Push Comes to Shove

Here's an original work I wrote for my band, Little Morphine Annie. It's called "Push Comes to Shove." Look for it on our upcoming 11 song release, coming in Spring, 2009. Check out our MySpace.com page for other band-related videos, and my YouTube.com page for TONS of videos of me jamming, the band jamming, and "The Zelda and Roy Show" (a.k.a., The Adventures of Everett's Identical Twin"). Rock on!

Little Morphine Annie Blogumentary Epilogue: Jen Sings Karaoke!

Here's Jen, LMA's lead singer, with a killer karaoke version of "Bobby McGee," all the more impressive because she's just sort of winging it. Rock on!

Lose Your Mind

Here's an original work I wrote for my band, Little Morphine Annie. It's called "Lose Your Mind." Look for it on our upcoming 11 song release, coming in Spring, 2009. Check out our MySpace.com page for other band-related videos, and my YouTube.com page for TONS of videos of me jamming, the band jamming, and "The Zelda and Roy Show" (a.k.a., The Adventures of Everett's Identical Twin"). Rock on!

Little Morphine Annie Blogumentary, Pt. 12: "Secret Life"

Here's the last entry in our 12 part series. In case you missed any (or all) of them, there all still posted here on my blog. Just search it for "blogumentary" and all 12 should pop right up! By the way, this song is called "Secret Life." Rock on...

Right in the Face

Here's an original work I wrote for my band, Little Morphine Annie. It's called "Right in the Face." Look for it on our upcoming 11 song release, coming in Spring, 2009. Check out our MySpace.com page for other band-related videos, and my YouTube.com page for TONS of videos of me jamming, the band jamming, and "The Zelda and Roy Show" (a.k.a., The Adventures of Everett's Identical Twin"). Rock on!

Little Morphine Annie Blogumentary, Part 11: "Andre Beats the Hell out of the Drums, Volume 2"

Here's Andre beating the hell out of the drums again!

Goodbye to Live 105.3...

By now, you likely know that Live 105.3 is now "The Fan." CBS Radio decided to go in a different direction, which doesn't include "The Everett Newton Show" or "The Russ Martin Show." Like Dan O'Malley, I have the dubious distinction of having been fired from TWO shows on the same day! Of course, the flip side of that circumstance is that I am fortunate to have been on TWO shows to begin with. Two shows that had a great run... almost 8 with Russ, and over 4 on my weekend gig.

In fact, I'm very lucky to have ended up in radio at all. After all, I'm a criminal defense attorney, and have always been very happy with that as my chief vocation. I'm very grateful to Russ for giving me the opportunity to be part of his show. Otherwise, I wouldn't have ended up in radio. I'm equally obliged to Gavin Spittle not only for giving me my own show, but also for allowing me broad discretion to conduct it as I saw fit.

As you might imagine, I have received NUMEROUS email regarding 105.3's abrupt shift in direction. Your kind words are appreciated more than you know. I realize that many of you are very upset with the new format. Of course, CBS Radio is a business. As with any business, their goal is to maximize the bottom line. Their belief is that "The Fan" will do just that. For that reason, I respect their decision.

So now what? Well, for now, I'll continue to enjoy the practice of law. I have a great law partner, a wonderful staff, and a profession that I find very satisfying.

Maybe I'll end up on another show someday. Maybe not. If I don't, I will always have many fond memories of my time "on the air" and of the many friends I've made over the years as a result. If I do, I hope you'll tune in! Regardless, the greatest debt of gratitude I owe is to you, the listener. Thank you for your many years of support!

Final Word

Here's an original work I wrote for my band, Little Morphine Annie. It's called "Final Word." Look for it on our upcoming 11 song release, coming in Spring, 2009. Check out our MySpace.com page for other band-related videos, and my YouTube.com page for TONS of videos of me jamming, the band jamming, and "The Zelda and Roy Show" (a.k.a., The Adventures of Everett's Identical Twin"). Rock on!

Little Morphine Annie Blogumentary, Part 10: "Don't, Volume 3"

Here's Part 3 of our new song, "Don't." (See the last 2 week's posts for Part 1 and 2). Rock on!

Everett's guitar solo

Here's a guitar solo for you... Rock on!

Check out our MySpace.com page for other band-related videos, and my YouTube.com page for TONS of videos of me jamming, the band jamming, and "The Zelda and Roy Show" (a.k.a., The Adventures of Everett's Identical Twin"). Rock on!

Little Morphine Annie Blogumentary, Part 9: "Don't, Volume 2"

Here's Part 2 of our new song, "Don't." (See the last 2 week's posts for Part 1). Rock on!

Ripped, Stripped, and Torn

Here's an original work I wrote for my band, Little Morphine Annie. It's called "Ripped, Stripped, and Torn." Look for it on our upcoming 11 song release, coming in Spring, 2009. Check out our MySpace.com page for other band-related videos, and my YouTube.com page for TONS of videos of me jamming, the band jamming, and "The Zelda and Roy Show" (a.k.a., The Adventures of Everett's Identical Twin"). Rock on!

Little Morphine Annie Blogumentary, Part 8: "Don't, Volume 1 of 3"

Here's part 8 in our 12 part saga. This one's called "Don't." Rock on...

Who can see your case, once you've sealed it?

As promised on my show yesterday, here's a list of the governmental agencies who can view your criminal history once an order of nondisclosure has been granted. Remember, private entities with whom you apply for jobs will NOT be able to view your criminal history information once such an order has been granted. Also, you won't be required to disclose the existence of your case, even in a sworn deposition under oath!

In other words, orders of nondisclosure can be supremely useful in trying to secure MANY jobs for which you would otherwise not be hired as a result of your criminal history. Questions? Email me.

OK, here's the list...

(1) the State Board for Educator Certification;

(2) a school district, charter school, private school, regional education service center, commercial transportation company, or education shared service arrangement;

(3) the Texas Medical Board;

(4) the Texas School for the Blind and Visually Impaired;

(5) the Board of Law Examiners;

(6) the State Bar of Texas;

(7) a district court regarding a petition for name change under Subchapter B, Chapter 45, Family Code;

(8) the Texas School for the Deaf;

(9) the Department of Family and Protective Services;

(10) the Texas Youth Commission;

(11) the Department of Assistive and Rehabilitative Services;

(12) the Department of State Health Services, a local mental health service, a local mental retardation authority, or a community center providing services to persons with mental illness or retardation;

(13) the Texas Private Security Board;

(14) a municipal or volunteer fire department;

(15) the Texas Board of Nursing;

(16) a safe house providing shelter to children in harmful situations;

(17) a public or nonprofit hospital or hospital district;

(18) the Texas Juvenile Probation Commission;

(19) the securities commissioner, the banking commissioner, the savings and mortgage lending commissioner, or the credit union commissioner;

(20) the Texas State Board of Public Accountancy;

(21) the Texas Department of Licensing and Regulation;

(22) the Health and Human Services Commission;

(23) the Department of Aging and Disability Services; and

(24) the Texas Education Agency.

Little Morphine Annie Blogumentary, Part 7: "Ripped"

You're watching Part 7 of 12 videos in the Little Morphine Annie "blogumentary," which chronicles our time @ January Sound while recording our new 12 song CD. This clip is entitled "Rippped" because we've just laid down tracks for a song called "Ripped, Stripped, and Torn." We've just left the studio, and are in the booth listening to what we've done...

Zelda and Roy go to the Halloween Party

Check out "The Zelda and Roy Show" on MySpace.com! A new video series project... add us as your friend on MySpace and receive a brand new 2009 Chevrolet Corvette (not really, but we will try to keep you entertained). It's more fun than a bathtub full of meth!

Visit us @ MySpace.com/ZeldaAndRoy

Zelda and Everett Play Tennis (a.k.a., Where's Roy?)

Zelda and Everett play tennis... and do SO much more. The mysteries of life are explored, deep philosophical questions posed, and a world record attempt is chronicled. And Everett bounces his balls! Stay tuned, though. In the next episode, Zelda takes a shine to Roy...

Little Morphine Annie Blogumentary, Pt. 5 "Right in the Face" with E. and Jace

This is Part 5 of a 12-part series of videos in the Little Morphine Annie "blogumentary." In this clip, I'm on guitar with our bass player Jace, as we go over some parts in a song we're about to record called "Right in the Face." By the way, you may hear Jace referred to as "Warlock" on occasion, a nickname we gave him when he was still married to his ex-wife. A practicing witch (no kidding!)

Keep checking back, because I'll be posting a new episode each Sunday for the next 7 weeks! Rock on, and we hope you enjoy it...

How to destroy your criminal record

Your criminal history can be a life sentence, making it impossible to get the job you deserve. It can even make it difficult to rent an apartment. Even if your case was dismissed or you received non-conviction probation, others can still see these offenses. In fact, this information is available, free of charge on the internet... readily available to ANYONE who might be curious about you.

Fortunately, there's something you can do about it. Want to know if anything can be done about YOUR record? An "order of nondisclosure" seals your arrest and criminal history information from public view. An "expungement" causes any record of your case to be destroyed. You may be eligible for either an order of nondisclosure or an expungement, if any of the following occured in your case:

1. You successfully completed deferred adjudication probation.

2. You were arrested, but never charged.

3. You were arrested and charged, but the case later dismissed.

4. You were arrested, then "no billed" by a grand jury.

5. You were found "not guilty," either by a judge or jury.

6. You received a pardon.

7. Your criminal record has arisen due to your identity being stolen.

EXPUNGEMENT
"Expungement" is a legal procedure through which, under certain circumstances, the fact that you have been arrested and charged with a crime can be removed from your criminal record. Once an expungement is granted by the court, all records of your case are destroyed, and you are no longer required to acknowledge the charge when filling out job applications, looking for housing, etc.

By law, these records cannot be used against you for any purpose. If you were found "not guilty" at trial, your case was dismissed, or you were "no billed" by a grand jury, Texas state law MAY allow YOU to clear your criminal history! Also, you may be entitled to an expungement if you successfully completed deferred adjudication on a class "C" misdemeanor offense (e.g., simple assault, public intoxication, issuance of bad check, disorderly conduct, etc).

WHAT YOU MAY NOT KNOW... Even if your criminal case has been dismissed (or you have been acquitted at trial), ANYONE who checks your criminal history will see that you have been charged with a crime! Potential employers can easily access this information. When you are arrested, numerous city, state, and federal agencies retain this information, regardless of the outcome of your case. These agencies may include District Attorneys, Police Departments, Sheriff's Offices, Bond Desks, County Jails, Texas Department of Public Safety, and the FBI.

NONDISCLOSURE
Have you successfully completed "deferred adjudication probation" in Texas? If you think no one can find out about your criminal case...think again! Your case is a matter of public record, even if it was dismissed when you completed your probation.

As of September 1, 2003, an "Order of Nondisclosure" is a legal procedure through which, under certain circumstances, a court order can be obtained which prohibits governmental agencies from disclosing the existence of your case. This remedy is available for both misdemeanors and felonies, and is available ONLY if you successfully completed deferred adjudication. And if this probation was for a class "C" misdemeanor, you may be eligible for an expungement.

MISDEMEANORS- in most cases, you can petition the court for an order of nondisclosure immediately upon successful completion of your deferred adjudication probation. For certain crimes, a two year waiting period applies. These include: Unlawful restraint or transport; Public lewdness or indecent exposure; Assaultive offenses (assault, deadly conduct, terroristic threat); Offenses against the family (e.g. harboring a runaway, bigamy); Riot, obstructing a highway, cruelty to animals; Weapons offenses (e.g. unlawfully carrying a weapon)

FELONIES- in most cases, you must wait five years after successful completion of your deferred adjudication probation before you can petition the court for an order of nondisclosure.

Certain offenses cannot be sealed with an order of nondisclosure:
Any offense requiring sex offender registration; Aggravated kidnapping; Murder; Capital murder; Injury to a child, elderly individual, or disabled individual; Abandoning or endangering a child; Violation of a protective order; Stalking; and Other family violence offenses (family violence is violence or the threat of violence against a relative or a current or former housemate)

WHAT YOU MAY NOT KNOW... Even if your case has been dismissed by means of deferred adjudication probation, ANYONE who checks your criminal history will see that you have been charged with a crime, and that you entered either a "guilty" or "no contest" plea! Potential employers can easily access this information. When you are arrested, numerous city, state, and federal agencies retain this information, regardless of the outcome of your case. These agencies may include District Attorneys, Police Departments, Sheriff's Offices, Bond Desks, County Jails, Texas Department of Public Safety, and the FBI.

Questions? Email me... info@SealMyArrest.com

Interviews with Zelda...

Here's the lovely Zelda, as I follow her around and film her against her will!

Live at the Everett Newton Show, Part 1

On my show, you hear me talk about Alise and Chuck. Here's video of them, hard at work, to prove they actually exist. I'm really glad they do, because I couldn't do the show without them. Even if they REALLY don't like being filmed...

Little Morphine Annie Blogumentary, Pt. 4: Push Comes to Shove, Vol. 3 of 3

Here's Part 4, which is Volume 3 of "Push Comes to Shove." I'll be posting Part 5 (of 12) next Sunday, so keep checking back!

The Interview...

Here's the interview absolutely NO ONE has been waiting for. And what happens when you have a camera, and too much time on your hands...

Little Morphine Annie Blogumentary, Pt. 3: "Push Comes to Shove, Volume 2 of 3"

Here's Part 3, which is Volume 2 of "Push Comes to Shove." I'll post the final installment of the recording of this song next Sunday, so keep checking back!

Little Morphine Annie Blogumentary, Part 2: "Push Comes to Shove, Volume 1 of 3"

You're watching Part 2 of 12 videos in the Little Morphine Annie "blogumentary," which documents our time @ January Sound while recording our new 12 song CD. This clip is entitled "Push Comes to Shove, Volume 1 of 3" it's one in a 3-part series of us, in session, recording what will likely be the first single from our new offering.

Keep checking back, because I'll be posting a new episode each Sunday for the next 10 weeks! Rock on, and we hope you enjoy it...

Murder, Anyone?

Killing other people is generally frowned upon. However, homicide isn't really as simple as you might think. For example, if you lace your wife's frappuccino with a fatal dose of antifreeze, that's considered murder (as you might have guessed), a criminal act. Even if you think she had it coming.

Of course, if you kill your wife because she's chasing after you with a pickaxe in a latte-fueled rage, that's considered self-defense. No criminal charges. And you can start dating again!

Homicide can even be heroic. In wartime, you can receive a medal for killing people. Simply because they play for the other team.

The point? The moral value we place on a given homicide depends upon the circumstances under which it occurs. Under the Texas Penal Code, we punish people for 5 types:

1. Capital murder- These include: murders committed in the course of another felony (e.g., robbery), killing a police officer or fireman in the line of duty, murder for hire, killing a child under six, and killing a judge. This offense is considered a "capital felony" and the punishment options are twofold: death, or life without parole.

2. Murder- In Texas, there are two sub-categories of murder:

a. "premeditated"- This includes: the intentional killing of another, intending to cause someone serious bodily injury and they end up dying, or engaging in a crime that you should know might end with someone being dead... and someone does (e.g., you rob a liquor store and cop shoots at you and kills an innocent bystander... you're guilty of their murder, even though you didn't pull the trigger!!!). This is a "first degree felony" and the range of punishment is 5 to 99 years, or life, in prison, and up to a $10,000 fine.

b. "heat of passion"- Something occurs that, by most people's standards, would be inclined to REALLY piss you off, and you kill someone before having a chance to calm down (e.g., you catch your wife in bed with a vacuum cleaner salesman, and beat him to death with his Hoover). This is a "second degree felony" and the range of punishment is 2 to 20 years in prison, and up to a $10,000 fine.

3. Manslaughter- This offense arises when you "recklessly" cause the death of another. In other words, you don't intend to kill them, but do something stupid which results in their death. For example, you have horseflies in your apartment, so you think it would be cool to shoot at them with your 9 mm. handgun. One of the bullets goes through the wall and kills your neighbor (who was probably pretty pissed at you for shooting at the wall). As with "heat of passion" murders, this is a "second degree felony" and the range of punishment is 2 to 20 years in prison, and up to a $10,000 fine.

4. Intoxication Manslaughter-If you operate a motor vehicle, boat, or airplane while intoxicated (or, for you carnies out there, assemble an amusement park ride), and, as a result ot that intoxication, somebody dies "by accident or mistake," you're guilty of this offense. As with "heat of passion" and "manslaughter" murders, this is a "second degree felony" and the range of punishment is 2 to 20 years in prison, and up to a $10,000 fine.

5. Criminally negligent homicide- This offense criminalizes accidents. I have a REAL problem with this "crime," and I hope you do too. You're guilty of this if you "negligently" cause someone else's death. Understand, when you're in a car wreck, almost always is it as the result of someone's negligence. If the "negligent party" happens to be you, and someone dies, you could be held responsible under this statute. This is a "state jail felony" and the range of punishment is 180 days to 2 years in the state jail, and up to a $10,000 fine.

So there you have it. Homicide in all its glory, with varying degrees of punishment, contingent upon one's perceived culpability. Or, in the case of self-defense, one's lack thereof. Congratulations. You've now exceeded your recommended daily allowance of lawyer crap.

Why "Drink, Drive, Go to Jail" is NOT the law in Texas (and why you should care)

I'm sure you've seen the billboards on the freeway. And the street signs. It's even on television, courtesy of the Texas Department of Transportation. Which is, of course, a state governmental agency. You'd think they'd know the law. Or at least ask someone who does before undertaking a media campaign that grossly mis-states it. After all, it's not illegal to drink and drive. It is, of course, against the law to drink to the point of intoxication and drive.

Many, many people have a cocktail at dinner, and then drive home. Maybe, you drove to and from a friend's house last weekend to watch the Cowboys game, and had a beer or two while you were there. Perfectly lawful. I mean, if you aren't intoxicated, why should anyone care whether or not you drive? Even if you've been drinking.

When I'm representing someone in a DWI trial, I always ask the potential jurors if they would find my client "not guilty," even if he'd had 20 beers, so long as they believe that the state has not proven, beyond a reasonable doubt, that he was intoxicated. Why? Because the law requires them to do so. Of course, I'm not suggesting that anyone drink 3 plus six packs and get behind the wheel. But you get the point.

"Drink, drive, go to jail" IS NOT the law in Texas. And "ignorance of the law is no excuse." Yet, we can't rely on the state to tell us what the law, in fact, IS!

The Policeman's Cover-up

I have a great deal of respect for the police. Theirs is a tough and thankless job. With long hours, and not the greatest pay. Like teaching and firefighting, it's an honorable and underpaid profession. Of course, policeman are people. As with any profession, there are "bad apples." Here's the story of one I encountered this week. One who just happens to be a policeman.

This week I had a jury trial in the City of Dallas Municipal Court. Not terribly unusual. Usually. This one's different. And not because of the allegation. Actually, the charge in this case, by most standards, would be considered quite mundane. A speeding case. In a school zone, mind you, but still "just" a traffic offense.

As often happens, my client faced a decision. Accept a plea bargain offer from the state, or go to trial. As are most people who never go to court, she was quite apprehensive about going to trial. "What happens if they convict me?" "How much will the fine be?" All of the expected questions were asked.

"I couldn't see the sign. The pole was bent, and the sign was leaning against a tree," she tells me. Aha! Something to work with! At least, potentially. But she hadn't taken any pictures. I look at her case file, and realize that she was cited over nine months ago. Not a particularly long time, by City of Dallas court standards. "The sign's still down to this day," she says. "but I don't know that I want to spend the day in trial. How long will it take?"

I tell her I need to speak with the prosecutor, who says she'll "look into it," and ask the officer if, in fact, the sign was down. After all, that's a defense to prosecution. I mean, if the sign's down, how can anyone be expected to know they're in a school zone, right? The law is that you're entitled to "appropriate" signs, informing you of what it is you're supposed to be doing. Otherwise, you don't have proper notice, and you can't be held legally responsible.

The prosecutor returns. "The officer says the sign's good. We're ready for trial." Hmmm. A factual dispute. That's a lawyer's way of saying that somebody's lying. But who? I wasn't there, and don't know the area. Arguably, both have a motive to lie. Undoubtedly, one of them is.

It's now 10:30. A docket that began at 8:30, with over 60 defendants, has now dwindled to just one. This one. Everything else has either plead, been reset, or been dismissed. I ask the judge if the prosecutor and I can approach the bench, as the bailiff heads down the hall to retrieve the jury panel.

"Your honor, I would respectfully request a continuance," I tell the judge. Continuance. A lawyer's way of asking the judge to reset a case for another day. "Apparently, there's a factual dispute as to the existence of the sign in this case, giving notice to the defendant that she was in a school zone. I'd like to give the defendant an opportunity to take pictures of the location." After objection by the state, the judge makes his ruling. "Motion denied." That's a judge's way of saying, "We're going to trial right now, sucka!"

I'm used to this. Anyone who practices trial law, for any length of time, gets used to having motions granted, denied, or "held under advisement" so that the judge can think about it, or research the law, before making a decision. So I revise my strategy. "In that case, judge, I would respectfully request an hour and a half for lunch, so that my client can have an opportunity to take pictures during the break." No problem, I'm told.

"May the officer be released until after lunch?" asks the prosecutor. The judge grants her request, knowing that there's no way we'll get to his testimony until then, since we haven't yet impaneled the jury. It's now around 10:45.

The bailiff brings in the potential jurors. Each side, prosecution and defense, has an opportunity to question the panel, after which six end up on the actual jury. Anyway, a jury is seated, and the judge dismisses everyone for lunch. It's now 12:30. "Be back at 2:00," says the judge. The jurors leave.

I turn to my client, who says that she needs to go home, pick up her digital camera, drive to the where the sign is (or isn't), and run by the drugstore to print them. And then make it back to court. "I'll be cutting it close, but I think I can make it," she tells me.

Though I know my client's rushing around, I, on the other hand, enjoy a leisurely lunch. Of course, wondering the whole time what her pictures will show. I eat and read the paper at a cafe next to the courthouse, and head back to resume the trial.

It's now 1:45. With nothing left to read (or eat), I go back into the courtroom. As I walk in, I see my client sitting alone, on the front row, with her back to me.

"Do you have the pictures?" I ask. "Is the sign still gone?" "Yes," she says. "And you're not going to believe this." She shows me the pictures which, in this case, are, without a doubt, worth AT LEAST a thousand words. Maybe even a hundred thousand. She's taken several. But two catch my eye. The first shows a city work crew, standing on the street next to a sidewalk next to a hole in the sidewalk where a sign clearly used to be. The next picture, taken shortly afterward, is of the same crew, new sign in hand, as they attempt to put it in the hole. Like the soldiers raising the flag at Iwo Jima in the famous sculpture everybody's seen. Wow. By the way, here they are:





Two prosecutors enter the courtroom. As we await the judge's return, one notices I have pictures in my hand. "What do you have there?" I'm asked, which revs up my internal monologue. I have two choices. I can surprise the courtroom with a Perry Mason moment, revealing my sterling photographic evidence after allowing the officer to testify under oath that the sign was, in fact there. Or, I can show the prosecutor what I have, and hope she chooses to move for a dismissal and end the trial. I opt for the latter. As thrilling as the former might be, it would also be an embarrassment to the prosecution. And in my view, they were duped by their officer. In other words, if their witness says the sign is good, their job is to prosecute the case. It's not their fault if he's untruthful.

But I decide to have a little fun. "What would you say if I had pictures that my client took during the lunch hour, that show a city crew erecting a new sign at the very location at issue in this trial?" "I'd say that's a pretty wild hypothetical?" she replies. And she's right. I can hardly believe it myself. Even though it happens to be true. I show her the pictures. She reviews them slowly, first one and then the other. Then she turns to me and says what any prosecutor who does the right thing will say at this point. "When the judge returns, I'll be moving for an acquittal." She pauses, then adds wryly, "Hopefully, before the jury returns."

Since the trial, I've learned a couple of very interesting pieces of information. In telling this story to a judge in another court, he interrupted me mid-sentence to ask, "Was it Officer "X?" A perceptible chill crept down my spine. Of all the policemen on the force, this judge had correctly identified the officer in my case. Of course, I asked the obvious question. "How'd you know?" "Had a very similar problem with him in my court."

Also, I contacted the city department that handles the placement of signs for the city. Long story short, I had someone in their department pull the service report for that location. "Would you mind telling me what lead to this sign being replaced?" The sign guy replies, "Well, the crew was working on another sign in the area, when a motorcycle cop rode up and asked the crew to replace that sign." Another revelation. Another spine chill. The officer in this case is a motorcycle cop.

So here's what I think. Feel free to email me if you think I'm wrong. In my view, there's only one scenario that makes any sense:

The officer tells the prosecutor that the sign is good, who then tells me. He likely expects that the case won't go to trial. That the defendant will enter into a plea bargain agreement. When that doesn't happen, he's stuck with his story. He's already told the prosecutor that the sign is good. She believes him and decides to go forward with the trial. Also, she likely, though unwittingly, tells him that my client intended to take pictures during lunch. Remember, she was present when I asked the judge to reset the case for that purpose.

So the officer leaves court around 10:45 and heads for where the sign is. Or, as we all know by now, isn't. Knowing that my client will soon return with photographic evidence of that fact, he locates a nearby city sign service crew and directs them to replace the sign, in hopes that they'll be able to get it done before my client has a chance to take pictures. Only they don't. And my client gets even better pictures. Pictures that, coupled with the service report, show that the officer was lying about the sign from the very beginning, and, in the middle of the trial, tried to cover it up.

Why you should hire Berlof & Newton, P.C.

Frequently, people ask me why they should hire a lawyer. This video represents every reason why they shouldn't. The good news is that this is, of course, meant to be taken as parody. For serious help, visit my website.

Anti-dildo ordinance!

As I get older, I find myself becoming ever more the conspiracy theorist. I can view the seemingly mundane, and transform it into the utterly sinister. For example, the newest City of Dallas parking ordinance.

At first blush, I realize this may not seem to be the most scintillating of topics. Perhaps if I were finding fault with some "anti-dildo ordinance" I might be more inclined to attract your attention. Sadly, no such ordinance exists. Actually, dildos (or, rather, the sale thereof) are criminalized by a ridiculous section of the Texas Penal Code known as "obscenity," but this is a topic for another day.

So you're stuck reading about this parking thing I've yet to describe. That is, unless you've already decided to wait for "dildo day" and are off making preparations. For those of you who remain, here's the skinny:

On August 14th, a new ordinance went into effect in the City of Dallas which prohibits a person from parking at a metered space for longer than the maximum time allowed. For example, let's say I park at a meter with a max time of 2 hours. I pay for my 2 hours, which then expire. Before the ordinance, I could simply pay for another 2 hours (or however long I might think I'd like to stay) without having to move my car. All that's in the past. Now, after the initial 2 hours lapse, I'm required to move my car. Even if I'm willing to PAY FOR THE NEXT TWO HOURS. If I don't, my car can be ticketed, or even towed! And if you're physically challenged, I have even worse news.

If you're like me, an aging conspiracy theorist, you may be asking yourself "why would the city pass such an ordinance?" Why would they turn away money, rather than collect it? According to "Agenda Item #48," which was filed on June 11th for consideration by the city council:

"Currently, vehicles displaying disabled placards or disabled license plates... are parking all day at short-term meters, thus eliminating parking turnover at short-term meters for retail and business patrons. In order for the City to successfully revive the Central Business District, it is essential to prohibit long-term parking along streets in areas supported by surface retail, restaurants, and businesses."

So, the official position on the part of the city is to "revitalize the Central Business District." And, by the way, screw you if you're physically challenged and park at a metered space. Because if you are, and you need to be downtown for more than two hours, you'll be required to move your vehicle or risk being fined by the city. How revitalizing!

Never mind that long-term paid lots exist, in abundance, throughout downtown. When I go to city court in Dallas, I park in a long-term lot at which, frequently, I'm one of only 2 or 3 cars in the lot. A lot that has room for probably 60 cars. Which is a good thing if you're physically challenged. You'll need to know where this lot is. Because, even though it's a couple of blocks from the courthouse (unlike many of the metered spaces that surround it), you're going to be wheeling yourself back and forth to avoid being labeled a scofflaw. And being fined. And, potentially, even having your car towed. Which can be very inconvenient, especially if you're in a wheelchair.

Of course, as with most issues of city government, this ordinance is about raising revenue for the city. I told you: I'm an aging conspiracy theorist. According to city records, there were 173,589 parking citations issued between July 1, 2005 and June 30, 2006. As a result, the city collected $8.62 million dollars in revenue. Now, the city has created an offense which, of course, will only increase that dollar amount.

Did I mention that the physically challenged are exempt from having to pay for metered parking? Of course, under the new ordinance, they're less likely to park there. They'll be more inclined to end up at long-term (and far less accessible) parking lots. Which, in turn, opens up these metered parking spaces to the rest of us that have to pay for them. All of which leads me to believe that dildo day may well have been August 14th.

Cash cows and other beasts

What does it take to become a judge? I'm so glad you asked! The short answer is "it depends." If you'd like to read the long answer, please stand by.

Let's start at the top. Supreme Court justices and other federal court judges are appointed for life (actually, they serve during "good behavior," but it takes action by Congress to remove them). The idea is that, if they can't be removed from office, then they won't be subject to the political leanings of other members of government who might seek to exercise control over their rulings. It's all about "separation of powers," the Constitutional principle that the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of government should exercise collective, yet separate, control over matters of government, thus assuring that no one branch rules with an iron fist. You may have heard of this principle referred to as a system of "checks and balances."

This "separation of powers" is exercised in state courts as well, though in a different manner. In Texas, state court judges (civil and criminal) are elected by popular vote. Like the appointment process in the federal context, election assures that the other branches of government have no control over the judiciary. And, unlike the federal system, the state system allows for the removal of judges whom the voting public decides not to re-elect.

For whatever reason, the municipal court system (a.k.a., "city court," where traffic tickets and other class C misdemeanors are heard) represents a shocking departure from the separation of powers afforded judges in federal and state courts.

For example, City of Dallas Municipal Court Judges are appointed for two year terms by the city council. The city council, as you might imagine, is quite interested in raising revenue for whatever city they represent. Municipal courts can be seen as a cash cow, with little purpose other than to raise money. Hence, a tacit expectation can exist with respect to the judges they appoint: collect money, or risk not being re-appointed.

In the City of Dallas, full-time judges often give up their law practices to sit on the bench. Thus, a singular two-year term can be devastating for the lawyer who gives up his practice for two years, and fails to be re-appointed. His law practice is gone, as is the gig he took to give it up.

Clearly, the municipal court process of re-appointment creates a blatant separation of powers issue, inasmuch as the judicial branch of city government (i.e., its judges) exists at the whim of the executive branch (i.e., the city council).

By the way, did I mention that city councils also legislate when they enact city ordinances?

Judges are supposed to be "neutral and impartial magistrates" who preside fairly, favoring neither the defense nor the prosecution. Of course, the prosecution's interests lie with those of the city council: to collect money for the city.

Thus, one can readily see how this dynamic might influence a judge to rule in a less than impartial fashion. Favorable rulings for the prosecution translate, ultimately, into increased revenue for the city and, in turn, curry favor with the city council who decides not only which judges are re-appointed, but also enacts the ordinances which define the process. At the very least, the appearance of impropriety exists... which is the reason the notion of separation of powers was included in the Constitution in the first place.

Live 105.3 concert footage

The Everett Newton Show will be on vacation Sunday, August 31st. On September 6th, we'll be back on the air at our usual time, Sunday night from 7 to 9 p.m. on Live 105.3. In the interim, I'll leave you with this video:

It's a brief clip of me dancing around in a deviled egg costume with The Russ Martin Show Band at "Live 8," Live 105.3 FM's 8th Anniversary Party at The Palladium in Dallas a couple of weeks ago. I have no doubt this is what you had hoped, more than anything, to find on the internet and am only too happy to provide it. Fortunately, the person filming this silliness had enough common sense to give me a clip that's utterly devoid of any singing on my part. So enjoy the little dance I do for you. And, whatever you do, don't try this at home.

Jury nullification: the civil right you're not supposed to know you have...

In a criminal trial, after both sides have presented their evidence and given closing argument, a jury has two basic choices: "guilty" or "not guilty." In effect, they are asked to pass on the law as it applies to the person on trial. Before retiring to deliberate, the judge reads the jury a set of instructions, which tell the jury to find the defendant guilty if the state proves its case beyond a reasonable doubt, and to acquit if they don't. However, that's only half the story.

In addition to a jury's right to pass on the guilt or innocence of the defendant, the jury ALSO has the right to decide whether or not the law for which the defendant is on trial is a bad law, if applied to the defendant. Here's an example. Many people believe that marijuana should be decriminalized. Hence, a jury comprised largely of such people might well find a defendant "not guilty" of marijuana possession... not because they believe the defendant didn't possess it, but because they don't believe he should be punished for it. This principle is known as jury nullification.

In other words, a jury has an absolute right to do one of two things:
1. follow the court's jury instructions-
find the defendant "guilty" or "not guilty", based on the law, OR

2. jury nullification-
find the defendant "not guilty" because the law shouldn't be applied to him.

Here's the truly interesting part. Though the court instructs jurors as to their duty to follow its instructions, it DOES NOT inform them as to their absolute right to jury nullification. A defense lawyer who argues jury nullification may well find himself held in contempt of court (i.e., since such an argument goes against the court's instructions). In fact, appellate courts have held that jury nullification is an absolute civil right that jurors enjoy, but one for which they are not entitled to be instructed!!! Juries can do it, but they can't be told about it.

The good news is that juries, throughout history, have been able to utilize this right in a variety of cases. For example, during the Civil War, juries in northern states were asked to decide cases in which defendants were criminally charged with harboring runaway slaves. However, juries routinely acquitted these defendants, even though it was clear that they were guilty.

So now you have something to think about, if you ever serve on a jury. Even though the court won't inform you, you have an absolute right to jury nullification, and to inform your fellow jurors in that regard. Use it wisely.

A Texas Guide to Loopholes

Let's face it. People commit crimes. Or, at least, they are alleged to have done so (unless proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law, etc.).

However, even if you're guilty of a crime, your conduct may be excused in law if it fits into one of the "defenses" articulated in the Texas Penal Code. Note that some are NOT defenses, but may simply mitigate punishment rather than excusing your conduct outright (as in the case of "intoxication").

Read on...

§ 8.01. INSANITY. (a) It is an affirmative defense to prosecution that, at the time of the conduct charged, the actor, as a result of severe mental disease or defect, did not know that his conduct was wrong.

(b) The term "mental disease or defect" does not include an abnormality manifested only by repeated criminal or otherwise antisocial conduct.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974.

Amended by Acts 1983, 68th Leg., p. 2640, ch. 454, § 1, eff. Aug.

29, 1983; Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1,

1994.

§ 8.02. MISTAKE OF FACT. (a) It is a defense to

prosecution that the actor through mistake formed a reasonable belief about a matter of fact if his mistaken belief negated the kind of culpability required for commission of the offense.

(b) Although an actor's mistake of fact may constitute a

defense to the offense charged, he may nevertheless be convicted of

any lesser included offense of which he would be guilty if the fact

were as he believed.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974.

Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1,

1994.

§ 8.03. MISTAKE OF LAW. (a) It is no defense to

prosecution that the actor was ignorant of the provisions of any law

after the law has taken effect.

(b) It is an affirmative defense to prosecution that the

actor reasonably believed the conduct charged did not constitute a

crime and that he acted in reasonable reliance upon:

(1) an official statement of the law contained in a

written order or grant of permission by an administrative agency

charged by law with responsibility for interpreting the law in

question; or

(2) a written interpretation of the law contained in

an opinion of a court of record or made by a public official charged

by law with responsibility for interpreting the law in question.

(c) Although an actor's mistake of law may constitute a

defense to the offense charged, he may nevertheless be convicted of

a lesser included offense of which he would be guilty if the law

were as he believed.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974.

Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1,

1994.

§ 8.04. INTOXICATION. (a) Voluntary intoxication does

not constitute a defense to the commission of crime.

(b) Evidence of temporary insanity caused by intoxication

may be introduced by the actor in mitigation of the penalty attached

to the offense for which he is being tried.

(c) When temporary insanity is relied upon as a defense and

the evidence tends to show that such insanity was caused by

intoxication, the court shall charge the jury in accordance with

the provisions of this section.>>

(d) For purposes of this section "intoxication" means

disturbance of mental or physical capacity resulting from the

introduction of any substance into the body.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974.

Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1,

1994.

§ 8.05. DURESS. (a) It is an affirmative defense to

prosecution that the actor engaged in the proscribed conduct

because he was compelled to do so by threat of imminent death or

serious bodily injury to himself or another.

(b) In a prosecution for an offense that does not constitute

a felony, it is an affirmative defense to prosecution that the actor

engaged in the proscribed conduct because he was compelled to do so

by force or threat of force.

(c) Compulsion within the meaning of this section exists

only if the force or threat of force would render a person of

reasonable firmness incapable of resisting the pressure.

(d) The defense provided by this section is unavailable if

the actor intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly placed himself in

a situation in which it was probable that he would be subjected to

compulsion.

(e) It is no defense that a person acted at the command or

persuasion of his spouse, unless he acted under compulsion that

would establish a defense under this section.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974.

Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1,

1994.

§ 8.06. ENTRAPMENT. (a) It is a defense to prosecution

that the actor engaged in the conduct charged because he was induced

to do so by a law enforcement agent using persuasion or other means

likely to cause persons to commit the offense. Conduct merely

affording a person an opportunity to commit an offense does not

constitute entrapment.

(b) In this section "law enforcement agent" includes

personnel of the state and local law enforcement agencies as well as

of the United States and any person acting in accordance with

instructions from such agents.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974.

Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1,

1994.

§ 8.07. AGE AFFECTING CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY. (a) A

person may not be prosecuted for or convicted of any offense that

the person committed when younger than 15 years of age except:

(1) perjury and aggravated perjury when it appears by

proof that the person had sufficient discretion to understand the

nature and obligation of an oath;

(2) a violation of a penal statute cognizable under

Chapter 729, Transportation Code, except for conduct for which the

person convicted may be sentenced to imprisonment or confinement in

jail;

(3) a violation of a motor vehicle traffic ordinance

of an incorporated city or town in this state;

(4) a misdemeanor punishable by fine only other than

public intoxication;

(5) a violation of a penal ordinance of a political

subdivision;

(6) a violation of a penal statute that is, or is a

lesser included offense of, a capital felony, an aggravated

controlled substance felony, or a felony of the first degree for

which the person is transferred to the court under Section 54.02,

Family Code, for prosecution if the person committed the offense

when 14 years of age or older; or

(7) a capital felony or an offense under Section 19.02

for which the person is transferred to the court under Section

54.02(j)(2)(A), Family Code.

(b) Unless the juvenile court waives jurisdiction under

Section 54.02, Family Code, and certifies the individual for

criminal prosecution or the juvenile court has previously waived

jurisdiction under that section and certified the individual for

criminal prosecution, a person may not be prosecuted for or

convicted of any offense committed before reaching 17 years of age

except an offense described by Subsections (a)(1)-(5).

(c) No person may, in any case, be punished by death for an

offense committed while the person was younger than 18 years.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974.

Amended by Acts 1975, 64th Leg., p. 2158, ch. 693, § 24, eff.

Sept. 1, 1975; Acts 1987, 70th Leg., ch. 1040, § 26, eff. Sept.

1, 1987; Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 1245, § 3, eff. Sept. 1, 1989;

Acts 1991, 72nd Leg., ch. 169, § 3, eff. Sept. 1, 1991; Acts

1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994. Amended by

Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 262, § 77, eff. Jan. 1, 1996; Acts

1997, 75th Leg., ch. 165, § 30.236, eff. Sept. 1, 1997; Acts

1997, 75th Leg., ch. 822, § 4, eff. Sept. 1, 1997; Acts 1997,

75th Leg., ch. 1086, § 42, eff. Sept. 1, 1997; Acts 2001, 77th

Leg., ch. 1297, § 68, eff. Sept. 1, 2001; Acts 2003, 78th Leg.,

ch. 283, § 52, eff. Sept. 1, 2003; Acts 2005, 79th Leg., ch. 787,

§ 2, eff. Sept. 1, 2005; Acts 2005, 79th Leg., ch. 949, § 45,

The ad we'll never have!

NOTE: The previous blog was factual. This one is satirical. There are, of course, a great many laws which, if violated, may land you in prison for a very long time (in addition to harming yourself, others, etc.). What follows is intended to be humorous, and does not constitute legal advice.

You may have heard me talk about the fact that there are no speed limits in TX, and that speed limit signs are merely decorative. It's true. These signs are nothing more than reflective shiny rectangles at the end of metal poles. But here's something you probably don't know. Not only are there no speed limits in Texas. In fact, there are no laws whatsoever.

That's right. Forget everything you've ever heard about not "breaking the law." The next time somebody cuts you off in traffic, feel free to crush their skull with a tire tool at the next stop light, secure in the knowledge that you've done nothing wrong. Are you a drug dealer? No worries. You can sell bathtubs full of meth without thinking twice. And if some SWAT team comes along and kicks in your door, you can smile to yourself as they lead you away, because you know something they don't. In Texas, there are no laws whatsoever.

Now I know what you're thinking. If there are no laws, what's all this fuss about jail. When people ask me this question, I can't help but laugh. After all, if I told you that you could go to a place where they clothe, house, and feed you free of charge, you'd probably think you'd won a trip to some fancy vacation resort. Jail is truly nothing more than a type of collective living arrangement for short-haired men, akin to the hippie communes of the 60's. Ask yourself, have you ever seen a sad hippie?

So the next time you do something that some angry policeman tells you is against the law, smile broadly and say, "Whatever! Take me to one of your short-hair man hippie communes. I've always wanted to learn how to carry things around in my booty suitcase." And remember, if you suddenly decide that you've formed a few more intimate relationships than you'd hoped, have someone who doesn't need to call collect give us a ring. We're Berlof & Newton, P.C. Visit our website at DallasAttorney.com or call us at 214.823.LAWS (even though there aren't any).