March 2016

"The man who represents himself has a fool for a client."

Regardless of whether the decision may be unwise, a criminal defendant has the right to represent himself or herself at trial. But, as explained by the US Supreme Court in Indiana v. Edwards (554 US 164, 171), this right is not absolute. A defendant must be mentally competent to represent oneself at trial. In Logan v. State, the 2nd Court of Appeals (Fort Worth) explains “competence to stand trial is not alone the test for competence to represent oneself at trial.” Here’s what happened in Logan...

Defendant Requests to Represent Herself

Charise Logan was charged with criminal trespass for being on the UTA campus after she had been warned not to return. Ms. Logan requested to defend herself in court. The trial judge of County Criminal Court Number 1 in Tarrant County inquired as to whether Ms. Logan understood her right to an attorney. She answered that she understood, but added that she did not believe she could find an attorney who was not part of the “conspiracies against her.”

Trial Judge Orders Mental Competency Evaluation

The trial judge inquired as to whether the defendant has ever been treated for a mental illness. Ms. Logan answered that she had, but that it was 10 years ago. The trial judge then ordered a competency evaluation, which was conducted by a psychologist. The psychologist reported that the defendant had an “unspecified personality disorder,” but that she was competent to stand trial and to consult with counsel. There is plenty more about the defendant's competency exam if you read the full opinion.

The Case Proceeds to Trial | Defendant Explains the "Conspiracy"

Ms. Logan’s case proceeded to trial, with her acting as her own counsel, despite her documented mental illness. At a pretrial hearing, the defendant filed a document explaining that she had been:

hunted by a secret society and currently, a sex ring for several years of [her] life” and outlines a pattern of harassment and surveillance of her conducted by the secret society. Appellant implicates President Barack Obama and the family of former President George H.W. Bush in this conspiracy. According to the pro se document, the secret society surveilled Appellant between 2011 and 2015. Appellant alleges in the document that the secret society used witchcraft, voodoo, and blackmail to force unwilling participants to engage in activities against her. She further alleges that the conspiracy was after her because of the auditory and visual gifts bestowed upon her by God.

Because the defendant did not request and relief in her filing, the trial court did not have anything on which to rule. The court took no additional action based on this "information." The trial proceeded and a jury convicted the defendant of criminal trespass.

Appellate Issues Concerning Competency of Pro Se Defendant

On appeal to the 2nd Court of Appeals (Fort Worth), the fundamental issue was whether the trial court erred in allowing the defendant to represent her. Finding error, the appellate court held:

when determining the ability of a defendant to represent herself pro se, the trial court should take a realistic account of the particular defendant’s capacity to represent herself. A person could be capable of working with counsel at trial and thus meet the test for competency set out in Dusky v. United States (362 US 402), yet at the same time be unable to carry out the basic tasks necessary to present her own defense without the assistance of counsel.

Appeals Court Reverses the Conviction

The appellate court set aside the Ms. Logan’s conviction and remanded the case for a new trial. In so doing, Justice Dauphinot explained that “[t]he trial court deprived Appellant of counsel by accepting her waiver of counsel that was neither voluntary nor knowing. Such error is automatically reversible.” The court went further to hold that it was error for the trial court to order a mental competency evaluation without counsel being present. While issues like these are rare, we are starting to see more and more mental health cases that could turn out like this one, if the right steps are not taken.

What Should the Trial Judge Do When the Jury Returns an Unauthorized Verdict?

At the trial of Reginald Nixon for burglary of a habitation and evading arrest, the jury returned a guilty verdict and sentence of 7 years for the burglary and 9 years for the evading. However, the verdict form contained a handwritten note that read: “*To be served consecutively, not concurrently.” A consecutive sentence would mean that the two verdicts are added together to make the actual prison term 16 years. The jury had previously asked the judge whether the sentences would run concurrently and the judge refused to answer them, advising them to simply continue with their deliberations. Without an answer to their question, the jury took the matter into their own hands.

The problem with the jury’s verdict of 7 years and 9 years to run consecutively is that it is not an authorized sentence. Under Texas law, the sentences in Nixon’s case were required to run concurrently rather than consecutively. As a result, the trial judge refused to accept the sentences and reform them to run concurrently (as he was urged to do by Nixon’s counsel). Instead, the judge sent the jury back with a note advising them that the sentences cannot run consecutively. The jury soon returned with new verdicts of 16 years confinement for each offense, which the judge accepted.

Nixon appealed, again urging that the trial judge erred by failing to accept and reform the original jury verdicts. The 2nd Court of Appeals (Fort Worth) affirmed the trial court’s judgments and “reasoned that while the judge may have had the authority to reform the verdict under Article 37.10, he also had the authority to refuse the verdict and return the jury to their deliberations pursuant to this Court’s opinion in Muniz v. State [573, S.W.2d 792 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978)].”

The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals granted review and now reverses the holding of the 2nd Court of Appeals. The CCA highlighted the changes that were made in 1985 when the legislature enacted Section 37.10(b) of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure. This change distinguished between “informal” and “unauthorized” verdicts. For unauthorized verdicts, Section 37.10(b) provides:

If the jury assesses punishment in a case and in the verdict assesses both punishment that is authorized by law for the offense and punishment that is not authorized by law for the offense, the court shall reform the verdict to show the punishment authorized by law and to omit the punishment not authorized by law.

CCA explained that the lower court’s reliance on Muniz was misplaced since Section 37.10(b) was not enacted at the time Muniz was decided. Further, the verdict form in Muniz was incomplete, unlike the verdict in this case, which was complete but contained an unauthorized portion.

The CCA concluded by holding:

Although the terms of confinement were 45 authorized punishments, the attempted cumulation was punishment unauthorized by law. Article 37.10(b)’s plain language is clear that, when the jury assesses punishment and returns a verdict assessing punishment that is both authorized and unauthorized by law, “the court shall reform the verdict to show the punishment authorized by law and to omit the punishment not authorized by law.” Accordingly, we hold that the judge erred in failing to accept the initial punishment verdicts and omit the jury’s unauthorized attempt to stack the terms of confinement.

Judge Alcala and Judge Yeary dissented.

In the age of social media it seems more and more that our identities are being fast tied to what we post, like, love, or retweet on social media. Our firm handles criminal cases on a daily basis and in the course of our work we’ve seen an increasing reliance by law enforcement and prosecutors on social media websites like Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram. More often than not, investigators are scrolling through the entirety of a person’s social media profiles scouring the information for incriminating statements, pictures or conversations. A Facebook picture or an Instagram post that one might consider innocent, humorous, or obscure could end up being a key piece of evidence used against that person in a court of law.

Here’s what you need to know about social media and the law.

Anything you post on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram can and will be used against you.

Period. The general rule that citizens need to know is that by exposing information about yourself on social media you are essentially waiving your privacy rights. A person can’t scream at the top of their lungs in an open room the most private fact about themselves and then expect it to go unheard. The same is true about social media. By posting on sites like Facebook, Twitter,and Instagram, you are essentially consenting to whatever information you disclose to be made public.  Even if your profile is set to private, your friends could end up sharing your content. Once public, that information is now available to everyone…including the government. If you are under investigation or suspect you might be under investigation for a criminal offense, and you have social media profiles, never post anything if you think it has even a remote possibility of hurting your case.

What can be done to protect my privacy on sites like Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram?

Don’t post! The first thing you can do is to place a limit and a premium on your social media activity. Some people feel like social media websites are the perfect forum for venting frustrations, making off-color jokes or personally attacking others. If you think about what you are posting in terms of who might potentially see your post, then you should limit the things you say. Remember, anything you post will be considered public information.  If the temptation is too strong to post on social media, then you should really consider disabling your account altogether (at least while your criminal case is pending).

Can Social Media Privacy Settings be used to protect my information?

Privacy settings are the second step in preventing the government or any other unwanted viewers from obtaining your social media information. The majority of the more popular social media websites allow you to limit who can see your information and what can be seen. Putting strict limits on who and what can be seen on your Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram pages can be very effective in preventing unwanted eyes. But is it enough? For the general public, yes, it is. Further, law enforcement agents typically do not have special privileges to see information that has been set to “private” either. But, there are other ways of getting your information and viewing your profiles. Law enforcement has been known to create fake profiles with attractive pictures to entice users into accepting friend requests and allowing them to view information intended for friends only. There is nothing that legally prevents law enforcement from taking such actions.

If my Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram accounts are set to “Private,” is that enough to protect my information?

Ultimately, no. Even if a person hasn’t unwittingly accepted a friend request from an officer or agent and has limited access to their profile via privacy settings, law enforcement can still get a subpoena, court order or search warrant for your social media information.

According to their website, Facebook will only disclose records in accordance with the Stored Communications Act (“SCA”), 18 U.S.C. Sections 2701-2712 and in response to:

• A valid subpoena issued in connection with an official criminal investigation is required to compel the disclosure of basic subscriber records (defined in 18 U.S.C. Section 2703(c)(2)), which may include: name, length of service, credit card information, email address(es), and a recent login/logout IP address(es), if available.
• A court order issued under 18 U.S.C. Section 2703(d) is required to compel the disclosure of certain records or other information pertaining to the account, not including contents of communications, which may include message headers and IP addresses, in addition to the basic subscriber records identified above.
• A search warrant issued under the procedures described in the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure or equivalent state warrant procedures upon a showing of probable cause is required to compel the disclosure of the stored contents of any account, which may include messages, photos, videos, wall posts, and location information.

So, even if your privacy settings won’t allow anyone to view your profile, law enforcement agencies may still be able to get that information by way of a subpoena, court order or search warrant.

Assume that unwanted eyes will see what you post on Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram.

If you’re under investigation for a criminal offense or charged with a criminal offense, you need to assume that unwanted eyes will see what you post on Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram. Our attorneys have handled cases involving cases where the government has used Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram postings against our clients. We don’t want that to happen to you. Call one of our attorneys and speak to us about what you can do to protect your information and ultimately your rights.

NOTE: The United States Supreme Court has confirmed that the police CANNOT search your cell phone to discover Social Media evidence, text messages, phone call, or anything else without a proper search warrant.

In Texas, our “failure to protect” statute is an omission statute—Injury to a Child by Omission—meaning it aims to encourage parents to remove their children from dangerous and violent environments. If a parent "fails to protect" their child from certain known dangers, that parent can be charged with Injury to a Child by Omission, a felony level offense in Texas. The statute also covers injury to an elderly or disabled individual. If the person charged with Injury to a Child by Omission is a domestic violence victim, it is important to be aware of the Affirmative Defense Texas provides.

Texas’ Injury to a Child by Omission Offense | Failure to Protect

Section 22.04 of the Texas Penal Code provides that a person commits an injury to a child if he recklessly by omission, causes to a child: (1) serious bodily injury; (2) serious mental deficiency, impairment, or injury; or (3) bodily injury. Id. § 22.04(a).

An omission is conduct constituting an offense if: (1) the actor has a legal or statutory duty to act; or (2) the actor has assumed care, custody, or control of a child. PENAL § 22.04(b).

The Texas Family Code provides that a parent, guardian, conservator or foster parent of the child has the legal duty of care, control, and protection of the child. The State must prove that the defendant either intended or was aware that serious bodily injury would occur from their omissions. Patterson v. State, 46 S.W.3d 294.

Affirmative Defense to Prosecution for Domestic Violence Victims

In the early 90s, Texas established an affirmative defense for people charged with Injury to a Child by Omission. An affirmative defense is a complete and absolute legal defense. In the Failure to Protect scenario, a person can claim the affirmative defense if the following requirements are met:

1. there be no evidence that the defendant had any knowledge of a previous injury to the child and that they failed to report the injury;
2. the defendant “was a victim of family violence...committed by the same person “who is also charged with an offense against the child”; and
3. the defendant reasonably believed, at the time they failed to act, that any attempt to prevent the person from hurting the child “would have an effect.”

TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 22.04(l)(2) (West 2011).

The Reality of Prosecution for Failure to Protect in Texas

Most often, mothers are the ones charged with Failure to Protect in Texas. In 2014, there were 19 women in Texas prisons serving time for Injury to a Child by Omission with sentences starting at ten years, all the way up to 45 years. Seven of these women were domestic violence victims. In fact, a Tarrant County woman who was also a victim to the violence of the man who injured her child is currently serving 40 years. Hopper v. State, 2013 WL 4679166 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Aug. 29, 2013, pet. ref’d.) Furthermore, the woman serving 45 years was a case out of Dallas County where she was also a victim to the violence of the man who injured her child. It is unknown whether these women asserted the affirmative defense at trial.

As mentioned above, there are serious consequences attached to Injury to a Child by Omission and it is important to recognize all possible defense options. Many people do not know that the affirmative defense regarding domestic violence exists. If you are charged with an Injury to a Child by Omission and are also a victim of the abuser’s violence, this defense might apply to you. Contact our team today to find out what steps can be taken in your case. Regardless of whether this affirmative defense applies in your case, our attorneys will still fight hard to get your case dismissed or mitigated in any way they can.

Baby On Board: What Does Texas Law Say About Keeping Our Kids Safe in the Car?

We’ve all seen those yellow “Baby on Board” signs proudly displayed by new parents on the back windows of cars. In a perfect world, drivers would slow down and car accidents involving children would never be an issue. But we don’t live in a perfect world. The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (“IIHS”) reports that car accidents cause one in four unintentional injury deaths in children younger than 13. The IIHS explains that while most crash deaths occur among children traveling as passengers, proper restraint use dramatically reduces these fatalities.

Such statistics are a sobering reminder that we must do all we can do to ensure that our kids are safe while traveling in a car. So what can Texas families do to make our daily commutes safer for our children? What does Texas law say about keeping our kids safe in the car?

Car Seat Laws in Texas

The car seat law in Texas, meaning the rules for which you can be issued a Class C citation, are provided in the Transportation Code. Section 545.412(a) of the Texas Transportation Code states:

“A person commits an offense if the person operates a passenger vehicle, transports a child who is younger than eight years of age, unless the child is taller than four feet, nine inches, and does not keep the child secured during the operation of the vehicle in a child passenger safety seat system according to the instructions of the manufacturer of the safety seat system.”

SUMMARY OF TEXAS CAR SEAT LAW:

• 8 years - Children must remain in some sort of car seat or booster seat system until they are 8 years old;
• 4'9" Tall - If a child younger than 8 is taller than 4'9", he or she may ride in a normal seat without a booster; and
• Follow manufacturer instructions - It is a violation to use a safety seat improperly.

One of the important parts of the Texas car seat law is that seat must be properly installed according to the manufacturer’s instructions. USA Today reports that nearly half of all car seats are installed improperly.  Many law enforcement agencies are trained to understand proper car seat installation. While it is unlikely that an officer will issue you a citation if you have a car seat that happens to be improperly installed, you should still make sure to get your car seat checked out for the safety of your child.

DEFENSE: It is a defense to prosecution that the individual is operating their vehicle during an emergency or for a law enforcement purpose.

PENALTY: Failure to comply with §545.412(a) may result in a fine ranging from $25 to $250, plus court fees.

Car Seat Guidelines in Texas

Some additional car seat tips are provided as safety guidelines or best practices, meaning that there is not a law on the books in Texas covering this.  However, these are good practices that are taught by doctors and child car safety experts:

• All infants and toddlers should ride in a rear-facing car seat until they are at least two years old, or until they max out the weight or height limits per the manufacturer’s limits.
• Children two to four years old may ride in a forward-facing seat according to the manufacturer’s recommendations.
• Use a booster seat for children four to eight years old, according to the maximum height or weight limits provided by the manufacturer.
• Most seat belts will fit a child that is 4'9" tall (normally around 10 years old).  If your child is not 4'9" tall, you should consider keeping them in a booster seat to ensure proper seatbelt fit.

Seat Belt Laws in Texas

Under Texas law, all passengers in a motor vehicle must wear a seatbelt.  There are a few exceptions, like for postman, paper delivery crews, or garbage men; but for the average driver and passenger on the Texas roads, you must wear a seat belt. Section 545.413(a) of the Texas Transportation Code covers seat belt laws in Texas.  The law states:

“a person commits an offense if the person, who at least 15 years of age, rides in a passenger vehicle while the vehicle is being operated and is occupying a seat that is equipped with a safety belt, and is not secured by a safety belt.”

Further, §545.413(b) states that:

“a person commits an offense if the person operates a passenger vehicle that is equipped with safety belts and allows a child, who is younger than 17 years old and not required to be in a safety seat system, to ride in the vehicle without requiring the child to be secured by a safety belt.”

Can a Teenager Ride in the Bed of a Pickup Truck? No. Under Texas law, no person under 18 years of age may ride unrestrained in the bed of a pickup truck.

PENALTY: A violation of the seat belt law in Texas can result in a fine of $25 to $200 depending on the situation.

For teenagers, who are legally permitted to ride in the front passenger seat, the Texas Department of Transportation advises that wearing a seat belt while sitting in the front seat improves survival of a car accident by 50%. To be effective seat belts must be used properly—lap belts need to fit snugly on the hips and shoulder belts should go over the shoulder and across the center of the chest. Texas law says that safety belts—designed for adult use only—are not adequate for children under 8.

Front Seat and Back Seat Passenger Laws in Texas

There is not a law in Texas regarding who may ride in the front seat.  The driver must follow the car seat and seat belt laws, but there is not a law prohibiting any person or child from riding in the front seat. However, according to the safety "guidelines," anyone under age thirteen should be restrained in the back seat due to concerns with airbag impact.

Can I Leave My Kids Alone In the Car in Texas?

Yes, but only for 5 minutes.  In 2010, thirteen children in Texas were killed by vehicular heatstroke. As a result, the Texas legislature enacted laws dealing with the amount of time children can be left in a vehicle unattended. Under Texas Penal Code §22.10(a), “a person commits an offense if he intentionally or knowingly leaves a child in a motor vehicle for longer than five minutes, knowing that the child is (1) younger than seven years of age; and (2) not attended by an individual in the vehicle who is 14 years of age or older."

An offense under this section is a Class C misdemeanor. However, if the child is injured as a result of being left in the car, the crime can be increased to a felony, punishable by up to two years in jail and a $10,000 fine.

For More Information About Car Safety in Texas:

• American Academy of Pediatrics Car Seat Guidelines 
• Safe Kids Tarrant County
• Safe Riders Texas 
• Safer Car Installation Assistance
• Seat Check.Org 
• Texas Click It or Ticket