🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Dec14.185513.22840@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:

>No, what I cited is what the Texas law says.  Whether or not sentences
>on multiple charges are served concurrently or consecutively is up to
>the judge.  No bending of the law required.

On the contrary: it would take a major bending of the way criminal law is
applied in Texas for it to be applied as you suggested.

>I'm simply following your logic
>and doing what the law says instead of what I think would be a
>'better' sentence.

You seem to have confused me with someone else; I haven't made the
statement you attribute to me here.

>I would question this.  If he was never charged under the Texas
>statute, would it be double jeopardy to so charge him, even if the
>same actions were charged for something else in another jurisdiction? 

Yes, under Texas double-jeopardy law.

(The converse is not true; if Morris had been tried first in Texas,
the Feds could probably prosecute him without violating double-jeopardy
principles.)

>[Actually, I think the real reason that this isn't feasible is that
>the superior court gets jurisdiction first -- which means if the Feds
>want him, they get him first.  It's simply not worth dragging him
>around charging him hither and yon.]

What you say here about "the superior court" is inaccurate. There is no
rule of this sort as to who gets jurisdiction first.

>>What you have written is in accord neither with my principles nor with
>>Texas criminal law.
>
>I believe you may be mistaken on that last one.  And it certainly
>seemed to flow from what your principles were complaining about.

I can't figure out where you're getting this conclusion from my principles.
As for what I'm saying about Texas law, well, it's always possible that
the law has changed since I was admitted to the bar in Texas in 1990
(after gaining my law degree at the University of Texas School of Law).

>>In the Morris case, in my opinion, the law (as interpreted by the
>>government) was wrong. So your discussion here seems inapposite.
>
>Then you're just acting like a jerk, as usual.

This looks like a non sequitur on your part.

>I don't.  I'm hardly the only one you've ever done this sort of crap
>to, Mike.

Oh, I see. You have been elected to represent a group with grievances
against me. How proud you must be.



--Mike Godwin, Texas Bar # 08056825



-- 
Mike Godwin,    |"Everything one invents is true."
mnemonic@eff.org| 
(617) 864-0665  |                           --Flaubert
EFF, Cambridge  |