You are on page 1of 24

,  i  ' 



SPRING  2007 
HARRIS  COUNTY  CRIMINAL  LAWYERS'  ASSOCIATION 
[> [> [> StATING mR OINNtR
IS SOlO OUT,
PltASt JOIN US
mR COCKTAilS,
•  •  •  •  •  •  •  •  •  •  •  •  •  • 
•  •  •  •  •  •  •  • 
•  •  •  •  •  •  •  •  •  •  •  • 
•  •  •  •  •  •  •  •  •  •  •  •  •  • 
~ .............. . 
~ .......... . 
  J ~ .............. . 
  J ~ .............. . 
Winning Warriors
Message From the President
by  Robert  ickmon 
Warhorse Award Announcement
Strategy: Using the Enemy's Weapons
by  Joseph  W.  Varela 
Mandatory Minimums: ABroken Idea
by  Wendy  M,  Miller 
Top Ten Things To Remember
When Representing Foreign Nationals
yMagali S,Candler 
Dedication Ceremony
HCCLA Holiday Party
THE DEFEN DER 1<  1 
Robert fickman
PRESIDENT ElECT
Pat McCann
VICE PRESIDENT
Mark Bennett
SECRETARY
Sean Buckley
TREASURER
JoAnne Musick
PAST PRESIDENT
Wendell A. Ddom, Jr.
BOARD OF DIRECTORS:
Tom Berg
Neol Dovis
Nicole DeBorde
Christopher Downey
Todd DuPont II
Rosa Eliodes
Tyler flood
Steven Holpert
Mark Hochglaube
Rondall Kallinen
feral Merchant
Morjorie Meyers
Earl D. Musick
James TStafford
Charles Stanfield
Jim Sullivan
PAST PRESIDENTS:
1971-2005
C.Anthony Frilaux
Stuart Kinard
George Luquette
Morvin DTeague
Dick DeGuerin
W.B. House, Jr.
David R. Bires
woody De nsen
Will Gray
Edward A. Mollett
Carol yn Garcia
Jack B. Zimmermann
Clyde Williams
Robert Pelton
Candel ario Elizondo
Allen C. Isbell
David Mitcham
Jim E. Lavine
RickBross
Mary E. Conn
Kent A. Schoffer
DonCogdell
Jim Skelt on
George J. Parnham
Garlond D. MCinnis
Robert A. Moen
LloydOl iver
Donny Eosterling
RichardFrankoff
Wayne Hill
W. TroyMCKinney
Cynthia Henley
StanleySchneider
Publisher:  HeCLA 
EdllDrial Staff: 
Ads&OisbibutIon: 
Design. &Layout: 
~ ~   I ¥ ~ ~ EDITOR 
Lesson #1 learned on the kindergarten playground is that bullies tend to pick on kids who
don't fight back. It would seem axiomatic that criminal defense lawyers, more than any other
group, would have taken this example to heart in forming the character that leads them into
their chosen profession. So it remains one of life's great puzzles that amazingly large numbers
of criminal defense lawyers, instead of fighting those bullies-in-the-pulpit wearing black robes,
bow and cringe before them, obsequiously inviting them to viol ate the rights of those very
people the lawyers are charged with protecting.
Critics of the appointment system frequently claim that such spinelessness is inherent in
court-appointed lawyers, who don't challenge abusive jurists because they are afraid to bite
the hand that feeds them. However, the most cursory observer can quickly glean that this
craven accommodation is in no way limited to lawyers who seek court appointments. Whether
it is illegally coercing pleas after unreasonably revoking bonds, refusing to rule on motions,
denying records of rulings or non-rulings, withholding court reporters, revoking bonds for
failure to hire an attorney or denying court-appointed counsel to indigents on bond, retained
attorneys figure prominently in their inaction.
Almost worse than the failure to stand up to these judges is the renl sal to cooperate \vith
those people who want to take the necessary action to combat iUegal practices. Invariably,
when lawyers who are wiUing to challenge bullies go into court to investigate these claims,
or to test the waters, the problems magically disappear. The major difficulty is that all those
who whine in the hallways and behind closed doors will not participate in solutions, then wail
beseechingly: "We don't get no respect."
The other day a lawyer was compl aining to me that a visiting judge, infamous for his ignorance
of the law and his abusive behavior, had illegally detained him in the courtroom. I advised
this man that I was head of an HCCLA committee investigating misconduct on the part of
visiting judges [this one in particular 1and invited him to assist me in filing a formal complaint
with the Judicial Conduct Commission. Incredibly, the lawyer rwo-stepped away, mumbling
excuses and vague promises to get back \vith me at some later date.
With bricks like these, it will be no wonder when our house falls down.
Shawna L. Reagin
Editor
* The Editor's opinion is purely personal, and in no way reflects the viewpoint or
position of the Harris County Criminal Lawyers' Association .
SPRINB
In an opinion delivered November 9, 2006, "SKip"
CORJIELivs reversed a case out of the 178
th
District Court
due to the prosecutor's use of her peremptory challenges on a
discriminatory basis, in Thomas v. State, 2006 WL 3230275,
_ S.W.3d _ (Tex.App. -- Houston [l st Dist.] 2006, no
pet.) rdesignated for publication]. Kudos to the Court of
Appeals for following Miller-El and Batson in an honest
application of the law to the facts.
Another appellate victory fell to RiCK..DEtO"tO and S"tEvEn
LiEBERJIlAn in Moody v. State, 2006 WL 32320204 (Tex.
App. -- Houston [I st Dist.] November 9, 2006 [not
designated for publication] . Judge Devon Anderson refused
to permit trial counsel to present evidence of the accused's
reputation for the ethical treatment of children in four
felony indecency cases. Too bad the COA designated this
an unpublished memorandum, as this issue is the subject of
widespread confusion on the part of Harris County judges.
DAViD CVnninGHAm scored a Not Guilty in an aggravated
sexual assault of a child trial in the 176
th
District Court in
November of 2006.
After rebuffing the State's bottom-line offer of20 years to do
on misapplication of fiduciary property in the 184
th
District
Court, iRi\ succeeded in getting his client probation
after a 2-week trial.
Also on November 9, 2006, FLOOD, assisted by
SARi\H WOOD, heard a two-word verdict in a DWl trial
in CCCL #2. Then on January 18,2007, Tyler and Sarah
got a .18 DWl dismissed when a visiting judge granted their
motion to suppress, based on the lack of an underlying traffic
offense to justity the stop. Tyler continued his sweep in
March 2007, when he obtained a Not Guilty in CCCL #1;
his third win for this client.
The next day, .R,t\nD   won a DWl acquittal in
CCCL #7. H e tried the case alone, but received invaluable
assistance from John Kahn and Jed Silverman.
The jury took only an hour to follow the 38.23 charge and
find tODD Dvpon"t's client Not Guilty on a possession
case tried in Victoria, despite his admission tbat be had the
drugs.
DAViD obtained an acquittal for bis no-test ,
no accident DWl client, even tbough testimony revealed be
drove the wrong way on a one-way street and begged for
mercy on bended knee after being stopped.
When he successfully suppressed the breatb test results
and an improperly administered HGN test, jim II1EDLEY
assured his DWl client a win in CCCL #3 on November 16.
Then on December 2, Jim hit 12/12 when he racked up his
12
th
acquittal in 12 DWl trials for the year. In 2007, Jim
continued his streak by adding an 8-minute Not Guilty in
CCCL # 15 to his resume.
ViviAn KlnG and DEniSE CRi\WFOR,p defeated the
State and the prosecutor masquerading as a visiting judge to
achieve two Not Guilty verdicts on aggravated robbery in the
230
t11
District Court. Vivian's client was a certified juvenile,
the complainant'S granddaughter, and Denise represented
the boyfriend, against some rather damning testimony.
Guaranteeing a happier holiday for his client, CHAR.!-ES
KyLE VAnCE managed a no-bill from the grand jury on a
new law violation, then convinced the parole board it lacked
evidence to revoke parole, sending him home for Christmas.
THE DEFENDER * 3
Kyle followed this with a Not Guilty in an indecent exposure
trial in CCCL #2; t oAmI second chair.
STAn a reversal of Quanell X's rather
bizarre conviction for allegedly fleeing or attempting to
flee arrest as he tried to turn in an accused cop killer, in
Fm-rakhan v. State, 2006 WL 3438673, _ S.W.3d _ (Tex.
App. -- Houston [1
st
Dist.] 11/30/ 06, pet . filed 2/27/07)
[designated for publication). The issue was the trial court
improperl y charging the jury on an offense that was not a
lesser-included. Props also to the trial team, which consisted
of STAn .. R.9BERt ALTon tonES, LYDiA
CLAY, tYROnE lIloncRiFFE and R.9BB FiclQl1An.
In another ongoing saga, R.9LAnD finally got
justice for Gilbert Amezquita, who was wrongly convicted of
aggravated assault in the 230
th
District Court and subsequently
exonerated by the DNA test results the trial judge refused to
allow time for before trial. [Frighteningly, this was still a 5-4
decision at the CCA]. The State has declined to retry Mr.
Amezquita, so he is now a free man.
CAAiG WASHinGTOn'S heroic efforts prevailed when he
defeated the government's second attempt to kill Tyrone
Williams for his part in the deaths of 19 illegal immigrants
due to a smuggling scheme gone awry and secured a life
sentence for his client.
PI' O bono paid when tt PAULL cashed in an acquittal for a
war veteran in a DWI case, who explained his poor HGN
performance was rooted in insomnia caused by post-traumatic
stress disorder. JJ scored again, with assistance from BRiAn
WiCE, when he successfully argued a motion to suppress in
CCCL #7, by impeaching the arresting officer with his ALR
testimony; case dismissed.
BOB tERl\.LD   a great victory
right before the holidays when they convinced a jury to spare
their client's life in a capital murder case tried in the 230[h
District Court .
In the hinterlands of Montgomery County, tUDY SHiELDS
and LiSA BEnGE persuaded the jury to acquit their client of
murder and to assess punishment at a mere 5 years in prison
for the lesser offense of manslaughter.
Mter a 3-day trial in CCCL #7 ,   hung
the jury on a DWI, despite a .1 5 breath test and a bad video;
the State subsequently dismissed the case.
GARY ZACH FERtittA hung the jury in
CCCL #13 on a DWI, 011 December 18, 2006.
Effective cross-examination spelled acquittal for CHA RJ-ES
GAnl when he destroyed a DPS trooper's credibility in a
D\VI case in CCCL #4.
THE DEFENDER -« 4
Santa Claus delivered a nolle to the 263
rd
District Court for
BOB SCOTT'S client.
t OLAnDA tonEs persevered through a 9-day trial for
aggravated assault of a public servant and aggravated assault
to bring home sweet victory for her client, a Katrina evacuee,
who was accused of engaging in a major shootout with BATF
agents and local undercover police.
Although his client publicly credited "the Lord," CHRis
tRiTico at least shared responsibility when he engineered
an acquittal for a Harris County deputy tried for an assault
involving the non-fatal shooting of an unarmed citizen.
Chris subsequently won a Not Guilty in 1-1/2 hours in
the 351 st District Court for his 73-year-old client accused of
indecency with a child.
In his first trial as a defense lawyer, t AMES ALSTon, assisted
by AMAnDA WEBB, savored a t\vo-word verdict returned
in 30 minutes in a no test, no accident DWI in CCCL #8.
ALLEn   incredible odds to win a Not
Guilty in an aggravated robbery case tried before a visiting
judge in the 178
th
District Court, despite his client being
stopped in the getaway car 15 minutes after the robbery,
being identified by the complainant and being a Louisiana
evacuee on parole.
Proving that Texans sometimes do have a right to a speedy
trial, YOLAnDA and GRl\.nT a
dismissal for their client in the 337
th
District Court when, after
an 18-month interim, the State re-filed a previously dismissed
aggravated sexual assault case as
an indecency, over speedy trial
objections lodged at the time of
the first dismissal.
HPD's DWI task force took
another beating when STEVE
HALPERt prevailed in CCCL
#4, even though his client had
declined "the opportuni ty to
prove his innocence by taking
a breath test," per the arresting
officer, after T-boning another
car and flipping his own. tODD
in voir dire and
decided to keep the man who
became th e jury foreman and led
the charge to acquittal [according
to an unnamed but highly-placed
jury eavesdropper).
DOUG mURPHY won an acquittal on an alcohol / drug
combination DWI in CCCL #7, even though his client had
an open beer in the car when stopped and admitted to taking
some Vicodin.
tED SiLVERIUAn rose to the occasion once again when
the jury followed the law of a 38.23 charge and voted Not
Guilty on a .135 DWI in CCCL #12. Then Jed, along with
S1'EVE GonzALEz pulled a lesser DWI conviction out of an
intoxication manslaughter prosecution.
Justice delayed was not denied to Bo HopmAnn's client,
despite an uphill battle in Orange, Texas, on a DWI case that
was not summoned for trial until five years after the initial
arrest . Bo overcame denial of his speedy trial motion, an all-
white jury, client's admission he drank 9 beers, refusal of all
FSTs and breath test, and improper prosecutorial argument to
win a 45 -minute Not Guilty.
2006's Lawyers of the Year and jim
LAvinE again wrested victory from the jaws of defeat in
United States v. Kevin Howard when they persuaded U.S.
District Judge Vanessa Gilmore to grant a motion to vacate
his recent conviction, due to jury instructions that included
the theory of deprivation of honest services, which was
subsequently disallowed by the Fifth Circuit in another case .
t AmES [NcR,] ushered in a Not Guilty on an
aggravated robbery case in the 209
th
, despite some bad
extraneouses. Rick also saw a 30-minute acquittal on a breath
test DWI in Jefferson County when the trooper apparently
felt compelled to lie when it wasn't even necessary.
Following CHRiS DOWnEY'S stellar closing argument, the
jury hung 3/3 on a family violence assault in CCCL #3. A
few days later, Chris suppressed a .14 breath test, the walk-
and-turn and HGN for a DWI win in CCCL #14.
On February 5, 2007, SAm ADAmo hung the jury 11-1 for
Not Guilty on a felony DWI in the 228
th
District Court; the
State then dismissed the case. March 9, 2007, "Slarnmin'
Sam" hit it all the way home with a Not Guilty on a D\VI in
CCCL #9.
Rys1Y HARPin obtained an acquittal for the mayor's
daughter in her DWI trial after 1-1/2 hours of Jury
deliberation.
tom HEnDERSon won a Not Guilty on a DWI he tried in
CCCL #5 on February 12,2007.
With one of the fastest verdicts ever, nED barely
had time to sit back down before the jury returned an
acquittal in 90 seconds in a DWI trial in CCCL #10.
Drastically decreasing plea offers culminated in an outright
dismissal for CHRiS CAR!-SOn on an aggravated sexual
assault of a child in the 208
th
.
jim SULLiVAn snared a dismissal of an aggravated
sexual assault of child case in the 248
th
, due to the
multiple accusations and changing stories of the 13-year-
old complainant. Although Jim's client had been on bond
pending trial, a co-defendant spent several months sitting in
jail based on the girl's unfounded allegations.
Because DAnny EAs1'ER!-inG refused to give up and
instead fought a battle against recommitment every year
since 1997, a young man found Not Guilty by reason of
insanity has finally been released to outpatient treatment.
VAnis wrote the brief appealing the 208
th
District
Court's last recommitment; Danny handled the trial court
proceedings and delivered oral argument at the COA in
Marlin Deandre House v. The State of Texas, _ SW.3d
_, 2007 WL 506881 (Tex.App. -- Houston [14
th
Dist.]
February 20, 2007) [designated for publication].
New HCCLA member AnDRJ:A KgLSRj hung the jury
in the 228
th
District Court in an aggravated robbery case,
despite alleged eyewitnesses to both the deed itself and to the
client's car leaving the scene .
GiLBERt ViLLARJ:AL won a motion to suppress lots
of cocaine and many weapons before U.S . District Judge
Vanessa Gilmore, based on an invalid traffic stop.
No believer in starting small, DoRiAn   on his
maiden voyage as a defense lawyer wrangled a one-hour Not
Guilty on two aggravated sexual assault cases tried in Polk
County. Immediately following the verdict, the trial judge
waived the 72-hour waiting period and married the accused
to his patiently waiting fiancee.
An1'HOny Osso and ViviAn KinG marshaled an amazing
victory by convincing a jury to acquit their client of capital
murder and to convict him of the lesser offense of aggravated
robbery, saving him from the death penalty.
After waiting 3-1/ 2 years to go to trial on a conspiracy to
commit theft case, RgBB FicKlIIAn, GORPon DEES and
K!:vin FinE all welcomed Not Guilty verdicts in Ft. Bend
County.
CAsiE   reversed an intoxication manslaughter
conviction out of the 174
d1
District Court, based on the
trial court's refusal to instruct the jury on the lesser included
offense of DWI. miCHAEL LOGAn WAR!' of Ft. Worth
assisted on the appeal, Larry Douglas Henry v. State, 2007
WL 79449, __ S.W.3d __ (Tex.App. -- Houston [1
st
Dist.] 1/ 11/2007, no pet.) [designated for publication].
THE DEFENDER * 5
WE HAVE GATHERED TODAY TO DEDICATE THE
DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE, THE UNITED STATES
CONSTITUTION AND THE BILL OF RIGHTS IN THIS, "OUR
COURTHOUSE "
I SAY "OUR COURTHOUSE", BECAUSE THIS COURTHOUSE
BELONGS TO ALL OF US.
AS LAWYERS WE EACH TOOK A SOLEMN OATH AND IN IT
WE STATED: "I DO SOLEMNLY SWEAR THAT I WILL
SUPPORT THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED
STATES, AND OF THIS STATE; THAT I WILL HONESTLY
DEMEAN MYSELF IN THE PRACTICE OF THE LAW, AND
I WILL DISCHARGE MY DUTIES TO MY CLIENTS TO
THE BEST OF MY ABILITY. SO HELP ME GOD"
AS LAWYERS WE ALL TOOK THIS SOLEMN OATH AT ONE
TIME OR ANOTHER.
ON MAY 27, 1983, SOME 23 YEARS AGO, I TOOK THIS
SOLEMN OATH IN THE OLD COURTHOUSE. THE HONORABLE
JUDGE MYRON LOVE SWORE ME IN.
WHEN WE BECOME LAWYERS WE SWEAR A SOLEMN OATH
TO GOD ALMIGHTY TO SUPPORT THE CONSTITUTION OF
THE UNITED STATES.
THE DEFENDER 1< 6
IT IS NO ACCIDENT, THAT WHEN WE TAKE OUR SOLEMN
OATH AS LAWYERS, THE VERY FIRST THING THAT WE SWEAR
TO DO, IS TO SUPPORT THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED
STATES .
AS AMERICAN LAWYERS, SUPPORTING THE UNITED
STATES CONSTITUTION IS ALWAYS OUR FIRST AND LAST
OBLIGATION.
WHAT DOES IT MEAN TO SUPPORT THE UNITED STATES
CONSTITUTION?
WHAT DOES SUPPORT MEAN? IT MEANS TO UPHOLD, IT
MEANS TO KEEP FROM FALLING, IT MEANS TO MAINTAIN
AND ULTIMATLEY IT MEANS TO DEFEND.
THESE ARE ACTIVE VERBS. THEY ARE NOT PASSIVE. THEY
REQUIRE ACTION ON ALL OF OUR PARTS.
IN ORDER TO SUPPORT THE CONSTITUTION WE MUST EACH
ACTIVELY DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION.
WE TOOK A SOLEMN OATH AND WE ARE DUTY-BOUND TO
FOLLOW THAT OATH.
WE  MUST  DAILY  DEFEND  THE  CONSTITUTION.  THIS  IS  NOT 
SOMETHING  THAT  WE  CAN  PUT  OFF.  IT  IS  SOMETHING 
THAT  WE  MUST  DO  TODAY,  TOMORROW  AND  EVERYDAY 
THEREAFTER,  AS  LONG  AS  WE  ARE  LAWYERS. 
WE  MUST  DEFEND  THE  CONSTITUTION,  NO  MATTER  WHAT 
OUR  ROLE  IN  THE  CRIMINAL  JUSTICE  SYSTEM. 
NO  MATTER  WHAT  OUR  ROLE  IN  THE  CRIMINAL 
JUSTICE  SYSTEM,  WE  MUST  STAI'JD  IN  DEFENSE  OF  THE 
CONSTITUTION. 
WE  MUST  STAND  UP  AGAINST  THOSE  WHO  WOULD  VIOLATE 
THE  CONSTITUTION. 
AND  MAKE  NO  MISTAKE,  OUR  CONSTITUTION  AND  OUR  BILL 
OF  RIGHTS  ARE  UNDER  CONSTANT  ATTACK. 
WE  MUST  BE  HONEST  WITH  OURSELVES  ABOUT  THIS. 
IN  THE  CRIMINAL  JUSTICE  SYSTEM  WE  MUST  FIGHT  AT 
ALL  COST,  ANY  AND  ALL  MEASURES  THAT  ERODE  OUR 
CONSTITUTION  AND  OUR  BILL OF  RIGHTS. 
WE  MUST  FIGHT  ANY  SYSTEM,  NO  MATTER  WHERE  IT  IS 
FOUND,  IF  IT  INCLUDES: 
-POLICE  BRUTALITY,  (OR) 
-UNREASONABLE  BONDS , (OR) 
-UNREASONABLE  BOND  CONDITIONS,  (OR) 
-MANIPULATIONS  OF  THE  GRAND  JURY,  (OR) 
-UNREASONABLE  SEARCHES,  (OR) 
-PRESUMPTIONS  OF  GUILT,  (OR) 
-INEFFECTIVE  ASSISTANCE  OF  COUNSEL,  (OR) 
-THE  DENIAL  OF  DUE  PROCESS,  (OR) 
-CRUEL  AND  UNUSAL  PUNISHMENTS 
WE  MUST  RECOGNIZE  THAT  ANY  SUCH  SYSTEM,  IS  CONTRARY 
TO  THE  CONSTITUTION  AND  THE  BILL  OF  RIGHTS,  AND  WE 
MUST  FIGHT  ANY  SUCH  SYSTEM  WHEREVER  IT  BE  FOUND. 
WE  MUST  NEVER  FORGET,  THAT  NO  MATTER  WHAT  OUR 
ROLES  IN  THE  CRIMINAL  JUSTICE  SYSTEM , WE  ARE  LAWYERS 
FIRST. 
WE  MUST  NEVER  FORGET,  THAT  NO  MATTER  WHAT  OUR 
ROLE  IN  THE  CRIMINAL  JUSTICE  SYSTEM,  OUR  SACRED 
OATH  AND  OUR  PRIMARY  OBLIGATION  IS  TO  DEFEND  THE 
CONSTITUTION. 
THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE, THE
CONSTITUTION A ND THE BILL OF RIGHTS EMBODY OUR
MOST FUNDAMENTAL LA W. 
THE  CONSTITUTION  AND  THE  BILL  OF  RIGHTS  PROTECT  THE 
LIBERTY  WE  ALL  HOLD  SO  DEAR. 
GENERATIONS  BEFORE  US  HAVE  FOUGHT  FOR  OUR  LIBERTY 
AND  PAID  THE  ULTIMATE  PRICE  TIME  AFTER  TIME.  THEY 
FOUGHT  HERE  AND  IN  EUROPE  AND  IN  FAR  OFF  FIELDS  SO 
THAT WE  MIGHT  ENJOY  LIBERTY. 
THESE  GENERATIONS  BEFORE  US  PAID  TOO  HIGH  A  PRICE, 
FOR  US  NOT  TO  DO  OUR  PART. 
SO  LET  US  HONOR  THOSE  WHO  HAVE  COME  BEFORE  US,  BY 
DOING  OUR  PART. 
WE  GAVE  OUR  SOLEMN  WORD,  AS  LAWYERS,  THAT  WE  WOULD 
SUPPORT  THE  CONSTITUTION. 
WE  CAN  DO  NO  LESS  THAN  TO  KEEP  OUR  WORD .  WITHOUT 
OUR  WORD  WE  ARE  NOTHING. 
SO  LET  THESE  DOCUMENTS  SHINE  UPON  EACH  OF  US  AND 
INSPIRE  US  TO  DO  OUR  BEST. 
MAY  WE  EACH  DO  OUR  BEST  WHETHER  WE  ARE  JUDGES, 
PROSECUTORS  OR  DEFENSE  LAWYERS. 
MAY  WE  DO  OUR  BEST  TO  UPHOLD  THE  CONSTITUTION  OF 
THE  UNITED  STATES  OF  AMERICA. 
MAY  WE  DO  OUR  BEST  FOR  OUR  COUNTRY. 
MAY  WE  DO  OUR  BEST  FOR  OUR  NEIGHBORS . 
MAY  WE  DO  OUR  BEST  FOR  OUR  FRIENDS  AND  FAMILIES.  MAY 
WE  DO  OUR  BEST  FOR  EACH  OTHER. 
AND  MAY  WE  DO  OUR  BEST  FOR  OURSELVES,  AS  WE  UPHOLD 
THE  CONSTITUTION  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES. 
TODAY  WE  HONOR  THE  DECLARATION  OF  INDEPENDENCE, 
THE  CONSTITUTION  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES  AND  THE  BILL  OF 
RIGHTS. 
LET  US  REMEMBER  THIS  DAY. 
LET  US  REMEMBER  DAILY,  THE  SOLEMN  OATH  WE  TOOK  AS 
LAWYERS. 
LET  US  REMEMBER  DAILY,  THAT  WE  ARE  UNITED  BY  THESE 
DOCUMENTS. 
LET  US  REMEMBER  DAILY,  THAT  WE  ARE  UNITED  BY  OUR 
CONSTITU ITON. 
LET  US  REMEMBER  DAILY,  THAT  AS  LAWYERS,  WE  MAY  BE 
ADVERSARIES,  BUT  WE  ARE  NEVER  ENEMIES. 
LET  US  REMEMBER  DAILY,  THAT  WE  ARE  UNITED  BY  OUR 
COMMON  UNSHAKEABLE  LOVE  OF  LIBERTY. 
THANK  YOU  FOR  COMING. 
12oloert   f Z t j ~ a f t
PRESIDENT  HCCLA 
THE DEFENDER 1< 7
s t ~   t E G Y Joseph W. Varela
USInG THE EnEIhY'S
WEAPC9nS
GUERRillAS MUST NOT DEPEND TOO MUCH ON AN ARMORY. THE ENEMY
IS THE PRINCIPAL SOURCE OF THEIR SUPPLY.
- MAO ZEDONG, "ON GUERRILLA WARFARE" (1937)
The  law  of evidence  governing  the  admissibility  of expert  witness  testimony 
in  criminal  cases  would  appear  to  be  neutral;  on  its  tace,  the  law  makes  no 
distinction  between  experts  offered  by  the  prosecution  and  those  offered  by 
the  defense. 
l
But  the  prosecutor  has  real-world  advantages  over  the  defense 
in  getting expert  testimony  bdt)re  the  jury.  First,  the  prosecution  has  almost 
unlimited  money for  experts,2 and  many  of its  experts are salaried  government 
employees  available  at  no  marginal  cost.  Then  there  is  the  issue  of "court's 
discretion":  trial  and  appellate  courts allow the  prosecutor to qualify "experts" 
as  needed  to obtain  convictions, while  the  defense,  regardless  of the qualifica-
tions  of its  witnesses,  faces  an  uphill  battlc.

Finally,  there  may  simply  be  no 
one available  tCJ[  hire who can testify to what the  ddense needs.  So tor all  these 
reasons and  more, the defense  lawyer can  expect to come  to court outgunned 
by  the  prosecution's experts. 
Successful  guerrillas,  inferior  in  material  to  conventional  armies,  have  histori-
cally  relied  on  their  enemies  to  furnish  them  with  arms.  Mao's  Communists 
fought  the  better-equipped  NationaList  army  using  Nationalist weapons,  many 
ofwhich were made in  the USA. The Vietcong, unable to manufacture their own 
armaments, and only irregularly supplied by  their Chinese and Soviet sponsors, 
famously  used  weapons captured  from  South  Vietnamese or American  regular 
armies.  There is  abundant evidence  that al-Qaeda, too, is  using captured arms 
and  munitions in  Iraq,4  often  improvising ingeniously.  These  guerrilla  organi-
zations  were  able  to close  the  armament gap  with  better-equipped adversaries 
by  using captured weapons  they could  not have  obtained otherwise. 
There is a lesson here tor the dctense lawyer. What do you do if you
don't have an expert witness? Use the prosecutor's expert.
One situation exists where the "expert" is only marginally competent,
but still can give useful testimony. Police officers are "experts" on every-
thing: Gang organization and symbols, skid marks, physiology, blood
spatters, accident reconstruction, firearms, law, medicine, signs of drug
intoxication, and psychology, to name a few. Trial courts routinely al-
low them to be qualified and appellate courts agree, although they typi-
cally know little more than any other informed member of the public.
s
Defense lawyers gain nothing by complaining about this state of aff.'lirs.
The officer will be allowed to testity. The task is to take advantage of it.
"Experts" who are marginally competent are loath to admit to lack of
knowledge and so are sometimes open to suggestion. Officers will tes-
tity as experts on firearms, every time, although most of them know only
how to load them, clean them, and fire 50 rounds to quality on their
birthdays. On direct they will make a good presentation to the jury
testitying to whatever the prosecutor wants them to say about firearms.
On cross they can be Icd. I tried a case in which a la\vyer left an empty
handgun and a box of ammunition in his briefcase, and was arrested at
the courthouse metal detector. A constable testified on direct that filiI
metal jacketed handgun bullets were "anti-personnel" rounds. The
prosecution telt that eliciting this opinion would make my client appear
more dangerous. On cross it was no effort to get him to admit that the
rounds were non-expanding and much less lethal than hollow-points,
and that militaries used them to comply with international treaties out-
lawing bullets that could calise unnecessary suftering.
6
Then I made
him read the label on the box that recommended their use "for target
and range." Having qualified him as an expert, the State couldn't sud-
d e n   y "de-quality" him when the going got rougher on cross. I was able
to elicit helpful facts, and perhaps also show bias_ I am certain that this
cross in itself did not cause the acquittal. But it might have helped.
The expert who is obviously erudite presents a different problem . A
direct attack can prove worse than no cross at all . It is also unlikely that
he will surrender to defense suggestions. In this situation, it can pay to
prepare a cross which concedes his expertise and enlists his help.
Several years ago I tried a case in which a father was alleged to have used
an electric "stun-gun" to discipline his children. The State gave notice
of an expert who was on his face qualified. He held a B.S. in electrical
engineering, an M.D., and a Ph.D. in biomedical engineering. He was
a nationally known consultant to law enforcement in the use of Tasers
and other electric non-lethal force. Clearly I had no chance of trading
on his incompetence. Instead I read up on him and on electric weapons,
and prepared a cross showing, among other things, that electric weapons
in general, and my client's stun-gun in particular, were designed not to
cause death or any of the injuries that might make them a deadly weapon
under the statute.? This evidence prompted the jury to reject the State's
deadly weapon special instruction and perhaps contributed to their deci-
sion to probate the sentence.
Both these situations demonstrate how the defense lawyer, outgunned
by the prosecutor's "conventional forces," can nevertheless use the guer-
rilla stratagem of capturing the enemy's weapons to help equalize the
struggle. When confronted by a prosecutor's expert, ask not "How can I
defeat him?" but "How can I use him?"
I Texas Rules of Evidence, Rule 702 ct seq.; Kelly v. State, 824 S.W.2d 568 (Tex.Crim.App. 1992);
see also Daubert v. Merce! Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993); E.!. du Pont de
Nemours & Co. v. Robinson, 923 S.W.2d 549 (Tex. 1995).
2 The Houston Chronicle reported that in the Andrea Yates case, State expert Park Dietz was paid
$105,000 in the first trial, which was reversed because of his false testimony, Yates v. State, 171 S.W.3d
215 (Tex. App. -Houston [1st Dist.] 2005, pet. ret'd). Notwithstanding this debacle, he testified in the
retrial and collected an additional $37,000. In the retrial, the State also used a new expert, Michael
Weiner. Weiner was paid almost a quarter of ,1 million dollars for his efforrs. The retrial resulted in an
acquittal. HOIl>t011 Chro1/icle, Sept. 30, 2006.
.l See, e.g., Yarborough v. State, _ S.W.3d _, NOS. 01 -04-01076-CR, 01 -04-01077-CR (Tex.
App. - Houston [1st Dist.] delivered January 26, 2006, pct. ref'd).
4 The late master terrorist Abu Musab al -Zarqawi released a videotape showing that he needed assistance
from a hooded comrade in optrating an automatic weapon. He was widely jeered for incompetence
at arms. Those in the know laughed neither as loudly Ilor as long: The video clearly showed that the
weapon was an American M249 light machine gun, captured or stolen.
5 Gates v. State, 24 S.W.3d 439 (Tex.App. -- Houston lIst Dist.] 2000, pet. rct'd) (police officer
qualified to give opinion whether shooting was suicide); Sabedra v. State, 838 S.W.2d 761 (Tex.
App. -- Corpus Christi 1992, pet. ref'd) (officer with no medical training qualified to testilY to effects
ofsrab wound).
6 Hague Convenrion of 1899, Declaration III. 1 believed then, and believe now, that the constable
knew nothing about bullets and international agreements. But by sounding as if I did, he was made
reticent to publicly confess ignorance, and so was easily Icd.
7 Tex. Penal Code § 1.07 (3) (17), (46).
My GRANDFATHER HAD THE ANSWERS TO
MOST   FOR HIS PERSISTENTLY
GRANDDAUGHTER, THE BUTTER-
SCOTCH CANDIES AND WISE CLICHES WERE
NEVER IN SHORT SUPPLY. A FAIR PERCENT-
AGE OF HIS STORIES HELD A COMMON THEME
- "IF IT AIN'T BROKE, THEN DON'T FIX IT." IF
THAT PHRASE HOLDS TRUE, THEN THE CON-
VERSE LOGICALLY FOLLOWS. "IF IT IS BROKE,
THEN FIX IT."
THE CONCEPT OF MANDATORY MINIMUM SEN-
TENCING LAWS IS A BROKEN IDEA. PRIOR TO
THE FIRST DAY OF LAW SCHOOL, THE IMAGE
OF ".JUSTICE" HOLDS THE CONNOTATIONS OF
GETTING EXACTLY WHAT IS DESERVED AND
THE PUNISHMENT ALWAYS FITTING THE CRIME.
WITH THAT IMAGE IN MIND, THE REALITY OF
MANDATORY MINIMUMS IS A HARD PILL TO
SWALLOW. (AND THAT BITTER PILL REMAINS
UNDER THE TONGUE OF THIS FIRST-YEAR
ATTORNEY.)
WHAT IS A
MINIMUM?
If a drug-related or gun-related mandatory ITIll11mum
is triggered, it means the judge may not impose a sen-
tence less than the number of years dictated by Congress.
Mandatory minimum sentences are generally tlve to ten
years in duration with the type and \-veight of the drug or
the presence of a firearm determining the mandatory base-
line. An example of a mandatory minimum sentencing law
is 18 U.s.c. § 924(c), which provides a separate criminal
oftense for carrying a weapon during and in relation to a
crime of violence or drug trafficking crime. This statute
imposes a mandatory minimum penalty of five years to
be served consecutively to any sentence imposed for the
underlying offense. The minimum penalty can increase to
seven years (if the firearm is brandished) and ten years (if
discharged).
In Harris v. United States
l
, the United States Supreme
Court, as Federal Public Defender Brent Newton describes
ditlCrentiates between raising the cei ling and raising
floor. The Supreme Court (5-4 majority) held an increase
in the mandatory minimum sentence under 18 U.S.C. §
924c)(I)(A)(ii) for brandishing a weapon during a drug
transaction is a "sentencing factor" to be considered by
the court and not an element of the crime for jury consid-
eration. Sentencing tactors do not have to be alleged in
the indictment, submitted to the jury, or proven beyond
THE DEFENDER -ok 12
a reasonable doubt.
2
A mandatory seven-year sentence
issued in Harris with the judge determining by a prepon-
derance that the gun was 'brandished' - even though the
government's indictment did not charge Harris with bran-
dishing the weapon and the evidence was first introduced
at sentencing.
Mandatory minimums destroy judicial sentencing discre-
tion. Harsh mandatory minimums for drug-related and
gun-related oftenses do not allow for the weighing in of
relevant factors. Federal sentencing guidelines are "advi-
sory" following Booker,3 making deviations possible. Two
years after this landmark decision by the U .S. Supreme
Court, however, the majority of federal judges continue
to follow the sentencing guidelines range.
4
While judges
seldom agree with defense arguments to stray from the
guidelines, they do accept downward requests by prosecu-
tors, based on substant.ial assistance. Mandatory mini-
mums wipe out t.hat possibility. As prescribed by statutes
and not by the sentencing guidelines, the circuit courts
hold that Booker docs not apply to mandatory minimul11s.
5
The punishment range of mandatory minimums tor most
is not negotiable.
One in every 32 adults in the United States - seven mil -
lion people - were in prison, on probation or on parole at
the end of 2005, according to t.he Department ofJustice's
Bureau of Justice Statistics (released November 2006).6
According to the report, drug offenders make up abollt
20% of all state drug prisoners (251,000 out of 1.25 mil-
lion) and comprise about 55% offederal prisoners (87,000
out of 158,000). The website for the Families Against
Mandatory Minimums (www.famm.org) views the results
of mandatory  minimum  sentencing  laws  in  the  increased 
number  of inmates  incarcerated  for  drug-related  crimes 
complicated  with  the  increased  lengths  of prison  terms. 
Our nation  is  left staggering under  the weight of a swelled 
prison  population  with  overcrowded  facilities .  It is  frus -
trating  to  hear  the  shriek  of "build  more  prisons"  to  the 
problem  of  burgeoning  prison  populations,  when  real 
relief lies  in  eliminating draconian  mandatory  minimums. 
Mandatory  minimum  sentencing  laws  bind  the  hands  of 
judges to fixed  sentences, regardless of culpability or other 
mitigating  factors .  Besides  prior  convictions,  judges  are 
unable  to  measure  factors  like  the  offender's  role,  moti -
vation,  and  likelihood  of recidivism.  Only  by  squeezing 
through  the  tiny  "safety  valve"  window  offered  to  low-
level ,  nonviolent  drug-related  first -time  ofte nders

or  by 
providing  "substantial  assistance"  to  the  prosecntor  in 
either  drug-related  or  gun-related  charges  (i.e.,  informa-
tion aiding in  the prosecution of other offenders)8 may the 
oftender  escape  the  steel  jaws  of  a  mandatory  minimum 
trap. 
There  is  a  mocking  irony  in  granting  'snitching'  benefits 
to  drug-related  offenders.  Mandatory  minimums  for 
drug-related  offenses  were  contrived  in  1986  and  rein-
forced  in  1988  with  a  target  purpose  - to  slap  kingpins 
and the tops of drug-distribution food  chains with  lengthy 
sentences.  But  only  the  distribution  leaders  have  the 
information  that prosecutors want.  Common drug mules 
or street dealers  do  not have  enough  to offer  "substantial 
assistance."  So,  the  window  opens  wide  tor  the  top  dogs 
and  tlrst-time,  low-level  offenders  are  left  with  fi ve,  ten , 
and  even  twenty-year  mandatory sentences. 
The  "satety  valve"  is  meant  to  alleviate  the  inconsisten-
cies  when  faced  with  first -time,  low-level  offenders,  but 
"safety  valve"  eligibility  is  nearly  impossible  to  get.  The 
drug offender  must  have  a  minimal  criminal  history  (i.e., 
no more than  ONE criminal  history point); must not be  a 
violent,  armed,  or high-level  participant  [not available  to 
gun  otTenders];  and  must  provide  the  government  with 
truthful  information  regarding  the  otTense.  "Substantial 
assistance"  as  a  get-out-of- mandatory- minimums-free 
card  is  the aspiration  for  many offenders.  The temptation 
to  ' lie'  about what  is  known  in  order to  limbo  below  the 
mandatory stick  is  powerful. 
Mandatory  minimums  have  nothing  to  do  with  fairness . 
Mandatory  minimums,  like  the  intoxicating  mythical 
sirens,  lure  one  into  believing  they  are  the  answer.  They 
are  a  quick  fix  with  no  future  societal  value.  These  rigid 
sentences  take  "criminals"  off the  streets  -- but they  also 
overcrowd  the  prisons,  '..vaste  decades  of resources,  and 
ultimately  do  not  change  a  thing.  Drug  trJfficking  has 
not  slowed  down  because  of mandatory  minimum  sen-
tencing.  The only thing changing is  the appalling number 
of  t1rst-time,  low-level  soft  offenders  doing  hard  time. 
The  consequences  of mandatory  minimums  are  the  lives 
destroyed and the  billions of dollars  of tax  money drained 
into  the  Bureau  of Prisons. 
Mandatory  minimum  sentencing  laws  are  It is 
Post-Booker  Coding 
broken. 
time  to fix  them. 
ENDNOTES: ••••••••••••••••••••
1&2 Jon es  v.  United States,  526  U.S.  227,  568  (1999) 
543  U.S.  220  (2005) 
45
th 
Circuit judges specitlcally  fell  within  the federal  sentenc-
ing  guideline  range  74.1% of the  time  during  the  first  half 
of 2006  (post-Booker) [National average  for  same  rime  pe-
riod  was  61.9%].  Resource:  Special 
Project  (prepared  Jul y 6,  2006)  by  United  Srares  Sentenc-
ing  Commission, found  at  http://www.ussc.gov/sc_cascs/ 
PostBooker_060106.pdf 
United States v. Sanchez-Ben'ios, 424 F.3d  65  (1st Cir.  2005); 
United  States  v.  Sha"pley,  399  F.3d  123  (2d  Ci r.  2005 ); 
United  States  v.  Robinson,  404  F.3d  850  (4 rh  Cil'.  2005 ); 
United Statesv.  Smith, 419 F.3d 521  (6th Cir.  2005); United 
States p.  NgamJVu ttibal,  Nos.  04-5818,04-6019  , 2006 WL 
45256  (6th  Cir.  Jan.  9,  2006)  (unpub.);  United  States  v. 
Lee,  399  F3d 864 (7th Cir.  2005);  United Statcs, v.  Crr.nnoll, 
429  F.3d  1158  (7th  Cir.  2005);  United  States  v.  Blaylock, 
421  F.3d  758  (8 th  Cir.  2005 );  United  States  V.  Cm'dmas, 
405  F.3d  1046 (9th Cir.  2005);  United States P.  Pay tori,  405 
F. 3d  1168,  1173  (10th  Cir.2005 );  United  Sta.tes  P.  Cberry, 
433  F.3d 698 (10th Cir.  2005 );  United States)7. Sheltol1, 400 
F.3d  1325  (11th  Cir. 2005).  Resource:  Fi"al R eport 011 the 
I mpact of United  States  P.  Booker'  on  Federal  Sentencing (p.
34),  United  States Sentencing Commission  (March  2006), 
found  at  http://www. uSsc.gov/  bookcr_report/  Bookcr_ 
Report.pdf. 
The  news  release  can  be  found  at  http://www.ojp.usdoj. 
gOY/  bjs/  pub/ press/ pripropr.htm  (last  visited  February 
15, 2007).  The related  reports, "Prisoners in  2005" (NCJ-
215092),  written  by  BJS  statisticians  Paige  M.  Harrison 
and  Allen  J.  Beck,  and  "Probation and  Parole  in  the  United 
States,  2005"  (NCj-215091 ),  written  by  BJS  statisticians 
Lauren  E.  Glaze  and  Thomas  P.  Bonczar,  can  be  found  at 
www. ojp.usdoj .gov/bjs/abstract/p05.htm  and  www.ojp. 
usdoj.gov /  bjs/abstract/  ppus05 .htm. 
18 U.S.C. § 3553(f) 
8  18  U.S.c. § 3553(a) 
EZINTERLOCK 
An Alcohol Specific Ignition Interlock Provider
John Bums, President  Laura O'Brien, Public Relations 
.. Most accurate and  reliabJe  ignition  interlock available 
.. Patented fuel  cell  eliminates  false  readings 
* tasy to  read  instructions 
.. Convenient scheduling for  installation  and  recalibration 
'* Locally owned  and  operated 
*' Superior quality at a reasonable rate 
Request EZ Interlock through  Court Services, CLO or Coordinator. 
Free  installation  with  your  business  card. 
"Assuring a Designated Driver "
TITLE  INSURANCE COMPANY 
ARNOLD  S.  COHN, PC 
PRINCIPAL  ATTORNEY 
HCClA  MEMBER  15  YEARS 
MEMBER  DISCOUNTS/REFERRAL  FEES 
CURATIVE  SOLUTIONS 
TO  COMPLEX  LEGAL AN 0  TITLE  PROB LEMS 
BANKRUPTCY  PROBATE  DIVORCE 0  0 
8300  Bissonnet/Suite  240 
Houston/Texas  77074 
r  713.995.8888  F  713.995.8894  TF  866.995.8880 
a rno 1 dcohn 1 aw@hotmai 1 . com 

..
SPRING 2ffiDEFENDER
TOP 1 0 THINGS TO REMEMBER
WHEN REPRESENTING
FOREIGN NATIONALS
by Magali S. Candler
THERE ARE SEVERAL THINGS THAT EVERY DEFENSE ATTORNEY COULD DO TO
MAKE LIFE EASIER FOR HIS OR HER FOREIGN NATIONAL CLIENTS (AND THEIR
IMMIGRATION ATTORNEYS). ALTHOUGH THIS LIST IS NOT ALL-INCLUSIVE
{AN9 N0THNG BEATS CONSULTING WITH A COMPETENT IMIVlIGRATION
SFE b\U T ALONG WITH YOUR CLIENT), THE FOLLOWING LIST SHOULD AT
EAST BE REMINDER THAT THE IMMIGRATION CONSEQUENCES OF SEEM-
N CRIMINAL OFFENSES UNDER CURRENT iMMIGRATION LAW
RIOUS aND EVEN POSSIBLY THE DEATH KNELL TO SOMEONE
NITEq STATES:
Until you are a U.S. citizen, you may be considered
delDolrtal1te or inadmissiblr for criminal conduct, and may
__1110.. ff,om the nited States.
'green cards)" ot lawfU e ent residents are not U.S.
Anyone who is a visitor to t 'ted States or has a non,
immigrant visa (like a studen,t visa, for eXainple) may be removed from
the States. Only US.   do not need to worry about
they may be removed from the United States as a result of
crtmin!tl cond.uct. Sometimes people do hot knpw exactly what their
status is or how to describe it. Consult with an immigration specialist
(or have your client do so) to see how pen4fi1g charges may affect him
or her.
{ 2 } For immigration purp
is considered a Itconviction:'
{ 3 } A Itterm of imprisonment" for immi n
poses means imposition of a e ce, whether or not
probated.
TIlE DEFEND R", 1&
For immigration purposes, someone will be considered to
have had a term of imprisonment (which is crucial to the
definition of some immigration "aggravated felonies") as
long as a sentence of imprisonment was imposed, whether
probated or not. Therefore, the only way to avoid a term
of imprisonment is through a sentence only of probation,
which one sees generally only in deferred adjudications. So
an individual may not have spent even one day in jail but
may be considered deportable as an aggravated felon for
immigration purposes and be immediately detained by im-
migration. Thus, the criminal defense attorney may think
they've gotten their client a great deal criminal-law wise,
but may have just sealed someone's fate to leave the United
States and his or her family forever.
{ 4 } Misdemeanors may be considered to be
II del' "
aggravate re omes.
This is a great example of the Alice in Wonderland nature
of the immigration laws. In immigration law, "Aggravated
Felonies" are defined by statute. For example, there are
"crime of violence" and "theft crime" categories of aggra-
vated felonies. These categories require a "term of impris-
onment" of at least a year. So an individual with a Class
A Misdemeanor theft or assault who receives a sentence
of a year, fully probated, will be considered an aggravated
felon for immigration purposes under current law. Why
does this mattere Aggravated felonies mean being deport-
able from the United States with no hope for relief from
removal proceedings, in most cases.
{5 } Best to ensure that any sentence imposed
(whether or not probated) is for less than a year
(e.g., 360 days), for purposes of avoiding the
Iiterm of imprisonment" categories of aggravat-
ed felonies.
If there is no way to avoid a"term of imprisonment;' wheth-
er probated or not, it's best to keep those sentences to un-
der a year. The length of the probation doesn't matter, but
the sentence does matter.
{ 6 } You don't need a conviction in order to be
considered to be Ilinadmissible" to the United
States (and, thus, potentially subject to being
deported) for Ilcrimes involving moral turpitude"
and controlled substance offenses.
THE DEFENDER * 16
A conviction for a "crime involving moral turpitudi'
...._-
s. Remember,
mitting to the essential elements of a "crime
al turpitude" (with certain limited will
your client "inadmissible" to the United Stat'\.
he or she may not be admitted into the country or..
deported. This also applies to "green card"  
trolled substance conviction or admitting to the
elements of a controlled substance offense will render
client "inadmissible" to the United States, as well.
{7} Avoid any controlled
except ONE conviction for simple
30 grams or less of marijuana.
Make sure that the amount of 30 less appears
specifically in any of the court docu
even if your client is charged with the minimum in Texas
of 2 ounces or less, 2 ounces includes amounts larger than
30 grams. It's imperative that if you can't the specific
amount listed on any of the official documeIl{s, make sure
the police report has the specific amoupt, or obtain a lab
report for the case. There is only one s2 'al immigration
waiver for drug crimes. To be eligible, you ient must have
only one conviction for 30 grams or less
other drug would qualify).
{ 8 } It is best to avoid any IIdomestic violence"
terminology in any of the court documents when
your client is charged with assault.
There is a section of''deportability'' in the immigration laws
specifically for those convicted of domestic violence. De-
tailed analysis must take place on a case-by-case basis to
determine whether an individual is technically deportable
under this provision. However, it is best to keep such ter-
minology out of any of the court documents to avoid your
client being placed in removal proceedings (deportation)
on this basis alone.
{ 9 } Expungements do not help in the immi-
gration context; generally all arrests and their (
dispositions must be disclosed on
applications, and if not, may result in
fraud against the individual.
always have to admit to the arrest and to the final  disposition 
of their case, or they risk being charged with fraud for willful 
misrepresentation of a material fact on a federal immigration 
form. 
{ lO}  Partner  with  competent  immigration 
counsel. 
Just  as  I  would  not  attempt  to  defend  an  individual  in  the 
criminal courts and am not a criminal law specialist, you do 
not have to become an immigration specialist in each of your 
cases.  The immigration implications of criminal conduct or 
offenses  are  very  different  (and  much  more  serious)  for  for-
eign nationals than for  u.s. citizens.  In my experience, when 
we  work with  criminal defense  counsel  from  the  outset,  we 
can  often  come  up  with  a  workable  solution  for  our clients 
together. 
*DISCLAIMER 
This article  is  provided for  educational purposes and does nor consti -
tute legal advice.  Please consult with  competent immigration counsel 
for further explanarion and to discuss individual cases. 
Magali S. Candler, Board Certified in Immigration and 
Nationality Law,  is a shareholder and head of the litigation section 
at Tindall &:  Foster, P.e.  She can be reached at  713-335-3943, or 
by email atmcandler@tindallfoster.com 
BANNED  IN  BOSTON! 
CITY  COUNCIL'S  WORST  NIGHTMARE! 
DENOUNCED  FROM  PULPITS  COAST TO  COAST! 
Is it Deep Throat? TropIC of Cancer? Hustler?
NO

Irs rVrN  BmrR: 
REASONABLE DOUBT 
WITH 
TODD  DUPONT 
  . C > ~
TUNt  IN  TO  THt  CABLt ACCtSS  CHANNtL THAT  HAS 
HOUSTON'S  GUARDIANS  OF  PUBliC  DtCtNCY 
TOTALLY  A-TWITTtR  TO  Stt TODD

HIS  CO-HOSTS  AND 
HIS  GUtSTS  SPIN  CRIMINAL  JUSTICt  CONTROVtRSY. 
Bt  INFORMtD  AND  tNTtRTAINtD, 
CATCH  IT  WHILE  YOU  CAN 
THURSDAYS  AT  8:00 P.M. 
CABLE  ACCESS  CHANNEL 17 
SPONSORED  BY  HCCLA 
THE  DEFENDER  * 17 
run 1J 21, 2007
/1t-afied  a  /1t-lJ/1t-eft:C-Of;tJ  OttaJiOft 
when HCClA dedicated the Declaration of Independence, United States Constitution, and
Bill of Rights the organization recently donated to the Harris County Criminal Justice Center.
Absent so many years, these important documents are now prominently displayed in the
Criminal Justice Center foyer to remind judges, attorneys, defendants, and juries of their
significance. Now, through the eyes of our Founding Fathers, we can now see the basis of
our conventional laws as well as those constraints placed upon the government's powers.
Thanks to Judges Debbie Mantooth Stricklin and Sherman Ross who participated in the
dedication ceremony, Harris County Commissioners Court who approved the display, and
the large number of judges and lawyers who attended our dedication. Aspecial thanks to
Robert Fickman and JoAnne Musick for making these documents a reality.
Please take a few minutes to view and honor these documents so that we may never forget
the individual liberties they guarantee to us all .
JoAnn Musick comments on her role in
bringing the documents to the courthouse. Fickman &Hon. Sherman Ross
SPRING
}JvceJ V 
ADvERtisinG AAtES:
FvLL insiDE PAGE [non-COVEpJ - $700.00 per issue I $2,520
InsiDE FJU)n1'   $800.00 per issue I $2,880.00 per year
insiDE   $750.00 per issue I $2,700.00 per year
  $800.00 per issue I $2,880.00 per year
2/3 PAGE - $600.00 per issue I $2,160.00 per year
112 PAGE - $500.00 per issue I $1,800.00 per year
113 PAGE - $400.00 per issue I $1,440.00 per year
114 PAGE - $250.00 per issue I $900.00 per year
BvsinEss CARP SiZE - $125.00 per issue I $450.00 per year
CORUction FR..OIII tHE LASt iSSVE:
The article "Brother Batson, We Hardly Knew Ye" in the
issue erroneously stated that the prosecutor used her
strike on a minority juror, in addition to using seven ofher
peremptory strikes on African-American venirepersons. The
alternate strike was exercised against a Caucasian.
IN  BECOMING  AMEMBER? 
HCClA 
-+ Promotes aproductive exchange  of  ideas and  encourages 
better communication  with  prosecutors and  the   
-+ Provides  continuing legal education  programs for  improving 
advocacy skills and  knowledge. 
-+ Promotes ajust application of the  court-appointed  lawyer 
system  forindigent persons charged with  criminal  offenses. 
-+ Files  amicus curiae briefs  in  support of freedom  and 
human  rights. 
APPLICATION 
Applicant:
Mailingaddress:
Tc:lephone:
Fax:
Email:
Website:
Firm Name:
Dateadmitted to bar:
Law school:
Protessional organizationsin which YOII areamemberin good standing:
T)(pe ofmembership;
o  Student($25 annual fee)
Expected graduation date: ____
o  Newly licensed (firstyear) attorney ($75)
o  Regularmembership ($150)
Patei
Signatureofapplicant:
Endorsement:
I,amemberingoodstandingofHCCLA,believe this applicant
to be a person ofprofessional competency, integrity and good
moralcharacter.Theapplicantis activelyengaged in the ddcnse
ofcriminal cases.
Date:
Signatureofmember:
Membername:
MAIL THIS APPLICATION  TO: 
HeCLA 
P.O. BOX22773,Houston,Texas 77027
713.227.2404
sPRinG2007 
PRESORTED  STANDARD 
U.S.  POSTAGE  PAID 
HOUSTON,  TEXAS   
PERMIT  NO.  11500 
II" ,  II. ,  ,  III" , ,  II" II"" ,1.1, I" I" ,  II" II, I  " ,1.1.1.1, ,I, I 
T5-9sxxxxxxxxAUTOxx3-0IGIT  770 
MR.  EARL  D.  MUSICK 
MUSICK  &  MUSICK  LLP 
363  ::;;At·j  F'f:J·./'/  E  ::::TE  1100 
HOUSTON  TX  77060-2413