I got this spam from the Texas Lawyer:

CCA to Seek Feedback on Term at Austin Conference: The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals interprets the criminal law for the bench and bar. Now the nine-member CCA wants consumers of its opinions to let the court know how it did in the 2006-2007 term. At the CCA's first "Mirror Image" Conference, scheduled for Sept. 6 in Austin, eight panelists selected by the court will discuss the good, the bad and the ugly of the term.

Has anyone heard anything about this? I couldn't find anything on Google. It looks interesting.

Mirror Mirror on the Wall, Who's the Fairest of Them All?

Texas Court of Criminal Appeals to Seek Feedback on Term at Austin Conference
By Mary Alice Robbins
Texas Lawyer
Monday, August 6, 2007


The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals interprets the criminal law for the bench and bar. Now the nine-member CCA wants consumers of its opinions to let the court know how it did in the 2006-2007 term.

At the CCA's first "Mirror Image" Conference, scheduled from 10 a.m. to 3 p.m. Sept. 6 at the Texas Oil and Gas Association's building in Austin, eight panelists selected by the court will discuss the good, the bad and the ugly of the term, with Charles "Chuck" Bubany, a Texas Tech University School of Law adjunct professor, serving as the moderator.

"It's significant that the court would be willing to undertake this long look at what it does," Bubany says.

CCA Judges Cathy Cochran and Lawrence Meyers signed the letter to the panelists and, as Cochran explains, are "informally shepherding" the conference.

Meyers says he believes the entire court supports holding the conference. "Nobody seemed to object when we were talking about it," he says.

Cochran says the CCA isn't looking for personal criticism at the conference. "This isn't necessarily a "let's throw rotten eggs and tomatoes at people,' " Cochran says. "What we hope to take out of it is for all the participants to come up with good ideas on how courts process cases."

In their June 28 letter to the panelists, Cochran and Meyers wrote, "We envision an informal discussion by the panelists concerning the content, tone and tenor of the more significant cases of the past year. The panelists might focus on what was particularly good or bad. What confusion has the Court created and to whom? What confusion has the Court cleared up and for whom? What "can of worms' have we opened up?"

The CCA asks the panelists to take suggestions from others interested in what the court does, Cochran says. One suggestion that has already been made, she says, is for the appellate courts � specifically the intermediate courts of appeals � to hear more oral arguments.

Cochran says she came up with a list of five potential panelists from each of four categories: courts of appeals justices, state district judges, criminal-defense attorneys and prosecutors. The CCA discussed the names on her list in conference and selected two panelists from each category, she says.

The panelists are Terry McCall, justice on the 11th Court of Appeals in Eastland; Molly Francis, justice on the 5th Court of Appeals in Dallas; Caprice Cosper, presiding judge of the 339th District Court in Houston; Guadalupe Rivera, presiding judge of the 168th District Court in El Paso; William P. Allison, director of the Criminal Defense Clinic at the University of Texas School of Law; Mark Daniel of Evans, Gandy, Daniel & Moore in Fort Worth; Edward "Chip" Wilkinson, an assistant district attorney for Tarrant County; and Lindsey Roberts, an assistant district attorney for Williamson County.

McCall says he has just begun looking at the CCA's opinions in preparation for the conference. He says the CCA's decision to hold the conference is excellent, because it allows for an exchange of ideas.

"They can comment in their opinions on our opinions, but there's never been a two-way street," McCall says.

Cosper says she has concerns about issues related to jury instructions. "The questions of when things go to the jury, if things go to the jury and what things go are some of the stickiest issues that as trial court judges we deal with," she says.

The CCA's 5-4 decision in Hall v. State on May 9 clarified how to determine whether the allegation of an offense includes a lesser offense, which is one of the issues judges face with jury instructions, Cosper says, noting that she might discuss that opinion at the conference.

Cosper says she also has e-mailed other judges and has made phone calls to a prosecutor and a defense attorney to gather information and hear other perspectives on the CCA's decisions.

Daniel says he's glad to have the chance to have some less formal conversations with the CCA judges.

"It's a wonderful opportunity to have some interaction with the highest criminal court in Texas," Daniel says. "We appreciate their willingness to meet with both sides of the bar and be receptive to what we have to say."

But Daniel recognizes that the judges likely will be limited in what they can say about the inner workings of the court. "It's probably unfair that it's a two-way dialogue, because the judges are restrained by the [Texas] Code of Judicial Conduct from commenting about things that are pending before the court," Daniel says. "And I've got to respect the fact that they've got to be restrained from commenting."

Roberts says he's still a bit unsure about the format and what will be appropriate to discuss with the judges.

"There are things I'd like to say, but I would have to be very cautious about what I say," Roberts says.

Francis, Rivera, Allison and Wilkinson did not return telephone calls seeking comment.

Bubany says that plans for the format of the program are still in the embryonic stage.

Members of the bar have mixed reactions to the CCA decision to hold the conference.

Austin criminal defense solo David Schulman says that while the court selected a talented group of people for the panel, the panelists are not representative of a cross-section of the bar.

If the CCA judges are "looking for critical analysis, they're not going to get it from this group," Schulman says. "I'm just not sure what the court hopes to accomplish with this."

George Dix, a UT law school professor who teaches criminal law, says the court's sponsorship of the conference seems appropriate.

"It's hard to knock it," Dix says. However, he adds that it is hard for him to guess what the court might get from the conference.

William J. "Bill" Delmore, chief of the Legal Services Bureau in the Harris County District Attorney's Office, says the conference is a great idea.

"Everybody can benefit from communication about what we're trying to accomplish in the criminal justice system," Delmore says.

John Stride, appellate division chief in the Denton County District Attorney's Office, applauds the CCA for sponsoring the conference, which he says sounds very innovative.

"I think the jurisprudence of the state of Texas can only benefit by this sort of thing," Stride says. "This is a signal that they're trying to keep their fingers on the pulse and understand what really matters to the bench and bar in the state of Texas."

Is this thing open to anyone? If so, are we supposed to sign up somewhere? I haven't seen any advertisements about it. Does it cost anything?

Assuming anyone can go, are there any ideas about what sorts of things we can bring up?

It is invitation only, as to the participants. But the event itself is open to the public. I imagine the CCA is not looking for a big crowd, as it is the first time to hold it.

As for topics, what would you like for the invitees to talk about?

I heard from one of the panelists that only the panelists can attend. That's hard to believe but it does comport with the lack of effort to encourage people to attend.

Will anyone who participated or attended care to give a report?

Lindsey Roberts from our office attended. I don't know of any other prosecutors.

I went down and watched. Things which stick out in my mind as ideas that came up from the panelists are:

1. encouraging D.A.'s offices to have open file policies;

2. off-loading the 6000 annual habeas cases from the cca; the trial courts could be given the authority to grant or deny relief and the complaining party would need a certificate of appealability to appeal to the coa;

3. Masonheimer�s departure from the Oregon v. Kennedy standard was criticized;

4. Factual sufficiency review should be overruled, but maybe, since no one wins factual sufficiency claims, it's ok;

5. when urging that a case be overruled argue that it is unworkable rather than wrong;

6. perhaps the cca should have rule-making authority for trial and pre-trial matters;

7. how far will the Jones case -- about the constitutional nature of voir dire error -- go;

8. the Hall opinion may result in massive indictments with lots of lesser counts;

9. under Davis, how are trial courts to decide whether to give an art. 38.22 instruction on the voluntariness of a confession;

10. 83 to 85 percent of PDRs are frivolous; the number of plurality opinions has dropped in the last 10 years from 19 percent to 1 percent;

11. (more) PDRs should be granted (and quickly decided) on unanimity and indictment issues as these issues arise daily in the trial courts;

12. remember your audience and write especially clearly (steps give good guidance) in cases that busy trial courts and police officers must follow every day;

13. failure to admonish on deportation usually occur in cases where defendant switches his plea or goes to the jury for punishment, and if trial prosecutors screw up on deportation admonishment cases in Williamson county they have to do their own appeal.

Nothing on the subject of ineffective assistance (including the problem with lawyers who, even if given an open file, don't look in it)?

There was about a half hour on the topic of ineffective assistance but I found it too boring to take much note.

Lots discussion about maybe allowing an abatement in every case for an inefective assistance claim might be good. My impression was that the idea was so obviously unworkable that the topic was pointless. The more sensible suggestion was that ineffective assistance claims should only be brought up on habeas.

Some discussion that the interesection Pope v. State and Ex parte Briggs, means that a defense attorney should use multiple ex parte orders when seeking DNA testing.