Out of the mouths of prosecutors

On Tuesday afternoon up in Montgomery County (for those of y'all not familiar with the place - it's just north of Houston), Verna McClain, a nurse, pled guilty to killing a mother in a doctor's parking lot and taking her baby. Ms. McClain was facing the death penalty, but the deal brokered by her attorney, Tyrone Moncriffe, will see her spend the rest of her life in prison instead.

But that's not the story.

The story is what Montgomery County District Attorney Brett Ligon told the media afterward.

Here is a clip from the article in yesterday's Houston Chronicle:

Although McClain will not have an executioner end her life with a lethal drug, she will "wither and die" in prison, and her victim's famly can have the certainty that the verdict will never get overturned on a technicality or appeal, Ligon said. 

"The victim's family also got to hear what few in their place do, an admission of guilt," he added. 

"No games were played in the courtroom. There was no hiding behind insanity defenses." 

While McClain had no prior criminal record, not even a parking ticket, Ligon believes she is all the more dangerous because nobody can predict what she might be capable of doing at any instant.

Of course, as has been pointed out in this space many times before, what the prosecutor refers to as a technicality is a constitutional protection. Yes, it can get messy sometimes trying to gather evidence and present it in court with that pesky little Bill of Rights nipping at your heels. But that's the point, isn't it?

The Founding Fathers had a profound fear of someone being wrongfully convicted. They also had a profound fear of allowing the government too much power to intrude into our private lives.

When we allow the government to refer to a constitutional protection as a "technicality" without calling them on it, we make it easier for the courts to cast those protections aside.

Mr. Ligon would like for us to believe that the insanity defense is a great tool for folks accused of murder to walk away from any responsibility. The truth is that the insanity defense in Texas is a very narrow defense that is rarely invoked by a defendant. In order to prevail on an insanity defense, the defendant must show that due to a mental defect he was unable to determine right from wrong at the time of the alleged offense.

While it is my understanding that Ms. McClain's attorneys thought about putting on an insanity defense, they were unable to do so because there was no evidence that Ms. McClain suffered from any mental defect.

I would propose that, as our understanding of the brain increases, that we revisit the insanity defense in Texas. If a defendant can prove up a mental defect should it even matter if he was able to distinguish right from wrong? I have seen folks with brain tumors do things they would never have imagined doing before - they knew it was "wrong," but they had no ability to control the impulse due to the effects of the tumor in their brain.

As to the question of whether Ms. McClain would be a threat in the future, Mr. Ligon's argument that an absence of a criminal record makes her more dangerous is beyond absurd. The absence of a criminal history makes it all the more likely that what happened that day in the parking lot was an outlier. If we are going to allow prosecutors to argue that a person should be considered a danger to society because their behavior was unpredictable, then we might as well tear up the special questions a jury must answer in a capital case once they find the defendant guilty.

What makes Mr. Ligon's comments all the more distressing is the fact that he was a member of the defense bar prior to becoming the DA in Montgomery County. He knows what he's spewing is horseshit but he doesn't care because his only goal is to poison as many jury pools as possible. Mr. Ligon might want to take a look at the disciplinary rules in Texas - his job is not to win cases but to see that justice is done.

When driving the speed limit is breaking the law

If, on a highway having more than one lane with vehicles traveling in the same direction, the Texas Department of Transportation or a local authority places a sign that directs slower traffic to travel in a lane other than the farthest left lane, the sign must read "left lane for passing only." - Texas Transportation Code Sec. 544.011 

An operator of a vehicle on a roadway moving more slowly than the normal speed of other vehicles at the time and place under the existing conditions shall drive in the right-hand lane available for vehicles, or as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway, unless the operator is: (1) passing another vehicle; or (2) preparing for a left turn at an intersection or into a private road or driveway. -- Texas Transportation Code Sec.  545.051(b) 

What better way to create an excuse for pulling motorists over to see who might have been drinking but to enforce a little known, and little observed, traffic statute.

We all know that the left lane is the fast lane. We're all taught to pass to the left. I have been known to drive my car at a speed quite a bit above the one posted on the roadside traveling back and forth to the Dallas area for seminars - but even I move to the right when someone's coming up behind me at warp speed.

So, yes, there are plenty of motorists out there who think for some yet unknown reason that they are more than justified to plod along in the left lane at the speed limit. These tend to be the same people who count the number of items someone takes out of their basket in the express lane and who tattled on their younger siblings when they were growing up.

And, as much as I hate getting behind that person on the freeway, I have a hard time supporting anything that gives the police yet another excuse to pull someone over who isn't doing anything wrong. But, up in Montgomery County (the land the Constitution forgot) and out in Fort Bend County, if you're cruising along in the left lane not passing anyone - you risk getting pulled over and either being issued a warning or being ticketed. And, should you be coming home from a night out with friends after consuming an adult beverage or two, you could find yourself being arrested for driving while intoxicated.

Why else would Warren Diepraam and the Montgomery County District Attorney's Office get themselves involved in such an initiative? Hell, if you can't pull 'em over for doing anything illegal - you might as well pull them over for driving the speed limit.

So, as annoying as it may be to be driving behind the guy who thinks he needs to police speeds on the highway, the last thing we need to do is give the police yet another excuse to pull someone over. It's bad enough that we allow DWI stops based on behaviors that during the day wouldn't get a second glance from a police officer. But to allow a DWI stop when the only sin being committed is driving the speed limit in the wrong lane is hardly a good idea.

And what about officers who want to have it both ways? Are the police not going to ticket anyone for speeding if they are passing slower moving vehicles to the left? At the rate things are going, pretty soon up in Montgomery County driving on the highway alone will amount to reasonable suspicion that someone is breaking the law.

Something's rotten up in Conroe

Texas DPS Standard Operating Guidelines for Technical Supervisors 

1.1 An official inspection by a Technical Supervisor can only be conducted at the evidential testing location. Each part of the inspection shall occur at the testing location and includes not only the instrument, but the associated equipment and the testing environment as a whole. 

     1.1.1 The capability of the instrument to detect and subtract the effect of acetone shall be tested. 

1.2 A complete inspection (1.1) shall be performed by a Technical Supervisor each time an instrument is placed into or returned to service at a testing location.

According to Chapter 37 of the Texas Administrative Code, for a breath test result to be admissible it must be conducted per the rules set out by the Texas Department of Public Safety. Should these procedures not be followed, the results of breath tests can be thrown out and machines can be taken out of service.

The DPS rules state that anytime a technical supervisor inspects a breath test machine, he or she must conduct a test to determine whether the machine is capable of detecting acetone. The rules state further that an inspection must be conducted every time a breath test machine is placed into service.

Well, up in Montgomery County, someone forgot to read the rules. According to a memo sent out to the local defense bar by the District Attorney's Office, acetone checks were not performed on breath test machines that were taken out of service and moved to another location.

Here is the text of Warren Diepraam's memo regarding the failure of technical supervisors to follow proper protocols:

It has recently been brought to our attention that the Intoxilyzer instruments in Montgomery County did not receive acetone checks when the devices were taken out of service and transferred to another location. This appears to be contrary to DPS guidelines. DPS informs us that because all instruments received acetone checks when placed back into service at the new location and also received the standard acetone checks each month, they do not believe the testing has been affected. However, DPS is conducting an analysis to determine whether or not any test may have been affected. 

At this time, we have no reason to suspect that the tests in any cases were affected. However, should DPS find any irregularities, we will immediately contact you. Should you have any cases that you feel were affected by this SOP issue, please contact the relevant Bureau Chief or the First Assistant.

Well of course the DPS doesn't feel that any tests were affected by the failure of their technical supervisors to follow their own rules. The cover is that acetone tests were run during routine inspections and no problems were indicated.

But that's not the issue here. The issue is whether or not the results of those tests are admissible due to the state's failure to conduct the proper tests when called for in the DPS operating guidelines.

Just remember that the state puts forward the results of breath tests as scientific evidence. As such these tests must be conducted in a certain manner and if they aren't, the results are compromised and not admissible. In order to talk about a test score, the state must present evidence that the machine was in service and functioning properly as well as evidence that the breath test was conducted according to the DPS rules.

If the machines weren't properly tested when they were taken out of service then they should never have been considered back in service after they were transferred to new locations. If that's the case then no breath test score from any of the machines in question should be admissible until the proper procedures are followed for removing a machine from service and transferring it to another location.

The Montgomery County District Attorney's Office and the DPS have an obligation to provide the local defense bars with the serial numbers and locations of each machine that was compromised by the failure to follow the SOG's. It should not be up to prosecutors or the DPS to determine whether tests were affected or not - they have an inherent conflict of interest.

The DA doesn't want to have to dismiss cases and agree to post-conviction writs in the cases in question. The DPS doesn't want to open up a can of worms regarding its breath testing program. Allowing them to determine whether all is well or not is akin to letting the fox guard the henhouse.

Punting time

As far as crimes go, setting an eight-year old boy afire falls toward the end of the spectrum of the worst of the worst. But what do you do when the alleged culprit is only 13? What do you do when the victim dies 14 years later from complications due to being set on fire?

You can't charge the culprit as a juvenile because the juvenile courts no longer have jurisdiction over him. But can you charge him as an adult because of his age when the victim died?

At the time of the incident state law allowed for juveniles as young as 14 to be certified to be tried as adults. Now the Supremes have said it's okay to try a ten-year old as an adult.

Yes, now that Donald Collins is an adult he understands the consequences of setting a person on fire. He's old enough to appreciate the nature of the crime. But we can't transfer that maturity to the time he committed the crime.

Our juvenile courts were set up because someone realized that children aren't as mature as adults and that the punishments meted out to adults weren't appropriate for a child. Yes, it sometimes meant that someone might walk away with a much lighter sentence for the same criminal act as an adult. There is no question that a person is just as dead whether his killer is a juvenile or an adult. There is no question that the family of the victim suffers the same loss regardless of the age of the killer. And no punishment can ever heal the loss.

Up in Montgomery County the County Attorney asked Attorney General Greg Abbott whether or not prosecutors could charge Donald Collins as an adult for the murder of Robbie Middleton. The county attorney, David Walker, was concerned that Mr. Collins would claim that trying him as an adult for the murder would violate the Constitution's ban on ex post facto laws.

Much to Mr. Walker's dismay, however, the Attorney General decided that "[a] county or district attorney's determination regarding the initiation of further proceedings falls within in the scope of prosecutorial discretion." In other words, Mr. Abbott punted.

Abbott Opinion No. 967

Of course that's just what Montgomery County officials did, too. They were hoping that Mr. Abbott would bail them out of having to make the call. If the AG said they couldn't do it, well, they had their political cover. They could call a press conference and announce that, but for the Attorney General, they would prosecute Mr. Collins as an adult. Or, if the AG told them it was okay, they could look like they were tough on crime by formally filing charges.

But now Mr. Walker and the Montgomery County District Attorney, Bret Ligon, are going to have to make the decision themselves.

As badly as Mr. Walker and Mr. Ligon want to do something, there is nothing they can do in this matter. It doesn't matter that Mr. Collins is an adult now. It doesn't matter that Mr. Collins has spent time in the penitentiary for his actions as an adult. The fact remains that he was still a child when he committed the crime and a child's brain doesn't work like the brain of an adult.

Sometimes there's nothing you can do. Unfortunately, it's situations like this that lead to bad laws and ill-advised opinions.

Crime lab loses federal funding

The honeymoon for Sam Houston State's Regional Crime Lab in The Woodlands is now over.

The lab was opened with the help of a federal grant and the understanding that the lab would become self-sufficient after three years. Owing to the iron law of budgeting (he who holds the iron makes the budget), that three year window ended about two years early.

The lab had charged Montgomery County, its largest customer, $200 for every drug or alcohol test in DWI cases. Without the funding from the feds, MoCo will pay $386 for alcohol tests and $290 for drug tests. Due to the increasing costs of operating the lab, all controlled substance evidence tests will be handled by the DPS. The switch will increase the wait time for test results.

But how to pay for the increased cost of testing is the question. The original idea was that MoCo would pay for the tests through sentencing fees for those who plead guilty or are convicted at trial. But that only covered about 3% of the cost. MoCo District Attorney Bret Ligon now wants to use the asset forfeiture fund to pay for the tests.

The problem, of course, is the increased incentive to seize property and file forfeiture actions against defendants. Forfeiture actions serve to tie up defendant's assets and make it that much harder to muster a defense against the state. You will also find out that the vast majority of defendants either default or negotiate settlements in which they receive just a portion of the value of the items seized. The asset forfeiture funds then become a private slush fund for whoever's running the DA's Office (just ask former MoCo DA Michael McDougal). Of course there's no telling where the property seized in Tenaha went.

In the meantime, however, defendants in MoCo will have to wait longer for lab results to come back in drug cases as it can take up to nine months for the DPS lab to release test results. In the meantime that's nine months of missing work to take yourself to court (if you're on bond) or (if you can't make bond) the prospect of sitting in a cell for nine months waiting to fight a case.

Some of the lessons from MoCo's crime lab are obvious. First, for entities involved in the criminal (in)justice system who rely upon government funds to operate - those funds will diminish or vanish at some point, even if the entity  is there to help the state. Second, the lab should have charged a more realistic rate for their services; the excess would allow for a "cushion" when the funding was cut or dropped. Third, no one gives a rat's ass about the people accused of committing a crime.

Search warrants for dummies

Maybe it's because they're lazy. Maybe it's because they can't be trusted to do it right by themselves. Whatever the reason for it, this is blood search warrants for dummies:

MoCo Search Warrant

There's no such thing as a fill-in-the-blank and check-the-boxes search warrant affidavit for any other criminal offense. Judges reviewing warrants to search a house in a felony case take more time to review the affidavit for probable cause than do judges deciding whether or not to allow the state to jab a needle in a motorist's arm.

This is your government at work - against you and your rights.

Sign of the times

"Fourth Amendment? What's that? We don't need no stinkin' probable cause up here in Conroe!"

If a search warrant for blood is "mandatory" up in Montgomery County, does probable cause even exist up there? If judges are willing to rubber stamp fill-in-the-blank and check-the-boxes search warrant applications, is there no such thing as an unreasonable search or seizure? If you're telling the driving public that you're going to take their blood if they refuse a breath test, isn't that coercion - and doesn't that make "consent" invalid?

Is any judge in Montgomery County willing to stand up to Brett Ligon and his minions and suppress breath or blood results that were obtained through coercive means? Is any judge in Montgomery County willing to stand up to Brett Ligon and his minions and scrutinize these fill-in-the-blank and check-the-boxes warrant applications?

Public shaming, part deux

First there was the Twitter campaign by the Montgomery County (TX) District Attorney's Office. To refresh your memories, the MCDAO made a big to-do about tweeting the names of motorists arrested on suspicion of drunk driving in Montgomery County. Strangely enough, the MCDAO doesn't seem to tweet the names of those fortunate folks who have been acquitted by Montgomery County juries.

Now it's time for another social media campaign aimed at motorists arrested on suspicion of drunk driving. Now it Huntington Beach, California and Facebook.

City Councilman Devin Dwyer wants to shame motorists arrested for driving under the influence more than once  by posting their mugshots on the police department's Facebook page.

There is a saying: Come to Huntington Beach on vacation, leave on probation. -- Randall Bert, local attorney

Interestingly enough, Huntington Beach Police spokesman, Lt. Russell Reinhart, thinks the idea is a bad one.

We see no value in doing that. Law enforcement is not about public shaming. - Lt. Russell Reinhart

Again, I ask Mr. Dwyer the same question I asked Warrenn Diepraam of the MCDAO: are you going to issue apologies to those folks who aren't found guilty?

Let the witch hunt begin!

Montgomery County District Attorney Bret Ligon and his assistant, Igor, Warren Diepraam are on a mission from God -- at least that's what they believe. Mr. Ligon has declared that his number one priority is to rid the roads north of the San Jacinto River of drinking drivers.

Montgomery County District Attorney Bret Ligon said Warren Diepraam has been described by others as “the mad scientist of DWI detection, suppression and prosecution.”

Mr. Diepraam spoke recently at a DWI seminar put on by the Texas District and County Attorneys Association that was sponsored by Annheuser-Busch. I figure that much like the tobacco companies started telling people to quit smoking, the alcoholic beverage industry will mouth the lines "don't drink and drive" in order to fend off new legislation that might affect their bottom line. After all, "here we go!"

The problem with Mr. Ligon's witch hunt is that it targets individuals who aren't even breaking the law. There is no law in the State of Texas that says it's illegal to consume an alcoholic beverage and then get behind the wheel of a car. The law says you can't drive that car if you've lost the normal use of your mental or physical faculties due to the consumption of alcohol, not that you're breaking the law if you drive with the odor of an alcoholic beverage on your breath.

“Warren’s efforts are actually unique, not only in this county, but I think people are beginning to realize that we have a resource here within Montgomery County that the rest of the state is starting to grab on to,” Ligon said.

Listening to Mr. Ligon and Mr. Diepraam you would think that drunk driving is the scourge that threatens to rip the very fabric of our society apart. To combat this apocalyptic threat, the crusaders want to shred the Bill of Rights. Fourth Amendment? That just gets in the way of gathering evidence. Fifth Amendment? It's much easier to convict someone if we can compel them to incriminate themselves. Sixth Amendment? Those lawyers will just tell their clients not to cooperate with the officers.

The District Attorney has put many tools in the hands of law enforcement since his election, such as a Hawk-Eye System which videos eye movements during a DWI field test. He has also implemented No-Refusal Weekends through the end of the year- hiring nurses to draw blood, which saves the time it otherwise takes officers to go to a hospital for the same process.

Does it really make you feel any safer knowing that the police are forcing your fellow citizens to submit to blood draws all because an officer smelled booze on their breath?

There is no other crime for which an individual has less protection against the power of the state than driving while intoxicated. The vast majority of drivers arrested on suspicion of DWI are guilty of nothing more than a minor traffic infraction, such as failing to signal a lane change or speeding.

The more we sit back and accept this assault on our personal liberty and privacy, the more the nation's roadways will begin to resemble airport terminals -- full body scan, anyone?

Constitution, be damned! Man the roadblocks!

Never let it be said that Montgomery County Assistant District Attorney Warren Diepraam is one to let the law get in the way of his crusades. In fact, after this past weekend, never let it be said that Mr. Diepraam would let the Constitution get in his way.

Sobriety checkpoints were deemed unconstitutional by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals back in 1985 (See Meeks v. State, 602 SW2d 504 (Tex.Crim.App. 1985)). The problem the Court found was that the checkpoint allowed officers to stop motorists without so much as reasonable suspicion and that the process runs afoul of the 4th Amendment prohibition on unreasonable search and seizures.



Mr. Diepraam's latest attempt to skirt the Constitution involves setting up checkpoints in Montgomery County to determine if a motorist stopped for a traffic violation is intoxicated. Sitting at the checkpoint will be a mobile blood alcohol testing truck staffed by two nurses. Also at the checkpoint will be Montgomery County prosecutors and judges all-too-willing to sign a "check-box" warrant application so that the vampires can do their work. Don Quixote's rational is that an officer had at least reasonable suspicion to stop any motorist brought to the checkpoint and, if anyone sniffs alcohol, it will be game on.

You sure you want to refuse that breath test, son?

According to a little bird up in MoCo, prosecutors met with judges to get their okay before announcing this scheme (apparently white smoke was spotted coming out of the chimney). How's that for neutral and detached?

The missing tweet?

I guess I must've missed the tweet from @MontgomeryTxDAO about the assistant district attorney up in Montgomery County who was arrested for driving while intoxicated in Houston on Thursday night.


I'm sure it's just an oversight and we should expect to see something on Brett Ligon's Twitter feed anytime now.

Same song, different verse

Main Entry: ac·ci·dent

Pronunciation: \ˈak-sə-dənt, -ˌdent; ˈaks-dənt\

Function: noun

Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French, from Latin accident-, accidens nonessential quality, chance, from present participle of accidere to happen, from ad- + cadere to fall — more at chance

Date: 14th century

1 a : an unforeseen and unplanned event or circumstance b : lack of intention or necessity : chance
2 a : an unfortunate event resulting especially from carelessness or ignorance b : an unexpected and medically important bodily event especially when injurious c : an unexpected happening causing loss or injury which is not due to any fault or misconduct on the part of the person injured but for which legal relief may be sought d —used euphemistically to refer to an involuntary act or instance of urination or defecation
3 : a nonessential property or quality of an entity or circumstance

Warren Diepraam is at it again - criminalizing traffic accidents and trying to brand a driver who made a mistake as a felon.

Of course Mr. Diepraam has now taken his traveling circus act up the road to Montgomery County where he's hoping the powers that be won't have noticed the headaches he left behind in Harris County.

For Warren, there is no grey. Everything is black and white. Traffic accidents are called accidents for a reason. No one intended for them to happen. Accidents occur because one or more drivers were negligent in the operation of their car -- the fact that some was injured doesn't make it any more likely that the other driver intended to hit him.

Waiting on Ligon

Word from up north is that a chief prosecutor in one of Montgomery County's felony courts was asked to pack up her desk and not come back. As we all know by now, Montgomery County District Attorney Brett Ligon and his chief crony, Warren Diepraam, dreamed up the idea of tweeting the names of motorists arrested for suspicion of DWI in MoCo.

These folks whose names are being bandied about haven't been proven guilty of anything and are presumed innocent. If you're firing someone, however, there's got to be a reason. Not to mention that the firing of a chief prosecutor in a felony court is a newsworthy event (one of Mr. Diepraam's justifications for the new policy).

To date, Mr. Ligon's Twitter account is silent on the matter.

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...

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

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)

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.

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."

Drink. Drive. Tweet.

The Montgomery County District Attorney's Office has found a new way to humiliate those unfortunate motorists who have been arrested on suspicion of driving while intoxicated -- they are posting their names on Twitter.

Assistant District Attorney Warren Diepraam said that the "public humiliation" should act as a "deterrent" to others who might get behind the wheel after drinking.

Nevermind that being arrested is a very different thing than being convicted and that a person who's been arrested is still innocent unless proven guilty. And of course the police never make wrongful arrests. And of all people, Montgomery County DA Brett Ligon should know better -- after all, he used to be a criminal defense attorney.

My question is should the DA dismiss a case against a motorist or should a motorist be acquitted by a jury of his peers, will Mr. Diepraam offer a public apology on Twitter as well? Even more important, will a person filing for an expunction in Montgomery County need to serve Twitter and other social networking sites, or will the judge sign an order requiring the DA's Office to notify those sites to remove all reference to the arrest of that individual?