What is Mitigation?

November 8, 2020

By Criminal Defense Lawyer Jeremy Rosenthal

(972) 369-0577

www.texasdefensefirm.com

“Mitigation” means making something less severe, serious, or painful.  In criminal law it refers to learning, seeking and providing facts which reduce someone’s potential punishment.

Mitigation is Important in Every Single Case

A big misunderstanding is mitigation and trying to get an acquittal are mutually exclusive – they are not.  People think you somehow admit guilt if you try to take mitigation steps after an arrest such as seeing a mental health professional or entering drug and alcohol treatment.

You can still fight for innocence at the same time you try to explain or lessen the harshness of the possible punishment coming towards defendant.  In fact, we are legally bound to do so and it can constitute ineffective assistance of counsel to ignore mitigation.

A solid mitigation case actually strengthens our ability to fight for an acquittal.  This is because we are less concerned about severe punishment in the event a jury disagrees with us and finds the defendant guilty despite our best efforts.

Mitigation Which Looks Backwards

Mitigation can help explain why the Defendant is in the predicament they are in.  Examples of backward looking mitigation to explain or give context to someone’s actions often include:

  • Mental health or psychological disorders
    • anxiety
    • ADHD
    • Depression
    • Bi-Polar Disorder
    • Psychosis
    • Manic episodes
  • Past sexual abuse of the accused;
  • Past physical abuse of the accused;
  • Past or childhood emotional abuse of the accused;
  • Addiction and history of addiction of the accused.

When Someone Has a Great History

Another form of backwards mitigation is potentially where an accused has never been in trouble at all.  Certainly someone who has been straight as an arrow their entire lives do deserve some credit and lenience in many cases.  The same goes for people who really have their act together and are – for example – in school making straight A’s and helping build houses for homeless people on the weekends.

Mitigation which Looks Forward

Any mitigation must have a forward path to be effective.  Explaining to the judge or jury an accused has been able to explain or identify why they have a particular problem is great.  It lets the jury know the accused isn’t an evil person.  But without a path forward to correct things – a judge or jury might feel they need to incarcerate the person to protect society in the future.

Forward mitigation could include steps taken by the accused after the arrest.  Examples are endless of the types of steps which can be taken to hopefully re-assure folks criminal behavior won’t repeat itself with the accused.  Examples might be;

  • Drug and alcohol treatment
  • psychological treatment
  • Sex offender therapy or treatment
  • Rage or anger management treatment.

Examples of Mitigation in Criminal Cases

  • A classic and easy to understand example are Driving While Intoxicated cases.  I explain to clients everyone at the courthouse including prosecutors, judges and probation officers think (1) someone arrested for DWI is not only guilty – but they’ve probably gotten away with it 100 times we don’t know about; and (2) all people arrested for drunk driving are alcoholics.  Those assumptions may be completely fair or unfair – but those are the attitudes we will have to over-come in a case whether we like it or not.

If we can convince the courthouse types not only did the defendant get screwed by being arrested in the first place – but also he’s perfectly fine to drive – it only strengthen’s our overall hand.

Bottom Line on Both Forward and Backward Mitigation

A criminal defense lawyer cannot assume they are just going to win every case no matter how confident we are we will ultimately win.  The Courts have held repeatedly to ignore mitigation is ineffective assistance of counsel.  Mitigation also helps us strengthen our hand and ability to fight the case on multiple fronts – not just sympathy or correcting certain behavior.

*Jeremy Rosenthal is board certified in criminal law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization.  He is recognized as a Texas Super Lawyer by Thomson Reuters.


Podcast: Marijuana Legalization

October 29, 2020

By Criminal Defense Lawyer Jeremy Rosenthal

(972) 369-0577

www.texasdefensefirm.com

I’ve been doing a podcast this fall and I’m calling it simply, “The Lawyer Show.”  Every Thursday I interview another lawyer from a different area of law for an hour and mainly I do a lot of listening.  The episode on cannabis and legalization of marijuana was as fascinating as it gets.

A few weeks ago, I talked with California corporate lawyer Josh Schneiderman – and believe it or not — he advises and represents companies in the cannabis industry in California.  I learned a ton about how marijuana legalization might look and work in Texas.

It’s been nothing short of stunning for me to see the shift in attitudes in Texas since the time I was a prosecutor here.  It’s still a criminal offense – but for how long is anyone’s guess.  Enjoy the interview.

*Jeremy Rosenthal is board certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization.  He has been designated as a Texas Super Lawyer by Thomson Reuters.


Is it a Crime to Have a Positive Drug Test?

October 21, 2020

By Criminal Defense Lawyer Jeremy Rosenthal

www.texasdefensefirm.com

(972) 369-0577

It’s not a crime in Texas to fail a drug test or urine analysis (“UA”).  Possession of any illegal drug such as marijuana, cocaine, or any other controlled substance without a prescription is defined as “actual care, custody, control or management.”  Tex.Pen.C. 1.07(39).  Failing a UA does not demonstrate this as backward as it may sound.

Texas courts apply what is known as the Corpus Delecti rule.  Corpus Delecti is latin for “body of the crime.”  The prosecution in every case must prove a crime was committed.  An out of court confession, in and of itself, is never enough to sustain a conviction.

A classic and more clear example of corpus delicti is someone who confesses to arson – yet the building the person claims to have burned to the ground is completely unharmed.  Legally, this is indistinguishable from a person failing a drug test to prove a person had “actual care, custody, control or management” of a drug they shouldn’t have had.

You Can Still Be in Trouble for Failing Drug Tests

If you are on bond for a crime – a failed UA is legally sufficient to hold your bond insufficient and have you re-arrested.  It can also be grounds for a motion to revoke probation or a motion to adjudicate.  This is because the formal requirements of the corpus delicti rule are loosened for these proceedings and because typically terms of bond and/or probation are more broad as well to prohibit failing drug tests.

*Jeremy Rosenthal is certified in criminal law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization.  He is designated as a Texas Super Lawyer by Thomson Reuters.


Mental Illness & Criminal Law: What is Legal Competency?

October 17, 2020

By Criminal Defense Laywer Jeremy Rosenthal

www.texasdefensefirm.com

(972) 369-0577

“Competency” is the ability to stand trial.  Texas law provides a complex web of procedures which deal with making sure an accused is mentally capable of being tried.

“Incompetency Defined”

It is defined by Tex.Code.Crim.P. 46B.003 which holds:

(a) A person is incompetent to stand trial if the person does not have:

(1) sufficient present ability to consult with the person’s lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational understanding; or

(2) a rational as well as factual understanding of the proceedings against the person.

(b) A defendant is presumed competent to stand trial and shall be found competent to stand trial unless proved incompetent by a preponderance of the evidence.

Translation:  competency is a somewhat low threshold.

A Rational, Factual Understanding Isn’t Enough

A misnomer is where a person understands basics about their charge such as the nature of the accusation, the role of defense counsel, the prosecutor and the judge – that they are okay to be tried.  Even judges make this mistake.

The person’s “sufficient present ability to consult with the person’s lawyer” is also crucial.  Often highly intelligent and high functioning defendants can still sometimes not have a coherent discussion with counsel.

Many people suffering from things like severe anxiety, manic behavior, or racing thoughts simply can’t keep it together for the time it takes for their lawyer to properly advise them – let alone try to get details to mount an effective defense.  To me, this is the very essence of “incompetency.”

Suggestion of Incompetency

If a lawyer is concerned their client may have enough issues which affect their ability to stand trial – the lawyer can and should file with the Court a “Suggestion of Incompetency.”  It puts the case on pause though it does sound a bit harsh.  The prosecution can file the motion and in some instances the Court can make the suggestion as well.

The trial judge then appoints a mental health professional to do a competency evaluation.  The Court then holds a hearing after the evaluation is complete and finds either defendant is competent to stand trial or he/she is incompetent for the purposes of trial.  If they are competent then the case resumes.

What Happens When the Accused is Found to be “Incompetent”

Mental health professionals attempt to restore the accused to competency through mental health treatment.  It can be in-patient or out-patient depending on the severity of the charge, whether the person is on bond, and the resources available to the county.

Any confinement in a state hospital cannot exceed the maximum punishment range for the charge.  In other words the maximum punishment for assault causing bodily injury is 1-year.  In theory a person could be confined for the entire year being ‘restored’ but no longer.

Mental health providers routinely update the Court and if the person is restored to competency — sometimes as simply as getting a person the correct medication — the case then proceeds.

What Happens When the Defense And Prosecution Disagree About Competency?

Most of the time the Judge, prosecution and defense agree on competency issues.  In cases where we don’t, Defendant has the right to invoke a right to a jury to prove they are, in fact, incompetent to stand trial.  This would be a way of demanding help for mental illness where the prosecution and/or Judge minimize the impact of mental health or see it as an excuse to avoid responsibility for a crime.

Why Would Someone’s Own Lawyer File a Suggestion of Incompetency Which Could Result in Confinement?

This is a fantastic question.  And perhaps they shouldn’t for this very reason depending on the severity (or lack of severity) of the charges.  A lawyer hired to defend a client from the charges they are facing.  A client needs to be able to fight those charges.  If a lawyer were to enter into a plea bargain or have the client participate in a trial they doesn’t understand – this could very often lead to a far worse result than mental health restoration in a state hospital.  Again – this precise issue is a fantastic debate without a clear answer.

*Jeremy Rosenthal is board certified in criminal law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization.  He is designated as a Texas Super Lawyer by Thomson Reuters.


Mental Illness & Criminal Law: Mental Health Bonds

October 16, 2020

By Criminal Defense Lawyer Jeremy Rosenthal

www.texasdefensefirm.com

(972) 369-0577

Texas law does provide an avenue for the mentally ill to get out of jail without having to pay a bond.  Not everyone who suffers from mental illness is entitled to relief under Texas law.  As you might expect, Texas law lags in different areas for various reasons.

 

Mental Health Bonds

 

Tex.Code.Crim.P. 17.032 allows for a mental health bond.  The judge is required to let the person get out of jail for free — i.e. not have to pay a bond amount — provided they comply with the statute.

Here are the qualifications for a Mental Health Bond:

  • They cannot be charged with a violent offense;
  • They cannot have been previously convicted of a violent offense;
  • They must be examined by mental health personnel with the County;
  • The report by the County must conclude –
    • Defendant suffers from mental illness or intellectual disability;
    • Defendant is otherwise legally competent to stand trial;
    • Defendant is recommended to receive mental health treatment or treatment for the intellectual disability;
  • The Judge must also find the county is capable of treatment.

If all of these criterion are met, then the Judge is required to release Defendant.  Typically a treatment plan is implemented which may include in-patient or outpatient services along with a host of other requirements the person must comply with.

Shortcomings of the Mental Health PR Bond Statute

The statute isn’t perfect.  Many counties don’t have the infrastructure or ability to treat the mentally ill – so a person can actually be kept in jail because their county is unable to treat them.

Also, the mental health release provision allows people in a certain “box” or range of mental illness too — if a person is mentally ill, yet not so deteriorated they are legally incompetent for trial — then they qualify for the bond.  If they are too mentally ill, then they don’t qualify.

*Jeremy Rosenthal is Board Certified in Criminal Law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization.  He is designated as a Texas Super Lawyer by Thomson Reuters.