Texas A&M Student Conduct System

The Texas A&M University student conduct system is designed to determine whether the University's standards of conduct have been violated. Although the student conduct system is not designed to determine criminal guilt, the student must be aware that procedures built into the system can result in the student incriminating themselves and providing evidence to the state prosecuting authorities.

Any member of the university system may initiate a complaint against a student for an alleged violation of University Student Rules. If circumstances surrounding the complaint suggest that a violation of the Student Conduct Code (a quasi-criminal subset of the Student Rules) has occurred, disciplinary charges may be issued against the student. Students are notified of disciplinary charges in writing by a letter of charges issued to the student’s address on file with the University. If you are contacted by the University regarding alleged violations of the Student Conduct Code, contact a qualified College Station criminal defense lawyer immediately.

Off campus violations of the Student Conduct Code are also subject to University disciplinary action. When a student is alleged to have violated the Student Conduct Code by an offense committed off university premises, the University reserves the right to investigate and adjudicate these violations. The University may take action in situations occurring off university premises when student misconduct demonstrates a flagrant disregard for any person or persons, or when a student's behavior is judged to threaten the health, safety, or property of any individual or group.

Further disciplinary action may be taken against a student for failure to appear after proper notice that disciplinary charges have been filed. The student should always consult a qualified criminal defense attorney when disciplinary charges brought by the University involve a violation of the Student Conduct Code or any alleged violation of criminal law.

A disciplinary hearing can be conducted in different ways depending on the nature of the alleged violation. The method most critical here is when the student meets with one or more administrative hearing officers to discuss the charges, the student’s involvement in the incident, and any other information relevant to the charges. This type of hearing is where the student may inadvertently incriminate themselves by speaking with the hearing officer. In more serious cases, the hearing is tape recorded. This tape recording is often made available to state prosecuting authorities. If the student testifies at the hearing, their statements will be admissible evidence in criminal court. Even if the hearing is not recorded, any statements the student makes are admissible in criminal court through the testimony of the hearing officer.

Based on the information presented and discussed at the hearing, the administrative hearing officer will determine whether a violation has occurred and issue sanctions accordingly. Any sanctions issued are in addition to penalties assessed by a criminal court judge.

Next Friday we'll look at the issue of student rights regarding University disciplinary proceedings.

The Business of Law

Shawn Matlock recently posted about his "Love of the Game." Shawn stated he was not a criminal defense lawyer for the money, rather he was in it for the client. Shawn rightly criticized the hypothetical "Weinstein" for being money centered rather than client centered. Shawn went on to say:

I realized that I simply do this for different reasons than Weinstein. The Weinsteins of the world think of themselves as businessmen. The client is a fee. The practice of law is the practice of making money.

Although I agree with Shawn's premise the client should come first in the practice of law, I don't believe Shawn intended the practice of law should not be run as a business. In fact, the worst mistake I see criminal lawyers make is not managing their law practices as a business. A business is designed to make money and compete in the marketplace by providing a superior service or product. In fact, making good money and giving clients excellent service go hand in hand.

Years ago I learned "there is always room at the top." "It may be lonely there, but there is plenty of room." In short, work very hard for your clients, charge them a premium fee, provide excellent service, and make a good living. There is nothing wrong with making a good living representing folks accused of crime. In fact, a premium fee should motivate the lawyer to excellence. Regrettably, our love of the game can only take us so far. With families to feed, retirement to fund, weddings and college to pay for, the criminal defense lawyer needs to develop their business both for the client's sake and their own.

The lawyers who have grown their practices into successful businesses are in demand. People want to hire successful people. Not because the lawyers lie and make promises they can't keep, but because they provide excellent service - excellent service motivated by a premium fee. The premium fee creates healthy expectations from both client and lawyer. No problem there. The criminal defense lawyers with good business models are providing what the clients need. No problem there, either. When I treat my law practice like a business my clients reap the benefits. What's the problem with that?

So although I appreciate Shawn's "love of the game," I also appreciate the value of running a good business - the business of law. Don't worry, the Weinsteins will be found out. But without the business there would be no game, for very few of us would practice law just for the fun of it.

Tell Your Lawyer the Truth

The worst mistake the new criminal defense client can make is not telling your lawyer the truth. Of course say nothing to the police before consulting a lawyer. But before your lawyer can help solve your problem he needs to know the true facts . This means both the good and the bad. Encouraging the client to be truthful is often a challenge since clients tend to believe their lawyers will think less of them if they know what really happened. Not true! Also, don't forget your conversations with a criminal defense lawyer are protected. Even the most sensitive information you tell your lawyer must remain confidential.

I've borrowed from Scott Greenfield to emphasize the importance of clients telling their lawyers the truth:

Most effective defense lawyers start with the assumption that their client is guilty. Not because he necessarily is, but because it allows him to detach himself from the emotion of the case to step back and assess the case, the evidence, the jurisprudence, from a neutral perspective. It matters far less what the defendant has to say about his case then what the prosecution has to say. They put on their evidence, and we must determine what we can do about it.

Sometimes defendants are innocent. Far more often, they are guilty. At least of something. And sometimes they lie to their lawyers about it, and about the facts that surround it. If we accept and adopt those lies, we end up the dumb guy in the room, operating from a position of ignorance. This helps no one, especially our client. Without knowing what we really have to confront, we cannot be effective.

It's difficult for many defendants to appreciate that their lawyer doesn't care whether they are factually guilty or not. Many believe that if they insist on their innocence, we will work harder or care more. Not only is this wrong, but it's dangerous. The only real weapon a defense attorney has is information. If the information is wrong, then he's shooting blanks. Feed your lawyer baloney and that's what he will work with. But at the end of the day, the client will have to live with the outcome.

Even though Scott was writing about the dangers of being a zealot, as a prosecutor or defense lawyer, his advice on telling your lawyer the truth holds true for every situation. In short, if you feed your lawyer garbage, you'll get garbage out and you'll have to live with the outcome. So come clean with your criminal defense attorney. We will not think less of you, rather we will respect your courage and do a better job defending your case.

Welcome Back Aggies

The Texas A&M Aggies are back in Bryan/College Station in full force, all looking forward to starting their fall semester, I'm sure. The Blinn College students are back too, hopefully refreshed and their pockets flush with cash from saving money over the summer.

I'll be starting a Friday series for the next month giving the Ags and Blinn students some pointers for staying out of trouble with local law enforcement and the University student disciplinary process. Travis Robinson, writing for "The Battalion," kicked off the fall semester with a good article on the stiff consequences for breaking alcohol rules on campus. Travis discussed some of the pitfalls rule breakers will run into with the A&M Student Conduct Services. Starting next Friday I'll be following up with posts on Texas Aggie student rights and how the student disciplinary process can affect the defense of the student in the Brazos County criminal courts.

I hope the students from Blinn and A&M will tune in and maybe post some comments. I look forward to a trouble-free and successful semester for all.

An Odd Sort of Victory (II)

Over the past month fellow criminal defense lawyers have shared their feelings regarding "winning" and "losing" in the maelstrom of criminal defense work. Malum wrote of a heart wrenching guilty verdict in his post Loss of Words. Gideon wrote of losing more than he wins in his post The Reality of Being a Criminal Defense Lawyer. But my inspiration post this morning was from Mark Bennett's An Odd Sort of Victory. Since I recently experienced an odd sort of victory myself, I wanted to share it with my compadres in the hopes of lifting their spirits. When we continue to work hard, good things often happen unexpectedly.

Recently, I was appointed on appeal to a man just sentenced to stacked life sentences for the offenses of aggravated sexual assault of a child. For those non-lawyers among us, stacked sentences mean the second sentence will not begin to run until the first sentence is completed. In Texas, aggravated sexual assault of a child is an offense for which a person must serve 1/2 their sentence, or thirty years, which ever is less before becoming eligible for parole. Consequently, my client's best case scenario was to parole on the first case in 2037 before beginning his second life sentence. Needless to say, he was planning to die in prison.

In Texas, the defendant has 30 days from the date of sentencing to file a motion for new trial (MNT). So for the lawyer just appointed on appeal there is some hustling to do. In short, our MNT contained allegations the client received erroneous legal advice from trial counsel leading to an involuntary plea. Trial counsel failed to investigate and present potentially mitigating punishment evidence. Finally, the sentences were cruel and unusual punishment by being disproportionate to other similarly situated defendants.

Trial counsel was courageous in his cooperation with our efforts. However, I told the client I believed our chances of obtaining a new trial were slim. The client did a good job testifying about his decision to plead guilty based on the mistaken advice of trial counsel. The sex offender treatment expert testified how the years of sexual abuse suffered by my client at the hands of his uncle had created the man sitting before us. Not surprisingly, I had no tangible evidence the stacked life sentences were constitutionally disproportionate to other similar defendants.

After 5 hours of testimony the client was prepared for the ubiquitous "motion denied." In fact, the judge unceremoniously rejected each and every claim alleged. However, one sentence following the denial we were unprepared to hear. "In the interests of justice, I will correct my trial court error and delete the stacking order and order these life sentences run concurrently." For those non-lawyers among us, concurrent sentences mean both run at the same time, rather than consecutively.

My client looked at me and asked, "What does that mean?" I said, "I think it means we just won." To the untrained eye, two concurrent life sentences doesn't look like much of a win. But the hope I now saw in my client's eyes told me we had won a victory for him beyond what he'd hoped.

Take heart compadres . Keep doing your best. Good things can happen, even unexpectedly.

Unforeseen Consequences of Conviction (III)

A collateral consequence of conviction is a sanction that is not imposed expressly as part of the sentencing process. Rather, it is imposed by legislative action which creates penalties applicable by the operation of law. We looked at different aspects of collateral consequences here, here, and here. Our final installment of collateral consequences show how holders of professional licenses, parties in a suit for divorce, or contractors for the Department of Defense may all suffer serious consequences from a criminal conviction, well beyond their sentence.

The federal Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997 prohibits individuals with certain criminal convictions from being approved as foster or adoptive parents. These convictions include a felony conviction for child abuse or neglect, a felony conviction for spousal abuse, a felony conviction for a crime against children, and others. In a Texas suit for divorce a court may grant a divorce in favor of one spouse if during the marriage the other spouse has been convicted of a felony.

A person convicted of any criminal offense involving dishonesty or a breach of trust may not become, or continue, as an institution-related party with respect to a federally insured depository institution, own or control an insured depository institution, or otherwise participate in the conduct of the affairs of such an institution. In the same vein, a person who has been convicted of a felony is subject to having their investment adviser registration suspended or revoked. In Texas, a person convicted of a felony may not serve as director, manager, or managing participant of a Texas state bank unless the banking commissioner consents in writing.

Persons convicted of fraud, or any felony, arising out of a contract with the Department of Defense are prohibited from working in a management capacity for a defense contractor or serving as a consultant for any company that is a defense contractor.

Any person subject to a lifetime sex offender registration requirement is ineligible for federally assisted housing. A sex offender registered in any state who moves to another state must notify the FBI and the new state of residence. Federal sex offenders are required to register in the states in which they live, are employed, carry on a vocation, or go to school.

The Texas State Board of Medical Examiners must suspend a physician's license on proof the physician has been convicted of a felony. The Texas State Board of Public Accountancy may suspend a license of a person convicted a felony or misdemeanor involving fraud or dishonesty. The Texas Department of Insurance may not issue a certificate of authority to act as an insurer if a corporate officer, or member of the board of directors, has been convicted of a felony involving moral turpitude or breach of fiduciary duty.

Clients and defense lawyers beware. The unforeseen consequences of conviction lurk in the shadows to trap the unwary and unsuspecting. Consequently, the criminal defense lawyer should always ask the client with pending charges the following three questions: (1) Are you an alien or United States citizen? (2) Do you have any prior convictions? and (3) Do you have any governmental licenses, permits, employment, or benefits? This should give the lawyer the necessary information to examine most of the collateral consequences the client will face.

Finally, my thanks to the research efforts of attorney, Robert Udashen, who made this series possible. Go here for a download of Robert's article presented at the 2007 Rusty Duncan Advanced Criminal Law Course.

Refusing a Case - The Lawyer's Ethical Duty

This week criminal defense lawyer, Norman A. Pattis, wrote here about a horrible case in Cheshire, Connecticut where a suburban family was brutally murdered. The community was justifiably outraged. Pattis wrote of the public sentiment:

"Fry them," some say of the men accused of killing Jennifer Hawke-Petit and her two daughters. Others have offered to fire fatal shots. Let's spare the expense of trial and resort to quick execution, they say. Indeed, when the men appeared at a New Haven courthouse this past week, armed police officers stalked the streets, scanning for snipers. There were angry catcalls from the gallery.

Furthermore, Pattis criticized members of the criminal defense bar for refusing to accept the court appointment to defend these men. He stated:

Some of the shameful chatter among criminal defense lawyers this past week was of lawyers who had turned down the request to represent the defendants. It was as if some members of the defense bar could not run far and fast enough from this case. Have they forgotten that it is a defense lawyer's calling to befriend the friendless and defend a man or woman accused of even the most shocking crime?

I disagreed with Pattis' criticism of the lawyers who refused to accept this case. Defense lawyers are ethically bound to refuse a case they find repugnant, or that they know is beyond their professional competence to handle.

The relevant Texas ethical rules state a lawyer shall not accept or continue employment in a legal matter which the lawyer knows or should know is beyond the lawyer's competence. (Rule 1.01 Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct) Furthermore, these same rules state a lawyer shall not seek to avoid appointment by a tribunal to represent a person except for good cause, such as the client or the cause is so repugnant to the lawyer as to likely to impair the client-lawyer relationship or the lawyer's ability to represent the client. (Rule 6.01)

Even though a lawyer's representation of a client does not constitute an endorsement of the client's political, economic, social, or moral views or activities, the lawyer must be prepared to zealously fight for each and every client whom they represent. Consequently, if the case is too complex or the cause to distasteful, the lawyer is ethically bound to refuse employment.

Don't fault the Connecticut lawyers who declined representation in this tragic case. They were probably following their ethical duty to refuse it. Such cases are extraordinary and require special competence and special intestinal fortitude.