Over the last few weeks, I have noticed the appearance of three different opinions from the courts of appeals on the issue of including a complete or partial Geesa definition of BRD in a jury charge. While all three courts concluded the cases should not be reversed, at least one of them said the use of a definition, albeit over the defendant's objection was error.

My question: Why in the world would a prosecutor want to put a definition of BRD in a jury charge after Paulson said to stop doing it??????

The question assumes either that the prosecutor prepares the charge or that the trial court would sustain the prosecutor's objection. In some counties, the trial judge or the court reporter prepares the charge. Moreover, some judges consider Paulson "unfair" and include the definition, despite the existence of at least one opinion reversing a conviction because of the use of the Geesa definition.

We have had mixed success down here. Some courts have removed the language, some have left it in, others have modified. We, of course, have opposed the language on every case.

And the Court of Criminal Appeals really must accept all the blame for this confusion. They should have just said in Paulson that judges should not define terms that have not been defined by the Legislature, including the phrase "beyond a reasonable doubt."

Indeed. One sometimes has to wonder if the court does not purposely create additional work for itself. Don't such cases as Clewis, Mata, and Tamez provide perfect evidence of this?

Perhaps the court could pass a rule that indicates they are only issuing probationary opinions. That means that the opinion is on probation for six months. If the opinion doesn't work out too well, it can be revoked.

Isn't that what motions for rehearing and amicus briefs are for? Sometimes, I think we should file motions for rehearing in cases that we nominally win but the opinions say or do something arguably bad . . .

John, QM is right, we pretty much already have opinions that remain on probation, sometimes for a lot longer than 6 months. Under your system, who gets to file the motion to revoke?