TexasCHLforum.com

The circumstance that the alcohol related charge came up much later will be a problem. An aggressive lawyer who knows his business can get to the truth under cross-examination of the officer and review of the other evidence, if any to see what really occurred. Just because a policeman writes it in a report doesn't mean it is true. No test, belated charge...... the circumstances to argue reasonable doubt are there.

It's no slam-dunk, that's for sure.

I don't play a lawyer on TV. I am one.

The court clerk has public files and you can look at them, even buy copies of documents if you wish. I'm not sure a layman can adequately interpret what might be found, in terms of procedural steps, expectations about what is next, etc. It isn't "rocket surgery" but does take some getting used to.

I would call the court clerk to see what the hours are, in case they close over the lunch hour or something.

WildBill wrote:

JALLEN wrote:
Many of us remember the OJ trial....

I was going to bring this up, but decided not to. Since you opened the door, Fuhrman stated in his book that his initial report from the crime scene and OJ's house was given to Marcia Clark, but was not given to the detective who took over so it was not presented at the trial.

So what? Fuhrman could have, and did, testify to all sorts of facts and observances, maybe including the facts in that report, and ended up, astonishingly enough, as the only person convicted of a felony as a result of that trial, perjury! The jury was entitled to disregard every word of his testimony, and may have. Out of the presence of the jury, he also took the 5th, invoking his right not to incriminate himself, when asked if he had ever falsified a police report or planted evidence.

This isn't the place to rehash all the ins and outs of that fiasco, although it is quite interesting, especially to us lawyers. My take on it, after all these years, is that the LA District Attorneys staff got so used to having its way in trials, getting away with corner cutting, all sorts of sloppy nonsense, covering up little details that didn't fit, etc. that when someone came along who could check every detail every nuance, they got caught. Going up against court appointed attorneys all the time, and getting away with it time after time, sort of anesthetized them, so when they had to go up against big league pitching, they couldn't hit it.

Videos of parts of that trial will be shown in trial practice classes for a thousand years, classic examples of trial do's and don'ts.

WildBill wrote:

Dave2 wrote:

JALLEN wrote:As a lawyer, though, I would not allow any lawyer to remain on the jury if I could help it. The risk is too great that once the jury room door closes, the rest of the jurors would look down at the one lawyer and say, "What the hey was that all about?" IOW, the lawyer might have more influence on the other jurors than otherwise.

What if all the jurors were lawyers?

I bet deliberations would take a while.

That is one reason why lawyers are usually not selected as jurors. They do not want jurors to know anything about the law, other than what the judge tells them.

In the cases I tried, I would have been thrilled to death to have the jurors know the law, at least that which pertained to the case before them. The problem with a lawyer being on the jury from my standpoint was (s)he would bring the rest of the jurors with him/her, as they would be tempted to take his/her word for how things worked, what this meant, etc. I only took cases to trial that I would win, so I didn't want some bozo who thought (s)he knew everything messing things up!

cbunt1 wrote:

JALLEN wrote:

cbunt1 wrote:

I have spend 37 years wishing I could be on a jury, and in California lawyers are subject to call for jury duty. I have been 5 or 6 times but never sent out on a panel. It has to be fascinating.

I learned things about mankind that I didn't expect to learn. The trip into the legal system was interesting, but the real life-lessons I learned from the experience were more about people than law...particularly how people are more willing to commit an expedient act than a just act...

This is precisely why I thought it would be fascinating to experience first hand, at least once, the interactions, the motivations, of real life that we lawyers spend so much of our professional lives worrying, thinking, plotting and scheming about, trying to anticipate, persuade, etc. Figuring out how to present a case that engages and keeps the attention of the jury, persuades, informs, etc is critically important for all prepared trial lawyers.

I tried real estate cases mostly, boring, boring, boring, all technical, paperwork foul ups usually, and keeping everyone awake was a major preoccupation. No smoking guns (well, once!) no sex, no squalid Perry Mason type dramas.

As former Governor Bush said, "You can fool some of the people all the time, and that's who I want to concentrate on!"

cbunt1 wrote:
I agree that if I were on a jury, I'd be very skeptical if such a thing were not mentioned in any initial police report work...but then again, they wouldn't likely let me on such a jury in the first place. I'd think my very qualifications and experiences (along with those of MOST of us on this board) would get us stricken by the prosecution if at all possible...

I have spend 37 years wishing I could be on a jury, and in California lawyers are subject to call for jury duty. I have been 5 or 6 times but never sent out on a panel. It has to be fascinating.

As a lawyer, though, I would not allow any lawyer to remain on the jury if I could help it. The risk is too great that once the jury room door closes, the rest of the jurors would look down at the one lawyer and say, "What the hey was that all about?" IOW, the lawyer might have more influence on the other jurors than otherwise.

Mostly, the only legal professionals who get snared for jury service out here are Courts of Appeal Justices, who must sit tight jawed through some ordeal, do their duty, whereupon some idiot reporter (if you will excuse the redundancy) will write up the story about how wonderful it is that Justice Grump manfully served on a jury, and the lawyers and trial judge know that an appeal from whatever results will be hopelessly bollixed up.

RottenApple wrote:
In your experience (and I know you said you aren't a criminal defense attorney), would the mere absence of corroborating evidence (nothing in the police report, no breathalyzer test, no blood test, no FST) be enough to create reasonable doubt? I can tell you that if I sat on a jury overseeing such a case, I would be very, very skeptical of the prosecution.

Reasonable doubt is not a fixed, measurable concept, but whatever the trier of fact says it is. The appeals process can say there was enough evidence, if believed by the jury, to justify the verdict, for example, but they can't say that the jury should have believed it.

Many of us remember the OJ trial. When F. Lee Bailey successfully cross-examined Detective Fuhrman, and got into evidence the tape of Fuhrman using language he had just denied using, that entitled the jury to disbelieve any or all of Fuhrman's testimony, if they chose to. In lawyer's parlance, that is called "impeaching" the witness. Should they have? That is up to them. Belief or disbelief is in the eye, or mind, of the believer. In this case, the jury had a plausible justification for disbelieving Fuhrman. Whether, or to what extent, his testimony was ignored is known only to the jurors, of course.

The DA has the burden to produce evidence proving each and every element of the crimes charged "beyond a reasonable doubt." That is a very high standard, designed to minimize the possibility of wrongly convicting innocent defendants. Many LEO's and prosecutors don't believe there are any innocent defendants. "If he wasn't guilty, we wouldn't have arrested him!" Nevertheless, we still put the prosecution to its proof.

If the prosecution presents only the testimony of the officer, nothing in the report, no tests, etc. I personally would have a very hard time accepting that as the truth, especially if the defendant presented facts contradicting the conclusions of the officer. Skillful cross-examination of the officer can be fruitful, as often they don't know as much as they claim, or weren't in position to see or hear what they claim, their training and experience doesn't lend itself to the conclusion they reached, etc. The possibilities are endless. How the balance would tip in any particular case is hard to say, but it certainly wouldn't be "fait accompli" by any means.

The police report is an out of court statement, and is hearsay unless it qualifies under one of the numerous exceptions, which it probably would, but would have to be authenticated by the officer who prepared it. The prosecution might not always introduce it, but the defense might for impeachment purposes, etc. Of course, I don't do criminal trials, am not conversant in the nuances of Texas laws, and likely will not ever be, at a professional level anyway.

srothstein wrote:There is one common mistake being made in this thread that might be important when talking with the attorney. While we all would like to see the original police report and what it says, there is no law or rule requiring that every thing that might possibly charged should be written in the original report. Supplemental reports are written all of the time. The original report needs to have enough facts to show probable cause for any charges filed AT THE TIME.

It is true that the report need not contain a verbatim reference to everything the reporting officer saw or heard dealing with the event covered by the report, but it is suspicious if no reference is made to certain key circumstances, but those are later made the subject of a charge not part of the original charge(s).

I don't deal in criminal matters (they haven't caught any of my clients..... OK, they caught one, a long time ago!) but of the perhaps several dozen police reports I have had occasion to deal with, none was complete and harmonious with events and facts established by other corroborating evidence. Most of them ought to have started with "Once Upon A Time..."

To a certain extent, this is understandable to anyone who has ever played the game where everyone sits in a circle, then someone whispers a common saying to the person next to him or her, that person whispers what (s)he heard to the next person etc all around the circle, whereupon the last person announces what he heard. Almost every time, "Remember the Alamo" comes out "Better living through Chemistry" or something completely different than what the original person started with.

Some years ago, a pistol was stolen from my home. Eventually, I ended up down at the local station giving a report to an officer who diligently wrote in the little notebook they all seem to carry. When I eventually received a copy of the report, I was astonished at the variances between what I reported and what the report actually said. On another occasion, my communications to the detective about the status of endorsement of a check was mishandled in the police report and resulted in someone being arrested for a felony, wrongly, and I narrowly avoided being sued over it! Needless to say, I view police reports as not necessarily the last word in evidentiary reliability, unless corroborated by other credible evidence.

Being charged with intoxication days after the event, with no reference in any police report of intoxication, would be suspicious to me, and put the DA behind in the race for proof beyond a reasonable doubt. It could be overcome but there had better be a really good story about it and lots of corroboration.

Purplehood wrote:

JALLEN wrote:

JP171 wrote:JM,

The questions about weapons may seem valid on the surface, however the medic should advise the LEO as the medic probably has a better line on suicidal ideology than the officer, extrapiramidal reactions are not usually the cause of concerne to suicidal ideation, should the woman have a history of similar behavior the medic should know and move toward that DX, however with the available info this seems like the LEO ran the DL of all parties involved and made a blanket statement or order(civilian leo can't give orders) or directive that was not followed, we have no duty to follow such directives on the 3 3 rule 3 seconds or 3 feet. I am not really being as bad as you might think but I dislike the attitude that civilians must do as the LEO says cause he ain't a civilian(yes he/she is cause they ain't military) the leo gets upset because he or she believes that they have absolute authority and control over another civilian and contemp of cop applies, but there is no such charge or law or rule, a LEO is a CIVILIAN period, I have the right to ignore anything he says period, just can't interfere with him doing his job.

The common parlance these days is that sworn officers are the "us's", and everyone else is a "them," a mere civilian. It's part of the patois of the so-called "Blue Mafia."

I thought they had 3-groups.

Good Guys (Cops, etc.)
Bad Guys (Self-explanatory)
Civilians (People not yet lumped into either of the two groups above)

Dirtballs are a subgroup of civilian. Here in California, the terms are near synonymous. Everyone is a dirtball until proven innocent, or so they often act. That's why civilians, aka dirtballs, shouldn't have guns.

One of the many refreshing things about Texas is that ordinary responsible "good citizens" are seen as an aid to proper law enforcement rather than an enemy thereof.

JP171 wrote:JM,

The questions about weapons may seem valid on the surface, however the medic should advise the LEO as the medic probably has a better line on suicidal ideology than the officer, extrapiramidal reactions are not usually the cause of concerne to suicidal ideation, should the woman have a history of similar behavior the medic should know and move toward that DX, however with the available info this seems like the LEO ran the DL of all parties involved and made a blanket statement or order(civilian leo can't give orders) or directive that was not followed, we have no duty to follow such directives on the 3 3 rule 3 seconds or 3 feet. I am not really being as bad as you might think but I dislike the attitude that civilians must do as the LEO says cause he ain't a civilian(yes he/she is cause they ain't military) the leo gets upset because he or she believes that they have absolute authority and control over another civilian and contemp of cop applies, but there is no such charge or law or rule, a LEO is a CIVILIAN period, I have the right to ignore anything he says period, just can't interfere with him doing his job.

The common parlance these days is that sworn officers are the "us's", and everyone else is a "them," a mere civilian. It's part of the patois of the so-called "Blue Mafia."

The officer's testimony about intoxication is, ultimately, an opinion which can be refuted by proper cross examination, and by adequate evidence by the defense. Being criminal, the standard is "beyond a reasonable doubt." Prosecutors want a test, because that is objective, not opinion susceptible to much interpretation. It would seem to be a simple matter to prove the proper posting of required signs, yea or nay.

The police reports may shed some useful light on things. I don't do criminal work (they haven't caught any of my clients yet!) but I did some on court appointed type cases at the beginning of my legal career. I've never seen a police report that corresponded to what actually happened, and in some cases should have started with "Once Upon A Time..." It isn't necessarily a criticism of the LEOs; it is like that game we all played as kids where you sit in a circle and one person whispers a common saying to the next person and what starts off "Better Living through Chemistry" comes out the other end as "Lucky Strikes Mean Fine Tobacco" or similar. The few on which I have been the provider of the facts were hilariously deficient in accurately recounting what I had provided.

No telling what the soldier's lawyer has to work with, but if he stands his ground, and the people in that area aren't irretrievably prejudiced about guns, or alcohol, he stands a good chance to introduce enough "reasonable doubt" to be found as innocent as he claims to be.

You have to admire someone who has the courage of their, ahhhh, convictions!