Broden & Mickelsen - Articles

 (152)

Following graduation from law school, Mr. Broden joined a prestigious Washington, D.C. civil litigation firm. Nevertheless, his desire to practice criminal law and assist citizens accused of crimes brought him to Dallas in 1992 and he became an Assistant Federal Public Defender for the Northern District of Texas. In 1998, Mr. Broden and Mr. Mickelsen, another former Assistant Federal Public Defender, formed the firm Broden & Mickelsen. Mr. Broden is board certified in the area of criminal law and his practice is limited to criminal defense work. He has received an "AV" rating from Martindale Hubbell, the highest rating available. He was voted by his peers as a "Super Lawyer" in criminal defense in 2004, 2005, 2006 and 2007. Although he handles all types of criminal cases, Mr. Broden specializes in complex, criminal cases in federal court at both the trial and appellate level. He has represented defendants in federal courts throughout Texas as well as in California, Florida, Illinois, Louisiana, Ohio, and Georgia. Despite the overwhelming conviction rate in federal court, Mr. Broden's clients have avoided conviction in almost sixty percent of the cases he has tried in federal court. Likewise, Mr. Broden has handled approximately sixty appeals before the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, including oral argument in over thirty cases, and has obtained some type of relief for his clients in approximately one-quarter of the cases. Mr. Mickelsen is board certified in criminal law, a lifetime member of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers Association, a board member of the Texas Criminal Defense Lawyers Association, a member of the Dallas County Criminal Defense Lawyers Association, and a member of the Dallas County Bar Association. Mr. Mickelsen is "AV" rated by Martindale Hubbell, an independent evaluation which identifies a lawyer with "very high to preeminent legal ability". He was also voted by his peers as a "Super Lawyer" in criminal defense in 2004, 2005, 2006 and 2007. He is currently a member of the board of the Texas Criminal Defense Lawyer's Association. Mr. Mickelsen is a member of the adjunct faculty at Southern Methodist University Law School where he teaches trial advocacy.

Sort By: Date | Popularity

Popularity
379

Public Defender Vs. Private Attorney
An interesting study was reported in the New York Times discussing the difference between being represented by a public defender as opposed to being represented by a retained attorney in a criminal case. The study was conducted by two economists for Emory University. Read
By: Broden & Mickelsen | 16/05/2008 | National, State, Local
Popularity
117

Is Execution by Lethal Injection Painful?
The Supreme Court heard arguments with respect to execution by lethal injection constitutes cruel and unusual punishment. Lethal injection has become the standard method of execution in the United States, Nevada being the only exception by relying on the electric chair... Read
By: Broden & Mickelsen | 14/05/2008 | National, State, Local
Popularity
56

Is the Death Penalty a Deterrent?
The most common justification I hear for the death penalty is that it deters crime. When I consider the hundreds of death penalty cases with which I am familiar, and the dozen or so which I have worked on personally, I am always puzzled by this position. I ask myself, "Have the people that advocate this proposition taken a close look at death penalty defendants?" Read
By: Broden & Mickelsen | 13/05/2008 | National, State, Local
Popularity
53

Dallas County Exonerations
Recently in the media there have been numerous stories about the exoneration of inmates from the Texas prison system. Texas has had more exonerations than any other state and Dallas more exonerations than any other city. Most of these exonerations have come about as a result of the noble efforts of the Texas Innocence Project... Read
By: Broden & Mickelsen | 13/05/2008 | National, State, Local
Popularity
53

Some Bizarre Death Penalty Laws
Recently I had a Federal judge reject my attempts to keep a client on death row from being executed. I was appointed to represent the defendant after he had lost his trial; lost his appeal in state court; and lost his attempt to convince the trial judge to find his case constitutionally flawed pursuant to a "writ of habeas corpus." I was appointed, as Federal law provides, to represent him in relation to his final "appeals" to Federal court. Read
By: Broden & Mickelsen | 13/05/2008 | National, State, Local