Random Friday Morning Thoughts

  • Well, since it's "All Coronavirus, All The Time", I'll just spend the weekend alone with my new friends. 
  • I suppose the stock market crash is due to the "fears of the coronavirus impact on the global economy", but I've been waiting for this mini-crash for five years. And it really needs to fall another 15% to get the entire needed "correction" out of its system. 
  • But let's check in on Trump during yesterday's steep stock market drop:
    Diamond and Silk spittin' pearls of wisdom.

    Hey, that's the new crazy Spiritual Advisor who is kinda hot. If I were
    Melania, I'd keep my eye on her. 
  • Let's randomly check in on Oklahoma State alum Garth Brooks performing in Detroit. I always knew he was a bleeding heart, snowflake commie. 

  • Can we put this photo in the Smithsonian to document how America went crazy during these years?
  • I've never seen the Netflix docuseries The Staircase, and I'm not sure why. I love crime documentaries. 
  • Prager University didn't like how it was being treated by YouTube so its lawyers, who apparently are about as smart as the fake University's founder, decided to argue that the First Amendment applied to a private entity like YouTube.  They were thrown out of court yesterday. You are basically being called a horrible lawyer when an appellate court says: "PragerU runs headfirst into two insurmountable barriers—the First Amendment and Supreme Court precedent."
  • Speaking of the First Amendment, who ya got in Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick vs. Gun Violence Protester?  This is actually a fantastic legal question which was probably settled in Cohen vs. California (1971). Patrick posted this yesterday, but I'm having trouble finding where he got the photo. 
  • Very legal nerd stuff that makes my head spin because of some spare case out of Waco two days ago:
    • The State of Texas charged a guy with possessing prescription medication without a prescription. (Yep, that's a crime even though most of you have borrowed a hydrocodone from a friend or spouse from time to to time. It's a misdemeanor.) 
    • The State told the Defendant in the formal charge what the drug was that he illegal possessed:  Acetaminophen. (Remember that.)
    • The Defendant then entered into a plea bargain and agreed to do 180 days in the Hill County Jail. (Good lord. Is he being prosecuted by Hill County Nazis? And why is he agreeing to do 180 days?)
    • Despite the plea bargain, he was allowed to appeal because he had filed a Motion to Suppress claiming the search of his car was illegal.  (But this is weird in its own right. Yes, he has that right but normally the State requires you to waive any right to appeal in order to get the plea bargain. It's a, "Hey, we'll offer you x but only if you agree to give up your right to appeal on the Motion to Suppress." That didn't happen here.)
    • Then it gets weirder. The appellate lawyer actually reads the charge against the Defendant and found out that Acetaminophen is nothing other than Tylenol. Yep, the State screwed up. And the Defendant didn't catch it and agreed to do 180 days in jail for possessing simple Tylenol.
    • So now the Defendant, who planned on appealing the ruling on the Motion to Suppress, has a whole new ground to pursue on appeal: "They charged me with possessing over the counter medicine! That ain't right!"
    • Now the State's lawyer on appeal, who also discovers for the first time they had charged the guy with possessing Tylenol,  just gives up and "confesses error." They admit the screwed up, and tell the appellate court they should have charged him with possessing the prescription type of Tylenol which has codeine in it. But their falling on the sword comes with a catch: They are going to go after the Defendant again once the court of appeals reverses this case.
    • So the Court reverses but, with little fanfare, orders an out-right acquittal.  (They really didn't spend any time on denying the State's request to just reverse the case and let the re-plead it and prosecute the defendant again.)

    • (I'll admit, this case in the future now gets even more complicated. Is it double jeopardy? Can they prosecute him again with the corrected charge? If I wanted a day researching it, I'd give you and answer.)
    • But, wait! There's more! There is even a dissent in this case. It basically says, "Hey, State, why the heck are you confessing error? The law in this area is really complicated, and I can save your arse by ruling that the Defendant should have objected to being charged with just possessing Tylenol. And since he didn't catch that you screwed up the charge, he needs to spend that 180 days in jail he agreed to do!" Really. That's what the dissent really means. And just check out how crazy the dissent starts:
    • All this over allegedly possessing prescription Tylenol without a prescription.
    • Let me repeat again what I now want engraved on my tombstone: "Too many cops. Too many prosecutors."
  • So how do I know about a Waco appellate case that got reversed yesterday? You want to know what a legal nerd I am? I've got some computer programming skills* so I designed an online program that, once you enter a date, searches every appellate court in Texas and let's you know if a case was been reversed on appeal that day. (Once you enter the date and hit "Run", you've got to wait about 20 seconds until every court is searched and then the results appear.)  *Cue the Napoleon Dynamite voice.
  • A faithful reader tipped me off to this: A Pilot Point police officer was arrested yesterday on assault charges. That's not that big of a deal in itself, but the reader noticed this: The arrest was made by Denton PD and, once arrested, Denton PD released the guy's mugshot to the media.  But two years ago, Denton PD arrested one of their own for assault and refused to release the mug shot: "Denton police spokesman Bryan Cose said the department would not release Beckwith's jail booking photograph until an indictment was made by a grand jury. Unless Beckwith gives written consent, Cose said they're not allowed to release the photo under section Sec. 143.090 of the local government code."