Only Results Matter

kerry book.jpgThe case of State of Texas v. Kerry Max Cook, the twenty year series of trials and appeals in which the State of Texas through the Smith County District Attorney’s Office (Tyler, TX), continually lied, knowingly presented perjured evidence, and did everything evil that rogue prosecutors are able to do, is a tale of one brave individual who survived it all and lives to tell about it today. Tried in 1978 and convicted on the false testimony of a jailhouse snitch, whose motive for testifying – a 2 year sentence in his own murder case – was withheld from the defense, who was personally coached by the prosecution into testifying to a detailed false confession, together with a false opinion of a state “expert” who claimed to be able to judge the age of fingerprints on a door, and the hiding of evidence by the prosecution of exculpatory evidence including evidence that Kerry Cook had been invited to the victim’s apartment three days earlier (which explained his fingerprints), were all part of an evil recipe to convict and kill a young boy for the sake of prosecution politics and statistics. Justice be damned.

I wish I could tell you the entire story, but instead I encourage you to read the story of Mr. Cook as only he can tell it, in his book Chasing Justice. It details the investigation and defense of his case, and the sordid details of life on death row as a young boy from East Texas. Mr. Cook vividly details being sexually assaulted in prison and life in Texas prisons in the late 70s and 80s. His appeal sat on the dockets of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals (where death penalty appeals are directly sent to speed up the killing process), for eight years. Yes, eight years went by before his first appeal could be heard and he could proceed to the United States Supreme Court. Although the Dallas Morning News and other investigative journalists tracked down the “jailhouse snitch,” who admitted that his testimony was a total fabrication.

salem_witch_museum.jpgThe convict-at-all-costs mentality that surrounds these cases is why many defense lawyers will tell you that aggravated sexual assault of a child trials have become the Salem Witch trials of modern times. One on trial in Texas for aggravated sexual assault of a child might as well be on trial in 17th century Salem, Massachusetts for the charge of consorting with Satan. One’s friends, neighbors and even family often come in and bear false witness against the accused for whatever motive or because they believe the child, and when the accused speaks in his defense, well we would expect someone consorting with Satan to deny that they were consorting with Satan.

The State will argue that we should expect no hard evidence or eyewitnesses because we would expect such perpetrators to do their deeds in secret with nobody around, because nobody consorting with Satan would allow there to be any witnesses to their crime lest they reveal themselves as evil doers. So we shouldn’t expect any evidence in such cases except the testimony of young children, and we all know that children do not lie (even when a parent prompts them to do so) (in fact, research indicates that a supermajority of children under 6 will repeat to another that uncle Bob put something yucky in their mouth when prompted by a parent). Such are the difficulties of such cases, making some forget that American justice has always placed the burden on the government of providing legitimate evidence to prove beyond any reasonable doubt that a person committed a crime to a fair and impartial jury.

So, when faced with the heinous accusation of aggravated sexual assault of a child, particularly in Texas where politics and religion can intermix with career law enforcement/child welfare workers who commit perjury to protect their jobs, a plea-bargain offer for paroleable time or probation may appear an attractive option to some, even when innocent. But a plea to such a crime or lesser included offense is never really an attractive option. So, if you or your family member faces such a false accusation, you need an attorney highly experienced criminal law specialist and with a winning record in such cases.

toddler.jpgLast session, the Texas Legislature enacted Texas’s version “Jessica’s Law,” which increased the penalties for the crimes of aggravated sexual assault of a child under 6 and continuous sexual assault of a child. While most of us agree that a legitimate charge of such an offense should warrant a harsh punishment, those falsely accused of aggravated sexual assault of a child or continuous sexual assault of a child are painted into an even harder corner simply by being indicted. While these cases can be difficult to prosecute for various reasons, the legislation raises the issue once again of should we create such a stacked deck of state witnesses/false or highly questionable expertise, combined with draconian punishment schemes, whereby we dramatically increase the chance of false convictions to keep more of the guilty from getting away.

Under the new law, if an innocent person is convicted of such a crime, on no more evidence than the false testimony of a child (normally coached by a parent with motive to fabricate, and the children coming to believe the story themselves), he faces a minimum of twenty five years incarceration in the penitentiary. This time is served without the possibility of parole or “good time” credit. Thus, claiming your innocence and going to trial means you face a strong chance of dying in prison if a jury – who does not want to believe that a young child could tell such a story if false – takes the invitation of the prosecutor to rely on their own bias, prejudice and sympathies to convict. We all have strong feelings about such cases, and it is difficult to set aside these feelings and give a defendant the presumption of innocence and true “beyond a reasonable doubt” burden of proof due to our fears of children getting hurt.

Also highly concerning is that political prosecutors (elected in Texas) love to obtain such convictions that they can sell to the voters to show that they are “tough” and protecting your children – regardless of the innocence or strong evidence of innocence of the person accused. When State witnesses are shown to have committed perjury in appeals or subsequent proceedings, such actions are generally swept under the rug and the public is kept unaware. In “he-said/she-said” cases such as these, witnesses fabricating on the State’s behalf can be particularly lethal, where juries are searching for testimony to convict on. Jurors often take the “cloak of the State” as carrying more credibility than the average person off the street, and these witnesses know that (and know that they are unlikely to be prosecuted if exposed) when they twist and manipulate to help convict someone accused of such a horrible crime.

marijuana.jpgHow do you or a loved one end up in the Eastern District of Texas, particularly the Sherman division, sitting in the Fannin County Jail in Bonham, Texas on a drug conspiracy charge? Well, the Sherman Division (with courthouses in Sherman and Plano, Texas) is a choice forum for the United States Department of Justice. They are much more likely to get a conviction in the Sherman Division of the Eastern District of Texas than in Dallas, Texas, located in the Northern District of Texas. The Sherman Division is much more white, conservative and affluent than Dallas. The makeup of jury pools is overwhelmingly white (about 85%, compared to less than 50% in Dallas), and the Sherman Division venue contains Collin and Denton counties, wealthy suburban counties in which all persons are more likely to be more white collar and conservative.

To bring a conspiracy case whose acts occur mostly in Dallas into the Sherman Division of the Eastern District of Texas, some connection to the Eastern District (but not a whole lot) is required. The law of venue requires that an agreement be made in, or an “overt act” take place in or through the Eastern District. Venue is an element of the offense, meaning that at trial the Government must prove venue in the Eastern District of Texas beyond a reasonable doubt.

However, only one overt act in the conspiracy must take place in the Eastern District of Texas for venue to lie here for the entire conspiracy. That is how a person who may have never been north of Dallas or Tarrant County has landed in an Eastern District of Texas conspiracy case and now sits in Bonham, Texas in the Fannin County Jail awaiting trial. It’s called forum shopping, and it isn’t limited to plaintiff’s lawyers. However, when boatloads of Hispanics and African Americans are forum shopped from a minority-rich to an extremely conservative white venue, the ends of justice should require more than a distant, tangential act to bring them before a more foreign venue. Federal statutes and Department of Justice policy provide little relief to such activity, so the case will to a virtual certainly be tried in the Eastern District.

drugs and guns.jpgFederal prosecutors use the power of “conspiracy” prosecutions to obtain convictions all over the United States without the burden of proving that an individual committed the actual, substantive crime. Many people finding themselves charged in kilogram or multi-kilogram conspiracies although they may have simply been innocent or a user (innocent of conspiring to distribute), aggravated user (selling enough to support a habit), street dealer or trafficker. To understand conspiracy law, the best place to start with is the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals pattern jury charge. If you go to trial in the Eastern District of Texas federal court on a drug conspiracy indictment, the jury will be given the following instruction:

Title 21, United States Code, Section 846, makes it a crime for anyone to conspire with someone else to commit a violation of certain controlled substances laws of the United States. In this case, the defendant is charged with conspiring to (distribute controlled substance(s), namely ____ or possess with the intent to distribute controlled substance(s), namely ____.)

A “conspiracy” is an agreement between two or more persons to join together to accomplish some unlawful purpose. It is a kind of “partnership in crime” in which each member becomes the agent of every other member.

syringes_and_vial.jpg“Is your commitment to life as deep as your commitment to the truth?” This is the question I was forced to ask myself this past week as I worked through an exercise at the 2011 Death Penalty Seminar at Gerry Spence’s Trial Lawyers College. Truth and life seem to be pretty equally essential values, in my opinion, but as trial lawyers our commitment to the truth must be unquestionable – lest our case be exposed as unbelievable or even contrived. The credibility of our cases as criminal defense lawyers is the key ingredient for success, so we go overboard to sift through the evidence to find the emotional and physical truth of each case. We spend long hours with our clients to truly know and love them and as individuals. Must we also abhor the death penalty and all its inconsistencies and injustices so recently exposed?

A capital lawyer has the unique burden and duty to show that a defendant’s life is worth saving in every case. Period. The high-profile cases overturned in recently years are typically due to the capital defendant’s lawyer not doing the legwork (even basic legwork such as looking at readily available files), in order to tell the true story of how their client went from being a precious baby to becoming “the defendant.” What can cause such an injustice except for the lawyer not caring about his client’s life enough? If the image of him being strapped to the gurney and three doses of lethal drugs being injected into his veins (one to knock him out, one to stop the air, and one to stop the breathing), does not make you lose sleep at night and feel overburdened, one should probably not be doing capital defense. But must one be opposed to the death penalty in every case, or just in their own cases? Such are the deep questions that can only be answered in the heart.

How else are we to overcome some of the most gruesome facts to show that life in prison is a real punishment – even for the most unspeakable crimes? How can we truly connect with the client who committed such acts, and form a working relationship in order to fight through to a not guilty or a life sentence. The condemned are often persons for whom their lawyers made virtually no effort to connect with as individuals at any emotional level. If so, how could their story really be told to a jury of twelve people who stated they could impose the death penalty? And if their lawyer supports the death penalty, how can that lawyer fight his hardest against an institution and a result for which he supports in theory?

supreme court.jpgYou have the right to counsel of your choice. If you can afford it, you need to hire the best attorney for your case that you can. Under current economic conditions, many cannot afford the attorney they need and must petition the court for counsel. If indigent by standards set in Texas, you are entitled to a court appointed attorney (but cannot choose which specific attorney).

Courts have an awesome (sometimes life and death) responsibility to appoint lawyers in capital case dedicated to going the extra mile to ensure that the accused truly has the most able assistance of counsel possible. The Code of Criminal Procedures sets the minimum qualification for such counsel. Additionally, the 6th Amendment to the US Constitution guarantees ALL persons accused of a crime the right to effective assistance of counsel. But what does this mean? Surely someone simply standing or sitting (or sleeping) by the client as the prosecutor buries him is not enough. You don’t get a lawyer just to hold your hand while you plead guilty, or even one to do an OK job but miss key facts.

Courts have held that you are, at a minimum, entitled to a lawyer whose performance in your case is reasonable under prevailing professional norms (mainly established by the American Bar Association) and whose representation does not prejudice your case. However, appellate courts presume that a lawyer’s representation is reasonable, and that most choices made in the course of representation are “trial strategy.” Lawyers will oftentimes lie about their errors (or motives for committing them) in post-conviction challenges to protect their reputation at the expense of their client’s freedom or life. That is the reality.

jail.jpgFalse accusations of sexual abuse plague our court system, locally and statewide, putting innocent people at risk of life in prison and wasting resources that could be used prosecuting legitimate cases. The typical false allegation case arises when kids are “coached” by an authority figure to make a false claim against another, with a motive for the adult to coach the child. Research shows that, after such coaching, children can start believing that the sexual assault took place the more often they are told (and tell themselves) the false story.

A case apparently on point is the Mineola Swinger’s case, which originated in Wood County, but went to trial in more prosecution-friendly Smith County, Texas. As reported on WFAA.com, the case began (supposedly) when four children in foster care accused a handful of adults of training them to perform sexual acts on stage at a nightclub in Mineola, a horrific tale which shocks the conscience upon reading its details.

However, the true background of the story is that these children’s professional foster parents, believed by defense lawyers to have coached the story, were themselves being investigated for abuse charges out of California during the relevant time period, and none of the children’s allegations have been corroborated by any evidence outside of the other children’s statements. Additionally, their foster mother was improperly allowed to sit in on their interviews by the Ranger investigating, further taining the evidence. Regardless, three citizens, based on the children’s testimony, trial court rulings which favored the State even when obviously contrary to clearly established law, and potential prosecutorial misconduct in suppressing key evidence favorable to the accused, several people were sentenced to life in prison. They were fortunate to have appellate lawyers who brought much of the misdeeds to light on appeal in State of Texas v. Patrick Kelly.

pills.jpgAmerica is a pill culture. Every day a large percentage of our population drives the highways of Texas under the care of prescription medication that can possibly effect their mental or physical abilities. Key word: possibly. Each individual is in the best position to use their judgment as to when they should or should not drive, but you should exercise caution when driving on prescription medication, because it can lead to a DWI arrest. If an officer believes that you have lost the normal use of your physical or mental faculties because of a certain drug, you can be arrested. This includes your own medication. Drugs such as “narcotics” and “painkillers” and “antidepressants/psychotropics” are ones that will get the closest look. And, most officers are not trained extensively on testing for the side effects of these drugs like they are trained to test for alcohol impairment.

Add in alcohol, which could possibly (again, possibly) increase the side effects of certain drugs, and things become much more difficult. Officers have a difficult time in judging how one medication interacts with another, or interacts with alcohol. The prejudice factor is very high, so err on the side of caution when choosing to drive with alcohol, and be much more careful when mixing it with prescription medications. There is a strong likelihood that a DWI stop will result in your arrest, and you will need a lawyer and a toxicologist to help the jury understand why you could have been okay to drive at that point.

If you or someone you know is facing criminal prosecution, please feel free to call me at 903-744-4252.

248031_pills.jpgI recently had the pleasure (and challenge) of representing a particular client that was charged with DWI 3rd or more in Fannin County. The case was unique because the client consented to a blood draw, and in client’s blood was half the legal limit of alcohol (.04), a narcotic analgesic (painkiller) and a central nervous system depressant (muscle relaxer). The State’s theory was “synergistic effect of the drugs,” i.e. that the combination of the drugs caused intoxication. The police officer testified to arresting client for failure to complete the field sobriety test to officer’s satisfaction, plus admission of alcohol and painkillers. However, the officer could not recognize the field sobriety manual for lack of being provided one at training. Also, the officer was also not trained on drug recognition, an additional training course for DWI detection due to drugs or a combination of drugs and alcohol.

Additionally, the lab tech who drew the blood admitted that a nurse could have been called pretty easily to test client’s vital signs and to test for intoxication by drugs plus alcohol. The chemist who tested the blood testified and admitted to the hour-long average time to peak ratio, i.e. that it takes about an hour from the last drink to reach your highest concentration. Another chemist testified to “potential side effects” of the narcotic analgesic and nervous system depressants, but admitted on cross that someone that had taken these types as long as client would have a pretty high tolerance level. Another chemist proved up the actual narcotic analgesic tablets found on client.

A pharmacist was called who also testified to the “potential” side effects of these drugs, but admitted that after a few years the narcotic analgesic in question could actually cause euphoric-like energy, and admitted to tolerance issues as well. All admitted that the levels in client’s blood were therapudic. Most admitted to the overt signs of intoxication by the drugs in question that we may have seen through a drug recognition exam (or simple medical exam), had client actually been tested (or his vital signs taken) at the hospital where the blood was drawn.

Contact Information