7 - Voice For The Defense Online

More documents

Recommendations

Info

protection violatton. Concurring Opinion: Johnson agrees that trial court did not abuse its discretron in denying venue change, but writes to emphasize that CCA's holding is "deeply rooted in the words of the statute" and statute does not require personal knowledge of "defendant's compurgators." She also observes that Cockrum adopted the reasoning m Lundmom, 74211279 (CCA 1987)(op. on reh'g), wherein CCA held that state "may successfully controvert by means of a general dental of the 'credibihty' or 'means of knowledge' of the defendant's compurgators, or it may, as in the Instant case, generally deny that there exists 'so great a prejudice againsr' the defendant or a 'dangerous combination against' the defendant so that 'he cannot expect a far tr~al!" And, as pointed out in Lundstrom, statute has remained vrrtually unchanged since 1879. What th~s all boils down to IS, if the trial judge bel~wes a defendant can get afar trial m the county, there IS nc abuse of dlscfeuon. 2. Requesr for experts: CCA holds that trial court did not err m refusmg to appomt a consultant because juq consultant is not aWbasic toolVof the defense - pickmg the jury IS the attorney's lob. As to drug abuse expert, CCA fmds that psychratrist appointed for Appellant was sufficiently knowledgeable to testify about substance abuse (despite admission that he possessed less knowledge and expertise than would a person who specialized m the subject). CCA holds, wrthout citation to any author~ty, that trial court could have reasonably found that expert could adequately testrfy as a drug abuse expert, and hence add~tronal expert was unnecessary. 3. Other rejected points include complarnts re: voir drre, suppression of evrdence, parole ehg~brlit~ and unconstitutronality of the death penalty. DEATH PENALTY CASE: Carl Brooks v. State, No. 72,806; Bexar County; Affirmed, 3/31/99; Opinion: McCormrck, jo~ned by Keller, Holland & Keasler; Mansfield concurred (w/o opinion) m pornt 4, & otherw~se joms majorrty oprnron; Concurring Opinlon: Womack, joined by Prtce, Meyers &Johnson. 1. Legal and factual insufficiency of evidence: Appellant was convicted of killing the victim, then taking hrs drugs, money and cat. CCA rejects all challenges to factual and legal sufficiency of the evidence, both at guilt/innocence and punishment. The concurrmg judges beheve CCA "can and should review the evidence at the caprtaLsentencing proceedmg for both 'legal' and 'factual' sufficiency[.l" 2. Speedy trial complaint: CCA also rejects Appellant's complaint that trial court erred in denyrng h ~s pretrial habeas corpus apphcation and refusing to dii~~s the indrctment wtth prejudice for farling to comply wlthTCCP 28.061 k32.01 (speedy mal). Indictment issued on January 24,1996, and Appellant filed IS writ on March 21, 1997. State filed affidavit of "good cause" and ma1 court denred relref without holdmg a heanng. CCA.holds Appellant walved h~s cornplalnt by waiung almost a year and - after he was indicted to file h~s wrrt. Concurring opin~on says CCA should not have addressed the merits of this complaint. Habeas cofpus is a separate proceeding, and Appellant should have appealed the rnal court's ruling to the court of appeals, not raised th~s as a pomt on drrect appeal. 3. Disabled juror: Appellant argued that a juror became disabled because he was arrested for carrying a handgun mw the courtrwm after the gu~ltlinnocence phase of trial. Tr~al court denied hrs request for a mistrral, and allowed the juror to remain. (In response to query from trial court whether his ability to be fair to both sides during punishment was impeded, juror sard the incident had nothing to do unth the trial.) CCA holds that because the juror did not suffer from a physical illness, mental conditron, or emotional state which affected his abrlity to perform hn duties as a juror, he was not disabled in a manner ennsioned by TCCP 36.29, and so no abuse of discretron by trd court. 4. Other rejected points include: Erroneous admlss~on of hearsay; constitutional challenges to death penalty statutes: vo~r dire complaints h The Off Asked rninawav could sav. mat frigh61 miins bell Aay to11 for me 42 VOICE MAY1999
1 3" AHHU~I Rudy Mean Seminar SILVERHORN Golf Club 1 100 Bitters Road San Rntonio,- Texas 78216 Format: Four person Florida Scramble. Teams made as requested and handicapped by the tournament committee. Prizes will be awarded to the low gross scoring team and the low net scoring team, as well as For longest drive, shortest drive, closest to the hole, etc. Entry Fee: $86.00. Entry Form must be submitted to: Dan Hurley, 1703 Rvenue K, Lubbock, Texas 79401 Entry Fees should be mailed to or Faxed to (806) 763-0644 by June 4,1999. TCDLR, Rusty Duncan Golf Tournament, 600 Ulest 13th Street, Rustin, Texas 78701. Name: Phone: Rddress: , City: Fax: Handicap*: Home Course (handicap verification) * Tournament committee will adjust any sandbaggers Return by June 4, 199 to Dan Hurley at the above address.
Page 3: - Features Defense Lawyers Only By
Page 6 and 7: 7 President's Message The Big Chill
Page 8 and 9: 1. r Editor's Comment B eginning ne
Page 10 and 11: SHOULD TCDLA WINARS HE OPEN TO ALL
Page 12 and 13: of tom1 program enrollment of 2000,
Page 14 and 15: EMMETT GOMN, TEXAS E mmett Colvin,
Page 16 and 17: i Write! Dear Voice for the Defense
Page 18 and 19: ~ ~ ~~ the availability of legal re
Page 20 and 21: Conclusions under the Fifth Amendme
Page 22 and 23: accept what is king argued if you c
Page 24 and 25: S.Ct. 2786, 125 LM.2d 469 (1993). T
Page 26 and 27: een demonstrated to be higher than
Page 28 and 29: psychtatrists." In Suggs u. La Vall
Page 30 and 31: Open Records - An Overview Of The P
Page 32 and 33: Gen. ORD-467 (1987); ORD-145 (1976)
Page 34 and 35: documents, and the option of seekin
Page 36 and 37: material"). As noted above, this ex
Page 38 and 39: \ TFE POLLOWING ARE SYNOPSES OF OPW
Page 40 and 41: 20 yrs. On appeal, they successfull
Page 44: Texas Crimimal Defense Lawyers Asso

7 - Voice For The Defense Online

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?