I'm here to extend my apologies to the Texas judicial system. I've mocked it recently, here and here.
But I just learned (thanks to Houston blawger extraordinaire Mark Bennett) that juries in Texas get to decide the disputed facts that determine whether evidence should be suppressed as the result of an illegal search or seizure. Read all about it here.
In California (and most everywhere else), it is the judge who decides whether the officer was telling the truth when he testifies (for example) that he observed the defendant make an illegal lane change before he pulled him over, or that the defendant freely consented to the search of his vehicle, knowing that it contained 10 kilos of cocaine. California juries aren't involved in resolving these facts.
It sure would be nice to have the issues decided by disinterested citizens, rather than judges who might worry that a ruling in favor of the defense will cause them to be attacked by the DA's office or cops as some naive whack job who believes the word of a criminal over a sworn peace officer. I'm not saying any of the judges I appear before in Orange County would ever harbor such a fear. No way. Each of them are totally independent, not to mention courageous, brilliant, and physically attractive. It is the judges I'll never appear before that I'm referring to.
And another great thing about practicing criminal defense in Texas? Even if I were to fall asleep for extended periods of time while representing a client in a death penalty trial, the Texas Solicitor General will do me a solid and back me up with zeal.
Leave a comment