CONTEMPT, THE STATE BAR, THE IVORY TOWER POLITICAL CONNECTION LAWYERS AND THE POLTROONS OF THE DEFENSE BAR Most of the lawyers in this town are more apt to make political connections to strengthen their negotiations rather than become prodigious litigators. The Supreme Court of Texas does not require that lawyers have trial experience in order to practice law. In fact, if you find the lawyers that own the largest DWI websites in Austin, it is possible, if not certain, that they personally have never tried a DWI. In March of 2008 I was held in contempt. Houston Lawyer Mark Bennett gives his take and I have to agree he is dead on. http://www.bennettandbennett.com/node/5111  In the case in which I was held in contempt, my client was charged with a DWI in which he was pulled over and the officer found marijuana under the passenger seat and arrested the passenger. The officer had my client perform the sobriety tests under suspicion of marijuana intoxication. No odor of alcohol was ever alleged. Field sobriety tests have never been correlated or linked to anything but alcohol, and my client did well on the sobriety tests anyway. If I lost at trial on facts like those I would turn in my bar card. As is often the case with criminal defense, my client was rearrested while out on bond for an unrelated drug charge. He ended up doing seven months in the State Jail and getting credit for that time to put toward any conviction on the still-pending against the DWI charge, which carries up to six months. Essentially he already had credit for any possible sentence he received. Under those circumstances, I felt very strongly that it was in my client’s best interest to fight against the DWI in trial, even faced with the allure of simply pleading guilty and receiving time served, thus being done with it then and there. The case was reset numerous times. Finally he was scheduled for court on Tuesday March 8, 2008 for a 1:30pm jury trial. In an instance in which the client has more credit than the maximum sentence and the case is factually weak, some judges would encourage the defendant to plead not guilty and avoid a conviction. Some judges are leery of defendants taking convictions just to get out of jail. On the other hand, other judges are more than happy to take a plea of no contest to resolve a case rather than to preside over a jury trial. I had to be in Dallas County on Monday March 7, the day prior to my client's scheduled jury trial, so I called the afternoon before and told the coordinator that I have to start my day in Dallas, but will be back to Travis County at 1:20pm. I was told I have to be in court to announce. I sent another lawyer Ben Blackburn to announce that we were ready for jury trial that afternoon. My client, who was in custody, was brought out before before the judge. Remember: my client was in custody awaiting trial. My belief is that someone told the Judge that the client was held on the unrelated felony when he asked for a jury trial but had served his time and now was only held on the DWI. The judge appeared to know all of this when my client was brought to the bench from custody. So for a judge who prefers people to plea out and take convictions even when cases are weak, why not see if the client wants to do the dumbest thing imaginable and plead guilty to get out of jail? All you have to do is read the Defendant the same offer that he already rejected when he asked for a jury trial and see if he is ready to plead to get out of jail. If the judge is not inclined to give him a bond, the only two ways to get out of jail are to go to trial and get the case over with, an event which the judge also controls and can prevent, or plead out, take a conviction, and apply his jail credit to the time to which he is sentenced. This creates an environment where a defendant will be tempted to do what it takes, even against their best interests, to get out of jail. Everyday junk arrests are made and the judge wants them resolved, dismissed, plead, or whatever else to move the case. I am sure you can guess how I was reacting to the judge's insistence on "making sure the client understood the offer" that he already rejected. When the prosecutor asked the judge to prevent me from talking to my client -- "whispering in my client's ear" -- I lost my temper and made what has been subsequently referred to as a lewd gesture toward the prosecutor. The offense of DWI is enhanceable. That means a second DWI conviction is more severe than the first and the third more serious than the second. m Thus I categorically refuse to let my client take a first conviction. Everyday people plea out to enhanceable offenses (like DWI) just to get out of jail because waiting for a trial will take many months and possibly even years. Then some of those same people are later sent off to prison because they get charged with felonies that would have been misdemeanors if they had not had prior convictions for the same offense. Remember you get one chance at it and you cant come back and say I pled guilty to get out of jail when you are charged with a subsequent offense. Some lawyers and judges respect the fact that I categorically refuse to plead clients to enhanceable offenses. Others feel differently. I find the fact that defendants are coerced into pleading guilty far more repugnant and offensive than any gesture I could make in court. I testified that I thought that an innocent man being convicted was far worse than any disrespect a judge may have felt as a result of my gesture. I was sentenced to 90 days in jail. To them nothing is more important than respect for the court. To me nothing is more important than my client's wellbeing and even though I got ninety days I would rather go to jail than let my client take a conviction just to get out of jail. I did it once and I'll do it again. All lawyers say they fight for their clients. I encourage prospective clients to ask lawyers they talk to if they have been arrested for contempt, or made to serve a sentence for it.

CONTEMPT, THE STATE BAR, THE IVORY TOWER POLITICAL CONNECTION LAWYERS AND THE POLTROONS OF THE DEFENSE BAR

Most of the lawyers in this town are more apt to make political connections to strengthen their negotiations rather than become prodigious litigators. The Supreme Court of Texas does not require that lawyers have trial experience in order to practice law. In fact, if you find the lawyers that own the largest DWI websites in Austin, it is possible, if not certain, that they personally have never tried a DWI.

In March of 2008 I was held in contempt. Houston Lawyer Mark Bennett gives his take and I have to agree he is dead on. http://www.bennettandbennett.com/node/5111
In the case in which I was held in contempt, my client was charged with a DWI in which he was pulled over and the officer found marijuana under the passenger seat and arrested the passenger. The officer had my client perform the sobriety tests under suspicion of marijuana intoxication. No odor of alcohol was ever alleged. Field sobriety tests have never been correlated or linked to anything but alcohol, and my client did well on the sobriety tests anyway. If I lost at trial on facts like those I would turn in my bar card.

As is often the case with criminal defense, my client was rearrested while out on bond for an unrelated drug charge. He ended up doing seven months in the State Jail and getting credit for that time to put toward any conviction on the still-pending against the DWI charge, which carries up to six months. Essentially he already had credit for any possible sentence he received. Under those circumstances, I felt very strongly that it was in my client’s best interest to fight against the DWI in trial, even faced with the allure of simply pleading guilty and receiving time served, thus being done with it then and there.

The case was reset numerous times. Finally he was scheduled for court on Tuesday March 8, 2008 for a 1:30pm jury trial. In an instance in which the client has more credit than the maximum sentence and the case is factually weak, some judges would encourage the defendant to plead not guilty and avoid a conviction. Some judges are leery of defendants taking convictions just to get out of jail. On the other hand, other judges are more than happy to take a plea of no contest to resolve a case rather than to preside over a jury trial.

I had to be in Dallas County on Monday March 7, the day prior to my client's scheduled jury trial, so I called the afternoon before and told the coordinator that I have to start my day in Dallas, but will be back to Travis County at 1:20pm. I was told I have to be in court to announce. I sent another lawyer Ben Blackburn to announce that we were ready for jury trial that afternoon.

My client, who was in custody, was brought out before before the judge. Remember: my client was in custody awaiting trial. My belief is that someone told the Judge that the client was held on the unrelated felony when he asked for a jury trial but had served his time and now was only held on the DWI. The judge appeared to know all of this when my client was brought to the bench from custody.

So for a judge who prefers people to plea out and take convictions even when cases are weak, why not see if the client wants to do the dumbest thing imaginable and plead guilty to get out of jail? All you have to do is read the Defendant the same offer that he already rejected when he asked for a jury trial and see if he is ready to plead to get out of jail. If the judge is not inclined to give him a bond, the only two ways to get out of jail are to go to trial and get the case over with, an event which the judge also controls and can prevent, or plead out, take a conviction, and apply his jail credit to the time to which he is sentenced.

This creates an environment where a defendant will be tempted to do what it takes, even against their best interests, to get out of jail. Everyday junk arrests are made and the judge wants them resolved, dismissed, plead, or whatever else to move the case. I am sure you can guess how I was reacting to the judge's insistence on "making sure the client understood the offer" that he already rejected. When the prosecutor asked the judge to prevent me from talking to my client -- "whispering in my client's ear" -- I lost my temper and made what has been subsequently referred to as a lewd gesture toward the prosecutor.

The offense of DWI is enhanceable. That means a second DWI conviction is more severe than the first and the third more serious than the second. m Thus I categorically refuse to let my client take a first conviction. Everyday people plea out to enhanceable offenses (like DWI) just to get out of jail because waiting for a trial will take many months and possibly even years. Then some of those same people are later sent off to prison because they get charged with felonies that would have been misdemeanors if they had not had prior convictions for the same offense. Remember you get one chance at it and you cant come back and say I pled guilty to get out of jail when you are charged with a subsequent offense. Some lawyers and judges respect the fact that I categorically refuse to plead clients to enhanceable offenses. Others feel differently.

I find the fact that defendants are coerced into pleading guilty far more repugnant and offensive than any gesture I could make in court.

I testified that I thought that an innocent man being convicted was far worse than any disrespect a judge may have felt as a result of my gesture. I was sentenced to 90 days in jail. To them nothing is more important than respect for the court. To me nothing is more important than my client's wellbeing and even though I got ninety days I would rather go to jail than let my client take a conviction just to get out of jail. I did it once and I'll do it again.

All lawyers say they fight for their clients. I encourage prospective clients to ask lawyers they talk to if they have been arrested for contempt, or made to serve a sentence for it.

Results