News and Insights

Years ago, I was employed as an assistant district attorney in a DA's office out in West Texas. From time to time, I would oversee the grand jury and the presentation of felony cases for indictment. At the first of every month, the county would summon potential jurors from a random selection process to serve on the grand jury. The first fourteen (twelve to serve as grand jurors and two as alternates) who were not disqualified by statute were seated on the grand jury.

Those fourteen citizens were always different. Different ethnicity. Different gender. Different religions. Different socio-economic status. Most importantly, different political parties. The goal was to create an impartial jury of peers to review the evidence in criminal cases and determine whether probable cause existed for indictment.

You can imagine my surprise when I moved to the DFW area and discovered jurisdictions here which used the other method of selecting grand jurors.

Article 19.01 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure allows the "pick a pal" method wherein judges can hand pick "jury commissioners" who individually select citizens to serve on the grand jury. As you can imagine, there has been a serious influence of politics on the grand jury process a result of this practice. It's hard to have an impartial grand jury when everybody comes from the same political party and economic sector of society.

Fortunately, House Bill 2150 was signed into law last month. On September 1, 2015, the "pick a pal" process will no longer be an option. Instead, the newly revised Article 19.01 will require all jurisdictions to apply the random selection process to the grand jury selection process.

This change is long overdue. An accused's right to an impartial jury should be the same at the grand jury as it is at trial.

Let me make an admission...sometimes we lose at trial. There, I said it. We don't win every case. Sometimes the evidence is not in our favor. Sometimes the State is able to prove every element of the alleged offense. And we typically know that going into it.

It begs the question, "Why take the case to a jury trial if you suspect you are going to lose?" Here's why...because in many situations, going to trial is the only way to get a good result.

For instance, we had a client that was charged with a low level misdemeanor offense. The State was offering a plea bargain of 18 months probation, a $1,250 fine, and numerous classes in exchange for a guilty plea. We considered this offer to be too steep in relation to the alleged offense. Our client agreed. But the State was not willing to budge on the offer. So we set it for trial.

After a hard fought trial, the jury came back with a guilty verdict, which is what we suspected all along. Then we went to the judge for punishment. The State continued to recommend 18 months probation and a $1250 fine. The judge, however, awarded our client 2 days of labor detail and a $750 fine. Two short days later, the entire ordeal was but a fleeting memory for our client. No probation. No monthly reporting. No random drug tests. No classes.

We would have never received such a low punishment offer from the State. We also would have never received such a low sentence from the judge if we hadn't gone to trial and filled her in on the extenuating and mitigating circumstances of the case and our client.

In criminal defense, a moral victory is still a victory and sometimes you win by losing.

Prostitution Case Overturned for Lack of Reasonable Suspicion or Probable Cause | Fort Worth Prostitution Defense Attorneys

- San Antonio 4th Court of Appeals (2015)
At approximately 9:00 p.m., San Antonio police officer Christopher Connelly and his partner observed Shamar Johnson "pacing" on the sidewalk in a dimly lit area near two gay clubs. Officer Connelly's testimony differs from Johnson's in some respects, but there is general agreement on the relevant facts. The area was known for gay prostitution. Based on their belief that Johnson had no reason to be loitering in the area, Officer Connelly and his partner pulled up to Johnson in their car, exited the vehicle and began questioning Johnson.

When Johnson saw the car, he stopped. According to Officer Connelly, Johnson appeared to be nervous and put his hands in his pockets. Johnson said that the presence of the officers on either side of him was intimidating. Officer Connelly instructed Johnson to put his hands on the patrol car and asked Johnson if he had anything illegal in his possession. Again, Johnson said that he did not believe he could leave and had to do exactly what the officers said. Johnson told the officers they could search him. The officers found a plastic bag containing cocaine and arrested Johnson.

Johnson moved to suppress the evidence the officers found because the detention and search were unlawful. The trial court found Officer Connelly's testimony "credible" and denied the motion to suppress. Johnson subsequently struck a plea bargain and pled no contest to the charge of possession of a controlled substance.

Johnson appealed the trial court's decision. Consistent with the standard for reviewing a trial court's action on a motion to suppress, the Court of Appeals deferred almost entirely to the trial judge, who was in the best position to assess credibility of witnesses, regarding the facts of the case, but made its own determination regarding how the law applied to the facts.

In a four-step analysis, the Court of Appeals found the officers' encounter with Johnson constituted an unlawful seizure and the motion to suppress should have been granted.

(1) Both sides agreed that the officers' encounter with Johnson was not consensual. The State admitted there was no support to argue the search was consensual.

(2) The state argued the officers' detention of Johnson was based upon reasonable suspicion, which requires the existing of specific facts leading an officer to conclude that a person has committed or is about to commit a crime. The State cited the facts that Johnson was in a dimly lit area known for male prostitution and Johnson's "loitering" looked like someone who was engaged in prostitution. The Court of Appeals disagreed, concluding that being present in a dimly lit area, even an area known for prostitution, does not provide reasonable suspicion that an individual is a prostitute. Because the officers had no reasonable suspicion to detain Johnson, Johnson's detention was a violation of the Fourth Amendment.

(3) The Court considered whether Johnson's consent to search was an act of free will. The court noted the consent occurred shortly after Johnson was told to place his hands on the car and there were no intervening circumstances to lessen the "taint" of the improper detention. Although nothing indicated the officers intended to commit an unlawful detention, the Court found Johnson's consent was not an exercise of his free will and therefore did not remove the taint of the unlawful detention.

(4) After determining the trial court should have granted the motion to suppress, the Court of Appeals considered whether that error made any difference in Johnson's punishment. Although Johnson accepted a plea bargain rather than go to trial, the Court of Appeals believed the denial of the motion to suppress gave the State leverage in the process and may have contributed to Johnson's giving up his right to a trial in order to obtain a favorable punishment recommendation.

Many people believe they are required to cooperate in any encounter with police until the police officers terminate the encounter. However, Johnson v. Texas makes it clear police officers do not have unlimited authority to detain an individual unless they have a reasonable suspicion that a crime has been or is about to be committed. While police officers may see reasonable suspicion where others would not and trial courts may agree, higher court decisions have set a standard for reasonable suspicion which limits police ability to detain citizens who, like Shamar Johnson, just appear to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

DWI Caselaw Update | Fort Worth Criminal Defense Lawyers

The Fifth Amendment protection against double jeopardy is often viewed as a guarantee against having to stand trial for an offense if an individual has already been found not guilty in a previous trial. It also applies to situations where a defendant is charged with more than one offense: Is it double jeopardy if a defendant receives multiple punishments for the same transaction for multiple offenses?

Yousef Benson was convicted of two offenses as a result of a 2010 traffic accident that seriously injured another individual--intoxication assault and felony DWI.  The offense of intoxication assault occurs when a person "by accident or mistake . . . while operating a motor vehicle in a public place while intoxicated, by reason of that intoxication causes serious bodily injury to another."  Felony DWI occurs when a person "is intoxicated while operating a motor vehicle in a public place" and the person has been previously been convicted of two DWI offenses.

The appellant argued that the two offenses should be considered the same offense, which would prevent the imposition of multiple punishments. The state argued that the offenses were separate and that multiple punishment was allowed. The principle point of contention was whether the previous conviction requirement for felony DWI is an element of the offense or is a punishment enhancement.

The Court of Criminal Appeals performed an "elements" analysis. The elements analysis looks at the specific elements of each crime. If each crime has the same elements, then a court presumes that the offenses are the same for purposes of double jeopardy. Conversely, if two offenses have different elements, the presumption is that the two offenses are separate. In either case, the presumption can be rebutted by showing that the legislature clearly intended the opposite result.

In Benson, the CCA focused on felony DWI's requirement of two previous convictions. In some cases, such requirements are viewed as creating a separate offense; in other cases, they are considered an enhancement of the level or the punishment for the offense. As Benson acknowledged, the CCA had already held in earlier cases that the required prior convictions for felony DWI constitute an element of the offense, calling them "specific attendant circumstances" that help define the offense. In other words, intoxication assault and felony DWI are presumed to be separate offenses, and a defendant can receive a sentence for each offense.

The CCA then turned to the question of whether there was evidence to rebut the presumption: Did the legislature intend for the two offenses to be treated as one? The court acknowledged that the two offenses are in the same chapter of the criminal code, a factor that supports the same-offense position. But the court looked at the language of the statute and concluded that if the legislature had intended the two offenses to be the same, they would have structured the statutory language differently.

The court also looked at the name of the offenses, pointing out that both offenses have some form of the word "intoxicate" in their names, although used as a modifier in each name rather than as a noun. The court concluded that this factor slightly favored the same-offense position.

The court noted that the two offenses have the same punishment ranges. Although this factor can favor either position, the court concluded that it slightly favored treating the same-offense view.

The court looked at the focus of the offenses and found intoxication assault to be a result-oriented offense (causing serious bodily injury) and felony DWI to be a conduct-oriented (driving while intoxicated) or circumstances-oriented (two prior convictions) offense. Unlike intoxication assault, felony DWI does not even require a victim. This analysis favored treating the offenses as separate.

Finally, the court considered the history of the two offenses and concluded that the various revisions of the criminal code supported the position that the two offenses are separate.

In its final analysis, the court recognized some factors supported Benson's argument (same offense). However, the court considered the factors supporting the state's position (separate offenses) as "more substantial." In the court's view, the evidence did not support the view that the legislature intended one punishment. Therefore, separate punishment for each offense was not a violation of Benson's right to protection from double jeopardy.

The Sixth Amendment guarantees a criminal defendant's right to a "public" trial. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals recently confronted the question of whether and under what circumstances a criminal defendant may lose that right.

Bobby Joe Peyronel was convicted of a criminal offense. During a break in the punishment phase of Peyronel's trial, an unidentified female supporter approached a juror and asked how it felt to convict an innocent man.

Fearing juror intimidation and apparently unable to identify the woman, the prosecutor asked the judge to exclude all female members of Peyronel's family from the courtroom. Peyronel objected, arguing that granting the request would exclude Peyronel's wife and daughter and give the jury the impression Peyronel had no supporters. (The CCA's decision did not explain why the judge did not just question the juror, identify the woman who made the comment, and exclude her from the courtroom.)

In a possible overreaction, the judge ordered all witnesses and observers out of the courtroom. The punishment phase of the trial proceeded with witnesses waiting outside the courtroom until time to testify.

Peyronel appealed, arguing a violation of his constitutional right to a public trial. No one disputed that right. However, the State argued that because Peyronel did not ask the trial judge to do anything and did not inform the judge that he planned to appeal based on an alleged Sixth Amendment violation, Peyronel had forfeited his public-trial right.

The Court first considered whether the right to a public trial is mandatory (must be enforced no matter what a defendant says or does), waivable (can be knowingly and intentionally relinquished by a defendant), or forfeitable (can be given up if a defendant does not insist on enforcement). The court briefly reviewed cases from other jurisdictions and concluded the public-trial right could be forfeited.

The Court then considered whether Peyronel had forfeited his public-trial right. Although Peyronel objected to the trial judge's order to clear the courtroom, the CCA did not consider that to be the equivalent of asserting a violation of his constitutional right. The court said there was no "magic language" Peyronel needed to use to assert the violation, but he at least had to specifically state what he wanted the trial judge to do and upon what grounds his request was based. The CCA determined Peyronel did not meet that standard and, as a result, forfeited his right to a public trial.

Read the full opinion: Peyronel

In a strong dissent, Justice Johnson noted that the prosecutor's request was just to exclude female family members from the courtroom and Peyronel objected, arguing that such a broad action would remove his wife and daughter. Justice Johnson said that objection was sufficient on its own and it also implied Peyronel's objection to a complete exclusion.

Justice Johnson compared the situation to buying an appliance. If a customer has a two-foot-wide space for an appliance and a seller tries to sell an appliance that is two inches wider, the customer will object. By objecting to that appliance, Justice Johnson said, the customer is also making it clear that he would object to the seller substituting an appliance even wider than two feet, two inches. According to Justice Johnston, when Peyronel objected to the exclusion of female members of his family because it was too broad to accomplish the intended purpose, that also constituted an objection to the exclusion of even more people and made it clear to the trial judge that his order to clear the courtroom was too broad as well.

Peyronel v. Texas is interesting in at least two respects. Anecdotally, it seems odd that neither the majority nor the dissenters were troubled at all by the fact that the trial judge went beyond the prosecutor's request and ordered everyone from the courtroom rather than trying to identify the woman who was the object of concern and removing her.

More fundamentally, the principle that some constitutional rights can be waived is well established; for example, Miranda rights are frequently waived. But, the court's opinion suggests that a defendant can lose his constitutionally protected public-trial right by not speaking up, or, presumably, by speaking up but not speaking loudly or eloquently enough.