blank'/> Liberally Lean From The Land Of Dairy Queen: So You Want To Be A Lawyer?

12.07.2011

So You Want To Be A Lawyer?

Today the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals agreed to hear a case I appealed arising out of a DWI arrest in Boyd.  Want to know the exact legal issue they will consider?  Whether . . .
The [Fort Worth ] Court of Appeals erred in holding that the seven enumerated subsections in Texas Transportation Code § 545.058, setting forth when a Texas motorist may legally drive upon an improved shoulder, are akin to “defenses” of Penal Code § 2.03 that the State need not negate in a hearing on the Defendant’s Motion to Suppress.
 Wasn't there an episode of Law and Order based upon this issue? If not, how does this not become a novel?

The Court of Criminal Appeals only hears cases that it wants to hear. I have a bizarre record on having my requests to that court granted.

16 comments:

Gary the Graboid said...

Counselor you should lose this appeal--unless the legislature goes into emergency session and adds an eighth reason a person may drive on the shoulder: "Because the operator is intoxicated and incapable of keeping his vehicle within the marked lanes of travel."

Anonymous said...

No, I'd rather be a night manager at a sleazy hotel on Harry Hines. Much more integrity.

Thomas Stephenson said...

Interesting. I would think that the state would have to refute it considering that the state does have the burden of proving that it was a valid traffic stop. If one of the exceptions to the TTC applies, then it is not a valid traffic stop and therefore all evidence obtained from it would have to be excluded.

The previous comment may be the dumbest thing I've ever read. If that person has a law license I will be very sad.

Sean Elliott's Dirty Dead Kidney said...

No thanks on that hypothetical. Man, that gave me a severe case of tiredhead. Wake me after the TX Supremes get involved.

Anonymous said...

Claim she was driving on the shoulder, as one of her defenses to avoid a road hazard? Case.Won. ♫

Anonymous said...

Barry, I still think you have a future on television. Instead of Judd for the Defense, it will be Liberally Lean for the Defense.

My Other Brother Darryl

Anonymous said...

Want to save people from the consequences of their illegal actions....... be a lawyer

Want to legally extort money from the general public... be a lawyer

Want to take a family's life savings for yourself... be a lawyer

Want to babble endlessly about loopholes of expoiting laws that allow you to violate law with no consequence.... be a lawyer

Tired of being a lawyer but still want to personally profit from the bureacracy and pain inflicted on John Q. Public.... be a judge

Anonymous said...

12:08 PM

Want to do something if you fail at everything else in life....be a cop.

Anonymous said...

12:08

You left out defending the legal rights of the defendant.

That's what keeps us from living in a police state.

And you may want to research that whole "presumed innocent until proven guilty" thing, it makes for some good reading.

Anonymous said...

Did you bruise yourself with that substantial pat on the back?

Anonymous said...

Riveting stuff esse'. Homicide, Life On The Street should buy the rights...

Anonymous said...

2:07

Bitter?

Anonymous said...

Nope, don't want to be a lawyer. I have a conscience and know right from wrong.

Anonymous said...

What Barry conveniently leaves out is that to get to those seven execpetions, the statute requires that it be necessary. Thus the law, and common sense, you first have to show a neceissity in order to implement one of the seven. Duh, go to school.

Anonymous said...

2:23 Nah. I don't have appeals in my cases. I win them all.

Thomas Stephenson said...

3:33

"Necessary" does not mean what you think it means.

If I am driving on a two-lane road, and a car in front of me stops or slows down to make a left turn, I am allowed to drive on the shoulder in order to pass him. Is it "necessary" that I pass him? No, but it is allowed.

Aside from that, reading PC 2.03 and 2.02, the issue here is whether this is an "exception" which the prosecution must negate, or a "defense" which the prosecution is not required to negate. In other words, does the prosecution have to prove that the defendant's conduct did NOT fall under one of the subsections?