Blue Grit Podcast: The Voice of Texas Law Enforcement
#070- "Legal Lifelines" with Doug O'Connell and Ken Ervin Part 2
Join us for Part 2 with Doug O'Connell and Ken Irvin, respected Austin attorneys specializing in the defense of law enforcement officers. Gain valuable insights into the complexities of critical incident responses and the emotional and legal challenges faced by officers. We'll also delve into the transition from prosecution to defense, providing a deeper understanding of the inner workings of a DA's office and the influence of political factors on the pursuit of justice.
Doug and Ken will also discuss the extent of TMPA's involvement in the recent trial of two former WILCO deputies, for whom they secured a NOT GUILTY verdict. This is an episode you won't want to miss.
email us at- bluegrit@tmpa.org
Join us for Part 2 with Doug O'Connell and Ken Irvin, respected Austin attorneys specializing in the defense of law enforcement officers. Gain valuable insights into the complexities of critical incident responses and the emotional and legal challenges faced by officers. We'll also delve into the transition from prosecution to defense, providing a deeper understanding of the inner workings of a DA's office and the influence of political factors on the pursuit of justice.
Doug and Ken will also discuss the extent of TMPA's involvement in the recent trial of two former WILCO deputies, for whom they secured a NOT GUILTY verdict. This is an episode you won't want to miss.
email us at- bluegrit@tmpa.org
So one of the interesting things we've seen lately during jury selection is the prosecutors asking potential jurors. Have you heard negative things about Jose Garza or the Travis County District Attorney's Office?
Speaker 2:On the last episode of part one of the Blue Grit Podcast.
Speaker 3:It's a really horrible combination of politics, but it's ignorance too.
Speaker 1:And then the media got a hold of the APD officer who assisted them, got a hold of his body cam and published it wrote an expose, if you will. And of course this was on the heels of the George Floyd incident. So the decedent in the Camden Johnson case also said something along the lines of I can't breathe.
Speaker 3:Find those people who will just listen, even if you think maybe they're against you right now.
Speaker 4:How'd Fort Iyer go? Did you feel good? After Fort Iyer, the last one I sat through I felt I wanted to flee the courtroom and jump out a window. How did that look?
Speaker 1:It was long. It was long and we're at a disadvantage because the government gets to go first. So you know, typically in these large big trials we do, the judge brings a hundred panel members in, so we're having to try to talk to a hundred potential jurors and so the government goes for a couple hours and then there's a lunch break and everybody comes in and they're tired and they're already tired of being there and now it's our turn. We do a pretty good job of. You know there's different lawyers have different strategies for jury selection.
Speaker 1:Our objective typically is to get people talking. We're not going to try to educate them during jury selection about what we think is important. We may do a little bit of that, but mostly we want to get them talking. The more they're talking, the less we're talking the better, because it's only if they start talking then do we really get insight into whether or not they're going to be fair for sitting on this jury. The other thing we spend a lot of time doing is trying to do jury research into the potential jurors, which takes a tremendous amount of time. But we want to know as much intel we can get about these people before they ever walk into the courthouse.
Speaker 3:Jury selection went well for this last trial, for Camden Johnson. So the way it works, yeah, they say, if the defendant doesn't testify, I will hold it against them, all right. Well, that person can't uphold their Fifth Amendment rights, so they're not eligible to serve, so they're off. So you clear all of those people off and then you have the eligible jurors left and then you choose 10 of them in a felony trial, typical felony trial 10 of them that you don't want and you can get rid of them for almost any reason. Some trials let's say you're left with 30 people. You get to get rid of 10, but you really want to get rid of about 20 of them, and so you are now trying to rank. Okay, of the 20 I don't want, who are the 10?
Speaker 1:worst at the end of jury. Worst bad ones, the lesser of the evil. The worst, the worst.
Speaker 3:Yeah, and when it works out is when you're looking at the group and you're having trouble coming up with 10 that you don't want. That's a good position to be in, because now you're kind of splitting hairs and getting people that you think are probably fine. But it's great to be in that position and that's where we were with them.
Speaker 4:Wow, that is a great yeah. That's a great position to be in in this county.
Speaker 2:Have you ever worked anywhere else besides Travis?
Speaker 1:County as far as well, did you work at Clean it All Court?
Speaker 2:cases.
Speaker 1:Court cases. Yes, sir, no, we've worked in Williamson. We've had cases up in Williamson County and Hayes County.
Speaker 2:I guess to my point is that speaking of the politics of Travis County speaking to your point about that is a great point, or you were in a great position for that day, because the politics in Travis County at that point in time, the anti-police rhetoric was at its highest. Garza had just been elected. A year prior to that a year and a half, two years, I guess. So talk about the politics and dealing with that during the jury selection with this population. Does that make sense? What I'm trying to say?
Speaker 1:Yeah, so one of the interesting things we've seen lately during jury selection is the prosecutors asking potential jurors. Have you heard negative things about Jose Garza or the Travis County District Attorney's Office?
Speaker 2:Really what prompted that, I wonder?
Speaker 4:Well, I think it's our work here. We'll take credit for that.
Speaker 2:Yeah, that's awesome Wow.
Speaker 4:Yeah, it is the last case I was in. They had 80 potential jurors and the first question the judge asked is have any of you ever been wronged by the police? A lot of 80 people. I'm like there's going to be three people raise their hand that they were wrong and about 50 raise their hand.
Speaker 1:Oh.
Speaker 4:And I was like oh God.
Speaker 4:So she starts going around the room the judge does you know? How were you wronged by the police? Well, the first one was a paralegal and she said uh, well, I parked at the mall one day and when I came out to my car I had a um citation for parking in a handicapped spot and I'm like you didn't even have any contact with the police. The next guy was about my age, he was an old, fat dude and he's like he goes. How were you wronged by the police, sir? He goes.
Speaker 4:Well, when I went to school at texas tech, I got arrested for marijuana. I'm like, okay, 40 years ago you went to jail for marijuana, but all these people were testifying that they were wronged by the police and it went all day, all these people wronged by the police. And I thought we are not. I mean and it goes back to the work you guys have when you're faced with today's politics, when you have the media that has already perverted a case, you guys have a hell of a job to dig out of just to get started before you get started. Sorry.
Speaker 4:I interrupted that's where we kicked off Gord Ayers went as good as could be expected.
Speaker 3:Yeah it did. Yeah, so to your point, all right. So in your hypothetical 50 people raised their hand. But the mistake attorneys make is oh well, all of these people. I don't want them if I'm representing a cop, but that's not the case. You really have to dig down deeper and think was it just something silly, right? So you try to question individual people. You don't have unlimited time, but you try to do as much as you can. But, right, maybe I question one person why were you wronged by the police? And it's because, well, I love the police. It's just I called them a couple of times recently and it took them forever to come out. And I know they're they're defunded and lacking numbers, but you know, they sort of did me wrong because they didn't come out, and so we want that person on the jury, so we can't just trust that answer.
Speaker 1:You've got to dig deeper. And from the jury research we do prior to going to the courthouse, we know people were concerned about or we absolutely do not want on the jury, and so we target those folks to get them talking in order to have them say something that will cause them to be struck for cause. We don't have to use one of our peremptory strikes on them.
Speaker 4:Nice, that's a lot of groundwork, a lot of legwork.
Speaker 1:Yeah, researching that many people that quickly, before walking in to have your, your spreadsheet of absolutely, and and I'll tell you that, uh, tmpa paid for our jury researcher that does some of the initial legwork for the research in the jury in the camden johnson case nice, excellent so was it a something?
Speaker 2:was was? Was this entire trial a slugfish, or was it pretty slanted the entire time? For y'all's hard work. Walk us through the process of the trial. After jury selection.
Speaker 1:We've had trials that have been slugfest. This, I would say, was not really a slugfest. We were pretty much dominating the courtroom every day, all day long.
Speaker 2:I like that word. During the trial there was a I'm trying to think what it was. It was a witness, I can't recall, but I was so infuriated because the media kept fueling this thing as if this was a huge slugfest and of course I'm not as close to you guys as some attorneys here in Austin but I was like what I'm hearing on the backside of this is this is not a slugfest, like y'all are kicking their ass and why can't we just be at least neutral? But it's just not the way Austin news media works and it was just aggravating.
Speaker 4:Well, we've talked about reasonable people in the media slanting rabbit trail. I've watched for two days and I've talked to my I talked to my boys about what media that they review and check five or six medias and I've been fascinated watching for two days. Now you can pull up CNN and they'll tell you that Cohen, uh, was horrible on the stand. He is the victory for the prosecution. Trump is in trouble and doomed now because of Cohen. You can flip over to one of the other conservatives and Cohen is the saving grace of Trump. He is torpedoed, the prosecution's case and they have met their death because of Cohen.
Speaker 4:And I'm like, okay, clearly, somewhere in the middle is the truth. But the people that are the believers of this and the people are the believers that are that. That's all they know. Yeah, and they couldn't be any more, and I've talked to both my boys about it. Don't believe either one of them because they're never going to be the truth. But that's the average American is. Whatever their flavor is, they believe it. So, whatever they went into to this case or many other police cases, they've got their mind made up because of their flavor of media and it's just been fascinating the last couple of days to watch.
Speaker 4:None of it's the truth, I mean somewhere in the middle is.
Speaker 2:Well, watching the media me living here locally, it was the second to the last day, I guess you guys brought a taser instructor in and one of y'all took a taser round to show the jury just how potent and lethal or non-lethal I should say that these tasers are. Was that by seniority? And so I guess you lost the. You draw the short straw. And when I saw that, when I saw KXAN, and then you could tell the balloon was deflated by the tone and the reporter's voice, like I was like oh yeah, it's on now and I knew then they all had it.
Speaker 4:I just suspected. How was that discussion? How did that come about? Was that preplanned the whole time?
Speaker 1:Well, Ken has been saying for years he wanted to get tased Years I've been saying that On purpose.
Speaker 3:Yeah, yeah, I've seen it. I don't know. I've seen it plenty of times.
Speaker 1:Everybody gets through it. Sure, sign me up. So we, we weren't or at least I wasn't sure, and I was doubtful that the judge would let us actually do this in court demonstration. And and we, we had a fallback. It was almost a straw man request to the judge. We didn't think she'd grant that. But if she denied that she'd have to grant our next request, which was static target in court.
Speaker 2:Which is not the same. That is just not the same effect.
Speaker 1:And meanwhile we're having to deal with Axon and Axon lawyers and they're a great team out there. But they were nervous. They were nervous. They were asking us well, look, why don't you just do the alligator clips? And that wasn't going to work. We were going to win that demonstration. They were worried that what if you don't get NMI?
Speaker 2:and how will?
Speaker 1:that affect your case.
Speaker 2:It's a one-shot.
Speaker 1:Right.
Speaker 2:No pun intended, I guess.
Speaker 1:Well, we were going to win regardless, because what we were trying to demonstrate was what NMI looks like and the fact that Mr Ambler the decedent never came close to achieving NMI. But also the reason he didn't get the ride was because he was 410 pounds, with layers and layers of body fat, and so part of the analysis is a taser doesn't always work.
Speaker 4:Would you share with our listeners what NMI is?
Speaker 1:Neuromuscular incapacitation. I thought all officers knew that.
Speaker 4:Well, we've got a lot of people that are not law enforcement that watch the show when you see somebody tensed and their body locks.
Speaker 1:All their muscles are locked. That's an MI. And so that was the objective either show an MI or show that sometimes it doesn't work. And, of course, in this case, it worked beautifully. Um, and of course, in this case, uh, it worked beautifully. And and funny side note we were in the same court with in front of the same judge as the very us to. They wanted padding in the courtroom, they wanted two guys holding Ken up. Well, the guys we tasked to come back into court were Paff and Petritis, and they were holding Ken.
Speaker 4:That was intentional. Oh yes, that's awesome. Did the state try and object to y'all's motion request to have him tased?
Speaker 3:No, which was shocking, but I didn't think that the judge was going to go along with it. I definitely didn't think the state was going to go along with it. I was proud of that and you know, because it's just such a dramatic and unusual thing. So, according to Axon, I was the first live what do they call it? Live Tasing, exposure, exposure, exposure, first live exposure yeah, controlled live exposure in a courtroom. So it's just so far out there that I thought it would just be sort of a knee-jerk no, but it was a maybe from the judge. And then we needed the state to come along and they just didn't object and I think we've got some opinions along and they just didn't object.
Speaker 3:And I think we've got some opinions as to why they didn't object, so side note.
Speaker 2:I'm not sure if you guys know this or not, but future reference, if you guys ever do come across a case like this. I had a choice to get tased, okay, to get certified. Well, I'm going to say right now Hell, no, I didn't. Okay, I didn't get shot to carry a gun. So I was like I'm not going to get tased. About three years later we're chasing an armed robbery suspect. I didn't know this. They didn't cover this in the class. It wasn't Axon's fault. This was the instructor in East Texas. Don't want it out there. Just to be clear.
Speaker 2:I did not know that when you shoot the taser cartridges and that line wraps around your arms you now become connected with the other subject, and so I locked up, the suspect locked up, and when I locked up, my finger locked up with me. So for probably three minutes it's me and him and we're dancing on the ground. I had an accident, it was horrible, it was an absolute horrible experience, and so I finally got the taser patch from my department that I rode the lot in for about three minutes. Thankfully he didn't get hurt, and I didn't get hurt.
Speaker 3:Five seconds is plenty. Yeah, I can't imagine.
Speaker 2:Oh my God. I was like when is this going to stop? When's my backup? I just remember this. Now I could hear him yelling on the radio where are you at? I couldn't do anything but just flop. Anyway, side note sorry.
Speaker 4:Well, kudos, you guys mentioned Axon a couple of times. I got the opportunity about a month ago to spend time at Axon headquarters and their owner, rick Smith, is an amazing guy. The staff, the research that they're doing there they truly what was really cool to watch. They truly care about not only protecting and finding a way to protect law enforcement, but it's a way to protect the community too, because if they can find alternates to deadly force which is their goal- Taser saved lives.
Speaker 4:Yeah, absolutely. And if they can ever get past prosecutors wanting to indict people for taser 10, calling it a deadly weapon. The taser 10 is a phenomenal, less lethal option that unfortunately isn't being utilized right now. But man, mr smith and axon folks, the technology, the ai, all the stuff they're working on to try and be the tip of the spear to protect cops, the community, bad guys, they're doing a phenomenal job.
Speaker 2:I don't want to put it out there, but are you guys patent attorneys as well? I don't want to talk about the specific design, but Axon may or may not be coming out with a product called the McNear Him and Bullock and some other guys came up with a design that was pretty phenomenal. We'll talk off cameras. We don't want any any other people out there to get this design and make money off of it.
Speaker 1:So it sounds like you need representation. We do. We do so if you know any people yeah, we can, we'll help you.
Speaker 2:Yeah, definitely. So there you go.
Speaker 1:Axon was Emden Johnson.
Speaker 2:I've heard that from other people too.
Speaker 1:You know they answered all our questions. We got with their forensic engineer. He was very patient with us and then, when it all came down to it, we called and said, hey, we need you to FedEx a taser, a fully charged taser, and we need it here by 10 am tomorrow. And they made it happen.
Speaker 4:That's awesome. That's good stuff.
Speaker 2:That's awesome, I'm trying to think what else we were going to cover. How long did the trial last.
Speaker 1:It was a long one A week and a half towards two.
Speaker 3:Yeah, yeah, almost two weeks.
Speaker 4:Yeah, almost two weeks. Did you realize from the get-go that your case was strong and you guys were dominating, or was it an ebb and flow? And if it was ebb and flow, at what point did you realize? I think we've got this thing, we've won this.
Speaker 3:This particular one was not an ebb and flow. It just went one direction and as the state is calling its witnesses, it's just we turn them to defense, witness, defense, witness, defense, witness. Over and over and over. I mean it was embarrassing to watch it unfold. I used to work for this office.
Speaker 4:But it goes to credibility that the case shouldn't have been brought Correct. Yes, if you look like a fool presenting your witnesses, probably shouldn't have started the circus to begin with.
Speaker 3:Right, they had the two witnesses who were truly states witnesses giving favorable prosecution evidence, or hired experts paid to give that testimony, or hired experts paid to give that testimony. But all of the officers and the civilians, including the live PD people who came and testified, all defense witnesses yes, which speaks to again you guys never committed a crime in the first place and they were never going to show it. And it was always going to be like this, because nobody's going to.
Speaker 1:If you start with it wasn't a crime, again the only people are going to say that it was is people you pay yeah to say that and that's how it unfolded, and it was brutal um in right in the direction that it should have been they went through two or three experts before they were ultimately able to hire a use of force expert, and the guy that they hired started as an officer in 1965. So he was a very old gentleman who we pretty much destroyed on the witness stand.
Speaker 4:Local? Is he local no?
Speaker 1:they had to bring him in from California. Oh, and so we were able to bring out the fact that, okay, these other experts you tried to hire, and they did a review, but they said no offense was committed.
Speaker 4:I'm glad to hear that, because there's been some instances and it took me a little bit to learn that be careful with the experts you hire. Be careful with the experts you hire, be sure they're an expert in the field that they say and not just, uh, in the market of being a prostitute, so to speak. And, um, I'm glad to hear that some people turn down the state, uh, after careful reviewing the facts, instead of being a hired gun or I refer to them as a prostitute right.
Speaker 3:So know, we don't practice much civil law, but the big difference is, I think, on the civil side, if you consult with an expert and they give you reporters, you know, whatever it is that's not favorable, you don't have to disclose that, but the prosecution has to disclose any evidence that tends to mitigate guilt or punishment of the client. And so it's shocking and it's not right, but there's nothing stopping them from doing what they did, which is we're just going to keep hiring these experts until we get the right one who's going to say what we want, even though we have to tell the defense it was the third one before we could finally find one to get on board, but it's just so easy to then slap them with it at trial later on. And so exactly what was happening, which is you're not interested in what's accurate, what the truth was. You just want one person to say what you want them to say, and that's not the job of a prosecutor.
Speaker 1:So there was one instance in this trial where we caught them failing to turn over exculpatory and mitigating evidence, and what I'm talking about is the fact that Mr Ambler had an active arrest warrant pending against him and the government knew about that, but they failed to turn it over to us and we found out about it and sent our investigators out to go retrieve that and confirm it and make sure it was active at the time. And so the point of all this is, for the first time in history that we're aware of, a Travis County judge sanctioned the Travis County District Attorney's Office for violating the Michael Morton Act.
Speaker 2:Talk about that and talk about what that means. How would they be sanctioned and what would that look like?
Speaker 1:Yeah, so we got reimbursed for the expenses related to sending the investigator out. That's not the important part. The important part was two things. One the jury was instructed at our request. Jury was instructed that this warrant was mitigating or exculpatory and the government had a duty to produce that to the defense. And they failed to do that and in so violated the Michael Morton Act. The other significant point is the judge issued a written order saying the same thing, and so there's a written record of a judge finding the Travis County District Attorney's Office violated Michael Morton Act County.
Speaker 4:District Attorney's Office violated Michael Morton Act. For our non-law enforcement listeners, michael Morton Act is if I'm a prosecutor and I'm going to prosecute Doug, if I have evidence, I can't just disclose all the evidence that helps my case, say that he did it. If there is evidence discovered that lends to possibly he didn't do it, or any other evidence, I have to disclose all of it. I can't just disclose the evidence that I want to, to, that I choose to disclose or that is favorable to my case. I have to disclose all of it.
Speaker 4:Is that a fair description of it?
Speaker 2:And that's with law enforcement too. Yeah, yes, yeah.
Speaker 4:Law enforcement. If I investigate a case, I have to give all the evidence. I can't select and choose. Well, this is the sexy items against tyler. I'll just disclose this.
Speaker 2:I have to give all the good, the bad and the ugly and the irony of it is it just didn't it just it didn't happen or began. That case evolved out of williamson county, did it not? That's correct yeah, wow, yeah in the 90s that sounds right yeah the michael morton trial, I think was in the 90s early 90s.
Speaker 1:The other irony is the lead prosecutor in the camden johnson case, who committed this violation, was sanctioned by the judge, is the democratic party's candidate for statewide office, specifically presiding judge of the court of criminal appeals. Oh wow. To make it more ironic, jose Garza has promoted this prosecutor to be director of the public integrity division at the DA's office.
Speaker 4:You can't make that up Right.
Speaker 2:I wonder if that will get brought back up with some House Bill 17 stuff, the petition.
Speaker 4:Well, anybody that violates Michael Morton definitely should be in charge of the public integrity unit.
Speaker 1:Yeah, when we were prosecutors. So I was under Ronnie Earl and then later under Rose Lindbergh and Ken was under Rose Ronnie Earl and then later under Rose Lindbergh and Ken was under Rose. If we had been sanctioned by a judge, we would have been called into the corner office that very day and the conversation would have been something like hey, are you writing your resignation or do you want me to write it?
Speaker 4:But it would have been cleaning out your desk that day and thanks. Good luck You're done.
Speaker 1:Wow, that's wow.
Speaker 4:that sucks instead of promoting right, it's a public integrity so tell us about personally when you, when you hear not guilty, when you hear that that this is over, acquitted, that this is done oh, it's relief.
Speaker 3:Yeah, there's not even really a sense of victory, at least for me. It's just whew, that was supposed to happen and it did. And then you know, you're just very happy for your client.
Speaker 1:I typically reach over and grab the client's arm because of that wave of relief. I don't know how they're going to react. I've had guys kind of slump fall down into their chair.
Speaker 4:I can imagine.
Speaker 1:And I want to help them, you know, at that moment, process it all, but also not look like an ass clown in court.
Speaker 4:Yeah, yeah, finding out that I'm not going to prison, like I may have been believing for the last few years. I can't imagine how you process that short of falling over or sitting down or bawling or yeah, it's an insane mix of emotions, I mean even for us as attorneys.
Speaker 3:But you know so much different for the person who may have been taken into custody right then and it is, you know it's, it's relief, there is some vindication. The part that maybe you don't expect is is the anger and the resentment of why did I have to go through this Right? Did I win? It doesn't feel like a win. It doesn't. The not guilty does not feel like a win to them, because they they were wrong, they were drug through it, they lost their job, home difficulties, difficulties with your own Mental state yeah, exactly, it's an enormous burden and it's over, and you got to be careful, though, because then some people will shift into how do I write this wrong and it's, how do I fight back and how do we do this and how do we go after them? And the unfortunate legal reality is there's just extraordinarily little you can do. Court says you got your day in court and you won and you're the winner and you should be happy with that, and the law, kind of it, almost leaves it at that the over-prosecution of the case.
Speaker 4:It's not a win, because both these guys have so many pieces to pick up and try and start fresh. That hell. It's not a win. It may be a new start or a different start or a new normal, but it's not a win. Like you go out and celebrate, oh, I'm on top of the world now. Because their life's been devastated.
Speaker 3:Yeah, correct, it's a celebration. When you get away with something, you're guilty and you're found not guilty, that's a celebration, but it's not when you're actually innocent and found not guilty. That's what should have happened. It's a relief. It's a relief, yeah, but it's tough for them to feel happy.
Speaker 4:I can imagine. I know I can't imagine.
Speaker 1:In the Camden Johnson trial. It was also weird or different that the decedent's dad, who was present in the courtroom for the whole trial, came up and gave Zach and JJ hugs and said no hard feelings, which is very unique and bizarre, and I'm not sure what to make of that from the perspective of Zach and JJ. Did that help? Did it hurt? How do you process that?
Speaker 2:Wow.
Speaker 4:Wow, I didn't know that until I just knew. It's kind of similar to the Amber Geiger trial when Baltham Jones, I think a brother, got off the witness stand and ran to her and gave her a hug Pretty powerful moment. But man, that's a. I mean it's just there's a bunch of lives devastated and the same in this case there's not a winner. Everybody lost a lot in this and that's an interesting deal to process speaking to your point about mental state.
Speaker 2:Uh, oftentimes me and clint see this from our perspective. You guys may see it too, but you know our, our bread and butter is legal coverage. Uh, camden, how much of the legal fees are are pending and is there a? Is there a balance that you guys are owed with the legal fees as far as what TMPA is owed? Talk about that, because there's some mix-up and there's some discussion about what TMPA didn't do. We just want to clear the air on what hasn't been paid.
Speaker 1:We set up our representation so that typically, if we have multiple clients, we're both representing each of those clients Right, unless there's a conflict issue. So Ken and I both represented TMPA member Zach Camden, but I was responsible for interfacing with TMPA and sending invoices, and the direct answer to your question is no. There's not any legal bills pending. All of those have been paid. They were paid relatively quickly and throughout the course of representation.
Speaker 1:Every time we asked for something from TMPA you know financing for an expert, or we need this thing or we want a jury researcher All of that was covered. It was covered without hassle and so, from my perspective, tmpa treated Zach Camden exceptionally well. There was never a situation where we needed an expert or an investigator where we were denied. There was a couple, maybe one time when Randy, the general counsel, had some legitimate questions about what we were asking for, and the reason he had those questions is because I didn't do a good job in the rush of everything that has to get done, because I didn't do a good job in in the rush of everything that has to get done, I didn't do a good job of saying this is what we're asking for and this is why we need it I mean you didn't have a lot going on.
Speaker 2:You just had these two guys lives in your hands and you know juggling other shit, that going on with travis candia's office.
Speaker 4:But I just wanted to clarify that well, more importantly, I I'm glad to hear we we paid and that the relationship is healthy and that we took care of you. But, more importantly and I mean this as sincerely as possible I'm thankful that those two guys had you two, the two right people at the time, for the job, because you clearly knocked it out of the park and this isn't a plea. I deal with a bunch of our TPA attorneys in the Dallas area and we talk all the time about defending police officers is not for everybody, and there's a whole lot of people that are really good lawyers, that even are really good lawyers that police work is not for them. It takes a unique person that has a desire to do it, and I'm thankful that you two, uh, were the ones there to take care of this.
Speaker 3:Yeah, we are too. It was our pleasure. Um, you know, we talk about this all the time. How we uh, representing police officers is, you know, probably a favorite part of our jobs? Yeah, pretty easily.
Speaker 2:Well, it sounds like you guys are going to be in some business. At least tell somebody vacates the office.
Speaker 1:Unfortunately so.
Speaker 4:We have a lot of folks that aren't law enforcement that listen and we hear sometimes when we're talking about defending police officers and our legal plan and all that, and a lot of people and I try to go out to a bunch of the shootings when I can, all of our field reps do and oh, we all go out there so you can try and cover for the cop or you all hire a lawyer to go live for the cop.
Speaker 4:And we've expressed it on here before but I can't express it to you enough I'm not losing my job to cover or lie for someone and there is no attorney that I know that has a professional career, has gone to law school and done all this, that's going to lose their career to cover up in life for an officer Number one, number two in the day of body cameras, in-car cameras, 5 billion cell phone cameras, all of that. That's one of the reason walkthroughs have kind of gone away because there's probably 500 versions already recorded of what happened anyway. So we're almost in the realm now of the facts. Are the facts, I mean there's? You just deal with the facts because they're well documented generally in you know 10 different ways and it's simply not true Sometimes, the perception that team PA or attorneys are going out there to to create this big liar, this big cover-up and, at the end of the day, these, these officers, have a right to do process just like everyone else yep.
Speaker 3:I think a lot of the general population misses is nobody likes a bad cop or a criminal cop more than a good cop.
Speaker 3:I mean, there is just such an incentive for that person to be kicked out immediately, exposed, prosecuted, whatever is necessary it's you know, the thin blue line thing and covering for officers and doing this and that, and it just is so far from the truth and it's just such. It's frustrating that that myth persists when it just it shouldn't and it doesn't work that way. And you can, you know, you spend a little time, you see it doesn't work that way, but yet that information just never gets out there. Yep, that's what we get out in the trial, we at. That's what we get out in the trial. We, the least, these 12 people on the jury are going to understand that, yeah, but it seems to just. It never goes farther, yeah.
Speaker 1:Representing officers is easy in the sense that when we tell them we need you here on this state at this time, dress like this, or bring us this and this, or don't do that, they will follow instructions. They will comply with instructions. But these guys and gals have never been in trouble before, and here they're being accused of a crime and they're accused of an integrity violation. That's heavy stuff, and so part of what we have to do is work through all that. I hope this doesn't sound offensive, but we do a fair bit of hand-holding to help them cope with the mental aspect of it too, Because it's not going to be over quick.
Speaker 1:Thankfully, we have some former clients who have been on this journey with us who can also provide additional support and help them cope with the idea that it's going to be some time before we get this resolved.
Speaker 4:Cops are traditionally fixers. We get sent to a scene and we're supposed to fix it in four minutes so we can get to the next call. But when it's our problem we're not usually good patients. Yeah, because we can't fix it and we would like it fixed in four minutes, like we have to fix all the family violence calls we go on, so I would imagine we don't make good patients.
Speaker 1:And they'll ask, rightfully, how is this fair? And we don't have a good answer for that most of the time, but we have to help them, steer them through this journey that, ultimately, is going to end in a courtroom with, ideally, an acquittal. So far that's happened every time An acquittal.
Speaker 4:And congratulations, because occasionally it ends up in a full pardon, and congratulations, because occasionally it ends up in a full pardon. Kudos to you for the recent pardon by the governor on a case that you guys were affiliated with.
Speaker 1:Yep Sergeant Daniel Perry. I represented him. Ken was in the background giving me suggestions.
Speaker 4:Fellow soldier.
Speaker 1:Yep, he shot a protester in downtown Austin during the riots of May 2020. His car was surrounded, there's a complete media circus and very few of the relevant facts are actually being discussed. Instead, everybody's outraged Anyhow. Yeah, thank you.
Speaker 2:Congratulations. It's a huge win, I guess for innocence, and I guess the good guy got a win on that one. I mean, I'll just end it at that because I don't want to get too much into the political aspect of it.
Speaker 1:It's very similar to an officer case in the sense it's over now, or at least the felony portion is over. He's been released from prison, but he still had to do over a year and a week in prison. So you can't call that winning. Best you can do is call that relief.
Speaker 2:Well, but you stand beside him the whole way through as well. I'm sure he appreciates it. I appreciate it as a Texan and we appreciate it in the TNPA. All the work that you've done, both of you, thank you. We typically like to end each show with three rapid-fire questions. You want to knock them out, because I screw them up every time. Anything, we didn't hit you guys.
Speaker 3:I think we covered, yeah, all the broad ground.
Speaker 1:I can't think of anything else.
Speaker 4:If so, we'll do a part two someday.
Speaker 2:Yeah.
Speaker 4:Rapid-fire questions. Number two may not be exactly applicable. Favorite line from a cop movie or favorite cop movie?
Speaker 3:Yikes, anything from Super Troopers. Great one.
Speaker 1:Yep, that's pretty common. Does Point Break count?
Speaker 3:Sure Wait, I'm Sermio.
Speaker 2:I'm Sermio. That's a good one.
Speaker 1:I got that one. Yeah, exactly, it was undercover agent. It's a good movie.
Speaker 2:Nobody said that yet it's a blast from the past it is that one um.
Speaker 4:The second one is favorite cop car. Um, how about just favorite color cop car car, no Cop car, or car, cop car.
Speaker 2:We told you a cop car yeah.
Speaker 3:I like the 70s square body old school After Barney Fife, well before modern period, Just sort of the classic one or two lights Like the smoky and mad Okay yeah, caprice classic or something like that.
Speaker 1:So I don't have a cop car, but I will tell you that I own a 1979 Toyota Land Cruiser FJ40.
Speaker 2:Those are awesome Sweet.
Speaker 1:Yeah, and I don't get to drive it often enough. Hopefully I'll come over and take you guys to lunch in it. Yeah.
Speaker 3:I'd like to see that. That'd be awesome. I've got to change my answer. It's the helicopter I've been up in Air 1, Air 2. My co-counsel sitting off camera over here has been up in it. Yes, the helicopter my favorite.
Speaker 4:Yes, I like that. I'm good with that. Last one is favorite beverage when relaxing. Yep.
Speaker 3:Bour favorite beverage when relaxing. Yeah, bourbon. Yeah, any particular bourbon, one that's closest to arm's reach uh yeah, any of the wellers are good. Um, got a nice whistle pig at the moment. Um, but yeah, just whatever's closest neat on the rock. Nothing, just neat.
Speaker 1:So we've been on a streak where clients thankful clients which is frequent give us scotch and so I'm glad Ken's setting the record straight we prefer bourbon. Hopefully you know you'll never have to hire us, but if you do and you're happy, we like bourbon. Yeah, bourbon.
Speaker 2:Hopefully you know you'll never have to hire us, but if you do and you're happy. We like bourbon. Yeah, bourbon, it's understandable.
Speaker 1:And I tend to keep Coors Light in the office fridge just as well.
Speaker 2:extra A silver bullet. You can't go wrong with those.
Speaker 4:You're going to have something in the office fridge. Yeah, that's true.
Speaker 2:Well, we can't thank y'all enough for coming on. Thank you for all y'all do for not only, I guess, austin, but all of law enforcement around the region, so we greatly appreciate it.
Speaker 4:You got anything else I don't Team PA FOP joint conference coming up July 26th through 28th in Dallas. Please get registered. Look forward to seeing you guys there and got some good speakers and Look forward to having everybody there.
Speaker 2:Yep, yep, you guys take care, stay safe, god bless you and, as always, may God bless Texas.
Speaker 1:We're out the Thank you.