4 Ways to Beat Drug Possession Charges in Court

This video explains how to beat drug possession charges. Beating drug charges involves a 4 step evaluation of your case. Visit https://www.gustitislaw.com for more information about beating drug possession charges in court and criminal defense lawyers in Bryan-College Station, TX.

In this video, criminal attorney Stephen Gustitis describes how to beat drug possession charges. Drug charges can be challenged in court using 4 methods of attack including identity issues, possession issues, knowledge issues, and 4th Amendment search and seizure issues. Steve is a Texas Board Certified Criminal Defense Lawyer practicing in Bryan-College Station, Texas. He has more than 28 years of experience in the field of criminal law and criminal defense in Brazos County. His videos cover a range of the best defense tactics and criminal defense strategies, including how to beat drug possession charges.

Use Stories to Create a Great Opening Statement in Court

This video explains why you should use stories to create a great opening statement in court. Since the opening statement is your first opportunity to tell the jury about your case, use stories to help them process and remember the evidence.
In this video, defense attorney Stephen Gustitis describes why using stories is the best way to craft an opening statement in court. Using a story in the opening statement can help guide the jury and place the evidence in context, especially for an opening statement for criminal defense. Steve is a Texas Board Certified Criminal Defense Attorney practicing in Bryan-College Station, Texas. He has more than 28 years of experience in the field of criminal law and criminal defense in Brazos County. His videos cover a range of the best defense tactics and criminal defense strategies, including how to prepare opening statements in court.

How to Use Jury Selection Questions to Defend Criminal Charges

This video explains how to use jury selection questions to identify biased jurors during the jury selection process when defending criminal charges. Visit https://www.gustitislaw.com for more information about jury selection questions and tips and the best criminal defense lawyers in Bryan-College Station, TX.

In this video, criminal lawyer Stephen Gustitis describes how to use crafted jury selection questions to help identify jurors who may be biased against your theory of defense in a criminal case. Encouraging jurors to reveal their true beliefs during the jury selection process is one of the principal jury selection tips in this video. Steve is a Texas Board Certified Criminal Defense Attorney practicing in Bryan-College Station, Texas. He has more than 28 years of experience in the field of criminal law and criminal defense in Brazos County. His videos cover a range of the best defense tactics and criminal defense strategies, including how to use jury selection questions to identify biased jurors.

Having Finished a Capital Murder Trial

It's been about two weeks since we finished defending a capital murder case here in Bryan/College Station. My talented co-counsel and I prepared for over a year to defend our client who was charged with quite a heinous murder and aggravated assault. Our defense was unique since we had solid evidence our client was mentally retarded and, therefore, ineligible for the death penalty under Texas and Federal law. 


The jury did not find in our favor, however. But everyone on the defense team deserved much praise and thanks for a job very well done. We were under tremendous pressure and it seemed unending. Everyday there were a 100 moving parts to manage and control. Documents to review, expert witnesses to prepare, subpoenas to serve, client family to tend to . . . in addition to keeping the law practice above water until I could return. My family paid a price, as well. I left before they got up each morning and arrived home after each was already in bed.  It was a lonely time. 


I watched as some of the best cross-examinations I'd ever seen were executed with precision. Thank you, Lane. I knew I could lean on you when the crap hit the fan. That's why I picked you. The capital murder jury selection process was a battle in-and-of itself, too. Days filled with victory and defeat, both at the same time. Every hour a new battle to fight, another juror to save, another juror to get for cause. 


I don't know if I'll ever do another of these. The experience was unequaled. The stakes were at their highest. But the personal cost equally as great. 

The Jury Expert

I am not a consumer of jury consultant services. However, for the well-to-do client, who has money to burn, a jury consultant might be an expense worth incurring on a big case. If you cannot afford the high-priced services of a warm-bodied consultant, then maybe reading a good journal on the subject might serve your interests, as well.

The Jury Expert is a publication of the American Society of Trial Consultants edited by Dr. Rita R. Handrich. Dr. Handrich's goal is to translate social sciences research findings into practical and relevant tools for the trial lawyer. To that end, the journal features articles by academics on their research areas. The journal then gets reactions to those articles by experienced trial consultants who translate the theory into practice. Trial consultant responses to the articles focus on how the research can be used in litigation advocacy.

In addition to articles by academics, The Jury Expert also features practice-oriented articles by trial consultants on a wide array of litigation topics. The journal publishes six times a year and subscriptions are free. Their current issue features articles on cross-examination of narcissistic witnesses; juror reactions to successful women; varying attitudes of liberals and conservatives toward punishment; conceptual persuasion; the relationship between juror damages awards and generation; and more.

A 5:00pm Verdict??

The call came at 5:00 pm yesterday afternoon . . . get back to the courthouse. The jury had been deliberating since 11:15 am on a two-witness, DWI case including about 4 hours of testimony. We tried an aggressive case and were cautiously optimistic for a not guilty verdict. The prosecutor worked hard, as well, milking his case for every sign of alcohol intoxication possible.

First, a plug for my consulting experts. With the help of Lance Platt, of Platt & Associates, (formerly Walden, Platt & Associates) we were able to take the arresting officer on cross-examination and carve him up like a roast. Lance is a former College Station Police Department officer who provides expert assistance in the evaluation of DWI videos and investigations. For a reasonable fee, the firm takes a DWI video, along with other pre-trial discovery, and evaluates the police administration of field sobriety tests and scoring. Lance provided a detailed report having reviewed the officer's performance with a fine-tooth comb. With this information we were well prepared to attack the credibility of the arresting officer and the prosecution's case.

The client didn't look too bad on the video. The police stopped him for driving without his headlights on. He made a few mistakes on the sobriety tests, but nothing that couldn't be explained as a young college kid, scared, and under the microscope of two uniformed cops. He was honest with the officer admitting he'd consumed 5-6 beers at a local drinking establishment. However, during the trial we showed the arresting officer failed to comply with numerous standardized procedures for administering the roadside tests. The failure to comply with these standardized procedures compromised the validity of the tests by the officer's own admission. Furthermore, we were fortunate to have two officers involved since their testimony conflicted on key aspects of the case. During a rare jury trial moment, the arresting officer "failed" the walk-and-turn test during his demonstration by exhibiting two clues of intoxication . . . stepping of line and making an improper turn. A rare gift, indeed, in the defense of those accused of driving while intoxicated.

I'd like to report the jury acquitted my client . . . but no. Yet, we were blessed with a hung jury and mistrial. After speaking with the jurors the split was 5-to-1 in favor of an acquittal. One juror was impressed a trained and practiced police officer made honest mistakes on his own sobriety tests!

So, we plan on trying this case again . . . anytime, anywhere. When it comes up I'll let you know.

Yet Another Jury Is Out

I've been quiet this week, so far. Yesterday I started another jury trial in the Brazos County Court at Law No. 1. It's a DWI, breathtest refusal case where two police officers testified. The jury is currently deliberating and I'm at the office trying to get work done waiting on a verdict. I've grown accustomed to waiting on juries, though, I can't say I like it. Anyway, after the verdict I'll provide a postmortem on the case.

The Juror's Perspective

I received a comment this afternoon from one of the jurors who served on the bank robbery case I tried a couple weeks ago. The comment was gracious and compassionate. I reproduced it and my response for your pleasure.

From the Juror:

I admire your positive outlook on things during a trial. I can only assume that this is a must in your case. I can also only assume that a large portion of your clients are guilty. I'm sure the positive outlook is vital to keep the energy moving in the right direction. The "snitch" was just that and not a very likable person; however he was not a liar. I think it is clear now that all 12 of us thought he was a lot of things, but not a liar. As for the DNA: you had me for a minute. You should have put your client in the car before the robbery. Don't leave it up to us to assume when he could have gotten in that car to deposit DNA. You put him there with a witness and your case begins to teeter the other way... You are a good lawyer. Even the good ones loose cases. Keep your chin up. After all, he did rob that bank...even you couldn't change that.

From me:

Thank you for respecting the job I needed to accomplish in the courtroom to protect not only the rights of my accused client, but all our rights as free citizens. Your comment here was a surprise, but very welcomed, especially in light of how this case ultimately turned out. There is always a fine line between being honest with the jury, but permitting them only to hear what is necessary to assure a fair and impartial trial. I strive to deal with the jury honestly but to also protect my client. Thanks again for your comment.

As far as the DNA goes, I didn't know what the witness would say if I asked him whether my client had gotten into the car. It was a calculated risk not to ask it.

In any event, I appreciated your service to Brazos County and your courage in correctly applying the law to the facts of this difficult case.

There was a reason this comment meant so much to me. After the jury convicted my client they were discharged from the case since the judge was to assess punishment. When I went back to the courthouse on Friday afternoon for the hearing about six of the jurors were there to observe. I made eye contact with several of them. I could see they were a bit unsure how to react to me. Maybe they thought I was angry at them for convicting my client?

Despite their trepidation I approached each of them and thanked them for their service. I wanted each to know I wasn't angry and I respected their week of hard work. When the hearing was about to begin I noticed one more juror had arrived to watch. I made eye contact with her and I pressed her for a smile. Her eyes widened, her face brightened with a smile, and I knew she and I were OK.

Criminal defense lawyers must learn to love those who decide the fate of our clients. They are good people. They have good intentions. They want to be fair. And every once in a while? One of them pays you a compliment.

Adrenalin Drip Off

This week my client knew if he was convicted of aggravated robbery the sentence he'd receive would be meted out in letters rather than numbers. For those criminal defense lawyers out there you know what I mean. My client had been to the pen before on two different trips. His first trip down was on 3 felonies, two of which were aggravated robbery. His second trip was on 4 felonies, three of which were aggravated robbery. So the handwriting was on the wall if his jury trial gamble did not pay off.

At 4:00 pm today the trial judge sentenced my client to life imprisonment following the jury's 90 minute unanimous guilty verdict. Some may wonder how my client reacted? I can tell you he left the courtroom with a smile on his face. I can tell you he was pleased with the fight we gave the government and his buddies who snitched him out. This was his first jury trial and I asked him whether it was worth it. He said he regretted nothing. He was happy to lay his case on the line.

Like I said earlier this week - if my client is happy, then I'm happy. There were some issues worth fighting for on appeal and I encouraged him to keep his spirits up. Another lawyer will handle the post-conviction matters so my story on this case ends here. I'm tired after the adrenalin drip turned off about 5:00 this afternoon. I'll enjoy a nice rest this weekend.

A post script. Criminal defense practice is not always about handling hardship. While I was looking through my "in-basket" before leaving the office today I found an order granting a motion to suppress I had litigated about two weeks ago. The police had stopped my client for not having a front license plate on his vehicle. He did have a license plate on the dashboard, however. I wrote here about bad traffic stops under these precise circumstances. The result? The State has no case - we win.

Thanks for following the trial this week. I'll be back to boring discussions about this issue and that next week. However, I will endeavor to educate and entertain as best I can.

Cross-Examination Hammerfest

At the end of every bicycle race the hammer goes down. It might be in the last 2000 meters or the last 500. But when it happens everyone hits the gas. You're riding so hard and it hurts so much, it feels like your eyes might pop out of their sockets. However, when you're fit and prepared for the hard jump the pain actually feels good - in a masochistic sort of way.

That's what it was like cross-examining Mr. Big today. It hurt, but it felt good, too. Mr. Big was the principle accomplice who testified for the State during the bank robbery trial I've covered this week. In preparation for his cross I poured over written statements, video-taped interviews, police reports, and everything else I could get my hands on. The main objective was to discredit the witness and develop evidence consistent with our defensive theory. We accomplished both objectives.

This snitch was a liar and it came through. His prior inconsistent statements were legion. He'd cut more deals with Federal and State prosecutors than you could imagine. We were even able to develop a powerful financial motive for him to lie as he admitted my client "ripped-him-off" for $50,000.00 three months before he implicated him in the robbery.

Evidence critical to our defensive theory was established through this witness, as well. Regretfully, I can't share it with you lest the prosecutors are reading this post. Suffice it to say I'll be arguing these facts with great vigor tomorrow in closing arguments.

I appreciate those who are following the trial by reading the blog posts and making comments. Please don't worry about me winning or losing this case. The client is happy with our effort. And if he's happy, then I'm happy - regardless of the outcome.

Snitches Galore

Another accomplice testified yesterday afternoon. I liked him even though he was lying like hell. At the time of his arrest he never implicated my client in the robbery. It wasn't until 18 months later that he told any authorities my client was involved. Only then after the DA and FBI threatened him with 50 years in the pen. Clearly, the accomplice's deal to protect himself hinged on his testimony against my client. No testimony - no deal. Luckily, we had a letter written by the accomplice expressing his fears of losing out on this sweet plea unless he testified.

Also during yesterday's testimony the government admitted cellular phone records they claimed tied my client to the crime scene. No way. Although the records showed a phone allegedly subscribed to by my client was used during the bank robbery, no evidence showed my client was EVER in possession of it. In fact, the accomplice testified my client had 2 cell phones which he allowed his friends to borrow. The prosecutors spent about 2.0 hours of the jury's time showing them they had no idea whether my client was within a mile of the phone during the robbery.

Today I expect Mr. Big to testify for the State. He's an important accomplice witness and can help my defense. Sorry I can't say more lest my adversaries are reading this post.

The Great Thing About DNA

The great thing about DNA evidence? The government can't prove when a sample of biological material was deposited. We fought this battle this morning with the government's DNA expert in the bank robbery trial I've been posting about this week.

DNA evidence can be very damaging since it often (but not always) shows a particular person was present at a particular location, or otherwise tied to part of the crime scene. However, if prosecutors can't limit the depositing of a sample to a relevant time, then we've got a crack-in-the-armor to work with. I will have the chance to exploit this precise weakness during closing arguments.

Otherwise, the trial is going as expected. The challenge in defending is knowing when to interject my energy into the State's presentation of evidence. Often the State's case creates much "negative" vibes toward the accused. It's important for the defense lawyer to break-up this energy with attacks of his own. Wish me continued luck for the remainder of the day.

Accomplice Witness Testimony

The State offered the testimony of the bank robbery victim, security officer, and one of the accomplice witnesses this morning. An important aspect of Texas law is the requirement that any accomplice witness testimony be corroborated by an outside source. That is, in Texas the accused cannot be convicted by accomplice witness testimony alone. Other evidence must exist, independent of the accomplice, that tends to connect the accused to the crime. Multiple accomplices cannot corroborate eachother.

I expect all three accomplices to testify in the trial and accuse my client of being an actor in the robbery. The weakness in the State's case will be other evidence tending to connect my client to the crime. Yesterday in jury selection the jurors committed to the notion that they determine what evidence sufficiently corroborates the snitch testimony. They understand they're not bound by the prosecutor's theory.

Anyway, trials are always tough. This is another long day in the saddle.

Opening Statement and First Day

Opening statements and the State's case are beginning in about 30 minutes. I want to give an opening statement whenever possible and today is one of those days. My opening will be short but hopefully surgically effective to keep the juror's minds open during the prosecution case. Many times my goal in opening is simply to get back to even after the prosecution dumps their evidence expectations into the jury's lap. If I can give the jury a reason to keep an open mind during the government's case, then I've been successful.

Jury Selection Complete

Another jury selected (or deselected, if you will) and empaneled. I recall a few months back Scott Greenfield posted about the "voodoo" nature of jury selection and I engaged him in spirited discussion. Scott opined that, any way you slice it, jury selection was a crap-shoot and guess work, at best. I disagreed with Scott suggesting it's possible to familiarized yourself enough with the jurors to help make intelligible peremptory strikes, especially with jurors on either extreme. The focus then becomes the jurors in the middle and what to do with them, strike or keep 'em.

After the strikes were made and the final list of twelve was being compiled I wondered why the State struck certain jurors and I struck others. Sure there was the occasional double strike. But obviously both sides of this dispute identified different jurors that we liked and didn't like. Jurors I liked often got struck by the State. I'm sure the reciprocal was true, as well. So anecdotally, it didn't seem jury selection was necessarily the crap-shoot we make it out to be.

Anyway, those are my thoughts for the day. Beyond this, one might ask if I've got a good jury? Well, I can only answer that after the verdict comes in. It's like my final argument - it was only a good one if it worked.

Finally, I appreciated an off-line note from Mark Bennett who suggested we not name our clients in our posts, lest their names become indelibly linked with some heinous allegation which we later beat. I agreed with that advice and edited my previous post, for all the good it will do. But the point was well taken.

Let The Games Begin

I'm sitting at counsel's table getting my projector and Keynote presentation ready for jury selection starting in just a few minutes. I'm defending a case where my client is charged with the aggravated robbery of State Bank employees during Easter weekend, 2006. I expect the trial to last the week.

Jury selection should take most of today. I'll check in later in and let you know how I like, or don't like the special twelve chosen to decide this case.

Frisco DWI Lawyer Wins

Hunter Biederman, the Frisco DWI Lawyer, posted here about his recent victory following a jury trial on a .21o breathtest DWI. Hunter won this case, not because the jury acquitted his client, but because he soundly beat the plea offer from the prosecutor. Commenting on the assessment of punishment Hunter said:

For him[the client], it [getting less jail time] is a win. Of course, our goal was to be found not guilty, but we still achieved a better result than pleading guilty.

Taking a case like this to trial is gutsy, but necessary since the only way criminal defense lawyers get better at trying difficult cases is to try difficult cases. Even the ones that seem un-winnable.

Scott Greenfield lamented here about the failure of the federal criminal defense bar to be ready, willing and able to stand up to the government. However, with more defense lawyers like Hunter, prosecutors in Texas state court should be getting a run for their money.

Prosecutors aggressively file DWIs in Bryan and College Station, Texas. The best way to beat a DWI is not drink and drive. But if you get arrested, give the College Station DWI lawyer a call since, like the Frisco Kid, we fight the good fight here, too.

Pro-Se Insanity

Marc Benayer, charged with murder and related felony charges from a shooting in Palm Beach County, Florida, decided to represent himself as the State of Florida sought to convict him by jury trial starting this week. An article in the Palm Beach Post commented on the trial and about the efficacy of self-representation (pro-se) in criminal cases. The article quoted a study by Erica Hashimoto, law professor at the University of Georgia School of Law, who found:

"The select few felony defendants who choose self-representation do not appear to suffer significant adverse outcomes from that decision," Erica Hashimoto, an assistant law professor at the University of Georgia concluded in her study, published this year in the North Carolina Law Review. Pro se defendants in state courts were convicted at rates equivalent to or lower than the conviction rates of defendants who had representation, Hashimoto found in her study of state courts data for six years between 1990 and 2000. The sample size of 234 defendants who still had no lawyer at the conclusion of their cases was too small, however, to draw definitive conclusions about their success rates, she said. Still, about 50 percent of the defendants who acted as their own lawyers weren't convicted of any charge, compared with 75 percent who had representation, Hashimoto said. And when they were convicted, it was less often on felony charges.

Frankly, Professor Hashimoto is off her rocker. I've seen the carnage of pro-se representation here in Bryan/College Station, Texas and it hasn't been pretty, especially in complicated felony trials or other crimes of violence. I've even served as "standby counsel" to one or two self-absorbed souls who thought defending themselves before the jury was in their best interests. It was a nightmare.

I understand, mind you, the accused has a constitutional right under Faretta v. California to forgo legal counsel and shoulder the burden of representing themselves. However, in my experience this tactic is usually a big mistake. I say usually because there are a few instances where pro-se representation might be effective. Those instances would be low-level, non-violent criminal cases where a jury might develop sympathy for a poor, young, maybe attractive defendant standing up to the power of the government by their lonesome.

However, in complicated felonies and crimes of violence, the pro-se defendant is biting off way more than they can chew. There are enough traps waiting for the seasoned criminal defense lawyer. But I assure you the prosecutor is licking his lips in anticipation of a sure victory and a throat slashing punishment result with a pro-se defendant.

With that said, I wish Mr. Benayer the best of luck. The old saying "better to be lucky than good" applies in his case. I doubt Mr. Benayer is good, so I hope he can get lucky.

Trial For Sport

Thanks to Norm Pattis and Scott Greenfield for posting here and here about the prospective criminal defense client's "Sporting Theory of Trial." In layman's terms it's a defense lawyer's won/loss record. A record prospective clients frequently ask about and believe we are poised to tell them just given the opportunity.

Norm starts with the question "A great trial lawyer never loses, right?" He follows with the following insight:

Trial differs from sport in one fundamental respect: In a sporting event, the rules of engagement are structured in such a way as to focus attention on the skill and preparation of the contestants. A football field is but 100 yards long. However, the skill of the players, their game plan, their preparation determines the outcome.

Trial differs from sport. Oh, there is an arena, and the event is bound by rules. Talent and skill can make the difference. But unlike a sporting event, the litigants are not the focal point. Trial is a search for truth about what occurred between the parties. No effort is made to assure that trial is merely a test of the lawyers' skills. The facts and the law tilt the field in one direction or another. Sometimes a good lawyer, even a great lawyer, can only hold on in the face of an avalanche of evidence and law that does not support his client.

Scott adds this:

If you want to know whether the lawyer is any good, there are two questions to ask yourself. Does he know what he's doing and will he fight for me to the end. Other than that, the score card means nothing. You're hiring a lawyer for his or her "dedication and hard work," as Norm says, and I would add his or her skills. That's what we have to offer. If a lawyer can remember his score, chances are that he hasn't been around long enough to remember or he's just full of baloney.

And finally, Norm concludes:

The sporting theory of the trial misleads lawyers and clients. I am cocky enough to think that were trial an athletic event I would be invincible. But I am aware of fact patterns that tilt the floor such that I am happy enough to remain standing until the verdict comes in.

None of us wants to mislead clients. The honest and fair approach is to explain that no two cases are anywhere near comparable and that our "won/loss" record is a meaningless attempt at self-promotion and self-glorification. Thanks gentlemen for the discussion on an always apropos subject.

My Twelve Special Jurors

My Twelve Special Jurors gave us a mistrial last night when they were unable to decide the issue of my client's guilt. The jury was hung 6 to 6 after about 3 1/2 hours of deliberation. My client was standing trial for possessing a firearm while being a convicted felon. After the trial the jurors gave us valuable insight into the weakness of the state's case.

This was the second time this case was tried to a jury. In 2002 my client was represented by out-of-town counsel, was convicted, and was sentenced to 13 years in the penitentiary. After a writ of habeas corpus was granted in 2006 on ineffective assistance of counsel, the case was remanded to the trial court and I was appointed to represent the accused.

After remand the state wanted to move the case. Consequently they offered to recommend time-served in exchange for my client's guilty plea. If accepted, my client would need only to check-in, then check-out of the county jail since he had over 4 years of flat time on the books. Remarkably, my client rejected the offer immediately. Many of my colleagues around the courthouse chuckled. "He's crazy," they said.

After trying the case the way it should have been the first time, the weakness of the state's case became clear. This was basically a one witness case with the arresting cop offering his bogus opinion my client was acting "suspiciously" and was trying to hide something after getting out of his car during a routine traffic stop. The video of the stop did not support this conclusion and the jury saw through it.

The problem was an alibi witness the defense called in the first trial. The state called him this week. This witness should never have been within a mile of the courthouse in 2002. There were too many problems with him that the defense could not explain. See Bennett's Chainsaw:

The more things you must contest and the more explanations you must provide in order to mount a defense, the more likely it is that you will be convicted.

Be that as it may, my client is ready to try the case again. It's my job to figure out how to win. After running the play twice we're confident 3 is the charm.