After nearly 15 years in this business, on the white hat side, I tried my first "Motion to Squash" last week.

What was the final score?

Subject is swerving. Police pull him over. When asked why he was swerving the subject responded in a slurred, but understandable voice, that the French Fries had caused him to swerve.

And then there was the defendant who insisted his confession was involuntary because, as he testified before the jury, he was "reliterate."

Hope I haven't posted this before:

We had a defendant on the stand who claimed he could not be guilty of indecent exposure because he was incompetent. "You know, doesn't work."

The Motion to Squash score was:

Law School graduate/prosecutor: 1

Pro-Se poor speller with a very
poor understanding of the concept
of making a challange to the array
of a grand jury: 0

Found in the police report for my client

"Patricia has a heroine addiction"

Suspect stated that the officer "violated my constipational rights."

I would not want to be present for any search that violates constipational rights.

Maybe we should introduce that suspect to the lady with the sherry enema !

Anyone know what happened to that case ?

It got flushed.

Yesterday in trial the female deputy who rolled the D's major case prints testified. I was asking about her experience and qualifications when she told the jury that her husband had spent fifteen years in the ID bureau and "she had worked under him for some time."

From a Republic of Texas guy's Speedy Trial Motion: "Therefore, the Acussed's federal Sixth Amendment constitutional right has been VIOLATED by the State of Texas." Damn--he filed this thing back last March--how did he know way back then I'd be cussin' him out now?

So - How is it that a state that the Defendant claims does not exist can violate his Constitutional rights? And surely he cannot be claiming that his rights under the US Constitution are being violated, being a citizen of an independent REPUBLIC and all....

Yeah, Larry, I was a little unclear on that myself, unfortunately. OK, actually I was also unclear on several other things in his admirably brief (argument on three issues in only 2/3 of a page) brief. So unclear I just kinda gave up trying to figure it out. I guess his clearly superior legal acumen got the best of me this time.

In sad defeat,
Elizabeth

You are lucky. We have a group that says it is not under the laws of any government - only God. He appealed a municipal ticket for No DL to County Court, then to the 11th COA. Luckily the city attorney decided to respond. I saw his brief - probably about 30-40 pages. Most of it was also hard to comprehend as to what his arguments really were. The city attorneys have dealt with him on a regular basis so more able to understand him.

In an affidavit in support of a notice of seizure and intent to forfeit property, the seizing officer noted that that he had observed the defendant, "...pass oblivious drugs to the CI." Obviously, it was the defendant's use of these drugs that rendered him oblivious to the surveillance team watching the transaction.

From the 10th Court of Appeals' memorandum opinion in Randy Warren Patton v. State, issued 11/10/04:

"The officer followed the vehicle and secured a traffic stop for failure to turn without signaling."

Close, but no cigar.

Once, during a traffic stop a violator told me he no longer needed corrective lenses to drive, as he had �radical chemotherapy� on his eyes. (Radial keratotomy?) Another diver said he didn�t know he was speeding because his �speeding thermometer� was broken.

I just received a request from an inmate in our jail. He states " I want to file for emotional of discovery". It took me a few minutes to decipher that one.