When does the State get 3 shots?

Many defendants are surprised to learn about the law of parties. The law of parties assigns guilt if you don't directly participate in the offense. Basically, if you do something to aid, encourage or assist the commission of the offense you are guilty. The classic example is the getaway driver in a bank robbery - even though they don't go inside, they are still guilty.

The law of parties is usually fairly straightforward. Of course, any time more than one person is involved there is a potential for problems. The Court of Appeals in El Paso recently addressed one of the problems in State v. Andrew James Cotto and Robertor Corral. The two defendants had been charged along with Joseph Jones with manslaughter. The evidence was that Mr. Corral and Mr. Cotto held the victim down, while Jones strangled him. Mr. Jones went to trial first, and was found not quilty. Although the medical examiner initially testified the death was caused by strangulation, he also testified that asthma or some other respitory condition could not be ruled out as a cause of death.

As you would expect, Mr. Cotto and Mr. Corral were probably pretty happy. They filed a motion to dismiss the charges against them. The legal basis was that the cause of death had already been decided against the State, and therefore the docrtine of "colleteral estoppel" prevented the State from re-litigating the question. Sounds pretty good - and makes sense.

The problem is that the Texas Penal Code - section 7.03 - addresses the issue, at least in part. The state says that  the acquittal of the person for whom you are criminally responsible is not  a defense. In other words, the fact that the bank robber is acquitted doesn't mean you can't be prosecuted.

I won't go into the legal basis of the decision, because it involves fairly complex (and boring) aspects of colleteral estoppel law. The bottom line is that the State can get 3 chances in this case. They didn't get the person who actually choked the victim - now the get to go after the person who held him down.  Maybe they will get at least one out of the three.

The big breast defense?

Sometimes its hard to come up with a defense a jury will believe. You generally need something more than I "didn't do it". Most good lawyers develop a "theme of the case" early on, and use that them throughout the entire trial. Sometime you have to think outside the box. Just how far "outside the box" is shown by a Japanese lawyer. His client, a Japanese professional model, had been charged with trespass. It was alleged she kicked a hole in the door of her boyfriend's apartment, and entered. Apparently she is fairly well endowed, which was the basis of the defense. Although she was convicted, the Appellate court acquitted her. They found that given the size of her bust, she could not have squeezed through the door. You have to wonder what kind of evidence they presented at trial?