Said & Done

/

Katcalls

Bonehead gaffe for the ages: In the October issue of the Voice, a column written by Stanley Schneider was mistaken for the monthly submission by editor Greg Westfall—and run as Greg’s column. The online version has been corrected to accurately reflect Stan’s authorship. But for this inexcusable blunder, we are profoundly sorry and hope that Stan can forgive us.

Kudos

On October 26 in the 28th District Court of Nueces County, Randy Mack heard the two-word verdict. His client was acquitted of aggravated assault and aggravated robbery. Way to go, Randy.

Stan Schneider scored another win on a Padilla case. Stan’s client, a citizen of Mexico legally residing in Texas, was sentenced to 12 years in a plea bargain agreement for a second-degree felony possession case. Stan persuaded the court that trial counsel had been ineffective for failing to inform his client of the probability of deportation as a result of the plea. The court determined that the failure to disclose rendered the plea involuntary. Stan’s client stated that trial counsel told him repeatedly not to worry because he would get probation and that because he would get probation, he would not be deported. Good work, Stan.

Pat Metze sends along word that a former student of his, Gail Schroeter, a solo in Del Rio, had her very first jury trial—a misdemeanor criminal mischief. Took the jurors 2½ hours to come back with a “not guilty.” All right, Gail! That’s starting off on the right foot.

Lubbock lawyer Kris Espino heard the two-word verdict after the trial of a hotly contested burglary of a vehicle case. The State’s key witness knew the accused and claimed to have caught Espino’s client in the course of the burglary. To his credit, the witness later disclosed that the other State’s witnesses were so stoned that he was surprised that they had been able to remember anything of the offense. The other witnesses denied smoking marijuana and the key witness was impeached by the others, who had, by now, been given immunity from prosecution for possession of marijuana and tampering with evidence. The defense presented alibi witnesses who said that the accused had been at a revival during the time of the offense. Espino was able to persuade the court that another burglary of a vehicle allegedly committed by his client shortly before this one and in close proximity to where this offense was committed was inadmissible as an extraneous offense.

TCDLA
TCDLA
Previous Story

October 2011 Complete Issue – PDF Download

Next Story

Federal Corner: FRE 403 Trumps FRE 414. The Defendant Wins. – By F. R. Buck Files Jr.

Latest from Columns