TDCAA    TDCAA Community  Hop To Forum Categories  Criminal    Bizarre intermediate courts
Go
New
Find
Notify
Tools
Reply
  
Bizarre intermediate courts Login/Join 
Member
posted
We have Waco (excepting Gray, C.J.,) determined to rewrite any law involving DWIs, Dallas giving Crawford its broadest possible interpretation, and Austin recrafting charge law on confessions. What are some of the outrageous cases or patterns from the other intermediate courts?
 
Posts: 532 | Location: McKinney, Tx | Registered: June 22, 2001Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
The San Antonio Court seems to be determined to rewrite the case law on admission of breath test results, althought the CCA has sort of frustrated the endeavor.

Janette Ansolabehere
DPS
 
Posts: 674 | Location: Austin, Texas, United States | Registered: March 28, 2001Reply With QuoteReport This Post
<Markus Kypreos>
posted
El Paso has has had a string of indeceny and obsenity cases lately...I'm starting to believe it's the most conservative city in Texas.

I still don't undertand the 2nd COA when it comes to search and seizures.

The CCA is dealing with a lot of DNA and of course, consular notification cases right now.

It's time for me to stop doing the Case Summaries. I'm not proud of knowing this...
 
Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
SA has been causing quite a stir with all its opinions on DWI. Also, its opinions may have been the most troubling for the greatest number of cases--often requiring CCA review. No one has mentioned Corpus or Beaumont lately, are they performing conventionally?
 
Posts: 532 | Location: McKinney, Tx | Registered: June 22, 2001Reply With QuoteReport This Post
<Dennis Foster>
posted
So is a court a "good" court only when it rules the way you guys want it to? I guess that seems to be the most obvious answer.
 
Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
Dennis, if you hate prosecutors so much why do you hang around this post?
 
Posts: 283 | Location: Montague, Texas, USA | Registered: January 26, 2001Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
This is a forum shared by prosecutors and, generally, we favor opinions affirming the judgments of trial courts. But to suggest opinions are only good if they go our way is a gross overstatement. There are certainly "good" opinions under which we lose, also there are "bad" opinions under which we win. But there are also a good number of inexplicable opinions-- the point of this thread.
 
Posts: 532 | Location: McKinney, Tx | Registered: June 22, 2001Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
Just to echo what John wrote, many of the posters here(when they are being serious, of course) can be fairly thoughtful in their assement of particular cases. While there's obviously a temptation to favor cases for purely selfish reasons (I've heard defense attorneys refer to Houston courts of appeals as "bad" for example), just because the case might be helpful doesn't mean that the case is necessarily bad. It is possible for a case or opinion to be praised not only because it is good for the State, but also because it is a reasonable opinion that will ultimately benefit Texas jurisprudence as a whole. As John mentioned above, I believe this thread is really about courts that are clearly off the reservation, not just rendering opinions that go against the State. (I do agree that the San Antonio opinions that sought to require retrograde extrapolation testimony for breath test admissiblity would qualify for placement here, but that's just me.)

Of course, the question really does open the door to larger philosophical discussions about valuation and whether anyone could be truly objective or whether there is any such thing as an objective "good," but that type of metaquestioning ultimately leads to a complete inability to have any type of discussion at all.
 
Posts: 1243 | Location: houston, texas, u.s.a. | Registered: October 19, 2001Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
Thanks to the office of the SPA the CCA recently overturned an astonishing expansion of the exclusionary rule as it relates to Miranda. Take a look at State v Wilkerson ___ SW3d ____, WL 2443151 2005. The CCA was gentle but firm in pointing out the logical extension of the intermediate court's ruling.
 
Posts: 723 | Location: Fort Worth, TX, USA | Registered: July 30, 2002Reply With QuoteReport This Post
<Dennis Foster>
posted
I do not "hate" prosecutors. I plan on being one once I finish law school. And I like to hang out here because, afterall, I paid my membership dues here just like everybody else and I like to see what is going on and maybe comment on a thing or two.

I always thought that a prosecutors main duty was to see that justice was done. Obviously, "justice" means many things to many people. Sometimes I may throw out a contrary opinion just to see what others think and say. I, too, like to see the bad guys get whats coming to them. But I also want to ensure that justice is done in the process - for all sides.
 
Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
we prosecutors do want to see that justice is done for everyone, and as at least two previous posters have agreed, there's an obvious temptation to look at cases from a self-interested standpoint. if your original point was simply to get prosecutors to question their own motives in valuing cases, well, you certainly succeeded. and it's not such a bad thing, really.

however, from talking with other prosecutors (over my meager career) i have always been impressed at prosecutor's abilities to acknowledge that some cases that are good for defendants are, in fact, "good" cases. while prosecutors can be human like other attorneys and get caught up in a particular case, i have found them to be fairly willing to check themselves on a regular basis. i have not seen that characteristic from many defense attorneys, and even then, i usually see it in defense attorneys who used to be prosecutors. so in that sense, i do have faith that prosecutors are able to and often do "check themselves." but such comments are just me sticking up for my own and it doesn't really help the discourse.

in as direct answer to your original question as i can, yes i typically regard cases as "good" when they help the state, but i'm nevertheless hesitant to call a case good unless i feel it is well-reasoned, isn't likely to create more problems later on, and is likely to stand the test of time. from reading multiple responses from several of the prosecutors on this thread and others, i have faith that they value cases as much (if not more) for their reasoning then for the end result.

[This message was edited by David Newell on 11-03-05 at .]
 
Posts: 1243 | Location: houston, texas, u.s.a. | Registered: October 19, 2001Reply With QuoteReport This Post
<Dennis Foster>
posted
Many thanks, sir!
 
Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
you're welcome. i'm always good for bringing discussion on a thread to a screeching halt. what can i say? it's a gift.
 
Posts: 1243 | Location: houston, texas, u.s.a. | Registered: October 19, 2001Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
It takes more than some home truths about the criminal justice system to stop a good thread. . .

Re Mr. Stride�s query about the 13th: given that at least 11 of the 99 cases with PDR currently granted are out of the 13th, I�m not sure anyone could fairly characterize the court as performing conventionally. However, that number is probably higher than usual due to a bad patch last year when a number of criminal cases were assigned to a visiting justice who shall remain nameless in this forum. I think each of the three big counties in the 13th�s jurisdiction--Hidalgo (McAllen), Cameron (Brownsville) and Nueces (Corpus)--now has had at least one PDR granted on an opinion written by that particular judge.

That said, this office has had very good overall success in the 13th with both regular appeals and State�s appeals. Mandamus is another matter, but then again, they call those extraordinary writs for a reason.

The court of appeals that currently intrigues me the most is the 2nd. There seem to be some interesting internecine struggles going on there . . .

Question: I remember seeing several names posted as contacts for a committee looking at changes to the appellate rules. Does anyone remember who those folks are?
 
Posts: 23 | Location: Hidalgo County | Registered: November 13, 2003Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
The Texas Association of Post-Conviction Criminal Attorneys with 33 members (prosecutors, defense attorneys, and court staff) practicing in the post-conviction area and organized by David Schulman has drafted some fairly comprehensive proposed changes.
 
Posts: 532 | Location: McKinney, Tx | Registered: June 22, 2001Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
Amy, Chuck Mallin (Tarrant County) is the prosecutor on the appellate rules committee to which you refer.
 
Posts: 2368 | Registered: February 07, 2001Reply With QuoteReport This Post
  Powered by Social Strata  
 

TDCAA    TDCAA Community  Hop To Forum Categories  Criminal    Bizarre intermediate courts

© TDCAA, 2001. All Rights Reserved.