Julie Chrisley, a reality TV star known for “Chrisley Knows Best,” has had her fraud sentence vacated by an appeals court. In this article, we will discuss what the Julie Chrisley resentencing will look like.

Background of the Case

Julie Chrisley and her husband, Todd Chrisley, were convicted of various charges, including bank fraud, tax evasion, and conspiracy to defraud the IRS. The district court sentenced Julie to 84 months in prison, attributing her the entire loss amount of the bank fraud conspiracy. However, upon appeal, the higher court took issue with the district court’s handling of the loss calculations and the evidence supporting Julie’s involvement before 2007, based largely on the government’s concession on appeal.

Key Facts and Findings

Involvement in the Conspiracy

The central issue was determining the period during which Julie Chrisley was actively involved in the conspiracy. The district court adopted the factual findings that Julie was involved from 2006 to 2012. This was based on the presentence investigation report and the court’s observations during the trial.

Lack of Evidence for 2006

The appeals court found that while there was sufficient evidence to prove Julie’s involvement from 2007 onward, there was a lack of specific evidence to show her participation in 2006. Testimony and documents primarily indicated her active role starting in 2007. For instance, Special Agent Ryskoski’s testimony, which suggested Julie’s involvement “the entire time,” was insufficient without concrete evidence supporting the claim for 2006.

Government’s Concession on Appeal

The government’s brief conceded that the evidence showed Julie’s participation from 2007, not 2006. This concession played a significant role in the appeals court’s decision to vacate the sentence and remand the case for re-evaluation of the loss, restitution, and forfeiture amounts attributable to Julie Chrisley.

Appeals Court Decision

The appeals court’s decision highlighted several critical points:

Need for Specific Findings

The court emphasized the necessity for specific factual findings to support the loss calculations. The district court’s failure to identify its basis for including losses from 2006 made appellate review impossible.

Evidence Evaluation

The court noted that while sufficient evidence supported Julie’s involvement from 2007, the district court and the government did not direct to any specific evidence showing her involvement in 2006. The evidence, such as proceeds from fraudulently obtained loans and testimonies, indicated her role starting in 2007.

Implications for Sentencing

The court vacated Julie’s sentence and remanded the case to the district court to make detailed factual findings and calculations regarding the loss amount. This remand aimed to ensure that the loss, restitution, and forfeiture amounts accurately reflected the period of Julie’s involvement in the conspiracy. Will it make a difference in Julie’s sentence? To answer that question, we need to first discuss how federal sentences are determined and what the effect of removing her from any activity in 2006 will have on her sentence.

Federal Sentencing Guidelines: An Overview

Federal sentences are primarily guided by the United States Sentencing Guidelines (USSG), which provide a framework for judges to determine appropriate sentences for federal crimes. Although these guidelines are now only advisory, they play a crucial role in ensuring consistency and fairness in sentencing.

Key Components of the Federal Sentencing Process

• Base Offense Level: Each type of offense has a base offense level assigned by the guidelines. For example, the base offense level for fraud offenses is determined by the nature of the fraudulent activity. Bank fraud has a base offense level of 7.
• Specific Offense Characteristics: Adjustments are made based on the specific details of the crime. This includes the amount of loss, the number of victims, and other relevant factors. These adjustments can increase or decrease the offense level.
• Adjustments and Departures: Additional adjustments may be applied based on the defendant’s role in the offense (e.g., leader, minor participant), obstruction of justice, acceptance of responsibility, and other factors.
• Criminal History: The defendant’s criminal history is scored, resulting in a Criminal History Category (I to VI). This score influences the sentencing range.
• Sentencing Table: The USSG Sentencing Table uses the final offense level and criminal history category to determine the appropriate sentencing range.
• Advisory Nature: Judges use the guidelines as a starting point but may consider other factors (18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors) to impose a sentence outside the guideline range if justified.

The sentencing memos below highlight how both the government and Julie made arguments regarding these characteristics, factors, and adjustments.

Julie Chrisley’s Sentencing Memorandum

Government’s Sentencing Memorandum Regarding Julie Chrisley

Impact of Loss Amount on the Julie Chrisley Resentencing

Specific Offense Characteristic Adjustment

In financial crimes like fraud, the amount of financial loss significantly affects the offense level. The specific offense characteristic adjustment for the amount of loss is outlined in USSG §2B1.1(b)(1).

• §2B1.1(b)(1)(K): If the loss amount is between $9.5 million and $25 million, the offense level is increased by 20 levels.
• If the Loss Amount is Less than $9.5 million: The increase in offense level would be less.

Example: Impact of a Reduced Loss Amount

Let’s break down how a reduction in the loss amount from $20 million (which falls within the $9.5M – $25M range) to an amount less than $9.5 million would affect the sentence. Given this is such a broad range, and the government estimated her involvement from 2006-2012 amounted to roughly $20 million, it seems unlikely that removing a single year from the calculation would get Julie below 9.5 million. As such, any change in the years she is responsible is unlikely to have any effect on her recommended guideline range. For sake of the example:

Calculation with $20 Million Loss

• Base Offense Level: 7 – from 2B1.1(a)(1)
• Loss Amount Adjustment: +20 (for $9.5M to $25M loss).
• Total Offense Level: 27

Assuming Less than $9.5 Million Loss

• Base Offense Level: 7.
• Loss Amount Adjustment:
  • If the loss is between $3.5M and $9.5M: +18.
• Total Offense Level:
  • For $3.5M to $9.5M: 25

Sentencing Table Impact

Using the USSG Sentencing Table:

• Criminal History Category I (no prior criminal history):
  • Offense Level 25: 57-71 months.

So a 2-level reduction in the offense level (as an example) would have brought a hypothetical 70-87 month range down to 57-71 range.

Calculation of Julie Chrisley’s Sentence

The Presentence Investigation Report (PSR) calculated Julie Chrisley’s total offense level at 38, with a corresponding guideline sentencing range of 235-293 months. However, the government, in its Sentencing Memorandum, recommended a total offense level of 32, which corresponds to a sentencing range of 121-151 months. A hypothetical 2-level reduction there would have resulted in a 97-121 recommended sentencing guideline range.

Federal Sentencing Table

Julie Chrisley’s Sentence and the Effect of the Downward Variance

Ultimately, Julie Chrisley received a sentence of 84 months, which reflects a significant downward variance from even the government’s recommendation. As a result, on resentencing Julie faces two challenges to any further reduction:

1. It is unlikely that removing a single year from the conduct Julie is responsible for will bring the $20 million dollars down to the meaningful threshold of $9.5 million or less.
2. Because Julie was sentenced below the recommended Guideline Range and the judge already granted a downward variance, it is unlikely (but possible) that the judge would further reduce the sentence upon resentencing. This is also while the Government conceded that 2006 should not be included in the loss calculation on appeal.

How Could the Sentence Be Affected by Loss Calculation?

Given the significant downward variance already applied in Julie Chrisley’s case, adjusting the loss amount might not substantially affect her sentence for several reasons:

• Current Sentence Details: Julie Chrisley’s sentence of 84 months is already substantially lower than both the PSR’s guideline range (235-293 months) and the government’s recommended range (121-151 months).
• Downward Variance Explanation: The court already considered factors warranting a lower sentence, possibly including her personal history, circumstances, and other § 3553(a) factors. This means that even if the loss amount were recalculated to reduce her offense level, the court might still find that the 84-month sentence is appropriate based on these broader considerations.
• Sentencing Discretion: Federal judges have considerable discretion to impose sentences below the guideline range, especially when they find that the guideline range does not adequately reflect the § 3553(a) factors. The downward variance in this case indicates that the judge already exercised such discretion extensively.

Illustrative Impact (or Lack Thereof) on Sentencing

If the loss amount attributed to Julie Chrisley were reduced to below $9.5 million, resulting in a lower offense level, the guideline range would decrease accordingly. For example:

• Loss Less Than $9.5 Million (Offense Level 25): If the offense level dropped to 25 (reflecting a reduction in the loss amount adjustment), the corresponding guideline range for a Criminal History Category I would be 57-71 months.
• Loss Between $3.5M and $9.5M (Offense Level 27): If the offense level dropped to 27, the guideline range would be 70-87 months.

However, given that Julie’s current sentence of 84 months is already within or near these lower ranges, further reductions might not be deemed necessary by the court. The significant downward variance already applied demonstrates the court’s view that a lower sentence was appropriate for reasons beyond just the loss amount.

Conclusion

Julie Chrisley’s sentence of 84 months reflects a considerable downward variance from both the PSR’s calculated range and the government’s recommended range. A downward variance, as applied in her case, considers a broader set of factors beyond the specific offense characteristics. Therefore, even if the loss amount were recalculated to result in a lower offense level, it might not lead to a further reduced sentence, given the judge’s extensive consideration of the § 3553(a) factors that warranted the existing downward variance.

Rodeos are an integral part of Texas culture, where excitement and tradition collide. Whether you’re a spectator or a participant, there’s no denying that rodeos offer a thrilling experience filled with heart-pounding moments. However, this event doesn’t come without risks.

For cowboys and cowgirls, the possibility of getting injured at a rodeo comes with the job. But what about the spectators? What happens if they get hurt?

One of the most dangerous scenarios is when a bull escapes the arena and charges into the crowd, causing pandemonium and potential injuries to those in its path. This frightening situation occurred in Oregon just this month and more than two decades ago right here in Fort Worth, Texas, where our law firm is headquartered.

In this article, the personal injury attorneys at Varghese Summersett explain common spectator rodeo injuries, who could be liable for bull or animal escapes, the process of recovering compensation, and how our law firm can help.

If you have been injured or a loved one killed at a Texas rodeo or at the Forth Worth Stock Show & Rodeo, it’s important to seek help from an experienced personal injury lawyer as soon as possible. You may be entitled to substantial compensation for medical expenses, lost wages, pain and suffering, and more.

Common Rodeo Spectator Injuries and How They Occur

Rodeos are thrilling events that attract large crowds eager to witness the excitement of bull riding, barrel racing, and other high-energy competitions. However, the excitement of a rodeo can sometimes come with risks, especially for spectators. Here’s a look at some of the most common rodeo spectator injuries and how they occur:

• Sprains
  How They Occur: Sprains are common when spectators trip or fall while navigating crowded stands or uneven terrain. Ankle sprains can happen when stepping on unstable ground, while wrist sprains might result from trying to break a fall.
• Concussions
  How They Occur: Concussions can occur from a blow to the head, such as being hit by a flying object like a stray piece of equipment or debris from the arena. They can also result from falls where the head strikes the ground or another hard surface.
• Lacerations
  How They Occur: Lacerations, or deep cuts, can happen in various ways at a rodeo. Spectators might suffer lacerations from sharp edges on seating, fencing, or other structures, or from accidents involving animals or equipment.
• Bone Fractures
  How They Occur: Bone fractures can result from falls from heights, such as bleachers, or being pushed or jostled in a crowded area. They can also occur if a spectator is struck by an animal or heavy object.
• Trampling Injuries
  How They Occur: In the event of a panic or rush, such as if an animal breaks free and enters the spectator area, people might be knocked over and trampled by other spectators. These situations can lead to severe injuries, including fractures, internal injuries, and more.
• Heat Exhaustion and Dehydration
  How They Occur: Texas rodeos often take place in hot weather, and prolonged exposure to the sun without adequate hydration can lead to heat exhaustion or dehydration. Symptoms include dizziness, nausea, and fainting.
• Animal-Related Injuries
  How They Occur: Although rare, there is a risk of injury from animals, especially if safety barriers fail or an animal escapes. Injuries can range from bites and kicks to more severe trauma if an animal collides with a spectator.
• Respiratory Issues
  How They Occur: Dust and other airborne particles are common at rodeo events, which can exacerbate respiratory conditions like asthma or lead to respiratory infections.

Understanding these risks and taking appropriate precautions can help spectators enjoy the rodeo safely. However, if an injury does occur, it’s important to know that legal recourse is available. Consulting with a personal injury lawyer can help determine if there is a basis for a claim and guide the injured party through the process of seeking compensation for their injuries.

How Bulls and Other Animals Escape at Rodeos

Bulls are strong animals and can sometimes break through fencing and other measures put in place for safety. Being placed in an environment that the animal is not accustomed to and the chaos that the spectators bring to the arena can cause a bull to become stressed. This can result in an escape or other unpredictable behavior. In addition, human error or equipment malfunction can also contribute to animal escapes at rodeos.

In some cases, rodeo organizers or contractors may be held liable for these incidents if they were negligent in maintaining a safe environment for both participants and spectators. For example, if safety barriers were poorly maintained or inadequate, this could potentially lead to liability.

Examples Of Bulls Escaping And Injuring Spectators

• In June 2024, at the 84th Sisters Rodeo in Oregon, a bull named Party Bus jumped over the arena fence during the final bull ride. The bull ran through the crowd and concession area, flipping one person into the air.  Several people were injured and suffered a leg injury, facial injuries, a possible broken nose, facial abrasions, a suspected head injury, and a suspected broken collarbone.
• In August 2023, a terrifying incident unfolded at the Utah County Fair rodeo in Spanish Fork when a bull escaped from the arena and charged into the parking lot, injuring two spectators. A night of entertainment quickly transformed into panic and horror.
• In 2022, a terrifying incident unfolded at a rodeo in Northern California when a bull managed to escape the arena, injuring five spectators and highlighting the inherent dangers present at such events. In a statement released by a spokesperson shortly following the incident, they claimed, “Livestock jumping the fence is a very rare occurrence.” However, it is still necessary to remain vigilant regarding incidents such as these to ensure that you are prepared to protect yourself.
• In April 1999, a bull named Dillinger made a daring escape at the Fort Worth Stock Show & Rodeo, terrorizing spectators after scaling a 6-foot chute and rampaging through the Will Rogers Memorial Coliseum. This terrifying event left a 66-year-old Tennessee resident with severe injuries, including a shattered cheekbone and multiple fractures. She filed a lawsuit alleging negligence, and her son sought damages for emotional trauma. It was settled out of court.

Risk Assessment Doesn’t Excuse Negligence

Most people assume that the rodeo would be held liable for any spectator injuries. However, under Texas law, this is not always the case. Individuals who have expressed or knowingly agreed to participate in a dangerous activity or condition have essentially “assumed the risk.”

The assumption of risk is a defense that the defendant can raise in a personal injury case. It essentially means that the injured party voluntarily took on the risk associated with an activity and, therefore, cannot hold another person or entity liable for their injuries.

In rodeo spectator cases, this defense may apply if it is found that the individual was aware of and willingly assumed the potential risks involved in attending a rodeo event. However, this does not completely absolve the organizers or contractors from liability. If negligence is proven on their part, they could still be held liable for any injuries sustained by spectators. For example, rodeo officials must have emergency personnel on standby in case someone gets injured and must also take proper safety precautions to prevent animal escapes and other accidents.

It is important for rodeo attendees to be aware of the risks involved in attending such events, and for organizers to take appropriate measures to ensure the safety of their audience. Ultimately, it is a shared responsibility between both parties to minimize risk and promote a safe environment for all participants and spectators.

Who Can Be Held Responsible for Rodeo Spectator Injuries?

Determining liability for rodeo spectator injuries can be complicated. Depending on the circumstances surrounding the incident, several parties may be held accountable.

1. Rodeo Organizers: The primary responsibility often lies with the event organizers, such as the rodeo company or the organization hosting the event. They are responsible for ensuring the safety of the event, which includes adequate barriers, crowd control, and emergency protocols.
2. Venue Owners and Operators: The owners and operators of the venue where the rodeo is held can also be held liable. They are responsible for maintaining the premises in a safe condition and ensuring that any potential hazards are addressed before the event?.
3. Animal Handlers and Contractors: Companies or individuals who provide animals for the rodeo can be liable if it is found that they failed to properly secure or handle the animals, leading to an escape or injury.
4. Equipment Manufacturers: If faulty equipment contributed to the injury, such as defective fencing or barriers, the manufacturers of that equipment could be held liable under product liability laws.
5. Insurance Companies: Insurance policies held by the rodeo organizers, venue operators, or contractors may also play a role in covering damages for injuries sustained by spectators.Each case is unique and may involve multiple parties sharing liability based on their roles and responsibilities in ensuring the safety of the event.

Proving Negligence in Rodeo Spectator Injury Cases

Proving negligence is crucial in personal injury cases. It involves demonstrating that the responsible party failed to take reasonable steps to ensure safety, leading to the injuries sustained.

To prove negligence in Texas rodeo injury cases, you generally need to establish four key elements:

1. Duty of Care: Show that the defendant (such as the rodeo organizers, venue operators, or animal handlers) owed a duty of care to the injured spectator. This means they were responsible for ensuring the safety of the spectators attending the event.
2. Breach of Duty: Demonstrate that the defendant breached this duty by acting negligently. This could involve showing that the defendant failed to provide adequate safety measures, such as proper barriers, sufficient crowd control, or competent handling of animals.
3. Causation: Prove that the breach of duty directly caused the injury. This means linking the negligent actions (or inactions) of the defendant to the specific injuries sustained by the spectator. For instance, if a bull escaped due to inadequate fencing, you need to show that this specific failure led to the injury.
4. Damages: Establish that the spectator suffered actual damages as a result of the injury. This includes physical injuries, medical expenses, lost wages, and other related costs. Documentation such as medical records, bills, and expert testimony can be used to support this claim?.

Examples and Evidence

• Documentation and Records: Collect medical records, photographs of the injury, and any other documentation that can show the extent of the harm and the connection to the incident.
• Eyewitness Testimony: Gather statements from other spectators, event staff, or anyone who witnessed the incident. Their testimony can help corroborate the sequence of events and the conditions that led to the injury.
• Expert Testimony: Use experts in event safety, veterinary science, or other relevant fields to testify about how the negligence occurred and how it could have been prevented.
• Event Policies and Procedures: Review and present the safety protocols and procedures that were in place at the time of the incident. Comparing these to industry standards can help show where the defendants failed in their duty of care.

By thoroughly documenting these elements and presenting strong evidence, a plaintiff can build a compelling case for negligence in a Texas rodeo injury lawsuit?

Types of Compensation for Texas Rodeo Spectator Injuries

In Texas rodeo spectator injury cases, plaintiffs can seek various types of compensation, which are broadly categorized into economic, non-economic, and punitive damages. Here’s an explanation of each type:

1. Economic Damages

Economic damages are intended to compensate for the financial losses directly resulting from the injury. These can include:

• Medical Expenses: Costs for hospital stays, surgeries, doctor visits, medications, physical therapy, and any future medical care related to the injury?.
• Lost Wages: Compensation for income lost due to the injury, including wages lost during recovery and any potential future earnings lost due to long-term or permanent disability?.
• Property Damage: Reimbursement for any personal property that was damaged during the incident?.
• Other Out-of-Pocket Expenses: Any additional costs incurred as a result of the injury, such as travel expenses for medical treatment or modifications to a home to accommodate a disability.

2. Non-Economic Damages

Non-economic damages are intended to compensate for the non-financial impacts of the injury. These can include:

• Pain and Suffering: Compensation for the physical pain and emotional distress endured as a result of the injury?.
• Emotional Distress: Damages for psychological impacts such as anxiety, depression, and trauma resulting from the incident?.
• Loss of Consortium: Compensation for the negative impact on the plaintiff’s relationship with their spouse or family due to the injury?.
• Loss of Enjoyment of Life: Damages for the reduced ability to enjoy life’s activities and hobbies as a result of the injury.

3. Punitive Damages

Punitive damages are not compensatory but are intended to punish the defendant for particularly reckless or malicious behavior and to deter similar conduct in the future. These are awarded in cases where the defendant’s actions were especially egregious or demonstrated a willful disregard for the safety of others?.

To claim these types of compensation, plaintiffs must present strong evidence of the injury’s impact on their life, both financially and emotionally, and demonstrate the defendant’s negligence or misconduct. Documentation, expert testimony, and comprehensive legal arguments are critical in securing these damages in court which are uncommon in rodeo injury cases.

How a Personal Injury Lawyer Can Help

A personal injury lawyer plays a crucial role in assisting an injured rodeo spectator by providing expert legal guidance and representation. Here’s how they can help:

1. Case Evaluation and Legal Advice: A personal injury lawyer will evaluate the details of the incident, determine the viability of a claim, and provide advice on the best course of action. They can explain the spectator’s rights and outline the legal process for pursuing compensation.
2. Evidence Collection: Lawyers help gather and preserve crucial evidence to support the claim. This includes medical records, eyewitness testimonies, photographs of the scene, and expert analyses. Proper evidence collection is essential to prove negligence and establish the extent of damages?.
3. Negotiating with Insurance Companies: Dealing with insurance companies can be challenging, as they aim to minimize payouts. A personal injury lawyer negotiates on behalf of the injured party to ensure a fair settlement that covers medical expenses, lost wages, and other damages?.
4. Litigation and Court Representation: If a fair settlement cannot be reached, a personal injury lawyer can file a lawsuit and represent the injured spectator in court. They will present a compelling case, argue effectively, and strive to secure the maximum compensation possible?.
5. Managing Legal Documentation: The legal process involves extensive paperwork and strict deadlines. A personal injury lawyer handles all documentation, ensuring that all filings are accurate and timely, thus preventing procedural errors that could jeopardize the case?.

By leveraging their expertise, a personal injury lawyer provides invaluable support to injured rodeo spectators, helping them navigate the complexities of the legal system and achieve the best possible outcome for their case.

Injured at a Texas Rodeo? Contact Us.

Texas rodeos offer excitement and tradition, but they also come with risks. If you’ve been injured as a spectator at a rodeo, it’s important to contact an experienced personal injury lawyer. We can help. Our team has the expertise to navigate complex rodeo injury cases and help you get the compensation you deserve. Contact us today at 817-203-2220 for a free consultation.

Divorce proceedings can be complex, especially when significant assets and joint property is involved. In some Texas divorce cases, the court may appoint a “divorce receiver” to manage, protect, and sometimes sell marital assets, especially property or real estate.

In this article, we explain the role of a receiver in a Texas divorce case, when appointing one becomes necessary, and how they can impact your divorce proceedings.

But first, please watch this informative video by divorce attorney Wade Griffin, who offers an excellent overview of the role of a divorce receiver, including the advantages and disadvantages of having a receiver control the sale or refinancing of joint property.

What is a Divorce Receiver in Texas Divorce Proceedings?

A receiver is a neutral third party appointed by the court to manage specific assets or property during a legal dispute, such as a divorce. Their primary role is to ensure that assets are managed fairly and equitably until the court reaches a final decision. Unlike mediators or arbitrators, receivers have the authority to take control of, collect, and sometimes even sell the assets in question.

In the context of a Texas divorce, a receiver can manage anything from a jointly-owned business to real estate and financial accounts. Their involvement ensures neither party can misuse or deplete the assets, preserving their value for equitable distribution.

When is a Divorce Reciever Appointed?

The court does not appoint a receiver in every divorce case. Typically, a receiver is called in under specific circumstances where asset management becomes a contentious issue. Here are some situations where the court may find it necessary to appoint a receiver:

High-Value Assets

When a divorce involves high-value assets, such as businesses, significant real estate holdings, or substantial financial portfolios, the court might appoint a receiver to ensure these are managed appropriately. High-value assets often have complex financial structures that need expert management to preserve their value.

Contentious Divorces

In cases where the divorcing parties cannot agree on how to manage their joint assets, a receiver can step in to take control. This prevents either party from making unilateral decisions that could negatively impact the asset’s value or the other party’s interests.

Risk of Asset Dissipation

If there is evidence that one spouse might dissipate or hide assets, the court may appoint a receiver to protect those assets. This ensures that all assets are available for equitable distribution, preventing any unfair advantage.

Why Are Receivers Appointed?

Receivers are appointed for several reasons, all aimed at ensuring fairness and equity in the management of marital assets. For example, a court may appoint a receiver if one of the parties is not complying with court order regarding property division. This could happen if one party is preventing the property from being sold or managed properly.

Here’s a closer look at why the court might decide to bring in a receiver:

Preventing Mismanagement

One of the primary reasons for appointing a divorce receiver is to prevent asset mismanagement. In contentious divorces, emotions can run high, leading to poor financial decisions. A receiver ensures that assets are managed professionally and remain intact. For example, if one spouse is actively involved in a business that is being mismanaged, the court may appoint a receiver to protect the property.

Ensuring Fair Distribution

A receiver helps ensure that assets are fairly distributed between both parties. By managing and possibly liquidating assets, a receiver can convert complex holdings into more easily divisible forms, such as cash, making it easier to achieve an equitable distribution.

Protecting Both Parties’ Interests

In some cases, one party may have more control over the marital assets, creating an imbalance. A receiver levels the playing field, protecting both parties’ interests equally and ensuring neither party is disadvantaged.

How the Court Appoints a Divorce Receiver

The Texas Family Code section that discusses the appointment of a receiver in a divorce case is Section 6.502. Here are the key points from that section:

• Under Section 6.502(a)(5), while a divorce suit is pending, the court may render an order appointing a receiver for the preservation and protection of the property of the parties.
• The court must give notice and hold a hearing before appointing a receiver
• Within 30 days of being appointed, the receiver must give notice of the appointment to any lienholders on property under the receiver’s control.
• Within 7 days of the appointment, the court must issue written findings of fact and conclusions of law supporting the appointment of the receiver.

So, Section 6.502 of the Texas Family Code gives the court authority to appoint a receiver over marital property during a pending divorce case, after proper notice and a hearing. The receiver’s role is to preserve and protect the property, and certain procedures like notifying lienholders and issuing findings must be followed.

The appointment of a receiver is considered an extraordinary remedy, so the court must find it necessary to protect the property interests of the parties involved.

Responsibilities of a Divorce Receiver

The specific duties of a receiver in a Texas divorce case can vary, but generally include:

1. Asset Management: The receiver takes control of specified assets, managing them to prevent waste or loss. This can involve overseeing business operations, maintaining property, and handling financial accounts.
2. Preservation of Value: The receiver is responsible for preserving the value of the assets under their control. This includes making necessary payments (such as taxes and insurance) and ensuring proper maintenance.
3. Reporting to the Court: Receivers regularly report to the court on the status of the assets, providing detailed accounts of their actions and the current condition of the assets.
4. Distribution of Assets: In some cases, the receiver may be tasked with liquidating assets and distributing the proceeds according to the court’s orders.

How a Receiver Can Impact a Texas Divorce Case

The appointment of a receiver can significantly impact a divorce case in several ways:

1. Ensuring Fairness: By managing and preserving assets, a receiver helps ensure that both parties receive a fair share of the marital property. This is particularly important in cases where one spouse is suspected of attempting to hide or deplete assets.
2. Reducing Conflict: A receiver’s involvement can reduce conflicts between the divorcing parties by providing a neutral party to oversee disputed assets.
3. Expert Management: Receivers often have expertise in managing complex assets, such as businesses or investment portfolios, ensuring these assets are handled properly during the divorce proceedings.

Qualifications of a Divorce Reciever

The Texas Family Code does not explicitly outline specific qualifications for a receiver appointed in a divorce case. However, here are general requirements and considerations:

• The receiver must be a neutral third party with no financial interest in the marital property they are appointed to manage and sell.
• Texas courts typically require the receiver to be a resident of Texas.
• The receiver must be able to obtain a receiver’s bond, which means having good credit and sufficient liquid asset.
• The court will consider the receiver’s background, education, training, and prior experience as it relates to managing the type of asset(s) involved (e.g. real estate, business, etc.)
• The receiver should have relevant professional designations, licenses, and ability to engage appropriate third-party professionals if needed
• Ultimately, the court determines the suitability of the proposed receiver based on the specific circumstances of the case

While not an absolute requirement, courts often prefer to appoint receivers who are experienced real estate professionals, attorneys, or those with relevant business/asset management expertise when dealing with marital property like homes, businesses, investments, etc

Does a Receiver Have to be a Realtor?

In a divorce case in Texas, a judge may appoint a receiver to manage and sell certain marital assets, including real estate properties. Here are some key points regarding the appointment of a realtor as a receiver in a Texas divorce:

• The court has the authority to appoint a receiver to take possession of marital property and sell it under certain circumstances, such as when the parties cannot agree on how to dispose of the property.
• The receiver is typically a neutral third party, but in some cases, the court may appoint a realtor as the receiver to manage and sell a real estate property that is part of the marital estate.
• When a realtor is appointed as a receiver, they are acting in a court-appointed capacity separate from their typical role as a real estate agent. The receiver has a fiduciary duty to the court and must follow the court’s orders regarding the management and sale of the property.
• The receiver is entitled to reasonable compensation for their services, which is typically paid from the proceeds of the sale of the property or from the marital estate. The compensation amount is determined by the court and may be different from the typical real estate commission.
• The appointment of a receiver is considered an extraordinary remedy, and the court will only do so if it finds it necessary to protect the property or the interests of the parties involved.

In summary, while it is not a common occurrence, a judge in a Texas divorce case does have the authority to appoint a realtor as a receiver to manage and sell a marital real estate property. In such cases, the realtor acts as a court-appointed receiver and is entitled to reasonable compensation set by the court, separate from a typical real estate commission.

Other Professionals Who Can Serve as Receivers

Receivers can come from various professional backgrounds, depending on the nature of the assets and the needs of the case. Examples include:

1. Accountants: For cases involving complex financial assets, an accountant may be appointed to manage and account for these assets.
2. Business Managers: In cases where a business is a significant marital asset, a business manager with experience in the relevant industry may be chosen.
3. Attorneys: Sometimes, attorneys with experience in receivership can be appointed, especially if the case involves legal complexities.

In Texas, while a receiver must be competent and impartial, there is no specific requirement that they be a realtor. The selection of a receiver is based on the nature of the assets and the specific needs of the case. The court will appoint an individual with the appropriate expertise to manage, preserve, or liquidate the assets in question, ensuring a fair and equitable process for both parties involved in the divorce.

Facing Divorce? Contact Us

Divorce is a complex process, and the appointment of a receiver adds another layer of complexity. However, understanding the role of a receiver, when they are appointed, and why they are appointed can help you navigate your divorce more effectively. By ensuring that assets are managed fairly and equitably, receivers play a crucial role in protecting the interests of both parties in a Texas divorce case.

If you are facing a divorce and think a receiver might be necessary for your case, contact us today. Our experienced legal team is here to guide you through every step of your divorce, ensuring your interests are protected and your future is secure. Call 817-203-2220 today to schedule a consultation.

On June 12, 2024, the Court of Criminal Appeals handed down its decision in Heath v. State. The State v. Heath decision affirmed that Texas law by statute requires prosecutors to disclose all relevant evidence in the possession of the State, regardless of whether the prosecutor had knowledge of the evidence. This post explores what that means, why it is important, how it fits in with existing case law, and where prosecutors and defense lawyers go from here.

The Power and Responsibility of Prosecutors

When a prosecutor stands up in court and says they represent the State of Texas, they do exactly that. Prosecutors have all the powers inherent to the state—endless budgets for investigation combining local law enforcement with the investigative powers of the grand jury and prosecutors’ own investigators. They also bear the responsibility of knowing everything the state has collected and has in its possession. The prosecution also bears the responsibility of turning over all relevant information.

Criminal Discovery Backdrop: 39.14 and the Michael Morton Act

Prior to the Michael Morton Act, the right to discovery in criminal cases in Texas was quite limited. At the time, Article 39.14 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure allowed for a more limited scope of discovery in criminal cases:

Limited Discovery Rights

Defense attorneys could request specific documents and evidence, but the scope of what could be demanded was narrower, and the burden was largely on the defense to specify exactly what they sought.

Good Cause Requirement

The defense needed to show good cause for why they should be granted access to certain pieces of evidence. This requirement often necessitated arguing for the relevance and necessity of each piece of evidence in court.

Judicial Discretion

The decision to grant discovery requests was left to the discretion of the court. This could result in inconsistencies in what evidence was made available to the defense depending on the judge’s perspective on what constituted good cause.

Limited Automatic Disclosure

Prosecutors were not generally required to provide all evidence favorable to the defense automatically. The prosecution’s duty to disclose was restricted to what was directly asked for and proven to be necessary by the defense.

The Burden to Turn Over Evidence

The Michael Morton Act, enacted in 2013, significantly amended Article 39.14. It was named after Michael Morton, a man who was wrongfully convicted in 1987 of murdering his wife. He spent nearly 25 years in prison before DNA testing proved his innocence in 2011. His case highlighted severe flaws in the criminal justice system, particularly around the withholding of exculpatory evidence by the prosecution.

Background Leading to the Creation of the Michael Morton Act

Wrongful Conviction of Michael Morton

Morton was exonerated in 2011 after DNA evidence linked the murder to another individual. The exposure of this evidence, which had been available at the time of the original trial, led to public outcry and demands for reform in the handling of evidence in criminal cases.

Legislative Response

The egregious nature of Morton’s case, combined with his and others’ advocacy, spurred legislative action. Lawmakers and stakeholders sought to prevent such miscarriages of justice by ensuring broader and more stringent disclosure requirements.

Key Provisions of the Michael Morton Act

Broad Disclosure Requirements

The Act requires the prosecution to disclose all police reports and witness statements, among other evidential materials, to the defense.

Proactive Disclosure Obligation

It shifts the burden somewhat from the defense having to request evidence to the prosecution having to automatically provide it.

Open File Policy

The Act essentially enforces an “open file policy” in criminal cases, requiring prosecutors to allow defense attorneys access to investigative files that could contain exculpatory or impeaching information.

Timeliness and Continuity

The Act emphasizes that disclosure must be timely, beginning as early as possible and continuing as new evidence is gathered.

Why We Have the Michael Morton Act

The enactment of the Michael Morton Act was driven by a recognition of the fundamental importance of fairness and transparency in the judicial process. Its provisions aim to:

Prevent Wrongful Convictions

By ensuring that all material evidence, especially exculpatory evidence, is disclosed, the Act sought to to prevent wrongful convictions like that of Michael Morton.

Restore Public Confidence

The legislature hoped the Act would restore and maintain public confidence in criminal prosecutions.

Changes Brought by the Michael Morton Act

The wrongful conviction and eventual exoneration of Michael Morton highlighted significant flaws in this system, particularly the risk of prosecutorial misconduct and the hiding of exculpatory evidence. The Michael Morton Act aimed to address these issues by instituting several important changes:

Expanded Discovery Obligations

The Act broadened the types of evidence the prosecution must automatically disclose to include nearly all materials relevant to the case. This includes police reports, witness statements, and any material that could be considered exculpatory.

Removal of Good Cause Requirement

The new law removed the requirement for the defense to show good cause to access evidence, placing the onus on the prosecution to provide access to evidence without needing specific requests from the defense.

Open File Policy

The Act implemented an open file policy, mandating that the prosecution make available a broader range of evidence, reducing the chances that significant evidence could be withheld, whether intentionally or inadvertently.

Proactive Disclosure Requirement

Prosecutors are now required to disclose all evidence as soon as practicable after it is gathered, and they must continue to disclose new evidence as it becomes available. This ongoing obligation ensures that the defense is kept informed throughout the process.

Documentation of Compliance

The Act also requires that the prosecution document what has been disclosed. This paper trail is intended to increase accountability and provide clear records that can be reviewed for compliance with the law.

After the Michael Morton Act, there remained questions, at least for some prosecutors, about what had to be turned over and how soon those materials had to be turned over. For example, some prosecutors believed they should not have a requirement to turn over evidence that was not admissible, others believed that as long as they turned over the information at some point, they had fulfilled their obligations, while others believed any failure to turn over evidence was not important if the information was not admissible.

After Michael Morton: Watkins Explains Materiality

The case of Ralph Dewayne Watkins v. The State of Texas involves a pivotal discussion on the interpretation of “material” evidence under Article 39.14 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, which was significantly amended by the Michael Morton Act in 2013. This case reached the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, where the meaning and application of the term “material” in the context of discovery laws were central to the appeal.

Summary of Watkins v. State

In Watkins v. State, the Court addressed whether the word “material” should be construed as “relevant.” The Court concluded that “material” implies relevance to the case’s issues, thereby necessitating disclosure. This interpretation supports a broader open-file policy, requiring prosecutors to provide access to a wider array of evidential materials early in the defense process.

Dissenting Opinion in Watkins

Presiding Judge Keller, in a dissenting opinion, argued that the majority’s interpretation was incorrect. She highlighted that during the legislative process, the specific change from “material” to “relevant” was initially proposed but ultimately not adopted. Keller suggested that the term “material” connotes something more substantial than mere relevance, implying a necessity for the evidence to have significant bearing on the case outcomes.

Prosecutors’ Responsibilities after Michael Morton and Watkins

Watkins v. State clarified that ‘material’ evidence is essentially ‘relevant’ and emphasized the proactive duty of prosecutors to seek out and disclose any relevant evidence under the amended version of Article 39.14. This ruling underscored that the prosecution’s responsibility includes not only evidence they are immediately aware of but also any information that could potentially be relevant, which necessitates a thorough search and continuous disclosure throughout the legal process.

What is relevant evidence?

Definition of “Relevant Evidence” according to Texas Rule 401

Evidence is considered relevant if:

1. It has any tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence; and
2. The fact is of consequence in determining the action.

After the Michael Morton Act and the Watkins v. State ruling, prosecutors in Texas were required to disclose all evidence that material to any matter involved in the action, which included all relevant information. There remained questions about what “as soon as practicable” meant in regards to how quickly evidence had to be turned over.

State v. Heath

State of Texas v. Dwayne Robert Heath centers on the statutory obligations of discovery under Article 39.14(a) of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, particularly whether items unknown to the prosecuting attorney but held by law enforcement are included in the prosecutor’s duty to disclose evidence “as soon as practicable” after a defense request.

The Decision in State v. Heath

The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the lower court’s ruling that law enforcement is encompassed within “the state” for the purposes of discovery obligations. Therefore, the prosecuting attorney is responsible for ensuring that all relevant evidence held by law enforcement is disclosed to the defense. The court held that “as soon as practicable” does not include a knowledge requirement on the prosecutor’s part, which means that the state must provide evidence as soon as it is reasonably possible, irrespective of the prosecutor’s awareness of the evidence.

Court’s Reasoning in Heath

The court’s reasoning is grounded in a textual and purposive interpretation of Article 39.14(a). It emphasized that the statute is designed to facilitate fair trials by ensuring timely and comprehensive evidence disclosure. This includes evidence in possession of any state agency, notably law enforcement, which is considered part of “the state.” The court also indicated that the term “as soon as practicable” implies an obligation of reasonable diligence to uncover and disclose evidence, which does not hinge on the prosecutor’s actual knowledge of the evidence.

Dissent in Heath

Justice Keel, joined by Justice Keller and Justice Yeary, dissented. The dissent argued that the majority’s interpretation unduly broadens the scope of the prosecutor’s duty and undermines the practical administration of justice. They contended that the statute should require some level of prosecutorial knowledge or control over the evidence before triggering the disclosure obligation.

Duty of the Prosecutor to Proactively Seek Discovery Clarified in Heath

The majority opinion in State v. Heath clarifies that the obligation of “the State” to produce discovery “as soon as practicable” includes items that may be unknown to the prosecuting attorney but are in the possession of law enforcement.

Court Makeup in Watkins and Heath

Implications for Prosecutorial Conduct

The absence of a mental-state requirement implies that prosecutors cannot solely rely on the evidence that is directly presented to them by law enforcement. Instead, they have a proactive duty to inquire and ascertain what evidence exists within any state agency that might be relevant to the cases they are handling. This duty extends beyond passive receipt of information to an active obligation to seek out potential evidence. The prosecutor must establish and maintain communication channels with associated law enforcement entities to ensure that all relevant information, even that which they are initially unaware of, is discovered and disclosed in compliance with statutory requirements.

Legal and Practical Measures

To fulfill this duty effectively, prosecutors might need to implement specific measures, such as:

Regular Training

Ensuring that both prosecutors and law enforcement officers are regularly trained on the requirements of Article 39.14 and the importance of comprehensive evidence sharing.

Systematic Review Protocols

Developing standardized protocols for reviewing and cataloging all evidence held by law enforcement that might pertain to ongoing cases.

Documentation of Efforts

Maintaining detailed records of the efforts made to discover and disclose evidence, which could be crucial in demonstrating compliance with discovery obligations in court.

Prosecutor’s Duties in Discovery

Broad Scope of Disclosure

As interpreted in both Watkins and Heath, the duty of the prosecutor encompasses all evidence “material to any matter involved in the action,” which essentially means all relevant evidence. This includes evidence in the possession of law enforcement agencies, even if the prosecutor does not have direct knowledge of it.

Proactive Disclosure

The term “material” implies that the prosecutor must seek out relevant evidence that could potentially influence the outcome of the case—not only evidence directly known to them. This proactive duty requires establishing systematic communication and procedures to ensure that all pertinent evidence held by any entity constituting “the State” is disclosed.

Timely Disclosure

The evidence must be disclosed “as soon as practicable” after a request by the defense. This timing underscores a requirement for diligence and efficiency in managing discovery processes without undue delay.

Continual Duty

The duty to disclose is not only prior to the trial but is ongoing. New evidence that comes to light must be disclosed as soon as it is known.

Violations or Failures by Prosecutors

A violation or failure in the duty of discovery can manifest in several ways:

Failure to Disclose Known Evidence

This includes not disclosing evidence that the prosecutor knows about and that is relevant to the defense’s case. Such a failure can directly impact the fairness of the trial.

Negligence in Seeking Out Evidence

If a prosecutor fails to actively seek out evidence from law enforcement or other state agencies that might be relevant, this could constitute a failure in their duty, as established by the proactive standard set in these cases.

Delay in Disclosure

Not disclosing evidence as soon as practicable, thereby delaying the defense’s access to evidence, can also be seen as a violation of the statutory requirements.

Legal Consequences of Failure to Turn Over Evidence

The consequences for failing to meet these discovery obligations can be severe:

Exclusion of Evidence

As noted in Heath, a court may exclude evidence from a trial if it was not disclosed in time, affecting the prosecution’s ability to present its case.

Appeal on Grounds of Prejudice

If a case goes to appeal, the appellate court will examine whether the trial court’s decisions regarding evidence exclusion or the choice of remedy were appropriate given the context of the discovery violation. If the appellate court finds that the nondisclosure prejudiced the defense and the trial court’s remedy was insufficient, it can reverse the conviction.

Standard of Review

The appellate review typically looks at whether the trial judge abused their discretion in handling the discovery violation. This includes reviewing the proportionality and appropriateness of the judge’s response to the violation.

Disciplinary Actions

Prosecutors may face professional disciplinary actions for failing to adhere to ethical standards of disclosure.

Defense Lawyer’s Duties in Discovery

Defense attorneys in Texas have several strategic steps they can take to ensure compliance with discovery laws, especially in light of the provisions of Article 39.14 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure and the implications of recent court rulings on discovery obligations. Here’s a guide on how they can manage the discovery process and related trial proceedings effectively:

Request Discovery Early

Immediate Requests

As soon as they are retained or appointed, defense attorneys should make a formal request for all discovery materials under Article 39.14. This should be done promptly after the indictment to ensure that the prosecution provides all relevant evidence as early as possible.

Document Requests

All requests should be well-documented and filed officially, leaving a clear paper trail. This helps in establishing timelines that might prove crucial if a discovery violation needs to be argued later.

Monitor Prosecution’s Readiness

Track Announcements

Defense attorneys should carefully monitor and record every instance where the state announces readiness for trial. This is important because it indicates the prosecution’s assertion that they have complied with all necessary pre-trial preparations, including discovery obligations.

Challenge Readiness

If there is any doubt about the completeness or timeliness of the discovery provided, the defense should challenge the state’s readiness. This might involve questioning the state’s declaration of readiness and requiring them to prove that they have indeed disclosed all required evidence.

Formal Continuance Requests

Request for Sworn Continuances

If the prosecution is not ready and seeks a continuance, the defense should request the court to require the prosecution to file a formal, sworn continuance petition. This petition should explain why the continuance is necessary, which adds a layer of formal scrutiny to the prosecution’s readiness and compliance with procedural rules.

Record in Court

Each request or claim of readiness by the state should be put on the record. This ensures that all parties’ statements are formally noted, which can be critical in appeals or further legal challenges.

Understand and Leverage Continuance Rules

Code Requirements

Defense attorneys should be well-versed in the requirements set forth by the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure regarding continuances. Article 29.03 specifies that the first continuance requested by the prosecution must be supported by an affidavit showing sufficient cause.

Subsequent Continuances

For any subsequent continuance, as per Article 29.04, the prosecution must prove “material” evidence that is expected to come to hand if the continuance is granted; the material evidence must not merely be cumulative; and there must be reasonable grounds to believe that such evidence will be obtained at the later date.

Advocacy and Vigilance

Active Advocacy

Defense attorneys must actively advocate for their clients’ rights to timely and complete discovery. This includes being vigilant about the prosecution’s compliance with discovery laws and readiness announcements.

Prepare for Challenges

Be prepared to challenge insufficient discovery and improper readiness claims through pre-trial motions and, if necessary, appeals. The preparation should include potential motions to exclude evidence that was not properly disclosed.

State v. Heath Opinion

State v. Watkins Opinion

Introduction

On June 14, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a significant decision in the case of Garland v. Cargill, striking down the federal ban on bump stocks. The Supreme Court bump stock decision, coming in at a 6-3 ruling, marked a pivotal moment in the ongoing debate over firearm regulations in the United States.

Background of the Case

Bump stocks are attachments that enable semi-automatic rifles to fire at speeds comparable to automatic weapons, releasing hundreds of rounds per minute. The national debate over these devices intensified after the 2017 Las Vegas shooting, where a gunman used bump stocks to perpetrate the deadliest mass shooting in modern U.S. history, resulting in 60 deaths and over 500 injuries. In response, the Trump administration in 2018 reclassified bump stocks as machine guns, mandating their destruction or surrender to the ATF—a reversal from earlier interpretations that did not uniformly classify bump stocks as machine guns.

The Case

Michael Cargill, a U.S. Army veteran and Austin gun store owner, became a central figure in challenging this rule after surrendering two bump stocks. His lawsuit, which the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit supported, led to the Supreme Court’s review. The Supreme Court’s decision, affirming the 5th Circuit, concluded that the ATF’s 2018 rule overstepped its authority under federal law.

Details of the Supreme Court’s Ruling

The Supreme Court ruled that the ATF exceeded its statutory authority by classifying bump stocks as machine guns. Justice Clarence Thomas, writing for the majority, argued that bump stocks do not make a semi-automatic rifle fire automatically as defined by law since the trigger must function separately for each round fired, contrary to the continuous firing mechanism of machine guns.

Dissenting Opinion

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, penned a forceful dissent. She argued that the majority’s interpretation dangerously narrows the definition of machine guns and disregards the practical realities of how bump stocks enable rapid, continuous fire. Justice Sotomayor warned that this decision could lead to “deadly consequences,” echoing concerns about potential increases in mass shootings facilitated by such devices.

Implications of the Decision

This ruling significantly impacts the regulatory landscape:

• The decision lifts the federal ban on bump stocks in 35 states that do not have their own corresponding laws, potentially leading to a resurgence in their use.
• At least 15 states along with the District of Columbia maintain their bans, which will likely remain in force.

Public and Political Reaction

The decision has been met with substantial criticism from gun control advocates who warn of the potential increase in mass shootings facilitated by such devices. In response, there are calls for Congress to enact legislation specifically banning bump stocks.

Are Bump Stocks Legal in Texas?

Bump stocks are legal in Texas. Although there was significant national discussion about banning these devices following the 2017 Las Vegas shooting, Texas has not passed any state-specific legislation banning the possession, sale, or use of bump stocks.  Like any state without any state law specifically prohibiting them, bump stocks remain legal in Texas.

States Where Bump Stocks Are Illegal

Conclusion

Garland v. Cargill is not just a legal determination about a specific firearm accessory but a landmark case with wide-reaching implications on how firearms are regulated in the United States. It reflects the broader societal and political conflicts surrounding gun control and the scope of regulatory authority, ensuring that this topic will remain at the forefront of legal and political discourse. In the upcoming terms, the U.S. Supreme Court is poised to tackle several significant cases related to gun rights, which will likely influence the legal landscape around firearm regulations. One such pivotal case involves the regulation of so-called “ghost guns”—firearms that can be assembled from parts and do not have serial numbers. This case, expected to be argued in October, will address the Biden administration’s efforts to regulate these untraceable weapons. Additionally, the Court’s future docket includes a review of laws surrounding gun storage and public carry restrictions, reflecting the ongoing national debate on how to balance Second Amendment rights with public safety concerns.

Garland v. Cargill Full Opinion