January 29, 2009

Dear Senator Hegar,

This morning I received an alert to SB 566. I suggest adding the requirement that information in a criminal case include:

1. Whether the Assistance of Counsel provided to the Defendant was hired by Defendant, or appointed by the Judge.

2. The name of the Counsel that provided Assistance.

As you know, our US and Texas Constitution secures the Right to "ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL".

I am a victim of a wrongful conviction and wrongful imprisonment because I was DENIED assistance of counsel. The Attorney appointed to REPRESENT me walked out the Friday before the Monday that trial was to begin. The Judge wanted to appoint another Attorney to REPRESENT me. I told the Judge I wanted my Right to have ASSISTANCE of COUNSEL.

Our Texas Constitution provides as follows in Section 10 of Article 1, our Texas Bill of Rights:

"the accused shall have the right of being heard by himself or counsel or both" (note the word "shall" – no discretion, it is not an option)

I told the Judge I want "BOTH". The Judge REFUSED. He insisted I either represent myself, or allow an Attorney chosen by him "represent" me.

As you know - when an Attorney "represents" a citizen, the Attorney can then say and do whatever they want in the name of the accused. The accused suffer all the consequences, including imprisonment, while the Attorney walks away with money from the client or, if appointed, money from the public treasury. It is for this very reason our Constitution does NOT require the accused have an Attorney REPRESENT them, but rather requires that they have COUNSEL (a professional who knows the process) to ASSIST in their defense, so that DUE PROCESS OF LAW may be assured.

Regardless of any law on the books, the victim of malpractice by the attorney representing them on a criminal accusation cannot hold the criminal defense attorney accountable to any law, whether it be from inside, or outside, the prison walls. Nor is it now possible to prosecute a Judicial Official for malpractice. Thus, the only source of restitution for the victim is the STATE, as the entity responsible for what its Actors do, or fail to do, in performing the functions paid for from the Public Treasury of the State.

SB 588 inspired me to draft the attached. I hope that you will consider being the Author of this Act and filing it in this session of the Legislature. If not; please refer me to Legislators you think might be willing to do so.

Respectfully submitted by Ed --------, Citizen of Texas ed@informed.org

Back to List of Letters