Robert Richard Thornton - Voice For The Defense Online

More documents

Recommendations

Info

MemorialRobert Richard Thorntonby John BostonThe Texas Criminal Defense LawyersAssociation has lost one of its originals.Charter member Robert Richard Thornton,68, of Galveston died December 26, 1986after a brief illness. He had been a lawyersince 1947, having begun his legal educationin 1939. From 1940 through 1946 hewas on active duty with the United StatesArmy Air Corps.A native of Houston, Richard was bornJuly 12, 1918, attended Galveston publicschools and was an honor graduate of BallHigh School in 1935. He attended TulaneUniversity in New Orleans, the Universityof Texas at Austin (BA 1939), the Universityof Texas School of Law receiving anLLB degree in 1948. Like many of hisgeneration his education was interruptedby World War 11.Colonel Richard Thornton United StatesAir Force Reserve (Retired) had a distinguishedmilitary career, both active dutyand Air Force Reserve. He served in boththe Pacific and European theaters duringWorld War TI. He survived the ditching ofhis B-17 near New Guinea in the South Pacificin November 1942. He and his crewspent four days in life rafts in sbarkinfestedseas before they were rescued. InMarch 1943 he was transferred to the Europeantheater where the then CaptainThornton flew thirteen bombing missionsover Europe. On this thirteenth mission hewas shot down over France, parachuted tosafety and for some period of time evadedcapture with the aid of the Free French.He was captured near the French-Spanishborder by the Ciestapo in 1944. He wasliberated by the Russians in May 1945 andleft active duty as a Major, continuing inthe United States Air Force Reserve andretiring as a Reserve Colonel in 1965. Hisdecorations include the Silver Star, DistinguishedFlying Cross with oak leaf cluster,Air Medal with three oak leaf clusters andvarious campaign medals from both thePacific and European theaters. He was amember of the National Ex-Prisoner ofWar Association, the Veterans of ForeignWars and the American Legion.Richard Thornton was admitted to practicein the State of Texas in 1947; UnitedStates Supreme Court in 1953. He was admittedto practice before various othercourt and commissions throughout hiscareer including three of the Federal DistrictCourts of Texas, Immigration Appeals,Interstate Commerce Commission,United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuitand the US. Court of Military Appeals.In addition to being a chartermember of TCDLA, he was a member ofthe American Trial Lawyers Association,Texas Trial Lawyers Association, GalvestonCounty Bar Association, havingserved as a member of the hoard or as anofficer of the latter two orgenizations. Hewas amemher of theNational Associationof Criminal Defense Lawyers.Thornton was very active in continuinglegal education programs including thefaculty of the Texas Trial Advocacy Institute,Sam Houston University; Lecturer,Criminal Law and Procedure Section StateBar of Texas; Adjunct Professor, CriminalLaw and Procedure, Trial Tactics,University of Houston Bates College ofLaw; and Southwest College of Law. Inthe past he has been a lecturer for theCriminal Defense Lawyers Project and acontributor of legal articles to the Voicefir, the Defense.Anoutline of the facts of a forty-year legalcareer in no way does justice to thecontributions that Richard Thornton madeto the legal profession in general and theTexas Criminal Defense Lawyers Associationin particular. Richard Thornton wasalways available to advise and assist criminaldefense lawyers with tough cases andproblems of any nature. The localnewspapers in Galveston County havereferred to him as "prominent." He wasthat and so much more. Richard Thornton'scontributions to his profession, his stateand his country were many. We willremember him as a first class gentleman,an honorablelawyer and a friend. We willmiss him.WPRIVATE* * CRIME LABORATORY *Prnvlrli~~g Qualily Fnrcnsic Analysisa ~ Expert ~ d l'cslilnony in thc Following Arras :Drug AnalysisBlood Alcohol AnalysisUrine Drug AnalysisAlcohol ToxicologyAnonymous Drug TestingDWI ConsultationClandestine Lab ConsultationAlcohol Absorption/Arson Debris AnalysisElimination CurvePhysical Trace Evidence,Preparation forMurder, Rape, etc.DWI ClientsPrivate Investigationsiz We specialize in preparing defense attorneysfor cross-examination of opposing scient@c experts QInitial consultation is free of chargeMICRO FORENSICS & INVESTIGATIONS1600 hkst Hichwnv 6, Suilc 350Alvin, Texas 77511Houston Area: (7131 331-2655 Austin Area: (512) 445-0190A VOICE for the Defense /February 1987
The Effective and Judicious Use ofOral Argument in the Court of Criminal Appealsby Judge Charles F. Campbell, Jr. and John M. BradleyOral argument is the only opportunityfor direct personal contact between appellatejudges and the p+ in a lawsuit.'In that short encaunter, an advocate has theunique opportunity to supplement the writtenword with the spoken word, therebyadding credibility.and emphasis to argumentsthat might otherwise be unremarkable.Knowing that the spoken word c-anhave a significant effect upon the decisionmakingprow, appellate judges have frequentlypublished their thoughts on the artof oral advo~acy.~ The purpose of this ar-ticle is to add to those comments by focusingupon improving oral argument in theTexas Court of Criminal Appeals.When Can Counsel RequestOral Argument?Counsel can request oral argument inanv "causes" acce~ted bv the Court of~rknal Appeals for suhhi~ion.~ Thesecauses include direct appeals, cases grantingdiscretionary review, extraordinarymatters and post-conviction writs of habeasco~pus.~ Prior to actual submission of acause, the Clerk of the Court must informcounsel of record that he bas 30 days withinwhich to notify the Court whether oralargument is desired.'C~unsel may not request oral argumentin motions requesting special consideration,e.g., to advance on the docket."Likewise, counsel may not request oral argumentin motions for rehearing or repliesto such motions.' However, if a motionfor rehearing is granted, the Court maypermit oral argument upon resubmissionof the causc8At present, the Court does not screen requestsfor oral argument. If requested, oralargument generally will he granted.Although the rules of appellate procedureindicate that oral argument may be deniedfor rehearings, the court has not indicatedany specific grounds for denying such argument.Nor has it shown any general ten-Charles F. Canlobell is a maduate ofSMU School of &v. He hashen AS&tant Disnict Aftomey in Harris Caunty;County Artonzq and District Altomey inHill County; Assistant Attorney General,Chief of Prosecutor's Assisfance Divisionunder Attorney General Mark While; electedJudae, Tam Court of - Criminal Aweals .-in 192.Mr. Bradley is Judge Campbell'sResearch Assistant. Previously he servedas Briefng Attorney for Judge Campbelland= intem to Harrts Corn District Atfonteykoffice. He graduak fmm theUniversity of St. i'h~homas in 1981 andfromthe llniwrsify of Houston LUW Center in1985.dency to deny argument upon rehearing.Tbese circumstances indicate that theCourt presently has a liberal policy ofgranting requests for oral argument.Some appellate courts have begunscreening requests for oral argument. Thedevelopment of such a policy stems froman increase in frivolous cases, a rise inoverall caseloads and a recognition thatmany cases are governed by dear precedent?Those same policy considerationscould eventually lead to restrictions uponoral argument in the Court of Criminal Appeal~.'~To preserve an independentchoice, attorneys should make selective,intelligent requests for oral argument andthen follow through on that request.When Should CounselRequest Oral Argument?Counsel should request oral argumentwhen he believes that it will significantlyenhance his written brief. The opportunityto vocalize the contents of a brief, if usedto engage in mere repetition, is not a soundenough reason for requesting and presentingoral argument. Counsel must analyzehis oarticular case in terms of the obiec- "tives of oral argument and determinewhether there will he any distinct advantagesto supplementing his brief with thespoken word.Each Wednesday, when oral argumentsare presented in the Court of Criminal Appeals,at least one party to a cause typicallyfails to appear." Counsel's absence impliesthat his request for oral argument mayhave been mechanistic rather thanmeaningful. This sort of haphazard approachto appellate advocacy might eventuallylead to curtailment of oral argument.A former state supreme court justice hasidentified ten functions of orat argument:(1) to persuade judges(2) to focus on one important matter only(3) to reiterate most major points in thebrief(4) to clarify facts(5) to counter opposition's arguments(6) to appeal to '$mice," 'kight," and"fairness"(7) to legitimate the legal process by appblic confrontation of issum(8) to urge judges to read (or reread)February 1987 1 VOICE for fhe Defense 5
Page 1 and 2: -the Texas (Robert Richard Thornton
Page 3: PRESIDENT'S REPORTIKnox JonesIt's w
Page 7 and 8: with an mthoritatim? qmseto a quest
Page 9: Federal Sentencing in the 1980s and
Page 12 and 13: dividual or $10,000,000 if the defe
Page 14 and 15: procedure. When prehearing assessme
Page 16 and 17: when non-security considerations ou
Page 18 and 19: Aliens As Criminal Defendants: Stra
Page 20 and 21: grounds, (see Matter of S, 7 I&NDec
Page 22 and 23: tion, then in certain circumstances
Page 24 and 25: Search Warrants ana ~rrest Warrants
Page 26 and 27: 2d 143 (Tex. Cr. App. 1969). The cr
Page 28 and 29: specific intent to defraud or harm
Page 30 and 31: 2d 143 (Tex. Cr. App. 1969). The cr
Page 32 and 33: specific intent to defraud or harm
Page 34 and 35: Ex parte James Harvey HAWKINS, No.
Page 36 and 37: parole eligibility was element of p
Page 38 and 39: CAPITAL MURDER SPECIAL ISSUES -- AC
Page 40 and 41: Joe Louis ARRIETA, No. 02-85-202-CR
Page 42 and 43: Appeals. In the meantime, however,
Page 44 and 45: sentation or statement made in reck
Page 46 and 47: Appeals. In the meantime, however,
Page 48 and 49: sentation or statement made in reck
Page 50 and 51: the subject of suit is within the c
Page 52 and 53: From the Inside OutSo the Judge Wil
Page 54 and 55:
m.The P.S.I. is an imporfanant docu
Page 57 and 58:
EthicsPropriety of Supplementing th
Page 59 and 60:
New Motions7he following Motion for
Page 61 and 62:
Respectfully submitted,JOSEPH (SIB)
Page 63 and 64:
where a juror is susceptible to a c
Page 65 and 66:
Letter to the Editor:It is wonderfu
Page 67 and 68:
serving his time. It also allows re
Page 69 and 70:
S.W.2d 249 (Tex.App. -CorpusChristi
Page 71 and 72:
In and Around Texasby John BostonBy
show all

Robert Richard Thornton - Voice For The Defense Online

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?