TCDLA
Printer-friendly version
PDF versionStories from TCDLA
Saturday, December 6th, 2014
23 | Jury Persuasion in Criminal Cases: Utilizing “Solution Selling” Techniques - By Paul C. Looney & Clay S. Conrad
32 | Not Guilty v. Goliath: Conquering Giant Blood Tests Using the Disconnect Defense - By Mark Ryan Thiessen
39 | Science and the Narrative in Criminal Defense - By Gerald Bierbaum
Tuesday, November 4th, 2014
Voice for the Defense Volume 43, No. 8 Edition
Editors: Tim Crooks, Kathleen Nacozy
Supreme Court
Because the Kentucky Supreme Court’s rejection of D’s Fifth Amendment claim was not objectively unreasonable, the Sixth Circuit erred in granting the writ. White v. Woodall, 134 S. Ct. 1697 (2014).
Tuesday, November 4th, 2014
The dynamic duo of TCDLA Director Sarah Roland and brother George faced a tough case in Denton County—a 19-year-old client charged with the murder of a 2-month-old baby, with 3 lesser included offenses to boot. Sarah had tried a similar shaken-baby case a year ago and had some recent experience against the very same prosecution team.
Tuesday, November 4th, 2014
20 | Winning Opening Statements - By Frank Sellers
26 | A History of Accomplishment: Lubbock Criminal Defense Lawyers Association Celebrates 35 Years - By Chuck Lanehart
37 | Managing Attorney Case and Work Loads to Improve Indigent Defense - By Wesley Shackelford
Columns
Thursday, October 2nd, 2014
Voice for the Defense Volume 43, No. 7 Edition
Editors: Tim Crooks, Kathleen Nacozy
Supreme Court
Instructions allowing the jury to convict under aiding and abetting as an alternate theory were erroneous because they failed to require that D knew in advance that one of his cohorts would be armed. Rosemond v. United States, 134 S. Ct. 1240 (2014).
Thursday, October 2nd, 2014
Congratulations to TCDLA Director Jani Maselli Wood and General Counsel Patricia Cummings, both of whom were selected by Texas Lawyer as “Texas Lawyer’s 2014 Winning Women.” Of course, we all knew they’re winners, but it’s nice to be recognized as such in the press.
Wednesday, October 1st, 2014
22 | Synthetic Drug Prosecution & Defense - By Justin J. McShane & Josh D. Lee
33 | Criminogenic Risk Assessments: What Are They and What Do They Mean for Your Client? - By Jeanette Kinard & Jessica Johnson
37 | The Defense Strikes Back - By Robb Fickman
Columns
Tuesday, August 19th, 2014
Voice for the Defense Volume 43, No. 6 Edition
Editors: Tim Crooks, Kathleen Nacozy
Supreme Court
When challenging a pre-trial asset seizure, a defendant who has been indicted is not constitutionally entitled to contest a grand jury’s determination of probable cause to believe he committed the crimes charged. Kaley v. United States, 134 S. Ct. 1090 (2014).
Tuesday, August 19th, 2014
Sarah Roland passes along word that a fellow Denton attorney, Dawn Moore, had quite the appellate victory recently. Dawn won two appeals in two days—May 29 and 30—in the cases Christopher Allen Gillette v. The State of Texas and The State of Texas v. Ryan T. Harrison. Quite an accomplishment for all your hard work, Dawn. Congratulations.
Tuesday, August 19th, 2014
18 | Pictures from the Annual TCDLA Fourth of July Readings
26 | Reading Competency Reports: What Should Lawyers Expect of Competency Examiners? - By Mary Alice Conroy, PhD, & Floyd L. Jennings, JD, PhD
34 | The Rules of Evidence: The Rest of Our Top 25 - By Ed & Sara Stapleton
Thursday, July 17th, 2014
Voice for the Defense Volume 43, No. 5 Edition
Editors: Tim Crooks, Kathleen Nacozy
Supreme Court
When an occupant objecting to a search was removed from the premises, a remaining occupant could consent to the search. Fernandez v. California, 134 S. Ct. 1126 (2014).
Thursday, July 17th, 2014
18 | Pictures from the 27th Annual Rusty Duncan Advanced Criminal Law Course
22 | Defending Boating While Intoxicated Cases - By Doug Murphy
35 | After the Ball - By Warren Wolf
38 | Texas and Federal Rules of Evidence: Our Top Twelve - By Ed & Sara Stapleton
Columns
Wednesday, June 4th, 2014
Voice for the Defense Volume 43, No. 4 Edition
Editors: Tim Crooks, Kathleen Nacozy
Supreme Court
D had a viable ineffective assistance claim because counsel failed to seek funds to replace an expert who counsel knew was inadequate when that failure was not based on a strategy but on a mistake of law. Hinton v. Alabama, 134 S. Ct. 1081 (2014).
Wednesday, June 4th, 2014
Kudos
Simon Purnell tried two federal jury trials, in two consecutive weeks in April, and walked his clients in both cases. The first, in Victoria, Texas, involved the alleged smuggling of marijuana into FCI Three Rivers, a medium-security facility, by Ms. Phillips, a female visitor. The government presented video of the visit, theorizing a kiss at the end of the visit as the delivery vehicle.
Wednesday, June 4th, 2014
20 | If You’re Going to Rusty Duncan - What to remember and what’s new or different this year at Rusty
22 | Federal Supervised Release - By John M. Economidy
31 | Eleven Essential DWI Trial Tactics - By Mark Ryan Thiessen
37 | So You Want to Be a Criminal Defense Attorney - By Randy Wilson
Tuesday, April 29th, 2014
Voice for the Defense Volume 43, No. 3 Edition
Editors: Tim Crooks, Kathleen Nacozy
Supreme Court
When the use of a drug D distributed was not an independently sufficient cause of decedent’s death or serious bodily injury, D could not be liable for penalty enhancement unless such use was a but-for cause of the death or injury. Burrage v. United States, 134 S. Ct. 881 (2014).
