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

Probation Officer Recommendations

January 5, 2021

By Collin County Criminal Defense Lawyer Jeremy Rosenthal

(972) 369-0577

www.texasdefensefirm.com

Probation officers are often the gatekeepers between their probationers and ultimate freedom.  Probation officers are often asked about recommendations for things like travel, removal of an interlock ignition or deep lung device from a vehicle in DWI cases, or even early release from probation.

When folks visit with me wanting to change something about their probation, it’s very common for them to tell me their probation officer is “not opposed,” or “on board with” or even “recommends” something.

In truth – when I do pick up the phone to ask the probation officer their views I hardly ever get much of anything useful.  I’m usually told the probation department opposes our request to the judge or takes no position on our request to the judge (usually citing department policy).  I can’t remember the last time a probation officer actually told me they supported our motion.

Probation officers also make recommendations for revocations and adjudications.  It’s a bit of a different topic – but remember it is the Judge who ultimately determines what happens in a case, not the probation department.

Probation Officers Don’t Like Making Recommendations

Probation officers work in a bureaucracy. I’ve been in the Army, the District Attorney’s Office, and and have worked alongside government my entire career.  My blog is anything but political but probation departments with their bureaucracies come with some flawed cultures I’ve noticed.

I find there are three cultural problems I’ve seen with probation departments struggle with.  First, there is a climate of fear surrounding decision making.  Personnel are collectively intimidated about sticking their neck-out and making an uncommon or unconventional decision which has any potential at all to backfire.

Second, there is a “default to no” culture at most probation departments.  This means the default answer requests is typically “no.”  The answer is “no” if they don’t understand the request, “no” if they are 50/50 on the request, and especially the answer is “no” if they find a teeny-tiny reason the request could somehow backfire.

Third, if one decision maker is good – then seven are better.  And then they’ll come up with better reasons for saying “no.”

I’m probably jaded, but my view is probation officers simply don’t want to make decisions or recommendations which help their probationers.  They might claim to be in support in closed quarters with no one listening but they often quickly back off any such boldness.  They often claim they are bound not to make recommendations by office policy.  That could be true in some instances but those policies have never limited them from making recommendations against my clients… so I tend to view the policies skeptically.

Often I find a probation officer will claim they are not taking a position – yet they passive/aggressively oppose our requests in open court.  So I never take for granted they are in our corner or neutral on an issue.

I know I’m making many generalizations here.  There are plenty of probation officers I’ve worked with who break this mold and are very forthcoming on their views whether they are helpful or not to my client.

A Probation Officer’s Recommendation Isn’t Everything

It’s okay probation officers if don’t want to make recommendations.  Judges are comfortable making difficult calls granting things the probation department doesn’t like or want.

It’s the Judge who controls terms and conditions of probation – and Judges disagree with probation officers all the time.  Many judges have far more antagonistic relationships with the probation department than you may think.

For these reasons when I’m asked to help someone modify their probation – I just don’t put much stock in what the probation officer reportedly recommends.  If they are in our corner all the better.  But we can still win without it.

*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 Probation Officer Recommendations | Assault, Cannabis, Computer Crimes, crimes against children, Domestic Violence, Drugs, marijuana, Police and Prosecutors, pre trial diversion, probation, Probation Revocation | 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

Domestic Violence Charges – Blog 17:  Plea Bargaining in Family Assault Cases

December 29, 2020

By DFW Criminal Defense Lawyer Jeremy Rosenthal

(972) 369-0577

www.texasdefensefirm.com

Only 6% of state criminal cases go to jury trial.  That means 94% are disposed of some other way.  Those could be plea bargains or dismissals.  Some dismissals are by agreement where the defendant takes classes, performs community service and/or completes other tasks and is basically a plea bargain without actually resulting in a plea.

Courtroom lawyers love to talk-tough.  And I’m no exception because I eat nails for breakfast in the morning before dazzling every jury I see.  But what we don’t brag about much are our plea-bargains.  Plea bargaining doesn’t make wonderful fodder for lawyers web pages so you don’t hear lawyers talk about it much.  Again – 94% of cases don’t go to trial so even the lawyers who talk the meanest game in town plea bargain far more cases than they take to trial.  It’s just a fact.

Anyone who has come to see me about their case knows I analytically evaluate every case as if we are preparing for trial.  They teach us in law school to start with the jury charge and go backwards.  And I don’t wear my plea bargains on my sleeve either but candidly it’s where I do some of my best work of getting clients out of really bad jams.

Read here for an index to other domestic violence related blogs.

When Plea Bargaining Makes Sense

Domestic violence is an area where sometimes we simply can’t plead guilty.  It could trigger immigration, professional licensing, or other consequences we cannot accept.  So this is the first question – can the client afford the consequences of a guilty plea in a family violence case?

Pleading guilty or not guilty is always the client’s choice.  Some folks don’t have the stomach for trial.  Trial in a domestic violence case normally takes a day or two but can take a week or more.  I have fun in trial but that’s because I’m not worried about going to jail when it’s over and I’m not worried someone on the jury or someone who just wanders into the open courtroom might know me and post the affair on social media.  I discourage the idea of pleading guilty just to avoid a trial most likely in front of strangers but again – it’s my client’s choice and not mine.

Pleading guilty or no contest may also make sense in cases where I honestly tell my client the odds for an acquittal are long given the specific facts of any cases… and I go through a cost/benefit analysis with my client about the pros and cons of taking the case to trial.

Important Factors in Getting a Favorable Plea Bargain

When someone is pleading guilty or no contest (there is no legal difference which matters in criminal law) – they are accepting responsibility.  It’s important for folks to remember this.  If someone is going to take responsibility for the charges against them – then I always advise clients to do so sincerely, earnestly and whole-heartedly.

Beyond this if someone is going to take responsibility they also take on the onus of not only promising not to do it again but taking the affirmative actions necessary to make sure and guarantee it doesn’t happen again.  This may include accepting anger management, marriage counseling, or a batterer’s intervention program.

Often substance abuse and/or psychological disorders need to be addressed as part of the underlying causes.  So a person may need to accept evaluations along with follow-up recommendations.

If someone is willing to face their decisions and demons to make sure a domestic assault doesn’t happen again then it obviously bodes well for plea bargaining.

Ultimately plea bargaining is far more common than taking a case to trial though many of my colleagues pretend otherwise to the public and to one another.  It never hurts to have a good strategy of an exit-ramp in a case which can often be a plea bargain my client finds acceptable.

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

Comments Off on Domestic Violence Charges – Blog 17:  Plea Bargaining in Family Assault Cases | Civil Liberties, Collateral Consequences of a Criminal Record, Deadly Conduct, Divorce related crimes, Domestic Violence, Drugs, mental illness, Police and Prosecutors, pre trial diversion | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by niftybrady

Illegal Searches are More Common Than You Might Think

December 11, 2020

By Collin County Criminal Defense Lawyer Jeremy Rosenthal

(972) 369-0577

www.texasdefensefirm.com

One of the best weapons in defending many cases is the exclusionary rule.  That rule prevents illegally attained evidence from being used by the prosecution during trial.  The exclusionary rule is the citizens legal protection remedy from illegal police acts.

Isn’t it a Bit Much to Say the Police Acted Illegally?

Think of the word ‘illegal’ in terms of a penalty during a football game such as ‘illegal procedure.’  The word ‘illegal’ has a much lighter connotation when we know it’s just a 5 yard penalty for a player moving the wrong direction before the snap.

Calling a search or particular police action ‘illegal’ is really no different.  As the accused, you’re merely saying there was a foul committed without regard to wether it was intentional or severe.  But the rules are the rules and everyone has to play by them.

Motion to Suppress

A motion to suppress the evidence is a request for the judge to trigger the exclusionary rule and render the illegally attained evidence unusable.  The most common legal grounds are the 4th Amendment to the US Constitution prohibiting illegal search and seizure and Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Article 38.23.

Illegal Searches Can’t be Very Common, Right?

They’re more common than you think.  You have to remember civil rights cases from the 1960’s and 1970’s still have a large imprint on search and seizure law.  The courts are uncomfortable with traffic stops and/or searches based on little more than hunches because those were rightly exposed as profiling.  Though today’s police might also include teenagers or people who have an alternative appearance in addition to racial minorities – there isn’t much of a difference under the law.  Profiling is profiling.

Articulable Facts vs. Subjective Opinion

You also have to remember police in targeting certain groups are often aggressive in their approach.  Police need to be able to articulate the facts which justify traffic stops and continued roadside detentions.  As an example a police officer saying he stopped a car because “he just knew they were up to no good” isn’t going to fly.  It’s a hunch and courts don’t like that.

Closer examples might include thin and subjective reasoning for keeping someone detained at a routine traffic stop – nervousness, the time of day/ night, or even labeling the area of the stop as ‘high crime’ with little or no proof.  Courts have repeatedly said these types of justifications are akin to multiplying zeros when it comes to articulable facts.

Articulable facts, on the other hand, might include “the driver was going 58 in a 45.”  Or the driver smelled like alcohol, said he was on his way to Dallas but was driving the opposite way.

So where an officer can plainly, quickly, and obviously explain the probable cause – the better chance they have of keeping a detention legal.  The more they rely on opinion and conjecture – the more problems they might have explaining it later.

Again, police know they are fighting crime and doing great things by keeping drugs, guns, and drunk drivers off the streets.  They will often push and test the rules for reasons they think are justified.

The end result may be that often they have mis-stepped.

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

Leave a Comment » | Civil Liberties, Drugs, DWI, federal criminal defense, marijuana, Police, Police and Prosecutors, THC, Uncategorized, Weapons | Tagged: , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by Jeremy Rosenthal, Esq.

« Previous Entries