a basis to reject the deal. However, Rodriguez did have an extensive criminal history, and the police reports for his charges were particularly damning. But nothing in the record indicated the judge would have rejected the ten-year deal if it had been presented to her prior to the trial. The CCA thus rejected the State's second allegation of error.

The State agreed the first judge would have likely accepted the ten-year deal prior to trial, but it argued the voluntary recusal was irrelevant. No evidence indicated any prejudice against Rodriguez. Requiring the State to re-offer the ten-year deal and then rejecting it were proper rulings and did not require recusal. On the State's first allegation, the CCA said, the court of appeals had erred.

The CCA sided with the State on its third allegation, finding Rodriguez had received exactly what he requested--a new trial with a clean slate and a decision on a plea agreement by a judge. The second judge was not obligated to give Rodriguez what the first judge had already given—consideration of the ten-year deal. Therefore, there was no requirement that the State re-offer the ten-year deal. The CCA did not consider the fourth allegation because its decisions on the first three allegations made the fourth issue moot. The CCA reinstated the 25-year sentence offered by the State, agreed to by Rodriguez, and accepted by the second judge.

An individual facing criminal charges will be advised by his Fort Worth criminal defense attorney regarding whether to accept the deal. Although the decision is ultimately up to the defendant, bad advice that ultimately leads to a worse outcome than the deal offered may present an opportunity for a new trial based on ineffective assistance of counsel.