Texas Supreme Court
In re Abbott
No. 21-0667 8/17/21
Issue:
Does the Texas Constitution give the House of Representatives the authority to physically compel the attendance of absent members?
Holding:
Yes. Directing the district court to withdraw the TRO prohibiting the defendants (the Governor and the Speaker of the House) from compelling attendance, the Court held Art. III §10 of the Texas Constitution does not impose any restrictions on how compulsion of the attendance of absent members may be achieved. Rather, it gives discretion to the present members to “compel attendance … in such a manner and under such penalties as each House may provide.” Under the House’s own internal rules, the physical arrest of absent members to compel their attendance is authorized. Read opinion.
Commentary:
This decision is a rather straightforward construction of the constitutional provision. There is little or no previous construction of the provision, but the court noted that the rules of both chambers of the legislature have long allowed for the taking into “custody” of absent legislative members. The court also analogized to the approach that the United States Supreme Court has taken with regard to a similarly worded federal provision—in a decision from 1880. The court finally took issue with the district court for issuing an ex parte temporary restraining order, which the court found to be contrary to the Rules of Civil Procedure. There is certainly a lot more going on here than the construction of a constitutional provision, but that is the only question that the court answered in this case.
Texas Courts of Appeals
State v. Gallien
No. 01-19-00882-CR 8/12/21
Issue:
Was a mistrial warranted after a juror wrote a note to the judge during the sentencing phase indicating she had been pressured to find the defendant guilty by other jurors during deliberations in the guilt-innocence phase?
Holding:
No. Per Texas Rule of Evidence 606(b), during an inquiry into the validity of a verdict or an indictment, a court may not receive a juror’s affidavit or evidence of a juror’s statement concerning jury deliberations. Therefore, the note was inadmissible. However, even if the juror’s note was admissible, because there was no supporting evidence, it would have been insufficient to show jury misconduct. Read opinion.
Commentary:
This factual situation is a classic example of the kind of juror evidence that Rule 606(b) is designed to prevent. The court’s decision is an excellent presentation of the law in that regard. You should definitely present this decision to your trial judge if he or she wishes to consider such testimony from a juror. But make sure that you present it, or make some kind of objection. Case law also holds that, if the State does not object to the evidence, the trial judge does not abuse his discretion in considering it.