SACDLA
OFFICERS
AmandaI.Hernandez
President
AndrewFroelich
VicePresident
IMMEDIATE PAST PRESIDENTS
TrishaMoralesPadia
MatthewAllen
RolandGarcia
JohnHunter
JosephEsparza
LoraineEfron
DonFlanary
MichaelMcCrum
PatriciaJay
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
RolandoArguelles
JimBeethke
AnneBurnham
JonathanChavez
KarenCorby
DanielDeLaGarza
DeanDiachin
AndrewFroelich
ArleneGay
StevenGilmore
DIRECTORS EMERITUS
CharlesButts
DaynaJones
Secretary
JessicaGonzales
Treasurer
ZoeRussell ExecutiveDirector
WarrenWolf
RobertFeatherston
JorgeAristotelidis
JayNorton
MichaelGross
JeffMulliner
John“Bud”Ritenour
AdamKobs
GeorgeTaylor
StephanieStevens
JimGreenfeld
MichaelS.Raign
JohnA.Convery
ErnestAcevedo,III
RonaldP.Guyer
MarkStevens
GeorgeScharmen
CynthiaHujar-Orr
ForrestGood
ValerieHedlund
StaciKrause
GuillermoLara
AdamLaHood
KeriMallon
PatMontgomery
AngelaMoore
BryanOrihel
AdamPaltz
MaryPietrazek
MollyRoth
ElizabethRussell
ZoeRussell
ShawnSareen
ChristianVega
MeenuWalters
RobbieWard
AnthonyNicholas
Ifyouwouldliketosubmitanarticletobeconsideredforpublicationin The Defender,orseeabouthowyoucanhelp orbecomeinvolvedwithandcontributeasanAssociateEditor,pleaseemailpadia.trisha@gmail.com
AmandaI.Hernandez
Angela
TrishaMoralesPadia
Andrew
Zoe
AngelaMoore
Amanda I. Hernandez Letter From the President
Recently, it feels like our world is more dividedthanever.Whetherit’sinthenews, onsocialmedia,oreveninsomeofourdayto-dayinteractions,thatsenseofdivisioncan behardtoignore.ButwhenIthinkaboutthe workwedoasdefenselawyers,I’mreminded thatwhatunitesusisfargreaterthanwhat separatesus.
Nomatterourbackgrounds,ourpractices,or our personal perspectives, we all share the samepurpose:standingupforjusticeinour community.Everytimewewalkintoacourtroom,makealegalargument,orevenjust listen to our client’s story, we are carrying forwardthesamemission:toprotecttherights of citizens accused and ensure that justice prevails.
That’swhySACDLAmatterssomuch.We areadiversegroupoflawyers,buttogether weformacommunitythatunderstandsthe
uniquechallenges,thevictoriesandlosses,and theimportanceofthiswork.Ourunityisour strength.Whenwesupporteachother,we not only become better advocates, we also showthelargercommunitythatthedefense barstandsfirm,evenindividedtimes.
Aswemoveforwardthisyear,Ihopeeachof youtakesprideintheroleyouplayandinthe factthatyou’renotdoingitalone.We’rein thistogetherandtogether,wecancontinueto makeadifference.Staystrong,SACDLA.
Withsincereprideandgratitude,
Amanda I. Hernandez President, San Antonio Criminal Defense Lawyers Association
Letter From the Editor
Trisha Morales Padia
It’saprivilegetoreturntotheroleofEditor for The Defender. Manyofyouknowmefrom myworkwiththeSanAntonioCriminalDefenseLawyersAssociation,whereI’vehadthe honorofservingasImmediatePastPresident, boardmember,and,yearsago,EditorandAssociateEditorofthisverypublication.Stepping back into this position feels a bit like cominghome,andIamexcitedtocontinue buildingonthemagazine’slegacyofbeinga voice and resource for our community of criminaldefensepractitioners.
Ourworkasdefenselawyersischallenging, ever-evolving, and deeply meaningful. The Defender isoneofthewaysweshareideas, sharpen our skills, and remind one another thatwedonotstandaloneinthisfight.My goalasEditoristoensurethateachissueprovidessomethinguseful,whetherit’spractical toolsforthecourtroom,thoughtfulcommentaryoncurrentlegaldevelopments,orperspectivesthatreminduswhywedothiswork.
I’dliketoextendanopeninvitationtoanyone whoisinterestedinbecominganAssociate Editor,contributingcontent,orsimplysharingideasfortopicsyou’dliketoseeaddressed. Whether it’s a recent case victory, motion practice,trialstrategy,orreflectionsonthe challengesofbalancingthisdemandingwork withlifeoutsidethecourtroom,yourvoice matters, and your contributions strengthen thispublication.
Thismagazineisforusandbyus.Iencourage youtoreachoutwitharticles,tips,orevenjust sparksofideaswecanhelpshapeintofeatures. Together,wecanmake The Defender notonly aresourcebutalsoareflectionofthededication,creativity,andresilienceofourdefense bar.
I’mexcitedtobeback,andIlookforwardto working alongside all of you in this next chapter.
Contempt
Andrew Froelich
“I’m holding you in contempt.”
Thisoftenstartsasjokeswetelleachotherand handshakeagreementswherefriendsaskeach other “will you come running if Judge _________holdsmeincontemptofcourt?”
Andthisisnotajokingmatter:Contemptof Courtcarriesapunishmentofupto6months injail.Messaroundandfindout,indeed.This articleisnotintendedtobescholarlyorwell cited,butsimplyapracticaltooltogetyouout ofhandcuffsandintoaplacewhereyoucan doyourownlegalresearch.Iwanttothank LENNARDK.WHITTAKER-MOLINAat Whittaker.lawfordoingalotoftheresearch thatI’mstealinghere.Hewroteagreatprimer
onContemptthatyoureallyneedtoreadif you’refacedwiththissituation.AndIamnot usingproperBlueBookcitations–justassume thatthisentirebodyofknowledgeistaken fromthatpaperunlessstatedotherwise.
Tex Gov Code 21.002 definesdifferenttypesof contempt.ThisarticlefocusesonContempt ofCourtbyanattorneyinyourcapacityasan attorneyrepresentingtheaccusedincourtin County Court at Law or District Court in State Court in Texas. This is also for your actionsinCourt,notdisobeyingacourtorder, whichisadifferenttypeofcontempt(refusal toallowasearchofyouroffice,PayingChild Support,etc.).
Step One–Act like an *******.
Step Two–A judge says those magic words “I’m holding you in contempt.”
Step Three–Stop talking about whatever it is that got you into this situation.
Youareontherecord,anditwillbeused againstyouinyourcriminaltrial.Congratulations,youjustbecametheaccusedinacriminaltrialwhereyouarelookingatsixmonths injail!Hereiswheremyadvicebegins.Icannot unscrew you from what you already started,butIwouldadviseyouthatyour5th Amendment Rights start here, and you are makingitworse.SitquietlyintheJuryBox. Stoparguingyourpoint.ShutUp.StoptalkingwiththeJudgeaboutwhateversubstantive issueyouareaddressingandgotothenext step. Take a deep breath and change the subject.
Step Four–Ask (nicely) for a PR Bond.
Ifyouaretakenintocustodyonacontempt charge, calmly ask for a Personal RecognizanceBond.ReadthisVERYcarefully:
Tex Gov. Code Sec. 21.002. CONTEMPT OF COURT. (d) An officer of a court who is held in contempt by a trial court shall, on proper motion filed in the offended court, be released on his own personal recognizance pending a determination of
his guilt or innocence.
JudgeKilgarlin,inhisseminallawreviewarticleonTexascontempt,speculatesthatamotionforpersonalrecognizancebondmaybe oralinadirectcontemptproceedingdueto thetimeconstraints. Kilgarlin, 38 Baylor 291, 314. Butdonotexpectajudgetohaveread thatarticle.Yes,youcancarryapre-written motionforPRbondinyourbriefcaseevery timeyouwalkintoCountyCourt16inBexar County.MysourcedmaterialfromWhittaker literallysays,“Inthecaseofconstructivecontempt,thecontemnorattorneymaybestbe advisedtohaveapreparedmotionforrelease in his briefcase or already on file.” This is basedonthewording“onpropermotionfiled withtheoffendedcourt.”
However,Iamskepticalaboutthisapproach. Thesesituationsare,bytheirnature,highin emotionandlowonobjectivereflection.If emotionsrunhighintheseproceedings,don’t slapacopyoftheCodeonthejudge’sbench while screaming “I’m entitled to a PR Bond!!!!”becausethefirstphrasetheJudgeis going to see is “Proper Motion.” As many times as we’ve seen jailhouse lawyers write their own Pro Se Motions with borrowed writingutensilsandlaughed,itisnotfunny whenyouaretryingtowriteoutyourown PRBondMotioninhandcuffsfromthejury boxtryingtofigureouthowtoe-Filethemotionperlocalrules.
Whatismypracticaladvice?Diffusethesituation.SeeStepThree.Askthejudgetoallow
anOralMotionforPRBondandreleaseyou tofightanotherday.Ifthatdoesnotwork,let acolleagueorSACDLABoardMembertalk tothejudgeandexplainthatwhileYESyou areincontemptyouAREentitledtoaPR Bondtoday.
TheJudgejustcreatedacriminalcharge(see StepSix)whichrequiresawrittenshowcause order,notice,ahearing,etc.Thatcan’ttake placetoday.TheJudgeinessencejustbecame awitnessinacriminalcaseagainstyouwhich triggersConstitutionalProtectionsI’llexplain below.
“With all due respect, your Honor…You havemadeacriminalaccusationagainstmy client,andshe/he/theyareentitledtoConstitutionalProtections,whichincludetheright toatrial,righttocrossexamination,theright tobeservedwithaShowCauseOrder,etc.I knowAndrewreallyhurtyourfeelingshere today,butyouhavemadeyourpoint.Wewill allhavetotakethismatterupanotherday,but fornow,youmustlethimgo.”
The nuclear option is the same as in most criminalcases,aWritHabeasCorpusfiledin aDistrictCourtallegingthatwe(Officerof theCourtheldincontempt)arebeingheld illegally.
Step Five–Make an oral motion to recuse the Judge on your contempt citation.
Ifajudgehasheldyouincontempt–thisisa newissueseparatefromtheforumwhereyou arearguingforyourclientandcongratulations,youhavenowBECOMEtheaccused.
Makesureyouarespecificallyseparatingyour motiontorecuseyourcontemptactionfrom themotiontorecusetheJudgefromtheimmediateproceeding.Itmightbeagoodidea toasktheJudgetorecusethemselvesfromthe immediateproceedingsagainstyourclientas wellbutthismotiontorecuseatleastwillstop thebleedingandshouldalsocalmyouandthe Judgedownenoughtotrytosussoutthetwo proceedingsseparately.
Tex Gov. Code Sec. 21.002. CONTEMPT OF COURT. (d) … The presiding judge of the administrative judicial region in which the alleged contempt occurred shall assign a judge who is subject to assignment by the presiding judge other than the judge of the offended court to determine the guilt or innocence of the officer of the court.
Inyourcontemptproceedings,ajudgemust recusethemselvesastheyareboththeprosecutorandawitnessinthoseproceedings.But thatisaseparatehearingforadifferentday. Usethisargumenttogetoutofthecourtroom,nottotrytopickanotherfightwiththe Judge.
Step Six–Wait for the Citation and the Trial.
Onceyouareoutofthecourtroom,ajudge mustfollowtheprocedure.InBexarCounty, itisnotclearwhetherajudgewilltakethison his/her/their own self or whether they will havetheirstaffattorneypreparethenextsteps. Iamcurioushowthisgoesbecausetherules areclear.
Ajudgemustdrafttheshowcauseorder.The showcauseordermustbepersonallyserved oncontemnorofficer.ThisShowCauseOrderactsasthecharginginstrumentandmust
clearlysetoutthechargeagainstus.Anew Judgewillbeappointedtohearatrialonthe merits,withallConstitutionalprotectionsin place–RighttoanAttorney,RighttoNotice, THERIGHTTOCROSSEXAMINEWITNESSES(Didyoujustsmilewhileyouwere readingthis?),andtheRighttoRemainSilent. Mostimportanttorememberasyoureadthis isthatafulltranscriptoftheproceedingswill beordered,sopayattentiontotheCourtReporter(whoworksasadirectemployeeofthe offended Judge) who will take a “full and complete”recordoftheproceedingsbutalso maybeawitnesstothem.Notewhenthe JudgeOrdersthatyougo“offtherecord”that
theymaybedestroyingevidencethatcanbe usedatalatertrial.Trytokeepeverythingon therecordasmuchaspossible.
Acontemnorofficermustbeprovidedwitha reasonableamountoftimeforpreparationfor thehearingalongwithaspecificdescription ofallegedacts/omissions.Preparationtimeof fivedayswasreasonableinonecase.
Atthispoint,youcandoyourownresearch intotheactualtrialyouwillbefacing.Butif youwalkoutofthecourtroomtodothat,I willhavedonemyjobhere.
T“She
Blinded Me with Science!”
Summary of Outline for a Memorandum
Angela Moore
his legal memorandum offers a comprehensive guide to evaluating and challenging expert testimony in criminal cases under Texas and federal law. It dissects key evidentiary rules and case law that dictate whether expert testimony is admissible in court. The central criteria are qualification, reliability, and relevance—commonly known as the Kelly/Daubert/Nenno standards in Texas
I. Foundational Legal Standards
1. Rule 104 (Qualification)
Courtsdecideifawitnessisqualifiedas an expert. Preliminary questions are determinedwithoutthejury,andpartiescanchallengetheadmissibilityof testimonyinpretrialhearings.
2. Rule 702 (Reliability)
Expertsmaytestifyiftheirtechnical knowledgehelpsthejuryunderstand evidence.Thecourtmustensurethe testimony is not just opinion but groundedinvalidmethodology.
3. Rules 401 & 402 (Relevance)
Testimonymustmakeafactmoreor lessprobable.Courtsweighwhether theevidencehelpsresolveissuesinthe case.
II. Hard Science vs. Soft Science
• Hard sciences (e.g., DNA, physics) often require peer review, error rate analysis,andobjectivevalidation.
• Soft sciences (e.g., psychology, sociology) are evaluated under more flexible standards. Courts focus on whether the field is legitimate and whethertheexpertappropriatelyapplied itsprinciples.
Key Cases:
• Kelly v. State–Introducesreliability factors.
• Daubert v. Merrell Dow–Federal counterpart.
• Weatherred v. State–Appliessoftscience analysis(e.g.,psychology).
• Nenno v. State–Addspracticalflexibility incriminalcontexts.
III. Trial Judge as Gatekeeper
Trialcourtsmust:
•Determinequalifications,
•Assessscientificvalidity,
•Ensuretestimonyassiststhejury.
Unreliable or unhelpful expert testimony should be excluded even if it might be credible. Relevance is considered separately fromreliability.
IV. Admissibility Factors (Kelly/ Daubert Test)
Forscientificevidencetobeadmissible:
1.Thescientifictheorymustbevalid.
2.Thetechniquemustbevalid.
3.Itmustbeproperlyapplied.
Courtsalsoconsider:
•Acceptanceinthescientificcommunity,
•Expert’squalifications,
•Supportingliterature,
•Errorrates,
•Clarityofmethodology,
•Expert’sapplicationtothecasefacts.
V. Appellate Review
• Trialcourtrulingsonexpertevidence arereviewedfor abuse of discretion.
• Appellate courts evaluate whether the trial court acted within the “zone of reasonabledisagreement.”
VI. Examples of Expert Testimony
Admissible areas:
•Forensics(DNA,fingerprints,LIDAR),
•Drugtraffickingpatterns,
•Gangbehavior,
•Futuredangerousnessincapitalcases,
•Accidentreconstruction,
•Economicandbusinessvaluation. Often inadmissible:
•Experttestimonyoncredibility,
•Legalconclusions,
•Punishmentrecommendations,
•Speculativepsychologicalprofiles (e.g.,filicidewithoutresearchsupport).
Notable caution: TheNASReport(National AcademyofSciences)questionsthereliability ofmanyforensicdisciplines,includingbite- mark analysis and SBS (shaken baby syndrome).
VII. Case Studies
1. ExparteChaney(2018):
• Convictionbasedondiscredited bitemarktestimony.
• Falseexperttestimonyandnon- disclosurefoundtobematerialtothe verdict.
• Habeasreliefgrantedduetodueprocess violations.
2. ExparteRoark(2021):
• SBS(ShakenBabySyndrome) challengedasjunkscience.
• ExpertDr.Plunketttestifiedthatshort fallscouldcauseinjuriesonce misattributedtoabuse.
• TheCCAacknowledgedtheshiftin scientificunderstanding.
VIII. How to Attack Expert Testimony
• Distinguish soft vs. hard science.
• Searchexpert’sbackground(Westlaw, Lexis,GoogleScholar).
• Analyzepublicationhistoryandpeer reviews.
• ExamineNASReportsandTexas ForensicScienceCommissionreviews.
• Scrutinizefoundationandapplicationof methodology.
IX. Post-Conviction Relief
Habeasclaimsmaybebasedon:
• Falseoroutdatedscientificevidence,
• Newscientificdevelopments,
• Suppressedevidenceaffectingdue process.
UseofoutdatedtheorieslikeSBSorbitemarks without scientific grounding may justify relief.
Conclusion
Thememostronglyurgestrialcounseland appellateattorneystorigorouslyevaluateexpertevidenceforadmissibilityunderevolving standards of science and law. Trial judges mustactasgatekeeperstopreventunreliable experttestimonyfrominfluencingjuries.A deepunderstandingoftheevidentiaryframeworkandscientificchallengesisessentialin both trial advocacy and post-conviction litigation.
DEFENDER
CALL FOR SUBMISSIONS
The San Antonio Defender isalwayslookingforcontentthat servestoinspire,educate,andexciteourmembership.
Ifyouwouldliketocontribute,pleasecontact amemberofthe Defender staff.
SAN ANTONIO
Challenging Junk Science in the Courtroom
Memorandum Notes
Credibility is up to the Jury, so a good record is important!
I. Introduction:
• Define“junkscience”inthelegal context:
o Forensicevidenceorexpert testimonypresentedincourtthat lacks scientific validity or reliability.
• Importanceofvigilanceinbothtrial andpost-convictionstages.
• Highlighttheconsequencesofadmitting unreliable science: wrongful convictions, tainted verdicts,and due process violations
II. Legal Framework: Rules of Evidence Governing Scientific Testimony
Rule 104–Preliminary Questions (Qualification)
• Thecourt(notthejury)decides whetherawitnessisqualifiedtotestify asanexpert.
• Thisoccursinapretrialorvoirdire setting.
• Partiesmaychallengequalificationsor admissibilitythroughhearingsoutside thejury’spresence.
Angela Moore
III. Rules 401 & 402–Relevance
• Evidencemustberelevant(i.e.,makea factmoreorlessprobablethanitwould bewithouttheevidence).
•Onlyrelevantevidenceisadmissible.
Relevance
• Definition: Theexperttestimonymust be "relevant to the task at hand" and assistthetrieroffact(i.e.,thejuryor judge)inunderstandingtheevidenceor determiningafactinissue.
• Purpose: Ensures the testimony logicallyadvancestheresolutionofthe case.
• Rule Basis: Derivedfrom Federal Rule of Evidence 401 and Rule 702—the testimonymust“fit”thefactsofthecase inawaythatishelpfultothefactfinder.
IV. Rule 702–Testimony by Experts (Reliability)
• Theexpertmusthaveknowledge,skill, experience,training,oreducation.
• Testimonymust:
o Helpthejuryunderstandevidence ordetermineafact.
o Bebasedonsufficientfacts ordata.
o Betheproductofreliableprinciples andmethods.
o Reliablyapplythoseprinciplesand methodstothecase.
V.
Kelly/Daubert/Nenno
Factors
(Scientific Validity and Admissibility)
Toadmitscientificexperttestimony,courts consider:
1.Whetherthetheoryisscientifically valid.
2.Whetherthetechniqueisvalid.
3.Whetherthetechniquewasproperly applied.
Additional considerations:
• Generalacceptanceinthescientific community.
• Publishedpeer-reviewedresearch.
• Knownorpotentialerrorrate.
• Standardsandcontrolsused.
• Theexpert’squalifications.
• Thedegreetowhichthetheory/ methodologyhasbeentested.
VI. Distinction: Hard Science vs. Soft Science
•Hard science (e.g.,DNA,toxicology): Requiresrigorousstandardslikeerror rates,peerreview.
•Soft science (e.g.,psychology, sociology):Evaluatedmoreflexibly, focusedonthelegitimacyofthefield andhowwelltheexpertappliesthe principles.
•COP AS WITNESS! Aretheyqualified asanexpertintheareatheyare testifyingabout?
•Tattoos, SAC v. Quantico.
VII. Rule 403–Balancing Test (Exclusion Despite Relevance)
• Evenrelevantevidencemaybe excludedifitsprobativevalueis substantiallyoutweighedby:
o Unfairprejudice
o Confusionoftheissues
o Misleadingthejury
o Unduedelay
o Cumulativepresentation
VIII. Rule 705–Disclosure of Underlying Facts or Data
• Expertsmaystateopinionswithout disclosingtheunderlyingfacts/data unlessorderedbythecourt.
• However,oncross-examination,they canberequiredtodisclosethosebases.
Key Points: Reliability
•Definition: Thetestimonymustbe "grounded in the methods and procedures of science," meaningitis basedonscientificallyvalidreasoning andmethodology.
• Purpose: Preventsjunkscienceor subjectivespeculationfrombeing presentedasexpertknowledge.
•Key Factors from Daubert:
o Whetherthetheoryortechniquecan betested
o Whetherithasbeensubjecttopeer reviewandpublication
o Theknownorpotentialerrorrate
o Theexistenceandmaintenanceof standardsandcontrols
o Generalacceptancewithinthe relevantscientificcommunity
A. Federal Rule of Evidence 702 / Texas Rule 702
•Experttestimonymustbe:
1.Basedon scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge;
2.That will help the trier of fact understandtheevidenceor determineafactinissue;
3.Basedon sufficient facts or data;
4.Theproductof reliable principles and methods;
5.Reliablyappliedtothefactsofthe case.
B. Standard of Admissibility
1. Federal: Daubert v. MerrellDow (509U.S.579(1993))
•Fivenon-exclusivefactors:
o Testability/falsifiability
o Peerreviewandpublication
o Knownorpotentialerrorrate
o Standardscontrollingthe technique’soperation
o Generalacceptanceintherelevant scientificcommunity
2. Texas: Kellyv.State(824S.W.2d568(Tex.Crim.App.1992)) RELEVANCE
•Three-prongtest:
1.Theunderlyingscientifictheoryis valid.
2.Thetechniqueapplyingthetheory isvalid.
3.Thetechniquewasproperly appliedinthiscase.
C. Judicial Role as Gatekeeper
• Courtsmustensure scientific integrity underRule104(a).
• Theymustevaluatethe foundation of the science—notsimplydeferto theexpert’scredentialsorexperience. ACRITICALFACTORANDA PRELIMINARYFACTOR.JUDGES AREN'TSCIENTISTS.
IX. Evaluating Expert Opinion: We have always done it this way!
A. Qualifications Alone Are Not Enough
• Evenwell-credentialedexpertscanoffer opinionsbasedon invalid science.
• Courtsmustassessboth methodology and application.
B. Common Warning Signs of Junk Science
• Noempiricaltestingorvalidation
• Noknownerrorrate
• Conclusionsnotsubjecttopeerreview
• Overrelianceonsubjectiveopinion
• Claimsof100%certaintyor“exclusionof allothers”.
X. Specific Forensic Disciplines Frequently Challenged
Forensic Discipline Scientific Concerns Relevant Cases / Reports
Bite MarkAnalysis No statistical basis; high false positives Chaney v. State (exoneration), TFSC
Arson Outdated "myth-based" indicators Ex parte Willingham; NAS 2009
Hair Microscopy Cannot individualize without DNA FBI review; Ex parte Buehl
FingerprintAnalysis No error rates; subjective comparisons Llera Plaza, Mitchell (3d Cir.)
Toolmark/Ballistics No standards; claims of “uniqueness” PCAST 2016 Report
Shaken Baby Syndrome Triad discredited; alternative explanations Ex parte Henderson, Ex parte Roark
Field Drug Tests High false positives; unverified results Ex parte Salinas; NIST studies
XI. Trial Strategies for Challenging Junk Science
A. Pretrial Motions
•Motion to Exclude Expert Testimony underRule702/ Daubert / Kelly
•Request for Daubert Hearing
B. Voir Dire
• Explorejurormisconceptionsabout forensicscience(“CSIeffect”).
•Identifypotentialjurordeferenceto expertwitnesses.
C. Cross-Examination of Experts
• Probemethodology,errorrates,blind testing,subjectivity,andlimitations.
• UseNAS(2009)andPCAST(2016) reportsascrosstools.
D. Use of Defense Experts
• Presentscientificrebuttalorhighlight discipline’slackofvalidation.
• Consideramicusbriefsfromscientific organizationsinappellatestages.
CASE LAW UPDATE
John Boozer & Irene Martinez
FOURTH COURT OF APPEALS UPDATES
Affirmative Finding of Family Violence Need Not Be Orally Pronounced at Sentencing
Columbus v. State, No. 04-22-00619-CR __ S.W.3d __ (Tex. App.—San Antonio June 30, 2025) (en banc).
A Bexar County jury convicted Bryan WilliamColumbusofassaultcausingbodily injury.Thejudgmentalsoincludedanaffirmativefindingoffamilyviolence.Onappeal, Columbusargued,amongotherthings,the judgment should be reformed to delete the
family violence finding because it was not orallypronouncedatsentencing.TheFourth CourtofAppeals,sittingenbanc,affirmed.
Columbusurgedthattheaffirmativefinding offamilyviolenceshouldbestruckbecause thetrialcourtdidnotorallypronounceitduringsentencing.ConstruingArticle42.013of theCodeofCriminalProcedure,theCourt heldthatsuchafindingisnotpartofthe“sentence”—definedbyArticle42.02as“thatpart ofthejudgment...thatordersthatthepunishmentbecarriedintoexecution.”Instead,Article42.013imposesamandatorydutyonthe trialcourtto“makeanaffirmativefinding”of family violence and “enter the affirmative
findingin the judgment” if the offense involvedfamilyviolence. TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 42.013; see Butler v. State, 189 S.W.3d 299, 302 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006).
In rejecting Columbus’s claim, the Fourth CourtdistinguishedSequierav.State,No.0414-00361-CR,2015WL4554334,at*5(Tex. App.—San Antonio July 29, 2015, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication), whichhadsuggestedotherwise,andexpressly overruledittotheextentitrequiredoralpronouncement.Becausethefindingwasproperlyincludedinthejudgment,theappellate courtaffirmedColumbus’sconvictionandthe family violence finding. Justice Meza dissentedthat,althoughnotrequired,itwouldbe the better practice to orally pronounce an affirmativefindingoffamilyviolenceatsentencing.
Motion to Quash Indictment
Williams v. State, 04-20-00486-CR, S.W.3d. (Tex. App.–San Antonio July 16, 2025)
Williamswasconvictedofaggravatedpromotion of prostitution–enhanced. During the trial,Williamswasrepresentedbyappointed counsel,butheinvokedhisrighttoself-representationatpunishmentandonappeal.The 4thCourtofappealsreversedhisconviction findingthatthetrialcourthaderredbynot grantinghismotiontoquashtheindictment.
TheCourtofCriminalAppealsgrantedthe State’sPDRandremandedthecausetothe
Fourth Court. On remand, Williams’s appointedcounselfiledasubsequentbriefasserting the trial court erred in denying Williams’smotiontoquashbecausetheindictmentusedundefinedtermsofindeterminateorvariablemeaning.
TheFourthCourtreviewedtheindictment thatstated:“[thedefendant]didthenandthere knowinglyown,investin,finance,control, supervise,ormanageaprostitutionenterprise thatusedatleasttwoprostitutes.”Williamsarguedthatsincethesetermswereundefined andcouldbeinterpreteddifferently,hewas,at aminimum,entitledtoanoticeadvisinghim on how he allegedly “controls, supervises, manages, invests in, and finances.” These groups of actions are conceptually distinct fromeachother.Whileinvestingmaybeconceptuallysimilartofinancing,itisdifferent fromsupervisingormanagingandbothare differentfromowning.
Under TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. Art. 21.02(7) an indictment is sufficient if it “charges the commission of the offense in ordinaryandconciselanguageinsuchamannerastoenableapersonofcommonunderstandingtoknowwhatismeant,andwith thatdegreeofcertaintythatwillgivethedefendantnoticeoftheparticularoffensewith which he is charged…” The court further pointsoutthatwhenanindictmentincludesa statutorydefinitionthedefendantispresumed tobeonnotice;however,anexceptionapplies whenthestatutorylanguagefailstobecom-
pletelydescriptivebecausethetermsareundefinedorcanhavevariousmeanings.
Whenanalyzingwhetherthecharginginstrumentprovidesadequatenoticethecourtlooks attwothings,firsttheelementsoftheoffense andwhetherthestatutorylanguageissufficientlydescriptiveofthechargedoffense.For purposesofthisissuethecourtassumedthat thetermsusedintheindictmentrefertothe manners and means of committing the offense.TheFourthCourtheldthattheterms usedintheindictmenthada“multitudeof commondefinitions;”therefore,itcouldnot concludethatWilliamswouldhavebeenon noticebytrackingthelanguageofthestatue. Therefore, because the indictment did not provide adequate notice it was defective in form.Thus,thetrialcourterredindenying themotiontoquashtheindictmentandthe errorwasharmful.
Reformed Affidavits in Support of Probable Cause and Confrontation Clause
Del Toro v. State, 04-24-00152-CR, __S.W.3d __ (Tex. App.–San Antonio July 23, 2025)
ChristopherLuisDelTorowasconvictedof intoxication manslaughter. On March 27, 2022, Del Toro was driving his Chevy in South San Antonio and was suddenly in a headoncollision.Oneofthetwopassengers fromtheothercardiedfromherinjuriesand DelToro,afterbeingevacuatedfromhisve-
hiclewiththe“jawsoflife,”wasrushedtothe hospital.Atthehospital,OfficerMenatestified that he smelled intoxicants emanating from DelToro;therefore,heattemptedtogetconsentfromDelTorotowithdrawblood.Del Toro,however,wasinalotofpainandunable tofocusonthequestions,soMenaprepareda probablecauseaffidavittoobtainawarrantfor DelToro’sblood.Thewarrantwasgranted andDelTorowasfoundtohave.188alcohol concentration.
OnappealDelTororaisedthreeissues:“(1) thetrialcourterredinfindingsufficientprobable cause to issue a warrant to draw Del Toro’sblood;(2)thetrialcourterredbyadmittingtheresultsofDelToro’sblooddraw in violation of the Texas Transportation Code;and(3)thetrialcourterredadmitting evidenceobtainedfromDelToro’svehicle’s airbagcontrolmodule(the“BlackBox”)asa violationoftheConfrontationClause.
The Fourth Court first addresses issues one andtwo.Todeterminewhetherthetrialcourt erredinfindingsufficientprobablecausetoissuethewarrant,thereviewingcourtappliesa presumption of validity regarding a magistrate’sdetermination.However,ifadefendant makesasubstantialpreliminaryshowingthat theinformationusedintheaffidavitwasfalse and relied on knowingly, intentionally, or recklessly plus if the false information was necessaryinfindingprobablecausethedefendantisentitledtoaFrankshearing.Atthe trial,aFrankshearingwasheldduetothedis-
crepanciesbetweenofficerMena’stestimony and his probable cause affidavit. The trial courteliminatedseveralparagraphsfromthe affidavit and that reformed affidavit was reviewedbytheFourthCourt.
Theappellatecourtexplainedthat“afterreviewingthefourcornersofMena’saffidavit underatotalityofthecircumstances,drawing reasonable inferences drawn therefrom, we concludethatMena’sreformedaffidavitleads toareasonableconclusionthatablood-alcoholtesthadafairprobabilitytouncoverevidencethatDelTorohadbeendrivinginpublicplacewhileintoxicated.”Furthermore,the courtstatedthatitwasunnecessarytoreach thesecondissueraisedbyDelTorobecause Texasimpliedconsentlawsarenotapplicable when blood is drawn pursuant to a valid warrant.
Lastly,thecourtaddressedDelToro’sthirdissue.Thecourtrelyingon Trejo v. State, 683 S.W.3d 815 (Tex. App.–San Antonio 2023, no pet.),heldthatthetrialcourtdidnoterrinadmittingevidencefromthe“BlackBox”becauseDelToroliketheappellantinTrejohad theopportunitycrossexaminetheofficerwho testified to the downloaded data from the BlackBox.TheFourthCourtheldthatthis satisfied the requirements of the Sixth Amendmenteventhoughtheofficerwasunable to testify to the truth of the data’s statement.
Nonverbal Miranda Waiver and Ineffective Assistance Claims Rejected
Aranda Rodriguez v. State, No. 04-24-00246CR (Tex. App.—San Antonio Aug. 13, 2025)
(mem. op., not designated for publication).
ABexarCountyjuryconvictedFabianAndresArandaRodriguezofmurderforfatally stabbing his mother while she was staying withhimatanAirbnb.ArandaRodriguezwas sentenced to life imprisonment. On appeal, ArandaRodriguezraisedafewissues,includingacomplaintthatthetrialcourtimproperly admittedacustodialvideoofhisstatements becausehedidnotvalidlywaivehisMiranda rightsandRodriguez’strialcounselwasineffective in multiple respects. The Fourth CourtofAppealsaffirmed.
Onappeal,ArandaRodriguezfirstarguedhis custodial video was inadmissible because a merenodwasinsufficienttoshowaknowing, intelligent,andvoluntarywaiverofrights. See Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 444 (1966); TEX. CODE OF CRIM. PROC. arts. 38.22 §§ 2(a), 3(a)(2).Thecourtfirstabatedthecaseandorderedthetrialcourttoissuethemandatory Article38.22§6findingswhenevervoluntarinessisatissue.“Thestatutehasnoexceptions.” Vasquez v. State, 411 S.W.3d 918, 920 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013).
ThetrialcourtfoundtheinterviewwasconductedinSpanishbyafluentofficerinacalm, conversational manner; that Aranda Rodrigueznoddedandmumbledanaffirmative responsewhenaskedifheunderstood;and that,afterinitiallyrefusingtospeak,hegave his statement after calling his brother. The courtconcludedhis“nonverbaltobarely-verbalcommunication...coupledwithhiswillingnesstospeak...constitutedaclearand affirmativeresponse”establishingcomprehension and a voluntary waiver. The Fourth Courtagreed,holdingthat“awaiverneednot assumeaparticularform”andmaybeinferred fromactionsandwords. Joseph v. State, 309
S.W.3d 20, 25 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (quoting North Carolina v. Butler, 441 U.S. 369, 373 (1979)). Therefore, the trial court did not abuseitsdiscretionbyadmittingthevideo.
Additionally, Rodriguez argued his counsel wasineffectiveforfailingto1)timelymove foracontinuance;2)requestappointmentof asecondchair;3)communicatepleaoffers;4) conductvoirdireproperly;and5)objectto translationandhearsayissues.ThecourtevaluatedtheseclaimsunderStrickland,whichrequiresproofofbothdeficiencyandprejudice.
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984).Therecorddidnotshowharmwith “considerablespecificity.” Nwosoucha v. State, 325 S.W.3d 816, 825 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2010, pet. ref’d). Multiplepleaofferswere communicatedtoArandaRodriguez,andno recordevidenceshowedhewaswillingtoacceptthem.Thevoirdireconductoftheattorneywasnotsoegregiousthat“nocompetent attorneywouldhaveengagedinit.” Hart v. State, 667 S.W.3d 774, 782 (Tex. Crim. App. 2023). Withrespecttohistrialcounsel’suntimely hearsay objection to his brother’s remarks,theFourthCourtheldthattheother videoandtestimonialproof,includingAranda Rodriguez’sownadmissionattrial,defeated anyshowingofprejudice. See Strickland, 466 U.S. at 694.
John Boozer is a third-year law student at St. Mary’s University School of Law and a student-attorney in the St. Mary’s Criminal Justice Clinic. He studied business and cybersecurity at Texas A&M University. This past summer, he worked in patent and trademark matters at Cherry Johnson Siegmund James PC. His practice interests include patent and intellectual property law as well as criminal defense. John has completed a graduate-level physics program and is pursuing registration to practice before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. As an Eagle Scout, he values service-driven, detail-oriented advocacy. He will graduate in May 2026 and will sit for the Texas bar and the patent bar.
Irene L. Martinez is a thirdyear law student at St. Mary’s University School of Law. She is currently the Historian for the Board of Advocates, the Special Project’s Manager for the Dean’s Research Fellow, and a Staff Writer for The Scholar. Irene graduated from Texas A&M International University in 2021 and worked as an Intake Clerk before beginning law school. Irene is currently enrolled as a student attorney in the Criminal Justice Clinic and plans on practicing criminal law upon her graduation in May 2026.
P.O.Box831206SanAntonio,Texas78283-1206
Telephone:(210)501-0458
FAX:(210)610-8367
FullName : : :
BarCard# : Email :
Zipcode
City/State : : Phone#: Mailing Address
TypeOfMembership
*Chooseyourtypeofmembership
Contributing($150peryear)
Regular($75peryear)
SaintMary’sLawStudent/ FirstYearLawyer($30)
St.Mary’sCrimm.LawAssn. ($0,Volunteer5hours)
(Attorneys)IamamemberingoodstandingoftheStateBarofTexas.Iamactivelyengagedinthedefenseofcriminal casesintheState,County,orMunicipalCourtsinBexarCountyorthesurroundingcontiguousCounties,orintheFederal CourtsoftheWesternDistrictofTexas.IdonotholdafulltimeorelectedJudicialorProsecutorialPosition.
Signature: Date:
PleaseMailApplication
1
2
3
SACDLA HOME RUNS!
Christian Vega and Kaytlyn Knowles justgotanotguiltyontwoABIsincc14 thatstartedfromsomeonesavingseatsat ahighschoolgraduation!
Congratsto Mae Garza and Brent De La Paz onaNGon2countsofAADW inthe399thwherethevictimhadvery badinjuriestoherfacebutwasveryinconsistent!Thiswasamediacaseanda BIGwin!
Isla Macfarlane, Patrick Cleveland sittingwithher,gotanotguiltyoutof BanderaCountyCourtonanAssault FamilyViolencecase.
4
Kristine Brown justscoredaNGona 2countsexassaultcaseinthe186th! Congrats,Kristine!
5 Congratulationsto Albert Chaires and Shannon Salmon-Haas ongettinga NG on a Aggravated Assault with a DeadlyWeapon.
6
Justgotword Jason gottheNGonasex caseoutofAtascosa. I’llletothersfillin thedetailsbutthat’sanincrediblytough countyforanykindofcasemuchlessa triallikethat. Congratulations!!!
7
Dayna Jones won an appeal based onBradyevidence being withheld!! Thiscasecameoutofthe186thDistrict CourtinfrontofJeffersonMoore.
2025 SACDLA Committee Chairs
MAC
JimBethke
Monthly CLEs
ShawnSareen
Fiesta CLE
JohnConvery/MarkStevens
Bylaw Committee
JessicaGonzales
DA Relations Committee
JessicaGonzales
Awards Committee
TrishaMoralesPadia
Membership Committee
ArleneGay
Social Committee /
Holiday Party
RolandoArguelles
Technology Committee
ForrestGood
Judicial Integrity Committee
ForrestGood
DEFENDER
CALL FOR SUBMISSIONS
The San Antonio Defender isalwayslookingforcontentthat servestoinspire,educate,andexciteourmembership.
Ifyouwouldliketocontribute,pleasecontact amemberofthe Defender staff.
SAN ANTONIO
Member Spotlight Zoe Russell
LawOfficeofZoeRussell,PLLC
ThankyouSACDLAforallowingmeto serveasexecutivedirectorsince2022!
Iwantedtousethisspacetoannouncethat myhusbandandIaremovingtotheBrecon BeaconsregioninWalesinspring2026.We loveSanAntonioverymuchanddon’twant to close the door on Texas, but—as I keep tellingmyself—we’regoingtostepoutandtry anewadventure.Wealsowanttobuildin greaterflexibilityforourfamilyastheTrump Administration aggressively targets immigrants(myhusband)andpoliticalopponents ofTrump(myself).
MyhusbandandIshareourtwo-and-a-halfyear-oldson,Henry.Henryissoexcitedtobe nearhisWelshcousins,Mamgu(grandma), aunt,anduncle.You,dearreader,nowhavea
freeroomtostayinWales.Callmeifyoulove lushgreenhills,grayskies,andcastles!
WhatamIgoingtodoforwork,youmight ask?Ihopetoputtogetheraremotepractice andcontinueservingclientsinTexas.
Forsomeweirdreason—maybethankstobeingTreyPorter’sALRattorneywhenIwasa babylawyer—IloveDWIs.IfIcan’ttryDWIs in court, the next best thing is ALRs over Zoom.I’vespentafewyearsnowinvesting intomyownunderstandingofDWIs.I’veattended numerous DWI CLEs, courses on standardizedfieldsobrietytests,theForensic ChromatographycoursebyAxionLabs,and becameamemberofDUIDLAandNCDD.
I’vegonedowntolookatmyclient’sblood vials at the property room, inspected the breathalyzerroomatSAPD,andtouredthe DPScrimelabinAustin.I’veporedovermy breath and blood discovery to understand whatintheworldI’maskingforinmydiscoverymotion.Iwanttostayconnectedto thepracticeofDWIsbyhandlingALRsona contractbasis,andprovidingaroadmaptothe DWIlawyerforissuestopursueinthecase. Youalsocan’treallybeatthefunofcross-examining Texas cops about nystagmus from theWelshcountryside.
MyloveforDWIsalsoprobablystemsfrom mypassionforkeepingjunkscienceoutof ourcourtrooms.Oneofmyrecenttrialwins wasonasuperaggravatedsexualassaultofa childcaseinHaysCounty.Wehungthejury on two counts and acquitted the client on three. Finding the time to educate myself abouttheexperttestimonythatwasgoingto
comeinattrialwasessentialtoourresult,and thateducationcomesfromgettinginvestigatorsandexpertsappointed,learningbestpractices of that specialty, reviewing discovery, makinguseofsubpoenasanddiscoveryrequests,andinterviewingtheexpertsmultiple timesifneedbeinordertohaveagripon whattheywillsayattrial.
Iwouldlovetoprovidethesamelitigation supporttootherdefenselawyers.Onenote aboutthis:pleasedon’tletaphysicianinasexualassaultcasediagnosesexualabusebased solelyonawitness’sstatementsandalackof physical evidence. See Salinas v. State, 166 S.W.3d 368 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2005, pet. ref’d).
Thankyouforlettingmebeyourexecutive director.Ilovethisgroupsomuchandlove thatthepracticeofcriminaldefenseletsme fightalongsideallofyou.
CALL FOR SUBMISSIONS
The San Antonio Defender isalwayslookingforcontentthatservesto inspire,educateandexciteourmembership.Ifyouwouldliketo contribute,pleasecontactamemberofthe Defender staff.
