San Antonio and South Texas Area Federal Drug Charges Attorneys
Our first goal is to put together a case the jury will believe and will result in an acquittal.
That is not always possible.
The Good News in Federal Drug Cases
Since 1987, federal judges have been forced to impose very harsh mandatory sentences consistent with an inflexible sentencing guideline schedule. Fortunately, in 2004 the U.S. Supreme Court held in Booker vs. United States of America, that the sentencing guidelines are advisory, not mandatory. Once again, trial and sentencing advocacy is of great importance in federal criminal cases.
The change in sentencing law has also made it possible to risk less should a defendant elect to try his case to a jury.
40 Years of Experience and Extensive Credentials
The penalties for conviction in drug cases have always been harsh. It is important to have an attorney with considerable experience in handling state and federal drug cases. An attorney must have a thorough understanding of the importance of informants, wire taps, and surveillance, and how they play in these cases. An attorney must be experienced in how best to attack the dubious credibility of informants. It is critical that an attorney possess the knowledge and how to use the government's own investigation to attack their own case. At our San Antonio law firm, the Law Offices of Ray Taylor & Associates, P.C., our principal lawyer is one of only 36 attorneys in Texas (out of 87,000) who is Board Certified in Criminal Trial Advocacy by the National Board of Trial Advocacy. He is also Board Certified in Criminal Law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization.
Ray Taylor was first a military trial lawyer in Vietnam before establishing his own law firm in San Antonio. He uses his 40 years of trial and negotiating experience to defend people charged with all types of drug and related allegations.
Remember, the key to successful representation is the earliest possible intervention. Ask for a lawyer immediately and then remain silent. Do not consent to any search! Do not agree before talking to your lawyer to provide information to the prosecution or to law enforcement! Contact Ray Taylor at (210) 807-9916 to arrange a free initial in-office consultation and case analysis.
Advocating for Clients Facing State or Federal Drug Charges in South Texas- San Antonio Area
We defend clients facing drug charges in the federal courts of Texas of the Western District of Texas, the Courts of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit and the Eleventh Circuit, the U.S. Court of Military Criminal Appeals and the U.S. Supreme Court. In addition, we represent people in all state and federal courts in Texas.
A Lawyer With the Breadth of Knowledge and Experience to Make a Difference
Many of our cases involve large-scale distribution or trafficking of marijuana, methamphetamines and cocaine. Our firm is well-versed and vastly experienced in the state and federal laws relating to conspiracies, firearms possession, money laundering, and the other crimes associated with drug trafficking conspiracies. Mr. Taylor is also highly experienced in the preparation of sentencing memorandums to present the best possible case for a downward (reduced) sentence or even probation.
Ray Taylor stays abreast of the changes in federal sentencing law in order to obtain the best possible outcome for our clients.
Contact Our San Antonio and South Texas Area Drug Trafficking Defense Lawyers
With his 40 years of trial and negotiating experience, Ray Taylor is able to handle the most high-profile drug cases. He understands media management and has been able to protect clients from the adverse effects of publicity that come with a major drug arrest. Contact our San Antonio, Texas, law firm to arrange for an appointment to start defending yourself against drug trafficking allegations. Call us at (210) 807-9916 to schedule a free initial in-office consultation and case analysis.
CASE STUDY - MAJOR DRUG CASE IN FEDERAL COURT
Several Mexican Americans from San Antonio were arrested in Bay City, Michigan and charged with drug trafficking in the thousands of pounds, and using 18 wheeler trucks in the scene. They also faced firearms charges and were facing trial before an unusually severe and unpleasant federal judge.
The Federal Sentencing Guidelines called for very lengthy sentences, and most were looking at life without parole or at least double digit sentences.
Over 3000 pounds of contraband and several guns had been lawfully seized, and there was strong admissible evidence by eaves dropping hotel employers.
The case seemed hopeless.
In doing our usual work up, we checked on the legality of the grand jury and jury empanelment, and discovered that the Eastern District of Michigan has a unique plan to ensure blacks are adequately represented: they remove one in five non-Black panel members to be sure blacks are well represented on the juries.
We immediately filed a motion to dismiss, alleging the grand jury and regular jury panels were illegally constituted and in violation of the Grand Jury and regular Jury Panels were illegally constituted and in violation of the Jury Selection and Service Act and denied Mexican-Americans equal protection of the law, since one in five Mexican-Americans would be disproportionately excluded.
One other defendant's attorney joined in our motion, but the other defendants did not believe the motion had merit, and failed to complete the simple process of joining in our motion.
The trial judge commented that our motion was "easily overruled" and the case proceeded to trial. The defendants all received lengthy sentences, and our client received life without parole.
The 6th Circuit Federal Court of Appeals reversed the conviction, holding we were correct in that the grand jury and jury selection violated the equal protection clause of the 5th Amendment of the Federal Constitution.
The effect was to call into serious question convictions in approximately 600 prior cases as well, affecting many hundreds more defendants.
Our client then pled to time served, and was released immediately, thus avoiding a life without parole prison sentence.
You can read the case for yourself at volume 136 Federal 3rd, beginning on page 1092.
CASE STUDY - MINOR DRUG CASE
The defendant was stopped after running a stop sign and admitting running the stop sign to the officer while standing near the police car and was duly recorded on a video camera in the grill of the police car.
The officer got lawful consent, and searched her car and found a pipe and a misdemeanor amount of marijuana.
Conviction for the crimes would have barred her from the student loans she needed to attend college.
Our firm was hired, and, on a hunch, the senior lawyer in our firm checked the Municipal Code. The City Council had never passed the ordinance to lawfully place a stop sign at the location.
At a pretrial motion to suppress evidence hearing, the officer reluctantly testified he had stopped the defendant only for running the stop sign.
We handed the judges two authoritative cases, but the judge seemed unpleased. He stated that the mere overlooking of the city to pass the ordinance could not negate the legality of a consent search, but he did agree to let us further brief the issue and submit it to him.
We briefed the search and the consent issue thoroughly and submitted a further brief.
After further hearings, the judge pressed us to plead guilty, but we persisted in our motion to suppress evidence, and after several months, he reluctantly granted it, and also dismissed the case.
CASE STUDY - MAJOR DRUG CASE - SEARCH AND SEIZURE ISSUE
The defendants were approached by a highway patrol as they entered their family's sizable ranch and walked up to a chained, locked gate.
The highway patrolman claimed the defendants had both given consent to search, and a search of the ranch turned up thousands of pounds of marijuana.
The defendants were indicted, and notice was given of intent to confiscate the family ranch, and forfeit it to the government.
Our firm was hired soon after. At the motion to suppress evidence hearing, the lead highway patrolman testified there had been no search warrant, and no other basis to search than the alleged consent. Another highway patrolman backed up his story. Both said one of the defendants volunteered to open the locks with a key to allow admission to the ranch.
The defense learned late in the hearing of the names of the other highway patrolmen present, and promptly subpoenaed them and the video located in the grill of the highway patrol car.
The defendants testified they had driven up to the gate, been accosted there by several highway patrolmen, had not consented to the search, had not produced a key, nor opened the lock, and the lock was cut off with large bolt cutters.
The two officers retook the stand to claim the defendants had lied if they said the lock had been cut off.
The judge reluctantly allowed a delay for us to get the other officers to court.
At the second phase of the hearing, two officers claimed they did not remember any details, although it had only been several weeks since the search. They did not remember any bolt cutters.
A fifth officer produced a tape, recorded by a camera in the grill of his car. It showed the officers approaching the defendants as they first drove up to the locked gate. It showed a long talk with the lead officer shaking his index finger in the faces of the defendant, and the defendants shaking their heads from side to side in the universal gesture of "no".
The lead officer then turned to face and walk toward a person off camera, while making a gesture of closing his fists apart and together as if operating a bolt cutter.
After a moment, he returned with bolt cutters, and cut the lock and entered onto the property.
A trip to the ranch had produced a rusty chain and a cut lock, dirty from having been lying in the dirt for some weeks.
The filming officer identified all those present in the film, said the lock and chain "looked like,” the one cut that night by the lead officer, and disavowed any further knowledge.
The motion to suppress was granted, and the indictment and forfeiture were dismissed.
All officers returned to duty without any action being taken against them.
Hablamos Español