Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals
Thompson v. Connick
08/10/09 : Cite No. 07-30443 : Brady Liability
Can a district attorney’s office be held civilly responsible for deliberate indifference to its obligation to train employees on their obligations under Brady v. Maryland?
Yes. The Court held that withholding blood evidence that showed the defendant could not have committed a prior offense could be attributed to the policies and procedures of the entire office, rather than simply the unanticipated action of a single rogue prosecutor.
Ignore this decision at your own peril. This case may reach the United States Supreme Court. But for now, this decision could very well stand for the proposition that a District Attorney’s Office is required to make training on Brady v. Maryland regularly available to its attorneys.
Texas Courts of Appeals
Foster v. State – 3rd COA
08/06/09 : Cite No. 03-08-00457-CR : Probable Cause
Did the trial court correctly deny the defendant’s motion to suppress when, after stopping behind an unmarked police car at a red light, revving his engine, and lurching his truck forward two times, he was then blocked by the arrival of a marked police car and eventually arrested for DWI?
No. There was not reasonable suspicion to justify the stop. The situation did not warrant a detention, and the court commented, "Poor or even rude driving habits do not necessarily translate into traffic violations."
Justice Puryear writes that the majority improperly substitutes its judgment for that of the officer and the trial court and does not acknowledge that an officer may lawfully detain a driver who has committed no traffic offense but is suspected of driving while intoxicated.
What else is a police officer supposed to do? Just ignore obviously aggressive driving behavior by another driver? It was the defendant himself who placed his vehicle so close to one of the officer’s vehicles that he could not drive away when the other officer’s vehicle arrived. Appellate courts have got to recognize that a police officer should be allowed to conduct even a brief investigation, even if an actual traffic violation has technically not been committed. Hopefully, since there is a dissenting opinion, the Court of Criminal Appeals will accept review of this decision.
Jacobs v. State – 6th COA
08/07/09 : Cite No. 06-08-00048-CR : Post-conviction DNA testing
Did the trial court correctly deny the defendant’s motion for post-conviction testing following his 1997 conviction and life sentence for aggravated sexual assault?
Yes. Testing hair samples found in the defendant’s truck would be useless to provide exculpatory evidence because the hairs did not contain the necessary root material or skin cells. No material existed that could be tested to potentially provide exculpatory evidence.
As of late, the Court of Criminal Appeals has leaned much more towards requiring post-conviction DNA testing. But if the court of appeals is correct that there is nothing in this case to test, the decision should stand.
Texas Attorney General
Opinion for the 79th Judicial District Attorney
08/06/09 : Opinion No. GA-0735 : Bail Bond Board
May a county bail bond board impose a fee on bonding companies to pay for the cost of employing a bail bond administrator under Occupations Code §1704.101 or any other statute?
No. A county bail bond board may not impose a fee on bonding companies to pay for the cost of employing a bail bond administrator.
TDCAA is pleased to offer our members unique case summaries from the U.S. Supreme Court, the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, Texas Courts of Appeals and the Texas Attorney General. In addition to the basic summaries, each case will have a link to the full text opinion and will offer exclusive prosecutor commentary explaining how the case may impact you as a prosecutor. The case summaries are for the benefit of prosecutors, their staff members, and members of the law enforcement community. These summaries are NOT a source of legal advice for citizens. The information contained in this email message may be privileged, confidential, and protected from disclosure. Any unauthorized use, printing, copying, disclosure, dissemination of or reliance upon this communication by persons other than the intended recipient may be subject to legal restriction or sanction. Please email comments, problems, or questions to casesum[email protected]. In addition, if you would like to discuss the summaries with fellow prosecutors, look for the thread in our criminal forum.