Four Dallas High Schools Threatened with Closure

This story was from an article in the Dallas Morning News. You can read it here:.

To sum the story up, four DISD high schools: Kimball, Seagoville, Pinkston, and Roosevelt, have received the state's lowest rating possible of academically unacceptable for the past four years. If they don't improve their rating this year, the Texas Education Agency has threatened to shut the schools down. DISD has come up with alternative plans to keep the schools open that would turn the schools into magnet schools. Up to 75% of the staff could be let go, and 50% of the students would be sent elsewhere.

I know this blog is typically a blog on the latest or interesting topics in criminal law, but I thought it was worth spending a few minutes on this topic. The struggles DISD are facing are unfortunately not unique to Dallas. I would venture a guess that a high percentage of major U.S. cities are facing these same problems with their school districts. To me, the answer obviously isn't simple. There are just too many problems converging and the dam just can't hold up. You have the problem of completely inept leadership at the administration level. Michael Hinojosa has been a complete failure as a superintendent, the proof being that for the past two years he has not been given a contract extension at his annual evaluation. That ineptness from the top flows down and permeates every level of administration in the DISD. I'm not saying there aren't good administrators in the DISD, but the inept ones most likely outnumber the good ones. This attitude is present in the classroom as well; there are simply too many teachers working in the DISD that are there to collect their paycheck.

The second issue that is at the forefront with these schools is poverty and the plight of the inner city. Simply throwing money at these four schools will not solve the biggest problem the schools face in my opinion. A huge percentage of these students come from single person households, where mom or dad has to work two, three or four jobs just to put some food on the table. Many of the students themselves are parents. The pressure to join gangs, sell drugs and live the "thug" life is everywhere. What is the answer to this? I know there is a percentage of kids in DISD that want to do well in school so that they can get out and make a better life for themselves. Is the answer to simply concentrate on these students, which I think the magnet school program is designed to do, or is the goal to try and reach every student even if many don't want to be reached. I simply don't know. Hopefully these schools can improve, but recent history isn't on their side. For the students' sake, I hope DISD can handle this without their usual ineptitude and figure out a way to improve these and all the schools in the DISD.

‘Caffeine Psychosis’ May Have Caused Man’s Erratic Driving, Defense Lawyer Says

Really? This is an article posted on the ABA Blog.

‘Caffeine Psychosis’ May Have Caused Man’s Erratic Driving, Defense Lawyer Says

Posted Dec 10, 2009 6:17 PM CST
By Martha Neil



A hard-working financial analyst for the University of Idaho routinely chugged coffee and energy drinks and may have been under the influence of "caffeine psychosis" during an erratic-driving incident that put two college students in the hospital in nearby Washington state, his lawyer says.

Attorney Mark Moorer, who represents Dan Noble, told a Whitman County Superior Court judge that his client could have been high on caffeine when he struck two student pedestrians on the Washington State University campus, according to the Associated Press and the Huckleberries Online blog of the Spokesman-Review.

Judge David Frazier ordered Noble, 31, held until his mental status can be evaluated. Noble is charged with vehicular assault, hit and run and resisting arrest.

The two students are reportedly recovering from their injuries.

Florida v. Powell , Oral Argument December 7, 2009, U.S. Supreme Court

In Florida v. Powell, the issue was whether the Florida Supreme Court's ruling that a suspect must be expressly advised of his right to counsel during custodial interrogation conflicted with Miranda v. Arizona and decisions of federal and state appellate courts.

On August 10, 2004, police investigators went to the apartment of Kevin Dewayne Powell, where his girlfriend permitted the officers to enter the apartment. The officers searched the bedroom, where it appeared Powell had been. In the bedroom, they found a loaded 9mm handgun. Powell was given the Miranda warnings on the Tampa Police Department Standard Police Form 310 and subsequently arrested and questioned at the Tampa Police headquarters. The written warning on the form states:

You have the right to remain silent. If you give up the right to remain silent, anything you say can be used against you in court. You have the right to talk to a lawyer before answering any of our questions. If you cannot afford to hire a lawyer, one will be appointed for you without cost and before any questioning. You have the right to use any of these rights at any time you want during this interview.

The detective at Powell's trial testified that Powell agreed to talk and admitted that the handgun belonged to him. Defense counsel objected on the ground that the Miranda warning was inadequate. The court overruled the objection and Powell was convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm.

On appeal, the Florida Second District Court of Appeals reversed the conviction on the grounds that the warnings read to Powell did not comply with Miranda and were deficient under the Fifth Amendment. The Court emphasized that the right to talk to an attorney before questioning was not the same as having a right to having an attorney present during questioning. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the decision.

The circuit courts have split over this issue. Four circuits have held that a general warning of the right to an attorney is sufficient, while four circuits have held that Miranda requires an express warning of the right to counsel during questioning.

This case will give the Supreme Court an opportunity to refine the procedural guidelines set forth in Miranda by deciding whether a defendant must be adequately informed of his right to counsel during questioning, or whether a general warning of the right to an attorney is sufficient. It will be interesting to see which side the Court comes down on in this issue.