Search results

It's codified in Texas and backed by case law. Most often cited is Republic v Davis: https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3619195112567001492&q=Republic+Ins.+Co.+v.+Davis,+856+S.W.2d+158&hl=en&as_sdt=6,44&as_vis=1 "The attorney-client privilege as embodied in TEX.R.CIV.EVID. 503(b)...

He said he was concerned about her being too intoxicated to drive. Someone else who followed the trial every minute can dig back through his testimony and find it. It just stuck out to me because some of the first witnesses said she was sober. Later ones said she did drink and have an...

You can appeal any case for which you can afford the bond. Appellate courts do not hear new information. Appellate courts reviews the court records and briefs submitted by the parties regarding the record. They then make sure that the law was applied correctly by the prosecution, judge, and...

HF testifying that CM struggled with cocaine was likely new info to her family. In fact, his whole description of her condition the night/morning she disappeared ran counter to what some prosecution witnesses had testified about her, i.e., the testimony that they were all drinking and doing...

No, in fact, he cannot disclose anything EA has told him due to attorney-client privilege. Texas Rules of Evidence 503 (b)(2) Special Rule of Privilege in Criminal Cases In criminal cases, a client has a privilege to prevent the lawyer or lawyer's representative from disclosing any other fact...

Personally, I do not register to vote, but I know many people do. So, take the following information with a grain of salt...although, I think it does show the uphill battle most criminal defendants face upon appeal: The appellate court that reviews criminal cases coming out of Collin County...

The other thing you have to remember - or, consider - is it is the prosecution's job to present the case for guilt. In Texas, the defendant isn't required to prove his or her own innocence or even take the stand. Therefore, most do not. So, you have people saying, "Defense is just trying to...

Yes. If defense counsel doesn't do their job, appellate court overturn convictions and remand for re-trial. The problem is, most people don't understand what they are watching or hearing in a courtroom. They watch a lot of television - or, go into the court with a preconceived notion about...

He will appeal. That's what all the motions and objections are: getting things on the record. The appellate process isn't a re-hashing of the trial. An appellate court simply checks to see that the law was applied properly. If they believe in any one area that the law was misapplied, they...

In most Northern and Western Counties, yes. But, East Texas and South Texas are well known for being more liberal. There is a county in South Texas that has basically stopped prosecuting DWIs.

In Texas, defendant can elect for jury sentencing before trial. That's likely what EA's attorneys did. If defendant doesn't choose jury sentencing, judge sentences.

See, here...this is what cooks EA and makes all other theories pointless, in my opinion. Even if one of the other theories is true, this is his story and he stuck to it. D.N.A.? Yeah it helps, even though it was less than we were led to believe. Size of the trunk? Yeah, it's small on a...

Exactly! I know this, just from speaking to other attorneys I know who do sow their seeds in the defense field, EA could have done a lot worse than Gore and Miears.

In Texas, probably the best known of this type of defense attorney was Dick DeGuerin. Once he was established as a guy who would take on tough, unwinnable cases - and, occasionally win some of them - he became the most sought after defense attorney in Texas for high dollar...

Thought it was established that EA's attorneys agreed to take the case without charging them. Can't remember where I read it. Anyway, for them, it's gold, win or lose because it raises their profile in the criminal defense community/law school speaking circuit. Some of those guy guys make...

I think the judge probably believes EA's own statements to police combined with the DNA evidence should be enough to convict. So, maybe in the judge's mind, if the jury sees how small the trunk is: -it could be more likely to sway a weak juror that she couldn't have fit in; or, -given what is...

Particularly with everyone saying how small she was. But, to play along with the "he hit her, then got scared" theory: speed/force of the car versus speed/force EA could derive while throwing a punch or forearm blow? (I'm not a physicist, so I'll have to defer there...anyone here good with...

Guess they'll never search Tarrant County around where she and her drug dealer/bf were living at the time she disappeared, will they?

We know that she was far gone enough that her boyfriend testified that he was worried about her driving. So.... Again, anything could have happened, except that EA testified that she was never in the car. It would be different if he'd said, "We left and smoked a joint, or did a line of coke...

Thanks. But, again, problem for the defense is: EA says she was never in his car at all. So, that's going to have to be overcome if he is to avoid conviction. As sloppy and confusing as some of the DNA testimony has been, you still have on record EA's own testimony to the police about that...