Joshua Davis is 18 months old and very cute. He has big button brown eyes and a wide, expecting smile. He is also missing, and has been for over a week now. His mother is very pregnant, and this prevents her from taking a lie detector test. Meanwhile, Joshua's daddy has taken several lie detector tests, and passed.
According to WOAI-TV reporting (see Nancy Grace media link below), so has everyone else who was in the home that day - except for one individual who remains unidentified.
Today is the 8th day that he's been gone.
The baby disappeared during some of the coldest weather we've seen in Texas for decades. Talk of snow. Days where we didn't go above freezing. It's too hard to ponder whether or not it's merciful that those first few hours of searching around the home late last Friday and into that next chilly Saturday morning -- in culverts, underneath the houses and cars and in the wooded areas -- didn't turn up a body. (For awhile, they were calling it a recovery effort - thinking that the toddler had strolled away from his home and in the sub-freezing temperatures could not have survived the night.)
The baby's daddy told reporters that he was glad; he believes his boy is still alive and that he's been snatched. The mother cries; she tells everyone that he was wandering in and out of the room where Toy Story was on the TV and no, the door wasn't open. But it wasn't locked.
And, his mom says that Joshua couldn't open the door. Nine people in the home; mommy and daddy watching television in different rooms; and there's reportedly no trace of the baby outside of the home itself.
They've brought in the bloodhounds. They've got the FBI and the Texas Rangers on the scene. The Heidi Search Center and other community volunteers have helped combed an ever-expanding search area: latest we were told a two-mile radius, and been gone over like a fine-toothed comb.
No Joshua.
Today, there will be a massive flier outreach, with parents and friends and family and volunteers trying to reach as many people as possible in communities along IH 35, from San Antonio to Austin, with papers giving information and a big photo of the little guy.
And, Nancy Grace has joined the team. Her first report on the Mystery of Joshua Davis - gone without a trace - aired this week.
Nancy Grace? Yes, and I welcome her interest - though others may not.
Of course, Nancy Grace coverage will be unwelcomed by some, who will see her involvement as self-serving and an open invitation for media exploitation of a newstory that is growing bigger by the day. Personally, when a baby has literally disappeared from his home then any help should be welcome.
Nancy Grace can bring a huge national spotlight to this little, beloved community north of San Antonio - and it seems to me, that right now this is a very good thing for Joshua Davis. I welcome her interest.
2/12/2011
2/08/2011
Trial by Media: Michael Jackson Doctor, Conrad Murray, Will Be Tried On TV - Should He Be? Do the Pros Outweigh the Cons?
TMZ is reporting today that the trial of Dr. Conrad Murray in California, where he is facing manslaughter charges in the death of Michael Jackson, will be televised.
Now, I recognize that if there's gonna be any place in the country where putting stuff on the screen seems like no big deal, it's Los Angeles. And I understand that there's a lot of profit here by doing so -- big audience, big advertising dollars, I get it.
I still don't know that this is a good idea. First of all, the job of the defense is to air a lot of dirty laundry. Yes, Michael Jackson will be tried in this case -- it's a strategy honed by my mentor Racehorse Haynes long ago, in the Cullen Davis murder trial.
No smart criminal defense attorney is going to forego introducing as much evidence as possible that puts Jackson in a bad light in defense of Dr. Murray's actions that day. It's gonna happen. (There's already scuttlebutt about a Michael Jackson suicide defense.)
Not fair to his kids. Not fair to his mom. Won't matter. We're going to learn things that will hurt them in this trial, and it's gonna go all over the world instantaneously in this televised trial.
Meanwhile, there are all those conspiracy theories out there (yes, there are Michael Jackson sightings now) as well as the potential of new ones if this trial is not put out there for public scrutiny. People may debate the trial in its aftermath, but they'll have the evidence presented and that's a different scenario than the omission of cameras and worldwide suspicions of evildoing in the courtroom. This is a plus to televising this thing.
However, I'm not a fan of televised trials. Perhaps in the early days, when the process was put onto our screens in sort of a CSpan approach -- but now, it's become so much more akin to reality TV.
Trial by media is a real concern, as well. Can Dr. Murray get a fair trial? I don't know, but if he's convicted there is that possible appellate argument.
Do the pros outweigh the cons? I don't think so in this case. In my opinion, Dr. Murray's trials should not be televised.
Now, I recognize that if there's gonna be any place in the country where putting stuff on the screen seems like no big deal, it's Los Angeles. And I understand that there's a lot of profit here by doing so -- big audience, big advertising dollars, I get it.
I still don't know that this is a good idea. First of all, the job of the defense is to air a lot of dirty laundry. Yes, Michael Jackson will be tried in this case -- it's a strategy honed by my mentor Racehorse Haynes long ago, in the Cullen Davis murder trial.
No smart criminal defense attorney is going to forego introducing as much evidence as possible that puts Jackson in a bad light in defense of Dr. Murray's actions that day. It's gonna happen. (There's already scuttlebutt about a Michael Jackson suicide defense.)
Not fair to his kids. Not fair to his mom. Won't matter. We're going to learn things that will hurt them in this trial, and it's gonna go all over the world instantaneously in this televised trial.
Meanwhile, there are all those conspiracy theories out there (yes, there are Michael Jackson sightings now) as well as the potential of new ones if this trial is not put out there for public scrutiny. People may debate the trial in its aftermath, but they'll have the evidence presented and that's a different scenario than the omission of cameras and worldwide suspicions of evildoing in the courtroom. This is a plus to televising this thing.
However, I'm not a fan of televised trials. Perhaps in the early days, when the process was put onto our screens in sort of a CSpan approach -- but now, it's become so much more akin to reality TV.
Trial by media is a real concern, as well. Can Dr. Murray get a fair trial? I don't know, but if he's convicted there is that possible appellate argument.
Do the pros outweigh the cons? I don't think so in this case. In my opinion, Dr. Murray's trials should not be televised.
11/28/2010
The Expansion of States' Rights and Federal Preemption Arguments at the U.S. Supreme Court
Admittedly, when I first hear the phrase "states' rights" I immediately think of Gone With the Wind. Maybe you'll remember that scene early in the film, where in the smokey front parlor of Twelve Oaks, Charles Hamilton challenges Rhett Butler to a duel after a heated debate amidst the gentlemen over whether or not the South can win a war against the Northern States.
Yes, yes, it does apply: today, we think of the Civil War as a fight over slavery but at the time, freedom of the individual wasn't the sole focus. For many, the War Between the States was fought over states' rights and the South's stance that the federal government should not have the legal power to dictate whether or not an individual state had the right to condone ownership of slaves.
We all know how that turned out. However, states' rights survives today and I'm wondering how intense this round of states' rights assertions are going to get. After all, Texas Governor Rick Perry's already written a best-selling book on it. It's a hot topic.
So, it's with some serious interest that I'm following the federal preemption decisions that are being made now by the United States Supreme Court in four (4) cases: Bruesewitz v. Wyeth; Williamson v. Mazda Motors; U.S. Chamber of Commerce v. Whiting; and AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion.
On their face, these cases don't seem to have much in common with each other - until you get the idea that ribboning through all of them is a fight over power to control something: state or federal. In legal terms, they are federal preemption cases and the High Court will be opining on the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution as it applies in some very different scenarios.
Isn't it interesting that writ was granted on these four matters? Is the U.S. Supreme Court about to tell all of us ordinary folk something about how big the Federal Government is, and will be?
1. Wyeth: the Power of Pennsylvania Personal Injury Law
Bruesewitz v. Wyeth comes to the Supreme Court after the petitioners lost their fight at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit: the lower federal appellate court ruled that parents could not seek legal damages under state law for the damages allegedly sustained by their daughter from a vaccine manufactured by Wyeth because their claim was barred by federal statute.
2. Williamson: the Power of Utah's Wrongful Death State Law
In Williamson, a wrongful death action was filed under Utah state law by the grieving husband of Thanh Williamson, who died from injuries sustained from the lap seat belt she was wearing when their Mazda minivan crashed back in 2002. Mazda's successful defense thus far is that it followed the federal safety regulations in place at the time (enacted by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration), therefore Mazda met the minimum safety standards. Federal law therefore preempts the state wrongful death case based upon Mazda being negligent in placing a lap belt in the rear passenger seat. There's no causation. (In 2007, NHTSA upped its requirements, and now shoulder-strapped belts are required for these passengers.)
3. U.S. Chamber of Commerce: Arizona's Ability to Regulate Hiring Illegal Immigrants
In U.S. Chamber of Commerce, a specific state statute passed into law by the Arizona legislature is at issue: the Arizona state law imposes sanctions on companies that hire illegal immigrants and additionally requires the employer to undertake a federal employment verification program that is voluntary under federal law. Is the regulation of any activity dealing with sanctioning illegal immigration going to held as exclusively the federal government's?
4. AT&T Mobility: the Power of California's State Sales Tax Regulation
In AT&T Mobility, the issue is whether or not the Federal Arbitration Act takes precedence over a state law passed in California that prohibits a phone company from giving away free phones to those who contract for the company's phone service and still charging the customer a sales tax for the freebie. The case arguably could result in dooming consumer class action lawsuits.
These Cases Will Be Supreme Court Expansion of States' Rights -- or Affirming Federal Power
Big deal? Yes. These cases are big deals. Lots of folk in lots of places are watching these preemption cases, and wondering what the impact of the High Court's decisions will be. Each of them will be used to apply in all sorts of matters where states' rights are at issue -- arguably, none can be read to their four corners, at least lots of assumptions are already being made that these will be far-reaching precedents.
Yes, yes, it does apply: today, we think of the Civil War as a fight over slavery but at the time, freedom of the individual wasn't the sole focus. For many, the War Between the States was fought over states' rights and the South's stance that the federal government should not have the legal power to dictate whether or not an individual state had the right to condone ownership of slaves.
We all know how that turned out. However, states' rights survives today and I'm wondering how intense this round of states' rights assertions are going to get. After all, Texas Governor Rick Perry's already written a best-selling book on it. It's a hot topic.
So, it's with some serious interest that I'm following the federal preemption decisions that are being made now by the United States Supreme Court in four (4) cases: Bruesewitz v. Wyeth; Williamson v. Mazda Motors; U.S. Chamber of Commerce v. Whiting; and AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion.
On their face, these cases don't seem to have much in common with each other - until you get the idea that ribboning through all of them is a fight over power to control something: state or federal. In legal terms, they are federal preemption cases and the High Court will be opining on the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution as it applies in some very different scenarios.
Isn't it interesting that writ was granted on these four matters? Is the U.S. Supreme Court about to tell all of us ordinary folk something about how big the Federal Government is, and will be?
1. Wyeth: the Power of Pennsylvania Personal Injury Law
Bruesewitz v. Wyeth comes to the Supreme Court after the petitioners lost their fight at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit: the lower federal appellate court ruled that parents could not seek legal damages under state law for the damages allegedly sustained by their daughter from a vaccine manufactured by Wyeth because their claim was barred by federal statute.
2. Williamson: the Power of Utah's Wrongful Death State Law
In Williamson, a wrongful death action was filed under Utah state law by the grieving husband of Thanh Williamson, who died from injuries sustained from the lap seat belt she was wearing when their Mazda minivan crashed back in 2002. Mazda's successful defense thus far is that it followed the federal safety regulations in place at the time (enacted by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration), therefore Mazda met the minimum safety standards. Federal law therefore preempts the state wrongful death case based upon Mazda being negligent in placing a lap belt in the rear passenger seat. There's no causation. (In 2007, NHTSA upped its requirements, and now shoulder-strapped belts are required for these passengers.)
3. U.S. Chamber of Commerce: Arizona's Ability to Regulate Hiring Illegal Immigrants
In U.S. Chamber of Commerce, a specific state statute passed into law by the Arizona legislature is at issue: the Arizona state law imposes sanctions on companies that hire illegal immigrants and additionally requires the employer to undertake a federal employment verification program that is voluntary under federal law. Is the regulation of any activity dealing with sanctioning illegal immigration going to held as exclusively the federal government's?
4. AT&T Mobility: the Power of California's State Sales Tax Regulation
In AT&T Mobility, the issue is whether or not the Federal Arbitration Act takes precedence over a state law passed in California that prohibits a phone company from giving away free phones to those who contract for the company's phone service and still charging the customer a sales tax for the freebie. The case arguably could result in dooming consumer class action lawsuits.
These Cases Will Be Supreme Court Expansion of States' Rights -- or Affirming Federal Power
Big deal? Yes. These cases are big deals. Lots of folk in lots of places are watching these preemption cases, and wondering what the impact of the High Court's decisions will be. Each of them will be used to apply in all sorts of matters where states' rights are at issue -- arguably, none can be read to their four corners, at least lots of assumptions are already being made that these will be far-reaching precedents.
11/01/2010
I Voted and I Prayed - Did You?
I voted absentee last week, over at my branch library. You would have thought from the parking lot (I got the last slot) that there would be a long wait, a line of folk winding between the stacks. Nope.
When I went inside, there was no line at all. No one knew, and several people were puzzled, about where those cars came from. Political hijinks? Who knows, it's been a crazy year here in San Antonio, election-wise. Not to mention, nationally.
I do know that I don't remember an election where more was at issue, where voting was more important. Some are disgusted, some are disappointed, some are disillusioned. All responses to be respected given the realities we face today.
If there were easy answers, if there were a Cavalry to be called or a wand to be waved, we'd do it. We'd be there. It's a bad time for all of us.
Me? I studied the law at one of the best law schools in the country. I practiced law in one of the most litigious states in the United States for over 20 years. I write about the law and legal affairs professionally today.
It is from this background of education and experience that I find I remain respectful of the system without being enamoured with it. You're right: my vote isn't much at all, numbers-wise, but it's proactive. It's a tiny light, but it's what I've got, what I've been given.
I know that evil can triumph only if the good do nothing - what Burke wrote is true, in my experience.
And your voice needs to be heard. You need to participate because you are important here. Please go vote today. And then, please join me in praying for our United States of America - our country's in trouble, and I think this is one thing that all of us - Independent, Liberatarian, Republican, Green, Democrat - can agree upon.
.jpg)
When I went inside, there was no line at all. No one knew, and several people were puzzled, about where those cars came from. Political hijinks? Who knows, it's been a crazy year here in San Antonio, election-wise. Not to mention, nationally.
I do know that I don't remember an election where more was at issue, where voting was more important. Some are disgusted, some are disappointed, some are disillusioned. All responses to be respected given the realities we face today.
If there were easy answers, if there were a Cavalry to be called or a wand to be waved, we'd do it. We'd be there. It's a bad time for all of us.
Me? I studied the law at one of the best law schools in the country. I practiced law in one of the most litigious states in the United States for over 20 years. I write about the law and legal affairs professionally today.
It is from this background of education and experience that I find I remain respectful of the system without being enamoured with it. You're right: my vote isn't much at all, numbers-wise, but it's proactive. It's a tiny light, but it's what I've got, what I've been given.
I know that evil can triumph only if the good do nothing - what Burke wrote is true, in my experience.
And your voice needs to be heard. You need to participate because you are important here. Please go vote today. And then, please join me in praying for our United States of America - our country's in trouble, and I think this is one thing that all of us - Independent, Liberatarian, Republican, Green, Democrat - can agree upon.
.jpg)
10/20/2010
Texas Judge Suzanne Wooten Indicted for Bribery - But Is She the Evildoer Here? Do We Have A Witch Hunt?
It's always nice when the gray clears into black and white, and we find ourselves with a clear case of right and wrong. And that looks to be exactly what's happening up in the Dallas metroplex.
Specifically, in a North Dallas suburb and Republican stronghold (last Democratic Presidential candidate to carry the county was LBJ in 1964), where a district judge and the local district attorney are squaring off like a Wild West gunfight at High Noon.
Judge Suzanne Wooten v. DA John Roach
Officially, we're talking Collin County, Texas -- McKinney is the county seat, if you've been there -- and the big story revolves around State District Judge Suzanne Wooten who was suspended with pay this Monday after being indicted by a grand jury last week on 6 counts of bribery along with 1 count of organized criminal activity.
You read that right: a Texas judge has been indicted on 7 felony counts -- of import, the single organized crime count alone carries a life sentence.
Along with Judge Wooten, facing the same charges are two of her backers, David and Stacy Cary, along with her campaign manager, James Stephen Spencer.
Is this a Political Agenda or a Crusading District Attorney? We're Gonna Find Out ....
Judge Suzanne Wooten claimed victory in 2008 over Charles Sandoval, who had presided over the 380th Judicial District Court for the past twelve years. Wooten is a Republican and the first opponent that had challenged Sandoval in an election since 1996.
A Republican won in a recognized Republican stronghold. An officeholder loses the first time he's faced with an opponent. No big news yet, right?
July 2010: Judge Wooten Seeks Special Prosecutor to Investigate Possible Criminal Wrongdoing by DA Roach
According to papers filed of record in July 2010 by Judge Wooten, the morning after Election Day Charles Sandoval was over at the office of John Roach, Collin County District Attorney, voicing his belief that Wooten had cheated to get elected.
Two and a half years later, Wooten is filing papers alleging that Roach was trying to force her resignation, that he was "intimidating and harassing her," and that she was requesting the state Attorney General appoint a special prosecutor to look into the goings-on in Collin County for possible criminal wrongdoing by the District Attorney's Office.
October 2010: DA Roach Gets Grand Jury Indictment Against Judge Wooten - Felony Charges
DA Roach's follow up has culminated in the October 2010 grand jury indictments that claim the Carys handed over $150,000 to Wooten's campaign manager via a series of payments (listed in the indictment) with the intent that Wooten would rule in their favor once she took the bench. (No details on what cases, if any, the Carys had/have pending before the 380th.)
Someone is Doing Bad Things Here, Folks
Well, well, well. Isn't this scenario fascinating? First of all, I'm really interested to know what imminent danger the Carys were facing that needed alleged judicial sway worth $150,000 to them.
After all, the general idea that political contributions of any size carry with them the hope that maybe the judge will be swayed when the time comes isn't big news. Tell it to the plantiffs' bar as they contribute millions to political campaigns. Tell it to any lobbyist.
I want to know what was so special about the Carys' situation. If they're just political benefactors without any specific case or claim that had the potential to come across the judge's bench, then these bribery charges are gonna start stinking with the big ugly smell of "trumped up."
I'm not buying "organized criminal activity" here already -- alhtough I'm no criminal lawyer, that sounds like a charge that's gonna get dropped. Please, this isn't the Mafia here.
Defense Bar Publicly Supports Judge Wooten With Standing Ovation
Meanwhile, I'm reading that a big bunch of defense attorneys strode en masse into Judge Wooten's courtroom bright and early Monday morning led by the president of the local Criminal Defense Lawyers' Association. After their standing ovation, the association president stood to speak, telling Judge Wooten that she had their support and publicly voicing the attorneys' collective opinion that this is a "witch hunt."
Interesting. Very interesting. Because these folk work in this courtroom all day long, going against the prosecutors in the District Attorney's Office. They know the skinny. Their action here makes me think that Judge Wooten isn't the bad apple in this barrel.
Commission Suspended Wooten With Pay
Another thing to consider: the State Commission on Judicial Conduct DID suspend Judge Wooten this week. But they did it with pay, which they didn't have to do. I'm betting that they were forced to suspend her since she was indicted. No option on their part to suspend, but they gave her as much of a break as they could.
Specifically, in a North Dallas suburb and Republican stronghold (last Democratic Presidential candidate to carry the county was LBJ in 1964), where a district judge and the local district attorney are squaring off like a Wild West gunfight at High Noon.
Judge Suzanne Wooten v. DA John Roach
Officially, we're talking Collin County, Texas -- McKinney is the county seat, if you've been there -- and the big story revolves around State District Judge Suzanne Wooten who was suspended with pay this Monday after being indicted by a grand jury last week on 6 counts of bribery along with 1 count of organized criminal activity.
You read that right: a Texas judge has been indicted on 7 felony counts -- of import, the single organized crime count alone carries a life sentence.
Along with Judge Wooten, facing the same charges are two of her backers, David and Stacy Cary, along with her campaign manager, James Stephen Spencer.
Is this a Political Agenda or a Crusading District Attorney? We're Gonna Find Out ....
Judge Suzanne Wooten claimed victory in 2008 over Charles Sandoval, who had presided over the 380th Judicial District Court for the past twelve years. Wooten is a Republican and the first opponent that had challenged Sandoval in an election since 1996.
A Republican won in a recognized Republican stronghold. An officeholder loses the first time he's faced with an opponent. No big news yet, right?
July 2010: Judge Wooten Seeks Special Prosecutor to Investigate Possible Criminal Wrongdoing by DA Roach
According to papers filed of record in July 2010 by Judge Wooten, the morning after Election Day Charles Sandoval was over at the office of John Roach, Collin County District Attorney, voicing his belief that Wooten had cheated to get elected.
Two and a half years later, Wooten is filing papers alleging that Roach was trying to force her resignation, that he was "intimidating and harassing her," and that she was requesting the state Attorney General appoint a special prosecutor to look into the goings-on in Collin County for possible criminal wrongdoing by the District Attorney's Office.
October 2010: DA Roach Gets Grand Jury Indictment Against Judge Wooten - Felony Charges
DA Roach's follow up has culminated in the October 2010 grand jury indictments that claim the Carys handed over $150,000 to Wooten's campaign manager via a series of payments (listed in the indictment) with the intent that Wooten would rule in their favor once she took the bench. (No details on what cases, if any, the Carys had/have pending before the 380th.)
Someone is Doing Bad Things Here, Folks
Well, well, well. Isn't this scenario fascinating? First of all, I'm really interested to know what imminent danger the Carys were facing that needed alleged judicial sway worth $150,000 to them.
After all, the general idea that political contributions of any size carry with them the hope that maybe the judge will be swayed when the time comes isn't big news. Tell it to the plantiffs' bar as they contribute millions to political campaigns. Tell it to any lobbyist.
I want to know what was so special about the Carys' situation. If they're just political benefactors without any specific case or claim that had the potential to come across the judge's bench, then these bribery charges are gonna start stinking with the big ugly smell of "trumped up."
I'm not buying "organized criminal activity" here already -- alhtough I'm no criminal lawyer, that sounds like a charge that's gonna get dropped. Please, this isn't the Mafia here.
Defense Bar Publicly Supports Judge Wooten With Standing Ovation
Meanwhile, I'm reading that a big bunch of defense attorneys strode en masse into Judge Wooten's courtroom bright and early Monday morning led by the president of the local Criminal Defense Lawyers' Association. After their standing ovation, the association president stood to speak, telling Judge Wooten that she had their support and publicly voicing the attorneys' collective opinion that this is a "witch hunt."
Interesting. Very interesting. Because these folk work in this courtroom all day long, going against the prosecutors in the District Attorney's Office. They know the skinny. Their action here makes me think that Judge Wooten isn't the bad apple in this barrel.
Commission Suspended Wooten With Pay
Another thing to consider: the State Commission on Judicial Conduct DID suspend Judge Wooten this week. But they did it with pay, which they didn't have to do. I'm betting that they were forced to suspend her since she was indicted. No option on their part to suspend, but they gave her as much of a break as they could.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)