1986 September Docket Call

Published on March 2017 | Categories: Documents | Downloads: 70 | Comments: 0 | Views: 582
of 36
Download PDF   Embed   Report

Comments

Content


September
1986 
DOCI(ET CALL 
A MONTHLY PUBLICATION Of HARRIS COUNTY CRIMINAL LAWYERS ASSOCIATION.
"VERITA5)) 
(ditor
C. IsbeU
Production
DOCKET CALL Is published
monthly by the Harris
County Criminal Lawyers
  a non-profit
tax exempt professional
of
defense lawyers.
ADVERTISING RATES:
Full Page•••••••••.$200.
i Page............. 100.
t P.ge••••••••••••• 50.
DISTRIBUTION: 500
per month. All
and other editorIal
trlbutlons should be sent
to HCCLA, P.O. Box 22773.
Houston 77027 or brought
to the
at 705 Haln St••
Suite 400, Houston. Texes.
TELEPHONE: (713)227-2404.
DEADLINE FOR MATERIAL TO
BE PUBLISHED IN OCTOBER
IS SEPTEMBER 30, 1986.
Hoard of Directors
1986-87
Preli'e.t
candel.ario El.izondo
"'sid••t-[Im
AZZen C. IsbeZZ
Vice·PHside.t
Fel.ix Cantu
Secreta"
G. Mac Seerest
THIS.,er
Mary Moore
Claair.a.
Randy MeDonal.d
Roger Bridgwat4r
WaUer Boyd
Mary E. Conn
Benjamin Durant
Essrnyel'
"an WoodJ.Ja;rd Fo:J:
Ruben Gue1'Z"i!l1'O
"im La!}ine
Harry Loftus, "1.'.
Ga:r>1.and McInnis
Dal)id Mitcham
Will. Outl,Q1J
Robert Pel,ton
Richard Trevathan
Gary Trichter
Kristine C. Wo'U1y
Septemher 1986
CONT£NTS 
FROM THE PRESIDENT'S DESK
BY CANDELARIO ELIZONDO•..•••..•••..• 3-4
LETTERS•..•••......•••,..,•,•• ,,.••••.,•• , 5
HEARSAY
BY ALLEN C. ISBELL, ..•••,........... 6
ON GETTING CLIENTS
BY JIM SKELTON..I ••••••••••••••••••• 7-8
BECOMING THE TRUSTED LAWYER
BY ELIZABETH B. KNIGHT..... ••••••••• 9
SIGNIFICANT DECISIONS
BY HENRY L. BURKHOLDER III &
CATHERINE GREENE BURNETT•••••.SD 1-13
MEMBERSHIP DIRECTORy.••..•••..•••SD14-16
INFORMATION ON GRAND JURIES
BY RONN IE HARRISON...•,...,•,,•,•••• 12
CRIME CONTROL BAIL AGENT/
JAIL REDUCTION PROGRAM
BY GERALD MONKS,.". I , , •••• , , •••• , •• 13
THE CHAIRMAN SPEAKS
BY RANDY MC DONALD" ...•...•••," •• 16 I
UARRI8 COUNTY CRIMINAL LAWY£RS ASSOCIATION 
Past Presidents 1971-1985 
J. Anthony Fz>i:Z.ou.:c 1972-1973
Stuart Kinard 1973-1974
George Luquette 1974-1975
Marvin O. Teague 1975-1976
Diok DeGue1'in 1976-1977
W.B. "Bennis" Jr. 1977-1978
David Bires 1978-1979
Woody Densen 1979-1980
will Gray 1980-1981
EilMJard Mallett 1981-1982
Carolyn Ga1'aia 1982-1983
Jaak B. Zimmermann 1983-1984
CZyde wil Harne 1984-1985
Robert PeZton 1985-1986
From the President's Desk ... By candeZario EZizondo
Our new Administration officially began July II, 1986. The
monthly Directors meeting was held and several issues were discu-
ssed. One of these issues was Impact Courts. Impact Court is
another name for Annex Court. Our Board voted to study whether
we could offer any input concerning Impact Courts. The Board of
Directors voted unanimously to issue a statement that we are
strongly against Impact Courts, as they existed in the past.
Impact or Annex Courts have, in the past, tried the oldest jail
cases on one particular Court's docket. The Judges hearing these
lawsuits are retired Judges (any person who was a Judge four or
more years) from any county in Texas. Complaints made against
Annex Courts in the past, were that the Defendant was deprived of
due process of law and that Judges (who are not accountable to
the citizens of Harris County, Texas) were an extension of the
Prosecution. We were advised that Harris County will have Annex
Courts one way or the other, the only issue is do we as an
organization want to condemn them (and hope Commissioner's Court
will not fund them), or do we want to have some input on the
guidelines creating Impact Courts, i.e. defendant being allowed
peremptory strikes on a Visiting Judge. It appears as if we will
have at least one impact court that will cease to exist March 31,
1986. At that time Commissioners Court will study the proposal
and see if it in fact is making an "Impact" on the Harris County
Jail.
Another issue discussed at the meeting was the Fee Schedule
for Court Appointed Lawyers. As you know the Board of Judges
passed mandatory guidelines for fees to be paid Court Appointed
Lawyers. There have been many complaints that the fees paid
under the present schedule are too low, when, of course, the fees
paid to Fulbright & Jaworski, etc. for doing toll road work are
$150.00+ an hour. However, we are threatened with a Public
Defender System since fees paid to Court Appointed Lawyers in
1985 totalled nine million dollars (the D.A.'s annual budget is
twelve million dollars). Some Judges say we can have a Public
Defender System for less than nine million dollars. Saving
Harris County money is the justification for the low trial and
appellate fees paid to Court Appointed counsel. One must keep in
mind other factors in evaluating mandatory fees - a Public Defen-
der System could not possibly handle all indigent cases. Co-
defendants and capital murder cases would require Court Appoin-
ted counsel. The same would apply in conflict of interest pro-
blems, such as Co-defendants. Also the cost of office space to
house a Public Defender System must be evaluated and studied.
Only after studying all the pros and cons of the present system
of Appointing Lawyers compared with the feasibility of a Public
Defender System can a true and correct evaluation be conducted.
There are many arguments pro and con Annex Court and the Fee
Schedule. Please let me know how you feel about either of these
two (2) proposals.
QUERY
Ostensibly the reasons for the mandatory fee schedule is to
save money for the citizens of Harris County - How much will an
Impact Court System cost the citizen of Harris County?
3
At the last meeting I also assigned committee chairperson to
the various standing committees of Harris County Criminal Lawyers
Association, they are:
G. Luncheon
A. Audit & Budget
    Chairperson
  Chairperson
Mary Conn
Ben Durant
H. Membership
  Chairperson
B. CLE
Mike Essmyer
Ken Sparks, Chairperson
Walter Boyd 
Mac Secrest 
Rick Trevathan I. Public Relations &Speakers
Mike Charlton
  Chairperson
David Mitcham
C. Judicial Liason
Harry Loftus 
Rick Trevathan, Chairperson 
Garland McGinnis
J. public Responsibility - Amicus
Harry Loftus
Jim Lsvine, Chairperson
Mac Secrest
D. Law Enforcement Liason
Kristine Woldy
  Chairperson
Harry Burkholder
David Mitcham
Ben Durant
K. Newsletter & Pub. Editor
Allen Isbell, Editor
E. Lawyer Referral
Robert Pelton, General Manager
Mike Essmyer, Chairperson
Garland McGinnis
Mary Conn
Harry Burkholder
Garland McGinnis
Cathy Burnett
Gary Trichter
Gary Trichter
walter M. Boyd
F. Legislative
Carolyn Garcia 
Fox, Chairperson 
Will Outlaw
L. Br ief Bank
Kristine Woldy
  Chairperson
Mike Charlton
Jim Dougherty
Jan Fox
If any of you want to participate in any of the committees
please feel free to contact the chairperson, I am sure that he or
she will appreciate your help.
I would also like to inform you that we had an excellent DWI
Seminar in July. It was a record turnout, over 150 Lawyers
attended. It's good to know that our organization has that many
Lawyers who want to better themselves.
4
I
Letters 
Dear Editor:
disagree with your position that "Impact
Courts" would not be of any great benefit in
reducing the overcrowded jail population in
Harris County. In your editorial, you stated
that "if an Impact Court tr ies two cases a
week, the jail population may be reduced by one
hundred people over a year's time". That is
simply not correct because the availability of
a jury trial to litigants causes a substantial
number of cases to plead-out or be dismissed.
Dur ing part of the time I served as a
Visiting State District Judge, I was assigned
to one of the Old annex courts for approx-
imately six months. I also had the opportunity
to preside over most of the other cr iminal
district courts in Harris County, and had the
exper ience of dealing with each court's
dockect. Because of the availability of the
annex courts to hear jury trials, a large
number of cases were disposed of by the regular
district courts because the annex courts were
available for assignment of cases to trial.
The same thing is true on the civil docket
in Harris County. Most civil cases are not
settled until they are set for trial. Because
of the tremendous volume of cases each district
court in Harris county must handle, district
judges probably spend more time dealing with
their dockets and motion hearings than they do
trying jury tr ials. In my opinion, when new
courts are created, the district judges of
Harris County, under the leadership of our
Administrative Judge, should create some trial
courts that would be set-up solely to hear jury
trials. Again, its the availability of a jury
trial setting that has the greatest "impact" on
moving cases, rather than just looking at the
number of jury trials that a court hears.
Van Stovall
Dear Editor:
Please note the Professional Bail Agents
oppose the impact courts as we have opposed the
public defender system and appointed magistrate
courts. We oppose. all ineffective criminal
justice systems that are detrimental to the
public interest.
Enclosed is a copy of the jail reduction
plan which we have proposed, which I believe
should be endorsed enthusiastically by your
association and taxpayers' organizations. Our
.7% fugitive rate will make it work. It is an
altruistic attempt on our part that offers
little chance of financial gain. This plan will
reduce the jail population by 500, with a
savings of $6 million per year to the county.
Empirical research shows only 1,843 people are
in jail who can be bonded out, not 2,900 as
indicated by the county computer. 1,100 are on
bonds from $2,000 to $29,000. These could be
reduced and controlled properly by our people.
If the deferred payment of fine appearance
bond was used, attorneys could get their fees
and the defendant could more easily pay the
fine. Please recognize our plan is designed to
guarantee no one is in jail over 24 hours on a
fine only.
The use of parole bonds and probation
bonds could further reduce jail population and
cost to the taxpayer.
I have supported your organization as
evidenced by my two sons' membership, and one
to join shortly. My suppport has not been just
rhetoric. You can depend upon me.
Gerald P. Monks
Professional Bail Agents of Houston
LBt'S  HBar  From  You! 
We want to hear from you! Please
send us your ideas or comments regard-
ing issues of interest to the criminal
defense practioner and please let us
know changes in address and telephone.
We welcome your participationl
5
Uearsay... By Allen C. Isbell
HCCLA  members  featured  at  the  1986 
Advanced  Criminal  Law  Seminar  included,  Edward 
Hallet  (Course  Director),  Catherine  G.  Burnett 
(Enhancements),  Gary  Trichter  (D.W.I.),  David 
Bires  (Child  Abuse),  and  Jack  Zimmermann 
(Juvenile  Law).  Jay  Burnett  was  a  worthy 
substitute  for  Jan  Fox.  Her  paper  is  excellent; 
maybe  next  year,  Jan's  trial  schedule  will 
allow  her  to  present  the  paper  personally. 
Further  evidence  that  HCCLA  has  the  most 
outstanding  and  knowledgeable  criminal  defense 
lawyers  in  the  entire  state.  Membership  in 
HCCLA  gives  a  lawyer  the  opportunity  to  know 
and  learn  from  these  people. 
A  few  (very  few)  of  the  local  criminal 
judges  were  seen  attending  the  Advanced 
Criminal  Law  Seminao  contrast  that  with  the 
Family  Courts  where  almost  every  judge  (if  not 
everyone)  attended  the  Advanced  Family  Law 
Seminar. 
With  this  issue,  a  new  regular  column  will 
appear  in  Docket  Call  written  by  Randall  A. 
McDonald,  Chairman  of  the  Board  of  Directors. 
Randy  and  I  were  co-counsel  for  six  weeks  (you 
get  to  know  another  lawyer  pretty  well  in  that 
time) .  It  was  a  real  pleasure,  and  I  look 
forward  to  his  monthly  musings.  His  wife,  Jill, 
is  doing  a  credible  job  refining  his 
personality,  but  Prez  Candy  says  she  still  has 
her  work  cut  out  for  her •••. Also,  Mary  Conn  is 
starting  a  new  feature  for  Docket  Call.  She 
will  be  spotlighting  a  lawyer  whose  result 
during  the  month  is  truly  outstanding.  Contact 
her  with  your  nominations. 
State  Representative  and  HCCLA  member 
Debra  Danburg  does  not  keep  her  bi rthdays  a 
secret....  her  annual  birthday  party/cam(?aign 
fundraiser  is  September  25,  1986.  For  more 
information,  call  Barbara  Parrott  528-6719.  The 
expected  crowd  can  best  be  described  as 
eclectic! 
Bob  Wicoff  got  a  reversal  out  of  the  1st 
Court  of  Appeals ••• Mike  Charlton  and  Charles  F. 
Baird  got  another  one  reversed  out  of  the  14th 
Court  of  Appeals.  Dayna  did  not  even  help 
Charles  on  this  onel 
According  to  Houston  Post,  Randy  McDonald 
has  attained  a  high  level  of  competence  as  a 
traffic  ticket  specialist.  Congratulations. 
Big  deal  planned  for  Judge  Bill  Ragan  at 
the  Cattle  Guard,  (2800  Miliam)  Saturday, 
October  4th  from  6:00  P.M.  Music  by  Texas  Throw 
Down  Band.  Everyone  invited.  Admission  free 
(but  donations  not  refused). 
Walter  Boyd  has  been  qui te  ill.  Hearsay 
hopes  he  gets  better  soon,  so  it can  report  his 
feats  and  foibles.  It  is  not  right  to  poke  fun 
at  an  ill  person.  Get  well  soon,  Walter. 
F ~ ­
fErn
U  IF  YOUR  CHECK  IS  IN  THE  M   I L ~
PLEASE  DISREGARD  THIS  NOTICE 
6
II
By Jim Skelton ON 6ETTINC CLIENTS ...
Years ago there was a cowboy movie star named Lash LaRue. He
was famous for having a Brooklyn accent and using a bullwhit
against the bad guys. When people began to develop better
taste, Lash LaRue went by the wayside or at least his movies
went by the wayside. LaRue also developed the love of booze
and to support his habit he hit the road, going from one
small town to the other giving demonstrations with his
trusty bullwhip.
Lash LaRue came to this small town in West Texas to do his
show. It was in an old movie theater. LaRue got up on the
stage with the help of a fifth and put on his show. The
power of the bottle, however, was greater than his aim and
he ended up tearing a big slash in the movie screen. The
enraged manager demanded that LaRue pay for the damage and
LaRue's response was classic: "I've got the gun and live got
the whip and I aint paying.
1I
Itls hard to beat that sort of
logic.
A criminal lawyer can be just that independent if he has got
the clients and the ability to try cases. In reality, having
the clients is the most important part because you can buy
legal talent but you can't buy clients, unless, of course,
you practice personal injury law. The PI lawyers have been
buying clients for years here in Houston. Their system of
runners is so vast that their runners, a/k/a investigators,
cause traffic jams at car wrecks. But that's another story.
This story is a continuation of- the quest for clients. A
search for the unholy grail.
One thing that we shoUld all remember. People form imediate
and quick impressions that often last a lifetime. It's not
that people are that perceptive, it's just that their
attention span is very short unless it involves the "s"
games of sex and sports. People also have images and
preconcieved notions of certain things. Think of a
California girl and what does your mind's eye see? It
certainly isnlt a fat overweight woman with her hair up in
curlers pushing a shopping cart down an aisle with a
portable TV set on, watching the soaps. No. It is usually of
a beach with a healthy blond splashing through the surf
showing a row of perfect teeth. When people think of judges,
they think of white hair and black robes and have visions of
wise old men taking notes and listening very carefully to
every word a witness has to say. This just goes to show
you how dumb most people are, but none-the-Iess, they have
these visual ideas of the way things are or ought to be.
Think of lawyers for a minute. Or better yet, think of
criminal trial lawyers and what dO you see? What image forms
in your mind? Now go look in a mirror and what do you see?
Do you look like a criminal trial lawyer? Remember, this is
what your client sees when he first meets you. If you don't
look and dress like a lawyer, then you're simply making life
7
much more difficult for yourself and your business will
sUffer for it.
Let's start with women. I agreed to teach a course in law
school because I was convinced that they had a "butch"
course for female law students. My plan was to find the
instructor and knock her in the head. I figured that she
wouldn't be too hard to find either, all I had to do was look
for the woman with the latest in salvation army fashions, no
makeup, sawed-off hair, a shape resembling a wet bean bag,
clomping around in boat-like divises on her feet that
looked like poorly designed leather tennis shoes. I planned
to be careful when I approached her because I knew she was
probably over here from West Germany on a track scolarship
or else retired from HPD. Such a dainty thing was probably
capable of woman-handling a crazed gorilla and I knew that I
would be no match.
I never found her but I have seen a lot of her clones. Most
of them, thankfully, work for the State and very few of them
have made it in private practice. The reason is simple. A
person who looks like an under nourished Walter Boyd in drag
is not going to attrack and keep clients. People wont rent
wrecked cars and they wont hire wrecked looking lawyers.
People identify with their lawyers, they notice how they
look, they notice how other lawyers treat them, they notice
how they do at docket call, they notice all of these things
and they feel good or bad about you in the way you come
across to them and others.
Dress and appearance is very important and so is time.
Lawyers sometimes have the habit of being in the wrong time
zone. They are never on time. To many people it is 9:00 A.M.,
to NASA people it is 0900 hours, to judges, the big hand is
on 12 and the little hand is on 9, to lawyers it is Friday.
Don't leave clients stranded at docket call not knowing
where you are or when you will be back. Don't have clients
wandering around the Court House lOOking for the memorial
notice announcing your unexplained disapperance. If you have
more than one court to attend, or another place you have to
be, tell them so they will know what to expect.
Take time to explain the Court House procedure to all your
clients. Give them a little run down on how the system
works, what a PIA hearing means, what a re-set means, what
docket call means. A small five minute explanation is a
great tool for making and keeping a satisfied customer. To
often we forget that this is our strange little world, to
our clients it is a strange and foreign land and we should
help them feel more at ease by telling them what is going
on and what to expect.
I remember once that Robert Pelton and I were picking a jury
in a capital case in Woody Densen's Court. We had gone
through several weeks of jury selection with Sid Crowley
working for the State and we all got to talking about the
horrible impression that we were leaving with the
prospective jurors. We'd bring these stangers one by one
into a small room with no windows, they would have to get up
on the stand a face a row of lawyers and a stack of legal
pads. Judge Densen would start them off by talking about the
death penalty and using such phrases as "pulling the plug on
a loving husband or wife." Sid would follow up by examples
8
of horrible people committing mass murders, kiLling babies,
accidently shooting people off the roofs of stores during
robberies to see if they could consider the death penalty.
Then we would corne along and throw in more gore about
candy-cane killers and examples of robbers who made their
victims drink liquid drano while shoving wooden pencils
into their ears to see if this particular juror could kill
the person sitting next to us.
I'm sure people left that
small windowless room full of death and destruction
wondering if perhaps evolution might have gone too far. To
us this was everyday stuff, but to their world of civic
clubs and car pools it was a total shock. Very often I think
that we may corne across to our clients in much the same
manner. They are paying us to guide them through our strange
and fasinating little world and if we would take more time
and be more sensitive, we could make this trip less tramatic
and is so doing keep clients who will call again .

,...
FIRST COURT OF APP(ALS By Henry n.   III
June 4, 1986 to August 13, 1986.
Gelabert v. State, No. 01-84-617-Cr, Hoyt, J.
OPEN QUESTION ON WHETHER STANDBY COUNSEL MUST BE PROVIDED TO
INDIGENT ON PRO SE APPEAL WHEN REQUESTED.
In Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (1975) the Supreme Court
held that a trial court may appoint "standby" counsel to assist a
pro se defendant at trial. Appellant in this case requested
standby counsel for her pro se appeal. The Court of Appeals
rejected the appellant I s request, but considered both the
appellanat's pro se brief, and the brief by appointed counsel.
The Court effectively granted the appellant's request, but
expressly held that "such action by this Court should not be
construed as to suggest that an appellant is constitutionally
entitled to hybrid representation or standby counsel."
Johnson v. State, No. 01-85-655-Cr, Dunn, J.
WHO MAKES THE FINDING OF DEADLY WEAPON WHEN JURY
DETERMINES GUILT, AND JUDGE PUNISHMENT?
Answer: If jury did not make the finding, the judge may. See Fann
!.:.. State, 702 S.W.2d 602 (Tex. Crim. App. 1985).
Latson v. State, No. 01-85-812-Cr, Duggan, J.
YOU MUST REQUEST A CHARGE ON IDEM SONENS IN ORDER TO PRESERVE THE
VARIANCE ON APPEAL.
Defendant is charged with robbery. Indictment names complainant
as Tai Thanh Nuynh. At trial, complainant testifies that his name
is Tai Thanh Huynh. Basic law: (1) the State must prove that the
person named in the indictment was the person robbed and (2) the
variance between the person alleged and the victim proven at
trial renders the evidence insufficient to support the
conviction. However, because the English language is so imprecise
as to the sound of names, the law of idem sonans provides that
where the "attentive ear" cannot distinquish the name as alleged
in the indictment with the name of the victim testifying at
trial, then there is no variance.
Here, the Court of Appeals holds that where the name alleged in
the indictment sounds very similar to the name of the complainant
testifying a trial, a jury charge on the law of idem sonans must
be requested at trial or the issue of variance will not be
considered on appeal. See State, 541 S.W.2d 605 (Tex.
Crim. App. 1970).
September 19S6/Docket Call SDl
Topkins  v.  State,  No.  01-85-634-Cr,  Cohen,  J. 
CANNOT  JOIN  ROBBERY  AND  AGGRAVATED  ROBBERY  UNDER  THE  SAME 
CRIMINAL  EPISODE  JOINDER  PROVISION. 
TPC  3.01  provides  that  separate  offenses  may  be  joined  in  a 
single  indictment,  if  the  offenfses  arise  out  of  the  repeat 
commission  of  anyone  property  offense  listed  in  the  penal  code. 
I n  this  case, ---"thecourt  of  Appeals  found  that  robbery  and 
aggravated  robbery  were  two  different  property  crimes.  Therefore 
the  joinder  into  a  single  indictment  was  improper. 
In  this  case,  the  appellant  was  convicted  for  both  robbery  and 
aggravated  robbery,  each  against  a  different  victim.  The  trial 
court  entered  two  separate  judgments,  one  for  each  of  the  two 
paragraphs  in  the  single  indictmtent. 
Now  for  the  relief:  The  Court  of  Appeals  construes  Drake  v. 
State,  686  S.W.2d  935  (Tex.  Crim.  App.  1985)  and  Ex  parte    i l l e ~
686  S.W.2d  617  (Tex.  Crim.  App.  1985)  to  provide-the  following 
remedies:  I f  the  two  mis joinded  offenses  arise  out  of  the  same 
transaction,  then  the  misjoinder  may  be  objected  to  for  the 
first  time  on  appeal,  or  post  conviction  writ.  If  the  two 
misjoinded  offenses  occurred  in  separate  transactions,  then  the 
failure  to  object  to  the  misjoinder  at  trial  (by  motion  to  quash, 
or  motion  to  elect  at  anytime  before  jury  charge)  waives  the 
error. 
Here,  appellant  objects  to  the  misjoinder  on  appeal.  The  Court 
finds  misjoinder,  since  the  offenses  occurred  during  the  same 
transaction.  The  relief  granted  was  to  reverse  and  dismiss  the 
conviction  on  the  second  paragraph. 
Casares  v.  State,  No.  01-85-829-Cr,  Duggan,  J. 
YOU  MUST  PUT  IN  THE  APPELLATE  RECORD  WHAT  THE  TRIAL  JUDGE  WOULD 
NOT  LET  YOU  GET  BEFORE  THE  JURY  IN  ORDER  TO  PRESERVE  THE  ERROR. 
At  trial  defense  counsel  wanted  to  extensively  cross  examine  the 
complainant  in  a  theft  case  on  how  the  complainant  arrive  at  the 
astronomical  value  of  the  auto  stolen.  The  Court  of  Appeals  held 
that  the  trial  court  should  have  let  counsel  have  more  room  for 
cross  examination. 
Even  though  appellant's  valuable  Sixth  Amendment  right  to  cross 
examination  was  violated,  no  reversable  error.  The  Court  of 
Appeals  found  that  appellant's  counsel  did  not  make  a  bill  of 
exception  showing  what  testimony  he  would  have  developed,  nor  did 
the  record  show  that  counsel  was  denied  the  opportunity  to  make 
one. 
The  lession  to  learn:  When  the  trial  court  will  not  let  you  get 
evidence  before  the  jury,  you  must  somehow  get  it  in  the  record 
for  purposes  of  an  appeal.  You  may  do  this  through  Q.  and  A.  of 
the  witness  out  of  the  hearing  of  the  jury  (A.K.A.  bill  of 
exception)  or  through  a  verbal  offer  of  proof  to  the  trial  court, 
telling  the  court  in  your  own  words  what  your  cross  examination 
of  the  witness  would  reveal  (A.K.A.  license  to  stretch  the 
truth),  or  make  the  record  very  clear  that  you  were  not  given  the 
opportunity  to  do  either. 
September  1986/Docket  Call  2 
Kraft State, No. 01-85-685-Cr, Dunn, J.
REQUESTING INFORMATION ABOUT BONDSMAN HELD NOT INITIATION OF
INTERROGATION UNDER Em'1ARDS.
U.S. 477 (1981) the Supreme Court
requests __counsel after [-.1 iranda
must cease unless and un e
'defendant initiates further communication with the police. In
Oron v. Brad s h1a w , 46 2 U • S • 1 0 3 9 ( 1 98 3) the Supreme Co u r t
once a
w rnings, all interrogation
r refined Miranda and Edwards by holding that the defendant
must intend to resume the ati before the initiating
conversation can be cons ide
Here, the defendant had inv his olked right to counsel, but later
inquired to the police officers as to whether a bondsman could
get him out of jail. The Court of Appeals found that this
question was not the sort of initiated communication sufficient
to waive Miranda under Edwards and Bradshaw.
FOURT((NT"  COURT  OF APP(ALS 
June 4, 1986 to August 13, 1986.
Jamial v. State, No. 14-85-019-Cr, Sears, J.
This case was taken up on appeal by Gary Trichter, who fresh from
his defeat at the HCCLA polls, nevertheless shows us that he has
the right stuff where it counts-in the appellate courts.
ONCE A DEFENDANT HAS BEEN GIVEN HIS   RANDA WARNINGS I HE HAS A
FIFTH AMENDMENT RIGHT TO COUNSEL TO DECIDE WHETHER TO SUBMIT TO A
BLOOD OR CHEMICAL BREATH TEST WHEN ARRESTED FOR DWI.
In the famous cases of Forte 707 S.W.2d 89 (Tex. Crim.
App. 1986), and McCambridge v. a e, No. 1086-85 (Tex. Crim.
App. 1986), the Court of Criminal Appeals held that there was no
Fifth Amendment (Miranda) or Sixth Amendment (the kind you get
paid for under CCP 26.05) right to counsel for a DWI accused to
decide whether to submit to a breath or chemical test. You would
think these two cases would be the end of the issue. Not so for
Trichterl
In this case, the Court of Appeals held that once Miranda
warnings are given, a Fifth Amendment right attaches to the
decision as to whether to take the test. The Court distinquishes
Forte and McCambridge on the basis that in those cases the
consent was-grven before the   warnings.
NOTE: There is a BIG difference between the Fifth and Sixth
rights to counsel. Under the Sixth Amendment, once the right
attaches the defendant must affirmatively waive the right. Under
the Fifth
assert the
occurs.
Amendment,
right to
once
cou
Hiranda
nselor
is
no
given, the defendant must
constitutional violation
September 1986/Docket Call SD3
In this case, once Miranda warnings were given, the appellant
consistently requested counsel. The Court of Appeals found that
the appellant's eventual consent to a chemical test was given in
violation of Miranda, and the subsequent test results were fruits
of the unlawful interrogation.
Another intersting point about this case.
THE COURT OF APPEALS HAS THE POWER TO DECIDE THE APPEAL ON
GROUNDS NOT RAISED IN YOUR BRIEF.
The Court of Appeals ruling noted above was made as "unassigned
error." Leaving aside appellate counsel's embarrassment on
getting a reversal on an argument he never thought of, the
Court's procedure is worth noting.
Under the original 1965 Code of Criminal Procedure, the Court of
Criminal Appeals had express statutory authority to decide
appeals on "unassigned error." The Court would occasionally
reverse on jurisdictional matters (fundamentally defective
charging instruments) or on law which developed since the briefs
were submitted (oftens years earlier).
When the Court of Appeals were given criminal jurisdiction in
1981, the statutory provision for unassigned error mysteriously
disappeared. Many appellate persons thought that the Court of
Appeals did not have this authority.
In Perry v. State, 703 S.W.2d 668 (Tex. Crim. App. 1986) the
Court of CrIminal Appeals found that all the appellate courts did
have the inherent authority to reverse on unassigned error.
PRACTICE NOTE: Don't count on it happening to you very often.  
September 19B5/Docket Call SD4
COURT OF CRIMINAL APP[ALS By Catherine Greene Burnett
• • *
NOTE: SUMMER RECESS BEGAN JULY 9, 1986
* * *
Seyed Ramezan MOOSAVI, No. 715-84 Opinion on Appellant's
PDR: Court Appeals Reversed; Remand Review Ground
Error Judge W. C. Davis 6/11/86
OFFER OF PROOF -- READING iNTO TRIAL RECORD ONLY THE EXPECTED
TESTIMONY OF WITNESS EXCLUDED BY COURT IS OFFER OF PROOF AND
PRESERVES ERROR FOR APPEAL WITHOUT INCLUDING QUESTION SOUGHT
TO BE ASKED:
During punishment phase trial tried to el fcft
testimony psychiatrfst about   state mfnd at tfme
mitfgatfon punfshment. the bench,
outsIde Jury's presence, D's attorney stated on record what he
believed answer would be. This was enough to be
under Art. 40.09, Sec. 6(d)(1), V.A.C.C.P., wfthout question
asked.
Nothing in statute requires to be in questfon and
answer Just a "concise statement ... what the evidence
would show". Here it fs clear record that the trial judge
knew precfsely what he was exlcudfng. Where the subject matter
the questfon was evident, no purpose would be served by
requfring an to contain the questfons that would
have been asked.
Jerome_Edward DEGRATE, No. 989-85 Appellant's PDR
-- Per Curfam Opfnion, 7/9/86
PETITIONS FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW GUIDELINES FOR DRAFTING:
The Court Appellant's PDR because he "presented no
reasons as to why this Court should review the opinfon of the
court appeals". Here the 0 only presented 12 grounds
revfew which were an exact duplication the grounds error
presented to the CIA; he presented no "reasons review".
Tex.Cr.App.R. 304(d) provides that a PDR contain "Reasons
Review. A direct and concise argument, wfth supporting
authoritfes, the reasons relied on for the granting
review."
Tex.Cr.App.R. has a "non-exhaustive" list six reasons
to be considered in deciding whether to grant review on PDR.
Court suggests that they be incorporated into the "reasons for
review" portion the PDR, and provides this gufdelfne and
warning:
September 1986/Docket Call SD5
"  the  portion  of  the  petition 
designated  "Reasons  for  Review"  should 
specifically  address  the  court  of  appeals 
opInIon  and  Its  effect  on  our 
Jurisprudence.  This  presentation  should 
not  go  Into  a  detaIled  analysis.  but 
should  briefly  set  out  relevant  cases  and 
statutes.  and  note  any  alleged  misstate-
ments  or  omissIon  of  relevant  facts.  A 
discussion  of  prIncIples  of  law.  without 
reference  to  the  holding  of  the  court  of 
appeals,  will  usually  be  InsuffIcient  to 
persuade  this  Court  to  exercIse  its 
discretIonary  Jurisdiction." 
The  Court  also  warns  that  an  assertfon  that  the  court  of  appeals 
was  in  error  as  to  some  point  of  law,  standing  alone,  may  also  be 
Insufficient  to  require  further  review. 
NOTE:  On  the  same  day  that  Degrate  was  handed  down, 
approxfmately  30  other  Appellant's  PDRs  were  refused  w'th  the 
notation  ("See  Degrate")  whereas  an  additional  30  were  merely 
refused.  The  new  appellate  rules  effective  September  1,  1986. 
Incorporate  Rules  304(d)  and  302(c)  so  Degrate  will  have 
continued  validIty. 
Paul_Tommy_OJEDA,  No.  966-82  Op'nlon  on  Appellant's  PDR: 
Court  of  Appeals  and  Trial  Court  Affirmed  Judge  W.  C.  Dav's,   
7/2/86  [See  also  Gonzales  discussed  next.] 
LESSER  INCLUDED  OFFENSES  -- WHAT  EVIDENCE  WILL  BE  SUFFICIENT  TO 
RAISE  "SUDDEN  PASSION"?  TESTIMONY  FROM  THIRD  PERSON  THAT  0  WAS 
HIT  AND  HE  RESPONDED  WAS  INSUFFICIENT  TO  RAISE. 
o  complained  of  tic's  failure  to  give  requested  charge  on 
voluntary  manslaughter  based  on  testimony  of  his  girlfriend  that 
she  and  0  were  attempting  to  avoid  the  conflict  [which  the  Court 
describes  as  an  "ambush"  by  15  people  In  The  SummIt  parkIng 
garage]  when  they  were  struck  by  the  deceased's  belt.  Court 
acknowledges  that  If  evidence  from  any  source  raises  Issue,  a 
defensive  theory  or  lesser  Included  charge  should  be  given. 
Here,  however.  the  evIdence  only  presented  an  objective 
recitation  of  acts  there  was  no  evidence  about  D's  apparent 
frame  of  mind,  I.e.,  angry,  scared,  etc. 
Isidro  Sanchez  GONZALES,  No.  1148-84  Opinion  on  State's 
PDR:  Court  of  Appeals  Reversed,  Remand  for  Consideration  of  Other 
Grounds  Judge  White.  7/2/86.  Dissenting  Opinion  by  Judge 
Clinton  [Joined  by  Judges  MIller  and  Teauge] 
LESSER  INCLUDED  OFFENSES  WHAT  EVIDENCE  WILL  BE  SUFFICIENT  TO 
RAISE  "SUDDEN  PASSION"?  TESTIMONY  FROM  DEFENDANT  THAT  HE  WAS 
SCARED  WAS  INSUFFICIENT  TO  RAISE;  NO  AUTOMATIC  RIGHT  TO 
INSTRUCTION  ON  VOLUNTARY  MANSLAUGHTER  WHENEVER  SELF-DEFENSE  IS 
RAISED  BY  THE  EVIDENCE:  Facts:  In  a  bar  0  witnessed  confronta-
tion  between  his  friend  and  vlctfm.  D  left  bar  first,  and  went 
to  friend's  car  and  waited.  Victim  exited  club,  and  0  saw  him 
September  1986/Docket  Call  SD6 
wa'lk to hIs car and get somethIng out of hIs trunk. WIthout
beIng certaIn that vIctim had retrfeyed a gun, D got hIs frIend's
automatIc pIstol, left car and walked away. D testIfIed that
vIctim came UP behind hIm and fIred a shot. D turned and fIred.
Court found that evIdence clearly raIsed the Issue that D had
acted ih self-defense.   majorIty dId not fInd that
evidence Indicated 0 acted under the ImmedIate Influence of
sudden passIon arIsing from adequate cause. In the majorIty's
view, D IndIcated at most that he was scared of the vIctIm. In
the context of all of D's testImony, thIs fear of vIctIm dId not
amount t.o terror whIch would qualIfy as "sudden passIon".
The Court held It was Incorrect to assume that a D feels
sudden passIon whenever a soon-to-be decesaed vIctIm provokes hIm
wIth a gun and specIfIcally dIsavowed language by the Court of
Appeals holdIng that, "It would be dIffIcult to ImagIne a
specIfic event more lIkely to cause anger, rage, resentment or
terror In a person of ordInary temper than to have someone aim a
gun at you and fIre."
Instead, the majorIty ruled that a "mere claIm of fear" does not
establish sudden passIon and noted that D dId not IndIcate
through his testimony that he was emotionally aroused at the time
of the shootIng.
DISSENT: Judge ClInton sets out D's testimony on dIrect
examInatIon and disagrees wIth majority's Interpretation that D's
t.est I mony I nd I cates he acted coo 11 yIn sp i te of his fear. He
argues that the majorIty does not specIfy in what respect the
evidence was found lackIng and posIts that majority seems to have
established "that at least when the evIdence raIses self defense,
before It may be saId that It also raIses voluntary manslaughter,
there must be some additIonal showIng, apart from the
cIrcumstances themselves, that appellant was in fact enraged,
resentful or terrIfied." In contrast, Dissent cItes cases under
the former penal codes for proposItIon that evidence of some
particularly grievous provocatIon by the deceased, besIdes
tending strongly to establish adequate cause, can also serve as
evIdence that D was In fact provoked.
Arturo CASILLAS,   No. 304-84 OpinIon on Appellant's
PDR: Court of Appeals and T/C AffIrmed -- Judge MIller, 7/2/86
JURY CHARGE INSTRUCTION LIMITING USE OF CO-CONSPRIATOR
STATEMENT NOT REQUIRED; TEXAS WILL ADOPT FEDERAL JAMES TEST
UNDER TEXAS RULE OF CRIMINAL EVIDENCE 104(a):
Facts: The complIcated factual scenarIo Is best summarIzed In
the opinIon; however, greatly simplifIed, the evidence showed
that 5 Ds agreed to set up a   capItalize It wIth
funds from a MinorIty EnterprIse Sma 1 1 Business Investment
Corporation (called "TeJas"J of which they were dIrectors, and
then d I v I de UP the funds I mate 1 y equa 1 I y among themse I ves
In the form of loans to businesses they would own. That course
of conduct was prohIbited by the Smal I Business AdmIssIon regula-
tion on conflicts'of Interest. Each D testified at trIal and
lengthy segments of each D's grand jury testImony was read before
t.he jury.
September 1986/Docket Call SD7
On appeal Os complafned of tIc's refusal to gfve a lfmftfng
fnstructfon to jury concernfng admfssfbfl fty of co-conspfrators'
hearsay. Relying on Lewfs [237 S.W. 293 (1951)] Court noted that
all of the Os' own testimony was sufficient to authorize thefr
convictions. There was no val id justification for the charge here  
because each of the hearsay declarants was at trial and testified
to virtually the same decision to make the loans shown by the
grand jury testimony.
Court notes that same result fs fndfcated by Texas Rule of
Criminal Evidence 104(a) effective 9/1/86. Court sfgnals its
desire to adopt the James (590 F.2d 575 (5th Cfr. 1979)] rule
rather than the prfor Texas practice of shared responsfbflfty
between judge and jury in determining whether conspfracy exfsted
and Os were a part of it. Under James those are threshold
.
consfderations for t/J and NOT Jury questions .
TERM "SUBSTANTIAL RISK OF LOSS" DEFINED FOR PURPOSES OF REVIEWING
SUFFICIENCY: Os were prosecuted for mfssappl ication of ffduciary
property under Section 32.45, an element of whfch fs that the
mfsapplfcation occurs "fn a manner that fnvolves substantial risk
of loss to the owner of the property or to a person for whose
benefft the property fs held." The term "substantial risk of
loss" fs not deffned in the penal code. Court adopts test that
the rfsk must be, at least, more lfkely than not.
SBA REGULATION IS A "LAW" UNDER THIS SECTION: Sectfon 32.45,
P.C., fncludes fn fts definition of "misapply" any dealfng with
the property that fs "contrary to ... (B) a law prescrlbfng the
custody or disposition of the property". For purposes of this
sectfon Court held that SBA reguglation fs such a law. To do so
Court reI fed on Section 1.07 defintion of law as fncluding "a
rule authorized by and lawfully adopted under a statute" and on
Plaster [567 S.W.2d 500 (1978)] fn which judicial notice was
taken of two sections of the Code of Federal Regulations.
Robert Amaya et aI, No. 304-84 Opinion on Appellant's PDR:
Reversed and Acquittal Entered Judge Mfl ler 7/2/86
"PARTIES" HIGHER LEVEL OF "COMPLICITY" REQUIRED FROM THOSE
DENOTED PARTIES THAN THOSE DENOTED PRIMARY ACTORS: (Note: This
fs the companfon case to Casfllas, Supra.] Holding-:---When a
defendant is being prosecuted as a party, he cannot be held
crimfnally accountable without some indication that he knew he
was assfsting in the commission of an offense.
The Court recognizes that the distinction between the degree
of complicity required for parties as contrasted with primary
actors Is one that had not been "directly made" by the Court
before, and uses the term "primary actor" to denote one who would
have been called a "principal" at corrrnon law and a "party" to
denote one who would have been an "accomplice" at corrrnon law.
Although the two defendants In this case [who were not shown by  
the evidence to be in a fiduciary capacity to the small business
at the time they took part in the transaction] would be held
1 fable as "prfmary actors" whether or not they realized they were
breaking the law, in a prosecution as a "party", there would have
September 19S6/Docket Call SDS
to  be  a  showfng  that  they  knew  the  conduct  [dfspersfng  funds  to 
the  ffducfarfes]  was  crfmfnal. 
Judge  Mfl  ler  noted  that  typfcal ly,  a  defense  to  culpabflfty 
under  the  law  of  partfes  tends  to  focus  on  fgnorance  of  the 
conduct  sought  to  be  afded.  He  suggests  that  fs  because  most 
Penal  Code  offenses  fnvolve  conduct  that  fs  fnherently  "crfmfnal" 
fn  nature  conduct  that  by  fts  very  nature  suppl  fes  proof  of 
the  partfes'  knowledge  that  the  conduct  fs  "crfmfnal"  [f.e., 
murder,  kfdnappfng,  sexual  assault,  perjury,  brfbery,  robbery]. 
Jimmy  Rex  WHALEY,  No.  365-84  Opfnfon  on  Appellant's  and 
State's  PDR:  Convfctfon  Afffrmed,  Court  of  Appeals  Reversed 
Judge  White,  7/2/86 
[NOTE:  This  fs  a  good  example  of  what  can  happen  on  PDR.  0 
won  In  Court  of  Appeals  and  cause  was  reversed  and  remanded.  0 
FIled  for  rehearIng  and  Court  of  Appeals  wfthdrew  Its  orIgInal 
opInIon  and  once  again  reversed.  0,  although  victorIous,  sought 
PDR  on  Speedy  TrIal  ground.  RevIew  was  granted.  State  In  turn 
sought  and  was  granted  PDR  on  the  two  grounds  that  were  sustafned 
by  Court  of  Appeals  In  reversfng.  End  result  was  that  State's 
posItion  prevaIled  on  PDR  and  origfnal  convfctfon  was  affIrmed.] 
SPEEDY  TRIAL  ACT  WHAT  HAPPENS  WHEN  SAME  OFFENSES  ALLEGED  AS 
VIOLATION  IN  ORGANIZED  CRIME  ACT  COUNT  AND  IN  SEPARATE  COUNT,  AND 
THREE  INDICTMENTS  ARE  FILED  -- EACH  REFINING  INITIAL  INDICTMENT 
BY  ADDING  AMOUNTS  OF  SUBSTANCE  OR  MANNER  OF  TRANSFER?  SHOULD 
ANNOUNCEMENT  UNDER  1ST  INDICTMENT  CARRY  FORWARD?  0  was 
Indicted  three  tfmes  and  argued  on  appeal  that  the  offenses 
alleged  In  the  1st  and  2nd  fndlctments  were  different  offenses 
than  those  alleged  fn  the  3rd  (and  ffnal)  fndfctment: 
5/21/82  o arrest  for  delfvery  of  hydromorphone 
and  marfjuana 
6/18/82  1st  fndfctment  alleges  unlawful  de-
l  Ivery  of  hydromorphone  and  marfjuana 
under  both  Organfzed  Crfme  Act  and  Con-
trolled  Substances  Act 
6/22/82  State's  wrItten  announcement  of  ready 
8/24/82  2nd  fndfctment  -- like  1st  but  sets  out 
amount  of  control led  SUbstance  and  that 
del fvery  made  by  actual  transfer. 
Also  alleges  2  addltfonal  counts  of 
possessfon. 
8/24/82  State's  wrftten  announcement  of  ready 
11/8/82  o  granted  M/Contfnunace 
11/12/82  3rd  fndlctment  fn  addftlon  to  1st 
fndictment  allegatfon  of  delfvery  and 
2nd  fndlctment  allegatfon  of  amounts, 
thfs  fInal  Indfctment  alleged  manner  and 
September  1986/Docket  Call  SD9 
means of delivery by actual and
constructive transfer.
Old not contain 2nd Indictment's allega-
tions of possessIon.
State's wrItten announcement of ready
12/6/82  Trial on 3rd Indfctment.
State drops OCE charge.
o convfcted on unlawfuly delivery under
TCSA.
Noting that the offenses of unlawful deliverx of hydromorphone
and marfhuana are subject to exactly the same prrof whether
Included In the same count as an Organized Crime Act violation or
alleged In a separate count, Court found that the unlawful
delivery charges in 1st indictment were the same cases as In 2nd
and 3rd Indfctments; therefore, Rosebury [659 S.W.2d 655 (1983)]
Inapplicable. First announcement of ready carried compl fance
Wfth STA forward to 3rd Indictment.
NO DEFJNTION OF "CONSTRUCTIVE TRANSFER" -- NOT ERROR UNDER FACTS
AND CHARGE GIVEN: The term "constructIve transfer" has no
statutory definition but has acquired a caselaw meaning
[Rasmussen. 608 S.W.2d 205 (1980»). T/C did not gfve jury a
specific definition of constructive transfer but error was
harmless because jury was charged on law of parties and evidence
showed 0 delfvered the controlled substances and received the
money through the actfons of a 3rd person.
Robert_Roy ROBBINS, No. 513-84 Opinion on Appellant's Motfon
for Rehearfng on PDR: Conviction Reversed. Remanded to Court of
Appeals -- Judge W.C. Davis 7/2/86
JURY CHARGE INTERPLAY BETWEEN CAUSATION [Section 6.04(a)] AND
INVOLUNTARY MANSLAUGHTER [Section 19.05(a)(2»)= Facts: St
offered evidence to prove that 0 was fntoxlcated at time of
accident and that such Intoxication caused the collision and
death of the vIctim. D's defense was that accident was due to
hfs exhaustion and not due to his consumption of several beers.
although he admitted drinking them. The jury charge as a whole
alternated between stating that the jury must find that "by
reason of such Intoxfcatlon" D caused the death. and then
allowf.ng convfctlon ff' fntoxlcatfon "contrfbuted to cause the
same" wfthout explafnfng the Ifmfts of the contributIon required
by Sectfon 6.04(a}. 0 objected at trfal that the charge lessened
St's burden on proof on causation.
Held: Charge improper because jury could have found 0 guilty
even though they concluded that the concurrent cause [exhaustion]
was clearly sufficient to have produced the death and that the
other cause [Intoxfcatfon] whfle It contributed. was clearly
insufficient by ftself to have produced death. Case remanded to
Court of Appeals for harm analysis under Almanza.
* * * Identical Issue In Gary BflI CRABB. No. 391-85 decided on
same date and also remanded to Court of Appeals for Almanza harm
analysfs.
September 1986/Docket Call SD10
* * * * *
C 0 U R T S OF A P PEA L S
Samuel ErvIn OLIVER, No. 02-85-132-CR Aggravated Assault
ConvIctIon Reversed and Remanded -- Tarrant County, 6/26/86
FAILURE OF STATE TO PRODUCE WARRANT WHEN DEFENDANT CHALLENGES
ADMISSION OF EVIDENCE WHICH IS FRUIT OF ARREST UNDER WARRANT IS
ERROR:
C/A recognIzes that where accused objects to introduction of
evIdence, claImIng It Is unlawFully seIzed, and State relfes on
search or arrest warrant to JustiFy introduction, State must
produce the warrant. C/A holds that same rule applfes when
accused objects to the Form of the warrant "sInce the purpose For
the productfon of the warrant is For the trIal court to ascertafn
that it is regular on its Face, meetIng all necessary
requirements."
Samuel R. GERSH, NO. 05-85-635-CR Criminal MischieF
  -
ConvictIon Reversed and Remanded Dallas County, 6/30/86
PRESUMPTIONS: "TAMPERING WITH UTILITY METER" PRESUMPTIONS
UNCONSTITUTIONAL AS APPLIED:
Section 28.03, V.T.C.A .• Penal Code, dealing with tampering with
a utility meter, Includes a presumption that:
"It shall be presumed that a person in whose
name ... [the utility] was last billed and who
was receiving economIc beneFit of said
[utilIty]. has knowIngly tampered wIth the
[meter] IF the communication or supply has
been: (1) diverted From passIng through a
metering device; or (2) prevented From being
correctly registered by a metering device."
C/A notes that evidentiary devices, such as presumptions. must
not shiFt the burden of prooF to the accused or relieve the Fact
Finder's responsibIlIty to FInd the ultimate Facts beyond a
reasonable doubt. Such presumptions are unconstitutional unless
It can "at least be said with substantial assurance that the
presumed Fact Is more lIkely than not to Flow From the proved
Fact on whIch It Is made to depend", citing Leary v.Unlted
States, 395 U.S. 6 (1969) AnalyzIng presumption in Sec. 28.03.
C/A determines that Fact consumer last got the bill does not
support presumptIon that consumer tampered with meter. The use
of presumption was uncqnstitutlonal as appl led.
September 1986/Docket Call SDl1
County  Court  at  Law  No.  13 
Hon. Bonnie Fitch 
TELEPHONE NUMBER: 221-7950
LOCATION: 403 Caroline
COORDINATOR'S NAME: Joann Delgado
COORDINATOR'S PHONE: 221-7950
CLERK'S NAME: Cathy Perry
COURT REPORTER: Lavearn Ivey
BAILIFF'S NAME: Glenn Dubois
PROCESS SERVER'S NAME: Scott Blakenburg
PROBATION OFFICER'S NAME: Robert Dean
PROBATION OFFICER'S PHONE: 221-7688
PROSECUTOR'S EXTENSION:
8321
COURT APPOINTMENTS
Appointments are made Monday through Friday around 10:30 am.
Attorneys need to familiarize the Judge with their experience.
The defendant's indigency is determined through questioning by
the Judge and the questionnaire. The Judge is undecided regarding
payment for a Petition for Discretionary Review to the Court of
Criminal Appeals There is no policy regarding pay vouchers or
investigatory fees.
BOND CONSIDERATIONS
The Court sets bond on the basis of reliability to appear in
Court. The Court will grant a PTR bond based on the defendant's
credibility. A MRP bond will be granted depending on the circum-
stances. The court will retain the original bond pending a motion
for a new trial, as well as pending sentencing. An indigent out
on a PTR bond can continue to be represented by an appointed at-
torney. The same is true for cash or surety bond. The court is
undecided on policy regarding appeal bonds.
September 1986/Docket Call SD12
SENTENCING CONSIDERATIONS
Probation will be considered in all cases provided for
by the Penal Code. There is no typical recommendation for
a first offense, each is determined on a case by case basis.
A written motion is necessary for application for probation.
Oral proof is not required in a plea.
The Judge will follow the recommendations of the prose-
cutor unless extenuating circumstances dictate otherwise.
Prosecutor's do not talk directly to the defendant until
the Judge arraigns them and they waive the right to an attor-
ney and request to talk to the D.A. The decision is made by
the Judge after arraignment. The attorney is required to in-
form the defendant of the range of punishment and the conse-
quences of a plea independently of and prior to the' time when
the prosecutor speaks to the defendant.
The court will follow the prosecutor's recommendation on
a motion to revoke probation and will determine policy in tech-
nical violations on a case by case basis. It is customary for
the court to add special conditions for probation.
An undocumented person can receive probation. Fines can be
paid in installments.
DOCKET AND TRIAL CONSIDERATIONS
Resets must be set for one of the following: hire attor-
ney, video viewing, motions, trial, plea or J & S. The same
policy for non-issue settings. If a case is set for trial it
will be set off at convenience of defense attorneys and the
State, probably four to six weeks. Hopefully, a reasonable
number will be set each time to assure actual trial on date
set. There is no policy regarding speedy trial waiver. Pre-
trial dispositive motion settings are set on non-trial day.
The time limit on Voir Dire is determined on a case by case
basis, as is the time l   m   ~ on final argument.
September 1986/Docket Call SD13
Membership Directory
A
Roy Lee ABNER 8866 Gulf Fwy. #250 Houston 77017 943-9607
Steven ABRAMOWITZ 2915 San Jacinto Houston 77004 529-3131
John ACKERMAN 320 Main St. #100 Houston 77002 237-9100
Geraldo G. ACOSTA 102 So. Lockwood Houston 77011 926-4606
Tony ANINAO 411 Fannin #302
Houston 77002 222-2660
Mack ARNOLD 1001 Texas Ave. #500 Houston 77002 237-1332
Paula Gavrel ASHER 1900 W. Loop So. #900 Houston 77027 961-9457
Mark ATKINSON 1818 Memorial Houston 77007 868-3967
B
Charles F. BAIRD 4606 F.M. 1960 W #315 Houston 77069 580-8077
James N. BARKLEY 4038 Heathersage Dr. Houston 77084 468-7618
James L. BARR 4656 Texas Commerce Twr. Houston 77002 229-9292
Ray BARR 2038 Lexington Houston 77098 524-5007
Nickolas S. BARRERA 3603 Telephone Rd. Houston 77023 644-0538
Perry N. BASS P.O. Box 52163 Houston 77052 222-0858
W. Randolph BATES 4101 San Jacinto #222 Houston 77004 523-6034
Ralph BEHRENS 7500 Bellaire Blvd. #803 Houston 77036 772-5800
Robert BENNETT 1001 Texas Ave. #1010 Houston 77002 222-1434
David H. BERG 3702 Travis Houston 77002 529-5622
David BIRES 2510 Montrose Houston 77006 529-8500
Gerald BIRNBERG 6671 Southwest Fwy. #303 Houston 77074 981-9595
David A. BISHOP P.O. Box 800028 Houston 77280 477-5980
Walter BOYD 4654 Ingersoll Houston 77027 526-4528
D.Channing Bradshaw 3322 S. Shaver Pasadena 77504 946-2182
Harold BRELSFORD 723 Main #400 Houston 77002 228-0225
Roger BRIDGWATER 502 Caroline #200 Houston 77002 224-4233
James BROOKS 8733 Tollis Houston 77055 229-0099
Michael J. BROWN 2100 Travis #1200 Houston 77002 650-3737
Pat BROWN 7333 Harwin Dr. #101 Houston 77036 952-8013
Veryl E. BROWN 216 Stratford #5 Houston 77006 224-6719
Alexander BUNIN 2016 Main #2013 Houston 77002 651-1031
William W. BURGE 333 Clay #2540 Houston 77002 224-4343
Henry L. BURKHOLDER 216 Stratford #5 Houston 77006 224-6719
Catherine BURNETT 502 Caroline, 2nd fl. Houston 77002 222-2940
Marvin G. BYERLY 7403 Pecan Villas Houston 77061 645-9442
Mark S. BYRNE 600 Travis #3610 Houston 77002 266-1263
September 1986/Docket Ca11 SD14
c
Felix CANTU 723 Main #231 Houston 77002 225-9774
Jose CANTU, JR. 209 W. Shaw #200 Pasadena 77506
Cheryl GRIFFIN CASH 1331 Lamar #1459 Houston 77010 655-7242
J. C. CASTILLO Two Houston Ctr. #1515 Houston 77010 655-8085
Charels C. CATE 810 S. Mason Rd. #335 Katy 77450 392-9090
Ramon CAVAZOS, JR. 1610 Richmond Houston 77006 526-0011
Michael B. CHARLTON 4606 FM 1960 W. #315 Houston 77069
Hector A. CHAVANA 4111 North Fwy. Houston 77022 236-9900
Ira CHENKIN 5444 Westheimer #1500 Houston 77056 963-9888
Randall CLARK Five Post Oak Park #1130 Houston 77027 552-0300
Dan Lamar COGDELL 4300 Scotland Houston 77007 868-1111
Frank T. COLEMAN 202 Travis #408 Houston 77002 225-3100
Willie H. COLEMAN 4101 San Jacinto #101 Houston 77004 523-6034
Terry COLLINS 1018 Preston #100 Houston 77002 869-1105
Denise COLLINS 723 Main #214 Houston 77002 234-9613
Mary E. CONN 1900 North Loop W. #500 Houston 77018 957-1342
Juan M. CONTRERAS 102 So. Lockwood Houston 77011 926-4604
R.P. Skip CORNELIUS 1300 Texas Ave. #101 Houston 77002 237-8380
W. Michael COULSON 7721 Park Place Blvd. Houston 77087 644-1783
Catherine COULTER 1225 Heights Blvd. Houston 77008 864-8798
Dennis CRAGGS 1940 W. Bell Houston 77019 526-5600
John E. CROW 209 W. Shaw #200 Pasadena 77506 472-3647
Linda G. CRYER 3000 Post Oak Blvd. #1400 Houston 77056 621-5957
David CUNNINGHAM 1927 Norfolk Houston 77098 520-7701
o
Edward A. DAVIS III 2701 Fannin Houston 77002 655-1616
Sam DEANE 5424 Katy Fwy. Houston 77007 864-7916
Dick DE GUERIN 1018 Preston 2nd fl. Houston 77002 223-5959
John L. DENNINGER 628 Pecore Houston 77009 864-0258
Glenn H. DEVLIN 1101 Heights Blvd. Houston 77008 869-9909
Andrea DIAMOND P.O. Box 2751 Houston 77001 869-2240
C. Logan DIETZ P.O. Box 271665 Houston 77277
James DOUGHERTY 909 Kipling Houston 77006 521-9551
Larry DOWELL 9225 Katy Freeway #405 Houston 77024 461-2369
Thomas DUNN 3210 Smith Houston 77006 523-8006
Benjamin DURANT 4810 Caroline Houston 77004 529-3803
Albert M. DWORKIN Five Post Oak Park #1130 Houston 77027 552-0300
September 1986/Docket Call SD15

Danny  EASTERLING 
Candelario  ELIZONDO 
Steven  ELLINGER 
Jose  A.  ESQUIVEL 
Michael  ESSMYER 
Larry  Q.  EVANS 

Kerry  G.  FELLOWS 
Robert  FICKMAN 
Raymond  L.  FISHER 
Mike  FOSHER 
Jan  FOX 
Stanley  C.  FRANK 
Richard  FRANKOFF 
Floyd  W.  FREED  III 
Charles  FREEMAN 
Larry  FRITH 
Gerald  FRY 

Carolyn  GARCIA 
Esmeralda  GARCIA 
Rogelio  GARCIA 
Edward  F.  GARZA 
Kathryn  GEIGER 
Mary  Ann  GEORGE 
Dan  B.  GERSON 
Johnny  M.  GILL 
Greg  GLADDEN 
James  Greg  GLASS 
Alan  H.  GOLDSMITH 
Marilyn  GOLUB 
W.  K.  GOODE 
Lana  GORDON 
Nathan  GORDON 
Deborah  GOTTLIEB 
Bjll  GREEN 
228-4441 
 
655-8085 
960-0330 
520-1516 
868-1111 
659-9090 
862-4116 
526-3121 
675-7477 
660-8940 
868-1111 
861-8225 
520-8040 
496-9940 
747-7496 
869-9909 
222-0860 
524-5007 
524-8110 
520-8133 
225-1423 
780-7113 
850-8440 
659-6666 
521-9330 
880-0333 
521-9216 
729-3772 
666-9015 
266-0335 
445-6900 
224-6473 
526-9575   
266-1004 
1018  Preston  6th  fl. 
Twp  Houston  Ctr.  #1515 
3501  W.  Alabama  #201 
1927  Richmond 
4300  Scotland 
2323  Caroline  #1000 
5300  Memorial  Dr.  #490 
3110  Southwest  Fwy.  #190 
5008  Lockwood  Dr. 
Houston 
Houston 
Houston 
Houston 
Houston 
Houston 
Houston 
Houston 
Houston 
4848  Loop  Central  Dr.#850  Houston 
4300  Scotland 
1111  N.  Loop  West  #570 
2211  Norfolk  #510 
11511  Katy  Fwy.  #635 
3443  Ozark 
1101  Heights  Blvd. 
411  Fannin  #310 
2038  Lexington 
2211  Norfolk  #525 
2701  Louisiana 
1619  Lubbock 
2600  S.  Gessner  #308 
4265  San  Felipe  #900 
2502  Fannin  #100 
4900  Fannin  #204 
3017  Houston  Ave. 
3407  Montrose  #205 
P.O.  Box  740291 
6750  West  Loop  S.  #855 
6420  Richmond  #490 
7020  Antoine  #204B 
1001  Texas  #230 
3714  Audubon  Place 
2902  Briarhurst  #701 
Houston 
Houston 
Houston 
Houston 
Houston 
Houston 
Houston 
Houston 
Houston 
Houston 
Houston 
Houston 
Houston 
Houston 
Houston 
Houston 
Houston 
Houston 
77002 
77010 
77027 
77098 
77007 
77004 
77007 
77098 
77026 
77081 
77007 
77008 
77098 
77079 
77021 
77008 
77002 
77098 
77098 
77006 
77007 
77063 
77027 
77002 
77004 
77009 
77006 
77214 
Bellaire  77401 
Houston  77057 
Houston  77088 
Houston  77002 
Houston  77006 
Houston  77057 
September  1986/Docket  Call  SD16 
II.  8EGII\INING PHASE
A. The client comes to the attorney with a legal problem, often a 
crisis, with much emotional and psychological regression 
helplessness 
guilt 
anger 
frustration at feeling helpless 
fearful of impending punishment 
8. The attorney must be able to establish a "good working relationship"
1.  we often don't think of this as a consciously applied process
2. we try to be as innocuously pleasant as possible in the hope
that something will click
3. in making a good working relationship a consciously applied
process, you don't have to rely on hope
c. First step
1.  client shares problem
2. attorney demonstrates
a. empathetic response 
warmth 
respect 
sensitivity 
willingness to listen 
b. use of the special authority of your role 
special knowledge 
competence in the legal arena 
societal ok - license to practice law 
It's important not to confuse Authority with Authoritarianism
Outlining choices, not telling the client what to do
III. TESTING PHASE
A. The client is often in a psychologically repressed state - crises
are regressive
he/she may feel as dependent as a child
B. It's important to recognize our own feelings
c. In this phase, the client may test and goad, try to woo and 
wrangle more time and effort. There may be demands that the 
attorney do special things the client could do himself/herself 
D. Attorney must counter with firm boundary management - the expectation
that the client will fulfill the terms of the contract with you
E. In the testing phase you will often deal with the client's unconscious
processes - irrational feelings are experienced most often in times
of crisis
The attorney/client relationship may set off a whole chain of
unrealistic responses in the client, the psychological term is
TRANSFERENCE
1. essentially INAPPROPRIATE BEHAVIOR 
making attorney God, idealizing, can do no wrong 
pestering, calling all the time 
anger at not having your constant attention 
late night calls 
demands for more time 
devaluing - alledging incompetence 
aontinued on Page 14
11
Information  Re:  Current  Grand  Juries 
by:  Ronnie  Harrison 
Bailiffs:  Henry  Callahan,  Johnny  Scott,  Cindy 
Thorpe  (phone  221-5880). 
Assistant  District  Attorneys:  Jim  Mosely, 
Chief;  Eldred  Hammond,  Allen  McAshan, 
Chuck  Cottingham,  Cheryl  Turner  and  Don 
McCormick  (phone  221-6170). 
District  Clerks  Office  for  any  Grand  Jury 
Questions  (phone  221-7857). 
Grand  Jury  Address:  201  Fannin,  9th  Floor, 
Houston,  Texas  77002. 
l78th  Grand  Jury 
Foreman:  Lamont  Grogan,  III,  5227  Jackwood, 
Houston,  Texas  77046,  Home:  468-6873  Bus: 
965-986l. 
Assistant  Foreman:  David  Campbell,  Sr.,  2001 
Kirby,  Houston,  Texas,  Bus:  523-2278. 
35lst  Grand  Jury 
Foreman:  Malden  A.  Morley,  2716  San  Jacinto, 
Houston,  Texas  77502,  Bus:  946-8526. 
Assistant  Foreman:  W.R.  Womack,  702  Befaye, 
Houston,  Texas  77076,  Home:  692-1373. 
l84th  Grand  Jury 
Foreman:  John  Stanton,  P.O.  Box  3226,  Houston, 
Texas  77253-3226,  Home:  464-1856  Bus: 
236-3177. 
Assistant  Foreman:  Rudy  Cheeks,  6534  Lewiston 
Ct.,  Houston,  Texas  77049,  Home:  459-3136 
Bus:  891-9023. 
l77th  Grand  Jury 
Foreman:  Jack  Heard,  8011  Meadowglen,  Houston, 
Texas  77063,  Home:  783-6861. 
Assistant  Foreman:  Richard  Hedges,  414  Robmore, 
Houston,  Texas  77076,  Home  694-3311. 
l76th  Grand  Jury 
Foreman:  H.R.  Matrisciani,  9210  Link  Meadow, 
Houston,  Texas,  Phone:  664-2042. 
Assistant  Foreman:  Earlene  Sullivan,  7617  Park 
Place  Blvd.,  Houston,  Texas,  Home: 
645-0515  Bus:  224-0570. 
Editor's  note:  Ronnie  Harrison  does  the 
defense  bar  a  favor  by  collecting  the  names  and 
addresses  of  all  the  current  Grand  Jurors.  She 
has  shown  that  this  information  is  a  public 
record,  and  available  to  us.  If  a  lawyer  wants 
a  grand  jury  to  consider  certain  evidence,  this 
information  tells  him  who  he  may  contact.  She 
will  be  giving  more  information  about  the  Grand 
Jury  system  in  future  issues. 
CROSS  EXAMINATION 
by  Judge  Jon  Hughes 
Editor's  Note:  The  following  is  an  outline  of  a 
lecture  by  Judge  Jon  N.  Hughes  when  he  was  a 
criminal  defense  lawyer. 
I.  NEVER  BE  UNPREPARED. 
II.  WHEN  TO  CROSS: 
A.  Do  not  cross  if  not  hurt. 
B.  If  hurt,  cross  unless  your  own 
case  will  attack  the  testimony. 
III.  KNOW  THE  WITNESS: 
A.  Biases. 
B.  Motives  for  exaggeration. 
C.  Run-ins  with  the  law. 
D.  Quali ty  of  memory  and  other 
faculties. 
E.  Opportunities  to  observe. 
F.  Testimony  at  preliminary  hearing. 
G.  Prior  statements. 
H.  Memoranda  used. 
IV.  TECHNIQUES 
A.  Don't  reveal  uncertainty. 
B.  Don't  browbeat  or  ridicule. 
C.  Never  become  angry. 
D.  Keep  questions  simple. 
E.  Don't  ask  open-ended  questions. 
V.  GET  TO  THE  POINT  AND  STOP. 
VI.  FINISH  WITH  A  CLIMAX. 
VII.  THE  LYING  WITNESS: 
A.  Adopt  a  superior  attitude  - you 
are  on  to  his  story. 
B.  Let  him  testify  freely 
encourage  hearsay  and  exagger-
ation. 
C.  Use  a  jump  around  technique  - to 
destroy  his  memorized  chronology. 
12 
CRIME  CONTROL  BAIL  AGENT 
JAIL  REDUCTION  PROGRAM 
by:  Gerald  Monks,  Ph.D.,  Executive  Director 
Professional  Bail-Agents  of  the  United  States 
1.  Coordination  between  the  Harris  County 
Criminal  Justice  Coordinator  and  the  President 
of  the  Professional  Bondsmen  of    o u ~ t o n is 
mandatory. 
2.  By  secret  ballot,  a  bail  agent  will  be 
selected  to  handle  jail  reduction  for  each 
criminal  justice  court  in  Harris  County. 
a.  The  bail  agent  will  be  assigned  to  each 
court  no  longer  than  one  year.  He  wi 11  work 
with  the  clerk  and  the  coordinator  to  evaluate 
defendants  with  jail  reduction  in  mind. 
3.  Not  before  a  defendant  is  incarcerated 
in  jail  72  hours  will  the  jail  reduction  agent 
interview  the  defendant.  The  jail  reduction 
agent  will  then  interview  the  defendant  to 
determine  if  a  private  bail  bond  can  be  made, 
what  amount  of  bond  can  be  made  by  the  private 
sector,  and  if  the  defendant  is  truly  indigent. 
4. The  highest  priority  of  release  should 
be  given  to  those  defendants  in  jail  on  a 
fine-only  basis. 
a.  The  bail  agent  will  invoice  these 
people  for  a  bond  fee  with  a  copy  to  the 
Criminal  Justice  Coordinator.  The  bail  agent 
will  guarantee  the  defendant  will  make  his 
appearance  before  the  court  in  four  to  six 
months  to  pay  the  fine.  If  the  defendant  fails 
to  show  up  and  the  bail  agent  has  collected  his 
fee,  the  fee  will  then  be  returned  to  the 
county  as  partial  payment  of  the  fine. 
5.  In  cases  where  a  lower  bail  amount  can 
be  made  and  proper  crime  control  methods  are 
utilized  by  the  bail  agent,  the  bail  agent  will 
notify  the  judge.  If  the  judge  agrees  with  the 
reevaluation,  he  will  issue  the  reduction  of 
the  bond  and  the  bail  agent  will  make  the  bond 
in  a  normal  manner. 
6.  When  the  bail  agent  determines  the 
defendant  is  truly  an  indigent  but  control-
lable,  the  bail  agent,  with  the  approval  of  the 
judge,  will  make  the  bond,  charge  no  fee,  use 
normal  crime  control  procedures.  This  will  be 
noted  on  the  bond  so  no  liability  will  be 
charged  against  the  bail  agent  in  the  event  of 
forfeiture.  The  bail  agent  will  cooperate  with 
all  authorities  in  the  event  of  failure  to 
appear  to  apprehend  the  defendant,  including 
turning  over  all  information  to  the  Sheriff's 
Department  for  fugitive  apprehension. 
7.  The  judge  will  agree  to  issue  warrants 
authorizing  the  bail  agent  or  his  assigns  to 
arrest  the  defendants  if  requested  by  his 
assigned  bail  agent. 
S.  No  court  costs  will  be  charged  the  bail 
agent  on  these  public  service  defendants. 
9.  The  county  will  pay  for  the  necessary 
supplies  needed  for  this  program.  The  estimated 
initial  cost  would  be  $4,000. 
The  key  to  this  Jail  Reduction  Program  is 
individualizing  crime  control  and  jail 
reduction  in  each  court.  This  program  could 
possibly  reduce  the  jail  population  by  500 
defendants  at  a  savings  of  $6  million  a  year  to 
the  county. 
TEXAS CRIMINAL DEFENSE LAWYERS ASSOCIATION
CAPITAL MURDER SEMINAR
SEPTEMBER  18-20.  1986 
Austin  Marriott  61211·35  North at  U.S.  290 
Austin, Texas  78752  - Salons E-H 
(512)  458·6161 
CRIMINAL  TRIAL  DEFENSE  ATTORNEY 
Assistant  Public  Defender  to  be  responsible  for  a  portion  of  the 
Laredo  Div.  trial  docket  and  a  limited  number  of  cases  on  the  Corpus 
Christi  docket.  REQUIREMENTS:  Two  to  three  years  trial  experience, 
fluent  in  Spanish  ~ English;  Two-year  committment.  SALARY:  $31,600.-
to  $32,700.  annually  depending  on  qualifications  ~ experience.  SUBMIT 
RESUMES  TO:  Roland  E.  Dahlin  II,  Federal  Public  Defender,  Southern 
District  of·Texas,  P.O.  Box  61508,  Houston  77208.  Telephone:  229-3522. 
13 
-------------------------------------------------
2. some behavior natural in a crisis, communicate this rather than
accusing client, but work toward helping client see the inappropriateness
3. set conditions and boundaries - develop a contract involving
time limits
frequency of interviews
stipulated place of transactions
expectations from client
method of fee payment
establish mutual goal
make the contract very clear, Elementary school language, oral or 
written, depending on your style and the client 
FROM THE JULY LUNCHEON PROGRAM
CROWN COURT LECTURES
presents 
BARRISTERS ON ADVOCACY
Friday, October 24,  1986  South Texas College of Law 
Houston, Texas  1303 San Jacinto 
Lecturers: 
Lord  Hooson,  member  Gray's  Inn,  one  of  her  Majesty's  Counsel,  member  of  the  House  of 
Lords,  practices at the Bar in  London 
David  Barnard,  Barrister,  member  Gray's  Inn,  lecturer  Inns  of  Court  School  of  Law,  books: 
"The  Civil  Court  in  Action",  "The  Criminal  Court  in  Action",  "The  Family  Court  in  Action", 
co-author "Evidence and Advocacy" 
Keith Evans, Barrister,  member Middle Temple,  Gray's  Inn and State Bar of California, N.I.T.A. 
advocacy instructor,  book:  "Advocacy at  the Bar" 
Peter W.  Murphy,  Barrister,  member  Middle  Temple,  State  Bar of California  and  State  Bar  of 
Texas,  professor  South  Texas  College  of  Law,  books:  "A  Practical  Approach  to  Evidence", 
"Evidence: Cases  and Argument", co-author "Evidence and Advocacy" 
8:30 Registration 
9:00 Opening Remarks 
9:05 The Nature of Advocacy: Four Perspectives 
10:30 Break 
10:45 Constructing and Delivering your Closing Argument 
12:00 Lunch  (On  Your Own) 
1:30 The Art of Successful Direct Examination 
2:15 The Rapier and the Sabre:  Secrets of Cutting Cross-Examination 
3:30 Break 
3:45 Of Experts and  Men of Science 
4:30 Life and  Practice at the English Bar 
Bar No. ______
REGISTRATION 
Name ________________________Phone_______ 
Address  _________________________ Zlp____ 
$125  tuition  includes  copies  of "Advocacy at  the  Bar"  and  "Evidence and  Advocacy".  Make 
checks  payable  to  CROWN  COURT  LECTURES,  216  Stratford,  No.5, Houston,  Texas  77006. 
For more information call 224-6719. 
This course has  been  approved by the Texas  Board of Legal Specialization for credit toward 
the  CLE  requirements  for certification  and  recertification  In  civil,  criminal  and  personal  injury 
trial law. 
14
CUSTOM  TAILORED 
LETS  MAKE  A  DEAL 
2 Piece Suits for Ladles and Gents 
From $190.00  to  $270.00 
Newly Remodeled Downtown Office Space 
40,000  sq.  It.  contiguous  150' SQ. 11.  load 
Private  elevator  lobby 
Guard  service  and electroniC  video  surveillance 
$8.00  sq.  It.  renlal  $1000  SQ It.  bUild  out 
allowance 
·ANDIOR·
Three  11,500.00  sq.  It.  Hoors  150, SQ It.  load 
New Marble lobby guard service  - eleclrOniC video 
surveillance 
S10.00  per SQ. It.  per  floor  - $10.00  bUild  out 
allowance 
·ANDIOR·
Executive office suites - whole Hoor  from 300 so It. 
up  AI seMces
·ANDIOR·
Mixed  IIocn - 500  sq. It.  to  2500  sq It. 
$12.00  per sq. ft.  completely  bUilt  out 
Month to month  or  lease 
C.II  Bill  Curtis  - 713-223-8592 
Or Your  Broker 
All  wool SummeriWinter Suit 
FROM HONG KONG
All Wool  (all  year round)  Suit 
FOR MEN &WOMEN Italian Silk Suit 
GaberdinelTerytene Wool Suit 
Terylene/Linen Summer Suit 
All Wool  Blazer/Slacks 
Cashmere Sports and Top Coat 
Mohair Tuxedo 
Vests for Suits (Optional) $60.00
100% Silk Shirt  $35.00 
PRICES EXCLUDE
100% Collon Shirt  $30.00
IMPORT AND MAILING
Polyester Collon Shirt  $20.00 
PAK AMERICAN CUSTOM TA I LORS
6776  SOUTHWEST  FWY.,  SUITE  150 
PH:  (713)  783·0953 
OPEN  8  - 5  (MONDAY - FRIDAY)
PLEASE CALL FOR APPOINTMENT.
Delivery & Installation Available 
.
I! ;:u,it   
.luollUl  '
Cellular 
Carphones 
All  Brands Available 
Sales  •  Leasing  •  Rentals 
Friendly, personalized service in your office.
WE'LL  BEAT 
ANY  PRICE  IN TOWN 
Wont  To  Know The Truth? 
Polygraph &- Investigations 
William W. "Bill" Fisher 
Kelly B. Hendricks 
EXPERIENCED - LICENSED 
BONDED-INSURED 
Houston 224-5892 
Humble  446-7410 
'We ore here to serve you r needs' 
[iji#J
THE
earphone
Mobilnet"  COMPANY
Cellular  Service  Provider 
Audlo.ox
_  CMT·3000 
869-7284
MONTHLY
39
95
The Chairman Speaks...  New  Members  Welcome 
By Randy MaDonald
Recently, the Board of Judges and
Commissioners Court have promulgated the fee
sChedule for appointed lawyers and the "impact
courts". These developments greatly affect the
criminal defense attorneys of Harris County.
Your Board ot Directors intends to be
effective in representing the interests of
criminal defense attorneys in .Harris County.
HCCLA does not wish to be in controversy
with our fellow lawyers appointed to or elected
to the bench, or with Commissioners Court.
However, the current controversies surrounding
the above issues remind members of HCCLA and
other organizations whose members are largely
criminal defense attorneys that more uni ty is
needed to effectively represent the views of
our respective organizations.
Recently, members of the Mexican American
Bar Association and the Houston Lawyer
Association have agreed to ask their Boards to
appoint a representative from their respective
organizations to be present in an advisory
capacity at the HCCLA Board Meetings. I hope
that this cooperation is just a beginning.
With additional input from these highly
politically active organizations, along with
the three hundred plus members of the HCCLA,
criminal defense attorneys of Harris County
should have a voice that will be heard by those
who govern our Criminal Justice System.
AttaCirl1AttaRoy Award 
Editor's Note: Mary Conn will be editing a
column that will recognize special success by a
member of HCCLA. If you or some member of HCCLA
that you know deserves some special recogni-
tion, please submit the name and pertinent
information to Mary E. Conn, care of Docket
Call. We plan to run a regular recogni tion
column for outstanding lawyers, whether their
contribution is to the profession at large, the
judi cary, the public, etc. Use your
imagination!
Sponsor
John L. Denninger Steve Hebert
Albert M. Dworkin Jack B. Zimmermann
Joe W. Varela Charles Freeman
Walter Wright Harry Loftus, Jr.
Nancy Zailckas Kremers Robert Pelton
Brenda K. Whitehead Tony Aninao
Jose A. Esquivel Robert Pelton
Patrick Shelton Candelario Elizondo
Clayton R. Rawlings Candelario Elizondo
Robert Rosenberg James McBride
G. P. Pat Monks Candelario Elizondo
Edward F. Garza Candelario Elizondo
Carl Walker, Jr. Kenneth Smith
Marvin G. Byerly Gary Trichter
Luis Amadeus Vallejo Robert Pelton
Mark Vela Elizondo/Pel ton
Charles Lee McCallister Felix Cantu
Jeffrey R. Newport Clyde Williams
Referral  Service 
REFERRAL SERVICE STATISTICS
JUNE JULY
Felony Calls Received 46 22
Felony Cases Retained 3 1
Misdemeanor Calls Received 36 43
Misdemeanor Cases Retained 4 9
Total Surveys Mailed 24 24
Surveys Returned 16 13
Job  Opportunities-
CRIMINAL DEFENSE TRIAL ATTORNEY
Assistant Federal Public Defender to be
in charge of two-attorney office and respon-
sible for a portion of the Laredo Div. trial
docket and a limited number of cases on the
Corpus Christi docket. This two-attorney
branch office provides quality defense to
persons accused of a federal crime and eli-
gible for appointed counsel. No private
practice permitted. REQUIREMENTS: Four to
six years or more experience; fluent in
Spanish &English; Three-year committment.
SALARY: $37,600. to $44,000. plus annually
depending on qualifications & experience.
SUBMIT RESUMES TO: Roland E. Dahlin II,
Federal Public Defender, Southern District
of Texas, P.O. Box 61508, Houston 77208,
Telephone: 229-3522. CLOSING DATE: Open
until filled.
16
"IN  HOUSTON  SINCE  1936" 
A  ACTION  FEDERAL 
BAIL  BOND 
co. 
SOUTHWEST 
BILL  PELLERIN  CHARLES  CIPOLLA 
ASK ABOUT OUR GUARANTEE
661-7400 
24  HOUR  SERVICE  - (DOWNTOWN) 
"OUTSTANDING  PROFESSIONAL  BONDSMAN  OF  THE  YEAR  1984" 
TERMS  AVAILABLE 
• All  JAilS. ALL  STATES. FOREIGN  COUNTRIES 
• PERSONAL  CHECKS  ACCEPTED 
• WE  WORK  WITH  ALL  ATTORNEYS 
"BONOS OF  ALL  KINOS" 
JAIL RELEASE  MADE  BY  PHONE 
GERALD  P.  MONKS,  PhD 
LlC.  iI 74108 
EXECUTIVE  DIRECTOR 

MEMBER  P.B.H.  & P.B.T. 
Public  ball  no'  r .. duCt'  Jail  population". 
Public  ball  dot'!.  n01  ,('duef'  pub)lc  anorht,,\  (0"). 
Pubbc  bad  dO(")  OC\1 .ddfflS  mdlgf'ncy. 
PvblJC  bail    !"tOl tncrti.t.f"  fH\l'\. 
PvbllC  WIl  ""a)  ,mpt'df'  t:a:rl)  ..  of  prisolVr •. 
PVb:iIC  ball  fl,i)  f(,CuCt'  lhr  u\('  01  p'lva,t'  .HorMY\. 
..... 
SE HABLA  ESPANOL 
).  YOU  MUST  NOTIFY  US  OF  YOUR  LAViYER'S  NAME,  ADDRESS,  AND  PHONE  II  your 
lawyer  made  for  your  bond,  you  tT'Hat  report  back  to  him  .. lthm  24  hOUH.  Rememt-er  that 
iI  p!id  in  lull  attorney  .... tore  you  &0  10  Court  is  your  ....Sl  d.f.mH.  II  alway$  pay..  \\Ie  do  not 
recommef\d  any  patticular  auorney.  It  is  &000  10  I\&.e  "  family  attorMY. 
A-ROSE
BONDING CO.
. BAIL BONDS -
HARRIS COUNTY
LICENSE # 74113
Also I icensed in
Montgomery, Fort
Bend and Brazoria
County
24 HR. SERVICE
227-7020
ALLEN NOLAND III
Agent
JAMES E. ROSE
Owner
JAMES R. SPRADLIN
Owner
BRENDA CASE
Secretary
WE OFFER SPECIAL RATES
AND BILLING FOR ATTORNEYS
PROMPT, FRIENDLY AND EFFICIENT SERVICE
506 CAROLINE. SUITE ~   / HOUSTON. TEXAS 77002
.-
ABD, .
BURlS &
BL!CElOOD
BAIL BOlDS
224·0305
LET US PLAI YOUR JAIL BREAK.
Lawyers 
Ball  Bond  Service 
1404 CONGRESS
HOUSTON, TEXAS 77002
(713) 227-1m
ALL  FELONIES 

ALLOW  US  TO  HELP 
BY 
collateralizing
YOUR  FEES 
24  HOUR  SERVICE 

__
__
__
WHATISTHEHARRISCOUNTY WHATDOES HCCLA DO FOR WHATDOESA MEMBER DO?
CRIMINALLAWYERS
ASSOCIATION?
The HCCLA is a non-
profit, tax exempt,
professional Association
made upoflawyers from
Harris County, Texas, who
areworking to promote
excellence and high ideals in
thepractice ofCriminal
Law.
Any lawyer in good
standingwith theState Bar
ofTexas, who is endorsed
by a memberof
HCCLAis eligible tojoin.
Theendorsement recom-
mends theapplicant as a
person ofprofessional
competency, integrityand
good moral character who is
actively engaged in the
defense ofcriminal cases.
THEDEFENSE BAR?
•  Referrals through our Lawyer Referral Ser-
vice and through our membership direc-
tory.
•  HCCLA publications including DOCKET
CALL, a monthly newsletter summarizing
significant dc:cisions ofthe Texas CoUIt of
Criminal Appeals andTexas COUItS ofAp-
peals and topics oflocal interest to the
criminaldefense bar.
•  Regular Monthly Luncheon general
membership meetings featuring speakers
onsubjectsoftopical interest.
•  Providesa responsive local forum for
lawyers activelyengagedin the practice
ofcriminal law.
•  Opposeslegislation and local rules which
infringeonindividual rights protected by
constitutional guarantees.
•  Promotesa productive exchange ofideas
and encourages bettercommunication
with prosecutorsand thejudiciary.
•  Providescontinuinglegal education pro-
grams for improving advocacy skiUs and
knowledge.
•  Promotes a just application ofthe COUIt
appointed lawyer system for indigent per·
sons charged with a criminal offense.
•  Files Amicus Curiae Briefs whereap-
propriate.
Panicipate and exchange infonnation and
skiU in ourCLE programs.
•  Contribute to our Brief Bank Service.
Perfonn agreed Pro Bonoservices.
•  Bring tothe Association's attention proper
grievances in the practice which merit
responseandaction.
•  Sharein thecommaraderieat ourmonthly
luncheons and annual socialllVenls.
•  Takecalls onour Referral Service.
Justice
Duty
Freedom
FeUowship
-
66 
AppUamt:____________________________________
Professional Organizations in which your are a member in good
standing: _______________________________
Mailing Address: _________________
Haveyoueverbeendisbarredordisciplinedbyanybarassociation
orareyouthesubjectofdisciplinaryactionnowpendin.!(,.g___
HrmName:
DateadmittedtoBar:___LawSchool.________
For Regular Membershipenclose $100.00annual fee.
Date, Degree from LawSchoo ..... )___________
TYPE MEMBERSHIP__ Student
(Expected graduation ....... ___) _--:-__
Advisory date signature ofappliamt
Honorary EndorsementonreversemustbesignedbyHCClAMEMBERIN
Regular GOOD STANDING
ENDORSEMENT
I, a member in good standing ofHCClAbelieve this applicant to be a person ofprofessional competency, integrity and good
moral character. The appliamt is actively engaged in the defense ofcriminal cases.
MAllTHISAPPLICATlONTO:
HarrisCountyCriminal
Lawyers Association signatureofmember
P.O. Box 22773
Houston, Texas 77007
713/227·2404

Sponsor Documents

Or use your account on DocShare.tips

Hide

Forgot your password?

Or register your new account on DocShare.tips

Hide

Lost your password? Please enter your email address. You will receive a link to create a new password.

Back to log-in

Close