It is recommended by the Texas Medical Association that you have a medical power of attorney. Chances are in your lifetime you may be seriously injured, ill, or otherwise unable to make your own medical decisions regarding the kind of medical care, and treatment you desire. If this should happen, a medical power of attorney can appoint someone who knows your values and whom you trust to make those medical decisions for you if your unable to.
In Texas you can appoint more than one agent, although you’re not required to do so. The alternative agent(s) may make the same medical decisions as the designated agent if that agent is unable or unwilling to act on the patient’s behalf.
In Texas the principal/patient may appoint anyone to their agent except their health care provider, an employee of the health care provider unless their a relative of the principal, the principal’s residential care provider, or an employee of the principal’s residential care provider unless that person is a relative of the principal.
In Texas a person does not need a lawyer to execute a Medical Power of Attorney, although its not necessary, a lawyer or paralegal could sit down with you and help prepare the forms.
Under a Medical Power of Attorney, an agent is granted wide latitude when consenting to medical treatment on the principal’s behalf, but an agent cannot commit the principal to a mental institution, or convulsive treatment, or Psychosurgery, or an abortion, or consent to neglect of comfort care.
In Texas, notifying either an agent or the principal’s health care provider orally or in writing, of the principal’s intent to revoke the medical power of attorney, may revoke a Medical Power of Attorney. The revocation will occur regardless of the principal’s capacity to make medical care decisions. Also, if the principal executes a later Medical Power of Attorney the prior one becomes revoked (void) and the new Medical Power of Attorney will be the only one legally effective. Another way a Medical Power of Attorney can get revoked is if the principal designates his or her spouse to be the agent, if the principal and agent divorce then the Medical Power of Attorney becomes void (is revoked).
By: Nick Fagan
An interesting study was reported in the New York Times discussing the difference between being represented by a public defender as opposed to being represented by a retained attorney in a criminal case. The study was conducted by two economists for Emory University. The study concluded that in serious cases “the average sentence for clients of public defenders was almost THREE YEARS longer than the average for clients of private attorneys.” Moreover, when all cases were considered, the average sentence for clients of public defenders was almost FIVE YEARS longer than the average for clients of private attorneys.
The January 8, 2007 New York Times Report is set forth in full:
SIXTEEN years as a state trial judge have left me with a deep respect for the professionalism and competence of the public defenders who handle felony cases for indigent criminal defendants in my courtroom. In fact, I’ve told friends, only half-jokingly, that if they are ever charged with a serious criminal offense, the first thing they should do is give all their assets to charity, in an effort to qualify for public defender representation.
So when two economists from Emory University, Paul Rubin and Joanna Shepherd, agreed last year to collaborate with me on an econometric study of how effective public defenders really are, I had to guard against confirmation bias. I was positive that public defenders would prove more effective than their private counterparts. Mr. Rubin and Ms. Shepherd, with their occupational faith in markets, were equally positive of just the opposite. In the end, the economists were right, though with an interesting twist. (The full study has been published in the Ohio State Journal of Criminal Law.)
We looked at all 5,224 felony criminal cases filed in Denver in 2002. Most other studies measure lawyer effectiveness through indicators like acquittal rates, but we used the one thing criminal defendants care about most: the amount of jail or prison time they receive. Thus, acquittals counted as zero. Probationary sentences likewise counted as zero, unless the probation was combined with some jail time.
We counted halfway-house sentences as 120 days, which is typical for Denver defendants. We counted the initial length of a prison sentence without decreasing it for early release or increasing it for parole violations. Life sentences we arbitrarily counted as 110 years.
My economist friends were able to use regression analyses to control for other variables (such as whether a case was plea bargained or went to trial), to minimize the chance that the differences we found were caused by factors other than effectiveness. They also used regressions with different combinations of variables, to ensure that our results were not sensitive to a particular variable.
The results were surprising. The average sentence for clients of public defenders was almost three years longer than the average for clients of private lawyers.
But our most notable finding was hidden in one of the variables we had controlled – the seriousness of the case. We had assumed that public defenders on average handled more serious cases than private lawyers, if for no other reason than that such cases carry higher bonds, and defendants who can’t make those bonds are often rendered indigent by their pretrial incarceration. The length of their clients’ sentences would of course be distorted by the fact that they handle more serious cases with longer potential sentences.
But when we removed the control for the seriousness of the crime, public defenders performed relatively worse, not better (five years more incarceration versus three years more).
When we examined the seriousness of the cases handled by each type of lawyer, we discovered not only that private lawyers tend to handle more serious cases, but also that as the seriousness of the case increases, the chances that a private lawyer is handling it also increases. What in the world could explain such a result?
It turns out that the explanation, at least in part, is one that should put a smile on the face of all free-marketers and rational choice theorists: criminal defendants, just like any other consumers of services, appear to be making choices based on their rational assessments of costs and benefits. But, you might ask, do criminal defendants ever really have a choice between public defenders and private counsel? It appears many do.
Our data suggested that, contrary to the law’s rather binary notion of indigency, a large chunk of felony criminal defendants are what we have called “marginally indigent.” They could, if they had to, tap hidden resources, or the resources of family and friends, to retain private lawyers. But what drives that decision? Just what you’d expect from any rational consumer of criminal defense services: a combination of the seriousness of the offense and the likelihood of conviction.
Imagine a guilty, marginally indigent defendant facing a relatively minor felony (for which he will most likely get probation). Now add to the mix the fact that his crime was captured on videotape, meaning he has a small chance of avoiding conviction. It is unlikely such a defendant would deplete his and his family’s and friends’ resources to hire a private lawyer when he could get a free public defender to achieve the same result.
At the other end of the spectrum, imagine a marginally indigent defendant charged with first degree murder, and imagine that he is innocent. Wouldn’t that defendant do everything in his power to marshal the resources to hire a private lawyer, if he believed, rightly or wrongly, that the private lawyer were more likely to achieve an acquittal?
In other words, marginally indigent defendants who choose public defenders tend to be guilty. And of course if that’s true, it’s not at all surprising that public defenders would achieve less favorable outcomes.
More work needs to be done to confirm these results. But if they hold, and hold nationally, they could have important policy implications. Roughly one-third of all states have formal statewide public defender systems, and several others have regional or local systems. Current debates about improving these systems tend to revolve around two poles: increased financing (for which public defenders have been clamoring since the 1980s, when per client spending in most systems, in real dollars, took a nose dive from which it has never recovered) and, more recently, privatization.
If it is true that public defenders achieve substantially worse results for their clients than private lawyers, that fact should be troubling to us all, quite apart from whether the difference is the product of underfinancing, government inefficiencies or both.
But our results suggest a more benign explanation, and a less drastic solution than spending more on public defenders or privatizing the system. If self-selection by guilty, marginally indigent defendants is driving a big part of this effectiveness difference, the remedy may simply be to tighten the mechanisms we use to determine indigency. This solution would not only reduce the outcome differences between public defenders and private defense lawyers, but it would also give taxpayers more bang for their public defender buck.
By: Clint Broden
Ohio DUI Laws
In the state of Ohio, there are many terms for a drunken driving offense. They include operating a vehicle while intoxicated (OVI), driving under the influence (DUI), and operating a motor vehicle while under the influence, impaired, or intoxicated (OMVI). These terms all describe the same offense as found in the Revised Code of the state of Ohio. Because drunken driving offenses are crimes, there are serious consequences if you are convicted of this type of offense. You may face jail time, fines, and the loss of your driving privileges. These consequences are serious; they can impact your life for a very long time and leave you with a criminal record that will affect your chances for gaining employment and doing other things you want to do in life. Contacting an Ohio DUI lawyer is the only way to preserve your rights and get through your DUI case with the best chances for a successful outcome.
Ohio DUI Laws
The DUI laws in Ohio make it illegal for anyone to operate a motor vehicle while having an amount of alcohol in their blood that reduces their ability to drive safely by impairing their mental and physical capabilities. There is no need for a chemical test for you to be convicted of this type of offense since the prosecutor does not need to show a specific level of alcohol in your blood. There is another type of offense that does require that prosecutors show a specific level of alcohol in your blood. This is known as a “per se” offense. This type of offense is not at all related to your level of impairment while operating a vehicle. Instead the prosecutor must show that your blood alcohol exceeded the legal limit of 0.08%. This level must have been determined by urine, blood, or breath testing. Since DUI is a criminal offense and you will face criminal charges, the prosecutor must prove your guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. This means that each element of the crime must be proven individually beyond a reasonable doubt for you to be convicted of a DUI offense.
Ohio DUI Elements
There are several things the prosecutor must prove in order to show that you are guilty of driving under the influence. One is that you were operating your vehicle in any way. Operating is different than actually driving on a roadway. In this case, operating means having control of the vehicle. This means that someone who is sitting in the driver’s seat of a car and has the keys near the ignition or in the ignition can be charged with driving under the influence. The prosecutor must also show that the defendant was actually operating a vehicle. This includes cars, trucks, tractors, and other similar mechanical devices. While some watercraft have motors, there are separate laws that deal with people who operate a power watercraft while under the influence. The prosecution must also show that the person was under the influence of alcohol at the time of arrest and that this influence caused an adverse affect on how well the person could react. The prosecutor must also show that the defendant’s impairment was appreciable. This means that the prosecutor must show that the defendant exhibited signs of impairment.
Ohio DUI Criminal Penalties
If you refuse to take a blood alcohol test in the state of Ohio, you will be facing a 90-day driver’s license suspension period. If you do take a test and it shows a result of 0.08% or greater and you are later convicted, you will face criminal penalties. These penalties increase with the number of offenses you have committed and can be severe. For a first offense, the criminal penalties include 3 days of jail or a driver intervention program, driver’s license suspension of 3 months to 6 years, and a fine of not less than $200 and not more than $1,000. A second DUI offense in Ohio has harsher penalties. You will face 10 days in jail or five days in jail and a minimum of 18 days under house arrest. You will also be penalized with fines of not less than $300 and not more than $1,500, one to five years of a court license suspension, driver intervention program participation, and immobilization and plate confiscation. For a third DUI offense, you will face penalties of 30 days in jail, fines of not less than $500 and not more than $2,500, participation in an alcohol treatment program at your own expense, license suspension of one to ten years, and immobilization and impoundment of your license plates. Fourth and subsequent Ohio DUI offenses are considered felonies. The possible penalties include 60 days to one year in jail, fines of not less than$750 and not more than $10,000, mandatory drug and alcohol treatment at your own expense, vehicle forfeiture, and a license suspension of thee years up to a lifetime suspension period.
Ohio DUI Driver’s License Penalties
There are also driving penalties imposed for a failed BAC test or refusal to submit to chemical testing. This administrative license suspension may take place even if you beat the criminal DUI charges you face in court. This administrative suspension period increases with the number of offenses you accumulate and any aggravating factors. You must appeal this suspension after you are arrested or you will definitely lose your license. Ohio has a speedy hearing policy; this hearing must occur within 5 days of your arrest. You may appeal your suspension based on several factors. These factors can include the validity of your arrest, whether the law enforcement officer asked you to take the chemical test, whether you were informed about the consequences of refusing to submit to chemical testing, and whether you refused or failed the test. A skilled Ohio DUI lawyer will be able to gather information about all of these points and use it to try to save your driver’s license from being suspended. Having a qualified Ohio DUI attorney on your side can give you the best chance of saving your driving privileges and avoiding a criminal record.
By: Michael Tasner
