, i '

i
I
SPRING 2007
HARRIS COUNTY CRIMINAL LAWYERS' ASSOCIATION
[> [> [> StATING mR OINNtR
IS SOlO OUT,
PltASt JOIN US
mR COCKTAilS,




~ ...............
~ ...........
J ~ ...............
J ~ ...............
Winning Warriors
Message From the President
by Robert ickmon
Warhorse Award Announcement
Strategy: Using the Enemy's Weapons
by Joseph W. Varela
Mandatory Minimums: ABroken Idea
by Wendy M, Miller
Top Ten Things To Remember
When Representing Foreign Nationals
yMagaliS,Candler
Dedication Ceremony
HCCLA Holiday Party
THE DEFEN DER 1< 1
Robert fickman
PRESIDENT ElECT
Pat McCann
VICE PRESIDENT
Mark Bennett
SECRETARY
Sean Buckley
TREASURER
JoAnne Musick
PAST PRESIDENT
Wendell A. Ddom, Jr.
BOARD OF DIRECTORS:
Tom Berg
Neol Dovis
Nicole DeBorde
Christopher Downey
Todd DuPont II
Rosa Eliodes
Tyler flood
Steven Holpert
Mark Hochglaube
Rondall Kallinen
feral Merchant
Morjorie Meyers
Earl D. Musick
James TStafford
Charles Stanfield
Jim Sullivan
PAST PRESIDENTS:
1971-2005
C.Anthony Frilaux
Stuart Kinard
George Luquette
Morvin DTeague
Dick DeGuerin
W.B. House, Jr.
David R. Bires
woody De nsen
Will Gray
Edward A. Mollett
Carol yn Garcia
Jack B. Zimmermann
Clyde Williams
Robert Pelton
Candel ario Elizondo
Allen C. Isbell
David Mitcham
Jim E. Lavine
RickBross
Mary E. Conn
Kent A. Schoffer
DonCogdell
Jim Skelt on
George J. Parnham
Garlond D. MCinnis
Robert A. Moen
LloydOl iver
Donny Eosterling
RichardFrankoff
Wayne Hill
W. TroyMCKinney
Cynthia Henley
StanleySchneider
Publisher: HeCLA
EdllDrialStaff:
Ads&OisbibutIon:
Design.&Layout:
~ ~ I ~ ~ EDITOR
Lesson #1 learned on the kindergarten playground is that bullies tend to pick on kids who
don't fight back. It would seem axiomatic that criminal defense lawyers, more than any other
group, would have taken this example to heart in forming the character that leads them into
their chosen profession. So it remains one of life's great puzzles that amazingly large numbers
of criminal defense lawyers, instead of fighting those bullies-in-the-pulpit wearing black robes,
bow and cringe before them, obsequiously inviting them to viol ate the rights of those very
people the lawyers are charged with protecting.
Critics of the appointment system frequently claim that such spinelessness is inherent in
court-appointed lawyers, who don't challenge abusive jurists because they are afraid to bite
the hand that feeds them. However, the most cursory observer can quickly glean that this
craven accommodation is in no way limited to lawyers who seek court appointments. Whether
it is illegally coercing pleas after unreasonably revoking bonds, refusing to rule on motions,
denying records of rulings or non-rulings, withholding court reporters, revoking bonds for
failure to hire an attorney or denying court-appointed counsel to indigents on bond, retained
attorneys figure prominently in their inaction.
Almost worse than the failure to stand up to these judges is the renl sal to cooperate \vith
those people who want to take the necessary action to combat iUegal practices. Invariably,
when lawyers who are wiUing to challenge bullies go into court to investigate these claims,
or to test the waters, the problems magically disappear. The major difficulty is that all those
who whine in the hallways and behind closed doors will not participate in solutions, then wail
beseechingly: "We don't get no respect."
The other day a lawyer was compl aining to me that a visiting judge, infamous for his ignorance
of the law and his abusive behavior, had illegally detained him in the courtroom. I advised
this man that I was head of an HCCLA committee investigating misconduct on the part of
visiting judges [this one in particular 1and invited him to assist me in filing a formal complaint
with the Judicial Conduct Commission. Incredibly, the lawyer rwo-stepped away, mumbling
excuses and vague promises to get back \vith me at some later date.
With bricks like these, it will be no wonder when our house falls down.
Shawna L. Reagin
Editor
* The Editor's opinion is purely personal, and in no way reflects the viewpoint or
position of the Harris County Criminal Lawyers' Association .
SPRINB
In an opinion delivered November 9, 2006, "SKip"
CORJIELivs reversed a case out of the 178
th
District Court
due to the prosecutor's use of her peremptory challenges on a
discriminatory basis, in Thomas v. State, 2006 WL 3230275,
_ S.W.3d _ (Tex.App. -- Houston [l st Dist.] 2006, no
pet.) rdesignated for publication]. Kudos to the Court of
Appeals for following Miller-El and Batson in an honest
application of the law to the facts.
Another appellate victory fell to RiCK..DEtO"tO and S"tEvEn
LiEBERJIlAn in Moody v. State, 2006 WL 32320204 (Tex.
App. -- Houston [I st Dist.] November 9, 2006 [not
designated for publication] . Judge Devon Anderson refused
to permit trial counsel to present evidence of the accused's
reputation for the ethical treatment of children in four
felony indecency cases. Too bad the COA designated this
an unpublished memorandum, as this issue is the subject of
widespread confusion on the part of Harris County judges.
DAViD CVnninGHAm scored a Not Guilty in an aggravated
sexual assault of a child trial in the 176
th
District Court in
November of 2006.
After rebuffing the State's bottom-line offer of20 years to do
on misapplication of fiduciary property in the 184
th
District
Court, iRi\ succeeded in getting his client probation
after a 2-week trial.
Also on November 9, 2006, FLOOD, assisted by
SARi\H WOOD, heard a two-word verdict in a DWl trial
in CCCL #2. Then on January 18,2007, Tyler and Sarah
got a .18 DWl dismissed when a visiting judge granted their
motion to suppress, based on the lack of an underlying traffic
offense to justity the stop. Tyler continued his sweep in
March 2007, when he obtained a Not Guilty in CCCL #1;
his third win for this client.
The next day, .R,t\nD won a DWl acquittal in
CCCL #7. H e tried the case alone, but received invaluable
assistance from John Kahn and Jed Silverman.
The jury took only an hour to follow the 38.23 charge and
find tODD Dvpon"t's client Not Guilty on a possession
case tried in Victoria, despite his admission tbat be had the
drugs.
DAViD obtained an acquittal for bis no-test ,
no accident DWl client, even tbough testimony revealed be
drove the wrong way on a one-way street and begged for
mercy on bended knee after being stopped.
When he successfully suppressed the breatb test results
and an improperly administered HGN test, jim II1EDLEY
assured his DWl client a win in CCCL #3 on November 16.
Then on December 2, Jim hit 12/12 when he racked up his
12
th
acquittal in 12 DWl trials for the year. In 2007, Jim
continued his streak by adding an 8-minute Not Guilty in
CCCL # 15 to his resume.
ViviAn KlnG and DEniSE CRi\WFOR,p defeated the
State and the prosecutor masquerading as a visiting judge to
achieve two Not Guilty verdicts on aggravated robbery in the
230
t11
District Court. Vivian's client was a certified juvenile,
the complainant'S granddaughter, and Denise represented
the boyfriend, against some rather damning testimony.
Guaranteeing a happier holiday for his client, CHAR.!-ES
KyLE VAnCE managed a no-bill from the grand jury on a
new law violation, then convinced the parole board it lacked
evidence to revoke parole, sending him home for Christmas.
THE DEFENDER * 3
Kyle followed this with a Not Guilty in an indecent exposure
trial in CCCL #2; t oAmI second chair.
STAn a reversal of Quanell X's rather
bizarre conviction for allegedly fleeing or attempting to
flee arrest as he tried to turn in an accused cop killer, in
Fm-rakhan v. State, 2006 WL 3438673, _ S.W.3d _ (Tex.
App. -- Houston [1
st
Dist.] 11/30/ 06, pet . filed 2/27/07)
[designated for publication). The issue was the trial court
improperl y charging the jury on an offense that was not a
lesser-included. Props also to the trial team, which consisted
of STAn .. R.9BERt ALTon tonES, LYDiA
CLAY, tYROnE lIloncRiFFE and R.9BB FiclQl1An.
In another ongoing saga, R.9LAnD finally got
justice for Gilbert Amezquita, who was wrongly convicted of
aggravated assault in the 230
th
District Court and subsequently
exonerated by the DNA test results the trial judge refused to
allow time for before trial. [Frighteningly, this was still a 5-4
decision at the CCA]. The State has declined to retry Mr.
Amezquita, so he is now a free man.
CAAiG WASHinGTOn'S heroic efforts prevailed when he
defeated the government's second attempt to kill Tyrone
Williams for his part in the deaths of 19 illegal immigrants
due to a smuggling scheme gone awry and secured a life
sentence for his client.
PI' O bono paid when tt PAULL cashed in an acquittal for a
war veteran in a DWI case, who explained his poor HGN
performance was rooted in insomnia caused by post-traumatic
stress disorder. JJ scored again, with assistance from BRiAn
WiCE, when he successfully argued a motion to suppress in
CCCL #7, by impeaching the arresting officer with his ALR
testimony; case dismissed.
BOB tERl\.LD a great victory
right before the holidays when they convinced a jury to spare
their client's life in a capital murder case tried in the 230[h
District Court .
In the hinterlands of Montgomery County, tUDY SHiELDS
and LiSA BEnGE persuaded the jury to acquit their client of
murder and to assess punishment at a mere 5 years in prison
for the lesser offense of manslaughter.
Mter a 3-day trial in CCCL #7 , hung
the jury on a DWI, despite a .1 5 breath test and a bad video;
the State subsequently dismissed the case.
GARY ZACH FERtittA hung the jury in
CCCL #13 on a DWI, 011 December 18, 2006.
Effective cross-examination spelled acquittal for CHA RJ-ES
GAnl when he destroyed a DPS trooper's credibility in a
D\VI case in CCCL #4.
THE DEFENDER - 4
Santa Claus delivered a nolle to the 263
rd
District Court for
BOB SCOTT'S client.
t OLAnDA tonEs persevered through a 9-day trial for
aggravated assault of a public servant and aggravated assault
to bring home sweet victory for her client, a Katrina evacuee,
who was accused of engaging in a major shootout with BATF
agents and local undercover police.
Although his client publicly credited "the Lord," CHRis
tRiTico at least shared responsibility when he engineered
an acquittal for a Harris County deputy tried for an assault
involving the non-fatal shooting of an unarmed citizen.
Chris subsequently won a Not Guilty in 1-1/2 hours in
the 351 st District Court for his 73-year-old client accused of
indecency with a child.
In his first trial as a defense lawyer, t AMES ALSTon, assisted
by AMAnDA WEBB, savored a t\vo-word verdict returned
in 30 minutes in a no test, no accident DWI in CCCL #8.
ALLEn incredible odds to win a Not
Guilty in an aggravated robbery case tried before a visiting
judge in the 178
th
District Court, despite his client being
stopped in the getaway car 15 minutes after the robbery,
being identified by the complainant and being a Louisiana
evacuee on parole.
Proving that Texans sometimes do have a right to a speedy
trial, YOLAnDA and GRl\.nT a
dismissal for their client in the 337
th
District Court when, after
an 18-month interim, the State re-filed a previously dismissed
aggravated sexual assault case as
an indecency, over speedy trial
objections lodged at the time of
the first dismissal.
HPD's DWI task force took
another beating when STEVE
HALPERt prevailed in CCCL
#4, even though his client had
declined "the opportuni ty to
prove his innocence by taking
a breath test," per the arresting
officer, after T-boning another
car and flipping his own. tODD
in voir dire and
decided to keep the man who
became th e jury foreman and led
the charge to acquittal [according
to an unnamed but highly-placed
jury eavesdropper).
DOUG mURPHY won an acquittal on an alcohol / drug
combination DWI in CCCL #7, even though his client had
an open beer in the car when stopped and admitted to taking
some Vicodin.
tED SiLVERIUAn rose to the occasion once again when
the jury followed the law of a 38.23 charge and voted Not
Guilty on a .135 DWI in CCCL #12. Then Jed, along with
S1'EVE GonzALEz pulled a lesser DWI conviction out of an
intoxication manslaughter prosecution.
Justice delayed was not denied to Bo HopmAnn's client,
despite an uphill battle in Orange, Texas, on a DWI case that
was not summoned for trial until five years after the initial
arrest . Bo overcame denial of his speedy trial motion, an all-
white jury, client's admission he drank 9 beers, refusal of all
FSTs and breath test, and improper prosecutorial argument to
win a 45 -minute Not Guilty.
2006's Lawyers of the Year and jim
LAvinE again wrested victory from the jaws of defeat in
United States v. Kevin Howard when they persuaded U.S.
District Judge Vanessa Gilmore to grant a motion to vacate
his recent conviction, due to jury instructions that included
the theory of deprivation of honest services, which was
subsequently disallowed by the Fifth Circuit in another case .
t AmES [NcR,] ushered in a Not Guilty on an
aggravated robbery case in the 209
th
, despite some bad
extraneouses. Rick also saw a 30-minute acquittal on a breath
test DWI in Jefferson County when the trooper apparently
felt compelled to lie when it wasn't even necessary.
Following CHRiS DOWnEY'S stellar closing argument, the
jury hung 3/3 on a family violence assault in CCCL #3. A
few days later, Chris suppressed a .14 breath test, the walk-
and-turn and HGN for a DWI win in CCCL #14.
On February 5, 2007, SAm ADAmo hung the jury 11-1 for
Not Guilty on a felony DWI in the 228
th
District Court; the
State then dismissed the case. March 9, 2007, "Slarnmin'
Sam" hit it all the way home with a Not Guilty on a D\VI in
CCCL #9.
Rys1Y HARPin obtained an acquittal for the mayor's
daughter in her DWI trial after 1-1/2 hours of Jury
deliberation.
tom HEnDERSon won a Not Guilty on a DWI he tried in
CCCL #5 on February 12,2007.
With one of the fastest verdicts ever, nED barely
had time to sit back down before the jury returned an
acquittal in 90 seconds in a DWI trial in CCCL #10.
Drastically decreasing plea offers culminated in an outright
dismissal for CHRiS CAR!-SOn on an aggravated sexual
assault of a child in the 208
th
.
jim SULLiVAn snared a dismissal of an aggravated
sexual assault of child case in the 248
th
, due to the
multiple accusations and changing stories of the 13-year-
old complainant. Although Jim's client had been on bond
pending trial, a co-defendant spent several months sitting in
jail based on the girl's unfounded allegations.
Because DAnny EAs1'ER!-inG refused to give up and
instead fought a battle against recommitment every year
since 1997, a young man found Not Guilty by reason of
insanity has finally been released to outpatient treatment.
VAnis wrote the brief appealing the 208
th
District
Court's last recommitment; Danny handled the trial court
proceedings and delivered oral argument at the COA in
Marlin Deandre House v. The State of Texas, _ SW.3d
_, 2007 WL 506881 (Tex.App. -- Houston [14
th
Dist.]
February 20, 2007) [designated for publication].
New HCCLA member AnDRJ:A KgLSRj hung the jury
in the 228
th
District Court in an aggravated robbery case,
despite alleged eyewitnesses to both the deed itself and to the
client's car leaving the scene .
GiLBERt ViLLARJ:AL won a motion to suppress lots
of cocaine and many weapons before U.S . District Judge
Vanessa Gilmore, based on an invalid traffic stop.
No believer in starting small, DoRiAn on his
maiden voyage as a defense lawyer wrangled a one-hour Not
Guilty on two aggravated sexual assault cases tried in Polk
County. Immediately following the verdict, the trial judge
waived the 72-hour waiting period and married the accused
to his patiently waiting fiancee.
An1'HOny Osso and ViviAn KinG marshaled an amazing
victory by convincing a jury to acquit their client of capital
murder and to convict him of the lesser offense of aggravated
robbery, saving him from the death penalty.
After waiting 3-1/ 2 years to go to trial on a conspiracy to
commit theft case, RgBB FicKlIIAn, GORPon DEES and
K!:vin FinE all welcomed Not Guilty verdicts in Ft. Bend
County.
CAsiE reversed an intoxication manslaughter
conviction out of the 174
d1
District Court, based on the
trial court's refusal to instruct the jury on the lesser included
offense of DWI. miCHAEL LOGAn WAR!' of Ft. Worth
assisted on the appeal, Larry Douglas Henry v. State, 2007
WL 79449, __ S.W.3d __ (Tex.App. -- Houston [1
st
Dist.] 1/ 11/2007, no pet.) [designated for publication].
THE DEFENDER * 5
WE HAVE GATHERED TODAY TO DEDICATE THE
DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE, THE UNITED STATES
CONSTITUTION AND THE BILL OF RIGHTS IN THIS, "OUR
COURTHOUSE "
I SAY "OUR COURTHOUSE", BECAUSE THIS COURTHOUSE
BELONGS TO ALL OF US.
AS LAWYERS WE EACH TOOK A SOLEMN OATH AND IN IT
WE STATED: "I DO SOLEMNLY SWEAR THAT I WILL
SUPPORT THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED
STATES, AND OF THIS STATE; THAT I WILL HONESTLY
DEMEAN MYSELF IN THE PRACTICE OF THE LAW, AND
I WILL DISCHARGE MY DUTIES TO MY CLIENTS TO
THE BEST OF MY ABILITY. SO HELP ME GOD"
AS LAWYERS WE ALL TOOK THIS SOLEMN OATH AT ONE
TIME OR ANOTHER.
ON MAY 27, 1983, SOME 23 YEARS AGO, I TOOK THIS
SOLEMN OATH IN THE OLD COURTHOUSE. THE HONORABLE
JUDGE MYRON LOVE SWORE ME IN.
WHEN WE BECOME LAWYERS WE SWEAR A SOLEMN OATH
TO GOD ALMIGHTY TO SUPPORT THE CONSTITUTION OF
THE UNITED STATES.
THE DEFENDER 1< 6
IT IS NO ACCIDENT, THAT WHEN WE TAKE OUR SOLEMN
OATH AS LAWYERS, THE VERY FIRST THING THAT WE SWEAR
TO DO, IS TO SUPPORT THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED
STATES .
AS AMERICAN LAWYERS, SUPPORTING THE UNITED
STATES CONSTITUTION IS ALWAYS OUR FIRST AND LAST
OBLIGATION.
WHAT DOES IT MEAN TO SUPPORT THE UNITED STATES
CONSTITUTION?
WHAT DOES SUPPORT MEAN? IT MEANS TO UPHOLD, IT
MEANS TO KEEP FROM FALLING, IT MEANS TO MAINTAIN
AND ULTIMATLEY IT MEANS TO DEFEND.
THESE ARE ACTIVE VERBS. THEY ARE NOT PASSIVE. THEY
REQUIRE ACTION ON ALL OF OUR PARTS.
IN ORDER TO SUPPORT THE CONSTITUTION WE MUST EACH
ACTIVELY DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION.
WE TOOK A SOLEMN OATH AND WE ARE DUTY-BOUND TO
FOLLOW THAT OATH.
WE MUST DAILY DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION. THIS IS NOT
SOMETHING THAT WE CAN PUT OFF. IT IS SOMETHING
THAT WE MUST DO TODAY, TOMORROW AND EVERYDAY
THEREAFTER, AS LONG AS WE ARE LAWYERS.
WE MUST DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION, NO MATTER WHAT
OUR ROLE IN THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM.
NO MATTER WHAT OUR ROLE IN THE CRIMINAL
JUSTICE SYSTEM, WE MUST STAI'JD IN DEFENSE OF THE
CONSTITUTION.
WE MUST STAND UP AGAINST THOSE WHO WOULD VIOLATE
THE CONSTITUTION.
AND MAKE NO MISTAKE, OUR CONSTITUTION AND OUR BILL
OF RIGHTS ARE UNDER CONSTANT ATTACK.
WE MUST BE HONEST WITH OURSELVES ABOUT THIS.
IN THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM WE MUST FIGHT AT
ALL COST, ANY AND ALL MEASURES THAT ERODE OUR
CONSTITUTION AND OUR BILLOF RIGHTS.
WE MUST FIGHT ANY SYSTEM, NO MATTER WHERE IT IS
FOUND, IF IT INCLUDES:
-POLICE BRUTALITY, (OR)
-UNREASONABLE BONDS,(OR)
-UNREASONABLE BOND CONDITIONS, (OR)
-MANIPULATIONS OF THE GRAND JURY, (OR)
-UNREASONABLE SEARCHES, (OR)
-PRESUMPTIONS OF GUILT, (OR)
-INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL, (OR)
-THE DENIAL OF DUE PROCESS, (OR)
-CRUEL AND UNUSAL PUNISHMENTS
WE MUST RECOGNIZE THAT ANY SUCH SYSTEM, IS CONTRARY
TO THE CONSTITUTION AND THE BILL OF RIGHTS, AND WE
MUST FIGHT ANY SUCH SYSTEM WHEREVER IT BE FOUND.
WE MUST NEVER FORGET, THAT NO MATTER WHAT OUR
ROLES IN THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM,WE ARE LAWYERS
FIRST.
WE MUST NEVER FORGET, THAT NO MATTER WHAT OUR
ROLE IN THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM, OUR SACRED
OATH AND OUR PRIMARY OBLIGATION IS TO DEFEND THE
CONSTITUTION.
THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE, THE
CONSTITUTION A ND THE BILL OF RIGHTS EMBODY OUR
MOST FUNDAMENTAL LA W.
THE CONSTITUTION AND THE BILL OF RIGHTS PROTECT THE
LIBERTY WE ALL HOLD SO DEAR.
GENERATIONS BEFORE US HAVE FOUGHT FOR OUR LIBERTY
AND PAID THE ULTIMATE PRICE TIME AFTER TIME. THEY
FOUGHT HERE AND IN EUROPE AND IN FAR OFF FIELDS SO
THATWE MIGHT ENJOY LIBERTY.
THESE GENERATIONS BEFORE US PAID TOO HIGH A PRICE,
FOR US NOT TO DO OUR PART.
SO LET US HONOR THOSE WHO HAVE COME BEFORE US, BY
DOING OUR PART.
WE GAVE OUR SOLEMN WORD, AS LAWYERS, THAT WE WOULD
SUPPORT THE CONSTITUTION.
WE CAN DO NO LESS THAN TO KEEP OUR WORD. WITHOUT
OUR WORD WE ARE NOTHING.
SO LET THESE DOCUMENTS SHINE UPON EACH OF US AND
INSPIRE US TO DO OUR BEST.
MAY WE EACH DO OUR BEST WHETHER WE ARE JUDGES,
PROSECUTORS OR DEFENSE LAWYERS.
MAY WE DO OUR BEST TO UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION OF
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.
MAY WE DO OUR BEST FOR OUR COUNTRY.
MAY WE DO OUR BEST FOR OUR NEIGHBORS.
MAY WE DO OUR BEST FOR OUR FRIENDS AND FAMILIES. MAY
WE DO OUR BEST FOR EACH OTHER.
AND MAY WE DO OUR BEST FOR OURSELVES, AS WE UPHOLD
THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES.
TODAY WE HONOR THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE,
THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES AND THE BILL OF
RIGHTS.
LET US REMEMBER THIS DAY.
LET US REMEMBER DAILY, THE SOLEMN OATH WE TOOK AS
LAWYERS.
LET US REMEMBER DAILY, THAT WE ARE UNITED BY THESE
DOCUMENTS.
LET US REMEMBER DAILY, THAT WE ARE UNITED BY OUR
CONSTITUITON.
LET US REMEMBER DAILY, THAT AS LAWYERS, WE MAY BE
ADVERSARIES, BUT WE ARE NEVER ENEMIES.
LET US REMEMBER DAILY, THAT WE ARE UNITED BY OUR
COMMON UNSHAKEABLE LOVE OF LIBERTY.
THANK YOU FOR COMING.
12oloert f Z t j ~ a f t
PRESIDENT HCCLA
THE DEFENDER 1< 7
s t ~ t E G Y Joseph W. Varela
USInG THE EnEIhY'S
WEAPC9nS
GUERRillAS MUST NOT DEPEND TOO MUCH ON AN ARMORY. THE ENEMY
IS THE PRINCIPAL SOURCE OF THEIR SUPPLY.
- MAO ZEDONG, "ON GUERRILLA WARFARE" (1937)
The law ofevidence governing the admissibility ofexpert witness testimony
in criminal cases would appear to be neutral; on its tace, the law makes no
distinction between experts offered by the prosecution and those offered by
the defense.
l
But the prosecutor has real-world advantages over the defense
in gettingexpert testimony bdt)re the jury. First, the prosecution has almost
unlimited moneyfor experts,2and many ofits expertsaresalaried government
employees available at no marginal cost. Then there is the issue of"court's
discretion": trial and appellate courtsallowthe prosecutortoqualify"experts"
as needed to obtain convictions,while the defense, regardless ofthequalifica-
tions ofits witnesses, faces an uphill battlc.
3
Finally, there may simply be no
oneavailable tCJ[ hirewhocantestifytowhatthe ddenseneeds. Sotorall these
reasonsand more,thedefense lawyercan expecttocome tocourtoutgunned
by the prosecution'sexperts.
Successful guerrillas, inferior in material to conventional armies, have histori-
cally relied on their enemies to furnish them with arms. Mao's Communists
fought the better-equipped NationaList army using Nationalistweapons, many
ofwhichweremadein theUSA.TheVietcong,unabletomanufacturetheirown
armaments,andonlyirregularlysuppliedby theirChineseandSovietsponsors,
famously used weaponscaptured from South VietnameseorAmerican regular
armies. Thereis abundantevidence thatal-Qaeda,too,is usingcapturedarms
and munitionsin Iraq,4 often improvisingingeniously. These guerrilla organi-
zations were able toclose the armamentgap with better-equippedadversaries
by usingcapturedweapons theycould nothave obtainedotherwise.
There is a lesson here tor the dctense lawyer. What do you do if you
don't have an expert witness? Use the prosecutor's expert.
One situation exists where the "expert" is only marginally competent,
but still can give useful testimony. Police officers are "experts" on every-
thing: Gang organization and symbols, skid marks, physiology, blood
spatters, accident reconstruction, firearms, law, medicine, signs of drug
intoxication, and psychology, to name a few. Trial courts routinely al-
low them to be qualified and appellate courts agree, although they typi-
cally know little more than any other informed member of the public.
s
Defense lawyers gain nothing by complaining about this state of aff.'lirs.
The officer will be allowed to testity. The task is to take advantage of it.
"Experts" who are marginally competent are loath to admit to lack of
knowledge and so are sometimes open to suggestion. Officers will tes-
tity as experts on firearms, every time, although most of them know only
how to load them, clean them, and fire 50 rounds to quality on their
birthdays. On direct they will make a good presentation to the jury
testitying to whatever the prosecutor wants them to say about firearms.
On cross they can be Icd. I tried a case in which a la\vyer left an empty
handgun and a box of ammunition in his briefcase, and was arrested at
the courthouse metal detector. A constable testified on direct that filiI
metal jacketed handgun bullets were "anti-personnel" rounds. The
prosecution telt that eliciting this opinion would make my client appear
more dangerous. On cross it was no effort to get him to admit that the
rounds were non-expanding and much less lethal than hollow-points,
and that militaries used them to comply with international treaties out-
lawing bullets that could calise unnecessary suftering.
6
Then I made
him read the label on the box that recommended their use "for target
and range." Having qualified him as an expert, the State couldn't sud-
d e n y "de-quality" him when the going got rougher on cross. I was able
to elicit helpful facts, and perhaps also show bias_ I am certain that this
cross in itself did not cause the acquittal. But it might have helped.
The expert who is obviously erudite presents a different problem . A
direct attack can prove worse than no cross at all . It is also unlikely that
he will surrender to defense suggestions. In this situation, it can pay to
prepare a cross which concedes his expertise and enlists his help.
Several years ago I tried a case in which a father was alleged to have used
an electric "stun-gun" to discipline his children. The State gave notice
of an expert who was on his face qualified. He held a B.S. in electrical
engineering, an M.D., and a Ph.D. in biomedical engineering. He was
a nationally known consultant to law enforcement in the use of Tasers
and other electric non-lethal force. Clearly I had no chance of trading
on his incompetence. Instead I read up on him and on electric weapons,
and prepared a cross showing, among other things, that electric weapons
in general, and my client's stun-gun in particular, were designed not to
cause death or any of the injuries that might make them a deadly weapon
under the statute.? This evidence prompted the jury to reject the State's
deadly weapon special instruction and perhaps contributed to their deci-
sion to probate the sentence.
Both these situations demonstrate how the defense lawyer, outgunned
by the prosecutor's "conventional forces," can nevertheless use the guer-
rilla stratagem of capturing the enemy's weapons to help equalize the
struggle. When confronted by a prosecutor's expert, ask not "How can I
defeat him?" but "How can I use him?"
I Texas Rules of Evidence, Rule 702 ct seq.; Kelly v. State, 824 S.W.2d 568 (Tex.Crim.App. 1992);
see also Daubert v. Merce! Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993); E.!. du Pont de
Nemours & Co. v. Robinson, 923 S.W.2d 549 (Tex. 1995).
2 The Houston Chronicle reported that in the Andrea Yates case, State expert Park Dietz was paid
$105,000 in the first trial, which was reversed because of his false testimony, Yates v. State, 171 S.W.3d
215 (Tex. App. -Houston [1st Dist.] 2005, pet. ret'd). Notwithstanding this debacle, he testified in the
retrial and collected an additional $37,000. In the retrial, the State also used a new expert, Michael
Weiner. Weiner was paid almost a quarter of ,1 million dollars for his efforrs. The retrial resulted in an
acquittal. HOIl>t011 Chro1/icle, Sept. 30, 2006.
.l See, e.g., Yarborough v. State, _ S.W.3d _, NOS. 01 -04-01076-CR, 01 -04-01077-CR (Tex.
App. - Houston [1st Dist.] delivered January 26, 2006, pct. ref'd).
4 The late master terrorist Abu Musab al -Zarqawi released a videotape showing that he needed assistance
from a hooded comrade in optrating an automatic weapon. He was widely jeered for incompetence
at arms. Those in the know laughed neither as loudly Ilor as long: The video clearly showed that the
weapon was an American M249 light machine gun, captured or stolen.
5 Gates v. State, 24 S.W.3d 439 (Tex.App. -- Houston lIst Dist.] 2000, pet. rct'd) (police officer
qualified to give opinion whether shooting was suicide); Sabedra v. State, 838 S.W.2d 761 (Tex.
App. -- Corpus Christi 1992, pet. ref'd) (officer with no medical training qualified to testilY to effects
ofsrab wound).
6 Hague Convenrion of 1899, Declaration III. 1 believed then, and believe now, that the constable
knew nothing about bullets and international agreements. But by sounding as if I did, he was made
reticent to publicly confess ignorance, and so was easily Icd.
7 Tex. Penal Code 1.07 (3) (17), (46).
My GRANDFATHER HAD THE ANSWERS TO
MOST FOR HIS PERSISTENTLY
GRANDDAUGHTER, THE BUTTER-
SCOTCH CANDIES AND WISE CLICHES WERE
NEVER IN SHORT SUPPLY. A FAIR PERCENT-
AGE OF HIS STORIES HELD A COMMON THEME
- "IF IT AIN'T BROKE, THEN DON'T FIX IT." IF
THAT PHRASE HOLDS TRUE, THEN THE CON-
VERSE LOGICALLY FOLLOWS. "IF IT IS BROKE,
THEN FIX IT."
THE CONCEPT OF MANDATORY MINIMUM SEN-
TENCING LAWS IS A BROKEN IDEA. PRIOR TO
THE FIRST DAY OF LAW SCHOOL, THE IMAGE
OF ".JUSTICE" HOLDS THE CONNOTATIONS OF
GETTING EXACTLY WHAT IS DESERVED AND
THE PUNISHMENT ALWAYS FITTING THE CRIME.
WITH THAT IMAGE IN MIND, THE REALITY OF
MANDATORY MINIMUMS IS A HARD PILL TO
SWALLOW. (AND THAT BITTER PILL REMAINS
UNDER THE TONGUE OF THIS FIRST-YEAR
ATTORNEY.)
WHAT IS A
MINIMUM?
If a drug-related or gun-related mandatory ITIll11mum
is triggered, it means the judge may not impose a sen-
tence less than the number of years dictated by Congress.
Mandatory minimum sentences are generally tlve to ten
years in duration with the type and \-veight of the drug or
the presence of a firearm determining the mandatory base-
line. An example of a mandatory minimum sentencing law
is 18 U.s.c. 924(c), which provides a separate criminal
oftense for carrying a weapon during and in relation to a
crime of violence or drug trafficking crime. This statute
imposes a mandatory minimum penalty of five years to
be served consecutively to any sentence imposed for the
underlying offense. The minimum penalty can increase to
seven years (if the firearm is brandished) and ten years (if
discharged).
In Harris v. United States
l
, the United States Supreme
Court, as Federal Public Defender Brent Newton describes
ditlCrentiates between raising the cei ling and raising
floor. The Supreme Court (5-4 majority) held an increase
in the mandatory minimum sentence under 18 U.S.C.
924c)(I)(A)(ii) for brandishing a weapon during a drug
transaction is a "sentencing factor" to be considered by
the court and not an element of the crime for jury consid-
eration. Sentencing tactors do not have to be alleged in
the indictment, submitted to the jury, or proven beyond
THE DEFENDER -ok 12
a reasonable doubt.
2
A mandatory seven-year sentence
issued in Harris with the judge determining by a prepon-
derance that the gun was 'brandished' - even though the
government's indictment did not charge Harris with bran-
dishing the weapon and the evidence was first introduced
at sentencing.
Mandatory minimums destroy judicial sentencing discre-
tion. Harsh mandatory minimums for drug-related and
gun-related oftenses do not allow for the weighing in of
relevant factors. Federal sentencing guidelines are "advi-
sory" following Booker,3 making deviations possible. Two
years after this landmark decision by the U .S. Supreme
Court, however, the majority of federal judges continue
to follow the sentencing guidelines range.
4
While judges
seldom agree with defense arguments to stray from the
guidelines, they do accept downward requests by prosecu-
tors, based on substant.ial assistance. Mandatory mini-
mums wipe out t.hat possibility. As prescribed by statutes
and not by the sentencing guidelines, the circuit courts
hold that Booker docs not apply to mandatory minimul11s.
5
The punishment range of mandatory minimums tor most
is not negotiable.
One in every 32 adults in the United States - seven mil -
lion people - were in prison, on probation or on parole at
the end of 2005, according to t.he Department ofJustice's
Bureau of Justice Statistics (released November 2006).6
According to the report, drug offenders make up abollt
20% of all state drug prisoners (251,000 out of 1.25 mil-
lion) and comprise about 55% offederal prisoners (87,000
out of 158,000). The website for the Families Against
Mandatory Minimums (www.famm.org) views the results
ofmandatory minimum sentencing laws in the increased
number ofinmates incarcerated for drug-related crimes
complicated with the increased lengths ofprison terms.
Ournation is leftstaggeringunder theweightof aswelled
prison population with overcrowded facilities . It is frus -
trating to hear the shriek of"build more prisons" to the
problem of burgeoning prison populations, when real
relieflies in eliminatingdraconian mandatory minimums.
Mandatory minimum sentencing laws bind the hands of
judgestofixed sentences,regardlessofculpabilityorother
mitigating factors . Besides prior convictions, judges are
unable to measure factors like the offender's role, moti -
vation, and likelihood ofrecidivism. Only by squeezing
through the tiny "safety valve" window offered to low-
level , nonviolent drug-related first -time ofte nders
7
or by
providing "substantial assistance" to the prosecntor in
either drug-related or gun-related charges (i.e., informa-
tionaidingin theprosecutionof otheroffenders)8maythe
oftender escape the steel jaws of a mandatory minimum
trap.
There is a mocking irony in granting 'snitching' benefits
to drug-related offenders. Mandatory minimums for
drug-related offenses were contrived in 1986 and rein-
forced in 1988 with a target purpose - to slap kingpins
andthetopsof drug-distributionfood chainswith lengthy
sentences. But only the distribution leaders have the
information thatprosecutorswant. Commondrugmules
orstreetdealers do nothave enough tooffer "substantial
assistance." So, the window opens wide tor the top dogs
and tlrst-time, low-level offenders are left with five, ten,
and even twenty-year mandatorysentences.
The "satety valve" is meant to alleviate the inconsisten-
cies when faced with first -time, low-level offenders, but
"safety valve" eligibility is nearly impossible to get. The
drugoffender must have a minimal criminal history (i.e.,
nomorethan ONEcriminal historypoint);mustnotbe a
violent, armed, orhigh-level participant [notavailable to
gun otTenders]; and must provide the government with
truthful information regarding the otTense. "Substantial
assistance" as a get-out-of- mandatory- minimums-free
card is theaspiration for manyoffenders. Thetemptation
to ' lie' aboutwhat is known in orderto limbo below the
mandatorystick is powerful.
Mandatory minimums have nothing to do with fairness.
Mandatory minimums, like the intoxicating mythical
sirens, lure one into believing they are the answer. They
are a quick fix with no future societal value. These rigid
sentences take "criminals" offthe streets -- butthey also
overcrowd the prisons, '..vaste decades ofresources, and
ultimately do not change a thing. Drug trJfficking has
not slowed down because ofmandatory minimum sen-
tencing. Theonlythingchangingis theappallingnumber
of t1rst-time, low-level soft offenders doing hard time.
The consequences ofmandatory minimums are the lives
destroyedandthe billionsofdollars oftax moneydrained
into the Bureau ofPrisons.
Mandatory minimum sentencing laws are It is
Post-Booker Coding
broken.
time tofix them.
ENDNOTES:
1&2 Jones v. UnitedStates, 526 U.S. 227, 568 (1999)
543 U.S. 220 (2005)
45
th
Circuitjudgesspecitlcally fell within thefederal sentenc-
ing guideline range 74.1%ofthe time during the first half
of2006 (post-Booker)[Nationalaverage for same rime pe-
riod was 61.9%]. Resource: Special
Project (prepared Jul y6, 2006) by United Srares Sentenc-
ing Commission,found at http://www.ussc.gov/sc_cascs/
PostBooker_060106.pdf
UnitedStatesv.Sanchez-Ben'ios,424F.3d 65 (1stCir. 2005);
United States v. Sha"pley, 399 F.3d 123 (2d Ci r. 2005);
United States v. Robinson, 404 F.3d 850 (4rh Cil'. 2005);
UnitedStatesv. Smith,419F.3d521 (6thCir. 2005);United
Statesp. NgamJVuttibal, Nos. 04-5818,04-6019 ,2006WL
45256 (6th Cir. Jan. 9, 2006) (unpub.); United States v.
Lee, 399 F3d864(7thCir. 2005); UnitedStatcs, v. Crr.nnoll,
429 F.3d 1158 (7th Cir. 2005); United States v. Blaylock,
421 F.3d 758 (8th Cir. 2005); United States V. Cm'dmas,
405 F.3d 1046(9thCir. 2005); UnitedStatesP. Paytori, 405
F. 3d 1168, 1173 (10th Cir.2005); United Sta.tes P. Cberry,
433 F.3d698(10thCir. 2005); UnitedStates)7.Sheltol1,400
F.3d 1325 (11th Cir.2005). Resource: Fi"alReport011 the
ImpactofUnited States P. Booker' on Federal Sentencing(p.
34), United StatesSentencingCommission (March 2006),
found at http://www. uSsc.gov/ bookcr_report/ Bookcr_
Report.pdf.
The news release can be found at http://www.ojp.usdoj.
gOY/ bjs/ pub/press/pripropr.htm (last visited February
15,2007). Therelated reports,"Prisonersin 2005"(NCJ-
215092), written by BJS statisticians Paige M. Harrison
and Allen J. Beck, and "Probationand Parole in the United
States, 2005" (NCj-215091), written by BJS statisticians
Lauren E. Glaze and Thomas P. Bonczar, can be found at
www. ojp.usdoj .gov/bjs/abstract/p05.htm and www.ojp.
usdoj.gov/ bjs/abstract/ ppus05.htm.
18U.S.C.3553(f)
8 18 U.S.c.3553(a)
EZINTERLOCK
An Alcohol Specific Ignition Interlock Provider
JohnBums,President LauraO'Brien,PublicRelations
..Mostaccurateand reliabJe ignition interlockavailable
..Patentedfuel cell eliminates false readings
*tasyto read instructions
..Convenientschedulingfor installation and recalibration
'*Locallyowned and operated
*'Superiorqualityatareasonablerate
RequestEZInterlockthrough CourtServices,CLOorCoordinator.
Free installation with your business card.
"Assuring a Designated Driver "
TITLE INSURANCECOMPANY
ARNOLD S. COHN,PC
PRINCIPAL ATTORNEY
HCClA MEMBER 15 YEARS
MEMBER DISCOUNTS/REFERRAL FEES
CURATIVE SOLUTIONS
TO COMPLEX LEGALAN0 TITLE PROBLEMS
BANKRUPTCY PROBATE DIVORCE 0 0
8300 Bissonnet/Suite 240
Houston/Texas 77074
r 713.995.8888 F 713.995.8894 TF 866.995.8880
arno1dcohn1aw@hotmai1.com

..
SPRING 2ffiDEFENDER
TOP 1 0 THINGS TO REMEMBER
WHEN REPRESENTING
FOREIGN NATIONALS
by Magali S. Candler
THERE ARE SEVERAL THINGS THAT EVERY DEFENSE ATTORNEY COULD DO TO
MAKE LIFE EASIER FOR HIS OR HER FOREIGN NATIONAL CLIENTS (AND THEIR
IMMIGRATION ATTORNEYS). ALTHOUGH THIS LIST IS NOT ALL-INCLUSIVE
{AN9 N0THNG BEATS CONSULTING WITH A COMPETENT IMIVlIGRATION
SFE b\U T ALONG WITH YOUR CLIENT), THE FOLLOWING LIST SHOULD AT
EAST BE REMINDER THAT THE IMMIGRATION CONSEQUENCES OF SEEM-
N CRIMINAL OFFENSES UNDER CURRENT iMMIGRATION LAW
RIOUS aND EVEN POSSIBLY THE DEATH KNELL TO SOMEONE
NITEq STATES:
Until you are a U.S. citizen, you may be considered
delDolrtal1te or inadmissiblr for criminal conduct, and may
__1110.. ff,om the nited States.
'green cards)" ot lawfU e ent residents are not U.S.
Anyone who is a visitor to t 'ted States or has a non,
immigrant visa (like a studen,t visa, for eXainple) may be removed from
the States. Only US. do not need to worry about
they may be removed from the United States as a result of
crtmin!tl cond.uct. Sometimes people do hot knpw exactly what their
status is or how to describe it. Consult with an immigration specialist
(or have your client do so) to see how pen4fi1g charges may affect him
or her.
{ 2 } For immigration purp
is considered a Itconviction:'
{ 3 } A Itterm of imprisonment" for immi n
poses means imposition of a e ce, whether or not
probated.
TIlE DEFEND R", 1&
For immigration purposes, someone will be considered to
have had a term of imprisonment (which is crucial to the
definition of some immigration "aggravated felonies") as
long as a sentence of imprisonment was imposed, whether
probated or not. Therefore, the only way to avoid a term
of imprisonment is through a sentence only of probation,
which one sees generally only in deferred adjudications. So
an individual may not have spent even one day in jail but
may be considered deportable as an aggravated felon for
immigration purposes and be immediately detained by im-
migration. Thus, the criminal defense attorney may think
they've gotten their client a great deal criminal-law wise,
but may have just sealed someone's fate to leave the United
States and his or her family forever.
{ 4 } Misdemeanors may be considered to be
II del' "
aggravate re omes.
This is a great example of the Alice in Wonderland nature
of the immigration laws. In immigration law, "Aggravated
Felonies" are defined by statute. For example, there are
"crime of violence" and "theft crime" categories of aggra-
vated felonies. These categories require a "term of impris-
onment" of at least a year. So an individual with a Class
A Misdemeanor theft or assault who receives a sentence
of a year, fully probated, will be considered an aggravated
felon for immigration purposes under current law. Why
does this mattere Aggravated felonies mean being deport-
able from the United States with no hope for relief from
removal proceedings, in most cases.
{5 } Best to ensure that any sentence imposed
(whether or not probated) is for less than a year
(e.g., 360 days), for purposes of avoiding the
Iiterm of imprisonment" categories of aggravat-
ed felonies.
If there is no way to avoid a"term of imprisonment;' wheth-
er probated or not, it's best to keep those sentences to un-
der a year. The length of the probation doesn't matter, but
the sentence does matter.
{ 6 } You don't need a conviction in order to be
considered to be Ilinadmissible" to the United
States (and, thus, potentially subject to being
deported) for Ilcrimes involving moral turpitude"
and controlled substance offenses.
THE DEFENDER * 16
A conviction for a "crime involving moral turpitudi'
...._-
s. Remember,
mitting to the essential elements of a "crime
al turpitude" (with certain limited will
your client "inadmissible" to the United Stat'\.
he or she may not be admitted into the country or..
deported. This also applies to "green card"
trolled substance conviction or admitting to the
elements of a controlled substance offense will render
client "inadmissible" to the United States, as well.
{7} Avoid any controlled
except ONE conviction for simple
30 grams or less of marijuana.
Make sure that the amount of 30 less appears
specifically in any of the court docu
even if your client is charged with the minimum in Texas
of 2 ounces or less, 2 ounces includes amounts larger than
30 grams. It's imperative that if you can't the specific
amount listed on any of the official documeIl{s, make sure
the police report has the specific amoupt, or obtain a lab
report for the case. There is only one s2 'al immigration
waiver for drug crimes. To be eligible, you ient must have
only one conviction for 30 grams or less
other drug would qualify).
{ 8 } It is best to avoid any IIdomestic violence"
terminology in any of the court documents when
your client is charged with assault.
There is a section of''deportability'' in the immigration laws
specifically for those convicted of domestic violence. De-
tailed analysis must take place on a case-by-case basis to
determine whether an individual is technically deportable
under this provision. However, it is best to keep such ter-
minology out of any of the court documents to avoid your
client being placed in removal proceedings (deportation)
on this basis alone.
{ 9 } Expungements do not help in the immi-
gration context; generally all arrests and their (
dispositions must be disclosed on
applications, and if not, may result in
fraud against the individual.
alwayshavetoadmittothearrestandtothefinal disposition
oftheircase,ortheyriskbeingchargedwithfraudforwillful
misrepresentationof amaterialfactonafederalimmigration
form.
{lO} Partner with competent immigration
counsel.
Just as I would not attempt to defend an individual in the
criminalcourtsandamnotacriminallawspecialist,youdo
nothavetobecomeanimmigrationspecialistineachof your
cases. Theimmigrationimplicationsofcriminalconductor
offenses are very different (and much more serious) for for-
eignnationalsthanfor u.s.citizens. Inmyexperience,when
we workwith criminaldefense counsel from the outset, we
can often come up with a workable solution for ourclients
together.
*DISCLAIMER
Thisarticle is providedfor educationalpurposesanddoesnorconsti -
tutelegaladvice. Pleaseconsultwith competentimmigrationcounsel
forfurtherexplanarionandtodiscussindividualcases.
MagaliS.Candler,BoardCertifiedinImmigrationand
NationalityLaw, isashareholderandheadofthelitigationsection
atTindall&: Foster,P.e. Shecanbereachedat 713-335-3943,or
byemailatmcandler@tindallfoster.com
BANNED IN BOSTON!
CITY COUNCIL'S WORST NIGHTMARE!
DENOUNCED FROM PULPITS COASTTO COAST!
Is it Deep Throat? TropIC of Cancer? Hustler?
NO
J
IrsrVrN BmrR:
REASONABLEDOUBT
WITH
TODD DUPONT
. C > ~
TUNt IN TO THt CABLtACCtSS CHANNtLTHAT HAS
HOUSTON'S GUARDIANS OF PUBliC DtCtNCY
TOTALLY A-TWITTtR TO SttTODD
J
HIS CO-HOSTS AND
HIS GUtSTS SPIN CRIMINAL JUSTICt CONTROVtRSY.
Bt INFORMtD AND tNTtRTAINtD,
CATCH IT WHILE YOU CAN
THURSDAYS AT 8:00P.M.
CABLE ACCESS CHANNEL17
SPONSORED BY HCCLA
THE DEFENDER *17
run 1J 21, 2007
/1t-afied a /1t-lJ/1t-eft:C-Of;tJ OttaJiOft
when HCClA dedicated the Declaration of Independence, United States Constitution, and
Bill of Rights the organization recently donated to the Harris County Criminal Justice Center.
Absent so many years, these important documents are now prominently displayed in the
Criminal Justice Center foyer to remind judges, attorneys, defendants, and juries of their
significance. Now, through the eyes of our Founding Fathers, we can now see the basis of
our conventional laws as well as those constraints placed upon the government's powers.
Thanks to Judges Debbie Mantooth Stricklin and Sherman Ross who participated in the
dedication ceremony, Harris County Commissioners Court who approved the display, and
the large number of judges and lawyers who attended our dedication. Aspecial thanks to
Robert Fickman and JoAnne Musick for making these documents a reality.
Please take a few minutes to view and honor these documents so that we may never forget
the individual liberties they guarantee to us all .
JoAnn Musick comments on her role in
bringing the documents to the courthouse. Fickman &Hon. Sherman Ross
SPRING
}JvceJ V
ADvERtisinG AAtES:
FvLL insiDE PAGE [non-COVEpJ - $700.00 per issue I $2,520
InsiDE FJU)n1' $800.00 per issue I $2,880.00 per year
insiDE $750.00 per issue I $2,700.00 per year
$800.00 per issue I $2,880.00 per year
2/3 PAGE - $600.00 per issue I $2,160.00 per year
112 PAGE - $500.00 per issue I $1,800.00 per year
113 PAGE - $400.00 per issue I $1,440.00 per year
114 PAGE - $250.00 per issue I $900.00 per year
BvsinEss CARP SiZE - $125.00 per issue I $450.00 per year
CORUction FR..OIII tHE LASt iSSVE:
The article "Brother Batson, We Hardly Knew Ye" in the
issue erroneously stated that the prosecutor used her
strike on a minority juror, in addition to using seven ofher
peremptory strikes on African-American venirepersons. The
alternate strike was exercised against a Caucasian.
IN BECOMING AMEMBER?
HCClA
-+ Promotesaproductiveexchange of ideasand encourages
bettercommunication with prosecutorsand the
-+ Provides continuinglegal education programsfor improving
advocacyskillsand knowledge.
-+ Promotesajustapplicationofthe court-appointed lawyer
system forindigentpersonschargedwith criminal offenses.
-+ Files amicuscuriaebriefs in supportoffreedom and
human rights.
APPLICATION
Applicant:
Mailingaddress:
Tc:lephone:
Fax:
Email:
Website:
Firm Name:
Dateadmitted tobar:
Law school:
Protessional organizationsin which YOII areamemberin good standing:
T)(pe ofmembership;
o Student($25 annual fee)
Expected graduation date: ____
o Newly licensed (firstyear) attorney ($75)
o Regularmembership ($150)
Patei
Signatureofapplicant:
Endorsement:
I,amemberingoodstandingofHCCLA,believe this applicant
to be a person ofprofessional competency, integrity and good
moralcharacter.Theapplicantis activelyengaged in the ddcnse
ofcriminal cases.
Date:
Signatureofmember:
Membername:
MAILTHISAPPLICATION TO:
HeCLA
P.O. BOX22773,Houston,Texas 77027
713.227.2404
sPRinG2007
PRESORTED STANDARD
U.S. POSTAGE PAID
HOUSTON, TEXAS
PERMIT NO. 11500
II", II., , III",, II"II"",1.1,I"I", II"II,I ",1.1.1.1,,I,I
T5-9sxxxxxxxxAUTOxx3-0IGIT 770
MR. EARL D. MUSICK
MUSICK & MUSICK LLP
363 ::;;Atj F'f:J./'/ E ::::TE 1100
HOUSTON TX 77060-2413