Posted on April 04, 2017 in Uncategorized

The criminal justice system is far from perfect, but it especially failed one Texas man who spent 32 years in prison waiting for new trial. It seems impossible that this could happen, that no one in 32 years could realize that Jerry Hartfield was still waiting for his day in court. But that is exactly what occurred and it wasn't until, in 2006, a fellow prisoner helped Hartfield, who is developmentally disabled, file motions in numerous courts that there was any movement in Hartfield's case. And even then, he still languished in prison for years until he was finally re-tried in 2015.

Hartfield's story begins way back in 1976, when he was charged and convicted of the murder of 55-year old Eunice Lowe and subsequently sentenced to death. In 1980, Hartfield's conviction was reviewed by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals which determined that there was "error related to the exclusion of a potential juror." The court then "vacated Hartfield's conviction, and ordered a new trial in its entirety." The State of Texas asked on a motion for re-hearing that the court change the judgment to life in prison or allow the State time to have the Governor commute the sentence. The court denied the State's motion in 1983 and issued a mandate reversing Hartfield's conviction and remanding the case for a new trial.

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on April 04, 2017 in Uncategorized

The most severe punishment a defendant can face for a criminal conviction in Texas is the death penalty. The Lone Star state has executed more people than any other state by far since the death penalty was reinstated in the U.S. in 1976. One man on death row, Albert Leslie Love Jr., was recently granted a second trial by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. This court is the court of last resort for criminal cases in the state. On December 7, 2016 the court handed down its decision in Love's case.

Love was convicted of capital murder for his role in the deaths of two people and given the death penalty. He appealed his conviction to the Court of Criminal Appeals arguing a number of different points, including that the trial court had erred in allowing text messages from Love's cell phone to be admitted into evidence because the messages were seized without a warrant.

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on April 04, 2017 in Uncategorized

Technology is advancing rapidly with new devices and software programs being developed every day. These new technological developments have impacted nearly every facet of society, from how we communicate to how we drive. One other area that has seen many changes due to improving technology is law enforcement. Police departments across the country have taken advantage of advancements in things like surveillance equipment to catch criminals in ways that would not have been available in the past.

One device that a number of law enforcement agencies, both state and federal, have been using is called a cell-site simulator, also known as a 'stingray'. This device allows "police to pinpoint a phone's location within a few yards by posing as a cell tower." The police are able to find the suspect, but "[i]n the process, they can intercept information from the phones of nearly everyone else who happens to be nearby, including innocent bystanders." However, the information captured does not include the content of any communications.

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on March 03, 2017 in Uncategorized

New and evolving technology often leads to novel of legal issues for the courts to address. In 2014, the United States Supreme Court addressed one such issue in the case of Riley v. California. The issue at hand was whether or not law enforcement could search a suspect's cell phone without a warrant.

Riley was actually a consolidation of two cases where the police had searched a suspect's phone without first getting a warrant. In analyzing the case, the Supreme Court stated that, under the Fourth Amendment, generally a warrant is required in order to conduct a search. The court further stated that "[i]n the absence of a warrant, a search is reasonable only if it falls within a specific exception to the warrant requirement." One warrant exception that has been recognized is the search incident to arrest exception. It was this exception that had been used to justify the searches in both of the Riley cases. To determine if cell phone data fell into the search incident to arrest exception, the court looked at "the degree to which [the search] intrudes upon an individual's privacy and... the degree to which [the search] is needed for the promotion of legitimate governmental interests."

Continue Reading ››