How to Defend a Theft Charge

In this video a criminal attorney explains how to beat a theft charge. This could be a shoplifting court case, a theft charge from Walmart, grand theft charges, or a petty theft charge.

In this video, criminal attorney Stephen Gustitis describes how to beat a theft charge by challenging the key components of the prosecutor's case. This could be a shoplifting court case, a theft charge from Walmart, grand theft charges, or a petty theft charge. 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 a theft charge.

What is the Secret Ingredient for a Great Cross Examination?

This video explains the secret ingredient for preparing a great cross examination. It avoids cross examination techniques, rather the video explains how deep creative thought is the key to developing a great cross examination in court. Visit https://www.gustitislaw.com for more information about cross examination and the best criminal defense attorney in Bryan-College Station, TX.

In this video, defense attorney Stephen Gustitis describes his secret ingredient for preparing cross examination in court. Deep creative thought is considered the key to the art of cross examination and for preparing the best cross examination possible. 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 the best cross examination.

US Supreme Court Rules Like a Kindergartener

Last week the U.S. Supreme Court disappointed prosecutors and police when it ruled to require state experts who perform scientific analysis to also appear and testify in court about their work. In other words, the Court rejected the notion that a surrogate could show up for trial and testify about work done in their lab. But a kindergartener could have figured that one out. Persons accused of a crime have the right to cross-exam their accusers. That includes the person who performs a scientific test that incriminates them.

The case was Bullcoming v. New Mexico, No. 09-10876. It arose from the arrest of a New Mexico man on suspicion of DWI. At his trial, prosecutors presented a crime lab report showing Bullcoming's blood-alcohol levels were elevated. But prosecutors did not call the analyst who had prepared and signed the report, telling the court he was on unpaid leave for unspecified reasons. Instead, they presented a colleague who had neither observed nor reviewed the analysis.

The Supremes said that was unacceptable. Duh? Their ruling followed from Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts and Crawford v. Washington, which breathed new life into a person's right to confront the witnesses against them. Even Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas joined the majority opinion on this one. Taking a swing at the dissent's argument that such a requirement created an unreasonable burden upon the state, Scalia said: “The confrontation clause may make the prosecution of criminals more burdensome, but that is equally true of the right to trial by jury and the privilege against self-incrimination.”

In any case, another small victory for the defense and the Bill of Rights. But even a kindergartener could have figured this one out.

On Crossing The Eyewitness

Gideon posts here about an excellent article published by the Widener University School of Law concerning cross-examination of eyewitness testimony. I've posted here, here, and here about the subject and problems with these often flawed IDs. Gideon points out the paper gives us a roadmap to argue the admissibility of expert testimony. I agree with Gideon the article is a must read for criminal defense lawyers.

Our Closed-Source Accuser

We will never look our closed-source accuser in the eye. The jury will never eyeball our closed-source accuser to determine its credibility. We will never ask our closed-source accuser a single question as it heaps incriminating evidence upon us while we fight to maintain our freedom. In fact, we may not even realize we are facing a closed-source accuser at all.

Why is this important for the criminal defense lawyer? Closed-source software (source code) is used to convict our clients, but it may contain bugs or programing errors. Sadly, most criminal defense attorneys have no idea what source code is in the first place. Eaves dropping equipment, wire tapping, radar guns, tasers, breath testing machines, and everything else electronic runs on software. How can you rely on the accuracy of such equipment without looking at the instructions that drive the hardware?

Closed-source software is generally considered proprietary and a trade secret of the company that created it. Closed source software (e.g. Microsoft Windows and Office) is developed by a single person or company. Only the final product run on your computer is made available, while the source code for making the software is kept a secret. Open-source software (e.g. Linux and Open Office), on the other hand, is available by all to read. The software code for those projects is scrutinized by more people than even the biggest software company can hire. Software flaws are more easily discovered and repaired. Most open-source projects allow anyone to contribute and problems are normally resolved quickly and cleanly.

Look here for discussion of source-code issues in DWI cases. Look here for the 2005 Florida case where the makers of the Intoxilizer 5000 were ordered to turn over their closed-source code to defense lawyers.

A fascinating article by Curtis Poe discussed this closed-source software dilemma. Poe talked about a Minnesota man who won the right to examine the closed-source code of the breathtest machine used to accuse him. He demanded to see the source code in order to make sure the machine worked as advertised. Poe commented: "Closed-source software is allowed to take the witness stand and accuse you of crimes and you’re not allowed to cross-examine it." He stated further:

This is why I firmly believe that any software with substantial risk to harm your life or liberty must be open source. I’m not saying that it should be free or that manufacturers should not be allowed protections, but the protection of the people must come first. Certainly we could come up with schemes for various systems which might purport to thoroughly test them without opening up the code, but there are too many systems and too many parameters for us to do this safely on a case-by-case basis.

We may never see open-source software running the devices used to accuse our clients. But criminal defense lawyers must go after the closed-source software that is. When confronted with any type of technical device used to prosecute our clients, everything from breath testing machines to traffic speed cameras, we should be demanding the code for inspection.