Dallas Criminal Lawyers - Broden & Mickelsen

CHANCES OF SUCCESS IN A FEDERAL APPEAL

In an interesting 2006 report issued by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, it was estimated that the Court granted oral argument in 10.5% or criminal cases. The Report also indicates that the reversal rate in the Fifth Circuit is approximately 8.3% in criminal cases.

In contrast, Clint Broden has obtained oral argument in approximately 50% of the more than sixty federal appeals he has filed. In contrast, Clint Broden has obtained relief for his clients in approximately 25% of the appeals he has filed.

For a copy of the report click here Fifth Circuit Report

Download fifth_circuit.PDF

Some Bizarre Death Penalty Laws

    Recently I had a Federal judge reject my attempts to keep a client on death row from being executed.  I was appointed to represent the defendant after he had lost his trial; lost his appeal in state court; and lost his attempt to convince the trial judge to find his case constitutionally flawed pursuant to a "writ of habeas corpus."  I was appointed, as Federal law provides, to represent him in relation to his final "appeals" to Federal court. 
    After I was appointed to represent him I asked the judge to let me have investigators and the funds to thoroughly review his case.  Eventually the court agreed to let me do this.  The evidence of guilt was overwhelming but the investigation revealed that the trial attorneys had failed to put on hardly any evidence in the phase of the trial in which the jury is supposed to hear all the evidence relevant to the question of whether he should live or die.  The Supreme Court has made it increasingly clear over the years that it is unconstitutional in this day and age to execute someone unless the jury is provided a complete overview of the defendant's life.  The good, the bad and the ugly.  Yet this clearly did not happen in this case.  Easy answer right?  Just retry the defendant on the question of whether he should be executed.  Wrong!
    The problem is I did not find out all of this information until it is too late.  The law provides that if an allegation is made that the trial lawyers failed to do something it has to be raised in the first state writ of habeas corpus.  If it wasn't raised then it may never be considered again.  Why wasn't the evidence presented in the first state writ of habeas corpus?  The defendant had a lawyer didn't he?  Yes, but one that worse than having no lawyer at all.  The trial court appointed a lawyer who had just graduated from law school and had no experience in death penalty litigation.  It appears she simply had no idea what she was supposed to do because she raised no meaningful issues in the state writ of habeas corpus.  Well, in that case the courts should just allow the defendant another chance to file a state writ of habeas corpus right?  Wrong again.  The courts are afraid that if the failures or inadequacies of state habeas counsel could result in "do overs" the death penalties appeals really would never come to an end.  So if state habeas counsel drops the ball, to bad, so sad," for the defendant.
    Consider the upshot of all this for a moment.  The defendant is guilty.  As a practical matter the only question is whether he should spend the rest of his life in prison or be executed.  The Supreme Court says no automatic death penalty.  The jury must here all relevant evidence about the defendant before it can make such a momentous decision.  The court appoints the defendant a lawyer who fails to put even a fraction of all the relevant evidence before the jury.  The first appeals lawyer can't do anything about it, even if he knew about it, because the law says in the first appeal the lawyer can only talk about things that were before the court at trial and the whole point is the trial lawyer did not place any of this information before the court.  The court then appoints an inexperienced lawyer who has no idea what she is supposed to do to prepare and file a state habeas petition.  She does no investigation and thus makes no mention of the failure of the first attorneys to present any of this evidence.  Then the courts appoint the defendant a new attorney and tell that attorney that he is limited to carrying forward the frivolous claims of the first habeas attorney.  When he informs the court of all the important evidence the jury never heard, the court then responds, "the defendant failed to raise these issues in the first habeas corpus and thus cannot raise them now."  Really?  The nearly retarded defendant with a fourth grade education on death row?  He didn't do anything but sit in his cell.  The courts initially failed to appoint competent attorneys for the defendant.  The attorneys that the court assigned to the defendant failed him and the public, who would like to believe that before people are executed, the jury that imposed the death sentence was making an informed decision.  In reality, the courts are far more responsible for the failure of this evidence to presented to the jury than the defendant himself.   In fairness to the judges the law provides for this "Catch 22," but sometimes the law promotes more injustice than justice.

How Can Criminal Defense Lawyers Stand Representing Child Molesters and Murderers, Etc.?

    Clint's recent acquittal in child sexual assault case brings to mind the age old question of how do criminal defense lawyers stand representing child molesters, etc.  I'm often asked, and I know that many people want to ask but think it impolite to do so, how can I stand to represent people who have committed horrible crimes?  A related question is, "How do you represent someone who you know is guilty?"
    My stock reply to the first question is, "All of my clients are innocent."  Of course, I and everyone who asks this question knows this is not true but I ask it in order to challenge the assumption that all of my clients are guilty.  My stock reply to the second question is, "Why didn't you ask how I felt when a client I knew was innocent was found guilty?"  Again, I attempt to challenge the assumption implicit in the question.
    In fact, criminal defense lawyers often have a difficult time relating to the concern expressed in these questions.  Once one accepts the fact that criminal defense lawyers generally represent anyone who is charged with a crime, some of whom will be innocent, the concern seems misplaced.  I think everyone would agree that some innocent people get arrested, and I think everyone would agree that a lawyer can't immediately discern the guilty from the innocent merely by having an initial meeting with the prospective client.  If lawyer then only represented clients who continued to maintain their innocence then many unnecessary trials would result.  There would be few clients who accepted responsibility and pleaded guilty if admitting their guilt caused their lawyer to "jump ship."  As a practical matter, then, lawyers tend to represent whoever walks through their door and can pay their fee.  Most clients are in fact guilty and will eventually admit their guilt.  (If it were not true most clients charged with crimes were in fact guilty we would be living in some police state gone mad such as in Stalinistic Russia where one was most likely to be arrested on the basis of a perceived political leaning.)  Clients who go to trial are generally maintaining their innocence and have an arguable case as to why they are not guilty.  The clients who admits guilt usually seeks leniency in sentencing a goal most criminal defense lawyers are happy to pursue.  The criminal defense lawyer simply not confronted with an ethical dilemma in these situations.
    This is not to say that a defense lawyer is never presented with ethical dilemmas.  A defense lawyer might represent a man charged with murder, for example, who admits his role in the crime yet nevertheless demands a trial because the consequences of a guilty plea are so severe.   The rules that govern these uncomfortable situations are for the most part clear.  The lawyer has no duty to get off the case, (in fact, few judges would let them), but may not knowingly put on perjured testimony.  In other words, if a client says, "Yea, I killed him, but I'm going to lie to the jury and say I didn't,"  the lawyer should not just close his eyes and play along.  The lawyer should try to persuade the client not to attempt to "pull the wool" over everyone's eye's, (it really is difficult to fool twelve people), and allow the defense lawyer to try to persuade the jury that the State's evidence is insufficient.  A client, has a right to testify in his own defense, and if he insists on doing this while proclaiming the fact that he is committing perjury to his defense lawyer, the rules of ethics will guide the lawyer about his available options at this point.  Those options vary from State.  Thankfully this is a very rare circumstance.

    The shortest answer to the concern is that defense lawyers know that in order to protect the innocent every accused person deserves effective representation.  They also understand every guilty person deserves a fair sentence, just as the victim of their crime deserves justice.  The true nightmare of a criminal defense lawyer is representing someone who the lawyer feels is innocent yet being unable to prevent his client from being a victim of the criminal justice system.  Lucky for Clint, and thanks to his hard work and diligence, this is one nightmare, at least this time, he did not have to confront.

WINNING A SEXUAL ASSAULT OF A CHILD CASE

My client was facing a sentence up to life imprisonment for the alleged sexual assault of his granddaughter. Back in 2003, while the granddaughter and her brother and father were living with my client and his wife in Texas, the girl (six years old at the time) had alleged that my client touched her on the seam of her shorts. At the time, my client denied that it had happened and stated that, if it did happen, it happened accidentally as she climbed in his lap. Nothing more was made of it.

Fast forward to 2005 when the girl’s mother took the children to North Carolina and attempted to get custody of the children. Somehow the mother and her parents found out about the claim in 2003 and took the girl to “therapy.” The girl had three therapy sessions before the custody hearing and, at the custody hearing, the therapist testified that the girl was now saying that my client touched her several time and digitally penetrated her. The mother argued at the custody hearing that, because the father did nothing when the girl made the claim in 2003, it showed he was a bad parent.

Shortly after the North Carolina custody hearing, criminal charges were filed against my client in Texas charging him with aggravated sexual assault of a child. The little girl, her mother, her father, her maternal grandmother and the North Carolina therapist testified against my client at the criminal trial that was held this week. My client testified in his own defense. We were also permitted to call an expert witness to explain the difference between therapeutic interviews (such as the ones done in North Carolina) and forensic interviews that are videotaped and are designed to assess the validity of sexual abuse charges. The expert also testified regarding the ease with which a child can be coached to make false allegations and how memory works. Our theory was that the child was not intentionally lying but that she had had false memories implanted.

After a two and one-half day jury trial, the jury deliberated two hours before returning a verdict of “not guilty.” I learned at least three things from the trial.

First, there is no substitute for preparation. Prior to trial, I travelled to North Carolina and spent a significant amount of time in that state gathering records and talking to witnesses. I was able to gather social service records and records and transcripts from the custody proceedings. All of this proved extremely important in being able to cross examine the state’s witnesses in the criminal trial and being able to show the jury the connection between the allegations and the custody hearing.

Second, it is very important to use an expert witness. Juries want to believe cute little children and will have a hard time believing children might lie. Nevertheless, an expert, backed by an extensive amount of research, can explain the concept of implanted memories to jurors. I was worried that the jury in my case would find such expert testimony boring. Nevertheless, when I spoke to the jury afterward, many of the jurors told me that they found my expert to be very helpful and credible. No juror told me that they found the expert boring. In case you are wondering, I used Dr. Michael Gottlieb from Dallas as my expert witness. Dr. Gottlieb's website.

The third thing I learned (although I should probably say was “reinforced” since I already knew this) was the importance of making an appellate record. In the middle of the testimony of the child, I learned that an investigator from the District Attorney’s office was prohibiting people from entering the courtroom in order to “protect the child.” I asked for a full hearing and the investigator admitted that she had been trained to do this by the Dallas County District Attorney’s Office. The judge ordered the courtroom open but denied my motion for a mistrial based upon the denial of a right to a public trial for the portion of the trial in which the investigator had taken it upon herself to seal the courtroom. My research later revealed that, had we had to appeal this case, a reversal was highly likely because the denial of a public trial is a “structural” error and my client would not have had to shown he was harmed in any way. Of course, with the not guilty verdict, my theory never had to be tested!

Is the Death Penalty a Deterrent?

    The most common justification I hear for the death penalty is that it deters crime.  When I consider the hundreds of death penalty cases with which I am familiar, and the dozen or so which I have worked on personally, I am always puzzled by this position.  I ask myself, "Have the people that advocate this proposition taken a close look at death penalty defendants?"
    Most death penalty defendants are guilty, and in my opinion, most defendants committed their crime as a result of three common factors.  First, they are anti-social.  In other words, they have an inability to relate normally to fellow human beings.  They hold themselves in low regard and hold their fellow man in equally low regard.  Second, they have low intelligence.  Intelligent anti-social people engage in fraud or selfish business practices.  Anti-social people of low intelligence rob a convenient store clerk for a $100 and then kill him unnecessarily because they give no value to his life.  Third, the vast majority of death penalty defendants themselves have been the victims of horrendus human behavior in the form of parental abuse or something similar.  This may have something to do with why the defendant is anti-social, and generally reinforces the idea in this low intellectually functioning individual that it is better to be the victimizer rather than the victim.
    Given these commonalities, it is unlikely that any such individual will be deterred by the death penalty.  First, they are simply to ignorant to be aware of such penalties.  Second, until immediately confronted with their own death so that their instinctual will to live is invoked, they hold their own lives in low regard and think that the death penalty will be preferable to a lengthy prison sentence.  Third, they usually commit their crimes in an angry state of passion, (often partially drug induced), and do not engage in any rational process when it would be necessary for them to do so in order for them to be deterred.
    While it appears logical that the death penalty is not a good deterrent empirical evidence does not support the argument that the death penalty deters murder.  In the United States there is no reduction in the murder rate of States which impose the death penalty in comparison to those States which do not.  Some countries which impose the death penalty have low murder rates, but many countries which do not have even lower murder rates.  Some argue that if the United States imposed the death penalty freely and often, for example, for every murder, then one would see a deterrent effect, but this is like arguing if "fishes were wishes."  The US Constitution, as interpreted, prevents the automatic imposition of the death penalty, and given the startling number of DNA exonerations, there is no real public support for thousands of executions annually.
    Although deterrence is a weak argument in support of the death penalty, rational people can argue that the death penalty serves as a mechanism for the venting of the societal spleen.  In other words, one can make a case that some crimes or so horrible that if the death penalty is not imposed societal frustration may build to such an extent that whatever evils may be associated with the death penalty are outweighed by the benefit of this venting.  Although I disagree with this analysis, and believe that the imposition of the death penalty cheapens a society's appreciation of the sacredness of life, I suggest this cost/benefit argument so that the overall issue may be discussed more intelligently.

Winning a Federal Drug Case

    Statistically about 95% of federal criminal trials result in a conviction.  For federal drug cases the statistics are even worse.  Today Clint and I won another federal drug trial, and as always, given the odds, the victory is gratifying.  Clint was first chair in this trial and deserves most of the credit.
    In this case our client came to the attention of the police while waiting to meet a friend at a ramshackle apartment complex in Odessa, Texas.  Unbeknownst to our client a confidential informant had told the police that his friend was going to deliver drugs to someone at the apartment complex.   After our client's friend went to the apartment under surveillance he joined our client in his truck and the two drove away. 
    The police conducted a pretext stop in order to search the car.  The police told our client that he was being stopped because his passenger was not wearing a seatbelt.  They got our client out of the car, aggressively frisked him, and put him in the back of the squad car.  The police saw a package containing a distributable amount of cocaine on the floor board in front of the passenger and put him in handcuffs.  They then got our client out of the squad car in order to handcuff him too.  He resisted arrest and was subjected to thorough pepper spraying.  After the passenger was taken to the police station he claimed that our client had no knowledge of the drugs.  He gave the consent to search his vehicle that was still parked at the apartment complex and in total the police recovered half a kilo of cocaine.  The police also recovered $9,000 in cash from our client's car.  The police charged our client with the drugs also, due in large part, no doubt, to the fact that he resisted arrest, had three prior drug convictions, and the large amount of cash he was carrying.
    Our client maintained his innocence.   At first glance the government's case appeared weak.  However, we knew the passenger would have a great incentive to change his story, implicate our client, and thereby reduce his own sentence.   We are also dismayed, after having researched the issue, to learn that the government would be able to inform the jury of our client's extensive record even if he chose not to testify.
    The trial began on Tuesday, and the government spent the entire day proving in great detail that our client resisted arrest.   The second day began with a scare because the government produced a surprise witness who claimed to have dealt drugs with our client.  He was obviously testifying with the hope of reducing his sentence and admitted to having previously perjured himself on the stand.  Due to the surprise we asked for a continuance to investigate the matter which the judge seemed inclined to grant.  Given the difficulties of restarting the trial a couple of weeks later, the government decided not to call the surprise witness after all.
    Much to our relief, on Wednesday, the passenger stuck to his guns and insisted that our client did not know that he possessed drugs.  We also called our client's father and brother who testified that they had loaned our client the cash the day to buy another horse for the family horse racing business.  After hearing all the evidence, the jury got the case and began deliberations on Thursday.  After deliberating for about 2 1/2 hours they returned a verdict of Not Guilty much to the joy of our client's family, whose faces were covered with grateful tears.   As a bonus they promised to send us a couple of Boston Red Sox caps, Clint's and my favorite baseball team.

Litigating for Life

    It has been almost six years since a colleague in San Antonio called me to ask if I would handle a death penalty matter.   The client, Steve Rodriguez, had killed a woman (Agnes Herden) in the course of a burglary in 1990.   He pleaded guilty so the only issue for the jury to decide was whether to impose a death sentence or imprison him for life.  The jury chose death.  His sentence was automatically appealed and he lost the appeal.  After the appeal a petition for a writ of habeas corpus alleging that his lawyers did not represent him properly was also filed.   That too was denied.   A similar petition had been filed in Federal court.   While it was pending the Supreme Court held that it was unconstitutional to execute a mentally retarded offender.   Because Rodriguez had a history of I.Q. scores below 70,  a petition needed to be filed back in State court at which a determination could be made with respect to the issue of mental retardation.   My colleague asked me to get involved at this point.  It was unclear whether I would receive any compensation and I had less than thirty days to draft the petition addressing the mental retardation claim.  I agreed to do it.
    About a year later the issue finally came up for hearing.   Both the state and the defense agreed it was a close question.  Given the horrible crime, it was no surprise to me that the courts decided against me.  After this stage of the process was over, it was time to return to Federal court and pick up where we left off before the digression back to the state courts.  I noticed that my colleagues had not raised an issue concerning the jury instructions at use during the first trial.  Although it was too late to raise the issue at this point, I decided to raise it in any event.   Much to my surprise the Federal judge hearing the case decided to override the procedural problem and ruled that due to this instructional error Mr. Rodriguez should get a new sentencing trial.
    I was sure the State would appeal this decision and win.  Once again I was surprised when the State agreed to give up its appeal of the Federal judge's decision if I gave up my appeal on the mental retardation issue.  I agreed and our case was sent back to San Antonio for trial.  Michael Gross, a well respected lawyer in San Antonio, with substantial death penalty litigation experience, was appointed to be my co-counsel.
    On January 11th we began the lengthy process of selecting a jury for a death penalty trial.   Once again I was surprised.  The prosecutor was interested in agreeing to life sentence.   She did not want my client to simply get a life sentence under the old law applicable to his case because this would result in his immediately being eligible for parole.    Although as a practical matter no one who was once on death row is ever going to get paroled, this allowed for some room for negotiation.  Ultimately a plea bargain was reached whereby the original crime was broken out into several crimes.  This would normally violate the Double Jeopardy clause, but we agreed to waive this double Jeopardy violation in the plea agreement.   On Monday January 14th the case was resolved.  Steve Rodriguez avoided execution and will remain in prison for the rest of his life.  In the world of death penalty litigation, we consider that a win.  Nevertheless the tragedy of Agnes Herden's murder left wounds that will not heal even over a lifetime of imprisonment.

SHOULD I ACCEPT A PLEA BARGAIN

In almost every criminal case a defendant will be offered a “plea bargain” and, indeed, most criminal cases ultimately do not go to trial. Whether to accept a plea bargain offer depends upon a variety of factors and is almost always dependent upon the facts of the individual case. Nevertheless, generally the two most important considerations in determining whether to accept a plea bargain offer is making sure you understand ALL the consequences of any plea bargain and making sure you have confidence that your lawyer is acting ONLY with your best interest in mind.

Here are some questions to which we suggest you know the answer before pleading guilty to any charge:

(1) What is the evidence against you? Make sure your lawyer has told you the strength and weaknesses of the prosecution’s case against you so you can adequately assess the pros and cons of not accepting a plea bargain and going to trial?

(2) What will you be admitting to if you accept the plea bargain and plead guilty?

(3) What will you get out of the plea bargain that you could not get if you went to trial? For example, if you are being prosecuted in state court in Texas and have the right to be sentenced by a jury, are you a person to whom the jury would likely give probation even if it finds you guilty? If so, why accept a plea bargain to probation and give up your chance to fight whether or not you are truly guilty given that, even if the jury finds you guilty, the will likely give you probation in any event?

(4) Are you guaranteed a specific sentence? Usually in state court, the plea agreement will provide for a specific sentence. If the plea bargain provides for a prison sentence, do you understand how much of the sentence you will actually serve before you are eligible for parole?

(5) In plea agreements in federal court, the plea agreement will usually not provide for a specific sentence and will simply provide for a sentence under the sentencing guidelines. If that is the case, do you want to sign a plea agreement that waives your right to appeal? What if the sentencing judge applies the guidelines incorrectly? If you have waived your right to appeal, you are simply out of luck? Ask yourself, what are you really getting for waiving your right to appeal? Remember you do not need a plea agreement to get “acceptance or responsibility” under the sentencing guidelines.

(6) Similarly, if you are in federal court and going to be sentenced under the sentencing guidelines, how much experience does your lawyer have in representing a client in federal court so that you can rely upon his prediction of how your guidelines will be calculated? If you lawyer miscalculates your sentencing guidelines, you will usually not be allowed to withdraw your plea.

(7) What effects will pleading guilty have on your life? If it is a “sex crime,” will you have to register as a sex offender for the rest of you life? If your are not a citizen of the United States, will you be deported? If you are required to have a special license to practice your profession, will that license be jeopardized?

(8) If you are pleading to a “probationary sentence,” do you fully understand the conditions of the probation and what can happen to you if you do not comply with those conditions? For example, many times a person will plead guilty to sexually assaulting a child in state court in Texas simply because they are offered probation, but then, as a condition of probation, they must participate in counseling sessions in which they must continually admit to the assault. If they refuse to admit to the assault in counseling, the person’s probation can be violated and they can be put in prison for up to life without a trial.

(9) Will the plea offer get better or worse as time goes on? In our experience at least in Dallas County, Texas, plea offers normally get significantly better as a case gets closer to trial and a person should be very wary about accepting the first plea offer made to them.

Above all remember that this is YOUR life. You should be given enough time to really consider a plea offer and should not be forced to make a split second decision while sitting in court. Also, there is nothing wrong with consulting with another lawyer to get a “second opinion” on any plea offer. Many people seek “second opinions” with regard to health issues and it is always surprising that more people don’t seek “second opinions” when their liberty is at stake.

It is extremely hard to withdraw from a plea agreement once it is presented to a court. You owe it to yourself to fully understand any plea agreement that you accept because it is like any other contract. Once you agree to it and the court accepts it, you will be bound by its terms for better or worse.

For more answers to your criminal law questions, visit our FAQ page at Broden & Mickelsen

IF I AM CHARGED WITH A CRIMINAL OFFENSE IN TEXAS, HOW SHOULD I GO ABOUT SELECTING A LAWYER TO REPRESENT ME AT TRIAL?

Like every other profession, there are numerous attorneys who are dedicated to charging fair fees and zealously representing their clients. On the other hand, there are numerous attorneys who are either not qualified in certain matters, but will become involved if 'the price is right,' or who are not dedicated to putting the interests of the clients first. If you are charged with a criminal offense in state court in Texas, there will be several considerations before you can select an attorney who is truly committed to giving you the best representation possible.

First, we suggest that you hire an attorney who practices almost exclusively criminal law. Criminal defense is a highly specialized field of law and it is very difficult for an attorney who practices in several areas of the law to have the knowledge necessary to provide the type of representation that a person who is charged with a criminal offense deserves.

Second, we suggest that you hire an attorney who is certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization as an expert in criminal law. Approximately ten percent of attorneys are certified by the Board as specialists in a particular area of law. In order to obtain a certification as being specialized in criminal law, an attorney must, among other things, submit an application to the Board setting forth the trials and appeals he or she has handled in both state court and federal court as well as the continuing legal education he or she has received in the field of criminal law. The Board obtains evaluations about the attorney from judges, prosecutors and other criminal defense lawyers. Finally, the attorney must pass a rigorous examination testing his or her knowledge of both state and federal law.

Third, we suggest you look at other ratings, in addition to being certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, to determine if the lawyer that you are considering hiring is the lawyer you really want. For example, Martindale-Hubbell is a legal directory that rates lawyers. A rating of "AV" is the highest rating from Martindale & Hubbell. Likewise, each year a small percentage of lawyers are rated as "Super Lawyers" in particular practice areas by their peers. Ideally, you would want a lawyer that is "AV" rated and is considered a "Super Lawyer" in the field of criminal defense by his or her peers.

Fourth, you should look at various organizations that a lawyer is a member of to determine the lawyer's dedication to his profession and specialty. Is the lawyer a member of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers and the Texas Criminal Defense Lawyers Association? Is the lawyer a member of his city's criminal defense organization? Membership in these organizations shows that a lawyer really wants to be a criminal defense lawyer and is interested in criminal defense issues.

Fifth, you will need to determine whether you want to hire a local lawyer or one from out of town. For misdemeanor charges, it is usually cost effective to hire a local lawyer and cost prohibitive to hire a lawyer from out of town. Nevertheless, for a felony offense, it is sometimes no cheaper to hire a local lawyer as opposed to a lawyer from out of town. Part of your consideration should be based upon how you think your case will be resolved. If your desire is to obtain a favorable plea bargain, it generally makes sense to hire a local lawyer with close and friendly ties to the prosecutor. On the other hand, if you anticipate a knock down, drag out trial, perhaps an out of town lawyer who will not have to worry about offending a prosecutor that he sees on a regular basis is a better choice.

Sixth, it is extremely important for you to understand the fee that the lawyer will charge. A lawyer may tell you that it will take $xxx to "get started" on your case, but you need a lawyer that will also be there for the finish. You must determine, before your hire a lawyer, what the total charge will be for your representation. Also, stay away from any lawyer who requests a "performance bonus" if he obtains a certain result. It is not proper for the lawyer to make such a request under the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct. You do not want to hire a lawyer that violates the profession’s code of ethics.

Seventh, just as important, is deciding what type of lawyers to stay away from. Former prosecutors will likely tell you that experience from "the other side" is a valuable asset or that they can get you a "special deal." You want an attorney who believes in your innocence and does not approach your case as a prosecutor where you have to prove your innocence. Also, you must be very wary of any attorney who tells you that he can get you a "special deal" because he or she was a former prosecutor or "knows" the judge. That is NOT how the system works.

For more information, visit the following pages on our website:

Frequently Asked Questions About Hiring an Attoreny

Selecting a Lawyer