10th Court of Appeals – Center for Law, Engagement, and Politics

Texas 10th Court of Appeals Hosted by the Walker County Bar Association

by Chrissy Biello

The night before the Texas Tenth Court of Appeals convened for oral arguments at Sam Houston State University (SHSU), the Walker County Bar Association hosted a dinner at Sam’s Table to welcome the visiting justices. The guests of honor were Chief Justice Matt Johnson, Justice Lee Harris, and Justice Steven Smith, along with Clerk of the Court Sherry Williamson.

Approximately thirty members of the local legal community gathered for the occasion, including 278th District Judge Tracy Sorensen, 12th Judicial District Judge David Moorman, County Court at Law Judge John Gaines, Municipal Court Judge Devan Dawson, and County Judge Colt Christian. The dinner also drew several prominent attorneys, including Alvin Martin of Smither, Martin, and Henderson; Michael Foreman of Haney, Paschal and Romoser; and multiple representatives from the Walker County Criminal District Attorney’s Office: Assistant District Attorneys Malori Martin (who is arguing a case tomorrow), Jennifer Jenkins, and Graciela Garcia.

Throughout the evening, there were multiple conversations taking place, some filled with friendly laughter, while others centered on the cases scheduled for the following day. Some exchanged thoughts on the legal questions involved, as some of the cases have some interesting aspects that could have greater implications on the legal field.

Clerk of the Court Sherry Williamson shared stories from her early career, including her time serving as clerk of the Eleventh Court of Appeals in Eastland, Texas. While reflecting on her time there, she mentioned “Ol’ Rip,” the legendary horned toad that Eastland is known for. According to local lore, Ol’ Rip survived a thirty-one-year hibernation, only to later pass away from pneumonia. The toad is now on display at the Eastland Courthouse!

Ol Rip in a custom-made coffin at the Courthouse

While speaking with SHSU LEAP students, Chief Justice Johnson shared his journey into law. He spoke about his early career as a practicing attorney and the transition into becoming a judge. He first served as Justice of the Peace in McLennan County, then as Judge of the 54th District Court for fourteen years, before being elected to the Texas Tenth Court of Appeals in 2020. During the conversation, he emphasized the importance of gaining trial experience for those who aspire to serve on the bench.

Judge David Moorman also spoke highly of the opportunity for students to observe the appellate court in action, calling it a unique and valuable educational experience.

The event served as both a warm welcome to the visiting court and a reminder of the strength and collegiality within the local legal community. The justices will hear three cases at SHSU tomorrow, including two driving while intoxicated cases and one involving injury to a child. The Center for Law, Engagement, and Politics continues to be grateful that the Texas Tenth Court of Appeals visits Sam Houston State University each year. The event offers a multitude of valuable learning experiences. You can read more about the event here.

Murder and Mayhem Come to SHSU–but in a good way

For 13 years, the LEAP Center has hosted the 10th Court of Appeals, allowing Sam Houston State University students and Huntsville residents to hear three appellate court cases in the courtroom of the George Beto Criminal Justice Building. The 10th Court of Appeals, out of Waco, TX, serves 18 counties in Texas including Walker County. The court, which currently consists of Chief Justice Gray, Justice Johnson, and Justice Smith, is able to travel and try cases in any county seat in their jurisdiction.

We had a full house for every case today and a line out the door, waiting to see if a seat would be available. In the first case this morning we were happy to have District Attorney Will Durham watch the case, checking things out in advance of his turn in the courtroom at 1:30pm.

The unique thing about the hearings held at SHSU is that the lawyer for each party is allotted three minutes to relay the facts of the case to the audience.

After those three minutes the attorneys turn to the Justices and begin their 20-minute formal arguments. The Justices can interrupt for questions at any point during the arguments and after each attorney has spoken, the appellant attorney then gets a 5-minute rebuttal to the defense.

Another special treat, at least for us, is that during these hearings, LEAP Ambassadors were asked to fill in for the Clerk, who is responsible for, among other things, asking the visitors to “All Rise” and then asking for a blessing on the court.

During the first case today, the appellant attorney’s main issue with the previous court ruling was that there was insufficient evidence to charge the appellant with manslaughter. The attorney argued that a manslaughter charge includes knowledge about the substantial risk of death, of which the appellant did not have. The attorney for The State of Texas actually brought props and photos that were used during the original trial to argue against the appellant party.

The second hearing was a real treat because President White was able to sit in on the arguments. It was the first time in 10th Court history that a University President attended at SHSU!

The second hearing broke down the importance of understanding Miranda Warnings and how language barriers can affect criminal proceedings.

After the 11 am hearing, the court was adjourned for lunch where LEAP students were able to talk with the justices, President White, and court staff. I was lucky enough to be sitting with Justice Smith and Justice Johnson, who discussed their careers as attorneys and how they fell into the position of judge, and eventually to justice.

LEAP Ambassadors also provided Justice Gray with a gift basket and a heartfelt thank you as this is his last year doing the 10th Court of Appeals at Sam Houston State University, his alma mater.

Court readjourned at 1:30 pm with the final hearing of the day. The court room was attended by County Clerk Leslie Woolley and Judge Tracy Sorensen. This case was really interesting as the main arguments pertained to the use of cell-phone data. In 2008 police obtained records from a man’s cellphone that linked him to a murder, but 10 years later the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that police must get a search warrant for that information; essentially, the question was should the data then be used in trial.

Thank you to everyone who came out to watch the cases today, especially President White. Thank you to Chief Justice Gray, Justice Johnson, and Justice Smith for allowing students to have this opportunity and for being so welcoming and helpful to future law students. Chief Justice Gray, we wish you well in your retirement and we want to thank you for continuously showing support for the LEAP Center and the Pre-Law Program at SHSU.

All Rise: The 10th Court of Appeals

For the 12th year, the LEAP Center hosted the 10th Court of Appeals, allowing Sam Houston State University students and Huntsville residents to hear three appellate court cases in the Kerper Courtroom. The 10th Court of Appeals out of Waco, TX, which currently consists of Chief Justice Gray, Justice Johnson, and Justice Smith, serves 18 counties in Texas including Walker County.

We had a great showing for the first case, and we were happy to have Judges Moorman and Sorenson on hand to watch the cases.

One of the unusual things about these hearings is that each lawyer has three minutes to describe the facts of the case to the audience, after which they turn to the Justices and begin their formal arguments.

Attorneys have 20 minutes to make their arguments, which judges can interrupt for questions, and the appellant attorney gets a five-minute rebuttal after the appellee attorney has spoken. One of the enjoyable aspects about this year’s iteration of the cases is that we had the chance to sit in the jury box!

The second case, which involved deed restrictions, was unusual in that one of the parties was in the courtroom, as the attorneys argued their case.

After the 11 am hearing, the court was adjourned for lunch where LEAP Students were able to talk with the justices, community members, and even the Court Bailiff. I was lucky enough to be sitting with Justice Smith and Justice Johnson, who discussed their path to law school and their careers prior to being judges. We were able to ask questions about court proceedings and discussed how law enforcement and prosecutors work together. One question that I was excited to have answered was why attorneys always say, “May it please the court” before presenting their argument. Justice Smith informed us that it is a tradition and has no meaning or necessity. He also told us that he always wanted to say “It doesn’t” in response. The lunch was very valuable, allowing students to receive advice about their career paths and talk about their endeavors at school.

Court readjourned at 1:30 pm with another civil matter over a Lady Bird Deed, and the hearing turned out to be what is referred to as a “hot panel.” This Deed was drawn by a husband and wife to give land to the husband’s son. The wife revoked the deed after the husband’s passing and now the question is whether she is able to do that or not. There were a lot of questions asked by the judges and one very interesting point a student made to me after the hearing was the attorneys’ ability to be interrupted, answer the question, and go right back to their original point. This hearing raised a lot of questions about property ownership and intent, which was interesting to hear. At the end of the hearing, audience members were able to ask questions, and we learned much more about the justices, their workload, and the attorneys’ views on their careers.

After the audience and attorneys left, LEAP students were able to get pictures and have their brochures signed by the Justices. We helped clean up and continued to discuss different career paths within the legal profession, specifically discussing staff attorneys.

Thank you to everyone who came out to watch the cases today. Thank you to Chief Justice Gray, Justice Johnson, and Justice Smith for allowing students to have this opportunity and for being so welcoming and helpful to future law students.

Appeals on Wheels–SHSU Version

Saara Maknojia

On April 13th the LEAP Center hosted the 10th Court of Appeals, which came in from Waco to hear cases on SHSU’s campus. Like all Appeals courts, the 10th COA holds hearings that review the legal process of lower courts, assessing whether an actionable error occurred. Currently, the three Justices serving on the 10th Court of Appeals are Chief Justice Tom Gray, Justice Matt Johnson, and Justice Steven Smith. The Court heard three cases throughout the day, one at 10 am, 11 am, and another at 1:30 pm.

The LEAP Ambassadors gathered the large crowd outside of the Kerper Courtroom in the College of Criminal Justice building. Heather and Jessica handed Courtroom Etiquette Rules and case facts to students and other attendees of the 10th Court of Appeals session.

With 3 cases to hear, the court began around 10:00 a.m. with its first case! The turnout for the first case happened to be one of the largest crowds in recent years, with more than 100 students, faculty, and other audience members. The proceedings begin as all rise, and the Justices enter the room.

As always, Chief Justice Gray introduces elected officials in the crowd, including County Judge Pierce, Judge David Moorman, County Court at Law Judge Tracy Sorensen, and District Clerk elect Leslie Woolley. He also introduced the LEAP Ambassadors.

The first case involved a personal injury claim. The plaintiff sued Cowboy Up (a furniture shop) after her fall from the stairs of the shop which resulted in multiple injuries.

One of the features of this program is that the Justices allow the attorneys to turn to the audience and describe the facts of the case, which helps the lay audience follow along, somewhat, with the legalities.

Students, in particular, enjoyed the hearing of the first case and were left with many thoughts, reflections, and imponderables.

Once the first case wrapped up around 11 a.m., the judges remained in their places while the new audience found their seats. As the crowd settled down the hearing of the second case began.

Lasting about 60-70 minutes, the second case concerned the mask mandate enforced by Governor Greg Abbott. The legalities associated with this case were the most complex, and not all of the audience (including me!) followed along fully.

Nonetheless, the seriousness and importance of this case informed the audience of the role of the governor vis-a-vis local officials, while also highlighting the importance of jurisdictional issues.

After the conclusion of the second case, the three judges, elected officials, and the LEAP Ambassadors made their way to the Friel’s conference room for a brief lunch before the third case hearing and question sessions began.

During this time the LEAP Ambassadors spoke with Justice Gray, Justice Johnson and Justice Smith, Judge Sorensen, staff attorneys Rick Bradly and Jill Durbin, Court Clerk Nita Whitener, and District Clerk elect Leslie Woolley.

Discussions held at lunch ranged from the future career goals of the LEAP Ambassadors to the positions held by each judge present in the room, to conversations about which law schools are the best and of course the tasty cookies Linda McKenzie sent for our lunch since she could not attend.

Wrapping up our conversations and lunch, the LEAP Ambassadors and Judges made their way back into the courtroom for the last hearing of the day.

In the third case, the appellant, Michael Todd Austin was represented by Carmen Roe and Brian Wice for his conviction of sexual assault.

This case was very well delivered, easy to understand, and kept brief as both appellant and appellee argued the facts of the case.

As the last case came to an end, Chief Justice Gray opened the floor to the audience members, who had many questions for the attorneys regarding their jobs and roles. One student asked, “How do refrain from emotional attachment in cases such as the one presented today?” while others asked about the duration of cases and the complexity of courtroom procedures. Justice Gray, Carmen Roe, and Brian Wice, along with the prosecution attorney Doug Howell…

…answered each question with extensive knowledge for the students!

After the question session, the LEAP Ambassadors made their way down to greet the judges and have informal conversations and take pictures!

It was an honor hosting the 10th Court of Appeals for another year. We are very thankful to Chief Justice Gray, Justice Johnson, and Justice Smith for coming to Sam Houston and making it a memorable experience for students and faculty!

10th Court of Appeals: 2019

Every year, the LEAP Center hosts the 10th Court of Appeals, which hears 3-4 cases on Sam Houston State University’s campus. The three Justices serving on the 10^th Court of Appeals are Chief Justice Tom Gray of Waco, who is also an SHSU College of Business Administration alumnus; Justice Rex Davis of Waco; and newly-appointed Justice John E. Neill of Burleson.

SHSU, LEAP Center, LEAP Ambassadors, Kerper Courtroom, Texas 10th Court of Appeals, Justice Tom Gray

Our job is primarily to (1) market the event, (2) take care of the logistics, (3) arrange lunch, and (4) learn as much as possible. We rotate greeting duties at the door, while other Ambassadors join the spectators inside, giving us all the opportunity to see at least two cases.

SHSU, LEAP Center, LEAP Ambassadors, 10th Court of Appeals, Chief Justice Tom Gray,

We had several elected officials join us, including County-Court-At-Law Judge Tracy Sorenson…

SHSU, LEAP Center, LEAP Ambassadors, 10th Court of Appeals, Chief Justice Tom Gray, Judge Tracy Sorensen

…District Judge Don Kramer…

SHSU, LEAP Center, LEAP Ambassadors, 10th Court of Appeals, Chief Justice Tom Gray, Judge Don Kramer

…and County Judge Danny Pierce…

SHSU, LEAP Center, LEAP Ambassadors, 10th Court of Appeals, Chief Justice Tom Gray, Judge Danny Pierce

They were part of a crowd that totaled some 240 students, staff, faculty, administrators, and members of the public, making for a strong audience.

Before each case, Justice Tom Gray introduces the justices and the attorneys…

SHSU, LEAP Center, LEAP Ambassadors, Kerper Courtroom, Texas 10th Court of Appeals, Justice Tom Gray

…educates the public on how an appeal hearing unfolds…

SHSU, LEAP Center, LEAP Ambassadors, 10th Court of Appeals, Chief Justice Tom Gray,

…and lays out the courtroom etiquette.

SHSU, LEAP Center, LEAP Ambassadors, 10th Court of Appeals, Chief Justice Tom Gray,

The first case was Deanna Kathryn Lara v. The State of Texas. In this case, appellant Lara was found guilty by a jury of three counts of sexual assault of a child and five counts of improper relationship between educator and student. The appeal addresses whether a 17-year-old can, in fact, consent to a relationship with an educator when the Texas Penal Code bans school employees from arguing the defense of consent.

It’s not easy, of course, to make a case for a person who molested young people, particularly when there were three victims. The District Court sentenced Lara to three concurrent terms, which made us wonder why having one of the cases dismissed would be beneficial to Ms. Lara. Her attorney, however, educated us, pointing out that the number of convictions can make a difference during the parole hearing.

The second case involved a similar crime. In Everett Dale Webb v. The State of Texas, appellant Webb was found guilty by a jury of Indecency with a Child. The appeal questions the introduction of “extraneous offense evidence” allowed into the trial.

One of the aspects of the hearings that are different from the normal unfolding of an appeals hearing is that the Justices permit us to take photographs and they allow the attorneys to spend three minutes turning to the audience and explaining the “facts of the case.”

SHSU, LEAP Center, LEAP Ambassadors, 10th Court of Appeals, Chief Justice Tom Gray,

This helps us as students understand the legal arguments better, and also provides a more dynamic experience than a hearing would normally offer.

In this case, the attorney highlighted exactly what was meant by “extraneous evidence” and how he believes it inappropriately influenced the verdict, while the prosecutor, of course, argued that no extraneous information was admitted, and if extraneous information was admitted, it didn’t affect the outcome.

SHSU, LEAP Center, LEAP Ambassadors, 10th Court of Appeals, Chief Justice Tom Gray,

Following the second case, we have the privilege of having lunch with the Justices. Traditionally, we invite elected officials, University administrators, or local attorneys to join us, and this year, we invited Judge Sorensen and Associate Vice-Provost Chris Maynard to join us.

SHSU, LEAP Center, LEAP Ambassadors, 10th Court of Appeals, Chief Justice Tom Gray, Judge Tracy Sorensen, Office Joe Thornton, Vice Provost Chris Maynard

The discussion during lunch is far-reaching, encompassing the mascots of various schools (“Why isn’t the ‘Kats’ in Bearkats spelled with a ‘C’?)…

SHSU, LEAP Center, LEAP Ambassadors, 10th Court of Appeals, Chief Justice Tom Gray, Judge Tracy Sorensen, Office Joe Thornton, Vice Provost Chris Maynard

….to the nuances of family law…

SHSU, LEAP Center, LEAP Ambassadors, 10th Court of Appeals, Chief Justice Tom Gray, Judge Tracy Sorensen, Office Joe Thornton, Vice Provost Chris Maynard

…to the activities of the LEAP Ambassadors.

SHSU, LEAP Center, LEAP Ambassadors, 10th Court of Appeals, Chief Justice Tom Gray, Judge Tracy Sorensen, Office Joe Thornton, Vice Provost Chris Maynard

It really is a wonderful opportunity for us to expand our professional network, while also learning substantively about the law. But it is a short lunch, because the third hearing begins at one.

Our last case of the day involved Gary L. Tyson, Sr. v. The State of Texas, in which appellant Tyson was convicted of manufacturing or delivery of a controlled substance. His attorneys argue that (1) a witness’s allegedly prejudicial statements should have constituted a mistrial and (2) the charges were inappropriately based on the total weight of the ten cocaine rocks when the state failed to demonstrate that each of the rocks did, in fact, contain cocaine.

Because the arrest was made in Walker County, it involved local officers and the newly-elected Walker County DA, Will Durham. This was also unusual because the appellant was actually in the courtroom.

In this case, the defense again led off with the facts of the case.

SHSU, LEAP Center, LEAP Ambassadors, 10th Court of Appeals, Chief Justice Tom Gray, Judge Tracy Sorensen, Office Joe Thornton, Vice Provost Chris Maynard

And we did have a chance to see DA Durham make the County’s case before the Justices…

SHSU, LEAP Center, LEAP Ambassadors, 10th Court of Appeals, Chief Justice Tom Gray, Judge Tracy Sorensen, Office Joe Thornton, Vice Provost Chris Maynard

This was perhaps the most interesting case, and was most definitely the most full.

SHSU, LEAP Center, LEAP Ambassadors, 10th Court of Appeals, Chief Justice Tom Gray, Judge Tracy Sorensen, Office Joe Thornton, Vice Provost Chris Maynard

Following the case, the Justices permitted the audience to ask questions.

SHSU, LEAP Center, LEAP Ambassadors, 10th Court of Appeals, Chief Justice Tom Gray

Victoria asked the first question, “What percentage of the cases that you hear results in you overturning the lower-court’s decision?” The answer was probably not heartening to the defendant in the courtroom: 2-5 percent.

SHSU, LEAP Center, LEAP Ambassadors, 10th Court of Appeals, Chief Justice Tom Gray

Other questions included whether “race can influence the court’s decision” and “what the sentences are for different volumes of cocaine.” To the latter question, the court deferred to DA Durham, who emphasized that, while he was only “90 days on the job,” believed that the minimum sentence could more than double.

SHSU, LEAP Center, LEAP Ambassadors, 10th Court of Appeals, Chief Justice Tom Gray,

Following the final case, we had a chance to ask some more individualized questions to the Justices…

SHSU, LEAP Center, LEAP Ambassadors, 10th Court of Appeals, Chief Justice Tom Gray, Justice John Neill, Justice Rex Davis

…and then we took formal photos.

SHSU, LEAP Center, LEAP Ambassadors, 10th Court of Appeals, Chief Justice Tom Gray, Justice John Neill, Justice Rex Davis

It is a real pleasure and honor to host the court each year, and we are very grateful for Dean Lyons (COCJ), Officer Thornton, Deputies Barak and Walker, Tim Mullings, Amanda Burris, and Sabrina Rowley for their assistance and hospitality.

Justice Arrives: The 10th Court of Appeals on SHSU’s Campus

by Victoria McClendon-Leggett and Chase Kennemer

For the past eight years the LEAP Center has had the honor of bringing the Texas Tenth Court of Appeals to Sam Houston State University. The court has the privilege to travel to any county in which they have jurisdiction. Today the Court tried three trials in the Beto Criminal Justice Center’s Hazel B. Kerper Courtroom.

There were three oral arguments held there, two involving Texas A&M, and one involving a homicide case in Walker County. Students across campus packed the court room to the point where the Ambassadors gave up their seats to ensure there enough seats for people to sit!

SHSU, LEAP Center, LEAP Ambassadors, 10th Court of Appeals, Chief Justice Tom Gray, Justice Al Scoggins, Justice Rex Davis

With three separate cases at different times, we held a steady flow of people inside of the court room listening and thinking about what the outcome of the cases would be. While the veteran Ambassadors have experienced this before, we all still had a sense of awe and wonder as we watched the cases go back and forth.

SHSU, LEAP Center, LEAP Ambassadors, 10th Court of Appeals, Chief Justice Tom Gray, Justice Al Scoggins, Justice Rex Davis

As the Justices sat in their chairs, Chief Justice Gray explained the process of the Appeals Court.

SHSU, LEAP Center, LEAP Ambassadors, 10th Court of Appeals, Chief Justice Tom Gray, Justice Al Scoggins, Justice Rex Davis

The process is one of review, rather than retrying a case. In other words, these cases have already been tried. Their purpose here is to review the procedures followed during the original trial to determine whether they were appropriate.

These hearings are also unique in that the attorneys are given three minutes at the beginning of each hearing to turn to the audience–mostly students–and explain the facts of the case. This segment has no bearing on the justices, but allows the audience to better follow the legal arguments.

SHSU, LEAP Center, LEAP Ambassadors, 10th Court of Appeals, Chief Justice Tom Gray, Justice Al Scoggins, Justice Rex Davis

Understanding background information of the case allowed us to better understand the oral arguments both attorneys made. Each party had approximately 20 minutes of argument time and, as we learned, the Appellant who presents the argument first, also receives five minutes for rebuttal after the Appellee has concluded his argument. During the last five minutes, the Appellant’s purpose is to counterclaim the argument(s) delivered by the other attorney.

The first case was one of wrongful death. A TAMU student ingested cyanide obtained from a TAMU Lab, and his parents sued for wrongful death. With the parents in the courtroom, this was a sad and somber case to hear.

SHSU, LEAP Center, LEAP Ambassadors, 10th Court of Appeals, Chief Justice Tom Gray, Justice Al Scoggins, Justice Rex Davis

The second case involved a homicide in Walker County, and featured local attorney Paxton Adams for the defense…

SHSU, LEAP Center, LEAP Ambassadors, 10th Court of Appeals, Chief Justice Tom Gray, Justice Al Scoggins, Justice Rex Davis

…and Walker County DA David Weeks (and first ADA, Stephanie Stroud) for the prosecution.

SHSU, LEAP Center, LEAP Ambassadors, 10th Court of Appeals, Chief Justice Tom Gray, Justice Al Scoggins, Justice Rex Davis

Both of these cases were packed, with approximately 125 people attending the first case (the courtroom only seats 112) and approximately 75 attending the second.

With strong attendance, interesting cases, and a unique opportunity in our midst, the court adjourned for lunch–which presented a new opportunity for the Ambassadors.

10^th Court of Appeals Lunch, by Victoria McClendon-Leggett

After hearing the second oral argument, the crowds dispersed and a few of us lucky students had the opportunity to have lunch with the justices and two of our local attorneys, David Moorman and Will Durham, the latter of whom is the Walker County District Attorney Elect. We enjoyed a spread of sandwiches, pasta salad, potato chips, and iced tea as we sat around the long conference table in the Beto Criminal Justice Center on campus.

SHSU, LEAP Center, LEAP Ambassadors, 10th Court of Appeals, Chief Justice Tom Gray, Justice Al Scoggins, Justice Rex Davis

We were able to ask both the justices and attorneys about law school and what they enjoy most about their careers.

SHSU, LEAP Center, LEAP Ambassadors, 10th Court of Appeals, Chief Justice Tom Gray, Justice Al Scoggins, Justice Rex Davis

Chief Justice Gray told us that they picked these three cases especially to be heard on our campus because two revolved around another university like ours, and the other occurred here in Walker county.

SHSU, LEAP Center, LEAP Ambassadors, 10th Court of Appeals, Chief Justice Tom Gray, Justice Al Scoggins, Justice Rex Davis

The justices also praised the Criminal Justice Center’s Kerper Courtroom (thank you Dean Lyons!) and Sam Houston State University’s excellent facilities. While our university may not be as well-known as others, the privilege of having the 10th Court of Appeals hear cases on our campus is a major opportunity for pre-law students or others who like to follow the law.

We wished we were able to have more time with the justices, but our lunch time was limited because the last case was scheduled to start at 1pm. We thanked the justices for traveling all the way to our school and then got ready to sit in on the last case.

Final Case

The final case of the day involved a TAMU student who may or may not have been evading arrest. He was found guilty by the trial court, but his attorneys argued that the jury failed to properly apply the law: that, without knowing definitively that an officer–who was on foot–was asking him to pull over, he could not be convicted of evading arrest.

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

His attorney was eloquent and made a clear case. The state, however, argued that this was not even a case for appeal.

SHSU, LEAP Center, LEAP Ambassadors, 10th Court of Appeals, Chief Justice Tom Gray, Justice Al Scoggins, Justice Rex Davis

Although these cases are a wonderful way to see the process unfold, they do not bring resolution! The cases may take months to be decided, so we were left wondering which side would prevail.

Wrapup

At the end of the arguments the LEAP students were able to meet with the justices again…

SHSU, LEAP Center, LEAP Ambassadors, 10th Court of Appeals, Chief Justice Tom Gray, Justice Al Scoggins, Justice Rex Davis

…and also to take a picture with all of the Justices (Justice Davis, Chief Justice Gray, and Justice Scoggins).

SHSU, LEAP Center, LEAP Ambassadors, 10th Court of Appeals, Chief Justice Tom Gray, Justice Al Scoggins, Justice Rex Davis

We are so grateful to all the justices to take their time to travel all the way to Huntsville and allow us to learn as much as possible from them.

Appeals on Wheels: 10th COA Rolls into SHSU

If it’s spring, it’s time for the 10th Court of Appeals to hear four cases at Sam Houston State University. This year’s cases proved remarkably diverse, and students received a live, up-close education on the application of the law.

The 10th Court of Appeals first came to SHSU six years ago, in 2011. It was the brain-child of Chief Justice Tom Gray, and his colleagues Justice Al Scoggins and Justice Rex Davis enthusiastically agreed to come to Sam Houston. Professor Mike Yawn and the group “formerly known as the Junior Fellows” soon got into the act, and there has been much legal fun since then.

The education isn’t only watching the cases in action; it’s also seeing the courtroom procedure unfold. From the “All Rise, Oyez, Oyez, Oyez”

…to Justice Gray’s explanations of courtroom decorum…

…to the attorneys, who are able (only in this setting) to explain the facts of the case to us…

…to watching the attorneys’ behavior outside the courtroom…

..the education is unique–and that’s before we even talk about the cases!

Speaking of which, this year’s cases ran the legal gamut. The 10am session (Capstone v. IES Contracting) actually involved SHSU, with the University believing that construction of Sam Houston Village was faulty. This was a complex case, one involving multiple subcontractors, mergers, and much elapsed time.

The 11am session (Annette Knopf and Stanley Gray v. William and Karen Gray) involved a disputed will, which had been written by Ms. Vada Allen. She left property to her son, but confusion resulted from her will. In particular, there was a question as to whether some of the property was a life estate–that is, given to her son for his lifetime–or whether he had outright ownership. This was not only an interesting legal situation, but also a good life lesson about the difficulty of writing your own will. (Interestingly, this case involved the legal firm for which Kaitlyn Tyra works as a courier.)

As has become our custom, the Justices broke for lunch, and we were able to join them, along with other legal professionals in the community. Just before we ate, Justice Tom Gray presented Professor Yawn with a signed copy of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas’s autobiography, a nice touch to a nice day.

Also nice was the lunch conversation…

…which touched on school issues, our hopefulness about our legal careers, and the cases of the day.

Following lunch, we again worked the doors for the two most interesting cases. The 1pm (in re Troy Paul) session involved Troy Paul and Destiny Spillers, who may or may not have been informally married. They weren’t formally married, but Destiny argued that their relationship constituted a “common-law” marriage, which entitled her to spousal support–support, that is, beyond the $250,000 Mercedez that she was bought by Mr. Paul. The case involves not only the question of support, but also of legal fees to the tune of $425,000.

The final case of the day (Noe Cosino v. The State of TX) involved the cutting-edge issue of a blood draw in the absence of a warrant. The courts have previously held that such draws could be made in “exigent circumstance,” but more recent decisions have blurred the lines.

Following the cases, we spent a little more time with the Justices, taking photos and asking them to sign the case descriptions.

It was a fun morning and afternoon, a wonderful in-depth education for the LEAP Ambassadors, and for more than 200 SHSU students, a nice exposure to our legal system.

Law and Order Comes to SHSU

The Center for Law, Engagement, And Politics has hosted the 10th Court of Appeals for five straight years, and the Court’s latest visit offered an especially interesting set of cases.

The first case, Brett Shane Arnold V., The State of Texas, the Fourth amendment and the Texas Parks and Wildlife Code. Appellant Brett Shane Arnold and three other men had been canoeing and kayaking on the Navasota River when Game Warden, Leanne Winkenwerder, inspected their vehicle to determine if they had life jackets or had been illegally fishing or hunting. She found no evidence of that, but she did find marijuana, which was sufficient to convict him of drug possession in a trial court. Arnold’s appeal sought to suppress the marijuana, which he argued was found during an illegal search.

The 11:00am hearing was even more interesting, involving a wrongful death suit. In that case, Thomas Sinclair, owner of the Wispers “Gentleman’s Club” in Corsicana, Texas was appealing a civil trial that found him largely responsible for a patron’s death. The dispute stemmed from the patron’s dissatisfaction with a lap dance, which led to a complaint, an escalating argument, and then a whipping (with an actual whip) by the club’s owner.

The appeals hearings are a bit different when held at SHSU. The court allows the attorneys to turn to the audience (mostly students, but faculty, staff, and locals, too) and spend three minutes discussing the facts of the case. This is an unusual opportunity, allowing us to understand the legal arguments better. With an audience of 302 students, locals, and faculty and staff on hand throughout the day, it was quite an experience.

The Chief Justice also introduces each case with a brief lesson on the proceedings, how to find the decisions (http://www.txcourts.gov//10thcoa.aspx), and even an explanation for the seating arrangements for the justices.

The biggest treat for the LEAP Center students was the lunch with the justices and their staff. I was able to speak extensively with Chief Gray, while Austin had the chance to discuss his future with Justice Davis, and Karla, Megan, and Kaitlyn had the chance to speak to Justice Scoggins. I learned that Chief Justice Gray didn’t set out to be a judge, or even a lawyer. He obtained his BA at SHSU, and his MBA at A&M, before going to law school. He told me that the best quality he has in regard to judging is being able to see and argue both sides of any argument, which was a useful skill for him while working at Fulbright & Jaworski, before becoming a judge.

Finishing up lunch, the judges proceeded back into the courtroom to continue the rest of the afternoon’s cases. The cases ranged from the alleged sexual misconduct of an A&M student to jurisdiction issues regarding lumber companies in two different states.

After the last case of the afternoon, the three judges took photos with some of the LEAP center students and Chief Justice Gray humbly gave a statement to Hannah Zedaker from the Houstonian. All in all, the court proved to be just as informative and exciting as previous goers told us they would be, and left LEAP Center students feeling excited about the prospect of fighting their own cases in the same courtroom.

The LEAP Center brings the 10th Court of Appeals to SHSU annually. The 10th Court is scheduled next year for April 5, 2016. During the fall of 2016, the TX Supreme Court will hear cases at SHSU.

	The Civic Leadership… on Foundational Activities of the…
	The Civic Leadership… on The Philosophical Foundations…
	LEAPing Into Action… on The Philosophical Foundations…
	Jada Cook on SHSU Students LEAP Across Five…
	Reflections from the… on Kicking off the Semester Right…