Baldwin and Brady: How Prosecutors’ Failure to Disclose Evidence Resulted in Dismissal

The justice system in the United States relies on the fundamental principle that the defense must be allowed to see all evidence that could impact the outcome of a trial. This duty of disclosure is crucial to ensuring a fair trial and is rooted in the landmark Supreme Court cases of Brady v. Maryland (1963), United States v. Bagley (1985), and Kyles v. Whitley (1995).

Brady v. Maryland

The Brady decision established that the prosecution must disclose any exculpatory evidence to the defense. Exculpatory evidence is any information that could potentially exonerate the defendant or reduce their culpability. The failure to disclose such evidence, known as a Brady violation, undermines the fairness of the trial and can result in the reversal of a conviction or the dismissal of charges.

United States v. Bagley

In United States v. Bagley, the Supreme Court refined the Brady standard, holding that undisclosed evidence is material if there is a reasonable probability that, had the evidence been disclosed to the defense, the result of the proceeding would have been different. This case emphasizes the importance of the materiality of the evidence in determining whether its suppression constitutes a violation.

Kyles v. Whitley

Kyles v. Whitley further clarified the Brady doctrine by ruling that prosecutors have a duty to learn of any favorable evidence known to others acting on the government’s behalf, including the police. This case underscores the comprehensive responsibility of prosecutors to ensure all relevant evidence is disclosed.

The Importance of Full Disclosure

For the defense to mount an effective defense, it is imperative that they have access to all relevant evidence, both inculpatory and exculpatory. This transparency allows the defense to challenge the prosecution’s case, present alternative theories, and ensure that the defendant’s rights are protected. Without full disclosure, the scales of justice are tipped unfairly in favor of the prosecution, leading to potential miscarriages of justice. The problem with prosecutors trying to filter information to the defense is they cannot predict how the defense will use a piece of evidence or what other evidence the defense may know that the prosecutor does not know, which makes a seemingly insignificant fact one of great importance. The burden of proof in any criminal case rests solely with the prosecution. Good prosecutors know that disclosing everything they have eliminates the risk of a case being overturned or (as in Baldwin’s case) dismissed based on a failure to turn over evidence. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, even this year in State v. Heath, has discussed the need to turn over all the evidence in the State’s possession as soon as it is reasonably possible, irrespective of the prosecutor’s awareness of the evidence.

Alec Baldwin’s Criminal Case Dismissed

Alec Baldwin was facing up to 18 months in prison for involuntary manslaughter charges following the fatal shooting of cinematographer Halyna Hutchins on the set of the movie “Rust.” The case was dismissed mid-trial due to significant issues with evidence disclosure by the prosecution.

Evidence Withheld

Special prosecutor Kari Morrissey insisted the disputed ammunition was not linked to the case or hidden from Baldwin’s lawyers. She agreed, however, that evidence, including ammunition from the scene, was not disclosed to Baldwin’s defense team. This omission was a critical factor in the judge’s decision to dismiss the charges with prejudice. Dismissing a case with prejudice means that the charges cannot be refiled, bringing the legal proceedings to a definitive end. At best, Morrissey fell into the trap of believing she could determine what evidence was material and immaterial to the defense.

Judge Mary Marlowe Sommer stated,

“There is no way for the court to right this wrong. The sanction of dismissal is the only warranted remedy.”

The decision to dismiss the case with prejudice highlights the severity of the prosecution’s failure to disclose crucial evidence. While a common way of dealing with a Brady violation, or a prosecutor’s failure to turn over evidence, is to grant a continuance –  here, a continuance would not have resolved the issue. Jeopardy attaches once a jury is selected. Even before a jury is seated, a defense lawyer’s strategy has affected what questions they ask during jury selection and which jurors they seat. More often than even some judges recognize, the failure to turn over evidence profoundly affects the defense’s decisions, including whether or not to go to trial. It is hard to think of a situation where the prosecution fails to turn over evidence to the defense, and that failure be immaterial or irrelevant.

View this post on Instagram

 

A post shared by Alec Baldwin (@alecbaldwininsta)

The Resignation of Erlinda Johnson

While special prosecutor Kari Morrissey stood by the charges until the court dismissed the case, the actions of another prosecutor on the case were telling.

Erlinda Johnson, one of the prosecutors in Baldwin’s case, resigned on the day of the dismissal. Johnson had been brought onto the case in April. It is clear from the statements Johnson gave afterward that she had been pushing for the District Attorney to dismiss the charges in light of the undisclosed evidence and when that didn’t happen she resigned.

In an interview, Johnson cited her moral obligation to disclose new evidence she uncovered as the reason for her resignation. “Prosecutors have high ethical obligations, and when a prosecutor learns of evidence that could be material to the defense was not disclosed, the right thing to do would be to dismiss a case.”

She stated, “We have an obligation as prosecutors, we have an obligation not only to the people, but to the defendant and our obligation is to make sure that all the evidence is turned over.” Highlighting fellow prosecutor Morrissey’s hubris, she commented, “We don’t get to decide what the defense is going to be. Our job is to ensure transparency, and to ensure that the defendant has everything that the prosecution has gathered. What they do with it, that’s up to them.”

Johnson’s resignation highlights the ethical responsibilities of prosecutors and the impact of failing to meet these obligations on the integrity of the legal process.

Consequences of a Brady Violation

Beyond delaying a trial, the consequences of a Brady violation can be severe, including:

• Reversal of Conviction: If a Brady violation is discovered post-conviction, it can lead to the reversal of the conviction and potentially a new trial.
• Dismissal of Charges: As seen in Baldwin’s case, significant Brady violations can lead to the dismissal of charges altogether.
• Professional Consequences for Prosecutors: Prosecutors found to have committed Brady violations may face disciplinary actions, including suspension or disbarment.

Dismissal with Prejudice: A Legal Finality

Dismissal with prejudice signifies that the case is permanently closed, and the defendant cannot be retried on the same charges. This is typically reserved for cases where the court finds that the prosecution’s actions have irrevocably compromised the defendant’s right to a fair trial. This means the criminal case for Alec Baldwin is finally over. The civil cases against him are still viable. The armorer, who was tried first and found guilty, has already indicated she will ask for her sentence to be vacated in light of the evidence that was not disclosed.

Can You Get the Death Penalty for Presidential Assassination

As the nation reels from the attempted assassination of former President Trump on July 13, 2024, many are wondering what would have happened if Thomas Matthew Crooks had not been killed. Would he have faced the death penalty for the attempt? What if someone is successful in taking a President’s life? Does it matter if the assassination was of a current or former President?

The Death Penalty for Presidential Assassination

Killing the President of the United States is considered one of the most serious federal crimes and is punishable by death. The current federal statute authorizing capital punishment for presidential assassination is 18 U.S.C. § 1751, which was enacted in 1965 following the assassination of President John F. Kennedy.

Legislative History and Statutes

Prior to 1965, there was no specific federal law criminalizing the assassination of the president. The assassination of Abraham Lincoln in 1865 was prosecuted as a military crime by a military commission since it was considered part of a wartime conspiracy. The assassinations of Presidents Garfield and McKinley in 1881 and 1901 were prosecuted under state murder laws.

After President Kennedy’s assassination in 1963, Congress passed the Presidential Assassination Statute as part of the 1965 amendments to the United States Code. 18 U.S.C. § 1751 made it a federal crime to kill, kidnap, or assault the President, President-elect, Vice President, or other officers in the line of succession to the presidency.

The law authorized the death penalty or life imprisonment for assassination. The Federal Death Penalty Act of 1994 revised and expanded federal death penalty procedures. It reaffirmed the assassination of the President as a capital offense and added new protections and procedures for capital cases.

Current statute 18 U.S.C. § 1751 states:

“(a) Whoever kills (1) any individual who is the President of the United States, the President-elect, the Vice President, or, if there is no Vice President, the officer next in the order of succession to the Office of the President of the United States, the Vice President-elect, or any person who is acting as President under the Constitution and laws of the United States… shall be punished (1) by imprisonment for any term of years or for life, or (2) by death or imprisonment for any term of years or for life, if death results to such individual.”

Video of Thomas Matthew Crooks’s Assassination Attempt on July 13, 2024

Imposition of the Death Penalty

While the federal statute authorizes capital punishment for presidential assassination, the death penalty has never actually been imposed under this law. The four successful presidential assassins in U.S. history were all prosecuted before the 1965 federal statute was enacted:

• John Wilkes Booth (Lincoln’s assassin) was killed while being apprehended
• Charles Guiteau (Garfield’s assassin) was executed by hanging under District of Columbia law in 1882
• Leon Czolgosz (McKinley’s assassin) was executed by electric chair under New York state law in 1901
• Lee Harvey Oswald (Kennedy’s accused assassin) was murdered before he could be tried

U.S. Presidents Who Were Assassinated

• Abraham Lincoln – Shot by John Wilkes Booth on April 14, 1865 while attending a play at Ford’s Theatre in Washington D.C. Lincoln died the next morning.
• James A. Garfield – Shot by Charles Guiteau on July 2, 1881 at a railroad station in Washington D.C. Garfield died 11 weeks later on September 19, 1881 from infections related to his wounds.
• William McKinley – Shot by Leon Czolgosz on September 6, 1901 while attending the Pan-American Exposition in Buffalo, New York. McKinley died 8 days later on September 14, 1901.
• John F. Kennedy – Shot by Lee Harvey Oswald on November 22, 1963 while riding in a motorcade in Dallas, Texas. Kennedy was pronounced dead shortly after arriving at the hospital.

Presidents Who Were Shot But Survived

• Theodore Roosevelt – Shot by John Flammang Schrank on October 14, 1912 during a campaign stop in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. The bullet lodged in Roosevelt’s chest, but he survived.
• Ronald Reagan – Shot by John Hinckley Jr. on March 30, 1981 outside the Washington Hilton Hotel. Reagan was seriously wounded but recovered.
• Donald Trump – Former President Trump was shot by Thomas Matthew Crooks on July 13, 2024.

Punishment for Attempted Assassination

Federal law distinguishes between successful and attempted assassinations in terms of punishment:

• Successful assassination can result in the death penalty.
• Attempted assassination has a maximum penalty of life imprisonment.

Under 18 U.S.C. § 1751, attempted assassination of the President is punishable by up to life in prison:

“(c) Whoever attempts to kill or kidnap any individual designated in subsection (a) of this section shall be punished by imprisonment for any term of years or for life.”

Attempted Presidential Assassinations and Punishments

• John Hinckley Jr. (attempted to kill Reagan) – Found not guilty by reason of insanity and confined to a psychiatric hospital for over 30 years before being released under strict conditions in 2016.
• Lynette “Squeaky” Fromme (attempted to kill Ford) – Sentenced to life in prison, served 34 years before being paroled in 2009.
• Sara Jane Moore (attempted to kill Ford) – Sentenced to life in prison, served 32 years before being paroled in 2007. (Both Moore and Fromme attempted to assassinate President Gerald Ford in September of 1975, just 17 days apart. They did not know each other.)
• Oscar Collazo (attempted to kill Truman) – Initially sentenced to death, later commuted to life imprisonment. Served 29 years before being pardoned in 1979.

While the statute allows for life sentences, in practice, many attempted assassins have eventually been paroled or released after serving lengthy prison terms. The exact punishment can vary based on the specific circumstances of each case.

Does the federal statute cover former presidents?

The terms “President-elect” and “Vice-President-elect” as used in this section mean:

“such persons as are the apparent successful candidates for the offices of President and Vice President, respectively, as ascertained from the results of the general elections held to determine the electors of President and Vice President in accordance with title 3, United States Code, sections 1 and 2.”

The statute explicitly defines who is covered, including the current President, President-elect, Vice President, Vice President-elect, and the next person in the line of succession if there is no Vice President. It also covers any person acting as President under the Constitution and laws of the United States. Notably absent from this definition is any mention of former presidents.

When was the last federal execution?

Federal execution in the United States took place on January 16, 2021. Here are the key details:

• The last person executed by the federal government was Dustin Higgs on January 16, 2021.
• Between July 2020 and January 2021, the federal government executed 13 prisoners.
• On July 1, 2021, U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland halted all federal executions pending a review of the policies and procedures.

As of December 2023, there were 40 prisoners on federal death row.

In Texas family law cases, it’s not uncommon for an associate judge to hear preliminary matters – or decide temporary orders – instead of an elected district judge. This allows the court to move quickly and efficiently through its large volume of cases.

However, it’s also not uncommon for one of the parties to disagree with or second-guess the associate judge’s rulings. This is where a de novo hearing comes into play.

A de novo hearing, also known as a “new trial,” is a fresh hearing of a matter that has already been heard by an associate judge. In this proceeding, the district judge reviews the case from the beginning without giving any deference to the associate judge’s prior decisions.

This process ensures that parties have recourse and can appeal if they believe the associate judge’s ruling was incorrect or unfair while still allowing the court system to benefit from the efficiency of using associate judges for initial hearings.

In this article, we explain de novo hearing in Texas family courts, including the difference between an associate and district judge, why a de novo hearing may be requested, and what happens during the de novo. But first, please watch this informative video by Attorney Laura Richardson and paralegal Alex Iacomini, who answer questions about de novo hearings in Texas.

Difference Between Associate and District Judges in Texas Family Court

In Texas, there are two types of judges who preside over family law cases: associate judges and district judges. Both have the authority to make decisions and issue orders in family law matters.

Associate Judges: Associate judges are appointed by the elected district judge to perform certain duties, including hearing preliminary matters and ruling on temporary orders. They must meet the same qualifications as a district judge, but they do not run for election. Their role is primarily to assist with managing the court’s caseload and to ensure that cases are handled efficiently and expediently.

While associate judges have the power to make final decisions on important matters, their rulings are subject to review by a district judge. If either party disagrees with the decision made by an associate judge, they can request a de novo hearing for further review by the district judge.

District Judges District judges are elected by the people and serve four-year terms. They have full jurisdiction over all family law matters, including divorce, child custody, child support, and protective orders. District judges have the authority to make final decisions in all cases, including those heard initially by associate judges. They oversee the entire judicial process, from preliminary hearings to trials and final judgments, ensuring that justice is served in accordance with the law.

Together, associate and district judges work to provide comprehensive judicial oversight in family law cases, balancing the need for specialized knowledge with the broad authority required to handle complex legal matters. This dual-judge system helps maintain the efficiency and effectiveness of the Texas family court system, ensuring that all parties receive fair and timely resolutions to their legal issues.

What is a De Novo Hearing in Texas Family Law Cases?

A de novo hearing, which means “from the beginning” in Latin, is held when one party disagrees with the decision made by an associate judge and wants to have their case reviewed by a district judge. The district judge will then hear the case again as if it were being presented for the first time, disregarding any decisions or findings made by the associate judge. This type of hearing allows for a fresh review of the issues, evidence, and testimony by a different judge or court.

Here’s how it generally works:

1. Initial Hearing: The original hearing is conducted, usually by an associate judge, where they hear evidence and make recommendations or decisions on the matter.
2. Request for De Novo Hearing: If a party is dissatisfied with the outcome of the initial hearing, they can appeal the associate judge’s ruling and request a de novo hearing before the elected district judge. This request must typically be filed within a specific timeframe, often within three days of the initial hearing.
3. Conducting the De Novo Hearing: A district judge will then conduct the de novo hearing. This judge will review the case anew, considering all the evidence and testimony as if it were being presented for the first time. The judge is not bound by the findings or recommendations of the associate judge.
4. Outcome: The decision made at the de novo hearing will replace the decision made at the initial hearing. The district judge’s ruling becomes the binding decision in the case. Of course, this doesn’t mean that the new court won’t make the same or a similar ruling as the first judge.

De novo hearings are significant in family law cases, as they provide a second opportunity to present one’s case and potentially achieve a different outcome. Here’s some key points about de novo hearings in Texas family law cases:

• They must be requested within a specific timeframe after the associate judge’s ruling (usually three working days).
• The referring court must hold the de novo hearing within 30 days of the initial request being filed.
• The requesting party has the right to have the entire matter reheard, or they can specify certain issues for de novo consideration.
• The party requesting the de novo hearing must provide notice to the opposing attorney according to the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure.
• New exhibits can typically be presented at a de novo hearing, but new issues will not be heard. The hearing is limited to the issues specified in the request. The party requesting the hearing must state with particularity the specific findings, conclusions, and recommendations they are objecting to.
• The rules of evidence and procedure apply to de novo hearings in the same manner as they do for initial hearings.
• The referring court is not bound by the associate judge’s findings or recommendations.
• The judge presiding over the de novo hearing will make a new ruling, which may affirm, modify, or completely change the associate judge’s decision.

Why De Novo Hearings Are Requested

Someone might request a de novo hearing for several important reasons:

• To get a fresh review of their case: A de novo hearing allows for a new examination of the evidence and arguments, without being bound by the previous decision. This gives the party a chance to have their case reconsidered from scratch.
• To correct errors or oversights: If a party believes that mistakes were made in the original hearing, either in the interpretation of law or in factual determinations, a de novo hearing allows these issues to be addressed.
• To overcome procedural limitations: Initial hearings, such as those before a family court commissioner, may have time constraints or other procedural limitations. A de novo hearing can provide a more comprehensive platform to present the case.
• To seek a different outcome: If a party is dissatisfied with the original ruling, a de novo hearing offers another chance to argue their case and potentially obtain a more favorable decision.
• To have the case heard by a different judge: In some jurisdictions, a de novo hearing may be heard by a different judge, which could be advantageous if the party believes the original judge was biased or made an error.
• To exercise their legal right: In many jurisdictions, parties have a statutory right to request a de novo hearing on certain matters, particularly in family law cases.

It’s important to note that requesting a de novo hearing doesn’t guarantee a different outcome. The new hearing will still be based on the case’s merits and applicable laws. However, it does provide an important opportunity for parties to ensure their case is fully and fairly considered.

The District Judge’s Decision in a De Novo Hearing

If a de novo hearing is requested and the district judge reviews the case, there are two possible outcomes:

1. If the district judge rules the same as the associate judge:

• The district judge’s ruling becomes the final order in the case.
• This effectively affirms the associate judge’s decision.
• The party who requested the de novo hearing does not gain any new advantage, as the outcome remains the same.
• The district judge’s order supersedes the associate judge’s recommendation.

2. If the district judge rules differently than the associate judge:

• The district judge’s new ruling becomes the final order in the case.
• This overrides the associate judge’s previous decision.
• The new ruling may partially or completely change the outcome of the case.
• The district judge’s order replaces the associate judge’s recommendation entirely.

In both scenarios, the district judge’s decision becomes the binding order of the court. This decision is subject only to further appeal to a higher court (such as the Court of Appeals), not to another review by the same court.

It’s important to note that the district judge has the authority to make an entirely new decision based on the evidence presented during the de novo hearing. They are not bound by the associate judge’s findings or recommendations. The district judge reviews the case “anew” or “from the beginning,” which is the essence of a de novo hearing.

This process ensures that parties have recourse if they believe the associate judge’s ruling was incorrect, while still maintaining the efficiency of using associate judges for initial hearings in family law cases.

Need Help with a Family Law Matter? Contact Us.

At Varghese Summersett, we understand the complexities and emotional challenges involved in family law cases. If you need assistance with a family law matter, our experienced attorneys are here to help. We are committed to providing you with the guidance and representation you need to achieve the best possible outcome.

Don’t navigate this difficult time alone. Contact Varghese Summersett today at 817-203-2220 to schedule a consultation and learn how we can assist you with your family law needs. We’re here to support you every step of the way.

A Florida man recently made the news after he shot down a Walmart drone. Drones have become ubiquitous. It’s not just big retailers like Amazon and Walmart who are using drones. With the cost of drones dipping as low as $30, anyone can buy a drone.

Today what you can acquire for under $500 rivals what only professionals could get their hands on give years ago. So what happens if you have a drone flying above your property or outside your bedroom window? Can you shoot down a drone in Texas? This article explores the answer to that question and the civil and criminal implications for nefarious drone operators.

Can You Legally Shoot Down a Drone in Texas?

The short answer is no. It is generally not legal to shoot down a drone in Texas or anywhere else in the United States. In fact, a number of federal and state charges can stem from this.

Federal Offenses Related to Shooting Down Drones

The FAA classifies drones as aircraft. Under federal law, drones are legally considered aircraft, regardless of their size or purpose. This classification means they are protected under the same laws prohibiting interference with manned aircraft. Shooting down a drone can potentially violate several federal laws, including:

18 U.S.C. § 32 – Destruction of Aircraft

This statute makes it a federal crime to willfully damage, destroy, or disable an aircraft. This means shooting down a drone could result in:

• A fine of up to $250,000; and
• Imprisonment for up to 20 years

18 U.S.C. § 1030 – Computer Fraud and Abuse Act

If a drone is damaged or disabled through electronic means, such as hacking or jamming its control signals, this could be considered a violation of the CFAA. Penalties vary based on the specific circumstances but can include fines and imprisonment. Hacking a drone’s control system would likely fall under unauthorized access to a protected computer. Jamming a drone’s communications could be considered as intentionally damaging a protected computer by knowingly transmitting harmful data or code.

The penalties under 18 U.S.C. § 1030 vary depending on the specific offense, but generally include:

• Unauthorized access to obtain information: Up to 1 year for first offense, up to 10 years for subsequent offenses.
• Intentionally damaging by knowing transmission (which could apply to jamming): Up to 10 years for first offense, up to 20 years for subsequent offenses.
• Recklessly causing damage by intentional access: Up to 5 years for first offense.

State Offenses in Texas Related to Shooting Down Drones

In addition to federal laws, shooting down a drone in Texas could potentially violate several state laws:

Texas Penal Code § 28.03 – Criminal Mischief

Damaging or destroying a drone could be prosecuted as criminal mischief. Depending on the value of the damaged property, the penalties range from a Class C misdemeanor to a first-degree felony.

Texas Penal Code § 42.01 – Disorderly Conduct

Discharging a firearm in a public place or on or across a public road could be charged as disorderly conduct, a Class B misdemeanor.

Texas Penal Code § 22.05 – Deadly Conduct

If shooting at a drone creates a substantial risk of serious bodily injury to others, it could be charged as deadly conduct, a Class A misdemeanor, or a third-degree felony.

Texas Local Government Code § 229.001 – Firearms Regulations

Some local ordinances may restrict the discharge of firearms within city limits, potentially leading to additional charges.

Civil Causes of Action if You Are Injured by a Drone

If you are injured by someone operating a drone, you may have a cause of action against them to hold the drone operator responsible. A drone accident could arise from a failure to operate the drone correctly. This is especially true for commercial and professional drones. Like any other device, drones can also malfunction. If there is a defect in the design or manufacture of a drone that leads to an injury, you might have a claim against the manufacturer. Similarly, if the operator of a drone is negligent in operating the drone – for example, operating while intoxicated or in poor weather conditions and causes injury or loss, that could become a legal basis to hold them responsible civilly.

Government Code § 423.006

Provides for civil action against drone operators who violate this chapter:

• An owner or tenant of privately owned real property can bring suit against a person who captured an image of the property or the owner/tenant while on the property in violation of Section 423.003.
• Remedies available include:
  • Injunctive relief
  • Civil penalty of $5,000 for all images captured in a single episode, or $10,000 for disclosure, display, distribution, or other use of any images captured in a single episode
  • Actual damages if the image was disclosed, displayed, or distributed with malice
  • Court costs and reasonable attorney’s fees

Government Code § 423.007

Allows for civil action against a person who captures an image in violation of Section 423.003 and uses that image in any manner as evidence in a civil, criminal, or administrative proceeding. The court may award a civil penalty of $1,000.

Criminal Causes of Action Against Drone Operators

There are a number of ways a drone operator themselves can be held criminally responsible for flying a drone over your property – if certain conditions exist. So if you have a drone flying over your property, reach for a phone (to call the police) rather than a firearm.

Texas Penal Code § 21.15 – Invasive Visual Recording

Using a drone to capture images of a person in a private place without their consent could be prosecuted under this law, a state jail felony.

Texas Penal Code § 42.072 – Stalking

Persistent use of a drone to harass or intimidate an individual could potentially be charged as stalking, a third-degree felony.

Government Code § 423.003 – Illegal Use of Unmanned Aircraft to Capture Image

This law specifically prohibits, with certain exceptions, using drones to capture images of individuals or private property without consent. Violations are Class C misdemeanors.

Government Code § 423.004 – Possession, Disclosure, Display, Distribution, or Use of Image

It’s a Class C misdemeanor to possess, disclose, display, distribute, or otherwise use an image captured in violation of Section 423.003. The offense becomes a Class B misdemeanor for a second offense and a Class A misdemeanor for a third or subsequent offense.

Texas Penal Code § 42.07 – Harassment

In Texas, harassment could potentially apply to drone use if the operator intentionally and repeatedly flies the drone in a manner reasonably likely to harass, annoy, alarm, abuse, torment, embarrass, or offend another person. This could include scenarios such as repeatedly flying a drone over someone’s property or persistently hovering near windows or private spaces. If proven, harassment via drone use is generally a Class B misdemeanor, but can be elevated to a Class A misdemeanor in certain circumstances, such as when committed against a minor.

Is Disabling a Drone Legal Under Federal and State Law?

Given the legal risks associated with shooting down drones, some individuals have explored alternative methods of disabling or deterring unwanted drone activity. However, many of these methods also carry legal risks:

1. Signal Jamming

Federal law makes using devices to jam or interfere with a drone’s control signals illegal. The Communications Act of 1934 prohibits the operation of jamming devices, and violations can result in significant fines and imprisonment.

2. GPS Spoofing

Attempts to interfere with a drone’s GPS navigation system could violate the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act and FAA regulations.

3. Hacking

Gaining unauthorized access to a drone’s control systems would likely violate the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act and potentially state computer crime laws.

4. Net Guns or Physical Capture

While less likely to cause damage than shooting, physically capturing a drone could still be considered interference with aircraft under federal law and potentially violate state laws against theft or criminal mischief.

Legal Alternatives to Shooting Down a Drone in Texas

Instead of resorting to potentially illegal methods of drone interference, property owners have several legal options for addressing concerns about drone activity:

1. Contact Local Law Enforcement

If you believe a drone is being operated illegally or in a harassing manner, contact your local police department. They can investigate potential violations of state laws or local ordinances.

2. Report to the FAA

If you suspect a drone is being operated in violation of FAA regulations, you can file a report with the FAA’s drone complaint system.

3. Document the Incidents

Keep detailed records of drone activity, including dates, times, and any photographic or video evidence. This documentation can be valuable if legal action becomes necessary.

4. Pursue Civil Remedies

Consider consulting with an attorney about potential civil claims against persistent or intrusive drone operators.

5. Advocate for Local Regulations

Work with local government officials to develop or strengthen ordinances addressing drone use in your community.

Accused of Shooting Down a Drone? Contact Us.

While the desire to protect one’s privacy and property from unwanted drone intrusion is understandable, it’s crucial to recognize that taking direct action against drones carries significant legal risks. Shooting down or disabling a drone can result in severe federal and state criminal charges, as well as potential civil liability.

Instead of resorting to potentially illegal methods, property owners should focus on legal alternatives for addressing drone concerns. This includes working with law enforcement, reporting violations to the FAA, documenting incidents, and pursuing civil remedies when appropriate.

If, however, you are facing charges stemming from shooting down a drone in Texas, it’s important to have an experienced defense attorney in your corner as soon as possible. Call 817-203-2200 to schedule an consultation with seasoned criminal defense attorney at Varghese Summersett.

Federal Statutes of Limitations: Criminal and Civil Time Limits

Statutes of limitations play a crucial role in the U.S. federal legal system, setting time limits for initiating legal proceedings in both criminal and civil cases. These statutes serve multiple purposes, including preserving the integrity of evidence, providing closure to potential defendants, and promoting efficiency in the legal system. This article provides an in-depth examination of federal statutes of limitations, covering their history, purpose, application, and notable exceptions in both criminal and civil contexts.

Historical Context

The concept of statutes of limitations dates back to ancient Roman law, where the Lex Julia de Adulteriis Coercendis established a five-year limitation period for certain offenses. In English common law, statutes of limitations were initially applied only to civil actions. The first general statutes of limitations in England were enacted in 1623, during the reign of King James I.

Statutes of limitations have been part of the legal landscape in the United States since the country’s founding. The first federal statute of limitations was enacted in 1790, applying to various crimes, including treason, murder, and forgery of public securities. Over time, Congress has enacted numerous statutes of limitations for different federal offenses and civil actions.

Purpose and Rationale

Statutes of limitations serve several important purposes in the legal system:

• Preserving evidence: As time passes, evidence may deteriorate or be lost, and witnesses’ memories may fade. Statutes of limitations encourage timely prosecution or filing of claims when evidence is still fresh and reliable.
• Providing closure:These statutes protect defendants from the uncertainty of indefinite legal jeopardy, allowing individuals and businesses to plan their affairs without the constant threat of litigation.
• Promoting efficiency:By imposing time limits, statutes of limitations help prevent the clogging of court dockets with stale claims and encourage the prompt resolution of legal disputes.
• Incentivizing diligence:These statutes motivate plaintiffs and prosecutors to act promptly in pursuing their claims or charges.

Federal Criminal Statutes of Limitations

In federal criminal law, statutes of limitations vary depending on the nature and severity of the offense. The general federal criminal statute of limitations is found in 18 U.S.C. § 3282, which provides a five-year limitation period for most federal offenses. However, there are numerous exceptions and specific provisions for certain crimes.

Notable Criminal Statutes of Limitations

• Capital offenses: There is no statute of limitations for capital offenses, including murder in the first degree and certain terrorism-related crimes resulting in death. (18 U.S.C. § 3281)
• Sexual abuse offenses: The limitation period for most federal sexual abuse offenses is 10 years. However, for offenses involving the sexual or physical abuse of a child, the statute of limitations is extended to the life of the child or 10 years after the offense, whichever is longer. (18 U.S.C. § 3283)
• Terrorism offenses: Many terrorism-related crimes have an 8-year statute of limitations. (18 U.S.C. § 3286(a))
• Immigration offenses: The limitation period for most immigration offenses is 10 years. (18 U.S.C. § 3291)
• Tax offenses: The general statute of limitations for tax crimes is 6 years, with some exceptions for specific offenses. (26 U.S.C. § 6531)
• Financial crimes: Certain financial crimes, such as bank fraud and securities fraud, have a 10-year statute of limitations. (18 U.S.C. § 3293)

It’s important to note that these statutes of limitations can be subject to various exceptions and modifications based on the specific circumstances of each case. Always consult with a legal professional for the most up-to-date and case-specific information.

Federal Civil Statutes of Limitations

In civil cases, federal statutes of limitations can vary widely depending on the nature of the claim and the specific law under which the action is brought. Unlike criminal statutes, which are generally set by federal law, civil statutes of limitations often borrow from state law or are specified in the federal statute, creating the cause of action.

Common Civil Statutes of Limitations

• Contract disputes with the U.S. government: 6 years (28 U.S.C. § 2501)
• Personal injury claims against the federal government (Federal Tort Claims Act): 2 years (28 U.S.C. § 2401(b))
• Civil rights violations (42 U.S.C. § 1983): Typically borrows from state personal injury statutes, ranging from 1 to 6 years (42 U.S.C. § 1988)
• Employment discrimination:
  • Title VII and ADA: 180 days to file with EEOC (300 days in states with their own fair employment practices agencies) (42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(e)(1))
  • ADEA: 180 days to file with EEOC (300 days in states with their own fair employment practices agencies) (29 U.S.C. § 626(d)(1))
• Intellectual property:
  • Patent infringement: 6 years (35 U.S.C. § 286)
  • Copyright infringement: 3 years (17 U.S.C. § 507(b))
  • Trademark infringement: 3 years (borrowed from state law; 15 U.S.C. § 1121)
• Antitrust violations: 4 years (15 U.S.C. § 15b)
  • False Claims Act: 6 years from the violation or 3 years after the government knew or should have known about the violation, whichever is later (but not more than 10 years after the violation) (31 U.S.C. § 3731(b))

It’s important to note that these statutes of limitations can be subject to various exceptions and modifications based on the specific circumstances of each case. Always consult with a legal professional for the most up-to-date and case-specific information.

Table of Federal Criminal and Civil Statutes of Limitations

Here’s a comprehensive table of some of the most important federal criminal and civil statutes of limitations:

When Does the Clock Start Running?

The point at which a statute of limitations begins to run can vary depending on the nature of the offense or claim:

Criminal Cases

Generally, the statute begins to run when the crime is committed. However, for continuing offenses like conspiracy, the statute may not begin to run until the last overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy is committed.

Civil Cases

The starting point can vary:

• When the violation occurred
• When the injury was discovered (the “discovery rule”)
• When the injury reasonably should have been discovered
• For continuing violations, each new violation may restart the clock

Fraud Cases

Many jurisdictions apply the “discovery rule” in fraud cases, meaning the statute doesn’t begin to run until the fraud is discovered or reasonably should have been discovered.

Tolling and Exceptions

In certain circumstances, statutes of limitations may be tolled (suspended) or extended. Common reasons for tolling include:

1. Discovery rule: As mentioned above, this rule delays the start of the limitation period until the plaintiff discovers or reasonably should have discovered the injury or violation.
2. Fraudulent concealment: If a defendant actively conceals their wrongdoing, the statute of limitations may be tolled until the plaintiff discovers or should have discovered the fraud.
3. Continuing violations: For ongoing unlawful conduct, each new violation may restart the statute of limitations.
4. Minority or incapacity: The statute of limitations may be tolled for minors or individuals who are mentally incapacitated.
5. Absence from jurisdiction: In some cases, a defendant’s absence from the jurisdiction may toll the statute of limitations.
6. Wartime suspension: Under the Wartime Suspension of Limitations Act, the statute of limitations for certain offenses involving fraud against the government is suspended during times of war.

Notable Exceptions and Special Cases

Certain types of actions are not subject to statutes of limitations or have special rules:

1. War crimes and crimes against humanity: Following the principles established in the aftermath of World War II, there is no statute of limitations for war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide under international law.
2. Espionage: Under 18 U.S.C. § 794(a), capital espionage offenses have no statute of limitations.
3. Fugitives: The federal “fugitive tolling doctrine” provides that the statute of limitations is tolled while the accused is a fugitive from justice.
4. DNA evidence: Some states have enacted laws that extend or eliminate the statute of limitations for certain crimes when DNA evidence is available, although this is less common at the federal level.

Challenges and Controversies

Applying statutes of limitations can sometimes lead to controversial outcomes, particularly in cases involving serious crimes or long-standing injustices. Some of the key challenges and debates surrounding federal statutes of limitations include:

1. Balancing interests: There is ongoing debate about how to balance the interests of justice, victim rights, and the rights of the accused when setting limitation periods.
2. Technological advancements: The advent of DNA evidence and other forensic technologies has raised questions about whether traditional statutes of limitations are still appropriate for certain crimes.
3. Complex and evolving crimes: In cases involving complex schemes or evolving criminal enterprises, determining when the statute of limitations begins to run can be challenging.
4. Retroactive changes: Courts have generally held that extending a statute of limitations cannot revive a claim that has already expired, raising questions about the effectiveness of attempts to address historical injustices through legislative changes.
5. Jurisdictional issues: In cases involving multiple jurisdictions or transnational crimes, determining which statute of limitations applies can be complex.

Recent Developments and Trends

Several recent developments and trends have impacted federal statutes of limitations:

1. #MeToo movement: The movement has prompted discussions about extending or eliminating statutes of limitations for sexual assault and harassment cases.
2. Cybercrime: As cyber-related offenses become more prevalent, there have been calls to reassess statutes of limitations for these crimes, given the challenges in detecting and investigating them.
3. Financial crimes: In the wake of major financial scandals and the 2008 financial crisis, there have been efforts to extend statutes of limitations for certain financial crimes.
4. Terrorism: Post-9/11 legislation has extended or eliminated statutes of limitations for many terrorism-related offenses.
5. Cold cases: Advances in forensic technology have led to renewed interest in cold cases, prompting debates about the appropriateness of statutes of limitations for certain violent crimes.

Conclusion

Federal statutes of limitations play a vital role in the U.S. legal system, balancing the interests of justice, efficiency, and fairness. While these statutes serve important purposes, they also present challenges in an evolving legal and technological landscape. As society continues to grapple with complex issues of justice and accountability, the debate over the appropriate scope and application of statutes of limitations is likely to continue.

Understanding federal statutes of limitations is crucial for legal practitioners, policymakers, and the general public alike. These time limits significantly impact the administration of justice and the rights of both plaintiffs and defendants. As the legal system continues to evolve, it will be essential to regularly reassess and, where necessary, reform statutes of limitations to ensure they continue to serve their intended purposes while adapting to changing societal needs and technological advancements.