Drug Offenses

Defense of Criminal Drug Cases

Narcotics Experience

For two of the seven years at the Harris County District Attorney's Office, Paul was one of only three prosecutors in the entire office that focused on narcotics-related cases. With this experience, Paul has an insider's perspective on how these cases are investigated, filed, and prosecuted. He now uses that experience to aggressively defend all type of narcotics cases.

During Paul's time as a special crimes narcotics prosecutors, Paul was on call 24 hours a day for all officers that handled narcotics cases. This included DEA, ICE, FBI, Secret Service, HPD, HCSO, Pasadena, League City, and many more agencies that had officers who specialized in narcotics enforcement. Paul would go to scenes when search warrants were being executed, wrote and reviewed hundreds of search warrants, and was responsible for placing defendants on contract. Through this experience, Paul realized that there are some narcotics officers that cut corners and are willing to make false statements in order to file a case. Paul knows how to uncover these untruths and knows where these officers cut corners.

The Bond

The first issue to deal with in a drug case is to address the bond. It is Paul's belief that a client can better assist in his or her defense while out on bail. If the bond is unconstitutionally too high, Paul will seek a bond reduction. Many times, prosecutors try to set the bond at twice the street value. The street value is a moving target and when it comes to bonds, the price of drugs on the streets seem to appreciate all of the sudden. Prosecutors are well aware that a defendant who can't bond out is less likely to fight and more likely to plead. Prosecutors attempt to use bonds to oppress persons accused in drug cases. Paul has successfully handled hundreds of bond hearings and will do whatever needs to be done to ensure that his clients have a bond that they can make.

Three Prong Attack- Illegal Search/Stop, Confidential Informant Attack, Trial

Illegal Search or Traffic Stop

Many times the police violate fundamental rights of the accused in an attempt to uncover evidence. Paul knows the law related to searches and seizures. This law is very technical and if the government does not follow all steps required by law, Paul will file a motion to suppress the evidence. Many cases are dismissed after the state loses a motion to suppress. Illegal searches are way too common and it takes a lawyer who knows the law in order to make sure the government does not violate the right of the accused.

Confidential Informants- "Government Snitches"

The government rarely just stumbles on evidence. Many times, informants are either paid or offered dismissals in return for information. Narcotics officers attempt to hide the role of their informants in an effort to keep them confidential. These informants are highly motivated to "make cases" and therefore have the motivation to fabricate evidence. First of all, Paul knows what to look for to determine if an informant was involved. If an informant was involved, Paul will attempt to force the government to disclose the identity of the informant. Once put in a position of having to disclose the identity of an informant, the government many times either dismisses the case of offers a reduced plea bargain to avoid exposing their informant.

Trial

In the event the case is not resolved with the pretrial motions, Paul is prepared to fight the case at trial. The government has the burden of proving the case beyond a reasonable doubt. It is imperative to hire an experienced drug crime defense lawyer who knows how to try a case and has the reputation of one that will actually fight it. Paul has that reputation and has the experience that provides his clients the best opportunity to win.

Recent Case Results

  • State of Texas vs. _________, Possession of a Controlled Substance, 9/16, DISMISSED
  • State of Texas vs. ________, Possession of Marijuana, 7/16, DISMISSED 
  • State of Texas vs. _________, Possession of a Controlled Substance, 5/16, DISMISSED
  • State of Texas vs. _________, Possession of Marijuana in a Drug Free Zone, 6/16, DISMISSED
  • State of Texas vs. _________, Tampering with Evidence, 11/16, no billed at Grand Jury.
  • State of Texas vs. _________, Possession of a Controlled Substance, 6/16, invalid search, DISMISSED
  • State of Texas vs. ________, Possession of Marijuana, DISMISSED, Brazoria County, Texas, 8/16.
  • State of Texas vs. ________, Possession of Marijuana, DISMISSED, Montgomery County, Texas, 6/16. 
  • State of Texas vs. ________, Possession of a Controlled Substance, 4/16, Client was charged in Montgomery County for possession of methamphetamines in his car. The search of his car was suppressed because the officer received consent to search the car through coercive techniques. 
  • State of Texas vs. ________, Possession of a Controlled Substance, 1/16, DISMISSED, proved defendant was under duress. 
  • State of Texas vs. ________, Possession of a Controlled Substance, 3/15, DISMISSED
  • State of Texas vs. ________, Possession of a Controlled Substance, 7/14, DISMISSED
  • State of Texas vs. ________, Possession of Marihuana, 1/15, DISMISSED
  • State of Texas vs. ________, Possession of a Controlled Substance, 01/15, NO BILLED by Grand Jury, DISMISSED
  • State of Texas vs. ________, Possession of Marijuana, 11/14, DISMISSED
  • State of Texas vs. ________, Possession of Marihuana, 09/14, DISMISSED for Illegal Search
  • State of Texas vs. ________, Possession of a Controlled Substance, 06/27/14, DISMISSED.
  • State of Texas vs. ________, Possession of Marijuana, 05/29/14,
    DISMISSED. Illegal Search and Seizure.
  • State of Texas vs. ________, Possession of Marijuana, 06/05/14,
    DISMISSED.
  • State of Texas vs. ______, Possession with Intent to Deliver, 1/14,
    DISMISSED Prescription Drug Bust
  • State of Texas vs. ______, Possession of a Controlled Substance, 12/13,
    DISMISSED Illegal Search
  • State of Texas vs. ______, Possession of Marijuana(Felony), 8/13,
    DISMISSED Arrest related to grow-house bust. Search Warrant was defective.
  • State of Texas vs. ______, Delivery of Marijuana, 6/13,
    DISMISSED, State could not prove usable quantity.
  • State of Texas vs. ______, Possession of Marijuana, 2/13,
    DISMISSED Arresting officer chose not to retain a video documenting the traffic stop. Paul proved that the officer had the video and destroyed it.