Now that the defense bar has had a chance to review state Rep. Todd Smith’s HB 189 – a MADD-endorsed bill that would allow deferred adjudication for first-time offenders (see earlier Grits coverage here) – several prominent attorneys are expressing serious reservations.
Mark Bennett at Defending People doesn’t like the idea. He’s argued in the past that Harris County’s DIVERT program (which some have criticized as de facto deferred adjudication) makes little sense for defendants given that roughly 95% of Harris County DWI defendants who don’t plead guilty have their cases dismissed or prevail at trial.
At The Defense Rests, Paul Kennedy at first thought the legislation seemed promising,. Yesterday, though, he looked more closely at the bill and declared he couldn’t support it in its current form, but that “that a sea change may be taking place and that at some point in the near future a more amenable bill may be submitted.”
After initially offering a more sympathetic view, Robert Guest now says the bill is “a con designed to trick unwary DWI defendants.” It’s a different breed of cat than usual “deferred adjudication,” he notes, and mandates ignition interlocks on the first offense (I’m okay with requiring interlocks on the second offense; the first is unnecessary and unworkable).
My question to these writers and other interested readers: What specific changes would need to be made in the bill to make it palatable? (See the text.) Rather than oppose the bill reflexively, it might make sense to brainstorm about ways in which it would be possible to meet MADD and Rep. Smith halfway. After all, the defense bar opposed it when MADD convinced the Lege to eliminate deferred for DWIs in the first place. Or maybe deferred adjudication itself is simply an idea that never really fulfilled its promise and deserves to be relegated to the dust bin of history. I’m not at all sure where I come down on these issues without giving it a lot more thought. Let me know your opinions in the comments.
