Tag Archives: Criminal Defense

Defense files motion dismissing evidence citing police coercion

Posted on by

When being falsely or wrongly accused of anything, most of us become upset and flustered. When an interrogation is being conducted by actual police officers, skilled at using coercive tactics to confuse and intimidate, many of us would likely fall victim and appear guilty.

Two young men are currently behind bars awaiting trial for the murder of another 20-year-old man. The criminal defense attorney for one of the accused men, contends his client is innocent and was coerced through police aggression and intimidation into making statements that made him appear guilty.

The two men are accused of killing one man and attacking another. Both men have pled not guilty to the charges and there is no physical evidence linking either to the crime. Trying desperately to tie the men to the crime, prosecutors are relying on the testimony of four witnesses who have since recanted their statements claiming police coercion.

Additionally, prosecutors plan to introduce evidence collected during interrogations. The defense attorney for one of the accused, however, contends his client was not aware of his constitutional rights during the interrogations. He also points out that his client has a learning disability which affects his reading and comprehension skills and that questioning by police took place during extremely early and late hours which served to disorientate his client.

The defense attorney contends any statements made by his client were the result of intimidating, misleading and outright lying on the part of police interrogators. The accused defense attorney believes so strongly in his client’s innocence that he is working the case pro bono.

The hearing ruling on the defense’s motion to dismiss the majority of statements submitted by police officers on the grounds they are not valid will be heard on April 26.

Drug charges upheld in case where drugs delivered via mail

Posted on by

Who doesn’t like getting packages in the mail? Imagine, however, that you receive and sign for a package, only to discover it contains illegal drugs. One man, who found himself in this situation, is now facing misdemeanor drug charges.

Appealing a lower court’s decision, the man claims police who arrested him lacked probable cause to do so. According to court documents, a package intended for the address at which the man resides, was intercepted by a United Sates Postal Service worker who believed the package contained drugs.

A police officer posing as a postal worker made a “controlled delivery” of the package to the man’s home. The police officer maintains the man acknowledged the package was intended for him. The man, however, contends the package was addressed to another recipient and that the police officer coerced him into signing for it. He argued he planned to return the unopened package to the post office.

The appellate judge hearing this case remarked that it was one of the first to address questions related to if the acceptance of a package delivered via a “controlled delivery” qualifies as probable cause to arrest the recipient.

In her opinion, the judge maintained probable cause is classified by “some awareness that the package contains contraband” on the recipient’s part. While in this specific instance, law enforcement officials had additional information to tie the man to criminal drug activity, the case is interesting in the potential questions it raises related to a recipient’s liability for the contents of packages delivered via mail.

Poor legal representation may result in death of innocent man

Posted on by

A now 33-year-old man is currently sitting on death row for a crime he and many others contend he did not commit. While in recent years the media has reported several cases with this similar scenario, in this specific case, the man’s criminal defense attorneys may be to blame.

Charged with murdering a police deputy in 2000, the man now faces an uphill legal battle as he attempts to appeal his case. Despite compelling evidence pointing to his innocence, including several witnesses who are willing to testify that another man has confessed to the murder, the judge presiding over the case cited that “federal law does not recognize actual innocence as a mechanism to overturn an otherwise valid conviction”.

An expected Supreme Court decision may hold the man’s last chance for justice. The ruling will decide whether a defendant has a constitutional right to adequate lawyers during the appeals process. During the first appeal of the ruling, the defendant’s attorney filed a poorly prepared application that contained little information specific to the defendant’s case. In 2006, this attorney asked to be removed by the court from a list of death penalty defense attorneys.

In 2007, another appellate attorney was assigned to the case, but he faced a difficult situation as the previous appellate attorney failed to present evidence asserting the defendant’s innocence during the initial appeals process. A judge denied the second appeal citing that evidence proving “claims of innocence and shoddy lawyering” were not sufficient to warrant a new trial.

Yet another appellate attorney is currently preparing the defendant’s third appeal and much will likely hinge on this attorney’s ability to convince the judge that both trial and appellate attorneys failed to present effective and compelling evidence on behalf of the defendant.

This case illustrates the importance of having a skilled and fully committed defense team, especially when facing charges as serious as murder.

Perry v. New Hampshire Summary (Criminal Trial Defenses)

Posted on by

In the case of PERRY v. NEW HAMPSHIRE, the U.S. Supreme Court on January 11, 2012 (Case #10-8974 https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/10-8974.pdf), affirmed the Decision of the New Hampshire State Supreme Court, holding eyewitness identification that was not procured by unnecessarily suggestive circumstances by law enforcement is not a violation of Due Process and, therefore, cannot be held inadmissible in court. In summary, the U.S. Supreme Court held a preliminary judicial determination to assess the reliability of an out-of-court eyewitness identification was not required before admitting such evidence at trial. The Court held:

“The Constitution protects a defendant against a conviction based upon evidence of questionable reliability, not by prohibiting introduction of the evidence, but by affording the defendant means to persuade the jury that the evidence should be discounted as unworthy of credit. Only when evidence “is so extremely unfair that its admission violates fundamental conceptions of justice,” Dowling v. United States, 493 U. S. 342, 352 (internal quotation marks omitted), does the Due Process Clause preclude its admission. Contending that the Due Process Clause is implicated here, Perry relies on a series of decisions involving police-arranged identification procedures. See Stovall v. Denno, 388 U. S. 293; Simmons v. United States, 390 U. S. 377; Foster v. California, 394 U. S. 440; Neil v. Biggers, 409 U. S. 188; and Manson v. Brathwaite, 432 U. S. 98. These cases detail the approach appropriately used to determine whether due process requires suppression of an eyewitness identification tainted by police arrangement. First, due process concerns arise only when law enforcement officers use an identification procedure that is both suggestive and unnecessary. Id., at 107, 109; Biggers, 409 U. S., at 198. Even when the police use such a procedure, however, suppression of the resulting identification is not the inevitable consequence. Brathwaite, 432 U. S., at 112-113; Biggers, 409 U. S., at 198-199. Instead, due process requires courts to assess, on a case-by-case basis, whether improper police conduct created a “substantial likelihood of misidentification.” Id., at 201. Reliability of the eye witness identification is the linchpin” of that evaluation. Brathwaite, 432 U. S., at 114. Where the “indicators of a witness’ ability to make an accurate identification” are “outweighed by the corrupting effect” of law enforcement suggestion, the identification should be suppressed. Id., at 114, 116. Otherwise, the identification, assuming no other barrier to its admission, should be submitted to the jury. Pp. 6-10. ”

Smith v. Cain Summary (Murder Homicide; Armed Robbery; Criminal Defenses)

Posted on by

In the case of SMITH v. CAIN, the U.S. Supreme Court on January 10, 2012 (Case #10-8145), https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/10-8145.pdf reversed the Decision of the Louisiana State Trial Court, which erroneously convicted the defendant of first-degree murder based upon the testimony of a single witness. At trial, the only witness to link the defendant to the crime untruthfully claimed he was face to face with the defendant during the initial moments of an armed robbery, and identified Smith as the first gunman to come through the door when two other gunmen entered the residence in question. There were no other witnesses and no physical evidence to implicate the defendant in the crime.

During a state post-conviction proceeding, the defendant obtained police files containing exculpatory statements by the eyewitness that contradicted his trial testimony, which evidence was not disclosed by the prosecution in the Discovery they provided to the defendant’s counsel. The police investigator’s notes made at both the time of the murder as well as five days later contained statements by this sole witness that he could not supply a description of the perpetrators other than they were black males, as he could not see their faces and further that he would not know any of them even if he saw them. The notes were so damaging to the prosecution it was a clear travesty of justice for the prosecution to have failed to provide this evidence to the defense. The U.S. Supreme Court concluded the prosecution’s failure to disclose those statements violated the legal precedent established in the 1963 case of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U. S. 83, which held due process bars a State from withholding evidence that is favorable to the defense and mate­rial to the defendant’s guilt or punishment.

Barnes v. State of Indiana Summary (Criminal Defenses Unlawful Police Entry)

Posted on by

“In the case of BARNES vs. STATE OF INDIANA, the Indiana Supreme Court on May 12, 2011, held there is no right to unreasonably resist an unlawful entry by law enforcement officers. The Court argued public policy favors rejecting the fundamental and three hundred years of precedent English common-law right to be safe and secure in our residence and to reasonably resist the unlawful entry of police officers. In part, the Court based its ruling on the fact allowing one to resist law enforcement unlawful entry unnecessarily escalates the level of violence and harm and, therefore, the risk of injuries to all parties involved.”

People v. Jones Summary (Drug Trafficking; Conspiracy; Search & Seizure Defense)

Posted on by

In a nine to zero opinion entitled UNITED STATES v. JONES, No. 10-1259, the U.S. Supreme Court, on January 23, 2012, https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/10-1259.pdf affirmed the U.S. Court of Appeals decision that reversed the U.S. District Court criminal conviction of drug trafficking and conspiracy charges. The Supreme Court confirmed the police conducted a search or seizure within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment when it attached and monitored a GPS device to a vehicle. Although there was a warrant issued to the Government, it required the tracking device to be installed within 10 days, but it was actually installed on the 11th day. Therefore, it was deemed a warrantless search in violation of the reasonable expectation of privacy, and the District Court should have suppressed the evidence. As a result of the Supreme Court granting certiorari (after the DC Circuit Court previously denied a petition for a rehearing by the Government), the U.S. District Court sentence to life imprisonment that was reversed by the U.S. Court of Appeals was affirmed. It is noteworthy that the Supreme Court did not decide whether installing a GPS device requires a warrant, and if not, whether monitoring a GPS device over a very brief period of time, such as a couple days, requires a warrant.

J.D.B. v. North Carolina Summary (Juvenile Crimes; Criminal Defenses Miranda Warning)

Posted on by

On June 16, 2011, the U.S. Supreme Court in the landmark case of J.D.B. v. North Carolina, Case # 09-111121, https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/09-11121.pdf

held police must consider age and school setting when questioning a child and, therefore, whether they are required to give a Miranda warning. This case involved a thirteen year old seventh grade special education student who was removed from his class, and then taken to a closed door meeting with the school Assistant Principal and questioned by police regarding two burglaries. The U.S. Supreme Court determined that children would not reasonably believe they could leave a room when questioned by police in a school setting and, therefore, must be given a Miranda warning. In other words, this type of a setting was deemed overly coercive because children inherently obey authority and are generally under the belief they must remain in the office and answer questions by a school administrator.

Neither the police nor the school administrators first advised the thirteen year old student of (1) his right to remain silent pursuant to the Miranda warning when questioned; (2) that he was free to leave the room; nor (3) was he afforded an opportunity to talk with his grandmother or legal guardian. After questioning for about forty-five minutes, the student admitted to the burglaries. Juvenile petitions were filed against him, and after a hearing the court adjudicated J.D.B. delinquent. The North Carolina Court of Appeals affirmed as did the North Carolina Supreme Court, holding he was not in custody when he confessed to require a Miranda warning. The U.S. Supreme Court granted Certiorari and reversed the judgment of the state Supreme Court. Essentially, children must be given the same Miranda procedural safeguards that are guaranteed to adults.

Ratings and Reviews

BBB 10.0Samuel Eugene Spital
Samuel E. SpitalClients’ ChoiceAward 2021 Samuel Eugene SpitalClients’ ChoiceAward 2020
avvo rated 10/10 in Criminal Defense avvo rated 10/10 in Juvenile Law avvo rated 10/10 in Licensing
avvo rated 10/10 in Personal Injury Top ContributorAward 2012Samuel Eugene Spital Samuel Eugene SpitalReviewsout of 207 reviews