Several teenagers from a Houston community became interested in satanic rituals. This was unexpected because this group was raised in a middle-class, law-abiding environment. However, one night the group was together and the subject of what it would look like to watch someone die came up. There was a young male who was not well-liked, and his name was mentioned as a possible victim of a satanic-like sacrificial killing. The teens made plans to lure him to a cemetery at night and then strangle him to death.
Sadly, the plan was executed. Two of the group were young girls who watched but did not participate in the planning or the actual ritual killing. However, they made no effort to stop it.
An investigation began once the body was discovered. When interest in Sharon became known, her parents realized she needed representation as the police were calling it a murder. Heavy stuff. We agreed to represent her. Not long after, the father informed us he had found a suitcase that may have contained items from the scene of the crime. We told him not to destroy it or its contents, and to bring it to our office for safekeeping until we determined if it might contain evidence, and if so, what to do with it.
So, the suitcase was delivered to our office and placed under lock and key. It was not going anywhere until we knew who owned it and what it contained. Meanwhile, our 16-year-old client was taken into custody and placed in a juvenile detention facility.
We began to investigate and interview witnesses. We knew the other girl in the group at the scene was Brittany1. We asked her for an interview. Our investigator, Gene Boyd, and I conducted a thorough interview of Brittany and determined neither she nor our client had participated in the deadly satanic ritual, but knew of it and were present at the time of the attack.
Meanwhile, the D.A.’s investigator had taken a statement from Brittany. Brittany agreed with them to wear a hidden recorder when she talked to us. We did not trust her, and we did not know she had a recorder when she came to our office. We brought out the suitcase, and she said it belonged to her. She identified a pair of tennis shoes as hers – and that Sharon was wearing them on the night in question.
I said, “Really, I didn’t even know they were in there” because we had not yet inventoried the suitcase and I was surprised they were even there. Meanwhile the D.A.’s investigator was parked down the street, recording the conversation.
We realized stains on the shoes could possibly be blood. We excused her for a short break, and I called my partner Jim Lavine to discuss the situation. We determined we did not know if the shoes really belonged to Brittany, if Sharon had really had them on that night, or if they were evidence. So, we decided we could not keep the shoes in our office, and Brittany owned them but could not keep them. We told her (and the attentive investigator parked down the street) that they may be evidence, and because they belonged to her, she needed to call the D.A.’s investigator and take them to him right away. We then prepared a receipt for the shoes and suitcase which she signed, and we sent her on her way.
The case against Sharon and the boys resulted in murder charges being filed and a motion to transfer Sharon to district court from juvenile court. In addition, the D.A.’s office decided to subpoena me as a witness to prove up the chain of custody of the shoes, possibly putting her at the scene.
However, we did not like the feeling we got by being placed in the chain of custody, especially if those spots turned out to be blood from the killing of the young man, linking the shoes to our client. We knew we were not going to testify willingly against our client.
We remembered hearing about the Texas Criminal Defense Lawyers Association Strike Force, which had been created not too long before this case occurred, to represent members who needed counsel in a legal dilemma like this. By good luck, the Strike Force Chair at the time was a long-time good friend of mine from San Antonio, Gerry Goldstein. When we called him, he could not believe the D.A. wanted to call me as a witness against my own client in a murder case – especially in one transferred from juvenile court.
Gerry filed a motion to quash with a brilliantly written memo in support. Fortunately, the law was clear in cases like this and we followed it: seeing to it that the evidence was delivered to authorities (immediately after leaving our office building, as it turned out) not altered in any way, and was available for use by the State if necessary.
But the State thought it was going to have to call the defendant’s attorney to prove how the evidence was delivered un-tampered to law enforcement. A hearing was scheduled before the criminal district court judge who had been assigned the case after transfer.
The prosecutor almost came to blows with Mr. Goldstein, but we prevailed. The subpoena was quashed and the TCDLA Strike Force added luster to its already shining reputation.
Ethical Issues
- Can a criminal defense lawyer be subpoenaed and forced to testify against a client at trial? No.
- Can a criminal defense lawyer keep potential evidence from the prosecution in a criminal case in Texas? No.
- How does the defense lawyer explain this procedure to the client? See the discussion below.
- What is the defense lawyer’s obligation to the court in such a situation. See the discussion below.
- Was it prudent for defense counsel to enlist the assistance of the TCDLA Strike Force? Yes.
Discussion
- In 1987, the law was not settled in Texas. A resolution was adopted unanimously by the Board of Directors of the Texas Criminal Defense Lawyer Association, that the Texas Supreme Court and the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals adopt a rule of ethics that it is unprofessional conduct for a prosecutor to subpoena an attorney at a grand jury without prior judicial approval where the prosecutor seeks to compel the attorney/witness. The then-president of the TCDLA cited authority from the states of Tennessee and Massachusetts, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. The trial court granted a motion to quash and a motion in limine. Note that the evidence was brought to us by a third-party agent of the client (father), not just a third party. This preserved the attorney-client privilege. See Rules 1.05, confidentiality of information, 1.06, conflict of interest, 1.14, safekeeping property, Texas Disciplinary Rules of Conduct, as of Sept 2021.
- A lawyer cannot keep, destroy, or prevent the discovery of incriminating physical evidence in a criminal case, or counsel the client to destroy or prevent discovery of such evidence. See Rule 8.04, Texas Disciplinary Rules of Conduct.
- The lawyer in this situation should advise that the lawyer cannot destroy or keep evidence, but that the lawyer cannot be subpoenaed to testify against the client about such evidence. See Rules 1.05 and 8.04, Texas Disciplinary Rules of Conduct.
- The lawyer’s obligation to the Court under these circumstances is to file a motion to quash the subpoena and a motion in limine to prevent the prosecutor from bringing such information to the attention of a jury. See Rule 1.05, Texas Disciplinary Rules of Conduct.
- Under the state law at that time, it was absolutely the proper thing to bring the matter to the attention of the Texas Criminal Defense Lawyers Association, especially the TCDLA Strike Force. The Strike Force chair at the time personally appeared at a hearing for us and we prevailed on a motion to quash and a motion in limine. Strategic conclusion of an author.
Post-Script
Of the five teenagers tried and convicted as adults, two males received life sentences, one male pleaded guilty and received a 60-year sentence, and the fourth male traded his testimony for a 20-year sentence. Sharon, the only female tried, went to the jury after being convicted on a parties theory. The prosecutor forcefully demanded of the jury a sentence of 60 years for Sharon and finding that she personally used or exhibited a deadly weapon, which would affect the timing of her parole.
We asked for a 10-year sentence, probated, and a finding that she did not use or exhibit a deadly weapon. The jury almost hung, but finally assessed a 15-year sentence and found that she did not use or exhibit a deadly weapon. The court released her immediately on an appeal bond. Ultimately, her appeal was unsuccessful, and she was paroled after serving five years. She went on to become a wife and mother. When compared to what could have happened, this outcome was definitely a defense victory.
Footnotes
