A federal district judge in Manhattan says she is “keenly aware” of convictions set aside because jurors have looked up information on the Internet during trial, the New York Times reports. Judge Shira Scheindlin suggested a way to combat the problem by requiring jurors to sign a pledge promising they will not look up case related information online until the case is over. Violations of the pledge could bring perjury charges against jurors who fail to comply.
As most jurors have iPhones or Blackberrys with them when reporting for jury duty, how often do jurors fail to adhere to the admonition by the trial judge not to watch the news, read newspapers or surf the web during the trial? Because trials are only fair if the only evidence considered by the jury is what is presented in court, looking up information on the internet clearly requires reversal if it occurs and is known. Particularly in cases with a great deal of news coverage, it could certainly affect the outcome of the case should outside infomation infiltrate the jury’s deliberations. Consider making this request during jury selection of the trial judge in your case should you be a criminal defendant, particularly in a case with excessive media coverage.
Do Jurors Use Google During Trial?
September 28th, 201111th Circuit Court of Appeals lifts Valle Execution Stay
September 9th, 2011
The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit in Atlanta lifted the stay of execution order in the case of Manuel Valle, allowing Valle’s twice-delayed execution to move forward. This paves the way for Governor Rick Scott to reschedule Valle’s execution. Scott has 10 days to order the execution after a stay is lifted.
Valle is still hoping that pleadings pending in federal court in Jacksonville and before the U.S. Supreme Court will delay his execution yet again.
South Florida Judge says Florida’s Drug Law is Constitutional
September 9th, 2011
A circuit court judge in Palm Beach Florida, unlike Miami-Dade Judge Milton Hirsch, upheld the constitutionality of Florida’s drug statute. In a 16-page opinion, Judge Kastrenakes blasted U.S. District Judge Mary Scriven and Circuit Judge Hirsch arguing they disregarded a plethora of appeals court decisions to reach their erroneous conclusion that the law is unconstitutional because prosecutors don’t have to prove that a person knew he possessed illegal drugs to get a conviction. Mere possession is enough, the judge wrote. Their rulings, he claimed were “fatally-flawed” and “just plain inaccurate.”
Judges in Hillsborough and Pinellas Counties have thus far denied all motions to dismiss 893.13 charges. Appeals have been taken from Judge Scriven’s ruling as well as in South Florida. This issue will have to end up before the Supreme Court to decide.
Operation Rainmaker: A Tax Fraud Epidemic
September 6th, 2011
Earlier this year, Tampa police detectives realized a decrease in the amount of drug dealers on street corners. Instead of feeling relieved, detectives became worried – this was the first red flag that something was up.
Where was everyone? How were they making money? According to a recent investigation, they were allegedly involved in a money-spinning tax fraud business bringing in $130 million. Instead of putting themselves in danger on street corners, the individuals involved could do this job from the comfort of their own homes; all they needed was a laptop.
As reported by the Seminole Heights Patch, a suspect told Tampa Police Detective Sal Augeri, “Why would I take the risk to sell drugs and get busted when I can put $10,000 on a card and do it all day long from home while the cartoons are on?”
The operation was not sophisticated. The suspects allegedly would log onto sites like Ancestry.com, dig up information on victims (living and deceased) and eventually steal their identity. Another workaround was to buy the information from people who had access to social security numbers (prisons, businesses etc.).
After the information was obtained, the suspect could go to electronic tax filling applications like TurboTax, file a fraudulent claim and have the refund sent somewhere that was untraceable to the individual. Taxpayers soon discovered they could not claim their tax refunds because one had already been filed – this was the second red flag.
The third red flag, and the one that led to the entire investigation, was the fact that police officers were pulling over suspects and finding laptops and Green Dot credit cards.
Making any moves in the investigation was difficult because of the restrictions set by the IRS. The police had to find a way around the obstacles under a federal law that prevents law enforcement from gaining access to tax returns.
Tampa Police Department has joined forces with the Hillsborough County Sheriff’s Office, the Secret Service, the US Postal Inspection Service, the State Attorney’s Office 13th Judicial Circuit and the US Attorney’s Office for the Middle District of Florida. The investigation, named Operation Rainmaker, has resulted “…in $100 million in intercepted taxes, $5 million in recovered taxes and assets, and $25 million in stolen taxes.”
Although we are making progress in the Tampa area, Tampa Police Chief Jane Castor said, “My gut feeling is that this is happening throughout the United States.” This case is a classic example of why citizens must be vigilant in the protection of their personal identification information, especially for the elderly and their children.
DUI Prosecution Made Easier?
September 2nd, 2011
The Intoxilyzer 8000 is the official breath-testing unit used in the State of Florida for suspected drunken drivers. The machine prints out a BAC (Blood Alcohol Content) report that is analyzed by a specialist and used as dominant evidence in court.
The Intoxilyzer 8000 is not a cheap piece of machinery and neither is the required expert that must be present in court to testify regarding the validity of the results. A Herald Tribune article stated that prosecutors for years felt their only option was to hire “Matthew Malhiot, a former Florida Department of Law Enforcement employee who charged them $1,200 a day to appear in court.” Facing such a large expense, prosecutors decided they wanted to cut ties with Malhiot and hire current FDLE employees to testify instead.
On Thursday, a Sarasota County judge approved the decision to allow state employees to say that the machine is scientifically reliable and that the results are valid. Criminal defense attorneys, especially those who specialize in DUI defense, may find this decision surprising. The expert who analyzes the machine’s data is supposed to be independent and impartial to the trial. Having a state employee (one who often testifies in DUI cases anyways) as the witness who validates the reliability of the Intoxilyzer 8000 could be viewed as a conflict of interest. Although this may save money and make prosecuting easier in DUI cases, the job of the criminal defense lawyer may become more difficult. It will be interesting, however, to see if an argument surrounding this possible conflict of interest emerges as a plausible DUI defense.
If FDLE is going to testify that their own procedures are scientifically valid, where’s the unbiased opinion that court’s should rely on?
