TCDLA Texas Criminal Law Short Course - Voice For The Defense ...

finally took a shot at Helton, and they too
obtained a verdict only to have the case
reversed on appeal. See Heltort tr United
States, 221 F.2d 338 (5th Cir. 1955);
Helton v. United States, 231 F.2d 654 (5th
Cir. 1956); and Helto~t v. State, 300
S.W.2d 87 (Tex. Crim. App. 1957).
But Charles's true merit as an appellant
attorney was best displayed by his ability
to convince an appellate judge to admit
making a mistake in a written opinion. In
Scott 11. State, the Court of Criminal Appeals
affirmed the conviction by a 2 to I
vote. On motion for rehearing Charles
argued that one of the affirming judges had
authored an earlier opinion directly contrary
to the opinion now taken. On Rehearing,
Judge Davidson wrote:
When a judge realizes that he is wrong
and has erred in the performance of his
duty, he should do so without hesitation
or equivocation. This I am here doing,
because I haved reached the conclusion
that the holding in the Alexander case
precludes an affirmance of this conviction.
... Very courteously, but very
directly and positively, Appellant impresses
upon me the fact that I agreed
that the evidence was insufficient to
support the conviction in the Alexander
case. Accordingly, Appellant's motion
is granted, the affirmance set aside, the
judgment is now reversed and the cause
remanded. Scott v. State, 323 S.W.2d
445, 446 (Tex. Crim. App. 1959).
Then Circuit Judge John R. Brown
perhaps paid Charles the highest compliment
when he wrote in Porter 1. United
Stntes, 298 F.2d 461 (5th Cir. 1962):
The energetic efforts of Courtappointed
counsel who had aided this
Court by a brief, reply brief, and supplemental
brief of the highest professional
quality followed by oral arguments
of like caliber, demonstrates to
us just as conclusively that this was a
case demanding a hearing. We accordingly
reverse. Id., at 462.
I. Besides attorneys, many athcr professionals also
spent a lot of lime with Charles, including Monrae
Powell and the Platters. Jesse Lopez. Jerry Fisher,
Ron Anderson and many others.
Although affirming a conviction, Presiding
Judge Morrison wrote in Exparte Peairs,
283 S.W.2d753,757 (Tex. Crim. App.-
1955):
Appellant attacks, in one of the most
scholarly briefs to be filed in this court
in some time, the soundness of our
original opinion ...
That same judge recognized Charles again
when he wrote in Ex parte Lefors, 303
S.W.2d 394, 400 (Tex. Crim. App.-
1957): "In a studious and forceful motion
(for rehearing) ..."
TEACHER
Besides being both a trial and appeal
lawyer, Charles was also a great teacher.
The following lawyers either began or continued
their careers as criminal defense
lawyers1 with Charles W. Tessmer: John
Hainen, C. A. Droby, Bailey Rankin,
Emmett Colvin, Frank S. Wright, Stan
Weinberg, Herb Novak, Tom Upchurch,
Howard Law, Robert Carraway, Fred
Time, Donald R. Scoggins, Wylie Stufflebeme,
Noel Porlnoy, Ronald L. Goranson,
Larry Mitchell, Jerry Stewart, Bently C.
(Buzz) Kelly 111, Scott Anderson, Kevin
Clancy, and William A. Bratton 111.
Charles has also been associated with many
of the great attorneys in this state: C. S.
Farmer, Percy Foreman, Clyde Woody,
Warren Burnett, Malcolm Dorman, William
F. Walsh, James A. Moore, W. C.
Davis, Jim Bowmer, Scott Baldwin, Coy
M. Turlington, Issac Satterwhite and
George R. Milner, to name a few.
BOOKS:
Crirninnl Trial Strategy, John R. Mara
Law Book Company (1968);
771e Price of Innocence, (1970);
rile Charles W. Tess~ner Trio1 Book,
(1973)
ASSOCIATIONS AND OFFICES:
National Association of Criniinal
Defense Lawyers
President-1972-73
Board of Directors-1964-65
Texas Criminal Defense Lawyers
Association
Charter Member
Board of Directors- 197 1-74
State Bar of Texas
Executive Committee-1972
Committee to Study the Code of
Criminal Procedure-1972
Dallas County Criminal Bar Association
President-1954
American Judicature Society
The following cases were successfully
presented to the United States Supreme
Court:
1. Washington v. Te,xns, 388 U.S. 14
(1967)
The Supreine Court held that a Texas
defendant was denied his Sixth Amendment
right to have compulsory process
for obtaining witnesses by a statute that
prohibited principal, accomplice or accessory
in the same crime alleged from
being a witness for the defendant. The
statute prevented a defendant from his
right to place on the stand a witness
who was physically and n~entally capable
of testifying to events that had been
personally observed and whose testimony
would have been relevant and
material to defense issues.
2. Orozco v. Te.ws, 394 US. 324 (1969)
The Supreme Court held that the use
of a defendant's admissions made to the
police in response to questioning in the
defendant's bedroom at 4:00 a.m.,
which led to the discovery of the murder
weapon violated the self-incrimination
clause of the Fifth Amendment
where the defendant was at the time of
the questioning under arrest and had not
been given Mirandn warnings.
Mr. Tessmer was the attorney of record
In at least 16 cases presented to the United
States Supreme Court, 32 cases to the
United States Court of Appeals for the
Fifth Circuit, and 97 cases to the State of
Texas appellate courts.
VOICE ADVERTISERS
Roger Beasley Leasing ............35
Roland E. Dahlin I1 .............. I1
National Legal Services .......... .31
Republic Healthcare Corporation
-La Hacienda ................. 27
September 1988 1 VOICE for the Defense 9