So You Got Arrested

Federal Court vs. State Court – A Prosecutor's Perspective

• BRCK Criminal Defense Attorneys

Share episode

Step into the intricate world of criminal justice as we break down the stark differences between the Texas State Court and the Federal Court systems.

In this illuminating episode, the BRCK defense attorneys host legendary prosecutor and former judge Joey Contreras. With 18 years as a revered U.S. Attorney, handling massive cases like racketeering and Mexican Mafia trials, followed by his appointment as a state district judge, Mr. Contreras offers a unique and candid comparison.

Discover why the federal system is often viewed as more demanding, professional, and faster-moving. We dive deep into:

  • Federal "Hooks": Understanding the Commerce Clause and how electronic data makes crimes federal.
  • Case Work-up: The superior screening and investigation by federal agents that leads to "overpowering" evidence.
  • Plea Bargaining & Sentencing: The vast difference in plea negotiations and why federal sentencing guidelines create national uniformity (from Guam to Texas).
  • The Grand Jury Process: How the federal system uses witnesses for a more "mini-trial" approach compared to the state's "sausage factory."

Finally, Mr. Contreras shares his profound concerns regarding recent events and the critical importance of the Department of Justice's independence from political influence, drawing historical parallels to Watergate.

Whether you're facing charges or simply curious about the scales of justice, this episode gives you the smart moves and insider insights you need.

If you're facing charges or just want to understand the complexities of the Texas justice system, we’ve got your back.

👉 Listen, subscribe, and share!

Disclaimer: This podcast provides general legal information and is not legal advice. For advice on your specific situation, contact a qualified attorney.

BRCK Criminal Defense: For legal assistance, visit us at BRCKDefense.com.

#TexasLaw #FamilyViolence #CriminalDefense #Assault #TexasJustice #SoYouGotArrested #LegalAdvice #Roommates #Felony #Misdemeanor

SPEAKER_03:

Well, we're here. We're honored to have a guest with us today, uh, Mr. Joey Contreras. He's he's famous in the criminal justice system. Uh he was handled all the big cases uh as a DA under Steve Hilbig. Did you start before him? Who did you start with? Hilbig har hired me. Okay. And and then he he became a federal prosecutor where he handled like some of the biggest, most difficult cases, racketeering uh Mexican mafia cases for the U.S. attorney's office until he was eventually appointed to be judge in the 187th. So he's got a unique perspective uh and he spent a lot of time as a very uh revered uh U.S. attorney. And so he's here today to talk to us a little bit about the federal system, and then we have some some things to talk about about an indictment that just came down recently.

SPEAKER_02:

Yeah, and so how how long were you with the U.S. attorney's office? 18 years. Wow. Okay, that's that's quite a long time. So I I've always you know been interested in the difference between federal court and state court. And so as a U.S. attorney, what kind of cases would you handle?

SPEAKER_04:

Well, uh, of course, they're federal statutes passed by Congress, and Congress uh their authority is limited by what the Constitution allows them to. There has to be a federal hook to it, and that is the commerce clause usually, which means the crime in some way affected interstate commerce. That's all drug cases. Uh that's wire fraud, calls everything electronic, uh, across the state lines. Whether you if you're talking if I'm talking to you on the phone right now, we're we're crossing state lines because the the server or router or something is out of state. I've seen that.

SPEAKER_02:

I've seen cases, especially cases involving the internet where uh it becomes a federal crime because the servers in California case maybe.

SPEAKER_04:

That's right. Everything is so global now. So that you talk child pornography, the gun cases, that type of thing.

SPEAKER_02:

Okay, okay, interesting. And so in uh and you said you were with the U.S. attorney's office for 18 years? Yes. Do you know more or less how many cases you might have handled during that time period? Uh over a thousand. Oh wow. Okay. And then you were appointed as a state judge. Correct. Do you have a preference as to what area of practice you prefer? State court, federal court, or I prefer federal court. Why is that?

SPEAKER_04:

Uh oh it's kind of touchy, but I don't I I might as well be candid here. Uh the uh uh the level uh the expectations are much higher. I I've always viewed federal court as a little more professional, a little more by the book. It's much more demanding, much more is expected of you. Uh and that's not everyone. The the from the judges who are appointed by the president and and approved by the U.S. Senate, they don't just grab people off the street typically. Um and the the the from the federal prosecutors, I I was on the hiring committee, and it was not unusual to have a hundred applicants for one position. Wow. And you're talking Harvard lawyers and so forth. So my point is that goes pro from probation to clerks to every the and the defense counsel. There's so many defense lawyers who do not practice in federal court because they're intimidated by it. And that kind of weeds out uh it it kinds of makes it more of an elite practice.

SPEAKER_02:

Absolutely. In fact, I I you know, before we started, I was telling you that I just saw you in federal court on, I believe it was Monday, and I was impressed with the way that you carried yourself and your interactions with the court. And I'm on that opposite spectrum of it. I'm one of those intimidated attorneys seeing a guy like you up at the podium saying, I wish I could be more like that guy.

SPEAKER_03:

But there's also less shenanigans in federal court.

SPEAKER_04:

There's very few shenanigans in in federal court.

SPEAKER_03:

I I was trying a federal case and and my I put my client on the stand as a defense attorney and he he started crying. Now, I didn't make him cry, but I got the jury got taken out and and I got yelled at because my client cried on the stand. And I didn't I didn't say anything, but I felt like saying, I don't have any control over that.

SPEAKER_02:

Is that when you approached the witness and you started pinching him or you started you started hurting him?

SPEAKER_04:

You know, in the uh Del Rio division of federal court, uh this is for real. I wish I had a picture to show you. There's a sign outside of the courtroom that says, no crying. Really? Yes.

unknown:

Okay.

SPEAKER_02:

Um now, with regards to the way that cases are handled, um, I I have you know some experience in federal court, but it's very limited, especially compared to guys like you and Scott. But it does feel like cases are handled very differently in federal court as opposed to state court. Can you kind of speak to that a little bit?

SPEAKER_04:

Yes. Number one, you you start from the inception, and the cases are worked up by federal agents almost always. Federal agents tend to be higher caliber, higher, more highly educated, and better trained. So their warrant product is very, very good. And the cases are very carefully screened before they're ever indicted. So you're talking about cases in which guilt guilt is almost always very strong, if not overpowered.

SPEAKER_02:

So the evidence is much stronger than you might find in like a state court.

SPEAKER_04:

There's no comparison. Okay. Uh in state court, you routinely run across cases that in which you say, How did this get indicted? Right. All the time.

SPEAKER_03:

Sometimes because what happens is the agents, because it's some it's the same police officers, SAPD may bring a case to the feds, and the feds say that you don't have enough here, and then they file it with the state, and the state indices it. Happens all the time, every day. Yeah. And so, yeah, you you have discretionary jurisdiction. We were complete discretion.

SPEAKER_02:

And and I've also noticed that some of the, you know, and you can correct me if I'm wrong, but the timelines feel a little different as well. It feels like in federal court, once a case makes its way into court, it it seems to move a little more quickly than a case in state court might move.

SPEAKER_04:

It moves very quickly. It moves very, very quickly. You know, what's interesting though is speaking of timelines, you if you broaden that out, uh I I've I've handled at least one case in which the investigation took three years. But it was it was indicted. This was uh a RICO case, racketeering, very complex. Uh in state court, there probably would have been three years of delays with a case in which 25 murders were alleged in one indictment. Wow. That would have probably been delayed for years. Okay. We were in uh before a jury in less than a year.

SPEAKER_02:

And why is that? Like how how how are how is the federal court able to do that?

SPEAKER_04:

Because uh the defense counsel and the prosecution cannot uh delay cases for without having a compelling reason.

SPEAKER_02:

Simple as that. So it's a matter of the judges kind of holding everybody's feet to the fire. Nonstop. Yeah, yeah, yeah. And I imagine, you know, uh having practiced at that level for 18 years, that that sounds like a pretty demanding type of job.

SPEAKER_04:

When you indict a case as a prosecutor, when you indict a case, be ready to go to trial the next week, theoretically. You you won't go to trial in a week, but when you indict it, be ready, be prepared to try it. That means you have your case ready to go.

SPEAKER_02:

Now, I I've heard it said and that in federal court, you know, uh on like a speedy trial, uh in theory, you're in, you know, if you allege your or invoke your speedy trial rights, you may be entitled to a trial within that what is it, 70 days, or there's some short time frame that we really uh, you know, seems a lot faster than we might encounter in state court. I believe it's 20 days. Is it 20 days? Yes. Wow. If you want a trial, they will give it to you. So the the prosecutor has to be ready to go from the time that that case is indicted. He does. He he he does and is. Okay. And in in terms of indicting these federal cases, how does that process work? It you know, I because I know like grand juries here in Texas, uh, you know, it's 12 on in state cases. Is that different in federal court? How does that work?

SPEAKER_04:

Uh no, it the the system is basically the same. You have a group of citizens, you do 12 for a quorum, but it could be 18, 24 people, same as state court. Okay. If you just do 12 for a quorum to return an indictment.

SPEAKER_02:

And and how many uh how many have to vote in favor of indicting? 12. Okay. So it has to be at least 12.

SPEAKER_04:

Yes. And the let me tell you a principal difference between the two is in state court, I've I I've indicted cases in state court when I was an assistant DA, and they'll walk in there with literally shopping baskets full of cases to be indicted. Because it it is a sausage uh factory, an assembly line. Turn them, you know, it's it's loose ball in the candy factory. Right. That's how fast they indict cases. Right. In federal court, they don't just do a 30-second presentation of, yeah, this guy had a gun in his in his waistband, he's a felon, uh, we're gonna leave the room and you vote. Uh they actually use witnesses. Okay. They they call the agent to the stand and question him. Okay. So it's like a mini trial.

SPEAKER_02:

So it's much more involved. Much more involved. And is that, you know, I I would imagine because you've described that in when you're prosecuting these cases in federal court, by the time you're going to that grand jury, your case is prepped and pretty much ready to go.

SPEAKER_04:

Absolutely, it is. Wow.

SPEAKER_02:

Okay.

SPEAKER_03:

So how often do the grand jurors ask the agent questions? Uh it's a rare thing. Yeah. Okay. And so, and and I'm assuming that unlike the state DA's office where intake is taking cases to grand jury and then the trial, the trial division is gets the case afterwards, it's the same person, the U.S. attorney that presents it to grand jury is handled all the way through.

SPEAKER_04:

It's what's called vertical prosecution. Uh, if I'm on on duty as the prosecutor, when they make an arrest, I will be picking a jury on that case, and I will approve that arrest. So that's why it's totally hands-on. You're seeing it all the way through. All the way through. Wow. Okay.

SPEAKER_03:

Interesting. And so um as far as so what you like the federal system better. What what's the what is the differences that what are the pros and cons of state versus federal?

SPEAKER_04:

Uh the state court, uh what I do like about state court is you have jury sentencing, which means, and and Texas being Texas, uh, it's enthralled of juries. You know, Texas is the only state where juries can decide family law matters and child termination. Other states don't do that.

SPEAKER_03:

Yeah.

SPEAKER_04:

Uh and punishment too is a very rare, it's very rare that you all would trust a jury to decide punishment, except for death penalty cases. Uh, Texas lets juries decide everything. And what I liked as a prosecute, no, as a defense lawyer too, is that you can uh have a jury, you can make your appeal to the jury one way or the other on what the appropriate punishment is. Federal court, the judge determines it in your hands, or your your freedom is very much more limited on your latitude, on what you could argue, what you could do. This judge is not going to be uh very amenable to emotional appeals. You're not gonna be as a federal judge. Right.

SPEAKER_02:

Yeah you know what I mean. Yeah, so it you know, in here in Texas in state court, you have your jury trial, and if you're convicted by the jury, the jury can also determine your punishment. But it's different in federal court.

SPEAKER_04:

Our judge always determines punishment.

SPEAKER_03:

Now, one of the things though I wanted to mention is that so one of the pluses that I've heard talked about in the federal system, in other words, if you pick up a drug case or a certain amount of drugs, whether it's in Illinois or whether it's in San Antonio, the sentencing guidelines are the same. Whereas in state court, because I landed in the one at 186, a prosecutor maybe give me a very different offer than if I was in the 399th. So the federal system kind of takes all that out of it and makes it more uniform?

SPEAKER_04:

Uniform nationally. Right. Yeah. The said what sentencing guidelines, the guidelines that will determine your sentence, are the same across the whole country, including Guam and the Virgin Islands. And so there is this uniformity to sentencing. Whereas in tech in the United States, you go one county over and you may get 50 years, we'll get you probation in San Antonio. You go one state over, and something may not even be illegal, like weed. In Texas, they want to send you to prison for having a weed cartridge. Right. Uh it's just it's it's called the federals, federalism system.

SPEAKER_03:

Because we talk about that that here, that the difference between Bear County and Col County. Oh that you don't want to get in trouble. We tell all the clients don't ever get in trouble in Colunty.

SPEAKER_04:

Yeah, that's a different sovereignty.

SPEAKER_02:

And and so, and one of the things that I thought was interesting in federal court that I had to get used to was obviously in state court, we can get a plea bargain for our clients by negotiating with the state prosecutor. And hey, you know, if you offer my client probation, he'll take it. But it doesn't really work that way in the feds. You're absolutely right.

SPEAKER_04:

There for all intents and purposes, there is no plea bargaining in the federal system. Right.

SPEAKER_02:

You're just taking responsibility.

SPEAKER_04:

You're just accepting accepting responsibility and you make a plea for a lower sentence. But the prosecutor is not going to make you any promises.

SPEAKER_02:

Yeah, yeah. So it is a very different system in that regard.

SPEAKER_04:

Very different.

unknown:

Yeah.

SPEAKER_03:

All right. So um when we come back, we're gonna talk about the the what the independence of the Department of Justice. Okay. And and and I I know there's some interesting things that are happening about that. Um, but so but before we take this break, I wanted to uh you you have a new book that just came out. Can you tell us about that?

SPEAKER_04:

Uh uh yes, I this is my fourth book. Uh uh, and uh uh let me just tell you that the it it's I've written four books and they all revolve around fictional uh criminal type cases. And it it's not real hard for me because I have so much material to work on that I can borrow from. But the fourth one is when the sun doesn't set, uh, when the sun doesn't rise, I'm sorry. And it it's a little bit different and it's out, it's they're all available on Amazon. Uh some people say that it's their favorite. The second one was to me is the best, but you know, like you're just you have to cyber.

SPEAKER_02:

And so people, you know, if they're interested in purchasing these books, they can just go on Amazon and search your name, Joey Contreras.

SPEAKER_04:

Yeah, but there's a singer named Joey Contreras. I don't think he's any good either. No, that ain't no, I could sing better. No, put Joey Contreras, author, and it'll bring you right there.

SPEAKER_03:

All right, we're gonna take a break and we'll be back.

SPEAKER_01:

The attorneys of Brick Criminal Defense have helped over 5,000 clients move on with their lives. When an arrest or accusation turns your life upside down, we have the knowledge, experience, and integrity to get your life back on track. Traditional legal ethics, modern legal tactics, the best defense possible to get you through the criminal justice system. Search Brick Criminal Defense to see our reviews and find out why so many of our clients have trusted us to fight for death. Brick Criminal Defense of helping our clients move on with their lives.

SPEAKER_03:

Okay, so so one of the things that I I know we want to discuss today is is the importance of the, and if I'm mischaracterizing it, but the importance of the independence of the Department of Justice mean, and by independence I mean a lot of times we hear in social media and all that people are being prosecuted for for political reasons. So why is it that, first of all, do you feel like the Department of Justice has always been independent, and why is that so important?

SPEAKER_04:

The Department of Justice uh was before there was a Department of Justice, what you had was U.S. attorneys that were spread out across the country and they were largely independent, and they had no real supervision. And this was when the country was much younger in in the 1800s, right after the Civil War, they created the Department of Justice to have a supervising agency. And what people came to recognize is well, the let's first of all define what the Department of Justice does. They are the official attorney, not for the president, right, for the United States. The president appoints the attorney general, but that does not mean the attorney general answers. And and that goes to your question about the independence of the of the Justice Department. Since the days of its creation and through its evolution, the the the independence of the Department of Justice has become more and more recognized as critical. That no one brings any pressure to bear. You want them operating independently. You don't want the attorney general being told who to prosecute by the president or anybody in member of the cabinet, any member of the cabinet or anything like that. That that contaminates the whole system. It has to be independent, it has to be follow the evidence and the law.

SPEAKER_02:

Right. Prosecuting the offense and not the person.

SPEAKER_04:

Absolutely.

unknown:

Yeah.

SPEAKER_02:

Yeah. And you know, at a much smaller level, um, which uh is uh nothing compared to the stuff that you've done in your career, um, for a while I was a uh municipal court prosecutor in uh a small town in South Texas. And I remember I had this case where a local elected official was being prosecuted for uh public intoxication. And so I uh tried the case and we got a hung jury. And after we had the hung jury, uh I'm not gonna say who it was, but I did have uh an administrator come to me and say, we want you to try him again. And uh I uh was a young attorney and I tried him again, and we got another hung jury. And this administrator came to me and said, We want you to try him again. And I said, No, I'm not gonna do that. You know, I refused. And I'll be honest, I don't know that I would have tried him the second time, but for this administrator who was not a prosecutor, who is not a lawyer, telling me, we want you to try this elected official again. Um, you know, I always look back on that, regret that I didn't know enough, or you know, stand up and say, no, I'm not gonna do that. This isn't a good enough case. Um, you know, so I that kind of is in line with what you're talking about.

SPEAKER_04:

It is. It is. Uh and and you know that you bring up, we just discussed the Justice Department and the urgent need for independence. Let's compare it to a local district attorney's office that is headed by a politician, right? An elected district attorney who only serves when they get a majority of the votes, when the voters are in favor of them. You don't think that's gonna influence their actions? Of course. Politics? Yeah, it's gonna influence every just daily decision they make. And they wanted the the goal was to immunize the Department of Justice. When I was in the uh assistant United States Attorney's office, I it never crossed my mind that we may be stepping on toes. At one point, I was head of the civil rights division, and uh I investigated a lot of police police misconduct. That's a hot potato, Scott. You could you could talk about that. Hot potato, politics, incredible hot politics locally. With us, we couldn't care less who what department they were with, what their chief of police wanted, how that would the district attorney would feel about it. What did the evidence say, and what did the law say? That was our only concerns. Right, right. So it's critical that the Department of Justice be independent. Bottom line. Right.

SPEAKER_03:

So with the indictment that has come out on Comey, what concerns do you have about that?

SPEAKER_04:

Concerns is an extreme understanding.

SPEAKER_03:

Okay.

SPEAKER_04:

Let me let me preface this by telling you. I'm defense, I do defense work now, but I'm conservative. I'm a conservative, always have been. That is something that happens in a third world country, not America, where you say, punish my enemies for people I don't like. Right. And the Department of Justice doesn't. Right.

SPEAKER_03:

That is never done that before.

SPEAKER_04:

The only time that has ever happened, Scott, and you're too young, you probably weren't born, uh, was Nixon. You have to go to the Hall of Shame. Right. When Nixon ordered his attorney general to do this and to do that. Was that during Watergate? Yes, Watergate. It led to Watergate. And this was a dark period of time. And we tried to get past that. We will never, you know, when when it was over, Jer President Gerald Ford said, our long nightmare is over. Well, guess who just resurrected the nightmare? Our sitting president, you know, and as a conservative, or as any an American, I am just disgusted by it. Uh I I think I uh revere the Department of Justice and their integrity, but that integrity has been completely compromised, that they are initiating and pursuing a political prosecution at the behest of a president because the president doesn't like the defendant.

SPEAKER_02:

So, I mean, it's a situation where instead of a case being raised by an offense where it's like, hey, this offense has occurred, we need to look into it. Um, you may be just looking at certain people to see what you can find there or what is there, or you know, I I want you to go after this person. Steve, it's a little to me, it's more nuanced than that.

SPEAKER_04:

Okay, let's say call me as guilty as hell. You know what? That's besides the point. If I pull you over because if I pull a person over because they're black or Hispanic and they have drugs, they're guilty. Don't you think that prosecution uh uh uh is a little tainted? And doesn't his guilt become a side issue? What's real issue is the motivation and improper conduct of the initiation, of its initiation. In this case, the prosecution of Comey Comey may be guilty as hell, he may be found guilty. I don't know, and I don't care. Right. It's the motion motivation for going after him that so turns my stomach. Right.

SPEAKER_03:

Have you had the opportunity to see the actual indictment? I have read the indictment. So so does the indictment on its face sound reasonable, or well, is there concerns about the indictment, or is that beside the point?

SPEAKER_04:

No, there are concerns. You know, I say it's besides the point, but we might as well get into it. Yeah. That uh cases with the Department of Justice, like we discussed earlier, are screened very carefully and worked up very carefully. And you can imagine how much work went in to going after a former director of the FBI. Okay. I I bet they assigned 100 agents to it. I bet you that case has been worked up and down like it was a Nuremberg War war crimes. And every prosecutor, every single federal prosecutor looked at it and said, There's not enough evidence here. Everyone, even the sitting U.S. attorney who was a Republican conservative, said, I can't indict this man, there's no evidence. And guess what? All of a sudden the case became strong when over the weekend Trump said, indict this man, Bondy, Attorney General Bondi. It's troubling.

SPEAKER_02:

Well, and and you know, what kind of stands out to me is the fact that um the uh U.S. attorney for that jurisdiction was either either resigned or was forced to resign. Somewhere in between. Right. And I I don't know how that works, you know, uh whether they're they're fired or they're just asked to leave. Or they leave.

SPEAKER_03:

Because they're civil service protected, right? I'm not the attorney general.

SPEAKER_04:

No, the U.S. attorney is not. He's a political point and he can be kicked out at will. But all the under people underneath it. Yes, they have strong civil service protections. Listen, there's about my prediction is there's a whole lot of uh federal prosecutors and federal agents who are going to be getting their jobs back when this is all said and done. You cannot just fire people willy-nilly because you're the president. You know, maybe you can in Haiti or something, but not here. Right, right.

SPEAKER_03:

Well, you can in Bear County when you if you're the DA, you get that they all have to reap, we have to reapply for our job each each cycle.

SPEAKER_04:

Well, you know, we're in employment at will, and we had uh you have no protection, right? Right. But feds don't have a lot of protections. Yeah, yeah.

SPEAKER_02:

And so is you know, it you talked about kind of this policy that was put into place after Watergate of not going after political enemies.

SPEAKER_04:

Is that something that's written down or is that just kind of an unwritten no, it it it's it is not written down. The only place it is written is the U.S. Attorney's Department of Justice manual. Okay. We will not be affected by any political influence. You will make no contact or have communications with anyone who holds office in regard to a case. Oh, it's yes, very strict rules on maintaining that separate that wall separating between prosecution and politics. So it's not in a law per se, it's historical. And it didn't start just with Watergate. Watergate highlighted the need for it, but it's been tradition for decades and decades and decades, generations.

SPEAKER_02:

Okay. Yeah, because I could imagine it would be of benefit to say any elected official to go to the Department of Justice and say, hey, I want you to open up an investigation on my opponent. That way, during this election, they're under investigated, or whatever the case may be, or bring a case against them, even if it doesn't lead to anything. I mean, just the specter of that hanging over somebody may be an issue during an election.

SPEAKER_04:

It could it could influence an election, or it could it could uh uh bring uh uh ill repute on the system if a president, for example, were to say, you know what, I don't want you drop this prosecution investigation of my son, whose name is Hunter, by this, by the way. But you know, listen, they took him to trial. Right. And Biden sat silent. You may have maybe have problems with with Biden, but the man did not interfere brazenly like Trump did.

SPEAKER_02:

Right, right. And of course, you say this from the perspective of being a conservative. I'm sure you weren't a fan of of President Biden and everything that he was doing.

SPEAKER_04:

I I wasn't a big fan of his, but but I I I you know, I gotta call it as it is. I I respect that he's it paid. I have read how much it pained him. You know, he has lost so much that it was killing him that Hunter was being prosecuted and it was suffering. But he let the the you know, ultimately he pardoned him, but that's a whole different issue. But he left the the jury found him guilty. And and and uh Biden sat in his home probably in a dark room and did nothing. Didn't pick up a telephone. Didn't pick up the telephone, let it play out, call the Department of Justice. Right, right, right.

SPEAKER_03:

So because there's there's even because I remember uh so federal employees they get told they can't really participate in an elections. Well I don't know the ex can you explain that a little bit?

SPEAKER_04:

Yes, there's there's it's a statute called the Hatch Act that uh you you cannot participate in any political activities uh as part of your work. In other words, you cannot use a work email to receive or send political messages. Uh but it there's even unwritten rules. They don't like you contributing money to candidates. You don't you never see a federal prosecutor, almost ever, at a political fundraiser. Right. It's almost like uh j judges, uh federal judges who stop socializing and going attending any political functions once they're appointed. There's no rule that says that you can't, but they just don't like the appearance. You're supposed to be above the threat. Exactly.

SPEAKER_03:

Yeah, because Judge Ray Alivari, uh, he was his birthday was a birthday party, and it was a birthday party fundraiser, and his wife was a federal probation officer, and she showed up for the party and told everybody very clearly, I am only here for the birthday part. I am not part of the fundraiser. I'm gonna leave if anybody talks about fundraising. That's how seriously the federal employees took all that. Yeah, that's right. That's a very good example. Everybody's very con everybody I've ever dealt with in the federal system is very conscientious about it.

SPEAKER_04:

Yeah.

SPEAKER_03:

So do are we are we gonna find our way out of this or is it gonna get worse?

SPEAKER_04:

I always have hope for this country. We'll find our way out of it.

SPEAKER_03:

Absolutely. It's a great way to end the episode. Thank you so much for being with us. Thanks for having me. I appreciate it, Joe.

SPEAKER_02:

Very interesting topic, very interesting conversation. We'd love to have you back. So, this has been So You Got Arrested with Brit Criminal Defense with Steve Barrera, Joey Contreras, and Scott Simpson. Thank you all for listening. Be safe. Thank you.

SPEAKER_00:

Thanks for listening to So You Got Arrested. If you found this podcast helpful, share it with someone who needs to hear it. For more legal information. Insights and real talk from the front lines of the Texas justice system. Follow us and subscribe. And remember, Brick Criminal Defense has your back. For more information, visit us at brckdefense.com.