Jose Luis Gonzalez is 63 years old. His trailer home has been broken into several times.  He is sick and tired of it.  15 year old Jesus Soto, 13 year old Francisco Anguiano and two other teenage boys were prowling his neighborhood one night. They were hungry.  Word must have been out that the Gonzalez trailer was an easy mark for free food. The boys decided to let themselves in and help themselves. They apparently thought  the coast was clear.  Gonzalez was in a nearby building at the time.  He returned home and confronted the boys with a 16-gauge shotgun.  Soto testified at trial that they were all unarmed.  Soto testified that Gonzalez forced them all to their knees.  There was testimony that the boys begged for forgiveness while Gonzalez hit them with the barrel of the shotgun and kicked them repeatedly.  Gonzalez then shot and killed 13 year old Anguiano.  Gonzalez was charged with the murder.

At trial Gonzalez testified that  he thought Anguiano was lunging at him when he fired the shotgun. The medical examiner testified that Anguiano was shot in the back at close range. There was testimony that  two mashed Twinkies and some cookies belonging to Gonzalez were stuffed in the pockets of his Anguianos’s shorts.

It was the opinion of the  Assistant District Attorney that the Texas “Castle Law” did not apply. He stated:

“What really took place here was a case of vigilantism. A 13-year-old boy was killed because a man was enraged.“

What is  the Texas Castle Doctrine? Here is an overview:

In 1995, the Texas Legislature created an exception to a 1973 statute, which required a person to retreat in the face of a criminal attack. The exception allowed a person to use force without retreat when an intruder unlawfully entered their home. Is this what happened in this situation? The law also extends a person’s right to stand their ground beyond the home to vehicles and workplaces. The Castle Law allowing the reasonable use of deadly force when an intruder is:

• Committing certain violent crimes, such as murder or sexual assault, or is attempting to commit such crimes;
• Unlawfully trying to enter a protected place; or
• Unlawfully trying to remove a person from a protected place.

The law also provides civil immunity for a person who lawfully uses deadly force in the above circumstances.

It took the jury of eight men and four women three hours Friday to find Jose Luis Gonzalez  not guilty of murdering 13 year old Anguiano. Should Mr. Gonzalez should have been acquitted?  This sounds more like a “gangland” execution than a person afraid for his life.   It is not clear how Aguiano who was on his knees could have “lunged” at Gonzalez and get shot in the back.  Did he rise up and hop backwards at him?   If anyone was afraid for their lives it was the subdued teenagers as they were being kicked and beaten by Gonzalez.

Unfortunately  for Francisco Anguiano the  Texas Castle Doctrine statute does not distinguish between Twinkies,  jewelry or a plasma television.  The statute does not impose any circumstances to define when something transitions from a deadly force situation to the requirement of a non-deadly response.  There is no question that the boys entered his home unlawfully.  Under the statute he had no duty to retreat. He had no duty to ask them  what they were doing there. He had no duty to call the police. He had no duty to ask the to leave.  He had no obligation to anything or anyone but the danger he perceived himself in even if that perception was flawed.   Assistant District Attorney Uriel Druker maintained during his closing arguments that the case was not about homeowners’ right to protect their property, but about when a person is justified in using deadly force to do so.

Druker’s argument seems reasonable but is legislatively flawed.  The legislature passed the Castle Law in part so homeowners would not have to go through that thought process before defending themselves.  If someone enters your home unlawfully  the intent is to do you harm. End of story.  A story however with many unwritten chapters and thousands of possible scenarios in between.  After his acquittal Gonzalez said he was sorry for Anguiano’s death, but “it was a situation in which I feared for my life.”

Did the venue matter?  Laredo is town plagued by cross-border Mexican drug cartel violence.  Fears are high.  Tempers are short. Triggers are quick.  Juries both empathize and sympathize with residents under siege.  It should also be noted that Gonzalez’s attorney Isidro “Chilo” Alaniz, is running unopposed for district attorney.  That  does not bode well for any future hungry kids looking for a free snack.

Motto of Story?  If you live in Texas steal your Twinkies from the local 7-11.  You will live longer.

Here is another example of how far Texas grand juries and juries are willing to go to protect homeowners T In June, a grand jury in Houston cleared a homeowner who shot and killed two burglars outside his neighbor’s house despite the dispatcher’s repeated request that he stay inside his own home.  The video is below.

Man Shoots Thieves Robbing Neighbor’s House; 911 Tapes Released

Nancy Grace is abrasive, confrontational and arrogant.  There is no one better in the tabloid legal arena of taking content worth 15 minutes of coverage and stretching it into a interminable Law and Order style interrogation.  Nancy has been known to rattle even the most seasoned attorney. Nancy can be tiring.   When a case has been beaten to death so badly even vultures have stopped circling we can count on Nancy to find a crime scene stalker, expert witness wannabe or friend of a friend of the maid’s sister’s friend to interview.  Her coverage of the Natalee Holloway disappearance was agonizingly redundant. No horse was spared.  For better or worse this is Nancy’s style.  It has made her the queen of tabloid legal.  She understands that the first rule of tabloid television is to create content when there is little or nothing left to talk about.  This is done by creating, prolonging or exaggerating controversy.  Without the ability to consistently create content in this manner tabloid shows would consist of 20 minutes of Youtube video.   Content must be created daily. It must draw the audience in and then drive them to  the next episode.  Nancy is an expert at this.  Many a witness, person of interest and experienced attorney has walked into her studio with confidence hoping to tell a story.  Many have left with a grimace and a sign that says “You Are The Story Sucker!”  stuck on their back.  Nancy  does not back down.  She has been accused of going too far with her guests. The family of Melinda Duckett think so.  They have sued Nancy and CNN to make the point.

Melinda Duckett was a troubled single mother.  There was  a contentious divorce from Joshua Duckett, the father of her son Trenton.  There was an on-going custody battle.  By all reports she lived a chaotic life. This included alleged involvement in an online amateur porn business including some disturbing images of her allegedly posing nude on her son Trenton’s crib.

On August 27, 2006 Melinda contacted the police and  reported Trenton missing.  She claimed someone had entered her residence and kidnapped him.  An Amber Alert style search for Trenton ensued. The focus of the investigation eventually turned to Melinda. The initial theory being that she had handed the child off to someone she knew.  Melinda was eventually narrowed down to the sole person of interest.  This is nothing new in these types of scenarios.  Statistics overwhelmingly point to a primary care giver or other family member.   A kidnapping by a stranger is a statistical rarity.   Melinda adamantly denied any involvement.  The case became the focus of intense national media scrutiny.  As would be expected the entire tabloid machine quickly revved into jet motion looking for any angle to create content and keep the drama alive until resolution for better or worse.

Melinda was approached by representatives of The Nancy Grace show.  Melinda and Josh Duckett agreed to do the show.  On September 8th Melinda and Josh Duckett appeared on the show.   A review of the show transcript reveals a fairly even keel interview until Nancy begins to  hammer Melinda about her refusal to take a polygraph exam.   Josh Duckett had already taken two and passed.  Nancy’s legal guests chime in.  They all but accuse Melinda of lying about Trenton’s disappearance.  Melinda begins to fluster and stammer.  You can read the transcript here.

Melinda Duckett walked into the interview with Nancy Grace hoping to tell her story.  Melinda left the interview considered the prime suspect by both law enforcement and the tabloid public.  Was Melinda naive, stupid or calculating in what she hoped to achieve?   In a battle of wits the war was lost to Nancy before Melinda ever did the interview.  It was no contest.   We will never know what Melinda’s true motives were.  A day after the taping Melinda Duckett committed suicide.

The Duckett family has brought a wrongful death suit against CNN and Nancy Grace.  They allege that Nancy lured an unsuspecting and emotionally unstable Melinda in the interview under false pretenses. They allege that it was Nancy’s plan all along to ambush Melinda, painting her as the prime suspect in her son’s disappearance.  It was the  emotional distress brought on by her aggressive questioning that caused of Melinda to kill herself.

Did Nancy Grace do anything wrong?   As  rhetorical as the question seems, there is precedent for an extremely “gracious” verdict.   In 1999 The Jenny Jones Show was ordered to pay 25 millions dollars to the family of Scott Amedure.  Jonathan Schmitz killed Scott three days after Amedure revealed his secret crush on Schmitz during a taping of a “same-sex, secret crush” episode of the show.  The Ducketts should not be getting too excited over similar prospects.   The Amedures had the benefit of an extremely friendly jury instruction.  It stated that the negligence of the Jenny Jones show only had to be “a cause” of the circumstances leading up to the killing of Scott Amerdure.   The Amedures  never collected on the verdict.  It was thrown out by an appeals court.  The court stated that Jenny Jones show owed no duty to protect Scott Amdedure.

In 2002 The Jerry Springer Show was sued by the son of a guest who was murdered just hours after the segment was broadcast.  Nancy Campbell-Panitz was murdered by her ex-husband after they appeared on a May 2000 episode in which he revealed that he had secretly remarried.  The lawsuit alleges that the Springer Show created a “mood that led to murder”.

Did Nancy Grace have a duty to protect Melinda Duckett from herself or at least warn her of the show’s agenda?   Did she “create a mood” that led to suicide?   Melinda Duckett had a troubled life long before she met Nancy Grace.  Linda Duckett knew she was a person of interest in the disappearance of her son before she agreed to do the show.  Linda Duckett  voluntarily did the interview. She could have stopped it at any time.  Melinda was outgunned and over-matched.  It is unclear how that translates into a duty to warn her of anything.  Nancy should not be to cocky about victory.  A federal judge recently denied a motion to dismiss the case.  It looks like Nancy is going to get pleasure of being grilled by an attorney who will probably be abrasive, confrontational and arrogant.  They will have a lot in common.

Nancy Grace is guilty. She is guilty of being Nancy Grace.   While that might be a death sentence to some watching her show it has worked for well for her over the years.  Neither her nor CNN owed any duty to warn Melinda Duckett that Nancy would be tough on her.   It is difficult to imagine a realistic scenario in which they would affirmatively create such a duty unless Melinda told them she was going to harm herself if Nancy were too hard on her.  The Ducketts will probably not be getting that same “Jenny Jones jury love”. Trenton Ducket is still missing…..

When you think of cities hosting the lowest levels of sexual and human depravity what comes to your mind? New York City? Los Angeles? Maybe New Orleans is your cup of gumbo. How about Mineola Texas? Mineola is a small East Texas town boasting a very non big city population of 5, 600 residents. The Mineola web site boasts a congenial small town warmth for numerous antique shops, bed and breakfasts etc. It is also “The Birding Capital of East Texas”. The web site goes on to state that Mineola is “Where People Make The Difference”. There is no doubt that people have made the difference in putting tiny Mineola on the national radar of depravity along side above mentioned cities. Over the last year, Mineola has been the focus of one of the most despicable scenarios of depraved sexual theater known to mankind. It is not a question of subjective sexual morality and values. What has allegedly taken place in Mineola would probably shock the most hard core pedophile. Children in Mineola as young as 7 were allegedly working and performing sex acts for paying customers in a local swingers club. The club ironically had previously operated as a day car center.

Here are the facts as reported by The Dallas Morning News:

1. The sex-abuse allegations were first reported to police and Texas Child Protective Services in 2005.

2. The biological mother of three of the children was convicted of aggravated sexual assault and two counts of sexual performance by a child. She was sentenced to life in prison. The foster parents are not defendants. They have been foster parents for 36 years. They have have adopted 27 children, including the three siblings in swing club sex ring sex-ring case.

3. It is alleged that children were threatened with beatings, hanging and starvation if they didn’t perform sex acts and lewd dances as strangers watched. The children were allegedly given Vicodin to relax them. These drugs were called “silly pills”. The children were allegedly taken to the homes of several of the defendants where they were instructed in sex acts and dancing. These lessons were called “kindergarten”. When the children were deemed “ready” they were made to perform for an audience at the sex club.

While not as shocking as the allegations it is surprising that this reality sex show has not garnered more national attention. In NYC this is just another group of perverts who may be your next door neighbors.  You would not know however because you do not speak with your neighbors. In Mineola Texas these ARE your next door neighbors.

The cases against the defendants are proceeding under a gag order. There is undoubtedly a script in the works for a Lifetime or USA network movie of the week. Dallas, Austin and Los Angeles producers and scriptwriters are perched like vultures waiting for the gag order to be lifted so they can swoop down on the the involved parties for the option rights to their story. This would certainly be more juicy than the Texas Cheerleader Scandal.

The Mineola Web sites also mentions the “Peforming Arts”. I do not think anyone had this in mind. Welcome to Mineola!

W.C. Frosch, an elderly peaceful gentlemen of 74 years was relaxing inside his home when he heard a noise out front. He peered out the window and saw 15-year-old Brandon Robinson and some other teens running across his lawn. Mr. Frosch thought the teens were prowlers, so he armed himself with a handgun and told his wife to call 911. He shot through a window, striking Brandon under his left arm. Brandon and his pals were in fact crossing his yard to check out a loud party that was under way at a home on the other side of Frosch. While the injuries were not life threatening, there was a bizarre and tragic ending to the episode. On their way to the hospital a vehicle crossed the center stripe and struck the truck driven by Brandon’s mother head on. Brandon survived but his mother died.

The local authorities initially cited Texas new “castle law” in declining to file charges. Under the law, a person is presumed to be acting reasonably if he shoots someone he believes is trying to break into his occupied home, business or car. The case was later presented to a grand jury and Mr. Frosch was indicted last week on a charge of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, a second-degree felony, punishable by two to 20 years in prison and a $10,000 fine. You can read the story here.

What is Texas new Castle Law? Here is an overview:

In 1995, the Texas Legislature created an exception to a 1973 statute, which required a person to retreat in the face of a criminal attack. The exception allowed a person to use force without retreat when an intruder unlawfully entered their home. The Castle Law extends a person’s right to stand their ground beyond the home to vehicles and workplaces, allowing the reasonable use of deadly force when an intruder is:

• Committing certain violent crimes, such as murder or sexual assault, or is attempting to commit such crimes;
• Unlawfully trying to enter a protected place; or
• Unlawfully trying to remove a person from a protected place.

The law also provides civil immunity for a person who lawfully uses deadly force in the above circumstances.

There you have it. What is the big change? Your car is now your castle. Your workplace is now your castle. That is a pretty big moat!

What has not changed? There still has to be an “unlawful act”. The law does not give you the right to blow away any shady looking skell approaching your vehicle or front door. I really do not view the analysis as any different under the new law. If the person is in your home, breaking into your home etc, it appears you can still fire away with relative impunity. There is no duty to retreat. Beyond that, your actions are going to be judged after the fact by a grand jury. If they don’t indict the presumption will be that your action was lawful. If they indict the presumption will be that your action was unlawful. In other words, if the guy is not in your home or holding a weapon up to your car window, fire at your peril to the whim of the grand jury.

There is some concern about the extension of the protection to your vehicle. This is because Texas has a fairly liberal Conceal and Carry law. I wont go into it other than to say that there is a greater then the norm likelihood in Texas that the person in the car whose window you are beating on will pull a gun out of her glove compartment. Thats in my opinion is the stickiest part of the law. If you are safely locked in your vehicle and some homeless guy comes up to you at an intersection, starts banging on your window and screaming, does the law allow you to fire through the window or roll down the window and shoot him? Under the current statute there is certainly an argument that the answer is yes.

Any criminal attorneys want to chime in?

The good thing is that the statute takes any confusion about what is a reasonable belief out of the equation by substituting the “unlawful act” standard. The statute is very specific on what acts will in themselves presume a “reasonable belief.” You can read about the statute here.

Let’s say that the three prior people who knocked on your front door, put a gun in your face, tied you up and cleaned out your home. You finally wise up and get a Dirty Harry Magnum. The gun weighs more than you but the next bastard who tried it is going to pay!. Joe the roving magazine salesman guy offering great deals to fund his next bible mission to Zamunda shows up at your door at 10 p.m and knocks. Boom! Dirty Harry says hello right through the peephole. Does the fact that the last three guys who knocked robbed you make your belief that Joe would objectively reasonable? Of course not. Even if it was subjectively reasonable, the conduct of Joe did not fit any of the required exceptions in the statute. The statute tells us what constitutes a reasonable belief.

Let us take a look at very publicized recent case in Dallas, Tx.

Musician Jeffrey Carter Albrecht was shot to death Sept. 3 after he tried to kick in a neighbor’s door during a drunken rage. Albrecht was very well known guitarist and keyboardist on the Dallas indie music scene. he was a member of rising indie pop band Sorta, Edie Brickell & New Bohemians, and Salim Nourallah’s band, the Polaroids.

A neighbor reportedly thought Mr. Albrecht was a burglar and fired a pistol high through the back door as a warning, but struck the 6-foot-4 Mr. Albrecht in the head. No charges were ever filed against the neighbor. the case was referred to a grand jury which returned a “no-bill”. The facts are not in dispute that the neighbor gave ample warning to Mr. Albrecht that he was armed and would fire before he fatally shot him. You can read that story here.

The Albrecht case in my opinion is an easy call. Albrecht was unlawfully trying to enter a protected place. What about Mr. Frosch? That is an easy call as well. Trespassing in itself is not an unlawful act as defined by the statute. I don’t think he will do time but if he does not plead this out he probably will be convicted.

Bottom Line? You can go through a million different scenarios with the same number of outcomes. What do you think? You just pulled into your open garage. You feel a presence. You turn around to see someone you don’t recognize walking up your driveway. There have been a rash of garage robberies in your neighborhood. Your good friends Smith and Wesson are also sitting in your car? What do you do? What should you do?

Does the Texas Castle Law go to far? I don’t think so. In the grand scheme of things I don’t think it matters at all during that crucial millisecond decision making process. If you think your life or home safety is in jeopardy and you have the weapon you are probably going to fire regardless of any statute. it is not a deterrent to bad shoots. What it does is take the pressure off law enforcement and district attorneys and you in legitimate shoots

How about the video below. It was not even this guys house. It was his neighbors. He was warned not to use deadly force by the 911 operator and killed the burglars next door with the 911 operator on the phone!

Where is Dirty Harry when we need him? We know what he would do!

Man Shoots Thieves Robbing Neighbor’s House; 911 Tapes Released