Entries in the 'Criminal Law' Category ↓

Confidence, strategy, and a distinct persona are qualities of a criminal defense lawyer. Success is not only determined by the amount of the settlement, but also by the verdict handed down which may affect future criminal cases. A misdemeanors and felony accusation for murder, rape, domestic abuse, aggravated assault, white collar crime, and DUI can have life-altering effects on the accused and his or her family. You should retain a criminal defense attorney quickly to ensure your constitutional rights are upheld.

Stricter sentencing guidelines are introduced to decrease the amount of crimes committed.  It is important to have the help of seasoned criminal attorney when facing criminal charges.  Sentences in Vermont are imposed according to the severity and type of crime.  There are two classifications for crimes in Vermont – misdemeanors and felonies.

Drunk driving or driving while intoxicated (DWI) is a serious offense in Vermont that requires the legal guidance of experienced Burlington DWI attorneys.  The magnitude of damage a drunk driver can cause is enormous.  DWI sentences in Vermont were developed according to the number of DWI offenses the individual has committed.  In addition to a fine, jail time and a license suspension, DWI penalties can include community service, DWI surcharges, educational driving and alcohol addiction classes, and a vehicle interlock system.

Stricter sentencing guidelines are introduced to decrease the amount of crimes committed.  It is important to have the help of seasoned criminal attorney when facing criminal charges.  Sentences in Vermont are imposed according to the severity and type of crime.  There are two classifications for crimes in Vermont – misdemeanors and felonies.
Misdemeanors and Felonies
Misdemeanors are lesser crimes with jail time of no more than one year.  A fine can accompany the jail time.
Felonies in Vermont are more serious crimes with imprisonment of two years or more.  Fines may also accompany imprisonment depending on the type of felony.

In both misdemeanors and felonies in Vermont, sentencing is done according to the offense committed.

DWI Sentences in Vermont
Drunk driving or driving while intoxicated (DWI) is a serious offense in Vermont that requires the legal guidance of experienced Burlington DWI attorneys.  The magnitude of damage a drunk driver can cause is enormous.  DWI sentences in Vermont were developed according to the number of DWI offenses the individual has committed.  In addition to a fine, jail time and a license suspension, DWI penalties can include community service, DWI surcharges, educational driving and alcohol addiction classes, and a vehicle interlock system.
For first time DWI offenders, the individual can expect a jail term of up to two years, a fine up to $750, and a 90-day license suspension. A first time DI offense is considered a misdemeanor.
Second time DWI offenders can also expect a jail term of up to two years, a fine up to $1,500, and an 18-month license suspension.  A second time DWI offense is also considered a misdemeanor.
Third and fourth time DWI offenders may receive a jail term of up to five years and a fine up to $2,500.  However, a third time DWI offender may have his or her license suspended for life with a possible reinstatement after three years.

A fourth time DWI offender will have their license suspended for life. A third and fourth time DWI offense is a felony.
If a DWI resulted in a fatality or serious bodily injury, an individual will receive up to 15 years in jail.  A fine of up to $5,000 if the victim is seriously injured can be incurred.  If the DWI caused a death, the fine can reach $10,000.  A DWI that results in a fatality or serious injury is a felony and comes with a license suspension of up to one year.

Contact Burlington criminal defense attorneys from the law firm of Bergenron Paradis & Fitzpatrick today by calling 802-316-4318 or by submitting our online contact form.

What NOT to Do or Say if Approached or Detained by Phoenix Police

While the average person knows what to do in a medical emergency, most people are painfully unaware of how to handle legal emergencies. Although criminal law and criminal defense in Phoenix, Arizona are often difficult and complex, avoiding a few common mistakes can go a long way toward protecting your rights and ensuring the best success for your case.

Mistakes to avoid with police

You must avoid incriminating yourself from the moment police stop you. Be sure you avoid these common errors:

• Speaking freely: Individuals who are innocent of any wrong-doing often believe they can clear up the matter by answering all police questions and generally attempting to defend themselves. Before an arrest, your statements cannot be used against you in court, but they can provide information that may help the investigation against you. By all means, be polite—but do not make any statements without criminal defense attorneys in Phoenix at your side
• Agreeing to a search: In general, police are not permitted to search your property without a search warrant. However, complicated rules allow warrantless searches in many cases. You do not need to know the law—you just need to know that, if they ask your permission to search, it means they have no legal right to perform a search. Your permission extends this legal right to police when no other grounds exist. Do not agree to a search
• Waiving your right to an attorney: As of the moment of an arrest, police read Miranda rights to you to protect your Constitutional rights to remain silent and to an attorney. Even innocent individuals need an attorney—you cannot handle a criminal defense in Phoenix by yourself
• Ignoring the advice of your attorney: Recognize that experienced criminal defense lawyers in Phoenix know the big picture—they can anticipate the potential negative results of anything you say or do. Do not attempt to pick and choose the advice you follow. Stick to the instructions of your attorney to the letter

How Phoenix criminal defense lawyers can help

A skilled criminal defense lawyer helps clients through every phase of the criminal process, from arrest, through arraignment and trial, when applicable. Your attorney protects your rights, helps you build your defense, and can even negotiate for reduced charges to avoid a stressful courtroom trial. Thrush Law Group is a leading Arizona law firm with a track record of success and the resources needed to provide referrals to the most reliable bail bond agencies.

Lawyers on Your Side

Bail is the money that is deposited with the court to gain the temporary release of an arrested individual. The person is released with the understanding that they will obey the court’s rules and appear at trial. Because the bail and bond process can be confusing, hiring skilled criminal defense attorneys in Hawaii can make your life easier.

The bail and bond process includes the following steps:

• The arrest: You are arrested and taken into the Police department for booking. Based on the charge, the amount of bail is determined
• Find a bail bond company:  Your criminal defense lawyer in Hawaii can help you find the appropriate bail bond company.  Your attorney can also assist you in finding out if the company requires collateral and if they offer payment options
• The bail bond: After you negotiate with the bail bond company, the bond is posted at the jail
• Collateral: Some form of collateral may be required to ensure that you appear in court. The collateral must make up the entire amount of bail and can include real estate, cars, or any other assets.
• The release: Once the bail bond is posted you will be released. Depending on the size of the jail, your release may take several hours.
• Court appearance: After you are released you will receive a court date.  You must appear in court on the date you are given or may be required to pay the entire bond.
• Sentencing: Regardless of whether you are found innocent or guilty, your bail bond is exonerated.

If you are arrested and need assistance in posting bail, you should speak with a criminal defense lawyer in Hawaii at The Offices of Michaeal Jay Green.

Experienced lawyers should always be familiar with the latest trials and how they could potentially affect future cases.  Learn about the Texas Death Row Inmate from the Ohio criminal attorney at the Law offices of Robey & Robey

Texas Death Row Inmate Granted New Trial An appellate court in Texas recently granted an inmate a new trial who had been on death row in Texas for almost 20 years. In this case, many years after being sentenced to death for a brutal murder, the accused learned that the prosecutor and the judge had been romantically involved. After many years of denials, both the prosecutor and the judge finally admitted to having an affair. However, both maintained that the affair did not impact the fairness of the trial. On appeal, the prosecution claimed that because the inmate’s appeal was not timely filed, he should be barred from raising any claims about the fairness of the trial. Fortunately, Appellate Court disagreed and granted the accused a new trial based upon the concept of fundamental fairness. The prosecution’s efforts to block justice by raising legal technicalities is shocking. Trials should be fair – plain and simple. If they are not, then the role of the appellate court is to say so and grant a new trial. The role of both the trial and appellate courts should be to insure justice for all. Many times in the practice of criminal law, we see cases where an accused did not receive a fair trial – whether because of poor representation, unfair rulings by the judge, or misconduct by the prosecutor. On appeal, criminal defense attorneys fight hard to have the court grant a new fair trial, so that justice is served for all. If there is an unfair trial, then that erodes the rights of all of our citizens in this country. If it can happen to some one else, then it can happen to any one of us. And that’s dangerous.   If you are facing criminal charges in Ohio, contact the experienced criminal attorneys at Robey & Robey law at 888.228.5545 or by filling out our contact form online.

Criminal Defense Attorneys in Reading, Eshelman & Shucker

It appears that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court is ready to decide if uncorroborated information provided by a known, but history-less, confidential informant provides reasonable suspicion for an investigative detention.  Allocatur has been granted in Commonwealth v. Brown, 952 A.2d 1185 (Pa.Super.2008), reargument denied, petition for allowance of appeal granted (Pa. 2009), and decisions in other cases with the same issue are being withheld pending decision in the Brown case.

In Brown, the Pennsylvania Superior Court held that a tip by an informant, who had not proven to be reliable, stating that a white male was going to drive a car to a certain location within a two-hour window of time in order to distribute drugs, standing alone, was not enough to create a reasonable suspicion for the stop of defendant’s car.  The police observed defendant Brown arrive, leave his car empty-handed, return with a brown paper bag, and drive away.
The car was stopped, but the evidence seized in plain view and later with a search warrant, was suppressed.  There was no showing that the informant was reliable or how he got his information.  Merely showing up at the stated location, getting out of a car, and returning with a paper bag, in and of itself, is not illegal and does not corroborate anything.  The Superior Court said that because there was no evidence that the confidential informant was reliable, “any statement by the informant must be considered akin to an anonymous tip, or at most a tip from a named citizen.  Therefore, there must be corroboration to provide reasonable suspicion.”

I have a similar case pending decision in Berks County Court on a motion to suppress.  In this case, the defendant and the history-less confidential informant were already on the parking lot when the police arrived and began surveillance.  Both drivers exited their vehicles and had a conversation at the rear of the vehicles.  Although the police could not hear the conversation, they saw defendant motioning the confidential informant toward the defendant’s vehicle.  Both then entered defendant’s vehicle.  When the confidential informant exited the defendant’s vehicle, he gave a prearranged signal that “drugs” were in the defendant’s vehicle.  The police moved in, detained defendant, obtained incriminating statements, observed marijuana inside defendant’s vehicle, and later after arrest and Miranda, obtained similar incriminating statements.  After obtaining a search warrant for the vehicle, 143 grams of marijuana and a digital scale were seized.  At no time had the police observed the defendant or the confidential informant examining any objects or exchanging anything.

[As a criminal defense lawyer in Reading,] I argued that there was no evidence of the reliability of the confidential informant, and the actions of the defendant on the parking lot observed by the police were innocuous.  In this context, the signal from the confidential informant to the police that drugs were in the defendant’s vehicle was meaningless, especially since the police had observed neither the defendant nor the confidential informant examining any objects or exchanging anything, citing In the Interest of O.A., 552 Pa. 666, 678, 717 A.2d 490, 496-497 (1998) (plurality decision).  It was unclear whether the informant observed “drugs” in close proximity, nor was there any assertion that the informant had provided information leading to any prior narcotics arrests or other information which would establish the informant’s familiarity with “drugs.”  Accordingly, based upon the information provided by the known, but history-less confidential informant, and the lack of corroboration by the police, no reasonable suspicion existed for the investigative detention of the defendant.  Because the actions of the police were in violation of the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States and Article I, Section 8 of the Pennsylvania Constitution, all of the evidence should be suppressed.

Winston Salem Drug Crime Settlement
According to a local news article (November 2008), a former sheriff’s deputy pleaded guilty to 10 counts of embezzlement, two counts of attempting to traffic in opium and OxyContin and one count of obtaining property by false pretenses and common law forgery, in a Winston Salem drug crimes settlement.  He pleaded guilty as part of a plea agreement reached with the Yadkin County District Attorney’s office.  The former deputy allegedly altered colonoscopy reports to state that he had cancer. Prior to the settlement, defense attorney, Winston Salem drug crime lawyer stated that the former deputy was eager to defend himself against the charges.

Post settlement, local North Carolina newspaper commented that  “Charges included 10 counts of embezzlement, two counts of attempting to traffic in opium and oxycontin, one count of obtaining property by false pretenses and common law forgery. These were merged into four charges for sentencing and the eight counts of felony larceny by employee were dropped.”

Arizona v. Manypenny, 451 U.S. 232, 68 L.Ed 2d 58, 101 St. Ct. 1657

Respondent was indicted in an Arizona state court for the commission of a state crime. Because the charge arose from an act committed while he was on duty as a federal Border Patrol Agent, the case was moved to Federal District Court. After a jury trial, a guilty verdict was returned, but ultimately the District Court sua sponte concluded that respondent had a valid immunity defense and entered a judgment of acquittal. The State appealed, but the Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, holding, inter alia, that a criminal proceeding removed to federal court arises under federal law, and accordingly is controlled by that law.

The court rejected the suggestion that Arizona’s appeal was authorized by 28 U.S.C. § 1291, which confers jurisdiction on United States Courts of Appeals over appeals from all final decisions of federal district courts, except where a direct review may be had in the Supreme Court.

Arizona statutes, as construed by Arizona courts, authorize the prosecution to seek review when it claims that the trial court has exceeded its jurisdiction or abused its discretion, as is the claim in this case.

Respondent, by obtaining a federal forum, fully vindicated the federal policies supporting removal—permitting a trial on the merits of the state-law question free from local interests or prejudice and enabling the defendant to have the validity of his immunity defense adjudicated in a federal forum. No further purpose of the removal statute would be served by denying the State a right to seek review when that very right is available under state law. On the contrary, it would be anomalous to conclude that the State’s appellate rights were diminished solely because of the removal.

This Court’s prior decisions restricting the availability of § 1291 and its predecessors when the Government seeks to appeal in a criminal case flow from a tradition of requiring that a prosecutorial appeal be affirmatively sanctioned by the same sovereign that sponsors the prosecution. The intention to restrict sovereign power in this area is adequately addressed when the legislature responsible for that power has spoken in express terms, or when a legislative enactment has been authoritatively construed by the sovereign’s highest court. Section 1291 neither compels nor forecloses appellate jurisdiction in an appeal taken by a State as prosecutor. Instead, the provision permits a State to appeal if it is authorized to do so by state law. Arizona can rely on § 1291 combined with appellate authorization from the Arizona Legislature. In the circumstances of this case, no more is required.

Daniel Jesse Smith, Tucson, Ariz., for petitioner.

Tucson Criminal Defense Attorney
100 N. Stone Avenue, Suite 801
Tucson AZ 85701 U.S.A. (Pima Co.)
Toll Free: 866-675-8180

An experienced Miami Beach criminal attorney knows that there are many questions when it comes to sex crimes in Florida. Does a gender double standard truly exist when it comes to sex between a minor and adult?  Is the same crime committed by an adult man treated and punished with more severity because of the basic differences in the pursuit strategy and the reaction from each gender to sex?

Earlier this month a 25 year old woman from Spring Hill, Florida, Rachel Schmeer was arrested for sexual actives with a minor after having sexual relations with a 16 year old.  All of this occurred within a three month period.  In the  sheriff’s report, she stated in her defense, that she started sexual relationships with the minor under the impression that he was 19 years old. When she found out about his actually age, the sexual relationship continued.  The law in Florida tats that that minimum age for sexual consent is 16, but if the adult in the situation is 24 years of age or older, than the age of the minor is raised to 18.  Rachel Schmeer was 10 months too old when the relationship began according to the laws in Florida.

Brian Trehy, who is the Fifth Judicial Court assistant state attorney commented on sex crime convictions saying that there is not a double standard between men and women.  But each case is “prosecuted on its own merits”.
Whether you are facing Miami rape charges or looking for a Miami sexual assault lawyer, you need an experienced attorney.  Contact the law firm of attorney Brent Horst today for a consultation by calling 305-809-7503

Criminal Defense Attorney in Connecticut

Jeffrey C. Kestenband

Jeff Kestenband, a criminal defense attorney in Connecticut, focuses his practice in state and federal court.  Jeff has represented clients charged with crimes ranging from murder, robbery, sexual assault, and other serious felonies to misdemeanors such as DUI, drug offenses, and larceny.  Jeff also appears in federal court where he defends people charged with drug and firearm offenses, as well as complex white collar crimes.  He has also tried many cases where he has obtained several very favorable verdicts. He is a graduate of the National Institute of Trial Advocacy, an intensive two-week trial advocacy program that includes instruction and participation in all phases of trial practice. He has also negotiated very favorable resolutions at the pretrial stage. Read more about our Pretrial Results.

Education

• Juris Doctor, with honors, University of Connecticut School of Law (1997)

• Bachelor of Arts, Wesleyan University, Connecticut (1993)

Admitted

• Connecticut State Bar (1997)
• United States District Court, District of Connecticut (1998)
• United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (1998)
• United States Supreme Court (2001)

Member

• Connecticut Criminal Defense Lawyer’s Association

Practice Areas

• Criminal Defense
• Appeals

Contact our Criminal Defense Law Firm in Connecticut

Jeff Kestenband toll free (866) 488-8625 or (203) 755-0018.

The police must respect your rights.  If he or she does not, then it can harm the prosecution’s case.  You should be aware of your rights and what to do if the police try to detain you in Vermont.  If your rights are violated, you and your Burlington criminal defense lawyer can file a complaint against the police officer.

Your Rights if a Police Officer in Vermont detains You

• You have the right to remain silent.

• You have the right to ask to speak to an attorney.

• You have the right to ask for an attorney to be present during questioning.

• If you cannot afford an attorney, you must be provided one.

• You have the right to offer your name, address, and identification only.

• You have the right to ask why you are being detained.

• You have the right to not offer any information or express guilt of any kind.  Anything you say or do can be used against you in court.

• You can refuse to be searched other than a pat down if it seems like you are concealing a weapon.

If you are Detained do not

• Run or drive away if the police approach or detain you;

• Threaten, bribe, or yell at the police officer;

• Make any quick hand movements;

• Get out of your car unless you are asked to;

• Complain about the police officer’s actions;

• Admit anything about the situation; and

• Say anything without an attorney present.

How a Criminal Defense Attorney can Help

If you remember your rights and things to avoid if detained by the police, your criminal law firm will have a better chance to create a strategy to maintain your freedom.

For seasoned legal representation, contact the Burlington criminal defense attorneys at Bergeron, Paradis & Fitzpatrick.  Contact our criminal law firm today for a consultation and to understand how we can help you at 802-316-4318.  We conveniently have offices located in Burlington and Essex Vermont.