DRUG DWIs: YES YOU CAN GET A DWI IF YOU ARE HIGH ON DRUGS

Appearing on TV following a big WIN

DWI: DRUGS

Driving While Intoxicated is one of the most prosecuted crimes in the State of Texas.  Most people think that you can only be charged with DWI if you have been drinking alcohol.  Well, those people are wrong.  You can actually be charged with DWI if you are intoxicated on literally any substance, including, marijuana, ecstasy, mushrooms, mescaline, Adderall, cocaine, LSD, meth, amphetamines, caffeine, tree bark (yes, tree bark a.k.a. DMT), Molly, MDMA, ephedrine, mescaline, Ritalin, acid, and many, many more.

But wait, how can I be arrested for DWI if I don’t have a blood alcohol content (BAC) of .08 or higher?  A person can be convicted of DWI if he has a BAC of over .08, he has experienced the normal loss or his mental faculties, or he has experienced the normal loss of his physical facilities. 

At the moment, most officers do not have the knowledge, experience, and skill to determine whether someone is intoxicated on a drug, which is why if the police determine something has you intoxicated and they have ruled out alcohol, but they cannot determine exactly what messed you up, you will be arrested and taken to jail to meet with a drug recognition “expert,” or “DREs,” and have your blood drawn.  The good news is that these drug recognition “experts” are not really experts.  They went to a two week class, and believe they are qualified to be doctors.  At best, drug recognition “experts” are drug recognition “evaluators,” “eye witnesses,” “estimators,” and paper pushers.  These people are not doctors, and if I have anything to do with it, the judge will not allow the DREs to be called experts at your trial.

Think about this.  What happens when people smoke marijuana?  They are cautious.  Many actually become safer drivers.  What happens people take Adderall, or other “study drugs?”  The get focus of a puma and reaction speeds of a cheetah.  Science has even showed that the use of amphetamines improves driving abilities.

At the end of the day, DWI’s are serious business that can seriously affect your life.  You need a Texas Drug DWI Trial Lawyer that focuses his practice on drug crimes and drug DWIs. Trust me, the cost of hiring the wrong DWI drug lawyer will way outweigh the cost of hiring the right DWI drug lawyer. 

Stay tuned for more to follow.

Why Judges Tilt To The Right - A Follow Up

Judges tilt to the Right.  You heard it hear first.  Well, no, you didn't, because the New York Times published an article on Super Bowl Sunday that investigated a Harvard study  that determined that judges lean to the right.  The article attempted to go one step further, and figure out why judges lean to the right.  The article failed to reach that conclusion, other than stating the higher up the judicial ladder a judge gets, the more right leaning he or she tends to be because the judge has less discretion. 

The study determined that lawyers are more liberal, more left leaning than the rest of society, and that judges are more conservative than lawyers.  This raises the question: should judges proportionally represent the ideology of lawyers, or some other group?  Back to the statistics:  the study evaluated the liberalness of different people and types of lawyers.  It found, to my great surprise, that prosecutors, Big Law Lawyers, and law firm partners are more conservative than liberal, and even more liberal than judges.   They are all the left of Jeb Bush, who is my bet to be the next President, regrettably.   Also unsurprisingly, Government Lawyers and Public Defenders are more liberal than just about most in politics and the legal profession.  I would like to no that also unsurpisingly, but someone confusingly, and certainly agonizingly, lawyers that graduated from schools outside the Top 100 are the most conservative group of lawyers.  That is a real damn shame, considering they (we) make up the vast number of lawyers that have the greatest connection to everyday people, because we are every day people.  Damn Fox News.

Professor Eric Posner is quoted in this article as saying that Republicans should be congratulated for being able to bring much-needed ideological balance to the judiciary.  This guy is highly regarded as one of the top legal minds, like his father, who is also quoted.  Now, I know I am in Texas.  I know I am Harris County.  I know I am in Houston.  Trust me, the Republicans don't need any congratulations. They have done a mighty fine job at controlling the ideology and course of the judicial system, and the judiciary is way too conservative from sea to shining sea!

Reagan started the War on Drugs in the 80's.   Since then, prison populations have boomed.  USA incarcerated more people than any other country in the world.  We have only 5% of the world's population, but 25% of the world's prisoners!  This is a direct result of the conservative War on Drugs, and it comes at your expense. Another "recent" conservative phenomenon is tort reform, which is the result of Carl Rove and his cronies.  All tort reform has done is harmed the average man, the blue collared hard worker.  Both policies were accepted by the judiciary, and what both do is keep the rich rich and the poor poor.   This begs the question: Is being tough on crime even a conservative value?  Is not allowing the a person to sue a corporation a conservative value?  Makes you think twice, doesn't it?

Is a republican judiciary really good for you?  Is a republican judiciary good for society? Think of what has been good for members of our community and communities across the country and they are undeniably liberal and undeniably successful:  Drug Court, Veterans Court, Mental Health Court and Prostitution Court.  These are proven, effective, and liberal.  Most importantly, it is up to the judiciary, by and large, to create and support these courts. 

I intended to write more about the article, namely how lawyers contribute more to political campaigns than laymen, and how future judges contribute more than lawyers who do not become judges.  Judges are supposed to be neutral, but it is hard to do that when you are accountable to voters every few years, and the only people voting are grassroots hardliners. 

Finally, to tie this in to trial lawyering:  If judges are are still, on the whole, more liberal than society, should we go to judges more often for punishment?  I think not.  It has to remain a case by case judge by judge decision.  That being said,  wouldn't that make for a grerat capstone project for a graduate student at Rice University or University of Houston, to do a statistical analysis to determine whether judges or juries give better sentences. 

Setting a Case For Trial In Harris County Criminal Courts

They will do just about anything to keep a lawyer from setting his case for trial, and I love it.  I have a brave client.  He was charged with possession of marijauna and the State gave him a nice offer, a.k.a. a conviction, of time served.  That means he would plea and his case would be over with, except for a six month license suspension.  My client was having none of it.  If they want to prove that he is guilty, go ahead and make them prove it, he says.  The ADA, takes the case to her boss makes her enhance the case.  Why was this done?  Most likely to dissuade my client from making the ADA work and try a "stupid marijuana case."  Guess what?  We agree, it is stupid.  So then we have to approach the judge to get a trial setting.  This judge doesn't believe that me, in my youth, has informed my client of the risks of trial.  She expresses concern that I have a trial fee and that my bar card is at risk.  I mean, really, what business does she have being concerned with my financial circumstances and the structure of my contract?  She was very nice, but also "paternalistic."  I suppose part of a judges duty is to encourage compromise; to encourage cases to settle.  However, I feel like that has a place more so in the civil courthouse than the criminal courthouse.  I said at least three times that my client just wants his story heard by six members of the community.  This is the second case I tried to set for trial in two weeks, and each time the judge urges me to urge my client to plea.  I am glad the judge told me she never was a defense lawyer, but that just begs the question: how can any judge be neutral who hasn't worked both sides of the docket?  She didn't seem to grasp that my client made up my mind to exercise his right to trial, and that he does not care that it will take time out of the court's more important time, or as the property folks say, highest and best use.  If a DA wants a convictions, make them work for it.