All Posts By

Brandon Barnett

Jan 18
10
Sharen Wilson Tarrant County District Attorney

Tarrant County District Attorney Sharen Wilson Oversees all Fort Worth Prosecutors

By | Criminal Defense

Tarrant County District Attorney Sharen Wilson

Sharen Wilson Tarrant County District Attorney

Sharen Wilson, who took office in 2015, is the elected Tarrant County District Attorney. She is the top of all Fort Worth prosecutors, managing a large office of Assistant District Attorneys, investigators, support staff, and even a therapy dog.  Prior to assuming her new role as the Tarrant County District Attorney, Sharen Wilson presided over Criminal District Court Number 1 as a District Judge.  Her office receives cases from the various police departments across Tarrant County, investigates the cases, and files misdemeanor or felony criminal cases.  The Assistant District Attorneys under Sharen Wilson present cases to grand juries and manage dockets in the 20 Tarrant County criminal courts and the Courts of Appeals.  If you are interested in observing a criminal trial in Tarrant County, check out the Tarrant County Trial Board for a list of cases each week.

Fort Worth Prosecutors | Tarrant County DA

The Tarrant County District Attorney office has over 150 Fort Worth prosecutors and over 50 investigators. The office has a budget of $38 million dedicated to criminal prosecutions and investigations in Tarrant County.  Colloquially, every Assistant District Attorney is referred to as a “Tarrant County DA” or “prosecutor,” but the ultimate authority over criminal prosecutions is retained by Sharen Wilson.  Fort Worth prosecutors are known across the state as fair and collegial attorneys.  They have a reputation for taking a fair look at each case and providing all available information to the defense bar in a timely manner.  Although the Tarrant County District Attorney office is one of the largest in the state, in one of the largest counties in the state, the office and its staff carry themselves with small-town values.  While each criminal case is different and may have its own challenges, our criminal defense attorneys have always been satisfied with the professionalism of the Tarrant County DA office.

Free Consultation of Tarrant County Criminal Cases

Our Fort Worth criminal defense attorneys square off every day with the Tarrant County DA office. We have a proven track record of favorable results for our clients. We understand that every case and every client are different. We take a personal approach to every client and pursue every option to address our clients’ individual needs. For a FREE consultation of your Tarrant County criminal case, contact our team at (817) 993-9249.

Jan 16
0
Fort Worth Double Jeopardy DWI

Is That Your Final Answer? Double Jeopardy and Partial Verdicts

By | Double Jeopardy

Fort Worth Double Jeopardy DWIUnited States Supreme Court case highlight: Blueford v. Arkansas

The case dealt with the double jeopardy clause and whether it applies to partial or informal verdicts.

In Blueford, the defendant was being tried for capital murder.  The trial judge instructed the jury that if it did not find the defendant guilty of capital murder, it should consider the lesser included offense of first degree murder.  The court further instructed that if the jury did not find the defendant guilty of first degree murder, it should consider manslaughter…and so on and so forth.  After several hours of deliberations, the jury reported that it could not reach a unanimous verdict.  The judge inquired into how the voting was going and the jury reported that it had decided that the defendant was not guilty of capital murder or first degree murder, but that it could not agree on manslaughter.  The judge instructed the jury to go back and keep trying, but they were unable to break the impasse.  Accordingly, the trial judge declared a mistrial.

During the retrial for the same offense, the defendant objected on double jeopardy grounds to the charge of capital murder, arguing that the jury’s informal verdict that he was not guilty of capital or first degree murder precluded him being retried for that same charge at a later trial.  The trial court disagreed, as did the appellate courts.

In a 6-3 opinion (Majority: Roberts, Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, Breyer, Alito), the Supreme Court held that :

The Double Jeopardy Clause does not bar retrying Blueford on charges of capital murder and first-degree murder.  The jury did not acquit Blueford of capital or first-degree murder.  Blueford contends that the foreperson’s report that the jury was unanimous against guilt on the murder offenses represented a resolution of some or all of the elements of those offenses in his favor.   But the report was not a final resolution of anything.  When the foreperson told the court how the jury had voted on each offense, the jury’s deliberations had not yet concluded.  The jurors in fact went back to the jury room to deliberate further, and nothing in the court’s instructions prohibited them from reconsidering their votes on capital and first-degree murder as deliberations continued.  The foreperson’s report prior to the end of deliberations therefore lacked the finality necessary to amount to an acquittal on those offenses.  That same lack of finality undermines Blueford’s reliance on Green v. United States, 355 U. S. 184, and Price v. Georgia, 398 U. S. 323.  In both of those cases, the verdict of the jury was a final decision; here, the report of the foreperson was not.

This holding appears to be consistent with Texas law, in that a jury foreperson must sign a verdict form and the court must accept the verdict, before it is given any legal significance.

Justices Sotomayer dissented (joined by Ginsberg and Kagan), and would hold that partial verdicts should be required before a mistrial is granted on the grounds of a deadlock.

Jan 09
0
Criminal lawyers Keller, Texas

How Court-Appointed Defense Lawyers are Like Drill Instructors

By | Indigent Defense

Criminal lawyers Keller, TexasI’ll never forget something I heard back when I was going through Marine Corps Officer Candidate’s School.  After somebody said “thank you” to a Drill Instructor, the Drill Instructor looked at the person (in a way only a Drill Instructor can) and responded “Don’t thank me.  The government thanks me every two weeks!”

I felt a little like my former Drill Instructor recently as I was talking to a couple of my court-appointed clients.  For court-appointed cases, the county pays me to represent indigent defendants.  This doesn’t mean that I have any obligation to help the county move cases or plead my clients guilty.  My only loyalty is to my client, regardless of who is paying the bill.

However, on two separate occasions last week, a court-appointed client offered to give me a little cash if I could help them get a better deal.  Like my former Drill Instructor, I did my best to explain there is no need to give me anything.  You’ll get my very best even though the county is footing the bill.

Misconceptions abound when a defendant spends any amount of time in jail.  The jailhouse lawyers love dispensing their “legal knowledge.”  One of the first “CLE’s” that the jailhouse lawyers hold is the primer on court-appointed lawyers.  About how we are in cahoots with the State and how we are only interested in pleading the clients out at the first setting.  Not true.  At least not true in our criminal defense firm.

Of course there are times when the very best plea offer from the State comes at the first setting (as it should) and it is in the defendant’s best interest to take it.  But not always.  And if we need to expand our investigation and do a little more negotiating with the prosecutor, or if we need to prepare for trial, then we’ll do it.  No need to pay me any more money and no need to thank me (but a thank you is nice from time to time).

Jan 08
0
Fort Worth criminal investigation

Private Investigator: An Indispensable Criminal Defense Asset

By | Criminal Defense

Investigating Every Case to Uncover the Real Truth | Fort Worth Criminal Defense Lawyers

Fort Worth criminal investigationEvery criminal allegation exists in a gray area. If one were to focus solely on the police report, a criminal case might seem black and white. But it’s not. There are secrets, personalities, motivations, half-truths, unnamed witnesses, and much more lurking in the shadows of every case. One of the keys to a successful defense is to uncover those facts not articulated in the police report and give the case a context. This is why we use a private investigator as part of our defense team.

A good private investigator is indispensable to a full and complete criminal defense. You would be surprised to hear what people will tell an investigator (while being recorded). Perhaps it’s because people like to feel important, or maybe some folks just aren’t completely aware of what they are saying, but a good private investigator can blow a case wide open simply by hitting the streets to interview witnesses and others connected to the case.

Our investigator is a retired police officer that spent over 30 years on the force in the Dallas Fort Worth Metroplex, including many years as an undercover narcotics officer. He can look at a police report and spot errors in the investigation at the drop of a hat.

If you have been charged with a criminal offense in Tarrant County, Texas and you know that there is more to your case than what is contained in the police report, give us a call and we will coordinate with our investigator to get started uncovering “the rest of the story.” Contact us today for a free consultation.

Jan 07
1

Jessica’s Law: Continuous Sexual Abuse of a Child

By | Sex Crimes

A Review of Jessica’s Law in Texas | Sex Crimes Defense Attorneys

The 80th Texas legislature enacted the “Jessica Lunsford Act” (H.B. 8) to create a criminal offense of Continuous Sexual Abuse of a Child (Texas Penal Code 21.02).  The chart below details the particulars of the offense of Continuous Sexual Abuse of a Child under Section 21.02.

The elements of Jessica’s Law:

  • The sexual abuse may be committed against 1 or more victims. (Texas Penal Code 21.02 (b)(1))
  • The complaining witness must be a child younger than the age of 14. (Texas Penal Code 21.02(b)(2))
  • This offense does not apply to juvenile offenders. (Texas Penal Code 21.02(b)(2))
  • A jury is not required to agree unanimously on which specific acts of sexual abuse the defendant committed or the exact date when those acts were committed. (Texas Penal Code 21.02(d))
  • The jury must agree unanimously that the defendant committed 2 or more acts of sexual abuse during a duration of 30 days or more. (Texas Penal Code 21.02(d))
  • An affirmative defense does exist for the offense. If the defendant was not more than 5 years older than the complaining witness; did not use duress, force, or threat; and was not a registered sex offender, then the defendant may raise these points as an affirmative defense. (Texas Penal Code 21.02(g))

Punishment:

  • For a first time offense, regardless of prior criminal history, the range of punishment is 25 to 99 years or life in prison. (Texas Penal Code 22.02(h))
  • Any subsequent offense will result in life in prison without parole (Texas Penal Code 12.42(c)(4))
  • Even for a first time offense, there is no deferred adjudication community supervision (Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Art. 42.12, Section 5(d) (3)), no judge-ordered community supervision (Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Art. 42.12, Section 3(e)(1)), or no jury-recommended community supervision (Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Art. 42.12, Section 4(d)(1)).
  • Essentially, probation in any form or fashion is not an option under Jessica’s Law.
  • Additionally, a defendant convicted under this law has no eligibility for parole. (Texas Government Code Section 508.145 (a)).

Aside from a capital murder charge, the offense of Continuous Sexual Abuse of a Child is now considered the highest level of offense a person in Texas can be charged with. We’ve had several years to watch juries handle these types of cases and we’ve seen that juries tend to punish severely when presented with continuous sexual abuse of a child.

If you or a loved one is facing a serious criminal charge in Tarrant County, Texas, please call our experienced criminal defense attorneys today at (817) 993-9249. We offer free consultations.

Jan 05
1
Fort Worth Criminal Defense Child Victim

Search & Seizure: Officer’s Mistake of Law

By | Search & Seizure

United States Supreme Court | Search and Seizure Update

Fort Worth Criminal Defense Child VictimWe expect that police officers know the law.  After all, they are charged with upholding the law.  But what happens when an officer makes a traffic stop based on an incorrect understanding of the law and then finds evidence of another crime during his improper stop?  The Supreme Court recently considered this scenario in the case outlined below:

In Heien v. North Carolina, a North Carolina police officer stopped a man for driving with one broken brake light.  The driver later gave consent to the officer to search his vehicle. The officer discovered cocaine charged the driver with trafficking cocaine. The driver argued that the officer made a mistake of law for stopping him on one faulty brake light and not two (which is what NC law requires) therefore evidence should be suppressed.  The NC vehicle code makes clear that the officer was mistaken when making the traffic stop.

The Supreme Court granted cert to review the case and the question of whether an officer who makes a mistake of law still gives rise to reasonable suspicion. They Court ruled that the officer’s mistake of law was objectively reasonable and that ultimately, the Officer had reasonable suspicion to conduct the traffic stop.  In so holding, Chief Justice Roberts wrote “The Fourth Amendment requires government officials to act reasonably, not perfectly, and gives those officials ‘fair leeway for enforcing the law.'”

While not dealing with specific state law in Texas, the ruling in this case did address reasonable suspicion as it relates to unreasonable searches prohibited by the 4th Amendment.  Article 38.23 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure states:

No evidence obtained by an officer or other person in violation of any provisions of the Constitution or laws of the State of Texas, or of the Constitution or laws of the United States of America, shall be admitted in evidence against the accused on the trial of any criminal case.

While Article 38.23 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure provides an exception if an officer is acting in objective good faith reliance on a warrant, it does not give a reasonable suspicion exception to conduct a search.  Clearly, the Heien opinion will be cited by the State to support searches even when the initial stop is conducted illegally.  We will just have to wait and see how our Texas Courts will react in light of Heien v. North Carolina.

Dec 23
0
Contractor Convicted of Theft

Texas Contractor Convicted for Theft: Upheld by High Court

By | Theft

Can a bad contractor be convicted for theft?

Contractor Convicted of TheftIf you’ve ever gone through a home renovation or something similar, you have likely experienced periods of frustration with your contractor or construction crew.  This may stem from missed deadlines, shoddy workmanship, mistakes, or general incompetence. In extreme cases, you might have felt duped by the contractor, so much that you think he should be held criminally liable for the promises on which he failed to deliver.

Can a contractor be held criminally liable for his failures?  Texas law says YES (in certain circumstances).

In a recent case out of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, the court upheld the felony criminal conviction of a contractor for theft when he accepted money and failed to deliver under the contract for services.  The court explained that in most cases, dissatisfied consumers will have to resort to the civil courts, but in extreme cases, a contractor could be convicted of theft when he accepts money and utterly fails to perform.

You can read the full opinion of the court regarding Contractor Theft.

Barnett Howard & Williams PLLC is a criminal defense law firm in Fort Worth, Texas.  Call us today for a free consultation of your criminal matter at (817) 993-9249.

Oct 23
1
Fort Worth DWI defense lawyers

Avoiding a Criminal Charge By Avoiding Obscure Traffic Offenses

By | Traffic Offenses

Obscure Texas Traffic Offenses | Fort Worth Criminal Attorneys

Fort Worth DWI defense lawyersMany of our criminal cases begin with traffic offenses. Something as simple as failing to signal for a lane change can quickly become a DWI investigation if the officer suspects the driver has been drinking. Often, during a traffic stop an officer will ask for consent to search the vehicle and then, depending on what might be in the car, the traffic stop turns into an arrest for possession of an illegal substance or contraband. (Tip: Never give consent to search. Ever.)

We put our heads together to think about some of the more obscure traffic violations about which drivers may not know. We have listed four of them below. The officers on the road know about them, so you should too.

Sec. 544.010(c) – Stopping before the crosswalk or white line. When you approach a streetlight or stop sign you must stop before the white line (or crosswalk line), regardless of where the stop sign or streetlight is positioned. Many times the actual stop sign will be a few yards in front of the line, just begging you to inch a little closer. Resist the urge to stop at the sign. There’s probably a traffic cop right around the corner just waiting for you to mess this one up. (If you are a person that remembers rhymes better…Stop at the line, not at the sign!)

Sec. 545.104(a) – Signal intent to start from a parked position. This is one that I’ll admit I did not know about. When you are parallel parked on a street and you wish to enter the roadway, you must signal your intent to do so. Put on your turn signal and then begin driving into the roadway. (Signal when parked, before you depart.)

Sec. 545.104(b) – Signal turn/lane change 100 feet prior to turn/lane change. We all know that we must signal when making a turn or changing lanes, but many folks do not know that it must be done 100 feet prior to the movement. If you must make a quick turn, any signal is better than none, but the rule says 100 feet. (Before you change lanes or turn on the street, you must signal for 100 feet.)

Sec. 547.322(f) – Separate lamp must be mounted to rear license plate and be visible from 50 feet. You cannot rely on your taillights to illuminate your license plate in Texas. Your license plate, like a special work of art hanging in the lobby of some fancy building, must have its own light so that everyone can clearly read your vanity plates proclaiming IMCOOL. Further, the license plate must be visible from 50 feet away. (When driving at night, do what’s right. Give your license plate a light.)

Oct 16
0

Our Greatest Achievement

By | Criminal Defense

We were asked this week to name our law firm’s greatest achievement.  Hmm… We’ve experienced quite a few successes over the past several years; acquittals, dismissals, no bills.  We’ve built strong relationships with people in the Fort Worth community.  We’ve been fortunate enough to help many clients.  But our greatest achievement…

After some thought, we knew our greatest achievement.

Our greatest achievement is the warm hug or firm handshake of a grateful client.

Just the other day we completed a criminal case in Tarrant County where the client’s parents had come to court to watch.  After the case was over we had a chance to speak with the parents in the hallway of the courthouse.  Our client’s mother was so thankful and through her tears asked if she could give us a hug.  That was the biggest compliment we could ever receive.  It was the overflow of her heart and in that moment, we knew we had made a difference in their lives.

We absolutely love what we do.  We get to help real people.  We are thankful for the opportunities to be a blessing.  We know that it is no accident when a client walks into our office.  Praise God for His plans and His purposes.

Jul 07
2
Fort Worth warrantless cell phone search

No More Warrantless Searches of Cell Phones

By | Search & Seizure

Is it a violation of the 4th Amendment prohibition against unreasonable search & seizure for a police officer to search a suspect’s cell phone without a warrant?

Fort Worth warrantless cell phone searchU.S. Supreme Court Holding: YES – The 4th Amendment prohibits officers from searching a suspects cell phone for information without a warrant.

Riley v. California; U.S. v. Wurie, (Consolidated by the Supreme Court in one case) 2014 U.S. LEXIS 4497 (U.S. June 25, 2014)

Riley v. California: In this case, Police officers arrested Appellant and searched the cell phone he was carrying incident to his arrest. The officers discovered photographs and videos on Appellant’s cell phone that were admitted as evidence against him at trial. As a result, Appellant was convicted. The California Court of Appeal affirmed the conviction, holding that the warrantless search of Appellant’s cell phone incident to his arrest was lawful.

U.S. v. Wurie: In this case, Police officers arrested Appellant for distribution of crack cocaine and seized two cell phones from him. Officers searched the call log on one of the cell phones and determined the phone number labeled “my house” was associated with a nearby apartment. Officers went to the apartment and saw the name “Wurie” written on the mailbox. The officers obtained a warrant, searched the apartment and found drugs and firearms.

Appellant filed a motion to suppress the evidence seized from his apartment, arguing the officers violated the Fourth Amendment by searching his cell phone incident to arrest. In reversing Appellant’s conviction, the First Circuit Court of Appeals held the search incident to arrest exception to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement did not authorize the warrantless search of data on cell phones seized from individuals arrested by police officers.

The Supreme Court consolidated the cases, holding that police officers generally may not search digital information on a cell phone seized from an individual who has been arrested, without first obtaining a warrant.

Previously, the court held police officers could conduct warrantless searches of arrestees and possessions within the arrestees’ control, incident to a custodial arrest. The court concluded such searches were reasonable in order to discover weapons or any evidence on the arrestee’s person so that evidence could not be concealed or destroyed.

The court concluded this rationale does not apply to modern cell phones. First, digital data stored on a cell phone cannot be used as a weapon to harm an arresting officer or aid an arrestee in escaping. The court emphasized that police officers may still examine the physical aspects of phone to ensure that it will not be used as a weapon. For example, the court noted a police officer may examine a cell phone to determine whether there is a razor blade hidden between the phone and its case. However, once an officer has secured a phone and eliminated any potential threats the data on the phone cannot harm anyone.

Second, the court stated the government provided little evidence to believe that loss of evidence from a seized cell phone, by remote wiping of the data on the phone, was a common occurrence. Even if remote wiping were a concern, the court listed two ways remote wiping could be prevented. First, the officer could turn the phone off or remove its battery. Second, the officer could put the phone inside a device, called a Faraday bag, that would isolate the phone from radio waves. The court added that Faraday bags are cheap, lightweight, and easy to use and a number of law enforcement agencies already encourage their use. In addition, the court commented that if a police officers are truly confronted with individualized facts suggesting that a defendant’s phone will be the target of an imminent remote wiping attempt, they may be able to rely on exigent circumstances to search that phone immediately.

The court further recognized that cell phones are different from other objects that an arrestee might have on his person. Before cell phones existed, a search of an arrestee generally constituted a small intrusion on the arrestee’s privacy. However, modern cell phones are, in essence, mini-computers that have immense storage capacity on which many people keep a digital record of nearly aspect of their lives. Consequenly, the warrantless search of a cell phone consitutes a significant intrusion upon a person’s privacy. If police officers wish to search a cell phone incident to arrest, they need to obtain a warrant.