On May 26, 2009, the Supreme Court handed down another important decision pertaining to Constitutional procedure.   Almost everyone is familiar with “Miranda” rights.  These are the warnings that police give suspects upon arrest.  They are derived from the Supreme Court’s decision in Arizona v. Miranda, in which the Supreme Court held that suspects are entitled to know that they have a right to have the assistance of a lawyer before they are subjected to interrogation.  A closely related decision is Edwards v. Arizona, in which the Supreme Court held that if a suspect requests the assistance of a lawyer while being interrogated, no further interrogation may occur until a lawyer has been made available.  Following Edwards v. Arizona the Supreme Court’s decided Michigan v. Jackson, in which the Supreme Court held that if a defendant requests that the court appoint him a lawyer at his initial court appearance, then law enforcement may not initiate any further interrogation.? Read the rest of this entry »

On April 21, 2009, the Supreme Court decided Arizona v. Gant.  The issue in this case was whether the fact the police made an arrest of the driver automatically gave them the right to search his car.  In New York v. Belton , decided in 1981, the Supreme Court had created a “bright line” rule that allowed police officers to search the entire contents of an automobile pursuant to the arrest of the driver.  The justification for that rule was that in order to protect the safety of the arresting officer he needed to be able to insure there was no weapon within the car.  Although in Belton the arresting officer suspected that the car contained marijuana, and he searched an area of the car out of reach of the arrestee, the Supreme Court created a simple rule that the police officer could search the entire contents of a car pursuant to an arrest.  In Arizona v. Gant, the arrested had been placed in handcuffs and put in the back seat of the squad car when the police officers conducted the search.  The question thus presented to the Court was whether the “bright line” rule established in Belton permitted the police to search the car when the arrestee was, in fact, in no position to reach anything within the car.? Read the rest of this entry »

On Wednesday January 14, in the case of Herring v. United States, the Supreme Court further signaled its hostility to the exclusionary rule.  The exclusionary rule is the rule that does not permit state or federal prosecutors to use evidence against defendants that was acquired in violation of the law or the Constitution.  Many people have criticized this rule observing, “Because the constable blunders the criminal goes free.”  On the other hand if governments can make use of illegally acquired evidence what deters governments from violating the law themselves in order to combat crime?? Read the rest of this entry »

On December 10, 2008, the Court of Criminal Appeals (the Texas Supreme Court for Criminal Cases), in a case that I argued, handed down a decision reversing the lower court.  The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals is arguably the most unfriendly appellate court for criminal defendants in the country so anytime a defendant wins in that court the decision is remarkable.  In addition, this decision is remarkable because it addresses an important point of law that is favorable to criminal defendants and it was a unanimous decision. Read the rest of this entry »