Trial Attorney Articles: Case Law, Insights & Best Practices

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.

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.

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.

This past week in Tarrant County, Texas I watched a sexual assault trial that I never dreamed would end in a conviction.  We were not defending the case, but I found it interesting, so I went to watch part of the trial.  While the defendant was not particularly likable, it didn't seem to me that she was a criminal.  I knew the jurors would not like her, but I didn't think they would convict her of a felony offense.  But that's the thing about trial.  I don't get to sit on the jury.  It only matters what 12 citizens think about the case.  I can think about criminal cases in purely legal terms, but jurors are often swayed by emotion.

This case reminded me that there is always a risk in going to trial.  An inherent uncertainty.  Even when you feel pretty confident about your case.  Thankfully, our criminal defense firm has been fortunate enough to get some favorable verdicts in recent trials, but those could have gone the other way very easily.  It is a sobering reality for criminal defense lawyers that someone's life and future is in your hands.  Even more sobering, however, is the realization that at trial it's only partly in your hands.  All we can do is prepare, prepare, prepare, and put forth our very best effort.

"I want a hamburger...no, a cheeseburger."

Although every criminal defendant is innocent until proven guilty and has the absolute right to a trial on the merits, there are times when it is in the defendant's best interest to plead guilty to receive a lesser sentence or probation.  Sometimes, that is the best advice I can give.  In these times, our goal is to mitigate the sentence.

However, if you can believe it, the State does not always offer a fair an acceptable plea bargain on sentencing.  In these cases, one of the options is for the defendant is to plead open (i.e. without the protection of a deal) to the judge.  This is a tactical choice.  Some cases are better for a judge and others for a jury. But in Texas it is not exactly the defendant's choice.

In my Marine Corps days, operating under the military justice system, an accused has the right to sentencing by a jury or by judge alone.  It is the defendant's choice alone and no one can interfere with that choice.  Seems fair enough, right?

In Texas, however, if a defendant wants to plead guilty and waive his right to a jury, thereby allowing the judge to impose the sentence, the State (i.e. the prosecution) has to consent to it.  If the judge allows a defendant to plead guilty and waive his right to a jury trial without the State's consent, the judge risks a mandamus action directing him to vacate the judgments.

That is exactly what happened in Travis County in the case of State v. Gonzales (In Re Escamilla).

As the appellate court noted:

Article 1.13 of the code of criminal procedure provides that, other than in a capital felony case in which the State will seek the death penalty, a criminal defendant may enter a plea and waive his right to a jury trial as long as the waiver is made "in person by the defendant in writing in open court with the consent and approval of the court, and the attorney representing the state." Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 1.13(a).

The 3rd District Court of Appeals (Austin), in a memorandum opinion, granted mandamus relief and directed the trial court to vacate its judgment. Now they'll have to see what a jury thinks of the case.