TCDLA

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.

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).

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.

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).

Kudos

Steven R.

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).

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.

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).