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

Will a DWI Ruin My Life?

January 6, 2021

By McKinney Criminal Defense Lawyer Jeremy Rosenthal

(972) 369-0577

www.texasdefensefirm.com

Driving while intoxicated convictions are very intensive with consequences that are far ranging.  Most of the consequences are what lawyers and courts refer to as “direct” consequences.  This means we know what those consequences are and we can see them coming.

Indirect consequences are much more difficult to calculate.  An example of a direct consequence of a drunk driving conviction is the potential for probation or an interlock device on a car.  The law requires it.

An indirect consequence, on the other hand, is what will your boss think.  That’s the hard part to know.

Common Direct Consequences of a DWI Conviction

The punishment for a Driving While Intoxicated Offense in Texas is This:

  • Up to 2 years probation for misdemeanors (DWI 1st or 2nd);
  • Up to 180 days jail for DWI 1st with blood alcohol under (BAC) 0.15;
  • Up to 1 year of jail for DWI 1st with BAC 0.15 or greater;
  • Up to 1 year of jail for DWI 2nd;

Other requirements for DWI probation (direct consequences) are the inability to terminate probation early, the requirement for interlock devices for DWI 2nd or more or if the BAC is greater than 0.15.  There is a new “superfine” the legislature requires if a person is sentenced to jail on a driving under the influence case of $6,000.

Indirect Consequences Which Can Be Harmful to a Career

There are certain professions where a DWI affects you and some where they don’t.  If you drive a school bus then a DWI is bad news.  If you are law enforcement or a first responder, then again – it will cause you problems.  Pilots obviously have major headaches with DWI arrests with the Federal Aviation Administration (“FAA”).

But what if you’re a doctor or a registered nurse?  You could have licensing issues because the boards which regulate physicians and/or nurses in Austin will want to make sure there aren’t underlying substance issues.

There are some professions which simply don’t have much of an intersection with DWI arrests.  If you are a CPA, a hairdresser, or even an attorney – a misdemeanor DWI shouldn’t do you much professional harm.

But remember a criminal conviction is permission for someone to discriminate.  Is it possible you could lose a job working at a bank because of a DWI arrest or conviction?  I would hope not – but if your boss was a victim of a drunk driver then potentially it could happen.

*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 Will a DWI Ruin My Life? | Collateral Consequences of a Criminal Record, DWI, Police and Prosecutors, Uncategorized, Vehicular Homicide | 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

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