contact us

Call us at 512-917-4378.

If you prefer, email chris@chrisperrilaw.com or use the contact form to the right. Consultations are free with no obligation. We look forward to providing you with the hard-working legal service you deserve.

1504 West Ave
Austin, TX 78701

512-917-4378

hris Perri Law is a criminal defense law firm located in Austin, Texas.

rs_Blog.jpg

Chris' Blog

The blog of Chris Perri Law, written by Chris Perri and Shannon Perri. Read the latest in exciting cases where justice is served.

Filtering by Tag: Chris Perri criminal defense lawyer

Wrongful convictions may have have resulted from crime labs' exaggeration of DNA results

Chris Perri

 

Austin news station, KXAN, interviews Chris Perri about the issue. 

Over the summer, the Texas Forensic Science Commission, which reviews the current standards for physical evidence in Texas criminal courts, discovered that state crime labs were using outdated protocols for analyzing DNA evidence. In particular, the problems occurred in “mixed DNA” test results, where the labs were exaggerating the likelihood that a particular sample matched a defendant’s DNA.

There are two types of DNA profiles that can come from any given DNA sample: “mixed DNA” (also called “mixtures”) and single-source DNA. Mixtures are the most common type of DNA profiles. A mixture occurs when a DNA sample contains DNA from more than one person. For example, if two or more people touched the handle of a firearm, a DNA sample from this handle would likely be a mixture of multiple people’s DNA. In contrast, a “single source” DNA profile exists when only one person contributed the DNA to a sample. In the case of single-source DNA profiles, matching a given person to the sample is similar to matching a person to a fingerprint left at a crime scene. However, because there are numerous types of DNA profiles that could combine to create a mixture, the probability that a random person besides the defendant could have contributed to this mixture is higher than in the case of single-source DNA profiles.

The Texas Forensic Science Commission recently revealed that state labs have been reporting inaccurately high probabilities of matches between defendants and mixed DNA samples since 1999.

An example of a recent Galveston murder case illustrates the problem. The crime lab reported that the defendant contributed DNA to a mixture from the crime scene, with a certainty of more than a million to one. However, it turns out that the lab was using outdated protocols, and the certainty is actually just forty to one. This means that if you selected 1,000 random people, 25 of them would match the DNA found at the crime scene. That’s hardly enough evidence to convict someone beyond a reasonable doubt.

Everyone knows that eyewitness testimony can be fallible, so prosecutors have placed great weight on scientific DNA evidence when prosecuting cases since the advent of DNA testing in the mid-1990s. Due to jurors learning about the infallibility of DNA science from television crime shows (the CSI effect), jurors often convict defendants on the basis of DNA evidence alone. Now that we know that scientists were inaccurately reporting the probability that crime scene DNA matched particular defendants, many convictions over the last fifteen years may have been based on false evidence, and innocent people could be behind bars.

Police labs and prosecutors’ offices have downplayed the severity of the problem. For example, according to a memorandum from Art Acevedo, the chief of the Austin Police Department, the inaccurate reporting is “unlikely to materially affect any assessment of evidential value.” Court orders will be required in order for the labs to re-test samples to determine accurate statistical probabilities of a match between crime scene samples and defendants’ DNA.

I’m concerned that prosecutors and police forces are sweeping this issue under the rug. Rather than re-assure the public with rhetoric, they should create task forces to revisit every case where DNA played a role in obtaining a conviction, and the labs should recalculate statistical probabilities in all of those cases. After all, it was the State that put false evidence before juries, so the burden should be on the State to correct the problem and regain the public’s confidence that innocent people aren’t behind bars.

If you or a loved one suffered a criminal conviction as a result of mixed DNA test results, you should contact Chris Perri Law to determine whether your case could have been affected by inaccurate scientific testimony. Check out the articles below for more information on this unique and unsettling issue:

http://www.everythinglubbock.com/news/state-regional/new-dna-standards-could-lead-to-thousands-of-retrials-in-texas

http://www.npr.org/2015/10/09/447202433/-great-pause-among-forensic-scientists-as-dna-proves-fallible?utm_source=facebook.com&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=npr&utm_term=nprnews&utm_content=202509

Chris Perri Gives His Take on Life Imprisonment for Habitual DWI Offender

Chris Perri

A recent ruling by the Third Court of Appeals of Texas states that a life sentence can be a reasonable punishment for a third DWI felony conviction. 

In 2012 a woman in San Marcos was arrested and convicted for her third felony DWI—her sixth DWI conviction total. The case was tried in front of Hays County Judge Jack Robison, who found her guilty with a punishment of life in prison. The woman’s attorneys attempted to appeal this sentence, arguing that life in prison for a DWI violates the Eight Amendment—a cruel and unusual punishment. However, a three-judge panel of the Third Court of Appeals upheld Judge Robison’s sentence, holding that she had a dangerous pattern of behavior and was a habitual offender. (For more about the case, click here.)

“Though saddening that this woman got to this point, I don’t necessarily believe the sentence was a violation of the Eighth Amendment,” Chris Perri says. “I do, however, feel this highlights the importance of connecting first- and second-time DWI offenders to the appropriate resources and working with the prosecution to incentivize defendants to seek rehabilitation. I don’t know the details or history of this case, but I can’t help but wonder if in some way the system failed her.”

Professional drug and alcohol treatment is not a 100% guarantee for relapse prevention, but it definitely can help shift the odds in one’s favor. That’s why Chris Perri Law tries to find the best legal outcomes for its clients that lead to life successes and reductions of repeat-offenses. When appropriate, part of his services include linking clients to community resources or advocating for clients to be referred to the Mental Health Court.

“If we don’t look at the whole person—his or her story—nothing’s going to change,” Chris Perri says.

This sad case proves that having a strong legal advocate who cares about your future and wellbeing is crucial. If you or someone you know is in need, call Chris Perri Law at (512)917-4378 today. 

Chris Perri Plans to Use New Law to Overturn Wrongful Convictions

Chris Perri

capitol.jpg

Recently, in two separate cases in the Central Texas area, several wrongfully convicted people have been released from prison on the basis of evidence that their convictions were founded upon false scientific testimony. Both cases involved the sensitive matter of child sexual abuse. To read about the “San Antonio Four,” click here. To read about the Keller case in Austin, click here.

This past legislative session, Texas adopted a new law (codified as Article 11.073 in the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure) that makes it easier for falsely convicted people to overturn their convictions on the basis of false scientific evidence. Prior to the passage of the new law, defendants had the burden of proving that newly-discovered evidence establishes their actual innocence. But now, defendants only need to show by a preponderance of the evidence that if the new scientific evidence had been presented at their original trial, they would not have been convicted. Essentially, this means that if defendants show that it’s “more likely than not” that they wouldn’t have been convicted, the court must overturn the conviction.

As an example, consider the case of Cameron Todd Willingham, who was convicted of murdering his three young daughters by burning down the house while they slept. At trial, an arson investigator testified that the burn patterns demonstrated that the fire was intentionally started with an ignitable fluid, such as gasoline or paint thinner. This scientific testimony definitively countered the defense’s theory that Willingham was asleep when the fire began, perhaps caused by faulty electrical wiring in the house. Over a decade later, scientific advances in the field of arson investigation revealed that the expert’s “burn pattern analysis” was based on an unreliable scientific theory. Thus, Willingham was convicted on the basis of false science. Even so, he was executed before the Texas Innocence Project could convince a court to overturn his conviction. The new law would prevent such a wrongful execution.

Chris Perri Law has extensive experience with criminal appellate litigation, and we’re prepared to use this new law to benefit our clients. If you or a loved one was convicted on the basis of questionable scientific evidence, there’s a chance that current scientific developments will undermine this conviction. Contact us at (512)917-4378 to take a look at your case.

Chris Perri Argues to the 5th Circuit why Colton Pitonyak Deserves a New Trial

Chris Perri

Last Tuesday, August 27th 2013, Chris Perri argued to a three-judge panel of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on why his client Colton Pitonyak deserves a new trial. This notorious case has received expansive media attention, and for good reason.

For the past four years, Chris Perri fought for the case to be reexamined due to an alleged Brady violation. For further background on the case, please view one of our older, informative blog posts here.

Intrigue and mystery have laced this case from the inception. Many have speculated who actually murdered and mutilated Jennifer Cave’s body. Though Colton Pitonyak was convicted of her murder, evidence withheld by the prosecution team points to Laura Hall as the actual killer.

Capturing the attention of the 5th Circuit, Chris stated that while in the Travis County Jail, Laura Hall confessed to two other inmates that she committed the murder. These inmates then told a counselor, who recorded the information in Hall’s electronic jail file. Chris argued that had this information been made available to the defense, Pitonyak’s trial strategy would have been entirely different and most likely led to a not guilty verdict.

The learned judges grilled Chris about whether any prior Supreme Court case had established a duty on the part of a mental-health counselor to disclose such exculpatory evidence to the prosecution team (and, thus, ultimately the defense attorneys).  While conceding that there was no such case, Chris persuasively argued that based on the Supreme Court’s Kyles v. Whitley case, the actual prosecutors had a duty to search Hall’s jail file due to the reasonable foreseeability of exculpatory evidence within that file.  After all, the prosecutors knew that Hall was talking to other inmates, including a cell mate who ended up being the prosecution’s star witness at Hall’s trial on Tampering with Evidence.  By turning a blind eye to the contents of Hall’s jail file, the prosecutors committed a Brady violation. 

Furthermore, even if the prosecutors had been blocked from accessing medical information within Hall’s jail file, they had a duty to obtain a court order or subpoena because the right to a fair trial trumps medical privacy laws. The State’s attorney countered that a subpoena for this information had been quashed, but Chris pointed out that this argument was disingenuous because it was Pitonyak who filed the subpoena while investigating the Brady claim in 2009.  The State, with the prosecutors’ blessing, actually quashed the subpoena in order to hinder Pitonyak’s ability to develop the claim.

The 5th Circuit should issue a ruling in the next month or two, though they have no official deadline.

See below to read a few noteworthy news articles and videos with Chris Perri featured:

Articles: 

Austin Chronicle article

Statesman article

The Daily Texan article

Videos: 

KXAN video 

My Fox Austin video

Keye TV video (1)

Keye TV video (2) 



 

 

 

 

 

 

Chris Perri Defends The Travis County Personal Bond System

Chris Perri

bail bonds.jpg

Investigative reporter Tony Plohetski has recently put the Travis County personal bond system under harsh spotlight with claims that the system is too lenient and endangering Austin’s community. Plohetski’s articles have resulted in an uproar from criminal defense attorneys who believe that Plohetski is not seeing the full picture and misrepresenting the Travis County system.

To fully understand the debate, allow me to provide some basic background information on bonds. Firstly, when individuals are arrested and put in jail, a bond amount is set for their release. If these individuals don’t adhere to the agreements of the bond or fail to show up for their court dates, then the courts will sue them for the full bond amount as well as put them back in jail, taking away bond privileges. Rarely do people get second chances at bond.

There are two major types of bonds: personal and cash. Personal bonds mean that once arrested, you can be released for no cost but a hefty promise.  Of course, you would still have a bond amount set. Let’s say the bond is set at $20,000. You can get out for no cost while your court case is proceeding, but if you fail to show up to court or adhere to the agreed upon conditions, than you will be responsible for paying $20,000.

Cash bonds differ in that you have to actually put up the full bond amount with the understanding that you will get it back as long as you stick to the rules, etc. You can either do this with your own cash, or hire a bondsman who will put the money up but charge you a nonrefundable 10-20% fee (also known as a “surety bond”).  This fee only benefits bondsmen and in no way goes back to the court system. It means that the arrested individuals already have to pay big bucks when they haven’t yet been proven guilty. Remember, we are supposed to live in a country built on the decree: innocent until proven guilty.

The Travis County bond system is known for granting more personal bonds than any other county in Texas. Reporter Plohetski believes that this endangers Austin by allowing more defendants to be out of jail, thus making them more likely to commit crimes or fail to make court appearances. Plohetski feels our current system is too lenient, and he advocates for more involvement by the District Attorney’s office in the personal bond decision process. He feels that individuals either need to wait it out in jail or cough up cash for a surety bond.

However, Chris Perri disagrees, along with most other fellow criminal defense attorneys (click here for opinion of attorney Bradley Hargis), and feels that the Travis County bond system is one of the most progressive programs in the state. Chris believes that when counties fail to offer personal bonds, they create a class system divide. Those who cannot afford to hire bondsmen have to wait in jail, despite not yet being proven guilty. Many individuals spend months in jail. It creates an incentive structure for those stuck in jail to plea out their case just to get out of jail, leading to potentially unjust legal outcomes.

It also hurts both the criminal defense attorneys as well as the county. If defendants are forced to spend their financial resources on bondsmen, then they are less likely to be able to afford a criminal defense attorney and more likely to apply for a county-funded court-appointed lawyer. Also, keeping people behind bars costs tax dollars.

Many criminal defense attorneys are concerned about Plohetski’s misleading claims. In response to the article, judges have made it more difficult for defendants to obtain personal bonds.  And in response to Plohetski calling for more District Attorney involvement, the DA is trying to become more involved. Yet, this is redundant in that the county already pays for a program called Pretrial Services, which assesses whether a personal bond should be granted by investigating an individual’s criminal history and ties to the community, as well as the safety of any victims if the defendant is released.  DA involvement would merely duplicate Pretrial Services’ role, leading to a slower, less efficient process.

Further, Plohetski claims that it is inappropriate for defense attorneys to talk to judges ex parte (without the opposing side present). Chris Perri disagrees, and states that in Travis County, prosecutors talk to judges without the defense attorney present in order to raise bond amounts or add burdensome conditions (such as an electronic monitor).   Also, every judge requires extensive information on each case and reviews the recommendations of Pretrial Services. However, judges can overrule Pretrial Services' recommendations if they see fit.

Chris also says, in his experience, the type of bond doesn't matter as to whether or not a defendant will show up for court. It is uncommon for people to commit crimes while on bond, as people understand the severity of the ramifications. Yet, there will always be people who don’t adhere to the rules, regardless of their type of bond.

The progressive Travis County bond system isn’t broken—it just needs to be better understood.