COQUILLE, Ore. (KMTR) – A Coquille area man will serve life in prison with the possibility of parole after 30 years as part of a plea deal in the death of Coquille area woman, who was his sister-in-law.
46-year-old Patrick Lee Horath was sentenced in Coos County Court Tuesday morning, in Judge Michael Gillespie’s courtroom.
Horath reached a plea-deal with the Coos County District Attorney’s office on Monday afternoon on one aggravated murder charge. He will serve life in prison, with the possibility of parole after 30 years. Horath will be 76 years old when he’s eligible for parole.
The other charges Horath was facing have been dropped.
The Coos County District Attorney’s Office says Patrick Horath sexually assaulted, then killed 31 year old Jayme Austin on November 9th, 2009. It happened at Jayme’s mother’s home in Fairview, just outside of Coquille.
Investigators with the Coos County Sheriff’s Office and the Coos County Major Crimes team began the case when Jamie disappeared on the 9th after not showing up for work.
One week later, Patrick Horath lead investigators to her body and he was charged with her death.
Jayme’s family says it is satisfied with the outcome of the case. Her mother and father participated in the plea deal negotiations.
However, Jayme’s death is a crime the family is still struggling to understand and deal with. Jayme’s violent death changed her parents, her two kids, her sister’s and other family members’ lives.
Jayme’s mother, Cindy Gisholt spoke to members of the media Tuesday morning after the sentencing.
“My grandkids don't have a mom,” said Gisholt with tears in her eyes.
“She'll never get to see them marry and have babies and graduate from high school, all the things that I got to share with my kids, those are such important steps for mom's and they won't get to do that,” said Gisholt.
The Coos County District Attorney’s Office says this is one of the only times it’s ever pursued a plea deal in this kind of criminal court case. Jayme’s family opted for the appeal because it didn’t want to see the event relived in detail in Coos County Court.
Ultimately, Coos County District Attorney Paul Frasier says he’s satisfied with the outcome of the case as well.
Source
Monday, June 28, 2010
Tuesday, June 15, 2010
Judge Wants to Know 'Who's on First' on Allen Stanford's Legal Team
After hearing Houston businessman R. Allen Stanford complain that he's having trouble preparing for his upcoming criminal trial and civil suits because he is in prison, the federal judge overseeing Stanford's insurance coverage suit promised to talk to U.S. District Judge David Hittner, who is handling Stanford's criminal case and has refused to allow Stanford out of prison on the ground he is a flight risk.
"I will urge Judge Hittner to reconsider," U.S. District Judge Nancy Atlas told Stanford during a nearly three-hour hearing Tuesday morning. "The only way I can see a release ... is there would be a very, very, very tight or close house confinement," she told Stanford, who represents himself pro se in Laura Pendergest-Holt, et al. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's of London, et al.
Atlas will decide if the insurance companies holding the directors' and officers' policies for Stanford Financial Group and related companies can refuse to pay legal fees on the ground Stanford and other SFG executives engaged in money-laundering activities under terms of the policies.
Both Atlas and Hittner sit in the Southern District of Texas.
Atlas told Stanford she is concerned to hear from him that he has never met some of the lawyers who have been paid by the insurance companies for working on his legal teams and that he doesn't know what they have done for him. Stanford told Atlas he has never seen an invoice from any of the attorneys who have sought payment from the insurance companies for doing work for him in his criminal case before Hittner or in a civil case before U.S. District Judge David Godbey of the Northern District of Texas, Securities & Exchange Commission v. Stanford International Bank Ltd., et al.
Stanford did note that lawyers from Brewer Law Group of Washington, D.C., who represent him in the SEC suit, and his new criminal defense attorney, Robert S. Bennett of Houston, have actively worked on his legal matters.
Atlas set a hearing for next month, to be attended by all the lawyers who claim to currently represent Stanford, to determine "who's on first" in representing Stanford.
"We are going to get to the bottom of why so much is being spent on Mr. Stanford's defense," Atlas said, after hearing that the insurance companies have spent about $6 million on legal bills for Stanford so far.
Barry Chasnoff, a partner in Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld in San Antonio who represents insurers Lloyd's of London and Arch Specialty Insurance Co., said he'd like to hear from any lawyers who were paid who "Stanford says shouldn't have been."
Atlas says she's not casting aspersions on any of the lawyers, but just wants to "figure out who's in, who's out" and determine why the "burn rate" of insurance money is so high.
Stanford is pro se in the coverage suit because his former attorneys from Austin's Visser Shidlofsky withdrew from the case with Atlas' permission, although they continue to represent three other former SFG executives in the coverage suit.
At Tuesday's hearing, Bennett sat next to Stanford, who was shackled and wore green prison garb; Bennett told Atlas he is Stanford's criminal defense lawyer and does not represent Stanford in the insurance coverage suit.
Stanford, former chairman of SFG, has pleaded not guilty to fraud and conspiracy charges related to an alleged conspiracy to defraud investors who bought about $7 billion in certificates of deposit sold through Stanford International Bank Ltd., as have the other defendants.
Source
"I will urge Judge Hittner to reconsider," U.S. District Judge Nancy Atlas told Stanford during a nearly three-hour hearing Tuesday morning. "The only way I can see a release ... is there would be a very, very, very tight or close house confinement," she told Stanford, who represents himself pro se in Laura Pendergest-Holt, et al. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's of London, et al.
Atlas will decide if the insurance companies holding the directors' and officers' policies for Stanford Financial Group and related companies can refuse to pay legal fees on the ground Stanford and other SFG executives engaged in money-laundering activities under terms of the policies.
Both Atlas and Hittner sit in the Southern District of Texas.
Atlas told Stanford she is concerned to hear from him that he has never met some of the lawyers who have been paid by the insurance companies for working on his legal teams and that he doesn't know what they have done for him. Stanford told Atlas he has never seen an invoice from any of the attorneys who have sought payment from the insurance companies for doing work for him in his criminal case before Hittner or in a civil case before U.S. District Judge David Godbey of the Northern District of Texas, Securities & Exchange Commission v. Stanford International Bank Ltd., et al.
Stanford did note that lawyers from Brewer Law Group of Washington, D.C., who represent him in the SEC suit, and his new criminal defense attorney, Robert S. Bennett of Houston, have actively worked on his legal matters.
Atlas set a hearing for next month, to be attended by all the lawyers who claim to currently represent Stanford, to determine "who's on first" in representing Stanford.
"We are going to get to the bottom of why so much is being spent on Mr. Stanford's defense," Atlas said, after hearing that the insurance companies have spent about $6 million on legal bills for Stanford so far.
Barry Chasnoff, a partner in Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld in San Antonio who represents insurers Lloyd's of London and Arch Specialty Insurance Co., said he'd like to hear from any lawyers who were paid who "Stanford says shouldn't have been."
Atlas says she's not casting aspersions on any of the lawyers, but just wants to "figure out who's in, who's out" and determine why the "burn rate" of insurance money is so high.
Stanford is pro se in the coverage suit because his former attorneys from Austin's Visser Shidlofsky withdrew from the case with Atlas' permission, although they continue to represent three other former SFG executives in the coverage suit.
At Tuesday's hearing, Bennett sat next to Stanford, who was shackled and wore green prison garb; Bennett told Atlas he is Stanford's criminal defense lawyer and does not represent Stanford in the insurance coverage suit.
Stanford, former chairman of SFG, has pleaded not guilty to fraud and conspiracy charges related to an alleged conspiracy to defraud investors who bought about $7 billion in certificates of deposit sold through Stanford International Bank Ltd., as have the other defendants.
Source
Sunday, March 28, 2010
Judge Keller defeats charge in execution case
| AUSTIN -- A state district judge has ruled that Sharon Keller, presiding judge of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, should not be punished for her part in refusing an appeal from a death row inmate in September 2007. Although defense attorneys for Michael Richard had tried to file an appeal after hours, Keller said the court closed at 5 p.m. Richard was executed that night. But District Judge David Berchelmann Jr. said in a Jan. 20 decision that Richard’s lawyers were to blame for not filing Richard’s appeal in time and that Keller “did not violate any written or unwritten laws.” The commission that filed the charge against Keller is not bound by Berchelmann’s decision. After considering the judge’s ruling, the commission can dismiss the charges, reprimand Keller or recommend she be removed from office. Keller’s attorney, Chip Babcock, said he would be surprised if the commission did anything but dismiss the charges after such a resounding decision in his client’s favor. The commission will meet to consider Berchelmann’s decision. Medina in GOP debate After the first Republican gubernatorial debate on Jan. 14, long-shot candidate Debra Medina has risen in the polls so much that she has been added to the Jan. 29 debate with Gov. Rick Perry and U.S. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison. Medina, the former Wharton County Republican chairwoman who carries a 9 mm pistol with her, crashed though the double-digit polling barrier to win a place on the debate stage in Dallas. Originally, debate sponsor Belo Corp. did not include Medina, which prompted loud outcries from her supporters. Some observers believe Medina’s growing support could throw the March 2 gubernatorial primary into a runoff. Though she has little chance of winning the primary election, she could prove a spoiler for either Perry or Hutchison. Perry hit for education funds President Barack Obama and U.S. Education Secretary Arne Duncan slammed Gov. Perry for refusing to apply for up to $700 million in federal grants to help Texas schools. Perry has said Texas will not participate because he doesn’t want to adopt national curriculum standards for English and math. Texas and Alaska are the only states to refuse to participate in a standard national curriculum. That non-participation would have cost Texas significant points in the competition for $4 billion in education grants. Perry refused to seek the grants, saying the curriculum standards signal a national takeover of public schools. Duncan said the Obama administration would never require that national standards be mandatory. Gunshots at Capitol Some lawmakers are calling for tighter security at the state Capitol after a Houston man fired several shots in the air from the building’s steps. Fausto Cardenas, 24, was arrested by Texas Department of Public Safety officers as he was trying to reload a pistol. Cardenas had tried unsuccessfully to enter the office of state Sen. Dan Patrick, R-Houston. That prompted some lawmakers to ask for metal detectors and other security measures at the Capitol. Gov. Perry dismissed those calls, saying he opposed checkpoints and metal detectors in the building. Legislative leaders said a working group would be appointed to study security measures at the Capitol. Efforts to ban handguns inside the Capitol have failed, in part because so many lawmakers carry concealed weapons. UT tuition hike urged A panel studying tuition at the University of Texas has recommended a 3.95 percent tuition increase for 2010-11 and again for the 2011-12 school year. The higher tuition is necessary to keep UT from cutting staff and programs, according to the panel composed of UT students, faculty and administrators. Without higher tuition, the school would be forced to trim more than $30 million from its budget over the next two school years. If adopted, tuition and fees would rise to $4,709 in 2010-11 and $4,895 in 2011-12. The report now goes to the UT Board of Regents for consideration. DMV head named Edward Serna has been named the first executive director of the new Texas Department of Motor Vehicles. Formerly assistant executive director for support operations at the Texas Department of Transportation, Serna headed the team that shifted motor vehicle services from TxDOT to the new DMV. The bill creating the new department was signed by Gov. Perry last June, and the agency began operations in November. The DMV oversees vehicle registration and titling, motor carrier authority and enforcement, licensing vehicle dealers and awarding grants to reduce auto theft. |
source |
Saturday, November 28, 2009
Texas firefighters balk at cell phone rules
AUSTIN, Texas — Austin firefighters are concerned their First-Amendment rights may be compromised by an Austin Fire Department code of conduct that limits the contents of any electronic communication between firefighters and anyone outside the department.
Firefighters will no longer be allowed to share information or send images from cell phones, Personal Digital Assistants or social networking sites under an amendment to the department's code of conduct.The code has been effective since Aug. 28, 2008, and it seeks to "define the platform of the acceptable set of behavior within the organization.
Its main objective is to further promote a higher standard of practice within the organization," according to the code.
The addendum, which refers to Twitter, Facebook and MySpace, states, "any written, auditory, and/or visual messages ... are the sole property of [the Austin Fire Department]."
The new clause is part of an older regulation that took effect roughly 30 years ago, said AFD Chief Rhoda Mae Kerr.
The new policy as a whole states that an AFD employee "shall not criticize or ridicule the department, its policies, its officers or other members by speech, writing, or other expression" when the criticism is slanderous and interferes with AFD discipline and damages the reputation or efficiency of another member.
The explanation was that the criticism rule has been there forever.
"That may be the case, but it still seems to be far-reaching and we think [it] may be crossing the line on First Amendment, and we think the language should be revised," said Stephen Truesdell, president of the Austin Firefighters Association, the firefighter's union.
Truesdell said the procedure is composed of rules so outdated that they are referred to as "muttonchops" and that the department has recently begun to consolidate old "largely ignored" rules, regulations and guidelines to publish them online.
"Now, you are resurrecting this old, archaic set of rules and [are putting] them in this modern format — what does this mean? Does this mean [AFD is] going to start enforcing these rules now that [they] modernized them?" he said.
Firefighters understand that disclosure of information regarding an ongoing investigation may endanger it, he said, and that criticism should be delivered through a union because of the hierarchical nature of AFD — which, if undermined, can lead to problems in emergency situations.
"I don't feel — as written — [the rule is] legal," said union lawyer Craig Deats. "It is overbroad because it can be interpreted to prohibit protective speech. I have been ensured that is not [AFD's] intent, and we have been exploring ways to try and make the language clearer."
He said that if firefighters feel the need to criticize the chief in matters of public interest that they should do so.
"That is a safety issue, and the public has a right to know," Deats said.
Deats said the firefighters' union believes the chief has the right to issue a code of conduct to regulate discipline.
They are seeking clarification from the chief that the speech rights are not being abridged.
"[The chief] is simply attempting to address the issue of people taking photographs of crime scenes [and sending] other personal private information," said Laurie Eiserloh, city of Austin assistant attorney.
"[She] is taking it under advisement and reviewing the policy right now, but I can tell you it was never her intention to infringe upon anybody's First Amendment rights."
Eiserloh said the goal is to make certain that the information that comes from AFD is accurate and that it doesn't infringe upon anybody's privacy rights or compromise a criminal investigation.
"I respect others to have different opinions — I don't always agree with them or understand them, but I accept them," Kerr said. "The policy had to be updated to reflect [cellphones, PDAs and social media]."
She said the upheaval of instantaneous communication had to be addressed and that the policy does not infringe upon the rights of employees to act as private citizens.
Kerr said there is a committee comprised of department members and legal representation whose goal is to review the policy.
AFD is willing to make changes to the policy in accordance with the association's requests, but there is no definitive timeline of when changes will be made. The review is ongoing, she said.
"There is a lot going on in the organization, and it's going to take us some time to catch up," Kerr said. "Our focus isn't always on the moment, but we are trying to look long range."
Source
Firefighters will no longer be allowed to share information or send images from cell phones, Personal Digital Assistants or social networking sites under an amendment to the department's code of conduct.The code has been effective since Aug. 28, 2008, and it seeks to "define the platform of the acceptable set of behavior within the organization.
Its main objective is to further promote a higher standard of practice within the organization," according to the code.
The addendum, which refers to Twitter, Facebook and MySpace, states, "any written, auditory, and/or visual messages ... are the sole property of [the Austin Fire Department]."
The new clause is part of an older regulation that took effect roughly 30 years ago, said AFD Chief Rhoda Mae Kerr.
The new policy as a whole states that an AFD employee "shall not criticize or ridicule the department, its policies, its officers or other members by speech, writing, or other expression" when the criticism is slanderous and interferes with AFD discipline and damages the reputation or efficiency of another member.
The explanation was that the criticism rule has been there forever.
"That may be the case, but it still seems to be far-reaching and we think [it] may be crossing the line on First Amendment, and we think the language should be revised," said Stephen Truesdell, president of the Austin Firefighters Association, the firefighter's union.
Truesdell said the procedure is composed of rules so outdated that they are referred to as "muttonchops" and that the department has recently begun to consolidate old "largely ignored" rules, regulations and guidelines to publish them online.
"Now, you are resurrecting this old, archaic set of rules and [are putting] them in this modern format — what does this mean? Does this mean [AFD is] going to start enforcing these rules now that [they] modernized them?" he said.
Firefighters understand that disclosure of information regarding an ongoing investigation may endanger it, he said, and that criticism should be delivered through a union because of the hierarchical nature of AFD — which, if undermined, can lead to problems in emergency situations.
"I don't feel — as written — [the rule is] legal," said union lawyer Craig Deats. "It is overbroad because it can be interpreted to prohibit protective speech. I have been ensured that is not [AFD's] intent, and we have been exploring ways to try and make the language clearer."
He said that if firefighters feel the need to criticize the chief in matters of public interest that they should do so.
"That is a safety issue, and the public has a right to know," Deats said.
Deats said the firefighters' union believes the chief has the right to issue a code of conduct to regulate discipline.
They are seeking clarification from the chief that the speech rights are not being abridged.
"[The chief] is simply attempting to address the issue of people taking photographs of crime scenes [and sending] other personal private information," said Laurie Eiserloh, city of Austin assistant attorney.
"[She] is taking it under advisement and reviewing the policy right now, but I can tell you it was never her intention to infringe upon anybody's First Amendment rights."
Eiserloh said the goal is to make certain that the information that comes from AFD is accurate and that it doesn't infringe upon anybody's privacy rights or compromise a criminal investigation.
"I respect others to have different opinions — I don't always agree with them or understand them, but I accept them," Kerr said. "The policy had to be updated to reflect [cellphones, PDAs and social media]."
She said the upheaval of instantaneous communication had to be addressed and that the policy does not infringe upon the rights of employees to act as private citizens.
Kerr said there is a committee comprised of department members and legal representation whose goal is to review the policy.
AFD is willing to make changes to the policy in accordance with the association's requests, but there is no definitive timeline of when changes will be made. The review is ongoing, she said.
"There is a lot going on in the organization, and it's going to take us some time to catch up," Kerr said. "Our focus isn't always on the moment, but we are trying to look long range."
Source
Sunday, November 15, 2009
Austin executive pleads guilty in gambling inquiry
Gordon Graves, the Austin millionaire who rolled the dice in 2005 when he founded a gambling enterprise of uncertain legality, agreed on Monday to plead guilty to a single felony charge of tampering with evidence as part of a sweeping deal to end three separate criminal prosecutions against his company, Aces Wired.
As part of the agreement struck in a Nueces County courtroom, three other Aces executives pleaded guilty to misdemeanor charges of hindering apprehension. The company also agreed to forfeit a little less than $1 million in cash and more than 350 game machines seized in a massive statewide raid on Aces' operations coordinated by the Texas attorney general's office in May 2008.
None of the Aces executives will spend any time locked up. Graves, 72, agreed to pay a $10,000 fine and to accept two years of deferred adjudication, during which he promised to stay out of the 8-liner business — so-named because of the potential number of tic-tac-toe-shaped winning combinations available to players. If he follows the conditions of the agreement, the third-degree felony charge will be dropped in 2011.
Aces Wired President and CEO Ken Griffith, Executive Vice President Knowles Cornwell and Vice President Jeremy Tyra also will pay $4,000 fines. Three of Aces' corporate subsidiaries will hand over another $30,000 in fines as part of the deal.
The case against Aces involved more than a half-dozen state and local law enforcement agencies and brought prosecutions against the company in Nueces, Bexar and Tarrant counties, which made it "the largest coordinated gambling prosecution in Texas history," according to a written statement from the attorney general's office. The various agencies will split the money forfeited by Aces.
An inductee of the Lottery Industry Hall of Fame and former chief executive of Multimedia Games Inc., an Austin-based gambling products company, Graves began Aces Wired to exploit a gray area in state gambling laws. Instead of rewarding players of its slot-machinelike devices with cash, which is illegal, Aces used a debit-cardlike system called "amusement with prize," in which customers accumulated points they could later redeem for merchandise.
Aces said that because the prizes weren't actual money, the system was legal. But prosecutors contended the cards were the same as cash.
"The card has a monetary value, and you can't tell me otherwise," said Adriana Biggs, chief of the Bexar County district attorney's White Collar Crime Division.
Graves was not available for an interview, but in a written statement he said he agreed to the plea bargain to spare his company and employees further prosecution.
"We believed that the amusement with prize electronic system was designed to comply with the spirit and letter of Texas's gaming laws. The Attorney General and state prosecutors felt differently. Thus, just as the captain of a ship is responsible for the actions of its crew, I accept responsibility and want to protect employees who innocently conducted business on behalf of the company," the statement said.
Stephen Fenoglio, one of a half-dozen attorneys hired by Aces to fight the charges, said another reason for the settlement was that Aces was running out of money. "The company had spent over $2.6 million in legal fees," he said. "There was a concern they would run out of money before they finished the legal battles."
Many 8-liner parlors are opened — and closed by police — across the state every year. Most are small, shadowy, mobile operations that run under law enforcement's radar.
Aces, by comparison, operated aggressively in the open. Its stock was publicly traded. Its parlors were well-lit and clean. The company advertised on giant highway billboards; for a while, it was a sponsor of the San Antonio Spurs.
Graves, who has other business interests, also contributed hundreds of thousands of dollars to influential politicians, including Attorney General Greg Abbott, Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst and Gov. Rick Perry.
Aces Wired opened its first gambling center in El Paso in late 2005 and four more the next year in Fort Worth, Killeen, Corpus Christi and Copperas Cove. It later opened centers in San Antonio and Amarillo. In public filings, the company foresaw sprinkling Texas with more than 60,000 of its machines. Graves also contemplated buying a dog track to place some of the machines.
In March 2007, however, Abbott released an opinion that Aces's prize system constituted illegal gambling. "It was very painful," Graves said at the time. "Like a wrecking ball."
Attorney general's opinions are advisory, and the company continued operating, maintaining that its games met the letter of state law. However, Bexar, Nueces and Tarrant counties, along with the state attorney general's office and several other counties, launched a massive undercover investigation into the company's operations. Fourteen months later, law enforcement officers swept into the company's 8-liner parlors in Corpus Christi, Fort Worth and San Antonio and shut them down.
Lawyers for the company complained that police overreached on the raids, confiscating records and bank accounts that had little to do with Aces operations. Bexar County agreed to return more than $100,000 it had confiscated from a bank account controlled by a company officer's wife, who had her own business.
Source
As part of the agreement struck in a Nueces County courtroom, three other Aces executives pleaded guilty to misdemeanor charges of hindering apprehension. The company also agreed to forfeit a little less than $1 million in cash and more than 350 game machines seized in a massive statewide raid on Aces' operations coordinated by the Texas attorney general's office in May 2008.
None of the Aces executives will spend any time locked up. Graves, 72, agreed to pay a $10,000 fine and to accept two years of deferred adjudication, during which he promised to stay out of the 8-liner business — so-named because of the potential number of tic-tac-toe-shaped winning combinations available to players. If he follows the conditions of the agreement, the third-degree felony charge will be dropped in 2011.
Aces Wired President and CEO Ken Griffith, Executive Vice President Knowles Cornwell and Vice President Jeremy Tyra also will pay $4,000 fines. Three of Aces' corporate subsidiaries will hand over another $30,000 in fines as part of the deal.
The case against Aces involved more than a half-dozen state and local law enforcement agencies and brought prosecutions against the company in Nueces, Bexar and Tarrant counties, which made it "the largest coordinated gambling prosecution in Texas history," according to a written statement from the attorney general's office. The various agencies will split the money forfeited by Aces.
An inductee of the Lottery Industry Hall of Fame and former chief executive of Multimedia Games Inc., an Austin-based gambling products company, Graves began Aces Wired to exploit a gray area in state gambling laws. Instead of rewarding players of its slot-machinelike devices with cash, which is illegal, Aces used a debit-cardlike system called "amusement with prize," in which customers accumulated points they could later redeem for merchandise.
Aces said that because the prizes weren't actual money, the system was legal. But prosecutors contended the cards were the same as cash.
"The card has a monetary value, and you can't tell me otherwise," said Adriana Biggs, chief of the Bexar County district attorney's White Collar Crime Division.
Graves was not available for an interview, but in a written statement he said he agreed to the plea bargain to spare his company and employees further prosecution.
"We believed that the amusement with prize electronic system was designed to comply with the spirit and letter of Texas's gaming laws. The Attorney General and state prosecutors felt differently. Thus, just as the captain of a ship is responsible for the actions of its crew, I accept responsibility and want to protect employees who innocently conducted business on behalf of the company," the statement said.
Stephen Fenoglio, one of a half-dozen attorneys hired by Aces to fight the charges, said another reason for the settlement was that Aces was running out of money. "The company had spent over $2.6 million in legal fees," he said. "There was a concern they would run out of money before they finished the legal battles."
Many 8-liner parlors are opened — and closed by police — across the state every year. Most are small, shadowy, mobile operations that run under law enforcement's radar.
Aces, by comparison, operated aggressively in the open. Its stock was publicly traded. Its parlors were well-lit and clean. The company advertised on giant highway billboards; for a while, it was a sponsor of the San Antonio Spurs.
Graves, who has other business interests, also contributed hundreds of thousands of dollars to influential politicians, including Attorney General Greg Abbott, Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst and Gov. Rick Perry.
Aces Wired opened its first gambling center in El Paso in late 2005 and four more the next year in Fort Worth, Killeen, Corpus Christi and Copperas Cove. It later opened centers in San Antonio and Amarillo. In public filings, the company foresaw sprinkling Texas with more than 60,000 of its machines. Graves also contemplated buying a dog track to place some of the machines.
In March 2007, however, Abbott released an opinion that Aces's prize system constituted illegal gambling. "It was very painful," Graves said at the time. "Like a wrecking ball."
Attorney general's opinions are advisory, and the company continued operating, maintaining that its games met the letter of state law. However, Bexar, Nueces and Tarrant counties, along with the state attorney general's office and several other counties, launched a massive undercover investigation into the company's operations. Fourteen months later, law enforcement officers swept into the company's 8-liner parlors in Corpus Christi, Fort Worth and San Antonio and shut them down.
Lawyers for the company complained that police overreached on the raids, confiscating records and bank accounts that had little to do with Aces operations. Bexar County agreed to return more than $100,000 it had confiscated from a bank account controlled by a company officer's wife, who had her own business.
Source
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
APD's DWI initiative chalks up 27 arrests
The Austin Police Department arrested 27 individuals over Labor Day weekend under the department’s “No Refusal” initiative conducted Friday night and a new state Driving While Intoxicated law enacted Sept. 1.
APD Cpl. Scott Perry said the initiative was not conducted last Labor Day but attained more arrests than this year’s crackdown on the Fourth of July.
The initiative is an 8-hour program in which if an individual arrested for a DWI denies either a breathalyzer or blood test, an APD officers is able to take the subject to a temporary blood alcohol test “command center” and have a detective fill out a search warrant request.
That request is processed by a magistrate, available 365 days a year, 24 hours a day, that same night. Though the command center is used on a weekly basis, it does not normally contain the man power used during special events, such as Halloween night, the Fourth of July and Super Bowl Sunday.
The initiative lasted from 9 p.m. Friday to 5 a.m. Saturday and amassed 27 total arrests consisting of nine blood search warrants, five consented blood draws, 12 consented breath tests and one mandatory blood draw based on the new DWI felony law.
“It’s still DWI officers aggressively targeting intoxicated drivers and keeping them off the streets to keep the rest of us safe,” Perry said. “There is nothing unique about the fact that we can try to attain a search warrant from a judge. The thing is it is a time-consuming process — it isn’t something that happens in a matter of minutes. That is why it becomes a bigger event when we decide to do [this initiative].”
The Driving While Intoxicated law passed Sept. 1 states that warrants to draw blood are not needed when a person has died or is near death, has suffered bodily injury, or the driver has a passenger under 15 years of age. Individuals with two previous DWI convictions or one previous DWI conviction where a child was present are also subject to the new law.
Senate Bill 328 enacted on Sept. 1 was authored by State Sen. John Carona to address boating while intoxicated but was amended several times and expanded to operating any vehicle while intoxicated. The bill granted magistrates the ability to issue a warrant for a blood draw of a DWI arrest, but before the legislative session ended, it was expanded by another bill, authored by State Sen. Bob Deuell and called the Nicole “Lilly” Lalime Act.
Though the second bill died in the Calender’s Committee, it was still used to amend Carona’s bill by waiving the requirement for a warrant under certain conditions.
Local DWI lawyer Jamie Spencer said since the legislation is new, there have not been any cases contesting its constitutionality, but he expects for defendants to appeal decisions convicting them based on the new law within a year’s time.
“I don’t think it’s just, but legal ‘just’ means whatever the appellate court says cops can do,” Spencer said.
APD’s “No Refusal” initiative was the sixth conducted since Halloween weekend. It set up a Blood Alcohol Test command center located at the corner of Barton Springs Road and South First Street, where subjects arrested for DWI had blood drawn.
The streets of Austin were patrolled by a DWI unit comprised of 14 officers, but any officer was allowed to bring subjects to the command center.
“We can do a search warrant on every single DWI arrest strictly for evidentiary nature — that is lawful and legal,” said APD Lt. David Mahoney. “Is it practical? Not necessarily, because it takes a lot of effort. You got to write it, you got to go see a judge, etcetera. That’s why we only do [the initiative] on this one day.”
Deuell explains the intent of his bill in a brief analysis.
“Frustration with the high breath test refusal rate in Texas has prompted jurisdictions across the state to employ ‘no refusal’ policies,” Deuell said in the analysis. “The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has approved the use of the search warrant as a lawful method for obtaining blood samples. Evidence of intoxication is often crucial to the conviction of a DWI offender, for judges and juries prefer to be certain of the defendant’s guilt, especially in felony DWI cases.”
After Senate Bill 328 passed in the Senate, State Rep. Larry Phillips sponsored the bill in the House. He said the older act was amended onto the bill at the end of the session due to legislative calendars taking more time than originally allotted.
He said he was not against the initiative as long as it follows a person’s constitutional rights and that any evidence attained against a subject unfairly can always be suppressed in court.
“The Supreme Court has said clearly if there is probable cause, you can [get a blood search warrant],” Phillips said. “If the officers are doing that, I don’t have a problem with that, as long as they are following [the public’s] constitutional protections.”
Source
APD Cpl. Scott Perry said the initiative was not conducted last Labor Day but attained more arrests than this year’s crackdown on the Fourth of July.
The initiative is an 8-hour program in which if an individual arrested for a DWI denies either a breathalyzer or blood test, an APD officers is able to take the subject to a temporary blood alcohol test “command center” and have a detective fill out a search warrant request.
That request is processed by a magistrate, available 365 days a year, 24 hours a day, that same night. Though the command center is used on a weekly basis, it does not normally contain the man power used during special events, such as Halloween night, the Fourth of July and Super Bowl Sunday.
The initiative lasted from 9 p.m. Friday to 5 a.m. Saturday and amassed 27 total arrests consisting of nine blood search warrants, five consented blood draws, 12 consented breath tests and one mandatory blood draw based on the new DWI felony law.
“It’s still DWI officers aggressively targeting intoxicated drivers and keeping them off the streets to keep the rest of us safe,” Perry said. “There is nothing unique about the fact that we can try to attain a search warrant from a judge. The thing is it is a time-consuming process — it isn’t something that happens in a matter of minutes. That is why it becomes a bigger event when we decide to do [this initiative].”
The Driving While Intoxicated law passed Sept. 1 states that warrants to draw blood are not needed when a person has died or is near death, has suffered bodily injury, or the driver has a passenger under 15 years of age. Individuals with two previous DWI convictions or one previous DWI conviction where a child was present are also subject to the new law.
Senate Bill 328 enacted on Sept. 1 was authored by State Sen. John Carona to address boating while intoxicated but was amended several times and expanded to operating any vehicle while intoxicated. The bill granted magistrates the ability to issue a warrant for a blood draw of a DWI arrest, but before the legislative session ended, it was expanded by another bill, authored by State Sen. Bob Deuell and called the Nicole “Lilly” Lalime Act.
Though the second bill died in the Calender’s Committee, it was still used to amend Carona’s bill by waiving the requirement for a warrant under certain conditions.
Local DWI lawyer Jamie Spencer said since the legislation is new, there have not been any cases contesting its constitutionality, but he expects for defendants to appeal decisions convicting them based on the new law within a year’s time.
“I don’t think it’s just, but legal ‘just’ means whatever the appellate court says cops can do,” Spencer said.
APD’s “No Refusal” initiative was the sixth conducted since Halloween weekend. It set up a Blood Alcohol Test command center located at the corner of Barton Springs Road and South First Street, where subjects arrested for DWI had blood drawn.
The streets of Austin were patrolled by a DWI unit comprised of 14 officers, but any officer was allowed to bring subjects to the command center.
“We can do a search warrant on every single DWI arrest strictly for evidentiary nature — that is lawful and legal,” said APD Lt. David Mahoney. “Is it practical? Not necessarily, because it takes a lot of effort. You got to write it, you got to go see a judge, etcetera. That’s why we only do [the initiative] on this one day.”
Deuell explains the intent of his bill in a brief analysis.
“Frustration with the high breath test refusal rate in Texas has prompted jurisdictions across the state to employ ‘no refusal’ policies,” Deuell said in the analysis. “The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has approved the use of the search warrant as a lawful method for obtaining blood samples. Evidence of intoxication is often crucial to the conviction of a DWI offender, for judges and juries prefer to be certain of the defendant’s guilt, especially in felony DWI cases.”
After Senate Bill 328 passed in the Senate, State Rep. Larry Phillips sponsored the bill in the House. He said the older act was amended onto the bill at the end of the session due to legislative calendars taking more time than originally allotted.
He said he was not against the initiative as long as it follows a person’s constitutional rights and that any evidence attained against a subject unfairly can always be suppressed in court.
“The Supreme Court has said clearly if there is probable cause, you can [get a blood search warrant],” Phillips said. “If the officers are doing that, I don’t have a problem with that, as long as they are following [the public’s] constitutional protections.”
Source
Thursday, October 15, 2009
U.S. Sentencing Commission Urged to Give Judges More Flexibility
CHICAGO, Sept. 10 -- Advocates for added flexibility in criminal sentencing took their appeal to the U.S. Sentencing Commission, which heard testimony here Wednesday and Thursday as part of the agency's first nationwide series of public hearings since federal sentencing guidelines took effect 22 years ago.
Criminal justice reform proponents have long pushed the federal government to back alternatives to incarceration and more flexible sentencing for drug, child pornography and other convictions. While past critics of federal guidelines criticized them for removing judges' discretion, others in law enforcement and advocacy want to use the guidelines to promote alternative sentencing. They said they think the commission is increasingly receptive to that idea.
Kentucky Justice and Public Safety Cabinet Secretary J. Michael Brown, who called the commission "the NASA of sentencing stuff," lamented states passing strict laws targeting "the drug du jour" only to end up "with prison systems bursting at the seams with people who aren't the most dangerous to society."
David Kennedy, director of the Center for Crime Prevention and Control at John Jay College of Criminal Justice, urged the commission to promote new strategies for dealing with gangs, including an approach wherein judges and prosecutors are more lenient if gangs cease their activities, but "bank" charges for later punishment if crime continues. Kennedy sees his invitation to testify as part of a new direction for the commission.
"The Sentencing Commission appears to me to be thinking about its role more broadly and is interested in different points of view," he said.
Kennedy said judges are "enormously influenced" by the guidelines, even though they are not mandates.
Judges and lawyers testifying at the hearing bemoaned the fact that sentences often differ considerably from the federal guidelines. Judge Jeffrey S. Sutton of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit said federal guidelines might recommend a 70-month prison sentence for child pornography, "but you get a one-day sentence. To me that's disrespecting the commission."
The guidelines have their origin in mandatory minimum prison terms that were meant to end sentencing disparities among districts. A 2005 Supreme Court decision relegated them to recommendations.
Now the commission, an independent, bipartisan agency, is holding seven hearings throughout the country to gauge the impact of the guidelines. Alternative sentencing, cocaine and child pornography policies, and the guidelines' relevance to human rights offenses such as torture and war crimes were among its priorities this year.
"This is a time to hear from individuals who don't contact us in Washington but who definitely have concerns -- law enforcement, victims rights groups, judges, professors, parole officers," said commission Chairman Ricardo H. Hinojosa, a federal court judge in Texas. He said the hearings aim to draw out regional differences in opinions or priorities. "By the border, there might be more immigration, drug and firearm cases. In other parts of the country, there might be more fraud or child pornography."
Since February, hearings have also been held in Atlanta, New York and Palo Alto, Calif., and they are scheduled for Denver, Austin and Phoenix through January 2010. In March the commission will hold public hearings in Washington on proposed amendments to the guidelines, as it does every year.
When the commission makes recommendations to change the guidelines, they become law within 180 days if Congress does not act on them. More than 700 amendments have passed this way; only one recommendation, a 1995 measure that would have equalized penalties for crack and powder cocaine, was rejected.
The federal sentencing guidelines are distinct from mandatory minimum sentencing laws, including the controversial law governing sentences for crack cocaine possession.
Patrick J. Fitzgerald, U.S. attorney for the Northern District of Illinois, said the Supreme Court decision making the guidelines advisory has greatly changed their impact. Prosecutors often decide to press charges that trigger mandatory minimum sentences because they fear judges will otherwise give lighter sentences than the guidelines indicate, he said. And defense attorneys are less inclined to work out agreements with prosecutors, preferring to appeal directly to judges for leniency, Fitzgerald said, adding that the Supreme Court decision has resulted in lighter punishments for white-collar criminals.
"I venture to say that [the decision] has reintroduced into federal sentencing both substantial district-to-district variations and substantial judge-to-judge variations," he said.
Source
Criminal justice reform proponents have long pushed the federal government to back alternatives to incarceration and more flexible sentencing for drug, child pornography and other convictions. While past critics of federal guidelines criticized them for removing judges' discretion, others in law enforcement and advocacy want to use the guidelines to promote alternative sentencing. They said they think the commission is increasingly receptive to that idea.
Kentucky Justice and Public Safety Cabinet Secretary J. Michael Brown, who called the commission "the NASA of sentencing stuff," lamented states passing strict laws targeting "the drug du jour" only to end up "with prison systems bursting at the seams with people who aren't the most dangerous to society."
David Kennedy, director of the Center for Crime Prevention and Control at John Jay College of Criminal Justice, urged the commission to promote new strategies for dealing with gangs, including an approach wherein judges and prosecutors are more lenient if gangs cease their activities, but "bank" charges for later punishment if crime continues. Kennedy sees his invitation to testify as part of a new direction for the commission.
"The Sentencing Commission appears to me to be thinking about its role more broadly and is interested in different points of view," he said.
Kennedy said judges are "enormously influenced" by the guidelines, even though they are not mandates.
Judges and lawyers testifying at the hearing bemoaned the fact that sentences often differ considerably from the federal guidelines. Judge Jeffrey S. Sutton of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit said federal guidelines might recommend a 70-month prison sentence for child pornography, "but you get a one-day sentence. To me that's disrespecting the commission."
The guidelines have their origin in mandatory minimum prison terms that were meant to end sentencing disparities among districts. A 2005 Supreme Court decision relegated them to recommendations.
Now the commission, an independent, bipartisan agency, is holding seven hearings throughout the country to gauge the impact of the guidelines. Alternative sentencing, cocaine and child pornography policies, and the guidelines' relevance to human rights offenses such as torture and war crimes were among its priorities this year.
"This is a time to hear from individuals who don't contact us in Washington but who definitely have concerns -- law enforcement, victims rights groups, judges, professors, parole officers," said commission Chairman Ricardo H. Hinojosa, a federal court judge in Texas. He said the hearings aim to draw out regional differences in opinions or priorities. "By the border, there might be more immigration, drug and firearm cases. In other parts of the country, there might be more fraud or child pornography."
Since February, hearings have also been held in Atlanta, New York and Palo Alto, Calif., and they are scheduled for Denver, Austin and Phoenix through January 2010. In March the commission will hold public hearings in Washington on proposed amendments to the guidelines, as it does every year.
When the commission makes recommendations to change the guidelines, they become law within 180 days if Congress does not act on them. More than 700 amendments have passed this way; only one recommendation, a 1995 measure that would have equalized penalties for crack and powder cocaine, was rejected.
The federal sentencing guidelines are distinct from mandatory minimum sentencing laws, including the controversial law governing sentences for crack cocaine possession.
Patrick J. Fitzgerald, U.S. attorney for the Northern District of Illinois, said the Supreme Court decision making the guidelines advisory has greatly changed their impact. Prosecutors often decide to press charges that trigger mandatory minimum sentences because they fear judges will otherwise give lighter sentences than the guidelines indicate, he said. And defense attorneys are less inclined to work out agreements with prosecutors, preferring to appeal directly to judges for leniency, Fitzgerald said, adding that the Supreme Court decision has resulted in lighter punishments for white-collar criminals.
"I venture to say that [the decision] has reintroduced into federal sentencing both substantial district-to-district variations and substantial judge-to-judge variations," he said.
Source
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)