F. R. Buck Files, Jr.

Printer-friendly versionPrinter-friendly versionPDF versionPDF version
Buck Files, a member of TCDLA’s Hall of Fame and the President of the State Bar of Texas, practices in Tyler, Texas, with the law firm Bain, Files, Jarrett, Bain & Harrison, PC.

Stories from F. R. Buck Files, Jr.

Friday, March 9th, 2018

It must be such an irritation for a judge to have folks wander into the courtroom when the lawyers are conducting their voir dire examinations of the jury panel. In response to this irritation, some judges began to close their courtrooms during the voir dire—even in the trials of criminal cases. Then the Supreme Court held that a defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to a public trial was violated when the trial court excluded the public from the voir dire examination of prospective jurors—and courtrooms began to remain open. Presley v. Georgia, 130 S.Ct.

Tuesday, February 6th, 2018

The Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Justice are competing against each other in a turf battle and playing tug of war with our clients. DHS is tugging on one arm, seeking deportation. The Department of Justice is on the other arm, seeking prosecution. This is a fact situation we have seen recently in two cases: United States v. Boutin, ___F.Supp.3d___, 2017 WL 6611569 (E.D.N.Y. December 20, 2017) [Memorandum and Order, Chief United States District Judge Dora L. Irizarry], and United States v.

Thursday, December 14th, 2017

When I go to the doctor, I expect to get answers to my questions. What’s wrong with me? What do you need to do to make me feel better? How long will that take?

Tuesday, October 31st, 2017

For those of us who live and practice law in cities near interstate highways, it is common for us to represent clients who have been stopped by law enforcement officers while they were driving rental cars and transporting drugs. In each of these cases, we consider filing a motion to suppress the evidence discovered and seized by the officers. Often, there is an issue as to whether our clients have standing to challenge the search of their vehicles and the seizure of the drugs.

Saturday, September 30th, 2017

On September 6, 2017, I received an email from my immigration guru, Richard Fischer of Nacogdoches. Attached to that email was a copy of Matter of Ali Mohamed Mohamed, 27 I&N Dec. 92 (BIA 2017), Interim Decision #3900. This was a September 5th decision of a panel of the U.S. Department of Justice Executive Office for Immigration Review Board of Immigration Appeals.

Thursday, August 31st, 2017

No client is more self-righteously indignant than the one who learns that he has been tricked into giving a confession by officers using a variation of the very old “we-found-your-fingerprints-at-the-scene” ploy. Unfortunately for the client, the courts have approved the use of such trickery—e.g.,

Tuesday, July 25th, 2017

On June 23, 2017, the Supreme Court held that the defendant, Jae Lee, had demonstrated a reasonable probability that he would not have pleaded guilty if he had known that it would lead to his mandatory deportation, and thus, his lawyer’s erroneous advice as to the deportation consequences of his guilty plea prejudiced him and amounted to ineffective assistance of counsel. Lee v. United States, ___S.Ct.___, 2017 WL 2694701 (June 23, 2017) [Opinion by Chief Justice Roberts in which Justices Kennedy, Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan joined.

Tuesday, June 6th, 2017

Congress can create laws and the federal courts can interpret these laws, but we are seldom caught off guard by them. At least we have the opportunity to be aware of, for some considerable time, what each is considering.

Tuesday, May 9th, 2017

Last Spring, I came across an article from the Los Angeles Times written by Matt Hamilton and Richard Winton entitled “A New Frontier in Battle Over Digital Security.” 2016 WLNR 13156357 (April 30, 2016). Because I had been interested in whether individuals can be required to unlock their iPhones and iPads by having their fingerprints involuntarily placed on these devices, I kept the article for another day—which is today. The article reads, in part, as follows:

Thursday, March 30th, 2017

On February 24, 2017, a panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed the judgment and sentence of the district court, holding that government agents may influence where a federal crime occurs, and that there is no such thing as manufactured venue or venue entrapment. United States v. Valenzuela, ___F.3d___, 2017 WL 727553 (1st Cir., February 24, 2017) [The Panel: Chief Judge Howard, Associate Justice Souter (retired, sitting by designation), and Circuit Judge Stahl (Opinion by Stahl)].

Thursday, March 9th, 2017

Michael Thorvald Laursen was 45 years of age and having a sexual relationship with J.B., who was only 16. Because the age of consent is 16 in the State of Washington, Laur­sen was not in violation of state law. On occasion, Laursen and J.B. would take sexually explicit “selfie” photographs. It never occurred to Laursen that this could cause him to be a defendant in a federal criminal case.

Wednesday, January 25th, 2017

Last June, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit held that a non-citizen defendant could not establish prejudice resulting from his lawyer’s deficient performance in advising him that he would not be subject to deportation if he pleaded guilty to a drug offense and affirmed the district court’s denial of Lee’s § 2255 motion to vacate his conviction and sentence. Lee v. United States, 825 F.3d 311 (6th Cir. 2016) [Circuit Judges Norris, Batchelder and Sutton (Opinion by Batchelder)]. See also Lee v.

Tuesday, December 6th, 2016

Robert M. Parker was a great federal judge. Before he served on the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, he sat in Tyler as the Chief Judge of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. He could make any appearance before him interesting, challenging—and even fun. One year, he spoke on the topic of “Departures” at the Advanced Criminal Law Course of the State Bar of Texas. His thesis was simple: Defense lawyers win few jury trials.

Saturday, November 5th, 2016

Like the Roadrunner and Wile E. Coyote, those who would watch child pornography and those who would prosecute them for doing so continue to try to outwit each other. In the real world, though, it is Mr. Coyote (the Government) who often prevails. Recently, I learned about the child pornographers’ use of The onion router (“Tor”) and the Government’s use of a Network Investigative Technique (“NIT”). United States v. Croghan, ___F.Supp.3d___, 2016 WL 4992105 (S.D. Iowa Sept. 19, 2016), and United States v.

Friday, October 7th, 2016

On July 12, 2016, United States District Judge William H. Pauley III, of the Southern District of New York, granted the defendant’s motion to suppress the narcotics and drug paraphernalia recovered by law enforcement agents in connection with a search of his apartment. Judge Pauley held that (1) the warrantless use of a cell-site simulator to locate the defendant’s apartment as the place of use for the target cell phone, was an unreasonable search; (2) the attenuation doctrine was inapplicable; and, (3) the third-party doctrine was also inapplicable [emphasis added].

Friday, September 2nd, 2016

Only one criminal defense lawyer in America has ever before seen the fact situation that was presented to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. United States v. Collins, ___F.3d___, 2016 WL 3583999 (6th Cir. 2016) [Panel: Circuit Judges Guy, Batchelder, and Cook. Opinion by Judge Guy.] That lawyer was the attorney of record for Mr. Collins.

Friday, July 22nd, 2016

Some 40 years ago, fellow TCDLA member Pat Ireland and I were representing a constable from Lamar County who had been indicted for violating the civil rights of some devil worshippers by whipping up on them. [That wasn’t the language of the indictment, but it was the gist of the offense.] In spite of our best efforts, the jury had no difficulty in returning a verdict of guilty. When it came time for sentencing, though, we had a great day.

Saturday, June 11th, 2016

On May 10, 2016, a panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit held that a defendant faced some danger of self-incrimination if he was required to answer mandatory questions during a sex offender history polygraph; and, the government’s threat to seek revocation of the defendant’s supervised release constituted an unconstitutional compulsion to submit to such a polygraph under the Fifth Amendment. [The panel: Circuit Judges Briscoe, Seymour, and Lucero (opinion by Seymour)] United States v.

Thursday, May 5th, 2016

This column is about Robert C. Nalley, a Maryland state judge who committed a federal criminal offense in a courtroom where he was hearing pre-trial matters before jury selection began. You will see in real time what the judge does and how it impacted the defendant, Delvon King-Ali, who was standing before him:

Saturday, April 9th, 2016

The event has occurred on thousands of occasions. Terry Trooper sees Danny Defendant driving on his highway. Something catches Terry’s attention that causes him to believe Danny has committed or is committing a criminal offense. Terry initiates a traffic stop that leads to a conversation with Danny, a seizure of something, and a warrantless arrest. The issue for the trial court or the appellate court is always the same: Did Terry have probable cause or a reasonable suspicion that Danny had committed or was committing a criminal offense?