Category Archives: legal news

Stop griping about jury duty

Jury box Photo by Jason Doiy 2-9-11 054-2011

My friends keep griping about getting jury summonses.

“I don’t have time,” they say. “Why don’t they just quit calling on me?” they ask. “Aww, what a nuisance,” some have actually said.

If only I’d get picked for a jury. My life would be a little more complete.

Alas, it’ll never happen.

I’ve long ached for the chance to serve on a trial jury. I get maybe two or three such summonses a year from Randall County. They usually come from the District Clerk’s Office, which means they could be looking for jurors to sit on a felony criminal trial.

Oh, I wish I could get the call.

It’s not that I consider myself a model citizen, or a paragon of civic pride. It’s just that I’ve long considered jury duty to be one of citizenship’s primary responsibilities. Someone gets into trouble, has to stand trial and he or she deserves to be tried by an impartial jury of citizens.

But almost every time I’ve ever received a summons, I’ve called the evening before and the automated system tells me all potential jurors have been excused.

Damn!

I did get a jury summons one time, not long after moving to Amarillo. It came from the 47th District Court. I reported that morning, went to the jury waiting room and then, well, waited for about three hours. Then the judge, David Gleason, came out and told us we were excused.

I was crushed.

That was when I was working full time for the local newspaper. A colleague of mine told me I’d likely never be chosen because the nature of my job — as editor of the opinion section of the paper — meant I knew too much about too many things to be considered “qualified” to serve on a trial jury. Well, that was his view. Not mine.

Then came the deal-breaker. I got a chance to serve on a grand jury. This is the panel that decides whether someone committed a crime that deserves to be prosecuted. We met several weeks and indicted dozens of individuals; we also no-billed many others, meaning that the complaint brought to us by the district attorney didn’t merit a trial.

However, before we started our work, Randall County Criminal District Attorney James Farren told us something that has stuck to me like Gorilla Glue. If any of us ever thought about getting picked for a trial jury, he said, we can kiss that notion good bye. It isn’t going to happen. Why? Farren said our service on the grand jury would label us as biased toward the prosecution.

Huh? But, I can be impartial. Honest, man.

Too bad. The DA said we were tainted by our grand jury service.

I’d trade places in a minute with those who gripe about getting a jury summons.

If only …

Change the federal judicial system? Please, no

What is it with some American politicians?

A court ruling or two doesn’t go their way and they want to toss aside one of the basic tenets of our federal government? They want to elect federal judges, make them stand for “retention” if they make a decision that upsets some of us?

That’s the view of a leading so-called “conservative” U.S. senator who’s also running for the Republican presidential nomination in 2016. Take it away, Ted Cruz of Texas.

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/ted-cruz-chris-matthews-supreme-court-119891.html

Cruz jousted this week with MSBNC’s Chris Matthews over the setup of the federal judiciary. Cruz doesn’t like the two recent Supreme Court rulings that (a) upheld the Affordable Care Act and (b) legalized gay marriage in the United States.

The junior senator from Texas now thinks Supreme Court justices should stand for retention to enable voters a chance to decide if they want them to keep their jobs.

Matthews, not surprisingly, went semi-ballistic — which is part of his shtick. He brought up the Bush v. Gore decision that settled the 2000 presidential election. The Supreme Court voted 5-4 to stop the Florida recount. Texas Gov. George W. Bush was leading by 537 votes at that moment over Vice President Al Gore. Gov. Bush was awarded Florida’s electoral votes, which were enough to elect him president of the United States by a single electoral vote.

The five Republican-appointed justices’ overruled the four dissents cast by the Democratic-appointed justices. Politics? Gosh, do you think?

Conservatives hailed that decision. And why not? It was all done according to precisely the manner allowed by the U.S. Constitution. Some of us might not have liked the outcome, but that’s how it goes. The justices made the call.

Cruz didn’t object then, Matthews reminded him.

The nation’s founders set up a system in which the federal judiciary is intended to be free of political pressure. The president appoints judges and Supreme Court justices, who then are subject to approval by the Senate. They get lifetime jobs and, therefore, are able to rule according to how they interpret the Constitution.

This idea that we should now subject justices to the political will of the people is simply not in keeping with what the founders intended when they wrote the Constitution.

Political conservatives, such as Sen. Cruz, keep harping on “original intent.” Well, the founders’ “original intent” was to separate the judicial branch of government from the political tug-of-war that exists in the legislative and executive branches.

Cruz said he is “reluctant to call for elections,” and said it “makes him sad.” He added that he has made that call because “a majority of the justices are not honoring their judicial oaths.”

Yes they are, senator.

Let’s leave the judicial system alone.

Where was this voice on gay marriage?

Of all the voices heard across the United States of America that were commenting — pro and con — on the historic Supreme Court ruling that legalized gay marriage, one voice was conspicuously silent.

It belonged to the former vice president of the United States, Richard B. Cheney.

He’s been quick to lambaste the liberals ever since leaving office in January 2009. He calls Barack Obama the “worst president of my lifetime.” He’s leveled heavy fire on congressional Democrats on any number of foreign and domestic issues.

On this one, the issue that resonates on both sides of the political divide — for vastly different reasons, of course — he’s been silent.

The gay marriage debate hits the former VP squarely where he feels it. His daughter, Mary, is married to a woman.

In this instance, Vice President Cheney’s silence has been remarkable.

He dare not rile the base of his Republican Party, the folks who still adore him for his staunch conservative views, by endorsing how the Supreme Court has affirmed the Constitution’s equal protection clause contained in the 14th Amendment.

Then again, he dare not criticize the court out of concern that critics might jump all over him for condemning his very own daughter — who I am absolutely certain he loves without condition. Fathers do that, you know.

Man, it’s a dicey world when you have to decide which brand of loyalty wins out — loyalty to family or to political principle.

My hope is that family takes precedence.

 

Can’t we get a do-over?

Paul Burka apparently came out of retirement — perhaps just briefly — to write this scathing critique for TexasMonthly.com of Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton.

http://www.texasmonthly.com/burka-blog/ken-paxton-problem#.VZaoXwXb5tI.twitter

To sum up Burka’s analysis: Paxton’s public service career has been totally without accomplishment, yet he won the race for AG this past year because the state’s current TEA party golden boy, U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz, endorsed him.

Now the AG is facing a possible criminal indictment in his hometown of McKinney. A special prosecutor is going to take a complaint of securities fraud to a Collin County grand jury. If the attorney general is indicted, what happens then?

Burka noted that a Texas Monthly colleague asked Gov. Greg Abbott that question, and the government couldn’t/wouldn’t answer.

This appears to be one of those times when Texas voters should ask for a do-over from the most recent election.

I know it’s not possible, but I can wish for it anyway … can’t I?

 

Can politics drive a no-bill?

Let’s play out a possible drama that’s developing down yonder in Collin County.

The state’s attorney general, Ken Paxton, is being investigated for securities fraud. He admitted to doing something illegal while he was running for AG. He got elected anyway. Paxton has acknowledged that he steered investment clients to a friend without reporting it to the state. There could be a felony indictment in Paxton’s future … or perhaps not.

A special prosecutor has been named and he is likely going to seek an indictment from a grand jury in Collin County, which Paxton represented in the Texas House of Representatives before being elected to the statewide office. Paxton says, not surprisingly, that “politics” is driving this investigation.

So, would “politics” result in the grand jury deciding against an indictment of the Republican AG, given that Collin County also is a heavily GOP county?

I ask only because of the furor that erupted when a Travis County grand jury indicted then-Gov. Rick Perry last year on abuse of power and coercion charges. Travis County is a reliably Democratic part of the state; Perry, of course, is a Republican. The governor accused the grand jury — and the special prosecutor, who also is a Republican, by the way — of political motivation.

Does this politicization allegation work in reverse?

I’m just askin’.

AG Paxton faces possible felony indictment

Do you ever wonder why people vote for political candidates who actually admit to doing something that could get them into serious legal trouble?

How did Texans, therefore, manage to elect a state attorney general — Ken Paxton of McKinney — who had acknowledged he solicited investment clients for a friend without giving the state proper notification?

It’s called “securities fraud.” It’s a serious deal. A Collin County grand jury is going to decide — maybe soon — whether to indict the state’s top lawyer on charges that he committed a felony.

http://www.texastribune.org/2015/07/01/potential-case-against-paxton-appears-grow-serious/

Now, before you get your underwear all knotted up, let’s understand a couple of things.

Paxton is a Republican. Collin County is a heavily Republican county north of Dallas. A special prosecutor — ostensibly an independent-thinking individual — has been brought in to present the case against Paxton, a former state representative from McKinney.

This really and truly isn’t the partisan witch hunt that’s been alleged in Travis County, where another grand jury indicted then-Gov. Rick Perry of abuse of power and coercion of a public official.

No. This case ought to smell differently to those critics.

The most damaging element of this probe would seem to be Paxton’s own acknowledgment that he did something wrong.

And on top of all of that, he’s hired a high-powered former federal judge, Joe Kendall of Dallas, to represent him.

I don’t know what that tells you, but it tells me that Paxton thinks there might be something upon which the grand jury would indict him. He’s going to need the best legal help he can get.

Getting back to my initial question, given that all this was known prior to the election this past November: How in the world did Texans elect this guy?

 

Hats off to local county clerks

If I were wearing a hat at this moment, I’d tip it to two Texas county clerks: Randall County’s Renee Calhoun and Potter County’s Julie Smith.

All they did was agree to adhere to their oath of office and will issue marriage licenses to gay couples who seek them.

This is in accordance with a Supreme Court decision this past week that legalized gay marriage across the nation. It also resists the notion that they could refuse to issue licenses to same-sex couples, which Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton authorized them to do.

Given the extreme partisan divide across the land, it’s fair to make this point: Both women, Calhoun and Smith, are Republican county clerks. The state AG also is a Republican. They are defying the state’s attorney general, who contends that clerks could object if they had religious objections to issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

The two county clerks plan to issue the licenses as soon as they get some paperwork matters straightened out.

Good for them.

Paxton’s decision to allow the clerks to refuse issuing the licenses has met with mixed response from county clerks across the state.

The attorney general’s approach to this matter is wrong-headed, as it seeks to allow these elected officials to disavow the oath of office they took, which is to follow the laws of the nation and the state.

The Supreme Court has determined — as the final arbiter of what is constitutional and what is not — that state bans on same-sex marriage violate the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Thus, gay marriage is now legal.

Judge will marry gays, if duty calls

Potter County Judge Nancy Tanner is on record already on an issue that well could generate a good bit of controversy.

Back when she was running for the office to which she was elected, Tanner — along with her four Republican primary opponents — took part in a candidate forum sponsored by Panhandle PBS. I was privileged to be one of the journalists questioning the candidates.

One of the panelists asked all the candidates a most probing question: Given that Texas law gives county judges the authority to perform marriage ceremonies, would you — as county judge — be willing to perform a ceremony uniting a same-sex couple in matrimony?

Some of the candidates hemmed and hawed. One of them said “no,” he wouldn’t do it.

Tanner’s response? She was unequivocal. If the courts rule that gay marriage is legal in Texas, then she would follow the law. She would marry anyone with a valid marriage license. That would be her responsibility as county judge and she would perform it.

Her answer was straightforward as it could have been. It didn’t harm her at the polls, as she won the GOP primary outright and went on to be elected county judge in November 2014.

As of this morning, the issue hasn’t yet presented itself to Judge Tanner. Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton has said county clerks can refuse to issue marriage licenses if they have a religious objection to the Supreme Court’s ruling that legalized gay marriage.

There’s been no word that I’ve heard about whether Potter County Clerk Julie Smith is going to follow the law or ignore it, per Paxton’s decision.

Tanner’s take on the issue is clear. What’s cloudy and muddled is whether another countywide elected official, Smith, is going to follow the law.

Stay tuned. This could get dicey.

Trump favors ‘traditional marriage’

The Donald opened himself up for some snickering.

I’ll admit that I snickered a bit when I heard Donald Trump declare that he favors “traditional marriage” and that he disagrees with the Supreme Court decision to legalize gay marriage.

Trump: ‘I’m for traditional marriage’

I won’t pass judgment here. Members of my family have been married more than once.

But this is the kind of thing that The Donald will face as he answers questions from the media while he campaigns for the Republican presidential nomination.

He’s on his third marriage. He’s been divorced twice. Trump’s life is now officially an open book — not that it wasn’t before he declared his presidential candidacy.

When the host of CNN’s “State of the Union,” Jake Tapper, pressed him on the traditional marriage matter and whether he was qualified to speak on it, given his own marital history, Trump talked of how his business activity got in the way of his relationships.

To his credit, Tapper told Trump he didn’t care to hear why his first two marriages failed.

When The Donald, though, steps into some of these particularly tricky issues, he’d better watch where his foot lands. There could be a political land mine or two out there.

 

It’s official: Texas AG says clerks can flout the law

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton has just told county clerks they don’t have to uphold the sacred oath to which they swore when they took office.

I don’t know where to begin.

http://www.texastribune.org/2015/06/28/paxton-county-clerks-can-deny-same-sex-marriage-li/

Paxton issued a statement today that said county clerks do not have to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples if they have religious objections. He has challenged the legal opinion of a majority of the nine men and women who sit on the U.S. Supreme Court, which ruled 5-4 this past week that gay marriage is now legal in the United States of America.

Texas county clerks, according to Paxton, are now free to flout federal law.

“Our religious liberties find protection in state and federal constitutions and statutes,” Paxton said in a statement. “While they are indisputably our first freedom, we should not let them be our last.”

Yes, they do “find protection” in the law. But there’s another factor that Paxton and others who oppose the court ruling are giving short shrift. It is that county clerks — as well as state attorneys general, I should add — take an oath to follow federal and state law. They swear to God that they’ll do that.

Is that oath now rendered moot? Why bother, then, to swear to uphold the Constitution?