Call Firm NowPhone: 512-476-8484Fax: 512-477-3580
1103 Nueces Street Austin TX 78701 Serving Austin & the Austin Area View Map

Notable Published Cases

Here is a short list of published, significant decisions from my cases, among the many hundreds I have handled:

Panetti v. Quarterman, 127 S.Ct. 2842 (2007)(this was a decision by the United States Supreme Court regarding the level of competency necessary before a person could be executed)

Foster v. Quaterman, 446 F.3d 359 (5th Cir. 2006)(this decision by the federal court of appeals in New Orleans concerned, among other things, the death penalty and the law of parties)

Miles v. State, 241 S.W.3d 28 (Tex.Crim.App. 2007)(this case involved the extent of the exclusionary rule to private action)

Tuck v. State, 215 S.W.3d 411 (Tex.Crim.App. 2007)(this decision reaffirmed the right of indigent persons to a free record for appeal)

Dyar v. State, 124 S.W.3d 460 (Tex.Crim.App. 2003)(this was a DWI case concerning whether a hospital could be considered a "suspicious place" justifying police action)

State v. Patrick, 86 S.W.3d 592 (Tex.Crim.App. 2002)(this was a death penalty case in which the State sought to stop DNA testing)

Wiley v. State,  74 S.W.3d  399 (Tex.Crim.App. 2002)(this decision focused on the right to present a defense that another person was responsible for the crime)

Ex parte Geiken, 28 S.W.3d 553 (Tex.Crim.App. 2002)(this was a major decision regarding due process rights of prisoners)

Tucker v. State, 990 S.W.2d 261 (Tex.Crim.App. 1999)(this decision regarded the preservation of appellate complaints)

 
Panetti v. Quarterman, 127 S.Ct. 2842 (2007) (this was a decision by the United States Supreme Court regarding the level of competency necessary before a person could be executed)
Foster v. Quaterman, 446 F.3d 359 (5th Cir. 2006) (this decision by the federal court of appeals in New Orleans concerned, among other things, the death penalty and the law of parties)
Miles v. State, 241 S.W.3d 28 (Tex.Crim.App. 2007) (this case involved the extent of the exclusionary rule to private action)
Tuck v. State, 215 S.W.3d 411 (Tex.Crim.App. 2007) (this decision reaffirmed the right of indigent persons to a free record for appeal)
Dyar v. State, 124 S.W.3d 460 (Tex.Crim.App. 2003) (this was a DWI case concerning whether a hospital could be considered a "suspicious place" justifying police action)
State v. Patrick, 86 S.W.3d 592 (Tex.Crim.App. 2002) (this was a death penalty case in which the State sought to stop DNA testing)
Wiley v. State, 74 S.W.3d 399 (Tex.Crim.App. 2002) (this decision focused on the right to present a defense that another person was responsible for the crime)
Ex parte Geiken, 28 S.W.3d 553 (Tex.Crim.App. 2002) (this was a major decision regarding due process rights of prisoners)
Tucker v. State, 990 S.W.2d 261 (Tex.Crim.App. 1999) (this decision regarded the preservation of appellate complaints)

Office Hours

9-5, but my clients can always reach me by cell -- 512-762-6170.

This web site is designed for general information only. The information presented at this site should not be construed to be formal legal advice nor the formation of a lawyer/client relationship. Keith S. Hampton website is powered by LexisNexis® Martindale-Hubbell®. || Sitemap