I couldn’t find the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure online in HTML format—only in PDF format—so I created them.
I couldn’t find the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure online in HTML format—only in PDF format—so I created them.
From Scott Ehlers at the Harris County Public Defender’s Office:
The Harris County Public Defender’s Office received a grant from the Department of Justice to establish the Future Appointed Counsel Training Program (FACT) for new lawyers committed to representing indigent defendants in Harris County.
The training includes a 14-day “boot camp” this summer , and 2 weekend follow-up trainings next year, all provided by Gideon’s Promise (online at: http://gideonspromise.org). The grant covers expenses for travel, lodging, meals, the 14-day “boot camp,” and the 2 follow-up trainings in Atlanta. There will also be a 2-day training on Harris County courts and Texas law, and a year of mentoring to be provided by top notch criminal defense lawyers, who will be paid for their time. There are 3 additional weekend trainings in Atlanta in 2016-2017. For those, training, lodging, and meals are paid for, but participants will be responsible for travel-related expenses.
Last year we selected the first class of FACT participants and mentors. This year we will be accepting the second class of 10 lawyers, licensed for 0-3 years. Students who graduate this May and take the bar this summer are eligible to apply.
A copy of the application is online here: http://harriscountypublicdefender.org/FACT-ReqforAppsForm-v2-2014.pdf. The deadline is March 31.
Please feel free to pass this along to any new lawyers or graduating law students who you believe will be good candidates.
Legal and Policy Analyst
Harris County Public Defender’s Office
From Sarah “Bennett’s Brain” Wood, also at the PD’s Office:
Are you a fighter? Do you want to help the poor people who are chewed up and spit out every day in 1201 Franklin?Apply now for the Future Appointed Counsel Training (FACT) Program – a unique, year-long education in criminal defense that aims to set 10 awesome new lawyers on the path to a career in indigent defense.It will change your life.Through a highly competitive application process, you can get:GIDEON’S PROMISE (featured on HBO http://www.hbo.com/documentaries/gideons-army#/ ) - probably the most innovative criminal defense skills training in the country. Last year we sent 10 strangers to their two-week boot camp and they returned as friends for life – a team committed to changing our system.You also get access to a group of awesome local mentors, a private listserv, regular meetings, and local trainings.I know from experience that it is nearly impossible to break into the scene as a youngster. You have to want it bad. The FACT Program aims to take 10 lucky newbies and train the hell out of them to be savvy, confident defenders of the poor. And make them eligible for appointment.
This is your residency in defense. Your foot in the door. And our investment in the future.Apply now if your heart is there. http://
harriscountypublicdefender. org/FACT-ReqforAppsForm-v2- 2014.pdfDeadline is next Monday. Email me with questions.
I am one of the ten mentors this year. The program is everything that Scott and Sarah say, and more. The program, and the ten passionate young lawyers participating, give me some hope for the future of criminal defense in a world that is otherwise pretty bleak.
If you are taking the bar this summer, or if you are licensed 0–3 years, apply.
My Three Commandments of Criminal-Defense Ethics:
I. Thou shalt not break the law.
II. Thou shalt put thine client’s interests above all else.
III. There will be times when (I) and (II) seem to clash; at those times thou shalt consult ethics counsel.
From Judge Richard Kopf, who has recommenced blogging at Hercules and the Umpire, in regard to lawyers wearing short skirts and low-cut blouses in court:
I have three rules that young women lawyers should follow when considering how to dress for court:
1. You can’t win. Men are both pigs and prudes. Get over it.
2. It is not about you. That goes double when you are appearing in front of a jury.
3. Think about the female law clerks. If they are likely to label you, like Jane Curtin, an ignorant slut behind your back, tone it down.
I’m with the judge, more or less (I think men are only prudes when prudishness either benefits them socially or helps them keep the female competition down), on the first two rules.
But I don’t think there are many women lawyers who don’t already know these things, and the third rule strikes me as patronizing, as though women who dress for effect don’t know exactly what they are doing.
I wear well-tailored suits because a suit that fits well makes a man look better—taller, fitter, a more suitable mate: in short, more attractive. And more attractive people are viewed as more credible. I know what I’m doing; women—who have been socialized since birth to take care of their appearances since —do as well.
Women who dress to show some skin in court do so for the same reason. As an added bonus, they know that we men—whether opposing counsel, judge, or juror—have difficulty thinking in the presence of pulchritude. It’s effortless razzle-dazzle:
So what about those female law clerks who “seethe and sneer” and call the “really good” woman lawyer “unprofessional” behind her back because she “wears very short skirts and shows lots of her ample chest”? They may be motivated by envy, by the idealistic aspiration that women be treated the same as men in court, or by the secret desire that no woman succeed any more than the least successful. Girls are mean to each other for myriad reasons.
But the motivation doesn’t matter, because the law clerks don’t matter. They are not deciding the client’s case. All that matters is the jury and occasionally the judge. Of course any performer must know her audience—for a chambers conference with a female judge and her female law clerks, the costume might well be different—but if it benefits the client for the male judge and a mostly-male jury to get a flash of boob, then boob must be flashed.
That’s the natural consequence of the second rule, both mine and Judge Kopf’s. Patronizing or not, Kopf’s third rule is nonsense. Just as “it” is “not about you,” it is not about the female law clerks. It is about the client.
Nobody wants to see me in a short skirt—my best assets are above the neckline—but if I knew I could get an edge for my client by wearing a miniskirt and a low-cut blouse, I’d do it without hesitation. Any woman lawyer needs the same attitude, regardless of the backroom nitpicking of the female clerks.
This morning the Court of Criminal Appeals denied the State’s Motion for Rehearing (PDF) in my case invalidating Section 33.021(b) of the Texas Penal Code.
The court pointedly ignored the Attorney General’s effort to intervene, and found that Section 402.010 of the Texas Government Code was also unconstitutional, in violation of the Separation of Powers provision of the Texas Constitution.
In related news, I’m pretty sure this purported quote in Mitch Mitchell’s Fort Worth Star-Telegram article about the case…
…is a misquote, or at least out-of-context. I’ve never suggested that it’s okay for adults to talk dirty to children (unless in “talking dirty” you include all “sexually explicit” communication forbidden by 33.021(b)). Legal? Yes. My position from the beginning is that it’s not okay, but that it’s parents’—and not government’s—job to regulate what kids see and hear.
Six and a half years ago Scott Greenfield wrote The Fallacy of True Believers, about the danger of true believers:
But Bill [Kunstler] was a scary guy. Bill was a true believer in the cause, not that I was ever quite clear what the cause was because abject liberalism is an ever changing line. Bill existed for the cause, not the client. If the cause demanded that the client burn, so be it. He took a long range view of the world, and the cause was far more important than any individual, with their petty problems. So us stupid kids who found ourselves in his orbit learned quickly that our focus, the client, was mere canon fodder to Bill. And he could be far more dangerous (because he was far smarter, quicker and stronger) than any prosecutor we had ever met.
More recently Charles Thomas’s Don’t rape started a discussion of lawyers putting their own feelings above the effective representation of their clients. Some more contributors to the string: me, Max Kennerly, me again, and Matthew Wright.
Wright describes a CRA (Civil Rights Attorney) and a CDA (Criminal Defense Attorney) and their differing views on what appellate issues should be pursued for the client:
The broader question is what consideration, if any, should be given to “the Cause” when deciding which issues to press on behalf of a client?
CRA, like most attorneys involved primarily in issue advocacy, believes that an advocate should give careful consideration to the broader legal landscape and other plaintiffs/ criminal defendants/ immigrants / [other marginalized group] before raising a “longshot” issue.…
CDA, on the other hand, ignores the rest of the world when evaluating issues for a legal challenge, be it an appeal, pretrial motion, or petition for judicial review.
What about you? How much consideration do you give to “the cause” when deciding which cases to take or which issues to argue? Do those considerations only come into play when the issue under consideration is a probable loser?
For the CDA, the client—not “clients generally” nor “society” nor “the lawyer’s feelings—must be The Cause. If making an argument will help the client more than leaving it out, the lawyer makes the argument. Any interest other than the client’s best interest is a conflicting interest, and cannot be acted on without the client’s informed consent.
Maybe the client presented with the opportunity to give informed consent—
Mr. Schmoe, we could make this novel argument that the search in your case was bad, and we might win and keep you out of prison. It won’t cost you anything if we lose. But the facts in your case are pretty bad, so we will probably lose. It’d be better for society—but won’t help you—if someone else with better facts makes the novel argument.
—will take one for the team: clients do all sorts of stupid things. But absent client consent to put some other interest ahead of the client’s, the CRA is way out of bounds doing so. She can consider “the cause” when deciding what cases to take, she can’t do so without the client’s permission when deciding how to achieve the client’s goals.
A few days ago, I wrote a post, Great Cicero’s Ghost. It was part of a discussion of legal ethics, causes, and conflicts of interest, arising from this post by Charles Thomas (which in turn arose from this post by Scott Greenfield).
The discussion continued with Max Kennerly’s “thoughts” (“there’s no requirement for the utmost zeal in representation, so we know that there’s no absolute duty to make a particular argument just because it might confer some advantage on the client”), my response to Kennerly, Matthew Wright’s view (to which I tried to respond, but failed because I’m stubborn about not signing in to wordpress.com to comment; I’ll blog about it later). This is all in the best disputatious tradition of the practical blawgosphere. Bruce Godfrey commented too, in an annoyingly selfrighteous passive-aggressive happyspherical “I’m going to tell you what people said but I’m not going to link to them” way.
You see what I did there? I mentioned some interesting posts, and I linked to them—whether I agree with them or not—so that you could go read them yourself. That is the way the blawgosphere works. Charles and Scott and Max and Matthew and even Bruce get a little bit of “link love”; my readers who are interested in reading their whole posts have to go their blogs, where Charles and Scott and Max and Matthew and even Bruce have a chance of capturing those readers’ attention with the other things that they have written. Writing is work, and I shouldn’t deprive Charles or Scott or Max or Matthew or even Bruce of eyeballs on their own blogs.
That’s not Steve Greenleaf’s style. A self-styled “freelance lawyer,” Greenleaf copies someone’s entire blog post and republishes it on his blog with a paragraph or so of his own commentary above it. He does link to the original, which makes him a little better than those who copy others’ blog posts and republish them without linking to the original.
This is not how the blawgosphere works. Reprinting someone else’s content in its entirety is the wrong thing to do. Someone other than Greenleaf put work into every post that he copies; he has no right to steal that work by publishing it on his own site, either with attribution or without.
Franks dismissed claims by some groups, like American Civil Liberties Union, that criminal penalties for posting the photos infringes on behavior protected by the First Amendment.
“This isn’t protected speech, at least under any theory I can think of,” she said.
Rogers called me after talking to Franks, and I was quoted directly following her:
Other lawyers disagree, including Houston attorney Mark Bennett, who said the proposed laws, including the ones written by Franks, are unconstitutional.
Had I known exactly what Franks had told Brian Rogers, I would have said, “any idiot with a law degree knows the theory under which this is protected speech. If Franks can’t think of a theory under which revenge porn is protected speech, she’s incompetent.” But I don’t think she’s incompetent going on. I think she’s lying to Rogers. She does have a history, after all, of being untruthful about these matters.
Franks knows why revenge porn is protected speech: because speech is protected unless it fits into a recognized category of unprotected speech. She has made arguments for squeezing revenge porn into one category or another; I have shown why those arguments are specious. She has not responded, though she has claimed to have done so. She has never had to defend her thesis.
In their article Franks and Danielle Citron write, “Nonetheless, First Amendment doctrine holds that not all forms of speech is subject to strict scrutiny.” They provide no cite, and I contend that this is inaccurate: that all content-based speech restrictions are subject to strict scrutiny, and that they satisfy such scrutiny only if the government can show that no substantial amount of speech they restrict is unprotected. I look forward to seeing their cite for their proposition in the completed article.
They also misquote Eugene Volokh:
In his view, non-consensual pornography lacks First Amendment value as a historical matter and should be understood as categorically unprotected as obscenity.
Here’s what Volokh actually said:
But even under this sort of historical approach, I think nonconsensual depictions of nudity could be prohibited. Historically and traditionally, such depictions would likely have been seen as unprotected obscenity (likely alongside many consensual depictions of nudity). And while the Court has narrowed the obscenity exception — in cases that have not had occasion to deal with nonconsensual depictions — in a way that generally excludes mere nudity (as opposed to sexual conduct or “lewd exhibition of the genitals”), the fact remains that historically such depictions would not have been seen as constitutionally protected.
That’s could, not should. Revenge porn could be treated as obscenity just as “consensual depictions of nudity” could be. I don’t think we want to open that particular door.
It may be that the Supreme Court will eventually recognize revenge porn as being in some category of unprotected speech. Citron thinks that an element of harm may be required for revenge porn statutes to withstand overbreadth challenges; Franks disagrees.
I’m with Citron1: the chances that a revenge-porn criminal statute will pass muster are better if the statute requires proof of harm—or, in my view even better, intent to cause harm. We would probably disagree on what “harm” is; I think there’s a modern tendency to treat hurt feelings and embarrassment as harm, and I would require an intent to cause more severe emotional distress than that.
I doubt that Franks is stupid. What endgame could she possibly envision, trying to pass statutes that even her coauthor thinks have First Amendment issues? Five years (at most) under her regime, before the massive rollbacks when the first such statute hits the Supreme Court? I don’t see anyone being helped by that but her.
AMENDING TITLE 13, CHAPTER 14, ARIZONA REVISED STATUTES, BY ADDING SECTION 13?1425; RELATING TO sexual offenses.
Be it enacted by the Legislature of the State of Arizona:
Section 1. Title 13, chapter 14, Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended by adding section 13-1425, to read:
13-1425. Unlawful distribution of images; state of nudity; classification; definition
A. It is unlawful to knowingly disclose, display, distribute, publish, advertise or offer a photograph, videotape, film or digital recording or other reproduction of another person in a state of nudity or engaged in a sexual act without obtaining the written consent of the depicted person.
B. This section does not apply to any of the following:
1. Lawful and common practices of law enforcement, reporting criminal activity to law enforcement, or when permitted or required by law or rule in legal proceedings.
2. Medical treatment.
3. Images involving voluntary exposure in a public or commercial setting.
C. A violation of this section is a class 5 felony, except that a violation of this section is a class 4 felony if the depicted person is recognizable.
D. For the purposes of this section, “state of nudity” has the same meaning prescribed in section 11?811.
(H/T Adam Steinbaugh via Twitter.)
“state of nudity” means any of the following:
(a) The appearance of a human anus, genitals or a female breast below a point immediately above the top of the areola.
(b) A state of dress that fails to opaquely cover a human anus, genitals or a female breast below a point immediately above the top of the areola.
So you take a picture of your wife in a nice dress with plenty of decolletage (revealing part of the breast lower than than the top of the areola), and you show it to someone without her written consent. If you’re in Arizona, that’s a felony.
Or you repost an image of Janis Jackson’s 2004 Superbowl wardrobe malfunction (revealing a portion of the breast below the areola) on your blog. Boom, felony.
Doesn’t pass the smell test. But let’s do the First Amendment analysis.
Does it restrict speech? Yes: displaying, distributing or publishing a visual depiction (“reproduction”?) is speech.
Is it a content-based restriction? Yes: it forbids distributing images of another person “in a state of nudity,” but not cat pictures.
Does the forbidden speech fall into one of the historically recognized categories of unprotected speech to which First Amendment protections do not apply?
Since no heretofore-discovered category of historically unprotected speech covers the speech that the Arizona legislature would forbid, here we have a proposed law, short and sweet, that, to pass constitutional muster, would require the discovery of a new category of unprotected speech.
As I’ve said before, it might happen, but I’m not betting on it.
Max Kennerly asks: Is A Lawyer Ever Required To Present An Argument They Don’t Believe?
The answer to the question is, to any true
Scotsman criminal-defense lawyer, “absolutely.” We don’t decide whether our clients go to trial, and we don’t pick the facts. If the second-simplest explanation that accounts for all of the government’s admissible evidence is unbelievable even to us, then (unless trial psychosis helps us out by letting us buy our own bullshit) we must present an argument that we don’t believe to the jury.
But Kennerly contends that the answer is “no.” A lawyer, says he, is never required to present an argument she doesn’t (“they don’t”) believe.
According to Kennerly, a lawyer doesn’t have a duty of zealous advocacy. Why does he say this? Because the ABA Model Rules don’t require zeal1:
The focus of the Rules, then, is on competence, diligence, and communication, not on the degree of “zeal” felt or exercised by the lawyer.
Sometimes law and ethics clash, and DRs (including the MRs, where they are adopted) are law. Sometimes DRs require things that are not ethically required; often they do not require things that are ethically required.
The MRs, however, are not even the state of the law, whether in Texas, where Comment 6 to TDRPC 1.01 says…:
Having accepted employment, a lawyer should act with competence, commitment and dedication to the interest of the client and with zeal in advocacy upon the client’s behalf.
…or in Pennsylvania, where Charles Thomas practices…:
A PCHA petitioner alleging ineffective assistance of counsel may not be represented by an attorney from the same office as the allegedly ineffective attorney, regardless of the fact that one started working there after the other left. The later attorney, by reason of his association with the same office, still has an appearance of a conflict of interest threatening his duty of zealous advocacy. Pennsylvania v. Wright, 374 A.2d 1272, 1273 (Pa. 1977).
…or in the U.S. generally:
Although an indigent whose appeal is frivolous has no right to have an advocate make his case to the appellate court, such an indigent does, in all cases, have the right to have an attorney, zealous for the indigent’s interests, evaluate his case and attempt to discern nonfrivolous arguments. Smith v. Robbins, 528 U.S. 259, 278 n.10 (2000).
In a detour, Kennerly confuses zeal with a lack of caution:
That’s how it should be: one of the essential precepts of the law is the recognition that “reasonable minds can differ” on a wide variety of subjects, including on the most effective way to represent a particular client and whether zeal or caution is warranted in a given situation.
While it’s true that a lawyer can choose the approach to his client’s case that will be most effective (and should, according to the law of requisite variety, have a good number of approaches to choose from), he must choose the one that is most effective. That—and not recklessness—is the essence of zealous representation. A lawyer can be zealous and cautious, zealous and audacious, zealous and temperate; zeal is not optional.
If zeal is not optional, then it appears that Kennerly would agree with me that the lawyer must sometimes—when is the best argument for the client—make the argument that he doesn’t believe in. That, at least, is the implication:
…[W]here is the line drawn between arguments that a lawyer must make (to have performed competently) and arguments that they can make (within the bounds of zealous advocacy)?
If zealous advocacy is mandatory, then there is no line between arguments that a lawyer can make within the bounds of zealous advocacy, and arguments that a lawyer must make to have performed competently. They are the same thing.
Kennerly also digresses into IAC law, which sets a very low bar for representation. Any criminal-defense lawyer whose ethics are satisfied by simply providing representation that doesn’t violate Strickland should go defend insurance companies. Or sell shoes.
In the post that prompted Kennerly’s question, I argued that a lawyer whose ethical qualms will not allow him to make a likely argument that might be legal and effective in the client’s case must give the client notice, before the lawyer is hired, of his fussiness. Kennerly would apparently say otherwise, returning again to the Model Rules of which he is overly fond:
First, the Rule draws a distinction between “general strategy” — about which the lawyer is to keep the client informed — and the details of that “trial or negotiation strategy,” which the lawyer “ordinarily will not be expected to describe.” Second, because the Rule specifically mentions that the client must give informed consent to conflicts of interest, the principle of expressio unius est exclusio alterius (“the express mention of one thing excludes all others”) would imply that a conflict of interest is the only situation in which the client is required to be informed of.
Here, Kennerly misses the point entirely.
Even if Kennerly were right that zeal was optional, even if a lawyer had no duty to present an effective and legal defense, if it were the lawyer’s ethical fussiness that prevented him from presenting such a defense there would be a conflict of interest. The lawyer in this situation has an interest in keeping his hands clean, the client has an interest in the lawyer doing everything legal that might keep him out of prison, and the lawyer must (even under the MRs) get the client’s informed consent before proceeding.2
Never trust a lawyer who confuses ethical rules—whether the Model Rules or his state’s disciplinary rules—with ethics. ↩
The lawyer who, upon reflection, thinks that this might not be a conflict that must be revealed to the client has serious ethical problems, way beyond thinking that the MRs contain the whole of legal ethics. ↩
Next, the lawyer has to actually start jury selection. It is important for the trial to get off to a good start, and for this reason few lawyers rely purely on improvisation at this early stage. Most have a few phrases they have learned to trust, or an introductory framework they have polished over time. These tried-and-tested opening lines help the lawyer to sound proficient, experienced and, most importantly of all, supremely confident.
Confidence is contagious. If a lawyer is confident, the jury panel sense it immediately. They relax, because they can tell the lawyer knows what she is doing. They also feel confident they will enjoy her work. This makes for a very relaxed and supportive atmosphere, so the lawyer can relax and enjoy her work more. This expectation builds rapport between lawyer and panel, which helps the voir dire to go well. When the voir dire goes well, this further enhances the lawyer’s confidence, and so the circle goes round.
Lack of confidence is also contagious, and has precisely the opposite effect. The panel becomes tense (or bored) and anticipate having a rather disappointing time. This kills rapport, and the jury selection suffers accordingly. This undermines the lawyer’s confidence, so forming a vicious circle.
This is why confidence is vitally important to any kind of performance, including jury selection. Unfortunately, confidence is not to be had just for the wanting. It only comes with experience. But it does come, and brings many rewards.
But it’s not just about trial. The quote is from The Full Facts Book of Cold Reading (read it—there’s much in it that is directly applicable to both jury selection and cross). I substituted “lawyer” for “psychic” and “jury selection” for “the reading.”
See also one of my favorite Zen stories, found on this page:
A young and rather boastful champion challenged a Zen master who was renowned for his skill as an archer. The young man demonstrated remarkable technical proficiency when he hit a distant bull’s eye on his first try, and then split that arrow with his second shot. “There,” he said to the old man, “see if you can match that!” Undisturbed, the master did not draw his bow, but rather motioned for the young archer to follow him up the mountain. Curious about the old fellow’s intentions, the champion followed him high into the mountain until they reached a deep chasm spanned by a rather flimsy and shaky log. Calmly stepping out onto the middle of the unsteady and certainly perilous bridge, the old master picked a faraway tree as a target, drew his bow, and fired a clean, direct hit. “Now it is your turn,” he said as he gracefully stepped back onto the safe ground. Staring with terror into the seemingly bottomless and beckoning abyss, the young man could not force himself to step out onto the log, no less shoot at a target. “You have much skill with your bow,” the master said, sensing his challenger’s predicament, “but you have little skill with the mind that lets loose the shot.”
When people ask me about the Trial Lawyers College, I tell them that I think it’s great training, but that many alumni screw up by viewing the TLC way as The Way, rather than a gateway to finding the style that works best for you. I also tell them that I see the attempts of TLC, Inc., the corporation that runs TLC to institutionalize TLC teachings as inimical to the truth, which is that once we can learn anywhere to try cases better. TLC, Inc. is Abercrombieing ((Abercrombie and Fitch, which used to outfit people for adventure travel, now sells softcore porn to gay teens.)) the Trial Lawyers College—preserving the purity of the name, but at the cost of the product.
So as well as the psychodrama of the Trial Lawyers College I have studied cold reading, and improv (did you know that J.L. Moreno, who invented psychodrama, had an improv theatre first?), and acting, and dog training, and martial arts, and a dozen other things, and found ways to incorporate them into my trial lawyering.
I’ve also proposed creating a criminal-defense skunkworks, so that other like-minded lawyers could explore diverse fields and report back to the group on their applicability to criminal defense, but the time (three years ago) was not right. I may resurrect the idea sometime, or if someone else wants to build the framework, I’m in.