Latest 2 Cases: Crider v. Texas (Constitutional Law), Texas v. Castanedanieto (Constitutional Law)

What About the Bar Exam After the 2020 Dust Settles?

VIKRAM DAVID AMAR

Illinois law dean and professor Vikram David Amar comments on some of the questions commentators and analysts are, or will soon be, asking—specifically why we have bar exams for legal licensure, and, assuming we retain them, what they should look like going forward. Amar observes the limitations of the so-called diploma privilege advocated by some and suggests that states adopt greater interstate uniformity in their bar exams, shift toward more performance (as opposed to memorization) exams, and move away from being so time pressured.

Read More

Crider v. Texas

Docket: PD-1070-19

Opinion Date: September 16, 2020

Judge: Yeary

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

A sample of Appellant Robert Crider’s blood was lawfully extracted pursuant to a search warrant which alleged probable cause to believe he had been driving while intoxicated. However, the warrant did not also expressly authorize the chemical testing of the extracted blood to determine his blood-alcohol concentration. The issue this case presented for the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals was whether introduction of evidence of the result of the chemical testing at Appellant’s trial, in the absence of any explicit authorization for such testing in the search warrant violated his Fourth Amendment rights. The Court ruled it did not, therefore affirming the court of appeals' judgment.

Texas v. Castanedanieto

Dockets: PD-1155-19, PD-1154-19, PD-1156-19

Opinion Date: September 16, 2020

Judge: Sharon Keller

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

The trial court suppressed statements made by Appellee Kevin Castanedanieto during a police interview. The court of appeals affirmed that decision on a legal theory not presented to the trial court. Appellee’s legal theories involved whether he understood warnings that were given at the beginning of the interview and whether the State interfered with his Sixth Amendment right to counsel. The court of appeals’s theory was that statements in a prior interview were obtained through coercion and that caused his statements in the second interview to be involuntary. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals concluded that the court of appeals’s theory was not one applicable to the case because the State was not given an opportunity to develop a complete factual record with respect to that theory. Consequently, judgment was reversed and the matter remanded to the court of appeals for further proceedings.