Texas Criminal Defenses Explained: Self-Defense, Necessity, Entrapment & Statutory Defenses (Part 2)
exas criminal defense attorneys spend countless hours studying the elements of criminal offenses—but many overlook one of the most powerful sections of the Texas Penal Code: statutory defenses.
In this episode of Andrew & Andrew on Texas Criminal Defense, Andrew Herreth and Andrew Decker continue their deep dive into Texas statutory defenses, focusing on Chapter 8 (General Defenses to Criminal Responsibility) and Chapter 9 (Justification Defenses).
Whether you're a seasoned criminal defense attorney, a young lawyer preparing for trial, or simply interested in Texas criminal law, this episode breaks down some of the most important defenses available under Texas law—and discusses how they actually play out in the courtroom.
Topics Covered
This episode includes practical discussions about:
Texas insanity defense
Competency vs. insanity
Mistake of fact
Mistake of law
Voluntary and involuntary intoxication
Duress
Entrapment
Age as a defense
Necessity
Self-defense
Defense of others
Defense of property
Deadly force under Texas law
Jury charge issues
Raising affirmative defenses
Practical trial strategy
Instead of simply reading the statute, Andrew Decker explains how these defenses work in real cases, using examples from his own practice and discussing situations where the defenses succeeded—and where they failed.
Practical Trial Tips
The episode also discusses several practical issues every Texas criminal defense lawyer should remember:
When a defendant is entitled to a jury instruction
Why "some evidence" is often enough to raise a defense
Why prosecutors frequently overlook statutory defenses
The importance of preserving jury charge error
When multiple defenses should—or shouldn't—be presented
Why one strong theory of defense often beats throwing every possible argument at the jury
These aren't just academic discussions—they're practical trial strategies that can directly impact the outcome of a criminal case.
Self-Defense in Texas
A significant portion of the episode focuses on Texas self-defense law.
The Andrews discuss:
Reasonable belief
Defense of third persons
Castle Doctrine principles
Deadly force
Defense of property
Multiple assailants
Overuse of force
Common misconceptions about Texas self-defense laws
They also explain why having a legal justification does not necessarily prevent prosecution—and why every self-defense case requires careful legal analysis.
Why Statutory Defenses Matter
Many criminal defense attorneys immediately focus on attacking the State's evidence.
Sometimes that's the right strategy.
But sometimes the strongest defense is already written into the Texas Penal Code.
Knowing when to raise an affirmative defense—and how to preserve it for the jury—can completely change the trajectory of a criminal case.
That's exactly what this episode is designed to help you do.
Resources Mentioned
Texas Penal Code Chapter 8
Texas Penal Code Chapter 9
Andrew Decker's Statutory Defenses Paper
Harris County Public Defender reference materials
Click HERE for the paper.
Listen Now
If you practice criminal law in Texas—or simply want a better understanding of Texas criminal defenses—this episode is packed with practical insights you can immediately apply.
Subscribe to Andrew & Andrew on Texas Criminal Defense for weekly discussions covering Texas criminal law, trial strategy, appellate decisions, and practical tips from experienced criminal defense attorneys.
Andrew Herreth 0:05
Hello, ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to another episode of Andrew and Andrew on Texas Criminal Defense. My name is Andrew Herreth, and as always, joining me is mr. Andrew Decker. How are you, sir?
Andrew Decker 0:17
I'm doing well. How are you doing, man?
Andrew Herreth 0:19
Doing good. You know, the past couple of shows I've just done like a normal introduction. I'm not trying to like stumble through something weird or awkward. What do you think? You like it?
Andrew Decker 0:28
I prefer
Andrew Herreth 0:30
it. Okay. All right. Ouch. I don't. I don't have. I don't.
Andrew Decker 0:36
I don't have to kind of worry about what you're going to say. That makes me sound like either I'm a doofus, or that I'm really better than I am, because either way, it makes me feel awkward.
Andrew Herreth 0:47
Okay, yeah, Herreth, no more creative thought, please. Yeah, you got it. You got it. Okay, so speaking of creative
Andrew Decker 0:54
thought, for for many years, I took great pride in naming the episodes and would find some one line corny joke in the thing and name it that like last like the last episode episode should have been named kiss it like your sister like it's your sister and no we got like statutory defenses volume one why well first of all I want to be clear I didn't I'm not naming the naming the episodes anymore, so my creativity has been stifled,
Andrew Herreth 1:25
just like mine. Yes, right. We are. I mean, we've had some pretty good ones in the past, like lawyers, guns, and money. Obviously, I mean, that's well. I mean, you know, we tried. We tried to have been creative, the thing is, nobody gets our humor most of the time, and so people don't really want to listen to those episodes. Even if they listen to the
Andrew Decker 1:48
episode, they don't get our humor.
Andrew Herreth 1:50
Yeah, and I, and so what we've started doing is just the title is,
Andrew Decker 1:55
and by we we mean mr. Herreth.
Andrew Herreth 1:57
Yeah, is just a nice boring, you know, introduction essentially into like what the episode's actually about for a couple of reasons. One, you know, we're trying to get more listeners, so we're trying to expand blah blah blah. Who finds us, and so like after seven, like
Andrew Decker 2:18
like after seven years, we need an audience.
Andrew Herreth 2:20
Yeah, right. Yeah, that's true. We don't do this for our audience. That's that's the truth. But and then you know, and then it's just easier for Google to kind of rank where our podcast should go when people are looking for specific issues. Because you know, as defense attorneys, where's the first resource you go when you have a question about the law?
Andrew Decker 2:40
You call Andrew Decker at eight one. Well, okay,
Andrew Herreth 2:44
yeah. What? Where's the that normal defense attorney's turn
Andrew Decker 2:48
to? Oh, you mean like general, not you specifically,
Andrew Herreth 2:51
right?
Andrew Decker 2:52
First, I'm going to probably go to Google or to Lexis AI. Now I'm going to Lexis. We've talked about it. It's just the Lexis AI. I, I'm almost as bad as Bigs now. I kind of stut Jonesing if I don't have my ability to use
Andrew Herreth 3:07
it. I I was in trial a couple weeks ago. I asked a buddy of mine, local Harris County attorney Austin Hobbs, a legal question while I'm in the you know in the thick of it. He replies back through text with like paragraphs of law, case law, everything, and I'm like, what is this, Austin? Like, this is within like two minutes, and he's like, oh, I just copy and pasted from Lexis AI. I mean, I I feel like we are an advertisement for Lexis AI at this point, but it's pretty incredible.
Andrew Decker 3:40
If you'd like to sponsor Andrew and Andrew on Texas Criminal Reveal, I
Andrew Herreth 3:44
mean, we know you guys got the money. You know, I mean,
Andrew Decker 3:46
Topo Chico never came through. Tesla never came through.
Andrew Herreth 3:49
Yeah, the
Andrew Decker 3:50
closest we've gotten is Waterburger mugs,
Andrew Herreth 3:53
and that, and we love them.
Andrew Decker 3:55
I love my Waterburger mug.
Andrew Herreth 3:57
It's it never goes anywhere. I mean, I never go anywhere without it. So yeah, so Lexus, I mean, you too could could be a beloved sponsor of the show, the first and only. We would really appreciate that. We need it. We need it badly. Just kidding. Anyway, but it's it seems to be a good product, and I did like you know I just kind of side googled some of the case law, and and it was you know no hallucinations at least in that post. So as always, you know with any AI product, you're going to want to do your own homework on it.
Andrew Decker 4:36
Always, always, always. Never
Andrew Herreth 4:38
submit it to a court, you know, in writing, like an appellate court or anything like that, without without vouching well, with those as a must say it.
Andrew Decker 4:48
And more and more courts are requiring some form of in a brief or something that's written, you know, beyond just a normal like, you know, please set a bond that no AI. Has been used to generate this information, or if AI was used, that has been checked by an attorney of record. So yeah,
Andrew Herreth 5:10
just like a little certificate, like by a certificate of service or something like that. Yeah, exactly.
Andrew Decker 5:15
That's exactly right,
Andrew Herreth 5:17
man. So
Andrew Decker 5:18
so play play nice with your AI tools, friends.
Andrew Herreth 5:21
Yeah, I mean, they'll be ruling us before long if they're not already, which I think they're probably in charge by now. So,
Andrew Decker 5:32
yeah.
Andrew Herreth 5:32
How about we get onto a very human discussion?
Andrew Decker 5:37
Yes.
Andrew Herreth 5:37
About criminal law.
Andrew Decker 5:40
I like it. I think it's a great idea. Think it's a great idea. We're actually going to go into statutory defenses, volume two.
Andrew Herreth 5:46
Yeah, and so you know, again, we're gonna we're gonna. I've got this last episode. We covered your paper that you wrote and that you'll be presenting on. You've you have presented on. You'll continue to present on. We put that up on Dropbox, we included the link in the show notes. I'll do that again for this posting. It's a great resource. There's another one that's a little bit pared down. It's not. There's no discussion. It's just a list that that I got from the Harris County Public Defender's Office.
Andrew Decker 6:18
Right
Andrew Herreth 6:18
over the listserv down here. If you wanted that also,
Andrew Decker 6:22
yeah. If you want to hear this presentation live, and you are in the North Texas area, it will actually be presented at lunch at the Parker County Bar Association on July the 31st 2026 You can contact me if you want a link so that you can make sure you have lunch.
Andrew Herreth 6:40
Yeah, and those are always a good time. And you do a you do a very good job in person. You know, presenting in person. You you do have that. Maybe it's from your your your first career. It's the bow tie. It's the bow tie. Yeah, the bow tie does all the work really.
Andrew Decker 6:57
Yeah.
Andrew Herreth 6:58
So last time, you know, we discussed that there are statutory defenses. We discussed the difference between you know an exception, a defense, statutory or affirmative defense, excuse me, and how to get that into the jury charge and before a jury. And we're going to go a little bit more like specific, right? At least discuss here general defenses to criminal responsibility, and then you'll take it away and wrap us up with justification, right?
Andrew Decker 7:30
Yes, sir.
Andrew Herreth 7:31
That's how we want to. That's how we want to do this.
Andrew Decker 7:33
Yeah, we wanted to give you some gems,
Andrew Herreth 7:34
and yeah, and I I appreciate that because I love hearing my own voice, and it's a bonus for me if I can also sound smart. So I'm I am just going to be reading from your paper, but at least I sound smart in the process.
Andrew Decker 7:51
Well, good, good. Okay. So so mr. Herreth, you're going to talk about Chapter Eight of the Texas Penal Code: General Defenses to Criminal Responsibility.
Andrew Herreth 8:01
Yeah, and. and that's a like you know I think like you do I always talk about in the show like you do a great job of reading the indictment or information every single time. Most of the time, these prosecutors at intake are just copying and pasting everything, and so, but every once in a while, things will get squirrely, and and I commend you, sir, for doing that on every single case. You're reading the information, the indictment, going back to the code, making sure that it's like the actual like what it's it's saying what it's supposed to say. Dear listener, please
Andrew Decker 8:35
note that I have not read every single indictment or information, but I do try to read them, especially if there's something I think might be there.
Andrew Herreth 8:44
Okay, you've done it enough to where we've talked about some wins where you've gotten it directly from the like the the the defect in the indictment. And yes, I think this needs to be part of just in the back of a defender's mind. Like you don't need to go to Chapter Eight every single time you pick up a new case, but it. But these defenses, we've talked about them ad nauseum in our crimpro classes at in law school. I mean, you probably talk about it every single day and just not know where exactly they are. Maybe that's just been kind of lost to the ether of where these are. But chapter eight, we're going to start off with Section 8.01 Penal Code Insanity. Every, I mean, how many? You know, mental health. We've talked about on this show.
Andrew Decker 9:31
It is so so vital.
Andrew Herreth 9:33
It is in. It's. I think it's a part of just about every single case. Like there is some mental illness or somebody's taking antipsychotic medications. Maybe they're they've been diagnosed in the past with a mental illness. I mean, we are, or there's a trigger. There's a trigger
Andrew Decker 9:51
event in their life that causes them to spot to act beyond their normal self. Yeah.
Andrew Herreth 9:58
So this. You know it's important to remember there's a difference difference between insanity and competency. Yes, your insanity can be a defense to the offense. Competency is whether or not your client is mentally stable enough to like as you sit there, when you're looking at them in the jail or in the courtroom or whatever, can they comprehend what is going on in the courtroom? It can kind of pause or abate proceedings until competency is restored. Insanity can be a complete defense to this.
Andrew Decker 10:35
Yes. So,
Andrew Herreth 10:36
in order, it's an it's an affirmative defense, and if you remember from last time, like an affirmative defense means that you must, as a defender, put on evidence, put on evidence before a jury, so that you can get that jury instruction about that, and then the state, like the burden, like would kind of shift to you to to put on that defense, and the state then must must prove that it was not that your defense is is not valid. Right.
Andrew Decker 11:08
So yes. So I'm I'm going to jump in a little bit here on you, Herreth. So on insanity, this in my paper it is two paragraphs. It is short. If you want, if you think you have to do an insanity, you need to go read the Code of Criminal Procedure, Chapter 40 6c There is notice that needs to be filed. You need to have experts. You need to have work. It is. It is a. It is not easy. It is not easy to prove insanity, and it is work. There is not enough in this paper to rely on it. That is a CLE all unto itself. Mostly, we just want you know it's there. Sorry, I just
Andrew Herreth 11:49
and and really, you know, yes, because the onus is on the defendant. They have to establish that at the time of the conduct that they were suffering from a severe mental disease or defect, and as a result of the disease or defect, did not know their conduct was wrong. All right, so the case law is here: Taylor v. State. You need to look at that. Look at section 8.01 If you have, you know, an O'Connell's or or any kind of code book, they're going to have these these the case law, the relevant case law that kind of interprets this section. But section 8.01 is the insanity defense, and and of course Code of Criminal Procedure Chapter 40 6c to make sure that you're not missing anything as far as timelines with getting that before before a jury,
Andrew Decker 12:42
and and when I say it's difficult, it's now been 12 years ago, maybe a little longer. The American Sniper trial. In that trial, before the guy, we all call it the American Sniper trial. He's actually the person who is who is one of the persons who was killed, the the the defendant in the case, the other guys at the gun range go. That guy is crazy. What are we doing? That wasn't. He was not found. He was not found to be insane. Even though the guys that were working with him are like, we're here to work on his mental health. He's crazy. What do we do? Oh, is this the
Andrew Herreth 13:22
Chris Kyle was murdered at the gun range? Right, right, right. Yeah,
Andrew Decker 13:27
like like on like Chris Kyle and the other guy are. They say this guy's crazy.
Andrew Herreth 13:34
Yeah,
Andrew Decker 13:35
like it's all it's recorded moments before he turns and and shoots Chris Kyle and another associate. So when we say it's hard, it's it's really hard to prove insanity.
Andrew Herreth 13:52
Yeah, it is. It's it's a it's an uphill climb, but you know, of course, if it's what you got, it's our duty. Yeah, Section 8.02 mistake of fact. It's a defense that the defendant, through a mistake, formed a reasonable belief about a matter of fact of his mistaken belief, negated the kind of culpability required to commit the offense. So I, I usually get confused about okay, mistake of fact, but let's think about like that mistake has to go to the culpable mental state for the charged offense, not to like mistakes concerning all elements of the offense. So what I mean is, and you've got in your paper here, someone you know, is charged with murder, but they mistakenly thought the gun was unloaded, and so they could not have formed the intentional mental state that murder requires.
Andrew Decker 14:55
Yes. Okay. That's correct.
Andrew Herreth 14:57
Yeah. And so, and so maybe. Something else, manslaughter, criminally negative homicide, something along those lines may be more appropriate, but but the mistake of fact can negate that that mental state, and the
Andrew Decker 15:11
mistake must be reasonable. It must be a reasonable belief. It can't be you know like well I didn't know that you know driving my car at 70 miles an hour into a building would cause a problem, right? I
Andrew Herreth 15:22
thought this powder was Clorox bleach and not cocaine because it's somebody wrote Clorox on my little baggie that I got from my dealer, and I sniffed it up my nose, and it didn't burn the right bleach, and it felt really good instead of really bad. So, right? Yeah, I mean, you know, that's a little tongue in cheek, but right, that has to be a reasonable mistake. Okay, moving right along. Mistake of law, and this is the one where it's like, okay, ignorance of the law is not a defense. 8.0 3b provides an affirmative defense if the reason, if the actor reasonably believed the conduct did not constitute a crime, and so they would have to show, and so I'm guessing this is another affirmative defense, right? So the actor would need to show they were relying on an official statement from an administrative agency or an opinion of the court. You know what this reminds me of. This reminds me, and I think we had a little bit more than just mistake of law going, but that we had a case in a small town where somebody opened up shop on the town square to run like a game room, and they wasn't like quote unquote gambling machines. They had a letter from the commerce, the the secretary of state, and I think was it the comptroller approved the machines that were being used. They had all this on file, and they got shut down anyways by the local cops. And I think, I think that the locals were probably mistaken about their conduct being considered illegal when it wasn't illegal. But I also think we probably could have had a you know if it was shown that oh they didn't do it right in this one way that we could have had a mistake of law argument
Andrew Decker 17:19
possibly yeah
Andrew Herreth 17:20
possibly we got that case dismissed. Anyways, no big deal. But they were relying on official statements from a state administrative agency to to engage in this business, and I and I think that's really one of the only ways that you can get a mistake of law,
Andrew Decker 17:44
yes, right, yeah, or or you've got to rely on a court opinion. So it is it is very difficult. Now I think that you could put in front of a jury. It's little. It's kind of somewhere between mistake of law and jury nullification that a defendant was reasonably relying upon advice of counsel or something, you know, like especially if the counsel is wanting to come in and and show, yeah, I told him that that was okay, right? That's not an opinion of the court. That's not, you know, the counsel could be wrong, but at least it would give some like I was told this was fine. Here is my attorney's statement.
Andrew Herreth 18:21
Yeah.
Andrew Decker 18:22
Now that might get the attorney in trouble.
Andrew Herreth 18:27
I mean, it may, but it may work out
Andrew Decker 18:29
for your client. For the
Andrew Herreth 18:31
client, and I, I mean, unless there's like a complaint to the bar, I don't see how, like, what recourse they would have. Yeah. Again, it. I think it has to be reasonable. Also, like yeah, it's totally cool if you go and like shoot this dude down. You're probably not going to fly.
Andrew Decker 18:49
No, no, but I do have one where I don't want to go into details because it's it's a current case where somebody's relying on on advice of counsel and does. does something that is borderline. I mean, it's borderline, right? Yeah. So it's going to be an interesting case. Probably going to go to a jury at some point if I don't get a dismissal.
Andrew Herreth 19:15
Interesting. Maybe we'll talk about it.
Andrew Decker 19:17
Maybe someday.
Andrew Herreth 19:18
Someday. Moving right along, Section 8.04 intoxication, voluntary intoxication, is not a defense. However, temporary insanity as a result of intoxication may be raised. Well, of course, as mitigation in the punishment phase. I don't see that being like an effective punishment argument. Like, come on, he's not a bad he's not a bad guy, ladies and gentlemen. He was just drunk. I don't know. Yeah, it
Andrew Decker 19:49
would have to be. It would have to be the right case. But if it's involuntary intoxication, that is a defense. But then you got to prove that. You know, you were given something, and you were so. It's going to be tough. It's going to be tough to prove intoxication because you'd have to either show that it's just a mitigating incident, or it was involuntary, and both of those are tough. It's you know outside of maybe you know, like somebody slipping something in your drink, you know.
Andrew Herreth 20:26
Yeah, I think that's because you know Sherbert v stayed here, and the the citations are on the paper, so we're gonna send you to the link that will be in the show notes. Okay, to establish an involuntary intoxication defense, defendant must have been unaware of the intoxicating substance, and they ingested the substance due to force or duress. The substance was medically prescribed, and the defendant took the substance according to the prescription instructions, etc. So, it it is it can be pretty narrowly prescribed here. You may also, because of like involuntary intoxication, have a defense of insanity, like temporary insanity, and so you may you may want to you know consider that angle as well. But I think you're right. I think if somebody like slips somebody into their drink, slips something into their drink, you know, and like they, while they're feeling okay, get in the car and start driving home, and then all of a sudden it hits them and they black out and crash. You know, I I think that you could have an involuntary intoxication, depending on like what could be proven through a blood a blood draw or something.
Andrew Decker 21:43
Yeah.
Andrew Herreth 21:45
Um, eight section 8.05 penal code talks about duress. It's an affirmative defense that the defendant was compelled by threat or imminent threat of imminent death or serious bodily injury to themselves or another. That I have you ever had a case of duress?
Andrew Decker 22:11
Oh, I have people try to claim it was duress.
Andrew Herreth 22:14
Yeah,
Andrew Decker 22:15
you know they're like, well, you know, I didn't, I didn't know what would happen if I didn't do this or that or whatever, and you go. That is nowhere close, right? No one, no one is threatening you imminently. It's not a if you don't go do this. If you don't go do this right now, they're going to kill your sister. So it has to be a threat with intent and able to carry it out, or predicated on a failure to commit. Right. So I mean, it's
Andrew Herreth 22:47
yeah.
Andrew Decker 22:48
I've I've never seen it, but it really is like if you don't if you don't go in and steal the money, we are going to shoot you, and they're holding the gun and looking at you.
Andrew Herreth 22:59
Well, there was like that Netflix documentary about some guy with like a bomb strapped to his neck. I, you know, I would think like that'd be that that's pretty good fodder for a defense attorney to claim duress if you know the facts work out. I think in that Netflix documentary, it turned out the guy was in on it the whole time and ended up like the device going off and all that, but crazy documentary. But but that that would seem to me like that would at least qualify like the that it it seemed to me that they were prepared to carry out that threat immediately, right? Strapping it to your person, telling you have to go and rob this bank. Okay, but that's that's two points or two components to duress. The person making the threat must intend and be prepared to carry out the threat immediately, and the threat must be predicated on the threatened person's failure to commit the charged offense immediately. So that's duress. I there was something that like you know duress and involuntary intoxication. I had a case a while ago where young lady was like kind of stranded at somebody else's house. They thought that their their ride had left. They thought that they had been drugged in some way. Kind of got in their car and like left this place. It was a weird set of facts. She got pulled over and arrested for DWI, and and the the state just kept asking, like, "Well, why didn't she just like once she escaped, quote unquote, why didn't she just pull over and call the police? And so that may be something that you'll have to overcome if you're claiming like a duress argument, like notification of the police as soon as possible. Anything else to add on duress? Mr. Decker.
Andrew Decker 25:00
No, remember most most of these are really hard to prove.
Andrew Herreth 25:04
Yeah, yeah,
Andrew Decker 25:07
yeah,
Andrew Herreth 25:07
yeah. I keep thinking when when we're when we're discussing these, I keep thinking of like, okay, well, what would Shane O'Neill? How would he, you know, or Julie Balavich, like how would they put this information out to a jury out in West Texas? You know what I mean. It's only because
Andrew Decker 25:30
it's only because you know that that Shane's got a story that's going to come on, and I'm just so excited
Andrew Herreth 25:35
for it. But they also have like you know they because I thought the last time their their big murder case that we talked about a while ago. I thought I was like, oh man, that's that's exactly how you how you prove what was the what was the issue? Wasn't sudden passion, but you know there was like there was something that dropped it from like a first degree to a second degree.
Andrew Decker 26:01
Yeah, three facts. Anyways, yes.
Andrew Herreth 26:03
Go back and listen to that. I they're fantastic attorneys. I can see them putting this stuff out there and and winning on it all day long. All right, enough about that entrapment, section 8.06 It's a defense to prosecution and defendant engage in conduct alleged because he was induced to do so by a law enforcement agent using persuasion or other means likely to cause the person to commit the offense, merely affording the defendant the opportunity to commit the offense is not entrapment. And we we hear about this all the time. Like, no, that was entrapment. I had to buy that substance from that undercover officer,
Andrew Decker 26:41
right, or sell it to that undercover officer, or sell
Andrew Herreth 26:44
it, yeah, to that undercover officer. They forced me to. Defense breaks down into two elements: whether the actor was induced to engage in the conduct by a law enforcement agent, and whether the means of inducement used were likely to cause persons, not the actor to commit the offense. I don't know. Have you ever had something where you're like, "Ooh, maybe that is entrapment" So don't think I've actually. Yeah, go ahead.
Andrew Decker 27:13
Um, uh, child porn case. Um, and uh, not child porn, a child online solicitation of a minor. Sorry, and the guy was like, "I was in an adult chat room.
Andrew Herreth 27:30
Yeah. Okay.
Andrew Decker 27:30
Right. And and the jury felt it enough that even though the the state the state had been making pin time offers only on this guy, and the jury. said he's guilty, but Judge, we think this is probation, and they probated him. And one, a couple of jurors actually said we didn't like the fact that there was no evidence he would have done this, but for the undercover ring.
Andrew Herreth 28:00
That's uh, that's really interesting. We may have to talk about that at a at a on an episode.
Andrew Decker 28:07
Yeah. So so went to trial, and after that, the the kid case unit, several people went. So we've we've had to. We're sitting down trying to figure out how we're going to re offer these cases, and so they basically
Andrew Herreth 28:22
your case,
Andrew Decker 28:23
uh huh, because they it truly was a they were like, huh, you you you cracked the code on it kind of deal, and basically I just kept putting up, you know, the the same issue of why it's very. it's not great, right? I mean, you still said, "Hey, you know, what's going on with you? And they say, "Hey, I'm 15. The right answer is to be like, "Bye.
Andrew Herreth 28:56
Yeah.
Andrew Decker 28:57
So, but it wasn't really entrapment, but the but the jury could feel that sense of because I couldn't raise entrapment,
Andrew Herreth 29:07
yeah.
Andrew Decker 29:08
But they could feel it. They could feel that sense, and they didn't like sending a guy to the pen for something that there was really no proof outside of this one chat that he ever would have done anything with a with a kid,
Andrew Herreth 29:22
right? Yeah. If you're going to go the entrapment route, look at Code of Criminal Procedure Article 2801. And this is interesting because you you can get a judicial determination on a on a pretrial motion, right? Essentially, if the ruling is in favor of the accused, it doesn't impact the charging instrument, but but it's a finding in the nature of an acquittal, and so. Like the judge would be like, yeah, that's I'm I'm really in favor of the accused. I'm finding that, you know, this is entrapment. I guess the only the the response would be the state dismissing their case,
Andrew Decker 30:14
right? It's a dismissal with prejudice, and it's not appealable.
Andrew Herreth 30:19
Man, well, yeah, I mean, that it wouldn't be a. I mean, who would appeal that? This state, and they can't do that because it'd be double jeopardy at that point.
Andrew Decker 30:27
Anyway, maybe not.
Andrew Herreth 30:28
Yeah. Okay. And my last section that I'm going to talk about is age. Section 8.07 allows for adult criminal prosecutions of children younger than 15 in limited situations. Okay, so we all know if you're doing juvenile law, they they have juvenile cases that'll that'll start younger than 15 years of age. But but for adult criminal prosecutions of children younger than 15 years of age, only in limited situations, including perjury, violation of the transportation code, misdemeanor punishable by fine only, and I think you'll find those in like you know minor in possession type cases, speeding type cases in in like a JP court, or other serious felonies if the child is certified as an adult by the juvenile court, and that's a whole. We're not going to get into the what is required or the findings that are required to certify a child as an adult, but there is a process for that. And so, but it's important to note that without a proper transfer order from the juvenile court after a certification trial, the district court is without jurisdiction.
Andrew Decker 31:48
Also, know that in the past these there's now more paperwork and transcripts required than there were years ago. I've actually had a case where a guy his first felony and now he's habitual. He was habitual, was based on he was like 16, and the guys he were running with were 19, and they were all like native to the county, and he was a new newbie, and the judge repped him up, and then when he messed up on the probation, he maxed him out. So at 16, he gets sent to he gets labeled he's labeled as an adult, he fails out of his probation, he's maxed out to a 10 year sentence, and he never never recovers from it. So I was like, I don't think that was would now be a legitimate certification of age, the prosecutor actually heard me and said, "Yeah, for these facts, I don't think he would have been, and greatly reduced his offer on the new the new cases. So he wasn't habitual. That I mean, I think we ended up instead of going with an offer of like 15, I think we got like a five, but a lot of it was based on that first setup because he then be you then get caught. Yeah,
Andrew Herreth 33:10
yeah, you're in the system, right?
Andrew Decker 33:12
Right.
Andrew Herreth 33:12
I mean, it it will follow you for the rest of your life. So everything it just makes everything more difficult, including if you have future criminal charges against you-that's crazy. What a life! That's terrible.
Andrew Decker 33:25
Yeah. So, chapter nine, moving on in our beautiful setup, we've moved from general defenses in the penal code to justification excluding criminal responsibility, these are the ones that really kind of put forth that I I should not be found guilty of my actions, and I skip a few of them. Most of them have to do with law enforcement, etc. So I,
Andrew Herreth 34:02
yeah,
Andrew Decker 34:02
but the big ones, we're going to go with necessity. That it was necessary that the conduct was immediately necessary to avoid imminent harm, and urgency of avoiding the harm clearly outweighed the harm prevented, right? So basically, it was it was necessary for me to act this way, even though it was illegal, because the the the outcome would have been worse otherwise. So when I was when I was young, living in the Panhandle of Texas, where you could drive an hour and not see anyone. My dad one time said, "If something happened to me, if I had a heart attack, you you could legally drive me to the hospital. Well, yeah, in the middle of nowhere before cell phones, right? At 12 years old, I probably should have. I probably would have had. Now I don't know if I could have driven a stick shift. But the the the wrong of a 12 year old driving a car is less wrong than letting your father die of a heart attack where there's no help,
Andrew Herreth 35:10
right?
Andrew Decker 35:11
Right. So that would be a necessity to defense. That's not in the code. That's just actual story of you know. I just remember my dad telling me that when I was about 12 years old. Um, you now this. is one of the interesting pieces. You can raise a defendant is entitled to the submission of every defense raised by the evidence, even if the defense is inconsistent with other submitted defenses. This is this is case law, ladies and gentlemen. Please look at it. So you can raise necessity and self-defense both in the same jury charge if different facts allow for it. I'm mr. Herreth. You know me. I am the guy that says you find the bullet hole that's going to work and you go with it because the shotgun approach the doesn't work well. I think if you raise more than one defense unless it's really kind of multiple actions. If you try to say the same thing as two different things, the jury's going to go no. You find the best one and run with it. But technically, legally, you can raise more than one defense.
Andrew Herreth 36:15
Yeah, and we, you know, there's any number of fact patterns out there, and and even those that we just have not even thought about or seen yet, although we have seen quite a bit. But and so there may be a situation where you're like, okay, I do have to raise, I do have to raise these two competing defenses, because you know, maybe the crime covers two different allegation. I mean, who knows, right? So,
Andrew Decker 36:48
right,
Andrew Herreth 36:49
yeah, but but you are allowed to do that,
Andrew Decker 36:52
right? Again, I'm very much the you you find you find the the piece. I'm kind of an alchemist razor kind of guy. The easiest, I get issue like is the best one. Yeah, if you have to throw three things at the wall, they're going to go. None of those work, but if you throw one good one, they're going to go. I believe that.
Andrew Herreth 37:10
Yeah, yeah, and I'm glad you said that. Throwing things against the wall, right? Like that's kind of what people see as defense attorneys. Like if you if you don't believe that, then try this, and if you don't believe that, then try this. You know, I yeah, I agree with you. I like to stick with with, you know, with one theme of the case, one overriding theme of the case, and just don't let anything else distract from that. But you know, to each their own, and and if your case needs that kind of defense, go for it.
Andrew Decker 37:42
So, the next one, the big one. This is one that that we we talked a little bit about last time, and and I think it's something that in any assault case you have to at least consider defense of self or others. There are actually two different statutes, but but there it's essentially the same. A person is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is necessary to protect the actor from someone else's unlawful use of force.
Andrew Herreth 38:14
Yeah.
Andrew Decker 38:15
So I can't do it. Again, it has to be unlawful. So, an officer trying to arrest me is not unlawful use of force. Generally, I'm not going to say there aren't some exceptions, but generally, so I can't attack the officer. But if mr. Herreth decides to come in and slap me in the face, I can stop him and slap him back, or or or try to stop him. I actually had a case assault by contact that my guy said, "Yeah, he was drunk, and he swung at me, and I stopped, grabbed his wrist, and I slapped him in the back of the head, and I said, "Go inside! You're drunk. Your guy got arrested. My guy got my guy got arrested insided, right? Classy ticket, because the other guy was drunk enough he didn't say it hurt. And we went to trial. The county attorney came out, and he goes, "Decker, why are we here? I mean, the actual elected county attorney was like, "Why are we here? And I was like, "I told him that story. And he goes, "Hold on. And he goes in, and he comes back. He goes, "I just went and asked the officer, 'Is there any chance this might be self-defense? And the officer goes, 'Yeah, it's probably it's very possible it's self-defense. He goes, 'Here's your dismissal. He was like, I'm not going to try that, but it if the self defense applies, it is the the it means that you get an acquittal to that into every included lesser offense that the for which the justification would apply. So it can be a very strong piece of evidence, and as we said last time, you're entitled to the instruction, whether it's strong or weak, impeached or contradicted, and regardless of what the trial court may think of the credibility of the defense. If there's if there's a scintilla of evidence presented that it's self defense or defense of others, ask for it to be in the jury charge. Get it in there, and if they don't, make sure you object because it'll come back. Also, you have a right to self-defense against multiple assailants, and in some ways, that actually then makes you know. Let's say that there are three guys. One of them swings at me, and I end up hitting all three of them. Well, why? Because with three, I might think they're all a danger. So I still could have some self defense if there are multiple assailants, because I don't know who who is the danger, and I have a right to defend myself. Right. Remember that deadly force can only be used if deadly force is necessary to protect themselves against deadly force, aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, aggravated robbery. Now, there's no duty to retreat, but generally, you can't just pull a gun on somebody coming at you and shoot them. So you have to be careful with that. And and I've I've told people who've asked me about you know a right to carry and having a gun. I said if you take a gun out and think you're going to use it. You better be prepared to take a life, and you better be prepared to spend $50,000 or more hiring someone like me to say judge or jury. This man didn't commit murder. He was in. He was acting in self defense. Is that fair assessment, mr. Herreth?
Andrew Herreth 42:04
No, yes, for sure.
Andrew Decker 42:06
So, generally, put the gun away. That's the best thing I know to tell you. I'm, I'm, I'm an outlier on that. I think, but, dude, just. now the overuse of deadly force, if it's initially justified, may result. If it's if it's overuse, even if it's initially justified, may result in a denial of self self defense, kind of at the next level. It's kind of like your lady once she left, once the initial danger is gone, you can't then continue. You know, in the example in the paper, he you know he pulled the gun, shot the victim, then got out, got another gun, and shot the victim two more times. Like shot him a total of 11 times. Might be overkill to say self defense.
Andrew Herreth 43:00
But what if, like, one of the first nine shots killed him, and then he was just shooting him up just to make sure, right? I mean, would that be like maybe not guilty of murder because that was self defense, but then like abuse of a corpse, reckless discharge of a firearm?
Andrew Decker 43:19
I will let you argue that to your jury, mr. Herreth.
Andrew Herreth 43:22
Yeah, I mean, I, I, man, I the the self defense and the duty to retreat, like it. I don't know. It's a. It kind of. It's an emotional argument, right? Because we are in Texas. We do like our guns, and we do like to stand our ground, but man, if you if you have an ability to just get the f out of there, do it. Do it. It's going to be better for your psyche, I think, long term.
Andrew Decker 43:53
So I do. I do have a yes, definitely. I do have a practice tip in the paper, and I want to put it out there, especially like in the overkill. You may need an expert if this person has some trauma or fear or has been in war. They may they may not have the off button that everyone else does.
Andrew Herreth 44:14
Yeah.
Andrew Decker 44:15
So you may need that in the moments of exchange, it felt more like to a reasonable person in a similar situation. If I've been through something, this may be reasonable if I put myself in that person's shoes. So remember, it's a little bit about what would a reasonable person do in the defendant's situation.
Andrew Herreth 44:38
Yeah.
Andrew Decker 44:40
So it's a slightly different than the reasonable person standard. Also, if they are entering your home, your car, your place of business or employment, that also allows for deadly force to be used. Years ago, in my previous life, I was still at the house. It was about 830 in the morning, and suddenly there were cops everywhere in this neighborhood, and I was like, "What is going on? Like you, like I couldn't leave the house. Two doors down, there. there was an intruder who was shot. This was a this this was this was a group that had been watching homes, and they saw the the the female in the family was uh like a school principal or a teacher can't remember which, and would leave the same leave the same time every day, and they knew when she left, and they knew when she got home. What they didn't know is the guy worked nights and came home like at five in the morning, and so they would see each other for a few hours. Then he she would go to work and he would go to bed. So he had just gone to bed when they came in.
Andrew Herreth 46:00
Dang,
Andrew Decker 46:00
right, and wasn't even arrested. Like they, they, they recognized the guy. They knew who he was. They knew that he was been wanted for burglary and other situations. So they knew what was
Andrew Herreth 46:14
going on.
Andrew Decker 46:14
Yeah, yeah, but but the poor the the poor dead man didn't know. Oh, she's not the only one in the house. So, defense of others basically applies if the actor reasonably believes that a third that they are defending a third party. Right? Put yourself. I am seeing something happen, and I step in to defend what I believe to be an innocent person, and the action is immediately necessary to protect the third person.
Andrew Herreth 46:48
Yeah.
Andrew Decker 46:48
Yep. Again, you are allowed to use force against another if you think you're preventing suicide or self-inflicted bodily harm, right? So somebody looks like they're going to jump off of off of a bridge. You can run and tackle them if you think that's the only way for them not to jump.
Andrew Herreth 47:15
So okay, I'm wondering then. Okay, so 9.34 That's section we just covered using force against another, but not deadly force.
Andrew Decker 47:27
Right, that would be kind of.
Andrew Herreth 47:28
Well, I shot him, officer. He was about to jump. Can't be having that.
Andrew Decker 47:35
Think of the mess it would have made.
Andrew Herreth 47:36
All right, all right. I missed that part, but not deadly force. I was that because that's exactly the scenario I was thinking. I mean, like the the defense of a third person. I always think of like, you know, this, you know, robber pulled a gun on some you know children or oh,
Andrew Decker 47:56
it's it's in every every TV show or movie, right? Yeah, yeah, and they've got the gun at their head.
Andrew Herreth 48:02
Yeah, and I mean, there's been some real life ones too. The madman who killed the Pantera frontman up in Connecticut, you know, was holding somebody at gunpoint when they were shot by the police officer. I mean, it's it's just that it it does it does happen for sure. Crazy,
Andrew Decker 48:26
right? There's also some some protections for physicians and medical care. That one, it is where now abortion is basically illegal in the state of Texas, it's a clause that provides some protection for medical care, which may end in an abortion. Right again, if I'm protecting the the life of the mother, that's a reason why you can have an abortion in Texas in 2026. Um. Defensive 9.35
Andrew Herreth 49:06
Yep, for all those
Andrew Decker 49:07
people who are playing log at home, defensive property. This is a person can defend who's in lawful possession. This is an important piece: lawful possession of land or tangible property, movable property may use force to protect that, or to prevent trespass or interference with the enjoyment of the property. If so, obviously, if somebody's coming onto your property, you can you know let's say you own a ranch, you can chase them off with a baseball bat, right? Get off my property. So this morning, I've had a case for about six months where a guy is charged with aggravated, sorry, impeding breath of a bodily, impeding breath or bodily injury against a family member. He's habitual. They've offered him 10. All right, kind of on the facts, not a bad deal. Well, if you watch the look at the stuff, the owner of the home says, "I told that boy not to come to my house. So, if the boy shows up, what has he done?
Andrew Herreth 50:23
Well, he's trespassed.
Andrew Decker 50:24
Uh huh. And what can I do under 9.41
Andrew Herreth 50:28
You can use force against him to hold on to protect the land or property, prevent trespass, or
Andrew Decker 50:37
to or to prevent trespass. Yeah. So we went from a 10 year offer trial 25 to 99 or life. So what did we end up with, Mister Herreth?
Andrew Herreth 50:49
I mean, I don't know, a dismissal, a criminal. What would you what us?
Andrew Decker 50:54
We pled to five days credit time served time
Speaker 1 50:57
served
Andrew Decker 50:57
on a assault. Not a bad deal, but defense of property. There it is. It's in the statute. Thank you for playing along at home, Miss Prosecutor.
Andrew Herreth 51:08
So okay, but I always thought that deadly force can't be used to protect property.
Andrew Decker 51:17
Well, if it's if it's your house,
Andrew Herreth 51:21
yeah, and I guess if like somebody's entering into your house, they're not. I mean, they could be entering into your house to commit to commit a crime against you, or just to you know like a burglary, just to steal things,
Andrew Decker 51:34
right? And it does it does allow for 9.42 allows for deadly force for to prevent arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft in the nighttime, criminal mischief in the nighttime, or to prevent the fleeing immediately from the commission of our burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft in the nighttime. Again, please be careful of
Andrew Herreth 51:54
the fleeing. Wow,
Andrew Decker 51:56
it's got to be immediate, though.
Andrew Herreth 51:57
Wow,
Andrew Decker 51:59
it's got to be immediate. Like I. I don't shoot someone in the back, Mister Herreth. Don't do it. Let that stuff go.
Andrew Herreth 52:09
Yeah, but I mean, 9.42 kind of giving me the green light.
Andrew Decker 52:13
I'm just as as as counsel. Remember, you put it in his back. You're going to pay me or someone like me a lot of money to say, well, but he was fleeing a robbery or a theft in the nighttime,
Andrew Herreth 52:31
right? And so, and also, you've you've included here the actor, the person who's using deadly force must reasonably believe the property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means,
Andrew Decker 52:45
right? Or that if they don't use deadly force, it could put them at risk of death or bodily injury,
Andrew Herreth 52:54
right? Right.
Andrew Decker 52:55
Just don't do it.
Andrew Herreth 52:57
Yeah, it's not worth it.
Andrew Decker 52:59
No,
Andrew Herreth 52:59
not worth it. I won't shoot anybody. You've convinced me.
Andrew Decker 53:03
Thank you. Good. One thing I've done well today. So you can use force, self defense, force and defense is justified if you're placed in reasonable fear. So you can basically meet the same level of force with force. You use of force for recovery of property can only be done if immediately after depossession. So, in other words, if they're taking your car right now, you can grab them and yank them out of your car. If you think they stole your car and you find the car a couple of days later, you don't get to beat them up at that point because that wouldn't be immediately upon dispossession.
Andrew Herreth 53:58
I I think that you know as much as I kind of like talk mess about the police, I think if that happened, I would probably call the police.
Andrew Decker 54:07
Right, I would too. So, so again, I'm I'm their fun note. It's not law until it's been said. A defendant may not assert a defense of property where the property he sought to regain control of is a controlled substance. Yes, that's case law, ladies and gentlemen. I am
Andrew Herreth 54:25
outraged, outraged. I say,
Andrew Decker 54:28
break Iron V state. In other words, you steal my drugs. I can't. I can't go beat you up for stealing my drugs. That would be assault.
Andrew Herreth 54:37
That's hilarious. Yeah, I don't think cops are really going to help you out on that one,
Andrew Decker 54:44
right? Don't set traps that could. So 9.44 does allow for you to use a device to protect real property, but it can't create a substantive risk of death or serious bodily injury. I don't like it. I put it. I put it in the note. If there's one thing I remember from torts, my 1l year in law school, that's that traps to protect property are generally not allowed. And part of it is that it's a great way to have someone else stumble into something and get hurt, and now you're getting sued.
Andrew Herreth 55:19
Yeah. So very quickly,
Andrew Decker 55:24
very quickly, it is corporal punishment in the state of Texas still allowed if it's a parent-child relationship, and the child is under 18, the the parent, step parent, or acting loco parentis of the child
Andrew Herreth 55:40
can
Andrew Decker 55:40
use reasonable force to discipline the child, and it's really to safeguard them or promote their welfare. Now, here's the interesting part: educator student, right? We get it. It's your kid. You can spank them. 9.62 9.62 says that force, but not deadly force, may be used by an actor who's entrusted with the care, supervision, or administration of a person for a special purpose and to the degree the actor believes necessary to maintain discipline in a group. It's often called the educator student. Doesn't really apply. Doesn't really say it, but it says that teachers, coaches, and this actually says it, and administrators in schools are loco parentis.
Andrew Herreth 56:30
So what? Yeah, corporal punishment in schools. I mean, you know, my coach would like kind of slap us around. It was pretty. I mean, it wasn't. You know, corporal punishment was not allowed when I was in school. Maybe when you were in school. Oh, I I
Andrew Decker 56:46
took me some licks. I took me some licks, Mister Herreth.
Andrew Herreth 56:49
But like, I remember like my high school coach. You know, they would kind of like grab us by the helmet. You know, grab us by the face mask and like, oh yeah, slap our helmet around. You know, and you know whatever. But nobody ever like spanked us or punched us or
Andrew Decker 57:07
oh, I got some I got some licks, Mister Herreth.
Andrew Herreth 57:10
I mean that explains a lot, actually. It does,
Andrew Decker 57:12
it does. But so so stay with me, stay with me. Force used by the teacher must be reasonably believed by him to be necessary to enforce compliance with appropriate instruction, to give control, train, or educate, or to punish the child for prohibitive conduct. However, it cannot be used simply because they're not learning fast enough. Right? That's important. My
Andrew Herreth 57:41
God, that is important. You're right. I that's crazy to me. This this this section needs to be repealed. This is just this is just this is stupid.
Andrew Decker 57:51
Oh no! Hold on, I'm not done yet. The use of force not justified merely because the student is unable to perform or fails to perform academically. Okay, great. So, if you read this carefully, it doesn't have any age limitation, mr. Herreth.
Andrew Herreth 58:08
Right.
Andrew Decker 58:10
So, if I'm teaching a CLE and somebody's being a dumbass, theoretically, I could, or your law professor could, or your professor at at college could say, mr. Herreth, why don't you come on up here and lay over the desk? I'm going to give you some licks.
Andrew Herreth 58:30
Okay, 9.62 doesn't state an age, but they do reference loco parentis, which is directly from 9.61 But it does
Andrew Decker 58:41
not right. And in the past, professors and deans of colleges were known to use corporal punishment. I think it's an overlook. I think that it. I mean, we're not going to get
Andrew Herreth 58:56
into like kink shaming on this show, right, Mister Decker? You know, whatever a dean wants to get up to, I've seen those like 1980s B movies where, you know, people are just doing underwear raids at schools.
Andrew Decker 59:14
I'm just saying, not
Andrew Herreth 59:15
commenting on that.
Andrew Decker 59:16
No, no, no. But I'm just, I'm just saying, there's not an age limitation, so if that teacher ever gets in trouble, that professor ever gets in trouble, I'd be like, that CLE
Andrew Herreth 59:26
presenter, watch out, Parker County Bar Association on July 31st.
Andrew Decker 59:31
I'm coming at you. You better behave.
Andrew Herreth 59:33
Crazy.
Andrew Decker 59:34
Mentally incompetent. Basically, it says you can use force, but not deadly force against someone who's mentally incompetent if it's really for their safety or for you know making sure that they're okay, because basically they're you know if you're if you're really mentally incompetent, you're still considered a child, and so you that parentis locus applies now. You'll notice if you read the paper that locking a 20-five-year-old man in a filthy room is not acceptable just because you don't want to take care of him.
Andrew Herreth 1:00:10
Right. Yeah, it'd be a reasonable person standard. Yes.
Andrew Decker 1:00:13
And as a parent of a son and a stepdaughter with special needs, this one, you know, writing the paper, I was like, "That don't don't let me be the guy that finds you locked a 25 year old in a room, right? I I would. So you know, we occasionally during jury selection go, "Could you could you be a fair juror on this case? It would be real hard. I would be like, "You're going to have to prove to me that there was a reason to do this, because otherwise, I'm going to lock you in a 20 in a room and chain you to the wall and leave feces on the floor. I mean, it would it would be
Andrew Herreth 1:00:51
yeah. Well, then we would get into defense of another discussion. Yeah,
Andrew Decker 1:00:56
yeah.
Andrew Herreth 1:00:58
I I mean, I agree with you, man. I I think like I mean, then we get into like maybe temporary insanity.
Andrew Decker 1:01:03
Yeah, yeah, I might, I might
Andrew Herreth 1:01:04
defense of others. I mean, this paper's chock full of possibilities.
Andrew Decker 1:01:08
Yeah. So anyway, those are the big ones, and man, we've been going a long time. But what, what? It is so full of great the the penal code and the code of criminal procedure, and then there's a whole nother section of other defenses hiding in the code, affirmative defenses, and organized crime, and Romeo and Juliet. And I think at some point we need to talk about the Romeo and Juliet clause because the ages change depending on what the offense is, and some of them will surprise you. So it's just it's interesting, interesting stuff. So it
Andrew Herreth 1:01:53
is interesting, and it's a really well put together paper. So again, ladies and gentlemen, go to the show notes of the of of whatever app that you are finding this on, we're on all the major podcast providers. Look at the show notes, follow the link. If you can't find it and just want to email us for a copy, you can do that, and mr. Decker will give you how those instructions on how to do that?
Andrew Decker 1:02:22
Yeah, yeah. So, so again, welcome to it's that season again. Next week I'll be at Padre, and Andy, you know me, I am creative. So the paper I'm presenting is on how to write a paper. So what did I title it? Writing a better than average CLE paper.
Andrew Herreth 1:02:40
Of course,
Andrew Decker 1:02:44
it's better than average. It's not great. It's better than average. Maybe
Andrew Herreth 1:02:46
maybe run that through ChatGPT. See what kind of title you can come up with.
Andrew Decker 1:02:51
Why I came up with a great title. It is
Andrew Herreth 1:02:53
a great title, and maybe we'll talk about that experience on one of our episodes,
Andrew Decker 1:03:03
yeah, and then and then in two weeks, statutory defenses. It's a replay of guarding of our guarding our sacred trust, which I presented in Fredericksburg and Edinburgh last fall. So
Andrew Herreth 1:03:18
it's busy, a busy time of year, summertime.
Andrew Decker 1:03:22
Yeah, yeah. Well, it's because nobody else wants to teach in the summertime. Summertime.
Andrew Herreth 1:03:27
Yeah, but like going to Padre in the summertime is like it's wonderful. It's hot, beautiful. It is hot. It is hot.
Andrew Decker 1:03:33
It's just an oven. It's just an oven.
Andrew Herreth 1:03:37
But it is like one of the more beautiful places in Texas, especially as far as like beaches go. The rest of them, you know, as you get further north,
Andrew Decker 1:03:46
I've heard Galveston's got a nice beach. Honestly, the beaches aren't bad now that we don't have oil spills all the time.
Andrew Herreth 1:03:51
Yeah, yeah, no, that that's true. Galveston does does have a nice beach within reason. There is like some high fecal matter along the Texas coastline, and I do think like the state government could do a lot more to protect that natural resource. But whatever, what do I know? I was just in Galveston this past weekend, and it was a beautiful day.
Andrew Decker 1:04:16
Nice, good for you.
Andrew Herreth 1:04:18
Yeah, yeah, it was nice.
Andrew Decker 1:04:20
All right. Well, I think that's all I've got, mr. Herreth. Where could they find
Andrew Herreth 1:04:26
us? You can go to texascrimdefense.com and I don't know the rest of the spiel. I think we probably still have a a Twitter or an X page, although I don't know why.
Andrew Decker 1:04:39
I don't know. I don't go to it anymore. Once it changed,
Andrew Herreth 1:04:42
we have Facebook. Maybe
Andrew Decker 1:04:44
we do have Facebook,
Andrew Herreth 1:04:45
but but really, just go to Texas Crim Defense. You'll have you could get you can contact both both the Andrews directly or us as a unit by sending an email directly through that website. That has all of our contact information, links to both of our websites independently. That's all you need. It's your one-stop shop to contact us, TexasCrimDefense.com.
Andrew Decker 1:05:11
Or if you are on the Facebook, it's Andrew and Andrew on Texas Criminal Defense, just like the podcast.
Andrew Herreth 1:05:18
Wonderful.
Andrew Decker 1:05:20
I think that's all I've got. So, man, for mr. Herreth, or for Andrew Herreth, I'm Andrew Decker.
Andrew Herreth 1:05:27
For Andrew Decker, I am Andrew Herreth.
Andrew Decker 1:05:30
Y'all be good.