The Matlock Blog

I think my Google is broken

My apologies to Judge Salvant for stating that he had no website. It didn't take a reader long to point out that the judge does in fact have a website for his reelection to the bench of Criminal District Court Number 2.

The website is here.

I know I stated that when I Googled the judge, and Ms. Tolbert for that matter, that I found no website for them. The same is still true. Sort of. Sometimes it pops up, and sometimes it doesn't. Again, my aplogies.

You will find all the information you might need (I suppose) on his website.

And yes, before anyone points it out, that is a sharp bowtie.

Now Hiring: Judge Criminal District Court Number Two of Tarrant County

There is only one contested criminal court judicial race this year in Tarrant County. That race is for judge of Criminal District Court Number Two. Republican incumbent Judge Wayne Salvant faces Democratic challenger Maureen Tolbert.

First, why are Tarrant County’s judicial races predominantly set in off-year elections? If there is anyone that can explain this to me, I would love to hear. But that’s another story for another day.

If you are a regular, everyday person in Tarrant County, you might not even know that there is a judicial race this year. I travel an average of 45 miles a day commuting from my downtown office to my house. I see two signs regarding this race. Two. They are both Judge Salvant’s.

We are only 39 days from the election. Granted, there are probably more important issues to be decided by your ballot on November 4 than a local felony court race, but could someone campaign?

Some will argue that Judge Salvant needn’t campaign as much because, after all, he is the incumbent. I agree with that to an extent. But, how about this wrinkle? Judge Salvant is one of only two African American judges in all of Tarrant County. He is also a Republican.

From my understanding, there is genuine concern (although I think unnecessarily) that an ironic twist could occur; one of only two African American judges could lose his seat because of a groundswell of African American votes going for Senator Obama in the presidential election.

The concern that I have heard of is that African Americans will be voting straight-ticket and will potentially “take away” votes from Judge Salvant. I don’t see that happening. Even assuming every Democrat and African American in Tarrant County votes straight-ticket, and in turn for Ms. Tolbert, is it really enough? Based on the numbers I’ve seen, Republican out number Democrats in the county by almost two-to-one.

But again I ask, where is the campaign? It’s great that a candidate might speak to the local party meeting, but those people are going to vote anyway. What about the others?

If I had to guess, I would think the candidates are looking to simply ride the coattails of the presidential candidates. It’s worked before. Well, actually it usually works.

But wouldn’t you like to know where the candidates stand on the important issues of being a judge in Tarrant County? Yeah, me too. With that in mind, I went Googleing.

Neither candidate has a website that I could find. In fact, I didn’t see anything designed for support for Judge Salvant. Ms. Tolbert apparently has a sister with a MySpace page and four snippets of a radio interview on YouTube.

Ms. Tolbert discusses how she is different in this interview. (Short version is that she is a Democrat and that because every judge is Republican, there is corruption.) Here, she discusses how it is bad that all the judges are Republican. Here, Ms. Tolbert discusses how a judge should be disinterested in the outcome of a case and should be more like a referree. (Interesting that she even mentions Dallas County.) Finally, here Ms. Tolbert discusses attorneys being pressured to dispose of a case. (I found this to be so interesting that I might post about this one later.)

So, is there an important judicial race this year in Tarrant County? Yeah, there is. Maybe someone could tell the candidates.

What is your verdict? It's the economy, stupid.

Scott Greenfield posts today about the effect of the economy on juries. His post comes on the heels of a post by Anne Reed at Deliberations that discussed the Sixth Circuit case of Smith v. Berguis.

In Smith, the court overturned a Michigan murder conviction because the manner in which the jury was selected systematically and disproportionately excluded African Americans. The essence of the case is that the judge in the particular court was apparently too nice. He let people out of jury service because it was too hard. Seems like a nice thing to do, right? I mean rarely do you find someone who actually wants to be on a jury.

The problem with this practice was that by doing so, it was much more likely that African Americans would be excused from the potential jury pool than not. The basis for the exclusion was the need to provide child care, transportation, and missing work. The problem, as Anne Reed points out, is that those excuses aren’t equally distributed For example, according to an expert in Smith, 67% of African Americans are the head of a single parent home while only 19% of whites were.

What does this case have to do with today’s economy. Everything if you’re picking a jury. Think about it. It’s all about paying bills and paying attention.

It can be hard enough to get a jury to follow your argument through an entire trial. But that’s assuming your jury is actually paying attention to you. What happens when they are more concerned about the money they are losing by not being at work? What if they are more concerned with having to pay for a sitter for their kids than listening to you explain why your client couldn’t have done it?

Greenfield explains this concept using Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs pretty well. If you are not aware of the Hierarchy, here is a link to it. Essentially it stands for the proposition that there are levels of importance to which people are concerned. In its most basic sense, people are more concerned about eating and having a roof over their heads than they are about friendships. They are more concerned about having friends and family than they are about being respected by others or personal achievements. And they are more concerned about all of those things than they are about any amount of self-actualization. Guess where jury service is?

The point is, as the economy worsens and people are more and more about issues relating to their money, the less they are interested about sitting on your jury. Is it a good thing? Not at all. As Greenfield suggests, if you can put off your jury trial for a while, you might want to try.

Of course here in North Texas, the economy is not as dire as the national economy. Especially in Tarrant County, there isn’t the sense of urgency. Although the strong growth seen over the last few years has slowed, it doesn't seem as bad as it does nationally. At least that’s my perception. But eventually, it will worsen. And when it does, the fine citizens of Tarrant County might be less interested in listening to a stellar cross exam of the complainant than worrying about their pocketbooks.

So you've been arrested in Tarrant County?

A person arrested in Tarrant County is probably going to have his or her case set in the Tarrant County Justice Center located at 401 W. Belknap in downtown Fort Worth. Depending upon the type of case, it is classified as either a felony or a misdemeanor offense. The importance of this classification, at least initially, is before what court you must appear.

There are 10 misdemeanor courts and nine felony courts in Tarrant County. The misdemeanor courts are designated as County Criminal Courts. They are numbered for relative ease, as in County Criminal Court Number One and so forth.

There are nine felony courts in Tarrant County. There are four Criminal District Courts, numbered one through four. There are five additional courts; they are the 213th, 297th, 371st, 372nd, and 396th District Courts.

While the numbering of the courts is relatively elementary, their respective locations can be anything but. For example, County Criminal Court Number 5 is not on the fifth floor. It's on the sixth. Criminal District Court Number 4 is not on the fourth floor, but rather on the eighth floor. And so on and so forth. Perhaps building planning and architecture are not strong points of the county.

Getting around this marvel of modern architecture can be somewhat difficult. The courts don't actually begin until the fifth floor. The following is a list of the floors of the Tarrant County Justice Center and the courts located on them:

Fifth Floor: Criminal District Court No. 1 - Judge Sharen Wilson
213th District Court - Judge Luis Sturns
297th District Court - Judge Everett Young
371st District Court - Judge Mollee Westfall
County Criminal Court No. 1 - Judge Sherry Hill
County Criminal Court No. 4 - Judge Deborah Nekhom

Sixth Floor: Criminal District Court No. 2 - Judge Wayne Salvant
372nd District Court - Judge Scott Wisch
County Criminal Court No. 2 - Judge Mike Mitchell
County Criminal Court No. 5 - Judge Jamie Cummings
County Criminal Court No. 10 - Judge Phillip Sorrells

Seventh Floor: Criminal District Court No. 3 - Judge Elizabeth Berry
396th District Court - Judge George Gallagher
County Criminal Court No. 3 - Judge Billy Mills
County Criminal Court No. 8 - Judge Daryl Coffey

Eighth Floor: Criminal District County No. 4 - Judge Mike Thomas
County Criminal Court No. 6 - Judge Molly Jones
County Criminal Court No. 7 - Judge Cheril Hardy
County Criminal Court No. 9 - Judge Brent Carr

Next time? What it means to be on bond in Tarrant County.

Tarrant County's Felony Alcohol Intervention Project (FAIP)

Tarrant County implemented the Felony Alcohol Intervention Project, or FAIP, in 2007. The mission statement sums it up pretty well: To capitalize on the trauma and consequences of an arrest by early intervention in the alcoholic's course of conduct.

From the outset, I will admit that I don't know that much about this program. My practice generally doesn't include too many felony DWI cases, for whatever reason. However, felony level DWIs (which require at least two prior DWI convictions for the enhancement under Section 49.09, or a prior conviction for Intoxication Manslaughter), are fundamentally different that first time, or even second time DWIs. The idea with felony DWIs is that the person has a drinking problem as opposed to simply having made a bad choice.

With this concept in mind, I suppose FAIP was born. A felony DWI is a third degree felony meaning the person could be sentenced to anywhere between two and 10 years in prison or receive up to 10 years probation. In Tarrant County, the District Attorney's office maintains a policy of the maximum term of probation as its only offer of probation. (They also generally offer the maximum two years probation for a misdemeanor DWI).

A person in the FAIP program receives only four years probation. However, the program is much more intensive than standard probation, and the selection criteria is more exclusive.
The person must be 17 or older;
be a resident of Tarrant County;
charged with a felony DWI;
have no prior 3g convictions or pending 3g cases;
be a legal U.S. resident;
not currently on parole or probation;
have no pending possession of heroin or unlawful possession of a firearm cases;
have no prior involuntary or intoxication manslaughter convictions;
and be approved by the FAIP team.

The program consists of five phases; Stabilize and Engage, Treatment, Consistent Maintenance, Continuing Care, and Aftercare. The first four phases must last a minimum of 18 months. These four phases include meetings with supervision personnel, multiple court appearances, attending Alcoholics Anonymous meetings, submitting BAC and UA specimens. The person must be subject to at least 90 days on the SCRAM monitor, a driver's license suspension of up to two years, up to 160 hours of community service, and curfews. Additionally, the person must be confined for 10 days in the Tarrant County jail.

Following successful completion of the first four phases, the person is eligible for entrance into phase five, Aftercare. For admission to Aftercare, the person must also have been sober for at least one year, submit a stability and sobriety plan and be approved by the FAIP team.

Clearly the goal of FAIP is lifestyle change rather than diversion such as that seen in Drug Court programs. I suppose it can be argued that if you get to the point of being charged with a third time DWI you have a drinking problem. But at the same time, the program presupposes someone in that situation wants to change.

Like I said, I have never had a client in this program because I don't routinely represent felony DWI cases. It does sound like a very comprehensive program for the person that wants to get help for his or her drinking problem.

If anyone has had a client in this program, I would love to hear about it.

Apple of my eye

I am often asked how I run a law office using only Macs. It's easy really. Very well, thank you.

I am somewhat known for the fact that everything within my firm is a Mac. In a world of crashing Windows and the blue screen of death, Macs just work. Add in the fact that I have used Macs since law school, and it's a natural for me.

When I say my office is entirely Mac, I'm not kidding. We have:
Two MacBook Pros (both in my office; one that is actually used and the other us a storage computer)
One iMac (used by my assistant; it's the true workhorse of the firm and the every day-to-day work of the firm is maintained.)
One Time Capsule (a brilliant device; it has one terabyte worth of storage, and doubles as the backup of everything in the office as well as the WiFi source.)
And of course, my iPhone (it's like my American Express card; you'll never catch me without it.)

Using these computers and programs like Address Book, which is part of the Mac OS X operating system, iWork, Mail,iCal, and several other independent software titles, I never have to deal with Windows.

All of this hardware and software allows my office to work seamlessly. I have never had a computer problem in my office. Never.

Seamlessly, means just that. Especially now with http://www.apple.com/mobileme/. My assistant can take a message while I am in court and simply email it to me. The email is accessible through my iPhone. I can dial the number directly from the message. No input. Just click the link and I'm calling. My assistant schedules a meeting for me while I am out, and the appointment is automatically updated on my calendar on my iPhone.

It seems that every day, someone is thinking about getting a Mac laptop. Whether it be the MacBook, MacBook Pro or the MacBook Air, Macs are turning into the chic computer to have. However, as many other attorney have asked me, isn't the downside, especially in the legal field, that the fast majority of programs are only Windows compatible. Are they? Is that a big deal?

My office has run nothing but Macs since its inception, but most programs require a Windows machine. However, there is not a Windows computer anywhere near my office. Except of course virtually.

You see, the Tarrant County District Attorney's office utilizes what is referred to as the Electronic Case Filing System. Essentially, the entire D.A.'s office is digital. There are no longer paper files to be carried by the prosecutors. They only carry their own laptops. Alas, they are Dells.

The ECFS system allows attorneys access to client discovery material through a secure internet connection. The problem? It is a Windows application. No problem.

Even though my office is all Mac all the time, I am able to access the ECFS system using a program called Parallels. This program allows me to run a Windows machine on my Mac virtually. I simply get into Windows, access the ECFS system and download the discovery materials. Once that is done, they are stored on the Macs in the office and accessed later using the Mac programs. No crashing. No blue screen of death.

The other big Windows system employed by the county is what I refer to as WOPR. If you remember War Games with Matthew Broderick, you will understand the level of computing to which I am referring. The black screen with the green letters? Yep, that is Tarrant County's system. No problem.

Using the Remote Desktop Connection software available for download on Apple's website allows me to remotely access the county's mainframe computer to check on the status of any case in court. In fact, this program is now available on my iPhone at the iTunes App Store.

Aside from those two Windoze items, we don't worry about anything. Need a powerpoint presentation for a jury? No problem. I don't use Powerpoint, I just use Keynote from Apple. It's better. But the file is a Word document? Actually, it is simply a .doc file which can be opened without a problem using Pages, Mac's word processing program.

Perhaps the biggest question I get about using Macs relates to case management. I will be honest that I have taken a look at a lot of different programs for this purpose.

I started using Daylite. I heard so many good things about Daylite that I thought it would be perfect. Maybe it is perfect for someone, but just not for me. It is very comprehensive, but it is almost overkill. The upside is that is coordinates all of the information contained in Address Book, iCal, Mail and even individual client files. But it always seemed to big for us.

Following Daylite, we switched to Sutdiometry, briefly. I really liked the idea of Studiometry, but we quickly found there was no automatic syncing between the program itself and Address Book and iCal. This meant we had to enter information more than once.

Since then, we have used Bento, the file management software from FileMaker. This is a relatively simple program, but it is fully customizable and allows for automatic syncing. Since the majority of my cases are set up on a flat-fee basis, there is really no need for any kind of billing or time-management software.

Generally a week doesn't go by when I don't receive an email from someone asking me to review some Mac-based program for them. I have generally taken the position that I'm not that interested in doing it. But that's not really the case. I am a gadget guy, and I love trying new technology. So I think I will change my mind on reviews.

I will try to start reviewing at least one Mac-based program per week. Many of these will be things that I already use, but I will start reviewing some things that I have not tried before. You never know, I guess. I might find something I like.

In the meantime, if anyone has questions about Macs or want me to look at something, I will be happy to consider them.

Until, happy computing. Unless you're on Windoze, in which case your computer has probably already crashed.

Holy Land Foundation - Redeux

Jury selection (such as it is in federal court) begins today in the retrial of five defendants charged in United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas of various crimes associated with funding terrorism. The original charges in this case included providing and conspiracy to provide material support to a designated foreign terrorist organization, providing and conspiracy to provide funds, goods and services to a Specially Designated Terrorist, money laundering and conspiracy to commit money laundering, and filing and conspiracy to file false tax returns.

The first trial, which began on July 16, 2007, resulted in a mistrial with the exception of one defendant, who was acquitted on several counts in addition to the mistrial. The mistrial occurred on October 22 after a juror, Kristina Williams of Waxahachie, told the court she had changed her mind on a number of acquittals. The jury deliberated for 19 days.

The retrial is thought to be a more streamlined version of the original two month trial.

As much as I would love to sit and watch this trial, I actually have work to do. But it appears some have the time to follow this trial rather closely. I don't know just how biased this site is, you be the judge. But it does seem to be rather thorough.

Good luck to Fort Worth defense attorney Greg Westfall who represents Abdulrahman Odeh, HLF's former New Jersey representative.

The Shoe on the other foot

I am often asked how I would like it if I were the victim of a crime and the accused had a defense attorney that tried to get their client out of trouble in the same manner in which I might. Generally these people are mad at me for something I've done while defending my client. Well, it appears we now get to find out.

Wednesday evening, I met my wife and son for dinner. Within the hour it took us to be seated and eat, someone broke into my car and pulled my briefcase out. Within my briefcase was my MacBook Pro, an iPod, a pair of Mosely Tribes, a client's file and a pile of research I was doing for a paper I am writing for a presentation in December. Needless to say, I was not happy.

Aside from possibility of the moron that stole everything being stupid enough to actually try to pawn either the laptop or the iPod (I gave the police the serial numbers for each), I doubt I will see any of my stuff again. But I knew this just as quickly as I knew they were stolen. Oddly, I found myself within the system for which I work on a daily basis, but more of a chess piece than the player. I thought this would be interesting. It has been.

I called the police upon my discovery of the incident. They advised me that because of the value of the items taken (over $5000) they were required to send an officer to investigate personally. This was a relief, since apparently the alternative is to not send an officer to investigate. I waited patiently for the Arlington Police Officer to arrive. I waited some more. I waited even more. No officer arrived.

Since I was simply standing in the parking lot of a restaurant waiting, I decided to call the police again to find out when they might arrive. I was told that since it was a non-emergency emergency, it might take an officer up to an hour to respond to my initial call. This was 90 minutes after the initial call mind you. As I sat there waiting, I wondered what a non-emergency emergency was. Would I be met by a non-officer officer? Would he do a non-investigating investigation? Was their any non-evidence evidence for him to collect? Strangely, I became dissatisfied with the level of investigation.

I drove the 10 minutes to the Arlington Police Department. Upon arrival, I was met with a woman who had as much business being a police officer, whether a real officer or a non-officer officer, as I had telling someone not to wear a bowtie.

The level of investigation was pathetic. Actually, the level of mere observation was pathetic. It made me wonder how officers arrest anyone that doesn't commit a crime directly in front of them. And then personally tell the officer about it.

You see, during my 90-plus minute wait for the non-officer officer, I decided I would write down everything that happened, everything that was stolen, and everything else that I remembered. You see, it seems that I recall hearing somewhere that the initial memory of a crime is usually the freshest, and if a witness remembers something differently later on, it is not as accurate as what was told to the investigating officer, and what eventually makes it into the police report. Where did I hear that? Oh yeah, the last officer I questioned on the stand about inconsistent statements.

Anyway, I prepared my list. I finally presented it to the officer at the police department. In reality, I did the officer's job for her. I described the scene, the items and their location. I laid out a diagram of the parking lot and the location of my car. I indicated the lights in the parking lot and the lack of cameras. All the officer really had to do was copy my "report" for her non-emergency emergency non-investigation investigation. But alas, perhaps only in my dreams.

No, the officer discounted what I saw. Questioned the value of my items, and generally shrugged off the report as another headache she was to endure at the end of her shift. This report, like so many would be put in a pile and dealt with appropriately. Perhaps when the officer had some non-down time down time.

The lack of effort was troubling, to say the least. But then I realized this was not necessarily unusual. After all, I read police reports on a daily basis that leave me scratching my head. It's nice to know that this level of non-investigating investigating is an every day occurrence with the Arlington Police Department.

I feel safer already.

Pop quiz, hot shot.

Some movies are so bad they become almost iconic. Strangely, many of them have Keanu Reeves. (I am an F-B-I agent!!) But no matter how bad the movie might be, they always have great lines. Hence the title.

One of the most important things to deal with when defending a case is picking exactly what you want to defennd, or more importantly can defend. Not every bad thing being said about your client can be defended. Sometimes, not everything should be defended. It becomes a tactical decision.

Often times, a decision must be made as to how to handle the bad things within a case. Every case has them. Whether your client ran from police, cussed out the arresting officer, or has prior felony convictions, there will almost always be a bad aspect of the case with which you must deal.

It is easy to buckle down and try to defend every action of your client. But why? Sometimes there is no defense. Sometimes you can actually gain favor from the jury by admitting the bad. These are the tactical decisions that must be made.

There is also something to be said about control. He who controls the courtroom controls the case and thus has a better chance to win. You can control the bad aspects of your case by admitting them upfront to the jury.

If the client ran from police, tell the jury. If he cussed out the cop, tell the jury and apologize for his behavior. If he has priors, admit them. The point is, by admitting these negatives, an attorney can diminish their effect on the case.

By making the tactical decision to be upfront with the jury about the negatives in the case, you can not only diminish their importance, but also refocus the jury on what the case is truly about. You can take the negative out of the equation.

So remember this next time you’re faced with a boatload of negatives to defend in a case.

Pop quiz, hot shot. What do you do? Shoot the hostage.

Mom's Bail Bonds - Fort Worth

While many might disagree, I am actually a relatively easy-going person. Sure, I might seem serious all the time, but in reality I’m just rocking through life like most everyone else. Although this is true, there are times when I am less than acomadating to others. If I think someone has done something to wrong me or someone else, then I tend to pick a fight. Or hold a grudge. Or both.

Bondsmen, by their nature, tend to have a negative stereotype about them. Most of it is justified. But as with any profession, there are those that are very good at what they do and possess a colorable amount of integrity. There are those that seek to do the right thing. But some don't even try.

Allow me to tell you a story. This is a story of a young man charged with a violent crime, perhaps wrongfully charged, but that is of no consequence to the story. The young man gets in trouble, and friends try as they might to bond him out of jail. As with most circumstances such as these, the phone book is used. The first flashy yellow page ad and the first person to say “yes” to this bond request is hired. Such are the mistakes we make.

You see, the young man’s friends chose Mom’s Bail Bonds in Fort Worth to bond their wrongfully charged friend out of the Tarrant County Jail. The bond is posted, and the young man proceeds to check in with the bondsman as requested. There are no problems.

The young man then comes into my off to discuss his case and the process through which he is about to enter. I explained that given the circumstances, his first court date should be waived once he hired an attorney. He retained me, and I ensured the court date was reset. No problem. Not exactly.

It turns out that due to a clerical error, a warrant issued for his arrest despite the court date being reset. On Friday afternoon, I received a frantic call from my client. He was at his bondsman’s office and they were trying to arrest him because of the warrant. Before I could really speak to him, a woman took the phone.

This woman purported to tell me that she worked for Mom’s Bail Bonds, and she then went on tell me how to do my job, or more specifically, how I wasn’t doing my job. I was getting my client arrested. I hadn’t taken care of my business. I was letting my client be taken to jail for the weekend because I didn’t know what I was doing.

Needless to say, I wasn’t happy. I explained the situation to this woman. After this, a man took the phone. Again, the same thing. I wasn’t doing my job. If I was a real lawyer I could keep my client out of jail. I was a hack.

I don’t mind people talking about me. Some people don’t like me. Apparently we can add those at Mom’s Bail Bonds to that rather long list. But it didn’t stop there. My client was told that he would have to pay a new bond fee simply because the warrant issued. Keep in mind, my client did nothing wrong. The warrant was recalled and the original bond was reinstated. But Mom’s Bail Bond wanted more money and saw this as an opportunity to shake down a relatively poor immigrant kid.

Now, I don’t personally know the people at Mom’s Bail Bonds. Quite frankly, I don’t want to. But it’s troubling to me that a bondsman who doesn’t know me, either personally or professionally, speaks that way about me. I don’t believe I have any other clients using Mom’s Bail Bonds. If I have my way, I never will.

I did a small amount of research into Mom’s Bail Bonds here in Fort Worth. It seems the company is owned by Phil Guiles. I don’t know him. But what I gathered from my research is that it is a rather small, fly-by-night bonding company. It doesn’t seem to be terribly reputable according to the people I have spoken to. But this is the information age, and people don’t rely that much on word of mouth any more.

The most important thing I learned about Mom’s Bail Bonds is that they have no website. Nothing. Not surprising for a two-bit, hustling, wannabe bondsman.

The one thing I have learned from this blog is that blogs show up very well in search engines, like Google. Try it. Google my name. Google Cooperstown. See if the first page of Google doesn’t have a link to this blog.

The point? I don’t like Mom’s Bail Bonds. I’m not sure they should be allowed to indiscriminately hustle unsuspecting people needing a bond. I’m not sure Mom’s Bail Bonds should be able to anonymously coast through the vast space of the internet without anyone knowing something about them.

So here we are. Take this story to heart.

Ain’t Google a bitch?