Need to sober up? Take a pill

British scientists are working on developing a synthetic alcohol substitute whose effects could be reversed by taking a pill. Professor David Nutt of Imperial College London is working with benzodiazepines to identify the one with the closest match to alcohol. Diazepam, the chief ingredient in Valium, is a benzodiazepine.

The good professor said he's conducted experiments with various benzodiazepines in which he was under sedation and then lecturing five minutes later. As the drugs in question are controlled substances, any commercial application would require licensing.

According to Professor Nutt the drug would replace alcohol in wine, spirits and beer. Ingesting the drug would cause mild euphoria and its effects would be reversible upon taking a pill. The drug would allow people to drink and then sober up in time to drive home.

Until further experimentation is undertaken, however, no one knows what, if any, the long term effect of taking benzodiazepines would have on the brain and body.

As an aside, Professor Nutt was dismissed as chairman of Britain's Advisory Committee on the Misuse of Drugs due to his criticism of the government's move to toughen marijuana laws. Nutt said he believes illegal drugs should be classified based upon actual evidence of the harm they cause.

Horns and Tide square off for all the roses

Tonight the Texas Longhorns and the Alabama Crimson Tide square off at the Rose Bowl to decide who is the BCS National Champion for 2009. If the 'Horns can keep Mark Ingram in check and if the Texas offensive line can give Colt McCoy enough time to find his receivers, I think they'll be lighting the Tower orange in Austin tonight.

Hook 'em!

Is it even a crime?

Yesterday I read about a 42 year old Houston woman who was charged with the online solicitation of a minor and enticing a minor after returning from a tryst with her teenage paramour in Canada. The boy in question is 16; and while that would make him a minor according to Texas law, in Canada the age of consent is 16. In 31 states, and the District of Columbia, the age of consent is only 16.

When Canadian authorities, acting on a complaint from the boy's mother, found the couple, they took the boy home and told her it was best to leave. She was not arrested because no law had been broken. She was arrested upon her return to Houston.

According to Section 33.021(c) of the Texas Penal Code,

"A person commits [the offense of online solicitation of a minor] if the person, over the internet, by electronic mail or text message or other electronic message service or system, or through a commercial online service, knowingly solicits a minor to meet another person, including the actor, with the intent that the minor will engage in sexual contact..."

The Texas Penal Code defines a minor as "an individual who represents himself...to be younger than 17 years of age, or an individual whom the actor believes to be younger than 17 years of age."

A person "entices a child" when "with the intent to interfere with the lawful custody of a child younger than 18 years, he knowingly entices, persuades or takes the child from the custody of the parent...of such child." Enticing a child is a misdemeanor unless the actor entices the child with the intent to commit a felony. Then enticing becomes a felony, too.

Once again, Canadian authorities had the opportunity to arrest the woman if she had violated Canadian law -- but they didn't.

Was a crime even committed? Can one solicit a minor if the target of the solicitation isn't considered a minor where he lives? Can one entice a minor to commit a felony if the act isn't a felony? Was anyone in the State of Texas harmed by the woman's conduct?

The job of the district attorney is to seek justice for the victims of crime and for the State of Texas -- it is not to prevent possible crimes from occurring. Sure, it's a flashy case sure to grab headlines but what purpose is being served?

This woman's acts may have been distasteful or, as some might say, depraved, but that doesn't make them criminal.

See also:

"Woman arrested for luring" The Barrie Examiner (Jan. 7, 2010)

That's called a scoop

Hey, did y'all know the Montgomery County (TX) DA was putting the names of people arrested on suspicion of DWI on Twitter? Well, apparently someone at the Houston Chronicle ("Houston's leading information source") just found out.

My inside sources tell me that the Chronicle has just found out that Tiger Woods had an affair, Michael Jackson died and Barack Obama is in the White House. Details to follow...

Manufacturing memories

According to this article in the new issue of Scientific American, researchers at the University of California, Irvine, were able to manufacture memories for 25% of the subjects in a memory study. The ability to "create" memories of events that never took place places further doubt about the reliability of identification testimony by eyewitnesses.

In the study, Drs. Elizabeth Loftus and Jacqueline Pickrell gave test subjects written accounts of four incidents that took place during the subjects' lives. Three of the accounts were of actual events the occurred and the fourth was made up. Researchers made up a tale of the test subject being lost at a shopping mall at a young age. To make it more "authentic," a relative provided details about the mall. Surprisingly enough, 25% of the test subjects said they remembered the incident -- even though it never happened.

The act of remembering, says eminent memory researcher and psychologist Elizabeth F. Loftus of the University of California, Irvine, is “more akin to putting puzzle pieces together than retrieving a video recording.”

Unfortunately jurors put great weight on identification testimony, even though the eyewitness may be testifying about an event that took place years before. Jurors place even more weight on the testimony if the witness claims to be very confident about the identification (even though studies have indicated that the confidence of the witness has very little to do with the accuracy of the identification).

The barring of expert testimony regarding the fallibility of eyewitness identification lends additional credence to identification testimony, as courts seem loathe to allow testimony regarding laboratory studies on memory. Yet, according to The Innocence Project, 73% of the people exonerated as the result of DNA testing were convicted largely on eyewitness testimony.

When considering eyewitness testimony, just remember that old experiment where someone ran into the room while the teacher was lecturing. Do you recall how many people had different memories of the incident? Just imagine what would happen when you add the stress of witnessing an actual criminal event.

Making a molehill out of a mountain

I was watching Everest: Beyond the Limit on Discovery Channel the other night and was struck by the complexity of organizing an expedition to the top of the world. The expedition leader must account for the weather, the health of the climbers and what everyone else on the mountain is doing. Make a wrong call and you can end up with a tragedy.

• For a harrowing account of the deadliest day on the mountain, check out John Krakauer's book Into Thin Air.

Guides must decide what time to leave camp each morning (more like middle of the night) in order to avoid unstable conditions in the day light and to stay out of traffic jams on the upper slopes. Some leaders impose rigid time limits on climbers on "summit day" in order to conserve bottled oxygen. The organizers must also decide who gets to pursue their dream and who goes home without seeing the summit. Send up a climber suffering from illness or injury and you could wind up with two or more dead climbers.

On one day this past May, over 100 climbers assaulted Everest's summit on the busiest day ever on top of the mountain. One error here, one misstep there and one miscalculation in base camp and the day could have turned out tragic. Fortunately for all involved, the day was a success.

Trial work is also about handling the details, managing those around you and coping with the things you can't control. Do it properly and the most unmanageable matter becomes manageable. Do it wrong and the consequences can be no less catastrophic for your client.

Defense attorney turns snitch

Federal prosecutors used an informant to gather information from Shannon Williams, suspected of operating a multi-million dollar drug ring from inside the Douglas (NE) County Jail.

Mr. Williams bragged about his drug dealing exploits to his jailhouse visitor. He asked his visitor to launder drug money for him. He even used his visitor's cell phone to order hits on his former attorney and his girlfriend's would be paramour.

The investigation began with a U-Haul stopped for speeding in Illinois. The truck was carrying 329 pounds of weed. The driver and passenger told police they had been running 300-400 pounds of marijuana from Arizona to Omaha every three weeks for over a year. Dominoes continued to fall until Mr. Williams was arrested in Arizona walking around naked in a park. He gave the police a fake name and took off to Minnesota. Eventually Douglas County authorities served a warrant on Mr. Williams for a violation of his supervised release on a crack conviction.

Los federales wanted the names of Mr. Williams' drug runners and his other connections -- they needed someone on the inside. And who did they choose? Who did they think was the person who could best betray Mr. Williams' trust?

Omaha attorney Terry Haddock, who had been hired by Mr. Williams to defend one of his runners.

Terry Haddock sold his soul to the government to build a case against Mr. Williams. Mr. Williams claims that Terry Haddock was representing him.

“I would highly recommed this attorney. Best Money ever spent!” -- client review from Avvo.com

Why else would Mr. Williams trust Mr. Haddock with the secrets of his business? Why else would Mr. Williams ask him to launder money? Why else would he use Mr. Haddock's phone to arrange hits? Because he trusted Mr. Haddock. And why did he trust Mr. Haddock? Because he thought Mr. Haddock was representing him.

Talk about outsourcing your ethics.

Judge orders courtroom spectators to submit to drug tests

Benjamin Marchet of South Carolina has filed suit in Federal Court in Tennessee alleging that Dickson County (TN) Judge Durwood Moore ordered him to submit to a urine test on a hunch that he might have been on something. Okay, judges ordering defendants to take drug tests isn't anything out of the ordinary -- and typically not violating the law is a condition of bond.

Only thing is that Mr. Marchet wasn't a defendant. He was a spectator in Judge Moore's courtroom.

In his response to Mr. Marchet's claim that the judge lacked probable cause or reasonable suspicion to order the drug test, Judge Moore defended his actions by saying it was the routine policy of his court.

Well it's also routine policy in Harris County to deny appointed counsel to anyone who is able to post bond and to deny requests for personal bonds for defendants who can't post bond. That doesn't make it right, either.

Today the interlock, tomorrow...

Senator Frank Lautenberg (D.-NJ) and Senator Tom Udall (D.-NM) have introduced the Drunk Driver Repeat Offender Prevention Act that would require states to mandate the installation of an ignition interlock device in the car of anyone convicted of driving while intoxicated. The device would have to remain in the car for at least six months.

According to the proposed legislation if a state refused to go along with this new federal mandate it could lose some federal highway funding. This is the same method Congress used to "convince" the states to raise their drinking ages t0 21 and to lower the states' per se definition to an alcohol concentration of .08 and higher.

“We know that 50 to 75 percent of drunk drivers continue to drive on a suspended license because they can. With an ignition interlock, DUI offenders can still go to work, school, or anywhere else they need to go. They just can’t drive drunk.” -- Jan Withers, MADD national board member

The goals of the legislation may be laudable, but the means of achieving them is not. First, it is not against the law in any state for a motorist to consume an alcoholic beverage and drive a car -- provided the motorist is not intoxicated or has an alcohol concentration below a certain threshold. Second, the installation of an interlock device will not prevent a person from driving another vehicle. Third, driving while intoxicated is not a federal crime (except in some limited circumstances) and the federal government has no business dictating how states punish acts that violate their own criminal statutes.

In Texas many courts require an ignition interlock device be installed before a restricted license will be issued to a motorist who has been convicted of driving while intoxicated. The motorist could lose his license if the device detects any alcohol. A court may also order the installation of an interlock device if a motorist's license suspension is probated by the court. In that case, the motorist could face a motion to revoke probation if the device detects any alcohol. But what about a motorist who pleads guilty, receives time served and never applies for a restricted license? What sanction could a court place on that motorist?

Maybe the next step in this assault on personal liberty and our constitutional rights will be a bill forcing states to place all motorists convicted of DWI on probation. How palatable is that option?

An offer you just can't refuse

"The purpose of the complaint, then, is to enable the appropriate magistrate... to determine whether the 'probable cause' required to support a warrant exists. The [magistrate] must judge for himself the persuasiveness of the facts relied on by a complaining officer to show probable cause. He should not accept without question the complainant's mere conclusion that the person whose arrest is sought has committed a crime." -- Girodenello v. U.S., 357 US 480, 486 (1958)

"An affidavit for a search warrant is sufficient to establish probable cause if, from the totality of the circumstances reflected in the affidavit, the magistrate was provided with a substantial basis for concluding that probable cause existed." -- Serrano v. State, 123 SW3d 59-63 (Tex.App. -- Austin 2003, no. pet.)

A magistrate is to view an affidavit in support of a search warrant in a neutral and detached manner in order to ensure that a person's rights under the United States Constitution, the Texas Constitution and the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure are protected.

MontgomeryTXDAO

New Years Eve No Refusal Info: 2 nurses, 2 prosecutors, 1 judge and 100s of officers working DWI enforcement. DWI blood warrants in effect.12:32 PM Dec 28th from web

One judge to review all of the affidavits in support of a warrant for the forcible blood draw of a Texas motorist? Does that sound like a neutral and detached magistrate? Who are we kidding? Everyone knows the game this weekend -- the cops will arrest motorists they suspect are driving while intoxicated and should that motorist exercise his 5th Amendment right not to incriminate himself by submitting to a breath or blood test, the officers will fill out a cookie-cutter affidavit that the judge will sign because that's what he's there to do.

Meanwhile, if you're out and about this holiday weekend -- be careful out there.

DA defends tweeting names of DWI arrestees

Last night, Warren Diepraam of the Montgomery County District Attorney's Office appeared on MSNBC to talk about his department's use of Twitter to embarrass motorists arrested for suspicion of driving while intoxicated.

When asked whether he thought the plan was problematic because those arrested for DWI were innocent until proven guilty, Mr. Diepraam commented that "We aren't the ones committing DWI, it's the suspects."

So much for the presumption of innocence.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

DWI is big business

According to this article in the Illinois News-Tribune, the fines paid by motorists convicted of driving while intoxicated are used to purchase new breath test machines and patrol cars. In other words, if you are convicted of DWI in Illinois, you will be paying the state for the equipment they need to prosecute you.

In LaSalle County, for instance, the fine for a first-time DWI is $1,255, $500 of which goes to the state to purchase new breath test machines. Through November of this year, more than $300,000 in equipment fees have been collected.

So, just as the Texas Department of Public Safety has a vested interest in suspending motorists' drivers licenses and in obtaining DWI convictions (reinstatement fees and surcharges), so too do law enforcement agencies in Illinois.

What do you suppose is the tipping point on a marginal case? The presumption that the driver is innocent or the need to fill the state's coffers?

Convicted judge resigns from bench

Donald Jackson is now a former judge having submitted his resignation earlier today. For those of you wanting to know the fate of the complaining witness, Ms. Ariana Venegas, her DWI case is still pending almost a year after being filed.

She was granted a personal bond, however.

Taxi, dammit!

The Montgomery County (Texas) Sheriff's Office has introduced a new patrol car for DWI enforcement. No word on whether the meter will tick on the way to the station.

[Insert your own joke here.]

And so it begins...

Carrying through on his threat/promise to post the names of motorists charged with driving while intoxicated in Montgomery County, DA Brett Ligon's Twitter feed now lists the names of everyone charged with DWI over the weekend.

I find it curious that assistant prosecutor Warren Diepraam says the idea is to embarrass people charged with DWI but that he doesn't think tweeting the names of the accused will poison the jury pool. Well, Warren, if you intend to embarrass someone by tweeting their name then you must anticipate that enough people in Montgomery County will see the feed to have the desired effect. And, if that's the case, then you are attempting to poison the jury pool.

I seem to recall reading about something like this back in high school. That's right -- The Scarlet Letter.

Brett, when one of those cases is dismissed or the jury comes back with an acquittal, are you going to post the name of the prosecutor handling the case or the officer who wrongly arrested the driver? If not, I would encourage my Montgomery County brethren to provide me with the information and I will gladly post it for the world to see.

By the attention Mr. Ligon and his minions are placing on DWI arrests, you would think driving while intoxicated is the most heinous crime in Montgomery County. Let's see, are there any other crimes in which the accused (who is presumed innocent) is humiliated in public, subjected to a forcible blood draw, denied the right to remain silent and is not eligible for deferred adjudication?

See also:

• Bad ideas never die, they just drag on and on (The Defense Rests, 12/26/09)
• Police to put drunk drivers' names on Twitter (C|Net News, 12/26/09)
• Texas county to name drunk drivers on Twitter (IDG News Service, 12/26/09)
• To the top of the page we go (The Defense Rests, 12/19/09)
• Drink. Drive. Tweet. (The Defenses Rests, 12/18/09)

Motorists using Twitter to avoid checkpoints

If local prosecutors want to use Twitter to try to humiliate motorists arrested on suspicion of driving while intoxicated, then why shouldn't motorists use Twitter to avoid sobriety checkpoints?

That's exactly what's been happening in the Fresno (CA) area. Once a law enforcement agency announces the time and location of a checkpoint, messages are posted on Twitter warning motorists in the area.

Law enforcement agencies and prosecutors are up in arms about the use of social media to warn motorists of checkpoints. But, as Fresno criminal defense attorney Brian Andritch points out, the purpose of publicizing the locations of checkpoints is to discourage people from getting behind the wheel after drinking. Whether checkpoints result in more arrests or not is immaterial. Should news of a checkpoint deter one motorist from driving after drinking too much, then the streets are safer.

If you want to increase your arrest numbers, just saturate areas in which there are a concentration of bars and restaurants and pull people over for not signaling lane changes after 2:00 a.m.

And, if you want to find out where those checkpoints are on your own -- well, there's an app for that, too.

Bad ideas never die, they just drag on and on

Well, here we are a week after the Montgomery County District Attorney announced plans to post the names of those arrested on suspicion of DWI on Twitter and we have yet to see any names appear.

Despite criticism of the plan, Warren Diepraam, the idea's generator, doesn't see a problem. On the one hand he believes it will serve as a deterrent to motorists while, at the same time, he doesn't see any problems with tainting the jury pool.

Mr. Diepraam, if you don't know, also had the brilliant idea to charge a bus driver with vehicular manslaughter after a child was killed in an unfortunate accident while he was driving. Diepraam's comeuppance? A not guilty verdict.

A happy Christmas story

Earlier this year I represented a gentleman down in Galveston who had been arrested on a drug case and placed on probation back in 2005. Unfortunately for him, the driver of the car he was in was the target of a federal investigation and he ended up doing federal time for the same crime for which he was on state probation.

Fast forward to 2009 and my client is out on parole for the federal charge and in custody on a motion to revoke his probation in the state case. The initial offer from the prosecutor was five years in prison on the state drug case. I told her that he had already done 30 months of federal time for the same offense and that he was facing a motion to revoke his parole. I even gave the prosecutor copies of documents from the federal case.

With the help of my client's federal parole officer we were able to work out a deal by which he would receive state credit for his federal time.

Yesterday I received a phone call from my client telling me that he was out of prison and home with his family for the holidays. He thanked me and wished me a Merry Christmas.

There are times when we have to deal with a lot of crap as criminal defense attorneys. There are times we question whether we are doing anybody any good or if we're even making a difference. But then there are moments like yesterday's that give us a renewed sense of optimism.

Wherever you are this holiday weekend, I wish you a Merry Christmas.

If you live in a glass house...

The sad saga of Judge Donald Jackson took an odd turn yesterday when an attorney representing Ariana Venegas fired off a letter to Judge Jackson's attorneys and the press demanding a formal apology for his actions - and the fact that his attorneys presented a vigorous defense in court.

The irony is that Ms. Venegas' attorney, Mr. Rob Todd, is a former city councilman in Houston who carried on an affair with another (former) councilman's wife while serving on city council.

Mr. Todd has threatened to file suit against the county, Judge Jackson and his attorneys should his client not receive the requested apology by 5:00 p.m. this afternoon.

Is this the future of litigation - threatening to file defamation suits against criminal defendants who put on a defense at trial? Or is Mr. Todd trying to drum up business now that tort reform has all but killed off personal injury and medical malpractice work in Harris County?

Nature v. Nurture

Free will or determinism?

According to a pair of recent studies, how one answers that question goes a long way in determining how you act. Kathleen Vohs and Jonathan Schooler had participants read a passage in Francis Crick's book The Astonishing Hypothesis that espoused a very deterministic view of our brains. Others read another passage from the book that discussed consciousness but never mentioned free will.

Afterward participants were asked to take a math quiz on a computer. During the quiz they were told there was a software malfunction and that they needed to hit the space bar after the question was presented so that the answer did not appear on screen. It turned out that the people who had read the first passage were far more likely not to hit the space bar - in other words, cheat - than the people who read the second passage.

Roy Baumeister conducted a study in which the participants were split into three groups. The first group was told to read statements that were deterministic in nature. The second group read statements that spoke of free will. The third group, or control group, was given neutral statements to read.

In the first experiment, participants were given scenarios and asked what they would do to help the person in trouble. The people who read the deterministic statements were found to be less likely to help out. In the second experiment, participants were told that a classmate's parents had been killed in a car accident and that the classmate would have to drop out of school without some kind of financial help. Again, the people who read the deterministic statements were less likely to help out. Finally, participants were given the opportunity to add hot sauce to a dish being served to someone who was averse to spicy foods. You guessed it, the people who read the deterministic statements were more likely to pour it on.

Knowing a potential juror's attitude toward the debate between determinism and free will could be vital to trying your case. Those who tend toward the determinism, or nature, side of the argument may very well believe that your client is somehow genetically disposed to a life of crime which wouldn't bode well back in the jury deliberation room.

See also:

"Free Will and Ethics" The Frontal Cortex, 12/17/09

DWT is more dangerous than DWI

A new study found that motorists who text while driving are six times more likely to be involved in a crash that those who just drive. University of Utah psychologists placed 20 men and 20 women between the ages of 19-23 in a driving simulator to test the effects of texting while driving. The tests indicated that motorists who texted while driving had reactions times 30% slower than those who just drove and that motorists who talked on their cell phone reacted 9% slower than non-talking drivers. Interestingly enough, reading text messages slowed braking times more than sending text messages.

An earlier study conducted in 2006 found that motorists who drove while talking on cell phones - either handheld or hands-free - were more likely to be involved in a rear-end collision than motorists who had an alcohol concentration of .08. Researchers believe that motorists talking on cell phones miss up to 50% of the visual cues that a non-talking driver sees.

None of this is to suggest that one get hosed and get behind the wheel of a car. The larger point seems to be that with every new device we put in a car we create more distraction for drivers. It is that distraction, whether caused by electronic devices or alcohol, that makes driving more hazardous.

An intimidated witness is the same as no witness

Federal Judge Cormac J. Carney of the the Central District of California dismissed the government's stock-option fraud case against William J. Ruehle due to a pattern of witness intimidation by government prosecutors. The judge found that prosecutors threatened the three witnesses for Mr. Ruehle with criminal prosecution if they did not cooperate with the government.

The intimidation included forcing one witness to plead guilty where no criminal act took place, accusing another of being an unindicted co-conspirator and leaving a third to dangle in the wind for two years under threat of prosecution.

The judge ruled that the government's course of conduct in the matter made a mockery out of Mr. Ruehle's Sixth Amendment right to compulsory process. Said Judge Carney: "For this constitutional right to have any true meaning, the government must not do anything to intimidate or improperly influence witnesses."

In his ruling, Judge Carney quoted the US Supreme Court's decision in Berger v. U.S. and it bears repeating here:

“The United States Attorney is the representative, not of an ordinary party to a controversy, but of a sovereignty whose obligation to govern impartially is as compelling as its obligation to govern at all, and whose interest, therefore, in a criminal prosecution is not that it shall win a case, but that justice shall be done. As such, he is in a peculiar and a very definite sense the servant of the law, the twofold aim of which is that guilt shall not escape or innocent suffer.

“He may prosecute with earnestness and vigor. Indeed, he should do so. But while he may strike hard blows, he is not at liberty to strike foul ones. It is much his duty to refrain from improper methods calculated to produce a wrongful conviction as it is to use every legitimate means to bring about a just one.” – Berger v. U.S., 295 US 78 (1935)

Special thanks goes out to Ellen Podgor and her White Collar Crime blog.

Harris County judge sentenced to 30 days in jail

In a sad end to a judicial career, Judge Donald Jackson, who was convicted of official oppression last Friday, was sentenced to 2 years probation, with 30 days in the county jail as a condition, fined $4,000 and ordered to perform 200 hours of community service for trying to solicit a romantic relationship from a DWI client in exchange for appointing her a new attorney.

“We are all tarnished by your stupidity." Judge Mark Kent Ellis

Judge Ellis also ruled that Jackson must leave the bench pending appeal.

Supremes to revisit confrontation question

The US Supreme Court may be rethinking its ruling in the Melendez-Diaz case that prohibited prosecutors from introducing lab reports into evidence without presenting live testimony to authenticate the findings. The Court held that lab reports were evidential in nature and that a criminal defendant's right to confrontation demanded that a live witness present the findings.

Local prosecutors and state attorneys general have been wringing their hands ever since over the costs of complying with the new rule.

The Court will hear two Virginia drug trafficking cases in which prosecutors used Virginia's new "hybrid" procedure: a lab report is introduced into evidence and the defendant is given the opportunity to cross-examine the analyst.

Virginia's plan may look good -- but once the report is entered into evidence, the damage is done. The fight is over the admissibility of the report and Virginia's plan just assumes that the report is admissible and that any questions raised during cross examination go to the weight, not the admissibility of the report.

I look at it this way, the analysts who do the testing and prepare the reports are hired by the state to assist the state in prosecuting people accused of criminal acts. Hold the state's feet to the fire and make them do their jobs.

To the top of the page we go

"Sir, we can put you on the top of Page 1 for Google, Yahoo!, Bing and any other search engine out there."

"I'm game. What do I need to do?"

"The first thing I want you to do is start up a Twitter page. We'll come up with a catchy screen name and start posting updates."

"Twitter? Are you sure?"

"Positive. Hey, I'm a social media/SEO/networking/coaching expert. You can check out my Twitter profile and that's what it'll tell you."

"You're the expert around here. I'm listening."

"What kind of cases do you handle?"

"All kinds of criminal cases, though we like to focus on DWI's."

"You could update your Twitter page with news about your DWI practice."

"That's a great idea. We just brought in a new guy about a year ago from down South who has a lot of experience in DWI cases. His name's Warren. Perhaps you've heard of him?"

"No, can't say I have."

"What kind of catchy screen name would you propose?"

"Something's that SEO-friendly and key word rich. How about @MontgomeryTXDAO? A lot of DWI updates with that handle and that should drive your website right to the top of the rankings."

"What kind of updates should I do?"

"Oh, hell, why not just list the names of every sucker y'all arrest for drunk driving?"

"Man, that's a great idea. I don't know why we didn't think of that. What else should we do to get to the top of the page?"

"Hmmm. I know, leave comments on lots and lots of blogs."

"What kind of comments should I leave? You know I don't have a lot of time to read blogs. I've got to keep a tight rein on my associates. I can't be letting any of that nasty, exculpatory stuff to get into the hands of those defense attorneys."

"Don't worry about reading blogs. Just put something like 'Really enjoyed reading your blog. Blogs can be so informative.' And be sure to link it back to your website. Google loves that kind of thing."

"I can't tell you how happy I am that you called today. I'm certain we can get to the top of Page 1 with your strategies."

"Hey, I guarantee you that by the time we're done, whenever someone types in the words 'Montgomery County District Attorney,' your website will be the first one they see."