• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Honor student placed in jail for tardiness and truancy at school

I agree. Now show where he did not inform her.



Part of the reason that the DA recommended and the judge vacted is because the summons did not inform Ms. Tran of her rights. That is on record. The article that you linked several posts back said this same thing. Not once did it state that the judge did not inform Ms. Tran of her rights. You are the only one saying that the judge himself did not inform her of her rights.

The summons is not a requirement for notice, the Magistrate is. I have provided you with primary sources; i.e. Statutes, local rules. If the judge did inform Ms. Tran of her rights then the notice would have been sufficient, even if the summons was silent.

I will provide an attorney's opinion who practices criminal law in Texas.

"...Case begins when there is probable cause to believe that a crime has been committed. There are three ways that a case can be brought to court:

  • arrest of the accused at the scene of the crime or soon thereafter
  • arrest based on a warrant issued by a court as a result of a sworn complaint
  • arrest based on an indictment by a grand jury after investigation


The Magistrate must inform the accused of his constitutional rights and determine whether probable cause exists for the arrest."

Houston Defense Lawyer | Criminal Procedure

Either the accused was informed of their rights by a Magistrate or the Magistrate did not inform the accused of their rights. There is no way around the notice requirement. According to the newspaper account of what occurred, the summons was a factor, but, not the deciding factor pursuant to Texas law.

In fact, the only requirements for a summons in Texas are as follows: " A summons may be issued in any case where a warrant may be issued, and shall be in the same form as the warrant except that it shall summon the defendant to appear before a magistrate at a stated time and place. The summons shall be served upon a defendant by delivering a copy to him personally, or by leaving it at his dwelling house or usual place of abode with some person of suitable age and discretion then residing therein or by mailing it to the defendant's last known address."
CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE**CHAPTER 15.

Even if the person named in the summons had their constitutional rights written on the summons it would not satisfy the notice requirement pursuant to Texas law.
 
Last edited:
So all we have is his assumptions.
:doh
 
The summons is not a requirement for notice, the Magistrate is. I have provided you with primary sources; i.e. Statutes, local rules. If the judge did inform Ms. Tran of her rights then the notice would have been sufficient, even if the summons was silent.

I will provide an attorney's opinion who practices criminal law in Texas.

"...Case begins when there is probable cause to believe that a crime has been committed. There are three ways that a case can be brought to court:

  • arrest of the accused at the scene of the crime or soon thereafter
  • arrest based on a warrant issued by a court as a result of a sworn complaint
  • arrest based on an indictment by a grand jury after investigation


The Magistrate must inform the accused of his constitutional rights and determine whether probable cause exists for the arrest."

Houston Defense Lawyer | Criminal Procedure

Either the accused was informed of their rights by a Magistrate or the Magistrate did not inform the accused of their rights. There is no way around the notice requirement. According to the newspaper account of what occurred, the summons was a factor, but, not the deciding factor pursuant to Texas law.

We already know that the judge must tell a person their rights in pro se situations. Why are you still argueing this point? What is at dispute here is whether the judge did or didn't inform Ms. Tran of her rights.

In fact, the only requirements for a summons in Texas are as follows: " A summons may be issued in any case where a warrant may be issued, and shall be in the same form as the warrant except that it shall summon the defendant to appear before a magistrate at a stated time and place. The summons shall be served upon a defendant by delivering a copy to him personally, or by leaving it at his dwelling house or usual place of abode with some person of suitable age and discretion then residing therein or by mailing it to the defendant's last known address."
CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE**CHAPTER 15.

Even if the person named in the summons had their constitutional rights written on the summons it would not satisfy the notice requirement pursuant to Texas law.

That is the requirement for when a summons can be issued. Not in what is required for a summons to be fully valid. IE what is suppose to be on it.
 
We already know that the judge must tell a person their rights in pro se situations. Why are you still argueing this point? What is at dispute here is whether the judge did or didn't inform Ms. Tran of her rights.
There is no dispute as far as the black letter law is concerned otherwise the order would not have been vacated for failure to inform Ms. Tran of her rights. Again she was arrested in open court.



That is the requirement for when a summons can be issued. Not in what is required for a summons to be fully valid. IE what is suppose to be on it.

My apologies I mean to include the following:

" A summons may be issued in any case where a warrant may be issued, and shall be in the same form as the warrant except that it shall summon the defendant to appear before a magistrate at a stated time and place. The summons shall be served upon a defendant by delivering a copy to him personally, or by leaving it at his dwelling house or usual place of abode with some person of suitable age and discretion then residing therein or by mailing it to the defendant's last known address."

"Art. 15.02. REQUISITES OF WARRANT. It issues in the name of "The State of Texas", and shall be sufficient, without regard to form, if it have these substantial requisites:

1. It must specify the name of the person whose arrest is ordered, if it be known, if unknown, then some reasonably definite description must be given of him.

2. It must state that the person is accused of some offense against the laws of the State, naming the offense.

3. It must be signed by the magistrate, and his office be named in the body of the warrant, or in connection with his signature."

CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE**CHAPTER 15. ARREST UNDER WARRANT

The point is there is no requirement for notice of rights to be contained in the summons. The following statement is factually incorrect when applying Texas law, "Moriarty looked at the extenuating circumstances that had resulted in Tran missing school and because her court summons had failed to notify her of her right to an attorney or to have one appointed for her"
 
So all we have is his assumptions.
:doh
Yep, just nothing but assumption.

At least until he can find something to back up his claim.
 
There is no dispute as far as the black letter law is concerned otherwise the order would not have been vacated for failure to inform Ms. Tran of her rights. Again she was arrested in open court.

My apologies I mean to include the following:

" A summons may be issued in any case where a warrant may be issued, and shall be in the same form as the warrant except that it shall summon the defendant to appear before a magistrate at a stated time and place. The summons shall be served upon a defendant by delivering a copy to him personally, or by leaving it at his dwelling house or usual place of abode with some person of suitable age and discretion then residing therein or by mailing it to the defendant's last known address."

"Art. 15.02. REQUISITES OF WARRANT. It issues in the name of "The State of Texas", and shall be sufficient, without regard to form, if it have these substantial requisites:

1. It must specify the name of the person whose arrest is ordered, if it be known, if unknown, then some reasonably definite description must be given of him.

2. It must state that the person is accused of some offense against the laws of the State, naming the offense.

3. It must be signed by the magistrate, and his office be named in the body of the warrant, or in connection with his signature."

CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE**CHAPTER 15. ARREST UNDER WARRANT

That is the requirements of a warrant. Which is not the same as a summons. A warrant is also normally given to a police officer who then tells the person their Miranda Rights...which is required when arresting someone be it with a warrant or without a warrant. Many a case has been dismissed because a persons Miranda Rights were not told to them when they were arrested.

The point is there is no requirement for notice of rights to be contained in the summons. The following statement is factually incorrect when applying Texas law, "Moriarty looked at the extenuating circumstances that had resulted in Tran missing school and because her court summons had failed to notify her of her right to an attorney or to have one appointed for her"

The point is you do not know if there is a requirement for notice of rights to be contained in the summons. You have been refering to the wrong laws/regulations. Though it can be assumed that there is since every article that I have read on this case, including the ones that you provided, said that the rights were not stated on the summons. Not that the judge did not tell her the rights that she has. How can dozens of articles all say the same thing and be wrong in their presentation? Even though those news agencies do not belong to each other? Are all of them as inept as you are claiming that one article to be?
 
That is the requirements of a warrant. Which is not the same as a summons. A warrant is also normally given to a police officer who then tells the person their Miranda Rights...which is required when arresting someone be it with a warrant or without a warrant. Many a case has been dismissed because a persons Miranda Rights were not told to them when they were arrested.

Read the staute.....It states, "A summons may be issued in any case where a warrant may be issued, and shall be in the same form as the warrant except that it shall summon the defendant to appear before a magistrate at a stated time and place."


The point is you do not know if there is a requirement for notice of rights to be contained in the summons. You have been refering to the wrong laws/regulations. Though it can be assumed that there is since every article that I have read on this case, including the ones that you provided, said that the rights were not stated on the summons. Not that the judge did not tell her the rights that she has. How can dozens of articles all say the same thing and be wrong in their presentation? Even though those news agencies do not belong to each other? Are all of them as inept as you are claiming that one article to be?

Try again, I have not provided the wrong law I made a committed a clerical error and corrected it. The judge was required to inform her of her rights not a summons. Accept it or reject it, that is the law.
 
Read the staute.....It states, "A summons may be issued in any case where a warrant may be issued, and shall be in the same form as the warrant except that it shall summon the defendant to appear before a magistrate at a stated time and place."

Those are the state laws. Have you looked at what is required for county laws? Believe it or not county's can have thier own laws and requirements.
 
Those are the state laws. Have you looked at what is required for county laws? Believe it or not county's can have thier own laws and requirements.

I already posted local rules....
 
I saw nothing in there about summons or warrants.


You will not. There are no local rules that will supersede the state rules regarding notice.
 
You will not. There are no local rules that will supersede the state rules regarding notice.

I have never said that there are no local rules (or laws for that matter) that can supersede state rules. But they can add onto those laws.

Edit to add: Unless of course a state law specifically forbids adding onto a specific law.
 
Last edited:
I have never said that there are no local rules (or laws for that matter) that can supersede state rules. But they can add onto those laws.


No that must be passed by state legislature as far as I know and must be uniform throughout the state. How can they add in any event, if they provide more language that does not assist the accused in being apprised and understanding his rights.
 
No that must be passed by state legislature as far as I know and must be uniform throughout the state. How can they add in any event, if they provide more language that does not assist the accused in being apprised and understanding his rights.

County's do have their own legislature. Usually called "Town Fathers" or "City Council" or some variation thereof. And yes they can add on their own little ordinances, rules, laws. And adding on that a summons must have, for instance, the Miranda Rights attached to it does help a person. They basically get that info twice...which can't be a bad thing. Not that they have to help a person. For instance a county curfew can be held earlier than a state curfew for the simple fact that most curfew laws are worded with the words "no later than". A county could demand that a person or group of persons having a picnic must carry a trash bag when on local parks even though the State doesn't mandate that for parks.

It's basically the same as federal laws vs state laws. A state can make any law that it wants to as long as it doesn't conflict with federal law. And a county can make any laws that they want to as long as it doesn't conflict with state and federal laws.

Also the law doesn't have to be uniform through out the state. The law only has to be uniform across the area that it applies.
 
County's do have their own legislature. Usually called "Town Fathers" or "City Council" or some variation thereof. And yes they can add on their own little ordinances, rules, laws. And adding on that a summons must have, for instance, the Miranda Rights attached to it does help a person. They basically get that info twice...which can't be a bad thing. Not that they have to help a person. For instance a county curfew can be held earlier than a state curfew for the simple fact that most curfew laws are worded with the words "no later than". A county could demand that a person or group of persons having a picnic must carry a trash bag when on local parks even though the State doesn't mandate that for parks.

It's basically the same as federal laws vs state laws. A state can make any law that it wants to as long as it doesn't conflict with federal law. And a county can make any laws that they want to as long as it doesn't conflict with state and federal laws.

Also the law doesn't have to be uniform through out the state. The law only has to be uniform across the area that it applies.

I beleive it would be a very bad idea. A summons on it's face merely informs a party to appear at an appointed time and place. Should the charge result in Class C misdemeanor the penalty is "fine only" and the party charged is not entitled to an "appointed attorney". This nuance is not explained nor should it be, that would confuse a party being summoned. How many languages should Miranda be shown. This does not take into account age, disability or other ability to understand. The aforementioned are just a few of the practical considerations to take into account.

blog214.jpg
 
Back
Top Bottom