The Attorney – Client Privilege

May 2, 2010

The attorney client privilege prevents an attorney from revealing confidential communications and other facts they have learned by reason of the attorney-client relationship.

For criminal cases in Texas, the attorney client privilege is controlled by Texas Rule of Evidence 503(b)(2) which is called the “special rule of privilege in criminal cases.”  That rule states, “in criminal cases, a client has a privilege to prevent the lawyer or lawyer’s representative from disclosing any other fact which came to the knowledge of the lawyer or the lawyer’s representative by reason of the attorney-client relationship.”

A confidential communication is defined by the rules as a communication “… not intended to be disclosed to third persons…”  I put the words in bold above to highlight the fact that the criminal privilege is even broader than the privilege in civil cases.  This means that the lawyer cannot reveal any communication not intended to be disclosed to third persons nor any other fact which came to the knowledge of the lawyer by reason of the attorney client relationship.

Here’s what this means in English for Texas criminal cases:  virtually everything your lawyer knows about the case (assuming he learned it from you or by investigating your case) is privileged.  The lawyer cannot be compelled by law enforcement or even a judge to disclose confidential information.  If you take the Texas rule to it’s logical extreme — even the mere fact that you visited with an attorney could be considered privileged information!  This goes for situations where you’re actually charged with a crime or even just the subject of an investigation.

The attorney-client privilege is an extremely important and powerful privilege for the reason that without it — an individual may never confide in their attorney critical information needed for their defense.  People charged with crimes can and do still feel tepid at times revealing information to their attorney.  Whether that be for lack of trust or for mere embarrassment — the law does everything possible to facilitate communication between you and your attorney.

As with practically everything in the law — there are exceptions.  An attorney may not aid the furtherance of a crime or a fraud and communications regarding the same are not privileged.  Also an attorney has an affirmative duty to report the abuse or neglect of a child or to report a situation where someone may be in immanent danger.  As a general rule, if the facts or disclosure is about something that has happened in the past in a criminal case — then it will almost always be privileged.

The attorney – client privilege is at the cornerstone of the lawyer – client relationship and is one of the fundamentals of our criminal justice system.

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 specific legal advice about your case you should directly consult an attorney.


Mens Rea — The Guilty Mind

May 2, 2010

By Collin County Criminal Defense Lawyer Jeremy Rosenthal

texasdefensefirm.com

(972) 369-0577

Here is some legal theory or law school 101 if you will.

Something every first-year law student learns in criminal law is about the concept of “Mens Rea” which is latin for “guilty mind.”  When a guilty mind is combined with a “guilty act” (or actus reus), then under common law, a crime has been committed. Most, but not all, crimes today have a mens rea requirement.

For example, to prove the crime of theft the prosecution must show the guilty act of appropriation of property (actus reus) plus the intent of the taker to deprive the owner of the property without consent (mens rea).  An example of a crime where there is no mens rea is strict liability crime — like statutory rape or what is known as an inchoate crime which is a crime of omission — like failure to stop and render aid.  Inchoate crimes typically require a special relationship between the victim and the accused. Modern criminal law has even varied the levels of mens rea.

Crimes enacted by code in Texas and the U.S. Government can require greater or lesser mental states for offenses.  Some offenses such as Arson are called specific intent crimes — meaning that the actor had to specifically intend the result of the crime.  Other crimes have lesser mental states meaning that if a person committed an offense “knowingly” or even less, with “criminal negligence” then they are guilty.

An example of a crime in Texas where criminal negligence is sufficient to convict is selling alcohol to  a minor.  In that type of a case, the actual intent of the defendant need not be proven as long as the jury believes the defendant acted with “criminal negligence.” The charging instrument (an information in a misdemeanor case or an indictment in a felony) will detail which of the mental states is being alleged.

Any and every criminal defense lawyer should read the charging instrument in your criminal case.  If the state proves the greater mental state then they have, as a matter of law, proved the lesser.

Discussing legal theory is like pulling the loose end of a sweater.  We could discuss this topic all day and all night.  If you’re interested in more discussion, you can read more here or here.

*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 specific legal advice about your case you should consult an attorney. 


Does the New Arizona Immigration Law Violate the 4th Amendment?

April 30, 2010

That’s a tough call but my guess is that the Courts will address the issue sooner rather than later.

All of the political issues aside (this is a legal blawg — not a political blawg), one of the chief controversies over the bill is whether it would implicitly require an officer to racially profile potential illegal immigrants.

The author of the bill, Kris Kobach, a law professor from the University of Missouri- Kansas City, believes he has crafted the bill in such a way as to survive a constitutional challenge.  Mr. Kobach states the bill prohibits the use of race, color, or ethnicity from being factors in an officer’s determinations of reasonable suspicion.  This is not unlike Texas’ Code of Criminal Procedure 2.131 which simply reads, “A peace officer may not engage in racial profiling.”

As a specific example in a recent interview, Kobach said, “You might have a vehicle overloaded, no one in the vehicle has any identification whatsoever. The driver of the vehicle is acting evasively and trying not to answer the officer’s questions, perhaps one person in the vehicle concedes that he is unlawfully present [in the US],”

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit (the Circuit governing Texas and Louisiana — and widely regarded as one of the more conservative appellate courts in the country) ruled to suppress an arrest on similar facts just this past October in United States v. Rangel-Portillo, 586 F.3d 376 (5th Cir. 2009).

In that case Cipriano Rangel-Portillo was charged with multiple counts of transporting illegal aliens.  The facts of the initial stop according to the Court were as follows:

A U.S. Border patrol officer passed a large retail store parking about 500 yards from the Texas – Mexico border.  Due to the close proximity to the Mexican border, the officer stated the area was known for drug smuggling.  He observed two vehicles exiting the parking lot onto the highway and decided to follow them because they looked suspicious.

The officer made several observations about the driver and the three passengers in the vehicle in question. The driver initially looked straight ahead, but when the patrol unit approached the vehicle, he noticed that the driver looked at him and made eye contact. In contrast to the driver, the three backseat passengers avoided eye contact, were “stone-faced,” and looked straight forward. According to the officer, “the passengers didn’t look at [him] enough and the driver looked at [him] too much.”

The passengers never conversed once for several miles and were sweating “pretty bad.” The windows were rolled up and the passengers appeared “very stiff.” The officers could see inside the windows of the vehicle and because they were higher than the suspects vehicle, they could see on the floorboards that there were no shopping bags from the store.

The officers detained the driver and passengers and discovered the three passengers were undocumented.  The Fifth Circuit concluded there was not enough reasonable suspicion to detain the vehicle and the arrest and detention of Mr. Rangel-Portillo was thrown out.

In a nutshell — the border patrol in attempting to establish reasonable suspicion was essentially multiplying zeros.  In other words — one, three, or five perfectly legal activities (albeit suspicious), are still perfectly legal activities and can’t be subject to detention.

Mr. Kobach’s hypothetical scenario, then, appears somewhat at odds with the 5th Circuit’s opinion.  Arizona’s promise to not utilize factors such as race and ethnicity, may be viewed as somewhat unrealistic or tone-deaf in light of how courts analyze situations such as Rangel-Portillo.  Then again, perhaps Mr. Kobach’s buffer language prohibiting racial profiling may be enough to save the statute.  The Court’s analysis will be interesting.

Currently several cities in Arizona as well as the U.S. Department of Justice are reviewing the law to see whether they wish to make legal challenges prior to it’s going into effect.  Stay tuned!

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 you should always directly consult an attorney.


Texas Grand Jury FAQ’s

April 2, 2010

By Collin County Criminal Defense Lawyer Jeremy Rosenthal

texasdefensefirm.com

(972) 369-0577

What is a Grand Jury:

A Grand Jury is a panel that decides whether a felony should be indicted or not.  The DA’s office can file misdemeanors on their own, however, to file felony charges a grand jury must agree there is probable cause.

Grand jury meetings are secretive and confidential.  The public has no access to their deliberations.  Typically they deliberate matters brought before them by the District Attorneys office.  Here is a link to some technical and historical information about Texas grand juries.

Grand Jury Findings

Grand juries can do several things with cases they hear.  They can issue a true bill which equals a felony indictment or they can issue a no-bill turning the case down.  Occasionally they will charge a person with a misdemeanor instead of a felony through indictment.  After a true bill is issued, the case gets assigned to a court and proceeds normally.

Criminal Defendant’s Rights During Grand Jury Proceedings

If you really think about it… having a grand jury as a hurdle for the prosecution in and of itself is the only real right you have in this process (in theory anyway).

A criminal defendant does not have the right to testify at the grand jury nor does your attorney have the right to be present.  Because the proceedings are secretive the transcript, if any, is not available.  You can’t even watch.

What Can I Do If I’m Under Grand Jury Investigation of if I Get a Grand Jury Letter?

Call an attorney.  The prosecutors have discretion to allow your attorney to submit a packet of information to a grand jury to attempt to dissuade them from indictment.  Also the prosecutor can agree to allow you to testify before the grand jury — but not in the presence of your attorney.  On many cases, prosecutors have incentive to negotiate with you prior to your case going to grand jury.  As a policy, Collin County DA’s office will not negotiate with people at the grand jury phase that are unrepresented by counsel.  This may seem like a frustrating policy — but frankly it’s for your own protection.  Grand jury situations are very complicated and the ramifications are very serious if mismanaged.

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 specific legal advice you should consult an attorney. 


How the Police Take Your Blood Without Your Consent

February 26, 2010

By Collin County Criminal Defense Lawyer Jeremy Rosenthal

(972) 369-0577

texasdefensefirm.com

Courts allow police to apply for search warrants for mandatory blood draws.

A warrant, in theory, is a precise legal document which explains to the judge or magistrate reviewing the warrant why the police believe it’s likely evidence of blood over 0.08 will be present in your system.  In practice, however, police utilize one-size fits all warrants with boilerplate language.

A recent U.S. Supreme Court Opinion, Missouri v. McNeely, has in all likelihood invalidated Texas law which allowed for warrantless blood draws on felony DWI arrests.  Thus, the only way a blood draw without consent can be done is through a warrant.  In McNeely, the courts held the process for applying for blood warrants has become so simplified that only if there is exigent circumstances may an officer proceed without a warrant.

Books have been written about search warrants so I can’t cover them all here — but as with many things in the law, it’s complicated.

With a DWI blood warrant, the judge allows the police to draw your blood.  If you are in that situation, then you must comply with the officer’s instructions.  Your remedy is to fight the search in court later.

There are all sorts of legal problems with DWI blood warrants in Dallas and Collin County.  Arguments can be made the the practice breaks or comes close to breaking several other statutes and laws.

The Texas Transportation Code Section 724.103 states, “…a specimen may not be taken if a person refuses to submit to the taking of a specimen designated by a peace officer.”  This language can be argued to be in conflict with the search warrant statute.

Texas Code of Criminal Procedure 14.06 suggests that when someone is arrested, the officer shall take the person arrested before a magistrate “without unnecessary delay.”  Where the police hold someone while they take 30 minutes or an hour to get a search warrant, it can be argued they violate this provision too.

Blood warrants and draws are a complicated area of the law.  It takes a detail oriented lawyer to be able to analyze the medical and legal issues behind proper blood draws and the underlying science.

*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, please consult an attorney.