Dallas Criminal Lawyer - David Finn

A mystery illness, an unexplained death and no follow-up investigation is all part of a case involving an inmate in the Henderson County Jail in Athens, which is located southeast of Dallas. After all that, word has arisen that the Henderson County sheriff, Ronny Brownlow, is suddenly retiring.

See the video here

2007/2008 Expunction Law Update

Case Law and Statutory Changes

- Just the Highlights -

[Read more →]

11:14 PM CDT on Monday, July 21, 2008

By KEVIN KRAUSE / The Dallas Morning News
kkrause@dallasnews.com

The five-person team visited the jails during the first week in April and documented nagging problems in two 40-page reports filed as part of a federal lawsuit against Dallas County to force improvements in jail health care, sanitation and fire safety.

[Read more →]

In Virginia v. Moore, case number 06-1082, the Supreme Court today decided that just because police officers violate state law by arresting a person for an offense that is not subject to arrest, a search incident to that
(unlawful) arrest does not violate the Fourth Amendment. And it was a unanimous decision (Justice Ginsburg only concurred in the judgment). [Read more →]

David Finn: In addition to the individuals named in the following article, credit for the distribution of this material goes to Tony Lacy, Assistant Public Defender, Western District of Oklahoma, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.

It’s old, so check the Federal Code before relying on the information.

A giant “Thank You” goes out to Sherri Katz, Research and Writing Specialist, Western District of Texas, Del Rio, Texas for her assistance in preparing the original presentation. Another “Thank You” to Sumter Camp, Assistant Federal Defender, Middle District of Tennessee, Nashville, Tennessee for reviewing the Misdemeanor list and updating it in the Winter of 2000.

[Read more →]

• CRIMINAL PRACTICE IN TEXAS
  STATE AND U.S. DISTRICT COURTS - A COMPARISON

by: George R. Milner, III
Milner & Finn
Dallas, Texas
www.milnerfinn.com

I. INTRODUCTION

Most attorneys will begin their careers practicing in either state or federal court, but rarely both. [Read more →]

UPDATES TO
by John Teakell
Milner & Finn
Dallas, TX
Federal Bar Assn.’s Federal Criminal Practice Seminar
April 11, 2008

“THE ADAM WALSH ACT”

AN OVERVIEW

Re: Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006 - H.R.4472 – Public Law No: 109-248

I. Note

There are no official changes; however, there are several proposed updates moving through Congress. I listed the citations on those proposed changes below and the affected sections. As you know, the Adam Walsh Act is codified in several different places throughout the United States Code, so we located (and pasted below) the popular name table to allow for easy reference.

Second, regarding caselaw - We went through each section and gathered all of the “new” annotations provided in the West’s Digest system (by “new” I mean those that I did not include previously). The annotations of course provide some description of the important point that the case makes.

[Read more →]

Rita, Gall and Kimbrough:
A Chance for Real Sentencing Improvements

Amy Baron-Evans
April 4, 2008

In a series of cases beginning in 1999, the Supreme Court examined the historical
roots of the right to jury trial in both the original Constitution and the Bill of Rights. See U.S. Const. Art. III, § 2, cl. 3, U.S. Const. Amend. 6. The Court concluded that the right to jury trial is both an individual right and a structural allocation of power to the people, and held that, in order to give it meaningful content, any fact that exposes a defendant to greater potential punishment must be found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. Jones v. United States, 526 U.S. 227 (1999); Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000); Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004); United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005).
[Read more →]

As many of you know, the first shot fired in the modern Sixth Amendment revolution left the Supreme Court’s muzzle seven years ago in Apprendi v. New Jersey.

In that opinion, the Court explained that the Sixth Amendment mandated that “other than the fact of a prior conviction, any fact that increases the penalty for a crime beyond the prescribed statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury, and proved beyond a reasonable doubt.”

The Supreme Court then retreated to its foxhole and watched as the federal district and appellate courts wrestled with this new mandate.
[Read more →]

Here’s the opinion referenced in earlier blog entry.
[Read more →]