On the phenomenology of Maverick Ray and the worthlessness of Texas capital qualifications

Mark Bennett recently called out a newbie solo criminal defense attorney named Maverick Ray for "deceptive" advertising on his website, trashing his questionable claims of experience and gravitas:

The cal­low­est young lawyer puts up a web­site in which he calls him­self “The Law Offices of Mav­er­ick Ray” (he has one office), “An Expe­ri­enced Hous­ton Sex Crimes Lawyer Your Free­dom Can Depend On” (he has been licensed for less than eight months and been hired on one felony sex case), “the Assas­sin of Sup­pres­sion” (Har­ris County records show no granted sup­pres­sion motions in drug cases), “Houston’s pre­mier DWI Attor­ney” (I won­der what Gary Trichter or Troy McK­in­ney, or Lewis Dick­son, to name but three of Houston’s top DWI lawyers, with decades of expe­ri­ence each—[edit: not to men­tion Tyler Flood]—would have to say about that), “often opt­ing to let a jury deter­mine whether some­one was truly intox­i­cated rather than the highly flawed Field Sobri­ety Tests, Breath Tests, or Blood Tests” (Dis­trict Clerk records do not show him try­ing a sin­gle DWI case in Har­ris County dur­ing those eight months).

Grits thought Mark was being a bit harsh on the youngster until he followed up with this post pointing out that Mr. Ray, though fresh out of law school, has been hired to represent a capital murder defendant in Walker County, where Bennett points out, “Huntsville is the county seat; think 'juries packed with prison guards and their families.'”

I cannot fathom the hubris required for such an inexperienced attorney to take on DA David Weeks, in Huntsville, in a capital murder case. Mr. Ray is gonna get creamed (as he did at a recent bail reduction hearing), and his client will be lucky if he doesn't wind up with a needle in his arm. The judge "had appointed a lawyer to represent Lewis who is approved to defend capital cases in Walker County, but Lewis chose to hire his own counsel."

Mr. Ray's story is as much an example of the utter and complete failure of the State Bar of Texas to regulate its members as it is of one young attorney's over-inflated self esteem. When Bennett contacted Ray about misleading claims on his website, he responded, “What do you mean decep­tive? It was approved by Texas Bar and is no dif­fer­ent than count­less other attor­neys websites.” Indeed, that's the real problem, isn't it? State bar approval of web advertising by lawyers is utterly meaningless if this example makes the cut.

Similarly, and more gravely, this example shows more stringent strictures are needed regarding who can represent capital murder defendants. A recent, detailed report (pdf) by the American Bar Association's Texas Capital Punishment Assessment Team recommended that:

Texas must better ensure that appointed counsel possess the knowledge and skills necessary to meet the uniquely complex and demanding challenges of capital representation. Texas should adopt statewide qualification standards that include an assessment of the applicant’s knowledge, skills, and commitment to zealous advocacy as set fort in ABA Guidelines and the State Bar of Texas’s Guidelines and Standards for Texas Capital Counsel. Texas should empower regional or county authorities to make selection and evaluation determinations with respect to list qualified appointed counsel. As with the appointing authorities established in other capital jurisdictions, these local authorities should be comprised of individuals with demonstrated knowledge and expertise in capital representation, and their membership should be, to the extent possible, independent of the elected judiciary.

Attention also must be paid to monitoring the performance of capital counsel. What constitutes tolerable attorney competency in a non-capital case may be fatal in the capital context. To this end, Texas must adopt performance standards for capital counsel, with particular emphasis on required training and acceptable attorney workloads. Finally, Texas must implement mechanisms for monitoring the performance of list-qualified appointed counsel.

Ironically, if the defendant were indigent, he'd be entitled to a better lawyer. Art. 26.052 of the Code of Criminal Procedure insists that lead counsel in capital cases must "have at least five years of criminal law experience," they must "have tried to a verdict as lead defense counsel a significant number of felony cases, including homicide trials and other trials for offenses punishable as second or first degree felonies or capital felonies," they must have "trial experience" in "the use of and challenges to mental health or forensic expert witnesses and investigating and presenting mitigating evidence at the penalty phase of a death penalty trial," and they must have "participated in continuing legal education courses or other training relating to criminal defense in death penalty cases." Why shouldn't the state bar require similar standards for retained counsel in capital cases? And if they won't, shouldn't the Legislature step in to do so?

This blog has criticized the state bar for its failure to discipline prosecutors who commit Brady violations, but the truth is they're hardly regulating anybody. Their failures embodied in Bennett's first post are pathetic. Those in the second are profoundly disgraceful and bother me a lot more than does one young lawyer's ham-handed chutzpah.

had appointed a lawyer to represent Lewis who is approved to defend capital cases in Walker County, but Lewis chose to hire his own counsel - See more at: http://www.itemonline.com/local/x520093163/Reduced-bail-for-murder-suspect-denied#sthash.GRPBsaID.dpuf

had appointed a lawyer to represent Lewis who is approved to defend capital cases in Walker County, but Lewis chose to hire his own counsel - See more at: http://www.itemonline.com/local/x520093163/Reduced-bail-for-murder-suspect-denied#sthash.GRPBsaID.dpuf