Defending People

the tao of criminal-defense trial lawyering

Tyler Flood: The Drunk Driver’s Lawyer?

Hous­ton DWI lawyer Tyler Flood on DWI cases, from the Hous­ton Press arti­cle (yes, it’s like crack):

Lis­ten, most of the peo­ple we get off are intox­i­cated. But that’s the jus­tice sys­tem,” he says. “I’ve always thought peo­ple would be very con­cerned if they knew what we were doing.”

Tyler: You know that you’re talk­ing to a reporter, right?
And you know that he’s most likely going to print what you say?

You know that what he prints is going into a weekly news­pa­per with print cir­cu­la­tion over 600,000?

You know that among that 600,000 are more poten­tial jurors than poten­tial clients?

And you want to tell them that most of your clients are intoxicated?

This prob­a­bly didn’t occur to you, but some of those read­ers will draw broader con­clu­sions. Some of the jurors on my next DWI case are going to have read your claims that most of the peo­ple you get off are intox­i­cated. And some of them are going to assume that it’s true of my clients as well.

Gee. Thanks, Tyler.

Wait, wait. That’s just the effect on me and every other lawyer try­ing DWIs in Houston.

For you, it gets even better.

The Hous­ton Press is pub­lished online. There’s a per­ma­nent record of every word ever said about you online. And jurors can use the web to research the lawyers on their cases. Which they do.

So the next time you have a jury picked, when they break for the evening some of them are going to go home and look you up. And, along with all of your mar­ket­ing efforts, they’re going to find the Hous­ton Press arti­cle. And they’re going to learn that most of your clients are intox­i­cated. And they’re going to return to court the next morn­ing. They’re going to share what they’ve learned with their fel­low jurors. And, armed with that knowl­edge, they’re all going to be look­ing for con­fir­ma­tion that this par­tic­u­lar client fits that pattern.

Had it got­ten too easy? Were jury tri­als too fair for you? Not stim­u­lat­ing enough? Did you have to add this addi­tional pre­sump­tion of guilt to your clients’ bur­den to get excited?

Those read­ing along at home might be ask­ing: Is it true? Are most peo­ple accused of DWI intoxicated?

Emphat­i­cally not.

If it’s true that most of Tyler’s clients are intox­i­cated (or it may be hyper­bole), then there’s either some­thing strange going on with his clien­tele, or some­thing strange going on with mine.

Almost uni­ver­sally, whether my clients charged with DWI were intox­i­cated is doubt­ful. Their videos look okay—they could show intox­i­cated peo­ple, or could show ordi­nary peo­ple who are ner­vous and tired. Fam­ily and friends watch­ing my clients’ DWI videos usu­ally agree: it looks like they have the nor­mal use of their fac­ul­ties, which is the cen­tral issue in most DWI trials.

The DWI cops, hun­gry for over­time, hang their hats on the voodoo of HGN—horizontal gaze nys­tag­mus. The Press arti­cle calls the HGN “pen test” “the most incrim­i­nat­ing in the field sobri­ety lineup,” but juries dis­agree; they can’t see it, and gen­er­ally don’t buy it.

Is it just me, rep­re­sent­ing all of the factually-innocent peo­ple charged with DWI? No. From the same arti­cle, com­ments by Hous­ton DWI lawyers Gary Trichter and Doug Mur­phy:

[Gary] Trichter was a cop in the 1970s before switch­ing to crim­i­nal defense, which he views as another way to enforce the law — by keep­ing the state in check. He started with drug cases. “If you were inter­ested in being a Con­sti­tu­tional lawyer, that’s where you needed to be,” he says.

But accord­ing to Trichter, the brunt of the state’s abuse of power soon shifted to DWI, for which he esti­mates more inno­cent peo­ple are arrested than any other crime com­bined. Trichter paints breath­a­lyz­ers as junk sci­ence, field sobri­ety tests as out­ra­geous affairs cooked up to incrim­i­nate, and forced blood tests, which take place dur­ing no-refusal week­ends and have recently been per­mit­ted in any stop involv­ing a child pas­sen­ger or an injury, as a men­ac­ing specter for a mod­ern democracy.

[Doug] Mur­phy, who runs Trichter’s Hous­ton office now that Trichter has relo­cated to the cow­boy town of Ban­dera, says if a cop smells any alco­hol at all on your breath, you’re likely get­ting arrested. He points to the signs found on high­ways through­out the state. “Drink, Drive, Go to Jail is not the law,” he says. “But it is exactly how it’s enforced.”

Mur­phy claims cops tar­get peo­ple dri­ving nice cars or from nice bars for DWI arrests, hop­ing they’ll pay to fight in court, which brings extra over­time. He keeps handy a 2006 Hous­ton Chron­i­cle arti­cle that found one DWI offi­cer mak­ing more than $100,000 of over­time in a sin­gle year. DWI lawyers say they now get a huge chunk of busi­ness from Wash­ing­ton Avenue. (They should get another boost from the 1,200 con­vic­tions that will be revis­ited now that a Texas Depart­ment of Pub­lic Safety employee was caught fak­ing breath­a­lyzer inspec­tion records.)

That—junk sci­ence, rigged tests, the over­time game, the lies cops tell to make cases stick—would make a great arti­cle, and one that would have ben­e­fited soci­ety as well as one self-aggrandizing lawyer. But that’s not the story that Mike Giglio wanted to tell, and it’s not the story that Tyler Flood was telling him.

Given the bully pul­pit, why wouldn’t Tyler want to tell the story of bad arrests and junk sci­ence, to the ben­e­fit of each of his clients and of soci­ety generally?

Maybe he saw an advan­tage in telling the “I get factually-guilty peo­ple off” story. Maybe his poten­tial clients who weren’t intox­i­cated will fig­ure that if Tyler can get off peo­ple who are intox­i­cated, their cases will be easy by comparison.

On the other hand, though, those same inno­cent peo­ple might—not unreasonably—want to dis­tance them­selves from the lawyer who pub­licly claims that most of his clients com­mit­ted the crime they are accused of. That’s a club few peo­ple would want to join.

Share

About The Author

Mark Bennett got his letter of marque from the Supreme Court of Texas in May 1995. He is famous for having no sense of humor when it comes to totalitarianism.

Comments

4 Responses to “Tyler Flood: The Drunk Driver’s Lawyer?”

  1. I was appalled by the arti­cle, Mark. I’ve han­dled many DWIs over my 21 years in prac­tice — and I can say with­out hes­i­ta­tion that MANY of them were not guilty. I can­not believe that Tyler did this — con­t­a­m­i­nated jury pools not only in DWIs but also across the board. He made crim­i­nal defense lawyers in gen­eral look like hor­ri­ble — like we are what many jokes are made of. The arti­cle demon­strates clearly that Tyler is all about the money. I know you, nor I, nor many great lawyers, think in the way that Tyler thinks about what he does for a liv­ing. I can say that we truly care about our clients, and about con­sti­tu­tional rights. As my first com­ment ever on his arti­cle sums up — YIKES! (WE — includ­ing our future clients — will pay the price for Tyler’s comments.)

  2. Patrick says:

    Damned fool’s going to have to file a motion in lim­ine in every case, for the REST OF HIS CAREER, to bar the pros­e­cu­tor from ask­ing poten­tial jurors whether they’ve read Mr. Flood’s arti­cle in which he stated that most of his clients were drunk.

    Unless, as in North Car­olina where I prac­tice, DWI is tried first on bench in Dis­trict. Then he can assume the judge has read it, and will dis­re­gard it.

  3. […] Texas DWI lawyer speaks incau­tiously to the press, and fun ensues [Hous­ton Press, Above the Law, Defend­ing Peo­ple and […]

  4. Mickey Fox says:

    SIGH* All this from a mem­ber of the bar who makes such a good liv­ing and I still can­not get a job here in Texas.

    I shall once again imme­di­ately go to my cor­ner and lament the pass­ing of the “Gen­tle­manly Profession.”

Leave a non-anonymous Reply