In 2001, Angela Michelle Harris pled guilty to a drug possession charge and was placed on deferred adjudication community supervision for three years. She met all the conditions of her probation and was discharged in 2003.

A few years later in 2010, Harris again received deferred adjudication, this time for evading arrest. She again fulfilled all the terms of her probation to the satisfaction of law enforcement and was discharged the next year.

When Harris went to petition for an order of non-disclosure related to her 2001 drug offense, her request was denied. The court found that because Harris was placed on deferred adjudication again after her first offense, an order of non-disclosure might not serve the “best interests of justice.”

The phrase “best interests of justice” is one that has been used in several different contexts in courts. It’s hard to pin down an exact definition of what “best interests of justice” really means. In one proceeding, hundreds of non-violent protesters arguing for environmental protection had their cases dismissed in the “best interests of justice.” In a Travis County courtroom, there was a DWI defendant who requested to take on a few months of jail time instead of years of probation. The judge denied his request because it was in the “best interests of justice” that the defendant received proper rehabilitation for substance abuse instead of jail time.

In the context of non-disclosure cases, this standard asks the jury to determine whether or not allowing the defendant to hide their criminal record will result in actions that serve the interests of justice. In plain English, it’s a question of “has the defendant been sufficiently rehabilitated from their previous crimes, or will the defendant continue to break the law as a result of having their criminal record hidden?”

Although it’s difficult to objectively define the interests of justice in a given case, the courtroom often looks to precedent from previous cases, and self-evident observations regarding the interests of justice. It was by examining the definition of “best interests of justice” that Angela Harris was able to have the decision on her petition of non-disclosure reversed.

In her initial proceedings, the jury assumed that because Harris had a subsequent crime after her 2001 drug charge, it demonstrated a “lack of rehabilitation,” on the part of the defendant. This trial court never actually had a hearing on whether or not the interests of justice were served, but rather assumed that the petition for non-disclosure was voided because of Harris’ subsequent crime of evading arrest in 2010.

When the decision was appealed, the court found that legal precedent actually allowed Harris to lawfully receive an order of non-disclosure. After a person is placed on deferred adjudication, they must complete their probation and not commit another offense for a certain period of time in order to be eligible for non-disclosure. This period of time varies given the nature of the offense, and the waiting period for Harris’ drug charge was five years. Given that her second offense of evading arrest happened more than five years after her first probation period ended, Harris was in the clear to file a petition of non-disclosure. Precedent trumped the assumptions made in her initial hearings. Harris’ case was reversed in the Court of Appeals, and she was granted her petition of non-disclosure.

Harris’ case, among others, shows the importance of knowing the details of the law. A further examination of the “best interests of justice” helped protect Harris’ rights as a defendant, and ultimately helped her secure an order of non-disclosure. Hundreds of defendants every year are not as fortunate as Harris and forfeit their rights in court when they are actually on the correct side of the law. Call today for a consultation with Easy Expunctions to see whether or not your case truly qualifies for an order of non-disclosure. We want to ensure you are taking advantage of all the privileges that you are qualified for in the courtroom.

Alyssa Krause was growing frustrated with the job search process. She had recently applied to become a home health practitioner after being employed as a nurse in a San Antonio hospital for over seven years. Krause’s application was denied, and she was sent a copy of her background check along with a letter explaining that her criminal history was the reason for the denial.

The frustrating part for Krause was that she had not committed any offenses in over seventeen years. She was charged with a misdemeanor for shoplifting over 20 years ago, and another misdemeanor for trespassing while she was in college about seventeen years ago. She posed little risk to any employer, and her previous experience as a nurse made her well qualified for the position.

More than 70 million people in the United States have a criminal record. That means there are over 70 million Americans who are at risk of going through the same challenges that Alyssa Krause faced when seeking employment. With about 10,000 adults being added to that list every day, the public needs answers to their concerns about employment.

Recently, a policy is known as “ban the box” has been gaining traction in local legislatures. Over 45 cities have adopted the policy in their public employment practices. “Ban the box” seeks to protect ex-offenders by making background checks less of a focus during the job application process. Specifically, employers are requested to not ask questions about criminal history on the initial application for a job. Instead, employers would run a background check only once it is determined that an applicant is qualified enough for the job.

The “ban the box” movement helps prevent qualified applicants, like Krause, from getting weeded out of the job search process simply because they have a criminal record. Currently, about 50 percent of people who admit to having criminal histories on their application never receive a callback or response from the employer. This prevents many qualified applicants from ever making traction in their job search.

In order to fully and legally hide a criminal record from a prospective employer, it requires an expunction or a non-disclosure. The idea behind “ban the box” isn’t to hide records. It simply seeks to place less of an emphasis on an applicant’s criminal history so that ex-offenders who don’t pose a serious risk to employers can more easily get jobs.

“The ban opens up more employment opportunities because people with criminal records don’t get screened out,” said Alan Rosenthal, a consultant from the Center for Community Alternatives. “People get judged by their ability, not their past.”

In collegiate basketball, rivalries between schools are no joke. There is still bad blood between schools like Minnesota and Wisconsin over a football game that occurred over in 1890! However, in this new age of seemingly endless litigation, a new type of college rivalry is brewing.

The University of Texas recently acquired Shaka Smart as the new men’s basketball head coach. Smart was the former head coach at Virginia Commonwealth University, where he led the team to five straight successful seasons. Smart is a great coach who is loved by players and fans alike. Even Governor Greg Abbott got on Twitter to express his excitement about the new coach.

The Texas Longhorns are hoping after last year’s disappointing season, the new addition is the right move for revamping their program. However, it’s not going to be all smooth sailing from here, as there are a few legal bumps along the way.

Smart is known for playing a unique style of basketball that he has nicknamed “Havoc”. It’s a strategy where players pressure the other team as hard as possible when they are trying to pass the ball. As Smart quickly became a successful coach at VCU, the “Havoc” strategy gained nation-wide attention. The phrase “Havoc” has become a part of Smart’s brand as a coach.

Currently, the trademark to the phrase “Havoc” belongs to Smart’s former school, VCU. At the same time, the University of Texas is trying to trademark the phrases “Horns Havoc” and “House of Havoc”. This is the start of a new rivalry between the schools; one that won’t be settled on basketball courts, but rather in legal courts.

VCU believes that their use of the phrase “Havoc” has a deep connection with their athletics programs, and that should be the grounds for their ownership, according to Pamela D. Lepley, the vice president for university relations at VCU. The university claims that the phrase is their intellectual property because it has been a deeply engrained part of school tradition for decades.

The trademark on the phrase “Havoc” was formally registered by VCU, but only in the state of Virginia, and not with the federal trademark office. UT plans on filing trademarks on a federal level, giving them a lot of leeways when making arguments in Court.

“VCU certainly would have been in a strong position if it had federally registered the mark,” said John Farmer, a trademark law specialist.

Regardless of what happens in the litigation, the VCU Rams are not leaving behind their “Havoc” mantra.

“If you travel anywhere in the country and you say VCU basketball, I think the word associated with that would be Havoc,” said Will Wade, the new VCU men’s head basketball coach. “We’re going to continue that brand. It’s a national brand.“

As Smart joins the University of Texas team to wreak “Havoc” on opponents, it seems that a new rivalry has formed in college basketball. This time, however, it’s not the players that are embroiled in the battle between schools, but rather the lawyers. Let’s see how the “Havoc” in the courtroom ensues.

The right to grant pardons is one of the most powerful tools in the president’s belt. It gives the president the ability completely waive an offense off of a person’s record and terminate the rest of their prison sentence. This right belongs only to the president, so it’s surprising that President Obama hasn’t made much use of his pardon powers. In fact, Obama has only granted a total of 64 pardons since the beginning of his first term in early 2009. This is the lowest amount of pardons granted by a President who served at least one full term since John Adams, the 2nd president of the United States.

Obama’s hesitation to grant pardons demonstrates the sensitive nature of the power. Many people view presidential pardons as being “mysterious, capricious, and possibly corrupt,” according to former U.S. pardon attorney Margaret Love. In the last few decades, the president’s application of pardons has been somewhat questionable, leading to public scrutiny and mistrust of the practice. In his final days in office, former President Bill Clinton granted pardons to his half-brother, former business partners, and cabinet members, and to campaign donors. One of the more high-profile pardons in history occurred in 1974 when former President Gerald Ford excused his predecessor Richard Nixon of all indictments pending against him. The move was so unpopular that many believed it to be the reason that Ford did not win reelection in the following term.

With pardons getting such a bad reputation in the last few years, one must naturally wonder why the president received these powers in the first place. Pardons actually serve a major political role when applied justly and properly. Alexander Hamilton explained the role of the pardon during the drafting of the Constitution. It was designed to allow the president to express his dissent against unfavorable policies by granting clemency to those who had been punished under that policy. When the constitution was drafted, George Washington used this as the justification behind granting clemency to those who were punished for their involvement in rebellions during the American Revolution. He was expressing his disagreement with outdated policies that had restricted free speech and punished individuals for their involvement in protests.

The right to pardon was also intended to give the president room to give mercy to offenders who did not seem to deserve a harsh punishment but received one due to the requirements of the law. For example, in 2013 President Obama lessened the sentence of Stephanie George, a Florida woman who received a life sentence in 1997 for hiding her boyfriend’s crack cocaine stash in her home. This case received significant national attention, with civil rights groups urging lawmakers to reconsider the outcome of the trial. Even the judge who gave the verdict agreed that Ms. George’s punishment was far too harsh, saying “your role has basically been as a girlfriend and bag holder and money holder but not actively involved in the drug dealing, so certainly in my judgment, it does not warrant a life sentence.”

Cases like Stephanie George’s have come back into the national spotlight recently, on the heels of Obama announcing that he has decided to grant clemency to 22 drug offenders earlier this year. His reasoning aligns with Alexander Hamilton’s justifications behind the right to pardon. Obama claims that the laws that put these offenders in prison are outdated and that if someone was charged with the exact same crime today they would receive a far less severe sentence. By granting clemency to these offenders, Obama is expressing his dissent against the overly severe criminalization of drug offenses, which is a growing concern in today’s overcrowded prison system. Obama also only chose individuals whose criminal actions did not reflect the severity of their punishment. These were all non-violent criminals who had no affiliation with criminal organizations and posed little risk to be repeat offenders if released.

This recent wave of pardons by Obama sends a strong signal to the American public. Not only is Obama making a statement about his disapproval of the over-criminalization of drug offenses, but he is also making a broader statement about the right to have a second chance in this country. Obama sent a letter to each person he granted a pardon to in this recent wave, encouraging them to take advantage of their opportunities outside of prison.

“I am granting your application because you have demonstrated the potential to turn your life around,” Obama wrote. “You will also influence, through your example, the possibility that others in your circumstances get their own second chance in the future.“

The days of hailing yellow taxis seem to be long gone. Instead of trying to wave down cabs on the side of the street, passengers simply make a few clicks on their smart-phone to have a driver appear curbside. Mobile apps like Uber and Lyft are taking over urban transportation at a rapid pace, and customers seem to love the ease and convenience these services offer. Of course, there is always a catch, and even though Uber and Lyft are enjoying great success in the business world, they face a tough battle in the courtroom.

When services like Uber and Lyft were first introduced to Texas a few years ago, there was massive uproar and pressure on law enforcement officials to do respond. These were new services that were massively disrupting the transportation industry. Opponents claimed that these new companies needed to follow transportation-for-hire regulations and obtain city permits to legally stay in business. There are several notable cases last year where undercover police carried out sting operations, impounding the cars of Lyft drivers for operating an illegal taxi service.

Even the citations and impounding did little to stop the growth of these companies, as Lyft and Uber simply paid for the damages for their drivers, and continued to see their operations grow at a rapid pace. As the growth continues, the opposition has become more vocal. Specifically, taxi and limo companies are strongly against allowing these new mobile services to continue. They argue that Uber and Lyft are not being subjected to some of the regulations that taxi and limo companies face, such as having to set standardized rates and pay monthly permit fees.

It makes sense that these traditional companies oppose Uber and Lyft, because as these new companies grow, taxi and limo businesses are seeing their market share shrink. These mobile application-based transportation services are incredibly popular with travelers. A recent report from San Antonio indicated that over 47 percent of ground transportation rides occurred through Uber in the last month. In Dallas, Uber accounts for 56 percent of rides, and in San Francisco, a whopping 71 percent of rides were through Uber.

With all this success, it’s no wonder that these technology transportation services are willing to put up a fight in the courtroom. Currently, Uber is circulating a petition that has already received over 100,000 signatures from riders expressing support for the service. Despite attempts by government and law enforcement to halt these services, the companies continue to operate and grow, feeding a surging demand in cities like Austin and Houston for reliable and convenient transportation services.

Uber and Lyft are here to stay, despite what local policymakers have to say about it. These companies are using technology to introduce a very new business model, and when technology outpaces the law, it usually leaves behind a lot of gray area and room for debate. A new regulatory framework will eventually have to be built to allow these technology transportation companies to operate smoothly. Until then, it will be interesting to see how this experiment carries out amidst all the growth, controversy and uncertainty.