Can I Change Lawyers in a Criminal Case?

January 11, 2021

By Criminal Defense Lawyer Jeremy Rosenthal

(972) 369-0577

www.texasdefensefirm.com

You can change lawyers in a criminal case but it’s subject to the Judge’s approval.

Most judges readily agree unless it will cause a significant and/or unnecessary delay in the proceedings.  I’ve never seen a judge stop or prevent a substitution early in the proceedings well before the case is set for trial – or even several months before a trial setting.

Judges get annoyed, though, when someone wants to substitute on the eve of trial or with just weeks before.  Judge also get irked when someone tries to substitute lawyers multiple times which the court often sees as a delay tactic.

A Client is Entitled to the Lawyer of Their Choice

The Sixth Amendment to the US Constitution guarantees right to counsel.  In retained or hired cases, it is generally accepted and understood the person gets counsel of their own choosing.  There are limitations, though.  Counsel must be a member of the bar, counsel can refuse representation, and the court can step in if there are other extenuating circumstances (such as if the court detects a serious conflict of interest or the court feels the representation is inadequate).

Why Does the Judge Need to Approve of a Change?

A judge is responsible for managing their cases and their docket and the integrity of the adversary legal system.  When a lawyer files a pleading or a letter of representation – the lawyer is legally and ethically binding themselves to representation in that case through the completion of the case.

A lawyer representing a party in case before a judge is known as an “officer of the court.”   A judge, then, can depend on the lawyer and require the lawyer to be present to represent their client when the Judge says so.  A judge can require a lawyer to handle a case even against that lawyer’s wishes if circumstances demand.

What Are Good Reasons to Change Lawyers?

This is a person-by-person choice.  I get calls all the time who are either upset or worried about their lawyer.  When I do visit with folks in this setting – I always do my best to see the situation from their lawyer’s point-of-view.  They are almost always in a better position to evaluate the case because they’re knee deep in the case and I’m not (yet).

The most common reasons I hear when folks come to me wanting to change from their previous lawyer are lack of communication, concern about qualifications or strategy, and general lack of confidence.  While I really will try to see the case from the viewpoint of the previous lawyer – I always want to make sure I’m not just telling the client what they want to hear.  If their previous lawyer has been doing a great job then I let the client know.  Even if I don’t get hired, I’ve helped the client have more faith in their lawyer.

Ultimately it is about the client’s comfort and confidence in counsel.  It is a bedrock of the lawyer-client relationship.

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

Comments Off on Can I Change Lawyers in a Criminal Case? | Appeals, Assault, Cannabis, Civil Liberties, crimes against children, Deadly Conduct, Divorce related crimes, Drugs, DWI, Emergency Protective Orders, habeas corpus, sex cases, sex crimes, sex offender registration, Sexual Abuse of a Child | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by niftybrady

When an Interlock Ignition Device is Required for a DWI – and When it Comes Off

January 10, 2021

By DFW Criminal Defense Lawyer Jeremy Rosenthal

(972) 369-0577

www.texasdefensefirm.com

The blow devices to start your car (also known as “deep lung devices,” “DLDs,” or “Interlock Ignition Devices”) have been one of the most major developments in DWI cases over the last 15 years.

The Texas Legislature and courts have been increasingly requiring them in impaired driving cases.  In some circumstances they can be ordered to be placed on your car immediately after an arrest and can remain on the vehicle even after a person finishes probation years later.  The legislature has even incentivized folks to get interlock devices by offering benefits such as non-disclosure eligibility if someone voluntarily keeps one on their car during probation when they otherwise wouldn’t be required to keep one.

Possible Times when a DLD Can Be Ordered By A Judge

 

As you can see, the case has many times where the interlock can be ordered onto the car by the Judge.  Many of these time periods can and do run consecutively and over-lap meaning the interlock may simply stay on from the point a person gets it onto their car until the case is finished.

Ignition interlock providers claim it can only be removed by court order and have this provision in their service contracts… so they typically won’t even remove the device unless or until they see a court order.

What if You Don’t Drive Anymore or Can’t Have the Interlock for Some Other Reason?

Most judges will allow you to substitute a hand-held device for an interlock device though I’ve not found any support in the code for this.  If you have questions or need an alternative or to substitute the interlock device then speak with your lawyer.

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

Comments Off on When an Interlock Ignition Device is Required for a DWI – and When it Comes Off | Divorce related crimes, DWI, probation, Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by niftybrady

Can Police Track Your Phone?

January 8, 2021

By Criminal Defense Lawyer Jeremy Rosenthal

(972) 369-0577

www.texasdefensefirm.com

The short answer is yes – but there are ever increasing legal hurdles in law enforcement’s way.  The issue is highly complex, evolving and will continue to evolve as technology changes society.  No page-long blog will do the topic justice but I hope to give you at least a basic legal primer.

The 4th Amendment to the US Constitution is your right to be free from “unreasonable” searches and seizures from your government.  Tracking a person’s phone either in real-time or after the fact has been the subject of intense legal scrutiny for some time now.

Is Tracking Your Phone a Search Within the Meaning of the 4th Amendment?

Courts agree inspecting the contents of your phone, wiretapping a phone call, or affixing a GPS monitor to a persons vehicle are “searches” within the meaning of the 4th amendment.  It’s taken some time for courts establish these norms but they have all one by one been accepted.

Much of what constitutes a “search” hinges on what we consider our own “expectation of privacy.”  We all have a much higher expectation of privacy in our night stand drawer than in our bag we’re bringing on a plane.  So the courts have had to answer the question of where does the smart-phone and the information rank between the two extremes?

The answer is different today than it was in 2005 because of the advances in technology and because of our reliance on smart device technology… and because of both of those things we have different expectations of what is or isn’t private about our phones.

Courts now recognize the contents of our phones today contain work information, banking information, medical information, information about the books we read, the historical figures we admire, who we’re angry with in our family, where we’ve been, where we plan on going in three months or in an hour…  In short we have developed an intense dependency and sense of privacy about our phones and the courts know this to be true.

Is Tracking a Phone an “Unreasonable” Search?

Again – what is reasonable changes.  A “reasonable” search at an airport on September 12, 2001 might not have been considered as such on September 10, 2001.  Our more intense reliance and privacy with the phones make them harder and harder for police to justify tracking or searching.

But understand an “unreasonable” search becomes reasonable if law enforcement can legally and procedurally justify attaining whatever it is they’re looking for.  The legal question is just how much justification do they need and whether it requires attaining a warrant?

What Information Can Police Attain About Your Phone & How They Get It

I’m not a technology expert so I don’t know what and how the police can track.  I’m sure if they’re not tracking phones in real time already then at some point I’m sure there will be the capability for them to do that.  Probation departments and supervision departments can require either software or hardware downloads which allows them to track usage – but that’s not the same thing because in those instances the individual knows – and has often agreed – to being tracked.

Phone Dumps and Downloads

The law is more clear in this area – police need a warrant to get into your phone if you don’t consent to it being searched.  What they can get once they get in your phone is a technology question which I don’t have the qualifications to answer… but I’m sure this is an evolving cat and mouse game like everything else in the law/ technology realm.

Records

Police can and often do obtain records from data providers and other third parties such as apps from their private offices.  The mechanisms may vary from State to State but the providers may be able to voluntarily provide records to law enforcement based on the terms and conditions of the usage – or as is more often the case – law enforcement can subpoena the records.  In some instances the federal government requires third parties to report certain activity to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children.

Also, third parties who may have records the police want such as Facebook or Twitter or some of your other tech giants can be extraordinarily difficult to deal with for both law enforcement and the defense due to nothing more than their sheer size, amount of data they mine, and amount of users they have.  They have legal compliance departments but even Court Orders have the ability to sit in someone’s pile or in-box for who knows how long.

Courts are moving in the direction of requiring warrants to accompany the requests but this is an intensely complex and evolving area of the law.  Many of the third-party companies host apps and aren’t in the United States.  This adds yet another layer of complexity.

Bottom Line

For the police or law enforcement to track your phone after the fact or in real time is currently and will be one of the great battle-lines in courtrooms for the 21st century going forward.  This question is truly the convergence and intersection between radically evolving civil liberties and radically evolving technological capabilities.

Stay tuned.

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

 

 

 

 

 

Comments Off on Can Police Track Your Phone? | Civil Liberties, Computer Crimes, crimes against children, Divorce related crimes, Federal Court, federal criminal defense, Murder, Police, Police and Prosecutors, sex cases, sex crimes, Sexual Abuse of a Child, Uncategorized, Vehicular Homicide | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by niftybrady

What is Cyberbullying and When is it a Crime?

January 3, 2021

By Texas Criminal Defense Lawyer Jeremy Rosenthal

(972) 369-0577

www.texasdefensefirm.com

Texas laws on cyberbullying are somewhat smattered in different places.  Some laws are civil and could result in being sued, other infractions may result in school discipline and others are actually criminal.

Cyberbullying Defined

Harassment or stalking is what most people would consider cyberbullying behavior but online conduct aimed at demeaning, harming or threatening others and may take a variety of forms.

The Texas legislature has tried to address cyberbullying in criminal contexts but – there are balances with the first amendment and there is always the problem of keeping up with the ever-changing technological and social norms.

How the Education Code Defines Cyberbullying:

“Cyberbullying” means bullying that is done through the use of any electronic communication device, including through the use of a cellular or other type of telephone, a computer, a camera, electronic mail, instant messaging, text messaging, a social media application, an Internet website, or any other Internet-based communication tool.

It’s extremely important to remember, though, the Texas Education Code doesn’t make cyberbullying a crime.  It only gives school authorities enhanced abilities to deal with the problem.  The reason for this approach is likely the First Amendment which makes it more difficult for the government to actually punish someone for speech or a communication.

How the Penal Code Defines Cyberbullying:

Texas Harassment statute (Texas Penal Code 42.07) was intended to protect against cyberbullying and it reads (in relevant part),

(a) A person commits an offense if, with intent to harass, annoy, alarm, abuse, torment, or embarrass another, the person:

(1) initiates communication and in the course of the communication makes a comment, request, suggestion, or proposal that is obscene;

(2) threatens, in a manner reasonably likely to alarm the person receiving the threat, to inflict bodily injury on the person or to commit a felony against the person, a member of the person’s family or household, or the person’s property;

…

(6) knowingly permits a telephone under the person’s control to be used by another to commit an offense under this section; or

(7) sends repeated electronic communications in a manner reasonably likely to harass, annoy, alarm, abuse, torment, embarrass, or offend another.

(b) In this section:

(1) “Electronic communication” means a transfer of signs, signals, writing, images, sounds, data, or intelligence of any nature transmitted in whole or in part by a wire, radio, electromagnetic, photoelectronic, or photo-optical system. The term includes:

(A) a communication initiated through the use of electronic mail, instant message, network call, a cellular or other type of telephone, a computer, a camera, text message, a social media platform or application, an Internet website, any other Internet-based communication tool, or facsimile machine;

This law makes it a class a misdemeanor under 42.07(a)(7) punishable up to 1 year in the county jail and a fine not to exceed $4,000 if the victim is under 18 and the conduct attempt to get the child to either harm themselves or commit suicide.  Otherwise it is a class b misdemeanor punishable by 180 days of jail and up to a $2,000 fine.

Defending Cyberbullying Charges

There is always the first amendment – but not many folks want to take their case all the way up to the Supreme Court.  The First Amendment guarantees the government cannot stop people from free communication and expression.  There are, of course, limits to free speech.  The textbook example is you can’t yell “fire” in a movie theater.

Intrinsic to the statute is the bullying needs to be “reasonably” likely to cause the alarm sufficient to convict.  This just means the criminal charges have to pass the smell test – though allowing a jury to debate an issue like this can be scary.

Juvenile Courts and Cyberbullying

Also many cyberbullying cases take case in juvenile courts who have jurisdiction over offenders who are younger than 17 years old.  Those courts tend to take more of a collaborative or therapeutic approach to curb future behavior.

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

 

 

 

 

Comments Off on What is Cyberbullying and When is it a Crime? | Computer Crimes, Deadly Conduct, Divorce related crimes, Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by niftybrady

When Being Drunk is a Crime & When it’s a Defense to a Crime

January 2, 2021

By Texas Criminal Defense Lawyer Jeremy Rosenthal

(972) 369-0577

www.texasdefensefirm.com

When Being Drunk is a Crime

The rule of thumb with intoxication in Texas is this:  it’s perfectly legal until you’re dangerous.  The threshold changes depending on what you’re doing.

For public intoxication (a fine-only offense) you’re guilty if you’re dangerous to yourself or others just being in public.

For driving while intoxicated it’s if you’re dangerous being behind the wheel of a motor vehicle which weighs a few tons and can go 100 mph.  DWI offenses range from class b misdemeanors (up to 180 days county jail) to 2nd degree felonies for intoxicated manslaughter (2 to 20 years in prison).

When Being Drunk is a Defense to a Crime

Voluntary intoxication is specifically excluded as a defense to a crime in Texas under Tex.Pen.C. 8.04.  Involuntary intoxication may be a defense – but it is extremely rare and difficult to prove.

This topic gets very legally complex very fast – so I’ll do my best to help it make sense.

Intoxication normally goes to undermine the “intent” requirement of most crimes.  If a person is intoxicated, then, they might not have intended to commit whatever crime, right?  The answer would depend on if the person intended to ingest something intoxicating or not — or if they ingested something via fraud or distress rendering the intoxication involuntary.

Adding another layer of confusion is this: not all crimes require intent anyways.  So drunk or not if the person did the criminal act then they are guilty.  Examples would could be statutory rape, selling alcohol to a minor or even speeding.  The prosecution doesn’t have to prove what you intended in those cases – much less whether a person was in their right state of mind.

Probably the easiest way to summarize this is through a few examples:

  • DWI Where drug was unknowingly put into someone’s drink:
    • Not a defense;
    • There is no “intent” requirement in drunk driving cases so even if it were “involuntary” intoxication it wouldn’t matter.
  • Theft where person was impaired due to prescription drugs;
    • Not a defense
    • The intoxication would be considered “voluntary” even if the person didn’t fully understand the impact of the medication or the medication had an unpredictable outcome.
      • The issue is whether the person “voluntarily” ingested the medication.
  • Robbery where a person had a cup of water spiked with an unknown intoxicant;
    • This would be a rare example of involuntary intoxication being a defense;
      • The impairment was caused by fraud;
      • The involuntary impairment negates the intent element required in robbery.

The effect of intoxication in cases can be obvious in most instances and legally complex in others.

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

Comments Off on When Being Drunk is a Crime & When it’s a Defense to a Crime | Computer Crimes, crimes against children, Divorce related crimes, Domestic Violence, Drugs, DWI, Police, Police and Prosecutors, Robbery, sex cases, Theft, Uncategorized, Vehicular Homicide | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by niftybrady

« Previous Entries