The Matlock Blog

Please place all metal objects and your dignity in the tub...

Damn terrorists.  I can't even go to the grocery store without having to go through a metal detector.  There is increased security practically everywhere.  Of course, in many instances it's necessary.  There are many places that, for whatever reason, require increased security and that security often comes in the way of a metal detector.  No....my grocery store is not one of them.  Yet.

But one such place is your friendly Tim Curry Justice Center.  I'm told It’s a place filled with con men, crooks and killers.  So, I suppose, it's no surprise that in order to enter the court house, you must wait in line, disrobe, and successfully pass through a metal detector.  Well, at least some people do.

If you're someone charged with a crime, I suppose it's reasonable to subject you to increased security checks.  I'm not begrudging anyone that.  But what if you're just someone offering some moral support for your friend that has to go to court for a first-time petty theft case?  Trying to help your friend when she's no idea what to do or what to expect?  Are you a security risk?  Apparently.

What if you're a lawyer?  What if, day in and day out, you work in the court house?  Are you a security risk then?  Should you be subjected to security?  

What if you work in an office filing papers all day?  Does that job require you to be subjected to security every time you walk into the court house?  

Well, the answer is yes.  And no.

If you watch the entrances at the court house you will see that most people are herded through the security points.  However, not if you work in the court house.  Well, let me rephrase that.  Not if you work in the court house and also work for Tarrant County.

You're a lawyer that works in the court house every day.  If you're a prosecutor, you breeze right past security.  If you're a defense attorney, you must go through security.  Actually, if you're any other attorney, you must pass through security.

If you work in the clerk's office filing papers all day, you breeze right past security.  If you're just there to help a friend.  Or look something up.  Or watch a trial.  Or pay your cousin's court fees.  You must endure security.

Why is that?  Why are you deemed less of a person than a county employee?

Apparently, by the mere fact that you work for Tarrant County, you are somehow immune from ever being a security risk.  And truthfully, I have no idea how that is.  Is it possible that Tarrant County has the single best hiring process in the universe that they are able to foresee their employees will never, ever be a security risk?  Or is it just possible that the powers that be in Tarrant County don't feel their employees should be subjected to the routine of the common person?  

God forbid the almighty Tom Wilder, District Clerk have an employee subjected to such an insulting procedure.  What would his friends say?

Why is it that a person that works in the clerk's office or the D.A.'s office is held to a lower standard than you?  Or me?  Or anyone else that wants to go to the court house?

Of course, I don't hold it against those that work in the clerk's office or the D.A.'s office for being able to breeze through.  Nor am I saying they somehow indeed are security risks.  I'm just saying...

It's been said, the business of the courts is the business of the people.  That may still be true, but only if the people are willing to pass through security to see it.  

But what the hell do I know?

Show Me The Money!!!

It's really not about the money.  Never has been.  But, damn.  Really?

I'm quite certain there will be many that will read this and conclude it's just another attorney complaining about money.  But that's not what this is about.  It's about respect.  Respect for the system above all else.

I maintain a firm belief that if you are a criminal defense attorney (at least one that can hold their own) you owe it to the public at large to accept court-appointed clients.  I have always thought this.  I always will.  I think it's just a responsibility we owe to the public.

I learned from one of the best in Texas, the great Tom Morgan of Midland.  He had this set of rules that he gave me when I first began working for him.  Rule Number 3?  "Treat all clients the same, whether retained or court-appointed."  That meant not only in court, but one-on-one as well.  They were clients.  You owed them your absolute best.  Every day.  End of story.

Consequently, I've always taken that same approach with all clients, whether big-time retained clients or clients just caught up in the system that need someone to fill out the paperwork to get them time-served and go home to their family.  Or their job.  Or anywhere but Tarrant County Jail.  I've never begrudged anyone for not being able to afford an attorney.  Or being in a bind.  Or.....well, who cares?  It's a responsibilty we share.  At least I think that way.

I handle all court-appointed cases but First Degree Felony cases and Capital Murder cases.  Not because I couldn't, but because I think those types of cases tend to be game-changers, in the sense that they take up a tremendous amount of time and energy, and quite frankly, I'm not sure I would be the best in those situations.  They are often no-win situations, or try-the-case-because-you-don't-have-a-choice situations.  I have no problem with these cases, but I simply choose not to accept appointed cases like this.  No judgment.

However, as with anyone that accepts other types of court-appointed cases, I receive the proverbial try-or-go-home case.  A rather simple case that, because of my client's criminal history is repped up to a third or second degree felony.  Or worse yet, a rather simple third degree felony that, because of my client's criminal past, is enhanced to Habitual Offender status:  25 to 99 years, or life.  This is not a good situation.  For either of us.

These cases, while on their face appear to be rather simple, contain the extra factor of a potential life sentence.  It doesn't matter who you are or how much time you've done in the Texas prison system, if you're staring a potential life sentence in the face just like a bull you just got bucked off of after a mere 3.7 seconds, you're thinking the same thing; survival.  In that situation, it can be a hard thing to attain.  

Anyone in the system long enough to get a Habitual Offender notice on their indictment knows what's up.  They know the game, and they know the rules.  In other words, this ain't their first rodeo.

These kind of cases can be tough to deal with.  It's not unusual for a prosecutor to try to "cut a deal" by offering something less than 25.  Years.  25 years.  Like, say.....15.  Winner, winner, chicken dinner.  

I've never pled anyone to anything close to 20 years.  Ever.  I'm not a pansy-ass attorney that couldn't find the courthouse with a map, compass, and Google Maps.  I don't plead clients just to get their mother's/ girlfriend's/ father's money and then be done with it.  But then again, I'm not so clever as to have a phone number that is 1-800-DISMISS.  What an assclown....

So, with that mentality, I find it necessary to try cases.  My clients want to try them.  What else matters?

But sometimes, in the natural order of things, cases that are planned to be tried, are in fact resolved by plea aggreement.  An offer of 25 years TDC turns into an 8 year offer.  Then it becomes a simple cost-benefit analysis.  What do you gain?  What do you lose?  It's hard to pass up on an 8 year offer when you were facing the possiblity of life in prison.  But that doesn't come without effort.

Preparing for a trial is the unseen aspect of trial work.  They say for every hour you expect to be in trial, you can expect to prepare for three hours.  It's tedious.  Its's writing the play before it's performed.  It ain't easy.

But sometimes, that kind of effort, as well as knowing that perhaps you can lay seige on the prosecutor, might work a little miracle.  That 25 year offer evaporates into an 8 year offer.  Truthfully?  It's what the case was worth probably.  

But once that case is closed, we must submit a bill.  The bill to the court that shows how many times we appeared in court and how many "out-of-court" hours we spent preparing the case.

I'll be honest.  I bet I leave hour upon hour on the table.  I rarely ever put down the true number of hours I've spent on a case.  I like to be thorough.  I like ducks, and I like them in a row.  Whatever the issue, I like to be prepared.  That takes time.  But I don't always list that time.  It's a service....until it isn't

Recently, I represented a client charged with a State Jail Theft, enhanced to a Second Degree Felony (2-20 years TDC) and a Third Degree Felony with a Habitual Offender Notice (25-99, or life).   Yep.....living the dream....

So natuarally, this case didn't resolve itself quickly.  It took 9 court appearance, including three appearances on the court's trial docket.  As anyone not named assclown knows, preparing for trial takes time.  And effort.  And a decent-sized sack.

In the end, sometimes preparing for trial means securing a better deal for a client than they might otherwise get.  It's part of the game.  But it's necessary.

Despite this kind of effort, and dedication, and obliviousness to the nonsense that encompasses all court-appointed cases, I believe my client received the very best representation he could have received.  His two cases were resolved.  The steadfast offer of 25 years TDC was reduced to 8 years.  I don't know what kind of future that will afford my client, but at least he has a future to look forward to.

Nine court appearances, and hours of out-of-court-time spent preparing netted me what?  $1600.  Seriously.  $1600........American dollars.  Everyone has a "wouldn't-get-out-of-bed-amount".  And don't get me wrong, $1600 is a lot of money, I guess, but I'm pretty sure that comes to about $114 per activilty.  Not per hour.  Per activity.  Court appearances.  Out-of-court preparation.  Doesn't matter.  Really?  I didn't go to ITT Tech.  

Again, it's really not about the money.  It's just respect.  If courts are going to constantly complain that attorneys don't respect the court's time in handling cases, I think they should look at their own glass houses before they pick up that stone.

At the end of the day, I suppose it can be written off as the proverbial cost of doing business.  I prepped a case for trial in an effort to obtain either a not guilty verdict or a better result than the firm 25 year offer.  For my troubles, I received $1600.  I suppose it's better than nothing.

With that kind of mentality for paying attorneys, I guess I'll grab this round of drinks.  Oh wait, that money's already gone.  

Just take care of the tip.....if the court paid you enough, that is.

But what the hell do I know?

 

Just when I thought I was out, they pull me back in....

"Damn.  He's back."

I can hear the comments, sighs and general discontent echo through the halls of the hallowed Tarrant County Tim Curry Criminal Justice Center.  Let's be honest, few people ever really enjoyed this little blog.  Most, given the option, would say they hate it and think it merely a tool for my own self-aggrandizement and desire to complain as only I can.  Actually, they did say that, didn't they?

But now I feel just like Michael Corleone.  "Just when I thought I was out, they pull me back in."

How can I not make a return when our own Criminal District Attorney Joe Shannon has decided the prosecution-collective will have its own blog entitled....wait for it....wait for it....um...."Crime Blog."  Catchy, huh?  Hey, who am I to criticize?  Have you seen the title to this one?

Crime Blog, which apparently doesn't have it's own address, but rather a link from the D.A.'s general website, appears to want to give the populace an insight into the day-to-day operations of the D.A.'s office.  It is heralded as well, a pretty damn opinionated piece of media where there are "heros" and "saints" and victims galore.  And "where good battles evil.  And on most days, the good guys win."  Wow....I wonder who's who?

I must admit I am somewhat conflicted about writing about this.  I seriously doubt the inestimable  Crime Blog will ever, ever, EVER talk about this blog.  Much less link to it.  But here I am.  Perpetuating the blogsanity.  See what I did there?

But I shall indeed not only mention and link to our District Attorney's not-so-vailed attempt to influence the jury pool (sound familiar?), but will use this soon-to-be media/ ethical train wreck as an opportunity to make my return to the the blogosphere.....to return to the game ala Willis Reed....like Jimmy Connors in the 1991 U.S. Open.....like Superman back from the Fortress of Solitude.....too much?  

For quite some time, prosecutors complained about this little blog.  Now, they have their own.  

Game on.

But what the hell do I know?

The Race for 3

It's official.  Well, as official as these things get, I suppose.  Judge Elizabeth Berry will not be running for reelection in 2010 for Criminal District Court 3.  That means we will have a new judge.  Who will it be?

I have it on very reliable information that Assistant Tarrant County District Attorney Robb Catalano will make a run for the bench.  Robb is an excellent prosecutor, and perhaps more importantly, a good person.  

My sources within the Tarrant County Republican Party have told me (although it was some time ago, but I was out of town) that Robb is the party's choice to take over the seat.  I'm not sure if Robb has announced yet, but if he hasn't and would like to here, I'm happy to oblige.  If he already has, well, better late than never?

We'll see if any legitimate contender puts their name in the hat for CDC3.  Short of an out-of-left-field candidate entering the race, I think it would be safe to say Robb will be the next judge of CDC3.  

Tarrant County District Attorney Tim Curry, dead at age 70

Long-time Tarrant County District Attorney Tim Curry died this morning at his home after a long fight with lung cancer.  Diagnosed in mid-2008, Mr. Curry had been undergoing an aggressive form of cancer treatment.  For the last several months, Mr. Curry had been working primarily at home.

Tim Curry served as the elected District Attorney of Tarrant County since 1972.  He was the longest-serving district attorney in Texas.  Through that time, the Tarrant County District Attorney's office became arguably the best district attorney's office in the state.

Although often overshadowed by the larger cities in Texas, Mr. Curry saw that the district attorney's office was never second-best to those of Dallas and Houston.  Mr. Curry implemented many ground-breaking and untraditional procedures and policies to the Tarrant County District Attorney's office.  Many of these have since been followed by other counties in the state.  Most have benefitted the criminal justice system in whole.

Often described as a gentle, kind-hearted gentleman, Curry's shadow will be  hard to miss in Tarrant County for years.  Whomever fills the position as Tarrant County's chief law enforcement official will inherit one of, if not the best prosecutor's offices in the state.  However, it will certainly be difficult to live up the legend of Mr. Curry.

Under Pressure

Under Pressure

“Pressure pushing down on me
Pressing down on you no man ask for
Under pressure - that tears a building down
Splits a family in two
Puts people on streets”

Queen with David Bowie.

Democratic candidate for Criminal District Court Number Two doesn’t like the way things are being handled by the sitting judge, Wayne Salvant. That’s good to know. At least she isn’t running to be judge just to be judge.

Ms. Tolbert, whom I’ve never met by the way, has a series of YouTube “interviews” available. They appear to be radio interviews which were visually recorded. The respective “topics” are “How Tolbert is different,” “All Judges Are Republican,” “Judge as a Referee,” and the video above, “How Cases are Tried.”

There is also a video of a pancake breakfast fundraising, but although I tried to watch it, I couldn’t finish it. It was so mind-numbingly boring I had to turn it off. It didn’t even have background music. I mean, come on! But back to “How Cases are Tried.”

First of all, I don’t think the title of the video has anything to do with the substance of the video. Ms. Tolbert doesn’t really discuss trying criminal cases in Criminal District Court Two, but rather seems dissatisfied in the manner in which Judge Salvant appoints attorneys to represent those charged with State Jail Felonies.

It appears Ms. Tolbert is uncomfortable with the idea of what is referred to as a “Jail Run.” It is generally more common in misdemeanor courts than felony courts, but it certainly happens. Essentially a jail run is when a number of incarcerated defendants who have yet to be able to post a bond and have no attorney to represent them are brought to court and appointed lawyers to represent them. No problem so far.

However, often what happens is that the appointed attorney is “expected” to resolve the case that day. In a misdemeanor case, this is generally accomplished by pleading the defendant to time served. I have personally experienced this, as I’m sure most criminal defense attorneys have.

The problem arises in felony court. Felonies, even State Jail Felonies, are serious offenses. While the person cannot be sent to TDC, they can be sent for up to two years to a Texas State Jail Facility. This time is day-for-day, meaning there is no credit for good time or any type of parole. So being confronted with a new State Jail Felony case can actually cause some problems because it is a lot for the defendant to understand in the extremely short amount of time he has spoken, in fact known, his newly-appointed lawyer.

Ms. Tolbert believes Judge Salvant has engaged in this type of behavior by appointing attorneys (Ms. Tolbert refers to them as “favorite lawyers”) and “exptecting” them to dispose of the case that day. This is, as Ms. Tolbert says, referred to as Same Day Disposition. And Ms. Tolbert is right, it shouldn’t be a practice to engage in this type of appointment process.

The problem here is this. The judge doesn’t negotiate the plea bargain in the case. The judge doesn’t meet with the defendant and ascertain what is best for the client. The judge doesn’t represent the defendant. The defense attorney does.

Of course, it can be very difficult for any attorney to stand up to a judge in that situation; actually, in many situations. But at the end of the day, that is our job. We can complain about. (God knows we do.) We can go on and on that the judge doesn’t understand what it is like to be a private defense attorney. (The majority of the time they don’t.) And if it bothers us enough, we can refuse to accept appointments so as to eliminate the possibility of it happening to us again. (That is an option because no one is required to represent court-appointed clients.) But it doesn’t change the fact that it is ultimately up to us.

If an attorney is appointed to a client and the judge expects that case to be resolved on the same day, there is only one question; what is in the client’s best interest. As it turns out, it is the same question for all clients, appointed or not, judge-involved or not, whether we like it or not. It’s our job.

Judges make our lives difficult. Water is wet. The sky is blue. No one said this job was easy. If a judge wants us to resolve a case the same day, all we can do is what is in the client’s best interest. If the client wants to take the state’s offer, then it’s resolved. If not, then so be it. To complain that judges put too much pressure on defense attorneys is missing the point.

If the client doesn’t want to plead guilty, for whatever reason, then you set your case for trial, and you make the state prove each and every element beyond a reasonable doubt to a jury. You fight and scratch and claw, and then do it some more. In short, you do your job.

Ignorance is bliss, except...

This is a sign posted in the visitation area of the Tarrant County Greenbay Detention Facility. A free prize for anyone that can spot what's wrong with this picture.

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.

Jail: It's like living in the 1600s

In yet another in what has been a string of questionable deaths at Tarrant County Jail, a 35-year-old Dallas woman died on June 13th while in the custody of the county. Adrienne Lemons died of an apparent untreated staph infection while sitting in custody for traffic tickets and a DWLI. Despite requesting her previously-prescribed antibiotics, Ms. Lemons was apparently never given the medication.

Although no cause of death has been cited by the Tarrant County Medical Examiner, both Lemons' ex-husband and brother claim she had the infection prior to going into custody. Both claim that although she requested her medication, it was never provided.

Lemons complained of pain in her shoulder, and actually threatened to cut her wrists to avoid the pain. At that point, she was transported from the minimum security Cold Springs facility to the downtown Tarrant County Jail. However, JPS hospital staff never provided the medication.

JPS Health Network contracts with Tarrant County to provide medical services to inmates. But over the last several years, their medical care has been under fire. In 2005, a Star-Telegram investigation revealed "staffing shortages, inadequate supplies, broken and obsolete equipment, and patient records, including inmate requests for medical care, in tatters." This came on the heels of 10 inmate deaths that year.

Although JPS has revised their plans for inmate medical care, clearly problems still exist.

When asked about his sister's death, Lemons' brother Shannon Woodrome said "I can see an infection killing someone in the 1600s or the 1700s, but that shouldn’t happen today."