Jury Trials vs. Judge Trials

October 14, 2010

By Dallas and Collin County Criminal Defense Lawyer Jeremy F. Rosenthal

(972) 562-7549

texasdefensefirm.com

Here is the equation as to how any criminal trial in Texas works.  The proper law + the facts = the verdict.

Judges always determine the appropriate law to apply.  Then the facts are applied to the law to reach the verdict.  A jury determines the facts, but if both parties agree — then the judge can determine the facts instead.  The latter is a known as a “bench trial” or “trial by Court” which is commonly known as a “TBC” in the courthouse.

The U.S. Constitution guarantees a criminal defendant a right by jury trial.  Generally speaking its the defendant’s choice whether to choose a judge or a jury.  Texas prosecutors have recently asserted that the State of Texas also has a right to a jury trial as well… and therefore, they argue, that the only way the parties can have a TBC is by agreement.  Their assertion is largely unchallenged even though it’s legally unclear.  Practically speaking, then, both parties agree to waive a jury.

Here’s a practical example of how a jury trial works — in an assault case where the defendant claims self-defense, the Judge will conduct the trial, impanel the jury, and decides what evidence is legally admissible.  Once the evidence is concluded, the judge will decide (1) if the evidence legally sufficient to support a conviction; (2) if the defendant legally raised self-defense; and (3) what jury instructions to give so that the jury understands how to decide the facts.  The jury then deliberates and reaches their verdict based on the jury charge.

For a TBC, the Judge merely listens to all the evidence, rules on objections, and then renders a verdict — often without much deliberation.

There are tons of variables to consider if you’re presented with the option of waiving a jury and asking a judge to decide the case.  The Judge’s history and reputation and obviously the strength of the case must be considered and weighed against the local jury pool.

Judges prefer TBC’s because they’re far more efficient than jury trials.  They’re far quicker, generally less formal, and don’t involve having to manage a jury pool.  Just because judge prefer it, though, doesn’t make it the right choice.

After all, a criminal defense lawyer isn’t in the rights waiving business!

*Jeremy Rosenthal is Board Certified in Criminal Law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization and licensed by the Supreme Court of Texas. Nothing in this article is intended to be legal advice.  For legal advice about any case you should consult an attorney directly.


Are There Depositions in a Criminal Case in Texas?

August 5, 2010

By Dallas and Collin County Criminal Defense Lawyer Jeremy F. Rosenthal

(972) 562-7549

texasdefensefirm.com

Knowledge is power.  A good criminal defense lawyer will want to know as much of the State’s case as conceivably possible.  Most of the time that will probably only be through the police reports, an independent investigation, or what witnesses will tell you voluntarily.  Depositions in civil cases are common but depositions in criminal cases in Texas courts are extremely rare.

Depositions serve two main functions; (1) discovery — or learning the facts of the case; and (2) to nail down a witness’ version of events for later impeachment.  Insurance companies and civil lawyers know all to well that not many people give identical versions of events on multiple occasions.  They get as many witness statements from the same witness as possible to exploit inconsistencies or weaknesses.

Texas Code of Criminal Procedure 39.02 allows a defendant to petition the Court for a deposition if the defendant can show “good reason” for needing the deposition.  It is such a rarity that most trial judges probably won’t see the utility in allowing a deposition of a police officer though.  In all likelihood, depositions in criminal cases are reserved for instances where a witness may not be available later for trial.  If anything, the law allows the prosecution just as much or more leeway with deposing a witness or an alleged victim.  Section 39.025 requires that if the alleged victim is over 60 years old or disabled then the deposition must be taken by the prosecution no later than 60 days after the deposition is requested.

All is not lost for the accused though.  There are a few different mechanisms that allow deposition-like examinations of a police officer prior to trial. An example is an Administrative Law Review (“ALR”) in a DWI case to determine whether a driver’s license should be suspended or denied.  Another example is what is known as an “examining trial” in felony cases to determine if the State has probable cause to hold someone in jail accused of a Felony prior to presentment to the Grand Jury.  These are both instances where an officer can be sworn-in under oath with a record that can be used later.  A good criminal defense lawyer knows how to seize these opportunities for discovery.

*Jeremy Rosenthal is Board Certified in Criminal Law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization and licensed by the Supreme Court of Texas. Nothing in this article is intended to be legal advice.  For legal advice you should consult an attorney directly.


Interference With Child Custody

July 18, 2010

By Collin County Criminal Defense Lawyer Jeremy Rosenthal

texasdefensefirm.com

(972) 369-0577

As most people know, divorces may unfortunately turn very nasty. On occasion there are collateral criminal problems which can arise from a party’s conduct either prior to or after the court makes custody determinations for the children. While the blame may often seem trumped-up or baseless — being accused of interference with child custody is as serious as a heart attack because it’s a felony accusation in Texas. Also –as with any criminal prosecution –it is important to remember that the charges are no longer between you and your divorcing spouse; it’s between you and the State of Texas.

Texas Penal Code Section 25.03 is titled “Interference With Child Custody,” and that section reads accordingly:

(a) A person commits an offense if the person takes or retains a child younger than 18 years when the person:

(1) knows that the person’s taking or retention violates the express terms of a judgment or order, including a temporary order, of a court disposing of the child’s custody; or

(2) has not been awarded custody of the child by a court of competent jurisdiction, knows that a suit for divorce or a civil suit or application for habeas corpus to dispose of the child’s custody has been filed, and takes the child out of the geographic area of the counties composing the judicial district if the court is a district court or the county if the court is a statutory county court, without the permission of the court and with the intent to deprive the court of authority over the child.

(b) A noncustodial parent commits an offense if, with the intent to interfere with the lawful custody of a child younger than 18 years, the noncustodial parent knowingly entices or persuades the child to leave the custody of the custodial parent, guardian, or person standing in the stead of the custodial parent or guardian of the child.

(c) It is a defense to prosecution under Subsection (a)(2) that the actor returned the child to the geographic area of the counties composing the judicial district if the court is a district court or the county if the court is a statutory county court, within three days after the date of the commission of the offense.

(d) An offense under this section is a state jail felony.

The legal and factual scenarios and defenses are seemingly endless. Take, just as one example, a case prosecuted under 25.03(a)(1)… A prosecution under that section would probably include a complete order from the Divorce Judge which may or may not be written clearly enough to provide a party with sufficient guidance as to what is or is not permitted for times of custody (at least in the context of criminal liability.)

Also, Section (C) provides what is known as a “safe harbor,” where the offense was committed under 25.03(a)(2)… Which is to say that if the violating person returns the child within 3 days to the area or county controlled by the Court they have a defense to prosecution. This is to facilitate the return of children and to a lesser degree (I suspect) because the criminal justice system has a some biases against getting involved in the micromanagement of custody disputes and orders.

If you are being accused of interference with a child custody order, you should involve competent and qualified criminal representation at once. It’s not something to fool with.

*Jeremy Rosenthal is Board Certified in Criminal Law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization and licensed by the Supreme Court of Texas. Nothing in this article is intended to be legal advice. For legal advice about any specific situation you should consult an attorney directly.


People Giving Legal Advice — That Shouldn’t Be Giving Legal Advice

July 10, 2010

By Dallas and Collin County Criminal Defense Lawyer Jeremy Rosenthal

texasdefensefirm.com

(972) 369-0577

As even keel as I try to be — nothing gets under my skin more than people giving legal advice that have no business giving legal advice in criminal cases.  Everyone has opinions, their own experiences, and what they believe to be common sense — but I’m not really even talking about that type of stuff.

The “legal advice” I’m talking about is when the very same police officer that arrests you for DWI — also tells you that you need to just talk with the prosecutor to see if you can get a good deal… or when court staff or personnel tell you it might be easier to just talk with the prosecutor rather than get a lawyer… or when a bail bondsman tells you that your case is hopeless and hiring a lawyer is a waste of money.

It unnerves me because these are people that carry a marginal amount of credibility — and because of that people tend to listen to their generally uninformed, narrow, and incomplete analysis of a particular situation — whether it’s drugs, theft, assault or DUI.  Now, in defense of these people — they are probably well meaning in their intentions.  It’s just extremely reckless.  You wouldn’t operate on yourself because they guy at the front desk in the hospital thinks it’s a good idea… and you shouldn’t take legal advice from anyone in the justice system except YOUR lawyer.

Maybe I also get upset because unlike the police officer, court staffer, or any other various know-it-all, I spent many nights in law school up until 1 or 2 a.m. studying about the layer after layer of the law and our legal system.  Unlike them, I’ve spent my entire career since law school dealing with people and learning that their personal situations also have layer after layer.  And unlike them, I get to hand a 42 year-old single mother kleenex across my conference room table when she can’t get a job from a conviction 17 years before when some know-it-all in a position of semi-trust told her she didn’t need a lawyer.

Being a lawyer is a hard job.  Doctors manage imperfect variables which involve the human body.  Lawyers manage imperfect variables which is how the humans which comprise our system of justice will treat any given scenario.  Lawyers are bound by very rigid rules of ethics which make clear that no lawyer can ever guarantee you any result — due in large part to how imperfect and how complicated legal matters can be.

Most police officers, court personnel, and various other people that tend to come into close contact with those accused of a crime are very respectful of the complexity of legal issues and of the Attorney/ Client Privilege and thus are properly deferential.  Other know-it-all’s, though are loaded with bad advice that is only based on their past experiences and training — and none of it is from YOUR perspective or from the perspective of someone that’s dealt with these situations from start to finish.

I’m sure there’s a possibility that some of the things they say might be right 40, 50, or even 60% of the time… And I don’t know about you — but my personal experience is that having 40, 50, or 60% of the right information is a great way to make a very bad and uninformed choice.

*Jeremy Rosenthal is Board Certified in Criminal Law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization and licensed by the Supreme Court of Texas. Nothing in this article is intended to be legal advice.  For legal advice about any specific situation you should directly consult an attorney.


Is Intoxication a Defense to Criminal Charges in Texas?

June 11, 2010

Texas Penal Code 8.04 covers voluntary intoxication.  That provision says, “Voluntary intoxication does not constitute a defense to the commission of a crime.”

Temporary insanity may be caused by intoxication and may be admissible in the punishment phase of a trial to attempt to mitigate.  What this means, in layman’s terms, is that you can only utilize voluntary intoxication to the extent that it can help you in the punishment phase of trial — i.e. after the judge or jury has already decided that you are guilty.

Intoxication in this section of the Penal Code means “disturbance of mental or physical capacity resulting from the introduction of any substances into the body.”

Involuntary intoxication (where perhaps someone was drugged without their knowledge — and then committed a crime) is far more complex.  The law used to be well settled in Texas that involuntary intoxication was an affirmative defense to some crimes, however, in 2002 the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals held that the defense was encompassed in other defenses — such as not having the proper mens rea in Mendenhall v. State, 77 S.W.3d 815 (Tex.Crim.App.– 2002).

Jeremy F. Rosenthal, Esq.

(972) 562-7549

*Jeremy Rosenthal is Board Certified in Criminal Law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization and licensed by the Supreme Court of Texas. Nothing in this article is intended to be legal advice.  For legal advice about any specific matter you should consult an attorney.