Untitled document-16.pdf Lecture Notes

​ Want to know what you guys think of what I'm doing. ​ 0:00 ​ And I, I know, like somebody had said that and I know I can be kind of scatterbrained at times, and I don't mean to be....

​ Want to know what you guys think of what I'm doing. ​ 0:00 ​ And I, I know, like somebody had said that and I know I can be kind of scatterbrained at times, and I don't mean to be. ​ 0:03 ​ It's just, uh, I think I think it's part of it is just. ​ 0:12 ​ That's who I am. Um, and I don't mean to be, but I, you know, that can happen. ​ 0:15 ​ And then, uh, I've got a lot of balls in the air, and, uh, sometimes I feel like a juggler and and then, you know, the other thing is, I have a brain. ​ 0:21 ​ I don't know about you. Do you guys have run a brain? Like. ​ 0:30 ​ I swear, because I've been kind of in a bubble, you know? ​ 0:33 ​ Um, I feel like my memory is not what it normally has been, so. ​ 0:36 ​ Yeah, I see a couple of you feel that way also. Thanks, Arianna. ​ 0:42 ​ I hope I have. I really hope I have, uh, yeah. ​ 0:46 ​ Cecilia, I don't want to say that, but probably a little bit of age there for me too. ​ 0:50 ​ Just a little tiny bit. Okay. So let me pull up. ​ 0:53 ​ So. Oh, by the way, evaluations are out there, I don't know. ​ 1:00 ​ So I don't remember how that works. Um, for online classes, I should know. ​ 1:05 ​ Shame on me. But, uh, just to let you know, like, you know, if you want to give me criticism, the only thing I ask, ​ 1:10 ​ please, is that you, you know, kind of explain, like, so if you say, you know, you suck at your lectures. ​ 1:19 ​ Okay. What exactly do you mean? ​ 1:26 ​ You know what I mean? Because that's the only way that I can improve is if I know more about what you mean. ​ 1:29 ​ Just remember that I'm a human being to. I read these, and I really take them to heart. ​ 1:35 ​ And that's not saying that, you know, I want you to, you know, you know, feed me, uh, all these compliments. ​ 1:40 ​ No, I'm not saying that. I'm just saying that, you know, constructive criticism is always helpful. ​ 1:47 ​ Okay, so I did my little spiel there. Uh, thank you. ​ 1:54 ​ Audrey. That makes me feel so much better. Sometimes you just never know how it's going, right? ​ 2:00 ​ Because I don't get to see your beautiful faces, so, I don't know. ​ 2:04 ​ I can usually, you know, tell how it's going in a class by looking at people's faces and thinking, okay, that that joke didn't go over well or. ​ 2:08 ​ Yeah, they're they're bored to [INAUDIBLE]. But when you're on line, man, it's tough. ​ 2:16 ​ It's really tough. All right, my friends. So this is my favorite chapter. ​ 2:20 ​ Um, I think, you know, it's just a kind of, um, a cop fascination, if you will. ​ 2:25 ​ Uh, I never, ever want to be a part of the criminal justice system outside of talking about it. ​ 2:31 ​ I think we all feel that way. Um, but it is some interesting cases. ​ 2:37 ​ I've given you a couple as a choice for you. Discussion board number two. ​ 2:43 ​ You know, there's several issues in there that I think are interesting, um, that relate to this chapter. ​ 2:47 ​ So, you know, any of them would be interesting for you to write about. ​ 2:53 ​ All right. So, uh, the first part of chapter 13 talks about the Waco, um, the Waco incident with the biker shootout. ​ 2:57 ​ And I just for sake of time, I'm not going to be able to talk about that, ​ 3:08 ​ but I do want to mention that it would be very good within that section, it talks about exculpatory evidence. ​ 3:12 ​ Okay. In that section, which is the first part of chapter 13, it talks about the Waco bike shootout, which is really interesting. ​ 3:21 ​ Uh, you know, I like to always start a case out when I'm writing this chapter and, you know, it happened in 2015. ​ 3:30 ​ Take a look at it. It's got some really crazy stuff that happened. ​ 3:37 ​ But the one thing I really need you to take away from that section is the term exculpatory evidence. ​ 3:41 ​ So let me read you the definition and then I'll explain, uh, evidence that helps a defendant and may exonerate the defendant in a criminal trial, ​ 3:47 ​ evidence that helps the defendant and may exonerate the defendant in a criminal trial. ​ 3:59 ​ So one of the best cases. Okay. And I'm going to try and keep this short because I could talk about this case all day. ​ 4:04 ​ Yes. Incriminating. Incriminating evidence is when you know something is is showing that you're guilty, right? ​ 4:13 ​ So that's a good one, Lillith. So one of my favorite cases. ​ 4:20 ​ Very disturbing. I wrote about it in the seventh edition. ​ 4:24 ​ 17th edition. This is the 17th enhance that we're looking at and using. ​ 4:29 ​ But it's the Anthony Graves case. This case is so disturbing. ​ 4:33 ​ Uh. He spent. So bad with numbers. ​ 4:38 ​ Once it was 18 years, and a majority of those, I want to say 15 or 16 of them were on death row. ​ 4:42 ​ And the case involves this, uh, man. ​ 4:49 ​ Oh. What's his name? He was a cousin of his. ​ 4:52 ​ Of his girlfriends that he met once. And he said that Anthony Graves was the one who committed a crime. ​ 4:56 ​ Well, let me tell you the crime really quickly. This, uh, this family. ​ 5:05 ​ It was a grandmother. It was, um, a teenager and two younger, uh, boys, I believe. ​ 5:09 ​ Somebody went in there, shot up, uh, some of the people, bludgeoned one of the kids and then set the house on fire. ​ 5:16 ​ And this guy. Oh, it's driving me crazy. I cannot remember his name, but he said, yeah, you know, he went to the funeral. ​ 5:27 ​ One of the kids was his son. He went to his son's funeral, remember? ​ 5:34 ​ They were set on fire and he had burn marks. So of course the police say, yeah, come on in. ​ 5:38 ​ We need to talk to you. They did a lie detector and he failed the lie detector. ​ 5:44 ​ Carter. Thank you. Arianna. Yes. That's it. Carter. So the guy's name is Carter. ​ 5:49 ​ Told you run a brain. Uh, and he's the one who has. ​ 5:55 ​ He failed the lie detector. That's very true. Lilith, lie detectors are not. ​ 5:59 ​ Number one admissible in court. They are not. And number two, they can be, you know, not reliable. ​ 6:03 ​ But they are good tools, right? They're good tools for police to gauge the situation. ​ 6:09 ​ Listen, I took one, okay? I, uh, went through the process with the Central Intelligence Agency. ​ 6:16 ​ Uh, when I was in grad school, uh, I was going to work for them, and I had to go through a very extensive two week process in DC. ​ 6:22 ​ Learned a lot. And those things are very intimidating, very, very intimidating. ​ 6:30 ​ And so I think it's a great tool. If I had gone through that process, I might not understand it as much. ​ 6:35 ​ But it is a really great tool and kind of intimidating somebody. ​ 6:40 ​ Even though I had never done anything right, I'd never done anything, but it was just nerve wracking. ​ 6:43 ​ You're hooked up to things that measure, you know, your heart rate, you know, you're sweating, you know, just different things. ​ 6:48 ​ So this is a good tool for police to use. So he failed his lie detector. ​ 6:55 ​ Again this is not it is saying that the person is guilty and it can't be used in court. ​ 6:59 ​ But it does help because a lot of times people go, okay, all right, you caught me, I did it. ​ 7:04 ​ So Carter says, listen, I was there. I was there when this happened, but I didn't do anything. ​ 7:09 ​ It was Anthony Graves. Anthony Graves did this, and I was there, and I just was. ​ 7:17 ​ I don't remember how he explains it, but essentially he was in a daze. ​ 7:23 ​ What the [INAUDIBLE]? You're in a daze when somebody is killing innocent children. ​ 7:27 ​ And particularly your child doesn't make any sense. ​ 7:31 ​ Yeah, that's a good one, Ryan. Maybe he was saying he was in shock. ​ 7:35 ​ Uh, and so he points to Anthony Graves. Anthony Graves is arrested purely on this guy Carter saying he did it. ​ 7:39 ​ They look into him, he's shocked. ​ 7:47 ​ He doesn't understand what's going on, and they find that one of the Texas marshals did come across that he was at the time. ​ 7:50 ​ There's a, um, a jack in the box. I call it Jack in the crack, but there's a jack in the box. ​ 8:00 ​ And he was there, and the employee remembers him being there roughly at the same time that the police believe this crime happened. ​ 8:07 ​ And we're talking about that this place is miles away. ​ 8:15 ​ And he was with his girlfriend and his brother. Okay. ​ 8:18 ​ For some reason, this didn't come up in the case, which is, you know, mind boggling. ​ 8:22 ​ So to make a long story short, Anthony Graves sits on sat on death row because this person who he and met once, ​ 8:29 ​ he didn't even know this guy because this guy said he did it. ​ 8:39 ​ He did this. He's guilty. I don't know about you that, but that scares the [INAUDIBLE] out of me. ​ 8:44 ​ Okay. And we're talking about a case that happened. What was it? ​ 8:49 ​ Late 90s, early 2000. That just is mind boggling. ​ 8:53 ​ Okay. And Anthony Graves is African American, and I just do want to put that out there. ​ 8:58 ​ Uh, so Carter at one point tells Sebastian, who is the, uh, prosecutor in this case. ​ 9:03 ​ He says, you know what? I got to tell you the truth. It was me. I acted alone. ​ 9:13 ​ Anthony Graves didn't do anything. He's a he has already been found guilty and given the death penalty. ​ 9:17 ​ By the way, it's now Anthony Graves, his turn to go up for his trial. ​ 9:22 ​ And that's why Carter speaks out. Sebastian doesn't like this because he's a prosecutor. ​ 9:26 ​ And why doesn't he like this? What do prosecutors need or how are they chosen? ​ 9:32 ​ How is the prosecutor chosen? Anyone? ​ 9:38 ​ Anyone. Yes. Good. Cecilia. ​ 9:42 ​ They are elected. So this was a huge case. ​ 9:46 ​ And people wanted justice, right? You had children and an elderly woman who were brutally murdered. ​ 9:49 ​ Yes, they want justice because they are elected. ​ 9:58 ​ Ryan. So when this happened, people wanted somebody to be caught. ​ 10:01 ​ And I believe that when this was going down, it was close to Sebastian's, uh, election. ​ 10:07 ​ So when Carter says this and says, no, I acted alone. ​ 10:13 ​ You know I did it. So best is not happy about it. ​ 10:17 ​ He starts to threaten, uh, Carter and essentially saying that, uh, I don't know. ​ 10:21 ​ Do you want me to bring in your your girlfriend? Maybe she was involved, you know, kind of thing. ​ 10:28 ​ He winds up saying, okay, you know, he kind of blackmails him. ​ 10:33 ​ He goes on the stand and points to Anthony Graves, and Anthony Graves gets the death penalty. ​ 10:37 ​ All based on this one person's testimony. So he sat on death row. ​ 10:43 ​ Carter is executed when he's going to be executed. ​ 10:48 ​ Before he's executed, he confesses. ​ 10:54 ​ Because you're given a couple of words you can say before they do this. Your last words. ​ 10:57 ​ And he says. Charles. Uh. ​ 11:02 ​ Anthony Graves is innocent. I committed this crime alone.  ​ 11:05 ​ Now when somebody is said this, this is not something small. ​ 11:10 ​ You're about to die. You know what I mean? This is something kind of huge. ​ 11:15 ​ Eventually, another prosecutor looks into the case. ​ 11:18 ​ They're able to challenge this to an appellate court. And finally, after something like 18 years, Anthony Graves is released. ​ 11:22 ​ Released after spending X number of years. Now, what they went after the prosecutor for is exculpatory evidence. ​ 11:30 ​ He had evidence like the, um, Jack in the crack. ​ 11:39 ​ Sorry. Jack in the box. Uh, the fact that Carter said, you know, I acted alone. ​ 11:44 ​ This is information that must be given to the defendant's attorney. ​ 11:52 ​ Because this could clear this person. Right? ​ 11:57 ​ Do you understand? So this is huge. It's really important to cases, but sadly, you will have prosecutors who will do these dirty things. ​ 12:00 ​ And what is really sad is if you look at the end of the chapter, I talk about district attorneys who. ​ 12:09 ​ They want to be reelected. And this particular, uh, prosecutor, this district attorney got a slap on the hand. ​ 12:17 ​ He got his license removed. He got a fine. He got some community service. ​ 12:24 ​ Really? That's all he got after sending a man to death row for too much of his life? ​ 12:29 ​ It's mind boggling. Sorry. I just think it's such an important case again. ​ 12:38 ​ It's disturbing that any one of us could be in this situation. ​ 12:43 ​ Wrong place, wrong time. You know, uh, you never know. ​ 12:47 ​ Okay. And it's not like we're talking about a 1950s case, either, right? ​ 12:51 ​ Uh, Ariana says. What's even scarier is that he would have been executed if Carter didn't speak out. ​ 12:56 ​ Yeah. That is that's a good point, that if you hadn't had, you know,  ​ 13:02 ​ this guy saying this and people going and people were fighting for Anthony Graves outside who did believe he was innocent, okay. ​ 13:06 ​ He had committed some petty, petty crimes, I think maybe 1 or 2, but really petty. ​ 13:14 ​ And then you had this evidence of this Jack in the box employee who says, yeah, I saw him. ​ 13:19 ​ He was here at X amount of time, which is believed to be the same time the murder was committed. ​ 13:24 ​ The murders rather. Okay, so exculpatory evidence. ​ 13:29 ​ Sorry. Just one of the cases that really bothers me. ​ 13:32 ​ And I wrote about it in the 17th edition. All right. ​ 13:36 ​ So there are different types of crimes, right? ​ 13:40 ​ We have felonies and we have misdemeanors. ​ 13:44 ​ Right. We have the Texas Penal Code. I talked about this in the beginning of the chapter and the Texas Penal Code. ​ 13:47 ​ Let me give you the definition. Sorry. ​ 13:54 ​ The Texas Penal Code is a body of laws that lists crimes and their punishment. ​ 14:01 ​ Okay, so it essentially tells you if you commit this crime, this is the possibility of what your punishment could be. ​ 14:08 ​ They come up with the with the penal code after every legislative session. ​ 14:17 ​ So they update it. Right. If there are new laws or if they are, um, updating existing laws. ​ 14:22 ​ Okay. So after I the legislative session, they will update the penal code. ​ 14:30 ​ And of course punishment varies, right, depending on what type of crime you've committed. ​ 14:34 ​ It could be anything from a fine up to imprisonment. ​ 14:38 ​ Right. Now, when it comes to the types of crimes, we're talking about what's called graded penalties okay. ​ 14:43 ​ Graded penalties. And just to give you an idea, in 20, what year is this? ​ 14:51 ​ I messed this up. 2016. This just gives you an idea because obviously we're looking at the 17th Enhanced Edition instead of the newer edition. ​ 14:58 ​ But as of 2016, there were over 2600 crimes that were listed as felonies. ​ 15:08 ​ A less serious crime is classified as a misdemeanor. ​ 15:16 ​ Right. And so we have these graded penalties. ​ 15:20 ​ Okay. That's for non-capital fences. ​ 15:23 ​ And harsher penalties for repeat offenders. So a graded penalty. ​ 15:28 ​ Let me read it. Depending on the nature of the crime. ​ 15:34 ​ Non-capital felonies are graded as first degree, ​ 15:38 ​ their second degree there's third degree and what's known as either fourth degree or state jail felonies. ​ 15:41 ​ Then there is the A, B, c. There's three types of misdemeanors, right? ​ 15:49 ​ There's a, b and c obviously A is the worst out of the misdemeanors. ​ 15:53 ​ Okay. So graded penalties is talking about first degree second degree third degree and then state jail felonies again known as fourth degree. ​ 15:59 ​ And if you look in your book in chapter 13 I give you a, uh, a table that gives you some of the crimes and what your punishment would be. ​ 16:09 ​ And I just want to just give you just a couple of those, because I think it's fascinating that some of these lie where they lie. ​ 16:20 ​ Go ahead. Ryan. What's up? So I actually have a question about the misdemeanors. ​ 16:28 ​ Uh, because I know any type of crime, whenever you're arrested and actually found guilty of something, it does go on your permanent record. ​ 16:34 ​ Now, what's something like a class C misdemeanor, for example? ​ 16:42 ​ It goes on your record. Does it wind up like stacking? ​ 16:47 ​ Um, uh, I'm trying to formulate a better phrasing this question a bigger thing. ​ 16:52 ​ Does it impact other. Uh, are you saying does it impact like other cases that may be against you?  ​ 16:58 ​ Not exactly. More like, okay, saying I get a class C misdemeanor doing something one day, and then a few months later, ​ 17:05 ​ I'll get another class C misdemeanor, and then a year later, another class C misdemeanor. ​ 17:13 ​ Um, but they're on a different class C misdemeanors or it's on for the same thing. ​ 17:19 ​ Uh, okay. ​ 17:25 ​ The reason I bring this up is because the current event, uh, two that I did about, um, SB 20, uh, 1925, where it was against the homeless people. ​ 17:26 ​ Yeah. So I was curious. No, because basically that bill, you know, ​ 17:39 ​ for those who don't know that bill and states that the police can give a $500 fine and a class C ​ 17:44 ​ misdemeanor to any homeless person that is caught on public property for extended amount of time, ​ 17:50 ​ does not really clarify the extent and amount of time what that equates to. ​ 17:56 ​ But right. If, uh, the police were to catch a homeless person five, six, seven times in the same spot or different areas, ​ 18:03 ​ what that does it turn to a bigger crime or does it just stack? ​ 18:13 ​ No, I don't think so. Now, listen, I am not an attorney. I just play one on TV. ​ 18:19 ​ Right? Uh, I'm not an attorney, but, uh, there's a lot of discretion that's given to law enforcement. ​ 18:24 ​ It's like you said, sometimes it could be that, you know, because the law doesn't define the time. ​ 18:31 ​ It could be that they're like, okay, you know what? We gave you a warning. ​ 18:37 ​ You know, we gave you a second strike. Third strike, and you're still here. ​ 18:40 ​ Now we're going to cite you for it. So my understanding is if they cited them for it, right, they can cite him again, him or her, ​ 18:44 ​ whoever, if he's doing that again or whatever misdemeanor crime for a misdemeanor that fits. ​ 18:53 ​ So you could have, depending on what you've done even in one setting. ​ 18:59 ​ Again, I'm not a lawyer, so I'm not a 1,000%, but I believe this is this is the law. ​ 19:03 ​ You could have committed several different misdemeanors. ​ 19:10 ​ And, you know, let's say they're all see, my understanding is you can be cited individually for each one. ​ 19:13 ​ Right. And so they they are the maximum, as you said, is a $500 fine. ​ 19:19 ​ So it would just depend on the justice of the peace or the municipal court that sees it to decide, ​ 19:24 ​ you know, what they're going to level your fine to be. Uh, does that make sense? ​ 19:30 ​ It does. Thank you. I was just curious about that. And. ​ 19:36 ​ Yeah, that's a good one. Like, you know what? What does what do what does the state expect if they can't even afford a home. ​ 19:39 ​ And I think again, this is left up to the discretion of law enforcement. ​ 19:48 ​ This is what will happen to is that you have all these citations and these people cannot pay. ​ 19:52 ​ And then how are they going to pay? You know, they're going to they're uh, there's going to be a judgment against them. ​ 19:58 ​ I don't know how it works, but it is it is pretty ridiculous. ​ 20:03 ​ So I just want to give you some examples. Okay. So a first degree felony okay. ​ 20:08 ​ This would this could be murder. And this could be theft of property up to $300,000. ​ 20:13 ​ This is where you can get this is that's what a first degree felony is. ​ 20:20 ​ And you can get confined for up to 5 to 99 years, or a fine of $10,000. ​ 20:23 ​ There's a second degree felony. ​ 20:29 ​ And just to give you an idea, um, aggravated assault, it says the law says or the penal code says aggravated assault, including a spouse. ​ 20:31 ​ Why does it say that? Do you think? Aggravated assault, including a spouse? ​ 20:42 ​ What does that part of the law say? Why do they have to differentiate, including a spouse?  ​ 20:48 ​ Okay, la la says domestic violence. Cecilia says abuse. ​ 20:55 ​ Ryan, what are you thinking? Uh. Uh, actually, I was about said the exact same thing that Lenglet and Cecilia were mentioning. ​ 20:58 ​ Yeah, I that's what seems logical to me. ​ 21:06 ​ Um, I haven't found a definitive answer on that, but it just seems logical. ​ 21:09 ​ Right? Unfortunately, there had been a period of time well into the 90s in which police could be called for a domestic dispute. ​ 21:13 ​ Right. And police would not be able to necessarily or didn't want to go after the spouse because, uh, they're just fighting. ​ 21:23 ​ They're married. It's okay. So now they put it in the law to say, it doesn't matter if you're married, right? ​ 21:31 ​ Same thing with rape. You can't say, well, we're married, I can. ​ 21:38 ​ I didn't write them. I mean, that's part of the marriage. ​ 21:41 ​ No, that's that's not it. So this is, you know, kind of to the times, right? ​ 21:45 ​ Audrey says they didn't do anything before. Absolutely. Unfortunately, I can attest to that. ​ 21:50 ​ Uh, my stepfather would harm my mother. ​ 21:55 ​ Police would come. This was in the late 80s and just be like, you guys need to stop. ​ 21:58 ​ Settle down. That was it. Um. Ryan says, or it's the husband's, right. ​ 22:02 ​ Yeah, they would say that. It's my right to treat my wife. ​ 22:08 ​ You know how I want. Or the the wife as well. Uh, a true Ariana. ​ 22:11 ​ It's unbelievable. Yeah. Cecilia. Good point. Now the police can't press charges, right. ​ 22:17 ​ And depending on the nature of the situation, you know, if it's beyond a squabble. ​ 22:22 ​ Absolutely. Depending on, you know, what kind of evidence there is right on the person. ​ 22:27 ​ Okay. So then the third degree felony is impersonating someone online. ​ 22:32 ​ And that is not to mean that I go on Facebook and pretend to be Cecilia.  ​ 22:39 ​ Okay, we're not talking about that, right? We're talking about, you know, if somebody is trying to get a loan in your name, right, ​ 22:44 ​ they're doing it online or they're trying to usually have to it has to do with financials. ​ 22:50 ​ Right. And and so that is a third degree felony, a state jail or fourth degree felony. ​ 22:56 ​ It's called either one possession of four ounces. ​ 23:02 ​ Now by the way this has changed and I apologize. I should have written down what it has gone to. ​ 23:06 ​ But it used to be possession of four ounces to 1 pound of marijuana. ​ 23:11 ​ Um, I don't remember. It's still possession of marijuana, depending on the amount, but. ​ 23:16 ​ And listen, I don't know. What we're talking about. ​ 23:23 ​ First of all, I'm not very good in measurements, but somebody explained to me, I think about marijuana, it's light. ​ 23:27 ​ So if you're talking about four ounces, that's a pretty good amount for my understanding, right? ​ 23:33 ​ Yes. Uh, well, it has been decriminalized, right. ​ 23:40 ​ But you can still get fined for it. Um. Yeah, I need to. ​ 23:45 ​ I need to update myself on that. I don't know the I'm going by what we have in this chapter because that's what we have in this chapter. ​ 23:49 ​ Yeah. Four ounces. I would imagine again, I'm not good with the measurements, Maya, but I would imagine that's a lot. ​ 23:57 ​ Then there's class A misdemeanors. This is where you're getting into your this is a different graded penalty. ​ 24:04 ​ So if you're resisting arrest that in the penal code is a a class A misdemeanor where you can get confinement from one year, ​ 24:10 ​ uh, and a maximum fine of $4,000 and a class B misdemeanor is a terroristic threat. ​ 24:20 ​ I thought that was interesting. It's only a class uh, B misdemeanor. ​ 24:26 ​ And we're talking about you can be confined to 180 days.  ​ 24:31 ​ Uh, and a maximum fine of $2,000. The last one is the class C misdemeanor, which I think is the most interesting. ​ 24:35 ​ Yeah, that is interesting. Lilith, uh, a class C sexting. ​ 24:43 ​ Sexting that is sending or possessing sexually explicit images of people who are 17 or younger by a minor. ​ 24:49 ​ So my understanding of that, let me read it again. ​ 25:01 ​ Sexting, which is sending or possessing explicit images of people 17 or younger by a minor. ​ 25:05 ​ Um. So my too much, too much conversation going on about about the weed. ​ 25:13 ​ I'm sorry I brought that up. It's an Austin thing, I think, because even in the class, there's some distraction on that. ​ 25:19 ​ But, uh, the sexting, my understanding as the law is written or is the penal code is written, ​ 25:25 ​ is that if you're sending messages between, you know, that are inappropriate, right? ​ 25:32 ​ We're talking about it says sexually explicit images and the person is 17 or younger. ​ 25:38 ​ Okay. Uh, then you can get in trouble even if you're a minor. ​ 25:46 ​ Right? If it's somebody who's 15 sending pictures to a 15 year old, it doesn't matter. ​ 25:51 ​ You can both get charged with a class C misdemeanor, right? ​ 25:56 ​ Yeah. I mean, it could be classified. I mean, I would think that more. ​ 26:01 ​ Explicit. I don't know how to say this without sounding wrong, but yes, I do agree that it's a type of child porn. ​ 26:08 ​ Uh, I just think. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Maybe more action. ​ 26:15 ​ Yeah. Okay, that sounds that doesn't. ​ 26:19 ​ I don't know how to explain how I'm thinking about it. It is a form of child pornography, but it's a little different in some ways. ​ 26:23 ​ Right. Not by much. All right. The next. ​ 26:29 ​ The next thing I need you to know is enhanced punishment. Okay. ​ 26:33 ​ Enhanced punishment. Let me get to my notes where I want to be. Okay. ​ 26:37 ​ So when we're talking about enhanced punishment, there are three types of crimes where one can be charged with enhanced punishment. ​ 26:40 ​ So we're talking about if you are charged with organized crime, if you're a repeat offender. ​ 26:50 ​ Or if you commit a hate crime. So one of those organized crime, a repeat offender, will crime. ​ 26:58 ​ And of course a hate crime is a crime based on race, ethnicity, religion, age, gender, disability or sexual orientation. ​ 27:04 ​ So this is somebody going after you essentially for who you are. ​ 27:17 ​ Right. Um, so those are three types of crimes that can can get enhanced punishment. ​ 27:21 ​ Enhanced punishment is the next higher degree of felony the next higher degree of felony. ​ 27:28 ​ So for example, let's say you committed you you have committed a you're a repeat offender. ​ 27:35 ​ So you've been charged several times with the second degree felony of aggravated assault. ​ 27:42 ​ Okay. Let's say it's been several times. If that happens, the prosecution can can go after an enhanced punishment. ​ 27:47 ​ Where instead of you getting a second degree felony, you would get a first degree felony. ​ 27:58 ​ I hope that makes sense. Or let's say, you know, you have been charged with organized crime. ​ 28:04 ​ They could go after you and not try to seek enhanced punishment, but they have that option on the table for that crime or hate crimes. ​ 28:09 ​ Uh, yeah. We're going to talk about hate crimes in just a minute. Okay, so a capital felony. ​ 28:17 ​ When we're talking about a capital felony, this is a crime in which death penalty is on the table. ​ 28:24 ​ Okay. When you have a crime where death penalty is possible, there are two stages, right? ​ 28:30 ​ The first stage is, uh, the trial of guilt or innocence. ​ 28:38 ​ Okay. If you are found guilty, then it moves to the second stage, ​ 28:43 ​ where the jury determines whether to give you life in prison without the possibility of parole or the death penalty.  ​ 28:48 ​ Okay. So we're talking when we're talking about a capital felony case. ​ 28:59 ​ We're talking about a death penalty case. And it depends on the circumstances of the crime. ​ 29:03 ​ It's not a necessarily straight murder. I don't know how, because you could murder someone, and it could be like vehicular manslaughter, right? ​ 29:09 ​ Uh, there has to be, you know, certain factors that line up for it to be a capital felony case, which we'll talk about later. ​ 29:18 ​ Okay. Uh, just really brief. ​ 29:25 ​ I don't want to spend a lot of time on this, but drug crimes. I decided to write about this because there's a lot of of cases, uh, ​ 29:29 ​ a lot of people sitting in jail or in prison related to possession of controlled substances. ​ 29:37 ​ Right. And we're talking about a lot of those people have mental illness. ​ 29:44 ​ They're homeless, they're impoverished, and usually a combination of all three. ​ 29:48 ​ Right. And prisons cannot handle these cases. ​ 29:53 ​ They cannot handle them. They're not equipped to, you know, so it's really sad because they'll sit there and face time, ​ 29:57 ​ maybe given medication while they're there for their mental illness. ​ 30:03 ​ And then once they are released, it's like you're on your own. Um. ​ 30:07 ​ What else do I want to say about that? Uh, now, I do want to just mention that there are drug courts, right? ​ 30:11 ​ We have seen a big change. Republicans and conservatives used to be really, really big about lock up drug offenders and throw away the key. ​ 30:18 ​ Yeah. I don't know if you remember Rush Limbaugh. He was an extreme. ​ 30:27 ​ You know, he was extreme to the right. He would talk about how, you know, drug offenders should be hung up. ​ 30:31 ​ Right. Uh, yeah. And not only is it interesting how that he died of lung cancer, ​ 30:37 ​ but it is also interesting that he would talk about drug addicts and how much he hated them and how despicable they were.  ​ 30:43 ​ And then not too long after that, he gets hooked on OxyContin. ​ 30:50 ​ So it's, you know, it's kind of it's it's an interesting situation, but it it really was we saw a lot of conservatives. ​ 30:56 ​ We saw a lot of Republicans who really were like, okay, let's throw the book at them. ​ 31:03 ​ But then they started to realize it's incredibly expensive, right? ​ 31:07 ​ It's incredibly expensive to house people for these crimes. ​ 31:12 ​ So they started to kind of pull back their they started to do some, uh, helping nonviolent offenders, offenders, easing parole criteria. ​ 31:16 ​ And then they also established drug court. So any county with over 500 or excuse me, with 550,000 people or more, have to have a drug court. ​ 31:26 ​ What's up Ryan? Uh, I just find it. ​ 31:38 ​ I don't want to say ironic that we lock. Drug users and drug dealers up one. ​ 31:42 ​ There's plenty countries out there that have rehabilitation programs that go okay. ​ 31:49 ​ Why are you doing this? Are you doing it because you get to do it. ​ 31:56 ​ Cool. That's, you know, let's get you off this because obviously it's not, you know, it's killing you. ​ 31:59 ​ Are you doing it because you don't have a job? Make a steady job. ​ 32:05 ​ Okay. Won't that help, you know, cough up your resume and get you back into workforce things of that nature. ​ 32:09 ​ And yet here in America, it's like no drugs are just so bad. ​ 32:15 ​ Like everybody up and then like, no Rush Limbaugh, no hang them from trees side, you know, and it's like, no, they're human beings. ​ 32:20 ​ There'd been point into a very troubling situation. ​ 32:28 ​ And instead of helping them, you just want to kill them. ​ 32:34 ​ No. Right. And like what's what's stopping somebody. ​ 32:37 ​ Yeah. Living in on you and hanging you or killing you make.  ​ 32:43 ​ Come on. Exactly. Well, and Cecilia brings up a good point. ​ 32:48 ​ America is very far behind. You know, this is we're just now really starting to see. ​ 32:51 ​ And it's still a taboo subject, but we're still really starting to see the acceptance more of addiction is, uh, a it's a disease. ​ 32:56 ​ It's a disease like diabetes. And people can't it's hard to wrap their minds around that. ​ 33:06 ​ And Cecelia brings up another good point. It's not just heroin or, you know, cocaine or, you know, meth. ​ 33:11 ​ We're also talking about like, for instance, with Rush Limbaugh, prescription drugs, ​ 33:18 ​ which is becoming quickly, particularly during the pandemic, a major problem. ​ 33:23 ​ Right. And we see a connection. ​ 33:27 ​ Ariana brings it up, a connection with, you know, mental health care is a big issue, but we just don't pay attention to these health issues. ​ 33:29 ​ I'm sorry. Go ahead. No problem. ​ 33:37 ​ I just wanted to add that he was a chronic smoker, so no surprise that he got lung cancer. ​ 33:40 ​ Uh, but that apparently he claimed himself to be cured after seeing a faith healer, uh, and then obviously died. ​ 33:48 ​ Very interesting. Yeah, I, I mean, cigarets are a an addiction. ​ 33:57 ​ I have an addiction to soda. I will admit it. And television, I love TV. ​ 34:03 ​ It's really sick. Uh, but soda is kind of my vice, you know? ​ 34:09 ​ So we all have different addictions, right? And Rush Limbaugh was no different. ​ 34:13 ​ But, yeah, it goes back to some of these things we're saying is that there is a connection of why someone does this. ​ 34:18 ​ And instead of addressing the issue, we go, as Ryan said, straight to let's punish you, lock you up and throw away the key. ​ 34:24 ​ Thankfully, they started to see. At least they started to see the issue and change things. ​ 34:32 ​ People started to see the dollar signs of it. I don't particularly care for it that way, but at least there were changes. ​ 34:39 ​ So drug courts are interesting because they allow people to go in and to not have to serve time and to get into a program, uh, for recovery. ​ 34:46 ​ Couple problems with that. If you do research, is that the people who would most benefit from these drug courts can't go to them when our courts open. ​ 34:56 ​ When when is the court open? What hours? Is it on the weekends? ​ 35:07 ​ Is it late into the evening? Yeah. Business hours. ​ 35:11 ​ Uh. Business hours. And so you're talking about people who work. ​ 35:15 ​ Maybe they don't have a car. How are they going to get there? Maybe they have children. ​ 35:19 ​ What's going to happen with their kids? They have to. Under a program that the drug court creates is often that they have to go in. ​ 35:23 ​ You know, certain times, you know, and have random drug tests and you got to pay for it. ​ 35:30 ​ It's not free, you know? And plus you got to take time off of work and all these things. ​ 35:35 ​ So a lot of individuals and we see that particularly people who are minority are not able to do it for the reasons just said. ​ 35:39 ​ And the other problem is a lot of lawyers don't even tell their clients that this is an option. ​ 35:48 ​ So. All right. Uh. Oh says there's a new movie with Michael Keaton coming out about the opioid addiction. ​ 35:54 ​ Oh, yeah. Uh, I've had a lot of students who have faced this problem, you know? ​ 36:02 ​ So, uh, it's something that is kind of near and dear to my heart in that regard. ​ 36:07 ​ Okay. So let's see, um, let's go ahead and go on to hate crimes. ​ 36:13 ​ So when we're talking about hate crimes, we have to talk about the James Byrd Jr hate crimes. ​ 36:17 ​ That how many of you heard of James Byrd Jr and what happened to him? ​ 36:22 ​ I'm curious. Okay. ​ 36:26 ​ Good. Lilith is heard. Anybody else heard about James Byrd Jr?  ​ 36:29 ​ Okay, good. I've had a lot of students who don't know about it. ​ 36:34 ​ Um, and of course, with CRT, uh, it's probably not going to be taught too much. ​ 36:38 ​ I'm talking about critical race theory, right? So this is a case involving, uh, in 2000. ​ 36:45 ​ Now, what year was 1999? 1998. 1998. ​ 36:52 ​ Uh, a black man in Jasper, Texas. Jasper, Texas is a tiny little town very much filled with, uh, division amongst whites and blacks. ​ 36:56 ​ So it's 1998, one of the most horrific crimes. ​ 37:06 ​ You know, during that time, uh, James, Virginia was walking home from his family who had a party. ​ 37:09 ​ Uh, some some individuals pull up in a truck and they're three white men, and they say, hey, come on, we'll give you a ride. ​ 37:16 ​ So he hops in the back of their truck. They go about a mile down to where they can't be seen. ​ 37:25 ​ They get out of the car. They beat him up. They tie his ankles, uh, to the back of the truck, and they take off. ​ 37:29 ​ They drag him for miles, uh, to his death. ​ 37:39 ​ You know, uh, the. What do you call him? The, uh, coroner says that he was alive for all of it until they took a sharp turn. ​ 37:44 ​ He is, uh, whipped around, hit something, and decapitated. ​ 37:54 ​ So the whole thing is is horrific. ​ 37:58 ​ But also, I just think about the unimaginable pain he must have been in the. ​ 38:02 ​ These three white men. Uh, they two of them get the death penalty. ​ 38:08 ​ One gets life without parole. Um, and the reason the the one person doesn't get, uh, death penalty is because he was not directly participatory. ​ 38:13 ​ Uh, so because of this, in 2001, they passed the Johannesburg Junior Hate Crimes Act. ​ 38:26 ​ And in this act, it goes to what hate crimes, as we defined earlier, this is if someone commits a crime against you because of who you are,  ​ 38:32 ​ whether that be your gender, because you're disabled, because of your race, your religion, your sexual orientation. ​ 38:41 ​ But as I think somebody mentioned, this is a really sad part of it is that this law does not protect against oops, ​ 38:48 ​ does not protect against offenses based on the victim's sexual identity or expression. ​ 38:57 ​ Okay. ​ 39:05 ​ And so this is really sad because according to research, transgender people are 28 times more likely to experience physical violence than others. ​ 39:06 ​ Think about that 28 times more likely to experience violence. ​ 39:19 ​ And they are not the individuals who are. Protected. ​ 39:23 ​ Okay. And yeah, that's a good point, Ariana. Uh, it just keeps going up higher. ​ 39:27 ​ And there there are some cities. Dallas, Austin, Fort Worth, El Paso that have ordinances, local ordinances, which is a local law. ​ 39:33 ​ Right. Just affecting that city that protect transgender Texans. ​ 39:42 ​ Now often if you see on here it says DA's which are prosecutors, they will often use what's called a plea bargain. ​ 39:49 ​ Okay. And a plea bargain is where they will allow the defendant to plead down to a lesser crime, uh, ​ 39:56 ​ or receive a shorter sentence, plead down to a lesser crime, or receive, uh, a shorter sentence. ​ 40:05 ​ Why would they do this? Why not just hit him hard and go for whatever they're convicted of? ​ 40:11 ​ Or possibly I should say I'm sorry. What? They're, uh, allegedly being charged for. ​ 40:17 ​ Anyone. Uh. ​ 40:26 ​ Quite really. Go ahead. Ryan. Doesn't have to do with something that they are trying to. ​ 40:33 ​ Oh, I had it. And then I lost it. That's me. ​ 40:42 ​ So I'm going to mute myself until. No worries. ​ 40:47 ​ Happens to me every day. Uh, so it's good to see a fellow person who brain farts. ​ 40:51 ​ So. Yeah. Uh, faster. Uh, conviction. ​ 40:56 ​ Yes. Because at least if they do a plea bargain, right, they can kind of ensure that this person serves time or has a record. ​ 41:00 ​ Right? ​ 41:10 ​ Whereas and it's also a good way for the district attorney to tell the voters, I saved you money because a trial costs, uh, a lot of money, right? ​ 41:11 ​ So there's kind of different pros to it. Although it's infuriating as a victim to see that happen. ​ 41:20 ​ But again, at least there is a charge against this person. Um. ​ 41:27 ​ Okay. I'm sorry. Let me go back to do. Doo doo doo doo doo doo. ​ 41:31 ​ Always come into myself. I don't know what that's about. All right, so let's talk about, uh, I don't know how to say this without coming off wrong, ​ 41:37 ​ but the death penalty, it's one of my favorite talk topics to talk about because it's still. ​ 41:46 ​ So there's so many crazy facets to it. ​ 41:52 ​ Right? So Texas is one of 31 states, along with the federal government, that imposes the death penalty, uh, for the most serious of crimes. ​ 41:55 ​ So just it's really interesting to note that before 1923, it was counties that came that, ​ 42:09 ​ excuse me, they carried out executions by hanging, should say by hanging. ​ 42:19 ​ So before 1923, the state of Texas said, counties, you're going to deal with this, you're going to deal with executions. ​ 42:24 ​ And the method is going to be hanging very simple, you know, uh, effective after 1923, the state said the legislature required, ​ 42:33 ​ you know, what, the state needs to be the one to execute offenders, and they move to, uh, electrocution. ​ 42:44 ​ And so kind of the idea here is that going into electrocution means, you know, we become more progressive. ​ 42:51 ​ That's a sick way of thinking about it. But that was, you know, the message in some ways, Texas wanted you to get it now between 1964 and 1982.  ​ 42:59 ​ There were no executions that occurred in Texas. Now, this wasn't just, oh, out of the bottom of their heart. ​ 43:11 ​ Texas decided to stop. No, a lot of this had to do with the Furman versus Georgia case. ​ 43:17 ​ One of the most important cases in that the death penalty, um, scenario in this case, ​ 43:23 ​ the Supreme Court ruled that the state's use of death penalty was unconstitutional. ​ 43:30 ​ Why? Why did this the Supreme Court say that the use of. ​ 43:37 ​ The death penalty by states was unconstitutional. ​ 43:45 ​ What's the what's the rationale behind that? Anyone. ​ 43:48 ​ No ideas. Cruel and unusual punishment. ​ 43:58 ​ Say again. Say again. Cruel and unusual punishment. ​ 44:02 ​ Okay. Okay. Um, it it could be a facet of that. ​ 44:06 ​ So that's. You're not wrong, Olivia. There is a facet to that. ​ 44:10 ​ Although the argument has been that it's not cruel and unusual because the punishment fits the crime sort of thing when when they talk about cruel. ​ 44:15 ​ Unusual, which is kind of mind boggling. They're talking about, like, if you, uh, are using, uh, if something is above what what how do I say it? ​ 44:26 ​ What is, uh, what is equal to the crime? ​ 44:38 ​ So for example, if somebody is commits petty theft and you execute them, that is cruel and unusual because it's way above. ​ 44:42 ​ Um, okay. So the reason they decided to do it, according to the textbook, uh, Audrey is kind of on to it. ​ 44:49 ​ More, uh, she says more blacks were killed. Yes, because they found that it was arbitrary and racially being applied. ​ 44:56 ​ So you would have, uh, uh, blacks who committed crimes and white who committed the same crime, and they would get different punishments. ​ 45:04 ​ And you were more likely to see, uh, uh, black men, particularly, right, who were given the death penalty, whereas, uh, a white man who,  ​ 45:14 ​ again, did the same crime would not receive that punishment and arbitrary meaning that there wasn't any set kind of rules. ​ 45:25 ​ It was like, uh, you get you get the death penalty and you get the death penalty. ​ 45:31 ​ Kind of an Oprah moment there, if you will. All right, so we come back here. ​ 45:36 ​ So Texas had to rewrite its death penalty laws. ​ 45:44 ​ Okay. They had to rewrite its death penalty laws in 1973 to meet the court's standards for fairness. ​ 45:48 ​ And so what they did is they kind of set up some rules to say this is what would be considered a capital, uh, a capital felony case. ​ 45:54 ​ Uh, the first execution after Furman wasn't until 1982. ​ 46:04 ​ We also became the state at that time that use lethal injection. ​ 46:09 ​ We were the first state to use lethal injection again. ​ 46:14 ​ Looking as though we're being progressive, right? We went from hanging to electrocution. ​ 46:19 ​ Now we've got this cleaner way of murdering. ​ 46:23 ​ Yeah, getting rid of people by, um, using lethal injection or using drugs. ​ 46:28 ​ Uh, just wanted to to chime in. ​ 46:37 ​ I, I know you mentioned this in the recorded lecture, but I just wanted to chime in that actually both methods of lethal injection, ​ 46:39 ​ first of all, they're not administered by actual medical professionals because actual medical professionals would never do that kind of thing. ​ 46:50 ​ Uh, secondly, um, they're actually both now kind of under review. ​ 46:58 ​ Um, because the Paralympics, um, don't always work because these aren't administered by. ​ 47:06 ​ Professionals. They're just administered. But whoever. ​ 47:14 ​ Um, and if, uh, paramedics and and the. ​ 47:18 ​ Yeah, the the anesthetics aren't administered properly, then you feel I believe it's some sort of potassium thing that stops the heart.  ​ 47:24 ​ And that is supposed to be absolutely excruciating. It feels like your actual blood is on fire. ​ 47:32 ​ So yeah, we just when we try to use. Yeah, that's a good one. ​ 47:39 ​ When we used to use the three drug prong process, which we'll talk about in a little bit. ​ 47:43 ​ There was one of the drugs that, uh, was used to euthanize animals, you know, and it we eventually moved to a different drug. ​ 47:48 ​ But there are arguments about this drug as well, because we went to a one drug process and they. ​ 47:58 ​ It's a synthetic. ​ 48:05 ​ It's not the original drug, because the manufacturer of that drug was a European manufacturer, that you're executing people with this drug. ​ 48:06 ​ Uh. We're stopping. So what did Texas do? ​ 48:15 ​ They decided to go to a compounding pharmacy, which are not regulated by the FDA and have, ​ 48:18 ​ uh, you know, this is where you kind of try to get as close to the original drug as possible. ​ 48:24 ​ And they're using that. And inmates have sued, saying we're not guinea pigs. ​ 48:30 ​ That's cruel and unusual. How can you be using us? And to my. ​ 48:35 ​ I don't think there was a ruling on that. I think it was actually thrown out. ​ 48:39 ​ There has been cases bringing forward that, um. ​ 48:43 ​ It's cruel and unusual to use, uh, these drugs, uh, for execution. ​ 48:48 ​ But the courts have said. No, it's it's it's not within the realm of cruel and unusual. ​ 48:53 ​ So I don't know where it's at as of today, but yeah, it's going to be a hard upward because so many people, ​ 48:58 ​ so many Texans and many Americans are okay with with the death penalty. ​ 49:05 ​ Okay. So we use the lethal injection. And over the past 30 plus years, Texas has executed more capital felons, uh, than any other state. ​ 49:11 ​ Okay. We have we have killed, uh, individuals.  ​ 49:22 ​ We have executed individuals at even higher rates in California. ​ 49:27 ​ California has a their number one in terms of population, right? ​ 49:31 ​ We have one of the highest rates of execution, even in the whole world. ​ 49:36 ​ Okay. Uh, he used to execute individuals. ​ 49:41 ​ Um, every we're talking about every, uh, every other month to every month, like, we're talking about 1 or 2 individuals. ​ 49:45 ​ I mean, it used to happen so often, whereas California was, um, maybe executing 1 to 2 individuals a year. ​ 49:53 ​ Big difference. We started to see things change around. ​ 50:04 ​ Was a 2015 when they when they moved from they they used to allow juries to choose between the death penalty and life with the possibility of parole. ​ 50:08 ​ They've changed it now to death penalty and life without the possibility of parole. ​ 50:20 ​ So why did we see a slowdown? Yeah. That's recently. ​ 50:26 ​ That's recently. Ryan. Why did we see a slowdown? ​ 50:30 ​ Why did Texas start to see a huge difference now in the amount of individuals that were being executed? ​ 50:34 ​ Since roughly about 2015. Any ideas? ​ 50:41 ​ So the jury now has when they had the option of death penalty and life with the possibility of parole. ​ 50:48 ​ Right. Jurors I mean, that's a that's a really hard decision. ​ 50:57 ​ Think about that. You have to have that on your shoulders for the rest of your life, that you were part of sending someone to die. ​ 51:01 ​ So, you know, oftentimes but oftentimes in that situation of life with with the possibility of parole versus death penalty, ​ 51:08 ​ they were scared to say, oh, it's possible this person could get out. ​ 51:16 ​ And these are some really heinous crimes. Right. ​ 51:20 ​ When they move to life without the possibility of parole, that's what we started seeing more jurors say. ​ 51:2